Dog Owners need to unite and you need to unite in ONE GROUP. Your right of dog ownership is under
attack much like the attack to all farmers and hobbyists under the National Animal Identification System.
Join up
with The American Sporting Dog Alliance as a GROUP and stop with the division of many groups. You voices will be heard louder
and clearer. http://www.americansportingdogalliance.org/index.html
Do you know what ISAR Represents, Another group that is demanding ANIMAL RIGHTS! More later
Pennsylvania
by JOHN YATES
American Sporting Dog Alliance
http://www.americansportingdogalliance.org
asda@csonline.net
HARRISBURG, PA. Legislation targeting kennels and more than a million individual dog owners in Pennsylvania faces a public
hearing this coming Thursday before the state House Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee. The June 12 hearing is scheduled
for 10 a.m. in Room 140 at the Main Capitol Building.
Todays report will focus on how the legislation affects all dog owners in Pennsylvania, even people who own only one dog.
The legislation also paves the way for defacto spay and neuter mandates and tethering bans without legislative oversight and
accountability, and casts a wide ranging electronic net over every dog owner to enforce proposed and current laws about tail
docking, ear cropping, rabies vaccinations and other issues.
A follow-up report will discuss the legislations impact on the states 2,700 licensed kennels.
The American Sporting Dog Alliance urges all Pennsylvania dog owners to contact members of the committee to ask for changes
in this broad-reaching legislation. If several significant changes are not made, the legislation should be rejected in its
entirety.
Rep. James Casorio (D- Westmoreland County) is the prime sponsor of the legislation (H.B. 2525) , which actually comes
from Gov. Ed Rendell as the centerpiece of his vowed crackdown on alleged puppy mills in Pennsylvania. But the legislation
is a classic shell game: With public attention focused on kennels, people have failed to notice the legislation impact on
individual dog owners. An analysis of the legislation by The American Sporting Dog Alliance reveals a profound impact on all
dog owners.
Regulations for commercial kennels (puppy mills) actually are only a small part of the legislation. The rest of the legislation
will affect individual dog owners and private kennel owners with much more stringent and invasive provisions, and grant the
Bureau of Dog Law Enforcement virtually unlimited power to write new regulations with little or no public oversight.
The American Sporting Dog Alliance strongly supports the parts of the legislation dealing with improving standards for
commercial kennels. If anything, we would suggest even more stringent standards than are called for in the legislation.
However, much of the legislation goes far beyond its promise to improve life for dogs in puppy mills, and has the strong
potential to expose every dog owner in the state to unfair and devastating rules designed and implemented unilaterally by
the Bureau of Dog Law Enforcement.
We cannot allow ourselves to forget that several recent draft versions of proposed regulations were a nightmare for dog
owners that would have forced many people to give up their pets and driven most of the states kennels out of business.. While
these proposed regulations have been scrapped for the political expediency of passing this legislation with minimal controversy
in an election year, we frankly do not trust the Bureau with a blank check to write regulations at a future date without public
and legislative oversight. The Casorio bill gives this power to the Bureau.
Here is what this power means to dog owners.
The relationship between legislation and regulations is confusing to many people. Legislation becomes the law, and the
law authorizes the state bureaucracy to develop regulations (which are rules) to actually implement the law. Dog regulations
now are subject to publication in The Pennsylvania Bulletin, a formal period to seek public comments, approval by the Legislature
Independent Regulatory Review Committee, and review by the House and Senate Agriculture committees.
The Casorio legislation would scrap those protections by removing requirements for public notice and a hearing that are
contained in the current law. We cannot accept this kind of blank check for the Bureau to do whatever it wishes in the future.
From the point of view of anyone who owns even one dog, there are several other major problems with the Casorio/Rendell
legislation, including:
The homes, property and businesses of everyone who owns even one dog are defined as an establishment, as are every person
in the household. The legislation gives state dog wardens unlimited power to enter any dog owners property and home to search,
examine any dog for any reason, and examine personal or business records without a search warrant. Thus provision violates
the privacy of more than one million Pennsylvania dog owners, as well as trashes constitutional protections.
While counties will continue to issue individual dog licenses, the legislation requires them to send an electronic database
to the Bureau listing everyone who buys a dog license, as well as complete information about the licensed dog. The Bureau
also would be notified if anyone bounces a check for a dog license. This provision invades the privacy of everyone who owns
a dog and subjects dog owners to targeted enforcement and home searches. Pending legislation would target people who own dogs
that have docked tails or cropped ears, and this database would allow the Bureau to locate and file animal cruelty charges
(a serious crime) for anyone who is unable to provide proof that the work was done by a veterinarian. Few owners of dogs are
able to provide written proof, even though a veterinarian probably docked their dogs tail or cropped its ears.
The legislation also gives the Bureau the authority to impose a defacto spay and neuter mandate. Current law sets license
fees for intact dogs at $5, with lesser fees permissible for dogs that are spayed or neutered. The Casorio legislation removes
the $5 fee and gives the Bureau a blank check to set whatever new fees it chooses by regulation, with no public or legislative
oversight. In many states, license fees for dogs that are not spayed or neutered at set at $200 to $300 per year per dog.
This is seen as a way to use annual license fees as a weapon to force dog owners to sterilize their pets, and the Casorio
bill paves the way for this to happen here by Bureau edict, with no legislative accountability or oversight. The Casorio legislation
requires counties to turn over spay and neuter information to the Bureau, along with verification of veterinary proof. We
strongly oppose giving this kind of power to the Bureau.
The current fine for failing to license a dog is $25. The legislation would increase this to a fine ranging from $50
to $300. These fines also would be imposed for people who fail to report a change of address, or who put down incorrect information
on a dog license application.
