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 248 of 3307/5/2010Motor Vehicles gave MCACC the money from the sale of the Pet Friendly/Spay & Neuter License Plates. When one of the $25 plates is purchased, $17 dollars goes to MCACC to help itsspay/neuter programs.ARKANSASHB1046 - Representative Roy Ragland, Chair of the Agriculture, Forestry, and EconomicDevelopment committee of the Arkansas State House of Representatives has introduced a bill to protect the rights of animal owners and prohibit any state, city, county, or privateorganization from requiring animal owners to register in any animal identification system. The bill has been referred to the committee on Agriculture, Forestry, and EconomicDevelopment. The purpose of the Freedom to Farm Act is to encourage and protect animal ownership, animals, home food production, direct farm-to-consumer sales, hobby production,off-farm commercial sales, animal exhibition, and businesses that serve animal owners.SB77 - AN ACT CONCERNING AGGRAVATED CRUELTY TO DOGS, CATS, AND HORSES AND RELATED OFFENSES AND CONCERNING ANIMAL MANAGEMENT PRACTICES - DELIVERED TO GOVERNORSB864 - AN ACT To require owners of multiple dogs or cats to obtain licenses annually; and for other purposesJudsonia - proposed ordinance that would ban "certain breeds of dogs" . The third and final reading will be at the next city council meeting on March 10, 2009.CALIFORNIAAB1437 - An act to add Chapter 14 (commencing with Section 25995) to Division 20 of the Health and Safety Code, relating to public health. As introduced, shelled eggs: sale for humanconsumption: compliance with animal care standards.SB250 - (2/24/09) - Reaction to Senate Majority Leader Dean Florez's sweeping new animal control bill ranged wildly.SB 250 AT A GLANCE:Requires a dog “owner or custodian” to either sterilize or license the animal as unaltered.Exemption: A veterinarian determines the spay or neuter surgery would create great bodily injury or death.The unaltered license for a dog can be denied or revoked if:• there are two verified reports an owner has allowed an animal to run at-large or is neglectful of animals in general.• the owner has been cited for violating state or local animal control laws.• the dog has been declared dangerous.• another unaltered animal license held by the same owner has been revoked.• the license information contains incorrect or missing information.The legislation allows appeals of the license action.Requires a person who “owns, keeps or harbors” an unaltered cat six months or older to keep the animal inside.Exemption: A veterinarian determines the spay or neuter surgery would create great bodily injury or death.Requires sellers of an unaltered dog to include an unaltered license for the animal.Requires sellers of unaltered cats to notify the local licensing agency of transfer of the animal within 10 days.Violation of the law will require spay or neuter of the animal.The Pet Responsibility Act would require people to spay or neuter their pets unless they acquire a license to keep that animal unaltered.They could lose their license if they violate animalcontrol laws, let their pets run free or neglect the animals. Florez said the law is designed to increase owner responsibility and reduce the $250 million annual cost of euthanizing animals inCalifornia. Opponents say it would increase animal control costs, violate private property rights and only impact responsible owners because irresponsible ones would simply not comply. Thelegislation lets local jurisdictions set a cost for the unaltered license. It does not include money for local enforcement of the rules nor to help people pay for spay or neuter surgery.Manteca - City Council may try to reduce the annual canine toll by adopting a mandatory spay and neuter law for all dog breeds. All dogs over six months old except for licensed show dogs,livestock dogs, police dogs guide or assistance dogs must be neutered and spayed under the proposed ordinance.Ukiah - UPDATE - (2/18/09) - A seemingly harmless proposal to change the term “pet owner” to “pet owner/guardian” in Ukiah’s Animal Control ordinance has raised howls of oppositionand divided animal advocates. A chastened Ukiah City Council tonight will consider the proposed owner/guardian ordinance language, but also a watered-down alternative in the form of anonbinding resolution simply encouraging the use of the term animal guardian. Both proposals are intended to encourage compassionate pet ownership. “If we can begin to change themindset, maybe we can reduce the number of homeless and abandoned animals,” said Jan Allegretti, co-author of a book on holistic animal care and the lead proponent of the languagechange. The proposed language change would have no legal impact, said Ukiah City Attorney Dave Rapport, who offered the resolution alternative. “It would mean nothing from a legalstandpoint,” he said, noting that the ordinance defines an animal guardian as an owner. But opponents remain unconvinced, even after the City Council amended an earlier version to replaceguardian with the term owner/guardian. Ukiah veterinarian Edward Haynes also is opposed. In a letter to the council, he said the ordinance pits animal rights advocates against animalwelfare advocates. Animal rights advocates “believe that all animals have rights that are at least equal to those of humans. The logical endpoint of this view is the total abolition of animals asproperty, that is the elimination or liberation of all domesticated animals,” he wrote. He said the ordinance won’t protect animals and could even be harmful. “Changing the legal termsreduces the legal status and value of pets as property and thereby restricts the rights of owners, veterinarians and government agencies to protect and care for them,” Haynes said. The furorraised by the proposal surprised the four council members who had voted to pursue the issue. “It seemed like an innocuous thing,” said Ukiah City Councilwoman Mari Rodin. “The CityCouncil doesn’t need to spend more time on this,” Rodin