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 150 of 3307/5/2010to limit the amount of time a dog can be kept on a chain failed to make it into the new ordinance. The department had plans to require a dog owner to free their dogs after a 12-hour period ona chain, but abandoned the plan because some dog owners have unfenced back yards and have no other means of controlling their dogs. "People complained about this at every meeting," hesaid. "We already have laws against dogs at large. It just has to be enforced."ILLINOISChicago – (8/12/09) - A new law signed by Gov. Pat Quinn this week prohibits convicted dog fighters from owning unsterilized or vicious dogs, making it more difficult for offenders to return to the illegalactivity once they have served their time. According to Best Friends Animal Society, the law is the first of its kind in the United States. It amends the State of Illinois Criminal Code of 1961 to make it amisdemeanor for a convicted dog fighter to own unsterilized dogs or dogs that have been deemed vicious by a court. This includes any unspayed or unneutered dog or puppy older than 12-weeks-old, orirrespective of whether the dog has been spayed or neutered, any dog that has been determined to be a vicious dog under Section 15 of the Animal Control Act.Park Ridge – (8/14/09) - Park Ridge Police Chief Frank Kaminski and City Attorney Everette "Buzz" Hill have been asked to put together an ordinance that combines elements of animal-ownership lawspassed by the city of Evanston, and the villages of Maywood and Buffalo Grove. Both Maywood and Buffalo Grove set specific restrictions for pit bulls. Maywood, for example, requires village permits for pitbull ownership and requires owners to keep the dog muzzled and on a nonretractable leash while in public. Buffalo Grove's ordinance includes some of the same requirements as Maywood, but does not requirea special permit for pit bull ownership or for the pet to be muzzled. Buffalo Grove's ordinance also pertains to rottweilers. Evanston's ordinance only contains regulations for "dangerous dogs," which aredefined, in part, as dogs "with a known propensity, tendency or disposition to attack unprovoked," or dogs that have already attacked a person or domestic animal without provocation. "Dangerous dogs" maynot be kept on a porch, patio or anywhere that would allow the dog to exit the property upon which it lives. They may not be kept inside a house with open windows, even if there are screens in windows anddoors, and the dogs must be muzzled when walked in public. The ordinance also requires the owner to carry an insurance policy of at least $100,000. Bach initially proposed prohibiting pit bull ownership byPark Ridge residents, but on Monday night he indicated that he liked Evanston's ordinance. He has also asked for Park Ridge dog owners to be fined for failing to restrain an animal, and for fines to increase foreach animal-related offense. Fourth Ward Alderman Jim Allegretti said he supported a $100,000 insurance policy requirement for any dog owner. "If they want to own a dog, they ought to have liabilityinsurance for potential damage that dog does," he said. Second Ward Alderman Rich DiPietro said he did not want the city to specifically list pit bulls as prohibited animals, and 1st Ward Alderman JoeSweeney agreed, saying "any dog can be dangerous."Yorkville – (8/11/09) - A pit bull ban here would be against state statute, but the city's public safety committee plans to talk about tougher penalties for dog attacks in the future. At Thursday's committeemeeting, resident Lou Denny brought forward a proposal for a referendum that would ask residents if they want to ban pit bulls in Yorkville. He said he has received more than 40 signatures from residentssupporting the question for a future ballot. If the pit bull ban question were to appear on any ballot, it would likely be considered an advisory referendum, officials said. Such a referendum would not changelaws. According to state statute, non-home-rule communities, including Yorkville, cannot create a regulation or ordinance specific to any breed. Third Ward Alderman Marty Munns suggested the city talkabout tougher penalties for dog attacks instead.Pit bull laws elsewhereOne Chicago-area community, Wheeling, enacted a pit bull ban years ago but no longer has one in place.Other towns like Buffalo Grove have enacted tougher ordinances specific to pit bulls and rottweilers, but do not have bans on either dog. According to Buffalo Grove code, owners of a rottweiler or pit bullterrier must keep their dogs on a leash no longer than six feet. Owners also must provide an enclosed fence for their animal in their yard, and the animal is required to stay within that fence at all times whenoutside. Owners also must post signs at all entrances warning that dogs are on the premises.In Cahokia, a town of about 15,000 not far from the Missouri border, owners must provide a health record of the dog, a certificate of insurance and two photos of the pit bull. Pit bulls in Cahokia, like BuffaloGrove, must be enclosed by a fence and be walked on a leash no longer than four feet. Pit bulls in Cahokia, however, also must be fitted with a muzzle while outside an enclosed area.Denver has one of the most well-known pit bull bans in