<strong>The</strong> <strong>Monthly</strong> <strong>National</strong> <strong>Legislation</strong> <strong>Report</strong>http://mnlreport.typepad.com/<strong>Page</strong> 198 <strong>of</strong> <strong>330</strong>7/5/<strong>2010</strong>Texarkana - (6/22/09) - Texarkana, Texas will consider making changes to its animal care and control ordinances, including placing a ban on chaining animals. <strong>The</strong> ordinance would outlawresidents tying dogs up for permanent confinement. City Council members will also consider tightening up laws on vaccinations, neutering, spaying and leash requirements. <strong>The</strong> council isscheduled to vote on the proposed ordinance tonight. If the ordinance passes, fines would not be levied until the fall. What we will do is have a time period where we will educate thecommunity on all the components <strong>of</strong> the ordinance. <strong>The</strong>n there will be warnings which will be given," city spokeswoman Vicki Meldel said. UPDATE - (6/24/09) - <strong>of</strong>ficials announcedMonday the City Council would not vote on a proposed animal control ordinance, even before an hour <strong>of</strong> public questions and criticism. “We are going to table that ordinance until nextmonth, but we want to still discuss it because we have some issues we want to shore up, too,” Mayor Steve Mayo told citizens. <strong>The</strong> proposed ordinance places a ban on chaining dogs as ameans <strong>of</strong> long-term confinement. Exceptions allow short times <strong>of</strong> constraint when the animal is supervised, such as during veterinary treatment, walking, grooming and training.UTAHOgden - (6/19/09) - A pack <strong>of</strong> pit bull owners attacked proposed amendments to a city ordinance Thursday night because they claim it discriminates against their pets. More than 30 peopleattended a city council work session held to discuss changes to the municipality's animal control ordinance that would impose tougher requirements for pit bull owners. <strong>The</strong> council took noaction on the amendments and instructed the city's legal staff to make revisions to help ensure that responsible pit bull owners with docile dogs aren't penalized. <strong>The</strong> council may vote on theordinance July 14. Please continue sending your POLITE AND RESPECTFUL opposition to the Ogden City council at: citycouncil@ci.ogden.ut.us Individual city <strong>of</strong>ficials can be contactedvia an online form which can befound here. UPDATE: (6/26/09) - Bob Geier is the manager <strong>of</strong> the Ogden City Animal Shelter. His comments: Ogden is not seeking to ban Pit Bulls. Rather, the city is proposing a 4-R approach:1) Registration 2) Recognition 3) Restraint 4) ResponsibilityRegistration requires the full legal name <strong>of</strong> the owner matched to acceptable identification and the address and phone number <strong>of</strong> the owner and the description. A photograph <strong>of</strong> the dog isalso a requirement. <strong>The</strong> dog would need current rabies vaccination, micro-chip identification, health record from a veterinarian, and written permission <strong>of</strong> the landowner to house the dog andmake the needed improvements on rented property.Recognition will require signs placed on the property where the dog is housed, indicating the presence <strong>of</strong> a Pit Bull. <strong>The</strong> dog must wear a tag identifying the dog as a Pit Bull and the dog mustbe implanted with a micro-chip for positive identification <strong>of</strong> the owners.Restraint means that the dog must be kept inside the home or in an appropriate fenced area or kennel provided to restrain the dog from escaping. <strong>The</strong> dog must be on a leash when outsideand the person in control <strong>of</strong> the leashed dog must be physically capable <strong>of</strong> controlling the dog.Responsibility for the dog rests solely with the owner. <strong>The</strong>y must understand the potential liability <strong>of</strong> owning a Pit Bull. <strong>The</strong> owner must immediately notify the shelter if the dog gets loose <strong>of</strong>if the dog's ownership changes. <strong>The</strong> owner would be required to have liability insurance in the amount <strong>of</strong> $50,000. <strong>The</strong> ordinance reinforces that it is illegal for minors to own Pit Bulls or tobe listed as the responsible party.Ogden is not alone in its concern over Pit Bulls. North Salt Lake City, Springville, South Jordan and Hill Air Force Base housing have legislation regarding Pit Bulls. Pit Bulls are banned inSouth Jordan and in on-base housing at Hill Air Force Base. Many communities across the country have taken steps to pass laws pertaining to Pit Bulls. We believe this is the proper thing todo. Ogden city is not banning Pit Bulls.