<strong>The</strong> <strong>Monthly</strong> <strong>National</strong> <strong>Legislation</strong> <strong>Report</strong>http://mnlreport.typepad.com/<strong>Page</strong> 152 <strong>of</strong> <strong>330</strong>7/5/<strong>2010</strong>ordinances.MASHPEE TOWN SELECTMENdmyers@ci.mashpee.ma.us,tcook@ci.mashpee.ma.us,jcahalane@ci.mashpee.ma.us,wtaylor@ci.mashpee.ma.us,mrichardson@ci.mashpee.ma.usMashpee Town Hall16 Great Neck Road NorthMashpee, MA 02649Phone: (508) 539-1400Board <strong>of</strong> Selectivebos@ci.mashpee.ma.usJoyce MasonTown Managerbos@ci.mashpee.ma.usDeborah DamiTown Clerktownclerk@ci.mashpee.ma.usThanks to Jodi Preis for the information ! Visit the Bless the Bullys Rescue & Education site at http://www.blessthebullys.com/ or just click HERE !MICHIGANMt. Clemens – (8/4/09) - After listening to over an hour and a half <strong>of</strong> public comments from locals both for and against <strong>of</strong>ficials enacting a new Dangerous Animals Ordinance, the MountClemens City Commission voted 5-2 in favor <strong>of</strong> the version <strong>of</strong> the law that places restrictions specifically on pit bulls. <strong>The</strong> City Commission has been debating the issue for a couple <strong>of</strong> monthsand has had trouble making a decision. On the agenda for the Aug. 3 meeting were two different drafts <strong>of</strong> the ordinance — one that specifically named pit bulls as a dangerous dog, whichpassed, and one that didn’t — to give <strong>of</strong>ficials more than one option. All pit bulls must now be leashed and muzzled anytime they are outside <strong>of</strong> their kennel. Owners are now responsible forputting up a fence or kennel that is at least 6 feet high within the next four months. Also, within the next 30 days, pit bull owners must place a sign on their property that states “Dog onPremises.” <strong>The</strong> only way that the restrictions wouldn’t apply is if an owner took their pit bull to be certified through the American Kennel Club’s Good Citizen Program within four months.MINNESOTASt. Paul – (8/16/09) - St. Paul <strong>of</strong>ficials are considering whether to make it easier for residents to take chickens under their wings. An ordinance change to be introduced Wednesday would allow residents tokeep as many as three hens without requiring neighbors' approval. Roosters are forbidden, because <strong>of</strong> noise and fighting concerns. <strong>The</strong> proposed ordinance changes, sponsored by Council Member Russ Stark,were spurred by community interest. Some big cities, such as Atlanta, New York and Seattle, let residents keep chickens. Elsewhere, community groups are pushing for laws allowing urban chickens. Locally,Minneapolis allows residents to raise chickens; so do Anoka, Burnsville and a few other suburbs. Hastings last week decided against allowing chickens in residential neighborhoods. Folks against city chickensraise concerns about noise, smells, cleanliness and public health. Some think chickens simply don't belong in the city. Proponents disagree, saying that chickens provide eggs, cut down on trash because they eatalmost anything and aren't that loud. <strong>The</strong> changes - Chickens have been allowed in St. Paul for a while, but owners must get a license and the consent <strong>of</strong> their neighbors. Prospective chicken-keepers needapproval <strong>of</strong> 75 percent <strong>of</strong> neighbors who live within 150 feet <strong>of</strong> their property. <strong>The</strong> new ordinance would do away with the consent requirement for three or fewer hens. <strong>The</strong> fee for keeping three or fewerchickens would go down, too, from $72 to $25. <strong>The</strong> renewal fee would be $15. <strong>The</strong> license for having more than three chickens would remain at $72. Residents will have a chance to weigh in on the issue at aCity Council public hearing in September.MISSOURIBoone County – (8/12/09) - At last Tuesday's Ashland Board <strong>of</strong> Aldermen meeting, the Board <strong>of</strong> Aldermen made the decision to do away with the Ashland Police Department's K-9program. Police Chief Anthony Consiglio presented this recommendation to the board, and after hearing his reasoning, they agreed. "My department, in my opinion, is too small to have acanine program," Consiglio said. If the Police Department were to re-train Lucy, not only would they be spending a hefty portion <strong>of</strong> the department budget, but time would be spent away fromthe job as well. Consiglio explained that the <strong>of</strong>ficer assigned to work with Lucy would need at lest two to three days training time alone with the dog, as well as being focused on the dog for awhile when they are out