HB 1451 passed the House on 4/27/11 and has been assigned to the Senate
Committee on Criminal Justice chaired by Sen. John Whitmire (D-15). It is
anticipated that Whitmire will be the bill's advocate in the Senate.
HB 1451 requires licensure and inspection of kennels for simply owning more than 10 intact female dogs even if breeding is occasional. The bill classifies these
owners as commercial if even a single litter a year is bred to be used as
hunting, working, security, herding and livestock guardian dogs, service dogs,
or family pets. Sara Chisnell-Voigt, Legal Counsel United Kennel Club, writes, "UKC believes
that the health and well-being of dogs are of the utmost importance, and are
significant concerns. However, this bill will do more harm to the responsible
breeders than they will to protect the welfare of dogs. Defining a commercial
kennel by 11 or more intact adult female dogs is an unacceptable threshold."
Bill author, Rep. Senfronia Thompson (D-Houston) and supporting animal rights
groups continually mislead the media claiming the bill is only designed to
ensure that breeders meet health and safety standards and that animals have food
and clean water. However, the Federal engineering standards required by HB 1451
are not compatible with home-based breeding programs. Compliance with Federal regulations would require small and mid-size sporting dog and hobby breeders to construct temperature, humidity, and diurnal lighting controlled kennel buildings costing tens of thousands of dollars. Labeling and registering
breeders as commercial businesses simply because of the number of intact dogs
owned will end many hunting and hobby kennels throughout the state.
Mary Beth Duerler, RPOA Texas Outreach and Responsible Pet Owners Alliance,
explained, "HB 1451 is not written to regulate dog and cat breeders in Texas. It
is written to eliminate them. The Standards for Care; Confinement and
Transportation adopted must meet federal USDA regulations at a minimum. Bill
sponsors and proponents know they cannot be met in a home environment."
Following the House vote to pass HB 1451, Rep. David Simpson (R-Longview) posted
the following commentary on his blog, "It establishes a new licensing and
regulatory bureaucracy for breeders. I spoke and voted against the bill because
it increased state government by $2.6 million for the biennium and increased
state bureaucrats by 14. Moreover, I believe it will be ineffective. I doubt
that criminal and cruel breeders, who are already operating outside the law,
will submit themselves to be licensed and regulated and pay a $1300-$4300 fee
per year. It will certainly hinder responsible breeders though and probably
cause some to go out of business. The bill also violates the 4th Amendment by
authorizing inspectors to come unannounced and without the owner or licensee
onto a breeder's property and even into a breeder's home to access animals or
documents without a warrant."
HB 1451 is supported by a number of animal rights organizations, including Texas
Humane Legislation Network (THLN), HSUS, ALDF, and ASPCA. These groups
highlight kennels where hundreds of dogs are kept in poor conditions and, in
true activist style, vilify dog breeders across the board to promote the need
for restrictive legislation.
Texans pour hundreds of millions of dollars into the State's economy every year
hunting, exhibiting, training, and breeding dogs. Their dogs could not hunt,
track, herd, search, or compete in shows and trials if they were not well taken
care of.
ACTION REQUIRED
Call, fax, and email your Senator and the Senate Committee on Criminal Justice
and request they oppose HB 1451.
Committee Contacts:
CHAIR
Sen. John Whitmire (D-15)
(512) 463-0115 / Fax: (512) 475-3737
John.whitmire@senate.state.tx.us
VICE CHAIR
Sen. Joan Huffman (R-17)
(512) 463-0117 / Fax: (512) 463-0639
Joan.huffman@senate.state.tx.us
MEMBERS
Sen. John Carona (R-16)
(512) 463-0116 / Fax: (512) 463-3135
John.carona@senate.state.tx.us
Sen. Rodney Ellis (D-13)
(512) 463-0113 / Fax: (512) 463-0006
Rodney.ellis@senate.state.tx.us
Sen. Glenn Hegar (R-18)
(512) 463-0118 / Fax: (512) 475-3736
Glenn.hegar@senate.state.tx.us
Sen. Juan Hinojosa (D-20)
(512) 463-0120 / Fax: (512) 463-0229
Juan.hinojosa@senate.state.tx.us
Sen. Dan Patrick (R-7)
(512) 463-0107 / Fax: (512) 463-8810
Dan.patrick@senate.state.tx.us
HB 1451 is opposed by: American Dog Breeders Association; American Kennel Club;
Animal Owners Association of Texas; Endangered Breeds Association; National
Animal Interest Alliance; RPOA Texas Outreach and Responsible Pet Owners
Alliance; Sportsmen's and Animal Owners' Voting Alliance; United Kennel Club;
U.S. Sportsmen's Alliance; and many more local and national organizations.
Additional information can be found at the SAOVA website:
http://http://www.saova.org/TexasHB1451.htmlAnd at U.S. Sportsmen's Alliance:
http://www.ussportsmen.org/page.aspx?pid=2727Susan Wolf
Sportsmen's & Animal Owners' Voting Alliance
Issue lobbying and working to identify and elect supportive legislators
Visit SAOVA News http://saovanews.blogspot.com/
Showing posts with label Puppy Mill bills. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Puppy Mill bills. Show all posts
Monday, May 9, 2011
Thursday, May 5, 2011
TX: HB 1451 calll 11 female dogs a "commercial Kennel"
HB 1451 is gets through the House of Representatives with little opportunity for public input. House Bill 1451 does the following:
SYNOPSISHSUS Funded Representative Senfronia Thompson (D, 141) filed HB 1451 a bill to regulate Texas dog and cat breeders. HB 1451 is supported by a coalition of animal rights groups including HSUS, PETA, ASPCA, and Texas Humane Legislation Network (THLN). Commercial breeder is defined as a person who possesses 11 or more intact female dogs or cats over 6 months of age. Criminal background checks for both kennel owners and staff would be required for kennel license approval. A kennel license can be denied, suspended, or revoked for any infraction of the regulations or record-keeping rules or failure to complete a corrective action in the time allotted in an inspection report. Breeding females must have adequate rest between breeding cycles and a yearly veterinary exam. HB 1451 is only an outline of intended future regulations. The Texas Commission of Licensing and Regulation would be required to adopt the rules, standards, procedures, and fees necessary to implement the Act by March 31, 2012. Future rules and regulations established must meet or exceed current federal regulations for the handling, care, treatment, and transportation of dogs and cats.
•Classifies sporting dog kennels or hobby breeders who have 11 female dogs that have not been spayed to be classified the same as a huge commercial dealer if they sell just two dogs.
•Charges kennel license fees likely to be at least $1,300 per kennel even for hobby breeders who hardly ever sell dogs.
•Creates an unelected commission to create kennel construction requirements, record keeping requirements and other expensive red tape that hobby breeders cannot afford because their primary purpose is not to sell dogs.
•Allows for unannounced inspections of kennels and the homes of their owners if they keep their kennel records on a computer inside their house.
•Allows for the inspection of records within a home without any suspicion of wrong doing or even a search warrant.
•Threatens to drive sporting dog kennels and hobby breeders out of business because they do not have the commercial revenue to offset high fees, and expensive regulations.
•Discloses personal information about dog breeders to the public by creating a public directory containing information on all registered breeders
SYNOPSISHSUS Funded Representative Senfronia Thompson (D, 141) filed HB 1451 a bill to regulate Texas dog and cat breeders. HB 1451 is supported by a coalition of animal rights groups including HSUS, PETA, ASPCA, and Texas Humane Legislation Network (THLN). Commercial breeder is defined as a person who possesses 11 or more intact female dogs or cats over 6 months of age. Criminal background checks for both kennel owners and staff would be required for kennel license approval. A kennel license can be denied, suspended, or revoked for any infraction of the regulations or record-keeping rules or failure to complete a corrective action in the time allotted in an inspection report. Breeding females must have adequate rest between breeding cycles and a yearly veterinary exam. HB 1451 is only an outline of intended future regulations. The Texas Commission of Licensing and Regulation would be required to adopt the rules, standards, procedures, and fees necessary to implement the Act by March 31, 2012. Future rules and regulations established must meet or exceed current federal regulations for the handling, care, treatment, and transportation of dogs and cats.
•Classifies sporting dog kennels or hobby breeders who have 11 female dogs that have not been spayed to be classified the same as a huge commercial dealer if they sell just two dogs.
•Charges kennel license fees likely to be at least $1,300 per kennel even for hobby breeders who hardly ever sell dogs.
•Creates an unelected commission to create kennel construction requirements, record keeping requirements and other expensive red tape that hobby breeders cannot afford because their primary purpose is not to sell dogs.
•Allows for unannounced inspections of kennels and the homes of their owners if they keep their kennel records on a computer inside their house.
•Allows for the inspection of records within a home without any suspicion of wrong doing or even a search warrant.
•Threatens to drive sporting dog kennels and hobby breeders out of business because they do not have the commercial revenue to offset high fees, and expensive regulations.
•Discloses personal information about dog breeders to the public by creating a public directory containing information on all registered breeders
Tuesday, March 23, 2010
Breed wars: Imports
As states crack down on puppy mills, imports spike and so do health concerns
Mar 1, 2010
By: Rachael Whitcomb
DVM NEWSMAGAZINE
NATIONAL REPORT At last count, in 2006, 287,000 dogs crossed the
United States' borders, and veterinary officials fear the problem is
getting worse.
Consumer demand for pure-bred and cross-bred puppies coupled with strict
new domestic breeding laws is believed to be driving importation numbers
even higher than four years ago. To exacerbate the problem, federal
regulators have no real way of tracking exactly how many dogs are
brought in the country, where they come from, where they are going and
whether importers are following up on vaccination requirements for
underage puppies.
"One thing that really concerns veterinarians is, underage puppies come
in and not only are they at greater risk of zoonotic diseases, but also
other canine diseases," says Nina Marano, DVM, of the Center for Disease
Control and Prevention's (CDC) Division of Global Migration and
Quarantine. "It is a concern. It's a consumer issue; it's a public
health issue; it's a veterinary issue. Really, it's a moral and ethical
issue."
CDC has a rough idea of how many puppies are crossing United States
borders, but only anecdotally, Marano says.
"The fact is that we have a very big country and many, many ports of
entry to monitor," she explains. "We've been looking at this closely
over the last five to six years and ... the takeaway message is that,
anecdotally, we do believe there has been an increase in imported animals."
No definitive data is available on the number of dogs and puppies
imported to the United States each year since no single agency is
required to keep track of those numbers. The United States Department of
Agriculture (USDA) monitors only commercial breeders who sell animals
through pet stores, brokers and research facilities. The CDC monitors
rabies vaccinations in imported pets, but its regulations neither
require a health screen for dogs prior to arrival to the United States,
nor an evaluation for specific zoonoses of concern. Enforcement of
regulations are "problematic, because there is no federal requirement
mechanism, or capacity for documenting compliance," according to a 2008
article in the journal Zoonosis and Public Health by Marano and fellow
CDC veterinarian G. Gale Galland, DVM.
Plus, CDC can't man all the nation's ports of entry, leaving Customs and
Border Protection, whose officers have no veterinary training, as the
first line of defense to ensure all imported animals meet federal agency
requirements.
CDC has taken "snapshots" of data to gauge dog import trends and found
that 287,000 dogs were imported in 2006. About a quarter of them were
too young to have rabies vaccinations. Their importers were required to
sign agreements stating the dogs would be confined until the vaccine was
administered, but enforcement is passed on to local animal-control
agencies once the dogs are in the country. And critics contend most
imported dogs are sold as soon as the dogs are brought home from the
airport, not after the agreement is fulfilled.
More than 5,100 confine agreements were signed between January 2006 and
September 2007 at just 15 of the 20 quarantine stations monitored by the
CDC, but about 4,000 of those agreements were violated in 2006 alone,
with the puppies being sold before the confinement period ended. There's
no telling if any had been vaccinated at all.
"Based on import trends suggesting that the annual number of
unvaccinated puppies being imported into the United States increased
substantially from 2001 to 2006, imported dogs pose a risk for
introducing zoonotic pathogens such as rabies into the United States,"
Galland and Marano wrote.
At John F. Kennedy International Airport, reports of unvaccinated dog
imports doubled from 2003 to 2006. Reports of unvaccinated dogs imported
into California increased by more than 500 percent from 2001 to 2006,
the article adds.
But dogs aren't the only imports on the rise. According to another
article co-authored by Galland that appeared in a May 2009 edition of
Veterinary Clinics of North America: Small Animal Practice, the volume
of live animal imports to the United States has roughly doubled since 1991.
"From 2003 through 2006, annual increases in wildlife trade ranged from
6 percent to 11 percent. From 2000 through 2004, approximately 588,000
animals were imported into the United States each day," the article
states, adding those are just the animals that border agents find.
"Interpol estimates that wildlife smuggling ranks third on the
contraband list of items of value, behind drugs and firearms."
Some blame falls on federal regulators, who lack the time and resources
to follow up on every animal import.
"In 2000, most imported dogs were single import," Galland wrote in the
2009 article. "In 2003, the number of imports of multiple puppies per
shipment began to increase. The number of puppies imported into
California through airports increased from 110 multi-dog imports in 2003
to 365 in 2004. Each shipment contained as many as 40 puppies. A similar
increase was seen nationally ... As the number of shipments containing
more than one dog increased, tracking puppies became increasingly
difficult."
But the problem also can be attributed to market demand, uneducated
consumers and puppy millers turned irresponsible importers.
"It's getting tougher to raise dogs in the United States. The USDA is
requiring more of commercial breeders," Marano says, adding many former
puppy millers are believed to have turned to importing to increase profits.
In Pennsylvania — a state known for its concentration of puppy mills —
256 kennels were closed in 2009 compared to just 65 kennels closed in 2004.
The American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) tracks anti-puppy
mill legislation and saw a huge jump after 2008, with 90 bills
introduced across 33 states — five of them adopted in 2009. "There's a
campaign, clearly well-organized, to bring these bills forward," says
Adrian Hochstedt, AVMA's assistant director of state legislative and
regulatory affairs.
Additionally, foreign countries make it easier to breed dogs because of
loose animal-health standards, contends California attorney John
Hoffman, who has crusaded against puppy importers on behalf of various
breed groups.
For instance, one French Bulldog group he provided services for claims
there are now more French Bulldogs imported into the United States than
are bred here, because artificial insemination and cesarean deliveries
can be performed cheaper by unlicensed veterinary workers in other
countries.
"The sale over the Internet of both commercially bred puppies and
imported puppies has become a big business — and probably considerably
outstrips sales of puppies through pet shops," Hoffman said during
testimony before Congress in 2006 on an importation law that never
passed. "USDA regulations prohibit carriers from accepting animals for
transport without a health certificate signed by a licensed veterinarian
and from transporting puppies younger than 8 weeks. It appears that both
regulations are routinely flouted by commercial puppy exporters abroad.
That health certificates are being forged is evidenced by the large
incidence of illness and death among puppies within a day or two of
arrival in the United States."
Many of these imported dogs are irresponsibly bred with a host of
genetic problems and are shipped young — too young to vaccinate — to
meet market demand. Importers often lie about age and health issues on a
dog's records and get away with it, Hoffman claims.
Confinement agreements
"If the form said 8 weeks, nobody questioned it," Hoffman says, adding
that rabies requirements are treated with disdain by some importers.
"There's been no enforcement of (confinement agreements) and the
importers have been thumbing their noses at it for years."
But importers for profit aren't the only violators. One rescue
organization alone imported 295 dogs from the Middle East in 2006,
according to Galland and Marano's article, and even veterinarians can be
pulled into a laissez-faire attitude about pet importation.
Galland's 2009 article reveals a 2007 case of a puppy imported from
India by a Washington state veterinarian. The dog was given to another
veterinarian, bit veterinary clinic staff and another dog while showing
signs of rabies, but wasn't diagnosed with the disease until another
veterinarian brought it to Alaska. Eight people had to be treated for
rabies.
Several rabies cases in imported dogs have been tracked in recent years,
as well as cases of other diseases long-eradicated in the United States,
like screwworm. Screwworms are monitored by the USDA and could cause up
to $750 million in livestock production losses, the article notes. New
World screwworms were eradicated from the United States in 1966, and Old
World screwworm had never been seen in this country until it was found
in a puppy imported from Singapore to Massachusetts in 2007.
"Veterinarians should be vigilant when examining new puppies" Galland
wrote. "Many imported dogs are never confined properly or inspected for
infectious diseases, and many diseases may not be detected readily in
imported dogs ... a veterinarian could be the one who prevents the next
outbreak."
A lot of imported puppies arrive at U.S. ports dehydrated, but not
really ill. It's a few days after entering the country that they become
symptomatic.
"Rabies is of particular concern in imported dogs because of its long
incubation period," wrote Galland and Marano. "Because of this, dogs may
be admitted on the basis of apparent good health, but may be incubating
the virus and could develop disease after entry."
An importation clause in the recently passed Farm Bill could provide
some relief, as it prohibits the commercial importation of any dog
younger than 6 months of age, Marano says. But USDA must write the
regulations to put the Farm Bill into effect, and that has not even been
started, Hoffman says.
"Buyers and veterinarians report that imported puppies suffer from
higher than normal incidences of pneumonia, parvovirus, rabies, ringworm
and severe congenital defects," wrote Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), who
supported passage of the Farm Bill, in a press release about the
legislation. "The CDC lacks the staff, law enforcement powers and
resources to ensure each shipment is safe."
CDC is reviewing its regulations — written in 1956 and last updated in
1983, when international travel was less frequent and dog imports
consisted of the occasional family pet — and has found that the general
public would like to see more stringent laws. But changes take time,
Marano says.
"There are only two ways to attack: regulations to dry up supply and
education to dry up demand," she explains.
"Veterinarians are really one of the first lines of defense, and they
need to be educated on the regulations of their state so they can
educate their clients about the risk involved in buying these puppies,"
adds Galland.
As states crack down on puppy mills, imports spike and so do health concerns
Mar 1, 2010
By: Rachael Whitcomb
DVM NEWSMAGAZINE
NATIONAL REPORT At last count, in 2006, 287,000 dogs crossed the
United States' borders, and veterinary officials fear the problem is
getting worse.
Consumer demand for pure-bred and cross-bred puppies coupled with strict
new domestic breeding laws is believed to be driving importation numbers
even higher than four years ago. To exacerbate the problem, federal
regulators have no real way of tracking exactly how many dogs are
brought in the country, where they come from, where they are going and
whether importers are following up on vaccination requirements for
underage puppies.
"One thing that really concerns veterinarians is, underage puppies come
in and not only are they at greater risk of zoonotic diseases, but also
other canine diseases," says Nina Marano, DVM, of the Center for Disease
Control and Prevention's (CDC) Division of Global Migration and
Quarantine. "It is a concern. It's a consumer issue; it's a public
health issue; it's a veterinary issue. Really, it's a moral and ethical
issue."
