Page 1 of 330 The Monthly National Legislation Report 7/5/2010 ...

The Monthly National Legislation Reporthttp://mnlreport.typepad.com/Page 10 of 3307/5/2010TEXASCity of Leander – (6/17/10) – Leander considers new program to control stray cat population. (video @ link). To control an overpopulation of stray cats, the City of Leander islooking into a trap-neuter-return program. The program would allow people to trap stray cats and return them to the area they were found after the cat has been spayed or neutered. "There arecolonies of cats, and it's an unsustained colony. Basically, they begin to multiply and grow and it's potentially a problem for our law enforcement, our animal control," Leander Mayor JohnCowman said. "It's not a major problem, but it can grow into a major problem, and we want to see if we can basically check that problem by providing this ordinance." While some believe the trapneuter-returnprograms are the most effective way to control feral cat overpopulation, others say the program would inhumanely put cats back outside in the elements. An educational worksession was set up for Thursday night, with experts invited to discuss the trap-neuter-return method. City council members may now consider voting on an ordinance in a couple weeks.Ft. Worth – (6/10/10) – ‘Dangerous Dogs’ in Ft. Worth can be expensive. Fort Worth Animal Care and Control says it's up to the victims to decide whether a dog isdeemed "dangerous." If it is, more often than not, the pet is never claimed by its owner from the pound. That's because labeling a dog "dangerous" is expensive for the owner. There's a $500annual license. Owners also have to carry $100,000 in liability insurance for each dog. A "dangerous" dog must also be kept in a special pen that costs thousands more. The city says the price istoo steep for most owners, and the dangerous dogs are put down. "This has nothing to do with the breed," said Keane Menefee of the city's Animal Care and Control division. "This starts withirresponsible pet owners that don't properly contain their animals, don't socialize their animals, and don't properly train their animals."Hurst – (6/14/10) - Hurst making it easier to cite owners of barking dogs. When Hurst police and animal-control officers tell you to quiet your barking dog, you'd better listen. The HurstCity Council took the first step last week toward closing a loophole in the city's nuisance-animal ordinance by removing ambiguity about what law enforcement officers can do. As theordinance is interpreted now, an officer responding to a barking-dog complaint must issue a 24-hour warning before the owner can be cited, Police Chief Steve Moore said. "The trouble is,they could get infinite 24-hour warnings," Moore said. "Some issues need to go to the [municipal] judge to get relief." Under the amended ordinance, officers would be allowed to issuecitations if there are repeated problems. There was virtually no discussion Tuesday before they approved the amendment's first reading, said Ashleigh Whiteman, a city spokeswoman. Theordinance is not limited to dogs, and the amendment reads in part: "No person shall willfully or knowingly harbor or keep on his premises or elsewhere any animal or fowl of any kind thatmakes or creates an unreasonable disturbance of the neighbors or the occupants of adjacent premises or people living in the vicinity thereof or suffer or permit such animal to make or createdisturbing noise by howling, barking, bawling, crowing or otherwise." The amendment must pass a second reading before becoming law, Whiteman said. Moore said each citation couldresult in a fine up to $500.Waco – (6/17/10) - Pet owners in Waco may have to spay or pay. (video @ link) "As a hobby breeder of purebred dogs, in our contract with our owners we require spaying andneutering," Boehner said. He supports animal birth control, but he's not in favor of a new ordinance the city council is considering. It would require pet owners to pay an annual fee for apermit for each animal that isn't fixed. The idea behind the ordinance is to cut down on the number of strays and dumped animals. The version of the ordinance that passed a first readingTuesday did not specify how the license would be enforced. It also did not set a price for the fee, but the city's animal control advisory board has recommended a cost of $50.Waco – (7/2/10) - Waco Tea Party group for pets to hold first protest. The Waco Tea Party says the nation's first pet tea party group, which formed in Waco, will be holding its firstprotest Saturday morning. Area residents are fighting the Waco City Council on a mandatory spay/neuter program for dogs. Party members believe that type of program will not effectivelycontrol the animal overpopulation problem and that many people cannot afford to spay or neuter their pet. The city council says under the ordinance, people who do not want to get their dogfixed would be able to buy a permit. The Waco Tail Party will meet Saturday at 9 a.m. at Heritage Square at 3rd Street and Austin Avenue.______________________________________________________________________________VERMONTBarre – (6/19/10) - Proposed cat leash law in Vt. sparks hissing match. A clause in a city law that requires cats to be on leashes has sparked a hissing match among fans of freeroamingfelines. A City Council meeting with cats on the agenda drew an unusually large crowd of about 30 people Tuesday night, including one woman who brought three large signs, one ofwhich said, "Arrest criminals, not cats. Can Barre afford a jail for cats?" Cities around the country and at least one state have enacted or considered cat restraint laws. In 1949, the IllinoisLegislature passed "An Act to provide Protection to Insectivorous Birds by Restraining Cats." It was vetoed by then-Gov. Adlai Stevenson, who wrote, "To escort a catabroad on a leash is against the nature of the cat," according to the New Jersey-based Cat Fanciers' Association. The agency says jurisdictions with cat leash laws orsimilar restrictions include Akron, Ohio; Aurora, Colo.; Montgomery County, Md.; Palm