Editor's Note
Congratulations to New Jersey dog clubs, other groups, and individuals who successfully fought the breed-specific bill introduced in the Assembly last fall. As this newsletter goes to press, we've just received official word that the sponsor has finally agreed to withdraw his misguided bill. Although the new Senate companion remains, this is quite a coup for all those who have worked so hard in New Jersey.
In the first three months of the year, AKC identified 102 state bills and 53 local ordinances of interest. Although this is always our busiest time of the year, 155 issues is unprecedented. That's almost 12 new issues each week since the new year. Thanks to all of you who heed AKC calls to action and spread the word about these measures.
Eight legislatures are scheduled to be adjourned by the time this reaches your mailbox: Georgia, Idaho, Kentucky, South Dakota, Utah, Virginia, West Virginia, and Wyoming. 42 to go!
Regards,
The Road to Legislation
Ever wonder what happens to the thousands of bills that are introduced in state legislatures every year? Some of them will become law by the end of a session, while others will never make it out of committee. That’s because introduction is merely the first step in a long journey that bills must travel in order to become law. The trip is not always a smooth one, but it’s important to understand the process in order to be an effective lobbyist. New to some and a refresher for others, the steps below give a brief overview of how a bill becomes a law. Note: The following is specific to the state of Connecticut, but the basic procedure applies to most states.
Introduction: Any state Senator or Assemblyman may introduce, or sponsor, legislation. Following introduction, a bill is sent to the clerk of the sponsor’s house for numbering. There it is printed and referred to the appropriate committee.
Committee Action: Once a bill is referred, the committee chairman determines whether to act on the measure and how quickly to do so. If the chairman opposes or is uninterested in the bill, he can choose to ignore it and decline to put it on the calendar for consideration. If his committee does consider it, he can encourage the members to vote for or against it. A bill’s fate can be decided very early simply at the chairman’s discretion.
Committee members may choose to schedule a public hearing on a bill. Concerned citizens, organizations and government agencies will be asked to give testimony, and the committee publishes a hearing report on these activities. Following any hearings, the committee will meet to discuss, amend and vote on the bill--a process called "mark-up." The bill dies if it is voted down or never placed on the calendar for review. If the committee votes on the bill favorably, however, it sends the bill to the full chamber. A report is issued summarizing the legislation and its impact on the budget and current laws.
To the Floor: After leaving committee, the bill is scheduled on the house calendar where it will be debated, possibly amended, and voted on. It may never come to the floor for consideration, however, if the majority leader chooses to ignore it. Factors such as budget considerations and personal or party concerns contribute to whether the bill is ever heard.
Debate: If a bill receives consideration, it is likely to be debated on the floor. Amendments can be made on the floor, and the house may send the bill to another committee before voting on it. (In some states, a bill must pass three readings in a house before it can be passed.)
Vote: After much debate, the bill is finally voted on. If the bill passes, it is sent to the other chamber where the whole process begins again. If it fails in either chamber, it dies.
Conference Committee: If the House and Senate pass the same bill, it is sent to the Governor. If they pass different versions, however, a conference committee made up of members from both chambers is formed to resolve the differences. The committee is usually made up of senior members who are appointed by the presiding officers of the committees that originally dealt with the bill. If the conference committee reaches a compromise, it issues a report detailing the recommended changes. The report must then be approved by both houses. If a compromise cannot be reached, or if either house rejects the report, the bill dies.
Approval by the Governor: A bill or conference report that receives approval from both chambers is sent to the Governor for consideration. The Governor may sign the bill into law, veto it, or take no action. If he or she fails to sign it within five days during the legislative session or fifteen days after adjournment, it becomes law. A vetoed bill is returned to its house of origin. It can become law if it is reconsidered and passed by a 2/3 majority vote in both houses.
With all of the steps a bill must successfully complete, it’s no wonder a large portion of them never become law. That’s probably a good thing. An estimated 6,000 bills will be introduced in Congress this year; in New York state, 15,000. Fortunately, our founding fathers had a great deal of foresight to make the law-making process one that requires a great deal of time and consideration, with checks and balances built in to help ensure that the public is not overburdened with new legislation.
