Editor's Note
In June, Noreen Baxter, Vice President of Communications, and I had the pleasure of attending an International Political Forum hosted by The Kennel Club in London. The event presented a wonderful opportunity to hear what other countries - including India, New Zealand, Sri Lanka and of course, the United Kingdom - are doing on the legislative front. The round table allowed attendees to share strategies and materials, and in many instances, to become better prepared for issues that other countries have tackled but could soon arise in our own.
On the home front, the Canine Legislation department and purebred dog owners have been working vigorously to oppose SB1548, which would ban ear cropping for dogs. Please see the feature article at right for more details.
Finally, our department is very pleased to release our new brochure,
"Preserve Your Rights as a Dog Owner," which is designed to
educate dog owners about the "guardian" issue. See inside
for more information about this helpful piece.
Regards,
Fanciers Rally to Oppose Ear Cropping Ban
California fanciers were caught by surprise this summer when SB1548, a bill pertaining to veterinary medicine, was amended in the Assembly Business and Professions Committee to include a ban on ear cropping for dogs. This misguided bill could have a devastating impact not just on owners of cropped breeds, but ultimately on purebred dog owners nationwide. Recognizing this, AKC and fanciers in California and beyond are working around the clock on efforts to oppose SB1548, even as this newsletter goes to press.
Sponsored by Sen. Liz Figueroa, SB1548 sailed through the California State Senate earlier this year with no mention of banning ear cropping-the text focused on regulatory improvements to the Veterinary Medical Practice Act and had widespread support from the veterinary community. Once the bill reached the Assembly Business and Professions Committee, however, Sen. Figueroa added language that would make it a misdemeanor to crop a dog's ears unless the procedure was done for treatment of disease or injury to the dog. (SB1587 defines "disease or injury" as a condition that impairs normal physiological functioning. Prevention of ear infections is not considered a valid reason for performing the procedure.) Violators could face fines of up to six months in jail and/or a $1,000 fine.
The American Kennel Club recognizes that ear cropping, as described in certain breed standards, is an acceptable practice integral to defining and preserving breed character and/or enhancing good health. So upon learning that SB1548 had been amended, the AKC's Canine Legislation department quickly posted alerts on our Web site and sent statements of opposition to the Assembly Business and Professions Committee, where the bill was being considered. Understanding that much of the language in SB1548 had a great deal of support, AKC asked the bill sponsor and the committee members to simply remove the ear cropping provision from the bill. We urged fanciers to do the same as we spread word of the proposed legislation to as many dog owners as possible. In addition to Web postings, AKC notified parent clubs of cropped breeds, issued alerts by e-mail to all delegates, and reached out to key Legislative Liaisons, judges, and field representatives. Although the fancy was quick to respond, SB1548 was approved by the Business and Professions Committee and referred to the Assembly Committee on Appropriations before the Legislature recessed for July.
Parent clubs of cropped breeds soon realized they would have to work together if SB1548 were to be defeated. Led by the Doberman Pinscher Club of America, many of these clubs have donated funds to hire lobbyists in California who represents their interests. To take advantage of the Legislature's recess, they have also organized a grassroots campaign that includes personal lobbying efforts, as well as inviting Assembly members to dog shows where they are learning more about our sport. Peter Piusz, Chairman of the Delegates' ad hoc committee on ear cropping and docking, has also helped coordinate opposition efforts.
In the meantime, AKC has alerted all California clubs to this issue by sending a mailing to club presidents and corresponding secretaries. Since the veterinary community supports much of SB1548, AKC has also urged fanciers to contact their veterinarians and ask for their help in getting the ear cropping ban removed from the bill, thereby allowing the regulatory improvements to still be enacted. In turn, AKC has reached out to its own contacts within the California Veterinary Medical Association and the American Veterinary Medical Association, asking for their support. Working with the Canine Health Foundation, AKC has also appealed to veterinary schools in California, asking that they encourage removal of the ear cropping ban as well.
As this newsletter goes to press, efforts to lobby the Appropriations Committee continue, both by California fanciers and AKC. Phone calls have been made, and letters, faxes, and e-mails of opposition have been sent by countless purebred dog owners and the Canine Legislation department. SB1548 is scheduled to be heard by the committee on August 4th. If it is not defeated in committee, the bill will move to the full Assembly for consideration. If approved there, it will then have to travel back to the Senate for concurrence, since the version passed by the Senate did not include the ear cropping provision. All this must take place before the bill can be sent to the Governor's desk for his signature. Clearly, fanciers could have a long road ahead if we are not successful in convincing the Appropriations Committee to amend the bill. AKC will continue to post updates and alerts on our Web site as developments occur.
