<strong>The</strong> <strong>Monthly</strong> <strong>National</strong> <strong>Legislation</strong> <strong>Report</strong>http://mnlreport.typepad.com/<strong>Page</strong> 212 <strong>of</strong> <strong>330</strong>7/5/<strong>2010</strong>vicious dogs that attack people. A bill that would create big changes to the state's current laws sailed through a House committee. Video at link.MAINE(5/26/09) - Maine legislators have proposed increasing the sales tax on pet food to benefit the state’s animal welfare program, according to the Pet Industry Joint Advisory Council (PIJAC). Inan alert issued May 22, PIJAC says the Joint Committee on Agriculture, Conservation and Forestry has amended a recently introduced bill to provide for an increase <strong>of</strong> Maine’s sales tax on petfood and treats. <strong>The</strong> bill, LD 964, initially sought to regulate cat and dog breeders and sellers. According to PIJAC, the amendment calls for raising the sales tax on pet food and treats from 5percent to 6 percent. It is not clear if the special tax would be limited to dog and cat food and treats or if it would also apply to other kinds <strong>of</strong> pets' food and treats. Money raised from the 1percent sales tax increase would go toward the state animal welfare program. <strong>The</strong> purpose <strong>of</strong> the Animal Welfare Program, as stated on Maine’s Department <strong>of</strong> Agriculture website, is toensure humane and proper treatment <strong>of</strong> animals by developing, implementing and administering a comprehensive program that upholds the animal welfare laws <strong>of</strong> Maine. According to PIJAC,the program already receives funding from Maine’s annual $20 brand surcharge imposed on pet food manufacturers (used for spay/neuter initiative) and the state’s annual productregistration fees (50 percent <strong>of</strong> the fees goes to the program). In its alert, PIJAC claims the 1 percent sales increase is a “costly matter” for both retailers and consumers. Sen. JohnNutting, D-Leeds, the co-chairman <strong>of</strong> the Agriculture Committee, argued for the bill saying it would “provide needed funding for the animal welfare program and it would provide someproperty tax relief. <strong>The</strong>re is a lot <strong>of</strong> support for this from a number <strong>of</strong> groups that know we have a real problem in the animal welfare program.” Nutting said the proposal would go to the fullLegislature as part <strong>of</strong> a bill dealing with state animal welfare laws. He said a coalition <strong>of</strong> groups such as the Maine Federation <strong>of</strong> Dog Clubs, the Maine Association <strong>of</strong> Animal Shelters, theMaine Municipal Association and the Sportsman’s Alliance <strong>of</strong> Maine are supporting the proposal.LD1021 (SP385) - (AG) - was sponsored by Senator John Nutting (D-Androscoggin County), Senate Chair <strong>of</strong> the Agriculture, Conservation and Forestry Committee. It passed the committeeand both chambers unanimously. Governor's Action: Signed, May 12, 2009 Maine Becomes Sixth U.S. State to Ban Extreme Confinement. <strong>The</strong> Humane Society <strong>of</strong> the United States stronglybacked the legislation.(5/29/-09) - (AG) -Maine Governor John Baldacci signed legislation preventing two livestock production confinement methods. <strong>The</strong> effort was pushed by the Humane Society <strong>of</strong> the UnitedStates and other animal rights organizations.Effective Jan. 1, 2011, the new law will prohibit gestation crates for sows and veal crates for calves. LD 1021 was sponsored by Senator JohnNutting (D-Androscoggin County), Senate Chair <strong>of</strong> the Agriculture, Conservation and Forestry Committee. It passed the committee and both chambers unanimously. Californiansoverwhelmingly passed a similar measure, <strong>The</strong> Prevention <strong>of</strong> Farm Animal Cruelty Act, by ballot initiative last fall. Maine is the sixth state to mass similar legislation.In addition to California, four other states have passed similar measures, including Colorado, Florida, Arizona and Oregon.Augusta - (5/27/09) - <strong>Legislation</strong> that would have strengthened Maine's already tough animal-fighting laws pitted local lawmakers against each other on the House floor Tuesday. <strong>The</strong>original measure, sponsored by Rep. Dick Wagner, D-Lewiston, would have made it illegal to possess dog- or cockfighting equipment and a felony crime to be a spectator at an animal fight.