Around the Nation
Legislation That Affects You
CALIFORNIA - AKC and California dog owners were outraged when Assemblyman Paul Koretz introduced AB342 earlier this year. The bill, which prohibits hunting with dogs or training for that purpose, was intended to restrict the hunting of fur-bearing animals with dogs but is extremely poorly worded. As written, AB342 makes it illegal for any dog to hunt, pursue, catch, capture, or kill, or attempt to hunt, pursue, catch, capture, or kill any mammal, or to train a dog for such purposes. If passed, the bill could prohibit earthdog, tracking, coonhound, herding, lure coursing, and field trial events. Additionally, any dog that instinctually takes a wild or feral mammal not as an organized hunting or performance event would likewise violate AB342. In effect, any dog chasing a rabbit in his backyard would be prohibited.
AB342 was referred to the Committee on Water, Parks and Wildlife. A hearing is scheduled for early April. The Canine Legislation department expressed its opposition in a letter to the committee and encourages other California dog owners to do so. For more information on how you can help, contact the California Federation of Dog Clubs (1-800-498-3746, ext. 106, shojudge@aol.com).
- Referred to the Senate Committee on Judiciary, Sen. Vincent’s S225 would allow pet owners to sue any person who causes the intentional or negligent death of their animal. Owners would be entitled to claim up to $4,000 in noneconomic damages.
- Following a dog attack on a seven year-old boy, the City of Moreno is considering strengthening its dangerous dog ordinance. The Canine Legislation department sent materials and a statement supporting reasonable, generic dangerous dog laws to city officials in March.
FLORIDA - Rep. Marco Rubio is sponsoring H1429, which revises the state’s animal fighting laws. The bill makes it a felony to own, breed, train, transport or sell animals for the purpose of fighting. It is a felony under existing law to hold an animal fight, but H1429 goes a step further to punish those who perform any service to facilitate a fight, including refereeing or providing security. The bill also provides for the seizure, impoundment and possible euthanasia of fighting animals. H1429 was jointly referred to the House Committee on Agriculture and the Committee on Public Safety and Crime Prevention. A companion bill, S2350, is being sponsored by Sen. Ron Klein.
- City commissioners in Delray approved legislation requiring that dogs be kept behind a "secure" fence on private property. The invasive new law will impact countless responsible owners, including those who rely on electronic fences or voice control to keep their dogs from running off their property. Hedges and low fences that a dog can jump over will not be considered "secure." Outraged dog owners argue proper enforcement of the city’s existing leash law would address problems with loose dogs.
- Deliberations in Jacksonville continue as fanciers work to stave off intrusive animal control regulations. City officials have released several unofficial drafts of the revisions that have included everything from a limit law, which has since been dropped, to restrictions on rescue groups, mandatory spay/neuter, and extreme penalties for nuisance violations. Concerned animal owners are working with city officials to amend these onerous provisions. For more information, contact Darla Duffey of the Alliance of Responsible Pet Owners of North East Florida (dduffey@aol.com).
GEORGIA - Sponsored by Rep. Ann Purcell, H347 passed the House in February and was referred to the Senate Committee on Agriculture and Consumer Affairs. The bill revises the state’s Veterinary Practice Act, defining certain practices and clarifying the powers and duties of the State Board of Veterinary Medicine. It also provides for the licensing of veterinarians. The language closely resembles that of the AVMA’s Model Veterinary Practice Act.
ILLINOIS - H184 was amended in the House Judiciary Committee and placed on the short debate calendar. The bill originally pertained only to strengthening the state’s dangerous dog law, but as amended now requires all dogs over four months of age to be micropchipped. While the AKC encourages dog owners to properly identify their pets, we believe that the final decision about identification—whether by collar, tattoo or microchip—should be made by the owner, not the government. Mandatory microchipping of all dogs and cats does nothing to address Illinois’s current dangerous dog issues, and the Canine Legislation department noted this concern in a letter to all House members. The AKC also objects to a provision in H184 prohibiting animal shelters from releasing animals to non-licensed rescue groups. Again, this issue is not related to dangerous dogs and should be addressed separately. Illinois newspapers have recently reported that the sponsor intends to amend the bill.
