<strong>The</strong> <strong>Monthly</strong> <strong>National</strong> <strong>Legislation</strong> <strong>Report</strong>http://mnlreport.typepad.com/<strong>Page</strong> 8 <strong>of</strong> <strong>330</strong>7/5/<strong>2010</strong>Rockville Centre Issues Ban On Pit Bulls, Rottweilers; Residents Protest. With their new law, less than a month old, the Rockville Centre Board <strong>of</strong> Trustees agreed to consider repealing it,bowing to pressure from a horde <strong>of</strong> animal rights activists and dog owners. A hearing is set for July 20 and dog owners said they'll be back in force to make sure it happens. New YorkState law has prohibited breed-specific laws for more than a decade and board members admit their law could very well be in conflict with state law.________________________________________________________________________________________NORTH CAROLINACharlotte – (6/14/10) - <strong>The</strong> City Council is considering tightening laws that regulate the way dog-owners chain up their pets. Monday, council members agreed to a set <strong>of</strong> proposed changesthat will be voted on in September. If the rules pass, chains used to tether dogs would have to be light weight and at least 10 feet long. It would also have to have a swivel on the neck sothere's less <strong>of</strong> a chance <strong>of</strong> strangulation. Council members decided to look into the issue after hearing concerns from a group called the Coalition to Unchain Dogs. "As big as this city is, I justdidn't think that it was legitimate for us to outlaw a dog in your backyard on a chain,” said Andy Dulin, a council member. “What we did though was we tried to make it more humane for theanimal." <strong>The</strong> Coalition to Unchain Dogs initially asked the City Council to make it illegal for dog owners to leave an animal chained up outside at all.Guilford County – (6/24/10) - Guilford County Considers Tougher Animal Laws. Guilford County <strong>of</strong>ficials are considering a tougher animal control ordinance, particularly involvingkennels, puppy mills and tethering. Recent attention surrounding kennels, puppy mills and animal tethering has the county considering changes to its animal control ordinance, according toGuilford County attorney Mark Payne. "A lot <strong>of</strong> times it takes something like some <strong>of</strong> the recent litigation and legislation that you've seen that hits close to home to galvanize people intotaking some action." Payne said. County staff recently formed a citizens' advisory group, consisting <strong>of</strong> animal lovers and activists, to review the county's ordinance and suggest changes. <strong>The</strong>current law does not address large scale breeders, for example. <strong>The</strong> group is also considering several tethering options, such as limiting the time an animal can be tied up, tethering theanimal with a trolley system so the animal has a wider range <strong>of</strong> motion or banning tethering altogether. Bennett says she hopes the county will also consider a mandatory microchip law,tougher penalties for bad owners and better knowledge among animal owners <strong>of</strong> what the law allows. Payne says the citizens' advisory group will make a recommendation to the board <strong>of</strong>commissioners in July or August, prior to a public hearing and then a board vote on a new ordinance.Haw River – (6/5/10) - Haw River dog ordinance draft may not sit well with pet owners.<strong>The</strong> Haw River city council will vote Monday on whether to revamp the town ordinance on animal control but some residents may growl before the new rules are passed. Town Manager JeffEarp said there have been recent issues with noise complaints concerning dogs. <strong>The</strong> draft <strong>of</strong> the new ordinance restricts the number <strong>of</strong> dogs that can live on a parcel <strong>of</strong> land within townlimits. Ownership <strong>of</strong> multiple dogs will be restricted based on the size <strong>of</strong> a parcel <strong>of</strong> land and no more than three dogs will be allowed on a plot <strong>of</strong> land regardless <strong>of</strong> its size should a draftordinance pass. Haw River would not be the first area town to have such rules on the books. <strong>The</strong> Burlington already restricts the number <strong>of</strong> dogs per property to two and Graham allowsthree. <strong>The</strong> draft also