the country. The American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals claims that the city has euthanized about 1,100 dogs since the pit bull banwas reinstated in 2005.Prince George's County in Maryland also has a longstanding pit bull ban, according to the ASPCA. About 900 pit bulls are killed every year there, they say. Ohio also classifies pit bulls as "vicious animals,"and several cities have bans, according to the ASPCA.INDIANAFt. Wayne – (8/16/09) - Fort Wayne police have been working with Animal Care and Control officers so they can help enforce a new animal cruelty law. The General Assembly created a law in 2007 thatmakes it a felony to kill a pet or animal in an effort to intimidate or terrorize a family member or partner. Violators can be sentenced to up to three years in prison. The Fort Wayne Journal-Gazette reports thatthe law requires an increased burden to prove that the suspect committed the crime. So police officers helped train animal control workers about lawful searches, constitutional rights and the proper way tohandle evidence. Christopher Meihls, a Fort Wayne police patrolman and crime scene technician, said the Animal Care and Control officers were familiar with many of the investigative ideas. But he said thetraining this year helped reinforce how to build a solid case.KANSASHolyrood – (8/5/09) - Holyrood has a cat problem. Feral cats dominated Monday night's meeting of the Holyrood City Council. While it was agreed the cats probably help with containing vermin, theunregistered and stray cats cause problems for citizens, as they often destroy or damage private property. Kristi Herber, a licensed veterinary assistant, addressed the council on the issue, offering herexpertise in the area. She has done some preliminary research in the hopes of resolving the situation without having to euthanize the felines. Herber has contacted a veterinarian about starting a programwhere the city would trap the stray cats, sterilize them, then release them. Sick or disease-laden cats would be euthanized. She said Tennessee State University has such a program which covers the state,but that Kansas State University's program only covers Riley County. Another option would be to live trap the cats and relocate them to a farm or take them to an animal shelter. City clerk Neysa Brownsuggested city attorney Carey Hipp attend the next council meeting to help them understand the laws concerning the problem.Hutchinson – (8/2/09) – A Hutchinson resident is hoping the city will consider banning pit bulls after his grandmother was recently attacked by one while walking her own dog down a local street. Accordingto previous reports by The News, Turon, Salina, Dodge City, Holcomb and Pratt have all implemented a ban on the breed since 2004. Liberal also has a pit bull ban.. Neither Reno County nor the city ofHutchinson has a breed-specific ban in place. Earlier this month, the city of Wichita enacted new restrictions on residents who own pit bulls. Owners of pit bulls there are required to have their dogs implantedwith a microchip and spayed or neutered within six months, unless they have a breeder's license. The city of Hutchinson has not banned its residents from owning pit bulls. It is illegal, however, to have avicious dog. Here's how the ordinance reads: "It shall be unlawful for any person to keep or harbor any vicious dog within the city. Dogs determined to be vicious shall be euthanized or otherwise disposed ofby order of the municipal judge." According to the ordinance, the definition of an owner is any person, firm, corporation, organization or department possessing or harboring or having the care or custody of adog. The term "vicious dog" is defined as: --Any dog with a known propensity, tendency or disposition to attack unprovoked, to cause injury to, or otherwise threaten the safety of human beings or domesticanimals; --Any dog which because of its physical nature, or vicious propensity, is capable of inflicting serious physical harm or death to humans and which would constitute a danger to human life or property ifit were not kept in the manner required by this chapter; --Any dog which, without provocation, attacks or bites, or has attacked or bitten, a human being or domestic animal; or --Any dog owned or harboredprimarily or in part for the purpose of dog fighting, or any dog trained for dog fighting. Those who violate the ordinance can be found guilty of a misdemeanor and may be punished by a fine. In addition, thecourt can order destruction of the vicious dog. A judge's decision to euthanize a dog would be based upon the frequency or severity of any injuries to a human being or domestic animal from the dog, along witha determination that confinement of the dog is not likely to prevent future harm to human beings or domestic animals. Nothing official has been proposed. Please send polite, informative, helpfulcorrespondence to city officials to explain why a breed ban would be unsafe, unjust, and unnecessary.City Council Administrative ContactPhone: 620-694-2611Fax Number: 620-694-2673Physical Address: 125 East Avenue B, Hutchinson, KS 67501Mailing Address: PO Box 1567, Hutchinson, KS 67504-1567Bob Bush, Mayor – Northeast Districtbobb@hutchgov.com4904 Cottonwood, Hutchinson KS 67501Direct Phone: 620-664-6820Cindy Proett, Vice Mayor – Southeast Districtcindyp@hutchgov.com513 E. Sherman, Hutchinson KS 67501Direct Phone: 620-662-5605
