A new AKC Legislative Alert has been posted to the AKC web site:
NC ALERT: Strict Breeder Bill To Be Heard On Tuesday, June 30!
[Friday, June 26, 2009]
Senate Bill 460, a bill which regulates breeders and infringes on the rights of responsible dog owners, will be heard in the Senate Finance Committee on Tuesday, June 30.
All responsible dog breeders and owners in North Carolina are encouraged to attend the hearing on Tuesday in opposition to the bill. We need to show strong opposition to SB 460. While attendees will not be able to speak in opposition, NUMBERS MATTER! If you are unable to attend, please call or e-mail the members of the committee and ask them to oppose SB 460.
The American Kennel Club is appalled by the conditions in which some dogs are kept and abhors animal cruelty. However, as the AKC wrote in a letter to the Finance Committee, Senate Bill 460 is a costly, ineffective bill that punishes responsible breeders and owners and does nothing to help the dogs kept in deplorable conditions.
The AKC opposes several other provisions of Senate Bill 460, including:
A vague definition of commercial breeder. As amended, SB 460 defines "commercial breeder" as anyone who owns or maintains at least 15 intact females of any age for the primary purpose of the sale of the offspring. This definition could include anyone who has bred even a single litter of puppies, including fanciers and show breeders.
Inspections of private property at any time. The bill allows law enforcement and local animal control to search the homes and private property of anyone who falls under the definition of "commercial breeder" at any time of day or night.
Directive for the NC Department of Agriculture to develop standards of care with no public input. SB 460 calls for the Department of Agriculture to develop care and condition policies for dogs belonging to commercial breeders. This does not allow for any input from dog breeders and others who are experts in animal care.
This bill is unnecessary, as North Carolina already has laws that address animal cruelty and mistreatment. Senate Bill 460 will do nothing to address irresponsible breeding and will cost the state over $400,000 a year to enforce. At a time when the state is facing a projected $3 billion budget gap, improved enforcement of existing laws would be a better use of North Carolina taxpayers’ money.
How You Can Help:
· Attend the Senate Finance Committee hearing on Tuesday, June 30. The details are as follows:
Date: Tuesday, June 30, 2009
Time: 1:00 p.m.
Location: North Carolina Legislative Office Building
Room 544
16 W. Jones Street
Raleigh, North Carolina
Contact the members of the Senate Finance Committee TODAY. Tell the members of the committee that you oppose this bill, and urge them to oppose Senate Bill 460. A phone call would be most effective. E-mail is acceptable, but we ask that you also call.
Click here for basic phone scripts for breeders and fanciers.
The contact information for the committee is as follows:
Senator David Hoyle (Co-Chairman)
Phone: (919) 733-5734
E-mail: David.Hoyle@ncleg.net
Senator Daniel Clodfelter (Co-Chairman)
Phone: (919) 715-8331
E-mail: Daniel.Clodfelter@ncleg.net
Senator Clark Jenkins (Co-Chairman)
Phone: (919) 715-3040
E-mail: Clark.Jenkins@ncleg.net
Senator Larry Shaw (Vice-Chairman)
Phone: (919) 733-9349
E-mail: Larry.Shaw@ncleg.net
Senator Fletcher Hartsell, Jr. (Vice-Chairman)
Phone: (919) 733-7223
E-mail: Fletcher.Hartsell@ncleg.net
Senator Charles Albertson
Phone: (919) 733-5705
E-mail: Charlie.Albertson@ncleg.net
Senator Austin Allran
Phone: (919) 733-5876
E-mail: Austin.Allran@ncleg.net
Senator Tom Apodaca
Phone: (919) 733-5745
E-mail: Tom.Apodaca@ncleg.net
Senator Bob Atwater
Phone: (919) 715-3036
E-mail: Bob.Atwater@ncleg.net
Senator Philip Berger
Phone: (919) 733-5708
E-mail: Phil.Berger@ncleg.net
Senator Charlie Dannelly
Phone: (919) 733-5955
E-mail: Charlie.Dannelly@ncleg.net
Senator Eleanor Kinnaird
Phone: (919) 733-5804
E-mail: Ellie.Kinnaird@ncleg.net
Senator Floyd McKissick, Jr.
