<strong>The</strong> <strong>Monthly</strong> <strong>National</strong> <strong>Legislation</strong> <strong>Report</strong>http://mnlreport.typepad.com/<strong>Page</strong> 80 <strong>of</strong> <strong>330</strong>7/5/<strong>2010</strong>Penns Grove – (1/23/10) - Out <strong>of</strong> control pit bulls raise concerns in Penns Grove. At the last Penns Grove Borough Council meeting, residents here called out for pit bull owners to keeptheir dogs properly leashed and under control. <strong>The</strong> issue was sparked after Councilwoman Carol Mincey pointed out the number <strong>of</strong> uncontrollable dogs present at this year’s animalregistration. Residents <strong>of</strong> the borough also brought up concerns during the public portion <strong>of</strong> the meeting. Mayor John Washington felt the issue was not as serious as some <strong>of</strong> the residentswere making it out to be, but wanted to help any way he could. Another resident who spoke at the meeting was Penns Grove resident Adele Stalcup, who owns a pit bull. “<strong>The</strong> problem that Isee consistent is that people have multiple pit bulls,” said Stalcup. “<strong>The</strong>y can go from playing to fighting just like that. It’s the temperament <strong>of</strong> the breed.” Her idea was to put additionalregulations on breeding pit bulls and/or increase license fees for the breed. “My suggestion would be to consider a special ordinance that pertains to that specific breed,” said Stalcup. “It’snot the dogs, but the people who own them.” <strong>The</strong> borough does have an ordinance that states dogs must be leashed.Ridgewood Village – (1/29/10) - Ridgewood Council asks Bergen County to move the 'Bark Park'.NEW MEXICOHB73 - AN ACT RELATING TO WILDLIFE; PROVIDING FOR TAKINGS OFCOVERED SPECIES OR PREDATORS THAT THREATEN HUMAN LIFE OR PROPERTY;PROVIDING OPTIONS FOR ASSISTANCE TO REMEDY CURRENT OR POTENTIALDAMAGE TO PROPERTY; PROVIDING LIMITATIONS; REQUIRING THE DEPARTMENTOF GAME AND FISH TO REQUEST GRANT ASSISTANCE FROM THE STATE BOARD OFFINANCE UNDER CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES; INCREASING THE BIG GAMEDEPREDATION DAMAGE STAMP FEE; MAKING AN APPROPRIATION.Roosevelt County - (2/2/10) - Heard Hardin say she expected to have a proposed dog-at-large ordinance at the next commission meeting, scheduled for 9 a.m. Feb. 16th.NEW YORKA1377/S4965 - An act to amend the agriculture and markets law, the general business law and the general municipal law, in relation to the definition <strong>of</strong> pet dealer.A4018A/S364A - AN ACT to amend the agriculture and markets law and the tax law, in relation to contributions to the animal population control fundA7285/S5392 - An act to amend the agriculture and markets law, in relation to a limit on the number <strong>of</strong> intact animals over the age <strong>of</strong> four months a person or business can own,possess, control or otherwise have charge or custody.A5507 - An act to amend the general business law and the agriculture and markets law, in relation to the sale <strong>of</strong> dogs and cats; and to amend the agriculture and markets law, in relation tocommercial kennels.A6797 - An act to amend the agriculture and markets law, in relation to excessive breeding <strong>of</strong> dogs.A7694/S4130 - AN ACT to amend the agriculture and markets law and the general business law, in relation to the sale <strong>of</strong> birds by pet dealers.A7935 - An act to amend the agriculture and markets law, in relation to prohibiting the ownership, possession or harboring <strong>of</strong> a wild animal or reptile.A7983/S4961 - An act to amend the agriculture and markets law and the general business law, in relation to the care and sale <strong>of</strong> dogs and cats by pet dealers.A8162/S6062 - An act to amend the agriculture and markets law and the general business law, in relation to local laws and the regulation <strong>of</strong> pet dealers.A8352/S4515/S0518 - An act to amend the agriculture and markets law and the state finance law, in relation to the registration and regulation <strong>of</strong> animal breeders.A9732 - An act to amend the agriculture and markets law, in relation to prohibiting tail docking <strong>of</strong> cattleS4623 - AN ACT to amend the agriculture and markets law and the general business law, in relation to local laws and the regulation <strong>of</strong> pet dealers.