Editor's Note
Welcome to 2004, a year that promises to be fraught with animal-related legislation. At this writing, 37 state legislatures and Congress have reconvened, and the Canine Legislation department is already tracking over 230 bills and ordinances. While many are cause for concern, we are pleased to see that 11 bills have been introduced that would prohibit insurance companies from discriminating against dog owners--the highest number ever.
Our goal each month is to provide you with the information and tools you need to positively impact the most critical of these initiatives, and we appreciate the input and support we receive from our clubs and federations. This month, we have reprinted Jim Holt's December speech to the Delegates regarding the Puppy Protection Act. We've seen no further movement on the Act to date but it remains high on our radar screen.
In between issues of Taking Command, AKC's Web site serves as an important resource for up-to-the-minute alerts and announcements. Please make it a New Year's resolution to visit it often!
Regards,
Around the Nation
Legislation That Affects You
ARIZONA - Rep. Downing is sponsoring H2274. The bill increases the penalties for dog fighting if the animal involved is found to be stolen.
- Rep. McClure's H2310 amends the definition of vicious animal to include attacks on other animals as well as humans. The bill also authorizes humane agents to seize animals they feel have been treated cruelly.
- In order to comply with a new state law, the Tuscon City Council is considering an ordinance requiring dogs to be licensed and vaccinated against rabies by the time they are three months old. A maximum late fee of $25 could be imposed on those who do not abide by the law.
CALIFORNIA - Following a dog attack on his Shih Tzu, Oakland City Councilman Henry Chang is calling for stricter dangerous dog laws. Chang was quoted as saying he wants to be "proactive" about preventing dog attacks by requiring muzzles for dogs who "display vicious tendencies." Local dog owners are concerned about this vague definition. Chang stated his new proposal will be in compliance with California's state law prohibiting breed-specific legislation.
COLORADO - H1101 would make a dog owner strictly liable for any injury or death caused by the dog to another person or animal. The bill prohibits the defense that an owner had no knowledge of the dog's prior vicious propensities or behavior. An owner may be held liable for incidents that happen on his own property unless the dog was defending itself or the owner from an attack. Sponsored by Rep. Merrifield, H1101 was referred to the House Committee on Agriculture, Livestock and Natural Resources. The Colorado Federation of Dog Clubs opposes the bill. For more information, contact plumcreekkc@hotmail.com.
CONNECTICUT - In December, Hartford City Council members voted to send a proposed leash law back to committee with instructions that it be amended to include language giving police and animal control officers the authority to seize dangerous dogs. The proposed law would have required owners to keep their dogs leashed in public or face a fine of $25 for a first offense. Fines would double with subsequent offenses.
FLORIDA - Sponsored by Rep. Hugh Gibson, H321 revises the state's "Good Samaritan Act" to protect emergency management volunteers from liability if their care of people or animals results in death or injury. The bill, which also protects veterinarians, only exempts caregivers if their actions were in good faith and not malicious.
- Pinellas Park dog owners will now face stricter fines if their dog attacks someone. First-offenders will be required to pay $81-$156 in penalties, with fines being doubled for a second offense.
ILLINOIS - Attention Chicago dog owners! Alderman Virginia (Ginger) Rugai has introduced an ordinance that would prohibit residents from owning, transporting, or selling "pit bulls." Pit bulls are defined as American Pit Bull Terriers, Staffordshire Bull Terriers, American Staffordshire Terriers, or any mix of those breeds. Violators will face fines of $100-1000 and/or up to six months in jail. The measure will take effect 30 days after its passage, and there is no grandfather clause for current owners. Countless responsible dog owners will therefore be forced to give up their canine companions. Immediate help is needed to fight this proposal. Chicago dog owners are strongly urged to contact the City Council and express their opposition to the ordinance.
Chicago City Council
City Hall
121 N. Lasalle Street, Rm 209
Chicago, IL 60602
Phone: 312-744-6800
Fax: 312-744-6824
To find our who your Alderman is, visit: http://www.chicityclerk.com/citycouncil/alderman/find.html
- The Kane County Board of Commissioners is reviewing an ordinance that would bring their animal control laws in line with the state's new dangerous dog law (HB184). The measure also requires animals leaving shelters to be spayed or neutered and microchipped.
- Cook County is also considering strengthening its dangerous dog law as per HB184. However, the ordinance also includes mandatory microchipping for all dogs. As part of our ongoing efforts to promote responsible dog ownership, the AKC encourages dog owners to properly identify their pets. We believe, however, that the final decision about identification-whether by collar, tattoo or microchip-should be made by the owner, not the government. The Canine Legislation department expressed this view, along with our support of the measure's reasonable dangerous dog provisions, in a letter to Committee on Health and Hospitals where the proposal was referred.
- Lake County officials are considering several changes to their animal control ordinance. First, owners of pets deemed dangerous would be required to obtain $100,000 liability insurance, muzzle and leash their dogs, and post warning signs on their property. Officials are considering establishing a public registry of vicious dogs that would be available on the Web, and also permitting dogs that complete a behavior training course to be declared "unvicious." Finally, officials are reviewing a pet limit law requiring residents with more than four dogs to obtain a permit. The AKC sent a statement outlining our position on limit laws and dangerous dog issues to the Health Department, where the measure is currently being considered.
- Glendale Heights officials approved changes to their animal control ordinance that include raising the pet limit per household from three to four. Other amendments include clean-up, noise, and other nuisance provisions. Fines range from $75 for a first offense to $500 for subsequent offenses.
