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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

The Monthly National Legislation Reporthttp://mnlreport.typepad.com/Page 208 of 3307/5/2010are identified as "dangerous" based on stated, measurable actions; imposeappropriate penalties on irresponsible owners; and establish a well-definedmethod for dealing with dogs proven to be dangerous. If necessary, dogsproven to be "dangerous" may need to be humanely destroyed but the AKCstrongly opposes any legislation that determines a dog to be "dangerous"based on specific breeds or phenotypic classes of dogs.Granada - (5/4/09) - A Colorado lawmaker says he got tired of his colleagues passing bills that would hurt his rural constituents, like the one requiring ranchers to take care of wildcats or another requiring butchering animals to be kept in bigger pens.So last weekend state Rep. Wes McKinley invited fellow lawmakers to see part of the real West: the southeasternplains. A half dozen took him up on the offer, riding the range and helping with a cattle drive. "I told them if they're going to vote on western issues, they need to understand westernissues," said McKinley, a rancher and former outfitter from Walsh, an agricultural town of 4,000 about 220 miles southeast of Denver. The cat care bill passed the House Local GovernmentCommittee but died on the House floor. The animal care act requiring larger pens became law, but only after pregnant sows were given an exemption. "They didn't realize that sows eat theirbabies," McKinley said. McKinley, a Democrat, said many laws passed in Denver have unintended consequences on the range. "They wanted to pass a law saying you couldn't keep a veal calfin a pen so small he couldn't lay down and turn around," he told farmers and ranchers at a campfire meeting after the trail ride. "I asked them 'What's a veal calf?' and nobody knew. They said'Don't worry about it because there was no veal industry in Colorado.' I said this could be my favorite bill, because we passed a law on a subject they knew nothing about for something wecan't define," McKinley recalled.CONNECTICUTSB499 - (5/2/09) Amended - Call your Representatives as soon as possible!! You can also email or write, but phone calls are best. To find your legislator’s name, click here. To read theoriginal Committee Bill, click here. Bill explanation - What the bill does:1) Makes anyone who breeds 2 or more litters a year vet check each puppy or kitten prior to the initial offering of same for sale and have each animal vet checked AGAIN every 15 days afterthe initial vet check until sold2) Requires a 6 month guarantee, at the option of the BUYER, either a replacement or full refund in the dog or cat is diagnosed with an undefined congenital defect3) Requires the seller of dog or cat to file a “certificate of origin” to the Department of Agriculture within TWO days of sale or otherwise be subject to a $100.00 fine or imprisoned not morethan 30 days or both. Every DAY the seller is in violation constitutes a separate offense. UPDATE: (5/12/09 House Amendment) - click here to read amendment LCO #6866, To: Subst.Senate Bill 499Canaan - (5/23/09) - Connecticut and several other states are considering laws allowing their residents to create legally binding trusts, in which money could be allocated to care for theirpets when those owners die or become incapacitated. Unlike a will, trusts can go into effect before a person's death—and the courts or a trustee can step in to enforce the terms if a pet isneglected or the money is not spent properly.Hartford - (5/28/09) - Responding to February's chimpanzee attack in Stamford, lawmakers, Attorney General Richard Blumenthal and the Department of Environmental Protection allcalled for a new law banning private ownership of dangerous wild animals in the state. But the bill has proven more controversial than initially intended and become bogged down with avariety of amendments that threaten its passage before the legislative session ends June 3. "I am concerned," state Sen. Edward Meyer, D-Guilford, a co-chairman of the legislature'sEnvironmental Committee, said Wednesday. "Here we are with less than a week left and the bill has not come up to the Senate" from the House of Representatives. As was previouslyreported, state Rep. Dick Roy, D-Milford, the House chairman of the Environment Committee, has for the past few weeks been fine-tuning the proposal to grandfather in two dozen smallmonkeys owned by various families, specify ferrets are domestic animals that can be kept as pets, and ensure the law does not mistakenly ban circuses from Connecticut. But about a dozenamendments -- some related directly to the proposal, others only tangentially linked to the legislation -- have been attached to the legislation by various lawmakers. "It's like a Christmas tree,"said state Rep. Diana Urban, D-North Stonington. Urban, a member of the Environmental Committee, is responsible for an amendment that would allow people who have animals deemedillegal by the legislation to keep them as long as they register the pet with the state DEP. The bill lists several types of cats, bears, primates, snakes, scorpions, tarantulas and more."Grandfather