Phone: (919) 733-4599
E-mail: Floyd.McKissick@ncleg.net
Senator Joe Sam Queen
Phone: (919) 733-3460
E-mail: Joe.Queen@ncleg.net
Senator David Rouzer
Phone: (919)733-5748
E-mail: David.Rouzer@ncleg.net
Senator R.C. Soles, Jr.
Phone: (919) 733-5963
E-mail: RC.Soles@ncleg.net
Senator Harris Blake
Phone: (919) 733-4809
E-mail: Harris.Blake@ncleg.net
Senator Julia Boseman
Phone: (919) 715-2525
E-mail: Julia.Boseman@ncleg.net
Senator Andrew Brock
Phone: (919) 715-0690
E-mail: Andrew.Brock@ncleg.net
Senator Harry Brown
Phone: (919) 715-3034
E-mail: Harry.Brown@ncleg.net
Senator Don East
Phone: (919) 733-5743
E-mail: Don.East@ncleg.net
Senator Tony Foriest
Phone: (919) 301-1446
E-mail: Tony.Foriest@ncleg.net
Senator Linda Garrou
Phone: (919) 733-5620
E-mail: Linda.Garrou@ncleg.net
Senator Eddie Goodall
Phone: (919) 733-7659
E-mail: Eddie.Goodall@ncleg.net
Senator Steve Goss
Phone: (919) 733-5742
E-mail: Steve.Goss@ncleg.net
Senator Neal Hunt
Phone: (919) 733-5850
E-mail: Neal.Hunt@ncleg.net
Senator Martin Nesbitt, Jr.
Phone: (919) 715-3001
E-mail: Martin.Nesbitt@ncleg.net
Senator Jean Preston
Phone: (919) 733-5706
E-mail: Jean.Preston@ncleg.net
Senator William Purcell
Phone: (919) 733-5953
E-mail: William.Purcell@ncleg.net
Senator Tony Rand
Phone: (919) 733-9892
E-mail: Tony.Rand@ncleg.net
Senator Bob Rucho
Phone: (919) 733-5655
E-mail: Bob.Rucho@ncleg.net
Senator Josh Stein
Phone: (919)715-6400
E-mail: Josh.Stein@ncleg.net
Senator Richard Stevens
Phone: (919) 733-5653
E-mail: Richard.Stevens@ncleg.net
Senator A.B. Swindell
Phone: (919) 715-3030
E-mail: AB.Swindell@ncleg.net
Senator Jerry Tillman
Phone: (919) 733-5870
E-mail: Jerry.Tillman@ncleg.net
Senator David Weinstein
Phone: (919) 733-5651
E-mail: David.Weinstein@ncleg.net
Senator Dan Blue
Phone: (919) 833-1931
E-mail: Dan.Blue@ncleg.net
For more information, contact AKC’s Government Relations Department at (919) 816-3720; or e-mail doglaw@akc.org.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dangerous dog rules under review in Covington
By KRIS HILL
Covington Reporter News
The Covington City Council is considering beefing up its city laws regarding dangerous and vicious dogs.
Currently the city contracts with King County Animal Control for response services when a call comes in regarding a dog attack and Covington follows the county’s rules for penalties and so on.
This issue arose, explained City Manager Derek Matheson, when a resident spoke during the public comment period at the council’s April 14 meeting.
“Margaret Richter spoke to the council about events that happened on Feb. 6 around 4 p.m.,” Matheson said. “She was walking to the bus stop with her dog, which was on a leash, to pick up her kindergartner and was attacked by a pit bull.”
A neighbor came to Richter’s rescue, according to the minutes of the April 14 meeting, and she told the council that Animal Control decided to “allow this dog to stay in the community as it did not have enough complaints on record for that individual.”
Richter explained that it’s easy to report incidents to the county and outlined how to do it via animal control’s Web site. She encouraged people to report any issues with vicious or potentially dangerous dogs.
From there, Matheson said, he did some research and found “the laws to be more complicated than you can imagine.”
King County’s ordinance supersedes state law, which Matheson described as more proscriptive, due to the way the state law is written.