(2/1/10) – Animal rights group outraged by bovine tail docking in NY. Using graphic video and descriptions to drive home their point, the Mercy for Animals organization is calling onNew York to stop farmers from cutting <strong>of</strong>f the tails <strong>of</strong> their cattle. A bill that seeks to do just that has been introduced in the Assembly by Linda Rosenthal, D-Manhattan. “This is in violation<strong>of</strong> the law," said veterinarian Holly Cheever. <strong>The</strong> Agricultural and Markets Law forbids the practice <strong>of</strong> overloading, torturing and cruel beatings, neglect and depriving an animal <strong>of</strong> food ordrink and is punishable to one year in prison or a $1000 fine.Alabama – (1/19/10) - is a town in Genesee County, New York) - <strong>The</strong> town Planning Board has 62 days to reach a decision on the issue <strong>of</strong> 13 barking -- or perhaps in this case, screaming -- dogs on a property on Wright Road, after the board unanimously voted to table the topic until Feb. 15. During the three-and-a-half-hour meeting Monday night, Chairman Ron Gilbert said,"We've all heard what neighbors have had to say about the noise problem. I suggest we put solving the issue to the dog owners and ask them to come back to our February meeting and sellus as to how they are going to mitigate this problem." When this possible compromise was mentioned, a few neighbors who spoke against allowing the number <strong>of</strong> dogs during the publichearing earlier that evening stormed out <strong>of</strong> the meeting angrily. Suzanne Macre owns 11 purebred Shiba Inu dogs at her and her parents house on Wright Road. <strong>The</strong> Shiba Inu breed isknown for their characteristic screech-like bark. After a lengthy public hearing on the issue <strong>of</strong> her purebreds, Suzanne and her mother waited with their hands clasped anxiously as the townPlanning Board deliberated whether or not to award her a special use permit for a dog boarding kennel. Town laws state that anyone harboring six or more dogs over the age <strong>of</strong> 6 monthsrequires a special use permit for a dog boarding kennel. Also waiting for the decision was a handful <strong>of</strong> nearly hostile neighbors -- one man paced the floor and raised his voice at a boardmember -- hoping Suzanne Macres permit was denied. If she was not allowed the special use permit, she would be limited to five dogs on her property. Suzanne currently owns 13 purebreddogs and her passion is training them for show. Some <strong>of</strong> them are nationally ranked champions; she even took a few to the Westminster Kennel Club Dog Show this year.Brooklyn – (2/2/10) – Someone is hurling eggs at cute pups. An irate tenant in an apartment complex adjacent to a Park Slope dog run has been hurling eggs out his or her window in anapparent attempt to scramble the canines’s brains and silence their allegedly incessant barking. <strong>The</strong> most recent egg-incident occurred last month, when dogs were romping and barking inthe dog run inside J.J. Byrne Park, which abuts the back <strong>of</strong> the Novo condo building on Fourth Avenue.As the dogs enjoyed their precious moment <strong>of</strong> <strong>of</strong>f-leash liberty, a tenant (perhaps a cat lover?) tossed an egg, narrowly missing one <strong>of</strong> the dog owners. Now, outraged canophiles arehatching plans to fight back against the egg hurler.NORTH CAROLINAVisit the SAOVA website for more NC (and other state) information ! Click here !Burke County - Morganton – (1/28/10) - A new animal ordinance approved last week goes into effect March 1. <strong>The</strong> Burke County Board <strong>of</strong> Commissioners unanimously approved thenew ordinance that took a year to complete. <strong>The</strong> ordinance should be posted on the county Web site in about a week <strong>The</strong> proposed ordinance is posted on the site but some changes weremade before it was adopted. <strong>The</strong> ordinance doesn't include a leash law. What the ordinance does say when it comes to keeping your pets under control is a property owner has the right toprohibit a "domestic animals from being present on their property." <strong>The</strong> property owner has to report that a specific animal is creating a nuisance. Massey said the property owner wouldhave to fill out a sworn statement identifying the animal and the name and address <strong>of</strong> its owner. It also applies to cats, he said. <strong>The</strong> owner <strong>of</strong> the animal has 24 hours to ensure it doesn't goback onto the property. If it does, the owner can face a $50 penalty, with each subsequent occurrence increasing the penalty by $50 up to $200. After that, the penalty is $200 for eachincident. Before an owner would face a fine they would get a written warning, Massey said. <strong>The</strong> approved ordinance also does away with the term "feral" cat and replaces it with "wildanimal," meaning a domesticated animal that has returned to its wild state. Changing the definition will help keep the county animal shelter from becoming overcrowded. A new state law thattook effect on Jan. 1 says animal shelters have to keep feral cats or animals turned over by their owners for at least three days. Animal control does not have to keep an animal consideredwild, Massey said. Another change included in the approved animal ordinance is how much people will pay if their animal attacks or bites someone. <strong>The</strong> new fine is $3,000 if an animal