CDC has a rough idea of how many puppies are crossing United States
borders, but only anecdotally, Marano says.
"The fact is that we have a very big country and many, many ports of
entry to monitor," she explains. "We've been looking at this closely
over the last five to six years and ... the takeaway message is that,
anecdotally, we do believe there has been an increase in imported animals."
No definitive data is available on the number of dogs and puppies
imported to the United States each year since no single agency is
required to keep track of those numbers. The United States Department of
Agriculture (USDA) monitors only commercial breeders who sell animals
through pet stores, brokers and research facilities. The CDC monitors
rabies vaccinations in imported pets, but its regulations neither
require a health screen for dogs prior to arrival to the United States,
nor an evaluation for specific zoonoses of concern. Enforcement of
regulations are "problematic, because there is no federal requirement
mechanism, or capacity for documenting compliance," according to a 2008
article in the journal Zoonosis and Public Health by Marano and fellow
CDC veterinarian G. Gale Galland, DVM.
Plus, CDC can't man all the nation's ports of entry, leaving Customs and
Border Protection, whose officers have no veterinary training, as the
first line of defense to ensure all imported animals meet federal agency
requirements.
CDC has taken "snapshots" of data to gauge dog import trends and found
that 287,000 dogs were imported in 2006. About a quarter of them were
too young to have rabies vaccinations. Their importers were required to
sign agreements stating the dogs would be confined until the vaccine was
administered, but enforcement is passed on to local animal-control
agencies once the dogs are in the country. And critics contend most
imported dogs are sold as soon as the dogs are brought home from the
airport, not after the agreement is fulfilled.
More than 5,100 confine agreements were signed between January 2006 and
September 2007 at just 15 of the 20 quarantine stations monitored by the
CDC, but about 4,000 of those agreements were violated in 2006 alone,
with the puppies being sold before the confinement period ended. There's
no telling if any had been vaccinated at all.
"Based on import trends suggesting that the annual number of
unvaccinated puppies being imported into the United States increased
substantially from 2001 to 2006, imported dogs pose a risk for
introducing zoonotic pathogens such as rabies into the United States,"
Galland and Marano wrote.
At John F. Kennedy International Airport, reports of unvaccinated dog
imports doubled from 2003 to 2006. Reports of unvaccinated dogs imported
into California increased by more than 500 percent from 2001 to 2006,
the article adds.
But dogs aren't the only imports on the rise. According to another
article co-authored by Galland that appeared in a May 2009 edition of
Veterinary Clinics of North America: Small Animal Practice, the volume
of live animal imports to the United States has roughly doubled since 1991.
"From 2003 through 2006, annual increases in wildlife trade ranged from
6 percent to 11 percent. From 2000 through 2004, approximately 588,000
animals were imported into the United States each day," the article
states, adding those are just the animals that border agents find.
"Interpol estimates that wildlife smuggling ranks third on the
contraband list of items of value, behind drugs and firearms."
Some blame falls on federal regulators, who lack the time and resources
to follow up on every animal import.
"In 2000, most imported dogs were single import," Galland wrote in the
2009 article. "In 2003, the number of imports of multiple puppies per
shipment began to increase. The number of puppies imported into
California through airports increased from 110 multi-dog imports in 2003
to 365 in 2004. Each shipment contained as many as 40 puppies. A similar
increase was seen nationally ... As the number of shipments containing
more than one dog increased, tracking puppies became increasingly
difficult."
But the problem also can be attributed to market demand, uneducated
consumers and puppy millers turned irresponsible importers.
"It's getting tougher to raise dogs in the United States. The USDA is
requiring more of commercial breeders," Marano says, adding many former
puppy millers are believed to have turned to importing to increase profits.
In Pennsylvania — a state known for its concentration of puppy mills —
256 kennels were closed in 2009 compared to just 65 kennels closed in 2004.
The American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) tracks anti-puppy
mill legislation and saw a huge jump after 2008, with 90 bills
introduced across 33 states — five of them adopted in 2009. "There's a
campaign, clearly well-organized, to bring these bills forward," says
Adrian Hochstedt, AVMA's assistant director of state legislative and
regulatory affairs.
Additionally, foreign countries make it easier to breed dogs because of
loose animal-health standards, contends California attorney John
Hoffman, who has crusaded against puppy importers on behalf of various
breed groups.
For instance, one French Bulldog group he provided services for claims
there are now more French Bulldogs imported into the United States than
are bred here, because artificial insemination and cesarean deliveries
can be performed cheaper by unlicensed veterinary workers in other
countries.
"The sale over the Internet of both commercially bred puppies and
imported puppies has become a big business — and probably considerably
outstrips sales of puppies through pet shops," Hoffman said during
testimony before Congress in 2006 on an importation law that never
passed. "USDA regulations prohibit carriers from accepting animals for
transport without a health certificate signed by a licensed veterinarian
and from transporting puppies younger than 8 weeks. It appears that both
regulations are routinely flouted by commercial puppy exporters abroad.
That health certificates are being forged is evidenced by the large
incidence of illness and death among puppies within a day or two of
arrival in the United States."
Many of these imported dogs are irresponsibly bred with a host of
genetic problems and are shipped young — too young to vaccinate — to
meet market demand. Importers often lie about age and health issues on a
dog's records and get away with it, Hoffman claims.
Confinement agreements
"If the form said 8 weeks, nobody questioned it," Hoffman says, adding
that rabies requirements are treated with disdain by some importers.
"There's been no enforcement of (confinement agreements) and the
importers have been thumbing their noses at it for years."
But importers for profit aren't the only violators. One rescue
organization alone imported 295 dogs from the Middle East in 2006,
according to Galland and Marano's article, and even veterinarians can be
pulled into a laissez-faire attitude about pet importation.
Galland's 2009 article reveals a 2007 case of a puppy imported from
India by a Washington state veterinarian. The dog was given to another
veterinarian, bit veterinary clinic staff and another dog while showing
signs of rabies, but wasn't diagnosed with the disease until another
veterinarian brought it to Alaska. Eight people had to be treated for
rabies.
Several rabies cases in imported dogs have been tracked in recent years,
as well as cases of other diseases long-eradicated in the United States,
like screwworm. Screwworms are monitored by the USDA and could cause up
to $750 million in livestock production losses, the article notes. New
World screwworms were eradicated from the United States in 1966, and Old
World screwworm had never been seen in this country until it was found
in a puppy imported from Singapore to Massachusetts in 2007.
"Veterinarians should be vigilant when examining new puppies" Galland
wrote. "Many imported dogs are never confined properly or inspected for
infectious diseases, and many diseases may not be detected readily in
imported dogs ... a veterinarian could be the one who prevents the next
outbreak."
A lot of imported puppies arrive at U.S. ports dehydrated, but not
really ill. It's a few days after entering the country that they become
symptomatic.
"Rabies is of particular concern in imported dogs because of its long
incubation period," wrote Galland and Marano. "Because of this, dogs may
be admitted on the basis of apparent good health, but may be incubating
the virus and could develop disease after entry."
An importation clause in the recently passed Farm Bill could provide
some relief, as it prohibits the commercial importation of any dog
younger than 6 months of age, Marano says. But USDA must write the
regulations to put the Farm Bill into effect, and that has not even been
started, Hoffman says.
"Buyers and veterinarians report that imported puppies suffer from
higher than normal incidences of pneumonia, parvovirus, rabies, ringworm
and severe congenital defects," wrote Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), who
supported passage of the Farm Bill, in a press release about the
legislation. "The CDC lacks the staff, law enforcement powers and
resources to ensure each shipment is safe."
CDC is reviewing its regulations — written in 1956 and last updated in
1983, when international travel was less frequent and dog imports
consisted of the occasional family pet — and has found that the general
public would like to see more stringent laws. But changes take time,
Marano says.
"There are only two ways to attack: regulations to dry up supply and
education to dry up demand," she explains.
"Veterinarians are really one of the first lines of defense, and they
need to be educated on the regulations of their state so they can
educate their clients about the risk involved in buying these puppies,"
adds Galland.
Monday, March 1, 2010
IA: HF 2280 seeks to provide regulations of commercial establishements for dogs and cats
Iowa Legislative Recap
Print This Article
[Monday, March 01, 2010]
Recently, both houses of the Iowa General Assembly passed versions of House File 2280, which seeks to provide for regulation of commercial establishments that handle dogs and cats. The now–enrolled version of this bill provides the following:
Major Provisions:
•With only one small change regarding racing Greyhounds, the bill continues to use the definition of "commercial breeder" currently found in Iowa law. While arguably low, the threshold contained in the definition—a person must own or harbor four or more breeding males or females to be considered a commercial breeder—was not under consideration for change by this bill. If an individual was considered a commercial breeder or kennel before this bill passed – they will be considered one now. The exception to this is kennels that raise greyhounds for racing. Henceforth, they will be considered commercial kennels, regardless of whether they sell, lease exchange their dogs for a consideration or offer to do so. As always, we encourage all breeders to ensure that they know, understand and follow the laws of their jurisdiction.
•The bill does not change the current law that exempts noncommercial kennels (dogs for the purpose of hobby, hunting, training, show, field, obedience, and guard dog kennels) from having to adhere to the requirements that commercial establishments must adhere to.
•The bill will permit the Iowa Department of Agriculture to monitor a commercial establishment for the limited purpose of determining whether the permittee is providing the proper standard of care. Such inspections may be conducted only during normal working hours, and only if the Department has reasonable cause to suspect that the permittee is not providing for the required standard of care. Reasonable cause is to be proven only by a written complaint made by an identified person or a USDA report for federal licensees ordering the correction of a breach in standard of care.
•Pounds, animal shelters, research facilities, pet shops, boarding kennels, commercial kennels, dealers, commercial breeders, and public auctions are now required to maintain records. The Iowa Department of Agriculture is permitted to inspect those records.
•The bill empowers the Iowa Department of Agriculture to develop care and conditions standards for commercial establishments.
•A person operating a commercial establishment that violates a standard of care will be guilty of a simple misdemeanor and subject to a civil penalty of up to $500; and will be provided a period of up to 15 days to come correct care and conditions violations. A person operating a commercial establishment without being licensed will be guilty of a simple misdemeanor and subject to a civil penalty of up to $1,000.
•The fee to license a commercial kennel is $175.
If you live in Iowa and have concerns about HF 2280, please contact Governor Chet Culver and express your concerns. The Governor has three days from the day he receives the bill from the General Assembly to veto the bill.
Governor Chet Culver
State Capitol
1007 East Grand Avenue
Des Moines, IA 50319
(515) 281-5211
Print This Article
[Monday, March 01, 2010]
Recently, both houses of the Iowa General Assembly passed versions of House File 2280, which seeks to provide for regulation of commercial establishments that handle dogs and cats. The now–enrolled version of this bill provides the following:
Major Provisions:
•With only one small change regarding racing Greyhounds, the bill continues to use the definition of "commercial breeder" currently found in Iowa law. While arguably low, the threshold contained in the definition—a person must own or harbor four or more breeding males or females to be considered a commercial breeder—was not under consideration for change by this bill. If an individual was considered a commercial breeder or kennel before this bill passed – they will be considered one now. The exception to this is kennels that raise greyhounds for racing. Henceforth, they will be considered commercial kennels, regardless of whether they sell, lease exchange their dogs for a consideration or offer to do so. As always, we encourage all breeders to ensure that they know, understand and follow the laws of their jurisdiction.
•The bill does not change the current law that exempts noncommercial kennels (dogs for the purpose of hobby, hunting, training, show, field, obedience, and guard dog kennels) from having to adhere to the requirements that commercial establishments must adhere to.
•The bill will permit the Iowa Department of Agriculture to monitor a commercial establishment for the limited purpose of determining whether the permittee is providing the proper standard of care. Such inspections may be conducted only during normal working hours, and only if the Department has reasonable cause to suspect that the permittee is not providing for the required standard of care. Reasonable cause is to be proven only by a written complaint made by an identified person or a USDA report for federal licensees ordering the correction of a breach in standard of care.
•Pounds, animal shelters, research facilities, pet shops, boarding kennels, commercial kennels, dealers, commercial breeders, and public auctions are now required to maintain records. The Iowa Department of Agriculture is permitted to inspect those records.
•The bill empowers the Iowa Department of Agriculture to develop care and conditions standards for commercial establishments.
•A person operating a commercial establishment that violates a standard of care will be guilty of a simple misdemeanor and subject to a civil penalty of up to $500; and will be provided a period of up to 15 days to come correct care and conditions violations. A person operating a commercial establishment without being licensed will be guilty of a simple misdemeanor and subject to a civil penalty of up to $1,000.
•The fee to license a commercial kennel is $175.
If you live in Iowa and have concerns about HF 2280, please contact Governor Chet Culver and express your concerns. The Governor has three days from the day he receives the bill from the General Assembly to veto the bill.
Governor Chet Culver
State Capitol
1007 East Grand Avenue
Des Moines, IA 50319
(515) 281-5211
Is Mandatory spay-neuter what we really want?
Be cautious about mandatory pet spay-neuter legislation
Sunday, February 28, 2010
Periodically, a number of facts seem to fall into place, revealing a truth that might not have been apparent previously.
Something like this happened to me this week. I had been wondering how it is possible for Americans to be so enchanted with dogs as pets, and at the same time, to hold beliefs that, if put into action, would actually eliminate the species in a relatively short time. Let me review the situation, and let's see if you agree with my conclusions.
Roughly 37 percent of American homes include at least one pet dog. Most people at least pay lip service to an appreciation of how much dogs add to our lives and to our culture. While dogs no longer have the job of warning cave dwellers of approaching danger, the jobs they do perform for us could be even more valuable.
Some very special dogs and their handlers search destroyed buildings seeking for survivors, and for the bodies of those who did not survive. Perhaps you noticed the news clips of search and rescue dogs working in the jumble of what used to be homes and businesses in Haiti?
If you ever fly, them perhaps you have seen bomb or drug detection dogs making us safer at airports? Military dogs are described by their handlers as their most valuable and reliable protection against roadside bombs.
The Dover Public Library is just one of many where dogs patiently help children learn to read. Dogs can also predict epileptic seizures, and locate and predict cancers in humans.
Certainly the tasks performed by dogs no longer fit their job description when they lived with prehistoric people, but an argument could easily be made that their modern jobs are even more important.
Studies show that dogs help us maintain good health. They encourage exercise and social contacts. I've been told that walking with a dog is the best way to meet new friends. I think it is safe to say that dogs have earned their place in our hearts and in our society. And yet ...
And yet laws requiring the mandatory spay and neuter of all dogs are spreading throughout the country. I wonder if people have given much thought to the only possible result if the MSN laws become universal? Logically, if all dogs are surgically neutered, then in about 10 years there will be no dogs.
If all breeding is stopped — where will you find the replacement for the dogs you love now? If you should want to add a purpose-bred dog to your family — will you still be able to in another 10 or so years?
James Serpell, a professor at the University of Pennsylvania, has said: "The thing about mandatory spay-neuter is that those who are most willing to have their dogs spayed or neutered tend to be responsible people. And often, their dogs also happen to be nice animals in temperament. So what you're doing essentially is taking those dogs out of the breeding population. What will become of dog ownership if only the ill-tempered puppies from disreputable breeding programs are available?"
Dog and cat owners have certainly grasped the idea that responsible pet ownership entails being responsible for the reproductive capacity of their pets. Somehow, the idea is pushed that vast numbers of dogs are roaming around the country, reproducing at any and every opportunity. In actual fact, the reverse is true. Nationally, over 87 percent of dogs have already been surgically neutered.
Our figures here in the northeast are even more impressive. Last August, I asked three friends to help me perform a survey of veterinary hospitals throughout New Hampshire. I was surprised to learn that 98 percent of owned cats and 95 percent of dogs had been surgically neutered. Yes, we have a population of feral cats. But our pet owners have taken their responsibility to heart, as do owners throughout the north-east.
Here is one example of the adage "no good deed goes unpunished." Since this area of the country has a dearth of available dogs, and especially shelter dogs — we have become the repository of dogs, many with physical or behavioral problems that make them difficult for novice dog owners to deal with, from third-world countries and from parts of our South — where laws and programs such as we have are not established.
So — should we welcome these imported dogs, even if in so doing we put some of our own dogs at risk? Or should we help other parts of our country to grasp the lessons we have learned?
Being a responsible dog owner does not mean that all of our dogs should be neutered. What it does mean is that instead of importing potentially problematic dogs here, those groups who are profiting from these imports should focus their attention on changing attitudes in the areas these dogs come from.
So — do you really want ALL dogs to be neutered?
Sunday, February 28, 2010
Periodically, a number of facts seem to fall into place, revealing a truth that might not have been apparent previously.
Something like this happened to me this week. I had been wondering how it is possible for Americans to be so enchanted with dogs as pets, and at the same time, to hold beliefs that, if put into action, would actually eliminate the species in a relatively short time. Let me review the situation, and let's see if you agree with my conclusions.
Roughly 37 percent of American homes include at least one pet dog. Most people at least pay lip service to an appreciation of how much dogs add to our lives and to our culture. While dogs no longer have the job of warning cave dwellers of approaching danger, the jobs they do perform for us could be even more valuable.
Some very special dogs and their handlers search destroyed buildings seeking for survivors, and for the bodies of those who did not survive. Perhaps you noticed the news clips of search and rescue dogs working in the jumble of what used to be homes and businesses in Haiti?
If you ever fly, them perhaps you have seen bomb or drug detection dogs making us safer at airports? Military dogs are described by their handlers as their most valuable and reliable protection against roadside bombs.
The Dover Public Library is just one of many where dogs patiently help children learn to read. Dogs can also predict epileptic seizures, and locate and predict cancers in humans.
Certainly the tasks performed by dogs no longer fit their job description when they lived with prehistoric people, but an argument could easily be made that their modern jobs are even more important.
Studies show that dogs help us maintain good health. They encourage exercise and social contacts. I've been told that walking with a dog is the best way to meet new friends. I think it is safe to say that dogs have earned their place in our hearts and in our society. And yet ...
And yet laws requiring the mandatory spay and neuter of all dogs are spreading throughout the country. I wonder if people have given much thought to the only possible result if the MSN laws become universal? Logically, if all dogs are surgically neutered, then in about 10 years there will be no dogs.
If all breeding is stopped — where will you find the replacement for the dogs you love now? If you should want to add a purpose-bred dog to your family — will you still be able to in another 10 or so years?
James Serpell, a professor at the University of Pennsylvania, has said: "The thing about mandatory spay-neuter is that those who are most willing to have their dogs spayed or neutered tend to be responsible people. And often, their dogs also happen to be nice animals in temperament. So what you're doing essentially is taking those dogs out of the breeding population. What will become of dog ownership if only the ill-tempered puppies from disreputable breeding programs are available?"