everybody and after that say, 'No more,' " Urban said. UPDATE: (5/31/09) - Legislation that would have banned a long list of wild and potentially dangerous animals as petshas failed in the General Assembly this year because lawmakers from Litchfield County want to protect a family-owned farm that has several elephants. But the state Department ofEnvironmental Protection hopes residents will voluntarily turn over questionable pets on July 25 at an "exotic animal amnesty day" at Beardsley Zoo in Bridgeport.D.C.No report for Washington, DCDELAWARENo report for DelawareFLORIDAHB451 - Tallahassee - (5/25/09) - A bill that started as a mandatory spay/neuter proposal and was altered into a sterilization fundraising program has been dropped altogether byFlorida lawmakers. House Bill 451 initially was introduced Jan. 20 in the Florida House of Representatives and would have required all cats and dogs, with exceptions for show,breeding, service or racing dogs, to be sterilized by 4 months of age or within 30 days of ownership. On March 24, the committee adopted a "strike-all" amendment, removing allmandatory spay/neuter language and instead giving local lawmakers the option of using a $5 charge already collected on animal-control citations to help pay for low-costspay/neuter programs. March 25, the bill was transferred to the Military and Local Affairs Policy Committee, which withdrew the bill from consideration May 2. The bill's failurecoincides with the American Veterinary Medical Association's (AVMA) revision of its policy on cat and dog population control, which frowns on mandatory sterilization. "The AVMAdoes not support regulations or legislation mandating spay/neuter of privately owned, non-shelter dogs and cats," AVMA says in its revised policy. "Although spaying andneutering helps control dog and cat populations, mandatory approaches may contribute to pet owners avoiding licensing, rabies vaccination and veterinary care for their pets,and may have other unintended consequences."DeLand - (5/11/09) - DeLand is joining Volusia County in requiring pet owners to spay or neuter their dogs and cats. City officials hope the requirement will reduce the number of animalsthat end up being killed at shelters. DeLand’s new law must pass a second reading before it takes effect, but only Commissioner Charles Paiva opposed the ordinance on its first reading May4. The vote was 4-to-1.The new law would require pets to be sterilized by Sept. 30, but city officials said they will enforce it on a complaints-only basis. Paiva said he voted against the law because he is hesitant forthe city to exercise that level of control over people’s pets, and also because he doesn’t like the idea of putting a law on the books that the city doesn’t really intend to enforce. To encourage thepassage of spay-neuter laws, Volusia County has offered free use of the Pet Vet Cruiser through Sept. 30 to cities that adopt the ordinances. Since the county passed its mandatory sterilizationlaw in 2007, only two cities in Volusia County have followed suit. South Daytona and Holly Hill also require their residents to spay or neuter their pets. Seven types of animals can beexempted from the sterilization:• animals of registered breeds that compete in shows or other competitions• an animal whose owner is a member of a bona fide animal club that maintains and enforces a code of ethics for breeding• animals whose doctors pronounce them medically unfit for sterilization• animals used in law enforcement
The Monthly National Legislation Reporthttp://mnlreport.typepad.com/Page 209 of 3307/5/2010• service animals who assist people with disabilities• animals whose owners have a contract for breeding the animals• hunting or herding animals registered with a bona fide hunting or herding organization.Contact info for the city: http://www.deland.org/cityhall/index.htmLee County - Cape Coral - (5/30/09) - Lee County Animal Services is instituting a trap, neuter, and release program (or TNR) in hopes of controlling the feral cat population. A first forLee County, the program was developed with help from the public as well as utilizing input from University of Florida. The TNR program hopes to put power into the hands of the public byoffering education, traps, and assistance in catching cats.Ormond Beach - (5/24/09) - The Ormond Beach City Commission has tentatively approved a requirement that all cats and dogs in the city be fixed -- unless, as one commissioner put it,the animals are "gainfully employed." The city already requires that all pet owners pay a $5 fee to license their animals, which must also be up-to-date on all the required shots. On Tuesday,commissioners voted unanimously on first reading to require that dogs and cats older than 6 months must be spayed or neutered to get a city license, unless the animal qualifies for anexemption. Violators would face a $100 fine or the police chief could send them to the code enforcement board.Tarpon Springs - (5/30/09) - It may soon be illegal to chain dogs outside for long periods of time. City commissioners learned Tuesday night many dogs are chained outside, in the hotsun, for several hours in a practice called tethering. Commissioners agreed that dogs