<strong>The</strong>re is enough evidence that these dogs, as a breed, pose a significant risk to people <strong>of</strong> Ogden and should be regulated. Not all Pit Bulls are bad dogs. Not all Pit Bull owners areirresponsible; the disproportionate number <strong>of</strong> strays and attacks on humans and pets clearly indicates a need for rules <strong>of</strong> conduct specific to Pit Bulls.VIRGINIADanville - (6/15/09) - <strong>The</strong> Danville Area Humane Society is circulating a petition calling for a city ordinance that would restrict chaining dogs outdoors.WASHINGTONAnacortes - (6/15/09) - A pit bull attack on a favorite town pet - a gray donkey - has the shoreside community <strong>of</strong> Anacortes fired up. And some are now calling for a ban on that dog breedin the Skagit County town after reports <strong>of</strong> more pit bull attacks on other animals and humans there.Auburn - (6/19/09) - From now on, owners <strong>of</strong> dangerous dogs who move into the city <strong>of</strong> Auburn with the animals will have more than a day to register them. But thanks to an amendmentthe City Council passed Monday to the Dangerous Dog Ordinance, those owners will pay $500 a year to register their dog, a $400 increase. <strong>The</strong> amendment also lays out in detail whatconstitutes a proper dangerous dog enclosure. "We have eliminated the particular statement that the dangerous dogs had to be reported on the first day that people brought them to thecommunity," said Councilmember Gene Cerino, chairman <strong>of</strong> the Municipal Services Committee, adding that the revision allows owners up to 10 days to register the dog. Owners who fail tocomply with the 10-day rule could face confiscation <strong>of</strong> their dogs. Failure to secure liability insurance and failure to keep the dog in a proper enclosure or muzzled and restrained whenoutside <strong>of</strong> one also could result in confiscation.Covington - (6/19/09) - <strong>The</strong> Covington City Council is considering beefing up its city laws regarding dangerous and vicious dogs. Currently the city contracts with King County AnimalControl for response services when a call comes in regarding a dog attack and Covington follows the county’s rules for penalties and so on. This issue arose, explained City Manager DerekMatheson, when a resident spoke during the public comment period at the council’s April 14 meeting.WEST VIRGINIAHuntington - (6/23/09)- While Huntington City Council voted Monday night to provide greater enforcement to police regarding nuisance properties, it continued to waver on adog tethering ordinance. Council members tossed the item back and forth in an attempt to amend the wording <strong>of</strong> the ordinance. <strong>The</strong>re are concerns about its enforceabilitywith its current language. Councilwoman Frances Jackson recommended sending the issue back to a committee, but Council as a whole said no. "<strong>The</strong>re seems to be so muchconfusion on this issue,” Jackson said. “I think there’s still some things that need to be worked out, and I have a problem with the enforcement part. I don’t think it’s ready tocome to Council for a vote. “We’re the voice <strong>of</strong> these animals. We have to speak for them.” Areas <strong>of</strong> the ordinance debated among council members were the length <strong>of</strong> timedogs could remain chained outside, as well as the temperature extremes that would be acceptable – ranging from 30 to 35 degrees Fahrenheit on one extreme to 85 to 90degrees on the other. “I don’t know if we’re going to be able to carry around thermometers,” said Anita Asbury, director <strong>of</strong> the Huntington-Cabell-Wayne Animal ControlShelter. “I think this will be more <strong>of</strong> a common sense thing.” Councilman Jim Ritter, who is sponsoring the dog tethering ordinance, suggested amending the time dogs could bechained outside from eight