- Rep. Terry Parke’s H3678 creates the Retail Sale of Dogs and Cats Act. Referred to the House Committee on Registration and Regulation, the bill imposes various requirements on "pet dealers." Breeders who sell fewer than 25 animals that are whelped and raised on their premises will be exempt. Under the Act, pet dealers would be required to provide purchasers with health information about the animal, including a record of any known congenital or hereditary conditions. Standards of care would have to be maintained, and purchasers would have various forms of recourse if an animal becomes ill or dies. H3678 also establishes penalties for violations.
INDIANA - The House Committee on Judiciary recommended "Do pass" on H1882. The bill specifies that an owner can be held civilly and criminally liable if his dog attacks someone, even if the attack takes place on the owner’s property. While the AKC understands that certain individuals such as meter readers and postal workers must enter private property to perform their duties and should be protected, we have concerns with a vague provision that protects victims who "reasonably believe they are permitted to enter the dog owner’s property."
IOWA - The Davenport Board of Aldermen continues to discuss strengthening the city’s dangerous dog ordinance. A breed-specific measure was tabled earlier this year, but the issue is not dead. Purebred dog owners are encouraged to closely monitor the situation.
- In light of strong opposition from the AKC and local fanciers, the West Bend City Council held off the final reading of a breed-specific ordinance. The measure, which contains no grandfather clause, would immediately force owners of Staffordshire Terriers, American Pit Bull Terriers, American Staffordshire Terriers and Rottweilers to give up their dogs. Together the Canine Legislation department and concerned owners flooded the city council chamber with reasons why breed-specific legislation does not work. The council responded to their points, and one council member has offered to serve on a committee to draft a new proposal. Congratulations!
KENTUCKY - S24 passed the Senate and was referred to the House Committee on Judiciary, where it was reported favorably. The bill would allow those convicted of second or subsequent offenses of animal torture to be convicted of a Class D felony, punishable by one to five years in prison. Torture is defined as "intentional infliction of or subjection to extreme physical pain or injury, motivated by an intent to increase or prolong the pain of the animal." S24 exempts hunters, trappers, food processors, veterinarians, and people who show or train dogs and cats. It also exempts lab animals and cropping and docking.
LOUISIANA - Rep. Don Cazayoux introduced H106 in February, but it has not yet been referred to a committee. The bill authorizes law enforcement officers and animal control officers to seize dogs that kill or seriously injure a person.
MARYLAND - Following a February 20th hearing, the Environmental Matters Committee has yet to vote on H355. The bill:
- Prohibits surgical debarking or silencing of dogs unless the procedure
is done to protect the life of the dog. Violators could be convicted of a
felony and face up to five years in prison and/or $5,000 in fines
- Prohibits owners from obtaining a dog license unless they state on the
application whether the dog has been surgically debarked or silenced
- Owners who knowingly provide false information on a license application
about whether a dog has been debarked could be found guilty of a misdemeanor
and face penalties of up to one year in prison and/or $1,000 in fines. The
penalty also applies to owners who sell or donate debarked dogs without informing
the new owner
- Veterinarians who fail to file a written statement with the Department of Health and Mental Hygiene regarding why they have debarked a dog will face disciplinary action.
MASSACHUSETTS - Rep. Arthur Broadhurst introduced H2075, which would require homeowners’ insurance policies to cover domestic animals. The bill was referred to the Joint Committee on Insurance. Please send the committee letters of support for this bill.