Beach County, Fla.; and New Orleans. In Barre, the feline firestorm started lastweek when city officials began reviewing animal control ordinances with an eye to updating them. Mayor Thomas Lauzon said then that a draft rewrite would have theeffect of banning cats from roaming. Lauzon said Tuesday that no one on the council intended to require that cats be restrained. But on second look at the law, herealized that both the existing ordinance, adopted in 1973, and the proposed rewrite ban roaming cats; the law had just never been enforced. "No owner or keeper of ananimal shall allow his, theirs or its animal to run at large," the key language says. Cat owners hoping to get around the law by a whisker appeared to be out of luck.Animal is defined by the city as "every living being, not human or plant." Lauzon said the city may end up with a compromise ordinance requiring cats to wear collars withtags identifying their owners and showing their rabies shots were up-to-date. Owners would only be fined if their roaming cats were determined to be a nuisance. The issue is expected to besettled later this summer.______________________________________________________________________________VIRGINIAMartinsville – (6/23/10) - New city dog laws advance. Martinsville City Council on Tuesday gave its initial approval to ordinances aimed at forcing pet owners to treat their animals well andkeep their dogs from barking excessively. The council also repealed city code Section 5-39, which pertained to noisy dogs. City Attorney Eric Monday determined that the section was toovague and unenforceable and it duplicated provisions of the city’s noise ordinance. Council members approved on first reading a tethering ordinance as well as amendments to the noiseordinance pertaining to barking dogs. The policies will be considered for a second reading, which would make them official, at a future council meeting. In preparing the policies, city officialsconsulted with a veterinarian, police and the Martinsville-Henry County SPCA, a document shows. The tethering ordinance makes it illegal not to provide an animal with “adequate space” inwhich it can easily stand, sit, lie, turn and make other normal body movements comfortably. Any tethering device must not restrain the animal from those movements and be appropriate tothe animal’s size and age. The tether must be at least three times the animal’s length, as measured from the tip of its nose to the base of its tail. It must be attached to the pet by a collar,halter or harness that prevents the animal from becoming injured, strangled or entangled with other animals or objects, the ordinance shows. However, the ordinance makes it illegal to tetheran animal: • If it is under four months of age. • In a way that causes injury, strangulation or entanglement on fences, trees or other types of obstacles. • When it is sick or injured. • For morethan four hours in any 24-hour period, and • When the outside temperature is 32 degrees or lower or greater than 85 degrees unless shelter is provided. Any pet owner who violates theordinance could be charged with a Class 4 misdemeanor, which is punishable by a fine of up to $250. Currently, the noise ordinance prohibits dogs in residential areas of the city frombarking and making other disturbing noises between 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. An amendment approved by the council makes it illegal for a dog to bark for more than 15 consecutive minutes at anytime of day. Another amendment makes a first violation of the noise ordinance a Class 4 misdemeanor and subsequent violations a Class 3 misdemeanor, which is punishable by a fine of upto $500. However, one amendment gives the courts authority to — in lieu of criminal prosecution — impose a civil penalty of $250 for first offenses and $500 for subsequent offenses.Petersburg – (6/7/10) – Petersburg examining their dog laws. It took a tragic attack that killed four sheep, but Petersburg is reviewing local laws related to dogs. Now, city officials arelooking at several issues relating to dogs. City Manager B. David Canada has proposed several amendments to existing city code, including making it unlawful for an owner of a pet to havethe pet unrestrained by a leash off their property. That offense could be punishable by either a Class 4 misdemeanor charge and up to $250 fine, or a civil penalty of $150 with no criminalcharge. Additional changes to the local law include requiring owners to collect their dog's feces from public or private property immediately after the dog defecates. Council will also considerpossible locations for a dog park. City officials will consider proposals by citizens for a dog park in two potential locations - the south bank of the navigation channel of the Appomattox Riverand the Low Street area._________________________________________________________________________________________WASHINGTON(7/2/10) - Cities sign on to new pet laws. More than two dozen area cities have signed contracts with King County to participate in a new regional animal-services model that took effectThursday. The cost for pet licenses for spayed animals will remain and for unaltered pets will be reduced to $60. Fines for unlicensed pets are $125 for a spayed and $250 for an unalteredpet, officials said. All dogs and cats older than 8 weeks in unincorporated King County and the contracting cities must be licensed. Residents have until Oct. 1 to buy a license for unlicensedpets without facing a fine, officials said. Visit http://www.kingcounty.gov/pets for information on how to get a license. All of the cities have contracts for 2 ½ years, except for Bothell, whichsigned up for six months. The cities are Auburn, Beaux Arts, Bellevue, Black Diamond, Carnation, Clyde Hill, Covington, Duvall, Enumclaw, Issaquah, Kent, Kenmore, Kirkland, Lake ForestPark, Maple Valley, Mercer Island, Newcastle, North Bend, Redmond, Sammamish, SeaTac, Shoreline, Snoqualmie, Tukwila, Woodinville and Yarrow Point._________________________________________________________________________________________