UPDATE: CA, AZ BLS January 12, 2005 (Last publication date 12/28/04, Appropriate forwarding encouraged.) Preserving Our Right To Own And Breed Animals Is Your Responsibility IN THIS ISSUE: * STANISLAUS & MADERA COUNTIES NIX ORDINANCES ON SECOND READINGS * SHOW LOW, ARIZONA CONSIDERS BSL * NATIONAL CITY CA ORD. AMENDMENTS * SAN FRANCISCO CA ORD. AMENDMENTS BRIEFLY NOTED: CALIFORNIA STATE LEGISLATURE is now in session, but no significant animal bills have yet surfaced. The last day to introduce new bills Friday, February 18. Despite the November elections, the partisan numbers remain the same in both the Senate and Assembly although there are some new members and some former members elected to the other house after reaching term limits in their original house. CALIFORNIA VETERINARY MEDICAL BOARD at it's January 20, 2005 meeting at UC Davis will hear a report from its Legislative Committee discussing legislative proposals. The Enforcement Committee will head a Legal Opinion regarding Restriction of Licensed Practice by City. (http://www.vmb.ca.gov> http://www.fund.org/library/documentViewer.asp?ID=1669&table=documents ***** STANISLAUS & MADERA COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA in the state's Central Valley have both rejected $100 unaltered/$100 breeding permit ordinance, each on the second reading, each after newly elected Supervisors took office and a concerted opposition effort was mounted. We may face additional challenges in either or both counties, but these are encouraging developments. See the Stanislaus story at: http://www.modbee.com/opinion/story/9705785p-10587966c.html The pre-second hearing story in the Madera Tribune attributed to the shelter director, a remark that "there is a group called the Animal Legislation Action Network, which is working on establishing a statewide animal control law." Our long time readers will recognize ALAN as the vehicle of Richard G. McLellan, M.D. of Los Angeles, sponsor of a number of past bills, all of which were either substantially amended or defeated. Dr. McLellan has now formed his own political action committee ( a "527" referring to the Internal Revenue Code section covering these entities) and established a web site that lauds initial passage of the Stanislaus ordinance, calls for similar state law and invites participation in an interactive email group to pursue these goals. For more information see <http://www.alanpac.com> SHOW LOW, NAVAJO COUNTY, ARIZONA has been considering a breed specific ordinance following a fatal incident involving a small child and 3 alleged "Pit Bull mixes." The proposal is on today's agenda of a City Council Study Session. The Staff Report Background includes: "As requested, attached is the revised Chapter 6, Animals, of the City Code, which, in essence, adopts the Denver model ban on pit bulls together with strict control regulations for preexisting pit bulls within the City. The only substantive change from the Denver model is that, following discussion with the Police Department, the pit bull "transport permit" provision has been deleted for administrative reasons, but the requirement that pit bulls be transported only in a "secure temporary enclosure" has been retained. Resolution No. 2005-01 declares the revised Chapter 6 to be a public record so that it may be adopted by reference and without the necessity of publishing the entire chapter. Resolution No. 2005-02 declares the A.K.C. (American Kennel Club) and U.K.C. (United Kennel Club) definitions of the various pit bull breeds to be a public record, available at the office of the City Clerk, because they are referenced in the adopting ordinance, but not reprinted in their entirety in the City Code itself. A more detailed legal analysis, summary of research conducted, and the precise changes to the ordinance have been made available to the Council under separate cover and will be introduced as an exhibit at the hearing on this matter." The proposal appears to grandfather existing dogs meeting a long list of qualifications including sterilization and $100,000 insurance coverage. The entire package is available at: http://ci.show-low.az.us/public_info/ccagenda.htm NATIONAL CITY, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA amended its animal ordinance with the intention to target sales and give-aways of animals brought in from Mexico but may have gone a bit far: "Animal sales in public places prohibited. It is unlawful to offer for sale, sell, exchange or transfer for any form of consideration puppies or kittens on public property or on private property open to the public, including but not limited to areas in front of stores, commercial shopping areas, commercial parking areas, swap meets and auctions." As drafted, this also prohibits sales within stores including typically structured outreach adoption efforts. The amendments also defined "biting dog" as "any dog that has bitten another animal or human in this or ANOTHER JURISDICTION at least once, without provocation and not in defense of itself or its owner or handler." The definition now also includes potentially dangerous or vicious dogs as defined in the California Food and Agricultural Code Section 31602 and 31603. The "biting dog" must be micro-chipped and covered by $100,000 combined single limit insurance when in the city. As an incentive to micro-chipping dogs, a one-time, one year free license is offered for micro-chipped dogs. These amendments were adopted on second reading on January 4 and take effect 30 days thereafter. SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA Board of Supervisors finally passed the 3 part "Responsible Guardian" package of ordinance amendments that had begun in the Commission on Animal Control and Welfare in mid-2003. The "guardian" term had been enacted in January, 2003, and these amendments make no change on that issue. The first 2 parts covered new requirements for the responsible person providing specific information immediately to the victim of a dog bite and specific authority to the dangerous dog hearing officer to prohibit the responsible person from owning dogs for up to 3 years following his determination. The third part was intended to provide specific standards for outside dogs to facilitate enforcement action for perceived lack of care. City yards tend to be visible from other buildings and vantage points, and there are many complaints resulting from citizen observation of outside dogs. The ordinance was amended by the Board to exempt those persons (with dogs) who do not have housing due to financial hardship, i.e. homeless. The specific requirements potentially could be enforced in an abusive, discriminatory or harassing manner and be interpreted to exclude commercially available products that are adequate by husbandry standards. The Board is dominated by Progressives and passed by 9-2 vote (Board President Aaron Peskin and Supervisor Michaela Alioto-Pier voting no.) ***** *a service of THE ANIMAL COUNCIL P.O. BOX 168, MILLBRAE CA 94030 Contact us at <TheAnimalCouncil@xxxxxxx Incorporated 1991, tax exempt under IRC Section 501(c)(4) Online news updates published sporadically since 1997. Legislative tracking subject to change. CA bill and law information http://www.leginfo.ca.gov ============================================================================ POST is Copyrighted 2004. 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://www.showgsd.org ============================================================================