(Part II will be published at the regularly scheduled time in Mid August)FEDERAL
WASHINGTON, DC - In a setback for the animal rights movement, a U.S. appeals court Friday (7/18/08) struck down on free-speech grounds a federal law that made it a crime to sell videos of dogfighting and other acts of animal cruelty.All 50 states have laws against the abuse of animals, the appeals court said, but "a depiction of animal cruelty" is protected by the 1st Amendment. The ruling overturns a Virginia man's 2005 conviction, the nation's first under the law. Robert J. Stevens of Pittsville, Va., advertised and sold two videos of pit bulls fighting each other and a third showing the pit bulls attacking hogs and wild boars.He sold the videos to federal agents in Pittsburgh, and was convicted and given three years in prison.In Friday's decision, the appeals court in Philadelphia, by a 10-3 vote, said it was not prepared to "recognize a new category of speech that is unprotected by the 1st Amendment." Acts of cruelty to animals "warrant strong legal sanctions," the appeals court said, but it ruled unconstitutional the effort to criminalize for-profit depictions of animal cruelty. Congress passed the law in 1999 in hopes of eradicating the trade in animal cruelty videos. Because the videos rarely showed people who could be identified, state prosecutors often could not prove where the videos were made.
NOTES OF IMPORTANCE
NRA EXPOSES TWISTED CURRICULUM
7/13/08 - The Web site NRA huntersrights.org has reported before on animal rights' groups that try to push their so-called educational materials into our school systems, but none have been as crazy as this one. "The Zargon Connection" is part of a free "Humane and Responsible Teachers" curriculum designed for grades pre-K-9. Created by the New Jersey Animal Rights Alliance (NJARA), the package includes classroom exercises, activities and lesson plans. These documents include NJARA advice like discouraging field trips to zoos and aquariums because they "perpetuate the belief that it's acceptable to imprison animals." One of NJARA's issues is the killing of wildlife for management or sport, and the Zargon Connection is the educational tool they want teachers to use - on sixth graders. It is a science fiction story in which Earth is invaded by Zargonians-aliens that hunt and eat human beings for sport. Parts of Earth have been "designated as human management areas where they hunt us for pleasure and for our meat, which is considered a delicacy by Zargonian gourmets." "Occasionally, in a technique known as baiting, Zargonians will set up a fast food restaurant or pizza parlor and burst in on us while we eat, with their street sweepers blazing." NRA huntingrights.org managing editor J.R. Robbins says he can't believe any elementary school teacher is foolish enough to use such demented material in a classroom. If you live in New Jersey, Robbins suggests you inquire if anything from NJARA is being used in your child's school. Even though the material is too extreme to take seriously, it still may find its way into a classroom. _____________________________________________________________________
ALABAMA
Arab - Marshall County - (7/16/08) Confusion reigned at the workshop meeting of the Marshall County Commission Thursday.The commission was discussing adopting a resolution saying the county's animal control officer will enforce the state's animal control law. There are animal control ordinances in most cities in Marshall County, but none for the unincorporated areas.The state law is used in most counties when there is no local ordinance. Members in the audience, however, thought the commission was trying to adopt a new animal control ordinance under the self-governance, or home rule, act. Most of those who attended oppose the act."Is this a new home rule ordinance?" one man asked."No," Commission Chairman Doug Fleming replied. "This has nothing to do with home rule. This has to do with adopting state law."The commission earlier this year hired an animal control officer, but it has no animal control law on the books.
State laws say that in order for the animal control officer to do the job he was hired to do, he has to be appointed by the commission and he has to have a set of rules to go by, according to county administrator Nancy Wilson."He's been hired, but he hasn't been appointed," Wilson said. "And the county hasn't adopted any animal control laws. In absence of local laws, the commission will adopt the state law."The law gives the officer the authority to remove an animal from a residence or order the owner of the animal to provide care for the animal."The law basically gives the officer the right to protect pets from cruelty," Wilson said. Lanting and Brothers are on the agenda for Monday's commission meeting. They are expected to again discuss and voice their beliefs that the home rule act is illegal.
ARIZONA
No report for Arizona
ARKANSAS
Greenwood - (8/3/08) - The city of Greenwood soon will be discussing proposed changes to its pet ordinance. One provision calls for the ban of all pit bulls within city limits.
Little Rock - (8/3/08) - Governor Beebe predicts Arkansas legislators will pass a tougher law on animal cruelty in 2009. Currently, animal cruelty is a misdemeanor. Two bills that would have made it a felony failed in the 2007 legislative session, when farmers and ranchers expressed concern they might be unfairly targeted. But Beebe said support is growing for a tougher measure. Senator Sue Madison of Fayetteville and Attorney General Dustin McDaniel have said they are working separately on animal cruelty measures for the 2009 session. Madison sponsored 1 of the bills in the 2007 session. It would have made aggravated cruelty to dogs, cats and horses a felony on the first offense. A rival bill by Representative Rick Saunders of Hot Springs would have made animal cruelty a felony only for a second offense occurring within five years.
CALIFORNIA
AB1634 - Up to the minute report from Brat Zinsmaster from the front line - (8/4/08) - Thank you, Brat !
AB1634 has "not" been officially logged into the Senate Daily Journal yet (which is needed for a reading). However, per my conversation this afternoon with the Office of Secretary of the Senate, AB1634 will be logged into the Journal today. The 2nd reading should occur tomorrow, Tuesday, 5 August. [The 2nd reading is basically a formality that indicates the bill has come out of Committee.]I was also informed that the bill will most likely have the 3rd reading on Thursday, 7 August, unless it is amended on the 2nd reading. To date, as of this writing, the most recent amendment for AB1634 is 1 July 2008. It will be considered as amended today when it is logged into the Journal and should be available online tomorrow for the 4 August amended version. Senate Floor Sessions are scheduled "live" for viewing tomorrow (Tuesday) and Thursday this week. Note: Due to the large volume of bills to be heard on the Senate floor, there is a possibility that additional days can be added to the Senate Floor Session schedule. If that is to occur, it would be announced in tomorrow's live session. Link to live session beginning at 9 AM Tuesday (8/5/08) here.
PROP 2 - IMPORTANT FACTS FOR PROP 2
Attorneys who are analyzing the legal consequences of the initiative for agricultural and food interests in California, whose "Californians for SAFE Food" coalition is organized to educate Californians on the initiative and urge them to vote no on the measure. The initiative - which has been designated "Proposition 2," or "Prop 2" - is directed at the treatment of farm animals and, if passed, would require that farm animals not be confined or tethered in a manner that prevents an animal from lying down, standing up, turning around and fully extending its limbs. For a hen in an egg production system, fully extending its limbs means extending its wings without touching the side of an enclosure, such as a cage, or another hen, according to the initiative. The initiative is directed at cage housing systems for hens and sow and veal calf stalls, but recent studies found that even most barn, or cage-free, housing systems for hens would be prohibited under the requirement. The law would become effective on 1 January 2015, and would carry penalties for violations of a fine not to exceed $1,000 and/or a jail term not to exceed 180 days. Legal observers have said violations could cover each animal. Normally in California, investigations surrounding and arrests for alleged violations of criminal statutes are conducted by law enforcement and prosecutorial authorities. However, in a paper based on legal opinion, it was noted that California law is unique in that enforcement of animal cruelty and welfare laws "can be undertaken and/or compelled by any individual or by certain non-profit organizations".
The paper quoted California Penal Code 599a, which provides that an individual, who can represent a non-profit organization, can compel issuance of search warrants upon making a complaint under oath. When such a complaint is made to any magistrate authorized to issue warrants that the complainant believes that any law relating to, or in any way affecting, "dumb animals or birds is being, or is about to be, violated in any particular building or place", that magistrate must issue a warrant to any law enforcement officer or to an officer of a legally qualified association "authorizing him to enter and search that building or place and to arrest any person there violating, or attempting to violate" the law, according to the summation of the penal code. The initiative qualified for the ballot through a petition carried by animal activists led by Farm Sanctuary and the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS), both non-profit organizations. Accordingly, the paper suggested that any representative of Farm Sanctuary, HSUS or other animal activist group "would be free to demand and execute warrants and make arrests" to enforce the initiative. The empowerment of non-profit organizations to enforce California animal cruelty laws are further provided for in California Corporations Code Sections 10400 and 14502, noting that representatives of such organizations can obtain "peace officer" powers with respect to animal welfare laws. This unique enforcement feature is almost never referred to by supporters of Prop 2 and is not ordinarily understood by the voting public.
Hermosa Beach - (7/17/08) - After three hours of emotional testimony in a “vicious dog” hearing in which a family sought the death or prohibition of a neighbor’s two-year-old pit bull that they allege attacked their two-year-old boy, a mediator ruled this week that dog’s actions were not vicious and its owners would not be forced to have the dog euthanized or barred from the city. But the North Redondo neighborhood in which the incident took place on May 30 has been changed. Both the family of the young boy and the owners of the dog have put their houses on the market, and pending civil litigation – in which the boy’s family seeks compensation for emotional damages allegedly incurred in the incident – insure that the quarrel will not end any time soon. Animal behavior specialist Richard Polsky testified that he had observed the dog in its confinement, talked to its handlers, and gone over the evidence surrounding the incident, and in so doing had reached the conclusion that the dog was not vicious and had not attacked the child. “The overriding conclusion from my perspective as an animal behaviorist is that the injury inflicted upon this child did not happen out of the dog’s aggressive intent,” Polsky said. Don Karpel, a lawyer representing Bell and Cone, stressed that the couple are responsible dog owners. This was an extremely big financial hit for them, but they did everything the could possibly do – before and after this incident – to take care of the situation and be responsible pet owners.” That said, Karpel said the incident would have unfolded far differently if the breed involved were not a pit bull. “It would never have come to this situation, there’s no question in my mind,” Karpel said. “When they heard it was a pit bull or a pit bull mix, people just took a whole different reaction to it. The whole breed is condemned.”
Pasadena - City Council Public Safety Committee met yesterday, (7/15/08) and sent to the full Council, without recommendation, the proposed Breed Specific Mandatory Spay and Neuter Ordinance to require American Pit Bull Terriers, American Staffordshire Terriers, and Staffordshire Bull Terriers or mixes thereof to be spayed or neutered at 8 weeks of age. Date for the Council agenda is pending. The law takes advantage of SB 861, a state Senate bill passed in 2005 that allows cities to regulate dogs based on breed. Pasadena would be the first in the region to enact a breed-specific ordinance.
Santa Barbara County - Board of Supervisors passed a motion (05/06/08) to "create a task force to include County staff and selected members of the community/stakeholder groups (two members from the Second, Third, Fourth and Fifth Supervisorial Districts, three members from the First Supervisorial District) and to return to the Board as appropriate with proposed draft language for a spay/neuter ordinance." Applications for this "Task Force on Local Spay/Neuter Ordinance" are due by 5 p.m., Friday, July 25. The application states, "Selected task forcemembers will serve for approximately 3 5 months, participate in meetings in various geographic areas of the County, tour animal shelters, and work towards a consensus draft ordinance that is brought back to the Board of Supervisors for their consideration." Emphasizing the "consensus" aspect of task forces, the application concludes, "Please describe your experience working with other task forces, teams, groups, or organizations where consensus was built with input and participation from all team members."
