<strong>The</strong> <strong>Monthly</strong> <strong>National</strong> <strong>Legislation</strong> <strong>Report</strong>http://mnlreport.typepad.com/<strong>Page</strong> 44 <strong>of</strong> <strong>330</strong>7/5/<strong>2010</strong>SB0483 (2009) - A bill to amend 1994 PA 451, entitled "Natural resources and environmental protection act," by amending sections 43523, 43528, and 43531 (MCL 324.43523, 324.43528,and 324.43531), as amended by 2008 PA 347.SB0738 (2009) - A bill to amend 1994 PA 351, entitled "Equine activity liability act," by amending section 5 (MCL 691.1665).SB1123 - A bill to amend 1931 PA 328, entitled "<strong>The</strong> Michigan penal code," by amending sections 50 and 50b (MCL 750.50 and 750.50b), section 50 as amended by 2007 PA 152 and section50b as amended by 2008 PA 339.SB1136 - A bill to amend 1976 PA 328, entitled "An act to regulate animals running at large; to provide for compensation for damage done by animals running at large; to prescribe penalties;and to repeal certain acts and parts <strong>of</strong> acts," (MCL 433.11 to 433.20) by adding section 4a; and to repeal acts and parts <strong>of</strong> acts.SB1137 - A bill to amend 1959 PA 66, entitled "An act to prohibit the running at large on or the grazing upon any land owned by or under the control <strong>of</strong> the department <strong>of</strong> conservation, bycattle, horses, sheep and swine; to provide for the enforcement <strong>of</strong> this act; and to prescribe penalties for the violation <strong>of</strong> the provisions <strong>of</strong> this act," by amending section 1 (MCL 322.581) andby adding section 12.SB1138 - A bill to amend 1879 PA 248, entitled "An act to prevent animals from running at large in certain cities and villages within this state," by amending section 1 (MCL 433.51) and byadding section 13.Lansing – (3/30/10) - Eleven Michigan Animal Shelters Receive Funds from Tax DonationsAwards totaling $103,829 will go for spay and neuter activities. Michigan Department <strong>of</strong> Agriculture (MDA) <strong>of</strong>ficials today announced the recipients <strong>of</strong> the 2009 CompanionAnimal Welfare tax check-<strong>of</strong>f funds, which in 2009 generated $103,829. Under the competitive grant cycle, the 11 animal shelters, registered (licensed) with the state, willreceive between $7,060 and $10,000 in reimbursement for the purchase <strong>of</strong> surgical equipment, contracting with veterinarians to perform sterilizations or, in one case, for thepurchase <strong>of</strong> post surgical recovery crates. (3/29/10) – Lansing - State denies tax donation going toward training for euthanasia. When Michiganders filing income taxes thisyear check <strong>of</strong>f a box set up by the Legislature to allow for donations to the Michigan Animal Welfare Fund, they might think they're aiding pet adoption and spay-neuterprograms. But the Michigan Department <strong>of</strong> Agriculture's guidelines on its Web site on how the money could be used to also include training in how to euthanize dogs and cats.Southfield – (4/1/10) – Council addresses dangerous dogs in ordinance. More than a year after the Southfield City Council discussed the possibility <strong>of</strong> banning pit bulls in the city, theidea has been scrapped in favor <strong>of</strong> a few tweaks to the city’s animal ordinance to make enforcement more effective. Violation <strong>of</strong> the ordinance has now been decriminalized and it is to be considereda civil infraction rather than a criminal misdemeanor.MINNESOTASF133 - Resolution urging Congress to oppose federal legislation interfering with the ability <strong>of</strong> the state to direct the transport or processing <strong>of</strong> horsesRosemount – (4/22/10) - <strong>The</strong> city <strong>of</strong> Rosemount will take a closer look at its ordinance regulating dangerous dogs after a March 23 incident. <strong>The</strong> city <strong>of</strong> Rosemount has examined adangerous-dog ordinance already in place in Apple Valley that puts further restrictions on such animals. Apple Valley only allows dogs identified as dangerous in property zoned industrial.Council members asked city staff to do more research on the dangerous dog ordinance but there was discussion Wednesday about whether there should be more notification <strong>of</strong> neighborswhen a dog is identified as dangerous. Council member Mark DeBettignies compared the situation to the notification that goes out when a registered sex <strong>of</strong>fender moves into a neighborhood.MISSISSIPPIEupora - A proposed city ordinance that, in part, addresses the confinement <strong>of</strong> dangerous dogs awaits final approval following publication and a hearing. <strong>The</strong> dog and animal controlordinance will take effect July 1 after publication as a legal notice along with a public hearing and a second vote by the Eupora Board <strong>of</strong> Aldermen, which unanimously adopted it March 1. <strong>The</strong>proposed ordinance, which also includes the aforementioned collaring regulations: Pit bull dogs, Rottweilers, Dobermans, chows, Dalmatians or wolf hybrids and any type or breed <strong>of</strong> dogused a guard or attack dog over the age <strong>of</strong> 6 months will be considered "prime facie" as dangerous dogs. This doesn't include police dogs used to assist law enforcement or a non-guard dogattempting to prevent a trespassing or other criminal <strong>of</strong>fense on someone's property. UPDATE - Board <strong>of</strong> Aldermen has given final approval to a dog and animal control ordinance. It did soApril 5 following a public hearing in the Community Center. <strong>The</strong> ordinance was initially adopted March 1 and revised on March 19. <strong>The</strong> board last week approved a final version thateliminated a section that would have required the owners <strong>of</strong> dangerous dogs to obtain a surety bond or liability insurance <strong>of</strong> at least $50,000 per dog. However, upon first conviction <strong>of</strong> anydangerous dog violation, the owner must show pro<strong>of</strong> <strong>of</strong> insurance or surety bond. <strong>The</strong> ordinance takes effect July 1.Laurel – (4/22/10) - City <strong>of</strong>ficials move towards tougher dog ordinance. <strong>The</strong> City <strong>of</strong> Laurel made the first step toward making tougher regulations regarding the management <strong>of</strong> dogs inthe city. <strong>The</strong> Laurel City Council unanimously agreed to approve an order calling for tougher laws regarding animals in the City <strong>of</strong> Laurel. During the Laurel City Council’s April 6th meeting,Councilman George Carmichael expressed concern about dogs being allowed to roam in the city without restraints. Tuesday, a video <strong>of</strong> a local television station’s report <strong>of</strong> a woman beingattacked by a dog was played for the council and audience. After the video, the council voted 7-0 to approve the first reading <strong>of</strong> the ordinance amending sections from Ordinance No. 1210-1993 outlined in the Laurel Code <strong>of</strong> Ordinance <strong>of</strong> Chapter 5 “Animal Control.” <strong>The</strong> proposed ordinance does not prohibit the ownership <strong>of</strong> dogs, but does require people to be responsible.<strong>The</strong> ordinance addresses and identifies vicious animals. “No person shall keep, own, maintain, use or have in such person’s possession or n premises, within the city, any vicious animal,unless such animal is within a securely fenced area, secured building, or under immediate control <strong>of</strong> the owner,” the proposed ordinance states. “Specific breeds <strong>of</strong> dogs are herebydetermined to be vicious animals ... American Pit Bull Terrier, Staffordshire Pit Bull Terrier, American Staffordshire Terrier, Rottweiler Breed Standard, Doberman Pinscher Breed Standardand Chow Chow Breed Standard.”<strong>The</strong> first impoundment fee charge for a vicious dog “that the Animal Control Officer finds running at large within the city,” will be $250 and the second impoundment fee will be $500. Inaddition to amendments being made concerning vicious dogs, <strong>of</strong>ficials also addressed animals in general. According to the amendments, “no person shall keep more than three domesticatedanimals over the age <strong>of</strong> three months other than in a licensed kennel or boarding kennel as permitted in the zoning district outlined in the city’s land use regulations.” <strong>The</strong> ordinance alsostates that “no person shall keep livestock closer than 150 feet to any property line adjoining that on which the livestock is kept: provided that each animal herein defined as livestock shall beallowed only in A-1, General Agricultural District and keeping a stable shall provide for not more than one horse for each 20,000 square feet <strong>of</strong> lot area in R-1, Low Density ResidentialDistrict.” Carmichael said the enforcement <strong>of</strong> the proposed ordinance will require work by the Laurel Police Department, the City <strong>of</strong> Laurel’s Inspection Department, and the city’s AnimalControl Officers.Tuesday’s approval was the first reading <strong>of</strong> the proposed