MISSOURI - Thanks to the tireless efforts of a few concerned dog owners, breed-specific legislation in Sikeston has been tabled for the moment. The measure, which would have banned several breeds including Mastiffs, Chow Chows, Rottweilers and "pit bulls" was opposed by the AKC in a statement to city officials. Sikeston fanciers are working with city officials to draft a new ordinance, but other problematic provisions such as a limit law and kennel licensing have been suggested by the city council, in addition to a continued push for breed-specific language. Dog owners are hoping to convince the council that reasonable, well-enforced nuisance and dangerous dog laws will better address the city’s animal control problems.
NEBRASKA - LB273 and LB274 were both sent to the governor in March. LB273 establishes housing requirements for commercial breeders, including having ample food and water, sanitary conditions and adequate space for dog and cats to move around. A commercial breeder is currently defined as: (1) a person who owns 4 or more unaltered dogs or cats who is engaged in the business of breeding and who sells, exchanges or leases dogs and cats, (2) a person who sells, exchanges or leases more than 30 dogs and cats per year, (3) a person knowingly selling, exchanging, or leasing any dogs or cats for later retail sale. LB274 requires pet dealers to provide buyers with information about the benefits of spaying and neutering. Pet dealer is defined as anyone who is engaged in the selling or buying for resale over 30 dogs or cats per year.
NEW HAMPSHIRE - S79 was amended on the Senate floor and re-referred to the Senate Committee on Wildlife and Recreation. The text of the amendment is not yet available as this newsletter goes to press. Dog Owners of the Granite State (DOGS) is opposing S79, which would allow any police, animal control or humane society officer to seize a person’s animals if they are suspected of cruelty. The owner would be required to post a bond for the animals’ care regardless of whether he or she is convicted. The bill gives officers 24 hours before they are required to notify the owner of such seizure and allows them 15 days before they must document the animals’ condition. Posting bond does not prevent the police or humane agency from disposing of seized animals if they choose.
NEW JERSEY - Faced with strong opposition from New Jersey dog owners, Assemblyman John Burzichelli has vowed to withdraw his breed-specific bill (A2906) when the legislature reconvenes in May. In a statement made on March 21st, Asm. Burzichelli said he plans to introduce new, generic legislation that will strengthen the state’s dangerous dog law without targeting specific breeds. A2906 would have required a special license for all "pit bulls," including American Pit Bull Terriers, American Staffordshire Terriers, Staffordshire Bull Terriers, Staffordshire Terriers and any dog determined to be a pit bull type. The legislation also provided for very strict provisions for keeping pit bulls, with violators being subject to fines of up to $1,000 per day.
When A2906 was first introduced last fall, the AKC, AKC clubs in New Jersey, and other dog clubs and individuals quickly organized a fervent opposition campaign. Outraged dog owners, including AKC President Al Cheauré, wrote, faxed, and e-mailed their representatives, keeping the pressure on over the next several months. The AKC, the New Jersey Federation of Dog Clubs, the Delaware Valley APBT Club, the neighboring Responsible Dog Owners Association of NY and others repeatedly provided Asm. Burzichelli with alternative language that was not breed-specific. These determined efforts were rewarded by the Assemblyman’s announcement.
Despite the good news regarding A2906, New Jersey dog owners still face an identical bill (S2381) that was recently introduced in the Senate. The AKC will continue to work with fanciers to oppose the legislation, and we strongly urge dog owners to keep up the flow of communications to New Jersey senators. For more information, contact the NJ Federation of Dog Clubs (http://www.njfederationofdogclubs.org). Congratulations to all who contributed to this success!
- The Borough of Helmetta is considering a proposal to limit residents to no more than four dogs or cats, or a combination thereof. The Canine Legislation department is working with fanciers to defeat the measure. For more information, contact Priscilla Gabosch, NJ Federation of Dog Clubs (856-858-6227).
NEW MEXICO - Persistence paid off for New Mexico fanciers when H19 died in March. Led by Legislative Liaison Norm Wilson’s tireless efforts, fanciers barraged their representatives with phone calls, faxes and e-mails opposing the measure. Wilson also spent countless hours at the capitol, monitoring the bill’s movement and working with legislators to quash it. H19 would have established the crime of animal hoarder, defining "hoarder" as one who possessed over 15 animals and failed to provide adequate nutrition, shelter and veterinary care. Fanciers were extremely concerned that anyone who owned more than 15 animals could have had them seized under the presumption that they were a "hoarder." Kudos to everyone’s hard work!
