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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

The Monthly National Legislation Reporthttp://mnlreport.typepad.com/Page 98 of 3307/5/2010Dog-related bills pending in the General Assembly:• House Bill 2: Increases penalties for animal fighting and attendance at animal fights. In Senate Judiciary Committee.• Senate Bill 21: Mandatory six-month prison term for animal fighting, possession of fighting animals and providing a premises for animal fighting. In Senate Judiciary Committee.• House Bill 77: Makes it clear that courts can award custody of a pet to a petitioner for a protection-from-abuse order. In Senate Judiciary Committee.• House Bill 78: Prohibits the sale of puppies less than 8 weeks old. In House Judiciary Committee.• House Bill 95: Prohibits the possession of more than 25 breeding dogs at one time. In House Agriculture Committee.• House Bill 278: Prohibits the sale of dogs and cats in open-air markets. In House Judiciary Committee.• House Bill 293: Prohibits keeping a dog outside in extreme weather, also regulates tethering and enclosures. In House Housing and Community Affairs Committee.FLORIDAS122 - Relating to Sale of Dogs and Cats - Requires that additional information relating to the genetic disorders to which dogs and cats are susceptible be included in the written notice thatpet dealers provide to a consumer at the time of sale, etc. APPROPRIATION: $82,669.EFFECTIVE DATE: 07/01/2010. 10/05/09 SENATE FiledMarion County – (10/27/09) - Earlier this month, the Marion County Code Enforcement Board delivered the verdict that Patricia McBee had dreaded: It declared her collies Skye and Gracie,and her Australian shepherd puppy Frosty to be "dangerous dogs."Animal control officers confiscated the dogs in September after two eyewitnesses said they circled and nipped at China, aneighbor's dying cat. Board member Tom Gaver, who did not vote with the majority, said he didn't think this case was the kind the county ordinance was designed to address. Cases thatcome before the board often involve habitual offenders. There were no filed complaints against McBee's dogs until last month. "I don't know if I can make a fair decision," Gaver added afterthe Oct. 14 hearing. What is considered "fair" in regard to dangerous dog laws is being hotly contested these days - both locally, by McBee and her allies, and nationally by lawyers andadvocacy groups. At issue is whether the burden of proof for declaring a dog dangerous is so low that normally docile pets are being lumped together with truly aggressive dogs. The localeffort, at least, is getting some attention from government: Last week, County Commissioner Mike Amsden called for the dangerous dog ordinance to be revised. "I almost feel like it's a one "size fits all, and I don't think that it's necessarily appropriate that one size fits all because everyone has a little bit of a different set of circumstances," Amsden said. Commission Chairman JimPayton said he agreed with Amsden's assessment and called for a workshop, conducted with the idea that there would be ‘some change" to the ordinance. But change might be coming, afterall. Commissioner Amsden noted that the intent of the ordinance was to protect humans from dangerous dogs, but that it seemed increasingly that domestic animals, in which "naturalinstinct" likely governed their behavior, were being snared by the law. The commissioner suggested the board could draw from regulations enacted by other communities or national groups."In fairness to the pet owners and to the pets, and to the victims and to the victims' pets, we should probably take a little bit broader look at it," Amsden said. Members of the Greater OcalaDog Club will continue to discuss the county's dangerous dog ordinance. Their next meeting is at 7 p.m. Nov. 3 at the Gander Mountain store in Ocala.Mary Esther – (10/24/09) - The circus is in town, but not everyone is happy to see it. The Animal Rights Foundation of Florida recently contacted Mary Esther City Attorney Bruce Bowman toask the city to enforce its ordinance preventing circuses from forcing animals to perform by causing them pain. The Animal Rights Foundation’s complaint was sent directly to Bowman, whodid not forward it on to anyone at City Hall. William Bradley with the city’s Code Enforcement Department said he had not received any complaints about animal abuse related to the circus. Ifthe city does get a complaint, Bradley said it would be investigated by the Panhandle Animal Welfare Society, which contracts with the city on animal care needs. Renee Storey, vicepresident-administration of the Cole Bros. Circus, said the animals are not abused. Storey said Cole Bros. Circus, like other circuses, works closely with the U.S. Department of Agriculture tomake sure its animals are not mistreated. The USDA is constantly updated on where the circus is traveling and can inspect operations at any time. Click here - To read a statementregarding the circus animal care policies and the Mary Esther ordinance regarding animal performances within city limits.GEORGIAGainesville (10/24/09) - The Executive Director of what is now the Humane Society of Northeast Georgia in Gainesville says he would support a law requiring cat and dog owners to spayand neuter their pets. Rick Aiken says the Humane Society staff is now able to pursue their true mission, to keep animals