hours to 10 hours – specifically from 7:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. That amendment also failed. “Not everyone works day shift,” Councilman Scott Casertasaid. “It poses a problem for those who work <strong>of</strong>f hours. I’m concerned about folks who work a different shift.” <strong>The</strong> ordinance is scheduled for a second reading at Council’s next regularmeeting early next month. UPDATE - (6/24/09) -<strong>The</strong> so-called tethering or non-tethering dog ordinance could be destined for enforcement dilemmas due to ambiguity, amongother issues.Morgan County - (6/25/09) - <strong>The</strong> county’s Animal Control <strong>of</strong>ficer and Sheriff Vince Shambaugh urged the Morgan County Commissioners to consider making an anti-tethering law, restrictingresidents from chaining dogs for extended periods in a fixed location and neglecting to care for the animals. Laura Klein, the county’s animal control <strong>of</strong>ficer, said an anti-tethering lawwould help reduce aggression and bites from chained animals. An ordinance against cruel chaining wouldn’t eliminate people’s ability to chain up their dogs under reasonablecircumstance, said Commissioner Brenda Hutchinson, who supports an anti-tethering law. Commissioner Stacy Dugan had concerns about such a law. <strong>The</strong> commissioners agreed tosupport an educational campaign about cruel chaining in the community and revisit the idea <strong>of</strong> an anti-tethering law in six months after they had reviewed laws in other counties.
<strong>The</strong> <strong>Monthly</strong> <strong>National</strong> <strong>Legislation</strong> <strong>Report</strong>http://mnlreport.typepad.com/<strong>Page</strong> 199 <strong>of</strong> <strong>330</strong>7/5/<strong>2010</strong>LEGISLATION INOTHER COUNTRIES OF INTERESTAUSTRALIABrisbane - (6/23/09) - Some cat owners will be afforded a one-year reprieve from compulsory pet registration, after Gold Coast City Council last night became the second local authority tothumb its nose at new state laws, due to take effect in Brisbane on July 1. From next Wednesday, Brisbane cat owners will need to dish out $39 a year to register desexed cats or $78 forthree years to register their feline friends. However, Gold Coast and Moreton Bay councils have chosen to waive the fees for at least 12 months, amid criticism the registration program is"impractical" and costly. Logan and Brisbane City Councils have <strong>of</strong>fered a 12-month amnesty for owners <strong>of</strong> desexed cats. However owners <strong>of</strong> cats, at least three-months-old and not desexed,will face a fine <strong>of</strong> $200. Gold Coast City councillor Bob La Castra said the registration plan had been sprung on the council, which would be left with a $55,000 advertising bill to informresidents <strong>of</strong> their new responsibilities. "This was basically dumped in our laps. We don't have the IT programs in place to handle the registration," he said.Mitcham - (6/2/09) - MITCHAM council has indefinitely delayed the introduction <strong>of</strong> strict new cat control laws amid claims from its own members it "rushed" into the decision last week. At aspecial meeting tonight, councillors unanimously called for a report into the impact and costs <strong>of</strong> a new regime that would ban residents from owning more than two cats and force them tomicrochip and register the animals. <strong>The</strong> council last week voted 7-6 in favour <strong>of</strong> introducing some <strong>of</strong> the toughest cat laws in the state, but failed to achieve the "absolute majority" <strong>of</strong> eightvotes required to make them legally binding.WA - City <strong>of</strong> Joondalup - (6/20/09) - Cat ownership in WA is under siege by local cat laws newly introduced by the Shire <strong>of</strong> Swan and soon to be implemented by the City <strong>of</strong> Joondalup. Catowners will be penalized by fines if their cat unwittingly trespasses onto a neighbours property without their permission. <strong>The</strong> ultimate penalty is the trapping <strong>of</strong> your beloved moggy by aneighbour in a trap supplied by the shire and the impoundment and possible euthanization <strong>of</strong> your cat if you can’t locate it within 7 days. <strong>The</strong> legal trapping <strong>of</strong> cats opened up by