<strong>The</strong> majority <strong>of</strong> House members voted against the legislation in early April, but the Senate voted last week to support an amended version. Sen. Deb Simpson, D-Auburn, sponsored theSenate-approved amendment that would have limited the bill's reach to "walled areas intended to be used to contain a dogfight," or a fighting pit. On Tuesday, members debated the measureagain on the House floor before taking the vote that essentially killed the bill. <strong>The</strong> final House vote to defeat the measure was 97-49, with five members absent. Local members who voted tosupport the legislation were Reps. Bruce Bickford, R-Auburn; Brian Bolduc, D-Auburn; Stacy Dostie, D-Sabattus; Gary Knight, R-Livermore Falls; Peggy Rotundo, D-Lewiston; Larry Sirois,D-Turner; Nancy Smith, D-Monmouth; and Wagner.MARYLANDBaltimore - (5/12/09) - A Baltimore City Council committee voted Tuesday to amend a recent law that fined dog owners $1,000 if their pets were caught without a leash or if owners didn'tclean up after them. <strong>The</strong> leash law was increased from $100 to $1,000 in January, and since then, dog owners had been outraged over it. On Tuesday, the council heard testimony at ahearing, where Councilman James Kraft worked to hammer out an emergency fix to the contentious leash law he sponsored. He said the outrageous fine was an oversight. <strong>The</strong> full council isexpected to vote on the amended leash law fines next Monday. <strong>The</strong>y could go into effect later this month. UPDATE: (5/20/09) - Baltimore's City Council, as expected, voted tonight to lowerthe $1,000 fines for leash law violators. Read more on people's views <strong>of</strong> the leash law here. More Unleashed leash law coverage here.MASSACHUSETTSWellfleet - (4/24/09) - “<strong>The</strong>re’s a lot to chew on the warrant this year,” Town Moderator Harry Terkanian told the 50 citizens who turned out last week for the Wellfleet CommunityForum’s Pre-Town Meeting. Water, wind and dogs will be the big articles, Rex Peterson, assistant town administrator, said with a smile. <strong>The</strong> animal control bylaw, which takes up nine pagesin the warrant, is at the very end. “<strong>The</strong>re is nothing like a dog hearing to bring the people out to a selectmen’s meeting,” Peterson said, speculating that this bylaw will keep the townspeople intheir seats until the end. Voters will decide if they want to operate with their own animal control bylaws, instead <strong>of</strong> relying, as they always have done, on the state laws. “<strong>The</strong> animal controlbylaw might be controversial for some, since we live in a rural community,” said Hilary Greenberg, the health and conservation agent, who helped Animal Control Officer Lorial Russell draftthe bylaw with the assistance <strong>of</strong> town counsel. Greenberg is hopeful that folks recognize that the most controversial part <strong>of</strong> controlling animals — designating where dogs are allowed andwhere they are not allowed — has already been dealt with in the beach regulations, which the selectmen have approved. This should take the “bite” out <strong>of</strong> these bylaw changes, she hopes, butthere are some other changes in the bylaw that could also put dog lovers in a fighting mood on Town Meeting floor — specifically, the bylaw provisions for dealing with “vicious” dogs. What’sin place now is a bylaw that deals only with pit bulls and requires them to be muzzled when <strong>of</strong>f their owners’ property. Under the new bylaw, the animal control <strong>of</strong>ficer would determine if adog is vicious. If so labeled, it would have to be kept in an enclosed locked area approved by the <strong>of</strong>ficer, and kept muzzled when taken <strong>of</strong>f the property. All dogs would have to be leashed when<strong>of</strong>f their owners’ property, and no dogs would be allowed in cemeteries. <strong>The</strong> bylaw also deals with barking dogs. “<strong>The</strong>re are plenty <strong>of</strong> people bothered by barking dogs, but that might be a littlecontroversial since 10 minutes might be a little too short,” she said, referring to a provision stating that if a dog barks for 10 minutes, the owner could be subject to a fine <strong>of</strong> $50 per incident.<strong>The</strong> bylaw also requires dog owners to clean up after them, “which I think is extremely important,” Greenberg said.Worcester - (4/24/09) - Five or six women a year call the YWCA Daybreak program looking for help out <strong>of</strong> an abusive relationship: one that affects not only them, but also their pets.“<strong>The</strong>se women are saying they don’t know what to do with their pets because their partner may retaliate against them for leaving,” said Ginger L. Navickas, executive director <strong>of</strong> Daybreak.