|
Home
Legislative Links
Breed Legislation
Archived Items
| |
Archived Legislative Information
|
October 2005
-
Oppose PAWS |
|
Please take a moment to voice your
opinion!
Please read the message sent to DPCA members from Jeff Helsdon -
DPCA Legislative Director.
For more information regarding opposition of PAWS, please visit http://www.dpca.org/LegislativeCom.html
"According to our Washington, D. C. insiders, the Pet Animal Welfare Statute
of 2005 (PAWS), S. 1139, is scheduled for a hearing before the Senate
Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry's Subcommittee on
Research, Nutrition and General Health. Senator Santorum, the prime sponsor of PAWS, is the Chair of this Subcommittee.
The hearing is scheduled for 2:00 PM on Wednesday, November 9.
If you have not yet used the DPCA LobbyNow Tool to send your customized
e-mail message to every member of the U.S. Senate Agriculture Committee
expressing your opposition to PAWS, please do so now.
If you have already done so, thank you. Do not try to do so again,
however, as you can only send your message one time.
Non-DPCA members should use the following URL to send their messages:
http://dpca.lobbynow.com/issues?PAWS/senate/agcommittee
As circumstances warrant, I will keep you informed.
Cordially,
Jeff Helsdon
Legislative Director
Doberman Pinscher Club of America"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Wednesday, March 9, 2005
- Oppose House Bill 1096! |
|
UPDATE!!! Please take action
and voice your opposition to House Bill 1096!
Presently,
Texas does not breed-specific legislation (BSL)
(Health and Safety Code, Chapter 822). Rep. Edwards has
introduced a bill to amend Ch. 822 by adding a subchapter
that would exempt municipalities with populations of 1.9 million
or more from the state law (i.e., Ch. 822) and be allowed to
implement their own policies.
ATTENTION:
If this bill goes through, Houston will have a BSL that bans Pit
Bulls and Rottweilers. . . and perhaps all "dangerous" dogs ! !
! After Houston, who’s next; San Antonio (pop. 1.4) ? WE must
stop this bill !!!!
What You Can Do:
Want more info on House Bill 1096?
To read the entire bill, please visit
http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/tlo/79R/billtext/HB01096I.HTM
Sample Letter:
Date
The Honorable Al Edwards
4913 Griggs Road
Houston, TX 77021
Dear Representative Edwards:
The purpose of this letter is to oppose House Bill 1096.
Amending
Texas' Health and Safety Code, Chapter 822 to exempt
municipalities with populations of 1.9 million or more from
the state law and permit them to implement their own
policies with regards to dog ownership is not acceptable.
Clearly one can see that this is a way to implement
breed-specific legislations, which I am opposed to.
Regulating vicious dogs with the use of breed
specific legislation is not effective. To say "Pit Bulls",
Rottweilers and other breeds are dangerous does not address
the real problem - irresponsible owners. The state of
Texas needs non-breed specific legislation that is competent
to regulate the irresponsible owners and protect those who
maintain their dogs safely and humanely. Under
breed-specific laws, criminal, neglectful owners continue to
own and mistreat specific breeds because this element of
society does not care about liability insurance or the law.
They will just find another breed of dog to abuse-! one not
included in the law.
The State of
Texas could better address the root cause of the problem by
increasing funding for local animal control departments,
animal shelters, education, and spay/neuter programs. Local
governments clearly need more funding and manpower in order
to enforce leash laws and to reduce the number of stray,
abused, neglected and homeless animals. ANY dog can become a
problem for the public if the dog is allowed to run loose
and is not supervised.
Thank you for reading my concerns regarding this issue.
Sincerely,
|
|
|
Friday,
January 28, 2005
- Georgia Considers BSL
|
|
UPDATE!!!
This
was posted on the pet-law list - sounds like the GA and the NM
bans are not going to make it. I will pass along any further
information.
"Just got a post from the BSL Group that Georgia's Rep.
Williams is withdrawing support for his Pit Bull ban bill,
HB 78, and is expected to withdraw the bill altogether. The
governor of Georgia is a former veterinarian, and an active
member of the AVMA, and is against BSL. Rep. Williams plans
to introduce another bill at a later time, which
hopefully will be a non-breed-specific dangerous dog bill.
On the Western front,
New Mexico's
Sen. Beffort is not getting any support with her Pit Bull
ban, which also lists about a dozen other breeds as
"dangerous", either. The state's governor is expected to
achieve passage of his non-breed-specific dangerous dog
law."
