<strong>The</strong> <strong>Monthly</strong> <strong>National</strong> <strong>Legislation</strong> <strong>Report</strong>http://mnlreport.typepad.com/<strong>Page</strong> 82 <strong>of</strong> <strong>330</strong>7/5/<strong>2010</strong>acknowledged that while many residents know those laws, they were unaware <strong>of</strong> the numerical limit, noting that Bellbrook cited only four people in 2009 for having too many animals. “(<strong>The</strong>number <strong>of</strong> animals) can be a quality <strong>of</strong> life issue, beyond any barking or mistreatment,” he said. “If every time you go in the back yard there are five dogs running down the fence line, that canbe an issue, too.” Bellbrook will soon hold a public hearing on raising its allowable number <strong>of</strong> pets to three. <strong>The</strong> Snyders and Rob and Yvonne Holton, who were cited for their three Siberianhuskies, said they hope to get as many people as possible to the hearing.(12/6/09) – Ohio’s pit bull law sticks despite tries for change. A little history - April 6, 1987, a retired Dayton-area surgeon fled a prostitute's home as her two "pit bull" dogs attacked him during theheat <strong>of</strong> an argument. Witnesses described how the 67-year-old man attempted to climb onto a car to escape the teeth <strong>of</strong> Bouncer and Buford T. Pusser, only to be pulled to the ground and mauled. <strong>The</strong>physician suffered a fatal heart attack. <strong>The</strong> incident ultimately proved to be ground zero for legislation that has made Ohio the only state to automatically label the "pit bull" a vicious dog subject to extra regulation,restriction, and liability insurance. Twenty-two years later, the "pit bull" remains the only type <strong>of</strong> dog deemed inherently vicious by virtue <strong>of</strong> its existence. <strong>The</strong> law still spawns allegations <strong>of</strong> canine discrimination inlegislative hearings whenever bills related to animal control arise, but lawmakers have shown little sign <strong>of</strong> wanting to tackle the issue. <strong>The</strong> law has firmly stuck despite multiple attempts to repeal the language.Rep. Barbara Sears (R., Sylvania) has launched the latest <strong>of</strong>fensive. Her bill would simply pull references to the "pit bull" from the definition <strong>of</strong> vicious dog. It has received its obligatory first hearing, but there'sbeen no action since. "<strong>The</strong> dog lovers are into this so much that [lawmakers] don't want to get hundreds <strong>of</strong> e-mails again," she said. "<strong>The</strong>re are a lot <strong>of</strong> terrible stories like the doctor in Dayton, butstatistically that's more likely not to be a 'pit bull' than to be a 'pit bull.' <strong>The</strong>y're missing the target by focusing on one breed when they need to focus on behavior."Lucas County – (1/12/10) – New Lucas County Dog Warden won’t need Bachelor Degree. Lucas County commissioners agreed to prefer - but not require - that the new dog wardenhave a bachelor's degree in a field related to animal care or public administration, during a meeting Monday at which Commissioner Pete Gerken was elected president for a second one-yearterm on a 3-0 vote. Two <strong>of</strong> his policy goals for <strong>2010</strong>: a program for raising Lucas County's college graduation rate and an end to the dog warden's ban on allowing "pit bull" dogs to beadopted. Mr. Konop said he would introduce legislation at the next meeting to revisit the subject. <strong>The</strong> dog warden's policy is to euthanize "pit bulls." Dog Warden Tom Skeldon announcedhis retirement, effective Jan. 31, following community criticism that his policies ended up with too many dogs killed. After an executive session Monday, commissioners released a modifiedjob posting for a replacement dog warden, reflecting Mr. Konop's insistence on a preference for a bachelor's degree related to animal care. <strong>The</strong> salary being proposed ranges from $57,680to $72,100, and applications will be accepted until Jan. 29. <strong>The</strong> list <strong>of</strong> qualifications says that a bachelor's degree in a field such as animal science, veterinary science, businessadministration, or public administration is preferred, along with four years <strong>of</strong> supervisory experience in an animal care or control environment or two years managing or directing in an animalcare or control environment. Alternatively, the applicant would have an associate's degree in a related field