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 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._________________________________________________________________________________________
The Monthly National Legislation Reporthttp://mnlreport.typepad.com/Page 11 of 3307/5/2010WISCONSINMadison – Dane County - (6/12/10) - County proposal would fine pet owners for attacks in dog parks. A Dane County Board proposal would put owners of ornery animals on noticethat they could be fined for both leashed animals and animals running free in a park that bite another animal or human. Right now a pet owner whose animal attacks another person or animalin a Madison dog park faces a $500 fine, but animal control officers aren't able to penalize owners for the same incident in a Dane County dog park. Under the County Board proposal, a firsttimeoffense would carry a $177 penalty and subsequent offenses would cost $429. Sup. Tom Stoebig, of Madison, who introduced the proposal, said since the Madison and Dane Countyhealth departments merged there has been an effort to update county ordinances to conform with city ordinances. The ordinance could be enforced in county dog parks as well as in citiesand villages, though the county would likely defer to local ordinances, Comfert said.Prairie du Chien - Mayor Dave Hemmer is asking the city's Protection and Health Committee to review the ordinance relating to "vicious dogs." Hemmer told the City Council that severalcity residents expressed concerns to him, and he asked the committee to review a proposed new ordinance, based on a similar ordinance in Cassville, that would ban pit bull terriers within thecity limits._________________________________________________________________________________________WYOMINGCheyenne – (7/2/10) - Newcastle Wyoming, police terrorize family on an alleged barking dog complaint. It’s some time after midnight, you are awakened by a loud persistent poundingat your front door. As you head to the front door your wife checks on your little-one that may have been frightened by all the banging. Before you open the door you say to yourself, what kindof animal comes pounding on the door at this hour, "maybe they aren't so friendly". You open the front door but no one is there, with your gun in hand pointed toward the ground you decideto walk outside to investigate, you take a few steps into your own yard. The next thing you know you are being held at gun-point by the police on your own property! This is exactlywhat happened to Newcastle Wyoming Resident Elijah Schlup on July 1, 2010 at approximately 1am. Mr. Schlup’s wife was also standing behind him when this police ambush took placeright in front of their baby’s bedroom window. The bad actor, Police Officer Greg Locke actions also placed Mrs. Schlup and the couples eighteen month baby in a possible "line of fire”. Thisall happened because of an alleged barking dog complaint._________________________________________________________________________________________OF INTEREST - IN OTHER COUNTRIESAUSTRALIAMt. Evelyn – (6/14/10) - Mt Evelyn nurse slams kill Bill proposal. A MT Evelyn vet nurse and dog owner says she fears that increased council powers under a proposed StateGovernment blitz on dangerous dogs will lead to the needless killings of pets. Tough new laws to crack down on dangerous dogs, including increased powers to immediately destroy them,were introduced to Parliament last month and are yet to be debated. Agriculture Minister Joe Helper said the laws would give council the authority to seize and destroy unregistered orunidentifiable dogs found unsupervised in public if they reasonably believed the dog was a danger to public safety. “The proposed legislation will also empower an authorised officer toimmediately destroy any dog that they believe will cause imminent serious injury or death to a person or another animal,” Mr Helper said. Eltham canine behaviour specialist CatherineSaunders is worried. “The name of this Bill is grossly misleading in its reference to dangerous dogs because it increases the powers of councils to destroy any dogs, whether or not they havebeen declared dangerous,” Mrs Saunders said. “This act also allows for bias, personal opinions or preconceived ideas to go unquestioned, which may result in a beloved pet’s wrongfuldeath.”Tasmania – (6/18/10) - Dog control laws set to be tightened. NOISY dogs could be destroyed under dog control legislation changes set to take effect on July 1. Microchipping ofall domestic dogs would be made compulsory on July 1 next year. The legislation gives councils the ability to fine the owners of excessively noisy dogs. It also allows councils to makeorders to have a dog removed from a premises, and