Stanislaus County - (7/17/08) - Animal control fees in Stanislaus County went up almost across the board Tuesday night, despite some misgivings from supervisors. The new fee schedule for things such as adoptions, impound fees, and spay and neuter vouchers comes because the county fees had fallen far behind comparable counties, according to Dave Young, interim animal services director. The Stanislaus fees are 25 percent to 50 percent less than others on an eight-county survey the county uses for salary comparisons as well as a variety of fee comparisons. Under the new schedule, the dog adoption fee will rise from $75 to $90, and a dog license for an unaltered dog will rise from $100 annually to $150. The license fee for an altered dog will remain at $12. Cat adoption fees will stay at $45 to provide an incentive for cat adoptions, Young said.
COLORADO
De Beque - (7/20/08) - De Beque might become Mesa County’s third home-rule community.
But few, if any, residents seem to know why the tiny town of less than 500 residents would.
Last week the De Beque Board of Trustees voted unanimously — four of the six trustees attended — to place the question on the November ballot. If voters approve, they also will have to vote for a seven-member committee that would draft a home-rule charter, a process that could take up to six months. Once the charter is drafted, voters in De Beque would return to the polls to vote on it.
NOTE: HOME-RULE FACTS
• Municipalities in Colorado have either a statutory government or a home-rule government. De Beque is a statutory community, meaning it cannot pass ordinances without the consent of the Colorado Legislature. A home-rule community could decide for itself how it wants to address local issues, having all powers not expressly denied it by the Colorado Constitution or Legislature.
• Two other cities in Mesa County are home ruled: Grand Junction since 1909, Fruita since 1981. • There are 96 home-rule communities and 271 statutory communities in the state, according to the Colorado Municipal League.
• Mesa County attempted to become a home-rule county in 2002. The measure was defeated in a landslide: 6,856 residents voted in favor and 32,273 against, according to the Mesa County Clerk and Recorder’s Office.
When the town of Parachute had a problem with Pit Bulls last year, its status as a home-rule community allowed it to address the problem in a way it couldn’t have otherwise.
At the time, many in the community wanted pit bulls banned. If it had been a statutory community, the only way to do that would have been to appeal to the Colorado Legislature, said Denise Chiaretta, Parachute’s town clerk. Its status as a home-rule community gave Parachute the ability to change the law to reflect local concerns. The town held public meetings and did change its local ordinances in regard to dogs. “When we first became home rule, we tried to do an ordinance to ban specific dogs, but we had such an outcry from the citizenry we made a vicious-dog ordinance instead, which is the one thing we couldn’t have done without home rule,” she said. Other than the dog ordinance, the change to home rule has not had much of an impact on Parachute, she said. But home-rule status does allow Parachute more local control on issues important to the community, she said.
Englewood - (8/3/08) - Englewood residents now have just 72 hours to pick up their pet's poo — in their own yards. City officials are quick to point out there won't be a poop patrol in this Denver suburb but that the policy is another means to enforce infractions if someone complains about undue piles in a neighbor's property.
Peetz - (7/15/08) - At the Peetz Town Council meeting Tuesday (7/15/08), Joan Hof said the town received one complaint in the last month about a dog running loose. The dog’s owner also complained, stating that the neighbor who complained had locked up the loose dog in his yard.
Nienhuser said the town should not get involved in this “he said, she said” situation. No one has a right to lock up someone else’s dog, he said. People need to file a complaint about loose animals instead of taking matters into their own hands, he added. If the dog was dangerous, the sheriff could have picked up the animal. The council tabled until next month the town’s proposed dog control ordinance. Attorney Max Carlson in Julesburg is looking over the Logan County Dog Control Ordinance to see if it needs any adjustments specific for Peetz, and he has not finished with his examination.
CONNECTICUT
No report for Connecticut
DELAWARE
No Report for Delaware
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Washington, DC - (7/18/08) - On Tuesday, the city council unanimously approved B17-89, which includes stiffer penalties for spectators at dogfights. In addition to stricter penalties for people who attend dogfights – making it a felony instead of a misdemeanor – the bill also allows for courts to order those found guilty of animal cruelty to seek counseling. The measure also includes a section that requires law enforcement and child and protective service workers to report suspected pet abuse, or when they see an animal at the home of someone who’s suspected of abusing a child, adult, or pet. Other provisions called for in the ordinance:
Require permits for commercial dog breeders who raise and sell 25 animals per year. Establish licensing, immunization, insurance, and notification requirements for commercial guard dogs.
Require the inclusion of pets in disaster plans. Increase licensing fees for animals who are not spayed or neutered to encourage sterilization and reduce the euthanasia of shelter pets.
Sets up a spay-neuter fund to assist lower-income residents in gaining access to these services for their pets. B17-89 PASSED 07/15/08
To meet city and state laws dealing with stray animals, animal bites and animal investigations, Ormond Beach is required to provide secured facilities that can be used to hold and quarantine animals. The city does not have facilities of its own that can be used for shelter and impoundment of animals. The proposed new contract with Flagler Humane Society would run from Oct. 1 through Sept. 30, 2009. The contract wouldn't carry any additional expenses over the current contract the city has with the shelter, according to city records. The proposed contract has a $38 fee per animal per day of impoundment, not to exceed five days, according to city records. There is also a $25 fee per animal for every emergency after-hours response and for every animal requiring quarantine services. Halifax Humane Society had proposed rates that would have meant a five-day per animal impoundment cost of $195, or $39 per animal per day. Halifax Humane Society was also proposing additional fees of $13.33 per animal for euthanasia and $33.33 per animal for required lab exams. Ormond Beach officials now say they're saving a "significant" amount of money over previous years with Halifax Humane Society. City officials also point out the Flagler Humane Society is a no-kill facility, adopting out unclaimed, impounded domestic animals as an alternative to euthanasia.
Residents have until Friday to apply for the permit and two license tags free. After that, they'll be charged $150. They will also have to pay $75 for each tag. Palm Beach County commissioners approved the controversial permit in February. It requires hobby breeders to give animal care and control officials the names, addresses and phone numbers of the people who buy or are given their pets. The breeders will also be required to print their permit number in advertisements touting their puppies and kittens. The new rules took effect April 1, but county officials gave breeders a 90-day grace period to apply for the permit free. Those who apply during the grace period will continue to receive the permit free for the rest of their lives, as long as they are not found in violation of any of the county's animal control ordinances.
The reason, damage to the city's water quality. City Officials say one of the big polluters to the water quality is the nutrients found in animal waste. Although officials are not going to assign code-enforcement officers to patrol for puppy poop, if a person receives enough complaints, violators could face up to five hundred dollars in fines, if continuous violations occur.
The ordinance applies to all public spaces and recreational areas in the city, including biking trails, lakes, and sports fields. Throwing pet waste in the trash is actually against the law in some communities. Some alternatives for proper waste disposal are flushing it down the toilet or burying it at least five inches in the ground. Although dogs aren't the only source of animal waste, the ordinance gives pet owners an extra incentive to clean up after their pets.
Authorize advertising the draft ordinance for the August 21, 2008 meeting and provide direction on the proposed standards for domestic animal facilities
GEORGIA
Bainbridge - (7/18/08) - Dog attack spurs need for dog control ordinance. There are state laws with rules and regulations in place that owners of vicious dogs must follow, including having signs posted and using a certain type of enclosure/pen. A dog is deemed vicious by a dog control officer, and if regulations are violated, resulting in an incident like a dog bite, there can be a $300 to $500 fine. If it happens a second time, the dog can be taken away from its owner. Alday explained that some of the state laws cannot yet be implemented."State law gives authority to the county, but an administrative procedure must be put into place," Alday said.Alday said he is writing up an ordinance to go before the county commissioners that will outline procedures to include registration policies, fees and penalties. Mr. Yates said he's mad about the incident and plans to go before the Board of County Commissioners to address the need for a dog control ordinance.
Rome - (7/30/08) - Animal control has recently begun enforcing the City of Rome’s tougher restrictions on pets — on property or on leash at all times ... or else. Or else promises to be a lot harder on the pet than the owner as the ordinance also says: “Any dog or other animal within the city without an owner, or any dog or other animal running at large at any time ... shall be impounded or confined in the animal control center for a period of 72 hours for redemption by the owner, if any. Any dog or other animal not redeemed in accordance with this section may be released to the humane society. Any dog or other animal not redeemed in accordance with this section or not accepted by the humane society in accordance with this section shall be destroyed in a humane manner.” If the owner doesn’t want to bail the animal out and pay the fine, the actual “victim” in this scenario gets the death penalty.
There’s something fundamentally wrong with this approach. IN THE UNINCORPORATED area, the ordinance is different as is the population density. There, pets such as dogs and cats can roam freely off the owner’s property so long as no complaint results. This isn’t to say that greater awareness of Rome’s leash law, along with enforcement, isn’t necessary. It’s surprising how many pure-bred dogs one sees romping loose in some neighborhoods. IT IS TO SAY that imposing a possible death penalty on a dog or cat that has an irresponsible or inattentive owner is pretty harsh.
HAWAII
No Report for Hawaii
IDAHO
No Report for Idaho
ILLINOIS
Some highlights from Illinois Public Health and Safety Animal Population Control Act: (Anna's Law) Expands the definition of owner to include anyone who knowingly permits a dog to remain on any premises occupied by him or her. Requires any owner of a dog running at large to pay, in addition to any other fines, a $25 public safety fine. Counties or municipalities keep $5 of the fine. Requires owners of dogs deemed "dangerous" to pay a $50 public safety fine to the state.
Requires owners of dogs deemed to be "vicious" to pay a $100 public safety fine to the state.
Requires owners of biting animals to pay a $25 public safety fine to the state. $500 state fine if owner fails to comply with requirements of vicious dog plus impoundment fees. Reimburses private veterinarians for the sterilization-vaccinations of dogs and cats of disadvantaged owners and feral cat caretakers. Director of Public Health sets reimbursement fees. Owner pays co-pay of $15 for sterilization and vaccinations. Requires shelters to offer animals they deem "adoptable" for placement prior to euthanasia. Expands the time to 10 business days that an animal control authority has to notify an owner that his or her dog is subject to a dangerous dog investigation. Reduces the burden of proof needed to declare a dog to be dangerous from clear and convincing to a preponderance of the evidence. Gives animal control authority the right to impound a dangerous dog if the owner fails to comply with the microchipping, sterilization or public safety fine requirements. Does not allow a person to remove a microchip from a dog for the purposes of destroying or concealing its identity. Deletes tormenting as a justification for a dog biting someone.
Chicago - (7/30/08) - During three hours of debate, aldermen expressed doubts about the proposal and questioned whether an ordinance requiring spaying or neutered of pets by age 6 months was even enforceable. The aldermen who sponsored the ordinance cited dog attacks on Chicago residents as one of the reasons behind it, and said sterilized animals are less likely to be vicious. A violation would result in a ticket ordering the owner to have the pet fixed. If that failed, a $100 fine would be issued after 60 days. If another 60 days passed, a second fine could reach $500, and the city could impound and sterilize the animal. Owners couldn't reclaim then until paying the fines and other costs. The proposal is backed by PAWS Chicago, a no-kill humane organization focused on reducing the number of stray animals, and the Humane Society of the United States. It's opposed by the Chicago and Illinois State Veterinary Medical Associations, which say decisions on pet sterilization are best made by a veterinarian and pet owner. For now, it's on hold.
Carmi - The mayor also said a previously raised issue concerning possible tough restrictions on pit bull dogs is a dead issue after he received a letter from the director of the Department of Agriculture advising him that breed-specific ordinances are prohibited under the Illinois Animal Control Act. He also said case law, derived from an Ohio case, has given courts precedent to overturn breed-specific legislation and ordinances.
