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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

The Monthly National Legislation Reporthttp://mnlreport.typepad.com/Page 104 of 3307/5/2010In the past year, advocates for such areas have become a powerful force in St. Paul and Ramsey County politics, as they've packed public meetings and raised awareness of St. Paul'sdearth of off-leash areas. Currently, the city operates only one, in Arlington/Arkwright Park on the East Side. Ramsey County operates four parks, with Battle Creek Regional Park on theMaplewood border being the closest to St. Paul. While Lilydale is technically in Dakota County — it's operated by St. Paul — dog-park advocates note that a park there would provide accessfor a different region of the city.MISSISSIPPIAberdeen – (10/6/09) - Concerned residents in the Meadowlane neighborhood have taken their issue to both city and Monroe County officials – the issue of banning pit bulldogs (AmericanPit Bull Terriers) in the City of Aberdeen. “We now have five of these dogs in our neighborhood,” concerned citizen Brick Young said. “These dogs can be extremely vicious and even deadly– we need to have something done so that we do not have problems of that nature in Aberdeen. Young, along with other residents from the neighborhood, have brought the topic of pit bullsin front of both the city’s aldermen and the county board. Young and his group first approached the Aberdeen Board of Aldermen on the issue during the September 2 meeting. It was tableduntil the following meeting. At the September 16 meeting, Young and other once again brought the notion of banning pit bulls in Aberdeen before the board. The board tabled the measure atthe request of city attorney Robert Faulks until October. Monroe County Board of Supervisors President Randle Gray said the county would also have board attorney John Creekmoreaddress the issue. “There is definitely a hazard with these animals,” Gray said. “We will see what our options are. This is a very serious matter.” CLICK HERE FOR ALL CONTACT INFO.Jackson – (10/20/09) – In other action Tuesday, the council's Rules Committee held preliminary discussions on revising the city's dangerous-dog ordinance to restrict or ban certain breeds,such as pit bulls. Weill, who chairs the committee, favored a breed-specific ordinance. Weill said he would ask the city's animal-control officers to provide information about dog attacks in thecity and take up the matter later. The council passed an ordinance in 2006 requiring owners to register dogs deemed dangerous by city officials and keep them inside or in an enclosure. Themeasure did not name specific breeds. Ridgeland passed an ordinance earlier this year limiting owners of pit bulls and several other breeds deemed dangerous to one dog per household.Officials in Madison have considered a ban on certain breeds.UPDATE – (10/20/09) - CONTACT INFO: Please use the following snail mail and e-mail addresses when writing to the Jackson, Mississippi city officials regarding proposed breed specificlegislation.City of Jackson, MississippiMayor Harvey JohnsonP.O. Box 17219 South President StreetJackson, MS 39205-0017(601) 960-1084(601) 960-2193 - Faxbpree@city.jackson.ms.us219 South President StreetPost Office Box 17Jackson, MS 39205-0017Phone (601) 960-1035Fax (601) 960-1032Chok Lumumbaclumumba@city.jackson.ms.usTony Yarbertyarber@city.jackson.ms.usJeff Weill (Committee Chair)jweill@city.jackson.ms.usKenneth Stokeskstokes@city.jackson.ms.usFrank Bluntsonfbluntson@city.jackson.ms.usCharles Tillmantillmanc@city.jackson.ms.usMargaret Barrettmbarrett@city.jackson.ms.usJackson – (10/12/09) - There's a new push to beef up animal cruelty laws in Mississippi. The group is targeting folks at the Mississippi State Fair. "Mississippi - Fighting Animal CrueltyTogether" or MS-FACT is asking fair goers to sign their petition to enact felony cruelty laws in our state. Mississippi is one of four states in the country without felony animal cruelty laws forcats and dogs. MS-FACT just formed in February. Mississippi is the only southern state to not have a felony cruelty law," said MS-FACT President Tiffany Frautschi. If you are interested inlearning more or signing the petition MS-FACT will have their booth in the Trademart the duration of the state fair. Or you can visit their website www.ms-fact.org.MISSOURIColumbia - (10/23/09) - Chickens were on the table last night at a Columbia City Council dinner discussion — figuratively speaking. Although opinions varied slightly among city councilmembers on whether to allow an ordinance that would let city residents keep chickens, the general consensus was that it should at least be considered. Current ordinances allow one chickenper half-acre, disallowing most residents