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

The Monthly National Legislation Reporthttp://mnlreport.typepad.com/Page 124 of 3307/5/2010Elkhart - (9/8/09) - City Council held another public forum tonight to discuss a proposed pit bull ban. The ordinance would grandfather in current pit bull owners. But to keep their dogs, ownerswould have to meet several requirements within 180 days of when the law goes into effect. Those requirements include muzzling their dogs and carrying $300,000 worth of insurance. The Councilwill form a committee to explore the issue. After 30 days, the committee will make its recommendation to the Council. A vote is not expected until late October or early November.Michigan City – (9/25/09) - A group of self-described "responsible" dog owners living near Washington Park have appealed to the Park Board to modify a city ordinance thatbans canines from city parks.The requests were made last week Thursday at the first of several workshops scheduled by the Park Board. Park Board President Phil Latchford said the board wants to gatherinformation before taking any action to push the City Council for an ordinance change. The city ordinance bans dogs inside Washington Park and along the bordering sidewalk,but signs aren't posted there. A few signs are located at the park's main entrance. Park Superintendent Jan Orlich said employees can give tickets to offending dog owners. The first fine is $25.Terre Haute – (9/3/09) - Local animal advocates urged the Terre Haute City Council on Thursday night to support several changes to the city’s animal control ordinance. At a 6 p.m. special meeting of thecouncil, members of the public and representatives of animal groups told council members that the proposed changes will help reduce stray cat populations and help prevent the growth of “cat colonies.” Therevised city ordinance would make it unlawful for anyone to feed a colony of cats unless the cats are in a “managed” colony and registered with the Terre Haute Police Department’s Code EnforcementDivision. It would also make it unlawful to feed colonies of cats unless the food is provided as part of a program known as “trap, neuter and return.” Other proposed changes in the animal control ordinanceinclude forcing pet owners to have microchips inserted into their pets if their dog or cat becomes lost without an identification tag. The council could vote on the proposed changes to the animal controlordinance at next Thursday’s regular meeting. UPDATE: (9/10/09) - The Terre Haute City Council voted 7-1 Thursday night to pass a revised animal control ordinance that sets standards for handling “catcolonies” in the city. According to the amended ordinance, it is now against the law to provide food, water or shelter to a colony of “free-roaming cats” unless the colony is “managed” and registered with theproper city officials. It is also unlawful to feed, provide water or shelter to free-roaming cats except as part of a “trap, neuter and return” program.IOWADecorah – (9/2/09) - County officials are being asked to consider a dog-barking ordinance.Bob Watson of rural Decorah and Mike Meyer of Ossian submitted their proposal to the Winneshiek County Boardof Supervisors Monday. Watson said the Winneshiek County sheriff and county attorney's office have had input on it. The ordinance would have to be published and a public hearing would be required before itcould be considered for adoption, according to Winneshiek County Auditor Ben Steines. The proposal states: "If multiple neighbors complain once to the sheriff, or a designated county employee, about dogsbarking and have a log of barking incidents or if one neighbor complains multiple times to the sheriff, or a designated county employee, and has a log of the barking incidents, and the sheriff or a designatedcounty employee verified the barking; "If a conversation with the dog owner by the sheriff, or a designated county employee, doesn't result in abatement of the barking; "The owner of the dogs will need toeither put the dogs inside so that barking is not noticeable to the neighbors, and/or lease-to-buy a barking collar from the county or obtain privately, so that the barking is abated and the neighbors do not have tohear the barking. "If the owner fails in taking action to abate this barking through the aforementioned steps, the owner will be subject to daily fines by the county until action is taken resulting in neighbors nothaving to listen to barking from said owners' dog (s)."DesMoines – (9/29/09) - Photos of dogs with matted fur, fleas, blackened teeth or crippled legs after being confined for lengthy periods in breeders’ cages prompted the same feelings of outrage in statelawmakers of both parties Tuesday. And after some heated exchanges, both Democratic and Republican lawmakers eventually agreed on how to crack down on so-called puppy mills. A 10-member studycommittee voted unanimously to recommend the Iowa Legislature authorize state inspectors to inspect federally-licensed breeders when they get complaints. To pay for the state’s higher inspection costs,lawmakers should increase registration fees for breeders which has been $20 for 22 years, the committee said. Making veterinarians “mandatory reporters” of animal abuse and neglect is another idea theLegislature should consider, committee members decided. And state officials should investigate whether Iowa should be capturing more sales taxes from dog sales. Some version of suggestions, and severalothers, will likely end up in a bill discussed by state lawmakers when the session begins in January, said Rep. Jim Lykam, D-Davenport, co-chairman of the study committee. About 72,000 dogs were sold inIowa in 2007, the most recent year complete data was available. The average price per puppy was $229. Iowa breeder revenue totaled $16.4 million, LaHay said. “We can afford to raise license fees,” LaHaysaid. State Rep. Dwayne Alons, R-Hull, argued today that breeders in his area are struggling already and they don’t need the hassle of more inspections. The activists played for lawmakers a video taken with ahidden camera in 2006 that showed dogs in kennels with accumulated fecal matter and dirty water dishes at several Iowa breeders.Des Moines – (9/29/09) - Breed or behavior? Those issues form the core of a debate brewing in Des Moines over proper regulations for dogs whose bloodlines or tendency to bite earn them the tag "vicious"under a local ordinance. City officials have called for a mix of tougher license fees, insurance requirements and owner training to strengthen Des Moines' vicious-dog ordinance and