INDIANA - Senator Lalane's S148 amends the state's animal cruelty law to require that anyone convicted of such a crime undergo psychological or behavioral counseling. The bill was referred to the Senate Committee on Criminal and Civil Policy.
- Under a new Fort Wayne ordinance, owners of wolf-dog hybrids must spay and neuter their animals. A measure banning dangerous animals--including wolf-hybrids--was approved in June but later amended to exempt the dogs. A wolf-hybrid with a single bite incident, however, will immediately be banned from the city.
KANSAS - In December, Iola's animal control officer requested the city council to enact breed-specific legislation. The AKC and local dog owners quickly alerted council members to the inadequacies of such laws and urged the city instead to pass a reasonable dangerous dog law. The city council listened to the dog community's concerns and approved a generic dog control ordinance. Congratulations!
MAINE - H1264 amends the state's definition of kennel from "a pack or collection" to "five or more" dogs kept in one location under single ownership for breeding, hunting, show, training, field trial or exhibition purposes. Such individuals must be licensed, although the bill exempts those who sell or exchange only one litter of puppies per year from being considered a kennel. H1284 also requires all humane agents, regardless of appointment date, to complete at least 40 hours of training per year. The bill is sponsored by Rep. Nancy Smith and was referred to the Joint Committee on Agriculture, Conservation and Forestry.
- Introduced by Rep. Colwell, H1285 establishes a Companion Animal Sterilization Program to provide low-cost spay/neuter to those who adopt animals from shelters. The program is primarily funded by a voluntary check-off on the individual income tax form. H1285 also establishes the Companion Animal Overpopulation Committee, a permanent committee whose purpose is to study pet overpopulation in Maine and other animal health concerns. The committee would consist of four legislators, the Commissioner of Agriculture, Food and Rural Resources, the Commissioner of Human Services, the Commissioner of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife and representatives of veterinarians, humane societies, municipalities, municipal clerks, dog and cat breeders, and the public. H1285 was referred to the Committee on Agriculture, Conservation and Forestry.
MARYLAND - In December, the Maryland Dog Federation reported that Delegate Charles Boutin, past sponsor of a statewide breed-specific law, had sent a letter to animal control officers throughout Maryland soliciting support for a similar bill in 2004. The AKC and countless other fanciers and animal organizations in Maryland sent letters and e-mails to Del. Boutin's office stating that they would strongly oppose the introduction of such legislation. In response, Del. Boutin agreed to back away from a breed-specific bill and may instead form a task force to study the issue of dangerous dogs.
- On another note, Del. Boutin is sponsoring H24, a bill to prohibit residents from owning, selling, transporting or training a dog, cock or other bird to fight. H24 also prohibits someone from knowingly permitting such an event to be held. Penalties are established, but the text is not available as this newsletter goes to press.
- Rep. Impallaria's H78 prohibits municipalities from enacting breed-specific dangerous dog ordinances. AKC strongly supports the bill, which was referred to the House Committee on Environmental Matters.
MASSACHUSETTS - In December, the Joint Committee on Insurance held a hearing on H2075, a bill requiring insurance companies to provide coverage for dog owners. The Canine Legislation department sent a letter to the committee outlining AKC's position on the issue, and several Massachusetts fanciers, including members of the Massachusetts Federation of Dog Clubs, attended the hearing.
MICHIGAN - Sponsored by Rep. Pastor, H5402 prohibits residents from driving while holding an animal in their lap. The bill was referred to the House Committee on Transportation.
- Congratulations to Ann Arbor fanciers on successfully opposing an ordinance that would have restricted breeding rights and limited pet ownership. The measure, which was rejected by the City Council on December 15th, would have required mandatory spay/neuter of dogs unless owners purchased a breeder's permit. Among other onerous provisions, the proposal would additionally have prohibited residents from keeping more than six dogs and/or cats, and also replaced references to "owner" with "owner/guardian."
Local AKC-affiliated clubs and the Michigan Association of Purebred Dogs were outraged when the measure was first proposed this fall with no input from the dog community. Fanciers reached out to task force members who had drafted the ordinance but their requests to help with the city's animal control problems fell on deaf ears. Dog owners quickly organized an effective grassroots campaign and with the support of the AKC, appealed to the City Council at their meeting. With countless fanciers weighing in, officials ultimately listened to the group's concerns and rejected the proposal in a 9-2 vote.
The American Kennel Club strongly supports reasonable and enforceable laws that protect the welfare and health of purebred dogs and do not restrict the rights of responsible breeders and owners. Ann Arbor's proposed ordinance would have done little to address the heart of the city's animal control problems--irresponsible ownership. The Canine Legislation department outlined these concerns in a letter to the city council in October.
This victory represents yet another example of the strength purebred dog owners have when they come together on legislative issues. Kudos to all who contributed to this hard-fought win!
MISSISSIPPI - Following changes approved by the Lauderdale County Supervisors, animal control authorities now have the authority to destroy animals deemed vicious. Such animals may only be euthanized if they are not properly confined or muzzled, have no rabies tag, and if attempts to capture the dogs are unsuccessful.
MISSOURI - Rep. Flemming is sponsoring two animal-related bills that have both been referred to the House Committee on Judiciary B. H102 prohibits veterinarians from debarking or surgically silencing a vicious dog. Violators will face fines of $25-$100. H109 allows owners to recover up to $5,000 in civil damages from someone who intentionally or negligently kills a companion animal.