Sandy Orr
Orrkid Boxers
Omaha, NE
sorr@orrkidboxers.com
Many thanks
to the concerned fanciers and dog owners in Georgia who
contacted AKC this week regarding H78, a bill to ban "pit bulls"
in the state. For those who are not yet aware, H78 defines "pit
bulls" as American Pit Bull Terriers, American Staffordshire
Terriers, Staffordshire Bull Terriers, or any dogs displaying
characteristics of those breeds. Current owners of these dogs
will be permitted to keep their animals, but only if the dogs
are spayed and neutered, kept in a secure area, and leashed and
muzzled when not confined. Violators will face fines of
$1000-$5000 and/or up to six months in prison.
Since first
learning of the bill's introduction, the Georgia Canine
Coalition and AKC's Canine Legislation department have been in
touch with the bill's sponsor, Rep. Earnest Williams, as well as
other key
Georgia
officials within the agriculture community. To date, Rep.
Williams has been open to the fancy's point of view and in fact
had a lengthy meeting with Coalition members this week. When he
expressed the many safety concerns he has regarding dangerous
dog problems in his district, fanciers were quick to point out
that stronger enforcement of existing laws would be a better way
to address those issues than would banning certain breeds. Many
Georgia legislators have stated that they share AKC's position.
What You Can Do:
 |
The Georgia Canine Coalition is working closely
with both Rep. Williams and other legislators to oppose H78.
To find out how you can help, contact
Outland@laberge.net. |
|
To date, Rep. Williams has been very receptive
to dog owners' polite, concise, arguments as to why
breed-specific legislation is ineffective.
Georgia dog
owners who wish to express their opposition to H78 may do so
by contacting him (see below). Please remember to be
respectful!
The Honorable Earnest Williams
404-656-0202
ewilliam@legis.state.ga.us |
|
Watch AKC's
Web site for further updates.
|
|
|
|
Monday, January 24, 2005 Virginia Breeders Face Licensing
and Mandatory Spay/Neuter Bill!
Immediate help is needed to oppose H2927, a bill that would
require "releasing agencies" to sterilize and microchip all
animals prior to adoption. Releasing agencies are defined animal
shelters, rescue groups, dealers, pet stores, and "for-profit
breeders." Responsible hobby breeders who sell any animals to
the public, regardless of whether they truly make
money or even recoup veterinary expenses, will likely be
considered for-profit. Violators will face a $150 fine.
H2927 would further require dealers to obtain a $150 annual
business license. In Virginia, "dealers" include "anyone who in
the regular course of business for compensation or profit buys,
sells, transfers, exchanges or barters companion animals."
Again, a hobby breeder who sells even one puppy could be
interpreted as being a dealer. Under the bill, dealers could not
advertise their services without a valid business license, and
the license number would have to be included in any newspaper
advertisements. Violations of any portion of the licensing
requirement would be fined $1,000.
Points to Consider:
A state-mandated program such as this will be extremely costly,
time-consuming and ineffectual for local animal control
authorities to enforce. It also places undue burden on
responsible sellers while discouraging personal responsibility
among pet purchasers.
Many responsible hobby breeders—those who give the utmost care,
attention and socialization to their animals—will not be able to
afford to continue their breeding programs. Puppy buyers in
search of purebred dogs will inevitably seek out less reputable
breeders who have little regard for the welfare of the dogs they
produce and who do not accept responsibility for placing puppies
in caring, responsible homes. Increased costs will be passed on
to consumers.
Spay/neuter requirements would restrict the many responsible
breeders who raise and breed purebred dogs for the purpose of
showing. These breeders make a serious commitment to their
animals, with the intention of promoting
the sport of purebred dogs and preserving breed characteristics
of the individual breeds.
Spaying and neutering is a surgical procedure that may not be
right for all animals. These procedures should be performed only
after consultation with and a thorough examination by a licensed
veterinarian.
The US Congress defined "commercial breeder" in the Animal
Welfare Act as "persons who derive a substantial portion of
their income from the sale of dogs and cats for pets." Thus, the
federal government did not intend to cover non-commercial hobby
or show breeders under the Animal Welfare Act. States should
therefore follow the direction of the federal government and
exempt hobby and show breeders.
Mandatory spay/neuter is an ineffective solution to animal
control problems because it fails to address the heart of the
issue—irresponsible ownership.
Strongly enforced animal control laws and increased public
education efforts are better ways to address the issue of
irresponsible dog ownership.
Effective leash laws would prevent irresponsible owners from
letting their pets run loose, leading to accidental breeding.
A public education campaign would help teach community residents
about how to properly care for their pets, as well as the need
to be a responsible pet owner.
If pet population issues are indeed a concern in Virginia, then
AKC believes an objective study group should be formed to
address this issue, with input from members of various animal
organizations, including purebred dog breeders. Such a study
group should explore the many reasons why animals are
relinquished to shelters, including animal behavior problems, an
owner moving or having a child, or a poor breed match for an
owner's lifestyle.
