As promised, here is more information about a few of the bills in this legislative session:
HB 1242/SB 477 would make it a Class 1 misdemeanor (punishable by up to 12 months in jail and a $2500 fine) to possess, sell or breed exotic animals. This bill is in response to the tragedy last year in Ohio resulting in the death of almost fifty animals after the owner released the animals and killed himself.
SB 359 will officially legalize Trap, Neuter and Return (TNR) programs. This bill clarifies that anyone engaged in TNR is not an “owner” who could be deemed to be “abandoning” the cats.
Last but not least is HJ 143, which would establish February 28 as Spay Day.
Now the bad news. As is often the case, a devastating bill will sneak into the legislation when no one is looking. And so it is with SB 610. This bill would prohibit localities and animal control officers from regulating agricultural animals, placing all authority over agricultural animals in the hands of the State Vet. This bill would also expand the definition of agricultural animals to include hunting, working and show dogs. Needless to say, this bill would be a tremendous set back to animal welfare by placing a huge burden on the State Vet’s office, and taking the power to investigate and prosecute animal cruelty and neglect out of the hands of localities and animal control officers who are in the best position to take action.
Stay posted later this week for an overview of the good, the bad and the ugly in the bills geared towards companion animals in this legislative session.
It’s that time of year again! Several bills have already made it on this year’s slate, and a couple more may be added before the session is over. This year’s legislative session looks very promising for companion animals – with one glaring exception.
HB 95 (Bear Hound Training): We start with the one glaring exception. As things stand, hunters can train dogs to hunt bear from a half hour before sunrise until four and a half hours after sunset. This bill would allow this training to occur at night. Last year, the House passed this bill, but the Senate stopped the bill in its tracks.
HB 158 (Devocalization of Companion Animals): This bill makes devocalization a Class One Misdemeanor (punishable by up to 12 months in jail and a fine) unless the operation is necessary to relieve illness, disease, injury or pain. This is another carry over from last year, when this bill ended up getting stuck in the House Committee for Courts of Justice.
HB 363 (Companion Animals in Protective Orders): Once again, this bill ties into a bill from 2011. Last year’s bill would have granted courts explicit authority to include companion animals in domestic violence protective orders. It was resolved by adding language prohibiting acts of abuse or offenses that result in injury to person or “property.” Needless to say, confusion has arisen with this language, and this bill attempts to clarify that a protective order petitioner can be awarded control, custody and care of a companion animal.
HB 537/SB 305 (Dangerous Dog Registry): This bill proposes to place primary responsibility for registering dangerous dogs with animal control officers instead of the State Veterinarian’s office. It would also lengthen the amount of time to obtain the certificate of registration from ten days to 45 days. The certification fee would increase from $50 to $150, but the registration fee that went to the State Vet would be eliminated.
HB 650 (Notice of Euthanasia for Companion Animals): This bill requires city and county pounds to maintain a registry of organizations willing to accept healthy and non-vicious companion animals scheduled to be euthanized, and requires the pounds to give 24 hours’ notice to the organizations prior to euthanizing. This bill also requires pounds to make available annual statistics of impounded animals.
HB 888 (Anti-Tethering Ordinances): Virginia is a strong proponent of “Dillon’s Rule,” which dictates that counties, cities and other localities have only those powers that the state has explicitly granted them. This is reflected in Virginia Code Section 3.2-6543, which lays out for localities the types of ordinances they may enact that impact companion animals. Leash laws are explicitly included, but that section does not directly address tethering. Some Virginia localities, such as Alexandria, haven’t let that stop them. But this bill would wisely make it clear that localities can regulate tethering.
Watch for three more bills that are in the works for this year’s legislative session: (1) establishing February 28 as Spay Day; (2) addressing TNR (trap, neuter and return of feral cats); and (3) prohibiting ownership of exotic animals. I’ll post more information on these as they become available.
We’ve all seen storefronts with adorable puppies and kittens staring at us and waiting to be taken home. It’s hard to resist those big round eyes looking up at you — unless you stop to think about where these animals have probably come from.
The animals sold in pet stores most likely come from puppy mills — places where profit trumps the welfare of the animals. Taking home one of these puppies or kittens will only fuel the ongoing misery that the parents live in. Here’s a graphic example of an investigation into the true source of the animals sold in Petland, a large retail outlet for live animals:
In an effort to stop supporting puppy bans, local jurisdictions have begun passing laws to ban the sale of live animals in pet stores. Just yesterday, Toronto became the second city in Canada, after Richmond, British Columbia, to pass such a ban. In the United States, at least three cities have passed pet store bans — South Lake Tahoe, West Hollywood and Lake Worth in Florida.