Dog and cat owners have certainly grasped the idea that responsible pet ownership entails being responsible for the reproductive capacity of their pets. Somehow, the idea is pushed that vast numbers of dogs are roaming around the country, reproducing at any and every opportunity. In actual fact, the reverse is true. Nationally, over 87 percent of dogs have already been surgically neutered.
Our figures here in the northeast are even more impressive. Last August, I asked three friends to help me perform a survey of veterinary hospitals throughout New Hampshire. I was surprised to learn that 98 percent of owned cats and 95 percent of dogs had been surgically neutered. Yes, we have a population of feral cats. But our pet owners have taken their responsibility to heart, as do owners throughout the north-east.
Here is one example of the adage "no good deed goes unpunished." Since this area of the country has a dearth of available dogs, and especially shelter dogs — we have become the repository of dogs, many with physical or behavioral problems that make them difficult for novice dog owners to deal with, from third-world countries and from parts of our South — where laws and programs such as we have are not established.
So — should we welcome these imported dogs, even if in so doing we put some of our own dogs at risk? Or should we help other parts of our country to grasp the lessons we have learned?
Being a responsible dog owner does not mean that all of our dogs should be neutered. What it does mean is that instead of importing potentially problematic dogs here, those groups who are profiting from these imports should focus their attention on changing attitudes in the areas these dogs come from.
So — do you really want ALL dogs to be neutered?
Wednesday, December 2, 2009
An Obituary For Words: Puppy Mill
http://www.ukcdogs.com/WebSite.nsf/Articles/LegislativeUpdate06012009
Posted on 06/01/2009
Permanent Link
An Obituary For Words
by Cindy Cooke
You can't really ban a word. In fact, an attempt to ban something often backfires, particularly in the United States, where we don't like people censoring our speech. So I'm not going to tell you not to say "puppy mill". I'm going to give you some very good reasons for not using that phrase.
I speak to a lot of dog clubs and frequently hear dog breeders supporting so-called "anti-puppy-mill" laws. When I ask these people to define "puppy mill," invariably the definitions given include:
. People who "overbreed" their dogs;
. People who don't take care of their dogs;
. People who have too many dogs;
. People who breed dogs "just for money"; and
. People who don't take health issues into account when breeding their dogs.
Let's look at these definitions in turn. What is "overbreeding"? In the wild, most canids can only reproduce once a year. Most domestic dogs can have two litters a year. When I first became a dog breeder, it was almost a religious belief that no female dog should be bred more than once a year. We were told that it was important to "rest" the uterus between litters. Today, however, thanks to advances in veterinary medicine, we know that an uterus is actually damaged by the elevated progesterone levels that occur in each heat cycle, whether the dog is pregnant or not. Veterinary reproduction specialists recommend that dogs be bred on their second or third heat cycle, that we do more back-to-back breedings, and that we spay the dogs at around age six.
The "overbreeding" argument also treats reproduction as something that female dogs wouldn't do if they had a choice. Dogs aren't people - female dogs actually want to be bred when they're in heat and, with few exceptions, enjoy raising their puppies. It's not an unwelcome event for dogs.
People who don't take care of their dogs are already guilty of a crime in all 50 states. There is nowhere in the United States where it is legal to neglect or abuse dogs. Sadly, a small minority of all dog breeders - commercial, home and hobby - commit neglect and abuse. Some of these do so out of ignorance, some out of laziness, and some out of meanness. All are already breaking the law. It just needs to be enforced.
One of our biggest problems now is that animal radicals insist that every dog be raised like a hothouse flower. One bill proposed this year would have required every kennel to be air conditioned. Many owners of working dogs prefer that their dogs be acclimated to hot weather so that they can work when the temperature goes up. Likewise, sled dogs in the north often sleep outdoors in the snow. Dogs can live and thrive in a wide range of environments. The Arctic Circle, the jungles of Africa, and the deserts of Arabia have all produced breeds of dogs that can live happily in conditions that might not suit all dogs. It is important that we not let activists redefine the needs of dogs to the extent that we are forced to provide a brass bed and a down pillow for every animal in the kennel!
What is "too many" dogs? Most of our breeds were developed by wealthy people who kept large numbers of dogs. Hound breeders traditionally kept good-sized packs, and early show breeders did as well. Now that our sport includes more mainstream people - people with jobs or people who need jobs - it's hard for many of us to keep large numbers of dogs. There is no inherent link between numbers of dogs and neglect. People who have the resources to keep big kennels provide a service for all of us, particularly if they maintain a good number of useful stud dogs.
Breeding dogs is expensive, and getting more so daily. It's just plain silly to pretend that none of us needs the money generated by puppy sales and stud services. Without that income, the vast majority of middle class breeders could not afford this sport. When our sport was solely in the hands of rich people, it was the norm to sneer at people in "trade", and part of that attitude was handed down to us with the culture of our sport. Today, however, the majority of us in the sport are "in trade", in the sense that we have to work to support ourselves. Our dogs must, at least in part, support themselves or most of us would have to get out of the game.
We have among us a small but vociferous group of people who think that breeders only care about producing great hunting or show dogs, and nothing about health. In fact, I've never met a breeder who wasn't concerned about the health of his dogs and the health of his breed. Most health problems in dogs don't have simple solutions, so it is only natural that breeders are often going to disagree about how to address health problems. When there's no right answer to a question, then breeders who follow a different path than you might choose are not necessarily wrong or unconcerned. I know that many believe that commercial breeders don't care about health, but the fact is that their professional organizations provide some of the most sophisticated health seminars in the country for their breeders.
Twenty years ago, animal activists created the phrase "puppy mill". Back then, it was only applied to commercial breeders, and then only to those who were breaking the law by neglecting their dogs. In a futile attempt to placate activists, many hobby breeders adopted the term "puppy mill" and used it to separate "them" from "us". It was a mistake then, and it's rapidly becoming fatal today. Every one of these so-called "anti-puppy-mill bills" has a definition that could easily include breeders of hunting and show dogs. Every time you use that phrase, you're contributing to the idea that dog breeders need to be regulated out of existence.
The message we need to send to America is that purebred dogs are good, not just because they have pedigrees, but because of their predictability, and that people should shop at least as carefully for a puppy as they do for a car. We don't need to help the animal radicals spread their message by using their favorite term: puppy mill.
Posted on 06/01/2009
Permanent Link
An Obituary For Words
by Cindy Cooke
You can't really ban a word. In fact, an attempt to ban something often backfires, particularly in the United States, where we don't like people censoring our speech. So I'm not going to tell you not to say "puppy mill". I'm going to give you some very good reasons for not using that phrase.
I speak to a lot of dog clubs and frequently hear dog breeders supporting so-called "anti-puppy-mill" laws. When I ask these people to define "puppy mill," invariably the definitions given include:
. People who "overbreed" their dogs;
. People who don't take care of their dogs;
. People who have too many dogs;
. People who breed dogs "just for money"; and
. People who don't take health issues into account when breeding their dogs.
Let's look at these definitions in turn. What is "overbreeding"? In the wild, most canids can only reproduce once a year. Most domestic dogs can have two litters a year. When I first became a dog breeder, it was almost a religious belief that no female dog should be bred more than once a year. We were told that it was important to "rest" the uterus between litters. Today, however, thanks to advances in veterinary medicine, we know that an uterus is actually damaged by the elevated progesterone levels that occur in each heat cycle, whether the dog is pregnant or not. Veterinary reproduction specialists recommend that dogs be bred on their second or third heat cycle, that we do more back-to-back breedings, and that we spay the dogs at around age six.
The "overbreeding" argument also treats reproduction as something that female dogs wouldn't do if they had a choice. Dogs aren't people - female dogs actually want to be bred when they're in heat and, with few exceptions, enjoy raising their puppies. It's not an unwelcome event for dogs.
People who don't take care of their dogs are already guilty of a crime in all 50 states. There is nowhere in the United States where it is legal to neglect or abuse dogs. Sadly, a small minority of all dog breeders - commercial, home and hobby - commit neglect and abuse. Some of these do so out of ignorance, some out of laziness, and some out of meanness. All are already breaking the law. It just needs to be enforced.
One of our biggest problems now is that animal radicals insist that every dog be raised like a hothouse flower. One bill proposed this year would have required every kennel to be air conditioned. Many owners of working dogs prefer that their dogs be acclimated to hot weather so that they can work when the temperature goes up. Likewise, sled dogs in the north often sleep outdoors in the snow. Dogs can live and thrive in a wide range of environments. The Arctic Circle, the jungles of Africa, and the deserts of Arabia have all produced breeds of dogs that can live happily in conditions that might not suit all dogs. It is important that we not let activists redefine the needs of dogs to the extent that we are forced to provide a brass bed and a down pillow for every animal in the kennel!
What is "too many" dogs? Most of our breeds were developed by wealthy people who kept large numbers of dogs. Hound breeders traditionally kept good-sized packs, and early show breeders did as well. Now that our sport includes more mainstream people - people with jobs or people who need jobs - it's hard for many of us to keep large numbers of dogs. There is no inherent link between numbers of dogs and neglect. People who have the resources to keep big kennels provide a service for all of us, particularly if they maintain a good number of useful stud dogs.
Breeding dogs is expensive, and getting more so daily. It's just plain silly to pretend that none of us needs the money generated by puppy sales and stud services. Without that income, the vast majority of middle class breeders could not afford this sport. When our sport was solely in the hands of rich people, it was the norm to sneer at people in "trade", and part of that attitude was handed down to us with the culture of our sport. Today, however, the majority of us in the sport are "in trade", in the sense that we have to work to support ourselves. Our dogs must, at least in part, support themselves or most of us would have to get out of the game.
We have among us a small but vociferous group of people who think that breeders only care about producing great hunting or show dogs, and nothing about health. In fact, I've never met a breeder who wasn't concerned about the health of his dogs and the health of his breed. Most health problems in dogs don't have simple solutions, so it is only natural that breeders are often going to disagree about how to address health problems. When there's no right answer to a question, then breeders who follow a different path than you might choose are not necessarily wrong or unconcerned. I know that many believe that commercial breeders don't care about health, but the fact is that their professional organizations provide some of the most sophisticated health seminars in the country for their breeders.
Twenty years ago, animal activists created the phrase "puppy mill". Back then, it was only applied to commercial breeders, and then only to those who were breaking the law by neglecting their dogs. In a futile attempt to placate activists, many hobby breeders adopted the term "puppy mill" and used it to separate "them" from "us". It was a mistake then, and it's rapidly becoming fatal today. Every one of these so-called "anti-puppy-mill bills" has a definition that could easily include breeders of hunting and show dogs. Every time you use that phrase, you're contributing to the idea that dog breeders need to be regulated out of existence.
The message we need to send to America is that purebred dogs are good, not just because they have pedigrees, but because of their predictability, and that people should shop at least as carefully for a puppy as they do for a car. We don't need to help the animal radicals spread their message by using their favorite term: puppy mill.
Monday, July 27, 2009
NC- Bad bill likely to return this week
From AKC
Senate Bill 460
a bill that seeks to unnecessarily regulate the operations of dog breeders in North Carolina remains under consideration in the state Senate. The AKC believes the bill is likely to be scheduled for consideration by the full Senate as early as This Tuesday. With your help and participation over the next several days, we can prevent this bill from passing the Senate, and we can kill this bill for the remainder of the year.
The American Kennel Club and the North Carolina Federation of Dog Clubs continue to oppose SB 460. The state Department of Agriculture does not support this bill. Your Senators need to hear that you, their constituents, also oppose this bill.
We have already made a difference. Thanks to the calls and letters that you sent to North Carolina Senators early this month, the Senate delayed voting on the bill on July 8. We are now approaching the end of the session, and it is imperative that we send the message once again that responsible dog owners and breeders oppose this onerous, unnecessary, and expensive legislation.
Problematic provisions of SB 460 include the following:
•Vague definition of "commercial breeder". Commercial breeder" is defined as someone who owns 15 or more intact females "of breeding age" and 30 or more puppies." It is unclear if these numbers refer to the number of dogs on the property at one time, or if this is cumulative over the course of a year. The bill makes a special exception for some kennels or establishments that operate for the purpose of boarding or training certain dogs. However, it is unclear if breeders who also train and sell puppies are exempt from the licensing requirement.
•Inspections of private property at any time. The bill allows law enforcement and local animal control to search the homes and private property at any time of day or night of anyone who falls under the definition of "commercial breeder".
•Allowing for seizure of animals for those who do not comply with the new regulations—with no opportunity to come into compliance. If a commercial breeder is unlicensed, animals will be subject to immediate seizure and impoundment and may be sold or euthanized. The AKC believes that breeders should be given the opportunity to come into compliance with the law.
•Directive for the NC Department of Agriculture to develop standards of care with no public input. SB 460 calls for the Department of Agriculture to develop care and condition policies for dogs belonging to commercial breeders. This does not allow for any input from dog breeders and others who are experts in animal care.
Senate Bill 460 will do nothing to address irresponsible breeding, consumer protection, or cruelty/negligence, but it will cost the state over $400,000 a year to enforce. At a time when our state is facing a projected $4 billion budget gap, enforcement of existing laws would be a better use of taxpayers’ money.
WHAT YOU CAN DO:
Contact your Senators, identify yourself as a constituent (tell them the town you live in), tell them you oppose SB 460, and respectfully urge them to also oppose this bill. We ask that should you decide to e-mail, you also call their offices.
See links below for assistance in contacting your Senator.
To find your Senator, visit the North Carolina General Assembly web site and type your zip code in the "Who Represents Me?" box on the right side of the page.
View basic phone scripts for breeders and fanciers.
Click here for a sample letter to personalize.
For more information, contact AKC’s Government Relations Department at (919) 816-3720, or e-mail doglaw@akc.org.
Senate Bill 460
a bill that seeks to unnecessarily regulate the operations of dog breeders in North Carolina remains under consideration in the state Senate. The AKC believes the bill is likely to be scheduled for consideration by the full Senate as early as This Tuesday. With your help and participation over the next several days, we can prevent this bill from passing the Senate, and we can kill this bill for the remainder of the year.
The American Kennel Club and the North Carolina Federation of Dog Clubs continue to oppose SB 460. The state Department of Agriculture does not support this bill. Your Senators need to hear that you, their constituents, also oppose this bill.
We have already made a difference. Thanks to the calls and letters that you sent to North Carolina Senators early this month, the Senate delayed voting on the bill on July 8. We are now approaching the end of the session, and it is imperative that we send the message once again that responsible dog owners and breeders oppose this onerous, unnecessary, and expensive legislation.
Problematic provisions of SB 460 include the following:
•Vague definition of "commercial breeder". Commercial breeder" is defined as someone who owns 15 or more intact females "of breeding age" and 30 or more puppies." It is unclear if these numbers refer to the number of dogs on the property at one time, or if this is cumulative over the course of a year. The bill makes a special exception for some kennels or establishments that operate for the purpose of boarding or training certain dogs. However, it is unclear if breeders who also train and sell puppies are exempt from the licensing requirement.
•Inspections of private property at any time. The bill allows law enforcement and local animal control to search the homes and private property at any time of day or night of anyone who falls under the definition of "commercial breeder".
•Allowing for seizure of animals for those who do not comply with the new regulations—with no opportunity to come into compliance. If a commercial breeder is unlicensed, animals will be subject to immediate seizure and impoundment and may be sold or euthanized. The AKC believes that breeders should be given the opportunity to come into compliance with the law.
•Directive for the NC Department of Agriculture to develop standards of care with no public input. SB 460 calls for the Department of Agriculture to develop care and condition policies for dogs belonging to commercial breeders. This does not allow for any input from dog breeders and others who are experts in animal care.
Senate Bill 460 will do nothing to address irresponsible breeding, consumer protection, or cruelty/negligence, but it will cost the state over $400,000 a year to enforce. At a time when our state is facing a projected $4 billion budget gap, enforcement of existing laws would be a better use of taxpayers’ money.
WHAT YOU CAN DO:
Contact your Senators, identify yourself as a constituent (tell them the town you live in), tell them you oppose SB 460, and respectfully urge them to also oppose this bill. We ask that should you decide to e-mail, you also call their offices.
See links below for assistance in contacting your Senator.
To find your Senator, visit the North Carolina General Assembly web site and type your zip code in the "Who Represents Me?" box on the right side of the page.
View basic phone scripts for breeders and fanciers.
Click here for a sample letter to personalize.
For more information, contact AKC’s Government Relations Department at (919) 816-3720, or e-mail doglaw@akc.org.
Friday, July 10, 2009
MA- July 14 is a big day for dog law
Massachusetts Alert: 15 Bills to be Heard on Tuesday, July 14th!
From AKC
[Thursday, July 09, 2009]
The Massachusetts legislature’s Joint Committee on Municipalities and Regional Government has scheduled consideration of 14 dog-related bills at its meeting on Tuesday, July 14th. Another bill of importance, HB 344 (see info, below) will be heard concurrently by the Joint Judiciary Committee. The American Kennel Club (AKC) and its Massachusetts federation, the Massachusetts Federation of Dog Clubs and Responsible Dog Owners (MassFed), encourage all responsible dog breeders and owners in Massachusetts to take action: attend Tuesday’s committee hearings, and/or contact the committee members and your elected officials in Massachusetts and let them know whether you support or oppose the bills (as highlighted below) they will consider on Tuesday.
Bills of concern to be heard by the Joint Committee on Municipalities and Regional Government (Tuesday, July 14; 10AM, Room A-2 of the State House in Boston):
The AKC and MassFed both support HB 1977, which seeks to strengthen Massachusetts’ dangerous dog laws. Its provisions include:
•Allowing dogs previously declared to be “at risk” to have the designation removed if the dog does not exhibit “at risk” behavior within 24 months after being designated as “at risk”
•Providing for duties of local animal control when a dog is declared “at risk”.
•Providing for duties of local animal control when a dog is declared as “dangerous”.
•Includes due process protections for dog owners.
The AKC and MassFed both oppose HB 1997, which seeks to impose many controversial new dog laws, including:
•Requiring that dog owners with intact dogs acquire an intact animal permit along with a health certificate (which will require state-prescribed vaccination protocols) while in compliance with all other licensing laws. Municipalities are to set the fees for intact animal permits by rule.
•Allowing municipalities to ban or further regulate specific breeds of dogs.
•Deeming certain commonplace acts as nuisance behaviors, the punishment for which could result in euthanization of the animal.
•Severely limiting the means by which an owner may humanely restrain their dog.
The AKC and MassFed both also oppose SB 774, which seeks to severely restrict the rights and operations of most responsible dog breeders in Massachusetts, including:
•Requiring anyone with four or more dogs to obtain a kennel license.
•Limiting the number of intact dogs six months of age or older a person may own to 25.