Dog day care providers are defined as boarding kennels, which is not a bad thing at face value. However, the legislation
counts every day that a dog is in day care as a separate dog. If a dog is in day care for five days, it becomes five different
dogs on paper. If one dog is in day care when its owner is at work, it suddenly becomes 260 different dogs over the course
of a year! This means that anyone who provides day care or dog sitting services will have to pay very high license fees,
as if they own a very large kennel. A teen-ager who gets paid $5 a day to watch a dog when its owner is at work, suddenly
could face a $1,000 kennel license fee! A small commercial business that provides day care to 10 dogs a day, would be licensed
as a 3,000-dog kennel when the years total of paper dogs are tallied! Dog sitting and day care are rapidly growing home businesses
in modern America that greatly enhance the welfare of companion animals. People who do this valuable work would be driven
out of business, and dog owners who need these services would be harmed.
The unlimited power to create regulations without oversight also will affect individual dog owners decisions about how
to care for their animals. The Bureau would be granted the power to create regulations that specify how anyone who owns a
dog must house or care for it. For example, the Bureau would have the power to ban tethering of dogs with no action required
by the Legislature. This both denies dog owners their basic rights as citizens, and also allows elected officials to escape
accountability to the voters.
The legislation also imposes unnecessary restrictions on rescue groups that rely on foster care provided by private individuals
who care for a dog until a new owner can be found. The American Sporting Dog Alliance believes that animal shelters and rescue
shelters should be regulated intensely as commercial kennels, because of the large numbers of dogs involved and because the
high turnover of dogs from unknown sources increases the risk of disease and other problems.. However, we do not believe that
people who provide foster care to small numbers of rescued dogs should be subjected to this kind of intensive regulation.
The law should not discourage these dedicated and caring people who do much good work to save the lives of many dogs. We propose
a lesser standard of licensure for these small rescue and fostering homes, such as a token license fee and inspections only
if a complaint has been filed. Care standards in foster homes should be simply defined as the normal standard of care for
household pets. In plain English, these good people deserve to be given a break, as do the dogs they help.
In all cases, the legislation says that the burden of proof rests with the owner of the dog. This is a perversion of the
American system of justice, which holds that the burden of proof rests with the state. What the wording of the legislation
means is that any dog owner is automatically guilty of a violation if he or she is unable to prove his or her innocence.
The American Sporting Dog Alliance urges every Pennsylvania dog owner to immediately contact every member of the House
Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee, well before Thursdays hearing. Please refer to House Bill 2525, and tell the legislators
why you are opposed to this bill.
Here is contact information for every member of the committee
Phone FAX Email
Rep. Arthur D. Hershey
717-783-6435
717-705-1868
ahershey@pahousegop.com
Rep. Harold James
717-787-9477
717-787-7517
hjames@pahouse.net
Rep. Frank Louis Oliver Sr.
717-787-3480
717-783-0684
foliver@pahouse.net
Rep. Rosita C. Youngblood
717-787-7727
717-772-1313
ryoungbl@pahouse.net
Rep. John Myers
717-787-3181
717-772-4038
jmyers@pahouse.net
Rep. Mark B. Cohen
717-787-4117
717-787-6650
mcohen@pahouse.net
The American Sporting Dog Alliance represents owners, hobby breeders and professionals who work with breeds of dogs that
are used for hunting. 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. Please visit us on the web
at http://www.americansportingdogalliance.org.
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 the
donations of our members, and maintain strict independence.
PLEASE CROSS-POST AND FORWARD THIS REPORT TO YOUR FRIENDS
The American Sporting Dog Alliance
http://www.americansportingdogalliance.org
Lawsuit filed over Los Angeles Mandatory spay/neuter ordinance by JOHN YATES
The American
Sporting Dog Alliance
http://www.americansportingdogalliance.org
LOS ANGELES, CA Concerned Dog Owners of California
filed a lawsuit this week against the City of Los Angeles, seeking to overturn a new ordinance mandating the spaying and neutering
of all dogs.
The lawsuit is primarily based on constitutional grounds, and alleges that the ordinance violates the
civil rights of dog owners in several ways.
The American Sporting Dog Alliance believes that the importance of this
lawsuit extends far beyond the City of Los Angeles. It marks the first of several anticipated legal challenges to onerous
laws and ordinances as dog owners turn to the courts to fight for their rights on constitutional grounds. This lawsuit is
based on legal issues that exist in every state.
An estimated 1.85 million Los Angeles residents have at least one
dog or cat.
The ordinance mandates the sterilization of all pets at four months of age. An exemption can be obtained
by purchasing a breeders permit, for a dog registered with an approved national registry and is being shown or used in competition,
and for other categories such as seeing-eye dogs and police dogs. Fines and penalties are provided for violations.
The
American Sporting Dog Alliance (ASDA) strongly supports Concerned Dog Owners of California in this lawsuit. Mandatory sterilization
laws and ordinances violate the basic rights of dog owners in many ways, and ASDA considers them a major part of the hidden
animal rights agenda to eliminate the private ownership of animals. We urge our members and all dog owners to offer their
full support to Concerned Dog Owners of California, and also to financially assist this group to pay for the cost of the lawsuit.
They can be reached online at http://www.cdoca.org/.
Here is a summary of the legal issues in the lawsuit:
It
violates the rights and familial relationships of 650,000 pet-owning households.
The options provided in the ordinance
to avoid pet sterilization are not constitutionally valid. It infringes on basic rights of freedom of association, freedom
of speech, the guarantee of due process and freedom of religion.
It wont work. The evidence is clear in communities
that have passed similar ordinances. Similar ordinances have been proven to increase the number of dogs euthanized, increase
shelter admissions, increase the costs of dog control programs and increase noncompliance with licensing requirements.
It
will increase the number of puppies born, because people will choose to get a breeding permit and to breed their dog simply
to avoid mandates to spay and neuter.
It exposes pets to unjustified risks to their health. Current research shows
that many significant and sometimes fatal health problems are associated with sterilization, especially at a young age.
Pet
owners are threatened with immediate and irrevocable injury when the ordinance takes effect October 1.