addresses inhumane treatment <strong>of</strong> animals, proper identification required for dogs and what becomes <strong>of</strong> a stray dog whose owner cannot be located. Dogs, however, areonly one issue that the revised ordinance will be addressing. <strong>The</strong> current draft <strong>of</strong> the revised ordinance includes new restrictions concerning horses, pigs and fowl, as well as domesticanimals such as dogs and cats. If the council votes to pass the current draft <strong>of</strong> the new ordinance Haw River residents will have 90 days to come into compliance. Residents have alsovoiced worries concerning what becomes <strong>of</strong> dogs once they are in the care <strong>of</strong> the town. All dogs that are seized by an animal control <strong>of</strong>ficer will be taken to the Alamance County animalshelter. At that time, the animals will be released to the owner, given to a rescue group, put up for adoption or euthanized depending on the situation. <strong>The</strong> ordinance will be voted on at theupcoming city council meeting on Monday at 7 p.m. UPDATE: (6/25/10) - Ordinance passed. Multiple dog owners are grandfathered in.Raleigh – (6/24/10) - N.C. gov., dog, toughen animal cruelty laws. North Carolina has a new law bearing its governor's signature and a dog's paw print that could put people in jail for theworst cases <strong>of</strong> animal abuse. Gov. Beverly Perdue on Wednesday signed a measure that threatens jail time for those who torture, starve or kill an animal. <strong>The</strong> punishment could be up toeight months behind bars, but a judge could agree to community service instead. On hand was Susie, who was a puppy last year when she was burned, beaten and left to die. A judge saidstate law allowed him to sentence the Greensboro man who abused Susie to no more than probation. After Perdue signed it, the owners <strong>of</strong> the female pit-bull mix placed Susie's paw on aninkpad and added her mark to the document.Raleigh – (7/3/10) - Puppy mills escape again ! A bill aimed at combating puppy mills by regulating commercial dog breeders in the state has failed for the second straight year,in part due to opposition from an industry that doesn't deal in dogs: the state's pork producers. <strong>The</strong> N.C. Pork Council, which represents a $2.2 billion industry in the state, opposed SenateBill 460, which sought to "eliminate abusive practices and provide for the humane care and treatment <strong>of</strong> dogs and puppies by establishing standards for their care at commercial breedingoperations." Angie Whitener, the Pork Council's lobbyist, said her group does not oppose puppies so much as the bill's main backers, the Humane Society <strong>of</strong> the United States. "OurDog opposition is solely based on the proponent <strong>of</strong> the bill," Whitener said. "We're very worried about this powerful, very wealthy animal rights organization." <strong>The</strong> bill, which did notwaving address livestock, was narrowly approved by the Senate last year. <strong>The</strong> House sent it to its finance committee, where it stalled this week because, according to the chairman, itflagcartoon was "too divisive."OHIORead more at the link !!_________________________________________________________________________________________(6/30/10) - In a surprising move today, Humane Society <strong>of</strong> the United States (HSUS) CEO Wayne Pacelle appeared with Ohio Governor Ted Strickland and a vice president <strong>of</strong> the OhioFarm Bureau to announce that his organization will not pursue its planned ballot initiative in November. <strong>The</strong> measure, aimed at Ohio’s livestock farmers,would have wrested control <strong>of</strong> livestock handling standards away from the Livestock Care Standards Board, which Ohio voters approved by a widemargin during the 2009 election. According to the announcement made at today’s 4:30pm press conference, HSUS has agreed to abandon its effort tocontrol how Ohio’s farmers raise animals. In exchange, Pacelle secured only a few weak promises from Governor Strickland concerning animal-welfaremeasures that had nothing to do with the reasons the group gave for coming into the Buckeye State; moreover, these concessions consist only <strong>of</strong>recommendations which will depend on the uncertain approval <strong>of</strong> Ohio’s legislature. David Martosko, the editor <strong>of</strong> www.HumaneWatch.org, is