•Restricting the breeding of dogs to those between the ages of 18 months and eight years of age.
•Imposing strict, hard-to-comply-with, and expensive engineering standards for kennels.
•Allowing inspections of kennels, including private residences, without notice and at any time.
•Mandating strict exercise requirements for dogs kept in a kennel.
Other bills which will be considered by the Joint Municipalities Committee include HB 3704 (animal shelters), SB 763 (dangerous dog registry), SB 778 (spay/neuter fund), HB 1968 (dangerous dogs), HB 1969 (seizure/impoundment), HB 1975 (cat sterilization), HB 2008 (vicious dogs), HB 2015 (vicious dogs), HB 2016 (vicious dogs), HB 3589 (veterinary technicians), and SB 784 (rabies vaccinations). Click here to read MassFed’s positions.
WHAT YOU CAN DO:
It is imperative that all concerned responsible dog breeders and owners in Massachusetts contact the members of the Joint Committee on Municipalities and Regional Government listed below. Let them know that you support HB 1977, and oppose both HB 1997 and SB 774.
Senator James B. Eldridge, Chair
Room 213-A
State House
Boston, MA 02133
Telephone: (617) 722-1120
Fax: (617) 722-1089
James.Eldridge@state.ma.us
Senator Patricia D. Jehlen, Vice-Chair
Room 513
State House
Boston, MA 02133
Telephone: 617-722-1578
Fax:617-722-1117
Patricia.Jehlen@state.ma.us
Senator Susan C. Fargo
State House
Room 504
Boston, MA 02133
Telephone: (617) 722-1572
Susan.Fargo@state.ma.us
Senator Anthony D. Galluccio
State House
Room 218
Boston, MA 02133
Telephone: (617) 722-1650
Anthony.Galluccio@state.ma.us
Senator Thomas P. Kennedy
State House
Room 109-E
Boston, MA 02133
Telephone: (617) 722-1200
Thomas.P.Kennedy@state.ma.us
Senator Richard R. Tisei
State House
Room 308
Boston, MA 02133
Telephone: (617) 722-1206
Fax: (617) 722-1063
Richard.Tisei@state.ma.us
Representative Paul J. Donato
State House
Room 540
Boston, MA 02133
Telephone: 617-722-2090
Fax: 617-722-2848
Rep.PaulDonato@hou.state.ma.us
Representative Joyce A. Spiliotis
State House
Room 236
Boston, MA 02133
Telephone: 617-722-2430
Rep.JoyceSpiliotis@hou.state.ma.us
Representative David B. Sullivan
State House
Room 279
Boston, MA 02133
Telephone:617-722-2230
Fax: 617-722-2821
Rep.DavidSullivan@hou.state.ma.us
Representative Sean Curran
State House
Room 473B
Boston, MA 02133
Telephone: 617-722-2263
Rep.SeanCurran@Hou.State.MA.US
Representative Angelo J. Puppolo, Jr.
State House
Room 146
Boston, MA 02133
Telephone: 617-722-2011
Fax: 617-722-2238
Rep.AngeloPuppolo@Hou.State.MA.US
Representative Pam Richardson
State House
Room 448
Boston, MA 02133
Telephone: 617-722-2582
Fax: 617-722-2879
Rep.PamRichardson@hou.state.ma.us
Representative Katherine Clark
State House
Room 252
Boston, MA 02133
Telephone: 617-722-2220
Fax: 617-722-2850
Rep.KatherineClark@HOU.State.MA.US
Representative Brian M. Ashe
State House
Room 540
Boston, MA 02133
Telephone: 617-722-2090
Fax: 617-722-2848
Rep.BrianAshe@hou.state.ma.us
Representative Timothy R. Madden
State House
Room 167
Boston, MA 02133
Telephone: 617-722-2810
Fax: 617-722-2846
Rep.TimothyMadden@hou.state.ma.us
Representative F. Jay Barrows
State House
Room 542
Boston, MA 02133
Telephone: 617-722-2488
Fax: 617-722-2390
Rep.FJayBarrows@hou.state.ma.us
Representative Robert S. Hargraves
State House
Room 237
Boston, MA 02133
Telephone: 617-722-2305
Fax: 617-722-2598
Rep.RobertHargraves@hou.state.ma.us
At Noon on July 14th, a different committee, the Joint Committee on the Judiciary, will consider House Bill 344, which seeks to:
•Make it illegal to debark a dog in Massachusetts in most circumstances.
•Impose unreasonable penalties, including imprisonment of up to five years and/or a fine of not more than $2,500, for those found in violation of the bill.
The AKC believes that much misinformation exists about debarking of dogs. When performed by a veterinarian, debarking is an acceptable medical procedure that is often done as a "last resort" when all other methods of modifying a dog's behavior have failed. For many responsible dog owners, debarking is the only alternative to euthanizing or surrendering their canine companion to a local shelter when their pet's noisy behavior continually disturbs the community. The decision to debark a dog is one that is best left to the dog owner and his veterinarian.
Both the AKC and MassFed oppose House Bill 344.
WHAT YOU CAN DO:
All concerned responsible dog breeders and owners in Massachusetts are strongly encouraged to attend Tuesday’s hearing in opposition to HB 344 (Gardner Auditorium, State House, Boston); and/or to contact the members of the Joint Committee on the Judiciary and let them know that you oppose HB 344, and encourage them to do the same.
Senator Cynthia Stone Creem, Chair
State House
Room 416-B
Boston, MA 02133
Telephone: (617) 722-1639
Cynthia.Creem@state.ma.us
Senator Steven A. Baddour, Vice-Chair
State House
Room 208
Boston, MA 02133
Telephone: (617) 722-1604
Steven.Baddour@state.ma.us
Senator Gale D. Candaras
State House
Room 213B
Boston, MA 02133
Telephone: 617-722-1291
Fax: 617-722-1014
Gale.Candaras@State.MA.US
Senator Jack Hart
State House
Room 109-C
Boston, MA 02133
Telephone: (617) 722-1150
John.Hart@state.ma.us
Senator Thomas M. McGee
State House
Room 112
Boston, MA 02133
Telephone: (617) 722-1350
Thomas.McGee@state.ma.us
Senator Bruce E. Tarr
State House
Room 313-A
Boston, MA 02133
Telephone: (617) 722-1600
Bruce.Tarr@state.ma.us
Representative Eugene L. O’Flaherty
State House
Room 136
Boston, MA 02133
Telephone: 617-722-2396
Fax: 617-722-2819
Rep.GeneOFlaherty@hou.state.ma.us
Representative Christopher N. Speranzo
State House
Room 136
Boston, MA 02133
Telephone: 617-722-2396
Rep.ChristopherSperanzo@Hou.State.MA.US
Representative James H. Fagan
State House
Room 236
Boston, MA 02133
Telephone: 617-722-2430
Fax: 617-722-2346
Rep.JamesFagan@hou.state.ma.us
Representative Colleen M. Garry
State House
Room 238
Boston, MA 02133
Telephone: 617-722-2380
Fax: 617-722-2847
Rep.ColleenGarry@hou.state.ma.us
Representative Marie P. St. Fleur
State House
Room 43
Boston, MA 02133
Telephone: 617-722-2030
Rep.MarieSt.Fleur@hou.state.ma.us
Representative John V. Fernandes
State House
Room 136
Boston, MA 02133
Telephone: 617-722-2396
Fax: 617-722-2215
Rep.JohnFernandes@Hou.State.MA.US
Representative Katherine Clark
State House
Room 252
Boston, MA 02133
Telephone: 617-722-2220
Fax: 617-722-2850
Rep.KatherineClark@HOU.State.MA.US
Representative James J. Dwyer
State House
Room 39
Boston, MA 02133
Telephone: 617-722-2014
Fax: 617-626-0831
Rep.JamesJDwyer@hou.state.ma.us
Representative Danielle W. Gregoire
State House
Room 26
Boston, MA 02133
Telephone: 617-722-2080
Rep.DanielleGregoire@hou.state.ma.us
Representative Lewis G. Evangelidis
State House
Room 473B
Boston, MA 02133
Telephone: 617-722-2263
Rep.LewisEvangelidis@hou.state.ma.us
Representative Daniel K. Webster
State House
Room 542
Boston, MA 02133
Telephone: 617-722-2487
Rep.DanielWebster@hou.state.ma.us
For more information, contact AKC’s Government Relations Department at (919) 816-3720, or e-mail doglaw@akc.org; or contact the Massachusetts Federation of Dog Clubs and Responsible Owners at www.massfeddogs.org.
From AKC
[Thursday, July 09, 2009]
The Massachusetts legislature’s Joint Committee on Municipalities and Regional Government has scheduled consideration of 14 dog-related bills at its meeting on Tuesday, July 14th. Another bill of importance, HB 344 (see info, below) will be heard concurrently by the Joint Judiciary Committee. The American Kennel Club (AKC) and its Massachusetts federation, the Massachusetts Federation of Dog Clubs and Responsible Dog Owners (MassFed), encourage all responsible dog breeders and owners in Massachusetts to take action: attend Tuesday’s committee hearings, and/or contact the committee members and your elected officials in Massachusetts and let them know whether you support or oppose the bills (as highlighted below) they will consider on Tuesday.
Bills of concern to be heard by the Joint Committee on Municipalities and Regional Government (Tuesday, July 14; 10AM, Room A-2 of the State House in Boston):
The AKC and MassFed both support HB 1977, which seeks to strengthen Massachusetts’ dangerous dog laws. Its provisions include:
•Allowing dogs previously declared to be “at risk” to have the designation removed if the dog does not exhibit “at risk” behavior within 24 months after being designated as “at risk”
•Providing for duties of local animal control when a dog is declared “at risk”.
•Providing for duties of local animal control when a dog is declared as “dangerous”.
•Includes due process protections for dog owners.
The AKC and MassFed both oppose HB 1997, which seeks to impose many controversial new dog laws, including:
•Requiring that dog owners with intact dogs acquire an intact animal permit along with a health certificate (which will require state-prescribed vaccination protocols) while in compliance with all other licensing laws. Municipalities are to set the fees for intact animal permits by rule.
•Allowing municipalities to ban or further regulate specific breeds of dogs.
•Deeming certain commonplace acts as nuisance behaviors, the punishment for which could result in euthanization of the animal.
•Severely limiting the means by which an owner may humanely restrain their dog.
The AKC and MassFed both also oppose SB 774, which seeks to severely restrict the rights and operations of most responsible dog breeders in Massachusetts, including:
•Requiring anyone with four or more dogs to obtain a kennel license.
•Limiting the number of intact dogs six months of age or older a person may own to 25.
•Restricting the breeding of dogs to those between the ages of 18 months and eight years of age.
•Imposing strict, hard-to-comply-with, and expensive engineering standards for kennels.
•Allowing inspections of kennels, including private residences, without notice and at any time.
•Mandating strict exercise requirements for dogs kept in a kennel.
Other bills which will be considered by the Joint Municipalities Committee include HB 3704 (animal shelters), SB 763 (dangerous dog registry), SB 778 (spay/neuter fund), HB 1968 (dangerous dogs), HB 1969 (seizure/impoundment), HB 1975 (cat sterilization), HB 2008 (vicious dogs), HB 2015 (vicious dogs), HB 2016 (vicious dogs), HB 3589 (veterinary technicians), and SB 784 (rabies vaccinations). Click here to read MassFed’s positions.
WHAT YOU CAN DO:
It is imperative that all concerned responsible dog breeders and owners in Massachusetts contact the members of the Joint Committee on Municipalities and Regional Government listed below. Let them know that you support HB 1977, and oppose both HB 1997 and SB 774.
Senator James B. Eldridge, Chair
Room 213-A
State House
Boston, MA 02133
Telephone: (617) 722-1120
Fax: (617) 722-1089
James.Eldridge@state.ma.us
Senator Patricia D. Jehlen, Vice-Chair
Room 513
State House
Boston, MA 02133
Telephone: 617-722-1578
Fax:617-722-1117
Patricia.Jehlen@state.ma.us
Senator Susan C. Fargo
State House
Room 504
Boston, MA 02133
Telephone: (617) 722-1572
Susan.Fargo@state.ma.us
Senator Anthony D. Galluccio
State House
Room 218
Boston, MA 02133
Telephone: (617) 722-1650
Anthony.Galluccio@state.ma.us
Senator Thomas P. Kennedy
State House
Room 109-E
Boston, MA 02133
Telephone: (617) 722-1200
Thomas.P.Kennedy@state.ma.us
Senator Richard R. Tisei
State House
Room 308
Boston, MA 02133
Telephone: (617) 722-1206
Fax: (617) 722-1063
Richard.Tisei@state.ma.us
Representative Paul J. Donato
State House
Room 540
Boston, MA 02133
Telephone: 617-722-2090
Fax: 617-722-2848
Rep.PaulDonato@hou.state.ma.us
Representative Joyce A. Spiliotis
State House
Room 236
Boston, MA 02133
Telephone: 617-722-2430
Rep.JoyceSpiliotis@hou.state.ma.us
Representative David B. Sullivan
State House
Room 279
Boston, MA 02133
Telephone:617-722-2230
Fax: 617-722-2821
Rep.DavidSullivan@hou.state.ma.us
Representative Sean Curran
State House
Room 473B
Boston, MA 02133
Telephone: 617-722-2263
Rep.SeanCurran@Hou.State.MA.US
Representative Angelo J. Puppolo, Jr.
State House
Room 146
Boston, MA 02133
Telephone: 617-722-2011
Fax: 617-722-2238
Rep.AngeloPuppolo@Hou.State.MA.US
Representative Pam Richardson
State House
Room 448
Boston, MA 02133
Telephone: 617-722-2582
Fax: 617-722-2879
Rep.PamRichardson@hou.state.ma.us
Representative Katherine Clark
State House
Room 252
Boston, MA 02133
Telephone: 617-722-2220
Fax: 617-722-2850
Rep.KatherineClark@HOU.State.MA.US
Representative Brian M. Ashe
State House
Room 540
Boston, MA 02133
Telephone: 617-722-2090
Fax: 617-722-2848
Rep.BrianAshe@hou.state.ma.us
Representative Timothy R. Madden
State House
Room 167
Boston, MA 02133
Telephone: 617-722-2810
Fax: 617-722-2846
Rep.TimothyMadden@hou.state.ma.us
Representative F. Jay Barrows
State House
Room 542
Boston, MA 02133
Telephone: 617-722-2488
Fax: 617-722-2390
Rep.FJayBarrows@hou.state.ma.us
Representative Robert S. Hargraves
State House
Room 237
Boston, MA 02133
Telephone: 617-722-2305
Fax: 617-722-2598
Rep.RobertHargraves@hou.state.ma.us
At Noon on July 14th, a different committee, the Joint Committee on the Judiciary, will consider House Bill 344, which seeks to:
•Make it illegal to debark a dog in Massachusetts in most circumstances.
•Impose unreasonable penalties, including imprisonment of up to five years and/or a fine of not more than $2,500, for those found in violation of the bill.
The AKC believes that much misinformation exists about debarking of dogs. When performed by a veterinarian, debarking is an acceptable medical procedure that is often done as a "last resort" when all other methods of modifying a dog's behavior have failed. For many responsible dog owners, debarking is the only alternative to euthanizing or surrendering their canine companion to a local shelter when their pet's noisy behavior continually disturbs the community. The decision to debark a dog is one that is best left to the dog owner and his veterinarian.
Both the AKC and MassFed oppose House Bill 344.
WHAT YOU CAN DO:
All concerned responsible dog breeders and owners in Massachusetts are strongly encouraged to attend Tuesday’s hearing in opposition to HB 344 (Gardner Auditorium, State House, Boston); and/or to contact the members of the Joint Committee on the Judiciary and let them know that you oppose HB 344, and encourage them to do the same.
Senator Cynthia Stone Creem, Chair
State House
Room 416-B
Boston, MA 02133
Telephone: (617) 722-1639
Cynthia.Creem@state.ma.us
Senator Steven A. Baddour, Vice-Chair
State House
Room 208
Boston, MA 02133
Telephone: (617) 722-1604
Steven.Baddour@state.ma.us
Senator Gale D. Candaras
State House
Room 213B
Boston, MA 02133
Telephone: 617-722-1291
Fax: 617-722-1014
Gale.Candaras@State.MA.US
Senator Jack Hart
State House
Room 109-C
Boston, MA 02133
Telephone: (617) 722-1150
John.Hart@state.ma.us
Senator Thomas M. McGee
State House
Room 112
Boston, MA 02133
Telephone: (617) 722-1350
Thomas.McGee@state.ma.us
Senator Bruce E. Tarr
State House
Room 313-A
Boston, MA 02133
Telephone: (617) 722-1600
Bruce.Tarr@state.ma.us
Representative Eugene L. O’Flaherty
State House
Room 136
Boston, MA 02133
Telephone: 617-722-2396
Fax: 617-722-2819
Rep.GeneOFlaherty@hou.state.ma.us
Representative Christopher N. Speranzo
State House
Room 136
Boston, MA 02133
Telephone: 617-722-2396
Rep.ChristopherSperanzo@Hou.State.MA.US
Representative James H. Fagan
State House
Room 236
Boston, MA 02133
Telephone: 617-722-2430
Fax: 617-722-2346
Rep.JamesFagan@hou.state.ma.us
Representative Colleen M. Garry
State House
Room 238
Boston, MA 02133
Telephone: 617-722-2380
Fax: 617-722-2847
Rep.ColleenGarry@hou.state.ma.us
Representative Marie P. St. Fleur
State House
Room 43
Boston, MA 02133
Telephone: 617-722-2030
Rep.MarieSt.Fleur@hou.state.ma.us
Representative John V. Fernandes
State House
Room 136
Boston, MA 02133
Telephone: 617-722-2396
Fax: 617-722-2215
Rep.JohnFernandes@Hou.State.MA.US
Representative Katherine Clark
State House
Room 252
Boston, MA 02133
Telephone: 617-722-2220
Fax: 617-722-2850
Rep.KatherineClark@HOU.State.MA.US
Representative James J. Dwyer
State House
Room 39
Boston, MA 02133
Telephone: 617-722-2014
Fax: 617-626-0831
Rep.JamesJDwyer@hou.state.ma.us
Representative Danielle W. Gregoire
State House
Room 26
Boston, MA 02133
Telephone: 617-722-2080
Rep.DanielleGregoire@hou.state.ma.us
Representative Lewis G. Evangelidis
State House
Room 473B
Boston, MA 02133
Telephone: 617-722-2263
Rep.LewisEvangelidis@hou.state.ma.us
Representative Daniel K. Webster
State House
Room 542
Boston, MA 02133
Telephone: 617-722-2487
Rep.DanielWebster@hou.state.ma.us
For more information, contact AKC’s Government Relations Department at (919) 816-3720, or e-mail doglaw@akc.org; or contact the Massachusetts Federation of Dog Clubs and Responsible Owners at www.massfeddogs.org.