For more information, contact:
The Virginia Federation of Dog Clubs and Breeders, Luvwelsh@aol.com
AKC's Canine Legislation department, doglaw@akc.org,
919-816-3720 |
|
| Monday, January 24, 2005 - Corpus Christi MSN
and Breeder Permits From Responsible Pet Owners
Alliance.
Corpus Christi
animal rights activists don't take "No" for an answer and continue to
push for a Mandatory Spay/Neuter and Breeders Permit Ordinance.
The Corpus Christi City Council was told by their city attorney that
Breeder Permits would not solve their animal problems and have voted
this down already. The following message is from the Corpus Christi
Kennel Club. All true animal lovers should attend this meeting to
preserve our historic use of animals, including pet ownership.
The Corpus Christi City Council will take up the matter of the petition
signed by 50 residents which requires mandatory spay/ neuter of all dogs
and cats in the City and breeders permits. This petition was delivered
to the City Council in December and referred to the Animal Control
Advisory Committee. They held their meeting on Thursday, January 13, and
voted NOT to recommend this proposal.
The City Council may vote with the Committee's recommendation, in which
case the petitioners would have 60 or 90 days to gather the signatures
of 5% of the registered voters to place the matter on the April, 2007
election ballot.
The City Council may vote to accept the proposed ordinance- which the
American Kennel Club, Responsible Pet Owners Alliance and Corpus Christi
Kennel Club oppose.
We need to be present to speak against the proposed change- if the
matter is brought up for public comment and the petitioners speak in
favor of their proposal. The City Council has so far voted twice- once
in November and once in December- NOT to require breeders permits. They
will likely vote that way again (just as they did with the anti-smoking
ordinance), but we don't know for sure.
The link to the City Council agenda is: http://www.cctexas.com/files/g40/20050125summary.pdf
The item is No. 25. As we have seen in the past, the matter may come up
at any time during the meeting.
If you can be at the meeting, it starts Tuesday, January 25 at 10:00 am in City Council chambers. We need everyone
who can attend to be there...
Thanks,
Barbara Beynon
Corpus Christi Kennel Club |
|
What
can
I do
to
help?
If
you
haven't
already
done
so,
please
contact
Rep.
Edwards
to
OPPOSE
changing
our
existing
state
law
and
to
OPPOSE
passing
Breed
Specific
Legislation
in
all
Texas
cities.
Also,
Cc:
your
local
representatives.
Representative
Al
Edwards
is
considering
filling
legislation
during
the
79th
Legislative
Session
(which
just
convened)
to
exempt
the
city
of
Houston
from
the
current
state
law
which
prohibits
Breed
Specific
Legislation.
He
told
RPOA
he
doesn't
want
to
repeal
the
state
law.
However
no
bill
has
been
filed
to
date
so
anything
can
happen.
Please
contact
Rep.
Edwards
to
OPPOSE
changing
our
existing
state
law
and
to
OPPOSE
passing
Breed
Specific
Legislation
in
all
Texas
cities.
Representative
Al
Edwards
Capitol
Building
Box
2910
Austin,
TX
78768-2910
al.edwards@house.state.tx.us
Phone:
(512)
463-0518
Fax:
(512)
463-5896 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ladies
and
Gentlemen:
The
Washington
House
Financial
Institutions
and
Insurance
Committee
held
a
hearing
yesterday
on
HB
1016,
the
Washington
Deeds
Not
the
Breeds
Bill.
This
bill,
as
you
may
recall,
would
prohibit
breed
discrimination
by
insurance
companies.
The
bill,
which
passed
the
House
last
year
by a
vote
of
91-3
only
to
die
in
the
Senate,
is
expected
to
pass
out
of
committee
tomorrow,
January
20.
It
is
expected
to
be
one
of
the
first
pieces
of
business
to
be
brought
to
the
House
floor,
where
it
is
also
anticipated
that
it
will
pass
the
full
House
in
short
order,
and
to
be
sent
to
the
Senate.
Once
there,
HB
1016
is
likely
to
be
assigned
to
the
Senate
Financial
Institutions,
Housing
and
Consumer
Protection
(FIHC)
Committee.
The
following
are
the
members
of
that
committee:
Financial
Institutions,
Housing
&
Consumer
Protection
(11)
Fairley,
Chair;
Berkey,
Vice
Chair;
Benton;
Benson;
Brandland;
Delvin;
Franklin;
Keiser;
Prentice;
Schmidt;
Spanel
We
need
constituents
of
these
Senators
to
start
contacting
them
now
and
asking
them
to
vote
for
HB
1016
when
that
bill
comes
to
the
Senate
FIHC
Committee
from
the
House.
It
is
important
to
know
that
these
Senators
have
no
idea
about
the
existence
of
HB
1016,
because
it
has
only
been
introduced
in
the
House.
