[ SHOWGSD-L ] Fw: Dog Legislation Moving Fast - Long - A MUST Read
- From: "Peggy" <pmick12@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <Showgsd-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 11 Apr 2009 18:19:41 -0400
Check the list for your own state. The info. on
California is the longest...but it's ALL important.
Peggy
Forwarding encouraged.
Dog Legislation On Brink In Eight States
Ohio, California, Indiana, Texas, Delaware,
Washington, Oklahoma And Tennessee
by JOHN YATES
American Sporting Dog Alliance
http://www.americansportingdogalliance.org
Legislation that would severely restrict the ability to raise high
quality purebred dogs in a home environment is advancing rapidly in
several states:
a.. In Ohio, new legislation was introduced this week that defines a
breeding dog as any dog that is not spayed or neutered, and creates a
new state Kennel Authority with the power to write and enforce
regulations without legislative oversight.
a.. In California, the 13th reincarnation of last year's failed bill
to mandate spaying and neutering of all dogs faces a hearing before
the Senate Local Government Committee on April 15. This bill would
force the sterilization of any dog that is accused of being in
violation of any animal law, even if the allegation is not proven. A
second bill, AB 1122, has many dog owners very concerned about its
impact on raising or competing with dogs.
a.. In Indiana, legislation that defines many serious hobbyists as
"puppy mills" has passed both the House and Senate, faces a conference
committee to resolve differences, and may be sent to the governor
soon. Similar legislation is moving quickly in Washington and
Oklahoma. While dog owners working with the American Sporting Dog
Alliance have caused amendments to improve all three bills, the
results still fall short of protecting our rights.
a.. Texas breeding legislation continues to be contained in
committee, but animal rights groups are lobbying hard and a major push
by dog owners is needed to make sure it stays in committee.
a.. And Tennessee legislation aimed at people who raise dogs is
moving fast in both houses of the Legislature, and a hearing on
similar legislation in Delaware was postponed after dog owners working
with the American Sporting Dog Alliance filed strong objections.
Each of these states will be profiled separately below. They are part
of a 34-state legislative push by the radical Humane Society of the
United States that has resulted in more than 179 pieces of animal
rights legislation targeting dog owners nationwide. Information about
this legislation compiled by the Cat Fanciers Association also is
profiled below.
Ohio
Animal rights groups failed to pass legislation last year that would
have destroyed the breeding of high quality purebred dogs in Ohio. As
expected, they are back again this year with Senate Bill 95. The prime
sponsors, Sen. Gary Cates and Sen. Jim Hughes, also were the sponsors
of last year's failed animal rights legislation.
Here is a link to the text of SB 95:http://www.legislature.state.oh.us/
bills.cfm?ID8_SB_95. Please read its 42 pages of anti-dog-owner
bureaucracy. It is straight from the drawing board of HSUS. The
legislation has been introduced, but still has not been assigned to a
committee, according to the Senate website. Last year, the sponsors
managed to keep the legislation out of the Agriculture Committee,
which understands the threats of extremist animal rights activism.
We are asking Ohio dog owners to do two things to help stop this
destructive legislation. First, contact the Senate leadership and ask
them to assign SB 95 to the Agriculture Committee, which is the only
appropriate place. No other committee works regularly with animal
issues.
Here is a link to the Senate leaders:http://www.senate.state.oh.us/
leadership/index.html. Click on each name to get contact information.
Second, please contact your own senator and ask him or her to oppose
SB 95 from the outset, and to use her/his influence with Senate
leadership to direct this bill to the Agriculture Committee. Here is a
list of each senator:http://www.senate.state.oh.us/senators/
by_name.html. Click on a name to get contact information.
Here are some key provisions of SB 95:
a.. A breeding dog is defined as a dog of any age that is not
sterilized. It includes both males and females, and even newborn
puppies. A regulated breeding kennel is defined as a kennel that
produces either nine litters of puppies a year, or at least 40 puppies
a year. This definition entraps many serious hobbyists, as 40 puppies
could translate into only four or five litters a year in some breeds,
and may also entrap private animal rescue networks that don't breed
any dogs.
a.. A kennel control authority is created that will write and
administer kennel regulations, with no provision for legislative
control or oversight, and no accountability to the citizens. These
rules will include inspections, background investigations of
applicants, rules governing animal rescue organizations, and many
other requirements.
a.. Applicants for a kennel or rescue license will be required to
have insurance and also to post bonds ranging from $5,000 to $50,000.