“So, many cities go out and develop their own regulations,” Matheson said. “Covington, Maple Valley and Burien are the only ones who use just King County codes.”
Renton, Kent and Des Moines apply regulations quite similar to state law while Tukwila “has very specific rules” that require confinement of dangerous and potentially dangerous dogs that goes beyond state law.
Federal Way bans dangerous dogs entirely while Enumclaw has banned pit bulls. Auburn declares pit bulls and many other breeds dangerous automatically while also requiring an annual registration for such dogs.
SeaTac declares pit bulls dangerous and requires confinement of dangerous dogs and a muzzle when not confined.
Matheson explained these various steps taken by other cities during a presentation at the council’s June 9 meeting as examples of what Covington can do.
“The council can decide if it wants to supplement the county’s regulations,” Matheson said. “They want us to look at beefing up our contract with King County Animal Control so they can be more proactive rather than reactive.”
City staff are working on researching the issue further and developing options for a supplemental ordinance that would address the concerns the council has regarding dangerous dogs.
“They didn’t want to ban specific breeds,” Matheson said. “They didn’t want to ban dangerous dogs. They do want to beef up the penalties, possibly from a misdemeanor to a gross misdemeanor.”
Matheson said that Animal Control typically does not charge individuals with dangerous dogs with a crime and that “usually they require the dog to be confined or leashed or removed from King County.”
“My next step is to get the staff started on community education,” Matheson said. “I’m working on a survey to send to the appropriate staff person in each of the South King County cities to clarify questions the council members have. They’re concerned about whether the other cities’ ordinances are effective, how much it costs as well as how much staff time it would take.”
It will likely be another month or two before staff bring an ordinance back to the council, Matheson explained, and then a couple more meetings after that to hash out all the details.
Matheson said that county animal control officials estimate there are 4,389 dogs in Covington and that in 2008 there were 43 vicious dog calls and nine dog bite calls in the city. Through April of this year there were 13 vicious dog related calls and two reported bites. Covington makes up 1.5 percent of animal control’s service area and about .5 percent of vicious dog calls come from the city.
Covington Reporter News Kris Hill can be reached at khill@reporternewspapers.com or (425) 432-1209, ext. 5054.
http://www.pnwlocalnews.com/south_king/cmv/news/48297177. html
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Past Legislation
WASHINGTON STATE LEGISLATIVE STATUS – 2009 (as of May 11, 2009)
HB2202 - Ensuring Minimum Proper Veterinary Care Standards for Certain Dogs Requires department of agriculture to adopt and maintain rules for minimum veterinary care standards for dogs under 12 months of age.
STATUS: Dead for this session
ESB5200 (SB 5200 / SB5870) - Concerning Marauding Dogs and Concerning Dogs Running at Large (respectively)
CURRENT LAW: Revised Code of Washington (RCW) 16.08.030 & 1929 c 198 s 7 currently reads as follows:
It shall be the duty of any person owning or keeping any dog or dogs which shall be found killing any domestic animal to kill such dog or dogs within forty-eight hours after being notified of that fact, and any person failing or neglecting to comply with the provisions of this section shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor((, and it shall be the duty of the sheriff or any deputy sheriff to kill any dog found running at large (after the first day of August of any year and before the first day of March in the following year) without a metal identification tag.
SENATE: Senator James Hargrove sponsored SB5870 to remove the first-half of the law, which required owners to kill the dog within 48 hours of notice. Senator Dale Brandland sponsored SB5200 to remove the second-half of the law, which required the sheriff/deputy sheriff to kill a dog found running at large, if it did not have a metal identification tag. The two bills were then merged into Engrossed Senate Bill (ESB)5200 and passed by the Senate. April 18, 2009: Senate refuses to concur in House amendments. Asks House to recede from amendments. April 26, 2009: By resolution, returned to Senate Rules Committee for third reading.
HOUSE: House Judiciary Committee amended the ESB5200 to restore the provision requiring the owner to comply with the kill within 48 hours. The House passed it as amended by the Judiciary Committee. April 22, 2009: House insists on its position and asks Senate to concur.
STATUS: Dead for this session
( RCW 16.08.030 & 1929 c 198 s 7 remains unchanged ).