from keeping chickens on their land. “I am in favor of an ordinance that would allow chickens,” Mayor Darwin Hindman said. Fourth WardCouncilman Jerry Wade said the city shouldn’t rush into it, though. “There are issues we need to talk about.” The city/county Board of Health had discussed the idea multiple times, but boardmembers couldn’t come to an agreement and could not pass a recommendation on to council. Stephanie Browning, director of the Columbia-Boone County Department of Public Health andHuman Services, attended yesterday’s pre-council meeting dinner to speak to members about the proposed ordinance. “My bigger concern is how we can deal with some of the inevitablenuisances that will result,” she said. Browning seemed most concerned with the idea of having to obtain neighbors’ consent to keep the chickens near their property. Complaints about noiseand manure seem most likely, but she said some neighbors are simply not going to get along. She wants to have resolutions ready for all anticipated problems. Another concern is exactlyhow many chickens someone could own. Columbia’s animal control ordinance now specifies a limit of four cats or four dogs per property. Browning would also like to see a limit on thenumber of chickens to four.Columbia – (10/28/09) - Proposed changes to the Central Missouri Humane Society’s pet adoption policy were challenged last night by an overwhelming chorus of support for the existingpolicy.The CMHS board of directors, meeting at Delaney Hall on the Columbia College campus, heard public comment from 19 people, most who said that verifying pet ownership withlandlords and checking veterinary care records are vital to ensure animals are being adopted by responsible owners. A new policy on the agenda for the board’s consideration eliminated thelandlord verification and vet care requirements. The board took no action on the proposed policy, but instead worked to create a committee that will be responsible for revising and drafting anew policy. Board members said changes are needed to allow for more adoptions, which they contend would result in fewer animals being euthanized. Board member John Shrum said theboard needed to pull proposed changes off the table and put a committee in charge of coming up with a new draft. The board directed that a draft be available for its review by Dec. 8.Senath – (10/14/09) - Several residents of Senath attended the Senath City Council meeting in support of keeping their family pets, which would be taken from the homes as stated in arecently proposed ordinance banning pit bulls from the city. Alderman Patsy Davis said the city's dangerous dog ordinance has not been followed properly. City attorney Johnny Dalton addedthe only difference between the proposed ordinance and the active dangerous dog ordinance was that the current ordinance did not specify the pit bull breed as prohibited in the city. "It diddefine pit bulls as a dangerous dog, but not prohibited," Dalton said. He added that if a dog was considered dangerous under the ordinance, then there were specifications on how the dogwas to be kept. The council decided to postpone the passing of a new ordinance and attempt to fix the problem by more strictly enforcing the current dangerous dog ordinance.
The Monthly National Legislation Reporthttp://mnlreport.typepad.com/Page 105 of 3307/5/2010NEBRASKALincoln – (10/14/09) - At an informal council hearing Monday, Spatz pressed health officials to speed up their months-long process of looking at cracking down on the owners of dogs thatbite people. The city already has a dangerous dog ordinance, but health officials are considering beefing it up by increasing fines, citing owners of first-time offenders and other measures.Spatz is not inclined to wait much longer. He said he plans to introduce some kind of legislation to deal with dangerous dogs. "I'm going to do something if the health department doesn't," hesaid. UPDATE: (10/19/09) - The city of Lincoln appears to be moving toward enactment of new laws that are tougher on dangerous dogs and their owners. In a Local View column inSunday's Journal Star, Bruce Dart, director of the Lincoln-Lancaster County Health Department, said the department wants to boost fines for owners whose dogs are frequently at large or notrestrained properly. The department wants to enhance penalties for frequent offenders.At least two city council members, John Spatz and Jon Camp, want the Health Department to movequickly. Dart, citing the cost of DNA testing and accompanying complexities, wrote that the department is not yet ready to recommend banning certain dog breeds. "If this does not prove tobe effective, we still have the option of implementing breed-specific legislation or other solutions," he wrote. It will be interesting