Danville - City Council subcommittee is looking at the city code regarding dangerous and vicious dogs, and deciding whether the code should be stronger or broader. The City Attorney told the members or the subcommittee they had free rein and were not limited by the city and state statutes. The only restriction, he said, is that a law cannot be breed-specific.
PARK CITY - (7/19/08) - Aldermen decided Thursday to repeal the city's existing dog licensing ordinance and replace it with more stringent controls over vicious dogs.
Village attorney Peter Karlovics said the former ordinance was outdated and unenforceable. The new ordinance eliminates city dog registration requirements and concentrates on preventing vicious dog attacks. "In response to concerns from some pet owners, the ordinance is not breed-specific," Karlovics said. "The ordinance addresses the behavior of any dog that poses a danger to the public."
The new ordinance provides that once police inform a pet owner that his dog is a potential or actual menace to the public, the dog must either be confined indoors or within an outdoor fenced enclosure. The fence must be at least six feet high.
If a vicious dog is removed from a resident's premises the animal must be under the owner's direct supervision and control, be securely muzzled and restrained by a metal leash. Police will destroy any vicious dogs found running free, those which cannot be impounded. The city also imposed a leash law on all dogs when off an owner's property. Any dog found running at large will be captured and impounded. The owner can redeem the dog within three days by paying a $100 fee, plus the actual cost of caring for the animal. If the dog is not redeemed within five days, the animal will be destroyed.
INDIANA
No Report for Indiana
IOWA
Johnston - (8/1/08) - Johnston pet owners seem to be doing a slightly better job of picking up after their pets as a result of city-ordinance amendments that took effect in the spring. Before March, the Johnson city ordinance instructed pet owners to remove their pet's bodily excretions from property other than their own and properly dispose of the waste, but the ordinance did not specify any penalties. Under the amended ordinance, fines range from $25 for a first offense to $50 for each subsequent violation. Deb Schiel-Larson, city planner and landscape architect for the city of Johnston, authored the amendments because the Iowa Department of Natural Resources' rules for storm-water management required the city to craft a stronger policy on the cleanup of animal waste. One resident who frequently walks and jogs in the northern portion of Johnston, said she feels the incidence of dog waste on trails and public property may be declining - but city leaders still may have their work cut out for them."I've noticed more of a problem with duck or geese waste around the ponds." "I think they should focus more on the waterfowl waste than on anything else. It is really bad."
Shenandoah - (8/1/08) - Sheriff discusses animals - ANIMAL PROTECTION AND CONTROL: Chapter 55, Section .01-.24, City of Shenandoah Code of Ordinances. The City of Shenandoah has ordinances regulating the ownership and control of pets. Dogs are a popular animal, and because of their size and potential for creating a nuisance, I will be discussing some of our canine pet laws.
- 55.06 AT LARGE PROHIBITED. It is unlawful for any owner to allow an animal to run at large within the corporate limits of the City. Most of us have seen unsupervised dogs running about in our community during all hours of the day and night. Running at large refers to any area beyond the dog owner's property boundaries where an unsupervised dog is roaming. Many dog owners feel if they let Fido or Scruffy out to run free late at night or early in the morning, no harm is done. This simply is not the case. The ordinance is applicable 24 hours a day, not just during daylight hours. If your dog leaves your property at anytime without being on a leash (not more than 6 feet long) or at heal (within 10 feet), you are in violation of the ordinance. At heal is at best risky unless the dog is well trained and not prone to taking off after a squirrel, rabbit, or other animal.
- 55.09 VICIOUS AND DANGEROUS ANIMALS. No person shall own, keep or harbor a vicious or dangerous animal within the City. Certain animals by nature are considered dangerous, ie. lions, tigers, and bears (oh my ... just had to say that.) Dogs may also be classified vicious merely by their actions, usually involving the biting of a human or domesticated animal without cause or justification. In addition to any fines levied by the magistrate, and depending on the seriousness of the bite, a dog that has bitten, may be destroyed by court order. All dogs bite ... that is their primary defense mechanism. Let me say this again ... ALL DOGS BITE. No matter how cute, friendly, or cuddly they may be with their owner(s), they will still bite if threatened or in a protective mode. Therefore, it is essential to always properly supervise your dog when they are around other humans or domesticated animals.
- 55.08 ANNOYANCE OR DISTURBANCE. It is unlawful for the owner of a dog to allow or permit such dog to cause serious annoyance or disturbance to any person or persons by frequent and habitual howling, yelping, barking, or otherwise; or, by running after or chasing persons, bicycles, automobiles or other vehicles. This is probably the most common animal complaint we receive at the police department. Late night barking or howling can ruin anyone's sleep. I am always amazed as to how often dog owners claim they did not hear Fido barking in the back yard, yet all the neighbors within a 3 block square area can hear the noise quite clearly. Anyway, dog owners need to better supervise those dogs that are penned up or tethered outside. An alert dog can be a good alarm system for intruders or pesky sales persons, but continual barking, day or night, may qualify as an annoyance or public disturbance which may carry penalties for the dog owner.
Jim Davey is Shenandoah's Interim Police Chief and will be starting his last full week with the role as Kris Grebert takes over Aug. 8.
Sioux City - (7/18/08) - Sioux City's City Council is looking at a proposal that could ban folks from owning pit bulls. Officials say only 3% of dogs registered in the city are pit bulls, but they account for nearly 5o% of all dog bites. The proposal would allow residents who currently own registered pit bulls to keep them, but prohibit folks from bringing new dogs in. It would also allow breeders to keep pit bull puppies until they're six months old, as long as the parents are registered. Pit bulls caught without a license, risk being put down, unless the owner shows they can keep that dog outside the city limits. City council is set to take up the issue at Monday's meeting. (7/21/08) UPDATE: (7/29/08) The city council in Sioux City has delayed a decision on an ordinance that would ban pit bulls in the city limits. Councilman Dave Ferris says the council wants to give residents time to come back with an alternative to a proposed ban within the city limits. Last week, the council gave preliminary approval to a proposal that would allow current pit bull owners to keep their dogs as long as they were licensed and registered. The owners would not be able to replace their pets with pit bulls once they died, nor could anyone adopt a new pit bull. The ordinance also carried exceptions for animal shelters and show dogs. The council gave residents time to come up with an alternative plan after about 20 residents spoke at Monday's meeting, many of them in opposition to the ban.
Spencer - City Council first filing on changes to the "Vicious Animals Ordinance" was unanimously approved (07/21/08). A vicious animal: A Staffordshire Terrier breed, American Pit-bull Terrier, American Staffordshire Terrier, or any dog which has the appearance and characteristics of being predominantly of the breeds of Staffordshire Terrier, American Pit-bull Terrier, or American Staffordshire.
Sprit Lake - two amendments were made to the vicious animal ordinance at the Spirit Lake City Council meeting Tuesday evening. The first states that a dangerous dog must have an identifying microchip inserted beneath the skin. The second amendment states that the dog must be spayed or neutered and proof of the sterilization must be presented to the city. Council member Clyde Ihrke said he would like to see more information and research before making a decision on the ordinance. The item was tabled.
Woodbury County -(7/30/08) - The Woodbury County Board of Supervisors is looking at banning pit bulls in the county. Under the proposed city ban, owners would have to register their current pets, but no new pitbulls would be allowed within city limits. County supervisor Larry Clausen says the board's attorney is researching the topic and they'll know more information in about three weeks.
KENTUCKY
Flemingsburg - (7/16/08) - Judge Executive Larry Foxworthy and the magistrates discussed at length a noise ordinance that would provide a basis for handling loud noises, in particular the barking of multiple dogs. “We need to determine what is unreasonably loud and disturbing,” Foxworthy said. “There will be gray areas.” Magistrate Kenny Souder was concerned about creating more problems by passing an ordinance directed at people’s animals. County Attorney John Price said an ordinance would allow penalties to be in place for problems.
“It would be like public disturbance, any noise if you can hear it from a public way,” Price said. “You could serve a citation with this ordinance.” Magistrate Allen Argo said the biggest problem would be determining what is a nuisance. The sheriff would make that determination, according to Price. The problem arose due to a home on Tea Run Road that houses dozens of dogs. According to neighbors, the dogs bark all the time, not just at night. Foxworthy wants the problem addressed before some one is harmed by the dogs. “We don’t want it to take one biting a kid before we do something,” he said. A copy of the ordinance was given to each magistrate; however changes were made before the final draft. No vote was taken on the matter, but it will be reviewed in August when all magistrates are present. David DeAtley was absent from the meeting held July 8 at the courthouse.
Newport - (7/20/08) - Pit bulls and other potentially dangerous dogs must now have insurance coverage in case of a violent attack. New city regulations passed by the city council require such dogs' owners to obtain insurance coverage, as well have microchips implanted in their pets to provide the owner's personal information. Brian Steffen, division manager for Newport's code enforcement department, said the new regulations are meant to increase owner responsibility and reduce the number of dog attacks. A vicious dog will be determined either by breed, with pit bulls or pit bull mixes automatically selected, or through any past violent actions by the animal.
LOUISIANA
HB 1193/ACT 894 - Louisiana lawmakers approved kennel licensing and fee requirements for dog breeders. Individuals or businesses that possess more than five dogs and breed and sell, must obtain kennel licenses and pay kennel fees. Violators are subject to fines of up to $500.
Became law without the signature of the governor 07/16/08
MAINE
Brooklin - (7/16/08) - The local Appeals Board unanimously upheld recent action taken by the Planning Board in denying two separate appeals against the Planning Board’s decision to issue a permit for a dog-boarding business on Harriman Point. The Planning Board had issued a one-year permit to Carol Ann Cutler on April 10, allowing her to board up to three dogs, in addition to the three dogs she owns, at her home on Harriman Point Road. Paula Dougherty and Linda Freedman filed separate appeals within the 30-day deadline that started when the permit was issued. Following a nearly 90-minute hearing on Freedman’s appeal, which included testimony from her, the Appeals Board voted unanimously to deny her appeal. “I think the Planning Board was very judicious in issuing the permit for one year, then reviewing it,” Appeals Board member Benjamin Mendlowitz said before the vote was taken. “They addressed all concerns. I don’t see anything to overturn.” Appeals Board Chairman Bob Austin said Freedman’s appeal focused on two complaints and argued that the Planning Board erred in its interpretation of “home occupation” allowed in Brooklin’s shoreland zone and also erred in its review of potential harm to wildlife habitat from the dog-boarding operation.
MARYLAND
Baltimore - (7/21/08) - To better serve the animals and people of the Baltimore community, the five major animal welfare organizations in Baltimore have come together to form the Baltimore Animal Welfare Alliance (BAWA). Though such coalitions are a national trend, this will be the first of its kind in Maryland. The organizations will share resources, conduct joint events and work together to find homes for pets.
The five organizations are: The Maryland SPCA, Humane Society of Baltimore County, Baltimore Animal Rescue and Care Shelter, and both the city and county Animal Control offices. In August of 2004, a group of animal welfare industry leaders from across the nation convened at Asilomar in Pacific Grove, Calif., for the purpose of building bridges across varying philosophies, developing relationships and creating goals focused on reducing the number of animals euthanized in the United States. The outcome was the Asilomar Accords, which include a set of guiding principles, standardized definitions, a statistics table for tracking shelter populations and a formula for determining shelter live release rates -- all so shelters and other stakeholders can get a better understanding of progress nationwide.