these newlocal cat laws will only encourage vigilantes who hate cats to have an ‘open season’ on cats in their neighborhood. <strong>The</strong> Cat Haven, a well known Perth based cat rescue group have alreadyreported incidences <strong>of</strong> cats caught in traps being drowned in lakes. A horrible death for any animal with no chance <strong>of</strong> escape – and astonishingly still a set <strong>of</strong> laws introduced in such poorformat by local councils that policing these laws is almost impossible.Yarra Ranges - (6/16/09) - YARRA Ranges councillors waded into the contentious issue <strong>of</strong> mandatory desexing <strong>of</strong> cats last week … but they kept to the shallows. <strong>The</strong>y unanimously supporteda motion that cats not previously registered would not be accepted for registration after 10 April next year unless they were desexed or exempted. Compulsory desexing was proposed as part<strong>of</strong> the shire’s Domestic Animal Management Plan adopted in October last year. Councillors Samantha Dunn and Tim Heenan launched a strong case in favour <strong>of</strong> compulsory desexing includingstatistics from animal protection organisations that reported 53,000 cats lodged with animal welfare centres across Australia and 35,000 being euthanased. “That’s a lot <strong>of</strong> unwanted cats andkittens out there preying on wildlife and I can see no reason why any responsible owner <strong>of</strong> a domestic moggie would not support desexing,” Cr Dunn said. Cr Heenan said there had beensubstantial loss <strong>of</strong> wildlife in the Dandenongs over the years. “I have no time for people who allow them to roam and if this is the way for those numbers to be controlled, I am for it,” hesaid. <strong>The</strong> report from the shire’s planning, building and health department said that while most <strong>of</strong> the animal welfare organisations consulted, including the Victorian Animal Aid Trust atColdstream, supported compulsory desexing <strong>of</strong> cats, the Australian Veterinary Association (AVA) was against it. Cats will be exempted based on veterinary advice, if they belong to aregistered breeder, or pet shop, or if they are registered with an approved association. <strong>The</strong> exemptions provided a balance between the opposing arguments, the report said.CHINA(6/19/09) - Animal abuse or harm such as the controversial dog culling in Hanzhong, Shaanxi province would be illegal under a new draft law. If passed through the country's legislativeorgans, it would be the first time that the concept <strong>of</strong> "animal welfare" is added to law. Experts have completed drafting the country's first animal protection law and are now in the process <strong>of</strong>revising it before its submission to government and congress authorities, said Chang Jiwen, a law pr<strong>of</strong>essor with Chinese Academy <strong>of</strong> Social Sciences who led the drafting team. UPDATE: Adraft <strong>of</strong> the country's first law on animal protection has proposed a fine <strong>of</strong> up to 6,000 yuan ($877) and two weeks detention for those found guilty <strong>of</strong> animal cruelty. "<strong>The</strong> proposal will besubmitted to the State Council by the end <strong>of</strong> the year," Chang Jiwen, director <strong>of</strong> the social law research department <strong>of</strong> the Chinese Academy <strong>of</strong> Social Sciences, who authored the draft, toldChina Daily Thursday. As part <strong>of</strong> strict measures to manage and control the animal population in the country, the draft also proposes a prohibition on pet owners from breeding their animals,said Chang. <strong>The</strong> draft law further makes it compulsory for data chips to be implanted in pets to track down their owners in case the animals are found abandoned. "<strong>The</strong>se rules will ensurethat people who abandon their pets will be prevented from raising more animals," he said. <strong>The</strong> proposal will be posted on www.china.com.cn, a major information portal, to solicit publicopinion in August, Chang said.Guangzhou - (6/18/09) - Mrs. Chen can't imagine abandoning one <strong>of</strong> her two best friends: her scruffy terrier mutt and a white fluffy Pekingese mix with buggy eyes. But that's what thegovernment in this southern Chinese city wants the middle-aged housewife to do when a one-dog policy takes effect in Guangzhou. Beginning July 1, each household can raise only one pooch.