<strong>The</strong> <strong>Monthly</strong> <strong>National</strong> <strong>Legislation</strong> <strong>Report</strong>http://mnlreport.typepad.com/<strong>Page</strong> 81 <strong>of</strong> <strong>330</strong>7/5/<strong>2010</strong>injures or kills someone. If the animal bites or wounds someone, the animal can be reclaimed by the owner. However, if it kills someone, the animal will be euthanized. If someone's animalinjures or kills a domestic animal, the civil penalty is $200 but the fine goes up to $400 for each additional incident, according to the ordinance. <strong>The</strong> owner <strong>of</strong> a dangerous animal or dogrunning freely also will face a fine <strong>of</strong> $200 and $300 for each additional violation. <strong>The</strong> ordinance also calls for the ban <strong>of</strong> dangerous exotic animals or reptiles, or hybrids <strong>of</strong> what is considereda dangerous animal such as a cross between a wolf and dog. Any existing dangerous exotic animals or reptiles, or hybrids <strong>of</strong> a dangerous animal are allowed as long as the owner has theanimal spayed or neutered, according to the ordinance. <strong>The</strong> ordinance cannot be enforced in a town or city limits unless it adopts a resolution giving the county the right to enforce theordinance within its boundaries. <strong>The</strong> new ordinance also would strengthen the county cruelty regulations.Durham – (1/4/10) – Durham animal control flooded with chained dog complaints. Durham’s newest ordinance, which bans owners in the city and county from tethering their dogs forprolonged periods, is just three days old. But already, it has spurred roughly 50 reports from citizens to Durham County Animal Control, Director Cindy Bailey said Monday. Today was thefirst day <strong>of</strong> <strong>2010</strong> that Animal Control has been open, Bailey said, so <strong>of</strong>ficers were out in force investigating the complaints. Officers will visit any <strong>of</strong>fender in 90 days to see if they have madeany progress in finding alternatives to tethers and chains to contain their pets. Right now, <strong>of</strong>ficers are issuing warnings with a drop-dead date <strong>of</strong> June 30. Anyone in violation <strong>of</strong> the ordinanceon July 1 or later could receive a citation and face fines <strong>of</strong> up to $150. Durham County passed the controversial anti-tethering ordinance in 2008 after lengthy public hearings. Proponents <strong>of</strong>the ordinance say chained dogs are a symptom <strong>of</strong> irresponsible or abusive pet ownership, and that chained dogs can become aggressive and unsafe, have health problems and that theirunhappy barking can be a public nuisance. Opponents <strong>of</strong> the ordinance say that tethering a dog is not inhumane. <strong>The</strong>y say irresponsible pet ownership overall is to blame for a dog’saggression, injury or poor health, not the method by which the dog is contained in someone’s yard. Yet others said that forcing a pet owner to build a fence or a large pen to contain a dog,instead <strong>of</strong> allowing them to use a relatively inexpensive tether, unfairly burdened low-income pet owners. Both New Hanover and Orange counties have also passed anti-tetheringordinances.Greensboro – (1/10/10) - SPCA urges stricter laws, stiffer fines. Although much <strong>of</strong> the blame for abuse falls on the owners, animal advocates with the county and the SPCA say lawsneed to be stiffened to discourage irresponsible owners from having pets and to give animal control <strong>of</strong>ficers more power.Suggestions include:* Laws that regulate dog breeding. Animal <strong>of</strong>ficials say no laws discourage excessive breeding and puppy mills. As a result, many animals are born with serious health problems, aren’t caredfor properly and are abandoned. A law designed to regulate commercial breeding passed in the state Senate in August, but was pulled before a House vote. <strong>The</strong> bill could be reintroducedthis year.Opponents <strong>of</strong> the bill said it would infringe on property rights and could harm responsible breeders.