| Part Two
Posted by John Yates on June 27, 2008, 9:20 am, in reply to "Black Wednesday For Dog Owners"
California
We support the first part of AB1634, which calls for fines for dogs that are allowed to roam and mandates sterilization after the third offense.
However, the second part of the legislation violates basic constitutional rights and human decency.
Here are the provisions of the second part of the legislation (Italics are direct quotes, and words that are not italicized are our comments):
· “The owner of a nonspayed or unneutered dog that is the subject of a complaint may be cited and pay a civil penalty as provided in this section. This civil penalty shall be in addition to any fine, fee, or penalty imposed under any other provision of law or local ordinance.” In the first sentence, the committee substituted “may” for “shall,” which appears to leave the issuance of a citation up to the discretion of an animal control officer. However, the basis for this decision is not defined.
· “The owner of the dog shall pay the civil penalty to the local animal control agency within 30 business days of the citation. The local animal control agency shall waive the civil penalty if, within 14 business days of the citation, the owner of the dog presents written proof from a licensed veterinarian that the dog was spayed or neutered.” There is no provision for a dog owner to defend him/herself in court or at a hearing, and no appeal is allowed. If you are accused, you are guilty. Period. This is a violation of constitutional guarantees of due process and equal protection under the law.
· “ ’Complaint’ means an oral or written complaint to a local animal control agency that alleges that the dog or the owner of the dog has violated this division, any other provision of state law that relates to dogs, or a local animal control ordinance. ‘Complaint’ also means the observation by an employee or officer of a local animal control agency of behavior by a dog or the owner of a dog that violates this division, any other provision of state law that relates to dogs, or a local animal control ordinance.” An example of what this means is that a hunting or field trial dog that is in excellent health and conditioned for performance could result in a complaint of animal cruelty if anyone believes the dog looks thin.
· “ ‘Local animal control agency’ means any city or county animal control agency or other entity responsible for enforcing animal-related laws or local animal control ordinances.” This includes Humane Societies and other animal welfare organizations empowered to enforce animal cruelty or other dog laws. Many members of these groups support a radical animal rights agenda.
The Senate Local Government Committee approved this legislation by a party-line 3-2 vote Wednesday, with Democrats in the majority. It now goes to the Senate Committee on Appropriations, and then to the Senate floor for a final vote.
Please contact members of the Appropriations Committee immediately to voice opposition to the second half of this bill, and also individual senators.
This link gives contact information for committee members: http://www.senate.ca.gov/ftp/sen/committee/STANDING/APPROP/_home1/PROFILE.HTM. The committee meets on Monday.
This link gives contact information for all senators: http://www.senate.ca.gov/~newsen/senators/senators.htp. While Sen. Michael Machado voted for this bill on Wednesday, he expressed many concerns and might be convinced to change his vote.
Dallas
Here is a summary of the dog ordinance passed Wednesday by the Dallas City Council by a 10-3 vote. The ordinance:
· Creates a permit for a dog or cat used for breeding or competition. The cost of the permit is $70 annually for each animal, plus the regular license fee of $30. There is no grace period or exclusion provided for new residents or people who are visiting Dallas, including participants in dog shows or other events. Visitors can be cited, and we expect that they will be cited.
· Requires all other dogs or cats to be spayed or neutered.
· Limits a single household to a total of six cats and/or dogs. People owning more than a half-acre of land would be allowed eight. People who currently own a greater number of animals could apply to the city to be allowed to keep their animals without penalty, but they would not be allowed to buy a dog or breed a litter of puppies until their number of dogs drops below the limit. The ordinance applies to anyone who “harbors” more than six dogs, which includes many visitors and participants in dog shows and other events. Almost all professional handlers would be in this category, as well as many owner/handlers.
· Subjects anyone who harbors a group of dogs that exceeds the limits to unannounced inspections. This would include participants in dog shows or other events.
· Mandates microchipping of all dogs and cats, including those of visitors.
· Prohibits tethering of unsupervised dogs to trees or poles except "for a period no longer than necessary for the owner to complete a temporary task."