<strong>The</strong> regulation won't be grandfathered in, so families with two or more dogs will apparently have to decide which one gets to stay. "It's a cruel regulation. <strong>The</strong>se dogs are like family. How canyou keep one and get rid <strong>of</strong> the others?" said Chen, who declined to give her full name because she feared the police would track her down and seize the dogs. Such dog controls have touched<strong>of</strong>f resentment among urban — mostly new middle class — Chinese in other cities. <strong>The</strong> Guangzhou measure comes as many are worrying about the economy, and there's potential for theregulation to trigger a public backlash. Police and city government <strong>of</strong>ficials appear to be aware <strong>of</strong> the issue's sensitivity. <strong>The</strong> Associated Press spent three weeks making calls and sendingfaxes to <strong>of</strong>ficials requesting an interview about the policy. But after the requests were passed back and forth between the police and city government, neither agreed to discuss it. <strong>The</strong>regulation appears to be part <strong>of</strong> an effort to control stray dogs in Guangzhou, once known as Canton. An hour north <strong>of</strong> Hong Kong by train, it is one <strong>of</strong> the richest cities in China and has arapidly growing middle class that can afford to own dogs.Shanghai - (6/21/09) - <strong>The</strong> Chinese have a supremely ambivalent relationship with dogs. <strong>The</strong>y still like to eat them in winter because it is good for the blood. <strong>The</strong>y also consider them to bepests and cull them on a semi-regular basis. And, recently, a growing number <strong>of</strong> newly affluent urbanites like to keep cute little puppies as pets. It means that when you see a dog, even insophisticated Shanghai, it’s not always clear whether you’re looking at dinner, a rabid cur or man’s best friend. Although dog culls were an almost annual event in China from 1949 to 1976,and there were several reports <strong>of</strong> dog roundups in Beijing prior to last year’s Olympic Games, there hasn’t been news <strong>of</strong> a slaughter on the scale <strong>of</strong> the Shaanxi cull in nearly three years —and the flak has been heavy, by Chinese standards. <strong>The</strong> central government responded by promising to publish a draft law by the end <strong>of</strong> the summer outlining its plans to protect animals,including measures prohibiting abusing and abandoning pets. It didn’t mention whether killing dogs for food will be affected, but it is unlikely.IRELANDNorthern Ireland - (6/22/09) - Northern Ireland council, Derry City Council have released an annual service plan for the next 12 months, which includes the recommendation <strong>of</strong> more breedsbeing added to their version <strong>of</strong> the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 (DDA), the Dangerous Dogs (NI) Order 1991. <strong>The</strong> Dangerous Dogs (NI) Order 1991 (DDO) is very similar to the DDA in England,Wales and Scotland however has no provision for a dog that may fit “type” to be exempted, meaning any dog deemed type is automatically destroyed. <strong>The</strong> new plan claims that other breedssuch as the German Shepherd, Rottweiler and Doberman Pinscher should be restricted and forced to be leashed and muzzled in public under provisions within the Order to add breeds ortypes not currently covered. <strong>The</strong> same provision to add new breeds or types is also included in the DDA and although Defra claim to have no plans to add breeds or types they do state it isalways under review. Should the recommendation be acted on, the restrictions would bring Northern Ireland more in line with Southern Ireland which already requires the leashing andmuzzling <strong>of</strong> American Pit Bull Terrier, Bull Mastiff, Doberman pinscher, English Bull Terrier, German Shepard (Alsation), Japanese Akita, Japanese Tosa, Rhodesian Ridgeback, Rottweiler,Staffordshire Bull Terrier, and to every dog <strong>of</strong> the type commonly known as the Ban Dog (or Bandog) and to every other strain or cross <strong>of</strong> every breed or type <strong>of</strong> dog described. It will however
Change language