- Before fanciers were aware of the proposal, Clayton's Board of Alderman approved an ordinance that automatically deems "pit bulls" dangerous. Other dogs that have attacked or bitten someone when unprovoked will also be declared dangerous. Owners of such dogs will be required to obtain $200,000 liability insurance.
- Following a series of dog attacks, the Springfield City Council established an Animal Control Ordinance Review Committee this fall. Members include several veterinarians, a representative from the local humane society, and an animal trainer. The groups will look at ways to strengthen the city's dangerous dog law in order to prevent future attacks. Upon learning of their interest in amending the law, the Canine Legislation department sent a statement and dangerous dog information packets to city council members for distribution to the committee. Fanciers are encouraged to monitor the situation closely.
- The City of Independence is considering changes to its dangerous dog ordinance. To assist in their efforts, the Canine Legislation department sent an information packet on reasonable dangerous dog laws in January.
MONTANA - The Billings City Council recently approved several changes to its animal control ordinance, including increased fines for noisy and loose dogs. Residents with more than four dogs and cats will now have to apply for a permit to keep them.
NEBRASKA - Sponsored by Sen. Stuhr, L823 establishes penalties for harassing or interfering with a police dog. L889 was introduced by Sen. Friend and exempts a police dog from being declared dangerous or potentially dangerous if the animal was acting under an officer's authority.
- In December, the Omaha City Council enacted an animal control ordinance that includes a $100 breeder's permit. Fanciers objected to this and many other parts of the ordinance, which was vaguely written with little input from the dog community. Purebred dog owners were unaware until the last minute that the measure was being voted on. They mobilized quickly but were not able convince council members that the proposal would punish responsible breeders while doing nothing to alleviate the city's animal control concerns. For more information, contact Medora Harper (mharper74@msn.com).
NEVADA - Before the AKC was aware, the Reno City Council gave initial approval to a law limiting residents to three dogs and seven cats unless they obtain a permit. The measure also contains guidelines for acquiring the permit, which include providing sketches of kennels and opening homes to inspection. An existing limit law did not outline how to apply for a permit, thereby prohibiting officials from enforcing it. Rescue groups expressed concern over how the new law will impact their efforts.
NEW HAMPSHIRE - Rep. Jeffrey Carter's H174 died in committee late last year. The bill would have prohibited insurance companies from discriminating against homeowners based on the breed of dog they own.
- Sponsored by Sen. Roberge, S372 defines "necessary shelter" that owners must provide for their dogs. Requirements include a structure that is wind- and moisture-proof, has four walls, a roof and a solid floor raised off the ground. Bedding and a method of draining must also be provided. S372 was referred to the Senate Committee on Wildlife and Recreation.
- Sen. Roberge is sponsoring a second bill, S399, which clarifies that the standards applying to the retail sales of animals also apply to commercial dog breeders. The bill increases certain licensing fees and changes the penalty for violations of laws regarding sale of animals. "Dog breeder" is defined as those who sell 10 or more litters or 50 or more puppies per year. S399 will be considered by the Senate Wildlife and Recreation Committee. Dog Owners of the Granite State (DOGS) opposes this legislation. For more information, contact Joan Eversole (sidecarpup@netscape.net).
- Introduced by Sen. Estabrook, S417 requires medical personnel who treat dog bite victims to file a report with animal control officer or city clerk. The bill, which was referred to the Senate Wildlife and Recreation Committee, also increases penalties for owners of vicious dogs. Dog Owners of the Granite State (DOGS) is working to have the bill amended. For more information, contact Joan Eversole (sidecarpup@netscape.net).
- A third bill by Sen. Roberge prohibits animals that are imported from out-of-state to New Hampshire shelters from being eligible for low-cost spay/neuter programs. S457 was referred to the Senate Wildlife and Recreation Committee. Dog Owners of the Granite State supports this bill.
NEW JERSEY - A382 authorizes municipalities to require any person obtaining a dog license to also obtain a breeding dog license if the dog is intact. The fee for the breeding dog license may range from $1 to $20. Monies collected would be put into a special account for enforcement of this and other animal control programs. Violators would face fines of up to 10 times the cost of the breeding dog license. Sponsored by Asm Cruz-Perez, A382 was referred to the Assembly Committee on Agriculture and Natural Resources.
- Asm. Johnson has introduced legislation that establishes penalties for killing or injuring search and rescue dogs. A1097 was referred to the Asm. Committee on Law and Public Safety.
- Homeowners would find relief through Asm. Azzolina's A1135. The bill prohibits insurers from discriminating against homeowners based on the breed of dog they own. It does exempt insurers if a dog has been declared potentially dangerous or vicious.
- S84 clarifies that cruelty to animals includes the use of an animal to attack another. Sponsored by Sen. James, the bill was referred to the Senate Committee on Economic Growth, Agriculture and Tourism.
- Sen. Ciela is sponsoring two animal-related bills. The first, S300, directs the Department of Health and Senior Services to adopt regulations prohibiting overcrowding of animals in kennels, pet shops and other retail establishments. The bill also establishes penalties for violations. S301 prohibits the sale of a dog by a kennel, pet shop or other retail establishment unless the name, address and phone number of the source of the dog is provided. Violators will face a $500 fine. Both bills were referred to the Senate Committee on Economic Growth, Agriculture and Tourism.