as long as they are physically and mentally stable until they can finda home for them. The Humane Society no longer takes strays; that ended when the facility's contract with the county ended and the county shelter opened. Aiken said its time there’s a lawrequiring spay and neuter. "Until we wake up and pass ordinances and make people responsible for animals being allowed to breed, it will continue; I very much believe that if we're going tostop this problem, it is going to take requiring spaying and neutering or some type of licensing fee to get it spayed or neutered."Madison County – (10/21/09) - Investigators still don't know exactly how a dog broke loose from its chain and attacked a 5-year-old boy inside a neighboring house Friday in Hull. Friday'smauling was the 43rd dog-on-human bite called in to Madison County officials this year. Madison County commissioners will discuss an amendment to local law Monday that would give theanimal control officer the right to take dogs and euthanize them after one human attack. UPDATE: - (10/26/09) - A new amendment to the Madison County animal control ordinance willlessen the chances of dangerous dog attacks, officials say. Madison County commissioners agreed at their Monday meeting that they should add an amendment to the county animalordinance to address dangerous dogs. The amendment will give the county's animal control officer the authority to impound dogs that attack and injure people. Georgia law gives owners 60days to pen and get liability insurance for a dangerous dog or potentially dangerous dog - a dog that bites someone without being provoked. The new amendment will give the county powerto impound the dog during that process. The law targets dogs that cause injuries that require medical attention, Youngblood said.HAWAII(10/28/09) - The state Department of Health is investigating citizens' complaints about feral cats at Kakaako Waterfront Park, but the problem is not limited to that Honolulu neighborhood andthe public nuisance needs to be dealt with islandwide. The unfettered cats, and the malodorous urine and feces they leave behind, pose a potential health risk, make public parks lesshospitable to people and present a tainted image to tourists who think of Hawaii as paradise. The investigation of the burgeoning feral cat population should not begin and end at KakaakoWaterfront Park.IDAHOMountain Home – (10/4/09) - During a meeting Monday evening, the Mountain Home City Council proposed additional changes to the city's animal control ordinance, including restrictionson owning more than three pets in multiple family units. If signed into law, the revised ordinance may include eliminating pet turn-in fees at the city animal shelter while cutting annuallicensing fees for cat owners.Pocatello – (10/30/09) - A newly formed group that seeks to change the city's vicious dog ordinance plans to pack City Hall Wednesday during a special meeting being held by the AnimalShelter Advisory Board. The special meeting was called to take public comment on the issue. The advisory board plans to review the city ordinance that deals with vicious animals, and couldrecommend changes. The City Council, however, will have the final say on any proposed changes. Anderson encouraged members to also voice their concerns during Thursday's regularCity Council meeting and keep the pressure on until the city agrees to change the ordinance. Among other things, the group wants to get rid of language in the ordinance that states dogs canbe labeled vicious if they are in an "apparent or perceived" manner of attack, and to include a clause that requires dogs labeled as vicious to be assessed by a separate group not associatedwith Animal Control. They also want to change the part of the ordinance that says that after a second offense, animals labeled vicious "shall" be destroyed. They would like to change it to"may" be destroyed. Group members also agreed to ask the City Council to include the issue during one of its month study sessions. "This is an important issue that needs to be looked at ina study session," Anderson said. "Let it be known, these are just a few of the recommendations we have and additional recommendations we want to be presented to the City Council andadvisory board during a study session." Anderson said a group called Portneuf Animal Welfare Society has formed in an effort to help animals and their owners. The group is trying to raisefunds to do things like provide animal owners whose dogs have been labeled vicious with legal assistance, and purchase dog and cat food for animal owners who can't afford it. Anydonations for the group can be sent to "Portneuf Animal Welfare Society, P.O. Box 1603, Pocatello, ID 83204."ILLINOIS(10/28/09) –FYI - From Congressman Mark Kirk, 10th District, IlinoisDear Friends,Knowing of your continued interest in animal rights, I am writing to updateyou on my work in Congress.The Fur Products Labeling Act of 1951 requires manufacturers to label animalfur garments with the name of species used, manufacturer and country oforigin. But a loophole in the law exempts labeling products that cost less