Existing laws
are not being enforced. An estimated 75% of the pets in the city are not even licensed. Other proven means of reducing shelter
admissions and euthanasia rates have not been tried.
Much of the ordinance, including the basis for exemptions, is
arbitrary and capricious, ambiguous and discriminatory.
The lawsuit states its case succinctly: Owners who wish to
keep their healthy pets unaltered have no constitutionally valid options to the MSP (mandatory spay and neuter) ordinance.
Although the ordinance provides for six alleged exemptions, and a breeders permit, these exemptions and the breeders permit
are, in actuality, nothing more than arbitrary and capricious compelled associations that violate an owners fundamental free
speech rights.
The ordinance forces a dog owner to join an organization approved by the city, and to identify her/himself
as a breeder, which is state-compelled speech, the document says. By requiring the city to approve of a dog owners membership
in an organization, such as a dog registry or club, government is both compelling membership and dictating a list of acceptable
organizations that a person is forced to join. The ordinance then mandates that a dog must compete in an event sanctioned
by one of those approved organizations, or is in the process of being trained to compete.
To obtain a breeders exemption,
a dog owner also is compelled to join one of those approved organizations and identify him/herself as a participant of that
organization, which is an infringement of free speech, the documents show. The right of free speech is infringed by forcing
a dog owner to identify her/himself as a breeder on government documents that are available to public inspection.
In
essence, a person is forced to say,I am a breeder, even if the person does not consider her/himself to be a breeder, or if
he/she is personally opposed to breeding.
Documents were attached to the court filing to show examples of harassment
and vilification of breeders that were distributed by the groups that support the ordinance. In essence, identifying oneself
as a breeder exposes the person to danger, harassment and defamation of character as consequences of government-compelled
speech.
Several religious groups prohibit their members from sterilizing an animal. These groups include Orthodox
Judaism and the Jehovahs Witness faith. Members of these faiths are unable to sterilize their pets without violating their
religious beliefs, which puts the city in the position of violating their constitutionally protected freedom of religion.
Los Angeles has the second largest community of Orthodox Jews in the nation.
The ordinance also gives the city the
power to forcibly seize and confiscate pets that are not spayed or neutered, if their owners are not granted one of the arbitrary
allowed exemptions. This violates the pets owner constitutionally guaranteed rights of due process under the law, that also
are violated because the ordinance does not provide recourse through a hearing.
Forcing a dog owner to spay or neuter
also represents an unconstitutional taking of property rights, as the ordinance compels taking away the value of a dogs reproductive
capacity, and due process is denied.
To compel pet sterilization also is to deny an owner the freedom to act according
to her/his own religious beliefs, personal ideology or political viewpoint, all of which are protected under the U.S. and
California Constitutions.
The lawsuit also contends that the City of Los Angeles has failed to take far less draconian
actions that have been proven to reduce the number of animals entering shelters, such as enforcing licensing requirements
(a reported 75% of the dogs in Los Angeles are not licensed), offering low-cost licensing for puppies that would allow their
owners to be educated about the issues, or mandating permanent identification of pets so that animals taken to the shelter
could be returned to their owners.
Because of the reported dangers of spaying and neutering (especially at an early
age) shown in numerous research findings, the city also is denying dog owners the right to protect their pets health and infringing
on the relationship between a pet owner and his/her veterinarian.
The ordinance also infringes upon the basic concepts
of the liberty and happiness of a pet owner, and also of the relationships between an owner, her or his family, and the pets
that are part of their family. Although most pet owners consider their dogs as family, rather than property, they are legally
defined as personal property and protected as such under the fundamental right of property in the California Constitution.
The ordinance is an arbitrary and capricious taking of those property rights by government, especially since the evidence
from other communities shows that the ordinance will be counterproductive to its stated goals.
The lawsuit also alleges
that the ordinance contains much vague and ambiguous language, such as undefined concepts like adequately trained and poor
health or not stating clearly what registries have been approved, and which have not.
The plaintiffs are asking the
court to declare the ordinance unconstitutional, and to order the city not to enforce it.
Please feel free to use
any information contained in this report, and also to cross-post it and forward it to your friends.
The American Sporting
Dog Alliance is the unified voice of sporting dog owners and professionals in America. We work at the grassroots level to
defeat unfair legislation and policies that are harmful to dogs and the people who own and work with them. Our work to protect
your rights is supported solely by the donations of our members. Your participation and membership are vital to our success.
Please visit us on the web at http://www.americansportingdogalliance.org.
Have You Joined Yet? The American Sporting
Dog Alliance http://www.americansportingdogalliance.org
Anchorage, Alaska- In order to Adopt a dog or cat from any pound or rescue facility you MUST have a chip.. Its the law! http://animal.ci.anchorage.ak.us/acc/Title17Codified1103.pdf
Connecticut
Governor Reil is assembling a task force to explore MANDATORY Spay and Neutering in your
state.
Contact him and DEMAND "FAIR" representation from the
Connecticut Dog Federation and local Show breeders.
OHIO
Ohio Bill Strips Away Dog Ownership Rights
A bill before the Ohio legislature takes aim at the concept of dogs
as private property, stripping away the right of private ownership
of dogs. The legislation redefines owners of kennels as
having "custody of or control" over dogs, but does not grant them
the right of actual ownership. The bill is designed to regulate
kennels having nine or more breeding dogs. It requires additional
regulation of kennels that sell more than 25 dogs and puppies a
year, which are called "intermediary" kennels.
House Bill 223 gives dogs the same legal status and rights as human
children or wards of the state, and incorporates many of the basic
principles advocated by extreme animal rights groups such as the
Humane Society of the United States and People for the Ethical
Treatment of Animals. HSUS and PETA believe that all animals should
be granted rights equal to those guaranteed to humans, and the Ohio
legislation reflects this position.
The American Sporting Dog Alliance (ASDA) has identified the Ohio
legislation as one of its highest priorities for 2008, and is
assembling a strong leadership team and legal representation to
fight back against this blatant attempt to take away our right of
dog ownership and infringe on the vital concept of private property.