Both the insurance and bonds will be payable to the state, in the
event of a license revocation, in order to pay for the cost of caring
for seized dogs.
a.. Anyone who sells a dog or a puppy will be required to obtain a
vendor's license (some county treasurers already are requiring this in
violation of the law, the American Sporting Dog Alliance reported
earlier this year).
a.. Kennel housing requirements will eliminate raising puppies
inside a home or in a family environment, for all license holders.
Fenced yards for dogs living in a home environment would not meet
exercise area requirements, and the bill says that half of the lawn
would have to be paved in concrete to comply. For dogs that live in
indoor or indoor/outdoor facilities, minimum pen sizes are required
that may create dangerous conditions in cold weather. Most dogs will
have to have continuous access to clean and unfrozen water, which is
an impossibility for dogs kept outdoors in the winter.
a.. Tail docking, dewclaw removal and ear cropping can be done only
by a licensed veterinarian. For hundreds of years, these routine
procedures have been done by people who raise puppies, and few if any
problems have been reported.
a.. Veterinary care is required for any disease, illness or injury,
even if the problem is only minor and easily treated by the animal's
owner. As with parents of human children, most people who own kennels
are skilled and equipped to handle routine situations. The bill also
requires veterinary approval before any female dog can be bred, and
all euthanasia must be done by a veterinarian, even if this causes a
dog to experience prolonged suffering.
a.. No dog can be sold at any public place. This definition would
include dog shows, field trials or competitive events, or events
sponsored by rescue groups in public places.
a.. Dogs can be seized and impounded for any violation of the law,
including minor or technical violations. Dogs can be seized when the
owner is not present, and an owner is entitled only to an
administrative hearing before the agency that seized the dogs. There
is an appeal only to the environmental division of the Franklin County
Court. Civil penalties cannot be appealed, and range from $25 to
$15,000 for each dog and each day of violation.
a.. And an advisory board is created that is heavily stacked in
favor of animal rights groups. Only one representative of an AKC breed
club is included, and there is no other representation for other dog
owners.
California
Senate Bill 250 is the 2009 manifestation of last year's failed spay
and neuter mandate, AB 1634. It was amended most recently on April 2,
2009. Here is a link to the amended version (please read it):http://
info.sen.ca.gov/pub/09-10/bill/sen/sb_0201-0250/sb_250_bill_20....
SB 250 is scheduled for an April 15 public hearing before the Senate
Local Government Committee. We are urging all California dog owners to
contact members of the committee to express opposition to this
legislation, submit formal testimony to the committee and, if
possible, attend the hearing and offer oral testimony.
This legislation introduces the term "custodian" to weaken the concept
of ownership, and treads the dangerous ground of taking a step toward
turning animal ownership into animal guardianship. This would make
animals wards of the state, and provide the same legal protection to
animals that the law now provides for foster children.
"Custodian" is defined as "any person who undertakes the personal care
and control of a dog or cat, or any person who intentionally provides
care, security, or sustenance for a dog or cat on the person's
property for any period exceeding 30 days." This definition ensnares
professional trainers and handlers, animal rescue groups, and people
who provide food for feral cats.
SB 250 also creates a wholly unreasonable standard of mandating
sterilization for any dog that has been impounded, even on a first
offense. This would cause the forced sterilization of hunting and
field trial dogs that get lost or out of touch with their handler even
briefly, dogs that escape confinement through no fault of their owners
(or for a simple accidental occurrence, such as bolting through a door
that is opened by a visitor), or for animals that are deliberately
stolen or turned loose by animal rights fanatics who advocate using
this tactic to destroy a hobby breeding kennel. There is no appeal.
All dogs over the medically unsafe age of six months must be
sterilized under the legislation, unless an intact permit is obtained.
