<strong>The</strong> <strong>Monthly</strong> <strong>National</strong> <strong>Legislation</strong> <strong>Report</strong>http://mnlreport.typepad.com/<strong>Page</strong> 194 <strong>of</strong> <strong>330</strong>7/5/<strong>2010</strong>animal fight. Still, if passed, the law will not come early enough for some <strong>of</strong>fenders to do time.Hornell - (6/23/09) - Hornell <strong>of</strong>ficials think they might need to look at its dangerous dog laws again following an attack on two children Friday. Hornell Mayor Shawn Hogan said atMonday night’s Common Council meeting the city’s dangerous dog laws need to be enforced. “<strong>The</strong>re is a tendency for a knee-jerk reaction,” Hogan said, referring to many municipalitiesacross the country banning some breeds <strong>of</strong> dogs after attacks. “<strong>The</strong>y (police) showed restraint,” Hogan said, referring to a report in the Rochester Democrat and Chronicle about police <strong>of</strong>ficersshooting dogs. “<strong>The</strong>y have shot 87 dogs in the City <strong>of</strong> Rochester.” This is not the first time the Common Council has had to deal with dangerous dogs, Hogan said. “In 2003, the city tried todeal with the problem,” he said, adding the law passed then requires the owners <strong>of</strong> dangerous dogs to have a $100,000 liability insurance policy in place. <strong>The</strong> bill was met by stiff oppositionand is not generally enforced. “<strong>The</strong>y (attorneys) suggested we enforce this from now on and have it tested in the courts,” Hogan said. <strong>The</strong> city also could have a new dog census done, whichwill update the city’s dangerous dog roster and force many dog owners to license their animals. <strong>The</strong> last dog census was 7 years ago, the mayor added. Hogan added landowners are technicallyliable for a dog attack by their tenants’ dogs on their property, and suggested landlords check to see if their tenants have dangerous dogs.NORTH CAROLINANC ALERT: COMMERCIAL BREEDER BILL HEARING JUNE 30thVisit the SAOVA website - CLICK HERE - for additional talking points and to email committee members with one click.Senator Don Davis has placed SB 460 Commercial Dog Breeders on the Finance Committee Calendar for Tuesday, June 30, 2009 at 1 PM room 544 LOB.PLEASE ATTEND THE HEARING IF AT ALL POSSIBLE. IF YOU CANNOT ATTEND CALL THE SENATE FINANCE COMMITTEE MEMBERS AND ASK THEM TO VOTE NO.HSUS would have our legislators believe that ALL breeders in North Carolina need state supervision and that substandard breeding kennels are rampant throughoutour state. This is NOT TRUE. Supporters claim the only reason to have 15 females is for mass producing puppies, i.e. continually breeding each female. NOT TRUE.SB460 is not based on facts or need; it is based on emotion and is part <strong>of</strong> a nationwide campaign by HSUS to pass restrictive legislation on dog breeders. Thislegislative campaign is about CONTROL, not about animal welfare. HSUS has a well documented history <strong>of</strong> opposing all purposeful breeding <strong>of</strong> dogs.S695 - tethering bill was withdrawn by sponsor Sen. Linda Garrou (D, Forsyth)Badin - (06/03) council chose to table the ordinance concerning about dangerous dogs after the last meeting to allow for clarification and to address a concern <strong>of</strong> the ordinance beingvague. <strong>The</strong> next regular council meeting will be June 9 at 7 p.m.Alamance County - (6/14/09) - Alamance County planners are considering changes to ordinances covering animals and noises that could lead to tighter restrictions and tougher fines ifapproved by the county commissioners. County Planning Director Jason Martin said he made draft amendments to both ordinances after asking County Manager Craig Honeycutt to consideradding stronger penalties. His proposed changes would call for a written warning for a first violation <strong>of</strong> both ordinances, and to fines ranging from $50 to $500 for subsequent violations. <strong>The</strong>current ordinances allow no more than a $50 fine or 30-day jail sentence, and are relatively toothless.Gaston County - (6/2/09) - Gaston County is holding <strong>of</strong>f on a plan to reward people for spaying and neutering their pets and penalize those who don't. <strong>The</strong> county was urged inApril to adopt a differential licensing program to help reduce the overpopulation <strong>of</strong> stray dogs and cats here. <strong>The</strong> proposal came from the county's Animal Control Task ForceAdvisory Board and animal control administrator Reggie Horton. <strong>The</strong> plan would entice residents to sterilize their pets using the county's low-cost spay and neuter program. Inreturn, participants would get a discount on the county fee for registering and licensing their pets, which is required by law though ignored by many residents. A pet