together. This would mean another <strong>of</strong>ficer would have to be along so the assigned <strong>of</strong>ficer could focus on the actions <strong>of</strong> the dog. <strong>The</strong> Board <strong>of</strong> Aldermen is still indeliberation about what to do with the K-9 specific fund. Recently, the board passed an ordinance moving that fund into the general revenue, still keeping its specific ties to the dog. <strong>The</strong>re isabout $2,100 in the K-9 fund now. Heard suggested donating the money left in the fund, planting trees or giving it to the Humane Society. Alderman John Hills suggested giving it to aveterinarian to go specifically toward Lucy's care when she retires. No decision was made about the funds, though. If all goes as planned for Lucy's retirement, the Ashland Police Force willgain another line car. One vehicle belonging to the Police Department is currently being used for Lucy's transport. If she is not part <strong>of</strong> the force, the seats and doors can be returned to thevehicle and the city can have four viable police cars.Jefferson City – (8/12/09) - Missouri’s attorney general says that some dog breeders suspected <strong>of</strong> operating illegally are ducking state inspectors. In the first few months <strong>of</strong> a statewide crackdown on puppymills, state <strong>of</strong>ficials have identified more than 170 kennels they believe are violating the law. Attorney General Chris Koster says roughly one-third <strong>of</strong> those facilities have agreed to apply for licenses. Kostersays 24 breeders who are avoiding investigators could face criminal or financial penalties. So far some 2,000 animals have been seized or surrendered by their owners. Koster estimates twice as many illegaldog breeders operate in Missouri as have been reported so far.Sikeston – (8/14/09) - A special meeting <strong>of</strong> the Sikeston City Council will be conducted Monday for public comment on creation <strong>of</strong> a Railroad Quiet Zone. Also on the agenda is requested legislationrequiring all domestic animals in Sikeston to be spayed or neutered. "Due to the potential impact <strong>of</strong> requested legislation the City Council is calling a special meeting to provide them an opportunity tothoroughly examine these issues and obtain input from interested citizens," said City Manager Doug Friend. Monday's meeting will be at 7:15 a.m. in Council Chambers at Sikeston City Hall, 105 E. CenterStreet. Earlier this year, representatives <strong>of</strong> the Sikeston Area Humane Society and local veterinarians proposed legislation to address the community's growing population <strong>of</strong> unwanted cats and dogs. <strong>The</strong>legislation, if adopted, would make it unlawful for residents <strong>of</strong> Sikeston to own or care for cats or dogs over the age <strong>of</strong> six months which were not spayed or neutered. Special exceptions would be in place foranimals whose health would be jeopardized by the spay/neuter procedure and breeders <strong>of</strong> service animals or operators <strong>of</strong> commercial kennels.NEBRASKAMcCook – (8/11/09) - <strong>The</strong> subject before the council last Monday evening was a proposed ordinance to license and control the domestic cat population in town in addition to long standing dog controlprovisions. <strong>The</strong> pack <strong>of</strong> cat sympathizers present at the meeting objected vociferously and the discussion (Is that what you call a sometimes shouting match?) went long and loud. Constitutional rights was a bigtheme but somehow I've missed the "right to keep one or many cats" mentioned in the constitution. Other citizens had police barging into homes to count animals harbored there and all sorts <strong>of</strong> other dreamedup horror stories. Oh it was a regular circus and like Boyer's pack <strong>of</strong> coyote hounds the good guys, the public, won. What I heard was that the people don't like city government telling them what to do with theirpets and they don't like the idea <strong>of</strong> additional taxes -- yes pet licensing fees are just another form <strong>of</strong> taxes! Limiting the number <strong>of</strong> legal cats was struck from the proposed ordinance and for dogs the magicnumber is still three.