SB5651 - Provide Humanitarian Requirements for Certain Dog Breeding Practices
Bill deals with regulation of dog breeding and practices of such. While final bill continues to contain a number of onerous provisions, it has been drastically modified to the betterment of those impacted. However, it continues the governmental intrusion into the freedoms of Free Americans.
Major provisions:
Ø No more than 50 dogs with intact sexual organs over the age of 6 months
Ø More than 10 dogs with intact sexual organs-must comply with specific dimensions for enclosure
Ø Specifies specific exercise period for dogs over the age of four months
Ø Specifies housing conditions
Ø Addresses feeding / watering / sanitation conditions
Ø Dogs can not be bred if veterinarian determines animal unfit for breeding purposes
Ø Limits breeding age of dogs to 12 months to 8 years of age (AKC guidelines are: 7 months to 12 year for Sire; 8 months to 12 years for Dam
Exclusions:
Ø Publicly operated animal control facilities or animal shelters
Ø Private, charitable nonprofit humane society or animal adoption organizations
Ø Veterinary facilities
Ø Retail pet stores
Ø Research institutions
Ø Boarding and grooming facilities
STATUS: Signed by Governor on April 30, 2009
EFFECTIVE: 07/26/2009
SSB5402 - Regarding the Prevention of Animal Cruelty
Bill deals with and relating to prevention of animal cruelty.
Major provisions:
Ø If a law enforcement officer or animal control officer has probable cause to believe that an owner of a domestic animal has violated this chapter or owns or possesses an animal in violation of an order issued under RCW 16.52.200(3) and no responsible person can be found to assume the animal's care, the officer may authorize, with a warrant, the removal of the animal to a suitable place for feeding and care, or may place the animal under the custody of an animal care and control agency. In determining what is a suitable place, the officer shall consider the animal's needs, including its size and behavioral characteristics. An officer may remove an animal under this subsection without a warrant only if the animal is in an immediate life-threatening condition.
Ø If a law enforcement officer or an animal control officer has probable cause to believe a violation of this chapter has occurred, the officer may authorize an examination of a domestic animal allegedly neglected or abused in violation of this chapter by a veterinarian to determine whether the level of neglect or abuse in violation of this chapter is sufficient to require removal of the animal. This section does not condone illegal entry onto private property.
Ø Any owner whose domestic animal is removed pursuant to this chapter shall be given written notice of the circumstances of the removal and notice of legal remedies available to the owner. The notice shall be given by posting at the place of seizure, by delivery to a person residing at the place of seizure, or by registered mail if the owner is known. In making the decision to remove an animal pursuant to this chapter, the officer shall make a good faith effort to contact the animal's owner before removal.
Ø The agency having custody of the animal may euthanize the animal or may find a responsible person to adopt the animal not less than fifteen business days after the animal is taken into custody. A custodial agency may euthanize severely injured, diseased, or suffering animals at any time. An owner may prevent the animal's destruction or adoption by: (a) Petitioning the district court of the county where the animal was seized for the animal's immediate return subject to court-imposed conditions, or (b) posting a bond or security in an amount sufficient to provide for the animal's care for a minimum of thirty days from the seizure date. If the custodial agency still has custody of the animal when the bond or security expires, the animal shall become the agency's property unless the court orders an alternative disposition. If a court order prevents the agency from assuming ownership and the agency continues to care for the animal, the court shall order the owner to renew a bond or security for the agency's continuing costs for the animal's care.
Ø When a court has prohibited the owner from owning or possessing a similar animal under RCW 16.52.200(3):
o the agency having custody of the animal may assume ownership upon seizure and the owner may not prevent the animal's destruction or adoption by petitioning the court or posting a bond.
o If no criminal case is filed within fourteen business days of the animal's removal, the owner may petition the district court of the county where the animal was removed for the animal's return. The petition shall be filed with the court, with copies served to the law enforcement or animal care and control agency responsible for removing the animal and to the prosecuting attorney. If the court grants the petition, the agency which seized the animal must deliver the animal to the owner at no cost to the owner.
o If a criminal action is filed after the petition is filed but before the animal is returned, the petition shall be joined with the criminal matter.
o In a motion or petition for the animal's return before a trial, the burden is on the owner to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the animal will not suffer future neglect or abuse and is not in need of being restored to health.
o Any authorized person treating or attempting to restore an animal to health under this chapter shall not be civilly or criminally liable for such action.