* Taxes on spaying and neutering. Overman, with the SPCA, said owners should be required to pay a small fee for animals that are spayed or neutered and higher amounts, such as $25 or$50, for each animal that is not.* More control for animal control <strong>of</strong>ficers. Such <strong>of</strong>ficers are confined to work within the civil system, mainly to levy fines. Animal Control <strong>of</strong>ficers said that being sworn law enforcement <strong>of</strong>ficerswould streamline the process for bringing criminal charges in more serious abuse cases and enable them to carry a firearm and Taser for better personal protection.* Stiffer penalties for animal abuse. Currently, most forms <strong>of</strong> animal cruelty that don’t involve torture, mutilation or beating are misdemeanors punishable with short jail sentences and/or smallfines.In the most serious cases, police can levy a felony animal cruelty charge that carries a maximum penalty <strong>of</strong> five years in prison, a fine or both.* Updated local animal ordinances and fines.Pender County – (12/11/09) - In the aftermath <strong>of</strong> dog attacks on other canines in Pender County, some pet owners and other residents plan to ask county commissioners to enact tougheranimal control ordinances. <strong>The</strong>y plan to speak to the Pender County Board <strong>of</strong> Commissioners about animal control issues at the board’s meeting at noon Monday. <strong>The</strong>y support morerestrictions on dogs, including a leash law. When asked if a leash law is needed, Commissioner David Williams said he doesn’t support one. However, he said that once a dog attacksanother animal or a person, it should be euthanized. “We need to have animals declared dangerous and have them put down and their owners to be hit in the pocketbook.” <strong>The</strong> proposedchanges, which were vocally opposed by hunters, included requiring pet licenses and licenses for larger kennels to address problems with rabies control and puppy mills, Health DirectorJack Griffith has said. <strong>The</strong>y didn’t include a leash law. In June, the commissioners voted to add two animal control <strong>of</strong>ficers to the understaffed department, and they have purchased anothervehicle for the department.NORTH DAKOTAFargo – (1/12/10) – Fargo committee revises dog law. Fargo dog owners who do not properly register or control their animals might face a misdemeanor criminal charge in the future. Arevised ordinance is to go before the City Commission on Monday. <strong>The</strong> proposed new ordinance was crafted by a committee that included a dog breeder, a representative <strong>of</strong> a dog rescueorganization and police. It is not breed-specific. Proposed rules for keeping a dangerous dog in Fargo include pro<strong>of</strong> <strong>of</strong> sterilization, vaccinations, implanted microchips with contactinformation, a $500-per-year registration fee and $300,000 in insurance.OHIOHB414 - A BILL to amend sections 102.02, 923.44, and 923.46 and to enact sections 904.01 to 904.08 <strong>of</strong> the Revised Code to establish requirements and responsibilities <strong>of</strong> the OhioLivestock Care Standards Board and the Director <strong>of</strong> Agriculture in administering and enforcing the rules adopted by the Board that govern the care and well-being <strong>of</strong> livestock in this state.Kirkersville – (2/2/10) – Online video sparks animal shelter complaints. After viewing a YouTube video, about 70 area residents gathered in the Kirkersville Town Hall Sunday to sharetheir concerns about the Licking County Animal Shelter. Some <strong>of</strong> the core members <strong>of</strong> the group, including Bonnie Mansfield <strong>of</strong> BARK Animal Rescue and Paula Evans <strong>of</strong> Second ChanceHumane Society long have had problems with the shelter and have been bringing complaints to the Licking County Commissioners for more than a decade. Namely, they do not wantanimals euthanized in the gas chamber, have issues with the method <strong>of</strong> deciding if dogs are aggressive and believe some euthanasia procedures have been performed poorly. But LickingCounty commissioners have stood behind the director <strong>of</strong> the shelter, Jon Luzio, in his belief that euthanasia by carbon monoxide is the safest and most humane method and rely on Luzio todetermine if dogs are aggressive. But it wasn't until Mansfield created a YouTube video out <strong>of</strong> security