An intact permit can be revoked or denied if the dog's owner has been
cited for any violation of any animal control law or ordinance. Please
note that the legislation requires only a citation, not a conviction.
Thus, even if a dog owner is found not guilty in court, an intact
permit could be denied.
A dog owner is given only "a reasonable opportunity to respond" to a
denial or revocation, but is not entitled to a hearing in a court of
law or an appeal.
The hearing on SB 250 is set for the Senate Local Government Committee
on April 15 at 9:30 a.m., in Room 112 of the State Capitol in
Sacramento.
Please contact committee members as soon as possible to voice
opposition to SB 250. They are:
1. Senator Dean Florez (Author), State Capitol, Room 313,
Sacramento, CA 95814; Phone:(916) 651-4016; Fax: (916) 327-5989
2. Senate Local Government Committee Consultant Peter Detwiler,
State Capitol Room 5046, Sacramento, CA 95814; Fax: 916-322-0298 to
enter testimony into the record.
3. Senator Patricia Wiggins (Chair), State Capitol, Room 4081,
Sacramento, CA 95814; Phone: (916) 651-4002; Fax (916) 323-6958
4. Senator Dave Cox (Vice Chair), State Capitol, Room 2068,
Sacramento, CA 95814; Phone: (916) 651-4001; Fax: (916) 324-2680
5. Senator Sam Aanestad, State Capitol, Room 3063, Sacramento, CA
95814; Phone: (916) 651-4004; Fax: (916) 445-7750
6. Senator Christine Kehoe, State Capitol, Room 5050, Sacramento,
CA 95814; Phone: (916) 651-4039; Fax: (916) 327-2188
7. Senator Lois Wolk, State Capitol, Room 4032, Sacramento, CA
95814; Phone: (916) 651-4005; Fax: (916) 323-2304
The second bill, AB 1122, appears innocuous at first glance, in that
it bans sales of dogs or puppies at flea markets or along streets and
roads. However, dog owners are concerned that the language is designed
Because there are vendors at an AKC dog show and many other canine
events, these events would fall under the legal definition of a "swap
meet." Dog owners who compete or exhibit would be entrapped by this
definition if they attend three or more events a year.
Combined with SB 250, this provision would be grounds to revoke an
intact permit for all of a competitor's dogs.
It also appears to the American Sporting Dog Alliance that this
legislation would prohibit someone from posting a kennel sign along a
road on their property, or posting a sign in their yard advertising
puppies, dogs, or stud services for sale. It also appears to prohibit
kennel information from being placed on motor vehicles or trailers
while traveling.
The term offering for sale could include posting notices on grocery
store billboards, and even walking an intact dog on a leash in a park
could be construed as displaying the dog. All participation at canine
events also could be seen as displaying the dog in order to promote
the sale of dogs or services from the owners' kennels.
A further provision calls for misdemeanor penalties for the owner of
any dog that is displayed that also is "placed in a situation in which
its life or health may be endangered.." This would appear to include
hunting with a dog (accidents are possible), competing in field
trials, agility tests, or herding meets, and working with a dog on a
farm or ranch.
An April 28 hearing on AB 1122 has been set before the Assembly
Business and Professions Committee. Here is contact information for
members of this committee:
Mary Hayashi - Chair
Dem-18
(916) 319-2018
Assemblymember.Haya...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Bill Emmerson - Vice Chair
Rep-63
(916) 319-2063
Assemblymember.emmer...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Connie Conway
Rep-34
(916) 319-2034
Assemblymember.Con...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Mike Eng
Dem-49
(916) 319-2049
Assemblymember....@xxxxxxxxxx
Edward P. Hernandez
Dem-57
(916) 319-2057
Assemblymember.Hernan...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Pedro Nava
Dem-35
(916) 319-2035
Assemblymember.n...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Roger Niello
Rep-5
(916) 319-2005
Assemblymember.nie...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
John A. Pérez
Dem-46
(916) 319-2046
Assemblymember.John.Pe...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Curren D. Price Jr.
Dem-51
(916) 319-2051
Assemblymember.Pr...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Ira Ruskin
Dem-21
(916) 319-2021
Assemblymember.Rus...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Cameron Smyth
Rep-38
(916) 319-2038
Assemblymember.Sm...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Here is a link to the text of the bill:http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/
09-10/bill/asm/ab_1101-1150/ab_1122_bil...
