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

The Monthly National Legislation Reporthttp://mnlreport.typepad.com/Page 7 of 3307/5/2010MISSISSIPPIHinds County - Jackson - residents who own pit bulls, hybrid wolf dogs and exotic animals must obtain a permit from the sheriff's department and hold insurance under changes approvedto the animal control ordinance. The Board of Supervisors voted 4-0 Monday for the changes. Under the new ordinance, animals that are declared vicious or dangerous cannot be kept inHinds County. And any person convicted of a felony offense cannot own a vicious or dangerous animal. The amended ordinance will go into effect in July._________________________________________________________________________________________MISSOURI(7/1/10) – Click here - for the latest video created by Mindy Patterson, Public Relations professional for the Missourians for Animal Care Ag Coalition who is working to expose HSUS andtheir agenda.Center City - City Council has approved new animal ordinances. The first bans pit bulls. The second would allow the council to declare an animal to be dangerous if it bites or chases a person or attacks anotheranimal. Animals that violate the law would have to be removed from city limits or destroyed.______________________________________________________________________________MONTANABaby pit and flagButte – (6/30/10) - Pit bull ordinance being discussed in Butte. A meeting is being held in Butte tonight to discuss the proposed pit bull ordinance. Ed Randal ofAnimal Services says the ordinance has been referred to his board, which is discussing the matter at the health department. Commissioner Terry Schultz hasproposed the ordinance that would require pit bulls to be tethered or leashed. There would be a $100 fine for a first offense and a $250 fine and loss of animal on thesecond ffense. Randall says there will be a few minutes for public comment at tonight's meeting. UPDATE: (7/1/10) – Pitbull ordinance takes center stage in Butte.A recently proposed pit bull ordinance took center stage at the Butte-Silver Bow Health Center Wednesday evening. The ordinance, proposed by county commissionerTerry Schultz, was discussed by fellow commissioners, members of animal control and concerned residents. All parties involved found common ground on removingthe tethering and pit bull specific facets of Schultz's proposed ordinance. There was also approval to look further into registering dogs upon their rabies vaccination to get a more accurategrasp on the number of dogs in the county. The drafting of the new ordinance now hinges on the proposed list of dangerous breeds and defining what is considered a vicious animal.Director of Animal Service Ed Randall hopes to have an ordinance over to the county commission for a vote within 90 days. Also, pit bulls will be the center of attention Thursday at theButte Public Library when a couple of them show up to educate people about how to act around dogs. Pit bulls, Titan and Chloe, will be at the library to teach the public about approachingdogs, asking the owner before you touch a dog and other ways to behave around the animals. Their owner says last time they did a dog education session at the library more than 150people showed up, and they are hoping for that outcome again. "Education for me is huge to teach owners owner responsibility and people to be save around dogs and our dogs to be safetoo," dog owner Sam Collier said. The event is at the library from 2 to 3 p.m.White Sulpher Springs – (7/1/10) - Town passes insurance requirement for owners of aggressive dog breeds. White Sulphur Springs has passed an amendment to its animalordinance that now requires owners of certain breeds of dogs with reputations for aggressive behavior to purchase $500,000 in liability insurance in case in the animal attacks somebody.Under the new rules, owners of any breed of dog could be subject to the insurance requirement, but only if the animal bites a person or acts aggressively without provocation. Owners of pitbulls, Doberman Pinschers and Rottweilers need to purchase the insurance, regardless of whether their dog has a record of aggressive behavior. Resolution 525 adds a section ondangerous dogs to a city ordinance. The new section includes the insurance requirements. The City Council approved it 4-0 on June 17. Proof of insurance is required at the time of licensingand may be requested by an animal control officer, city clerk, member of the City Council or any law enforcement officer, according to the ordinance.________________________________________________________________________________________________________NEVADAReno - FBI is reviewing a Las Vegas woman's claim that U.S. land managers broke a federal law protecting wild horses when they removed nearly 2,000 mustangs from public rangeland inNevada about six months ago._________________________________________________________________________________________NEW JERSEYS2018 - Animal Abuser Registry - An Act establishing the New Jersey Animal Abuser Registry, supplementing Title 4 of the Revised Statutes, and amending R.S.4:22-55.