NEW MEXICO - The Albuquerque City Council may soon consider a proposal to raise the intact dog licensing fee from $25 to $175 per animal. Owners of altered animals need only pay a $4 fee. AKC sent a statement of opposition to the mayor and city council in January. For more information, contact Patte Klecan, Rio Grande Kennel Club (BEDRCKBOUV@aol.com).
NEW YORK - Due to the Legislature's rules regarding carry over, several 2003 bills have been reassigned or recalled to their original committee. Asm. Scarborough's A8063 has been reassigned to the Assembly Committee on Agriculture. The bill creates a dangerous dog registry for the state and imposes a $25 registration fee. A8063 also establishes a five-member dangerous dog advisory board, headed by the Agriculture Commissioner. The Assembly Speaker will appoint two members, as will the Senate Speaker. The Board must include one veterinarian, one certified animal trainer, one member of a humane society, and one member of the public.
- With the introduction of A9389, Asm. Manning is once again trying to repeal the state's law prohibiting breed-specific legislation. "Elijah's Law" was referred to the Assembly Committee on Agriculture, but the text is not available as the newsletter goes to press.
- Sen. Hoffman's S188 was returned to the Senate Committee on Agriculture. The bill, which was introduced last year, amends the definition of dangerous dog to include one that attacks and injures a domestic animal.
- Sen. Kuhl's S2996 addresses ecological and agro-terrorism by making it unlawful to tamper with "animal activities" including medical and biological research, hunting, agriculture, and entertainment events. Sponsored by the US Sportsman's Alliance, the bill also imposes penalties for violators. S2996 was reassigned to the Senate Committee on Consumer Protection.
- S5910 amends the state's dangerous dog law in several ways. First, it allows dogs to be declared dangerous if they attack not just a person as current law stipulates but also a companion or farm animal. It clarifies that the attack must cause serious injury or death, but a dog can also be deemed dangerous simply if it behaves in a manner which causes a reasonable person to believe there is an imminent threat of physical injury or death to a person or animal. The bill exempts police dogs during performance of their duties. Those who witness an attack or even a threatened attack on a person or companion or farm animal may file a complaint with an animal control or police officer. S5910 outlines procedures for holding a hearing to determine a dog dangerous, establishes provisions for keeping a dangerous dog, and provides for an appeal. The bill also creates a dangerous dog registry and exempts from civil liability owners who kill a dog that was attacking or about to attack their companion animal. Introduced by Sen. Maziarz, S5910 was referred to the Senate Committee on Consumer Protection.
- On December 23, 2003, the New York State Court of Appeals published its 6-0 decision in the case of Jon Hammer vs. The American Kennel Club, finding in favor of the AKC and the American Brittany Club. Mr. Hammer filed suit against AKC and the American Brittany Club alleging that the official Brittany standard calling for dogs to be tailless or tail to be docked to approximately four inches was discriminatory against dogs with long tails, and a violation of New York animal cruelty laws.
In finding in favor of the AKC, the court determined the plaintiff had no private cause of action to enforce the criminal statute. The court noted in its decision that the plaintiff was "not asking law enforcement officials to charge defendants with violations of the law subject to criminal penalties. Indeed, plaintiff has not alleged that these organizations are cruelly or unjustifiably injuring or maiming any dogs and admittedly does not intend to conform his dog's tail length to the breed standard. Therefore, neither plaintiff nor defendants have engaged in any conduct that violates the law as plaintiff interprets it."
- Orchard Park officials have elected to move forward with a pet limit law, despite opposition from AKC and local dog owners. The ordinance prohibits residents from keeping more than three pets per household.
- Hudson fanciers report that AnimalKind, an animal rights organization, is encouraging the city council to enact a mandatory spay/neuter ordinance. The Canine Legislation department provided dog owners with materials to oppose breeding restrictions and also sent a letter to the city council, urging them not to consider such a measure. Fanciers are encouraged to monitor the situation closely.
- Local fanciers report that, despite state law prohibiting breed-specific legislation, the City of Kingston is considering an ordinance requiring owners of "pit bulls" to register their dogs and obtain $25,000 liability insurance. The proposal also limits households to no more than three dogs. The Canine Legislation department provided residents with materials and sent a statement of opposition to the mayor and members of the Common Council. For more information, contact Ann Lettis, Responsible Dog Owners Association of New York (lettis@webtv.net).
NORTH CAROLINA - In December, the Canine Legislation department testified before the House Interim Committee on the Prevention and Disposition of Unwanted and Abandoned Companion Animals on behalf of AKC and the purebred dog fancy. The department has been tracking their work since North Carolina's Speaker of the House first tasked the committee with addressing animal population concerns.
- In December, Buncombe County Commissioners considered an ordinance requiring mandatory spay/neuter unless owners purchased an annual $100 unaltered animal permit for each intact pet. Area fanciers were unaware that the measure had been proposed until just prior to the vote. With only a few days notice, Asheville Kennel Club members mobilized quickly and contacted the Canine Legislation department. AKC provided talking points, position statements and other materials along with advice and support.
Asheville Kennel Club members did their best to educate the county commissioners about why a mandatory spay/neuter ordinance would only hurt responsible breeders--not cure the county's problems with overcrowding in shelters as the commission hoped. In the end, fanciers were able to have the ordinance amended so that the spay/neuter provision will only be enforced if the owner/breeder has been found in violation of another part of the county's animal control ordinance. Fanciers also believe they have laid the ground work for a good working relationship with the commissioners on future issues. In other Buncombe County news, officials enacted a leash law and strengthened tethering regulations in November.