"It's not going to be an easy fight," ASDA Director John Yates
said. "The Ohio legislation (H.B. 223) already has the endorsement
of 38 members of the 99-member Ohio General Assembly. That is close
to 40-percent support, and the bill still is in committee." The 38
Ohio legislators who endorse the bill will be listed at the bottom
of this article.
"I `smell a rat´ with this legislation," Yates said. "First of all,
it was not introduced into the House Agriculture Committee, even
though it would be administered and controlled by the Ohio
Department of Agriculture. Instead, the bill was introduced in the
State Government and Elections Committee. This is a tactic use to
minimize the influence of pro-farm legislators, who would recognize
the fundamental danger to farmers when animals are granted equal
rights with humans, and when the concept of private ownership of
animals is destroyed."
Yates said it also seems fishy that numerous sensationalistic and
inflammatory news articles, television news stories and National
Public Radio broadcasts have appeared in Ohio over the past month.
National Public Radio is funded with tax dollars, and ASDA plans to
demand equal airtime to counter these biased news stories.
Yates urges all Ohioans who have sporting dogs, own dogs of other
breeds, who farm or who simply care about basic human rights to take
an active role in this fight by joining ASDA and volunteering their
time and talent to strike down this legislation and put real heat on
the 38 legislators who support it. ASDA also has assembled a list of
Ohio organizations that support this legislation, and businesses
that support these groups, and will urge sporting dog owners to
Yates urges Ohioans and others to contact these legislators both in
person and with strongly worded letters of protest aimed both at
defeating this legislation, and having the co-sponsors formally
withdraw their support from it.
ASDA also is working to save Ohio field trial grounds at the Kildeer
Plains and Indian Creek Wildlife Management Areas, which are being
closed to trialing this coming April by state and federal wildlife
agencies.
FLORIDA
As most equine lovers are also dog lovers, I thought it might be worth sending it out.
Besides, it is another intrusion of our rights as American Citizens and down right scary! Please send this to as many people
as you can!
Miami-Dade County Proposes Drastic Changes for Animal Owners
Print This Article
[Wednesday, December 12, 2007] The
Miami-Dade County Commission will be holding a public hearing at 9:30am on
Tuesday, December 18th to discuss a variety of changes to the animal control ordinance including
limiting the number of pets a resident may own,
implementing hobby breeder licensing, requiring mandatory microchipping for dog breeders and
restricting rescue organizations. Concerned dog owners and breeders are asked to attend and speak against these proposed changes.
If you are unable to attend, please send an email to the county commissioners or call their offices. As always, please
be polite and respectful.
Summary of the Proposed Changes
Zoning Changes and Pet Limits:
The revised ordinance will limit the number of dogs a resident may own based on the size of
the property. If you own more than the allowed number,
you will be considered a kennel and a public hearing will be held to decide if you may keep
your animals. Additionally, you will be required to allow
animal control to inspect your premises and must meet specified kennel standards.
These thresholds are arbitrary and do not take in to account the reproductive capability of
the animals. A resident could be deemed a kennel even if none of the animals are capable of reproducing or are ever used for
breeding! There does NOT appear to be a clause to protect those residents who already own more than the allowed number.
If the property is less than one acre, a resident may have no more than 4 dogs.
If the property is less than two acres, a resident may have no more than 6 dogs.
If the property is two acres or more, a resident may own up to eight dogs.
Hobby Breeder License:
The county currently allows a lifetime license, but under the new proposal this would be an
annual license. Additionally, the fee for the license is
not specified in the ordinance and could easily be very expensive, placing an unreasonable
burden on local, responsible breeders. State law provides a
definition of pet dealer, which is the same as the one used in this ordinance. There is no
compelling reason to spend resources and taxpayer money to license breeders who fall below that threshold.
Pet Dealer and Kennel Inspections:
The new ordinance would require anyone who qualifies as a "pet dealer" (anyone who sells more
than 20 dogs or 2 litters in one year, whichever is
greater) or who requires a kennel license (anyone who exceeds the thresholds set above) to
be inspected by animal control. The fees for these licenses are not specified within the ordinance, but due to the expense
to animal control to conduct these inspections, it is reasonable to assume they would be very expensive.
The standards set for kennels are designed for commercial enterprises, but may not be reasonable
or workable for someone who simply owns 5 animals or who breeds perhaps 3 litters a year in their home.
Additionally, these same standards do not apply to city or county facilities. If they are
for the health and safety of the animals, then they should apply consistently to all facilities.
Breeders Must Microchip:
The new ordinance would require that all animals sold be implanted with a microchip and provide
that information to animal control. Many animals will
be sold to new owners outside the county, therefore this provision creates an unnecessary
financial burden for both breeders and animal services who
must develop and administer a program to track this information. Animal control is not required
to microchip animals that they place.
As part of our ongoing efforts to promote responsible dog ownership, the AKC encourages dog
owners to properly identify their pets. We believe, however, that the final decision about identification-whether by collar,
tattoo or microchip-should be made by the owner, not the government.
Rescues:
If adopted, the new ordinance would allow shelters to release animals only to animal rescues
registered as a 501 (c)(3) in Florida. This will deprive the county of being able to use many breed and club rescues that
for tax filing purposes have not elected to become 501(c)(3)s. This will mean fewer animals are fostered and placed, leading
to more euthanizations.
Tethering:
The new ordinance would make it illegal to tether a dog outside unless the dog can be supervised
by the responsible party and limits tethering to three
hours.
Additional Requirements:
Would hold landlords responsible for the actions of any animal maintained on premises they
own. Fewer property owners will be willing to rent to animal owners, potentially increasing shelter populations.
License fees for intact and sterilized animals are not specified within the ordinance, so
there is no way to judge if these will be reasonable.
Residents are best served by having license fees set in the ordinance itself and then having
the county commission adjust them when necessary.
WHAT YOU CAN DO:
Attend the County Commission meeting on December 18th.
