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

The Monthly National Legislation Reporthttp://mnlreport.typepad.com/Page 123 of 3307/5/2010from the city shelter. People have 30 days after they take the pet home or 30 days after the pet reaches sexual maturity to get it spayed or neutered. If pet owners fail to follow through, they could face up to sixmonths in jail and up to a $1,000 fine. Council member John Williams says the penalties will help control the city's pet population. John Williams is also leading an effort to protect people from vicious dogs inthe city. Williams is seeking public input for an ordinance to require more restraints on viscous dogs and penalties for owners who fail to control them.IDAHODriggs – (9/23/09) - The Driggs City Council last week requested that the Targhee Animal Shelter help the city find the best way to deal with feral cats. These cats are different than house cats only becausethey spend most of their lives fending for themselves, typically in colonies that grow around a reliable food source. Driggs and Victor both have multiple feral cat colonies, and after they recently received aletter from a concerned citizen, the City of Driggs began researching the problem and possible solutions. Lea Colasuonno, a board member at the Targhee Animal Shelter, was at the city council meeting lastweek to request funding this year from the city’s budget, and though the budget hearing had to be postponed, council members at the meeting asked her to help them learn more about the problem and whatoptions exist to deal with it.Mountain Home – (9/19/09) - A handful of Mountain Home residents expressed their concerns regarding proposed changes to the city's animal control ordinance and increases to licensing fees at a citycouncil meeting Monday. If approved, the revised ordinance would require pet owners in Mountain Home to pay additional licensing fees and fines while putting new restrictions on owning more than five petswithin city limits.Nampa – (9/22/09) - The Nampa City Council did not make any changes to its vicious dog policy after hearing from law enforcement officials during a Monday meeting. Officials recently discussed providingan option other than euthanasia for animals deemed vicious whose owners are unwilling or unable to meet requirements to keep them in the city. One proposal could have allowed rescue facilities to retrieveand rehabilitate animals that experts find to be trainable, and then put them up for adoption outside Nampa. Augsburger said that he didn't like the idea of just moving the problem. He said changes in the lastyear have been made to give parties due process by allowing them to go before two boards as a check and balance to determine if the dog is vicious.Pocatello – (9/29/09)- Protesters against the vicious dog ordinance in Pocatello are voicing their frustrations once again. People held signs to show their disappointment in the City's Animal Control code. Thegroup also encouraged people to sign petitions against the policy. The current policy states that a dog can be picked up for being vicious if they threaten someone outside of your own yard. Tuesday's protest infront of the Bannock County Courthouse took place because a dog owner was in court defending her dog which was considered vicious.ILLINOISChicago - (9/11/09) - pet owners would be fined up to $250 for having a dog that barks incessantly under a proposal introduced Wednesday by two influential aldermen. Aldermen Pat O'Connor (40th) and Richard Mell (33rd)want the ordinance because of complaints from constituents whose neighbors won't shut up their dogs. Specifically, the noises they are targeting include habitual barking, whining, crying, howling, whimpering or other noises that arelouder than two people talking at a distance of 100 feet or more. UPDATE: (9/30/09) - The City Council´s Police Committee today authorized a crackdown that would slap hefty fines - ranging from $50 to $250 for each offense -against the owners of loudmouth dogs."It´s not an anti-dog thing. It´s not preventing dogs from being dogs," said Ald. Pat O´Connor (40th), chief sponsor. "It just means that if you let your dog bark all day, every day, disturbing the peace for people who live in the area . .. police can do something." Fines would be triggered, only if the racket "exceeds ten consecutive minutes" or occurs "intermittently for a significant portion of the day or night" and is "louder than average conversational level at adistance of 100 feet or more."Unless a police officer or animal control makes a "personal observation," citations would have to be "signed and sworn to byresidents of three different addresses."Effingham – (9/23/09) - Effingham County Board members plan to pass an amended animal control ordinance at their Nov. 16 meeting, board chairwoman Carolyn Willenburg said Wednesday. How theboard will amend the ordinance is still up in the air, but State’s Attorney Ed Deters offered a number of suggestions at Wednesday’s Public Safety Committee meeting. Deters said several suggestions outlinedWednesday would be incorporated into the revised ordinance, while others would be administrative changes that would not require board action.Deters’ suggested amendments include:• Imposing higher fines on owners cited for animals running loose or deemed “vicious and dangerous.”• Implementing a “zero tolerance” policy for dogs running at large, that is, give every offending dog owner a ticket no matter if the dog is a farm animal.