It's obvious why the sixteen recognized AKC breeds that include ear cropping in their standards have a stake in opposing SB1548. But why should the rest of the fancy care? There are many reasons, but most notably for the dangerous precedent this bill sets. The AKC believes that responsible dog owners, in consultation with their veterinarian, should have the right to make decisions about proper care and treatment for their pets-not the government. If legislatures can regulate one veterinary practice, they may soon move to others, such as tail docking or spaying and neutering. This road is not one that responsible dog owners, or veterinarians, should feel comfortable taking.
There are other problems with SB1548 as well. First, the ear cropping amendment was a last-minute addition to an otherwise well-supported veterinary medical bill. The issue of whether to ban this procedure never received the full, open debate it deserves. Should our elected officials really be given this much unchecked authority? Second, SB1548 could create serious animal cruelty risks if owners who cannot obtain veterinary care for ear cropping procedures irresponsibly choose to seek less-qualified sources. Finally, enforcement of this legislation would be a nightmare for already understaffed, underfunded animal control departments.
On the surface, SB1548 may appear to impact only one
portion of the fancy. Unfortunately, the measure has widespread implications
that will be detrimental to all purebred dog owners if it is allowed
to pass. Countless fanciers have already donated time, energy and money
to opposing SB1548, but we can never have too many concerned voices. Please
make sure your club is doing all it can to help.
Around the Nation
Legislation That Affects You
ARKANSAS - Before AKC or local fanciers were aware, the Kensett City Council recently adopted a new animal control ordinance. The ordinance requires owners to vaccinate and register their dogs with the city annually. The measure also limits residents to no more than four dogs, only two of which may be Chow Chows, Rottweilers, or "pit bulls." Violators of the new laws will be subject to fines of at least $100 for the first offense.
CALIFORNIA - Sen. Figueroa's S1548, a bill pertaining to veterinary medicine, was amended in late June to include a ban on ear cropping. Violators of the provision will be charged with a misdemeanor unless the procedure is done for treatment of disease or injury to the dog. Prevention of ear infections is not considered a valid reason for performing the procedure. S1548 was referred to the Assembly Committee on Appropriations. The AKC strongly opposes this bill and urges concerned fanciers to contact the bill sponsor and ask that the provision be removed from the bill. Purebred dog owners are also encouraged to contact the committee members and ask them not to place the bill on the docket for consideration. For more information, please see our feature article on page 1, or visit www.akc.org.
- The Animal Council reports that Kern County officials voted against revisions to the county's animal control ordinance that would further limit residents to the number of dogs or cats they can own based on the size of their property. The Canine Legislation department sent a letter of opposition and materials to the board of supervisors. Congratulations to all those who worked to oppose the measure.
- Officials in Roseville recently approved an ordinance that prohibits owners from leaving animals in inadequately ventilated vehicles in excessively hot or cold weather. The measure allows officers to use "reasonable force" to remove pets in distress and take them to a veterinarian or shelter. Violators will be fined $100 for the first offense, $200 for a second, and $500 for a third.
DELAWARE - Rep. Cathcart's H392 increases the state's penalties for animal cruelty offenses. The bill provides that a crime of cruelty to animals is a Class A misdemeanor punishable by a fine of up to $2300 and up to 40 hours of community service. A Senate amendment removed the requirement that the community service sentence be served in the program benefiting animal welfare. Subsequent offenses within three years will carry a fine of up to $5000 and at least 60 days in jail. Intentional cruelty resulting in the serious injury or death of an animal is categorized as a Class F felony. Those convicted of such a crime will face a fine up to $10,000 and up to 160 hours of community service. Subsequent offenses within three years will carry a $25,000 fine and at least one year in jail.
- Gov. Minner signed H398 on June 15. The new law gives municipalities the option to permit dogs on their beaches, thereby exempting them from an existing law banning dogs from such areas.
FLORIDA - Palm Beach County Commissioners voted unanimously in June to ban dogs from a 590-foot-long stretch of public beach. The ban was enacted in response to the complaints of local residents concerned with sanitation and public safety. The county is now considering plans to expand an established dog park.
GEORGIA - Columbus officials are considering changes to the city's animal control enforcement ordinance. The proposed changes include a provision that limits the amount of time an animal can be left in a vehicle to 30 minutes in a shaded area and five minutes in a non-shaded area when the outside temperature exceeds 85 degrees.
IOWA - Officials in Council Bluffs are continuing to consider a law that would ban "pit bulls." No formal ordinance has been drafted. The Canine Legislation department sent a letter of opposition and materials to the mayor and city council in its support of local fanciers. For additional information, contact Phyllis Gasper, Council Bluffs Kennel Club (sdgroom@aol.com).