owner witha spayed or neutered dog or cat would be charged only a licensing fee <strong>of</strong> $10 per year, or they could purchase a three-year license for $20. But a person would have to pay $35per year for a dog or cat that was not spayed or neutered. Exemptions and other license options would exist for breeders, hunters and other special situations. <strong>The</strong> licensing feewould also increase for residents with dogs classified as "dangerous" by the county, such as those that had attacked someone. Commissioners seemed to agree with the spirit <strong>of</strong>the plan last week but were hesitant to raise any fees in light <strong>of</strong> the current economy. <strong>The</strong>y passed an amendment to the animal control ordinance that keeps all animal controlfees flat, at their existing levels. Assistant county attorney Sam Shames, who helped craft the differential licensing plan, expects it will be approved later this year.Raleigh - (6/27/09) - A new dog tethering ordinance will take effect in Raleigh on Wednesday, July 1. <strong>The</strong> ordinance regulates the unattended restraint or tethering <strong>of</strong> dogs. Under themeasure, a dog may not be tethered for more than three hours total in any 24-hour period. <strong>The</strong> ordinance defines tethering as a means <strong>of</strong> tying out or fastening a dog outdoors on a rope,chain or other line for restraining a dog. <strong>The</strong> term does not mean the restraint <strong>of</strong> a dog on an attended leash. Any device used to tether a dog must be at least 10-feet long and attached in amanner that prevents strangulation or other injury to the dog, or entanglement with objects, under the ordinance. A cable trolley system may be used to tether a dog for the allowed period aslong as the stationary cable is at least 10-feet long and the dog can move perpendicularly at least 10-feet away from the stationary line. <strong>The</strong> line should be attached to the dog with a buckletypecollar or a body harness. <strong>The</strong> device used to tether can weigh no more than 10 percent <strong>of</strong> the animal's body weight and must allow the dog access to food and water. In addition to being amisdemeanor, a violation <strong>of</strong> the dog tethering ordinance would be subject to a civil penalty <strong>of</strong> $100 per day for each day <strong>of</strong> violation.Zebulon - (6/23/09) - Your barking dog could get you a ticket if town commissioners approve a proposed new ordinance. <strong>The</strong> new law would allow police to write citations for civilinfractions. Police Chief Tim Hayworth presented the ordinance to commissioners last week. Police currently have the authority under state law to enforce local civil ordinances, but theprocess is a cumbersome one that lands the accused in criminal court where their cases are <strong>of</strong>ten dismissed. Hayworth said adopting a local law to give police civil authority would preventclogging the court system and it would also result in meaningful penalties for people who violate town ordinances. Among the most common civil violations Hayworth said his <strong>of</strong>ficers see arecars parked in fire lanes, dogs barking uncontrollably in residential neighborhoods and commercial vehicles parked in residential neighborhoods. <strong>The</strong> fines for civil penalties would rangefrom $15 to $100 depending on the seriousness <strong>of</strong> the violation and the number <strong>of</strong> times a person has been cited for the same violation. If commissioners approve the proposal at theirmeeting in July, the ordinance would go into effect Aug. 1. Hayworth said his department would begin a 60-day education effort by issuing warning citations.NORTH DAKOTAFargo - (6/18/09) - A nonpr<strong>of</strong>it advocacy group has sued a Fargo property management business, saying the company illegally charged tenants extra fees for keeping dogs they needed fortheir health or therapy. <strong>The</strong> lawsuit filed Tuesday in federal court by the Bismarck-based Fair Housing <strong>of</strong> the Dakotas accuses Goldmark Property Management <strong>of</strong> a "pattern <strong>of</strong>discrimination" in charging the tenants higher rents and assessing fees. <strong>The</strong> lawsuit seeks class action status on behalf <strong>of</strong> tenants dating back to June 16, 2007, and unspecified damages forwhat it says are a loss <strong>of</strong> housing opportunities, emotional distress and mental anguish. <strong>The</strong> lawsuit cites two cases in which it says the company charged extra fees and higher monthly rentsto tenants with dogs in violation <strong>of</strong> state and federal housing laws. It says one Fargo woman, whose small dog helps alleviate her anxiety and loneliness, was charged a nonrefundable fee <strong>of</strong>$200 as well as $20 in extra monthly