• Implement an anti-hoarding ordinance.Whatever the case, Deters said, the new ordinance should reflect an intolerance for owning dozens of cats or dogs. Some county residents have been accused by their neighbors of “hoarding” dozens of cats intheir home, reportedly causing a stench throughout the neighborhoods.• Make it easier to have dogs declared vicious or dangerous.Administrative changes would include placing the county’s animal control department under the authority of the Sheriff’s Department, make it easier for volunteers to work at the county’s humane society, andimplement programs to increase owner responsibility for pet sterilization and registration, including rabies tags. Deters emphasized that the board would have to decide whether these issues should beincorporated into the amended ordinance. Deters suggested members of the public could weigh in with opinions at the board’s Oct. 19 meeting.Hebron – (9/22/09) – McHenry County - Hebron ordinance on number of pets allowed - Village officials sent out a letter to 414 households in Hebron informing residents that village trustees wanted todiscuss the issue. Village President Frank Beatty reassured the standing room only audience several times that the board was not against dogs or dog owners, but wanted to discuss the issue. Most of those inattendance, however, scoffed at the idea of enforcing any limit on how many dogs a person could own. Repeatedly, people said that one dog could be a nuisance if the owner was irresponsible and that it wasthe behavior of owners that should be the target of village enforcement, not an arbitrary number. The board is going to continue to deal with the issue in the coming weeks, although several Village Boardmembers said they thought that the best way to handle the issue would be to deal with the behavior of specific dogs and their owners rather than to focus on the number of dogs that someone owned. VillageBoard member Jim Kastner also said that there were existing ordinances that could be used. Beatty said the village hoped to have a reworked ordinance dealing with the issue by Nov. 1.Park Ridge – (9/18/09) – Park Ridge is considering changes to its dangerous-animals ordinance. The updates would tighten the definition of dangerous animals, the rules under which they can be kept, andupdate license fees and violation fines. Aldermen this week sent the proposed changes back to city officials for further review and agreed to revisit the draft legislation in October. They emphasized that theproposed changes do not target breeds. Among the draft legislation's provisions -- drawn from, or influenced by ordinances in Evanston, Buffalo Grove, Maywood & San Diego.- an owner of a dangerousanimal would have to:--Show proof of at least $100,000 in liability insurance coverage upon the request of a police or animal control officer, and post "beware of dog" or "dangerous dog" signs on all property entrances.--Spay or neuter the animal and have an identification microchip implanted, at owner's expense.--Keep the animal muzzled and on a leash when off their own properties.--Install an exterior cage at least 5 feet tall, or keep the animal indoors.The city defines a dangerous animal as any that attacks unprovoked or has a reputation for viciousness. Whether an animal is considereddangerous is at the discretion of the police chief. The proposal would expand the definition of a dangerous animal to include dogs trained as attack or guard dogs, except for police dogs, and "any animal which,without provocation, in a vicious or terrorizing manner approaches any person in an apparent attitude of attack, whether or not the attack is consummated or capable of being consummated." (Contact MargoMilde at mrm1206@yahoo.com or use the email me button (upper left column) on the top of the report to request a copy of the proposed ordinance in full)River Grove – (9/21/09) - River Grove officials are considering reviewing the village's vicious dog ordinance following a couple of incidents. Any recommendations first will go before the OrdinanceCommittee, said Trustee Lynn Bjorvik, who heads the committee. The village also would hold a public hearing on any changes. Village ordinance defines a dangerous or vicious animal as:• any animal that when unprovoked inflicts bites on or attacks a human being or domestic animal either on public or private property or in a vicious or terrorizing manner approaches any person in an apparentattitude of attack on any public way or in any public place;• any animal with a known propensity, tendency or disposition to attack without provocation, to cause injury or otherwise to endanger the safety of human beings or domestic animals;• any animal that attacks a human being or domestic animal without provocation; or• any animal owned, harbored, trained or used for fighting against another animal.Any animal defending itself is not considered by ordinance to be vicious.INDIANA(9/25/09) - The push continues to bring harsher penalties to puppy mill owners in Indiana. Wednesday morning, the Indiana State Director for the Humane Society of the United States stopped by the WNDUstudios.She says although Indiana lawmakers passed the first law prosecuting puppy mills -- there's still more work to be done. For example -- the law doesn't set a cap on the number of dogs a puppy millcan own. Meaning someone can still keep hundreds of dogs. "Unless your city or county has a cap on the number of dogs, there is not statewide law on the total number. So, you could still conceivable have700 or 1000 dogs on property," explains Anne Sterling, Indiana State Director of the HSUS. Sterling says the Indiana law does help bring better care to dogs kept by commercial breeders -- by strengtheninganimal cruelty codes.