We
want
them
to
hear
from
their
constituents,
however,
that
this
bill
is
going
to
be
before
them.
In
that
way,
when
it
comes
in
front
of
them,
they
will
already
have
had
some
contact
about
it.
At
that
time,
we
will
urge
all
dog
fanciers,
wherever
they
may
live,
to
contact
them.
I
have
compiled
links
to
each
of
the
Senators
on
the
committee,
so
that
you
can
determine
if
you
are
a
constituent,
and
how
to
contact
them.
First,
the
district
finder
search
tool
is
as
follows:
http://www.leg.wa.gov/DistrictFinder/Default.aspx
Simply
type
your
address
into
the
fields
indicated,
and
it
will
direct
you
to
your
district
and
your
state
legislators,
including
your
Senator.
In
addition,
the
following
information
can
be
gleaned
about
each
Senator
on
the
FIHC
Committee
below:
(1)
their
bio
page,
(2)
their
district
map.
Please
forward
this
e-mail
to
all
of
your
friends
throughout
the
State
of
Washington.
It
is
important
that
it
be
disseminated
widely,
so
that
all
clubs
can
pass
this
to
their
members.
Senator
Fairley
(Chair),
Democrat
http://www1.leg.wa.gov/senate/fairley
http://www.leg.wa.gov/DistrictFinder/DistrictMap.aspx?District=32
Senator
Berkey,
Democrat
http://www1.leg.wa.gov/senate/berkey
http://www.leg.wa.gov/DistrictFinder/DistrictMap.aspx?District=38
Senator
Benton,
Ranking
Republican
http://www1.leg.wa.gov/senate/benton
http://www.leg.wa.gov/DistrictFinder/DistrictMap.aspx?District=17
Senator
Benson,
Republican
http://www1.leg.wa.gov/senate/benson
http://www.leg.wa.gov/DistrictFinder/DistrictMap.aspx?District=06
Senator
Brandland,
Republican
http://www1.leg.wa.gov/senate/brandland
http://www.leg.wa.gov/DistrictFinder/DistrictMap.aspx?District=42
Senator
Delvin,
Republican
http://www1.leg.wa.gov/senate/delvin
http://www.leg.wa.gov/DistrictFinder/DistrictMap.aspx?District=08
Senator
Franklin,
(President
Pro
Tempore)
Democrat
http://www1.leg.wa.gov/senate/franklin
http://www.leg.wa.gov/DistrictFinder/DistrictMap.aspx?District=29
Senator
Keiser,
Democrat
http://www1.leg.wa.gov/senate/keiser
http://www.leg.wa.gov/DistrictFinder/DistrictMap.aspx?District=33
Senator
Prentice,
Democrat
http://www1.leg.wa.gov/senate/prentice
http://www.leg.wa.gov/DistrictFinder/DistrictMap.aspx?District=11
Senator
Schmidt,
Republican
http://www1.leg.wa.gov/senate/schmidt
http://www.leg.wa.gov/DistrictFinder/DistrictMap.aspx?District=44
Senator
Spanel,
Democrat
http://www1.leg.wa.gov/senate/spanel
http://www.leg.wa.gov/DistrictFinder/DistrictMap.aspx?District=40
Lastly,
Washington
state
residents
should
contact
their
Senators,
no
matter
whether
they
are
on
the
FIHC
Committee
or
not
to
urge
their
support
for
HB
1016,
the
Washington
Deeds
Not
the
Breeds
Bill
when
it
gets
to
the
Senate.
You
can
find
your
own
Senator
through
the
search
tool
referenced
above,
which
is:
http://www.leg.wa.gov/DistrictFinder/Default.aspx
Cordially,
Jeffrey P. Helsdon
Legislative Director
Seattle Kennel Club
(253) 759-9500 (main)
(253) 414-3525 (direct)
(253) 677-1031 (cell)
(877) 552-9500 (toll-free)
(253) 414-3500 (facsimile)
www.tacomalawfirm.com
|
|
We are being urged to contact our
state legislators and ask them to introduce a bill patterned after
Washington HB 1016, which would prevent insurance companies from engaging in
breed profiling.
The Washington Deeds Not the
Breeds bill, which passed the Washington House of Representatives last
session by a vote of 91-3, has been reintroduced this session as HB 1016.
Sponsored by Rep. Tom Campbell and Rep. Steve Kirby, HB 1016 is currently
scheduled to be heard before the House Financial Institutions & Insurance
Committee on Thursday, January 20, 2005.
HB 1016 reads as follows:
House Bill 1016
State of Washington
59th Legislature
2005 Regular Session
By Representatives Campbell, Kirby, Appleton
and Simpson
Prefiled 12/28/2004.