9:30 am
Commission Chambers, Second Floor of the Stephen P. Clark Center
111 N.W. First Street,
Miami, FL 33128
Send a letter or email to the county commissioners asking them to oppose these changes. District
1 - Barbara J Jordan
The Mother of All Databases is already a reality PetData Inc., a private corporation
in Irving, Texas, already collects information on law-abiding citizens who happen to own pets. They say they have already
databanked information on 2 million residents in more than 20 U. S. communities, and four entire counties. Matthews, North
Carolina, just joined the ranks of municipalities contracts with PetData.
Your personal privacy on the auction block
If
you live in a community that outsourced animal licensing functions to PetData, you may not even realize it yet. When you vaccinate
your cats and dogs for rabies, your vet forwards the details to PetData Inc.
Your name, your address, your contact
information. And your dog's, or cat's, veterinary information for-profit PetData Inc.'s privately-owned, privately-controlled
database.
PetData proudly advertises its membership in the Humane Society of the United
States. It has no corporate privacy policy.
From rabies vaccination to Animal Control at the door --two shakes
of a lamb's tail!
These California communities already contract with PetData--
a.. Antioch b.. Dana Point c..
Fairfield d.. Oakland e.. Riverside f.. San Clemente g.. San Luis Obispo h.. Torrance i.. Vacaville j..
Vallejo k.. County of San Luis Obispo l.. County of Solano
**Rio Vista CA 03-26-09
These are all the New Counties and city updates on Pet Data 03-26-09
The list is getting longer
Southern Brazoria Co, Texas
Clute, Texas
Fulton Co, Georgia
Hernando Co, Florida
Seminole Co, Florida
St. Lucie Co, Florida
Charlotte-Mecklenburg, NC
Montgomery Co, Maryland
Cities
Albuquerque, New Mexico
Dubuque, Iowa
Lakewood, WA
Steilacoom, WA
Atlanta, GA
Brooksville Florida
Sanford, Florida
Dupont, WA
Silversprings Maryland
South Odgen, Utah
University Park, Texas
Lakewood, WA
Freeport, Texas
Lakejackson, Texas
Houston, Texas
Irving, Texas
Mathews, North Carolina
Raleigh, Noth Carolina
Philadelphia, Pennsyvania
Germantown, Maryland
Houston, Texas
Irving, Texas
Kansas City, MO
If you live in one of these California municipalities or counties,
your local elected officials struck a deal with PetData. For a modest fee, PetData is doing the animal licensing enforcement
for your community.
Question of the Day, what happens when you donot answer there request to renew that shot or
license to own your pet? The Humane Society of the United States, the largest, wealthiest animal extremist organization
in the country--one that is dedicated to eliminating pet ownership-- is already using PetData as a mouthpiece. Will municipalities
increasingly outsource law enforcement responsibilities to profit-motivated private organizations? Ones with no public accountability?
As a private corporation, PetData's employees are responsible to their own Board of Directors. We the People don't get to
vote on what they do, or how they do it
Posted 07-14-07
Statement of Hannis L. Stoddard III, DVM and ISO 11784/11785 RFID Chips
This message is long but I hope you will read every word. This is so frightening! And it affects
not just those who breed and show dogs but ALL pet owners as well.
Heads up: NJ Assembly bill
ends dog shows in New Jersey _
I doubt you remember me, but I like to photograph dog shows and took
some photographs at your club's Match Show when you invited Jim Deppen to judge ( I emailed you the photos for the club ).
I am also involved with dogs through the New Jersey Skylands Labrador Retriever Club, and through that club, with the N. J.
Federation of Dog Clubs.
Long story short, since my "day job" is being an attorney and because of the buzz I heard,
I reviewed the proposed new animal cruelty law for New Jersey (Assembly bill #A2649). While there are some needed provisions
in it concerning actual acts of animal cruelty, the bill is packed with other provisions which are anti-pet owner and anti-dog
breeder. As it reads now, its provisions will end dog shows in New Jersey, and make it extremely hard for breeders to continue
as well. It will allow anyone to accuse anyone of animal cruelty, whether true or not, and the accused individuals will have
absolutely no legal recourse against those making the complaints, even when the complaints are later shown to be absolutely
without any factual basis!
This bill is "flying under the radar" because its original focus was only
meant to deal with preventing animal cruelty, and people think its provisions still deal with those issues alone. The American
Kennel Club, after reviewing what was in this bill, actually came out with a statement on June 6, 2007, opposing the bill.
Now how many times do you think the AKC has actually come out AGAINST a bill which is to prevent animal cruelty? That alone
says something. My point is people concerned about dog owners and dog breeders in New Jersey, absolutely need to write their
Assembly persons immediately and tell them to vote no against this bill as currently written. I have already written both
my Assembly people, but unless more people start writing ASAP, this bill will pass in the very near future and the dog fancy
in this state will be dealt a death blow.
Please forward this information on to your membership and encourage each
and every one to contact their N.J. Assembly persons as quickly as possible and tell them to oppose this bill.
Stan
Domozyk, Esq. (aka the match show photographer)
----------
The following is a summary of certain provisions
found in proposed N.J. Assembly Bill 2649. I found these provisions to be of interest because they would probably have a direct
impact on those who keep dogs as pets, or who are interested in dogs as a hobby and may breed them. The opinions about these
provisions' meeting are strictly my own interpretation and other lawyers may differ as to their legal ramifications. Information
given in double brackets refers to the page in the proposed Assembly bill where this provision can be found. Language which
is in italics or bold lettering or both, are done by the author to emphasize certain language.
The following provisions
are of interest:
The touching of a dog's "intimate parts" is considered "sexual contact" under this proposed new law.
This touching is considered "Aggravated animal abuse". This will become a crime of the 4th degree under the proposed new law.