in the city should be treated more humanely. They endorsed an idea to pattern a local ordinance after oneadopted five years ago in Wichita, Kan. The local ordinance would prohibit tethering a dog for longer than one hour at a time or for more than three hours a day. The ordinance would requirea three-hour interval between each hour a dog can be tethered. A chain would have to be three times the length of the dog but not allow the animal to reach the right of way. Choke or chaincollars would not be allowed. Commissioners requested city legal staff design a local version based on the Kansas ordinance for consideration at a future meeting.GEORGIACordele - (5/31/09) - A county resident is puzzled over the absence of a leash law to protect residents from dogs on the loose. There are dogs in the area that virtually terrorize theneighborhood and it is becoming a growing safety concern. Owners of the dogs have been informed of the situation, but turn a deaf ear to the problems. The reason is because there is noexisting leash law within the county. “The reason there is no leash law in the county is because most people that live in unincorporated areas prefer not to have one,” said CountyAdministrator Gene Crapse. “Some people move to the country so they can allow their animals to run free. They choose not to have street lights because they can see the stars better atnight. Some of them don’t even want their roads paved.”Forsyth County - (5/30/09) - Residents have a final chance to sound off on proposed changes to Forsyth County's animal control ordinance that would make illegal the tethering, or chaining,of dogs for more than three hours. The proposed ordinance also addresses matters such as adequate food, water, shelter and space for animals. The public hearing is set for 5:30 p.m. Mondayin the county administration building. A decision could follow. The county commission took no action on the matter at the first public hearing May 7, though residents took the opportunity tolet the board know how they felt. Enforcement would be complaint-based. If passed, there would be a six-month period before the measure would take effect. Neighboring Cherokee andFulton counties have adopted similar anti-tethering ordinances, as has the city of Gainesville.Gwinnett - (5/3/09) - The Gwinnett Animal Advisory Council (GAAC) met on Tuesday, April 21, to consider proposed changes to the county's animal ordinance. A spirited discussion, shroudedin contemptuous overtones that pervaded for two plus hours, focused on nuisance dog barking and tethering restrictions. From this writer's perspective, representing "We, the Pet Owners ofGwinnett," a grassroots group of concerned pet owners, the feeling tone set by GAAC is reflective of a common malady: fear of change. Nonetheless, considerable progress was made in thatGAAC and We, the Pet Owners of Gwinnett each made compromises in revising nuisance dog barking and tethering guidelines. As a result, a modified animal ordinance was crafted, to besubmitted to the Gwinnett County Commission for their recommendations and approval. GAAC member Carla Brown worked diligently to resolve contentious issues and deserves thecommunity's thanks for her efforts.Although the proposal presented by We, the Pet Owners of Gwinnett wasn't adopted in its entirety, consensus was reached regarding several key provisions within the proposed revisedordinance. Changes included in the new ordinance are listed below under the subject categories.Nuisance Dog BarkingSentencing guidelines no longer include jail and/or probation.Pets of an owner cited with a barking violation will not be removed from the home.An owner can be cited just once (per incident) for a barking violation, rather than multiple times based on the number of dogs he or she owns, as is currently enforced.The new ordinance requires two complainants from individuals who live at addresses close to the disturbance (rather then one as in the current law). This complaint expires after thirtydays meaning the process would have to start all over.Removed was the language that excluded barking when vocalizations are given as a warning to the "presence of a person trespassing on the property were the animal(s) are present. Thissection alone would be a deal breaker in any new ordinance, the county will go back to the current language that vocalizations do not apply "as a warning to the presence of an intruder".The new law will incorporate a mediation process in resolving conflicts.However, AAC Chair Gail Laberge refused a change that would reduce the maximum fine from it's current "up to $1,000" level to a more realistic fine of "up to $100". While Laberge neversaid the fine was a "reasonable" amount one can assume her refusal to put limitations in place demonstrates her opinion excessive fines are not unreasonable. Laberge, who represents theLawrenceville Kennel Club, went on to claim that the wording says the judge MAY give a fine not to exceed $1,000 but allows the judge to give a fine from $0.00 to $1,000. Of course, puttingreasonable restraints on the court process that would lower that range to $0.00 to $100 and still allow the same discretion. Laberge has a disconnect with the court process. After