The Monthly National Legislation Reporthttp://mnlreport.typepad.com/Page 99 of 3307/5/2010than $150.The Humane Society recently discovered that fur from dogs killed in Chinaare used in clothing sold in the United States. Due to their low cost, nodisclosure of the dog fur is required by U.S. law. In my view, Americansshould have the right to know whether the clothing they purchase containsanimal fur - especially if the fur comes from dogs.This week, I signed on as a cosponsor of H.R. 2480, the Truth in FurLabeling Act of 2009. This bipartisan legislation would eliminate the $150loophole and require the disclosure of all fur products. The bill wouldallow American consumers to make more informed purchases.As a member of the Congressional Animal Protection Caucus and a recipient ofthe Humane Society's Congressional Leader Award, I will continue to supportthis legislation as it moves forward.Thank you again for your continued interest in animal rights. Please feelfree to forward this email along to other interested constituents or shareit on your Facebook or MySpace page. As always, do not hesitate to contactme at 847-940-0202 or via my Web site should issues of concern to you comebefore the Congress.Sincerely,Mark KirkMember of CongressAurora – (10/8/09) - There was more barking than usual at Tuesday night's City Council committee meeting, as aldermen debated whether to move ahead with a $63,000 dog park on theEast Side.The proposed park is part of an $800,000 renovation-in-progress at Phillips Park. Begun in 2007, the renovation will eventually include a skate park, a volleyball court, a splash padand a walking path with exercise stations. The city is about halfway through the project, according to Rosario DeLeon, the city's chief operations officer, and has spent about $430,000 so far.But the renovation was planned before the economy took its biggest tumble, and now, with a looming $19 million deficit projected for the city next year, some aldermen are questioningwhether to scale back the expensive project or put it off entirely. Alderman Rick Lawrence, 4th Ward, balked at the price, questioning why a dog park would be so expensive. Lawrence'sWest Side ward has a dog park, which he describes as "a fenced-in area with grass, and it works very well." Alderman Leroy Keith, 9th Ward, questioned whether the dog park should be builtat all. However, he said, if the city doesn't complete that part of the project, it stands to lose the entire matching grant. The full City Council will consider the issue at its regular meeting onOct. 13. M&M Peters Construction is owned by the brother of Alderman John "Whitey" Peters, and Peters plans to abstain from the vote.Chicago – (10/6/09) - Owners of dogs making excessive noise that “unnecessarily disturbs” their human neighbors soon will face fines of between $50 and $250 a day under an ordinanceChicago aldermen approved without dissent today. Under the measure, which takes effect Nov. 17, the noise would have to occur continually for at least 10 minutes or intermittently for “asignificant portion of the night.” It also would have to be louder than the average conversation at a distance of 100 feet or more. Police or animal control officials could make thatdetermination, or three residents from different addresses could sign a complaint. Enforcement, however, is always key when the City Council approves such ordinances. Here's how themeasure defines excessive noise: “repeated or habitual barking, whining, crying, howling (and) whimpering.” It's aimed at dogs but also would apply to any animal. Without such anordinance, police and animal control workers have no authority to intervene when people make complaints about loud animals.Elgin – (10/16/09) - At Wednesday's Elgin City Council meeting, about 30 people showed up to protest a proposed pit bull ban by the city council. Two councilmen, John Prigge and BobGilliam, have openly advocated a pit bull ban.Hebron – (10/11/09) - Several dog owners, is concerned about a little-enforced, little-known zoning provision in Hebron that limits the number of dogs that can be owned to two perhousehold. Any more than that is considered a kennel and cannot exist in a residential area. The issue again will be discussed by the Village Board at its Committee of the Whole meetingMonday. No vote will be taken, but the board likely will try to reach a consensus on the contentious issue. A vote is expected to be taken at the board’s Oct. 19 meeting. The dog ordinancediscussion largely was triggered by Village Board member Susan Ritzert, who has a neighbor with four dogs. Ritzert has said that the dogs often barked, had been in her yard numeroustimes, and had trampled her garden. Ritzert has said that others in Hebron had similar complaints. One of the problems the Village Board is trying to resolve is a conflict in its ownordinances. Although Hebron’s zoning ordinance effectively limits dog ownership to two, the village also adopted the McHenry County Animal Control ordinance that does not limit dogownership to a specific number. If Hebron officials decide to keep the limit to two and more vigorously enforce the requirement, it would be the most stringent in the county. Cary, Fox RiverGrove, Huntley, McCullom Lake and Wonder Lake all limit the number of dogs in a household to three. Johnsburg, Lake in the Hills, Marengo and Algonquin limit it to four. Alden, Bull Valley,Crystal Lake, Harvard, Island Lake, Lakemoor, McHenry, Richmond, Spring Grove and Woodstock have no limit. Village Trustee Jim Kastner has proposed that Hebron change its definitionof a kennel in its zoning ordinance. Kastner suggested that Hebron classify a commercial kennel and a private kennel. A