[ pp.4-6 ]] What this means, since there is no exceptions to these provisions under the current proposed law,
is that when a stud dog owner collects his dog, he is committing a crime, when a bitch owner inseminates her bitch, she is
committing a crime, when the judge at a dog show examines the males to make sure their testicles have descended, they are
committing a crime. For the record, the dog show judge commits a separate crime with each dog he or she examines. [[p.7]]
Under the proposed law there is now a separate crime for committing animal cruelty in the presence of a child. So all of the
above mentioned acts; collecting, inseminating or judging in front of a minor, is a separate crime in and of itself each and
every time it is done. Pity the poor judge who is handling juniors. [[ pp.7-8]]
A person under the proposed new law
would be guilty of "Animal abuse" if they subject an animal to transportation in a cruel manner. This is defined as "carrying
a living animal or causing a living animal to be carried, in or upon a vehicle or otherwise, in a cruel or inhumane manner
which creates a substantial risk of bodily injury or death, or leaving an animal unattended in a vehicle under inhumane conditions
adverse to the health or welfare of the living animal... [[p.6]] Now keep in mind we all know what having an animal unattended
in a van is, but inhumane conditions is not defined under this section of the proposed statute. That will be whatever
the animal control officer "thinks" it is. If the control officer thinks it is too hot or too cold, or there is not enough
water or food, or not enough space in the crate, or not enough air flow through the crate, that will be their call because
"inhumane conditions" has no definition under the proposed law. As with the judge example given above, each animal transported
under inhumane conditions is a separate offense. [[ p.6]]
There is a new proposed definition of animal abandonment.
A person is guilty of animal abandonment if their animal is left in a place beyond the control, custody or possession of the
owner or the person relinquishing possession of the animal. [[ p.7]]. This under the proposed new law will be
a crime of the 4th degree. I have a hard time distinguishing between this set of facts and a situation where a dog escapes
from its owner or from its pen. If the dog gets away out of the sight of the owner or handler, but the animal control officer
finds it or is directed toward finding it, without the owner in sight, the dog is "abandoned" and the owner would be guilty
of the animal abandonment offense. This part of the proposed law gets even better. Should the animal wander within 200 feet
of a roadway when it is found, the owner is also liable for an additional $1, 000.00 fine. [[p.7]] One must wonder how many
of us own property which has a 200 foot offset from any road. If our dogs accidentally get loose be ready to pony up over
a grand just for that error.
How you restrain your dog would be covered under the new proposed law. A person is guilty
of "cruelly restraining a dog" if they chain, tie, fasten or otherwise tether a dog with any collar or similar device
... other than a fitted harness or buckle type collar, attached to a line less than 15 feet. A dog may never be tethered
in any location using a choke or prong collar. That would also be considered "cruelly restraining your dog" under the proposed
new law. The new law does state that these crimes can be defended against if the owner had a reasonable basis for the restraint,
but the law does not go on to define what reasonable basis would be considered. [[ p.9]] Without a defined basis under the
law, the owner must meet some nebulous mystery standard to show the reason the dog was restrained was correct. Good luck in
proving that!
Viewing all that has been mentioned above, under the proposed new law there is a provision for "Patterns
of animal cruelty". A person commits the crime of "pattern of animal cruelty" if the person commits two or more acts that
violate the provisions of the previous sections. It shall not be a defense that the violations were not part of a common plan
or scheme, or did not have similar methods of commission. Committing a " Pattern of animal cruelty" is a
crime of the 2nd degree. [[p.13]]
Just so we are keeping track, crimes of the fourth degree carry a minimum fine of
$1,000.00, crimes of the third degree cost $3,000.00, crimes of the second degree carry a minimum fine of $5, 000.00, and
crimes of the first degree cost $10,000.00, under this proposed new law. [[p.14]]
This next section I found to be one
of the most amazing provisions of this proposed law. It states that "Any person who has reasonable cause to believe any
act of cruelty to an animal has been committed may report the act of animal cruelty, to a law enforcement officer, animal
cruelty investigator, humane law enforcement officer, or other person authorized by law to investigate animal cruelty. Anyone
acting pursuant to this section in the submitting of a report of animal cruelty under this act shall have immunity from any
liability, civil or criminal, that might otherwise be incurred or imposed. Any such person shall have the same immunity with
respect to testimony given in an judicial proceeding resulting from such report." [[ pp.17-18]] What this means under the
new law, is that any pet owner can be libeled or slandered concerning the care they provide to their animals and they have
no legal recourse against the person or people stating this, even if they could later show it is a complete fabrication.
I cannot for the life of me imagine what legal benefit could possibly be gained from insulating people who would lie! It must
be kept in mind that the truth has been and is currently always a legal defense to accusations of libel or slander. If someone
accusing a pet owner of animal cruelty is truly relaying the facts as they know them, they need no further legal protection.
You cannot be successfully sued for telling the truth! Only if someone was deliberately lying, would they need the protection
of this proposed law. Whose possible agenda would the legislature deliberately be promoting by passing a statute which would
promote libel, slander and perjury?
It is amazing that dog owners's activities can now become animal
cruelty through the most benign behavior, but those who are involved in enforcement of these new laws are now sometimes relieved
of the responsibility in how they carry out the enforcement of these new laws. For example shelters and pounds are not required
to supply veterinary care to prevent or relieve injury, neglect or disease, nor are they required to provide reasonable access
to a clean and adequate exercise area. They are specifically exempted under the new law from having to provide this. Only
pet owners have to provide these things to avoid charges of animal cruelty. [[ p.9,32]] Another example is that if an animal
control officer improperly has an animal put down, they are only liable for a civil penalty of $500.00. [[p.40]] How can a
pet owner be charged with fines up to $10,000.00 for an act of animal cruelty, but a professional whose actual job it is to
protect animals is only fined $500.00 for actually improperly killing one, in addition to not being immediately terminated
for such an action.
While we are on the subject of destroying animals, this proposed bill allows "an owner" to "surrender"
an animal to a shelter and the shelter then has full power to destroy the animal then and there without further delay.