and six years <strong>of</strong> supervisory experience in animal care or control or three yearsmanaging or directing in animal care or control environment. Applicants must also have training in euthanasia, "chemical capture/immobilization," knowledge <strong>of</strong> current trends in animal care,and experience educating the public on animal care and control and working with animal welfare organizations and law enforcement agencies.Silver Lake Village – (1/31/10) – Silver Lake Village Dog Laws May Get More Teeth. Several residents have asked Village Council to put more bite into the village's dog law. VillageSolicitor Robert Heydorn has drafted a more stringent ordinance for Council to consider, modeled primarily on the law Cuyahoga Falls has in place. <strong>The</strong> proposal provides for the creation <strong>of</strong>a board to determine whether a dog is to be classified as 'dangerous' or 'vicious.'" Once a dog is classified as such, its owner wouldn't be able to take it out without a short lease and amuzzle, or it would have to be kept inside or in a pen which has certain building requirements. <strong>The</strong> penalties that would be imposed range from misdemeanors <strong>of</strong> the fourth- to first- degree; afirst-degree misdemeanor carries with it "a significant fine and jail time," according to Heydorn. <strong>The</strong> proposal also would give police the ability to impound a dog and then, subsequent to acourt hearing, allow a court to order the dog's destruction if the court feels that's necessary. Council will continue to discuss the proposal Feb. 1.Toledo – (1/21/10) – Judge says Toledo’s pit bull law flawed. A Toledo Municipal Court judge's ruling yesterday found numerous aspects <strong>of</strong> the city's "vicious dogs" law unconstitutional,countering a ban on owning more than one "pit bull" and excluding "pit bull" mixed breeds as inherently vicious. "While the state statute does not specifically permit ownership <strong>of</strong> more thanone dog 'commonly known as a pit bull,' it does not specifically prohibit it either," the judge wrote. He added that the challenges in this case are different than those in the Tellings case inwhich the Ohio Supreme Court in 2007 upheld the city and state laws singling out "pit bulls" as inherently vicious. Judge Goulding also wrote that a provision <strong>of</strong> the city law lumping "pit bullmixed breed" dogs with "pit bulls" is unconstitutional. That judgment could have wide implications in the county, as the dog warden's <strong>of</strong>fice refuses to adopt out adult "pit bull" mixes as well as"pit bulls." Those dogs are then killed by lethal injection. UPDATE: Toledo – (2/2/10) - Toledo challenges ruling on city vicious-dogs law. <strong>The</strong> city <strong>of</strong> Toledo’s controversial viciousdoglaw is back in court. City <strong>of</strong>ficials filed an appeal in the 6th District Court <strong>of</strong> Appeals Monday over a Toledo Municipal Court judge’s recent ruling that said parts <strong>of</strong> the vicious-dogs lawand “pit bull” ownership restrictions were unconstitutional. “We are appealing it, not necessarily on the basis <strong>of</strong> the dog law itself,” Deputy Mayor <strong>of</strong> Operations Steve Herwat said Monday.“It’s more <strong>of</strong> a larger concern that any time our home-rule power is challenged, we believe we need to stand up for the city’s rights to appeal.” <strong>The</strong> Lucas County Dog Warden’s Officestopped enforcing the law and the restrictions on so-called “pit bulls” after Judge MichaelGoulding, in a Jan. 20 opinion, found that the city’s ownership restrictions were in conflict with homeruledoctrine as the requirements go above and beyond state law. City Law Director Adam Loukx said the city would fight to preserve its home-rule authority. “<strong>The</strong> Ohio Constitution grantsthe city extensive power <strong>of</strong> home-rule and within those powers are the right to make reasonable laws that address local issues in matters local concern,” Mr. Loukx said. “We believe <strong>of</strong> thecity’s code regarding vicious dogs was a valid exercise <strong>of</strong> home rule.”Whitehall – (1/20/10) – Commission Dismisses Whitehall Election Gripes. <strong>The</strong> Ohio Elections Commission found no probable cause for any <strong>of</strong> the complaints former Whitehall CityCouncilwoman Jackie Thompson filed against proponents <strong>of</strong> Issue 32, a successful ballot issue that recalled her from her council <strong>of</strong>fice in