You can read more about it here.
MASSACHUSETTS
Revere - (7/31/08) - Revere city officials have begun foreclosure proceedings on Wonderland Greyhound Park for failure to pay $789,293 in taxes over the last two years.
Wonderland Park, the city's eighth biggest taxpayer and now the city's largest tax delinquent, also owes $16,673.70 in water and sewer bills, said George M. Anzuoni, Revere's director of finance. The figures were calculated through Aug. 1 and include interest and fees. The track has been delinquent since 2006, city officials said. But city councilors were surprised to learn last week that the track was able to obtain annual liquor and restaurant licenses, as well as a special permit for parking at a track-owned parking lot while delinquent on taxes. That is a violation of a local ordinance. Mayor Thomas G. Ambrosino had no answers when he was questioned by City Council President George V. Colella at a meeting Monday.
MICHIGAN
HB6354 - A bill to amend 1978 PA 368, entitled"Public health code," (MCL 333.1101 to 333.25211) by adding section 20200. Sec. 20200. (1) Except as otherwise provided in this section, a guide dog or other service animal that is accompanying an individual with disabilities, which animal is especially trained and educated for that purpose, shall be allowed to stay with the individual with disabilities in a health facility or agency. During an emergency situation, the health facility or agency shall presume that an animal that is accompanying an individual with disabilities is a guide dog or other service animal that is especially trained and educated for that purpose if the animal is wearing a guide dog or leader dog harness, a blaze orange leash and collar, a hearing dog cape, or a service animal backpack.
Status: Senate Committee on Health Policy.
Farmington Hills - (7/31/08) - The council is set to pass a new ordinance giving animal owners a chance to correct an animal’s bad behavior before landing in the court system. Shannon Ozga from City Attorney Steve Joppich’s office presented the ordinance to the council and three residents at the study session. The ordinance doesn’t ban any specific animal or breed of animal, but rather targets dangerous or potentially dangerous animals of any kind. The ordinance will call for an Animal Review Board to be established, consisting of City Manager Steve Brock, Fire Chief Rich Marinucci and Police Chief Rich Niemisto, or others appointed within their departments, to review incidents involving dangerous animals. A dangerous animal is defined by the ordinance as any animal that bites or attacks a person or causes serious injury to a person or domestic animal. A potentially dangerous animal is one that has caused any less severe injury to a person or domestic animal, chases or acts in an aggressive manner without being provoked, or has run at large and been impounded by an animal control agency three or more times in a 12 month period. The ordinance details how an animal owner will be notified after a complaint has been made and will receive notice of a hearing of the review board on the matter. It the animal owner doesn’t schedule a hearing, the animal will receive the designation of dangerous or potentially dangerous and it will be final. If they choose to attend the hearing, they will be given a chance to testify and present evidence before a determination is made. If an owner cannot be identified in the first place, the animal will be confiscated and an owner has seven days to claim it. All animals determined to be dangerous or potentially dangerous must be registered with the city, in addition to dogs’ registration required by Oakland County. There are specific guidelines owners of dangerous or potentially dangerous animals must abide by in order to keep their animal in the city, as defined by the ordinance, including holding at least a $1.5 million insurance policy on the animal to protect potential victims. There also is a list of reasons why the animals can be confiscated if the owners do not follow various guidelines of ownership.
The ordinance will be introduced at the council’s Aug. 11 meeting, at 7:30 p.m. at Farmington Hills City Hall, 31555 W. 11 Mile Road. The public is welcome to comment on the ordinance at the meeting. The council likely will schedule passage of the ordinance or a subsequent meeting after discussing it and hearing public comment.
Shelby - (7/30/08) - Shelby Village Council Ordinance committee Chairman Rich Setlak reported July 29 that the committee is reviewing its dog ordinance. The committee is looking to put teeth into its dog ordinance by requiring dogs be leashed, accompanied by a person and under control at all times. Setlak said the current ordinance does not require dogs to be restrained while under supervision or on their own property. Setlak also said he thinks a county animal control officer be on call at all times to deal with issues as they come up.
The suggested amendments will be sent to the village attorney for review, and a public hearing will be scheduled.
MISSISSIPPI
Gulfport - (7/17/08) - PETA says chained dogs are deprived of the social interaction they need, which can make them aggressive. "Man's best friend deserves better than being chained up like an old bicycle," said PETA Vice President Daphna Nachminovitch. "Gulfport officials would do a good deed for their constituents and for dogs by banning this cruel, dangerous practice." In its letter to the city, PETA points to numerous studies showing how chained dogs are more prone to attack. Kim Stanton, interim director of the spay/neuter clinic at the Humane Society of South Mississippi, told the Sun Herald that chained dogs are three times as likely to bite as unchained dogs. Councilwoman Barbara Nalley, who agreed chaining dogs makes them more aggressive, said it is time the city review its animal laws. "We have a tremendous issue with animals in this city," she said. "We do need to look at our ordinances and address them and I'll be the first to start that discussion."
Jackson - (7/30/08) - Tony Evans Jr. died the night of July 22 after police say he wandered into a carport at 112 Maple Ridge Drive across the street from his home and was attacked by Blue Eyes - a 2-year-old white male pit bull that was on a chain. Meanwhile, the Jackson City Council agreed during a council meeting Tuesday to re-examine the city's dog ordinances. Ward 7 Councilwoman Margaret Barrett-Simon said the toddler's death highlights the need to rework the ordinances. Following the meeting, Council President Leslie Burl McLemore said dog ordinances would be taken up by the council's planning committee in August.
He said he would like the council to consider giving more power to the animal control officers and to require all dog owners to register their pets. He said he does not know if he will be able to get the four votes from council members needed to make the changes. "I hope four of us will say, 'Hell, yeah, we ought to register these damn dogs,'" he said.
Leflore County - Leflore County now has an ordinance regulating pit bulls. The law requires pit bull owners to:
Hold the dogs in secure four-sided pens with tops that are at least 6 feet high and have concrete floors; Post a sign saying, “Dangerous Dog”; Muzzle them and keep them on a leash when outside the cage; Spay or neuter the dogs; Be 21 years old; Register with the Leflore County Humane Society; and Buy a $100,000 insurance policy or post a $100,000 cash surety to pay for injuries the dog may cause. Penalties for violations range from $100 to $500 and increase with each offense.The pit bulls will be confiscated until the conditions of the law are met. After three offenses, the dog is permanently confiscated. The law does not cover other breeds.
Aubrey Whittington, president of the Humane Society, praised the board for passing the ordinance.“You have shown that you care about the welfare and safety of the Leflore County citizens and their children,” she said. “You have taken a giant step in the right direction, and I hope the other counties and the cities will follow your fine example.”Whittington said the Humane Society will work with the county to enforce the ordinance. The ordinance must be advertised in the newspaper for three weeks and will take effect 30 days after that.
MISSOURI
Independence - (7/14/08) - In a week, the Independence City Council will hear the first reading of an ordinance that would amend the city’s current animal control code. The change would allow up to four pets of any kind in a home. Currently, the code stipulates a kennel license is needed to keep in the home more than two dogs or two cats over the age of six months. Next Monday, the council will allow 10 speakers – five people representing each side. Council Member Will Swoffer made the suggestion and the council approved the motion. After the public hearing, the new ordinance will be read for the first time, with a second reading and vote Aug. 4.
MONTANA
No Report for Montana
NEBRASKA
North Platte - (7/18/08) - Some laws are fairly stringent when it comes to how commercial breeders and puppy dealers are supposed to keep detailed records of how many animals they sell. Those requirements also include keeping names and addresses of everyone who buys an animal from them, a detailed veterinarian health plan for each animal, and they are required by law to dispense spay and neutering information to each customer.And every customer has a right to see the environment that the animal is coming from, as well as a right to verify documentation of any of those laws.But without efficient enforcement and a better definition of the animal's environment pertaining to its welfare, irresponsible breeding and puppy mill operations will continue to operate. Nebraska has only recently strengthened the laws of the Animal Welfare Act to increase penalties for this kind of neglect. Given the seriousness of suspected puppy mill operations in Lincoln County, The Telegraph requested to accompany the NDA inspector to areas in and around North Platte, but were denied that request. NDA Public Relations officer Christin Kamm denied that request saying, "Our inspectors have a working relationship with these folks."The question as to whether the working relationship was more important than the welfare of the animal had not been answered by NDA authorities as of press time. Within Nebraska's laws, there is also a stipulation that says anyone who sells less than 30 dogs or cats per year is not required to be licensed as a commercial breeder or dealer.
Omaha - (7/16/08) - Two more Nebraska cities are considering a ban on pit bulls, becoming the latest additions to the ever-growing list. Holdrege began discussions Tuesday night in a city council meeting. The Hastings City Council talked Monday after a local man was attacked Omaha - Update: (7/17/08) - An Omaha committee exploring possible restrictions on pit bulls narroweddiscussions Wednesday to three options: a "potentially dangerous dog"ordinance, a partial ban or a total ban.The committee - formed last month by Mayor Mike Fahey - met in closed session for 90 minutes Wednesday.Specifics of each option were not worked out during the meeting, said CityCouncilman Garry Gernandt, who is a committee member."Those three options contain several variables," Gernandt said. "I recommended that the city lawyers and the Humane Society get together and hammer out a line-by-line proposal of the options." The committee is made up of 12 representatives: two from the Mayor's Office, one from the Police Department, three from the city's law department, five from the Nebraska Humane Society, and one from City Council. The committee is expected to meet again next week, Gernandt said. Once the full committee has agreed on a proposal, it will make arecommendation to the mayor and City Council. UPDATE: (8/1/08) - Omaha city leaders said they are making more progress in efforts to create an ordinance to deal with dangerous dogs. A mayoral committee plans to meet again soon to work on a final draft of new rules for people who own pit bulls. The committee hopes to get an ordinance to the city council by the middle of August. Omaha City Council member Gary Gernandt said his committee is circulating a third draft of a combination dangerous dog ordinance and partial pit bull pan. He said the focus is maximizing public safety without having to totally ban pit bulls. “I think we should be looking not at the lower end of the leash, but who’s behind the leash,” he said. Gernandt said a total ban on pit bulls would likely result in an overstressing of Humane Society resources. He estimated animal control technicians would have to take in as many as 80 animals every week. Whatever plan the committee approves would have to go through three readings and a public hearing before it could take effect.
Ralston - (7/30/08) - The city has shelved talk of banning pitbulls. The topic arose in July in Ralston following several serious dog attacks elsewhere. Ralston City Council President Jerry Krause suggested that Ralston explore a ban on the animals. In July, the Nebraska Humane Society said there were only a half-dozen dogs of that breed registered in the city. City Attorney Mark Klinker said that after Ralston talked of prohibiting the breed, City Hall received a barrage of public feedback, the majority of which urged the city to not ban a specific breed of dog. "I think the city is going to take a wait-and-see attitude,'' he said on Tuesday. "We'll get feedback from what Omaha and Sarpy County do.''