<strong>The</strong> <strong>Monthly</strong> <strong>National</strong> <strong>Legislation</strong> <strong>Report</strong>http://mnlreport.typepad.com/<strong>Page</strong> 153 <strong>of</strong> <strong>330</strong>7/5/<strong>2010</strong>North Platte – (8/6/09) - <strong>The</strong> North Platte City Council met in regular session Tuesday, August 4 prior to continuing their budget discussions. <strong>The</strong> third reading <strong>of</strong> the animal control ordinance was approvedunanimously. It will become law fifteen days after its passing. Pawsitive Partners, a North Platte animal advocacy group, has pledged to work with the city to implement the new ordinances. <strong>The</strong> group believesthat the law represents a big step forward in reducing the number <strong>of</strong> animals euthanized in North Platte. Within ten days <strong>of</strong> adoption, the new ordinance would require that the animal be spayed or neutered. Petowners would receive a partial refund <strong>of</strong> the adoption fee for being in compliance with city law. Owners who did not spay or neuter their pet within the ten-day window would receive a letter reminding themabout the ordinance. This is where Pawsitive Partners is willing to step up. “<strong>The</strong> animal shelter staff already has so much paper work,” said Maber. Pawsitive Partner would volunteer their time to write andsend the letters. Pawsitive Partners has long been helping local low to mid income pet owners pay for spaying and neutering. <strong>The</strong> policy is similar to one that has been very successful in Hastings. Fremont hada similar program, but altered it to demand that pets be fixed immediately after adoption.NEW JERSEYEwing – (8/11/09) - Forty animal rights activists — local volunteers and pr<strong>of</strong>essionals from New Jersey and beyond — confronted township <strong>of</strong>ficials last night and blasted the proposed Ewing Animal Shelterpolicy calling for euthanasia for cats and dogs not adopted within 60 days. <strong>The</strong>ir remarks were made during a special meeting called by Mayor Jack Ball to present copies <strong>of</strong> the new policy — which takeseffect Sept. 14 — and to allow residents and others to air their suggestions and grievances. And they did. Ball noted the policy’s original 30-day deadline for adoption or death has been extended to 60 days,which virtually everyone in the audience protested as inadequate. <strong>The</strong> mayor also handed out applications to volunteer at the shelter. Even long-standing volunteers who have worked there for years must applyby the Sept. 1 deadline. Health Officer Allen Lee will interview applicants and decide who is acceptable, Ball said. <strong>The</strong> audience included local pet rescue volunteers from various groups, shelter volunteers,and representatives from the Humane Society <strong>of</strong> the United States and the New Jersey Animal Rights Alliance, the latter organizations’ representatives <strong>of</strong>fering their experience and service to Ewing.Jackson – (8/15/09) - Hoping to rectify what the town deems an out <strong>of</strong> control feral cat population by up to 90 percent, the township council modified Jackson's recently passed feral cat ordinance, mandatingstrict time limits for how long a trapped animal can sit outside in a cage until it is picked up. In June, the township council unanimously adopted legislation designed to control the feral cat population through aTrap-Neuter- Release (TNR) program. Developed by the Animal Welfare Task Force <strong>of</strong> New Jersey, the TNR program is viewed by health and animal advocacy organizations as a more humane approach intrying to control feral cats. As one <strong>of</strong> the more vocal supporters <strong>of</strong> a feral cat ordinance, Councilman Scott Martin said since its initial adoption in June, the council had more time to review the legislation andfound some elements which needed to be added. "We basically addressed some <strong>of</strong> the areas we felt might have fell a little short," said Martin. One <strong>of</strong> those areas was setting a strict time limit on how long a catcould be held before being picked up for spaying or neutering. Two time limits were established. <strong>The</strong> first pertains to the warmer months <strong>of</strong> April through October, calling for a trapped cat to be retrieved within12 hours, while in the colder months <strong>of</strong> November through March, a trapped cat must be retrieved within 10 hours. <strong>The</strong> feral cat ordinance also creates a township animal welfare committee, established toperform functions related to the TNR program, as well as promoting and seeking donations to support the program. <strong>The</strong> seven-member committee is expected to include the township's animal control <strong>of</strong>ficer,one council member, one mayor's representative and four citizens, <strong>of</strong> which two would be appointed by the council and two appointed by the mayor.Spotswood – (8/11/09) - <strong>The</strong> Borough Council has adopted an ordinance that will change the way residents with "potentially