[[ p.41]] The only problem with this provision is there is no definition of an "owner" and there is no procedure given for
how someone MUST identify ownership of the animal they are surrendering. A nasty neighbor, a juvenile delinquent or someone
who stole your dog and now has decided to get rid of it, can simply drop it off at the nearest shelter and you will never
know what happened to your dog.
Animal control officers are also being given an incredible boost in police power.
Under the new law, they will be able to arrest people and conduct searches and seizures without first obtaining a warrant
from a judge. [[ p.41, p.33]] Whoever thought someone buying a pet in New Jersey, would automatically mean they are giving
up their Constitutional rights to due process? There is a reason judges are necessary in the legal system to sign arrest warrants
or to sign search warrants. It prevents the abuse of the police power by authorities. I do not understand why anyone would
want to place animal control officers beyond this system of checks and balances. If every other police force within New Jersey
can successfully operate under a constitutional system and protect the public from every conceivable type of threat, why would
animal control officers need special powers which are basically unconstitutional at their core?
A case
in point: One provision of the proposed law states the following: A person authorized for animal control can take into custody
and impound (1) any dog off the premises of the owner, or of the person keeping or harboring the dog when a properly authorized
official or agent thereof have reason to believe the dog is a stray dog. (2) any dog off the premises of the owner, or of
the person keeping or harboring the dog, when the dog is without a registration tag. (3) any unattended female dog in
season off the premises of the owner, or of the person keeping or harboring the female dog. (4) any dog or other animal which
is suspected to be rabid or stray. (5) Any dog or other animal, off the premises of the owner, that is reported to be, or
is observed by a certified animal control officer to be, ill, injured or creating a threat to public health, safety or welfare,
or otherwise interfering with the enjoyment of the property. [[ p.33]]
The key provisions we want to focus on is that
this law would allow the animal control officer to enter upon your private property without the need for a warrant. The
next thing we want to focus on are the rationales given for these entries are too nebulous to provide a standard for entrance
in the first place. Number one for instance talks about a dog warden's belief a dog is a stray. I am sorry, but I think
an dog warden should KNOW a dog is a stray before he comes on your property and takes it away, not just believe it. As to
instance number two, why should anyone take your dog off your property, when he doesn't have his tags on. He is on your property!!!
What business is it of the government how you keep your own dogs on your own property? What is the possible public interest
is to be protected that would allow a government invasion of your private property on this basis. Same question regarding
instance number three regarding a female in heat ON YOUR OWN PROPERTY. You have a right to enjoy your own property in the
manner you see fit, so long as it does not interfere with someone else's enjoyment. Having a female dog in heat on your own
property does provide a threat to the public welfare as far as I know. Instance number 4, to me is only half right. If a dog
was actively displaying behavior which would indicate it was rabid, then yes I could see an animal control officer coming
on to private property to take the dog. This is the only instance, out of all five presented in this section of the proposed
law, which demonstrates a true threat to the public health, safety and welfare, where an entry onto private property without
a warrant might be sanctioned. None of the other five instances present a situation of danger to the public. Instance number
5 is once again too nebulous to be enforceable. What does a threat to public health, safety and welfare mean? Aside from the
rabid dog example, I cannot see how this could be applied. The other part of the criteria is absolutely ridiculous; the dog
warden removes your dog from your property because he or she thinks it is interfering with your enjoyment of your property?
What does that mean?
As previously mentioned animal enforcement officers will not only be able to come
onto your property as they please under this proposed new law, they will be able to arrest you without a warrant! [[p.47 ]]
An animal owner in this State will really become a second class citizen under this new animal cruelty law.
Even more
than their power to come on your property or arrest you without a warrant, they will now have prosecutorial power as well.
The Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals or similar local county society shall prosecute the case of an accused
individual. [[pp47-48]] Does it not strike anyone odd, that for every other crime in New Jersey, the local police turn the
crime over to the municipal prosecutor, and the county police turn the crime over to the county prosecutor and the State Police
turn the crime over to the State Deputy Attorney General, but the people who are involved with the prevention of animal cruelty,
have to be given prosecutorial powers beyond that of every other law enforcement officer in the State? The separation between
law enforcement and prosecution serves to have checks and balances in the application of any criminal law to the public. Why
should animal control officers or anyone who fulfills that function be exempt from this separation? Has anyone shown a single
instance where an animal cruelty case brought to a municipal or county or State prosecutor prevented the proper prosecution
of someone who committed an act of animal cruelty? What purpose would be served in this law by not requiring a act of animal
cruelty to be turned over to the appropriate governmental prosecutorial agency?
Another specific example of this new
power is set forth in the proposed statute. It reads as follows: R.S.4:22-47 is amended to read as follows: A sheriff, under-sheriff,
constable, police officer, animal cruelty investigator who has been properly authorized pursuant to section 4 of P.L. 1983,
c.525, or humane law enforcement officer of the New Jersey Society of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals or of a county
society for the prevention of cruelty to animals, may enter any building or place where there is an exhibition of animal fighting
or baiting or a living animal, where preparations are being made for such an exhibition, or where another violation of section
13 of (this refers to a bill not yet even passed - who knows what section 13 may turn out to outlaw), is occurring, arrest
without warrant all persons there present, and take possession of all animals engaged in fighting or otherwise found on the
premises, and all implements or appliances used or to be used in the exhibition. [[ p.48]] Does the above situation
sound familiar to you? Could it be describing a dog show exhibition - maybe? This gets even better. Not only could they arrest
every exhibitor who they thought was mistreating their dog (perhaps keeping it in a portable kennel till showing it), and
take their dog from them, but the next part of the proposed statute says: R.S.4:22-48 is amended to read as follows: The person
seizing animals, implements or appliances as authorized in R.S.4:22-47 shall, within 24 hours thereafter, apply to the Superior
Court to have the animals, implements or appliances forfeited and property impounded until dispositions of any charges. There
is no provision for the dog owners to get the dog back at this point, just for the person or people seizing the dogs and property
to go forward with their case against the owners. [[ p.48]]
This part of the proposed statute goes on to say: If, upon
a hearing concerning the forfeiture application, the court determines that there is probable cause that the owner or the
person in possession of an animal, implement, or appliance at the time of the seizure violated paragraph (3) of subsection
a of the section 13 (once again inserted here is a reference to a law yet to be passed and may say who knows what), the court
shall order the forfeiture and impoundment of any animal, implement, or appliance involved, pending disposition of any charges
brought against the owner or the person in possession of the animal, implement or appliance. Upon a conviction of the owner
or the person in possession of the animal, implement or appliance, for a violation of paragraph (3) of subsection a of the
section 13 (once again insert the mysterious law yet to be passed), the court shall determine the proper disposition for the
animal, implement or appliance involved. The court may direct the animal be offered for adoption, be properly euthanized,
or be sold, as appropriate. [[ p.49]] It must also be kept in mind that animal cruelty, as defined earlier in the statute,
can be inseminating your bitch, collecting your dog, judging a dog through examination of his sexual organs, having a dog
accidentally get off leash or out of his create and then out of your sight, or keeping a dog in an enclosure which an animal
cruelty investigator found inappropriate. So if you are thinking the language just described above in the proposed statute
could never apply to you, guess again!