- Forsyth County Commissioners are considering a differential licensing proposal. The Canine Legislation department sent a statement of opposition to officials.
OHIO - Rep. Collier's H369 expands the definition of service dog to include "seizure alert" dogs. The bill also establishes penalties for crimes against police and service dogs.
- Springfield Township residents who own "pit bulls" must now license, muzzle and leash the dogs. They must also show proof of $50,000 in liability insurance as well as evidence that the dog has passed a behavior training class such as the Canine Good Citizen program. Other breeds deemed vicious (defined as those that have injured a person or killed another dog without provocation) must comply with the same regulations. The law became effective January 8th.
- Madeira officials enacted a vicious dog law requiring owners to restrain their dogs and obtain $50,000 liability insurance. The original proposal automatically deemed "pit bulls" vicious but now generically defines the term as "any canine that without provocation kills or injures a person."
- Melanie Tierney of the Canine Friends of Cleveland reports that the City of Cleveland Heights is considering a breed-specific ordinance that additionally limits residents to one "vicious" animal per household. As the proposed measure automatically deems several breeds of dogs vicious regardless of their bite history, many responsible dog owners will be forced to give up well-behaved pets that have been members of their family for years. The Canine Legislation department sent a statement of opposition and dangerous dog packets to the mayor and city council. For more information, contact Melanie Tierney (aegis66@earthlink.net).
PENNSYLVANIA - Brecknock Township is considering an ordinance aimed at controlling large-scale "puppy mills" in the area. Citing problems with illegal dog breeding kennels that do not meet humane standards, officials are reviewing a measure that would establish an annual per animal fee for all current and future kennels, strengthen animal welfare laws, limit the number of breeding females a kennel may have, and give animal control officials more authority in enforcing care conditions.
RHODE ISLAND - Sponsored by Sen. Celona, S2104 would prohibit insurance companies from denying coverage based on ownership of a certain breed of dog. The bill was referred to the Senate Committee on Financial Services, Technology and Regulatory Issues. .
- Despite opposition from local fanciers and the AKC, the Pawtucket City Council approved an ordinance prohibiting ownership of "pit bulls," defined as American Pit Bull Terriers, American Staffordshire Terriers, Staffordshire Bull Terrier or mixes of those breeds. A grandfather clause permits current owners to keep their dogs if they register them with the city.
SOUTH CAROLINA - Sen. Larry Grooms is sponsoring S783, which creates the offense of companion animal hoarding. The bill prohibits ownership of more that 15 companion animals and requires owners to provide adequate food, shelter and veterinary care. First-time violators will face up to $100 in fines and/or 60 days in jail, while a second offense brings an $800 fine and/or 90 days in jail. Subsequent violations will result in up to $1000 in fines and/or two years in jail. Anyone convicted of companion animal hoarding will be required to undergo a psychological evaluation. .
- South Carolina dog owners are also concerned about a similar bill from Sen. Grooms--S669. The bill authorizes the Department of Natural Resources to regulate public and private animal refuges. Such a refuge is defined as a harborer of animals who provides food, shelter, and confinement for a group of dogs, a group of cats, or a combination of dogs and cats. Introduced and referred to the Senate Committee on Natural Resources, the bill has not seen recent movement.
- Applause to Spartanburg County dog owners on their successful defeat of proposed breeding restriction legislation. Among other concerns, the measure would have required breeders to purchase permits and pay differential licensing fees for their intact animals. Fanciers worked hard to organize a grassroots campaign and educate legislators about alternative solutions to the county's animal control problems. The Canine Legislation department supported their efforts.
TENNESSEE - Rep. Dunn's H2184 prohibits transporting a dog on the running board, fenders, hood, or other outside part of a motor vehicle unless the animal is secured. Violators will be charged with a Class C misdemeanor and fined $50. Exemptions are included for farmers and hunters. A companion bill, S2113, has been introduced by Sen. Cohen. Responsible Animal Owners of Tennessee (RAOT) is concerned that the exemption for hunters and farmers does not limit them to the sites of those activities. They also urge clarification that the bed of a pick-up truck be considered "outside." For more information, contact Donna Malone, RAOT (raotinc@aol.com).
- S2071 would prohibit insurance companies from discriminating against homeowners based on the breed of dog they own. The bill, which is sponsored by Sen. Cooper, does allow companies to deny coverage based on a report of the dog's past behavior, including a history of having "violently threatened" a person or other animal. Among other concerns, Responsible Animal Owners of Tennessee feels that such a vague definition could allow an owner to be cancelled by an insurer simply because his dog growled at another dog. A companion bill, H2247, has been introduced by Rep. Curtiss.
- The Lookout Mountain Town Commission recently enacted a breed-specific ordinance that automatically declares "pit bulls" and mixes of the breed to be vicious. Owners must abide by strict care and keeping conditions. The law also allows the dogs to be seized or destroyed if so ordered by a court.
TEXAS - The Houston City Council has approved a "pooper-scooper" law requiring pet owners to carry clean-up materials and promptly clean up after their animals. Violators will face fines ranging from $75 to $500. The measure will not apply to the owner's own property.