(6/16/10) – Dog census repeal proposed in NJ. New Jersey Assemblywoman Caroline Casagrande thinks it's time to do away with the state's dog census law. The 70-year-old lawrequires New Jersey towns to count pet dogs annually or at least every two years. The Republican from Freehold’s main argument for repealing the law is that it is uncontrolled, pretty muchignored, and there are no penalties for municipalities that don’t comply. “I believe one of the things you’re supposed to do is make sure the laws you have on the books make sense for thetimes and can be enforced,” Casagrande told the Press of Atlantic City. The dog census law was enacted at a time when rabies was a real threat to household pets and was seen as a way tomake sure owners got pets their shots. But it's gone largely unenforced as the rabies threat has declined and local governments have become reluctant to spend the money to send someonedoor-to-door. Only 81 local governments of the 566 in New Jersey completed the dog census in 2009, according to the state health department._________________________________________________________________________________________NEW YORKA11070/S2211 - AN ACT to amend the agriculture and markets law, in relation to the microchipping of dogs and the creation of a registry of dogs. Requires the micro-chipping of all dogs,excluding temporarily kept dogs; creates a state registry to maintain the identification and contact information on all micro-chipped dogs; provides that such registry shall be made availableto veterinarians, shelters and kennels for the purposes of identification.Kingston – (6/17/10) - Kingston aldermen revise plan to limit cats. (video @ link). City lawmakers on Thursday narrowed the focus of a proposed cat-control law. It now would requirethe pets’ owners to spay and neuter cats that are allowed outdoors. Additionally, the Common Council’s Laws and Rules Committee soon could recommend a proposal requiring cat ownersto place identification on their pets. But while there appeared to be majority support for both proposals, the committee did not formally recommend the legislation. Instead, the panel instructedShayne Gallo in the city attorney’s office to write up legislation in time for the Common Council’s July meeting. Under the spay-and-neuter proposal, the city would be allowed to pick up catsin response to complaints. If the offending cat is found not to have been spayed or neutered, the city would have the procedure done and then charge the pet’s owner. Alderman RonPolacco strongly objected to the provision of allowing the city to take cats without their owner’s permission and have them spayed or neutered. Polacco added that dogs are not required tobe spayed or neutered, so why should cats? “I’ve got five cats that come in my yard,” said Senor, D-Ward 8. “I have a horseshoe pit. They use that as a litter box. Should I have to have that?No. It is no different than a dog going on your front lawn constantly.” Last month, Senor suggested a law be enacted to limit the number of cats property owners could have. The aldermansaid he since has backed off that idea. The committee also shied away from fining cat owners whose pets were found not be spayed or neutered.Port Jervis – (6/10/10) - New animal rights group emerges. The Hudson Valley Animal Rights Alliance has been established as a grassroots organization to promote proper treatment ofanimals and protest circuses, petting zoos, puppy mills, foie gras, rodeos and other such treatment. The group is headed up by Kay Riviello of Port Jervis along with Christine Evangelisti, astudent at the School of Visual Arts. Riviello’s group became visible as it began protesting visiting circuses in the region. There is a need in the Hudson Valley for Animal Rights Alliance “Wehave a lot of animal abuse going on in the Hudson Valley with not a lot of attention,” she said. “I’ve been doing animal activism in other areas of the country in the few years past inManhattan. And I just couldn’t get down to Manhattan anymore and I realized there was a need up here.” Riviello said her group pickets the last Saturday of every month at Charles RiverLaboratories in Stone Ridge, a testing lab.Village of Rockville Center – (6/24/10) - Is new Rockville Centre law barking up the wrong tree? Legality of new village dog legislation called into question. The Village of Rockville Centre may haveinadvertently put itself in the dog house with its new law, banning Rottweilers and pit bulls from the village, that was passed during its June 8 meeting. The law approved by four of five thetrustees, known as “breed-specific legislation” because it targets specific breeds of dogs, has caused quite a stir in the animal lover world. The Herald has been inundated with e-mails andphone calls from people objecting to the legislation. Their main contention, they say, is that it’s illegal. “If the ordinance does what it has been reported to say, which is banning Rottweilersand pit bulls, notwithstanding the grandfather clause, then this is in direct conflict with state law,” said Debora Bresch, an attorney and the senior director of government relations for theeastern region for the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (ASPCA). Those that say the law is illegal cite Article 7, Section 107 of the New York State Agriculture andMarkets law. The law sets up regulations for controlling dangerous dogs in the state. It says that municipalities have the power to pass their own legislation regarding dangerous dogs.However those laws shall not be less stringent than the state law, and “no such program shall regulate such dogs in a manner that is specific as to breed.” Village Attorney A. Thomas Levin,however, sees the state law differently. “That’s not a true statement,” Levin said of the claims that the law is illegal. “Local breed-specific legislation is barred in New York for certain purposes.That’s what the statute says. It gives something that you’re not allowed to use breed-specific legislation on, which is licensing of dogs.” Bresch couldn’t say whether the ASPCA would belooking to pursue legal action against the village to repeal the law. “We’re still looking at our options,” she said. UPDATE: (7/1/10) - L.I. Dog Owners Snarl Over Breed Specific Laws.