KANSAS - The Leavenworth City Commission is considering revisions to strengthen the city's dangerous dog ordinance. The Canine Legislation department sent a letter and materials to city officials as well as materials to area dog owners. For more information, contact Ramona Adams, Kansas Kennel Association (rbadams@direcpc.com).
LOUISIANA - Gov. Blanco signed H247 on July 6. The law defines the theft of an animal as the taking, misappropriation or killing of an animal and provides that in addition to criminal penalties, restitution be made to owners by individuals found guilty of such crimes.
MARYLAND - Prince George's County officials continue to consider the repeal of the county's "pit bull" ban adopted in 1996. A proposed ordinance would lift the ban and focus on a dog's behavior rather than its breed. A vote is expected this fall. The Canine Legislation department sent a letter of support to county council members and encourages local fanciers to do the same. For additional information, contact Adrianne Lefkowitz, Maryland Dog Federation (901-693-2256 or euniverz@aol.com).
MASSACHUSETTS - Rep. Hill's H4033, which precludes municipalities from enacting breed-specific legislation, was referred to the House for a third reading. The bill amends the dangerous dog law by redefining a "vicious dog" as any dog that when unprovoked, inflicts severe injury or kills a human being. H4033 further defines a "potentially dangerous dog" as any dog, which when unprovoked, menaces, attacks or injures a domestic animal on two separate occasions within a three-year period. Massachusetts fanciers support many provisions in the bill but remain concerned about the "potentially dangerous" classification, specifically the use of the term "menacing," given that dogs and cats often "menace" each other out of natural instinct with no real threat of danger. Fanciers instead support the adoption of specific, measurable criteria of actions qualifying as potentially dangerous. For more information, contact the Massachusetts Federation of Dog Clubs and Responsible Dog Owners (jrembrandtseeley@aol.com).
- Despite the lobbying efforts of concerned Boston dog owners and the AKC, Mayor Menino signed a breed-specific ordinance into law on June 29. The ordinance requires "pit bull" owners to spay or neuter their dogs and register them with the city at a cost of $50 annually. Pit bulls are defined as American Pit Bull Terriers, Staffordshire Bull Terriers, American Staffordshire Terriers, or any mix of those breeds. The law also limits residents to a total of two pit bulls and requires owners to display a sign on their property stating a pit bull is located on the premises. Dogs must also be leashed and muzzled when in public. Violators will be subject to a $100 fine. Exemptions are provided for animals participating in contests, shows or exhibitions within city limits, but animals may not remain in the city for more than two weeks. Thank you to all those who worked tirelessly to oppose this legislation. AKC encourages Massachusetts fanciers to be on the lookout for similar legislation in their municipalities.
- The Massachusetts Federation of Dog Clubs and Responsible Dog Owners reports that Fitchburg officials have tabled proposed breed-specific legislation that was modeled after the ordinance recently passed in Boston. AKC sent an opposition letter and materials to the mayor and city council. Kudos to those who worked to defeat the measure!
- The Leominster City Council may also soon consider a breed-specific dangerous dog ordinance. The Canine Legislation department sent a letter and materials to city officials and is working with local fanciers to oppose the measure. For more information, contact the Massachusetts Federation of Dog Clubs and Responsible Dog Owners (jrembrandtseeley@aol.com).
- Local fanciers report that while Marlborough officials continue to consider changes to strengthen its existing animal control ordinance, those changes do not appear to be breed-specific. Among other provisions, the proposed law would impose a $50 fine for failure to license dogs and would require dogs to be leashed in public. AKC sent a letter and materials to city councilors and will continue to monitor the situation closely. To all those who worked on this issue--well done!
MICHIGAN - H5029 was signed by Governor Granholm on June 18. The new law adds mourning doves to the state's list of game birds and authorizes the Natural Resources Commission to declare the first open season for the bird. AKC, the Michigan Association for Pure-Bred Dogs and the Michigan Hunting Dog Federation supported H5029.
MISSOURI - In June, before AKC and fanciers were aware, Velda Village Hills trustees voted to ban "pit bulls." The measure defines a pit bull as a Staffordshire Bull Terrier, Bull Terrier, American Staffordshire Terrier, American Pit Bull Terrier, or any mix of those breeds. Any person charged under the ordinance must remove the dog from the municipality within five days or will be subject to fines ranging from $100 to $1000.