rent. Another woman who sought a companion dog to walk so she could relieve pain and stiffness in her joints was told she would have to pay anonrefundable deposit <strong>of</strong> $200 as well $20 more in monthly rent and a $35 verification fee, the lawsuit said.OHIOCleveland - (6/25/09) - (Avon Lake) - <strong>The</strong> loose ends were about tied up on the proposed vicious dog ordinance at the beginning <strong>of</strong> the month (See the June 4 article), but within three days <strong>of</strong> its firstreading at City Council, about 350 dog owners and influential residents signed petitions prompting council to revisit the issue. Moved by testimony against breed specific legislation, council consideredrevising the ordinance once again, but instead decided to table the issue. City Council members are expected to make a decision after they come back from summer break on Aug. 16. Although Law DirectorBill Kerner said he would consider breed neutral legislation as and review the South Euclid dog ordinance over council's break, going against state law is not something he's thrilled about. "My opinion hasbeen that for the city to delete the pit bull from the vicious definition would be a conflict <strong>of</strong> state law," Kerner said. " I have opined that the city should not do that." Ward 3 Councilman Larry Meiners said
<strong>The</strong> <strong>Monthly</strong> <strong>National</strong> <strong>Legislation</strong> <strong>Report</strong>http://mnlreport.typepad.com/<strong>Page</strong> 195 <strong>of</strong> <strong>330</strong>7/5/<strong>2010</strong>despite the fact he's owned pets his entire life, he's never felt the need to challenge the law director's opinion.Columbus - (6/11/09) - Activists who want to ban dog auctions in Ohio plan to take their case to the voters in <strong>2010</strong>. Members <strong>of</strong> BanOhioDogAuctions.com plan to turn in a petition Monday tostart the process <strong>of</strong> placing the state-law change on the November <strong>2010</strong> ballot, said organizer Mary O'Connor- Shaver. "It's definitely something the voters want to see on the ballot," O'Connor-Shaver said. "We're getting hundreds <strong>of</strong> e-mails." In the first <strong>of</strong> a two-step petition process, O'Connor-Shaver will submit more than 1,000 signatures to the Ohio attorney general's <strong>of</strong>fice forreview. If the signatures and wording are approved, the group will have until the end <strong>of</strong> the year to gather 127,000 more signatures. "We feel very confident it can be done," O'Connor-Shaversaid. <strong>The</strong> proposed law would make the auctioning or raffling <strong>of</strong> dogs a minor misdemeanor for the first <strong>of</strong>fense and a fourth-degree misdemeanor for additional <strong>of</strong>fenses.Fairborn - (6/24/09) - Owning a pit bull is against the law in the city <strong>of</strong> Fairborn, and there is a zoning ordinance prohibiting the dogs and the city plans to enforce it. <strong>The</strong> ordinance waspassed by city council in May 2008. However, the city manager said the city is now beginning to enforce it after it has seen an increase in the presence <strong>of</strong> pit bulls. If you live in Fairborn, itdoesn’t matter what kind <strong>of</strong> pit bull a person owns, the city wants to get rid <strong>of</strong> them. City Manager Deborah McDonnell said, “<strong>The</strong> law no longer allows pit bulls in Fairborn at all. McDonnellsaid, pit pull owners will receive a letter from the city. It will let them know about a zoning ordinance that was passed by city council last year. <strong>The</strong> city manager said, “We are askingresidents to move the dogs to other locations and find other homes for them.”Lakewood - (6/19/09) - Councilman Tom Bullock (Ward II) then discussed with council the possibility <strong>of</strong> allowing leashed dogs in Lakewood’s parks. As it stands right now, no dogs, or anyother pets or animals for that matter, are allowed in any <strong>of</strong> Lakewood’s parks. However in recent months a group <strong>of</strong> citizens have been looking into the possibility <strong>of</strong> changing this fact andallowing residence with leashed dogs to walk them in the parks. Councilman Bullock’s statement was received and referred to the Public Works committee for further discussion.Salem - (6/22/09) - Lawmakers are considering an amendment to Ohio’s constitution that will create and enforce guidelines for proper care <strong>of</strong> livestock and poultry. A joint resolutionbetween the Ohio Senate and House <strong>of</strong> Representatives which has the support <strong>of</strong> most major agricultural organizations in Ohio would authorize language on the ballot this November and, ifpassed, would create the Ohio Livestock Care Standards Board, a 13-member board responsible for implementing proper guidelines. Votes