ordinance changes. According to city policy, an ordinance has to have a first and second reading before it can be enacted.MISSOURICarthage – (4/8/10) – Local groups spar on proposed animal laws. Two local groups find themselves on opposite sides <strong>of</strong> a proposal that one side says will put more standards ondog breeders, but the other side says is the first step to banning animal agriculture. <strong>The</strong> proposal is a petition to put on the November ballot a proposed new law, called the “Puppy MillCruelty Prevention Act” by supporters. Jasper County Farm Bureau Vice President Bradley Moll says his group opposes the proposed law and calls it a first step to banning animalagriculture. Moll said the group that is proposing the new law, the Humane Society <strong>of</strong> the United States, is a national lobbying group that does nothing to support local Humane Societies.“<strong>The</strong>y provide no financial support for the local Humane Societies,” Moll said. “Essentially the Humane Society <strong>of</strong> the United States is a lobbying organization trying to ban animal agriculture.You look at what they did in California, they’re putting very tight regulations on cattle production, on dairy production, on chickens on pork production and it is all started and funded by theHumane Society <strong>of</strong> the United States. “It is Farm Bureau’s concern that the HSUS is starting with this puppy mill initiative and then planning to spread this through other parts <strong>of</strong> animalagriculture.” Moll, however, said the proposal affects more than just the targeted puppy mills. “Within the bill itself, when you hear the words puppy mill you think <strong>of</strong> very inhumane practices,you think <strong>of</strong> dogs being crammed in crates and stuff like that,” Moll said. “This bill doesn’t try to regulate that type <strong>of</strong> poor practice. This bill tries to regulate even ethical treatments <strong>of</strong> animalsand all dog breeders, not just the ones that are being harmful to animals. It’s hurting dog lovers more than it’s helping dog lovers.” “Don’t get me wrong, Farm Bureau does not supportunethical treatment <strong>of</strong> animals. We want all animals to be treated ethically. But this bill doesn’t address that issue. It addresses quite a bit more than that issue and, in my opinion, hurts dogsmore than it helps them.”Jefferson City – (4/1/10) - Missouri lawmakers respond with a flood <strong>of</strong> e-mails <strong>of</strong> their own after an animal rights activist and her group clogged their inboxes with unwanted messages.Activist Brenda Shoss and the advocacy group, Kinship Circle, e-mailed Missouri House members last week, urging them to vote against a bill allowing a horse slaughterhouse to open inMissouri. Republicans and Democrats say the volume <strong>of</strong> e-mails – hundreds from all over the world - made it hard to find those from people in their districts.Some lawmakers responded byforwarding Shoss any e-mail with the word "horse" in it.She says she also received calls in which people made neighing sounds, and one caller sang the theme song from "Mr. Ed," thetelevision show about a talking horse. <strong>The</strong> House passed the bill Thursday.
<strong>The</strong> <strong>Monthly</strong> <strong>National</strong> <strong>Legislation</strong> <strong>Report</strong>http://mnlreport.typepad.com/<strong>Page</strong> 45 <strong>of</strong> <strong>330</strong>7/5/<strong>2010</strong>MONTANAYellowstone County – (4/18/10) – Commission OK’s new dog ordinance. Yellowstone County commissioners Tuesday approved a new county dog ordinance that is meant to combineand replace a dozen resolutions and agreements that had been in use more than 30 years. <strong>The</strong> commissioners last year asked Chief Deputy County Attorney Dan Schwarz to rewrite the dogordinance after county residents raised questions about law enforcement’s role in animal control.“It was very difficult to enforce the laws the county had enacted because there were so manyamendments,” Schwarz said. “It was confusing to law enforcement to know what they could and couldn’t do.” <strong>The</strong> new ordinance isn’t dramatically different from the old rules, but it’scontained in one document and removes references to defunct laws and agreements. It requires that all dogs wear some form <strong>of</strong> identification and have a rabies vaccination certificate.