The Monthly National Legislation Reporthttp://mnlreport.typepad.com/Page 151 of 3307/5/2010David Razo, Council Member Southwest Districtdjrazo@wildflower.net114 West 12th, Hutchinson KS 67501Direct Phone: 620-662-8037Ron Sellers, Council Member Northwest Districtrons@hutchgov.com3400 Thunderbird Dr., Hutchinson KS 67501Direct Phone: 620-662-9510Trish Rose, Council Member – City-at-Largetrishr@hutchgov.com18 Countryside Drive, Hutchinson KS 67502Direct Phone: 620-663-5113LOUISIANABaton Rouge – (8/11/09) - Animal rights advocates are hailing Louisiana’s adoption of stronger anti-animal cruelty laws. The Bayou State has passed two new laws imposing tougher penalties on those whocommit egregious abuse such as starvation and torture. HB 90 and SB 31 was signed by Gov. Bobby Jindal and takes effect on Saturday. HB 90, now Act 179, was authored by state Rep. Anthony Ligi passedthe state House by a vote of 82 to 8. It strengthens protections for animals by requiring those convicted of a second offense of simple cruelty to face felony penalties, which is not less than $5,000 and not morethan $25,000 or imprisonment, with or without hard labor, for not less than one year nor more than 10 years, or both. Second-offenders must also undergo psychological testing and anger managementcounseling, and will be ordered not to own any animals for a period of time determined by the court. SB 31, now Act 106 and sponsored by state Sen. Robert Adley, had passed by a state Senate vote of 37-0and a House vote of 68-18. It provides for harsher penalties for those who commit aggravated cruelty, which is causing or permitting unnecessary or unjustifiable physical pain, suffering, or death to an animal.MARYLANDCumberland – (8/12/09) - A man who called in a complaint regarding dog feces was surprised to learn that taking care of the problem is not as simple as just contacting the right city official. Having a section inthe city code to address the issue is just a start. Enforcement of the violation is where it gets tricky. Established in October 1990, Chapter 4.11 of the city’s Municipal Code says “any person owning, keeping,possessing or harboring any dog or cat shall promptly remove and dispose of all feces left by the dog or cat on any public property and on any private property not owned by such person or lawfully occupied bysuch person.” This section also states that any person who violates the code will be guilty of a municipal infraction and issued a $25 fine. Chuck Winebrenner, code enforcement officer for the city’snuisance/property maintenance, said first and foremost, anyone who makes a complaint must be prepared to be a witness in court. Frostburg also has an ordinance similar to Cumberland’s. The Frostburgordinance requires owners to “immediately remove and thereafter dispose of any fecal matter deposited by his dog on any public property or on any private property without the consent of the owner or personin lawful possession of said private property.” The ordinance also states how to dispose of fecal matter.Prince George – (8/17/09) - Opponents of a long-standing pit bull ban in Prince George's County might have an easier time breaking the notorious grip of the dogs themselves than getting the prohibitionrepealed. Time and again -- despite the recommendations of experts and the outcry of animal rights advocates -- efforts to lift the ban have failed. But none of that stopped Laurel Mayor Craig A. Moe fromgiving it a go. Last month, Moe wrote to County Executive Jack B. Johnson (D) asking that a task force be formed to take another look at the law. In his letter, Moe said that Laurel has seen an increase in pitbulls and that "all such dogs observed have been calm in demeanor and completely under their owners' control." Then came a jarring reminder of why many officials view revisiting the ban as a non-starter.Last Monday, a 20-year-old man was found dead in a Leesburg house from a headline grabbing attack by two pit bulls. On Thursday, John Erzen, a spokesman for Johnson, said the executive is "not interestedin repealing the ban, nor is he interested in establishing a task force" to review it. Members of the County Council said they did not think Moe's proposal would gain traction, and the county's chief of animalcontrol declined to weigh in on the policy. Even without the Leesburg attack, Moe's request was likely doomed because of the way pit bull politics work in Prince George's: Oppose the ban, and risk appearingsoft on public safety and the dogfighting rings and drug dealers often associated with the dogs; support it, and incur the wrath of vocal animal rights groups and dog owners who view the policy as cruel. "Noone wants to spend time or political capital dealing with" the pit bull issue, said Del. Justin D. Ross (D-Prince George's). "In light of dealing with poverty and budget issues and drug addiction and youth crime,the fact that we would spend even one moment talking about this issue is insane." The county law, passed by the council in 1996, outlawed pit bulls but included a clause allowing owners to register thoseacquired before February 1997. Owners caught with unregistered pit bulls face up