all, it wasunder her leadership that the current draconian ordinance was passed in 2007. Judge's are not required to levy fines for convictions under Recorders Court rules.Additional discussions during the Animal Advisory Meeting addressed:Volunteer ProgramThe current "volunteer" program is non functional. The failure to implement a volunteer spirit in the community, a failure to organize a working foster care program, a failure to increaseexposure for pets needing homes through off-site adoption events, a failure to implement "trap,neuter release" policies for feral cats, a failure to maintain a customer friendly shelterenvironment, a failure to offer affordable services that nurture responsible pet ownership in the community all feed into a failing animal welfare policies of killing more at our shelter. Insteadour current volunteer program requires a thorough criminal background check thus stifling most citizens from the program. Even this program is closely guarded as there are no links on thecounty web site that would advise volunteers on how they can participate. The Animal Advisory meeting included a discussion about the application and background check process that quiteprobably is discouraging community volunteer participation. Until we get over a philosophy of running the public animal shelter like a prison that problem will persist.Partnerships with the Rescue CommunityA significant issue that needs to be addressed is the dramatic drop in dogs and cats being transferred to area rescue groups in 2008. That number dropped a staggering 35% in one year alone.Shelter Director Mary Respress commented that many of the rescue groups the shelter approaches are not taking in animals because they are full. The sad reality is many long time veryresponsible rescue groups do not pull from Gwinnett because they feel like they are not treated as partners in the shelters success. Building and expanding a partnership coalition with therescue community is imperative in moving towards finding rescue solutions for many of the dogs and cats who are left with no other options.Revamping the Animal Advisory CouncilThe current structure of GAAC is, in my opinion, dysfunctional and primarily serves the special interest that blocks change. This structure is heavily weighted in support of local breeder andkennel club interest who compete in the marketplace with shelter pets. GAAC Chair Laberge, who represents the AKC, countered with "I do not believe the GAAC is dysfunctional nor do Ibelieve it blocks change. The GAAC tries very hard to look at all issues brought to the GAAC and recommend what is best for the community and the animals." Yet, Laberge is hard pressed inexplaining her support of the 2007 Animal Ordinance Revisions that allowed the county to jail pet owners and take away their family pets for minor ordinance infractions. She's hard pressedin explaining the lack of a volunteer program, she's hard pressed in explaining the shelter's policy of "trap and kill" for ferals which resulted in a huge increase in the number of cats being
Page 2:
The Monthly National Legislation Re
Page 6 and 7:
Page 8 and 9:
Page 10 and 11:
Page 12 and 13:
Page 14 and 15:
Page 16 and 17:
Page 18 and 19:
Page 20 and 21:
Page 22 and 23:
Page 24 and 25:
Page 26 and 27:
Page 28 and 29:
Page 30 and 31:
Page 32 and 33:
Page 34 and 35:
Page 36 and 37:
Page 38 and 39:
Page 40 and 41:
Page 42 and 43:
Page 44 and 45:
Page 46 and 47:
Page 48 and 49:
Page 50:
Page 53 and 54:
Page 55 and 56:
Page 57 and 58:
Page 59 and 60:
Page 61 and 62:
Page 63 and 64:
Page 65 and 66:
Page 67 and 68:
Page 69 and 70:
Page 71 and 72:
Page 73 and 74:
Page 75 and 76:
Page 77 and 78:
Page 79 and 80:
Page 81 and 82:
Page 83 and 84:
Page 85 and 86:
Page 87 and 88:
Page 89 and 90:
Page 91 and 92:
Page 93 and 94:
Page 95 and 96:
Page 97 and 98:
Page 99 and 100:
Page 101 and 102:
Page 103 and 104:
Page 105 and 106:
Page 107 and 108:
Page 109 and 110:
Page 111 and 112:
Page 113 and 114:
Page 115 and 116:
Page 117 and 118:
Page 119 and 120:
Page 121 and 122:
Page 123 and 124:
Page 125 and 126:
Page 127 and 128:
Page 129 and 130:
Page 131 and 132:
Page 133 and 134:
Page 135 and 136:
Page 137 and 138:
Page 139 and 140:
Page 141 and 142:
Page 143 and 144:
Page 145 and 146:
Page 147 and 148:
Page 149 and 150:
Page 151 and 152:
Page 153 and 154:
Page 155 and 156:
Page 157 and 158: The Monthly National Legislation Re
Page 171: The Monthly National Legislation Re
Page 258 and 259:
Page 260 and 261:
Page 262 and 263:
Page 264 and 265:
Page 266 and 267:
Page 268 and 269:
Page 270 and 271:
Page 272 and 273:
Page 274 and 275:
Page 276 and 277:
Page 278 and 279:
Page 280 and 281:
Page 282 and 283:
Page 284 and 285:
Page 286 and 287:
Page 288 and 289:
Page 290 and 291:
Page 292 and 293:
Page 294 and 295:
Page 296 and 297:
Page 298 and 299:
Page 300 and 301:
Page 302 and 303:
Page 304 and 305:
Page 306 and 307:
Page 308 and 309:
Page 310 and 311:
Page 312 and 313:
Page 314 and 315:
Page 316 and 317:
Page 318 and 319:
Page 320 and 321:
Page 322 and 323:
Page 324 and 325:
Page 326 and 327:
Page 328 and 329:
Page 330:
show all

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

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?