<strong>The</strong>ordinance also requires that dogs be leashed when not on private property, but exemptions are granted for county land where leashes aren’t required and for dog-related sporting eventssuch as field trials or hunting. <strong>The</strong>re are also rules and penalties for dogs that bite or try to bite people or other animals, and rules governing excessive barking. Schwarz said the county canonly enact rules that are covered by state law.NEBRASKAMcCook – (4/26/10) - With the arrival <strong>of</strong> spring weather, more people and pets outside and children playing in parks, the McCook Police Department is alerting people to new changes inlocal animal control laws. With the new laws, it remains unlawful for persons in control <strong>of</strong> animals to allow the animals to run at large at any time on any occasion in the City <strong>of</strong> McCook,including in any and all parks. "At large" is defined as "any dog, cat, and or hybrid animal found <strong>of</strong>f the owner's property and not under the control <strong>of</strong> the owner or responsible person, eitherby leash, cord, chain, wire, rope, cage or other suitable means <strong>of</strong> physical restraint." Voice command alone does not qualify as a physical restraint or as having control <strong>of</strong> the animal. Anyanimal that inflicts an unprovoked injury to a person, an animal, or chases or approaches a person in a menacing fashion is declared a "potentially dangerous animal." Once an animal isdeclared as "potentially dangerous or dangerous," it is unlawful to sell or give the animal away and many expensive restrictions are required in the housing and control <strong>of</strong> the animal.Penalties for allowing an animal previously declared as a potentially dangerous animal to run at large are a minimum fine <strong>of</strong> $250 and/or up to three months in jail. Any animal that inflicts anunprovoked injury to a person requiring medical treatment, kills an animal or has been previously declared as Potentially Dangerous and injures a person or animal, or menaces a person oranimal, is declared a "dangerous animal." Many expensive restrictions are required in the housing and control <strong>of</strong> dangerous animals. Penalties for allowing animals declared as dangerousanimals to run at large are a minimum fine <strong>of</strong> $500 and/or up to three months in jail. Animals owners are responsible to clean up after their pets when walking or exercising the animals onpublic property. It is unlawful for any person to allow their animal to defecate on any public property, including parks, streets, sidewalks, walking trails or lots without cleaning the feces fromthe area. Under the new animal control laws, it is unlawful for any person to feed or maintain any feral animals in the city. Violators are subject to prosecution and penalties that includesfines.NEVADALasVegas – (4/1/10) – Spay & Neuter law in effect for LasVegas pet owners. April 1st is the deadline for Las Vegas pet owners to get their dogs and cats spayed or neutered under anew law. Pet owners who don't follow the rules could face hundreds <strong>of</strong> dollars in fines. With a few exceptions, the new law calls for cats and dogs older than four months to get spayed orneutered. "If we respond to a house for a barking complaint, running-at-large, sanitation, a bite, anything <strong>of</strong> that nature, at that time that we're addressing that issue, we're also going to ask tosee documentation that the animal has been sterilized," said Richard Molinari, Las Vegas Animal Control supervisor. People with a breeding permit are exempt so are older or sicker animalsthat have a note from the veterinarian. In addition, service animals don't need to get fixed. North Las Vegas has also passed a similar law and Clark County's law goes into effect May 1st.Henderson is also working on a similar ordinance.Sparks – (4/26/10) - A trapper who caught a cat and a skunk at a busy park has touched <strong>of</strong>f a debate over Nevada laws that don't prohibit animal traps at municipal parks. Since then,Washoe County Commissioner Kitty Jung said she's received more than 300 e-mails and phone calls from residents expressing opposition to trapping in parks or other populated areas.Washoe County commissioners have invited the Nevada Trappers Association and TrailSafe Nevada to negotiate possible new trapping restrictions. Any proposal would have to be approvedby the Nevada Wildlife Commission. <strong>The</strong> new rules could mark the first time that populated areas <strong>of</strong>f-limits to shooting in Nevada also would be <strong>of</strong>f-limits to trapping. "Maybe it's time forWashoe County to lead the state <strong>of</strong> Nevada to end this 19th century barbaric practice," said Washoe County animal control board member Elaine Carrick.NEW