Sunday, June 21, 2009
CA- Legislators consider a limit on pet ownership
California Legislators Consider Bill on Limiting Ownership of Intact Dogs and Cats
California legislators are poised to hear a measure that seeks to
limit the number of intact dogs and cats a person may own. The state
Assembly recently approved the bill, and the Senate Committee on
Public Safety is scheduled to hear the proposal on June 23.
Assembly Bill 241 would prohibit any person from having more than a
combined total of 50 unsterilized dogs and cats that are kept for
breeding or raised for sale as pets. Those in possession of more than
that would have to spay or neuter the excess animals or sell, transfer
or relinquish the animals within 30 days. If necessary, any euthanasia
procedures would have to be performed by a licensed veterinarian or
other qualified person as pursuant to regulations adopted by the
Veterinary Medical Board.
AB 241 authorizes a peace officer, humane officer or animal control
officer to take possession of any animal that is kept in violation.
Violators would be guilty of a misdemeanor.
The Pet Industry Joint Advisory Council (PIJAC) has issued an alert
stating that AB 241 would impose an “irrational ban on the possession
of dogs and cats irrespective of the quality of care provided to the
animals.” PIJAC argues that there is no correlation between the size
of a breeding facility and the quality of care provided to the
animals. According to the organization, the only way to ensure humane
care of animals is to establish and enforce reasonable standards under
which breeders may keep them.
PIJAC specifically expressed concern that the bill would “require the
euthanasia or relinquishment of dogs and cats that are perfectly
healthy and being maintained with the best possible care in the finest
facilities.” PIJAC also claimed that the bill would increase the
incidences of defects in dogs and cats by limiting the diversity in
breeding stock.
In its alert, PIJAC called on members of the pet industry and the
public to contact state Senators and members of the Senate Committee
on Public Safety and speak out against the proposed bill.
Click here to view the bill.
http://www.petproductnews.com/headlines/2009/06/18/california-legislators-to-consider-bill-on-limiting-ownership-of-intact-dogs-and-cats.aspx
California Legislators to Consider Bill on Limiting Ownership of Intact Dogs and Cats
Posted: Thursday, June 18, 2009, 4:22 p.m., EDT
California legislators are poised to hear a measure that seeks to limit the number of intact dogs and cats a person may own. The state Assembly recently approved the bill, and the Senate Committee on Public Safety is scheduled to hear the proposal on June 23.
Assembly Bill 241 would prohibit any person from having more than a combined total of 50 unsterilized dogs and cats that are kept for breeding or raised for sale as pets. Those in possession of more than that would have to spay or neuter the excess animals or sell, transfer or relinquish the animals within 30 days. If necessary, any euthanasia procedures would have to be performed by a licensed veterinarian or other qualified person as pursuant to regulations adopted by the Veterinary Medical Board.
AB 241 authorizes a peace officer, humane officer or animal control officer to take possession of any animal that is kept in violation. Violators would be guilty of a misdemeanor.
The Pet Industry Joint Advisory Council (PIJAC) has issued an alert stating that AB 241 would impose an “irrational ban on the possession of dogs and cats irrespective of the quality of care provided to the animals.” PIJAC argues that there is no correlation between the size of a breeding facility and the quality of care provided to the animals. According to the organization, the only way to ensure humane care of animals is to establish and enforce reasonable standards under which breeders may keep them.
PIJAC specifically expressed concern that the bill would “require the euthanasia or relinquishment of dogs and cats that are perfectly healthy and being maintained with the best possible care in the finest facilities.” PIJAC also claimed that the bill would increase the incidences of defects in dogs and cats by limiting the diversity in breeding stock.
In its alert, PIJAC called on members of the pet industry and the public to contact state Senators and members of the Senate Committee on Public Safety and speak out against the proposed bill.
California legislators are poised to hear a measure that seeks to
limit the number of intact dogs and cats a person may own. The state
Assembly recently approved the bill, and the Senate Committee on
Public Safety is scheduled to hear the proposal on June 23.
Assembly Bill 241 would prohibit any person from having more than a
combined total of 50 unsterilized dogs and cats that are kept for
breeding or raised for sale as pets. Those in possession of more than
that would have to spay or neuter the excess animals or sell, transfer
or relinquish the animals within 30 days. If necessary, any euthanasia
procedures would have to be performed by a licensed veterinarian or
other qualified person as pursuant to regulations adopted by the
Veterinary Medical Board.
AB 241 authorizes a peace officer, humane officer or animal control
officer to take possession of any animal that is kept in violation.
Violators would be guilty of a misdemeanor.
The Pet Industry Joint Advisory Council (PIJAC) has issued an alert
stating that AB 241 would impose an “irrational ban on the possession
of dogs and cats irrespective of the quality of care provided to the
animals.” PIJAC argues that there is no correlation between the size
of a breeding facility and the quality of care provided to the
animals. According to the organization, the only way to ensure humane
care of animals is to establish and enforce reasonable standards under
which breeders may keep them.
PIJAC specifically expressed concern that the bill would “require the
euthanasia or relinquishment of dogs and cats that are perfectly
healthy and being maintained with the best possible care in the finest
facilities.” PIJAC also claimed that the bill would increase the
incidences of defects in dogs and cats by limiting the diversity in
breeding stock.
In its alert, PIJAC called on members of the pet industry and the
public to contact state Senators and members of the Senate Committee
on Public Safety and speak out against the proposed bill.
Click here to view the bill.
http://www.petproductnews.com/headlines/2009/06/18/california-legislators-to-consider-bill-on-limiting-ownership-of-intact-dogs-and-cats.aspx
California Legislators to Consider Bill on Limiting Ownership of Intact Dogs and Cats
Posted: Thursday, June 18, 2009, 4:22 p.m., EDT
California legislators are poised to hear a measure that seeks to limit the number of intact dogs and cats a person may own. The state Assembly recently approved the bill, and the Senate Committee on Public Safety is scheduled to hear the proposal on June 23.
Assembly Bill 241 would prohibit any person from having more than a combined total of 50 unsterilized dogs and cats that are kept for breeding or raised for sale as pets. Those in possession of more than that would have to spay or neuter the excess animals or sell, transfer or relinquish the animals within 30 days. If necessary, any euthanasia procedures would have to be performed by a licensed veterinarian or other qualified person as pursuant to regulations adopted by the Veterinary Medical Board.
AB 241 authorizes a peace officer, humane officer or animal control officer to take possession of any animal that is kept in violation. Violators would be guilty of a misdemeanor.
The Pet Industry Joint Advisory Council (PIJAC) has issued an alert stating that AB 241 would impose an “irrational ban on the possession of dogs and cats irrespective of the quality of care provided to the animals.” PIJAC argues that there is no correlation between the size of a breeding facility and the quality of care provided to the animals. According to the organization, the only way to ensure humane care of animals is to establish and enforce reasonable standards under which breeders may keep them.
PIJAC specifically expressed concern that the bill would “require the euthanasia or relinquishment of dogs and cats that are perfectly healthy and being maintained with the best possible care in the finest facilities.” PIJAC also claimed that the bill would increase the incidences of defects in dogs and cats by limiting the diversity in breeding stock.
In its alert, PIJAC called on members of the pet industry and the public to contact state Senators and members of the Senate Committee on Public Safety and speak out against the proposed bill.
Thursday, May 14, 2009
TX- HB 3180 "Puppymill Bill"
May 13, 2009
There's a lot of confusion regarding what's happening at the Texas State Legislature. RPOA can't broadcast all we're doing but will send alerts when we need your help with clear instructions. FORGET ABOUT HB 2310.
Call and tell your senator you are passionate about your animals and will not vote for him if he votes for HB 3180 nor will you financially support him/her in the future!
The bill that has been received in the Senate is HB 3180 and that is the bill we MUST DEFEAT. The Engrossed Version of HB 3180 that passed on the House Floor is on the state's website:
www.capitol.state.tx.us
As you know from past experience, all rules can be suspended and this bill could be passed in record time. So get on the horn! We can still kill this bill if each of you contact your senator and explain that this bill is not about "puppymills" at all.
It takes 21 Senate votes to get it to a Floor Vote. That is out of 31 senators. So let's get busy. We can do this! Just a couple more weeks to go.
Ask your senator how he or she is going to vote and let us know. It's a good idea to start contacting Governor Rick Perry -- just in case.
Find out who represents you: http://www.fyi.legis.state.tx.us/
Some talking points are below:
HB 3180, the misnamed "Puppymill Bill," by Thompson
* Will our senators stand up to the political powers in Austin to do what is right or will they let pet owners down as the House did? Do they own pets now and hope to own pets in the future?
* If every dog and cat in Texas is sterilized (as mandated in Senator Van de Putte's bill) and breeders face overly restrictive regulations (as in Representative Thompson's bill), where will pets come from in the future?
* Animal owners all over the country have their eyes on Texas to see how our legislators vote this session on anti-pet bills.
* HB 3180 is being sold as a "Puppymill" Bill and it is not. It regulates anyone that sells a dog or cat in the state whether they bred it or not, even rescuers. This is a big misconception.
* This is a radical national legislative agenda from Humane Society of the U.S. (HSUS) who have no connection to local humane societies. HSUS is an "animal rights" organization opposed to all use of animals for food, clothing, medical research, entertainment, including pet "ownership," preferring to call us pet "guardians.
* This bill will not stop anything as there are already strict animal cruelty laws in Texas and USDA regulates brokers and commercial breeders who sell to pet shops. Raids are made and animals seized on a regular basis in substandard facilities.
* HSUS uses sad pictures to sell all their legislation which is never written as publicized. The general public has no idea what is in this bill. They will find out eventually.
* Chapter 803. Dog and Cat Dealers; Subchapter A. General Provisions; Sec. 803.002. Definitions. In this chapter: (6) "Dealer means a person who is required to collect sales tax for the sale of animals to a retail purchaser. The term does not include a humane society or local animal control authority."
If this were a public health and safety issue as claimed, humane societies and animal controls should have to be classified as "dealers" also.
* "Commercial Breeder is defined as a person who possesses adult intact female animals that produce 20 or more litters in one calendar year and is engaged in the business of breeding animals for sale."
This will be a bureaucratic nightmare to enforce.
* The bill sets up a whole new expensive state bureaucracy for regulations and enforcement in a time of economic downturn all across the country.
* "Registered Breeder Inspector means an individual employed and certified by the department to conduct investigations and inspections under this chapter."
This can be "animal rights" zealots like those who dressed as Klansmen and demonstrated at the Westminster Dog Show or the PETA members who demonstrate at every zoo, rodeo and circus protesting the use of animals.
Do we want these radical extremists coming into our homes for inspections and investigations?
I don't think so!
RPOA Texas Outreach (501C4 Nonprofit)
www.rpoatexasoutreach.org
Responsible Pet Owners Alliance (501C3 Nonprofit)
www.responsiblepetowners.org
There's a lot of confusion regarding what's happening at the Texas State Legislature. RPOA can't broadcast all we're doing but will send alerts when we need your help with clear instructions. FORGET ABOUT HB 2310.
Call and tell your senator you are passionate about your animals and will not vote for him if he votes for HB 3180 nor will you financially support him/her in the future!
The bill that has been received in the Senate is HB 3180 and that is the bill we MUST DEFEAT. The Engrossed Version of HB 3180 that passed on the House Floor is on the state's website:
www.capitol.state.tx.us
As you know from past experience, all rules can be suspended and this bill could be passed in record time. So get on the horn! We can still kill this bill if each of you contact your senator and explain that this bill is not about "puppymills" at all.
It takes 21 Senate votes to get it to a Floor Vote. That is out of 31 senators. So let's get busy. We can do this! Just a couple more weeks to go.
Ask your senator how he or she is going to vote and let us know. It's a good idea to start contacting Governor Rick Perry -- just in case.
Find out who represents you: http://www.fyi.legis.state.tx.us/
Some talking points are below:
HB 3180, the misnamed "Puppymill Bill," by Thompson
* Will our senators stand up to the political powers in Austin to do what is right or will they let pet owners down as the House did? Do they own pets now and hope to own pets in the future?
* If every dog and cat in Texas is sterilized (as mandated in Senator Van de Putte's bill) and breeders face overly restrictive regulations (as in Representative Thompson's bill), where will pets come from in the future?
* Animal owners all over the country have their eyes on Texas to see how our legislators vote this session on anti-pet bills.
* HB 3180 is being sold as a "Puppymill" Bill and it is not. It regulates anyone that sells a dog or cat in the state whether they bred it or not, even rescuers. This is a big misconception.
* This is a radical national legislative agenda from Humane Society of the U.S. (HSUS) who have no connection to local humane societies. HSUS is an "animal rights" organization opposed to all use of animals for food, clothing, medical research, entertainment, including pet "ownership," preferring to call us pet "guardians.
* This bill will not stop anything as there are already strict animal cruelty laws in Texas and USDA regulates brokers and commercial breeders who sell to pet shops. Raids are made and animals seized on a regular basis in substandard facilities.
* HSUS uses sad pictures to sell all their legislation which is never written as publicized. The general public has no idea what is in this bill. They will find out eventually.
* Chapter 803. Dog and Cat Dealers; Subchapter A. General Provisions; Sec. 803.002. Definitions. In this chapter: (6) "Dealer means a person who is required to collect sales tax for the sale of animals to a retail purchaser. The term does not include a humane society or local animal control authority."
If this were a public health and safety issue as claimed, humane societies and animal controls should have to be classified as "dealers" also.
* "Commercial Breeder is defined as a person who possesses adult intact female animals that produce 20 or more litters in one calendar year and is engaged in the business of breeding animals for sale."
This will be a bureaucratic nightmare to enforce.
* The bill sets up a whole new expensive state bureaucracy for regulations and enforcement in a time of economic downturn all across the country.
* "Registered Breeder Inspector means an individual employed and certified by the department to conduct investigations and inspections under this chapter."
This can be "animal rights" zealots like those who dressed as Klansmen and demonstrated at the Westminster Dog Show or the PETA members who demonstrate at every zoo, rodeo and circus protesting the use of animals.
Do we want these radical extremists coming into our homes for inspections and investigations?
I don't think so!
RPOA Texas Outreach (501C4 Nonprofit)
www.rpoatexasoutreach.org
Responsible Pet Owners Alliance (501C3 Nonprofit)
www.responsiblepetowners.org
Monday, May 11, 2009
TX- Breeder Regulatory Legislation is now very close to becoming LawBecause of procedural maneuvering in the Texas Legislature, harsh
Because of procedural maneuvering in the Texas Legislature, harsh
breeder regulatory legislation is now very close to becoming law in the
Lone Star State. It is vital that all concerned responsible dog
breeders and owners in Texas take immediate action in opposition to this
bill.
On Wednesday, May 6, Senator Tommy Williams of The Woodlands had House
Bill 2310 considered, which originally concerned the powers and duties
of the Texas Department of Licensing and Regulation. HB 2310 already
passed the House of Representatives, and was being considered by the
full Senate. Then, while the bill was being considered, Senator John
Whitmire of Houston, the chief sponsor of Senate Bill 1910, which seeks
to impose harsh regulations and limits on responsible dog breeders but
had until now received little attention from the Texas Senate, moved to
amend CSHB 2310, adding the same harsh breeder regulatory language to
this bill. The amendment was accepted. In short order, the Senate's
rules were suspended, allowing the full Senate to put the newly-amended
HB 2310 up for a final vote. The Senate voted unanimously in favor of HB
2310. (Click here for the Texas Senate Journal's entry detailing the
actions taken on HB 2310.)
These procedural moves effectively prevented concerned Texans from
exercising their right to speak out about this legislation. Now, the
bill will be sent back to the Texas House of Representatives for final
approval, also known as concurrence. AT THIS CRITICAL JUNCTURE, IT IS
VITAL THAT ALL RESPONSIBLE DOG BREEDERS AND OWNERS IN TEXAS FLOOD THE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES WITH LETTERS, CALLS, AND E-MAILS OF OPPOSITION.
URGE THE MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE TO NOT CONCUR WITH THE SENATE'S AMENDMENTS
TO HB 2310. ADDITIONALLY, ALL CONCERNED TEXANS SHOULD CONTACT GOVERNOR
PERRY AND EXPRESS THEIR RESPECTFUL YET STRONG OPPOSITION TO HB 2310 AND
THE PROCEDURAL MANEUVERING THAT DENIED TEXANS THEIR RIGHT TO BE HEARD.
If enacted, the amended HB 2310 will negatively affect many responsible
breeders in Texas. The AKC opposes these changes including the following
provisions:
* Defining "commercial breeder" as a person who possesses 11 or
more adult intact female animals and is engaged in the business of
breeding animals for direct or indirect sale or for exchange in return
for consideration.
* Requiring licensure of anyone considered a commercial breeder.
* Limiting commercial breeders from possessing more than 50 adult
intact female animals in a facility at any time.
WHAT YOU CAN DO:
It is imperative that all concerned Texans immediately contact their
member of the House of Representatives. Urge them to not concur with
the Senate's amendments to HB 2310. To find your Representative, go to
http://www.fyi.legis.state.tx.us/ and enter your information.
Contact Governor Rick Perry in opposition to this bill now.
Respectfully yet strongly let him know that you oppose HB 2310, and
insist that he veto this bill.
> Office of the Governor Rick Perry
> Mailing Address:
> P.O. Box 12428
> Austin, Texas 78711-2428
>
> Delivery Address:
> State Insurance Building
> 1100 San Jacinto
> Austin, Texas 78701
>
> Citizen's Opinion Hotline [for Texas callers]: (800) 252-9600
>
> Fax: (512) 463-1849
>
> To e-mail Governor Perry's office, go to
> http://governor.state.tx.us/contact/, click "I am registering my
> opinion", click "Submit", complete the information on the following
> page, and click "Submit".
breeder regulatory legislation is now very close to becoming law in the
Lone Star State. It is vital that all concerned responsible dog
breeders and owners in Texas take immediate action in opposition to this
bill.
On Wednesday, May 6, Senator Tommy Williams of The Woodlands had House
Bill 2310 considered, which originally concerned the powers and duties
of the Texas Department of Licensing and Regulation. HB 2310 already
passed the House of Representatives, and was being considered by the
full Senate. Then, while the bill was being considered, Senator John
Whitmire of Houston, the chief sponsor of Senate Bill 1910, which seeks
to impose harsh regulations and limits on responsible dog breeders but
had until now received little attention from the Texas Senate, moved to
amend CSHB 2310, adding the same harsh breeder regulatory language to
this bill. The amendment was accepted. In short order, the Senate's
rules were suspended, allowing the full Senate to put the newly-amended
HB 2310 up for a final vote. The Senate voted unanimously in favor of HB
2310. (Click here for the Texas Senate Journal's entry detailing the
actions taken on HB 2310.)