to see if the department's reluctance to single out specificbreed will stand up to public pressure. The topic deserves further exploration as it moves through the public process. Laws that aim specifically at pit bulls are becoming more prevalent andhave survived legal challenges. It should be pointed out that under a new state law that went into effect this year, owners can be charged with a misdemeanor for the first time their dog bitessomeone and a felony the second time. In an urban environment, however, more comprehensive and stricter laws against dangerous dogs and irresponsible owners are appropriate.Omaha – (10/23/09) - When Omaha put into effect its dangerous dog ordinance a year ago, the teeth of it was to identify dogs that could hurt someone and their careless owners. But therewas more to it and now some owners aren't happy about it. The Nebraska Humane Society has been getting many complaints about the penalty for a stray not being spayed or neutered. Itcosts $300 to get the dog back the first time, $600 the second and $1200 the third time and owners don't like it. Owners can get most of the $300 back if they get their dog sterilized andmicro-chipped. But some dog owners we talked with would never do that to their pure bred because it would hurt the value. The Humane Society understands but says that's the price youpay if your dog gets free. Omaha upped the fee with the thinking that dog owners who aren't using the services should pay more if animal control has to get involved.NEVADACity of Las Vegas – (10/20/09) - Bill No. 2009-44 – Requires that dogs and cats over the age of four months be spayed or neutered, except under specified circumstances, and requires themicrochipping of dogs and cats before they can be recovered from impound or adopted. Sponsored by: Councilman Steven D. RossLas Vegas – (10/20/09) - In an effort to address pet overpopulation, the Las Vegas City Council will today introduce what would be the toughest spay-and-neuter ordinance in the region. Theproposed ordinance, largely modeled on regulations adopted last year by North Las Vegas, would require that all dogs and cats older than 4 months be spayed or neutered, except underspecial circumstances. The ordinance would also require that dogs and cats have microchips implanted before being adopted or recovered from an impound facility. The tiny devices includeowners’ addresses to aid recovery of lost pets. The proposal would exempt residents with dog or cat fancier permits, breeder permits or professional animal handler permits. A few weeksago, Ross said, he gathered people on all sides of the issue — including breeders, shelter officials and other spay-and-neuter proponents, veterinarians and others — to gauge support,which he said was near universal. But there is opposition to the proposal, which will be voted on in a later council meeting. When Las Vegas officials sent a version of the ordinance to thecity’s 126 licensed pet shops, owners expressed concern about a provision that would require them to provide the city with a list of the names and addresses of dog and cat purchasers.Thelist would allow city officials to follow up with the buyers to make sure their new pets have been sterilized. Not all breeders are pleased with the ordinance either. Ken Sondej, a locally basedAmerican Kennel Club legislative liaison, said the AKC “strongly opposes mandatory spay and neuter.” Sondej said the four-month provision is especially troubling. Most dogs shouldn’t besterilized before at least 6 months old. For certain breeds, the procedure should be postponed until at least 2 years old. Sterilizing these animals before they’ve fully developed can causeimmunological and other medical problems, Sondej said. Instead of mandating spaying and neutering, local governments ought to do more to educate pet owners so they can make the bestdecision, Sondej said. “The decision should be left to the veterinarian and the owner, not a politician,” he said. Those who fail to spay or neuter their pets would face $225 fines for the firstoffense. A second-time violator would be fined $500. Every time thereafter, the offender would face a $1,000 fine. According to county officials, adopting a mandatory spay-and-neuter policyis still a possibility down the road. UPDATE: (10/25/09) - The committee designated by the Las Vegas City Council to review a proposed mandatory spay/neuter ordinance will hold its firstmeeting on November 3rd. It is vital that concerned fanciers and responsible dog owners and breeders become involved with these proceedings. The proposed ordinance is burdensome,overly restrictive and will significantly increase burdens on responsible owners and breeders.Las Vegas City Council Committee MeetingTuesday, November 3rd9amCity Council Chambers400 