dangerous" dogs are regulated. <strong>The</strong> ordinance, which will become law Sept. 2, wasunanimously approved at Monday's Borough Council meeting by a 3-0 vote with Council members Curtis Stollen, Edward T. Seely and Charles J. Spicuzzo in favor <strong>of</strong> the proposal. Council members MargaretDrozd and John Shaughnessy were absent. "<strong>The</strong> new ordinance put in language so that we can comply with the state law," said Stollen, the council president. "We had a situation where our local municipaljudge had found a potentially vicious dog and had ruled it as such, so it was necessary for us to put language in the ordinance to handle the ruling he had made." <strong>The</strong> new ordinance is retroactive to that case,borough clerk Patricia DeStefano said. Under the ordinance, owners <strong>of</strong> dogs categorized as potentially dangerous must register their pet with the borough at the cost <strong>of</strong> $200 in addition to an annual license fee<strong>of</strong> $100, DeStefano said. <strong>The</strong> dog will have to be muzzled and kept on a leash when walked in public, DeStefano said. "It has to be a short leash, no more than 3-feet long," Stollen said. In addition, owners <strong>of</strong>potentially dangerous dogs must have liability insurance and a tattoo placed on the dog's shoulders, Mayor Thomas W. Barlow said. If a dog is deemed potentially dangerous, its owner take strong safetymeasures to maintain that the pet does not attack again, Stollen said. Only the municipal court can deem a pet potentially dangerous, DeStefano said. If a potentially dangerous dog attacks, the court willdetermine the amount <strong>of</strong> the fine the owner is assessed and if the owner can maintain ownership <strong>of</strong> the pet, Stollen said. "<strong>The</strong> (municipal court) judge also has other remedies that they're allowed to rule with,"Stollen said. "We've heard instances before in the state where dogs who had horrific encounters with people were destroyed. So there are clearly other avenues open to the judge."NEW MEXICOAlbuquerque – (8/1/09) - <strong>The</strong>y’re all gray wolves, but the Mexican gray wolf is notably different than its faraway cousins, and conservationists now say the animals need specific protection under federal lawto avoid extinction. Three conservation groups filed petitions this week asking the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to list the Mexican gray wolf on the federal endangered species list separate from other graywolves in North America. <strong>The</strong>y say that would force the agency to pay more attention to the animal. “It’s obvious that absent a subspecific designation, Mexican wolves will continue to flounder in the wild andmay in fact go extinct for a second time,” said Rob Edward <strong>of</strong> WildEarth Guardians, one <strong>of</strong> the groups that filed a petition. <strong>The</strong> Mexican wolf, a subspecies <strong>of</strong> the gray wolf, was exterminated in the wild in theSouthwest by the 1930s. First listed as endangered as an individual species in 1976, the Fish and Wildlife Service created a species-wide designation for gray wolves in 1978 and included the Mexican wolves.Edward said the Mexican wolves are being treated as a “side show” despite their fragile foothold in the wild. <strong>The</strong> U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service did not immediately return messages left Tuesday seekingcomment about the two petitions. <strong>The</strong> government in 1998 began reintroducing wolves along the Arizona-New Mexico line in a 4 million acre-plus territory interspersed with forests, private land and towns.Biologists had hoped to have at least 100 wolves in the wild and 18 breeding pairs by 2006. <strong>The</strong> most recent survey shows there were 52 wolves scattered between New Mexico and Arizona at the end <strong>of</strong> 2008.NEW YORKElmira – (8/11/09) - <strong>The</strong> controversy and debate continues over a park for man’s best friend. For the second time this summer, plans to build a dog park in Elmira were met with plenty <strong>of</strong> barking. People insupport <strong>of</strong> a dog park next to Elmira's Brick Pond on Sullivan Street are fighting to make it happen, while those against the idea say "no dogs allowed." Since last September, Jen Curley, the President <strong>of</strong> the"Friends <strong>of</strong> the Dog Park " has been working to build a dog park in Elmira. . "A dog park is meant to build community, rather than take it away. It's a positive initiative for any neighborhood." said Curley. <strong>The</strong>dog park plans include: - A five-foot high fence surrounding the area where dogs would roam