could come as early as this week. Despite theoverwhelming support from the agricultural industry, one group opposes the amendment — the Humane Society <strong>of</strong> the United States. “This is very much a ‘fox guarding the hen house’situation,” said Paul Shapiro, senior director <strong>of</strong> the Humane Society <strong>of</strong> the United States’ factory farming campaign. “Because <strong>of</strong> the proposed industry-dominated board, it is poor publicpolicy, and we believe voters should not support the amendment.” Shapiro said other states have dealt with similar matters through statues, and he regards Ohio’s attempt to amend thestate constitution as unnecessary and said it contains hidden motives. “It’s essentially a hand-out to big agribusinesses,” he said. Earlier this year, representatives from the Humane Society <strong>of</strong>the United States, including CEO Wayne Pacelle, met with Ohio’s agricultural industry leaders. <strong>The</strong> HSUS representatives explained they wanted to eliminate poultry cages, veal crates andgestation stalls and that they were willing to take the issue to the ballot. Upon hearing Gov. Strickland’s support <strong>of</strong> the legislation, Pacelle issued a statement, explaining his disapproval <strong>of</strong>the legislation. Pacelle said Ohio Farm Bureau had refused to respond to the society’s initial proposal and are now implementing a “favored oversight system” into the state constitution.Wellsville - (6/14/09) - Village residents who own or harbor pit bulls or any vicious dog will now be required to register their dogs at Village Hall. Mayor Joe Surace announced Fridaythose with such pets will be required to show pro<strong>of</strong> <strong>of</strong> the required liability insurance <strong>of</strong> not less than $100,000 per dog. "If they don't sign up and are found with such an animal, they will becited into Magistrate Court," Surace emphasized. By law, any dog commonly known as a pit bull is automatically defined as "vicious," and the law defines "pit bull" as any <strong>of</strong> the following: -An American pit bull terrier - A Staffordshire bull terrier - An American Staffordshire terrier - An American bulldog -Any other pure-bred or mixed-breed dog whose appearance and physicalcharacteristics is predominately those <strong>of</strong> any <strong>of</strong> the dogs listed above or which is a combination <strong>of</strong> any <strong>of</strong> the dogs listed above. Pit bulls also fall under different rules for confinement by statelaw and must be confined on the owner's property by means <strong>of</strong> a locked fenced yard, a locked dog pen that has a top, or some other locked enclosure that has a top (such as a house). This lawapplies not only to pure-bred American Pit Bull dogs, but also to other pure bred and mixed breed dogs that have similar physical and/or behavioral characteristics, with the animal control<strong>of</strong>ficer responsible for making the determination whether a dog is a pit bull.Whitehall - Councilwoman Jacquelyn Thompson presented a proposal to ban pitbull dogs in the suburb, almost exactly a year after a similar law was rejected. "I see no other alternative,"Thompson said. "It's been almost a year and we're still having attacks. I just feel this city isn't safe." <strong>The</strong> councilwoman said the compromise devised last July has not worked. It requires theowners <strong>of</strong> vicious dogs, which legally includes all pitbulls, to put up a 6-foot fence, neuter or spay the animal, implant an ID microchip and buy liability insurance. UPDATE: (6/17/09) -<strong>The</strong> ordinance banning pit bulls is scheduled for introduced as draft legislation at the next meeting <strong>of</strong> council committees, set for 6:30 p.m. Tuesday, June 23, at Whitehall City Hall, 360 S.Yearling Road.Whitehall - (6/24/09) - It appears Whitehall will have its own animal control <strong>of</strong>ficer in the near future, filling a position that had been vacant for three years. Whitehall Mayor John Wolfeintroduced an ordinance at the Tuesday, June 23, meeting <strong>of</strong> council committees to create a new position in the service department: a hybrid code enforcement and animal control <strong>of</strong>ficer.Naming an animal control <strong>of</strong>ficer appears to be another step in the city's continuing effort to use existing laws to stem dog attacks in the city in lieu <strong>of</strong> any ban.OREGON(6/2/09) - <strong>Legislation</strong> that establishes tough restrictions on Oregon dog breeders cleared the Legislature on Tuesday. <strong>The</strong> bill prohibits breeders from owning more than 50 sexually intact dogsat a time, if the dogs are 2 years or older and used for breeding. Gov. Ted Kulongoski plans to sign the bill over the objections <strong>of</strong> Republicans and breeders. <strong>The</strong> bill passed the state Senate18-10 with most Republicans opposing it. Gov. Ted Kulongoski, said he supports it.Albany - (6/22/09) - A proposal to stick with Albany’s limit <strong>of</strong> two dogs per household has drawn only minimal public comment. <strong>The</strong> proposed ordinance allows for exemptions <strong>of</strong> up to fourdogs per household.No comments concerning the proposed dog limit ordinance were posted online after a story appeared in the Democrat-Herald on June 9. Mayor Sharon Konopa said shereceived only one e-mail on the subject since the story ran. That person did not want to see any limits set on the number <strong>of</strong> dogs people could own.