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

The Monthly National Legislation Reporthttp://mnlreport.typepad.com/Page 115 of 3307/5/2010South Charleston – (10/1/09) - South Charleston City Council voted unanimously to pass the dangerous dog ordinance with only minor corrections Thursday night, even though several dogowners were on hand to object to some of the language. The ordinance goes into effect immediately. Owners of dangerous dogs, as defined in the ordinance, have 60 days to register for apermit. In other business, the council accepted a proposed ordinance from resident Karen Miller for deer hunting within South Charleston. The proposed ordinance will be presented to theordinance committee where it will be reviewed and evaluated before council considers it for approval. The ordinance will likely have terms that limit the amount of land needed in order tohunt. Miller's ordinance proposed a plot of no less than 10 acres.WISCONSINDunn County – (10/11/09) - Nine resolutionsMember approved, with little discussion, nine prepared resolutions, and one that could have major impact said, “We support letting free enterprise run its course in the dairy industry.”Elimination of a current five percent surcharge on certain agricultural chemicals and organic crop insurance is the goal of two resolutions. It was contended that organic farmers don’t receivehigher yields than non-organic farmers. Therefore, insurance rates shouldn’t differ. The resolution, “We support state legislation to mandate individual animal identification” attracted someattention. One opponent wondered if ear tags would be a requirement for chickens, cats, and similar animals. Proponents, however, said forced identification is working well in the vegetableindustry where a producer who is causing problems can be identified almost immediately.Other adopted resolutions:• We support legislation prohibiting local units of government regulating animal care and welfare and granting this authority to the state Department of Agriculture, Trade and ConsumerProtection (DATCP).• We support change to one federal milk marketing order and one class of milk. (Presently, there are four classes of milk.)• We oppose climate change legislation at the state and national level that would increase costs to production agriculture.• We oppose government run national health care center.• We support land classification being controlled at a local level.Kenosha – (10/21/09) - State investigators are trying to determine what caused the deaths of six greyhounds at the Dairyland dog track in Kenosha, including four that bled to death. TheDepartment of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection is testing the food the dogs ate to see if the deaths are due to a food-borne illness. The state Division of Gaming is alsoinvestigating. Gaming administrator Bob Sloey says two dogs that died last weekend came from different kennels. The first four deaths, since August, involved dogs from the same kenneloperator. The investigation comes as dog track operators decide the future of Dairyland. It lost $3.4 million last year. Attendance so far this year is down 19 percent.Kimberly – (10/6/09) - The Village Board changed its leash law ordinance to not only require restraint, but also prohibit animal owners from allowing their dogs to bark at, run up to orotherwise harass passersby. Trustee Mike Hruzek, who works as a mail carrier, sought an ordinance change. He initially sought setbacks and signage requirements for those using electronicfences in effort to let people know that seemingly free-roaming dogs were indeed restrained. Fox Valley Metro Assistant Police Chief Mark Recker weighed in on the issue this spring, sayingthe village's ordinance requiring owners to restrain their dogs applied to electronic fences. Hruzek said the ordinance change is a good solution. Police Chief Erik Misselt suggested thechanges passed on Monday after considering discussions on setbacks and whether to grandfather those who already have electronic fences in place. Such an ordinance would be difficult toenforce, he told trustees by memo. There would also be a problem with enforcing electronic fencing at a setback while physical fencing would be allowed up to the property line. Harassmentby dogs rather than the method of restraint is the issue, he wrote. Misselt said the changes allow officers to enforce the ordinance on irresponsible pet owners rather than penalizing thosewho invested money on fencing.Madison – (10/21/09) - The state Assembly is set to take up puppy mill legislation this week, which would require tighter regulation of dog breeders in Wisconsin. The bill has broadbipartisan support, with 71 out of 132 Assembly lawmakers signing on as co-sponsors. The proposal would force breeders who sell more than 25 dogs a year to be licensed, allowing thestate more freedom to investigate breeders before issuing a license. Authorities could also suspend or revoke that license if violations are discovered. Supporters of the bill say this legislationis a major step forward in protecting dogs and shutting down puppy mill brokers. But