availableto comment on today’s press conference. HumaneWatch is the nation’s only sustained watchdog effort that follows HSUS’s activities on a day-to-daybasis. Martosko said: “This is an embarrassing defeat for the animal rights movement. HSUS came swaggering into Ohio promising to crush the farmers. In the end, HSUS got practicallynone <strong>of</strong> what it was demanding from livestock farmers. HSUS’s press release listing its animal agriculture ‘gains’ is laughable. It’s just a restatement <strong>of</strong> current law and anacknowledgement <strong>of</strong> the way livestock practices are already evolving. HSUS spent an enormous amount <strong>of</strong> its donors’ money to gain a small amount <strong>of</strong> leverage that could easilyevaporate if Governor Strickland isn’t re-elected in November.”(7/1/10) - For Immediate Release - For further information contact Sarah Hubbart –(703) 562-5160 - Agriculture Industry Must Learn From Disappointing Outcome in OhioJuly 1, <strong>2010</strong> - Ohio has represented an important and symbolic battleground for agriculture. Last fall, Ohioans overwhelmingly supported the creation <strong>of</strong> the Livestock Care StandardsBoard, a proactive effort meant to ensure the proper care <strong>of</strong> animals on the state's many farms.Unfortunately, Ohio's agricultural leadership has succumbed to pressures from the Humane Society <strong>of</strong> the United States, a national animal rights group that has effectively undermined theauthority <strong>of</strong> the newly-established board by imposing restrictions that mandate the way that producers can care for their animals.HSUS agreed to withdraw its pending initiative from the ballot this fall after the producer organizations agreed to meet certain important stipulations - including the phasing out <strong>of</strong>scientifically-based housing systems that will affect many producers in the state. A moratorium will be placed on the installation <strong>of</strong> new conventional cage systems used for laying hensand gestation stalls for pregnant sows. In HSUS' most far-reaching deal yet, the demands also included the Governor's agreement to encourage increased penalties for cockfighting,"puppy mills," and humane euthanasia to the state legislature.To be clear- the only group to benefit from this agreement is HSUS. Agriculture is the top industry in Ohio, contributing $79 billion to the state's economy each year. HSUS is an activistorganization that thrives on conflict- it does not contribute to the economy or tax base <strong>of</strong> Ohio. HSUS' campaign has served only to fundraise and gain momentum for its vegan agenda.Undoubtedly, the battle over the threatened ballot initiative would have been expensive and unpleasant- but it would have also sent a strong message to HSUS that the agriculturecommunity is united and committed to protecting the rights <strong>of</strong> farmers and ranchers to produce a plentiful, affordable, and nutritious food supply while using science-based standards toensure animal well-being.Instead, consumers in Ohio will soon either be subjected to increased prices for locally-raised animal protein products or will rely on conventionally-produced foods imported from nearbystates or elsewhere. Ohio's small and mid-sized family farms will be the ones most hurt by this agreement if they do not have the capital to invest in the conversion to alterative productionsystems.This "compromise" is only the beginning. HSUS CEO Wayne Pacelle has indicated that the agreement is "not legally binding," meaning that while HSUS will not be pursuing a ballotinitiative this fall, the future is still uncertain.Farmers and ranchers should consider this a final wake-up call. HSUS will not rest until the entire animal agriculture industry in the United States is eradicated. <strong>The</strong> group's leaders haveindicated time and time again <strong>of</strong> their true agenda - to systematically introduce legislation state-by-state that will drive producers out <strong>of</strong> business and make meat, milk, and eggs tooexpensive for the average American to enjoy.No one understands animal care better than farmers and ranchers- which is why the majority <strong>of</strong> producers follow nationally-recognized animal welfare guidelines. <strong>The</strong> agriculture industryhas evolved over the past 100 years to improve animal welfare and meet increased food demand. Reverting to 1950s style practices would not be beneficial to the animals nor theconsumer.HSUS is an extremist animal rights group that does not deserve a seat at the discussion table on issues <strong>of</strong> farm animal welfare. It is unfortunate that the Ohio Livestock Care StandardsBoard will not be given the opportunity to fulfill its responsibility- to ensure livestock care and promote safe and local food production. *