private kennel could be in a residential area but would need aspecial- use permit.LaSalle County – (10/15/09) - The La Salle County Board's Animal Control Committee is ready to recommend the county join with most other local counties in establishing a split-fee systemfor dog registration fees. Under the proposal, the registration fee for dogs not spayed or neutered would be doubled. At its meeting Wednesday, the committee also reached agreement thatthe county should require all dogs also be microchipped to assist with owner identification. The committee plans to have the necessary ordinance drawn up and approved by the committee atits next meeting in time to be voted on at the full County Board meeting Friday, Nov. 20.Park Ridge – (10/15/09) - The Park Ridge City Council held off on moving forward with new laws pertaining to "dangerous dogs" this week in order for suggestions from the Park RidgeRecreation and Park District, and possibly some residents, to be incorporated into the ordinance. The proposed ordinance does not ban or set regulations for specific dog breeds, and alsoprohibits residents from keeping dogs for the purpose of dog fighting. Removed from the ordinance was a definition that declared an animal dangerous if the unprovoked animal approachedany person "in a vicious or terrorizing manner" or "in an apparent attitude of attack." Some residents expressed concerns at Monday night's council meeting about what actually constitutes adangerous dog and what a "known propensity" really means. The City Council is expected to resume discussion of the dangerous-animals ordinance at a Committee of the Whole meetingscheduled for Nov. 9.INDIANABloomington – (10/26/09) - The Bloomington City Council approved a change the city's animal code Monday night. The new ordinance limits the number of cats and dogs a resident canown to 19. The legislature's fight in the last session over puppy mills inspired the campaign. The state's puppy mill bill said local governments could also regulate animals. But, the deadline isDecember 31. The proposed changes included guidelines for pet stores to reveal the history of the animals they sell, restrictions on how pets may be housed and a limit of 19 animals perhousehold.Elkhart – (10/6/09) - The City of Elkhart continues to weigh the pros and cons of a proposed ban on pit bulls. A special committee was formed to look into the issue and later make arecommendation to the City Council. That nine-person committee will get together Tuesday night to discuss the proposal. The committee includes people on both sides of the issue. Aswritten, the original proposal would ban pit bulls within city limits, but grandfather in current pit bull owners provided they meet certain requirements like muzzling their dogs and getting$300,000 worth of insurance. Some committee members hope the ordinance will be changed so it doesn't single out one breed. The committee is scheduled to meet a total of four times andwill give its recommendations to the City Council by November 1. A vote could come in mid-November. UPDATE: (10/25/09) - The ad hoc committee appointed to study and makerecommendations to the Public Health & Safety Committee of the Common Council of the City of Elkhart for a new animal control ordinance will meet on Tuesday, October 27, 2009, at 6:00p.m., in the Council Chambers, Municipal Building, 229 S. Second Street, Elkhart. The meeting is open to the public, but no public comments will be heard. UPDATE: (10/28/09) - Anew animal ordinance for Elkhart that started as a proposed ban on Pitbulls isn't ready to go yet. A committee of experts has been studying the issue for a month. The committee wasoriginally scheduled to present new legislation to the city council early next week, but the nine-member commission needs more time. After four meetings, the group has made its waythrough two-thirds of a 30-page draft, including a section on licensing and restraining vicious and dangerous dogs. The committee plans to meet twice next week and hopes to have a draft ofthe ordinance ready for the public soon after those sessions. The group still hasn't discussed a possible ban of specific breeds, like Pitbulls.Lafayette – (10/14/09) - Under a proposed amendment, citizens may be permitted to house additional pets if they are willing to pay for them. The Lafayette Animal Control Commissionsuggested Tuesday that the city's current ordinance, which limits the number of animals to three cats and three dogs per dwelling, be altered to allow people to purchase permits in order toown more pets. In September, the commission discussed a proposal that would increase the total number of pets to seven with a maximum of five dogs per home, but that proposal wasreconsidered after receiving public comment. According to Laura Bartrom, chairwoman of the commission, an individual interested in getting a permit to have more pets would have to havehis or her home inspected to ensure the animals would be properly taken care of.She said the price of the permits would be decided after receiving feedback from local law enforcement agencies to determine the cost of each inspection."I think that is an excellentcompromise," Bartrom said. "It was good to hear all of the sides of the debate." Lt. Chris Weaver of the Lafayette Police Department said once news of a possible limit increase got out, hegot feedback from citizens that was overwhelmingly negative."