NEW JERSEY - Sen. James is sponsoring S1718, a breed-specific bill that authorizes the regulation of "pit bull" ownership. The pit bull classification includes American Pit Bull Terriers, American Staffordshire Terriers, Staffordshire Bull Terriers, Staffordshire Terriers, and any dog determined to be a pit bull type. S1718 authorizes municipalities to:
� Require a special license for all pit bulls ($150-700). Licenses may be denied to anyone who has been convicted of a criminal offense or animal cruelty, as well as anyone who lives with someone convicted of those crimes.
� Require anyone who owns a dog to prove that it is not a pit bull (municipality will visually inspect the dog to determine whether it is a pit bull). Very few municipalities have staff with any breed identification knowledge or experience.
� Require confinement in a permanent enclosure (including a secure pen AND a 6-ft. fence).
� Send an animal control officer to inspect the enclosure and the licensee's property at least monthly.
� Require liability insurance for owners.
� Require pit bulls to be muzzled and leashed (3-feet long or less) when off owner's property. The leash must be approved by an animal control officer.
Violators will be subject to a fine of up to $1000 a day. Seized dogs will be placed in a "no-kill" shelter until they are properly adopted or die of natural causes. S1718 is nearly identical to a bill sponsored by Sen. James in 2003. The bill has been referred to the Senate Committee on Economic Growth, Tourism and Agriculture. AKC urges fanciers to contact committee members and urge them to oppose the bill. Contact information is available at http://www.akc.org/news/index.cfm?article_id=2153. For more information, visit AKC's Web site or contact the New Jersey Federation of Dog Clubs (http://www.njfederationofdogclubs.org/).
- S1745, sponsored by Sen. Allen, requires that municipal courts hear cases on violations of state animal cruelty statutes--including the abuse, torture, or killing of an animal--within 14 days of the summons date or on the next scheduled court day if the court convenes less than bi-weekly. The bill was referred to the Senate Committee on Economic Growth, Tourism and Agriculture.
NEW MEXICO - Albuquerque officials are considering changes to the city's animal control laws including a provision that bans dog chaining or tethering. Restraining dogs by chaining them to a tree or post will fall under the animal cruelty portion of Councilor Sally Mayer's proposed ordinance, and will carry a penalty of up to $500 in fines and up to 90 days in jail. For more information, contact the Rio Grande Kennel Club (bedrckbouv@aol.com).
NEW YORK - Asm. Lentol's A1432 passed the Assembly in June as was referred to the Senate Committee on Rules. The bill authorizes the director of the Department on Aging to establish and manage a "senior pet companionship" program to match seniors with pets. A1432 also provides for instruction on the proper care and treatment of animals for seniors and public school students.
- Asm. Tonko's A6635 was substituted for Sen. Maziarz's S5910 and passed the Senate in June. The bill establishes a dangerous dog advisory board and requires owners of dangerous dogs to notify the municipal clerk so that emergency personnel can be made aware of the dog's presence. A6635 also makes the owner of a dangerous dog that has attacked a person, companion animal or farm animal strictly liable for medical costs caused by the attack.
- S7088, sponsored by Sen. Flannagan, passed the Senate in June and was referred to the Assembly Committee on Agriculture. The bill increases penalties for an owner who allows his/her dog to bite or attack a service dog. The civil penalty for such an offense when the bite or attack causes injury may not exceed $800 in addition to other applicable penalties. In cases of severe injury, the owner would be liable for up to $1200 in addition to other applicable penalties.
- Officials in Greenburgh are considering revisions to the town's animal control ordinance that include substituting the term "guardian" wherever "owner" is referenced. AKC sent a letter of opposition and materials to the town supervisor and council. The Canine Legislation department and concerned fanciers are monitoring the situation closely.
- New York City Councilor Melinda Katz is sponsoring Intro. 189. The measure amends city code to provide that once a landlord waives the no-pet clause for a tenant's lease, it is waived for the duration of the tenant's occupancy, not just the lifetime of the animal. AKC strongly supports the right to keep and enjoy dogs responsibly and opposes unreasonable limits on pet ownership. The Canine Legislation department shared this position in a recent letter to members of the New York City Council.
PENNSYLVANIA - Sen. Wenger's S871 passed the Senate in June and was referred to the House Committee on Agriculture and Rural Affairs. The bill provides that any grievances filed against humane or animal cruelty officers must also be filed in a county court of common pleas, which would have the power to suspend, revoke, or restrict and officer's appointment to the county. S871 also establishes a statewide registry of Humane Society officers.