<strong>The</strong> <strong>Monthly</strong> <strong>National</strong> <strong>Legislation</strong> <strong>Report</strong>http://mnlreport.typepad.com/<strong>Page</strong> 9 <strong>of</strong> <strong>330</strong>7/5/<strong>2010</strong><strong>The</strong> Animal Agriculture Alliance, a 501(c) (3) non-pr<strong>of</strong>it organization, is a broad-based coalition <strong>of</strong> individual farmers, ranchers, producer organizations, suppliers, packerprocessors,private industry scientists, veterinarians, and retailers. <strong>The</strong> Alliance's mission is to communicate the important role <strong>of</strong> animal agriculture to our nation'seconomy, productivity, vitality, and security and that animal well-being is central to producing safe, high-quality, affordable food and other products essential to our dailylives.Cleveland – (6/24/10) - Cleveland Animal Shelter Works To Resolve Conflict with Rescue Groups. Assistant Police Chief Gary Hicks explained to the Animal Shelter Board thatmeshing animal control with rescue and adoption groups is like “”mixing water and oil.” <strong>The</strong> Animal Control Unit is under the supervision <strong>of</strong> the Cleveland Police Department. <strong>The</strong> AnimalShelter Board called an unscheduled meeting primarily to resolve concerns about getting pictures <strong>of</strong> animals brought to the shelter in a timely manner. By law, animals with tags are to beheld five days and without tags only three days before being euthanized. According to Shelter Director Gene Smith, tagged dogs that arrive at the Cleveland Shelter are usually held at least10 days. Many in the audience expressed a desire to volunteer at the Shelter, which, according to Chief Hicks, is understaffed. <strong>The</strong>re was a misunderstanding among some in the audiencewho thought the volunteer program no longer existed. City Manager Janice Casteel told those interested that the program was available and paperwork would be made available for anyoneinterested. A background check must be completed before acceptance into the program. A member <strong>of</strong> the audience made a plea for public education concerning low-cost spay and neuteringservices. Ms. Foster said that there a misconception in the community that an animal goes to the Shelter where it stays, possibly for months, until the perfect family comes along and they alllive happily forever. Out <strong>of</strong> 6,900 animals being handled in 2009, over 5,000 were euthanized.Columbus – (6/3/10) – Bill would regulate Ohio breeders, fight puppy mills. "It's these high-volume breeders that have given Ohio a black eye and has made Ohio the worst state in thecountry for breeding dogs," said Kellie Difrischia with Columbus Dog Connection. Difrischia has spent 4 and half years developing Senate Bill 95, also known as the puppy mill act. <strong>The</strong> goal<strong>of</strong> the bill was to develop regulations on breeders -- something that has never been done in Ohio. Difrischia said the bill will provide minimum care to dogs that are in kennels 24/7 and thatright now having no one watching them. Currently 32 states have passed or have pending regulations on breeders. Difrischia said she is hoping that the new regulations will stop convictedbreeders from coming to Ohio. "We have that welcome mat out saying we have no regulations come on in and do what you want," Difrischia said. "And it's time Ohio says enough is enough."Columbus – (6/23/10) – video at link - Livestock Amendment Could Help Animals, Raise Food Prices. H$U$ is the main sponsor <strong>of</strong> a constitutional amendment that would set newrules for Ohio livestock production. "We have well over 450,000 Ohioans who've signed this petition to put it on the ballot this November," says HSUS Ohio State Director Karen Minton. <strong>The</strong>proposed amendment would require the State Livestock Board approved by Ohio voters last November to create new rules governing the treatment <strong>of</strong> farm animals. Under the amendment,the