HAMPSHIRE(4/30/10) - DOGS OF THE GRANITE STATE - <strong>2010</strong> NH Legislative Briefing #13Appropriate Forwarding is EncouragedNH LEGISLATIVE ACTION UPDATE<strong>The</strong> House Environment Committee voted 11-1 to kill SB 365. This bill would require that all dogs and cats transferred in the state through humane societies and rescue organizationsbe spayed and neutered. <strong>The</strong> committee report stated that “Testimony (confirmed by the department <strong>of</strong> agriculture) indicated that 85 – 95% <strong>of</strong> all transferred animals are already beingspayed and neutered, and that this bill was therefore unnecessary. In addition, this proposed law would be difficult to enforce.”On April 28th, SB 365 was voted 279-54 as inexpedient to legislate (killed) after a lively floor debate on the bill. You can listen to the floor debate athttp://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/house/media/live_media.htmTo listen select Session Date 4/28/<strong>2010</strong> and either morning audio or video.Highlights <strong>of</strong> the floor debate include Representative Rausch explaining how the bill would allow humane societies to use the state spay/neuter fund for imported animals. Rep. Skindernotes that feral tom’s rape their female counterparts and Representative Vaillancourt quotes Bob “Price is Right” Barker. At the same time, the significant issue <strong>of</strong> dogs being personalproperty is raised to explain why the bill needed to be killed.SB 365: requires that animal shelters and rescue organizations cannot sell, give away, adopt, or otherwise transfer ownership <strong>of</strong> any dog or cat unless it has been sexually sterilized. Anexemption from the requirement is provided for shelters that can demonstrate that at least 85% <strong>of</strong> the dogs transferred had been sterilized in the previous year through the voucher system orprivate means. DOGS requested an amendment incorporated into the bill that added essential protections for animals and animal owners such as an exemption for health an animal’s healthstatus and an animal that is reclaimed by its owner. At the public hearing, concerns raised by a veterinarian about the lack <strong>of</strong> enforcement especially with regards to animals transported fromother states and the potential for requiring neuter/spaying <strong>of</strong> all pets as the “next step” alarmed many committee members. Further amendments were requested by DOGS at the HouseEnvironment Committee public hearing. One amendment would make it clear that those who transfer less than 10 litters or 50 kittens in a 12-month period are not required to obtain a statelicense. DOGS has earmarked the issue <strong>of</strong> clarifying that hobby cat breeders are not required to be licensed as the subject for requesting new legislation next year. After the public hearing,everal members <strong>of</strong> the committee recommended that we seek new legislation next session to accomplish this clarification. A copy <strong>of</strong> the bill as amended by the Senate is available athttp://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/legislation/10/SB0365.htmlHB 1417: allowing companion dogs in certain areas <strong>of</strong> restaurants at the owners’ discretion. <strong>The</strong> bill’s sponsor, Rep. Butler, owns an Inn and the new health inspector maintains that theowner’s dogs having access to the dining room is a violation <strong>of</strong> the state regulations. DOGS is supporting the bill. Several disabled persons with service dogs oppose the bill primarilybecause it would interfere with their access rights (companion dog disrupting the service dog).STATUS: <strong>The</strong> House passed the bill. Senate Commerce Committee public hearing on April 29th.ACTION NEEDED: See DOGS Legislative Update #11 for list <strong>of</strong> Senate Commerce Committee members to contact to support this bill. A copy <strong>of</strong> the bill can be accessed athttp://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/legislation/<strong>2010</strong>/HB1417.htmlRaising Pet Store Licensing Fees (SB 450-FN, Amendment 1311, Section 99)<strong>The</strong> most recent amendments to the state budget include raising the pet store, animal shelters and commercial breeder annual state licensing fees from $200 to $350. <strong>The</strong> money will gotoward licensing, inspections and investigating complaints. <strong>The</strong> fees were last raised in 2004 when they went from $50 to $200. Agriculture Commissioner Lorraine Merrill said she hasspoken to an advocacy group representing those licensees and they had no problem with the increase.