Read first time 01/10/2005.
Referred to Committee on Financial Institutions & Insurance.
AN ACT Relating to homeowner's insurance; and adding a
new section to chapter 48.18 RCW.
BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF
WASHINGTON:
NEW SECTION. Sec. 1 A new section is added to chapter
48.18 RCW to read as follows:
"An insurer licensed to write liability
insurance, such as homeowner's insurance, in this state may not deny an
application for a homeowner's insurance policy, or cancel, refuse to
renew, or modify an existing homeowner's insurance policy, on the basis
that the applicant or insured owns or harbors a specific breed of dog on
the real property, unless the dog is a dangerous dog as defined in RCW
16.08.070."
--- END ---
For your convenience, our DPCD
Legislative Representative
has drafted a letter for each of us to send. Click
here for the sample letter. Feel free
to use it, modify it, or write your own! Again, many thanks for your
support. Let her know if you have any questions.
|
|
|
Monday, January 10, 2005 - Responsible
Pet Owners Alliance received the message below from the American Kennel
Club. This bill has been filed for the Texas Legislative Session just
convening. Texas Humane Legislation Network has been trying to lower
the bar for animal cruelty conviction for years by removing the "intent"
from existing law.
We'll keep you informed.
In bill text the following has special meaning
underline denotes added text
struck out text denotes deleted text
2005 TX H 326
AUTHOR: Goodman
VERSION: Prefiled
VERSION DATE: 01/06/2005
By:
Goodman H.B. No. 326
A BILL TO
BE ENTITLED
AN
ACT
relating to the offense of cruelty to animals.
BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF TEXAS:
SECTION 1. Section 42.09(a), Penal Code, is amended to read as
follows:
(a) A person commits an offense if the person intentionally ,
or knowingly , or recklessly :
(1) kills in a cruel manner, tortures , or causes serious
bodily injury to an animal;
(2) fails unreasonably to provide necessary food, water, care, or
shelter for an animal in the person's custody;
(3) abandons unreasonably an animal in the person's custody;
(4) transports or confines an animal in a cruel manner;
(5) kills , seriously injures, or administers poison to an
animal, not owned by the actor, other than cattle, horses,
sheep, swine, or goats, belonging to another without legal authority
or the owner's effective consent;
(6) trains, conditions, or causes one animal to fight with
another;
(7) uses a live animal as a lure in dog race training or in dog coursing
on a racetrack;
(8) trips a horse;
(9) causes bodily injury to an animal injures an animal, other
than cattle, horses, sheep, swine, or goats, belonging to another
without legal authority or the owner's effective consent ; or
(10) seriously overworks an animal.
SECTION 2. Sections 42.09(c)(2) and (5), Penal Code, are amended to
read as follows:
(2) "Animal" means a nonhuman mammal, bird, or captive amphibian or
reptile domesticated living creature and wild living creature
previously captured. "Animal" does not include an uncaptured wild
creature or a wild creature whose capture was accomplished by conduct at
issue under this section .
(5) "Necessary food, water, care, or shelter" includes food,
water, care, or shelter provided to the extent required to maintain
the animal in a state of good health.
SECTION 3. Section 42.09(h), Penal Code, is amended to read as
follows:
(h) It is a defense to prosecution for an offense under an
exception to the application of this section that the conduct
engaged in by the actor is a generally accepted and otherwise lawful:
(1) use of an animal if that use occurs solely for the purpose of:
(A) fishing, hunting, or trapping; or
(B) wildlife control as regulated by state and federal law; or
(2) animal husbandry or farming practice involving livestock ; or
(3) activity to control common household vermin or rodents .
SECTION 4. The change in law made by this Act applies only to an
offense committed on or after the effective date of this Act. An offense
committed before the effective date of this Act is covered by the law in
effect when the offense was committed, and the former law is continued
in effect for that purpose. For purposes of this section, an offense was
committed before the effective date of this Act if any element of the
offense was committed before that date.
SECTION 5. This Act takes effect September 1, 2005.
|
|
December 22, 2004 - Source: Caller-Times |
Corpus Christi, Texas
– Proposed Spay Neuter Ordinance
By Neal Falgoust Caller-Times
An animal rights group wants the City Council to adopt an ordinance
requiring all pets to be spayed or neutered unless their owner has a
special permit.
Members of the city's animal control advisory committee, however,
are opposed to the proposed ordinance and probably will recommend
the City Council not adopt it.
If the council rejects the ordinance, it could still go before
voters in a special election.
Members of the group Corpus Christi Animal Rights Effort said
Tuesday they want the ordinance as a way to crack down on
irresponsible pet owners and fly-by-night breeders. It would require
all breeders to pay a special registration fee, and pet owners who
do not pay that fee would have to have their animals fixed.