without a leash. - <strong>The</strong>re would be a double-gated entrance. - <strong>The</strong>re would also be signs posted throughout the area,listing rules that *must* be followed. <strong>The</strong> committee Friends <strong>of</strong> the Dog Park , plans to hold another meeting at Brick Pond Park to hear more from the community. No date has been set.Ft. Greene/Clinton Hill – (8/4/09) - Let’s just put a name on it right now: <strong>The</strong> Laika Law. Laika, the Husky “dog-napped” by a well-meaning passerby from the front <strong>of</strong> a Fort Greene shop where she wastied last week — and since found — has inspired a new bill that would make dog-napping a crime. Assemblyman Joseph R. Lentol, who represents part <strong>of</strong> Fort Greene, wants to make sure pet-napping is takenseriously by the law, said his media coordinator, Amy Z. Cleary. Under current law, stealing a dog is treated the same as stealing a VCR. That shouldn’t be, Ms. Cleary said. Society, she said, has evolved to thepoint where a pet is considered a member <strong>of</strong> a family, and Mr. Lentol wants the law to reflect that, she said. <strong>The</strong> bill aims to raise dog and cat-napping (the stealing, not the sleeping) to a Class E felony withtwo years <strong>of</strong> jail time if convicted. If a dog-napper aims to sell the animal for scientific research or for malicious purposes (such as for use in dog fighting, an issue Mr. Lentol has campaigned against since2007) the crime would be upgraded to a Class D felony, under the bill. This would entail four years <strong>of</strong> jail time if convicted.Plattsburgh – (8/1/09) - <strong>The</strong> Town <strong>of</strong> Plattsburgh has drafted two local laws regarding the control and sheltering <strong>of</strong> dogs. Local Law 3 <strong>of</strong> 2009 would set new dog-control regulations "to protect the health,safety and well-being <strong>of</strong> persons and property within the town." Local Law 4 would require proper shelter for dogs to protect their health and safety. Local Law 3 would require dogs to be leashed andcontrolled when on public lands or private property without the property owner's permission. <strong>The</strong> law would also set regulations on dangerous, aggressive or nuisance behavior. It designed to be enforced by thetown dog-control <strong>of</strong>ficer, who could write an appearance ticket when he sees a violation. A witness to bad dog behavior could file a sworn statement with a town justice specifying the conduct, time, date, placeand the name and address <strong>of</strong> the owner. <strong>The</strong> law would give the dog-control <strong>of</strong>ficer power to impound a dog in violation <strong>of</strong> the regulations. <strong>The</strong> first instance would be subject to a fine <strong>of</strong> $50, and second andsubsequent violations would mean a $100 fine, with an extra $25 for each additional day <strong>of</strong> impound.Local Law 4 would require that dogs have adequate shelter when left outside and not be left exposed to sunlight without shade if that could harm them. That law would also be enforced by the dog-control<strong>of</strong>ficer. Again, a witness could file a sworn statement with a town justice that must list the conduct, time, date, place and the name and address <strong>of</strong> the owner. <strong>The</strong> proposed law provides for seizure <strong>of</strong> dogssuffering from inadequate shelter, saying they would be returned after pro<strong>of</strong> <strong>of</strong> adequate shelter and a $50 fine, plus $25 for each subsequent day.Those convicted <strong>of</strong> violations <strong>of</strong> the new laws, should they be passed, would be fined up to $250 or imprisoned for 15 days for each violation. Dogs that go unclaimed under both laws would be put up foradoption or be subject to euthanasia under Agriculture and Markets Law. <strong>The</strong> Town Council will hold public hearings on the new laws at 6:15 and 6:30 p.m. Monday. Copies <strong>of</strong> both laws are available at thePlattsburgh Town Clerk's Office, 151 Banker Road.NORTH CAROLINANRA-ILA - NORTH CAROLINA STATE ROUNDUP – (8/14/09)<strong>The</strong> North Carolina General Assembly adjourned for the year on Tuesday, August 11, and will be back for their Short Session on May 12, <strong>2010</strong>. This year was very busy for NRA, as a number <strong>of</strong> pro-gunreforms were introduced. While many pro-gun bills failed to be considered, there were several successes. Click HERE to see the NRA NC Roundup, including their report on SB460- the anti-dogbreeder, anti-hunting bill promoted by the radical Humane Society <strong>of</strong> the United States (HSUS).
Change language