These procedural moves effectively prevented concerned Texans from
exercising their right to speak out about this legislation. Now, the
bill will be sent back to the Texas House of Representatives for final
approval, also known as concurrence. AT THIS CRITICAL JUNCTURE, IT IS
VITAL THAT ALL RESPONSIBLE DOG BREEDERS AND OWNERS IN TEXAS FLOOD THE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES WITH LETTERS, CALLS, AND E-MAILS OF OPPOSITION.
URGE THE MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE TO NOT CONCUR WITH THE SENATE'S AMENDMENTS
TO HB 2310. ADDITIONALLY, ALL CONCERNED TEXANS SHOULD CONTACT GOVERNOR
PERRY AND EXPRESS THEIR RESPECTFUL YET STRONG OPPOSITION TO HB 2310 AND
THE PROCEDURAL MANEUVERING THAT DENIED TEXANS THEIR RIGHT TO BE HEARD.
If enacted, the amended HB 2310 will negatively affect many responsible
breeders in Texas. The AKC opposes these changes including the following
provisions:
* Defining "commercial breeder" as a person who possesses 11 or
more adult intact female animals and is engaged in the business of
breeding animals for direct or indirect sale or for exchange in return
for consideration.
* Requiring licensure of anyone considered a commercial breeder.
* Limiting commercial breeders from possessing more than 50 adult
intact female animals in a facility at any time.
WHAT YOU CAN DO:
It is imperative that all concerned Texans immediately contact their
member of the House of Representatives. Urge them to not concur with
the Senate's amendments to HB 2310. To find your Representative, go to
http://www.fyi.legis.state.tx.us/ and enter your information.
Contact Governor Rick Perry in opposition to this bill now.
Respectfully yet strongly let him know that you oppose HB 2310, and
insist that he veto this bill.
> Office of the Governor Rick Perry
> Mailing Address:
> P.O. Box 12428
> Austin, Texas 78711-2428
>
> Delivery Address:
> State Insurance Building
> 1100 San Jacinto
> Austin, Texas 78701
>
> Citizen's Opinion Hotline [for Texas callers]: (800) 252-9600
>
> Fax: (512) 463-1849
>
> To e-mail Governor Perry's office, go to
> http://governor.state.tx.us/contact/, click "I am registering my
> opinion", click "Submit", complete the information on the following
> page, and click "Submit".
Thursday, April 30, 2009
Cracking down on “puppy mills”? , or just limiting your rights?
This year bills have been proposed in no fewer than 15 states claming to crack down on puppy mills, but upon reading the proposed bills, they do little more than set a limit for the number of intact dogs an individual can keep.
Today in North Carolina, Senate Bill 460- Commercial Breeding of Dogs, will be considered. This is one such bill that could set into law the definition of commercial breeder an arbitrary number of intact female dogs (15). Earlier this year Oregon considered House Bill 2470 which identified as few as 3 litters a year as a pet dealer ,which had legal ramifications, and limited anyone from possessing more than 25 intact dogs total. West Virginia was proposing to set the commercial breeder bar at 20 intact dogs, and finally in Arkansas, the limit was set at 12 dogs, and they didn’t even have to live on your property. Many hobby breeders jointly own dogs with other hobby breeders and obviously that dog is only located at one place at a time, so the proposal in Arkansas would cover that base.
Are these laws really cracking down on puppy mills, or are they just limiting the rights of American Citizens? There is no definition of a puppy mill, but each of these laws is including a definition of a commercial breeder which, when based on an arbitrary number that some law maker sound like “a lot of dogs” creates a regulatory system on a person’s life-style choice . The term puppy mill evokes an imagine of cramped housing, untreated wounds and filth in the mind’s of most Americans. It is this image that has recently, and repeatedly, been portrayed on television by organizations such as the Human Society of the United States (HSUS). This tactic is being used to build public support for so called puppy mill bills, but rarely is the public actually reading the bills that are being proposed.
Laws that impose numerical limits do nothing to address the concerns that most Americans have in regards to the so called puppy mills. They do nothing to protect the citizens of this great nation from one another, or others wishing to do us harm; they do nothing to improve the health and saftey of the residents of this great nation; but rather, only serve to limit the choice residents of this great nation have, and criminalize activities of otherwise ordinary citizens who think they live in the land of the free where having puppies is no one else's business but theirs.
Today in North Carolina, Senate Bill 460- Commercial Breeding of Dogs, will be considered. This is one such bill that could set into law the definition of commercial breeder an arbitrary number of intact female dogs (15). Earlier this year Oregon considered House Bill 2470 which identified as few as 3 litters a year as a pet dealer ,which had legal ramifications, and limited anyone from possessing more than 25 intact dogs total. West Virginia was proposing to set the commercial breeder bar at 20 intact dogs, and finally in Arkansas, the limit was set at 12 dogs, and they didn’t even have to live on your property. Many hobby breeders jointly own dogs with other hobby breeders and obviously that dog is only located at one place at a time, so the proposal in Arkansas would cover that base.
Are these laws really cracking down on puppy mills, or are they just limiting the rights of American Citizens? There is no definition of a puppy mill, but each of these laws is including a definition of a commercial breeder which, when based on an arbitrary number that some law maker sound like “a lot of dogs” creates a regulatory system on a person’s life-style choice . The term puppy mill evokes an imagine of cramped housing, untreated wounds and filth in the mind’s of most Americans. It is this image that has recently, and repeatedly, been portrayed on television by organizations such as the Human Society of the United States (HSUS). This tactic is being used to build public support for so called puppy mill bills, but rarely is the public actually reading the bills that are being proposed.
Laws that impose numerical limits do nothing to address the concerns that most Americans have in regards to the so called puppy mills. They do nothing to protect the citizens of this great nation from one another, or others wishing to do us harm; they do nothing to improve the health and saftey of the residents of this great nation; but rather, only serve to limit the choice residents of this great nation have, and criminalize activities of otherwise ordinary citizens who think they live in the land of the free where having puppies is no one else's business but theirs.
Wednesday, April 29, 2009
NC- SB 460 To Be Heard -TOMORROW
URGENT: North Carolina SB 460 Short title: Commercial Breeding of Dogs-To Be Heard Thursday, April 30, 9AM
Senate Bill 460 will be considered by the North Carolina Senate Commerce Committee on Thursday, April 30. Details are as follows:
DATE: Thursday, April 30, 2009
TIME: 9:00 AM – Please plan to be arrive no later than 8:30AM, dressed in professional attire.
LOCATION: Room 1027, Legislative Building, 16 W. Jones Street, Raleigh, NC 27601
All concerned responsible dog breeders and owners in North Carolina are encouraged to attend the hearing on Thursday in opposition to the bill. We need to show strong opposition to SB 460. While attendees will not be able to speak in opposition, NUMBERS MATTER! If you are unable to attend, please call or e-mail the members
This Act defines a commercial breeder as (5b) anyone who, during any 12-month period, maintains 15 or more adult female dogs for the primary purpose of the sale of their offspring as companion animals.
Remember- these dogs do not need to be currently having puppies- just that they are intact females and you intend to sell any offspring as a companion animal.
and defines a commercial breeding operation as (5c) the physical location or facility at which a commercial breeder breeds or maintains adult female dogs and their offspring. Yes- this implies your home if that is where you maintain your dogs. If your puppies are born in your bedroom, it is still part of a "commercial breeding operation"
Senate Bill 460 will be considered by the North Carolina Senate Commerce Committee on Thursday, April 30. Details are as follows:
DATE: Thursday, April 30, 2009
TIME: 9:00 AM – Please plan to be arrive no later than 8:30AM, dressed in professional attire.
LOCATION: Room 1027, Legislative Building, 16 W. Jones Street, Raleigh, NC 27601
All concerned responsible dog breeders and owners in North Carolina are encouraged to attend the hearing on Thursday in opposition to the bill. We need to show strong opposition to SB 460. While attendees will not be able to speak in opposition, NUMBERS MATTER! If you are unable to attend, please call or e-mail the members
This Act defines a commercial breeder as (5b) anyone who, during any 12-month period, maintains 15 or more adult female dogs for the primary purpose of the sale of their offspring as companion animals.
Remember- these dogs do not need to be currently having puppies- just that they are intact females and you intend to sell any offspring as a companion animal.
and defines a commercial breeding operation as (5c) the physical location or facility at which a commercial breeder breeds or maintains adult female dogs and their offspring. Yes- this implies your home if that is where you maintain your dogs. If your puppies are born in your bedroom, it is still part of a "commercial breeding operation"
Monday, March 30, 2009
OR- HB 2470 to be considered Monday, March 30th at 3:00
Oregon Alert! HB 2470 To Be Considered Monday, March 30
Oregon House Bill 2470, which seeks to severely limit the responsible breeding of dogs, will be heard by the Oregon House Consumer Protection Committee on Monday, March 30. The American Kennel Club and its Oregon federation, the National Animal Interest Alliance, both strongly oppose HB 2470, and encourage all concerned responsible dog breeders and owners in Oregon write or e-mail the committee members. Respectfully let them know that you oppose HB 2470.
House Bill 2470:
* Defines any breeder who sells more than 20 dogs, or 3 litters in a year, as a "pet dealer".
* Limits anyone from possessing more than 25 intact dogs four months of age or older.
* Imposes significant and cumbersome operational requirements on all dog owners who own 10 or more intact dogs.
* Mandates record-keeping requirements and certain disclosures at time of sale.
* Requires breeders to comply with an unreasonable consumer protection term of two years.
* Exempts shelters, veterinarians, pet stores, and research facilities from new standards of care.
WHAT YOU CAN DO:
The American Kennel Club and the National Animal Interest Alliance encourage all responsible dog breeders and owners to attend the committee hearing on March 30. Here are the details:
Oregon House Consumer Protection Committee Hearing
Monday, March 30, 2009
3:00 p.m.
Capitol, House Room E
Salem, Oregon 97301
We also urge all responsible dog breeders and owners in Oregon to contact their elected representatives and respectfully urge them to oppose House Bill 2470; and to contact the members of the House Consumer Protection Committee and strongly urge them to not report HB 2470 out of committee.
For tips on testifying before the House Consumer Protection Committee, please click here.
For a sample letter to personalize, please click here.
For an e-mail form that will automatically e-mail your elected representatives, please click here.
To find out whom your elected representatives are, please click here.
House Consumer Protection Committee Members:
Representative Paul Holvey, Chair
900 Court St. NE, H-275
Salem, OR 97301
PHONE: (503) 986-1408
E-MAIL: paulholvey@state.or.us
Representative Chuck Riley, Vice-Chair
900 Court St. NE, H-274
Salem, OR 97301
PHONE: (503) 986-1429
E-MAIL: chuckriley@state.or.us
Representative Jim Weidner, Vice-Chair900 Court St. NE, H-387
Salem, OR 97301
PHONE: (503) 986-1424
E-MAIL: jimweidner@state.or.us
Representative Brent Barton
900 Court St. NE, H-386
Salem, OR 97301
PHONE: (503) 986-1451
E-MAIL: brentbarton@state.or.us
Representative Jean Cowan
900 Court St. NE, H-376
Salem, OR 97301
PHONE: (503) 986-1410
E-MAIL: jeancowan@state.or.us
Representative Vic Gilliam
900 Court St. NE, H-384
Salem, OR 97301
PHONE: (503) 986-1418
E-MAIL: vicgilliam@state.or.us
Representative Wayne Krieger
900 Court St. NE, H-381
Salem, OR 97301
PHONE: (503) 986-1401
E-MAIL: waynekrieger@state.or.us
Representative Greg Matthews
900 Court St. NE, H-379
Salem, OR 97301
PHONE: (503) 986-1450
E-MAIL: gregmatthews@state.or.us
Representative Carolyn Tomei
900 Court St. NE, H-279
Salem, OR 97301
PHONE: (503) 986-1441
E-MAIL: carolyntomei@state.or.us
Representative Matt Wingard900 Court St. NE, H-474
Salem, OR 97301
PHONE: (503) 986-1426
E-MAIL: mattwingard@state.or.us
Oregon House Bill 2470, which seeks to severely limit the responsible breeding of dogs, will be heard by the Oregon House Consumer Protection Committee on Monday, March 30. The American Kennel Club and its Oregon federation, the National Animal Interest Alliance, both strongly oppose HB 2470, and encourage all concerned responsible dog breeders and owners in Oregon write or e-mail the committee members. Respectfully let them know that you oppose HB 2470.
House Bill 2470:
* Defines any breeder who sells more than 20 dogs, or 3 litters in a year, as a "pet dealer".
* Limits anyone from possessing more than 25 intact dogs four months of age or older.
* Imposes significant and cumbersome operational requirements on all dog owners who own 10 or more intact dogs.
* Mandates record-keeping requirements and certain disclosures at time of sale.
* Requires breeders to comply with an unreasonable consumer protection term of two years.
* Exempts shelters, veterinarians, pet stores, and research facilities from new standards of care.
WHAT YOU CAN DO:
The American Kennel Club and the National Animal Interest Alliance encourage all responsible dog breeders and owners to attend the committee hearing on March 30. Here are the details:
Oregon House Consumer Protection Committee Hearing
Monday, March 30, 2009
3:00 p.m.
Capitol, House Room E
Salem, Oregon 97301
We also urge all responsible dog breeders and owners in Oregon to contact their elected representatives and respectfully urge them to oppose House Bill 2470; and to contact the members of the House Consumer Protection Committee and strongly urge them to not report HB 2470 out of committee.
For tips on testifying before the House Consumer Protection Committee, please click here.
For a sample letter to personalize, please click here.
For an e-mail form that will automatically e-mail your elected representatives, please click here.
To find out whom your elected representatives are, please click here.
House Consumer Protection Committee Members:
Representative Paul Holvey, Chair
900 Court St. NE, H-275
Salem, OR 97301
PHONE: (503) 986-1408
E-MAIL: paulholvey@state.or.us
Representative Chuck Riley, Vice-Chair
900 Court St. NE, H-274
Salem, OR 97301
PHONE: (503) 986-1429
E-MAIL: chuckriley@state.or.us
Representative Jim Weidner, Vice-Chair900 Court St. NE, H-387
Salem, OR 97301
PHONE: (503) 986-1424
E-MAIL: jimweidner@state.or.us
Representative Brent Barton
900 Court St. NE, H-386
Salem, OR 97301
PHONE: (503) 986-1451
E-MAIL: brentbarton@state.or.us
Representative Jean Cowan
900 Court St. NE, H-376
Salem, OR 97301
PHONE: (503) 986-1410
E-MAIL: jeancowan@state.or.us
Representative Vic Gilliam
900 Court St. NE, H-384
Salem, OR 97301
PHONE: (503) 986-1418
E-MAIL: vicgilliam@state.or.us
Representative Wayne Krieger
900 Court St. NE, H-381
Salem, OR 97301
PHONE: (503) 986-1401
E-MAIL: waynekrieger@state.or.us
Representative Greg Matthews
900 Court St. NE, H-379
Salem, OR 97301
PHONE: (503) 986-1450
E-MAIL: gregmatthews@state.or.us
Representative Carolyn Tomei
900 Court St. NE, H-279
Salem, OR 97301
PHONE: (503) 986-1441
E-MAIL: carolyntomei@state.or.us
Representative Matt Wingard900 Court St. NE, H-474
Salem, OR 97301
PHONE: (503) 986-1426
E-MAIL: mattwingard@state.or.us
Saturday, March 28, 2009
NM- Local Battles- Torrance County, New Mexico
Torrance County, NM – The Torrance County Commission is considering a proposal which will require breeders to obtain kennel licenses and purchase business licenses (which they may not qualify for). The proposal also includes strict limits and other vague and unenforceable language. The Government Relations Department has written a letter to the county commissioners and sent materials to local fanciers who are working to educate the commissioners about reasonable animal control legislation and help draft alternative language that will work for this rural county.
Friday, March 27, 2009
WV- Oppose HB 2843- April 1st deadline
from Sportsmen's & Animal Owners' Voting Alliance
OPPOSE HB 2843
There are 472 Bills pending in House Judiciary. Oppose HB 2843 and push this bill to the bottom of the list for consideration. The legislature has an April 1st deadline for moving bills out of committee and back to the floor for final vote.
HB 2843 defines a commercial breeder as any person who maintains twenty or more unsterilized dogs over the age of one year and is engaged in the business of breeding animals for direct or indirect sale or for exchange in return for consideration, except that any person who breeds only greyhound dogs is not considered a commercial dog breeder under this article. The bill establishes two kennel licenses: Class I-Maintain twenty to forty unsterilized dogs over the age of one year at any one time; Class II-Maintain more than forty unsterilized dogs over the age of one year at any time. Mandates record keeping, sales tracking, veterinary documentation, breeding requirements and certification, establishes fines and penalties up to $2500 for section violations; authorizes searches of premise and records.
HB 2843 text, status, summary
** TALKING POINTS **
* HB 2843 has potential to raise fiscal costs by additional personnel needed for enforcement, and will create legal challenges.
* HB 2843 empowers officials to investigate giving them broad peace officer status and "warrantless search" power. This is a violation of due process and is unconstitutional. Such routine warrantless search cannot be justified under public safety, or health concerns. Any requirement for inspection must show probable cause, and should be clearly articulated, and limited in justification.
* It is wrong to use a numerical basis to begin excessive regulation of dog breeders; numbers do not correlate to quality of care. Laws for animal welfare and to prevent animal cruelty are already in place to protect all animals whether it is one dog or one hundred.
*The requirement for annual veterinary certification of suitable health for breeding is very vague. Certification to determine “suitable” could require anything from routine physical exam to an expensive panel of blood tests and x-rays. Maturity and breeding age is specific to both the individual and the particular breed and should not be broadly legislated. No other species has regulations in place for standards and/or limitations for breeding.
* HB 2843 duplicates provisions of the federal Animal Welfare Act and the licensing provisions of the United States Department of Agriculture for wholesale breeder/sellers making the bills unnecessary.
* In these difficult financial times it would seem prudent for legislators to focus their time and energy on the needs of West Virginia families, employment, and avoiding excessive budget cuts rather than create unnecessary legislation.
* HB 2843 was not introduced to upgrade welfare for dogs in West Virginia. HB 2843 is one of two dozen bills with similar language being lobbied by HSUS and their activists across the country to place restrictions and burdens on those who breed dogs in any number and for any reason. HSUS has crusaded to end commercial breeding of dogs and all domestic animals for years. Please do not yield to their anti-animal use agenda.
ACTION IS REQUIRED NOW!