reduce the number ofattacks. Calls for the removal of language that defines pit bull-type breeds as vicious, however, have not been included in proposed changes. The city reported 182 dog bites spread among five breeds in 2006,the last year numbers were kept. Nearly 29 percent of those bites were attributed to pit bulls, city records show. The highest number of bites - 56 - came from Labrador retrievers, one of the most widely owneddogs registered in Des Moines. Key recommendations outlined in a Monday City Council workshop included:- Increasing liability insurance to $300,000 from $100,000 and requiring owners to show proof of 12 months of coverage. - Increasing the vicious-dog license fee to $35 from $15 for spayed and neutered dogsand $55 for dogs that are not altered. - Requiring mandatory training for dog owners whose animals are deemed "vicious by behavior." Dog owners whose canines are deemed "vicious by breed" would nothave to attend training classes unless they violated containment requirements outlined in the city ordinance.A total ban on pit bulls was considered, Assistant City Manager Randy Wetmore said, but such action was deemed impractical. Tom Colvin, executive director of the Animal Rescue League of Iowa, said cityofficials are "definitely going in the right direction." "The issues at hand are public safety, responsible pet ownership, and identifying and dealing properly with irresponsible pet ownership," Colvin said. "Thatcan either go by ignorance or intentionally having a vicious dog." Colvin said he's concerned that the city's current regulations have fostered a sense of distrust among even responsible pet owners, who mightnot want to register their dogs because they know that the animals would be automatically labeled "vicious." Colvin said he hoped the city would gravitate toward rules that do not single out breeds.Fort Dodge – (9/27/09) - A diverse agenda featuring everything from trail connections to a new panel on animal control laws awaits the Fort Dodge City Council Monday. The council will meet at 6 p.m. in theMunicipal Building, 819 First Ave. S. Major items to be considered include: The appointment of a panel to review the city's animal control laws. To get some ideas, the council decided to set up a committeeof citizens and local officials to examine the existing animal laws and make suggestions for improvements. Councilwoman Cindy Litwiller said the panel will likely include representatives of the Kennel Club;Blaine Hepp, the city-county animal control officer; Acting Police Chief Doug Utley; Councilman Curt Olson, who is the chairman of the council's Public Safety Committee; and Koll. The committee will have90 days to submit its findings to the council. Council members will likely take formal action to create the committee on Monday. ''I think it comes down to a huge enforcement issue,'' Litwiller said of theanimal control concerns.Mason City – Cerro Gordo – (9/8/09) - Cerro Gordo County Supervisors will address a proposed ordinance regarding animal control and owner responsibilities in unincorporatedcounty areas on Tuesday, Sept. 22. Board members heard comments on the topic Tuesday, but Supervisors Phil Dougherty and Jay Urdahl agreed to defer action until Board Chairman BobAmosson, who was absent, can review additional public comments. The complaint-based ordinance would make it illegal to have animals that disturb the peace and quiet for more than 15minutes, and prohibit owners from having animals running at large, harassing, biting or scratching and leaving wastes that becomes a health hazard. It also would ban dogs from public parksduring events sponsored by Board of Supervisors or County Conservation Board unless sanctioned by either board. Violations would be misdemeanors carrying a $25 fine for the first offense,up to $100 for a second offense and up to $200 for a third offense. The ordinance would make it illegal to have animals that disturb the peace for more than 15 minutes and would prohibitowners from having animals running at large, harassing, biting or scratching, or leaving wastes that become a health hazard. It is in response to complaints of barking dogs in rural areas nearBurchinal, South Shore drive in Clear Lake, and Winnebago Heights north of Mason City. The ordinance has been amended to include unincorporated areas around municipalities.KENTUCKYIndependence – (9/13/09) - Nothing official has been proposed. It is not clear whether the council will decide to do something breed-specific. Of course, the problem seems to be a few loose dogs. Makes onewonder why a simple leash law cannot be enforced.Next Independence city council meetingOctober 5, 7 PMIndependence Municipal Center, 5409 Madison PikeIndependence, KY city council contact info: http://www.cityofindependence.org/government/council/default.aspLawrenceburg - (9/8/09) - ordinance that would have tightened the leash on potentially vicious and vicious dogs was killed last Tuesday morning by the Anderson County Fiscal Court.Louisville – (10/3/09) - The federal judge finally issued his decision in the case of Louisville Kennel Club, et al vs. Metro Government. The final ruling ran to over 20 pages and will have sweepingimpact on a national level as well as in Louisville. Below is the notice from LKC President, Donna Herzig, which clarifies some of the decision:"This is a great decision. Judge Simpson found that the determination between altered and unaltered dogs is without merit and therefore the requirement of inspection of enclosuresfor unaltered dogs by Animal Control is unconstitutional. "He additionally found that dogs are personal property [under the 14th Amendment to the US Constititution] , and therequirement of a seizure bond (where you must post a bond upon a showing of probable cause and if you cannot post the bond your animals become the property of the state, cityetc.)is unconstitutional and a finding of guilt must occur before a court can take your property. "The judge issued an injunction prohibiting the city from enforcing these provisions."With respect to the Fourth Amendment issue, the Court dismissed it because the city agreed with us. However, the Court spent a lot of time discussing the Fourth Amendment andstated that notwithstanding the ordinance seeming to allow for seizure without a warrant for tethering violations, for some cruelty issues and for any violation of the ordinance (aprovision used by Meloche to seize animals for violations of his alleged Class A requirements) the Court reasoned that no ordinance provision nullifies a warrant requirement so as to those seizures LMAS must