November. Thompson and many <strong>of</strong> the subjects <strong>of</strong>her complaint attended a hearing last Thursday, Jan. 21, at the Ohio Elections Commission. Thompson's complaint levied complaints against C.J. Thompson, the chairwoman <strong>of</strong> theCommittee for the Positive Future <strong>of</strong> Whitehall, as well as individuals, including the mayor, city attorney and auditor <strong>of</strong> Whitehall and several members <strong>of</strong> City Council. Thompson allegedinformation Issue 32 proponents used about her actions while on council and published in fliers were false. She also questioned whether it was ethical for members <strong>of</strong> the council andadministration to contribute to the campaign <strong>of</strong> Issue 32. "I am pleased with the outcome," Auditor Kim Maggard said, adding the commission "saw through the frivolous complaint anddismissed all <strong>of</strong> those targeted." <strong>The</strong> Jan. 21 hearing was the latest in a series <strong>of</strong> complaints both sides <strong>of</strong> Issue 32 filed against each other with the commission. Likewise, earlier complaintsC.J. Thompson filed against Jackie Thompson for similar reasons also were dismissed after the commission found no probable cause. Only one complaint -- that <strong>of</strong> Jackie Thompson failingto file a timely campaign finance report -- was judged by the commission to have cause.OKLAHOMAHB1332 - An Act relating to animals; creating the Oklahoma Pet Quality Assurance and Protection Act; providing for administration; defining terms; creating a rule advisory committee;stating purpose; providing for membership; making it unlawful for persons to sell, give away, or transfer a certain number <strong>of</strong> dogs or cats without a license; providing for application form;exempting municipal and county animal shelters from licensing requirement; specifying certain requirements be met before license approval or renewal; specifying procedures for renewal;specifying certain late penalty; providing for fees; providing for display <strong>of</strong> license and certain information; providing for the promulgation <strong>of</strong> rules consistent with USDA standards; listingstandards; providing for certain enforcement; providing for disclosure <strong>of</strong> records; prohibiting the issuance <strong>of</strong> a license in certain circumstances; providing for civil <strong>of</strong>fense; specifying fine;establishing the Pet Quality Assurance Enforcement Fund; providing for revenues; providing for use <strong>of</strong> fund; providing for expenditures; specifying grounds for the refusal, suspension, orrevocation <strong>of</strong> a license; providing for written notice; authorizing seizure <strong>of</strong> animals upon certain circumstances; requiring certain age conditionbefore selling, giving away, or transferring ownership <strong>of</strong> dog or cat; mandating certain information accompany each dog or cat; requiring bill <strong>of</strong> sale and certificate <strong>of</strong> veterinary inspection foreach dog or cat; providing for the identification <strong>of</strong> each dog or cat; authorizing the promulgation <strong>of</strong> emergency rules; providing for codification; providing for noncodification; and providingan effective date.SB1340 - Oklahoma Kennel Definition Act - An Act relating to agriculture; creating the “Kennel Definitions Act”; providing short title; defining terms; making certain facilities subject tocertain requirements; providing requirements for sale <strong>of</strong> certain animals; specifying puppy mills; providing for codification; and providing an effective date.HB2713 - Shell bill - An Act relating to animals; creating the Dangerous Animals Act <strong>of</strong> <strong>2010</strong>; providing for noncodification; and providing an effective date.HB2745 - An Act relating to animals; creating the Oklahoma Pet Quality Assurance and Protection Act; providing for administration; defining terms; providing for a rule advisory committee;specifying membership; establishing a voluntary license procedure; providing for application form; requiring applicants to submit certain protocol; limiting issuance <strong>of</strong> licenses; authorizingtemporary permit; specifying certain requirements to be met before license approval or renewal; specifying procedures for renewal; specifying late penalty; establishing fees; specifyingrequirements for display <strong>of</strong> license and certain information; providing for the promulgation <strong>of</strong> rules consistent with United States Department <strong>of</strong> Agriculture standards; authorizing certaininspection system; providing for enforcement; providing for disclosure <strong>of</strong> records; prohibiting the issuance <strong>of</strong> a license to certain persons; stating penalties for violation; establishing the PetQuality Assurance Enforcement Fund; providing for revenues; providing for use <strong>of</strong> fund; providing for expenditures; specifying conditions justifying refusal <strong>of</strong> license; providing for writtennotice; authorizing seizure and impoundment <strong>of</strong> dogs or cats upon certain circumstances; prohibiting certain dogs and cats to be sold or transferred; requiring certain information toaccompany dogs or cats; requiring certain records be maintained; providing for codification; providing for noncodification; and providing an effective dateHB2781 - An Act relating to agriculture; amending Section 1, Chapter 544, O.S.L. 2004 (2 O.S. Supp. 2009, Section 4-20), which relates to animal identification; prohibiting agency from
<strong>The</strong> <strong>Monthly</strong> <strong>National</strong> <strong>Legislation</strong> <strong>Report</strong>http://mnlreport.typepad.com/<strong>Page</strong> 83 <strong>of</strong> <strong>330</strong>7/5/<strong>2010</strong>mandating national animal identification registry; allowing participants to withdraw at any time; requiring deletion <strong>of</strong> personal information upon withdrawal; providing exception; andproviding an effective date.SB1712 - An Act relating to pr<strong>of</strong>essions and occupations; creating theCommercial Pet Breeders Act; providing short title; defining terms;construing law; creating Commercial Pet BreedersBoard; requiringcertain license; prohibiting certain actions; limiting certainpractice; providing for exceptions; authorizing Board to adoptcertain rules; establishing requirements for licensure<strong>of</strong> certainpersons; providing for expiration <strong>of</strong> certain licenses; establishingprocedure for renewal <strong>of</strong> license; providing for certain fees;providing for power <strong>of</strong> county or municipalgovernments; providing forresponsibility <strong>of</strong> certain costs; providing for self funding; creatingcriminal <strong>of</strong>fenses and punishments; providing for codification;providing an effective date; anddeclaring an emergency.SB1798 - An Act relating to game and fish; defining terms; prohibiting certain transactions and actions involving certain animals; exempting certain persons from prohibitions; giving certainentities enforcement power; providing process for enforcement <strong>of</strong> prohibitions; requiring persons to provide notification <strong>of</strong> certain actions; providing penalty; providing for codification; andproviding an effective date.SB2186 - An Act relating to agriculture; creating the Companion Pet Protection Act; providing short title; defining terms; making certain facilities subject to certain requirements; providingrequirements for sale <strong>of</strong> certain animals; providing for codification; and providing an effective dateOREGON(12/29/09) – Animal protection laws put Oregon in top five states. A number <strong>of</strong> new animal laws will take effect Jan.1 in Oregon, which the Animal Legal Defense Fund ranks among thenation's top five states for going after animal abusers. This year's legislative session debated 16 bills concerning animals, an unprecedented number. Some bills -- the umpteenth attempt toban pit bulls, for example -- died on the vine. Some deal only with the finer points <strong>of</strong> enforcing animal law. But six <strong>of</strong> the bills the governor signed are <strong>of</strong> direct concern to animal owners.Here's a look at the most pr<strong>of</strong>ound changes.Puppy millsSurely the most controversial <strong>of</strong> the bills debated last spring was H.B. 2470, dubbed the puppy-mill bill. Hotly contested in public hearings, the final legislation didn't contain all the measuresits proponents wanted to keep irresponsible breeders from churning out sick, unsocialized dogs.But it put a number <strong>of</strong> restrictions on Oregon breeders, all designed to combat the conditions found in puppy mills.Most controversially, the law limits the number <strong>of</strong> sexually intact dogs anyone can own. Breeders cannot have more than 50 <strong>of</strong> such dogs older than 2.