NEVADA
No Report for Nevada
NEW HAMPSHIRE
Dover - (7/17/08) - Effective Jan. 1. Last month, Gov. John Lynch signed a bill that will provide specific shelter requirements for dogs living outside.According to the legislation, all dogs living outside must have "necessary shelter," which is defined as a structure that is fundamentally sound, protects the dog from direct sunlight and extreme cold, and has adequate air circulation. The shelter must keep the animal dry and allow it space to stand up, turn around and lie down.In the past, there has been a "very big problem" with people leaving their animals chained outside in inadequate shelters, according to Joanne Bourbeau, director of The Humane Society of the United States' regional office in Vermont. Under the old law, law enforcement officers did not have the authority to approach pet owners who were suspected of keeping their pets in substandard outside living conditions, as long as the animal was not injured.The bill received bipartisan support from Rep. Carla Skinder, D-Cornish, and Sen. Sheila Roberge, R-Bedford. Other states, including Maine, Vermont, New York and Virginia, have similar dog shelter laws like the one New Hampshire just adopted.
Hampton - (8/1/08) - Dogs are never allowed on the Hampton state beaches. Those beaches are North Beach, Hampton Beach, and Hampton Beach State Park. According to the town of Hampton ordinances kept at town hall, dogs are not allowed on town beaches either or in the water or at town parks. The town beaches are Sun Valley Beach and Plaice Cove Beach.
Canines are allowed at town parks if leashed and not constituting a nuisance. Also, dogs must be on a leash at all times unless they are on their owner's property or hunting under control of the owner. Another town ordinance states that owners of animals, with the exception of town-owned animals, aren't allowed to let the animal defecate on any public property unless the said defecation is removed immediately. This includes the streets, beaches, alleys, sidewalks, parks, and all public ground. Owners cannot let their animal defecate on private property, either, unless the defecation is removed immediately. Anyone who violates these rules will be fined no more than $50 for the first violation and no more than $100 for subsequent violations within the same year. Dogs are also not allowed in crowds, or within 100 feet of crowds, larger than 500 people. Anyone who violates this ordinance is subject to a fine of no less than $100 and no more than $250. MacKinnon said this ordinance was passed mostly for the Seafood Festival, a very well-attended event in Hampton, this year to be held from Sept. 5 to 7. Boissonneault said despite the ordinance, she sees many dogs at the Seafood Festival every year. Service animals are exempt from the crowd ordinance as they are defined by the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990.
NEW JERSEY
THE Web site NRA huntersrights.org has reported before on animal rights' groups that try to push their so-called educational materials into our school systems, but none have been as crazy as this one. "The Zargon Connection" is part of a free "Humane and Responsible Teachers" curriculum designed for grades pre-K-9. Created by the New Jersey Animal Rights Alliance (NJARA), the package includes classroom exercises, activities and lesson plans. These documents include NJARA advice like discouraging field trips to zoos and aquariums because they "perpetuate the belief that it's acceptable to imprison animals." One of NJARA's issues is the killing of wildlife for management or sport, and the Zargon Connection is the educational tool they want teachers to use - on sixth graders. It is a science fiction story in which Earth is invaded by Zargonians-aliens that hunt and eat human beings for sport. Parts of Earth have been "designated as human management areas where they hunt us for pleasure and for our meat, which is considered a delicacy by Zargonian gourmets." "Occasionally, in a technique known as baiting, Zargonians will set up a fast food restaurant or pizza parlors and burst in on us while we eat, with their street sweepers blazing." NRAhuntingrights.org managing editor J.R. Robbins says he can't believe any elementary school teacher is foolish enough to use such demented material in a classroom. If you live in New Jersey, Robbins suggests you inquire if anything from NJARA is being used in your child's school. Even though the material is too extreme to take seriously, it still may find its way into a classroom
Trenton - (8/1/08) - The state Supreme Court Wednesday ordered a closer examination of how New Jersey farmers treat livestock, a decision animal-rights advocates hailed as nationally ground-breaking that drew mixed reactions locally. "We see this as a huge victory. No courts have ever really addressed farm-animal welfare issues," said Tricia Barry, spokeswoman for the group Farm Sanctuary, a national advocate for livestock. The court, in a unanimous decision, turned away a broad attack on the state's rules on the care of farm animals, but it did direct the state Department of Agriculture to harvest data from area veterinary schools and retool procedures. "In the court's words, the regulations as a whole are consistent with the meaning of the word "humane,'" said state Agriculture Department spokesman Jeff Beach.
Richard Nieuwenhuis, president of the New Jersey Farm Bureau, said, "I would characterize my reaction as being disappointed. The Agriculture Department and state veterinarians who drew up these standards are the people that deal with animals every day all day."
NEW MEXICO
Bernalillo County - is considering a ordinance is similar to HEART. Ordinance contains regulations, etc.: seizure of animals, permits and zoning, permits for hobby breeders, guard dogs, intact animals, litters, number of animals allowed per household and fees, pet licenses/permits and service fees.
Clovis - (8/2/08) - Members serving on Clovis’ Animal Control Task Force euthanasia subcommittee visited Roswell’s animal shelter Thursday to observe the lethal injection process as conducted by animal control. They viewed three dogs being euthanized, toured the facility and talked with officials there. Jal, Tucumcari, Clovis and Lovington are the only communities in the state still using gas, according to Clovis Mayor Gayla Brumfield. Animal rights proponents have recently pressured Clovis to switch to lethal injection, citing imminent change in regulations that will prohibit gas chambers.
Torrance County - County is holding a workshop September 2 at the county offices in Estancia on the latest version of an animal control ordinance it has been trying to put into place for years. Zoning, limit laws, tethering, allow county officials on private property if an animal faces imminent death and more will be discussed. (no link available)NEW YORK
A03539 (2007) - Prohibits any person previously convicted of a drug felony to own, possess or harbor a dog weighing 20 lbs. or more and trained to attack or exhibiting viciousnessAssemblyman Thomas Kirwan is going to re-introducing the bill
Great Neck - (7/21/08) - The specific resolution under consideration, which was ultimately passed unanimously by the board members, pertained to the extent to which dogs would be permitted in certain park district facilities. The resolution, authored by the legal counsel for the Great Neck park district, would permit dog owners to walk their dogs on leashes in the Village Green during designated hours, with the exception of the playground, rose garden, and memorial areas. The resolution also included language that would allow dogs off leashes, depending on the hour, in the Peninsula Club property if a portion of it is developed as a dog park with fencing and signage. The vote was not for the creation of a dog park, but would be necessary to have in place if such a park were developed in the future. Earlier in the week on Tuesday, July 8, the majority of the members of Board of Trustees for the Village of Great Neck voted to advise the park district commissioners that they did not favor dog owners walking their pets on the Village Green itself, regardless of whether the animal was wearing a leash. Trustee Mitch Beckerman placed a dissenting vote on the matter.
The task force's timeline follows:
First meeting: June 24, 2008
Final recommendation: by August 12, 2008
Staff report to Operations Committee: September 4, 2008
Operations Committee recommendation to the Town Council: September 11, 2008
The Police Department will facilitate and provide agenda and minutes for the meeting. The staff contact is Kathleen Sanfratello, kathleen.sanfratello@townofcary.org, (919)469-4322.
Factors that must be taken into account in determining whether a noise is unreasonably loud and/or disturbing include: - Time of day - Proximity to residences - Whether the noise is recurrent, intermittent or constant - Volume and intensity -Whether the noise has been enhanced in volume or range by mechanical or any type of electronic means - Whether the noise is related to the normal operation of a business, or other labor activity - Whether the noise is subject to being controlled without unreasonable effort or expense to the creator
OHIO
Lakewood - (7/21/08) - City Public Safety Committee recommended to council that a ban be passed but that dogs already living in the City of Lakewood be "grandfathered" in. Lakewood City Council voted for passage of the ordinance. Councilwoman Madigan was the only council member to vote against the ban. Councilwoman Madigan was articulate and made it clear that any dog is potentially dangerous if not controlled properly and that a new ordinance should focus on all irresponsible dog owners, not just owners of pit bulls. The new ordinance also has a zero tolerance aspect. If, without provocation, a pit bull "bites," the dog will be ordered out of the City. What is a bite? We've been seeing media reports of scratches. So, is a scratch a bite? And, how many pit bull incidents are reviewed for provocation? Resident that may own a dog that possibly could be identified as a "pit bull" dog, must register the dog with the City, must get insurance (already State law), erect a pen (if animal control so requires), must muzzle the dog while on walks on City streets and do a number of other things, require microchipping and pictures to be kept on file. Residents have 90-days from the passage of the ordinance to become compliant with the laws of Lakewood . PASSED 07/21/08Ravenna - (7/8/08) - Several Ravenna residents Monday voiced their dissatisfaction with a proposed ordinance about vicious and dangerous dogs to City Council. If passed, the ordinance would require owners of pit bull breeds to register their dogs with the police department, or face prosecution. LuAnn Stuver Rogers, along with three other Ravenna residents, opposed the ordinance at the meeting, even though none of them own pit bulls. Rogers writes the weekly "Dog Tales" column for the Record-Courier. Councilman Bruce Ribelin said the city will host a public meeting Aug. 4 to entertain further dialogue between residents and to discuss possible changes to the draft resolution. The ordinance, seven pages in length, outlines possible regulation for dangerous and vicious dogs. If passed, failure to follow the ordinance could result in misdemeanor charges for the dog owner. The dogs that would need to be registered are different breeds of pit bull, including American pit bull terrier, bull terrier, Staffordshire terrier and American Staffordshire terrier. The ordinance defines a dangerous dog as one that "chased or approached in either a menacing fashion or an apparent attack, or has attempted to bite or otherwise endanger any person." Police dogs and dogs that are provoked into attack are exempt from the ordinance. According to the ordinance, a vicious dog is defined as one that has killed or caused injury to people has caused injury to or killed another dog or is a pit bull. Vicious dogs not only will need to be registered, but owners also will need to have the dog insured, and have a microchip implanted by a veterinarian. The ordinance was modeled after regulations in several other communities and has been proven to hold up in court. UPDATE: (8/3/08) - Opponents of legislation that would have required pit bull owners to register their dogs with the city of Ravenna have scored a victory. The city has scrapped the proposal, which was met with outcry when it was introduced in July. Part of the reason for the proposed legislation was so police would know where pit bulls reside in the city, said Councilman Bruce Ribelin.
South Euclid - (7/15/08) - There is a debate in South Euclid over a law that would limit how many pets a resident can own. Ravella Zimet said she's being attacked by city officials and her neighbors because she refuses to support the new law. "South Euclid has always been a pet-friendly community and to limit people who are good pet owners is the wrong decision to make," Susan Hoicowitz said. The city does not have a law limiting the amount of pets a resident can own. City officials have not made a final decision. Another meeting is scheduled in the coming weeks.
St. Marys - (7/31/08) - Members of a city committee Monday night agreed to meet to discuss possible legislation regarding a comprehensive leash law. The St. Marys Safety Committee is scheduled to meet at 5:15 p.m. Aug. 4 to discuss the topic. Safety-Service Director Tom Hitchcock said he plans to bring sample ordinances for safety committee members to discuss. Once presented to safety committee members, they will decide which ordinance, if any, to recommend to city councilors for further action. Councilors can decided to adopt a citywide leash law — an option pushed by 4th Ward Councilor Robin Willoughby — or leave the current ordinance unchanged. Under a current city ordinance, a dog is required to be on a leash if it is in a city park or if it is a female and is in heat. The next meeting of the St. Marys City Council is scheduled for 7 p.m. Aug. 11 in the city building located along East Spring Street. The meeting is open to the public.