Delaware
House Bill 95, which regulates raising dogs in Delaware, had been
scheduled for a House committee hearing this week. However, the
hearing was postponed after many dog owners objected to the
legislation. It is not know if or when another hearing may be
scheduled.
The official legislative summary of the bill leaves no doubts about
its radical animal rights origins: "This bill adopts the
recommendations of the Humane Society of the United States regarding
restrictions on the large-scale for-profit dog breeding operations
commonly known as "puppy mills."
The bill defines a "breeding dog" as any unsterilized dog over the age
of six months that is being raised for the purpose of being sold, or
for the purpose of breeding it and selling its offspring. No
definition is given about how that purpose would be defined, and the
American Sporting Dog Alliance also strongly objects to dog owners be
required to state a purpose for owning any dog. For example, the same
dog may be a family pet, a hunting companion, a field trial
competitor, and a dog that will be bred someday.
Using that definition, HB 95 prohibits anyone from possessing, caring
for or controlling more than 25 breeding dogs. This requirement
ensnares every professional trainer and handler, hunt club, hound pack
owner and private rescue network in Delaware, and also many serious
hobby breeders of high quality purebred dogs.
The bill also requires veterinarians to examine and certify any dog
(male or female) used for breeding, and to be used to treat any
illness, condition or injury, even if it is a minor problem such as
having fleas or worms. Only veterinarians could dock a tail, crop ears
or euthanize a dog under this bill.
Here is a link to the bill:http://legis.delaware.gov/LIS/lis145.nsf/
vwLegislation/HB+95/$file/le....
The American Sporting Dog Alliance is urging all Delaware dog owners
to contact members of the House Agriculture Committee to express
opposition to HB 95. This link will list all committee members:http://
legis.delaware.gov/LIS/LIS145.NSF/*/E650A11F8152E9FA8525750700....
Click on each name to find contact information.
Tennessee
More bad legislation targeting people who raise dogs is before the
Tennessee Legislature, in the form of identical twin legislation, HB
386 and SB 258. Hearings were held yesterday.
Dog owners who opposed the bill received a courteous hearing before
the Senate Commerce, Labor and Agriculture Committee, which heard
testimony but did not vote.
However, the reception received by dog owners was hostile at a hearing
held before the House Subcommittee on Civil Practice and Procedure,
which voted to approve the legislation and send it to the full House
Judiciary Committee for a hearing. A hearing of the full Judiciary
Committee is scheduled for Wednesday, April 15.
This legislation defines anyone who "possesses or maintains" more than
20 intact female dogs of any age as a commercial breeder, if the dogs
are used as breeding animals; this is very ambiguous, as a dog may be
in a kennel for many reasons, including breeding only once in its
lifetime. This definition unfairly ensnares many private kennel
owners, serious hobbyists, private rescue groups, boarding kennels and
professional trainers and handlers.
No one would be permitted to "possess or control" more than 75 intact
animals over the age of six months, even if they receive extraordinary
care.
The bill also allows searches and seizures without warrants, provides
high fines and multiple tiers of violations for even minor or
technical offenses, and assess license fees of $500 (for 20 dogs) to
$1,000 a year.
Here is a link to the actual legislation (note that the House and
Senate versions are identical):http://www.capitol.tn.gov/Bills/106/
Bill/HB0386.pdf.
We are urging Tennessee dog owners to contact members of the Senate
Commerce, Labor and Agriculture Committee to oppose this legislation
(SB 258). Here is a link to each committee member and contact
information:http://www.capitol.tn.gov/senate/committees/commerce.html.
Also, please contact members of the House Judiciary Committee and
voice your strong opposition to HB 386:http://www.capitol.tn.gov/house/
committees/judiciary.html.
Indiana
Indiana dog owners have won many concessions on what started out to be
very dangerous anti-breeder legislation, but still have to contend
with language that defines a commercial kennel as the mere possession
of 20 or more intact female dogs.