NEW YORK - A3822 makes it a violation to keep a dog tied or confined unattended outdoors without providing adequate shelter. Sponsored by Assemblyman Howard Mills, the bill was referred to the Committee on Local Governments.
- Assemblyman Manning’s A4539 amends the state’s dangerous dog law to allow the passage of breed-specific legislation. The Assembly Committee on Agriculture is now considering the bill.
- Assemblyman Thomas Kirwan introduced A5501 in March. The bill makes it illegal for convicted felons to own vicious dogs. Contrary to the state’s dangerous dog law, which prohibits breed-specific legislation, A5501 defines vicious dogs as "pit bulls," Rottweilers, mixes of those breeds, or dogs over ten pounds that have exhibited vicious tendencies. The bill was referred to the Assembly Committee on Codes. A companion bill, S2022, is being considered by the Senate Committee on Codes.
- Assemblywoman Deborah Glick is sponsoring A6340, legislation that would allow owners to sue for the wrongful injury or death of a companion animal. The bill was referred to the Assembly Committee on Judiciary. A companion bill, S2791, was introduced by Sen. Frank Padavan and referred to the Senate Committee on Judiciary.
- S188 passed the Senate and was referred to the Assembly Committee on Agriculture. The bill amends the definition of dangerous dog to include one that attacks and injures a domestic animal.
- Introduced by Sen. Kruger, S1952 prohibits the killing or injuring of confined animals for the purpose of entertainment or contest, i.e. "canned hunts." Unfortunately, vague wording affects some field events. The bill was referred to the Committee on Environmental Conservation. The AKC is working with the New York Houndsman’s Association to defeat the measure..
- Bedford dog owners could have a new off-leash area to enjoy if plans to establish a local dog park are successful. In support of their efforts, the AKC sent a statement and our four-color dog parks brochure to the town supervisor in March.
- The Canine Legislation department recently learned that the Town of Halfmoon is considering revisions to its dangerous dog ordinance. In response, the AKC sent a statement in support of reasonable dangerous dog laws along with an information packet to three city officials who are working on the initial draft.
- On February 23rd, the Manhattan Appellate Supreme Court ruled in favor of the AKC in a lawsuit brought by a dog owner who opposed the docking of Brittanys’ tails. Fanciers may recall that a dog owner sued the AKC and the American Brittany Club in January, 2000, claiming the breed standard was discriminatory toward Brittanys with long tails and was also a violation of a recently-passed animal cruelty law in New York state that precludes "unjustifiable pain." The Court ruled that the state animal cruelty law must be enforced by law enforcement agencies. Upholding a lower court’s decision, the ruling stated that the dog owner lacked standing, or the legal right, to sue to change AKC’s policies. Additionally, the Court dismissed the owner’s complaint that AKC standards were discriminatory, stating, "The right to compete . . . in dog shows is not a legally protected right. In any event, a Brittany Spaniel with an undocked tail is, in fact, permitted to compete; . . . he simply loses points for tail length."
NORTH DAKOTA - The Board of Animal Health (BOAH) voted unanimously to drop an import permit requirement for dogs and cats entering the state. The excessive regulation was part of a temporary rule enacted in response to Europe’s outbreak of Foot-and-Mouth Disease nearly two years ago. If permanently enforced, the rule would have negatively impacted hunters, dog show attendees, and residents returning with their pets from vacations. The AKC and many concerned dog owners expressed their opposition to the requirement when the board took public comments on the rule earlier this year. The BOAH’s decision to drop the permit requirement rendered H1347 moot, and the bill has since died in the House. H1347 would have prohibited the Board from requiring the import permit.