Whitehall - (7/17/08) - Whitehall police shot and killed a pit bull that attacked another dog and repeatedly charged an officer Saturday, July 12 at a residence in the 600 block of Beechwood Road.The incident refueled animosity at the Tuesday, July 15 meeting of Whitehall City Council. Just two weeks earlier, council members had adopted a new, breed-neutral policy concerning vicious animals and hoped to keep the community-dividing issue behind them.
OKLAHOMA
No Report for Oklahoma
OREGON
No Report for Oregon
PENNSYLVANIA
PSPCA calls for investigation of state dog wardens - Philadelphia - Following a raid and the seizure of 23 dogs at a Chester County kennel Thursday, Pennsylvania SPCA officials are calling for an investigation of the state dog wardens who they say ignored for years the animals' severe medical conditions. (7/19/08)
Connellsville - (7/16/08) - Connellsville City Council's proposed cat ordinance , introduced last month, would require cat owners to have their pets licensed. Under state law, all cats must have rabies shots. Proof of immunization will be required for licensing. The owner must include his or her address, name, color, age and sex of the cat. The license will be a durable tax including an ID number, year of issuance and the following information: Connellsville, Fayette County, Pennsylvania. Cats must wear a collar with both the rabies tag and the license at all times. Licenses are not transferable. The license will be good for one year. McIntire offered tentative costs for license fees and penalties: $15 for a cat that is not neutered or spayed and $10 for a cat that has been neutered or spayed. McIntire said he would consider lower license fees for cats owned by senior citizens. Licenses must be obtained within 30 days after obtaining a cat older than 4 months or for cat owners within 30 days of the ordinance taking effect. Nonresidents may keep cats in Connellsville for up to 60 days without licensing. Anyone who does not obtain a license within the required time will be subject to a $50 delinquent fee. Licenses may be renewed within 60 days of the expiration date. All cats must be kept under restraint, which the ordinance defines as on the owner's property limits or on a leash or a lead or under the control of a responsible person. Every cat considered dangerous to people or other animals, as determined by the Connellsville animal control agent, currently the SPCA, must be confined to a building or a secure enclosure. No cat may cause a nuisance. The owner of every cat shall be held responsible for every behavior of the cat. Cats at large may be confined by animal control or the agent may notify the owner of the violation. Animal control agents have the authority to have cats determined to be suffering treated or euthanized at the owner's expense. The ordinance includes fees for reclaiming cats and penalties for noncompliance. Violating the ordinance will result in a fine of no less than $100 and no more than $250 plus court costs. The 30 days needed for the ordinance to be viewed by the public had not passed by Thursday's council meeting, so no action was taken.
Elizabeth Township - Lititz - (7-18-08) - Township supervisors, during a public hearing Monday, agreed to revise two points of the local law. The first involves maintenance of the exterior of properties, including the disallowance of grass and weeds over 12 inches high, unlicensed vehicles, trash and upholstered furniture stored outdoors. Drainage swales and sheds, etc., must be properly maintained. The rules apply to all areas of the property. The second is a dog ordinance, which "is new for this township," said Supervisor Chairman Jeff Burkholder. Dogs are not allowed to bark continuously for a half hour or more. Fines range from $50 to $1,000.
RHODE ISLAND
Central Falls - (7/31/08) - Two months after the City Council passed an ordinance banning pit bulls, the police officer in charge of enforcing the law says he still gets some surprised and slightly annoyed reactions from some residents found in possession of this canine contraband.
The ordinance, proposed by Animal Control Offer Joseph Bolvin, was voted into local law by the city council, taking effect on May 14. Shortly thereafter, the Times spoke to Bolvin about the specifics of the law and ran an article describing it. However, Bolvin said earlier this week that he still encounters people keeping pit bulls- and pleading ignorance with regard to the ordinance. And while he said he did not enjoy taking people’s pets from them, Bolvin added that there was one factor that often made the job of finding the illegal dogs easier. Those who got in trouble for violating the ordinance, it seems, have often been all to happy to name others also harboring pit bulls. “I’m loving every second of it,” he said. “It just makes my job much easier.”
SOUTH CAROLINA
Rock Hill - (8/4/08) - Several animal rights groups want the York County Council to outlaw chaining dogs. A few South Carolina communities have tethering laws. Simpsonville doesn't allow any tethering and Columbia only permits it for only nine hours each day. York Animal Clinic veterinarian Jaroslaw Zdanowicz said he believes a tethering ordinance would benefit the county's animals. John Mazur, a veterinarian with the Catawba Animal Clinic, also said he'd support a tethering ordinance, provided that it offers some exceptions, such as outlawing chains but allowing a trolley system. " But, he said, some of his clients have tethered their dogs and don't neglect them. And he's never seen evidence that says tethering dogs makes them dangerous. "The problem is," he said, "there's no specific proof, there's no empirical evidence, that it does that. It's just kind of common sense and what people feel." The recommendation that DDB will present to the County Council Aug. 18 actually allows some tethering. But chains should be off limits, they say. County Council Chairman Buddy Motz said he welcomes the suggestions of the animal rights' groups. "Any time that we can get recommendations that would help the quality of life of an animal, whether it's a dog or any other kind, would be something that we'd be receptive to hearing," he said. But before weighing in on an ordinance, Motz said he'd like to know more about the groups' ideas and get some input from county staff.
SOUTH DAKOTA
Britton - Marshall County - (7/17/08) - Animal control issues were discussed. City Attorney Rick Sommers advised the council of a revision in the dog barking ordinance that calls for notification of the dog owner on the first complaint, a $200 fine on the second complaint, and court action could result on the third complaint. The former ordinance called for a $25 fine on the first complaint, $50 on the second, and court proceedings on the third. First reading of that revision will be held at the August meeting. The next meeting of the council is set for Aug. 11.
TENNESSEE
Rockwood - (7/18/08) - City Council will discuss the topic of vicious dogs at its regular monthly meeting on Monday, July 21st, 2008. This meeting will be held at 7:00PM in the City Council Room, 110 Chamberlain Avenue in Rockwood.
TEXAS
Aubrey - (7/16/08) - Aubrey pit bull ordinance subject of hearing - The City Council will hold a public hearing on an ordinance that would restrict the ownership of pit bull terriers inside city limits. The hearing begins at 5:30 p.m. Tuesday at City Hall, 107 S. Main St
Bulverde - City Council tabled the discussion about the new animal ordinances last Tuesday(07/22/08) pending the posting of the proposal document on the website and they suggested we have a workshop (open to the public) to discuss the issues. The proposed ordinance definitions "any animal business, including but not limited to any pet shop, grooming shop, dog obedience training center, animal auction, riding school or stable, performing animal exhibition, or boarding or breeding kennel, or cattery and cannot operate unless they are "licensed and located in a suitably zoned commercial zone." Next workshop/discussion is scheduled for Tuesday, 6:30PM (29 July) MORE FROM BELVERDE - (8/1/08) - The Bulverde City Council and Animal Control Committee met late into Tuesday night to discuss revisions to a proposed animal ordinance. The ordinance would give Bulverde residents greater autonomy when raising livestock and show animals.“I think its an excellent ordinance, there were a couple of items that were pointed out this evening that I think will improve it even further,” Mayor Ray Jeffrey said.He said the proposed ordinance would be considered at the next city council meeting on Aug. 12.“I think it’s much better than the current ordinance because it recognizes the activities that people out here in Bulverde appreciate, such as having livestock and taking care and having pets,” Jeffrey said.
Mesquite - (7/21/08) - The Mesquite City Council is joining forces with other communities in asking the Texas State Legislature to allow communities to decide for themselves whether to ban specific dog breeds.The measure is aimed at pit bulls.Councilman Dennis Tarpley said constituents frequently ask why the city won’t ban dangerous dogs, namely pit bulls.Tarpley said state law forbids cities from implementing such an ordinance.However, last month, the city of Duncanville agreed to help introduce legislature to change that law, and the council unanimously agreed Monday to follow Duncanville’s lead.
Madisonville - (7/17/08) - The city of Madisonville created a fire storm of controversy last February when it passed an ordinance banning pit bulls. Now, city leaders have had a change of heart. The city council amended the ordinance Monday to remove the ban on pit bulls. The ordinance now more closely resembles vicious animal ordinances found in other cities. The changes include the elimination of all references to a specific breed, namely pit bulls. Also gone are restrictions and fees placed on pit bull owners who were grand fathered under the ordinance. Plus, the prohibition on new pit bulls being introduced into the city was eliminated. The city came under fire from dog lovers across the country when the breed-specific law was implemented last winter.
Richland Hills - (7/13/08) High fines could be in store for pet owners who don’t obey strict new ordinances on dangerous animals and the tethering of dogs. The Richland Hills City Council unanimously approved the measures last week to help protect the animals and the public.
Included in those measures are 'Dangerous’ redefined & Rules for tethering. Violations: Up to $2,000 for each offense. Each day that a violation exists counts as a new offense.
UTAH
Orem - (7/30/08) - Two men in Orem found themselves surrounded and attacked by a pack of angry dogs Tuesday morning. It was the 25th pit bull attack in the city in the past year and a half, and now Orem is thinking about a ban on the dogs. Other cities have already banned pit bulls. Lt. Doug Edwards, with the Orem City Police Department, said, Orem is looking at adopting a pit bull ban. We found other cities in the nation have already done it. The year before Council Bluffs, Iowa, banned pit bulls, there were 29 reported attacks. Last year there were two, and so far this year they've had none. Don Bauermeister, a city attorney for Council Bluffs, said, "There's been less attacks, the numbers have gone down. We don't have as many pit bulls in Council Bluffs as we did in 2003, 2004." There are, of course, other breeds Orem will look at when considering banning. Some Chows, for instance, have a dangerous reputation, too.But Utah's Humane Society says breed bans aren't the answer. In a press release, the Humane Society points out that "the 'problem dog' at any given time is the breed that's currently most popular with individuals who tend to be irresponsible, if not actually abusive, in the controlling and keeping of their pets." "If one breed is banned, these people just move on to another one."
It goes on to say that responsible breeding, training and ownership of all dogs should be the community's primary concern. The dogs involved in yesterday's attack have different owners. In addition to possible charges, the owners will be cited for letting their pets run loose. The dogs could be put down. Click here to access Orem's Home page for council members and city information.
VERMONT
No report for Vermont
VIRGINIA
A Message to all Va. residents from Bob Kane, President, VHDOA
Dear Virginia Parents and Grandparents,
Every year since 2005 Virginia's General Assembly is faced with one or more bills to mandate animal rightist curriculum in the Old Dominion's required k-12 education, usually employing activist "volunteers." Each session these efforts are harder to beat back. Do you want PETA or HSUS volunteers teaching your children "Your Mommy and Daddy Kill Animals?" As the Richmond legislature changes, that's very possible. Please take a more active role in blocking such animal rightist trash.
Freely forward and cross post.
Falls Church - (7/16/08) - Attorneys for the Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund today filed suit in the U.S. District Court - District of Columbia to stop the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the Michigan Department of Agriculture (MDA) from implementing the National Animal Identification System (NAIS), a plan to electronically track every livestock animal in the country. The MDA has implemented the first two stages of NAIS - property registration and animal identification. The suit asks the court to issue an injunction to stop the implementation of NAIS at either the state or federal levels by any state or federal agency. If successful, the suit would halt the program nationwide. "At a time when the job of protecting our food safety is woefully underfunded, the USDA has spent over $118 million on just the beginning stages of a so-called voluntary program that ultimately seeks to register every horse, chicken, cow, goat, sheep, pig, llama, alpaca or other livestock animal in a national database--more than 120 million animals. It's a program that only a bureaucrat could love."