VERMONT - H568 permits dog bite victims to file a complaint regardless of whether the bite occurred on the dog owner's property or whether medical attention was required. Rep. Grad's bill was referred to the House Committee on Fish, Wildlife and Water Resources.
- Sen. John Campbell's S193 establishes procedures to investigate dog and wolf-hybrid attacks on domestic animals. The bill includes provisions for filing a bite complaint, holding a hearing to determine the nature of the attack, and a range of remedies for dealing with an animal found to have attacked without provocation. The bill only applies to attacks that occur off the offending dog owner's property. S193 was referred to the Senate Committee on Judiciary.
VIRGINIA - Breeding restrictions have been the hot topic in Virginia in early 2004. When fanciers and AKC first learned that Sen. H. Russell Potts was considering introducing legislation that would require mandatory spay/neuter of companion animals, they quickly rallied to fight such a measure. Surprised by the overwhelming opposition, Sen. Potts backed away from his bill but instead introduced Senate Joint Resolution 37. SJ 37 directs the state veterinarian to study the state's animal population and euthanasia concerns, but it mandates predetermined results. These include requiring the veterinarian to develop mandatory spay/neuter ordinances that municipalities can enact and forcing veterinarians to charge for spay/neuter services according to a sliding fee based on the owner's income. The Canine Legislation department joined the Virginia Federation of Dog Clubs in its opposition of SJ 37 by sending a statement to the Senate Rules Committee, where the resolution was referred.
- H242 amends the state's animal cruelty laws by exempting those who injure or kill an animal that was attacking their companion animal. The bill only applies if the owner's pet was restrained on his or her own property. H242 is sponsored by Rep. Nutter and has the support of the Virginia Federation of Dog Clubs.
- Introduced by Del. Welch, H406 prohibits the use of animals as prizes, except for livestock used in cooperative extension education programs.
- H554 authorizes animal control officers to shoot dogs found attacking companion animals. Introduced by Rep. Hargrove, the bill was referred to the House Committee on Agriculture, Chesapeake and Natural Resources. The Virginia Federation of Dog Clubs opposes H554.
- The Virginia Federation of Dog Clubs is opposing two bills introduced by Rep. O'Bannon. The first, H629 increases the penalty from a Class 1 misdemeanor to a Class 6 felony for acts of intentional cruelty, including shooting a companion animal, or deprivation of "necessary care, food, water, rest, sanitation, ventilation, space, shelter or emergency veterinary treatment." The federation, along with the Virginia veterinary community, support strong animal cruelty laws but feel the language of H629 to be vague (how does one define "necessary rest") and limiting. They believe that while existing cruelty laws clearly define proper care and treatment, broad definitions in H629 may actually hamper animal control officers' ability to convict owners of cruelty. Instead, they favor strengthening the existing law. A second bill by O'Bannon, H630, states that owners of dogs that bite and cause serious physical injury to another person will be guilty of a Class 5 felony if they failed to exercise ordinary care in preventing the attack. Owners may not be found criminally liable unless they knew about the dog's dangerous tendencies, or if the victim failed to exercise ordinary care in avoiding the attack. The Virginia Federation of Dog Clubs believes the language to be problematic and is working to have the bill amended. Both H629 and H630 have been referred to the House Committee on Agriculture, Chesapeake and Natural Resources.
- Sponsored by Rep. Bell, H646 raises the penalty for maliciously shooting, maiming, or poisoning a companion animal to a Class 5 felony, punishable by 1-10 years in prison.
- H1192 allows localities to regulate potentially dangerous dogs, which are defined as dogs that have, when unprovoked, "endangered a person by exhibiting dangerously threatening behavior normally associated with an attack." Dogs deemed potentially dangerous must abide by the exact same provisions as those deemed dangerous, except that the determination may be dropped after three years of good behavior. The Virginia Federation is concerned that the definitions noted above are too broad and could subject responsible dog owners to unfair punishment. For example, owners of dogs who bark at a passerby from behind their secure fence could find themselves guilty of violating the law.
- S41 creates a special license plate for supporters of the Canine Health Foundation (CHF). Sponsored by Sen. Janet Howell, the bill authorizes $15 from the sale of each set of plates to be donated to CHF efforts in Virginia. S41 was referred to the Senate Committee on Transportation.
For more information on pending legislation in Virginia, contact Kathy Ashley, Virginia Federation of Dog Clubs (Vadoberescue@aol.com).
WASHINGTON - Congratulations to the Doggonits 4-H Club, who were instrumental in getting HR4605 passed. The resolution officially recognizes the AKC's Canine Good Citizen Program, and is yet another wonderful example of fanciers and legislators working together toward responsible dog ownership.
- King County Council members approved several increases in animal care and control fees. Unaltered animal licenses will rise from $55 to $60, while altered animal licenses will increase from $17 to $20. Impound fees will also increase, and residents will now have the option of having adopted pets microchipped for $25.
- Lakewood officials have voted to ease enforcement of the city's leash law. On the books since 1996, the old leash law allowed first-time violators to be fined $250, but it had never been enforced until recently. City council members sympathized with dog owners and approved a new measure that reduces the fine and allows first-time offenders one warning. The law will not apply to the city's off-leash areas.
WEST VIRGINIA - Rep. Caputo's H2248 requires all animals adopted from shelters to be spayed or neutered. The bill was referred to the House Committee on Judiciary.