The group also wants all pets that come from breeders and all pets
that are not fixed to be tattooed with a special registration number
or have a small computer chip implanted under their skin.
CCARE Director Sherri Dunlap said that would make it easier for
animal control officials to track strays and irresponsible pet
owners.
"We could track the breeders because we would have actual numbers
that go to that owner," she said.
CCARE notified City Hall of its desire to implement the ordinance
after the City Council adopted a revised animal control code last
week that did not include those provisions.
Opponents say the proposed regulations go too far and would do
nothing to curb the unwanted pet population. They said they've spent
years looking at other cities that have similar ordinances and have
found them to be ineffective.
Susan Thiem, a member of the animal control advisory committee, and
Pamela Rhyner, a breeder, said the newly revised animal control code
will do more to control the number of unwanted pets than requiring
breeders to register.
City Manager Skip Noe said Tuesday the proposed ordinance would be
referred to the advisory committee for review. The committee has 45
days to make a recommendation to the City Council.
At that point, the council can adopt the ordinance or reject it. If
it rejects it, CCARE can circulate a petition to have it placed on
the ballot for voter approval. The group would need to collect
signatures from 5 percent of the city's registered voters, about
9,000 people, to place it on the ballot.
Contact Neal Falgoust at 886-4334 or falgoustn@caller.com
|
|
|
December 17, 2004 - Source: Responsible Pet Owners Alliance |
New Mexico
–
Wants PBs banned statewide, 10 breeds
declared "dangerous"
http://www.gallupindependent.com/121504bill.html
Bill
would ban pit bull breeding
By Leslie Wood
Staff Writer
GALLUP — The breeding of pit bulls
could be banned statewide as early as July, if a bill proposed by a
state senator is passed into law.
Under a bill proposed by Sen. Sue
Wilson Beffort, breeding of pit bulls will be prohibited, owners of
pit bulls will be required to neuter or spay the dogs and new pit
bulls will not be permitted in
New Mexico
after
July 1, 2005.
The manager of the
McKinley County Animal Control Center said
his employees nab about three to 12
stray pit bulls a month, locally. About 300 to 400 stray animals are
apprehended a month throughout
McKinley County.
In an explanation of the bill,
breeds such as Akitas, Malamutes, Bulldogs, Boxers, Canary dogs,
Chow Chows, Dobermans, German Shepherds, Danes, Huskies and
Rottweilers are classified as dangerous dogs.
Dr. Clinton Balok, of the
Cedar
Medical Center, said he's
experienced the fierceness of a
Rotweiller first hand. Balok was about to begin the process of
giving a dog a rabies shot, when he was attacked inside a Crownpoint
clinic.
"I almost lost my arm," Balok said.
"He was going for my throat, but I gave him my arm instead."
Balok lost use of the limb for
several months, which is a serious set back for a surgeon.
"If it had been a woman or a
smaller child, they would have been dead," he said.
The dog was destroyed, following
the incident. Balok said when the animals are raised in an
aggressive environment, their tendency to attack increases.
"It's their nature to fight," he
said. "It goes back generations .... It's their genetics mixed with
a hate-filled environment that creates a monster. They lost a lot of
gentleness they used to posses and it's not their fault."
He said the dogs are often unfairly
blamed for their owners' actions.
"Animals often take the brunt of
everything," Balok said. "But maybe they are only the instrument of
a greater villain."
He described some pit bull owners'
desire to own the animals that are known as fight dogs as "a macho
thing."
"It's a cool thing to have a dog
with huge jaw muscles," he said.
Owners of all dogs who bite could
pay upward of $1,000 in fines. Complaints can also be issued
against a dog that has threatened an individual. Desecration could
be given to the animal control officer to decide whether the dog
should be quarantined or possibly destroyed.
Under the bill, a $7,500 fine would
be issued to individuals who are involved in dog fighting.
"Increased penalties are fine and good for after the fact and
hopefully they will make people act more responsibly, but my bill is
designed to prevent attacks from happening in the first place by
banning the breeding of pit bulls,"
Beffort said.
If passed, the law would also
require existing pit bulls to be kept indoors or inside a pen, if
outdoors.
In a phone interview, Beffort said
nationwide only 1 percent of dogs are pit bulls, but 50 percent of
the reported maulings are by pit bulls. And of that 50 percent, 80
percent of those maulings involved young children.
"The public is outraged on a weekly
basis that there are these attacks," she said.
Beffort said a petition is
circulating throughout the Grants and
Gallup
area to ban the dogs.
Balok said a better option to the
ban on pit bull breeding is to expand it to all breeds of dogs due
to large number that already exist or to require dog owners to spay
or neuter their animal.
He said passing laws concerning the
dogs are important, but so is their enforcement.