To call Judiciary Committee members follow this link for contact info
OPPOSE HB 2843
There are 472 Bills pending in House Judiciary. Oppose HB 2843 and push this bill to the bottom of the list for consideration. The legislature has an April 1st deadline for moving bills out of committee and back to the floor for final vote.
HB 2843 defines a commercial breeder as any person who maintains twenty or more unsterilized dogs over the age of one year and is engaged in the business of breeding animals for direct or indirect sale or for exchange in return for consideration, except that any person who breeds only greyhound dogs is not considered a commercial dog breeder under this article. The bill establishes two kennel licenses: Class I-Maintain twenty to forty unsterilized dogs over the age of one year at any one time; Class II-Maintain more than forty unsterilized dogs over the age of one year at any time. Mandates record keeping, sales tracking, veterinary documentation, breeding requirements and certification, establishes fines and penalties up to $2500 for section violations; authorizes searches of premise and records.
HB 2843 text, status, summary
** TALKING POINTS **
* HB 2843 has potential to raise fiscal costs by additional personnel needed for enforcement, and will create legal challenges.
* HB 2843 empowers officials to investigate giving them broad peace officer status and "warrantless search" power. This is a violation of due process and is unconstitutional. Such routine warrantless search cannot be justified under public safety, or health concerns. Any requirement for inspection must show probable cause, and should be clearly articulated, and limited in justification.
* It is wrong to use a numerical basis to begin excessive regulation of dog breeders; numbers do not correlate to quality of care. Laws for animal welfare and to prevent animal cruelty are already in place to protect all animals whether it is one dog or one hundred.
*The requirement for annual veterinary certification of suitable health for breeding is very vague. Certification to determine “suitable” could require anything from routine physical exam to an expensive panel of blood tests and x-rays. Maturity and breeding age is specific to both the individual and the particular breed and should not be broadly legislated. No other species has regulations in place for standards and/or limitations for breeding.
* HB 2843 duplicates provisions of the federal Animal Welfare Act and the licensing provisions of the United States Department of Agriculture for wholesale breeder/sellers making the bills unnecessary.
* In these difficult financial times it would seem prudent for legislators to focus their time and energy on the needs of West Virginia families, employment, and avoiding excessive budget cuts rather than create unnecessary legislation.
* HB 2843 was not introduced to upgrade welfare for dogs in West Virginia. HB 2843 is one of two dozen bills with similar language being lobbied by HSUS and their activists across the country to place restrictions and burdens on those who breed dogs in any number and for any reason. HSUS has crusaded to end commercial breeding of dogs and all domestic animals for years. Please do not yield to their anti-animal use agenda.
ACTION IS REQUIRED NOW!
To call Judiciary Committee members follow this link for contact info
Friday, March 20, 2009
WV- Criminalizing Dog Breeding
From HB 2843:
NOTE: The purpose of this bill is to define a commercial dog breeder as any person who maintains twenty or more adult dogs for the purpose of the sale of their offspring as companion animals. The bill requires a commercial dog breeder to obtain a valid business license. The bill provides limitations for how many dogs a commercial dog breeder can maintain; when a commercial dog breeder may breed female dogs; how a commercial dog breeder may dispose of dogs; requires them to maintain records of animal sales, purchases, breeding history and veterinary care. The bill further provides that the Commissioner of Agriculture, any consulting veterinarians or any animal control officer may inspect the facilities of a commercial dog breeder. The bill also provides that any violation of this section is a misdemeanor subject to a fine of not more than $2,500 or a jail term of not more than one year or both.
West Virginia Bill A Radical Attempt At Limiting Dog Ownership
From AKC
[Tuesday, March 17, 2009]
West Virginia House Bill 2843, sponsored by Delegates Daniel Poling of Wood, Virginia Mahan of Summers, Nancy Guthrie of Kanawha, Roy Givens of Brooke, and Tom Azinger of Wood, seeks to define commercial dog breeders and to impose limits on the ownership of dogs. Similar to many bills introduced in legislatures across the country in 2009, HB 2843 is part of a radical national legislative agenda aimed at limiting the freedoms and liberties of Americans by attempting to restrict the number of animals they can own. The American Kennel Club (AKC) opposes this legislation, and encourages all concerned responsible dog breeders and owners in West Virginia to contact their Delegate in Charleston, the bill's sponsors, and the ranking members of the House Agriculture Committee who will consider this bill tomorrow and respectfully yet strongly urge them to not move HB 2843 forward. Additionally, AKC encourages all concerned breeders and owners to attend tomorrow's committee hearing and voice their opposition to this bill.
The American Kennel Club's mission includes working to protect the rights of all dog owners and promoting responsible dog ownership. The AKC has a zero-tolerance policy regarding animal cruelty. We strongly support the humane treatment of dogs, including providing an adequate and nutritious diet, clean living conditions, regular veterinary care, kind and responsive human companionship, and training in appropriate behavior–regardless of whether dogs are kept in a kennel, shelter, or even someone's home. AKC also believes that restricting Americans' liberties by imposing numerical ownership limits does not address issues of responsible dog ownership and proper dog care. Instead, the AKC supports reasonable and enforceable laws that protect the welfare and health of all dogs without restricting the rights of owners or breeders who take their responsibilities seriously.
If enacted, HB 2843 would:
* Define "commercial dog breeders" as any person who maintains twenty or more unsterilized dogs over one year of age.
* Require business licensure of commercial dog breeders.
* Prohibit commercial dog breeders from owning more than forty unsterilized dogs.
* Limit the breeding age of female dogs to between 18 months and eight years of age.
* Require commercial dog breeders to keep records for at least five years.
* Mandate inspections of commercial dog breeders' facilities, including private homes, twice annually; and allow inspections of such facilities without proving probable cause or obtaining a warrant from a neutral magistrate.
* Impose fines of up to $2,500, or jail for up to one year, or both, for each violation, without opportunity to correct prior to charges being levied.
WHAT YOU CAN DO:
All responsible dog breeders and owners in West Virginia are encouraged to attend tomorrow House Agriculture Committee hearing and voice their opposition to HB 2843.
West Virginia House of Delegates Agriculture Committee
Wednesday, March 18th 8:30AM
House Government Organization Room 215-E
State Capitol Complex, Charleston.
All concerned breeders and owners in West Virginia are strongly encouraged to contact their elected officials in Charleston, the bill's sponsors, and the members of the House Agriculture Committee who will consider this bill tomorrow and respectfully yet strongly urge them to not move HB 2843 forward.
To find out who your elected Delegate is, click here.
HB 2843's sponsors:
Delegate Daniel Poling
Room 223E, Building 1
State Capitol Complex
Charleston, WV 25305
PHONE: (304) 340-3137
E-MAIL: dpoling@mail.wvnet.edu
Delegate Virginia Mahan
Room 227E, Building 1
State Capitol Complex
Charleston, WV 25305
PHONE: (304) 340-3102
E-MAIL: vmahan@mail.wvnet.edu
Delegate Nancy Peoples Guthrie
Room 227E, Building 1
State Capitol Complex
Charleston, WV 25305
PHONE: (304) 340-3156
E-MAIL: nguthrie@mail.wvnet.edu
Delegate Roy Givens
Room 221E, Building 1
State Capitol Complex
Charleston, WV 25305
PHONE: (304) 340-3129
E-MAIL: rgivens@mail.wvnet.edu
Delegate Tom Azinger
Room 231E, Building 1
State Capitol Complex
Charleston, WV 25305
PHONE: (304) 340-3202
E-MAIL: tazinger@mail.wvnet.edu
Ranking members of the House Agriculture Committee:
Delegate Sam J. Argento, Chairman
Room 216 E, Building 1
State Capitol Complex
Charleston, WV 25305
PHONE: (304) 340-3112
E-MAIL: sargento@mail.wvnet.edu
Delegate Robert C. Tabb, Vice-Chairman
Room 210E, Building 1
State Capitol Complex
Charleston, WV 25305
PHONE: (304) 340-3274
E-MAIL: rtabb@mail.wvnet.edu
Delegate Allen V. Evans, Minority Chairman
Room 231E, Building 1
State Capitol Complex
Charleston, WV 25305
PHONE: (304) 340-3399
E-MAIL: aevans@mail.wvnet.edu
Delegate Ray Canterbury, Minority Vice-Chairman
Room 231E, Building 1
State Capitol Complex
Charleston, WV 25303
PHONE: (304) 340-3131
E-MAIL: rcanter1@mail.wvnet.edu
NOTE: The purpose of this bill is to define a commercial dog breeder as any person who maintains twenty or more adult dogs for the purpose of the sale of their offspring as companion animals. The bill requires a commercial dog breeder to obtain a valid business license. The bill provides limitations for how many dogs a commercial dog breeder can maintain; when a commercial dog breeder may breed female dogs; how a commercial dog breeder may dispose of dogs; requires them to maintain records of animal sales, purchases, breeding history and veterinary care. The bill further provides that the Commissioner of Agriculture, any consulting veterinarians or any animal control officer may inspect the facilities of a commercial dog breeder. The bill also provides that any violation of this section is a misdemeanor subject to a fine of not more than $2,500 or a jail term of not more than one year or both.
West Virginia Bill A Radical Attempt At Limiting Dog Ownership
From AKC
[Tuesday, March 17, 2009]
West Virginia House Bill 2843, sponsored by Delegates Daniel Poling of Wood, Virginia Mahan of Summers, Nancy Guthrie of Kanawha, Roy Givens of Brooke, and Tom Azinger of Wood, seeks to define commercial dog breeders and to impose limits on the ownership of dogs. Similar to many bills introduced in legislatures across the country in 2009, HB 2843 is part of a radical national legislative agenda aimed at limiting the freedoms and liberties of Americans by attempting to restrict the number of animals they can own. The American Kennel Club (AKC) opposes this legislation, and encourages all concerned responsible dog breeders and owners in West Virginia to contact their Delegate in Charleston, the bill's sponsors, and the ranking members of the House Agriculture Committee who will consider this bill tomorrow and respectfully yet strongly urge them to not move HB 2843 forward. Additionally, AKC encourages all concerned breeders and owners to attend tomorrow's committee hearing and voice their opposition to this bill.
The American Kennel Club's mission includes working to protect the rights of all dog owners and promoting responsible dog ownership. The AKC has a zero-tolerance policy regarding animal cruelty. We strongly support the humane treatment of dogs, including providing an adequate and nutritious diet, clean living conditions, regular veterinary care, kind and responsive human companionship, and training in appropriate behavior–regardless of whether dogs are kept in a kennel, shelter, or even someone's home. AKC also believes that restricting Americans' liberties by imposing numerical ownership limits does not address issues of responsible dog ownership and proper dog care. Instead, the AKC supports reasonable and enforceable laws that protect the welfare and health of all dogs without restricting the rights of owners or breeders who take their responsibilities seriously.
If enacted, HB 2843 would:
* Define "commercial dog breeders" as any person who maintains twenty or more unsterilized dogs over one year of age.
* Require business licensure of commercial dog breeders.
* Prohibit commercial dog breeders from owning more than forty unsterilized dogs.
* Limit the breeding age of female dogs to between 18 months and eight years of age.
* Require commercial dog breeders to keep records for at least five years.
* Mandate inspections of commercial dog breeders' facilities, including private homes, twice annually; and allow inspections of such facilities without proving probable cause or obtaining a warrant from a neutral magistrate.
* Impose fines of up to $2,500, or jail for up to one year, or both, for each violation, without opportunity to correct prior to charges being levied.
WHAT YOU CAN DO:
All responsible dog breeders and owners in West Virginia are encouraged to attend tomorrow House Agriculture Committee hearing and voice their opposition to HB 2843.
West Virginia House of Delegates Agriculture Committee
Wednesday, March 18th 8:30AM
House Government Organization Room 215-E
State Capitol Complex, Charleston.
All concerned breeders and owners in West Virginia are strongly encouraged to contact their elected officials in Charleston, the bill's sponsors, and the members of the House Agriculture Committee who will consider this bill tomorrow and respectfully yet strongly urge them to not move HB 2843 forward.
To find out who your elected Delegate is, click here.
HB 2843's sponsors:
Delegate Daniel Poling
Room 223E, Building 1
State Capitol Complex
Charleston, WV 25305
PHONE: (304) 340-3137
E-MAIL: dpoling@mail.wvnet.edu
Delegate Virginia Mahan
Room 227E, Building 1
State Capitol Complex
Charleston, WV 25305
PHONE: (304) 340-3102
E-MAIL: vmahan@mail.wvnet.edu
Delegate Nancy Peoples Guthrie
Room 227E, Building 1
State Capitol Complex
Charleston, WV 25305
PHONE: (304) 340-3156
E-MAIL: nguthrie@mail.wvnet.edu
Delegate Roy Givens
Room 221E, Building 1
State Capitol Complex
Charleston, WV 25305
PHONE: (304) 340-3129
E-MAIL: rgivens@mail.wvnet.edu
Delegate Tom Azinger
Room 231E, Building 1
State Capitol Complex
Charleston, WV 25305
PHONE: (304) 340-3202
E-MAIL: tazinger@mail.wvnet.edu
Ranking members of the House Agriculture Committee:
Delegate Sam J. Argento, Chairman
Room 216 E, Building 1
State Capitol Complex
Charleston, WV 25305
PHONE: (304) 340-3112
E-MAIL: sargento@mail.wvnet.edu
Delegate Robert C. Tabb, Vice-Chairman
Room 210E, Building 1
State Capitol Complex
Charleston, WV 25305
PHONE: (304) 340-3274
E-MAIL: rtabb@mail.wvnet.edu
Delegate Allen V. Evans, Minority Chairman
Room 231E, Building 1
State Capitol Complex
Charleston, WV 25305
PHONE: (304) 340-3399
E-MAIL: aevans@mail.wvnet.edu
Delegate Ray Canterbury, Minority Vice-Chairman
Room 231E, Building 1
State Capitol Complex
Charleston, WV 25303
PHONE: (304) 340-3131
E-MAIL: rcanter1@mail.wvnet.edu
Tuesday, March 17, 2009
AK- Arkansas Seeks to Require Annual Licenses of Up to $1000for Dog Owners and Handlers
Arkansas Seeks to Require Annual Licenses of Up to $1000 for Dog Owners and Handlers
From AKC
[Monday, March 16, 2009]
A bill has been introduced in the Arkansas Senate that requires owners of 12 or more dogs of any age to purchase an annual license for the right to maintain ownership of the dogs, regardless of whether the animals are on your property.
"Owner" is defined as someone who meets any of the following criteria:
* Has a right of property in a dog or cat
* Keeps or harbors a dog or cat
* Acts as a custodian of a dog or cat
Senate Bill 864 would require any owner of 12 to 24 dogs and/or cats to obtain a $250 annual license. If you own over 24 dogs and/or cats, then you must pay $1000 each year. This would place severe financial hardships on responsible dog owners without addressing the real problem of irresponsible dog ownership.
The following are exempted from the license requirements:
* A veterinarian or veterinary facility that provides services under the Arkansas Veterinary Medical Practice Act
* A boarding, kennel, or grooming facility that acts as a temporary custodian in exchange for compensation
* An agency of the federal, state, county, municipal or other governmental or political subdivision acting under official duties
* Any entity owned or managed by a state or local government agency that is responsible for animal control
* Research facilities
In addition, the bill allows for a warrantless inspection by an animal control officer or other public health or safety official upon any complaint "or upon his or her own motion". This may include an inspection of the animals as well as the facility.
AKC is opposed to egregious requirements that punish responsible dog owners while doing nothing to address the issue of irresponsible dog ownership. Instead, we support reasonable and enforceable laws that protect the welfare and health of purebred dogs and do not restrict the rights of breeders and owners who take their responsibilities seriously.
What You Can Do:
Contact the sponsor of Senate Bill 864 and politely, yet strongly express your opposition to Senate Bill 864:
Senator Sue Madison
573 Rock Cliff Rd.
Fayetteville, AR 72701
Phone: (479) 442-2997
E-mail: madisons@arkleg.state.ar.us
Contact the members of the Senate Judiciary Committee. Ask them to oppose Senate Bill 864. Their contact information is as follows:
Senator Ed Wilkinson (Chairman)
Box 610
Greenwood, AR 72936
Phone: (479) 996-4171
Senator Ruth Whitaker (Vice-Chair)
PO Box 349
Cedarville, AR 72932
Phone: (479) 474-0911
E-mail: whitakerr@arkleg.state.ar.us
Senator David Johnson
2511 Valley Park Drive
Little Rock, AR 72212
Phone: (501) 682-6107
E-mail: johnsond@arkleg.state.ar.us
Senator Jim Luker
PO Box 216
Wynne, AR 72396
Phone: (870) 238-8588
E-mail: lukerj@arkleg.state.ar.us
Senator Sue Madison
573 Rock Cliff Road
Fayetteville, AR 72701
Phone: (479) 442-2997
E-mail: madisons@arkleg.state.ar.us
Senator Jerry Taylor
6203 Ridgewood Drive
Pine Bluff, AR 71603
Phone: (870) 879-3233
E-mail: taylorj@arkleg.state.ar.us
Senator Robert Thompson
414 West Court
Paragould, AR 72450
Phone: (870) 239-9581
E-mail: thompsonr@arkleg.state.ar.us
Senator Henry "Hank" Wilkins
717 W. 2nd Avenue
Pine Bluff, AR 71601
Phone: (870) 536-6366
E-mail: hwilkins@arkleg.state.ar.us
Additional Resources:
Click here for AKC’s "Disagree Diplomatically" brochure
Click here for AKC’s "Make Your Contact Count" brochure for suggestions on how to effectively communicate with legislators.
From AKC
[Monday, March 16, 2009]
A bill has been introduced in the Arkansas Senate that requires owners of 12 or more dogs of any age to purchase an annual license for the right to maintain ownership of the dogs, regardless of whether the animals are on your property.
"Owner" is defined as someone who meets any of the following criteria:
* Has a right of property in a dog or cat
* Keeps or harbors a dog or cat
* Acts as a custodian of a dog or cat
Senate Bill 864 would require any owner of 12 to 24 dogs and/or cats to obtain a $250 annual license. If you own over 24 dogs and/or cats, then you must pay $1000 each year. This would place severe financial hardships on responsible dog owners without addressing the real problem of irresponsible dog ownership.
The following are exempted from the license requirements:
* A veterinarian or veterinary facility that provides services under the Arkansas Veterinary Medical Practice Act
* A boarding, kennel, or grooming facility that acts as a temporary custodian in exchange for compensation
* An agency of the federal, state, county, municipal or other governmental or political subdivision acting under official duties
* Any entity owned or managed by a state or local government agency that is responsible for animal control
* Research facilities
In addition, the bill allows for a warrantless inspection by an animal control officer or other public health or safety official upon any complaint "or upon his or her own motion". This may include an inspection of the animals as well as the facility.
