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

The Monthly National Legislation Reporthttp://mnlreport.typepad.com/Page 155 of 3307/5/2010Parker said many residents who are bitten by vicious dogs are stuck with the doctor's bills. Parker said he wants city police to strictly enforce the city's vicious dog ordinance.Whitehall – (8/1/09) - The issue of banning pit bulls in Whitehall has consumed the suburb's time and divided pet lovers on both sides of the issue. Last year, the City Council voted to create an appeals board,which began meeting this year. The board allows residents whose dogs are labeled dangerous or vicious to appeal the decision. Tuesday night, Councilwoman Jacquelyn Thompson's legislation, an outright banon pit bulls, was rejected 5-2.Now, Councilwoman Leslie LaCorte, who voted with Thompson on the ban, has submitted her own solution: a special election to gauge public opinion on the topic. "My purposein bringing this forward is to have the citizens tell us, are they feeling safe in our community -- which should be of the utmost importance to our council." Called an advisory election, the process is similar to areferendum except that it is not legally binding. Advisory elections were ruled legal by the Ohio Supreme Court in 1991, said Matt Damschroder, deputy director of the Franklin County Board of Elections.There has never been an advisory vote in Franklin County. "It's basically polling the public on what they think should be done," said Mike Shannon, Whitehall city attorney. "It's extremely unique. But the votewill have absolutely no effect on directing what the council should do." Thompson said the council should be forced to listen to Whitehall residents who support a ban. "We have a very cranky council of menwho keep voting no on vicious animals," Thompson said. "Let's put it to the voters and let's see how they look at it." To reach the ballot, a governing body must first approve an advisory election. UPDATE:(8/12/09) - Whitehall City Council members are expected to vote at their next meeting Tuesday, Aug. 18, whether to place an issue on the Nov. 3 ballot asking voters their opinion about current vicious dogregulations. Council members publicly discussed the matter for the final time at the Tuesday, Aug. 11, meeting of council committees. The Franklin County Board of Elections filing deadline for the placementof candidates and issues on the ballot is 4 p.m. Aug. 20; therefore, council members must take action at their next regularly scheduled meeting, at 7 p.m. Aug. 18, if the issue is to appear on the Nov. 3 ballot.The nonbinding advisory election simply asks voters their opinion -- in this case, about whether residents "feel safe" with the current vicious dog regulations and if residents support banning four particularbreeds of dog: American bull terrier, the Staffordshire bull terrier, the American Staffordshire terrier and the American bulldog. It appears LaCorte lacks the necessary support to place the issue on the ballot,but one of her supporters, Thompson, has a Plan B. "If (they) don't let it go to a vote, I'll go door-to-door next year," said Thompson, alluding to a petition drive to place the issue on the ballot. On the otherhand, Thompson, who has been resilient in her effort to ban pit bulls, said she would abide with the result of an advisory election. "If they all want their pit bulls ... then poor Whitehall," she said.OKLAHOMAChouteau – (8/11/09) - Chouteau trustees approved two ordinances on dogs at large and planning and zoning during their monthly meeting Monday. The first ordinance 2009-6 amends the section of the towncode clarifying the definition of “at large.” During last month’s meeting, a citizen spoke up in protest because a neighbor wasn’t cited when their dog was outside and not restrained. Since the dog was inside theneighbor’s yard, the owner wasn’t cited. Attorney Ben Sherrer explained the pattern and practice of the city has been not to cite an owner if the dog is inside the owner’s yard. He said this practice isn’tconsistent with the strict language of the town code. The code states a dog is at large if it isn’t contained by a fence, pen or leash, whether the dog is in the owner’s yard or not. With the new ordinance, the atlarge definition hinges on whether the dog is on the owner’s property. If the dog steps outside the property and is not on a leash in the hands of a person 12 or older, the animal is considered at large and theowner will be cited. The board declared an emergency after passing the ordinance, so the change will go into effect immediately.Tecumseh – (8/5/09) - A proposed animal ordinance for Tecumseh stalled Monday night when Vice Mayor Linda Praytor announced that she couldn’t support a limit on the