I am an adamant supporter of these bans. But it is not a stand alone solution. These bans must be coupled with public education about the rationale for the bans — that buying an animal from a store profits puppy mills. And as I’ve harped on before, we need to tackle the overpopulation issue from all angles — supply side and demand side — with well crafted spay/neuter laws and breeding regulations, and stronger animal abuser and puppy mill laws.
In keeping with Dog Bite Prevention Week, many interesting statistics have popped up in the media.
The U.S. Postal Service has released statistics for the number of dog bites to postal workers in 2010, broken out by city. Houston took the top spot with 62 attacks. Denver, with its long-standing pit bull ban, took the #8 spot, with 31 bites. The fact that Denver would rank so high despite its firm adherence to breed specific legislation is hardly a surprise to those who really understand dog bites. Research by the National Canine Research Council shows that dog bites do not occur due to breed. Rather, the most relevant factors are whether the dog is a “resident” dog (versus a primarily indoor “family” dog), whether the dog is intact, and whether the owner is responsible or properly supervised the dog.
The Maryland General Assembly just finished its session this week, taking major steps forward with several animal rights bills.
HB 227/SB 115 authorizes a court to prohibit a defendant from owning, possessing or residing with an animal as a condition of probation for specific violations concerning animal abuse, neglect or cruelty. [By comparison, Virginia Code Section 3.2-6570 allows a court to prohibit a person convicted of animal cruelty from owning or possessing a companion animal. Virginia Code Section 3.2-6571 requires a court to prohibit a person convicted of dog or cock fighting from owning or possessing companion animals or cocks. Unfortunately, Virginia’s version of neglect (lack of adequate care, found in Virginia Code Section 3.2-6503) does not authorize a court to prohibit possession of companion animals.]
SB 639/HB 339 establishes a task force for a statewide spay/neuter fund. The bill specifies the task force’s membership, chair and staff; requires the task force to review spay/neuter programs, collect and review data, and make recommendations for a spay/neuter fund; and requires the task force to report its findings and recommendations to the Governor and specified committees in the General Assembly on or before January 1, 2012.
SB 839/HB 940 requires a kennel license for persons who own or have custody of fifteen or more female dogs kept for the purpose of breeding and who sell dogs from six or more litters a year; requires each county to collect and maintain specified information related to each kennel license; and requires each county to report specified information to the Department of Labor, Licensing and Regulation on or before January 15 of each year. [Virginia already has a similar statute for breeders found in Virginia Code Sections 3.2-6507.1 through 3.2-6507.6, but it only applies to breeders with thirty or more adult female dogs.]
HB 407/SB 747 authorizes District Court Commissioners in interim protective orders, and judges in temporary and final protective orders, to award temporary possession of any companion animal of a petitioner or respondent in a protective order proceeding. [A similar bill failed in Virginia’s General Assembly this year.]
HB 912 would have required retail pet stores to post specific information about each dog on each dog’s cage, maintain written records about each dog for one year after the date of sale of the dog. [Virginia has similar “pet shop” laws, including specific Consumer Protection Act violations, found in Virginia Code Sections 3.2-6512 to 3.2-6516.]
HB 294 would have prohibited infliction of unnecessary suffering or pain on an animal through the use of a rifle, a handgun, or a specified weapon. [To the contrary, the Virginia General Assembly focused much of its energy on pro-hunting legislation this session.]
HB 301 would have authorized the Department of Natural Resources to suspend hunting licenses or privileges of persons convicted of state or federal hunting violations, and would have required a minimum one-year suspension of hunting licenses or privileges for subsequent hunting violation convictions.
First, Saginaw will add a leash law and prohibit tethering in most circumstances. Owners would be required to keep dogs on leash. Dogs could not be chained or tethered outside of the dogs’ “kennel, pen or fenced yard,” unless someone has physical control of a leash. An inanimate object such as a tree, post or building will not cut it. The requirement of physical control indicates that shock collars will not count in Saginaw. This is a great step – with the caveat that the law should be clarified to state that a dog cannot be chained or tethered even if the dog is on the owner’s property.
Second, all dogs would need to be securely confined indoors or in adequately lighted and ventilated kennels. If a dog is confined indoors, the dog would not be able to exit on the dog’s own volition. Presumably, that means no more doggie doors in Saginaw. And, thankfully, no more dogs left outside unattended.