AKC is opposed to egregious requirements that punish responsible dog owners while doing nothing to address the issue of irresponsible dog ownership. Instead, we support reasonable and enforceable laws that protect the welfare and health of purebred dogs and do not restrict the rights of breeders and owners who take their responsibilities seriously.
What You Can Do:
Contact the sponsor of Senate Bill 864 and politely, yet strongly express your opposition to Senate Bill 864:
Senator Sue Madison
573 Rock Cliff Rd.
Fayetteville, AR 72701
Phone: (479) 442-2997
E-mail: madisons@arkleg.state.ar.us
Contact the members of the Senate Judiciary Committee. Ask them to oppose Senate Bill 864. Their contact information is as follows:
Senator Ed Wilkinson (Chairman)
Box 610
Greenwood, AR 72936
Phone: (479) 996-4171
Senator Ruth Whitaker (Vice-Chair)
PO Box 349
Cedarville, AR 72932
Phone: (479) 474-0911
E-mail: whitakerr@arkleg.state.ar.us
Senator David Johnson
2511 Valley Park Drive
Little Rock, AR 72212
Phone: (501) 682-6107
E-mail: johnsond@arkleg.state.ar.us
Senator Jim Luker
PO Box 216
Wynne, AR 72396
Phone: (870) 238-8588
E-mail: lukerj@arkleg.state.ar.us
Senator Sue Madison
573 Rock Cliff Road
Fayetteville, AR 72701
Phone: (479) 442-2997
E-mail: madisons@arkleg.state.ar.us
Senator Jerry Taylor
6203 Ridgewood Drive
Pine Bluff, AR 71603
Phone: (870) 879-3233
E-mail: taylorj@arkleg.state.ar.us
Senator Robert Thompson
414 West Court
Paragould, AR 72450
Phone: (870) 239-9581
E-mail: thompsonr@arkleg.state.ar.us
Senator Henry "Hank" Wilkins
717 W. 2nd Avenue
Pine Bluff, AR 71601
Phone: (870) 536-6366
E-mail: hwilkins@arkleg.state.ar.us
Additional Resources:
Click here for AKC’s "Disagree Diplomatically" brochure
Click here for AKC’s "Make Your Contact Count" brochure for suggestions on how to effectively communicate with legislators.
Monday, March 16, 2009
NV- Multiple Bills introduced at once
SB 241
as introduced:
* would regulate anyone who wants to breed and sell dogs, regardless of the number.
* would require all breeders, regardless of how many dogs owned, to pay a $500 annual fee in order to breed and sell puppies.
* would also impose numerous other regulations and subject anyone who breeds and sells dogs to random inspections.
As written, SB 241 would:
Define "Breeder" as "a person who breeds cats or dogs for sale".
Require an annual application and $500 license fee for anyone who breeds cats or dogs for sale.
Require an inspection of "the premises upon which the breeder proposes to operate" prior to a license being granted and authorize the Nevada Department of Agriculture or any authorized representatives to conduct a records inspection at "all reasonable times." The bill is unclear as to whether these inspections could include private homes.
Prohibit breeding a single cat or dog beyond two litters during its lifetime.
Mandate microchipping of all dogs prior to sale.
Prohibit anyone who is not in compliance with a court order for child support from obtaining a breeder's license.
Include ambiguous exemptions for those who are housing domestic dogs or cats as pets or caring for another person's dog or cat in a home environment and those participating in the exhibition of dogs.
AB 15
As introduced:
*requires pet sellers, veterinarians and public parks to post notices of any local ordinances requiring sterilization of dogs or cats
SB 133
As introduced:
* expands the prohibitions under existing law to include a person who possesses any animal with the intent to use the animal in a fight with another animal or to engage in certain other acts that are prohibited under NRS 574.070. The bill, however, is under going amendment that will require
(1) an "operator" to provide specified minimum floor space calculated as
((6 inches+length of animal) squared) / 144 = required square footage. An animal 18 inches long would require 4 square feet. (6+18)=24 24*24=576 576/144=4 It prohibits stacking of cages.
(2) daily exercise periods totaling at least one hour for each dog in which the dog is removed from the primary enclosure and given free mobility for the entire exercise period by either leash walking or giving the dog access to a space at least four times the size of the primary enclosure. Mechanical exercise devices are prohibited.
(3) Requires annual veterinary exams and exams "prior to each attempt at breeding," prompt treatment of any illness or injury by a licensed veterinarian; and, "where needed, humane euthanasia to be performed only by a licensed veterinarian using techniques identified as “Acceptable”.
(4) Prohibits breeding consecutive heat cycles or breeding dogs younger than one year.
(5) Limits breeders to 50 or fewer breeding animals.
----- Note the above provisions are not yet officially published ---
SB 132
As introduced:
*this bill prohibits a person from tethering, chaining, tying or otherwise restraining a dog using a device that is less than 12 feet in length or for more than 9 hours during a 24-hour period or from placing a dog in an outdoor enclosure for more than 9 hours during a 24-hour period unless the dog weighs a specified amount and the enclosure is a certain size.
To be used longer than 9 hours the pen must be at least 60 square feet for dogs under 20 pounds, 120 square feet for dogs under 60 pounds, 160 square feet for dogs under 100 pounds, and 200 square feet for dogs over over 100.
It exempts a dog that is: (1) being treated by a veterinarian; (2) being used for hunting or being trained to hunt; (3) participating in a dog show; (4) being kept in a shelter or boarding facility or temporarily in a camping area; (5) temporarily being cared for during a rescue operation; or (6) being used as part of an agricultural operation.
as introduced:
* would regulate anyone who wants to breed and sell dogs, regardless of the number.
* would require all breeders, regardless of how many dogs owned, to pay a $500 annual fee in order to breed and sell puppies.
* would also impose numerous other regulations and subject anyone who breeds and sells dogs to random inspections.
As written, SB 241 would:
Define "Breeder" as "a person who breeds cats or dogs for sale".
Require an annual application and $500 license fee for anyone who breeds cats or dogs for sale.
Require an inspection of "the premises upon which the breeder proposes to operate" prior to a license being granted and authorize the Nevada Department of Agriculture or any authorized representatives to conduct a records inspection at "all reasonable times." The bill is unclear as to whether these inspections could include private homes.
Prohibit breeding a single cat or dog beyond two litters during its lifetime.
Mandate microchipping of all dogs prior to sale.
Prohibit anyone who is not in compliance with a court order for child support from obtaining a breeder's license.
Include ambiguous exemptions for those who are housing domestic dogs or cats as pets or caring for another person's dog or cat in a home environment and those participating in the exhibition of dogs.
AB 15
As introduced:
*requires pet sellers, veterinarians and public parks to post notices of any local ordinances requiring sterilization of dogs or cats
SB 133
As introduced:
* expands the prohibitions under existing law to include a person who possesses any animal with the intent to use the animal in a fight with another animal or to engage in certain other acts that are prohibited under NRS 574.070. The bill, however, is under going amendment that will require
(1) an "operator" to provide specified minimum floor space calculated as
((6 inches+length of animal) squared) / 144 = required square footage. An animal 18 inches long would require 4 square feet. (6+18)=24 24*24=576 576/144=4 It prohibits stacking of cages.
(2) daily exercise periods totaling at least one hour for each dog in which the dog is removed from the primary enclosure and given free mobility for the entire exercise period by either leash walking or giving the dog access to a space at least four times the size of the primary enclosure. Mechanical exercise devices are prohibited.
(3) Requires annual veterinary exams and exams "prior to each attempt at breeding," prompt treatment of any illness or injury by a licensed veterinarian; and, "where needed, humane euthanasia to be performed only by a licensed veterinarian using techniques identified as “Acceptable”.
(4) Prohibits breeding consecutive heat cycles or breeding dogs younger than one year.
(5) Limits breeders to 50 or fewer breeding animals.
----- Note the above provisions are not yet officially published ---
SB 132
As introduced:
*this bill prohibits a person from tethering, chaining, tying or otherwise restraining a dog using a device that is less than 12 feet in length or for more than 9 hours during a 24-hour period or from placing a dog in an outdoor enclosure for more than 9 hours during a 24-hour period unless the dog weighs a specified amount and the enclosure is a certain size.
To be used longer than 9 hours the pen must be at least 60 square feet for dogs under 20 pounds, 120 square feet for dogs under 60 pounds, 160 square feet for dogs under 100 pounds, and 200 square feet for dogs over over 100.
It exempts a dog that is: (1) being treated by a veterinarian; (2) being used for hunting or being trained to hunt; (3) participating in a dog show; (4) being kept in a shelter or boarding facility or temporarily in a camping area; (5) temporarily being cared for during a rescue operation; or (6) being used as part of an agricultural operation.
TN- Bill Summary for HB 386 and SB 258
HB 0386 by *Sontany, Maggart, Fincher, McManus, Turner M, Shepard, Sargent. (*SB 0258 by *Jackson, Ketron.)
Animals and Animal Cruelty - As introduced, enacts the "Commercial Breeder Act." - Amends TCA Title 47, Chapter 18, Part 1; Title 39, Chapter 14, Part 2; and Title 44, Chapter 17.
Fiscal Summary
Not Available
Bill Summary
This bill:
(1) Creates new criminal offenses regarding the commercial breeding of companion animals;
(2) Requires commercial breeders to become licensed by the commissioner of agriculture; and
(3) Specifies that certain actions by a commercial breeder would also be deemed to be a violation of the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act of 1977.
CRIMINAL OFFENSES
This bill makes it an offense for any commercial breeder to advertise, sell, offer to sell, transport or offer for transportation any companion animal unless the commercial breeder has a valid license from the commissioner of agriculture and has complied with the rules and regulations promulgated by the commissioner pursuant to this bill. A "commercial breeder" is a person who possesses or maintains at least 20 female dogs in order to sell their offspring as companion animals. This bill also makes it an offense for a commercial breeder to kill or destroy a companion animal by any means other than euthanasia performed by a licensed veterinarian. These offenses would be Class B misdemeanors, punishable by fine only.
This bill also makes it an offense for a commercial breeder to operate or maintain a controlling interest in any releasing agency or to violate any provision of this bill. The offense would be a Class B misdemeanor, punishable by fine only. After a licensed commercial breeder receives notice from the commissioner of any violation of this bill, each day of a continuing violation would constitute a separate offense.
LICENSURE
An application for a license as a commercial breeder would be made to the commissioner on a form provided by the commissioner. Each application for a license must be accompanied by a license fee based upon the following:
(1) Possessing or maintaining 20-40 adult companion animals per year, $500; or
(2) Possessing or maintaining 41-75 adult companion animals per year, $1,000.
The commissioner would issue a license to an applicant after determining that:
(1) The applicant or the responsible officer of the applicant is of good moral character;
(2) An inspection has been made of the premises and a finding is made that it conforms to this bill and is a suitable place in which to conduct the commercial breeder's business;
(3) The commercial breeder has a valid sales tax registration number and is in good standing with the Tennessee department of revenue; and
(4) The licensee has never been convicted of any criminal offense against an animal.
A license would not be issued to any commercial breeder who possesses or maintains more than 75 unsterilized companion animals over the age of six months.
The license of any commercial breeder may be suspended or revoked by the commissioner for any of the following reasons:
(1) The violation by the licensee of the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act of 1977;
(2) Willful falsification of any information contained in the application;
(3) The licensee's conviction of any offense involving cruelty to animals or a violation of this bill; or
(4) The licensee's nonconformance with: this bill; the rules and regulations of the commissioner; the Non-Livestock Animal Humane Death Act; or the present law provisions governing offenses against animals.
This bill requires each commercial breeder to file semi-annual reports containing the following information:
(1) The number of dogs or cats in the possession of the commercial breeder on the date the report is filed;
(2) The number of dogs and cats sold during the reporting period and the names and addresses of the persons to whom they were sold; and
(3) The number of dogs and cats received by the commercial breeder during the reporting period under circumstances other than purchase and the names and addresses of the persons from whom they were obtained.
The premises of a commercial breeder must be made available to the commissioner for inspection at all reasonable times. The commissioner would make or cause to be made such inspections or investigations of the premises and records as considered necessary.
This bill authorizes the commissioner to confiscate companion animals maintained in violation of this bill and to enter into cooperative agreements with local or federal animal welfare agencies or national humane organizations to house and provide for the humane treatment of the animals. The commissioner would also have the authority to petition the court in which a violation of this bill or criminal offense against animals is being heard to request that the commercial breeder or person commercially breeding in violation of this bill be ordered to post security as provided in present law regarding criminal offenses against animals. The commissioner may also enter into cooperative agreements with local and federal agencies for purposes of implementing this bill.
TENNESSEE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT OF 1977
The following violations of this bill would also be deemed to be violations of the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act of 1977:
(1) Each companion animal sold, offered for sale, or advertised while the dealer or commercial breeder is unlicensed or has had such license suspended or revoked; and
(2) Each unfair or deceptive statement, material omission, or action taken by a commercial breeder.
Any commercial breeder who commits a violation of the Act as described above in (1) or (2) would be subject to a remedial civil penalty for each separate violation not to exceed $1,000. Upon reason to believe that a commercial breeder is selling dogs or cats while unlicensed, the attorney general, after consultation with the director of the division of consumer affairs, may issue a pre-filing request for consumer protection information in
accordance with the Act. Should a person deny the representative access to the premises, the attorney general would petition, a circuit or chancery court for an order granting access to such premises and records.
The provision of this bill making it an offense for any commercial breeder to kill or destroy a companion animal by any means other than euthanasia performed by a licensed veterinarian would take effect upon becoming law. All other provisions of this bill would take effect:
(1) Upon becoming a law for the purposes of notifying the public, making staff arrangements, and for promulgating rules and regulations; and
(2) On January 1, 2010, for all other purposes.
NOTE: In 44-17-708 (a)(4) of Section 1 of this bill, the language "title 4" should be "title 44."
Animals and Animal Cruelty - As introduced, enacts the "Commercial Breeder Act." - Amends TCA Title 47, Chapter 18, Part 1; Title 39, Chapter 14, Part 2; and Title 44, Chapter 17.
Fiscal Summary
Not Available
Bill Summary
This bill:
(1) Creates new criminal offenses regarding the commercial breeding of companion animals;
(2) Requires commercial breeders to become licensed by the commissioner of agriculture; and
(3) Specifies that certain actions by a commercial breeder would also be deemed to be a violation of the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act of 1977.
CRIMINAL OFFENSES
This bill makes it an offense for any commercial breeder to advertise, sell, offer to sell, transport or offer for transportation any companion animal unless the commercial breeder has a valid license from the commissioner of agriculture and has complied with the rules and regulations promulgated by the commissioner pursuant to this bill. A "commercial breeder" is a person who possesses or maintains at least 20 female dogs in order to sell their offspring as companion animals. This bill also makes it an offense for a commercial breeder to kill or destroy a companion animal by any means other than euthanasia performed by a licensed veterinarian. These offenses would be Class B misdemeanors, punishable by fine only.
This bill also makes it an offense for a commercial breeder to operate or maintain a controlling interest in any releasing agency or to violate any provision of this bill. The offense would be a Class B misdemeanor, punishable by fine only. After a licensed commercial breeder receives notice from the commissioner of any violation of this bill, each day of a continuing violation would constitute a separate offense.
LICENSURE
An application for a license as a commercial breeder would be made to the commissioner on a form provided by the commissioner. Each application for a license must be accompanied by a license fee based upon the following:
(1) Possessing or maintaining 20-40 adult companion animals per year, $500; or
(2) Possessing or maintaining 41-75 adult companion animals per year, $1,000.
The commissioner would issue a license to an applicant after determining that:
(1) The applicant or the responsible officer of the applicant is of good moral character;
(2) An inspection has been made of the premises and a finding is made that it conforms to this bill and is a suitable place in which to conduct the commercial breeder's business;
(3) The commercial breeder has a valid sales tax registration number and is in good standing with the Tennessee department of revenue; and
(4) The licensee has never been convicted of any criminal offense against an animal.
A license would not be issued to any commercial breeder who possesses or maintains more than 75 unsterilized companion animals over the age of six months.
The license of any commercial breeder may be suspended or revoked by the commissioner for any of the following reasons:
(1) The violation by the licensee of the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act of 1977;
(2) Willful falsification of any information contained in the application;
(3) The licensee's conviction of any offense involving cruelty to animals or a violation of this bill; or
(4) The licensee's nonconformance with: this bill; the rules and regulations of the commissioner; the Non-Livestock Animal Humane Death Act; or the present law provisions governing offenses against animals.
This bill requires each commercial breeder to file semi-annual reports containing the following information:
(1) The number of dogs or cats in the possession of the commercial breeder on the date the report is filed;
(2) The number of dogs and cats sold during the reporting period and the names and addresses of the persons to whom they were sold; and
(3) The number of dogs and cats received by the commercial breeder during the reporting period under circumstances other than purchase and the names and addresses of the persons from whom they were obtained.
The premises of a commercial breeder must be made available to the commissioner for inspection at all reasonable times. The commissioner would make or cause to be made such inspections or investigations of the premises and records as considered necessary.
This bill authorizes the commissioner to confiscate companion animals maintained in violation of this bill and to enter into cooperative agreements with local or federal animal welfare agencies or national humane organizations to house and provide for the humane treatment of the animals. The commissioner would also have the authority to petition the court in which a violation of this bill or criminal offense against animals is being heard to request that the commercial breeder or person commercially breeding in violation of this bill be ordered to post security as provided in present law regarding criminal offenses against animals. The commissioner may also enter into cooperative agreements with local and federal agencies for purposes of implementing this bill.
TENNESSEE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT OF 1977
The following violations of this bill would also be deemed to be violations of the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act of 1977:
(1) Each companion animal sold, offered for sale, or advertised while the dealer or commercial breeder is unlicensed or has had such license suspended or revoked; and
(2) Each unfair or deceptive statement, material omission, or action taken by a commercial breeder.
Any commercial breeder who commits a violation of the Act as described above in (1) or (2) would be subject to a remedial civil penalty for each separate violation not to exceed $1,000. Upon reason to believe that a commercial breeder is selling dogs or cats while unlicensed, the attorney general, after consultation with the director of the division of consumer affairs, may issue a pre-filing request for consumer protection information in
accordance with the Act. Should a person deny the representative access to the premises, the attorney general would petition, a circuit or chancery court for an order granting access to such premises and records.
The provision of this bill making it an offense for any commercial breeder to kill or destroy a companion animal by any means other than euthanasia performed by a licensed veterinarian would take effect upon becoming law. All other provisions of this bill would take effect:
(1) Upon becoming a law for the purposes of notifying the public, making staff arrangements, and for promulgating rules and regulations; and
(2) On January 1, 2010, for all other purposes.
NOTE: In 44-17-708 (a)(4) of Section 1 of this bill, the language "title 4" should be "title 44."
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)