<strong>The</strong> law mandates the care dogs receive in a breeder's kennel. Dogs must get at least one hour <strong>of</strong> exercise a day. <strong>The</strong>y must have enough room to turn, sit, stand and lie down withouttouching the walls or another dog. <strong>The</strong>y can't be kept in stacked cages and they must have solid flooring.<strong>The</strong> law requires breeders and sellers <strong>of</strong> dogs to maintain strict health records.Within 15 days <strong>of</strong> a purchase, sellers must <strong>of</strong>fer a refund or a replacement pup to owners whose dogs are diseased. Within one year <strong>of</strong> a purchase, buyers can get a refund or replacementfor a dog with birth defects that limit its life.Sellers must disclose a dog's origins, including how many litters the breeder sold the previous year. It remains to be seen how effective this law will be. Two states that have such laws showtwo possible outcomes.Virginia, first in the nation to enact a similar law a year ago, has barely made use <strong>of</strong> the new tool, the Waynesboro News Virginian reported. One high-volume breeder was shut down thisyear, but authorities didn't use the puppy-mill law to bust him. Instead, he was accused <strong>of</strong> animal cruelty.Pennsylvania, infamous for having many puppy mills, reports dramatic changes since a new law went on the books last fall. In Lancaster County alone, 52 kennels have either closed orannounced they'll do so by the end <strong>of</strong> the year, the York Daily Record/Sunday News reported.Large exoticsS.B. 391 modifies existing law regarding private ownership <strong>of</strong> primates, large exotic cats, canines that aren't domestic dogs, bears and crocodilians.Up until now, you could own one <strong>of</strong> these, provided you fulfilled a number <strong>of</strong> requirements regarding care and safety and obtained a permit from the Oregon Department <strong>of</strong> Agriculture.<strong>The</strong> new law allows those who've been issued a permit previously, or who obtain one within 90 days <strong>of</strong> Jan.1, to keep their animals. Someone who buys an animal from that list before Jan.1and can prove that the animal is kept in the manner required by law can get a permit within one year.In essence, you can't buy a new exotic pet after Friday, and the agriculture department will not issue any new permits after Jan. 1, 2011.<strong>The</strong> law provides a number <strong>of</strong> exemptions, such as for service monkeys used by people with certain disabilities, research facilities, wildlife rehabilitation centers and others.But private ownership <strong>of</strong> these animals as pets will become severely limited.<strong>The</strong> law does not affect owners <strong>of</strong> common exotics such as parrots, rodents, snakes or other reptiles.It makes an exception for exotic felines that weigh less than 50 pounds, if they're used to breed hybrid cats such as Bengal or Savannah cats.Spectator sportsIf your idea <strong>of</strong> a Saturday night is going out to the dogfights or cockfights, you may want to reconsider. A new law toughens penalties for attending or facilitating animal fights.S.B. 280 makes it a felony to participate in events that feature "combat between animals" in any way, shape or form. Previously, doing so was a misdemeanor.Participation includes, among other activities, attending, betting on, promoting and conducting animal fights, as well as selling equipment meant to train animals to fight.Basically, if you're anywhere near any part <strong>of</strong> an organized animal fight, you can be charged with a felony.Horse dumpingPrevious law concerning animal abandonment was a little unclear on horses' status.It was a Class B misdemeanor to "leave a domestic animal at a location without providing minimal care." But the law made an exception for livestock. Were horses domestic animals orlivestock? Depended on whom you asked.Under S.B. 398, it will now be illegal to leave a domestic animal or an "equine" someplace without minimal care. And leaving an animal tied outside a shelter or vet clinic is no defenseagainst the charge."Equine," by the way, covers "horse, pony, donkey, mule, hinny, zebra or a hybrid <strong>of</strong> any <strong>of</strong> these animals."Animal abusersTwo new laws prevent those who've been convicted <strong>of</strong> animal abuse or neglect from getting an animal again.S.B. 298 mandates agencies that receive a confiscated animal from authorities -- such as humane societies -- to place restrictions on those who subsequently adopt the animal.
Change language