RHODE ISLAND - H7323 became law in July. The law requires that dangerous dogs be leashed and muzzled when off the owner's property. Additionally, owners must notify police within two hours of a dangerous dog escape. A Senate amendment provides that dangerous dogs must be spayed or neutered unless a licensed veterinarian states that the procedure would threaten the dog's life. A second amendment makes it illegal for the owner of a dangerous dog to sell or give away the animal. The new law also allows that microchips can be used in lieu of tattoos for identification purposes.
- S2151 became law without the governor's signature on June 18. The new law authorizes the City of Pawtucket to enforce an ordinance prohibiting the future ownership of "pit bulls." It also imposes higher-than-average license fees for existing owners.
TEXAS - The Responsible Pet Owners Alliance reports that the Corpus Christi Animal Control Advisory Commission recently voted to remove breeders permit and differential licensing provisions from its proposed animal ordinance revision, which now goes to the city council for consideration. Congratulations to all those who worked to oppose the provision. The Canine Legislation department and local fanciers will continue to monitor the situation closely. For more information, contact the Responsible Pet Owners Alliance (rpoa2@texas.net).
WEST VIRGINIA - The Beckley Planning Commission is currently considering new animal control regulations that may require residents to have their pets spayed or neutered. No formal ordinance has been drafted. The Canine Legislation sent a letter and materials to commission members and will continue to keep fanciers abreast of the situation.
ISRAEL - In June, lawmakers approved dangerous dog regulations that ban the import of eight breeds classified as dangerous. The breeds are the Rottweiler, Staffordshire Bull Terrier, American Staffordshire Terrier, Bull Terrier, American Pit Bull Terrier, Dogo Argentino, Japanese Tosa, and Fila Brasiliero. Dogs of classified dangerous breeds currently in the country must be muzzled at all times and must be spayed or neutered by the end of the year.
USDA Regualtions of Foreign Carriers in Effect
On April 1, 2004 the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) expanded enforcement of its regulations pertaining to air transport of live animals. Its oversight now includes foreign air carriers landing live animals in the United States and domestic carriers transshipping these animals to other destinations in the U.S. Previously the USDA did not attempt to enforce its regulations against foreign carriers, and it permitted domestic carriers to transship shipments landed by foreign carriers even if they did not comply with APHIS regulations. The new policy will be a major step forward in regulating importation of puppies. The AKC strongly urged APHIS to extend enforcement of its regulations to foreign air carriers, noting that some foreign carriers were landing shipments of puppies in the U.S. which could not have been legally carried by U.S. carriers, and that except for those carriers that voluntarily adhered to the International Air Transport Association's regulations, such shipments were essentially unregulated.
USDA's air transport regulations require, among other things, that puppies be at least 8 weeks of age when shipped by air, that dogs and puppies be shipped only in a container that meets APHIS specifications, and that no more than 2 puppies under 6 months of age, or one puppy or dog more than six months of age and/or weighing more than 20 pounds, be shipped in the same container. Regulations also address requirements for feeding and watering, exercise on trips of long duration, and minimum and maximum temperatures to which dogs may be exposed during transport and on the ground.
APHIS performs a limited number of random inspections of air carriers
at terminal facilities and also investigates complaints. APHIS encourages
the public to report apparent violations of its regulations by foreign
or domestic carriers. A report of an apparent violation should include
the name of the carrier, flight number and date, the terminal at which
the violation was observed, and as much specific detail about the incident
as possible. The name, address and telephone number of the shipper or
recipient of the animal is also helpful if it can be obtained. Apparent
violations should be reported to either of Animal Care's regional offices
or the national office. For more information, visit www.aphis.usda.gov/ac/.
Did You Know?
The Canine Legislation department is proud to announce a new resource
for fanciers. Preserve
Your Rights As a Dog Owner: Be Your Dog's Owner, Not Its Guardian
is a new brochure designed to help dog owners with their efforts to oppose
the use of the term "guardian" rather than owner in municipal
codes. The brochure provides information on AKC's position on the issue
and the legal implications the term guardian carries for owners. A valuable
tool for Liaisons, fanciers and legislators, Preserve Your Rights As
a Dog Owner is available on AKC's Web site at www.akc.org. You may
also order copies through the Order Desk at 919-233-9767 or via e-mail
at orderdesk@akc.org. Be sure to
ask for part GILEG4.
We Want to Hear from You!
The Canine Legislation department will begin distributing Taking Command via e-mail soon. We will continue to mail copies of the print edition until fall when we will begin distributing the newsletter by electronic means only. The new format, which will be sent to your inbox each month, will continue to keep you informed of legislation across the country that impacts purebred dog owners.
To make sure you don't miss a single edition, send us your e-mail address by September 30th. We look forward to hearing from you. Thanks to all who have already sent their addresses!