- In January, dog owners in Wheeling notified the AKC that city officials were considering a breed-specific dangerous dog law. The Canine Legislation department provided fanciers with materials and sent a statement of opposition and information packets to key city officials in response. City council members listened to their constituents' concerns and sent the proposal back to committee with a recommendation that the breed-specific provisions be eliminated.
WISCONSIN - The Madison Common Council may soon vote on an ordinance limiting residents to five pets per household. The AKC sent a statement of opposition to council members in December.
NEW ZEALAND - In November, the New Zealand Parliament approved a controversial dog control law that bans imports of American Pit Bull Terriers, Dogo Argentinos, Brazilian Filas and Japanese Tosas. Owners of dogs deemed "menacing" must spay/neuter, microchip, and muzzle and leash the dogs in public, as well as fence their properties. All dogs must be registered in a national database, and all puppies must be microchipped beginning in January 2007. Finally, owners of dogs that seriously injure others may face fines of up to $12,500 (US) and six months in prison.
Correction:
The November issue of Taking Command mistakenly reported that the Georgia Coalition of Dog Clubs (now known as the Georgia Canine Coalition) had donated a DOGNY statue to the state. The statue was in fact donated by 31 member kennel clubs. We apologize for the error.
What's Wrong with the Puppy Protection Act?
The following is a synopsis of Jim Holt's comments to the Delegates' Forum in December 2003. As AKC's government relations consultant, Holt was asked to provide background on the legislation and what it means to purebred dog owners.
Many of you may recall that two years ago, at the Delegate's Forum held in conjunction with the first AKC invitational in Tampa, Florida, I reported on legislation introduced in Congress by Senator Rick Santorum (R-PA) and Rep. Ed Whitfield (R-KY) that would have required the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) to regulate dog breeding practices and establish socialization standards for dogs in commercial kennels. The bill also included a "three-strikes-and-you're-out" provision requiring the USDA to revoke the federal license of breeders who incurred three violations of the USDA's animal care regulations within an 8-year period. The bill was called the "Puppy Protection Act". An attempt to include it in the 2002 Farm Bill was defeated after a bitter fight in which purebred dog fanciers strongly opposed the bill. I now have to report to you that on November 7, 2003, Rep. Whitfield reintroduced the Puppy Protection Act (PPA) in the U.S. House of Representatives with more than 30 co-sponsors. It has been designated H.R. 3484. Sen. Santorum has notified the AKC that he intends to introduce the bill in the Senate shortly.
This is extremely important legislation that could have a profound long run impact on purebred dogs. In spite of the fact that it was not enacted in the last Congress, we must take it very seriously. Today I want to tell you about what is in the PPA, why the AKC is opposing it, and what the AKC and every member of the purebred dog fancy needs to do about it.
The PPA is the brain child of the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) and has been introduced it its behest. The HSUS is a Washington-based organization that in recent years has evolved into a radical animal rights advocate. Fanciers will recall that in the mid-1990s the HSUS undertook a nation-wide campaign, complete with glossy brochures, aimed at persuading local governments to ban the purposeful breeding of dogs. The HSUS has also been highly critical of purebred dogs. It is the organization responsible for championing the "natural dog", otherwise known as a mongrel.
The House version of the PPA is virtually identical to the bill introduced in the 107th Congress except that it does not mandate federal socialization standards. In a letter to its supporters, the HSUS says "to hasten passage we have made a strategic choice to drop a provision requiring socialization of the dogs". Obviously, the HSUS did not drop the socialization provision because it thought it was a bad idea. If the PPA passes, we can look forward to socialization standards returning in some form.
When the Congress recessed for Thanksgiving the Senate version of the PPA had not yet been introduced. However, Sen. Santorum's office has told the AKC the Senate bill will be very similar, if not identical, to the House bill, and that we should expect it to be introduced soon.
Purebred dog fanciers were the "special interests" which the HSUS blames for defeating the PPA in 2002. This year the HSUS is directing an aggressive and beguiling campaign directly at purebred dog fanciers in an attempt to deflect our attention from the real purposes of the bill and weaken our opposition to the PPA. As many of you know, the HSUS has written letters to all AKC breed clubs and some all-breed clubs stating that their intention is to put "puppy mills" out of business, and that the HSUS does not intend to regulate "responsible" breeders. The HSUS made similar arguments in 2002, but they fell on deaf ears. At the same time the HSUS was advocating for the PPA to regulate "commercial" breeders, the organization was supporting the Doris Day Animal League's (DDAL) lawsuit which would have required the USDA to regulate all residential breeders as commercial breeders. Apparently the HSUS thinks that now that the DDAL lawsuit is dead, we've forgotten about that. Clearly what the HSUS is trying to do is to pit hobby and show breeders against commercial breeders and to mask the true agenda of the HSUS.
The most dangerous aspect of the PPA is that it would, for the first time, inject the federal government into regulating whether, when and how animals can be bred. Neither the Animal Welfare Act nor any other federal statute currently regulates breeding practices of any species of animals. The HSUS wants desperately to establish the principle that it is within the purview of the federal government to regulate breeding practices. Once they've established that, they'll work on the details later.
Nowhere is this more vividly illustrated than in the specific breeding provisions in the PPA. The PPA would require the USDA to set standards for the age and frequency of breeding of bitches. It would require that these standards not permit breeding a bitch earlier than one year of age nor whelped more frequently than three times in a 24-month period. This, mind you, comes from an organization that only a few years ago was campaigning to stop all dog breeding! The hypocrisy of the HSUS strategy is transparent. Initially they are willing to allow the breeding standards to permit a bitch to be bred at practically every season, thinking that this will persuade dog breeders not to oppose setting federal breeding standards. However, once having established in federal law the principle that the federal government can dictate when and how much to breed animals, the HSUS will work on bringing the numbers down and expanding the principle to other species.
