09.07.2015 Views

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

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

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

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

<strong>The</strong> <strong>Monthly</strong> <strong>National</strong> <strong>Legislation</strong> <strong>Report</strong>http://mnlreport.typepad.com/<strong>Page</strong> 251 <strong>of</strong> <strong>330</strong>7/5/<strong>2010</strong>communities. Further education to insurance companies will also include reintroducing dog ownership’s constructive rationale that a barking dog or a “beware <strong>of</strong> dog” sign unequivocallyserves as equal definition as “deadbolts”, “burglar alarms”, and “manned security stations”, which are currently serving as “security benefit” line items in insurance applications.Weymouth - (2/20/09) - A resident or group <strong>of</strong> people that needs help from police, firefighters or any town department because they violated an ordinance or law would be required topay for receiving the assistance under a proposed ordinance. It is designed to recover needless expenditures caused by a person or persons during the commission <strong>of</strong> an infraction <strong>of</strong> ourordinances and or general laws,” said Robert M. Thomas, as he pitched the proposed ordinance to town council on Feb. 17. “It is not to be construed as a fine, civil or otherwise whichare handled elsewhere in the code. It is simply a specific procedure for expense reimbursement.” Thomas said the recent rescue <strong>of</strong> a dog from the icy waters <strong>of</strong> the Back River byfirefighters put them in unnecessary danger because the canine should have been on a leash under the town’s ordinance. “It also put town-owned taxpayer paid-for-equipment atrisk,” said Thomas, a former candidate for state representative and mayor. “I certainly think that it’s not the province <strong>of</strong> law-abiding taxpayers to have to pay for the actions <strong>of</strong> thosewho could care less about established rules and regulations or the rights <strong>of</strong> their neighbors or other towns-folk,” Thomas said. <strong>The</strong> council voted to refer Thomas’s proposal for a legalreview by Town Solicitor George Lane after much debate. District 4 Councilor Arthur Mathews motioned for the ordinance committee to review the proposed rule, but Councilor-at-largeKevin Whitaker said there are legal issues that needed to be studied.MICHIGANWestland - members <strong>of</strong> the city council unanimously agreed to take the bite out <strong>of</strong> current rules and approved a new ordinance that eliminates a breed-specific ban which requiredcertain dogs considered "vicious and or dangerous" be restrained, penned, leashed and or muzzled, depending on the circumstances.MINNESOTAHF253 - AN ACT relating to animals; providing standards <strong>of</strong> care for dog and cat breeders; authorizing rulemaking; providing criminal penalties; appropriating money; proposing codingfor new law in Minnesota Statutes, chapter 347.Minneapolis - (2/20/09) - For the second time in slightly more than a year, Minneapolis is putting a larger bite on the owners <strong>of</strong> dogs that are declared dangerous or potentially so. <strong>The</strong>changes require that dogs or other animals deemed dangerous be sterilized, and adds to the list <strong>of</strong> conditions in which some people are not allowed to own such dogs for up to five years.For example, anyone who has owned a declared animal or one that has been destroyed and violates the dangerous animal ordinance would face such a restriction. So would people whoowned more than one animal declared dangerous or destroyed within two years. <strong>The</strong> city last year limited ownership <strong>of</strong> some dogs by people convicted <strong>of</strong> a violent felony. <strong>The</strong> changesalso require that the owner or keeper <strong>of</strong> a declared dog obtain city permission before transferring ownership or custody to another person. Council Member Don Samuels said the changeswere proposed by animal control staff to plug gaps in the major changes the council enacted in early 2008. <strong>The</strong> city recorded 423 animal bites in 2008, but Samuels said that the 2008changes helped to reduce the severity <strong>of</strong> those bites.MISSOURIFayette - (2/17/09) - An animal control ordinance that bans getting new pit bulls and requires all dogs to be registered goes into effect this week in a central Missouri town. <strong>The</strong> newrestrictions in Fayette also limit each home to only three canines unless the owners have registered the animals before the Tuesday deadline. <strong>The</strong> City Council unanimously approved the newrules. Other neighboring towns have similar restrictions on pit bulls. Current pit bull owners will