The bill passed the house while still in dangerous form, but was
amended in the Senate to reflect the concerns of dog owners. The
amended bill passed the Senate, and has been sent back to the House to
concur. If the House concurs, it will be sent to the governor to be
signed into law.
When it was introduced, HB 1468 would have entrapped virtually every
serious dog fancier, rescue organization, and professional handler and
trainer under the "puppy mill" classification.
However, dog owners worked hard and were able to win several
concessions in the Senate. The amendments exempts hobby breeders
(defined as someone who possesses fewer than 20 intact females over a
year old), people who breed hunting dogs for sport, people who breed
police or military dogs, and some rescue groups from the licensure
requirement.
We endorse these changes, but cannot endorse the 20-dog cut-off. The
mere possession of 20 intact females does not indicate that they will
be bred or that the person who owns them is a commercial breeder. Many
serious fanciers exceed this number if elderly and retired dogs are
counted, along with young dogs that are being evaluated and dogs in
their competitive prime that aren't being bred. Many professional
trainers and handlers also would exceed the 20-dog limit at certain
times.
Here is the amended version:http://www.in.gov/legislative/bills/2009/
EH/EH1468.2.html
Thus, we are asking Indiana dog owners to contact their legislators
and senators to ask for this definition to be amended to reflect the
federal definition of a commercial kennel, which is based on selling
puppies wholesale to dealers or pet stores for resale. Here is contact
information for the House (http://www.in.gov/cgi-bin/legislative/
listing/listing.pl?data=alpha&c...) and Senate(http://www.in.gov/cgi-
bin/legislative/listing/listing.pl?data=alpha&c...).
We continue to maintain that there is no need for this legislation, as
existing state and federal laws have proven that they can fully
address any problem kennels that are found. There is no evidence that
any problem kennels have fallen between the cracks.
We also object to any legislation that ensnares law-abiding dog owners
if needless but stifling bureaucracy.
Oklahoma
Several very positive changes were made to HB 1332 in the Senate
Appropriations Committee, and the legislation now has been sent to the
full Senate for a vote.
While we applaud these changes, we continue to view this legislation
as a foot in the door by animal rights advocates, and also the
creation of unnecessary laws that will impact people who obey the law
but do nothing to solve problems. Existing state and federal laws
already do a good job, if they are enforced.
Thus, we are asking the Senate to vote down HB 1332. Please contact
your senator and ask him or her to vote no on HB 1332. Here is a link
to contact information:http://www.oksenate.gov/Senators/
directoryalpha.htm.
Here is a link to the current version of HB 1332, following the Senate
Appropriations Committee amendments:http://webserver1.lsb.state.ok.us/
WebBillStatus/main.html.
HB 1332 has been tainted with the animal rights agenda since the
beginning, in spite of denials by the Oklahoma Veterinary Medical
Association, which is the main impetus for the legislation. The
original bill that was introduced in the House was straight out of the
HSUS playbook, as was a failed attempt at this legislation a year ago.
Subsequent versions softened the original legislation, but dog owners,
farmers, ranchers and sportsmen quite simply have lost their trust for
the people behind this legislation. We also know that there is no need
for state kennel legislation, as commercial kennels already are
federally regulated and are also covered by tough state animal cruelty
laws.
The amended legislation sets up an advisory committee with well-
balanced membership, and yet fails to give that committee any teeth to
do more than make recommendations about future regulations, policies
and procedures.
Anyone who sells, transfers or gives away 35 or more dogs would be
required to get a license. However, this definition also would entrap
many rescue groups and networks.
The legislation also would give complete control of kennel standards
and procedures to veterinarians, thus removing important decision-
making powers from the owners of the dogs. This is not a matter of
poorly run kennels, but simply about individual decisions by animal
owners about how to raise, house and care for their dogs. A
veterinarian's opinion thus becomes arbitrary and invasive.
In addition, the legislation opens any dog owner to inspections by the
state, even if they do not own a kennel that is required to be
licensed, denies the right of appeal, and allows for confiscation of
dogs if a license is denied or revoked for merely technical reasons,
including paperwork deficiencies.