footage which shows dog carcasses dragged to the incinerator that many <strong>of</strong> theresidents Sunday joined in the concerns. One <strong>of</strong> the other reoccurring concerns expressed by various residents is how Luzio evaluates if a dog is dangerous, sometimes deeming itaggressive days later. "He makes direct eye contact, hovers over the animal and he reaches out with his fist and tries to trigger the dog's defensive response." Many <strong>of</strong> the complaintsbrought up at Sunday's meetings were based on personal experiences and were based on allegations dogs were not properly cared for, euthanized incorrectly or not given needed medicaltreatment.Toledo – (1/6/10) - Review sought <strong>of</strong> Toledo's dog laws, policies. A trio <strong>of</strong> Toledo City Councilmen proposed yesterday a new task force <strong>of</strong> citizens and animal experts to re-examine all citylaws and policies related to dogs. <strong>The</strong> Toledo Dog Policy Advisory Task Force would be similar to the Lucas County Dog Warden Advisory Committee, a panel formed a year ago to reviewthe practices <strong>of</strong> Dog Warden Tom Skeldon. <strong>The</strong> panel's tasks would likely include reviewing the city's relationship with the dog warden <strong>of</strong>fice and examining the city's law for "vicious dogs,"which Mr. McNamara feels inappropriately singles out "pit bulls" and overlooks bad behavior <strong>of</strong> other dogs. "I think there are dangerous dogs who are not 'pit bulls,' and I think there are 'pitbulls' who are not dangerous dogs," Mr. McNamara said. "Let's bring the experts in who are familiar with these issues and have them take a look at everything." <strong>The</strong> task-force proposalfollows an earlier effort by Mr. McNamara to have the county committee evaluate the city's "vicious dogs" law. However, committee members turned down his request because it fell outsidethe scope <strong>of</strong> their county-focused mission, Chairman Steve Serchuk said. "Pit bull" is a generic descriptive term for a dog trained to fight and can refer to multiple breeds, including theAmerican Staffordshire terrier, Staffordshire bull terrier, American pit bull terrier, and other mix breeds determined to be "pit bulls" by Mr. Skeldon. <strong>The</strong> city's vicious dogs law restricts peopleto owning only one "pit bull," and requires that they keep the animal leashed and muzzled when it's away from home. Violators can be charged with a first-degree misdemeanor. In 2007, theOhio Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality <strong>of</strong> Ohio's vicious-dog law, as well as Toledo's companion ordinance. <strong>The</strong> task-force proposal could be put to a council vote this month. Mr.Steel said the task force would be asked to evaluate whether it remains prudent for Toledo law to single-out specific types <strong>of</strong> breeds. "We are having them look at the entire issue <strong>of</strong> breedspecificlegislation," Mr. Steel said. "<strong>The</strong>se are the issues which we're not the experts in." UPDATE: (1/19/10) -Toledo - county commissioners voted to reverse a policy that previouslyprohibited unclaimed "pit bull" puppies from leaving the pound. Such puppies can now be transferred to the Toledo Area Humane Society for adoption.(12/30/09) - Pet restrictions vary by city, but residents argue limits. Vet says focus on the number <strong>of</strong> animals in a home disregards care issue. Do you have three dogs or fourcats? Depending on where you live in the Miami Valley, you may be in violation <strong>of</strong> your community’s zoning ordinance, which is usually a minor misdemeanor <strong>of</strong>fense. Bellbrook and Piquado not allow “kennels” in any residential area, and they define a kennel as any premise where more than two dogs, two cats or one <strong>of</strong> each is kept. Bellbrook once allowed four dogs or cats,but the policy was changed to two in 1986, when, according to old meeting minutes, city <strong>of</strong>ficials cited an increase in animal complaints. <strong>The</strong> residential limit varies by city, from three pets inCenterville and Carlisle, to four in Fairborn and Oakwood, and five in Kettering or Springboro. And some cities have further distinctions. Carlisle’s law only limits dogs. Beavercreek and someothers require a kennel license for commercial breeding, but place no limit at all on residential pets.Most cities have separate ordinances requiring proper care <strong>of</strong> animals and allowing citations for dogs running loose or barking loudly. Bellbrook City Manager Mark Schlagheck
Change language