The HSUS argues that it is necessary for the federal government to regulate breeding practices to protect the health of bitches in breeding kennels and prevent over breeding. This is a completely specious argument. The fact of the matter is that the Animal Welfare Act already contains provisions that protect the health of all animals in commercial kennels, including breeding bitches, if they are enforced.
Over-breeding and other manifestations of substandard care do occur in some commercial kennels. These conditions are not the result of inadequacies in the law, and they will not be remedied by writing more law. They are inadequacies in the enforcement of existing law, and they will only be remedied by adequate enforcement of the law.
This brings us to the second major provision of the PPA, the "three-strikes-and-you're-out" enforcement provision. This provision requires the USDA to revoke the license of a kennel operator who commits three violations of the animal care standards over an 8-year period. On the face of it, this seems like a provision that would strengthen enforcement by putting bad actors out of business. However, closer consideration reveals that exactly the opposite is likely to occur - less effective enforcement rather than more.
There are several issues at play here. First, the USDA's animal care enforcement strategy is, quite properly, focused on bringing kennel operators into compliance and thereby improving the welfare of the animals, not in putting operators out of business. But the first step in correcting a problem is admitting that it exists. The "three-strikes" strategy of the PPA does not motivate kennel operators to admit to and promptly correct violations, but rather to contest whether the violation occurred. When a kennel operator is charged with a violation under the "three-strikes" policy, the operator is likely to immediately become concerned about the future impact on his or her license to operate. Rather than admit to the violation, the kennel operator is likely to become defensive and look for every possible avenue to challenge the charge. The USDA will become hopelessly bogged down in due process proceedings and litigation. Facing such a prospect, USDA's compliance officers are likely to do what law enforcement officers do in many "three-strikes" situations, and that is to look the other way and not make the charge at all, rather than citing the operator. The result is more lax rather than more rigorous enforcement.
Secondly, and even more ironically, revocation of a kennel operator's license is a penalty without much meaning as the Animal Welfare Act is currently written. If a kennel operator whose license is suspended or revoked decides to continue to operate, the USDA is largely powerless to prevent them from doing so. In fact, some of the most onerous "puppy mill" exposes of recent years were operations whose license had been revoked, but which continued to operate in violation of the regulations.
The AKC believes that the answer to substandard kennel operations is not in expanding the scope of the AWA, as the PPA would do, but in more effective enforcement of the AWA. For the past year the AKC has been working on an agenda of regulatory initiatives and legislative initiatives that will give the USDA more effective tools for enforcement of the AWA. I'm happy to report that these initiatives are already beginning to bear fruit.
The AKC is not opposing the PPA to protect commercial breeders, we oppose the PPA because it is an essential part of our mission to protect and promote purebred dogs. Yes, we continue to believe that small noncommercial breeders breeding to maintain and improve the standards of purebred dogs, and not for profit, are in the best interests of purebred dogs. Yes, we continue to be concerned about breeders whose only motivation is profit, and who do not understand maintaining and advancing breed quality, and who sell puppies without concern about the homes into which they are going. Yes, we continue to be concerned about breeders - both commercial and non-commercial - as well as dog owners, who do not take proper care of their animals. Indeed, that is why the AKC is putting substantial resources into our inspections and enforcement program. We are not simply leaving this matter up to the Federal government. The AKC is now, with about one tenth the staff, conducting almost half as many kennel inspections annually as the USDA. It is not an exaggeration to say that the AKC's Care and Condition program and kennel inspection efforts over the past decade, coupled with our breeder education programs, have had a much to do with the improvement in kennel standards in the U.S. as any other single factor.
But it is vital that we fanciers not be beguiled by the temptation the HSUS is dangling before us to "strike a blow at puppy mills" by creating bad law that will ultimately be used to undermine the entire purebred dog fancy. We need to keep out eye on the ball. We need to strongly oppose the PPA, even in its current watered down incarnation, at the same time that we continue to upgrade standards of care of all breeders - commercial, show and hobby breeders - and put truly substandard operations out of business.
This will be a long fight. Part of the strategy of the animal rights activists always has been to wear down the opposition. They count on the fact that over time we will become tired and disinterested and go away. Each one of us needs to accept the fact that as a member of the dog fancy it is our duty not only to breed and show good dogs, but to protect the future of the sport of purebred dogs against the anti-animal lobby.
Specifically, right now we need each of you and each member of your clubs to write your U.S. Senators and Representative and ask them not to co-sponsor or support the Puppy Protection Act, and to support the AKC-backed proposal when it is introduced. We also ask that you regularly check the legislative news on the AKC web site at www.akc.org.
Legislation Staff Changes
For those who were not already aware, Stephanie Ortel has resigned as Director of Canine Legislation to stay at home with her twin baby girls. We extend our good wishes to her and hew new family. Stephanie Lane has been named the new Director.
The Canine Legislation department also welcomes Kortni Campbell as our new Program Administrator. Kortni will assume responsibility for all local legislative initiatives as well as production of the department's newsletter and other materials. She holds a degree in Political Science from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and brings several years of government relations experience to her new role.