OHIO - Rep. Kenneth Carano plans to introduce a puppy lemon law in 2003. Ohio fanciers and the AKC supplied Rep. Carano’s office with comments on an initial draft that was released last fall, and those efforts are continuing this spring to ensure fair, reasonable and enforceable protection for dog breeders and sellers, as well as for consumers. Melanie Tierney of the Canine Friends of Cleveland notes that fanciers are particularly concerned over the diagnosis of genetic disorders, and the legal responsibilities of such to the seller.
RHODE ISLAND - Sponsored by Rep. Peter Lewiss, H5816 prohibits owners from tethering their dogs for more than eight hours or kennelling them for more than twenty in a twenty-four hour period. Dogs could not be tethered at all without the owner present. The bill also requires owners to provide dogs that are primarily kept outside with a doghouse if the temperature falls below 45 degrees. Animal control officers would have the authority to require similar shelters in milder weather for puppies, short-haired, ill or elderly dogs. H5816, which also establishes fines and penalties for violations, was referred to the House Committee on Health, Education and Welfare.
- Of greater concern to Rhode Island fanciers is Rep. Peter Lewiss’s H5817. Following in the wake of the state’s 2001 move to make all owners "guardians," the bill takes a giant leap toward removing the rights of dog owners to keep and protect their animals.
In their concern for the welfare of animals, many dog fanciers may agree with some of the basic principles of HB5817. Unfortunately, the bill goes too far and threatens the rights of responsible dog owners. Animal care and control decisions cannot be blindly handed over to humane agencies. Owners, breeders, and veterinarians should retain some control and responsibility for making decisions about the care of pets. The bill’s language:
- Creates various degrees of animal abuse and neglect and makes aggravated abuse and neglect felonies.
- Compels 21 categories of professionals to report suspected abuse and neglect (doctors, nurses, school employees, members of the clergy, attorneys, marriage and family therapists, photographers, employees of news media, firefighters, and more).
- Allows animal care agencies to petition for termination of guardianship.
- If a guardian is deemed unfit, he cannot possess any animal for at least 3 years and must repay costs associated with the care of the animal.
- Creates "animal abuser" registry and requires notification of neighbors.
- Bans procedures that disable or remove any part or organ, making commonly accepted elective procedures such as ear cropping, tail docking, dewclaw removal, and debarking illegal. Violators will be subject to fines and jail time.
- Allows any guardian of an animal subjected to a violation to bring a civil lawsuit for actual and punitive damages of not less than $1000 per violation.
- Requires motorists to immediately stop and render aid to any animal injured by the motorist, including all wild animals such as deer, opossums, raccoons, squirrels, and birds.
- Makes individuals who cause the death of a person’s pet or companion animal intentionally or negligently liable for up to $10,000 in noneconomic damages if the death occurred on the owner or caretaker’s property or while under the control of the owner or caretaker. Noneconomic damages include compensation for the loss of companionship, love, and affection of the pet.
"Our concerns and suggestions seemed to be very well received….As we have been heard and are awaiting the committee’s response, we ask that while we wait for their reply and modification that a message be sent out for all to hold off on any further correspondences. It is our belief that any further correspondences might actually hinder what we have been able to accomplish thus far."
- Sen. Rhoda Perry’s S892 provides guidelines
for tethering and confining dogs. The bill prohibits tethering, caging or fencing
dogs outside for more than 30 minutes without access to shelter. If the temperature
is below 45 degrees, the shelter must be insulated and be at least four inches
off the ground. Tethering or otherwise confining a dog outdoors when the temperature
drops below 25 degrees is prohibited. Tethers must be a least six feet long
and can only be used if the owner is present. S892 was referred to the Senate
Committee on Constitutional and Gaming Issues.
- S913 would prohibit the Department of Environmental Management from
banning pets at state campgrounds. Sponsored by Sen. Stephen Alves, S913
was referred to the Senate Committee on Environment and Agriculture.