Third, Saginaw residents would be limited to three dogs per household. This three-dog limit would not apply to animal care and control organizations, rescues, registered foster homes, and certain service dog and hunting dog breeders. Commercial breeders and brokers would be required to register with the City Clerk and obtain a business license.
Officials in Saginaw did not stop at overhauling Section 94.04. They are proposing a second ordinance targeting “dangerous dogs.” Unfortunately, this ordinance completely misses the mark and has virtually nothing to do with owner responsibility.
This ordinance will require the owners of “dangerous dogs” to register the dogs, and adhere to leash and confinement standards. The owners will also have to pay a $20 registration fee and obtain and display signs indicating the presence of a dangerous dog on their property. Failure to comply with the ordinance would result in civil fines.
The heart of problem is the proposed definition of a “dangerous dog” as any dog:
with a propensity, tendency, or disposition to attack, to cause injury or to otherwise endanger the safety of” people or companion animals; or
that attacks, attempts to attack or that, by its actions, gives indication that it is liable to attack a human being or other domestic animal one or more times without provocation; or
of a breed that appears consistently in the top five (5) of the breeds on credible, analytical listings of “Most Dangerous Dogs” as verified and supplemented by local data and records for Saginaw County, including mixes.
The simple truth is that focusing on breed will not decrease the number of dog bites. According to a comprehensive 2009 study by the National Canine Research Council, the three predominant factors with dog bites are whether the dog:
is a resident dog (kept primarily outdoors, used for guarding, protection, fighting or breeding, rather than a pet/family dog);
is intact; and
has a reckless, irresponsible owner.
Notice that breed is not one of these factors. With its recent overhaul of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), the Department of Justice (DOJ) agrees that the focus should be on the individual dog and not breed. The ADA already condones the refusal to provide access to a service dog if an individual dog shows specific signs of aggression. But the DOJ unequivocally refuses to bow to jurisdictions with breed bans. This is leading to a nasty battle in Denver, where officials are refusing to exempt service dogs in Denver’s breed ban. At least Saginaw was not so stubborn, exempting service dogs from its dangerous dog ordinance.
Although Virginia’s dangerous dog statute isn’t perfect, it does focus on individual dogs and specific aggressive behavior. To be classified as a dangerous dog, Virginia requires an actual bite. Last year, the General Assembly considered expanding the dangerous dog designation to dogs who “attempt to bite.” Fortunately this bill died quickly in committee. Additionally, Virginia refuses to bow to breed stereotypes, with the following language right in the dangerous dog statute:
No canine or canine crossbreed shall be found to be a dangerous dog or vicious dog solely because it is a particular breed, nor is the ownership of a particular breed of canine or canine crossbreed prohibited.
With Saginaw’s proposed leash, confinement and supervision requirements and a limit on the number of dogs a household can have, Saginaw will accomplish a great deal to increase owner responsibility and decrease the number of resident dogs. If Saginaw wants more effective laws, research shows that focus on the spay/neuter issue rather than breed will go further to reduce the number of dog bites.
Laws requiring leashes and spay/neuter programs are not the only way to get at owner responsibility. Education is also necessary. The more we learn about animal behavior, the better. At last Friday’s Mid-Atlantic Animal Law Symposium in Baltimore, Maryland, one participate raised the issue of humane education in schools. If we could emphasize just three areas, we could do a great deal to better the bond between dogs and owners, and thereby decrease the number of dog bites:
Never leave dogs unsupervised with children. So many dog bites are to children. Simple supervision, teaching a child not to approach a dog unless the child asks the owner for permission, and showing the child how to pet the dog appropriate would go far to decrease the number of dog bites. Dogs & Storks has wonderful information about how to prepare the family dog for a new baby, and lots of other helpful information regarding dogs and children.
The Saginaw City Council will introduce its proposed ordinances on April 18, and the ordinances are slated to be enacted May 9 and become effective May 19. If Saginaw’s real purpose is to increase owner responsibility and decrease the number of dog bites, I encourage the Council to adopt the ordinance expanding Section 94.04, but ditch its dangerous dog ordinance.
SB 359 will officially legalize Trap, Neuter and Return (TNR) programs. This bill clarifies that anyone engaged in TNR is not an “owner” who could be deemed to be “abandoning” the cats.
Companion Animal Law Blog 