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

The Monthly National Legislation Reporthttp://mnlreport.typepad.com/Page 223 of 3307/5/2010(17) Officer shall mean a peace officer as defined under section 939.22(22) Wisconsin Statutes, a Community Service Officer, an Animal Humane Officer, and the Health Director of the City of Oshkosh or his/herdesignee. The "supervising officer" shall mean that officer designated by the City of Oshkosh Health Director to supervise the individual case.(18) Pet Animal for the purpose of this Chapter means any dog, cat, or ferret.(19) Pet Store shall mean a retail or wholesale business where animals, birds, fish, amphibians, and/or reptiles are kept or displayed for sale or free distribution.(20) Prohibited Dangerous Animal means any animal that without provocation has killed a pet animal or human being; or any animal that without provocation inflicts serious bodily harm on a pet animal or humanbeing; or any animal which has on two or more reported occasions bitten or attacked a pet animal or human being, without provocation, on either public or private property.(21) Provoked means any attack by an animal or physical injury caused by an animal shall be considered provoked if at the time the attack occurs or the injury is inflicted: (1) the person who was attacked or injuredwas teasing, tormenting, abusing, or assaulting the animal; or (2) the animal was protecting a person, itself, its young, or another domestic animal from an attack by a human being or another animal; or (3) the personwho was attacked or injured was committing a crime on the property or was attempting to commit a crime or violating or attempting to violate a statute or ordinance which protects person or property of the animal’sresponsible party or (4) the animal was being utilized by a law enforcement officer.(22) Quarantine means the detaining and strict isolation of an animal suspected of carrying or shedding the rabies virus, for the purpose of observation for the required period of time as set forth by the State ofWisconsin.(23) Responsible Party shall mean and include every person having a right of property in an animal and/or having such animal in his or her care or possession.(24) Serious Bodily Harm means bodily injury which creates a risk of death, or which causes permanent disfigurement, or which causes a permanent or protracted loss or impairment of the function of any bodilymember or organ, or other serious bodily injury.(25) Small-sized Dog shall mean a dog with a shoulder height from ground between 12-18 inches, and a weight between 7-35 pounds.(26) Toy-sized Dog shall mean a dog with a shoulder height from ground between 3-13 inches, and a weight between 2-9 pounds.(27) Vaccination Certificate shall mean a certificate dated and signed by a licensed veterinarian stating the brand of vaccine used, manufacturer's serial number of the vaccine used, and describing the animal, ageand breed, responsible party, and vaccination tag number indicating that the animal has been immunized against rabies.Pewaukee - (5/3/09) - Village staff are looking into the possibility of a municipal vicious dog ordinance that specifically addresses dog versus dog attacks after some public outcry resultedfrom a recent dog versus dog attack there.WYOMINGNo Report for Wyoming.COUNTRIES OF OTHER INTERESTAUSTRALIA(5/28/09) - The RSPCA says by-laws introduced by an Adelaide hills council to reduce cat numbers should be considered across the state. Owners will have to microchip and register catsunder new laws to be introduced by the Mitcham Council. There will also be a limit of two cats per household unless owners seek a council exemption. "However we do think the onlypermanent solution to controlling wild and domestic cat populations is desexing." Meanwhile the Kangaroo Island Council will consider introducing a limit on the number of cats that can bekept on a property. The council introduced strict by-laws in 2005 that require compulsory desexing, microchipping and registering of cats.GUAM(5/22/09) - Neglecting or refusing to neuter or spay pets, and allowing these animals to roam freely, only contributes to uncontrollable procreation, and litters of dogs are being bornwithout homes and without humancare. More support needs to be given to the Department of Agriculture so we can step up and better equip our government'sanimal control effort and animals running loose can be rounded up. Pets with licenses should be returned to their owners, once fees and fines are paid. Sterilizationis the only way to prevent these dogs from continuing to breed. Animals without licenses should undergo the surgery necessary to ensure that they do not produceoffspring. The animal shelter should then take charge of the animals, and try to find them an appropriate home.UK(5/30/09) - THE Countryside Alliance (CA) wants police to assure hunts that meet information will not be passed to animal rights activists through requests under the Freedom of Information(FOI) Act. In an interview two weeks ago with The Times, Richard Brunstrom, rural affairs spokesman for the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) andchief constable of north Wales, said hunts no longer needed to provide advance details of meets, as they have done since the introduction of the HuntingAct in 2005. The same article stated that "senior police officers" were concerned that their neutrality had been compromised by being "forced to releasedetails of meets through FOI requests to activists who had gone on to disrupt hunts". CA spokesman Tim Bonner said the statement was "surprising andconcerning". "It would be a very negative step if hunts were not able to share information on meets with their local police," he said. "Prior knowledge ofhunting activity allows the police to reassure the public about the legality of hunting and to avoid [them] being dragged into unnecessary activity byspurious complaints from animal rights activists." The FOI Act 2000 gives the general public the right to access information held by public authorities. But itexempts information that relates to law enforcement from having to be disclosed if that information is likely to prejudice the administration of justice.Mansfield, England - (5/2/09) - The RSPCA has welcomed the latest parliamentary reading of proposed new legislation that aims to replace the Dangerous Dogs Act. Lord Redesdale’sDog Control Bill places emphasis of responsibility on an animal’s owner, rather than penalising dogs purely for their breed. He told his fellow peers that the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 was aknee-jerk reaction to the public outcry that followed high profile attacks. He claimed, partially as a result of current dog laws, bull breeds are now increasingly being used as status symbols byirresponsible owners, leading to serious animal welfare concerns. The Bill received cross party support when it had its second reading in the House of Lords last week (24 April). It was passedto Committee Stage, when amendments can be tabled and it will be debated in more detail. Claire Robinson, the RSPCA’s Government Relations Manager, said: “The RSPCA is delighted atthe introduction of the Dog Control Bill by Lord Redesdale in the House of Lords. The Society has long stated that the Dangerous Dogs Act is flawed because it penalises dogs for their breed,rather than the deed of the owner. “The Dog Control Bill instead places the emphasis on owners being responsible for their dogs – whatever the breed – in public and private places. For thisreason the RSPCA has given its support to the principles of the Bill. “The cross-party support the reading of the Bill received clearly shows there is widespread belief it is time the Governmenttook another look at the current dog legislation and we believe the Dog Control Bill is a major step towards this.”