Ø PENALTIES - Sec. 3. RCW 16.52.200 and 2003 c 53 s 113 are each amended to read as follow:
o The sentence imposed for a misdemeanor or gross misdemeanor violation of this chapter may be deferred or suspended in accordance with RCW 3.66.067 and 3.66.068, however the probationary period shall be two years.
o In case of multiple misdemeanor or gross misdemeanor convictions, the sentences shall be consecutive, however the probationary period shall remain two years
o In addition to the penalties imposed by the court, the court shall order the forfeiture of all animals held by law enforcement or animal care and control authorities under the provisions of this chapter if any one of the animals involved dies as a result of a violation of this chapter or if the defendant has a prior conviction under this chapter. In other cases the court may enter an order requiring the owner to forfeit the animal if the court deems the animal's treatment to have been severe and likely to reoccur. If forfeiture is ordered, the owner shall be prohibited from owning or caring for any similar animals for a period of ((two years)) time as follows:
§ Two years for a first conviction of animal cruelty in the second degree under RCW 16.52.207;
§ Permanently for a first conviction of animal cruelty in the first degree under RCW 16.52.205;
§ Permanently for a second or subsequent conviction of animal cruelty, except as provided in subsection (4) of this section.
§ If a person has no more than two convictions of animal cruelty and each conviction is for animal cruelty in the second degree, the person may petition the sentencing court in which the most recent animal cruelty conviction occurred, for a restoration of the right to own or possess a similar animal five years after the date of the second conviction. In determining whether to grant the petition, the court shall consider, but not be limited to, the following:
* The person's prior animal cruelty in the second degree convictions;
* The type of harm or violence inflicted upon the animals;
* Whether the person has completed the conditions imposed by the court as a result of the underlying convictions; and
* Any other matters the court finds reasonable and material to consider in determining whether the person is likely to abuse another animal.
* If convicted, the defendant shall also pay a civil penalty of one thousand dollars to the county to prevent cruelty to
STATUS: Signed by Governor on April 30, 2009
EFFECTIVE: 07/26/2009
SB5329 / HB1406 - Creating Companion Animal Spay/Neuter Assistance Program
The companion animal spay/neuter assistance program is established. The purpose of the program is to provide for spaying and neutering of companion animals owned by low income individuals and for spaying and neutering feral and free-roaming cats.
STATUS: Dead for this session
HB1148 - Protecting Animals from Perpetrators of Domestic Violence
Relating to protecting animals from perpetrators of domestic violence; amending RCW 26.50.060 and 26.50.110; and creating a new 3 section. The legislature finds that considerable research shows a strong correlation between animal abuse, child abuse, and domestic violence. The legislature intends that perpetrators of domestic violence not be allowed to further terrorize and manipulate their victims, or the children of their victims, by using the threat of violence toward pets.
Major provisions – changes / additives to current law (underline – law modification)
Ø The legislature finds that considerable research shows a strong correlation between animal abuse, child abuse, and domestic violence. The legislature intends that perpetrators of domestic violence not be allowed to further terrorize and manipulate their victims, or the children of their victims, by using the threat of violence toward pets.
Ø Order possession and use of essential personal effects. The court shall list the essential personal effects with sufficient specificity to make it clear which property is included. Personal effects may include pets. The court may order that a petitioner be granted the exclusive custody or control of any pet owned, possessed, leased, kept, or held by the petitioner, respondent, or minor child residing with either the petitioner or respondent and may prohibit the respondent from interfering with the petitioner's efforts to remove the pet. The court may also prohibit the respondent from knowingly coming within, or knowingly remaining within, a specified distance of specified locations where the pet is regularly found;
Ø A provision prohibiting interfering with the protected party's efforts to remove a pet owned, possessed, leased, kept, or held by the petitioner, respondent, or a minor child residing with either the petitioner or the respondent;
STATUS: Pending signature Governor
for more updates.