- Page 2: The Monthly National Legislation Re
- Page 6 and 7: The Monthly National Legislation Re
- Page 8 and 9: The Monthly National Legislation Re
- Page 10 and 11: The Monthly National Legislation Re
- Page 12 and 13: The Monthly National Legislation Re
- Page 14 and 15: The Monthly National Legislation Re
- Page 16 and 17: The Monthly National Legislation Re
- Page 18 and 19: The Monthly National Legislation Re
- Page 20 and 21: The Monthly National Legislation Re
- Page 22 and 23: The Monthly National Legislation Re
- Page 24 and 25: The Monthly National Legislation Re
- Page 26 and 27: The Monthly National Legislation Re
- Page 28 and 29: The Monthly National Legislation Re
- Page 30 and 31: The Monthly National Legislation Re
- Page 32 and 33: The Monthly National Legislation Re
- Page 34 and 35: The Monthly National Legislation Re
- Page 36 and 37: The Monthly National Legislation Re
- Page 38 and 39: The Monthly National Legislation Re
- Page 40 and 41: The Monthly National Legislation Re
- Page 42 and 43: The Monthly National Legislation Re
- Page 46 and 47: The Monthly National Legislation Re
- Page 48 and 49: The Monthly National Legislation Re
- Page 50: The Monthly National Legislation Re
- Page 53 and 54: The Monthly National Legislation Re
- Page 55 and 56: The Monthly National Legislation Re
- Page 57 and 58: The Monthly National Legislation Re
- Page 59 and 60: The Monthly National Legislation Re
- Page 61 and 62: The Monthly National Legislation Re
- Page 63 and 64: The Monthly National Legislation Re
- Page 65 and 66: The Monthly National Legislation Re
- Page 67 and 68: The Monthly National Legislation Re
- Page 69 and 70: The Monthly National Legislation Re
- Page 71 and 72: The Monthly National Legislation Re
- Page 73 and 74: The Monthly National Legislation Re
- Page 75 and 76: The Monthly National Legislation Re
- Page 77 and 78: The Monthly National Legislation Re
- Page 79 and 80: The Monthly National Legislation Re
- Page 81 and 82: The Monthly National Legislation Re
- Page 83 and 84: The Monthly National Legislation Re
- Page 85 and 86: The Monthly National Legislation Re
- Page 87 and 88: The Monthly National Legislation Re
- Page 89 and 90: The Monthly National Legislation Re
- Page 91 and 92: The Monthly National Legislation Re
- Page 93 and 94: The Monthly National Legislation Re
- Page 95 and 96:
The Monthly National Legislation Re
- Page 97 and 98:
The Monthly National Legislation Re
- Page 99 and 100:
The Monthly National Legislation Re
- Page 101 and 102:
The Monthly National Legislation Re
- Page 103 and 104:
The Monthly National Legislation Re
- Page 105 and 106:
The Monthly National Legislation Re
- Page 107 and 108:
The Monthly National Legislation Re
- Page 109 and 110:
The Monthly National Legislation Re
- Page 111 and 112:
The Monthly National Legislation Re
- Page 113 and 114:
The Monthly National Legislation Re
- Page 115 and 116:
The Monthly National Legislation Re
- Page 117 and 118:
The Monthly National Legislation Re
- Page 119 and 120:
The Monthly National Legislation Re
- Page 121 and 122:
The Monthly National Legislation Re
- Page 123 and 124:
The Monthly National Legislation Re
- Page 125 and 126:
The Monthly National Legislation Re
- Page 127 and 128:
The Monthly National Legislation Re
- Page 129 and 130:
The Monthly National Legislation Re
- Page 131 and 132:
The Monthly National Legislation Re
- Page 133 and 134:
The Monthly National Legislation Re
- Page 135 and 136:
The Monthly National Legislation Re
- Page 137 and 138:
The Monthly National Legislation Re
- Page 139 and 140:
The Monthly National Legislation Re
- Page 141 and 142:
The Monthly National Legislation Re
- Page 143 and 144:
The Monthly National Legislation Re
- Page 145 and 146:
The Monthly National Legislation Re
- Page 147 and 148:
The Monthly National Legislation Re
- Page 149 and 150:
The Monthly National Legislation Re
- Page 151 and 152:
The Monthly National Legislation Re
- Page 153 and 154:
The Monthly National Legislation Re
- Page 155 and 156:
The Monthly National Legislation Re
- Page 157 and 158:
The Monthly National Legislation Re
- Page 159 and 160:
The Monthly National Legislation Re
- Page 161 and 162:
The Monthly National Legislation Re
- Page 163 and 164:
The Monthly National Legislation Re
- Page 165 and 166:
The Monthly National Legislation Re
- Page 167 and 168:
The Monthly National Legislation Re
- Page 169 and 170:
The Monthly National Legislation Re