Roanoke - (8/4/08) - If you love a dog in the city of Roanoke, or are just supportive of people who love dogs in the city of Roanoke, you should attend tomorrow's public meeting to discuss the location. DATE: Tuesday, Aug. 5 TIME: 6 p.m. PLACE: Municipal Building, First Floor EOC Conference Room (Room 159) 215 Church Avenue, SW in downtown Roanoke Highland Park is the most likely site for the new park, and the committee touts these points for the choice of the location:
• Not near a Major road• More than one acre available• Shade from more established trees• Water source on site• Neighborhood improvement• Closer to downtown and other neighborhoods• Neighborhood support for the park
The meeting was requested by the neighborhood association. The committee is sure that those who oppose the park will be in attendance. They are asking that all those in favor of the proposed location also attend to share their opinions.
Staunton - Council approves multi year dog licenses. Pet owners can choose to pay $10 for a one-year license, $15 for a two-year license and $20 for a three-year license. Council members also decided Thursday (07/10/08) to amend the city's kennel license fee from $10
Seattle - (7/20/08) - New policy changes under consideration could soon change the way cougars are hunted in the state. On Aug. 9, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife officials plan to decide whether to extend a 2004 program that allows the use of dogs to hunt cougars in five counties. Officials heard expert briefing and public comments Friday about the program, which was approved by the Legislature in March. The plan would continue to allow hunters to hound cougars in Chelan, Okanogan, Ferry, Stevens and Pend Oreille counties and would give other counties an opportunity to request legalizing hounding as well. While allowing hunting to continue, the program also would reduce the cougar kill quotas by 40 percent in the five counties and lower the number of cougars a hunter can kill at one time from two to one. The wildlife department began the 2004 program because of concerns about public safety and livestock loss, but some local activists dispute their methods. Brian Vincent with Big Wildlife, a pro-wildlife organization, said hunting cougars only worsens their conflicts with humans. "This program goes after any cougar in the area, most of whom are innocent of any interaction with humans," he said.
Electric City - (7/16/08) -The Electric City Council cut the dog "Loki" a little slack at its July 8 meeting. The council had declared Loki a "dangerous" animal, making it manditory that its owner or guardian build a special pen, register the dog as dangerous, and carry $50,000 insurance. Tuesday night the council rescinded its "dangerous dog" resolution, which in effect cancels the July 25 court date that Kathy Wilson faced. When the complaint first came to council, members considered labeling the dog "potentially dangerous" a lesser degree by city ordinance. However, by the ordinance definition a dog is "dangerous" if it kills another domestic animal. The council, still faced with conflicting information, decided to go against the city's ordinance and waive the "dangerous" resolution. Council was further confused by the police explanation of what had happened.
Kennewick - (7/29/08) - New rules are now on the books for dangerous dogs in Benton County. The new amendment to the dangerous dog ordinance is designed to let the county recoup costs associated with impounding dogs. The amendment now reads the owner or keeper of the dog shall be liable for the full actual costs and expenses of keeping and impounding the dog. Benton County Commissioner Claude Oliver said the county is looking at contracting with West Richland for impounding dogs. The county will be talking with animal agencies soon for comment. "We'll be looking to have them come before the board of commissioners in the next few weeks and outline some of their concerns to see what we can do to potentially address that with any type of contract relationship with West Richland" said Oliver. Oliver says the dangerous dog ordinance has been on the books for many years now. He says the changes have been a long time coming. Oliver said he wants the public to know they won't be using the current animal facility in West Richland if a contract is approved.
Prosser - (7/29/08) - Benton County commissioners aren't sure they want their animal control ordinance to target feral cats. And they're asking for more information before making a decision. Monday, the three commissioners debated several aspects of a draft animal control ordinance for unincorporated areas of the county. The draft proposal focuses on dogs, does not require licensing and sets progressive fines between $30 and $100 for pet owners who violate the ordinance. Commissioner Max Benitz was adamant that the county's ordinance should deal with all domesticated animals, including cats. Commissioner Leo Bowman disagreed, saying he didn't know if there was enough of a rural feral cat problem to merit their inclusion. West Richland Police Chief Layne Erdman noted that cats aren't typically adopted quickly from shelters and have separate issues from dogs. The county is considering contracting with the city for kennel services. Commissioner Claude Oliver said if the county contracts with West Richland, which includes cats in its own animal control ordinance, the county may want to do the same.
All three of the Tri-Cities' larger communities -- Kennewick, Richland and Pasco -- have laws to control stray cats and dogs. The commissioners asked county staff to examine the cost differences between controlling dogs and controlling both dogs and cats. The commissioners also disagreed on whether leashes should be required. Benitz said yes, while Bowman said no. Bowman argued that dogs working on farms shouldn't have to wear leashes. Benitz also recommended higher fines for pet owners who don't control their animals. He suggested fines begin at $300, not $30.
WEST VIRGINIA
Martinsburg - (7/17/08) - Berkeley County commissioners will be drafting an animal control agreement today with the town of Hedgesville and renewing an agreement with the city of Martinsburg. Commissioners plan to discuss possible rates that Hedgesville could pay for use of the county's animal control service on a "per-call" basis, during the regular County Commission meeting that begins at 9:30 a.m. today. Animal control is the only emergency service that is not already provided to Hedgesville through Berkeley County. Law enforcement, fire safety and ambulance services are provided to the town through property taxes and other fees paid by its residents to the county. But the municipality does not have the funding for its own animal control service.
New Haven - (7/23/08) - Laws by which dog owners in the Town of New Haven must abide are about to get much stricter.During Tuesday's meeting, council members unanimously approved the first reading of a revised animal ordinance that outlines various new rules for dog owners within the municipality.Among the changes are a new registration fee of $5, which will be required of every household where a dog over the age of eight weeks resides; the species of dogs permitted in the town - pit bulls and rottweilers will not be permitted, but those currently living in the town will be allowed to stay; and fines that range from $25 to $1,000 for any dog owner found in violation of the ordinance.Additionally, pet owners that violate the ordinance will not have to be notified by mail that they are in violation, and law enforcement officers will be permitted to take action immediately, including seizing a dog that demonstrates vicious behavior.
WISCONSIN
Barron County - (7/17/08) - In November 2007, the county board approved a new animal control ordinance that created a position of animal control officer in the sheriff's department [Deputy Mark Olson was hired] and gave the county jurisdiction over stray animal complaints. In June, the humane society voted to remove the $90 fee and to allow any animal to be left at the society's shelter in Barron-free of charge. This change in policy has allowed Richie to work with the humane society's president, Dari McDonald, of Birchwood, on a countywide solution to the stray problem.The next step for the county is to build a shelter that would house animals brought in by the animal control officer. Richie says the county shelter is necessary due to the limited space in the humane society shelter, and the fact that many of the animals brought in through the animal control program may be sick or dangerous. Barron County Sheriff Tom Richie says if the Barron County Board of Supervisors approves a $100,000 county animal shelter during its July 21 meeting, the problem of stray animals roaming the county may finally be solved.
Brookfield - Aldermen listened to input from residents last week on a proposal that would limit pets to a combined total of four dogs and cats per home, including up to three of one type of animal.
Weston - village has made more changes to its animal ordinance after a number of residents spoke out July 7 at a Village Board meeting. Proposed animal ordinance changes since that meeting include an increase in the number of cats and dogs allowed in a single-family household can have up to three dogs or three cats, but those in some multifamily structures, such as an apartment complex with more than four units, would be limited to two dogs or two cats., an expanded license for those who show, breed or foster animals, smaller fees and larger, stricter fines for those who break the rules. If approved, pet owners who have more than the number of cats and dogs allowed by the revisions will be grandfathered in if they apply for a license within 60 days.
WYOMING
City of Evanston - (7/19/08) - The Mayor and City Council heard the second reading of ordinance 08-04, an ordinance which limits the keeping of farm animals and large domestic animals within certain zones in the city, also known as the “chicken ordinance.” To take effect, an ordinance requires three readings, and must pass on the third reading. Many of the council members made it clear that they looked forward to and anticipated much discussion, as they tried to accurately represent their constituents and best serve the City of Evanston in this matter. City Planner Paul Knopf began the discussion, reporting that they had received input from the municipal court and prosecuting attorneys. He added that his office has received only a few calls from concerned citizens regarding the ordinance, and that their concerns were about the Uinta County Fair and school projects.
Green River - (7/16/08) - To date, there's been almost no success in the private breeding of Western sage grouse for hunting on commercial bird farms. Nor has anybody really shown an interest in doing so in Wyoming. But if it's going to happen, the Game and Fish Department will be ready.Agency officials have scheduled a series of meetings across the state to discuss the department's first regulation governing sage grouse raised on private game bird farms.The state already has rules for such species as partridge, pheasant, quail and migratory game birds. But lawmakers during the 2008 session directed the agency to establish specific regulations for private bird farms that raise Western sage grouse.
COUNTRIES OF OTHER INTEREST
AFRICA - SOUTH AFRICA (A MUST READ!!)
City of Capetown - "DRACONIC", "too much red tape", "impossible to enforce" are just some of the reactions of animal lovers to the Animal By-law draft of the City of Cape Town, which when approved, will replace all existing municipal regulations in the whole of the City.
Council will then have the right to determine the number, kind and sex of dogs and cats anyone may keep on their premises; give officials the right to seize and destroy pets they deem to be a nuisance or a danger; and, sterilise pets and recover the costs from the owner. In addition, any stray animals will be impounded and if not claimed within ten days, be destroyed or sold to defray costs. There is also a huge discrepancy between the distance that a structure may be from the property boundaries - the distance varies from 15 metres (for dogs) to one-and-a-half metres (chickens). "But a badly kept chicken run stinks as bad as a badly kept dog enclosure anytime," a renowned dog trainer of Somerset West said this week.
This by-law has not been promulgated yet and the City will accept public input until October. Contact JP Smith at Jean-Pierre.Smith@capetown.gov and submit suggestions.
He is chairman of the Safety and Security Portfolio committee.
The new by-law will limit the number of cats/dogs that may be kept to two in or at a dwelling; three at premises containing one or two dwelling houses; and, six on agricultural premises. This excludes catteries, kennels, pet shops, training centres, veterinary clinics, the Metro Police or SAPS.
No-one will be allowed to keep an unspayed bitch, unless permission is granted by Council to keep kennels, or if a bitch is registered by the Kennel Union.
Anyone who wants to keep a greater number of dogs must apply for a permit, pay a prescribed fee and give all adjoining and affected neighbours notice, who may lodge objections. Officials may inspect the premises to determine whether it is likely to cause a health hazard.
The applicant may not keep the number of dogs applied for, pending the outcome of the application, in absence of a permit. No-one will also be allowed to keep a dog unless their property is properly fenced to keep such dog inside when not on a leash, or keep any dog if he fails to regularly remove and dispose of the dog's faeces.
The owner must also remove the faeces if his dog defecates in a street or public place and dispose of it in a refuse bin. No-one may walk a dog in a road or other public place without a lead and must carry a sufficient number of plastic bags or paper wrappers in which to place the excrement. The only exception is a person assisted by a guide dog.
No-one will be allowed to keep any dog who does not have a collar or microchip containing all the contact details of the owner.