“But it’s very hard to tell what the true number is. Many victims may not leave because they feel it’s a foregone conclusion that no one would be able to take care <strong>of</strong> their pet.” Proposedlegislation that awaits a hearing before the Legislature’s Joint Committee on the Judiciary would include pets in temporary restraining orders, give domestic violence victims custody <strong>of</strong>abused family pets, and help victims find temporary shelter for their animals as they leave abusive partners. Animal advocates and domestic violence experts believe a law that protectsanimals and gives domestic violence victims greater incentive to flee abuse would be beneficial. <strong>The</strong>y have seen abuse between humans carry over to pets, and know that fear for a pet’s safetyis an obstacle to fleeing violent relationships. Still, some advocates question whether a new law is the most efficient use <strong>of</strong> resources in the fight against domestic violence, and wonder if itcould be used as a weapon in nasty breakups.MICHIGANEastpointe - City Council will review the city's vicious dog ordinance and look at model ordinances and those in place in other communities for guidance. If it makes any changes, council isleaning toward not being breed specific. No date for the discussion was set during tonight's (05/06) council meeting, where people voiced their opinions about the issue. Council delayed thediscussion, in part, because it didn't receive the most updated ordinance to review.Orion Twp - (5/22/09) - <strong>The</strong> Board <strong>of</strong> Trustees in Orion Township, Michigan is considering a breedspecific ordinance related to pit bulls. <strong>The</strong> Trustee, Joanne Van Tassel ,has requested that the board review the ban which was placed by Waterford Township, MI.To assist with organization, contact Dawn Hubbard
<strong>The</strong> <strong>Monthly</strong> <strong>National</strong> <strong>Legislation</strong> <strong>Report</strong>http://mnlreport.typepad.com/<strong>Page</strong> 213 <strong>of</strong> <strong>330</strong>7/5/<strong>2010</strong>hubbard00@sbcglobal.netTo contact Township <strong>of</strong>ficials:ORION TOWNSHIP, MICHIGANTownship SupervisorMatthew Gibbmgibb@oriontownship.orgPhone: (248) 391-0304 x201Fax: (248) 393-6858Township ClerkPenny S. Shultspshults@oriontownship.orgPhone: (248) 391-0304 x104Fax: (248)391-9984Township Board MembersMark CraneNeal PorterJohn SteimelJoAnn Van TasselMayor and Trustee Board Members E-mail Quick List -mgibb@oriontownship.org,mcrane@oriontownship.org,nporter@oriontownship.org,trustee_steimel@hotmail.com,jvantassel@oriontownship.orgManistique - (5/27/09) - Council reviewed a request for an ordinance on cats to be created. <strong>The</strong> request for an ordinance on cats came from a Manistique resident who was having ongoingproblems with neighborhood cats. In her letter, she said her neighbor's cats were causing destruction to her garden, hanging from her bird feeders and killing birds. She asked council toconsider creating an ordinance on cats, similar to the city ordinance on dogs. To discuss the feasibility <strong>of</strong> an ordinance on cats, council invited Manistique Public Safety Director Ken Golat tothe podium. According to Golat, most cities that have cat ordinances have an animal control department or a designated animal control <strong>of</strong>ficer, as well as the funds to back them up. SinceManistique does not have either, the responsibility would fall on the shoulders <strong>of</strong> Manistique Public Safety, which does not have the money, manpower, or time to enforce the ordinance."From a Manistique Public Safety perspective, an ordinance would be difficult to enforce..." he said. "<strong>The</strong>re are ordinances that include a licensing and neutering provision. It's a great idea ifyou have the manpower, but we don't have animal control." He also explained the reason there can be a dog ordinance is because dogs are easier to catch and are more physicallydistinguishable. Council members agreed an ordinance on cats would be difficult to control. Golat added there had been a few complaints from residents, but he did not think it was a majorproblem overall. "Let them continue to solve the problems and if the problem continues, we'll bring it up again."Saugatuck - (5/25/09) - Many western Michigan beaches won't be going to the dogs this summer.A number <strong>of</strong> municipalities along the Lake Michigan coast put out "do not enter" signs to dogs for safety and health reasons. Some say many dog owners are not responsible enough to pick upafter their pooches. Earlier this year, the Saugatuck city council briefly discussed changing its rules about dogs at Oval Beach because so many enjoy taking their pets for a run on the shore."People aren't all responsible dog owners," said Kathy Klage, the Oval Beach manager. And dog waste left on the sand creates a health hazard for beach-goers, she said.Warrren - (5/22/09) - Pit bull terriers may soon be a banned breed in Warren as city <strong>of</strong>ficials develop a tougher dog ordinance. Muzzling <strong>of</strong> "vicious" dogs, computer chips to identify straysand costlier fines for irresponsible canine owners, are among other regulations being suggested by City Council members. Council members have directed the city's legal