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

The Monthly National Legislation Reporthttp://mnlreport.typepad.com/Page 197 of 3307/5/2010TENNESSEEClarksville - (6/24/09) - The City Council may have unleashed the hounds when it approved an ordinance allowing the Clarksville Parks and Recreation Department to ban dogs from parks ofits choosing. Critics have come out in force to oppose the plan to their representatives. Something stinks, they say, and it's not the doggie "deposits." In response, the Parks and RecreationCommittee will meet Thursday to discuss a possible compromise. The council approved first reading of the ordinance earlier this month, with second and final reading still to come. Ifapproved, it would allow the Parks and Recreation Department to set rules and regulations "pertaining to animals in city public parks and other recreation areas in order to further publichealth, welfare and safety, and for aesthetic purposes." The Parks and Recreation Committee is scheduled to revisit the ordinance at its next meeting, 3 p.m. Thursday at City Hall, OnePublic Square. The ordinance did not go through the committee before being approved on first reading by the council, nor did it appear at the council's preceding non-voting session. Theordinance could again be on the agenda in some form for the City Council's next non-voting session, scheduled for 4:30 p.m. Thursday. UPDATE: (6/26/09) - Clarksville Mayor Johnny Pipertoday proposed delaying final reading of an ordinance that would allow the Parks and Recreation Department to ban dogs from certain parks. At today's Parks and Recreation Committeemeting, Piper said the city would delay seconding reading of the ordinance for at least 60 days. In return, he asked dog advocates who attended the meeting to encourage fellow owners to dothe right thing and pick up dog waste while they enjoy local parks. Progress will be reviewed after 60 days, Piper said.Nashville - (6/16/09) - Large-scale breeders of dogs and cats would be subject to state licensing and inspection requirements for the first time under legislation approved by the House 93-3Wednesday. Known as the "puppy mill" bill, HB386 would apply to persons keeping more than 20 unsterilized female dogs or cats. Those held by veterinarians or for hunting are exempted.The bill still awaits approval in the Senate. Supporters say they may wait until next year to push for final approval in that chamber.TEXAS(6/1/09) - The Texas legislative session was loaded with pet-related bills, but only a fraction made it through the process.Gone to the Gov -HB 3004: Gives counties the authority to enforce animal shelter standards.SB 554: Enhances the crime of dogfighting.HB 205: Exempts working livestock dogs from city leash laws when property is annexed.SB 408: Allows for appeals in animal cruelty seizure cases.Suddenly died at the last minute:HB 853: Allowing judges in domestic violence cases to include pets and other companion animals in protective orders. This bill passed, seemed to be widely supported, and somehow did notmake it out of conference committee before the deadline (read more about this bill).HB 1320: Expanding penalties for cockfighting. Got through the conference committee and then died (read more about how it died).HB 3180: Regulating commercial dog and cat breeders, dubbed the "puppy mill bill", died in committee. However, some of the text was added to HB 2310 as an amendment which was thenremoved by the conference committee in the session's final days.All of the bills below died earlier in the session:HB 435: Raising the penalty for theft of a pet made little progress, to the disappointment of those who own pets that have little monetary value. However, a bill raising penalties for stealinglivestock (SB 1163) passed.From the "Do It For The Children" Department:HB 1982: An extreme and unreasonable 'vicious' dog bill.HB 925: Prohibiting minors from 'caring for' pit bull dogs.Rep. Harold Dutton (D-Houston) attempted to amend the dogfighting bill to define all 'pit bulls' as dangerous dogs but this amendment was rejected by the bill's author.HB 634: Prohibiting tethering and requiring minimum kennel sizes even for short periods of time (read more).From the Why God Created Homeowners' Associations (Even in the Sticks) Department:HB 458: Allowing dog limits in unincorporated areas.HB 2732 and HB 3380, defining barking dogs in unincorporated areas as nuisances.... And from the Land of Unintended Consequences we give you:HB 1472, which would have given people who shoot dogs and cats who chase their livestock a defense from prosecution (read more about this bill).SB 691, which may have unintentionally classified dogs and cats as invasive species (read more about this bill).SB 1845/HB 4277, which mandated the spaying and neutering of dogs and cats, both by owners and by all releasing shelters including releases to rescue groups (read more about this bill).Austin County - Sealy - (6/25/09) - Austin County voters could have a say in whether or not the county adopts leash and registration laws when it comes to animals in unincorporated areas.Bilski said she would not be opposed to bringing the issue up to commissioners and holding an election in November, when a state constitutional amendment election is already set, thatwould allow voters to say whether or not they want leash and registration laws in the county when it comes to animals, like dogs.There are no current regulations on the county books when it comes to requiring leashes or registration. For some, that’s a perk to living in the county. While the county does not have aleash law, there are some protections offered to residents living in unincorporated communities. The Local Government Code does regulate dangerous dogs, and it’s up to the sheriff’s officeto enforce those codes. “I would think that those codes were being enforced,” Bilski said. “Residents have a right to protect their property and themselves. There are consequences to havingleash and regulation laws. We would have to have someone designated to pick up the animal, and a place to hold the animals. I just don’t know if that’s where our commissioners and ourtaxpayers want us to spend our money.” Bilski said she is open to discussing the issue with commissioners.Bryan - changes are being proposed in the City of Bryan's animal control ordinance. One of the items under the ordinance would dispose animals that have been impounded for 72 hours andlimit the number of animals living at a residence to no more than any combination of four dogs and cats, that are three months of age or older.Killeen - (6/19/09) - Residents in Killeen feel that the city should be doing more to protect its residents against dangerous dogs. Wednesday, the city met to discuss whether more regulationswere needed. "The consensus was that current ordinances are sufficient," Cole said. But Cole also said the city will work to improve collaboration between Animal Control and CodeEnforcement. "So when Animal Control finds a dangerous animal and sees that there is a problem with containing the animal on the property, on the owner's property, and the fence is part ofthe problem, they call Code Enforcement," Cole said. "Code Enforcement goes out and looks at the fence that's not in repair, that's a violation of the ordinance. Now they can either warnyou, or site you."Marlin - (6/12/09) - The issue of cats and dogs, specifically too many cats and dogs, was a major topic of discussion at Monday’s meeting of the Rosebud City Council. Based on the citycouncil’s recommendations made last month, Rosebud City Administrator Eric Kuykendall made changes to the proposed ‘Animal Control Ordinance’ and the city council studied it again. Themajor changes to the ordinance were 1) the removal of the grandfather clause because of the difficulty in identifying the grandfathered animals, 2) changed the 4-animal limit to encompassany combination of cats and dogs, 3) changed the kennel fee to $100 per year, and 4) changed the annual registration fee to $6 per animal. Councilmember Isabel McBee voiced her strongopposition to the ordinance. Her primary concern was too much animal registration paperwork would be required for the city staff. And she said that the only people who would register theirpets would be the responsible pet owners, who are not the stimulus for the ordinance. McBee finally stated her sentiment about the new animal ordinance: “I would like to see it just goaway.” Her motion to table the new animal ordinance was approved by a unanimous vote.