They may not urge (or fail to prevent) any dog to attack or frighten any person or animal, except where necessary for self defence; keep any dog that barks, yelps, howls or whines, has the habit of charging any vehicle, animals, poultry, pigeons or persons outside the premises where it is kept; create a disturbance or nuisance, has mange or any other infectious disease; is ferocious or a danger in any public street or place unless muzzled and held on a leash and under control; and, trespass on private property or constitute a traffic hazard.
Any such animal may be impounded and be destroyed - unless the owner provides official within ten days with proof that the dog, if released, will not cause further nuisance and will be kept under control. After ten days the animal can be destroyed or sold and the proceeds of any sale used to defray costs.
Any person who contravenes or fails to comply with any provisions of this by-law or continues to commit an offence after notice has been served on him or her, shall be liable to a fine or imprisonment for a period not exceeding two years. In the case of a continuing offence, an additional fine or imprisonment for a period not exceeding ten days for each day on which such offence continued may be imposed or both a fine and imprisonment.
In addition to the penalty, the court may order the destruction of the animal.
Any person who previously had a dog removed from his care or has a previous criminal or civil judgment against him in respect of an animal, may not keep a dog unless Council determines otherwise; no person may provoke, harass or tease any dog, terrify or cause distress to any dog with fireworks or other means, and any involvement with dog fights, be it keeping or training breeds for fighting or just being a spectator, is liable on conviction to a fine of R20 000 or two years imprisonment.
Elands Bay - (7/20/08) - The SPCA is concerned that an outbreak of canine distemper, which has wiped out more than half the dogs in the township at Elands Bay, could spread to the nearby seal colony.SPCA chief executive Allan Perrins said the disease was highly contagious, often fatal and affected the respiratory, gastrointestinal, and central nervous systems. He said they would alert Marine and Coastal Management about the risk to seals, which were also susceptible to the disease. Seal numbers took a knock in January when more than 100 died in rough seas.SPCA inspectors visited the area last week after being alerted by Lamberts Bay Animal Welfare.
AUSTRALIA
Sydney - (7/16/08) - Australia is home to many unique species -- the kangaroo and the platypus counting among the best known. But have you ever heard of the Brush-Tailed Bettong? The Eastern Barred Bandicoot? The Bilby? All are among Australia's endangered species, and according to Australia's government, their reduction is the fault of wild cats. So, despite fierce criticism and lack of support from government, one Australian politician is standing by his controversial proposal to eradicate all cats from that country. Richard Evans says cats, a species not native to Australia, are eating all its animals.
(7/16/08) - Hamilton - Residents may soon be able to import 'banned' dogs such as pitbulls, bull terriers, rottweilers and mastiffs — as long as they can prove themselves to be "responsible dog owners". Government is to set up a Dog Authority to "consider applications for persons who wish to import or breed dogs that are currently restricted". The 2003 'banned' list featured dozens of 'dangerous' dogs. Government, however, now appears ready to scratch the ban, with a review of the restrictions on importation and breeding. Yesterday, an Environment Ministry spokesman disclosed that Minister El James has now requested the establishment of a 'Dog Authority'. "The point of having an Authority is to be able to give consideration to good, responsible dog owners who have historically not been problematic, but who have been caught by the current restrictions that resulted from the misdeeds of unsocialised dogs and irresponsible owners." NOTE: The 2003 'banned' list includes: Akita, American Bulldog, American Pitbull terrier, American Staffordshire Terrier, Argentine mastiff (Dogo Argentino), Aryan Molossus, Australian Dingo, Boerboel, Brazilian mastiff (Fila Brasileiro), Bull Terrier & Miniature Bull Terrier, Bullmastiff, Cane Corso, Danish Broholmer, Dogue de Bordeaux, English Staffordshire Bull Terrier, Japanese Tosa (Tosa Inu), Mastiff, Neopolitan Mastiff, Perro de Presa Canario, Perro de Presa Mallorquin, Rottweiler, Tibetan Mastiff, and Wolf & Wolf Hybrid. Crossbreeds are also included.
CHINA
Beijing - (7/17/08) - A Beijing law making it illegal to keep dogs taller than 35 centimetres (1.1 foot) means that dogs such as Deng's placid Golden Retriever are outlaws and can be locked up and put down if they are intercepted by the authorities in the Olympic city. Pet ownership in China is booming and dog lovers in particular complain about Beijing's inflexible laws against large dogs which they say harks back to China's communist past when few people kept dogs as pets, and those that did were scorned as bourgeois timewasters by communist leader Mao Zedong. "The 35-cm rule is not scientific, as most big pet dogs are quieter than smaller ones in reality," Deng said as he lay on the couch alongside his dog Maomao. "People who make the rules have no knowledge whatsoever of dogs." As pets become popular in China, Beijing dog owners are bristling over the city ban on large dogs and hefty annual licence fees for small dogs of as much as 1,000 yuan ($146). The ban is strictly enforced. Even a partially blind Paralympic medallist is unable to get her guide dog registered ahead of the Olympics and Paralympics in September when she is due to run with the torch at the opening ceremony. "I know it's pet owners' responsibility to register their dogs, but current regulation doesn't allow me to do so," said Deng. "For big dogs, being captured by the police almost always leads to a dead end."
Beijing's 17 million residents registered 703,897 pet dogs in 2007, up 17.3 percent from 600,096 in 2006. The number is probably much higher after factoring in unregistered dogs such as Lucky. Foreign diplomats are exempt from the size rule, and are often spotted parading huge Golden Retrievers, Siberian Huskies and Labradors along leafy streets. But Beijingers, bound by the rules, more often opt for tiny Chihuahuas or the city's white fluffy namesake, the Pekinese.
KOREA
SEOUL - (7/16/08) - Two South Korean labs are offering pet owners the chance to clone dogs, but for those looking to bring back a beloved beagle, be ready to wait in line and have plenty of cash on hand. The Seoul-based labs -- one affiliated to RNL Bio Co and the other to Sooam Biotech Research Foundation -- are separated by about 30 km (20 miles) and bill themselves as the only places in the world where you can clone a cocker spaniel or retrieve a retriever, with costs running at about $50,000 (25,000 pounds) to $100,000.
PHILIPPINES
Nueva Ecija - (7/31/08) - Government investigators and animal welfare activists have rescued 18 dogs from the butcher's knife in the northern Philippines, using a new law against the
country's illegal meat trade. Two suspected dog meat traders were arrested in a raid in
Nueva Ecija province and charged under a new Anti-Rabies Law which provides tougher
penalties for killing dogs for human consumption, said Serafin Gil, a National Bureau of
Investigation agent who led the operation. If convicted the traders face up to four years in
jail plus a fine of 5,000 pesos per dog traded. Under a previous law, traders faced milder
sentencing.
Saudi Arabia
The decision to implement a ban on the sale of cats and dogs in Saudi Arabia is actually at odds with Islamic law, argues Kristen Stilt of Egyptian Society for Mercy to Animals. The Saudi authorities need a refresher course on Islamic law and history. The Commission for the Promotion of Virtue and the Prevention of Vice has banned the sale of cats and dogs and prohibited people from taking their animals with them in public. The ban seems to be prompted by their concern that Saudi youths are acting under the influence of western culture. But they have their history mixed up: the Prophet Muhammad and the early Muslim scholars established rules for animal welfare and required people to show respect and compassion for animals long before the west even emerged from its dark ages. The Commission claims that dogs cannot be kept in homes, but this is a misreading of the sayings of the Prophet. Several of these sayings required that dog ownership be for a lawful purpose. In the early period, this might have meant for agricultural purposes or hunting. Today, many different purposes could be lawful. The world desperately needs leaders in animal welfare and the west has shown many failings in this area throughout history. But instead of spending their time and energy on laws that do nothing for the animals and are actually un-Islamic, the Saudi authorities should build upon their Islamic past and lead the world in championing the cause of animal welfare.
Riyadh - Saudi Arabia's religious police have announced a ban on selling cats and dogs as pets, or walking them in public in the Saudi capital, because of men using them as a means of making passes at women, an official said on Wednesday (07/30/08).
UK
Insurers sink teeth into dog owners
Big names including Sainsbury's and the RSPCA have doubled premiums, claiming that 'special breeds' run up higher vet bills. Patrick Collinson hears the howls of anguish. "The pets included in the 'selected breeds' category are animals on which we have experienced a high average claims cost and a high claims frequency, which together produces a high loss ratio. " Guardian Money carried out its own price test for a three-year-old greyhound - and our snapshot survey confirms how the RSPCA and Sainsbury's are now virtually pricing themselves out of the market for certain breeds. "I understand very well how insurance works," says Tripp, "and I would not be surprised if the Sainsbury's policy, ironically, is actually the worst in the country for the poor 'selected breeds'. They are among the biggest providers of pet insurance, and will be extracting a lot of extra money out of some policyholders. Yet there are alternatives for those who shop around, thus saving hundreds of pounds."
Mansfield, England - (7/17/08) - An East Midlands dog owner is celebrating today after being told he can have his dog back. Jason Singh had his case heard at Nottingham Magistrates’ Court where it was deemed his dog, Zeke, was not a pit bull terrier type. Mr Singh will be reunited with the dog who was described as ‘delightful’ by the judge in the case. “Zeke is clearly a delightful, friendly dog and shows no sign of aggression at all,” said Judge Morris Cooper. Zeke was seized by Ruschliffe Borough Council who claimed he was a prohibited pit bull type dog, which are banned under the 1991 Dangerous Dogs Act. The council said it was ‘disappointed’ at the decision, saying they had never claimed the dog was dangerous but that it was a banned ‘type’ dog. Zeke was deemed to be a Dogue de Bordeaux cross. “It has been over a year - and it’s been absolute hell but it’s been worth it and I’ve had a lot of people supporting me,” Mr Singh said. Mr Singh has been without his dog for over a year, Zeke was seized in June 2007.
—
And within this case is, a very prominent message.
The council were dissapointed as they had never claimed Zeke was dangerous.
I’ll just repeat that.
They had never claimed he was dangerous.
The Dangerous Dogs Act, don’t you just love it?
THIS MONTH'S STORY COMES FROM LOUISIANA (7/18/08)
The usual story is about a dog biting a man, but on Tuesday, it was a man slapping a dog.
Slidell police issued a summons for animal cruelty to Ronald A. Meyers, 63, 1533 Lakewood Drive, Slidell after he allegedly slapped his neighbor’s dog because it was barking too much. Police spokesman, Capt. Kevin Foltz said officers were called to the home of Meyers’ neighbor on a complaint of a dog biting someone.
When police arrived, the dog’s owner told officers that Meyers had left for the hospital to be treated for the bite.When officers located Meyers at Slidell Memorial Hospital, he told them that he was enjoying an afternoon in his back yard, but his neighbor’s dog, Pedro, kept barking, and “getting on his nerves.” Meyers noticed that Pedro was sticking his muzzle through a hole in the backyard fence, so Meyers went up to the fence and slapped Pedro’s muzzle. The dog responded by biting Meyer, causing a moderate injury to one of Meyers’ fingers. He then went to his neighbor and informed them of what happened. The neighbor told police that Pedro has never bitten any person, and that there never had been any prior problems between the dog and her neighbors. Pedro is a mixed breed dog that weighs between 30 and 35 pounds. However, police reported that Meyers told them that he “would kill the dog if it got out of the yard.”
Police issued a summons for Meyers to appear in the Slidell City Court for cruelty to animals.
(Ed. Note - Open Mouth - insert citation.)