department torevamp Warren's dog ordinance. Some council members want to eliminate the discretion provided to animal control <strong>of</strong>ficers investigating dog bite incidents. Currently, those <strong>of</strong>ficers mayimpound a biting dog. But council members want confiscation to be mandatory, with the owners billed for boarding fees while <strong>of</strong>ficials verify vaccinations and as owners await the outcome <strong>of</strong>potential criminal charges.MINNESOTANOTE - In our April report, we posted the following under Minnesota. Thanks to Elaine Hanson <strong>of</strong> the Minnesota Responsible Animal Owners Alliance for the correction, listed below:Buffalo County - (4/12/09) - Buffalo County is on the threshold <strong>of</strong> passing its first countywide ordinance to regulate licensing and control <strong>of</strong> dogs in rural towns.======================<strong>The</strong>re is no Buffalo County in Minnesota. This item was published in the Winona MN newspaper, which serves the community across the river in Buffalo County Wisconsin.********************** Elaine also provided the following information regarding HF253 which was tabled but likely to reappear in the <strong>2010</strong> session.HF253 - Dog and cat breeder standards <strong>of</strong> care provided, and money appropriated. [[A bill for an act 1.2 relating to animals; providing standards <strong>of</strong> care for dog and cat breeders; 1.3authorizing rulemaking; providing criminal penalties; appropriating money; 1.4 proposing coding for new law in Minnesota Statutes, chapter 347. 1.5Further amendments were adopted on 3/27. <strong>The</strong>y included changing the definition <strong>of</strong> "hobby breeder" to a person who "possesses fewer than 20 intact adult animals or produces five or fewerlitters" per year; further defining "commercial breeder" as a person "other than a hobby breeder or private kennel...," and adding a subdivision providing that "Private kennel" means "a kennelwhere dogs are kept or bred for the purpose <strong>of</strong> hunting, tracking, exhibiting in dog shows, or field and obedience trials, and where the act <strong>of</strong> buying, selling, trading, or breeding is not theprimary reason for possessing the dogs." <strong>The</strong>re were some minor changes to this provision before it was adopted, but the record is not available online; it appeared that the intention was toapply the "private kennel" exception language to "hobby breeder" as well. Other amendments limited USDA inspection reports and records that a commercial breeder must make available toa state inspector to "records relating to animal care plans and veterinary care." <strong>The</strong> provision allowing the Board <strong>of</strong> Animal Health to delegate its authority to conduct inspections to a localjurisdiction was stricken. <strong>The</strong> provision to have a veterinarian present during an inspection at the request <strong>of</strong> the Board or the commercial breeder was stricken. Local units <strong>of</strong> governmentmay assist the Board in a seizure and apply to the Board for reimbursement <strong>of</strong> costs incurred. <strong>The</strong> Board was added to those agents that may conduct an investigation pursuant to a formalcomplaint under the animal cruelty statute. <strong>The</strong> language relating to seizure [as a result <strong>of</strong> a cruelty complaint] was modified to conform to existing law. <strong>The</strong> bill provides for setting <strong>of</strong> feesbut no discussion <strong>of</strong> that aspect occurred. <strong>The</strong> bill was tabled following the amendments described above. <strong>The</strong> author stated he intends to proceed with the bill in the <strong>2010</strong> session.Thank you, Elaine and the Minnesota Responsible Animal Owners Alliance !!Tracy - (5/27/09) - A second public hearing on a proposed dog kennel ordinance for the city <strong>of</strong> Tracy will be held at the Tracy City Council's next regular meeting June 9. A revisedversion <strong>of</strong> the ordinance came before the council at its Tuesday night meeting, said Tracy City Administrator Audrey Koopman. <strong>The</strong>re wasn't much discussion <strong>of</strong> the ordinance before the newhearing was set, Koopman said, but there will be opportunity for public comment then. <strong>The</strong> ordinance, which proposes regulations for the size, construction and location <strong>of</strong> dog kennels in thecity, had been sent back to the Tracy Planning Commission for revision after a public hearing in April. While Tracy Police Chief Bryan Hillger had said the ordinance was necessary to setstandards allowing police <strong>of</strong>ficers to respond to animal complaints, several members <strong>of</strong> the community had expressed concerns about different parts <strong>of</strong> the ordinance.
Change language