to six months in jail and a $1,000 fine. Pit bulls seized by the county are euthanized or transferred to an out-of-countygovernment shelter, although there is an appeals process for owners to try to get their dogs back, said Rodney C. Taylor, associate director of the county's Animal Management Group. Prince George's ban isamong the strictest pit bull policies in the nation. The District has no ban and allows shelters to offer pit bulls for adoption after being evaluated for temperament. Fairfax, Arlington, Montgomery and PrinceWilliam counties have policies similar to the District's. Loudon County does not offer the animals for adoption but allows them to be transferred to other shelters or rescue groups if they pass an evaluation.Rising Sun – (8/12/09) - Commissioners in Rising Sun have passed an emergency ordinance requiring that unattended dogs be tethered or fenced in, and large dogs be attended when outdoors. The ordinance,adopted on Tuesday, details how and where a dog should be tied, as well as height requirements for fences. The ordinance describes nuisance behaviors. Those behaviors include excessive barking, whining,howling, molesting passers-by, chasing vehicles, attacking other domestic animals, damaging property other than that of its owner. Enforcement will be at the discretion of town police. Penalties are $50 for thefirst offense and $100 for additional infractions. The ordinance takes effect Sept. 1.MASSACHUSETTSBoston – (8/7/09) - The courts should dismiss a request for an inquest into whether proponents of a 2008 ballot law banning dog racing made false statements as part of their pitch to voters, according toAttorney General Martha Coakley. “There is no need to conduct an inquest because the complaint does not allege a prosecutable violation” of state laws, Coakley wrote in a 16-page brief submitted in a casebeing heard in Lynn District Court. Opponents of the racing ban argue that sponsors of the ballot question misled voters by claiming race dogs were kept in uncomfortably small enclosures, were only adoptedat a 31 percent rate, and by making footage of cruel acts against dogs in other states appear as though they were occurring in Massachusetts. In her argument, Coakley sided with backers of the ban, who calledthe complaints “nothing more than post-election sour grapes.” She questioned the wisdom of using the resources of the court to prosecute such complaints. Drawing on well-known Supreme Court precedent,such as New York Times v. Sullivan, Coakley argued that those seeking the inquest would have to prove that racing ban proponents made their statements with “actual malice,” or “reckless disregard” for thetruth, not simply as a matter of opinion. “The phrase ‘small cages barely large enough to stand up’ cannot be proved false and therefore, is not actionable,” Coakley argued. “Where a statement is too impreciseand vague to be proved false, it is not actionable.” Coakley also pointed out that the 31 percent adoption rate harnessed by proponents of the racing ban was a number included in a 2007 state report and, sheconcludes, cannot be construed to reach the level of “actual malice,” regardless of its validity. Voters passed the ban in November by a 56-44 margin. The ban is scheduled to take effect Jan. 1, 2010. An effortto delay the ban failed in the Senate this spring and ban proponents have been locking down votes in the House in anticipation of a possible bid there to delay implementation of the voter law. Legislation (S2041) sponsored by Sen. Marc Pacheco (D-Taunton), Sen. Thomas Kennedy (D-Brockton) and Rep. James Fagan (D-Taunton) would delay implementation of the law until Jan. 1, 2012. The bill has beensitting for months before the Economic Development Committee, which has not scheduled a public hearing on the legislation. The three lawmakers represent workers at a Raynham dog track.Mashpee – (8/14/09) - Neighbors of a residential kennel with six pit bulls have proposed a bylaw to be heard at the October Mashpee town hall meeting. The bylaw would, among other things:1. limit pit bull ownership to one per home;2. requirement of a special license;3. require liability insurance policies of at least $1 million dollars;4. require dogs to be leashed and muzzled "when owner is not around";5. mandatory spay/neutering;6. posting of warning signs on house ("Warning -- Pit Bull Dog");The bylaw defines "pit bull" as:Any dog that is an American Pit Bull Terrier, American Staffordshire Terrier, Staffordshire Bull Terrier, or any dog of mixed breed displaying the majority of the physical traits of any one or more of the abovebreeds, or any dog exhibiting those distinguishing characteristics which substantially conform to the standards established by the AKC or UKC.Please send your POLITE, RESPECTFUL AND INFORMATIVE letters of opposition to the Mashpee city officials listed below. Please also send your suggestions and viable alternatives to breed specific
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:
Page 55 and 56:
Page 57 and 58:
Page 59 and 60:
Page 61 and 62:
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: The Monthly National Legislation Re
Page 149: The Monthly National Legislation Re
Page 171: The Monthly National Legislation Re
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?