Washington
SB 5651 started out an overly restrictive exercise in bureaucracy that
was aimed at people who raise dogs as a hobby, in spite of its stated
purpose as a "puppy mill" bill. The original bill was truly insulting
to dog owners, echoing radical HSUS ideology in every word.
Several improvements were made before the bill passed the Senate by a
35-11 vote, but the results still were unfair to the best kennels in
the state. It must be emphasized that, when challenged by the American
Sporting Dog Alliance, supporters of this legislation were unable to
name a single example of a situation where existing laws failed to
shut down a poorly run kennel, rescue the dogs and successfully
prosecute the offender. Not one!
But the supporters of SB 5651 continued to press for more bureaucratic
control over people who raise dogs, even in the absence of any
rational justification. The measure was sent to the House, where it
was passed by the Committee on Judiciary.
However, dog owners continued to inform the legislators of the many
major problems with this bill, and the Rules Committee ultimately
listened to many of our concerns and made more improvements to the
bill. The result passed the full House by a 74-23 vote, and has been
sent back to the Senate for concurrence.
In spite of the improvements, we must continue to oppose this bill
because it is completely redundant and unnecessary, is clearly
directed at hobby breeders of purebred dogs (federally licensed
commercial kennels were removed from the bill in the latest
amendments), and establishes state control over anyone who maintains
10 or more intact dogs of either gender. This ensnares virtually all
serious hobby breeders, as well as professional trainers and handlers
who do not breed.
Again, it must be emphasized that there is no reason for this
bureaucracy, as not a single example can be produced to show that
existing laws are inadequate.
Thus, we are asking all Washington dog owners to contact their
legislators and ask them to vigorously oppose concurring with the
Senate version, and to send this legislation to the trash can where it
belongs.
Here is a link to the legislators' contact information: http://
www.leg.wa.gov/House/Representatives/
Here is a link to the latest version of the bill:http://
apps.leg.wa.gov/documents/billdocs/2009-10/Pdf/Amendments/Hous....
Changes are outlined at the bottom of the page.
Texas
The Texas House Licensing and Administrative Procedures Committee held
a hearing recently on legislation that would place crippling
restrictions on people who raise dogs. The committee did not vote on
the legislation at the hearing.
Thus, the American Sporting Dog Alliance is urging all Texas dog
owners to submit comments in opposition to this bill to each member of
the committee.
In addition, please ask each committee member and the committee
Chairman, Rep. Kino Flores, and Vice Chairman, Rep. Mike Hamilton, to
allow the bill to die in committee. Comments should be submitted by
mail, fax or phone, with email as a somewhat less effective
alternative.
Here is a link to the committee website:http://www.house.state.tx.us/
committees/list81/350.htm. If you click on each member's name, his or
her home page and contact information will be displayed.
At the hearing, about 20 people testified in opposition to the bill,
and perhaps a half-dozen supported it. The Responsible Pet Owners
Association of Texas played a major role, and three American Sporting
Dog Alliance members were among those who testified in opposition.
HB 3180 is a complex piece of legislation. Please read it for yourself
athttp://www.capitol.state.tx.us/tlodocs/81R/billtext/html/HB03180I.htm.
Here is a summary of its major provisions:
a.. Anyone who owns or possesses 11 or more intact female dogs is
considered to be a commercial breeder, subject to intense and
crippling regulation. Most serious hobbyists fall into this category.
Most professional trainers and handlers would be ensnared in this
provision as well. No one could possess more than 50 intact adult
dogs.
a.. A hobby breeder is defined as someone who owns or possesses 10
or fewer intact female dogs. Most serious hobbyists would exceed this
number if retired dogs, elderly dogs, dogs in competition, young dogs
for evaluation and dogs for breeding are counted.
a.. A troubling definition says that a dealer is anyone who is
required by law to collect sales tax for the sale of a dog or puppy.