Board would have six years to create the new rules and set minimum standards. It would prohibit extreme confinement that keeps animals "from lying down, standing up, fully extendinghis or her limbs, or turning around freely." For egg-producing hens that means "fully spreading both wings without touching the side <strong>of</strong> an enclosure or another egg-laying hen." <strong>The</strong> anticonfinementlanguage does not apply to rodeos, county fairs, 4-H programs, agricultural research or during slaughter. An Ohio State University Agricultural Economist predicts direconsequences for the farming community if the amendment passes. In a report released June 18, 2009, Emeritus Chaired Pr<strong>of</strong>essor Luther Tweeten looked at several studies and concluded that,"Eggs produced under conventional cage systems in surrounding states would have a 20 percent or more cost advantage over Ohio's farms producing under [California] Prop 2-type regulations. Ohiolaying hen producers would not be competitive." "Ohio would lose: laborers, livestock and crop producers, and the economy as a whole," Tweeten's report continues. He says the Ohio egg-producingindustry would be "decimated" and "other states would gain jobs and income at Ohio's expense as animal products consumed in Ohio would be produced elsewhere." <strong>The</strong> full text <strong>of</strong> the amendmentis downloadable as a .pdf file here.________________________________________________________________________________________PENNSYLVANIABelleville – (6/11/10) - New Pa. law putting puppy mills out <strong>of</strong> business. <strong>The</strong> state Bureau <strong>of</strong> Dog Law Enforcement is wagging its tail about the results, declaring Friday in its annualreport to the Legislature that Pennsylvania has become a "model state" for its oversight <strong>of</strong> commercial breeders. Pennsylvania had long been known as a breeding ground for puppy millswhen Gov. Ed Rendell signed <strong>of</strong>f on an overhaul <strong>of</strong> the dog law in 2008. <strong>The</strong> legislation was a response to appalling conditions in many large commercial breeding kennels, where dogs spentmost <strong>of</strong> their working lives inside cramped wire cages, stacked one atop the other, and got little grooming, veterinary care or exercise. Key provisions that went into effect in October requiredlarge-scale breeders to double cage sizes, eliminate wire flooring, and provide unfettered access to the outdoors. <strong>The</strong> new law also banned cage stacking, instituted twice-a-year vet checks,and mandated new ventilation and cleanliness standards. Many breeders have closed voluntarily rather than comply. <strong>The</strong> number <strong>of</strong> commercial kennels in Pennsylvania plummeted from303 at the beginning <strong>of</strong> 2009 to 111 today — a reduction <strong>of</strong> almost two-thirds — although a few <strong>of</strong> them are expected to reopen after making renovations, while other kennels got rid <strong>of</strong>enough dogs so that they are no longer classified as commercial operations. Thousands <strong>of</strong> former breeding dogs have been relinquished to shelters and placed in homes as pets. Dogs havealso been sold or transferred to other kennel owners in and out <strong>of</strong> state. "It's much more difficult now to run a puppy mill in Pennsylvania," said Sarah Speed, Pennsylvania state director <strong>of</strong><strong>The</strong> Humane Society <strong>of</strong> the United States. "I think the puppy mill business in Pennsylvania is absolutely on its way out."_________________________________________________________________________________________SOUTH CAROLINAR255, S932 - Hogs - AN ACT TO AMEND SECTION _50-16-25_CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE RELEASE OF PIGS FOR HUNTING PURPOSES, SOAS TO PROVIDE THAT IT IS UNLAWFUL TO POSSESS, BUY, SELL, OFFER FOR SALE, TRANSFER, RELEASE, OR TRANSPORTR266, S1294 - Coyotes - AN ACT TO AMEND SECTION _50-11-2540_CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE TRAPPING SEASON OF FURBEARINGANIMALS, SO AS TO CHANGE FROM JANUARY TO DECEMBER AS THE BEGINNING OF THE TRAPPING SEASON, TO DELETE THE MAXIMUM SIXTY-ONE DAY SEASONLIMITATION, TO AUTHORIZE THE TRAPPING OF COYOTES FROM DECEMBER FIRST OF EACH YEAR TO MARCH FIRST OF THE SUCCEEDING YEAR, AND AUTHORIZE THETAKING OF COYOTES BY OTHER LAWFUL MEANS AT ANY TIME DURING THE YEAR.Columbia – (6/7/10) - Cockfighting Arrests Highlight Need for Stiffer Penalties. South Carolina’s animal fighting laws are some <strong>of</strong> the most lax in the nation and the recent breakup <strong>of</strong>cockfighting ring in the Upstate has some calling for stiffer penalties. Roughly 50 people were arrested Sunday during a raid in northern Greenville County and charged with betting oncockfights. It’s currently a misdemeanor to host a cockfight, with a maximum penalty <strong>of</strong> a $1,000 fine and a year in jail. “It’s almost a slap on the wrist,” said Wayne Brennessel, with theHumane Society <strong>of</strong> Columbia. <strong>The</strong> Humane Society <strong>of</strong> the United States ranks South Carolina 44th in the nation for the severity <strong>of</strong> its cockfighting laws. Neighboring states Georgia and NorthCarolina are ranked 34th and 36th, respectively, where cockfighting is a felony. “<strong>The</strong> law certainly needs to be strengthened,” said state Sen. Larry Martin (R-Pickens). Martin is sponsoring abill that would make all types <strong>of</strong> animal fighting a felony in South Carolina. He said his bill, which he plans to introduce next session, would increase the penalties for animal fighting to 5 yearsand $5,000. “It’s a pretty severe punishment,” said Martin. “<strong>The</strong> folks that engage directly in the activity need to be more severely dealt with.” He hopes increasing the penalties will deteranimal fighting in the state. “It usually centers around gambling, that’s the big draw to an animal fight or a cockfight,” said Martin. “That’s why we need to be vigilant and enhance thesanctions, because what it leads to is obviously more egregious crimes.” “You’re also looking at potential money laundering situations, gambling, drugs, illegal weapons,” said Brennessel.“It’s not just the animal fighting, which in and <strong>of</strong> itself is despicable, but all the other potential crimes that go along with it.” Brennessel said he believes people are traveling to South Carolinafor cockfights because the penalties are less severe, than in other neighboring states. “I think we are attracting people from out <strong>of</strong> state,” he said. “You don’t want an unsavory elementattracted to your state.”_________________________________________________________________________________________TENNESSEEChattanooga – (6/24/10) - Hamilton Place Pet Store Not Subject To Chattanooga Animal Care Laws, Attorney Adam Pippinger Tells Judge. Attorneys for a Hamilton Place Mall petstore did not bother to contest testimony that animals in the establishment were kept in cages stacked in piles, or that many <strong>of</strong> the containers designed to hold feces and urine in the cageswere cracked and broken, enabling the waste from one cage to leak down onto the animals in the cages below. Likewise, they did not try to disprove allegations that <strong>The</strong> Pet Company alsoviolated numerous other city regulations, including mandates that animals be supplied with food and water, kept in sanitary conditions and receive veterinary care when they are ill. Rather,attorney Adam Pippinger argued on behalf <strong>of</strong> the store and its parent company, United Pet Supply Inc. <strong>of</strong> New Windsor, N.Y., it doesn’t matter how many Chattanooga regulations the storeviolates because those regulations do not apply to it. It is the <strong>National</strong> Code <strong>of</strong> Animal Regulations that United Pet and its retail outlets must follow, Mr. Pippinger told City Judge Sherry Paty.Arguing that state and local inspectors had proven no violations <strong>of</strong> the federal code, Mr. Pippinger demanded that the judge “summarily dismiss” the charges against his client and order thereturn <strong>of</strong> more than 30 animals seized by McKamey Animal Center during a June 15 raid. Under cross examination, however, Attorney Pippinger made mincemeat <strong>of</strong> most <strong>of</strong> the testimonygiven by the Department <strong>of</strong> Agriculture employee, who had admitted casually on direct examination that he is not familiar with the state codes he was hired to enforce._________________________________________________________________________________________
- Page 2: The Monthly National Legislation Re
- Page 6 and 7: 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 44 and 45: 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