"Establishing is one part of the
equation," he said. "The other is enforcement in court."
For more
information, contact the
Responsible Pet Owners Alliance.
|
Concerned fanciers are asked to contact
Rep. Edwards to oppose his proposed legislation. Please also copy your
Texas State Representative on your letter.
|
December 9, 2004 - Source:
AKC
Canine Legislation Dept., Taking
Command (December 2004). |
TEXAS
–
Rep. Edwards recently announced plans to draft legislation to
regulate “vicious” breeds of dogs, including Rottweilers and “pit
bulls.” Rep. Edwards indicated his bill, which would be introduced
in 2005, would require owners of certain breeds to register their
dogs, obtain $300,000 in liability insurance, participate in
training classes, and face felony criminal charges if their dog
attacks someone.
AKC supports the strong enforcement of
Texas’ current dangerous dog law, which precludes labeling a dog as
vicious based solely on breed. The Canine Legislation department
sent a letter to Rep. Edwards opposing the legislation, and we
encourage concerned fanciers to do the same. Contact Rep. Edwards
at:
Representative Al Edwards
Texas House of Representatives
4913 Griggs Road
Houston,
TX 77021
Phone: 713-741-8800
Click
here
for a sample letter.
For more
details on this issue and other things you can do to help, visit
http://www.lucydog.com/bsl.htm
For more
information, contact the
Responsible Pet Owners Alliance.
|
From Responsible Pet Owners Alliance, the reasonable voice regarding animal issues.
Responsible Pet Owners Alliance is an animal welfare organization, not "animal rights" and, yes, there is a difference.
Permission is granted to crosspost with credit given to the TX-RPOA List.
There will be no breeder permits in Corpus Christi.
There is one more reading but it will probably be on the Council's Consent Agenda.
The Corpus Christi Kennel Club is to be congratulated! After a three yearbattle against a heavily laden "animal rights" Animal Advisory Committee,
they won! They even succeeded in getting two of the "animal rights"
activists off the Committee, which allowed the proposed ordinance to finally
move forward for city council approval. Other cities should be so lucky!
Responsible Pet Owners Alliance assisted Corpus Christi Kennel Club by
sending out email "Action Alerts;" providing them with information about
the failure of breeder permits in other cities; and writing letters on their
behalf to city officials.
RPOA also had several conversations with Cherrie Stunz, the Animal Services
Manager, about programs that have been found to be effective in solving
animal problems in other cities. Stunz is a very dedicated employee, who
was openminded about alternative programs. We wish them luck with their
stray animal problem and will monitor their progress. American Kennel
Club, Cat Fanciers Association, rescuers and assorted bird breeders also
supported our efforts in Corpus.
The proposed breeder permit would have applied to breeders of all species of
pets.
As written in the original Corpus proposal, breeder permits are usually
coupled with a clause that makes them subject to zoning restrictions --
which means they won't be issued in residentially zoned areas.
Animal nuisance and animal cruelty laws already cover all breeders and more
legislation isn't necessary. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Delegates assembled 10-29-04 at the 2004 Annual Conference of the Texas
Municipal League passed the resolution below to support the repeal of
the restriction against breed specific regulations contained in Section
822.047(1) of theTexas Health & Safety Code. It was submitted by the
City of Big Springs.
*********************************************
A RESOLUTION CALLING FOR THE AMENDMENT OF SECTION
822.047(2) OFTHE TEXAS HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE TO ALLOW CITIES TO PROVIDE
BREED SPECIFIC REGULATION OF DOGS
WHEREAS, Section 822.047 of the Texas Health and Safety Code provides as
follows:
§ 822.047. LOCAL REGULATION OF DANGEROUS DOGS. A county or municipality
mayplace additional requirements or restrictions on dangerous dogs if
the requirements or restrictions:
(1) are not specific to one breed or several breeds of dogs; and
(2) are more stringent than restrictions provided by this subchapter.
WHEREAS, the prohibition against breed specific regulation of dogs
contained
in Section 822.047(1) ignores evidence that certain breeds are more
likely
than others to inflict serious bodily injuries upon persons and animals;
and
WHEREAS, the restriction contained in Section 822.047(1) places the
welfare
of potentially dangerous dogs and the financial security of certain
animal
breeders over the welfare of citizens of the State of Texas; and
WHEREAS, as a result of the restriction contained in Section 833.047(1),
cities are unable to enact needed breed specific regulations necessary
to
protect their residents;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the delegates assembled at this 2004
Annual Conference of the Texas Municipal League that the League support
the repeal of the restriction against breed specific regulations
contained in Section 822.047(1) of the Texas Health & Safety Code.
PASSED AND APPROVED by the membership of the Texas Municipal League this
29th day of October, 2004, at Corpus Christi, Texas.
