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

The Monthly National Legislation Reporthttp://mnlreport.typepad.com/Page 242 of 3307/5/2010MASSACHUSETTSHB1997 - An Act relative to animalsNewton - (3/19/09) - Neighbors of Cold Spring Park, where a new off leash dog park began this week, are vociferously voicing their opposition, suggesting the new policy will make an outof-controlsituation even worse. One local resident, Eve Cohen said that dogs have always been a problem at the park but it worsened last year when word spread the city was thinking aboutallowing dogs off leash there. A nine-month off-leash policy limited to a designated area officially went into effect Tuesday and Cohen and other neighbors are not pleased. ‘‘We are beinginvaded all unnecessarily and on the whim of a decision the city made,’’ said Cohen. She and others complain about a dramatic increase in traffic and street parking at Cold Spring. LeeMcIntyre, a dog owner who helped spearhead the experiment, said the change will benefit neighbors because off-leash dogs will be limited to one area of the park. But Cohen and others don’tsee it that way.Sherborn - (3/19/09) - Better vaccinate that pooch or you might have to explain yourself to a judge. Town Clerk Carole Marple has submitted formal complaints against owners ofunlicensed dogs to Natick District Court. The 43 dog owners will receive a court summons in the mail, says Marple. They can avoid going before the judge by immediately licensing their dog,which verifies the dog has its rabies shot, for $15. The town hopes the court summons will encourage town residents to comply with the annual dog licensing requirements. If the summoneddog owners fail to show up in court, an arrest warrant will be issued, said Marple.MICHIGANSaginaw - (3/25/09) - Saginaw should explore a time limit on keeping dogs tethered to reduce the likelihood of making them prone to attack, says City Councilman William G. Scharffe.Saginaw has no vicious dogs ordinance. Buena Vista does. Imposing a time limit on tethering is a more realistic alternative than banning certain breeds of dogs, such as pit bulls, Scharffe said.A legal fight by lovers of the breed could prove ''extremely difficult and extremely expensive,'' said Scharffe, who raised the argument during a City Council meeting Monday. Scharffe said heconsulted with Mark Wachner, former animal care center director and a pit bull expert, before reaching his conclusion. ''Pit bulls are not nice doggies,'' Scharffe said. ''I'm sorry. The statisticsbear out the opposite.'' Mayor Joyce J. Seals wasn't warm to the idea of a tether time limit.Westland - (2/27/09) - Man’s best friend will be on a little longer leash in Westland following approval of some new ordinance language. Last week, members of the city councilunanimously agreed to take the bite out of current rules and approved a new ordinance that eliminates a breed-specific ban which required certain dogs considered “vicious and or dangerous”be restrained, penned, leashed and or muzzled, depending on the circumstances. Following protests by a vocal group of supporters of pit bulls, the ordinance was altered so that only dogsreported to have bitten or attacked a person or another animal be subject to more stringent restrictions. The ordinance becomes effective today, according to Police Chief James Ridener.AdvertisementMINNESOTAHF0253 - (revised) A bill for an act relating to animals; providing standards of care for dog and cat breeders; authorizing rulemaking; providing criminal penalties; appropriating money;proposing coding for new law in Minnesota Statutes, chapter 347.MISSISSIPPIRichland - new animal control ordinance adopted Tuesday (02/17/09) limits households to no more than one of any of these breeds: pit bull, Staffordshire bull terrier, AmericanStaffordshire terrier or wolf-dog hybrid. The aldermen voted 6-0 to ban the four breeds and any dog declared dangerous or vicious as defined by the ordinance. These certain breeds aretechnically not allowed in the city, a grandfather clause in the ordinance allows residents to keep one banned dog if housed in the city prior to the adoption of the ordinance as long as the doghas not been deemed dangerous or vicious. Owners also must pay a $100 registration fee to the city and meet other national registration, training and enclosure requirements and consent tounannounced inspections etc.Ridgeland - (3/25/09) - A Ridgeland man is working to get signatures on a petition to try and overturn the city’s dog ordinance. Starting April 16th, people in Ridgeland will not be able toown a Pit Bull, Staffordshire Terrier, any wolf-dog hybrid or any other dog deemed dangerous. The ordinance also looks at a dog’s history. If any of its parents were one of the banned dogs,the animal itself would also be banned. The ordinance does allow owners to keep one of these banned dogs, but they must register them and follow certain guidelines. The petitioneer plans topresent the petition at May’s city hall meeting.MONTANAHB548 - AN ACT REGULATING FACILITIES THAT BREED DOGS FOR SALE OR SELL DOGS; REQUIRING INSPECTION OF FACILITIES; REQUIRING THE DEPARTMENT OF LIVESTOCK TO ADOPT RULESESTABLISHING STANDARDS FOR THE FACILITIES; REQUIRING OWNERS OF FACILITIES TO REGISTER WITH THE DEPARTMENT AND PAY A FEE FOR REGISTRATION; REQUIRING INSPECTIONS TOBE UNANNOUNCED AND REQUIRING THE DEPARTMENT TO PREPARE AN INSPECTION REPORT; PROHIBITING AN OWNER OR MANAGER OF A FACILITY THAT DOES NOT PASS AN INSPECTIONFROM SELLING DOGS; CREATING A STATE SPECIAL REVENUE ACCOUNT; PROVIDING AN APPROPRIATION; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.Helena - (3/19/09) - HB431 - A Senate panel on Wednesday heard lively testimony on a measure that would stiffen and expand liability for dog owners whose pets injure someone. Rep.Anders Blewett, D-Great Falls, said the measure is designed to do away with the "one-free bite" loophole and expand the law to dogs living outside city limits. Under existing law, only dogowners who live within city limits are liable for damages caused by dog bites. Dog owners who live outside city limits are not considered liable if their dog bites someone for the first time. Theproposed law also would extend liability to people who have a financial or proprietary interest in a dog and would provide specific protections for children. Under the proposed measure, if adog bites anyone younger than the age of 9, it is presumed to be an unprovoked attack. House Bill 431 also changes key language in the current statute from "bite" to "injure," thus broadeningthe scope of liability for dog owners. Blewett said he believes the owner of an overly anxious dog should be liable if the animal jumps on someone and the person falls and is injured. "Thequestion, public policy-wise, is who should have to pay for that injury? Who's got to pick up the tab there?" Blewett asked the committee. Opponents of the bill, including dog owners, severalattorneys and representatives from the insurance industry, said the proposed measure is an overly broad expansion of the so-called "vicious dog" law. They say the bill would result in higherinsurance rates and would impose an unreasonable burden on all dog owners. "What I think people in Montana want is a law that makes it unacceptable to own a dog that would bite," saiddog-owner Bob Branson. He said Blewett's bill does nothing to address problems with vicious dogs, instead creating a strict liability for the owner of a friendly dog that might accidently injuresomeone. The measure easily cleared the House with nearly three-quarters of lawmakers in that body voting in favor of it. On Wednesday, it appeared unlikely the measure would pass the