have to show pro<strong>of</strong> <strong>of</strong> $100,000 <strong>of</strong> liability insurance, muzzle their pets when they are beingwalked and provide secure confinement for dogs kept outside. Any pit bull puppies born in Fayette after Tuesday must be removed from the city after they are 8 weeks old.Pilot Grove - Five breeds <strong>of</strong> dogs are now banned from the City <strong>of</strong> Pilot Grove, following the passing <strong>of</strong> Ordinance No. 42 on Monday (03-02) evening. Dogs prohibited under the ordinanceinclude pit bulls, chinesischer kampfhunds, chows, Dobermans and rottweilers. <strong>The</strong> ordinance states the breeds were chosen because these breeds "have shown a sufficient propensity <strong>of</strong>viciousness or ability to inflict serious injury such."MONTANAHelena - (2/17/09) - People from across the state on Tuesday demanded state regulation <strong>of</strong> filthy “puppy mills” that <strong>of</strong>ten produce weak, diseased dogs and create costly problems forneighbors and local governments. But people who described themselves as hobby dog breeders who said they run clean operations said the bill is so broad it could put them out <strong>of</strong> business.<strong>The</strong> House Agriculture Committee heard the conflicting testimony on House Bill 548, by Rep. Dave McAlpin, D-Missoula. His bill would regulate facilities that breed or sell dogs and requirethe state Livestock Department to conduct regular inspections. As McAlpin would amend it, the bill, it would apply to facilities with 20 adult breeding dogs or that sell at least 20 dogs a year.<strong>The</strong> inspections would include animal shelters and pet stores as well as breeding operations. Facilities would pay a $415 every two years to cover inspection costs. <strong>The</strong> committee didn’t voteon the bill Tuesday.NEBRASKALB588 - creates the Dog and Cat Purchase Protection Act. It sets criteria for pet shops, commercial breeders, casual breeders, and dealers to follow to ensure a consumer receives ahealthy dog or cat. If an animal suffers from a serious health problem or contagious disease resulting in severe illness or death, remedies are provided in this bill. Animal control facilities andanimal shelters are exempt.Notice <strong>of</strong> hearing for February 03, 2009NEVADAAB15 - (2/20/09) - Nevada state legislators plan to hold a public hearing on Monday, Feb. 23, on a proposed measure requiring pet retailers, among others, to notifycustomers about local sterilization requirements for dogs and cats. Under Assembly Bill 15, a retailer or dealer who sells a dog or a cat would be required toprovide a written statement to the purchaser that discloses any sterilization requirements mandated by local ordinance. Those who fail to comply with thedisclosure requirements would be subject to a fine not to exceed $250 for the first violation, $500 for the second violation and $1,000 for each subsequentviolation. <strong>The</strong> Assembly Committee on Natural Resources, Agriculture and Mining has set the bill for a public hearing at 1:30 p.m. in Carson City. <strong>The</strong> Pet Industry JointAdvisory Council has issued an alert about the proposed measure. According to PIJAC, the bill does not require that localities inform pet stores <strong>of</strong>sterilization ordinances nor does it specify which localities pet retailers must notify purchasers about. PIJAC claims the bill is not clear if pet retailers anddealers need only provide information about the jurisdiction in which they operate or about any locality in chi a customer may reside. <strong>The</strong> organizationquestioned whether retailers would have to research and update the ordinances for every locality in the state.AB199 - AN ACT relating to animals; prohibiting as person from possessing, keeping, training, promoting or purchasing a animal with intent to use the animal in a fight with anotheranimal or to engage in certain other prohibited acts. UPDATE: Language being gutted and replaced with a puppy mill billSB241 - AN ACT relating to pets; requiring breeders <strong>of</strong> cats and dogs to be licensed by the State Department <strong>of</strong> Agriculture; setting forth qualifications for aperson wishing to be issued a license as a breeder; setting forth the annual license fee for a license for a breeder; providing circumstances under which theDepartment may refuse to grant or renew, or suspend or revoke the license <strong>of</strong> a breeder; setting forth the duties <strong>of</strong> breeders. UPDATE: Revised LanguageNV Puppy Mill Language574.400. Floor space <strong>of</strong> primary enclosureAn operator shall ensure that a primary enclosure in which a dog or cat that is at least 6 months old is kept has a minimum amount <strong>of</strong> floor space which is calculated by finding the

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!