APPROVED:
Terry Henley
President
ATTEST:
Frank Sturzl
Executive Director |
|
Stanislaus County,
CA Faces Breeding Restrictions (Tuesday, November 16, 2004) |
A fast-moving proposal in Stanislaus County could
severely impact the breeding rights of local fanciers. The
proposed ordinance
is scheduled for a public hearing on Tuesday, November 30 at
9:35 AM. If enacted, the ordinance would:
Require owners to obtain a $100 annual
license for intact dogs or cats over the age of four months.
Require breeders to purchase a $100 breeding permit and
would limit them to no more than one litter per year.
Breeders must include their permit number in any puppy sale
advertisements. Breeding permit holders are further required
to microchip their dogs or cats and register them with the
Department of Animal Services.
Direct breeders to contact the Department of Animal Services
with the contact information of the animal's new owner
within five days of the sale or transfer.
Any owner or breeder found in violation of these
provisions must correct the matter by providing proof of
microchipping or sterilization or be subject to a $500 fine. If
the fine is not paid within 15 days additional penalties will be
imposed. Failure to include permit numbers in any advertisement
for sale or transfer is punishable by a $100 fine for the first
occurrence, $200 for the second offense and $300.00 for each
subsequent offense.
The AKC opposes the concept of breeding permits, breeding bans
and mandatory spay/neuter of purebred dogs. Instead, we support
reasonable and enforceable laws that protect the welfare and
health of purebred dogs and do not restrict the rights of
responsible breeders and owners.
The provisions of this ordinance will unfairly impact
responsible hobby breeders. If these proposed breeding
regulations are enacted, small breeders may be forced out of
existence, denying puppy purchasers a
conscientious, knowledgeable, source of purebred dogs.
Additionally, hundreds of fanciers who show but do not breed
their unaltered animals may have no choice but to give up their
enjoyment in the sport. Your immediate assistance is needed to
fight this legislation! |
|
|
AKC Seeks Support For Insurance
Campaign (Friday, November 5, 2004) |
| Each year,
countless homeowners are dropped by their insurance carriers or
denied new coverage due to the breed of dog they own. Even the
most responsible owners may find themselves facing exorbitant
premiums or—worse—the devastating decision to give up their pet
in order to obtain or maintain adequate insurance. The battle
for coverage often exists regardless of whether the dog is
well-trained and has never demonstrated aggression.
AKC has long made it a priority to assist the
dog-owning community with this ever-growing problem. Recently,
the Canine Legislation department sent a letter to every state
insurance commissioner in order to call their attention to breed
discrimination by insurance companies. AKC’s letter stated its
strong opposition to this practice and urged commissioners to
instead support regulations that protect responsible owners
while allowing insurance companies to raise rates or refuse
coverage only if a dog has been deemed dangerous based on
reasonable animal control laws. To
read a copy of AKC’s letter, please click
here.
How Dog Owners Can Help:
| Initial responses to AKC’s letter
indicate that our efforts have indeed heightened insurance
commissioners’ awareness to this problem. However, we
believe that a nationwide letter-writing campaign is needed
to build on this outreach effort if real progress is to be
made. The Canine Legislation department is therefore urging
dog clubs, federations, and general dog owners alike to
write to their state insurance
commissioner today. Urge him or her to adopt and
enforce reasonable guidelines that do not arbitrarily target
dog owners based on breed. You may use AKC’s letter as a
model, but be sure to personalize your own correspondence.
|
Working together, AKC and dog owners have a
chance to help eradicate these homeowners’ insurance woes.
Please take a moment to contact your commissioner today!
For more information on help with homeowners’
insurance issues, please visit:
http://www.akc.org/life/homeins/homeowners_inscenter.cfm
http://www.akc.org/news/index.cfm?article_id=2234 |
|
|
Immediate Help Needed on Insurance Bill
in New Jersey (October, 5, 2004)
Update: Thanks to
the large numbers of concerned dog owners who attended Monday's hearing,
A1135 (a bill to prohibit insurance companies from discriminating
against homeowners based on the breed of dog they own) was
overwhelmingly approved by the Assembly Financial Institutions and
Insurance Committee. The New Jersey Federation of Dog Clubs reports that
dog owners' convincing testimony even prompted the Committee Chairman,
Assem. Neil Cohen, to sign on as a co-sponsor. A1135 was combined with a
similar bill, A2373, and now goes to the full Assembly for
consideration. Congratulations to the many New Jersey fanciers who
helped this important bill take a first step toward passage!
[Friday, October 01, 2004]
The Assembly Financial Institutions and Insurance Committee is currently
considering A1135, a bill to prohibit insurance companies from
discriminating against homeowners based on the breed of dog they own.
The American Kennel Club believes th | |