In some municipalities, zoning ordinances say that sales tax is
required on any sale of a dog.
a.. A criminal background check is required of everyone who applies
for a license as a commercial or hobby breeder.
a.. The Department of Licensing and Regulation will inspect kennels
and administer the law. This will entail annual inspections. A
veterinarian or animal control officer could be called in to assist in
the inspection, with the kennel owner paying for the cost. Regulation
will not be with the Department of Agriculture or any other agency
familiar with animal husbandry.
a.. A seven-member advisory board will be created to oversee the law
and develop regulations. People who raise dogs will not have
representation on this committee.
a.. Commercial kennels (including serious hobbyists) would have to
shut down until bureaucracy runs its course, an inspection is held and
a license is issued. No time limits are set for the state to act.
a.. Intensive regulation on the care of dogs in commercial kennels
would be established. These standards essentially would prohibit
serious hobby breeders from raising puppies inside their home, and
would require a sterile institutional environment. Paperwork also
would be extensive.
a.. Puppies could not be sold until they are 12 weeks old, and
provisions for disclosures and a "lemon law" are included. Regulations
would require kennels to employ a staff deemed to be sufficient, and
formal training would be required.
a.. Stiff fines and civil penalties are imposed for even minor
violations, and the penalties could be cumulative, counting each dog
and each day as a separate offense.
The CFA Report
The Cat Fanciers Association (CFA) has done a great job in assembling
a resource document of pending legislation this year.
It can be viewed online athttp://www.cfa.org/exhibitors/bill-tracking.pdf.
The states are listed alphabetically in the report. To read the
legislation in your state and learn about its status, search online
("Google") your state's legislature and find the bill search page.
Type in the number of the bill and follow the links.
Some states are facing major assaults on dog ownership on many
different fronts.
New Jersey leads the pack, with 23 separate bills, followed by 18 in
Illinois, 15 in Massachusetts, 14 in New York, 13 in Hawaii, nine in
Tennessee, eight in Connecticut, seven in Texas, and six in New
Hampshire and Florida.
Other states with more than one bill are Arizona, Arkansas,
California, Iowa, Maine, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, North
Carolina, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Virginia and West Virginia.
Wyoming, Washington, Vermont, Oklahoma, Mississippi, Kentucky, Kansas,
Delaware and Colorado face one bill apiece.
The most common kinds of legislation are about people who breed dogs,
people who sell puppies, mandatory pet sterilization, puppy "lemon
laws," restrictions on selling dogs, and limits on the number of pets
a person can own.
The American Sporting Dog Alliance represents owners, breeders and
professionals who work with breeds of dogs that are used for hunting.
We also welcome people who work with other breeds, as legislative
issues affect all of us. We are a grassroots movement working to
protect the rights of dog owners, and to assure that the traditional
relationships between dogs and humans maintains its rightful place in
American society and life. The American Sporting Dog Alliance also
needs your help so that we can continue to work to protect the rights
of dog owners. Your membership, participation and support are truly
essential to the success of our mission. We are funded solely by your
donations in order to maintain strict independence.
Please visit us on the web athttp://www.americansportingdogalliance.org.
Our email is a...@xxxxxxxxxxxx .
PLEASE CROSS-POST AND FORWARD THIS REPORT TO YOUR FRIENDS
The American Sporting Dog Alliancehttp://www.americansportingdogalliance.org
Please Join Us
__._,_.___
.
__,_._,___
============================================================================
POST is Copyrighted 2008. All material remains the property of the original
author and of GSD Communication, Inc. NO REPRODUCTIONS or FORWARDS of any kind
are permitted without prior permission of the original author AND of the
Showgsd-l Management. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
ALL PERSONS ARE ON NOTICE THAT THE FORWARDING, REPRODUCTION OR USE IN ANY
MANNER OF ANY MATERIAL WHICH APPEARS ON SHOWGSD-L WITHOUT THE EXPRESS
PERMISSION OF ALL PARTIES TO THE POST AND THE LIST MANAGEMENT IS EXPRESSLY
FORBIDDEN, AND IS A VIOLATION OF LAW. VIOLATORS OF THIS PROHIBITION WILL BE
PROSECUTED.
For assistance, please contact the List Management at admin@xxxxxxxxxxxx
VISIT OUR WEBSITE - http://showgsd.org
NATIONAL BLOG - http://gsdnational.blogspot.com/
============================================================================
Other related posts:
- » [ SHOWGSD-L ] Fw: Dog Legislation Moving Fast - Long - A MUST Read - Peggy