number of dogs and cats residentsmay own. The city currently does not limit by number but the proposed law would. The revised ordinance, first presented to the council for study at last month’s meeting, was prepared by City Attorney MikeWarwick who said he used ordinances from Shawnee and Warr Acres as a template.Monday night’s monthly meeting attracted a sizable audience, including former City Council Members Trace Brown, Tony Hawkins and Lavonne Walker. Former Mayor Phil Hartoon, present for anothermatter on the agenda, also participated in the lively discussion of the animal ordinance. But it was the limits on the number of pets in a household that brought the most discussion. Under the proposedordinance, residents may have no more than two dogs four months of age or older, or three if all have been neutered or spayed. Those over those limits would be required to obtain a kennel license, which hasits own set of rules. Cats would be limited to three (over four months old) per household if unaltered, but as many as six if they have been spayed or neutered. All pets must be vaccinated for rabies by aveterinarian, and must “bear identification.” Cats would also be prohibited from running at large — that is, “off the premises of its owner or keeper without being under adequate control.” The proposedordinance is 26 pages long and covers everything from animal cruelty to vicious animals and much more. It is posted in its entirety on The Countywide & Sun website, www.countywidenews.comPENNSYLVANIABangor – (8/11/09) - To the closet lion tamers, puma lovers and monkey keepers of Bangor: Your pets are safe, at least for a few more days. Borough Council on Monday tabled a proposed ordinance thatwould ban wild and exotic animals in the community. Council also said it would reconsider the ordinance's limit of three four-legged pets more than 6 months old per residence. The ordinance was draftedprimarily to keep exotic animals out of the borough. Under the current draft of the ordinance, residents who already own an exotic animal would have to purchase a permit for $5. Once the animal dies, or if it issold, it cannot be replaced. Local regulations banning wild or exotic animals are the only sure-fire way to keep the pets out of the community, said Jerry Feaser, spokesman for the Pennsylvania GameCommission. Without local laws prohibiting exotic animals, the commission will issue a permit.The proposed ordinance would ban an array of wild and exotic animals, including some that people may keep as pets such as venomous or constricting snakes, ferrets and skunks. Also banned would be moreferocious species including lions, tigers and bears.Bristol Borough – (8/7/09) - In response to the recent dog attacks in the borough, residents along Bristol Borough Council have been diligently working together to have laws put in place to contain viciousdogs. If passed, House Bill 1243 will allow municipalities in Pennsylvania to create and enforce their own dog laws and ordinances. “I think this legislation is long overdue” said Liz Fisher. “This Council andState Legislature John Galloway have brought attention to a problem that has been ignored." Some residents say they feel that these laws and ordinances will discriminate against specific breeds of dogs. “Askif we care what breed? We don’t. All we want is to be safe on our streets and in our yards. Please do something now," pleaded Fisher. Council will make recommendations to pass an ordinance that willmandate that large dogs be confined. The specific terms of the ordinance and definitions of confinement have yet to be determined. “If you want to have a dog you must take responsibility and if that means youneed a fence then you need to get a fence," said Beth Fisher.SOUTH CAROLINARock Hill – (8/4/09) - Rock Hill has adopted York County's animal protection laws, which means protecting animals should be a lot easier in the city. Under the new rules, dogs must be kept in sanitaryconditions and can only be on chains or tethers less than 10 feet long. The new policy allows animal control officers to issue tickets and serve warrants without police officers.TENNESSEEKingsport – (8/14/09) - Kingsport Police Chief Gale Osborne says he's looking into alternatives to a city-wide ban on pit bulls that would protect officers and citizens from the possibility of an attack. "Thejaws are like an alligator once they get ahold of you," said Osborne, adding that his greatest concern is not necessarily for police officers, who are armed, but for children or any other person who would bedefenseless against a charging pit bull. "(Pit bulls) might be required to be on a certain size cable or in a fenced-in lot. That would be a consideration prior to banning," Osborne said.Sparta – White County – (8/11/09) - The White County Commission Monday night declined to ban pit bulls, citing that singling out that breed to ban was impossible on the county level. The meeting room inthe White County Courthouse was bursting at the seams with concerned citizens as the commission met to discuss a proposed ban on pit bull dogs in the county. County Attorney Gary Dodson told thecommission the proposal to ban specific breeds would not be legal unless the county was zoned properly. However, officials admitted that there was still a vicious dog problem in the community that neededattention. It was suggested that the people gathered in protest of banning pit bulls get together to discuss ideas for diminishing the problem, as well as deciding what types of laws they wanted to pass. TheCounty Commission requested they bring these ideas back to the next meeting.TEXASAustin – (8/14/09) - A City of Austin animal protection officer has been charged with stealing cattle. The Texas and Southwestern Cattle Raisers Association says Robert Scott Kollman admitted to stealing thesix calves and a cow from a rancher in Caldwell County on August 7. He then sold them at the Lockhart Livestock Auction. Three of the calves have been returned to their owner. If convicted, Kollman facestwo years in prison. A new law, which takes effect September 1, will increase the sentence for livestock theft to ten years in prison.Austin – (8/6/09) - If every dog has its day, then that day is Sept. 8 for the free-roaming Fidos at Bull Creek District Park. Blaming unsafe levels of E. coli bacteria in the unleashed dogs’ fecal waste, the ctyproposed yesterday to make Bull Creek an on-leash park this September. “From a public health perspective, elevated E. coli levels in recreational waters pose an increased risk for illness for both people andtheir dogs,” said David Lurie, director of the Austin/Travis County Health and Human Services Department, in the press release. The city found that allowing dogs off-leash causes owners to consistently ignoretheir pets’ less-than-savory droppings. Two years of tests show that on weekends, when Bull Creek Park is visited the most, creek bacteria levels spiked to eight times the normal rate. "Our goal is preventionand we'll continue to monitor and evaluate bacteria levels throughout this process to minimize the risk of illness,” Lurie said. Bull Creek District Park is one of the Austin's twelve off-leash dog parks. Inaddition to leash laws, the city proposed to close the park from October to April to restore the park’s soil, vegetation and irrigation, and said they planned to search out additional off-leash areas so that they maybe regulated before park closure is necessary. The city will brief the Environmental Board on Aug. 19, the Parks Board on Aug. 25, and hold a public hearing in late August.Ft. Worth – (8/10/09) - Two groups of dog owners are sparring over a proposal to rewrite Fort Worth’s animal ordinance, making it more expensive for people to keep dogs that have not been spayed orneutered. The barkfest is scheduled to be settled tonight, when the City Council votes on the proposed ordinance. Major Provisions: Dogs would have to be spayed or neutered unless the owner took a twohourclass or paid a one-time $50 fee. The price of a dog license would rise from $7 to $12 annually. People who got an identification chip implanted in their animal could get a three-year license for the sameprice as a one-year license. Currently, all animals released from the city shelter are required to have the chip implanted. All dogs would have to be confined by a 4-foot fence in an enclosure of at least 48 squarefeet. Owners of aggressive dogs would have to build stronger fences, in some cases, even if the dog didn’t attack a person. Dogs could be declared aggressive if they dug out of their yard or attacked otheranimals. Dogs declared dangerous in other cities couldn’t be moved to Fort Worth. Police or animal control officers would be allowed to seize animals that are tethered to a fixed object. Unrestrained dogswould not be allowed to ride in the backs of pickups. UPDATE – (8/11/09) - The City Council adopted a new, tougher animal control ordinance Tuesday. Dog-rescue groups and the Humane Society of NorthTexas also pushed for the tougher ordinance and argued that it should be even stronger. The city would allow people to keep "intact" animals if the owner pays a one-time fee. The rescue groups want an annualfee. Dog breeders and other opponents said the city should enforce the laws it has. Council members voted for the ordinance unanimously. "We have innocent citizens being bitten, we have needless loss oflife," Mayor Mike Moncrief said. The ordinance goes into effect in a few months.