TENNESSEE - Sen. Stephen Cohen’s S1719 addresses crimes
by minors and allows owners to claim up to $4,000 in noneconomic damages
if a minor kills their pet as a result of unlawful or intentional act. The
bill has not yet been assigned to a committee.
VERMONT - Sen. Campbell’s S100, which was referred to
the Senate Judiciary Committee, amends the state’s animal cruelty law.
According to the bill, a person could be convicted of aggravated cruelty
to animals if he or she "intentionally, maliciously, and without just
cause tortures, mutilates, maims or cruelly beats" an animal. AKC wants
to ensure that this definition could not be applied to those who remove dew
claws, crop or dock their dogs. Other technical corrections about the shooting
of birds will not impact field events, as some fanciers originally believed.
However, AKC and the Vermont Federation of Dog Clubs are working to improve
the vague language of the bill.
VIRGINIA - H1831 passed both the House and Senate and is now
eligible for the governor’s desk. The bill will amend the state’s
definition of a dangerous dog to include one that attacks or injures another
dog. Exemptions would be allowed if no serious injury occurs or if the dogs
involved are owned by the same person. Owners of companion animals that are
attacked would be able to collect compensation if the incident occurred on
their own property and if the aggressive dog did not have permission to be
there.
- H1861 passed the Senate and became eligible for the governor’s
desk in February. The bill raises the minimum liability insurance requirement
for owners of dangerous dogs to $100,000, but it gives municipalities the
choice of whether to enact this particular provision. H1861 also adds animal
control officers’ previous findings to the list of factors in determining
whether a "dangerous" dog is indeed "vicious." Finally,
it removes the cap on the mandatory licensing fee for dangerous dogs in municipalities
that have enacted such an ordinance.
- S950 was sent to the governor’s desk in March. The bill removes
the definition of "companion animal rescue agency" from a shelter-related
law that passed last year, eliminating the need for them to be licensed. The
amendments were sought by Virginia rescue groups who opposed last year’s
intrusive S260. The Virginia Federation of Dog Clubs, the AKC and rescue groups
supported this bill.
WASHINGTON - Rep. Steve Kirby introduced H2043, a bill to prohibit
dogs from being deemed dangerous simply based on their breed. The bill also
declares that a dog cannot be declared dangerous if its threatening action
was the result of someone trespassing or committing a crime on the dog owner’s
property, or if the dog was being abused. The House passed H2043 in March and
was referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee. The AKC supports this bill.
- H2053 amends the state’s animal cruelty law by citing constant,
uncontrolled barking as evidence of cruelty. It also adds vague requirements
for "necessary space" that should be given to an animal. Sponsored
by Rep. Michael Carrell, H2053 was recommended "Do pass" by both the
House Judiciary Committee and the House Committee on Rules.
- Companion bills were introduced to prohibit insurance companies
from discriminating against homeowners based on the breed of dog they own.
Sen. Prentice’s S5950 was referred to the Senate Committee on
Financial Services, Insurance and Housing. Rep. Campbell’s H1895 was
referred to the House Committee on Finance. The AKC supports these bills but
anticipates an uphill battle following strong opposition from the insurance
lobby at a recent hearing.
WEST VIRGINIA - H2753 passed the House and Senate and is now eligible
for the governor’s desk. The bill makes it a felony to be knowingly involved
in an animal fighting venture. Those convicted of organizing a fight or owning
fighting dogs or training equipment could be found guilty of a felony. Penalties
will include fines of $1,000-$5,000 and a jail term of 1-5 years.
- Having passed both the Senate and the House, Sen. Jeffrey
Kessler’s S205 was signed by the governor in March. The bill makes
it a felony crime to intentionally torture or maliciously kill an animal. Penalties
include a jail sentence of 1-3 years and fines up to $5,000.
WYOMING - S125 was signed by the governor in March. The law increases
the penalty for cruelty to animals to a felony if the act results in the death
of the animal.
Questions regarding "Legislation Around the Nation?" Please contact
the Canine Legislation Department for more information regarding bills and
ordinances for which no Liaison name or number has been provided.