Stewart AvenueLas Vegas, NV 89101Provisions of the OrdinanceAll dogs and cats over the age of 4 months must be spayed or neutered unless the owner qualifies for one of the following exemptions: holds a valid dog fancier, cat fancier permit, breeder permit or professional animal handler permitthe dog is used by a law enforcement agency as a law enforcement dogthe dog is used by a search and rescue agency for search and rescue activities Please note that many search and rescue dogs are privately owned and would not be exempt under the current proposalThe dog is a service animal such as a guide animal, hearing animal, assistance animal, seizure alert animal or social/therapy animalThe dog is being used by a pound, shelter, humane society or similar organization, whether public or private, the principal purpose of which is securing the adoption of dogs or cats, provided that suchorganization has a policy and rules requiring the spaying or neutering of all dogs and cats placed for adoptionAll puppies or kittens born to dogs and cats that have not been spayed/neutered as required will be forfeited and may be given to the local shelter for adoptionThis is a particularly puzzling provision if the goal is to reduce the number of animals in the shelter. Why would the city confiscate puppies and kittens who would likely find good homes without theirinterference? A fine would be understandable, but confiscation is unreasonable.Fines for violation $250 for a first offense$500 for a second offense$1000 for a third offense These fines are outrageously high and will likely force some owners to surrender their petsThe fine is reduced by 80% if the animal is sterilized within 30 days, however as these surgeries themselves cost hundreds of dollars, that does not help individuals who cannot afford the finesImpounded dogs or cats that are intact, but whose owners do not qualify for one of the above exemptions must be sterilized prior to release The current wording of this section seems to mandate that animal control perform the sterilization, and would deny owners the ability to take the animal to a veterinarian of their own choosingProvides that impounded animals be kept for only 72 hoursThree days is a short time frame, especially as it is not specified that these are business days. A family on vacation for a long weekend may return home to find their pet has been impounded andadopted out to someone elseRequires that impounded animals be microchipped and that the owner pay for the microchipping prior to release This only adds to the fees owners are required to pay for reclaiming their animal
Page 2:
The Monthly National Legislation Re
Page 6 and 7:
Page 8 and 9:
Page 10 and 11:
Page 12 and 13:
Page 14 and 15:
Page 16 and 17:
Page 18 and 19:
Page 20 and 21:
Page 22 and 23:
Page 24 and 25:
Page 26 and 27:
Page 28 and 29:
Page 30 and 31:
Page 32 and 33:
Page 34 and 35:
Page 36 and 37:
Page 38 and 39:
Page 40 and 41:
Page 42 and 43:
Page 44 and 45:
Page 46 and 47:
Page 48 and 49:
Page 50:
Page 53 and 54: The Monthly National Legislation Re
Page 103: The Monthly National Legislation Re
Page 155 and 156:
Page 157 and 158:
Page 159 and 160:
Page 161 and 162:
Page 163 and 164:
Page 165 and 166:
Page 167 and 168:
Page 169 and 170:
Page 171:
Page 174 and 175:
Page 176 and 177:
Page 178 and 179:
Page 180 and 181:
Page 182 and 183:
Page 184 and 185:
Page 186 and 187:
Page 188 and 189:
Page 190 and 191:
Page 192 and 193:
Page 194 and 195:
Page 196 and 197:
Page 198 and 199:
Page 200 and 201:
Page 202 and 203:
Page 204 and 205:
Page 206 and 207:
Page 208 and 209:
Page 210 and 211:
Page 212 and 213:
Page 214 and 215:
Page 216 and 217:
Page 218 and 219:
Page 220 and 221:
Page 222 and 223:
Page 224 and 225:
Page 226 and 227:
Page 228 and 229:
Page 230 and 231:
Page 232 and 233:
Page 234 and 235:
Page 236 and 237:
Page 238 and 239:
Page 240 and 241:
Page 242 and 243:
Page 244 and 245:
Page 246 and 247:
Page 248 and 249:
Page 250 and 251:
Page 252 and 253:
Page 254 and 255:
Page 256 and 257:
Page 258 and 259:
Page 260 and 261:
Page 262 and 263:
Page 264 and 265:
Page 266 and 267:
Page 268 and 269:
Page 270 and 271:
Page 272 and 273:
Page 274 and 275:
Page 276 and 277:
Page 278 and 279:
Page 280 and 281:
Page 282 and 283:
Page 284 and 285:
Page 286 and 287:
Page 288 and 289:
Page 290 and 291:
Page 292 and 293:
Page 294 and 295:
Page 296 and 297:
Page 298 and 299:
Page 300 and 301:
Page 302 and 303:
Page 304 and 305:
Page 306 and 307:
Page 308 and 309:
Page 310 and 311:
Page 312 and 313:
Page 314 and 315:
Page 316 and 317:
Page 318 and 319:
Page 320 and 321:
Page 322 and 323:
Page 324 and 325:
Page 326 and 327:
Page 328 and 329:
Page 330:
show all

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

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?