said. UPDATE - (2/19/09) - Pet owners will still be pet owners in Ukiah after the City Council dropped a proposal to change theterm to "pet guardian" in its animal control ordinance. The increasingly common terms "guardian" or "custodian" to refer to people with pets proved too controversial for the Council. OnWednesday, the body voted to instead adopt a nonbinding resolution that simply encourages residents to use the term "caretaker." Many animal welfare groups prefer "guardian," to "owner"as a way to recognize domestic animals as living beings rather than property. They say it could reduce the number of homeless and abandoned animals. But critics claim it could affect therights of animal owners, government regulators and even veterinarians to protect and care for pets.COLORADOTelluride - (2/18/09) - The days of Siberian Huskies making solo expeditions along the River Trail to deposit unsightly parcels of digested kibble with impunity appear to be numbered,following council’s direction that a stricter animal ordinance be prepared for a first reading next month. The direction came during a worksession Tuesday between council, the EcologyCommission and the Public Works and Marshal’s Departments in which the six-member body (Councilmember Jill Masters was absent) reviewed a draft ordinance that would punish thedereliction of one’s duties concerning dog defecation and other canine infractions with substantially increased penalties. Beyond penalty increases of between $25 and $50 and a surcharge forall dog-related infractions, another proposed change to the ordinance would require dogs to be kept on a “command leash” at all times. This would mean that a dog’s guardian would need toexercise voice and sight control over the animal, and that the animal would need to respond promptly to voice commands. Additionally, a dog could be required to be confined on privateproperty by hitching or fencing if its guardian were not immediately present to exercise voice and sight command. Other proposed changes could: reduce the amount of time a dog may behitched from eight hours to two; prohibit “motorized exercise” of a dog by running it alongside, in front of, or behind motorized transport; and require the owner of a law-breaking,unlicensed, in-town dog have it licensed in addition to paying the fine associated with the infraction.In addition to payment of impound fees, a $500 bond could be required to be posted prior to the release of an impounded vicious dog. One of the more controversial of the proposed changeswould require people to have a bag or other means to pick up after their dogs visible at all times. “This can’t just be code enforcement,” said Public Works Project Manager Karen Guglielmone,
The Monthly National Legislation Reporthttp://mnlreport.typepad.com/Page 249 of 3307/5/2010noting that the public will be asked to help. Providing photo or video documentation to support the complaint would be even better.CONNECTICUTStamford - (2/19/09) - As authorities considered criminal charges against the woman whose 200-pound domesticated chimpanzee went berserk and mauled a friend, she backtrackedWednesday on whether she gave the animal the anti-anxiety drug Xanax. Attorney General Richard Blumenthal said Wednesday that a defect in Connecticut’s laws allowed Herold to keep thechimp in her home, probably illegally. There are rules requiring large primates to be registered by the state, but officials have some discretion in enforcing them and violations carry onlyminor penalties, he said. Connecticut law requires primates weighing more than 50 pounds to be registered with the state. But state Department of Environmental Protection spokesmanDennis Schain said Herold’s chimp was exempted because it did not appear to present a public health risk and was owned before the registration requirement began. Blumenthal, the attorneygeneral, sent letters to legislative leaders and DEP Commissioner Gina McCarthy, asking them to support a proposed law that would ban all potentially dangerous exotic animals, such aschimpanzees, crocodiles, and poisonous snakes, from being kept in a residential setting in Connecticut. McCarthy is seeking a similar law banning large primates. Her agency also is askingthe public, police officers, and animal control officers who are aware of large primates being kept as pets to report the animals to the agency.FLORIDAHB451 - (2/20/09) - Responsible pet owners should do it."But I don't think they should force people to do it." Rep. Scott Randolph did. The Orlando Democrat filed House Bill 451 inJanuary. It would have allowed counties or municipalities to license unsterilized dogs and cats. The owner of every dog or cat in Florida could have been required to have a veterinariansterilize the animal after it reaches 4 months old. But news about the bill spread quickly. Fines would have ranged from $100 for a first offense to $500 fine and a 60-day jail sentence for athird offense.Breeders - Randolph calls them puppy mills - began howling.By Wednesday, Randolph had filed a "strike-all amendment," deleting the entire bill and replacing it with two new provisions. Currently, counties may add up to $5 to any animal infraction.This surcharge can only be used for animal control officer training. HB 451 would allow the surcharge to be used for low-cost spaying and neutering. Local vets charge up to $150 per cat and$350 per dog. Animal Control is sterilizing feral cats for $40 each. A reasonable price for dogs would be $100, Clark suggested. "This is to encourage pet owners to do the responsible thing,while not making spaying-neutering mandatory," Randolph said in an e-mail.So it's back to voluntary sterilization.H1249 - AN ACT relating to Commercial Dog Breeding: Prohibits person from owning, possessing, controlling, or otherwise having custody of 50 or more dogs at one time; requires personwho owns or otherwise has custody of 10 or more dogs that are 4 months of age or older to adhere to certain specified guidelines relating to exercise, kennel size, sanitary conditions,temperature