use any other method to abate the nuisance, even ultimately allowing for noisy dogs to be destroyed. RSPCA state president PaulSwiatkowski said the legislation seemed too airy and did not rule out ordering a dog to be "de-barked" - an operation involving the removal of a dog's larynx. Dr Swiatkowski also warnedagainst the use of electronic collars to inhibit barking behaviour. "It can be akin to torturing the animals - the RSPCA endorses behavioural training," he said. Dangerous dogs and restrictedbreed dogs such as the American pit bull will also be subject to tighter control come July 1, when owners will be given 28 days to desex and microchip their dogs. When in public, the dogsmust be muzzled, held on a lead that is no longer than two metres and be under the control of a person at least 18 years old. The dogs must wear an approved red and yellow striped collarat all times, and "dangerous dog" signs must be erected at each entrance to the dog owner's home. Dangerous dog owners must keep their pets in specially built childproof enclosures. LocalGovernment Minister Bryan Green said council officers had been sufficiently trained to identify and declare restricted dogs. Microchipping of all domestic dogs would be made compulsory onJuly 1 next year, Mr Green said. Visit www.dpac.tas.gov.au for more information.WA – (6/10/10) - Cat sterilisation laws proposed. New cat owners may be forced to get their beloved feline friends sterilised, microchipped and registered under legislation proposed bythe state government. The laws were opened for public comment yesterday and aim to reduce the number of stray cats. If we get these laws WA will be leading Australia in recognising catson equal footing with dogs and do something about the waste of life,'' Ms Robinson said. "The government aren't talking retrospective legislation, it will only effect cats obtained after thelegislation comes through so people will be able to make a conscious choice." Only 18 of the state's 139 local governments presently have cat control laws after Joondalup Council'sproposed sterilisation local law was disallowed. Local Government Minister John Castrilli said councils will be required to enforce the proposals should they become law. Stirling Council allowresidents to keep two cats without a permit but those living in a fauna protection zone can only keep one. The council also offers substantial discounts on dog and cat sterilisation. Publiccomment on the proposed legislation closes on July 30. Details: www.dlg.wa.go.au or 9217 1500._________________________________________________________________________________________AUSTRIAVienna – (7/1/10) - Starting Thursday, owners of 11 breeds known as aggressive "fight dogs" will be under stricter scrutiny: a hotly debated new law requires Viennese and longterm visitorswho own such dogs to carry a license proving they can keep their pets in check. Some say the measure will make public spaces safer, critics call it canine profiling. Elsewhere in Europe, thesituation varies. Denmark on Thursday added 12 more dog breeds — the American Staffordshire terrier, Brazilian Fila, American bulldog and Dogo Argentino, among others — to an outrightban on dangerous dogs that already included pit bull terriers and tosa inus. Under a 2007 law in Portugal, owners of seven breeds identified as dangerous must get a license and can only doso if they are over 18, have passed a physical and mental aptitude test and don't have a criminal record. In the Slovak capital of Bratislava, regulations for about half a dozen type of "fightdogs" were axed a year after a successful lobbying campaign by owners of such breeds.
Page 2: The Monthly National Legislation Re
Page 6 and 7: The Monthly National Legislation Re
Page 50: The Monthly National Legislation Re
Page 61 and 62:
The Monthly National Legislation Re
Page 63 and 64:
Page 65 and 66:
Page 67 and 68:
Page 69 and 70:
Page 71 and 72:
Page 73 and 74:
Page 75 and 76:
Page 77 and 78:
Page 79 and 80:
Page 81 and 82:
Page 83 and 84:
Page 85 and 86:
Page 87 and 88:
Page 89 and 90:
Page 91 and 92:
Page 93 and 94:
Page 95 and 96:
Page 97 and 98:
Page 99 and 100:
Page 101 and 102:
Page 103 and 104:
Page 105 and 106:
Page 107 and 108:
Page 109 and 110:
Page 111 and 112:
Page 113 and 114:
Page 115 and 116:
Page 117 and 118:
Page 119 and 120:
Page 121 and 122:
Page 123 and 124:
Page 125 and 126:
Page 127 and 128:
Page 129 and 130:
Page 131 and 132:
Page 133 and 134:
Page 135 and 136:
Page 137 and 138:
Page 139 and 140:
Page 141 and 142:
Page 143 and 144:
Page 145 and 146:
Page 147 and 148:
Page 149 and 150:
Page 151 and 152:
Page 153 and 154:
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 ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?