some opponents take issue with the number of animals that places a breeder under supervision by thestate. UPDATE: (10/23/09) – AKC ALERT - The Wisconsin Legislature is scheduled to consider Assembly Bill 250 and Senate Bill 208 on Tuesday, October 27. These bills have beensignificantly amended to require reasonable standards of care for all who sell over 25 dogs per year, as well as animal rescues and shelters. AB 250 excludes from the definition anyone whosells 25 or more dogs in a year if those dogs result from three litters or less. The AKC appreciates the significant effort made to protect the health of dogs, as well as ensuring both hobby andcommercial breeders are included in the regulatory process.Though the bills differ slightly, they will require:Animal shelters, animal control facilities, dog breeders, dog breeding facilities, dog dealers, and out-of-state dog dealers to be licensed. "Dog breeder" is defined as anyone who breeds,raises, and sells 25 or more dogs in a year.Inspection of facilities prior to licensure, and once every two years thereafter. Inspections may occur any time during normal business hours.Licensees to adhere to prescribed standards of care, including sufficient food and water, providing veterinary care, and providing proper enclosures for dogs.Licensees to keep detailed records regarding each dog kept on licensed premises.The Department of Agriculture to establish an advisory committee to assist in writing rules made pursuant to the bills. This advisory committee will be comprised of a variety of members,including small and large-volume breeders and a representative of a dog sporting association.We remain concerned, however, about several provisions. As currently written, the Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection (DATCP) is permitted to increase breederlicensing fees if necessary to cover administrative costs. With no limit on fees that range from $250-$1,000, this provision could make dog breeding cost-prohibitive and potentially put manyresponsible dog breeders out of business. We also recommend that a grandfather or warning provision be included, so that breeders will be given an opportunity to obtain a license and comeinto compliance with the new law prior to being fined or imprisoned. To find the names and contact information for your Representative and Senator, visit the Wisconsin State Legislature’sweb site. UPDATE: (10/27/09) - Large-scale dog breeding facilities, sometimes known as puppy mills, will now be regulated in Wisconsin. By a 96-0 vote, the Wisconsin Assembly votedTuesday to approve a bill to regulate the facilities, which will now require licenses from the Wisconsin Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection. Sen. Pat Kreitlow (D-Chippewa Falls) is the author of the Senate version of the bill and Rep. Jeff Smith (D-Eau Claire) the author of the Assembly version. Under the measure, breeders who sell more than 25dogs annually would have to get a license. The state would investigate the breeder before issuing a license and could suspend or revoke it for violations. “Assembly passage marks one ofthe final steps towards finally shutting down the bad breeders in Wisconsin and protecting those who truly care about the dogs they raise,” Kreitlow said. “We’ve worked hard with allinterested parties to develop a bill that will provide needed standards of care while also protecting responsible breeders,” Smith said. “This bill is the product of numerous conversations, andrepresents the work of individuals and groups across Wisconsin that understand the need for regulation.” The bill grants the Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protectionrulemaking authority for the dog breeding industry. An advisory committee composed of individuals from interested groups will participate in the rulemaking process. UPDATE: (10/31/09) - Abill that would regulate dog breeders in response to the growing number of puppy mills in Wisconsin has passed the State Assembly unanimously and now moves on to the State Senate.Village of Pewaukee – (10/12/09) - Some members of the Village Board are open to considering some type of vicious dog ordinance, though anything it will pass might not be much of adeterrent to keeping such an animal, according to the board's attorney. The board directed the Police Department to provide an analysis of dog-related incidents and see whether there areany trends. Based on that information, the board will determine whether a new vicious dog ordinance should be enacted. At the board's Oct. 6 meeting, Village Administrator Scott Gossereported there were three options the board could look at: a breed-specific ordinance that would prohibit certain breeds in the village, an ordinance that is based on repeated incidents by thesame dog, and referring to state statutes, which the village currently does.WYOMINGCasper – (10/8/09) - Casper has a big barking dog problem and something needs to be done about it. In an article Feb. 6 in the Casper Star-Tribune, The Answer Girl said Casper does havean ordinance that deals with barking dogs. Ordinance 6.04.010 (paragraph 24).