· Forces owners to provide at least 150 square feet of space and a building or designed doghouse for a dog confined outdoors.
· And provides for confiscation of allegedly dangerous dogs, and other penalties.
Please contact us at asda@csonline.net if you would like to participate in legal action or boycotts related to the Dallas ordinance.
Pennsylvania
Dog owners in Pennsylvania were beset by two pieces of bad legislation this week.
HB 2525 regulates a million dog owners and owners of 2,700 licensed kennels in the state. It passed the House Agriculture Committee by a 17-12 vote Wednesday. All but one Republican (Rep. K. Boback) voted against the bill, and all Democrats (the majority party) voted in favor of it.
It appears that the final bill reflects some of the promises made to dog ownership advocacy groups during the past several months of negotiations, but that the Democrats have reneged on other promises.
Some dog owners groups have withdrawn their opposition to this legislation, but the American Sporting Dog Alliance continues to oppose it in its present form. While we support changes that affect commercial breeders, these represent only a small part of HB 2525. The rest of the bill has serious impacts on all dog and kennel owners. The text of several amendments has not been published thus far We will issue a full report on this legislation in the next couple of days.
The other legislation is HB 2532, which provides what amounts to be a de facto partial or complete ban on tail docking, ear cropping and dewclaw removal by anyone except a licensed veterinarian. Although most other dog owners’ organizations have not taken a clear public stance on this bill, the American Sporting Dog Alliance categorically opposes it.
HB 2532 passed the House Judiciary Committee by a 28-1 vote Tuesday, with only Republican Rep. T. Creighton voting “no.”
The bill allows owners to dock the tails of puppies until they pass three days of age, and to remove dewclaws during the first five days. However, the burden of proof is placed on a dog’s owner to prove that this work was done legally before the age limits, or by a veterinarian. It would be difficult for most dog owners to prove this, and a large majority would not be able to prove it. The simple possession of a dog with a docked tail or a lack of dewclaws would be considered evidence of an animal cruelty violation, if the owner cannot prove his/her innocence.
The bill continues a total ban against ear cropping, except by a veterinarian, and anyone who is found in possession of a dog with cropped ears is automatically guilty of criminal animal cruelty in the absence of proof.
For all of these procedures, HB 2532 struck out a provision that would have exempted dogs if their owners filed an affidavit with a county treasurer that the work was done before the bill is passed.
That means a large majority of owners of many of the most popular breeds will have no way of proving that they have complied with the law. These procedures were done legally in the past on many dogs, or legally by breeders in other states. In many cases, a dog owner has no idea who performed these procedures. Thus, they would be guilty of criminal animal cruelty for noncompliance.
This legislation will destroy rescue work for many breeds if it is signed into law. Most dogs that are assisted by rescue groups, animal shelters and private individuals either come from unknown sources, or do not come with medical records. There will be no choice except to euthanize these dogs, since it will be impossible to establish their legality.
This legislation also will have a severe impact on people who live in other states. On one level, Pennsylvanians will no longer be able to buy puppies from dozens of breeds from nonresident breeders who perform these procedures legally in their home states.
On another level, Pennsylvania professional trainers and handlers will not be able to accept many dogs from out-of-state customers, because proof will not be available.
But a larger impact will be on thousands of people who own dogs and come to Pennsylvania for a vacation, to hunt, or to compete in field trials, dog shows and other events. Anyone who brings a dog with a docked tail, missing dewclaws or cropped ears into Pennsylvania is subject to arrest for criminal animal cruelty charges.
This will affect many very popular breeds of dogs, such as almost all Continental breeds of pointing dogs, flushing dogs, terriers and many working dogs, such as rottweilers and doberman pinchers.
The bill now moves to the full House for a vote. Please contact your own legislator and as many others as possible to express opposition to this legislation. Contact information can be found at: http://www.legis.state.pa.us/cfdocs/legis/home/member_information/representatives_alpha.cfm.
|
Post a Response 
|