control, enclosure construction, compatibility of animals, access to food & water, & access to necessary veterinary care & services; authorizes animal control officer, otherauthorized public health or safety official, or law enforcement officer, after receiving complaint or upon his or her own initiative, to investigate alleged violation of act; provides that violationof act is misdemeanor of first degree; lists persons & organizations that are not subject to act; defines term "retail pet store."HB1337 - AN ACT relating to sterilization of Dogs and Cats: allows release of dog or cat from animal shelter, animal control agency, or animal adoption group without compliance withsterilization requirements if licensed veterinarian certifies that dog or cat has medical condition that would be substantially aggravated by such procedure, procedure would likely cause deathof dog or cat, or procedure would never be safe for dog or cat; provides for written agreement under certain circumstances.SB53 - UPDATE - bill’s sponsor agreed to redraft and place the proposed legislation changes in the Department of Agriculture. Per Pamela J. Althoff - State Senator, District 32SB288 - An act relating to the sale of dogs and cats; amending s. 828.29, F.S.; requiring that additional information relating to the genetic disorders to which dogs and cats are susceptible beincluded in the written notice that pet dealers provide to a consumer at the time of sale; redefining the term “pet dealer” for purposes of provisions authorizing a purchaser to return ananimal to the pet dealer and receive a refund, exchange the animal, or receive a reimbursement of expenses; authorizing the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services to enforcestatutory provisions related to the sale of dogs and cats; providing powers and duties of the department; providing for the adoption of rules; revising penalties; providing an appropriation andauthorizing an additional position; providing an effective dateSB2002 - An act relating to commercial dog breeding; creating 828.291, F.S.; prohibiting a person from owning, possessing, controlling, or otherwise having in custody 50 or more dogs atany one time; requiring a person who owns or otherwise has custody of 10 or more dogs that are 4 months of age or older to adhere to certain specified guidelines relating to exercise, kennelsize, sanitary conditions, temperature control, enclosure construction, compatibility of animals, access to food and water, and access to necessary veterinary care and services; authorizing ananimal control officer, other authorized public health or safety official, or law enforcement officer, after receiving a complaint or upon his or her own initiative, to investigate any allegedviolation of the act; providing that a violation of the act is a misdemeanor of the first degree; listing persons and organizations that are not subject to the act; defining the term “retail petstore”; providing an effective date. S2002 GENERAL BILL by Constantine -Version:Posted:S 2002 02/23/2009SB7006 - A bill to be entitled(PRELIMINARY DRAFT) An act relating to animal shelter related facilities; expressing the legislative intentto revise laws relating toanimal shelter-related facilities; providing an effective date.DeBary - City Manager Maryann Courson and Vice Mayor Norm Erickson said a mandatory spay and neuter ordinance might be an unfair and unnecessary expense for responsible petowners, who would have to foot the bill to fix their pets. The council decided to discuss the issue at its April meeting to discuss the matter.Gilchrist County - Board of County Commissioners will consider Ordinance No. 2009-04 adopting noise regulations; making legislative findings; providing definitions, exemptions,prohibited noise levels and proposed wording pertaining to animals.Ocoee - City Commission to hold a first reading at the 3/3/09 meeting of Ordinance on Loud Noise Within City. Per Diane ModeratorFloridaPetLaw@hotmail.comLake Worth - City Commission to hold a first reading at the 3/3/09 meeting of Ordinance on Loud Noise Within City. Per Diane ModeratorFloridaPetLaw@hotmail.comGEORGIAWarner Robins - (2/19/09) - After more fits and starts than an amateur dog show in the midst of a flea epidemic, the city of Warner Robins seems finally on the way to fulfilling a promiseits elected leaders have made to residents over the last several years. On Wednesday, under appropriately cloudy, blustery skies, officials gathered at a field near the local police firing rangeand broke ground for what has been billed as a “state of the art” animal control facility. At a price tag nuzzling right up near the million-dollar mark, the new facility just off Industrial ParkBoulevard will replace the aging, inadequate and much-cussed-and-discussed “dog pound” that has been such a sore point for animal lovers and activists who rightly howled at its inability tokeep up with a growing community and the changing sensibilities of its citizens. Animal control was a hot issue in the last municipal election, and it seemed that city fathers, which includedthree new councilmen, quickly responded after taking the public’s pounding pulse. But their proudly announced plans to expedite construction of the facility immediately ran into “not in myback yard” opposition and then became further mired in what became a political dogfight for control of City Hall — including who would grab the leash on, and get the credit for, the newanimal shelter.IDAHO
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:
Page 159 and 160:
Page 161 and 162:
Page 163 and 164:
Page 165 and 166:
Page 167 and 168:
Page 169 and 170:
Page 171:
Page 174 and 175:
Page 176 and 177:
Page 178 and 179:
Page 180 and 181:
Page 182 and 183:
Page 184 and 185:
Page 186 and 187:
Page 188 and 189:
Page 190 and 191:
Page 192 and 193:
Page 194 and 195:
Page 196 and 197:
Page 198 and 199: The Monthly National Legislation Re
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 ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?