Page 2:
The Monthly National Legislation Re
Page 6 and 7:
Page 8 and 9:
Page 10 and 11:
Page 12 and 13:
Page 14 and 15:
Page 16 and 17:
Page 18 and 19:
Page 20 and 21:
Page 22 and 23:
Page 24 and 25:
Page 26 and 27:
Page 28 and 29:
Page 30 and 31:
Page 32 and 33:
Page 34 and 35:
Page 36 and 37:
Page 38 and 39:
Page 40 and 41:
Page 42 and 43:
Page 44 and 45:
Page 46 and 47:
Page 48 and 49: The Monthly National Legislation Re
Page 50: The Monthly National Legislation Re
Page 97: The Monthly National Legislation Re
Page 149 and 150:
Page 151 and 152:
Page 153 and 154:
Page 155 and 156:
Page 157 and 158:
Page 159 and 160:
Page 161 and 162:
Page 163 and 164:
Page 165 and 166:
Page 167 and 168:
Page 169 and 170:
Page 171:
Page 174 and 175:
Page 176 and 177:
Page 178 and 179:
Page 180 and 181:
Page 182 and 183:
Page 184 and 185:
Page 186 and 187:
Page 188 and 189:
Page 190 and 191:
Page 192 and 193:
Page 194 and 195:
Page 196 and 197:
Page 198 and 199:
Page 200 and 201:
Page 202 and 203:
Page 204 and 205:
Page 206 and 207:
Page 208 and 209:
Page 210 and 211:
Page 212 and 213:
Page 214 and 215:
Page 216 and 217:
Page 218 and 219:
Page 220 and 221:
Page 222 and 223:
Page 224 and 225:
Page 226 and 227:
Page 228 and 229:
Page 230 and 231:
Page 232 and 233:
Page 234 and 235:
Page 236 and 237:
Page 238 and 239:
Page 240 and 241:
Page 242 and 243:
Page 244 and 245:
Page 246 and 247:
Page 248 and 249:
Page 250 and 251:
Page 252 and 253:
Page 254 and 255:
Page 256 and 257:
Page 258 and 259:
Page 260 and 261:
Page 262 and 263:
Page 264 and 265:
Page 266 and 267:
Page 268 and 269:
Page 270 and 271:
Page 272 and 273:
Page 274 and 275:
Page 276 and 277:
Page 278 and 279:
Page 280 and 281:
Page 282 and 283:
Page 284 and 285:
Page 286 and 287:
Page 288 and 289:
Page 290 and 291:
Page 292 and 293:
Page 294 and 295:
Page 296 and 297:
Page 298 and 299:
Page 300 and 301:
Page 302 and 303:
Page 304 and 305:
Page 306 and 307:
Page 308 and 309:
Page 310 and 311:
Page 312 and 313:
Page 314 and 315:
Page 316 and 317:
Page 318 and 319:
Page 320 and 321:
Page 322 and 323:
Page 324 and 325:
Page 326 and 327:
Page 328 and 329:
Page 330:
show all

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

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?