- Page 171:
The Monthly National Legislation Re
- Page 174 and 175:
The Monthly National Legislation Re
- Page 176 and 177:
The Monthly National Legislation Re
- Page 178 and 179:
The Monthly National Legislation Re
- Page 180 and 181:
The Monthly National Legislation Re
- Page 182 and 183:
The Monthly National Legislation Re
- Page 184 and 185:
The Monthly National Legislation Re
- Page 186 and 187:
The Monthly National Legislation Re
- Page 188 and 189:
The Monthly National Legislation Re
- Page 190 and 191:
The Monthly National Legislation Re
- Page 192 and 193:
The Monthly National Legislation Re
- Page 194 and 195:
The Monthly National Legislation Re
- Page 196 and 197:
The Monthly National Legislation Re
- Page 198 and 199:
The Monthly National Legislation Re
- Page 200 and 201:
The Monthly National Legislation Re
- Page 202 and 203:
The Monthly National Legislation Re
- Page 204 and 205:
The Monthly National Legislation Re
- Page 206 and 207:
The Monthly National Legislation Re
- Page 208 and 209:
The Monthly National Legislation Re
- Page 210 and 211:
The Monthly National Legislation Re
- Page 212 and 213:
The Monthly National Legislation Re
- Page 214 and 215:
The Monthly National Legislation Re
- Page 216 and 217:
The Monthly National Legislation Re
- Page 218 and 219:
The Monthly National Legislation Re
- Page 220 and 221:
The Monthly National Legislation Re
- Page 222 and 223:
The Monthly National Legislation Re
- Page 224 and 225:
The Monthly National Legislation Re
- Page 226 and 227:
The Monthly National Legislation Re
- Page 228 and 229:
The Monthly National Legislation Re
- Page 230 and 231:
The Monthly National Legislation Re
- Page 232 and 233:
The Monthly National Legislation Re
- Page 234 and 235:
The Monthly National Legislation Re
- Page 236 and 237:
The Monthly National Legislation Re
- Page 238 and 239:
The Monthly National Legislation Re
- Page 240 and 241:
The Monthly National Legislation Re
- Page 242 and 243:
The Monthly National Legislation Re
- Page 244 and 245:
The Monthly National Legislation Re
- Page 246 and 247:
The Monthly National Legislation Re
- Page 248 and 249:
The Monthly National Legislation Re
- Page 250 and 251:
The Monthly National Legislation Re
- Page 252 and 253:
The Monthly National Legislation Re
- Page 254 and 255:
The Monthly National Legislation Re
- Page 256 and 257:
The Monthly National Legislation Re
- Page 258 and 259:
The Monthly National Legislation Re
- Page 260 and 261:
The Monthly National Legislation Re
- Page 262 and 263:
The Monthly National Legislation Re
- Page 264 and 265:
The Monthly National Legislation Re
- Page 266 and 267:
The Monthly National Legislation Re
- Page 268 and 269:
The Monthly National Legislation Re
- Page 270 and 271:
The Monthly National Legislation Re
- Page 272 and 273:
The Monthly National Legislation Re
- Page 274 and 275:
The Monthly National Legislation Re
- Page 276 and 277:
The Monthly National Legislation Re
- Page 278 and 279:
The Monthly National Legislation Re
- Page 280 and 281:
The Monthly National Legislation Re
- Page 282 and 283:
The Monthly National Legislation Re
- Page 284 and 285:
The Monthly National Legislation Re
- Page 286 and 287:
The Monthly National Legislation Re
- Page 288 and 289:
The Monthly National Legislation Re
- Page 290 and 291:
The Monthly National Legislation Re
- Page 292 and 293:
The Monthly National Legislation Re
- Page 294 and 295:
The Monthly National Legislation Re
- Page 296 and 297:
The Monthly National Legislation Re
- Page 298 and 299:
The Monthly National Legislation Re
- Page 300 and 301:
The Monthly National Legislation Re
- Page 302 and 303:
The Monthly National Legislation Re
- Page 304 and 305:
The Monthly National Legislation Re
- Page 306 and 307:
The Monthly National Legislation Re
- Page 308 and 309:
The Monthly National Legislation Re
- Page 310 and 311:
The Monthly National Legislation Re
- Page 312 and 313:
The Monthly National Legislation Re
- Page 314 and 315:
The Monthly National Legislation Re
- Page 316 and 317:
The Monthly National Legislation Re
- Page 318 and 319:
The Monthly National Legislation Re
- Page 320 and 321:
The Monthly National Legislation Re
- Page 322 and 323:
The Monthly National Legislation Re
- Page 324 and 325:
The Monthly National Legislation Re
- Page 326 and 327:
The Monthly National Legislation Re
- Page 328 and 329:
The Monthly National Legislation Re
- Page 330:
The Monthly National Legislation Re