<strong>The</strong> council will take up the issue againwhen it meets in regular session at 7:15 p.m. Wednesday at City Hall. Konopa said she will discourage testimony from anyone living outside <strong>of</strong> Albany. In earlier regular and work sessions, anumber <strong>of</strong> people from out <strong>of</strong> town voiced their opinions on what limit to set.People will be allowed to comment on Wednesday before the council votes on the ordinance.As proposed, inaddition to the current two-dog limit, an exemption would be available for up to four dogs. <strong>The</strong> pet owner could not have been convicted <strong>of</strong> a dog <strong>of</strong>fense and would have to pay $50, whichwould cover all dogs.<strong>The</strong> outlines <strong>of</strong> the proposed ordinance were suggested by a city task force.<strong>The</strong> task force also recommended that dogs in the city be required to be licensed. Doglicenses, issued by the counties, cost $15 a year for an altered animal and $25 for one that is not. UPDATE: (6/25/09) - <strong>The</strong> Albany City Council’s attempt to put a revised dog ordinance inplace met a roadblock at Wednesday’s council meeting. Councilor Dick Olsen voted against holding a second reading on the proposed ordinance, which forced postponement <strong>of</strong> a final vote tothe council’s next regular meeting on July 8. For a second reading at the same meeting as the first, the city charter requires that a vote be unanimous. Olsen’s was the only dissenting vote."A variety <strong>of</strong> things haven’t been considered as far as the keeping <strong>of</strong> dogs is concerned, and I have received many letters opposed to the two-dog limit,” he said. <strong>The</strong> proposed ordinanceallows two dogs per household with exemptions for up to four. Olsen said there were no provisions for families raising guide dogs, families fostering animals for humane societies, or peoplewho pick up stray dogs and keep them while attempting to find their owners. He also wants provisions for people who have guests bringing dogs when visiting and for people who raisemultiple dogs for competition. Olsen objected to a proposed $100 fee to be charged on top <strong>of</strong> any fine for a violation to go to the police department. He said any fees collected should beplaced in the general fund. “We are not ready for this ordinance,” Olsen said. He urged the council to reconvene a task force charged with recommending changes to the current ordinance.Olsen also wanted to know why he was not appointed to the earlier task force convened by staff and wondered why more members <strong>of</strong> the public were not invited to sit on the panel. He alsoasked why the council never held a public hearing on the dog ordinance. *Ed Note: Bravo Coucilor Olsen !! *PENNSYLVANIAHarrisburg - (6/20/09) - A House lawmaker's anger over the Senate's failure to pass an animal-cruelty bill is threatening to hold up all law-and-order bills in the lower chamber. Rep. ThomasCaltagirone (D., Berks), chairman <strong>of</strong> the Judiciary Committee, said he would not move Senate bills that cross his transom until the Senate acts on bills referred by his committee. Caltagironeblames the Senate Republican leadership for the turtle's pace <strong>of</strong> an animal-cruelty bill that he sponsored and that passed the House unanimously in March. "<strong>The</strong>y are playing games with me.<strong>The</strong>y're impounding my dog bill," Caltagirone said. <strong>The</strong> bill, which would bar anyone except veterinarians from performing certain surgical procedures on dogs, should have been on Gov.Rendell's desk by now, he said. <strong>The</strong> bill (H.B. 39) lingered in the Senate Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee for three months before being approved June 10. It was then referred to theJudiciary Committee, which Caltagirone contended was a further stalling tactic. Caltagirone said that for now, Senate bills referred to his committee will sit until his dog bill is unleashedfrom committee. "<strong>The</strong>re's no reason why this shouldn't pass quickly," he said. "I want to see it on the calendar, ready for a vote."
Change language