One of the other over reaching provisions of the statute involves
how you transport your animals. If you take your dogs to a show, and some are kept in the RV or van while some are shown,
and an animal cruelty investigator happens upon your vehicle and decides the dogs are too crowded, too warm or too cold,
or don't have enough water, or not enough light, not enough ventilation or whatever they think is wrong, they can take your
dogs, your vehicle and everything in it! [[p.52]] Adding insult to injury, not only can they take absolutely everything,
they can charge you to get it back! Then if you do not redeem it within ten days, THEY CAN SELL IT! [[ p.52]] This is apart
from the acts of animal cruelty they charge you with.
If anyone has any questions about what would motivate a group
to promote the draconian provisions of this law, I think I may have found a clue in the proposed law's final provisions. Any
fines, penalties or monies collected under this new law are to be paid to the clerk of the court or court officer, who in
turn must forward the monies within 30 days to the county society for the prevention of cruelty to animals to be used as it
wishes, or to the New Jersey Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals to be used however it wishes. If the crime was
investigated by a municipal animal control officer, then the municipality and the Society For the Prevention of Cruelty of
Animals get to split the pot 50-50, so to speak. [[p53-54]]
Another truly offensive feature of the proposed statute
is a provision that prevents suits for civil damages against the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, or
municipalities or their animal control officers or agents, for any act or omission which resulted in damages to an individual
from an arrest, prosecution or investigation resulted.
There are two problems with the above provisions. The first
is there should be no self interest involved by those charged with the protection of the animals in this state. I do not
think many people would approve of a situation where a police force's salary was linked to how many traffic tickets they gave
out, or a teacher's salary being linked to how many children he or she flunked to prove how tough class standards were. The
same is true here. I do notthink a municipality flunked to prove how tough class standards were. The same
is true here. I do not think a municipality should directly financially benefit by how many people they can manage to accuse
of animal cruelty, under a new statute which has unclear provisions, and is directed against pet owners and dog breeders alike.
The proposed law's emphasis on over reaching police powers and obtaining of animals and property for subsequent sale (and
profit), is glaring. I have seen no study offered by any of the people backing this bill, which would support the necessity
of these types of provisions in this state at this time ( if ever). The second problem is the obvious intentions of those
supporting this statute to insulate themselves from the over top provisions of this proposed law. The Society for the Prevention
of Cruelty to Animals and similar organizations and the municipalities, while able to split whatever profits they gain off
the people they want to prosecute, neither would have to accept responsibility for the damages they might cause the public
when their actions are legally incorrect and actionable. The provision insulating those "reporting" animal cruelty from legal
action from suits for slander, libel or perjury, should immediately make the motives for those groups wanting this protection
suspect.
People who are defending this legislation, saying its authors have good intentions, MUST keep in mind, the
law will be interpreted as it is written! As long as the statutory provisions are "on the books" the courts must apply them
to all instances. If no exceptions to any provisions are specifically set forth in the proposed new law, then the courts will
not find any.
I do strongly believe in the prevention of animal cruelty and when I heard the title of this bill, that
is what I thought would be its only focus. Instead there seems to be other interests at play in this bill as well. As someone
involved in the law, I could never support any bill which in part, legalizes and promotes libel and slander under any circumstances.
Nor could I support a grant of police power to anyone which would allow warrantless entry onto private property, or warrantless
arrests, or the taking of someone's property without due process, such as this proposed law would provide.
I
do not know if you agree with me or not. If you do, below is the website addresses for locating your New Jersey legislator
if you do not know who it is, or if you do, locating them by their names. If you care about the issues mentioned I strongly
suggest you write to you legislator by email or regular mail and ask them to vote against this bill in its present form. A
bill of this type should be pet owner friendly as well as animal friendly, and I find provisions in it offensive to both groups.
You can also download the actual bill itself at the websites given and read it. It is Assembly bill #2649.
How to
find your legislator on the State of New Jersey Website:
Another State trying to go Mandatory Sterilization... California
"The Pet Extinction Act" an Unfunded State Mandate, Will Cost Cities and Counties over $1
Billion Annually
More Law Enforcement Groups Oppose AB 1634
SACRAMENTO, CA – "AB 1634 is another unfunded state mandate which will cost cities and counties over $1 billion annually
and impact the budgets, resources, and working K9s of law enforcement agencies across California," said Bill Hemby, Chairman
of PetPAC, which represents groups opposing the measure.
Assembly Bill 1634, a measure by Assemblyman Lloyd Levine (D-Van Nuys) will require the forced sterilization of nearly
all dogs and cats in California. Pet owners who don't comply will be fined $500 and face possible criminal penalties.
Experience has shown that local jurisdictions cannot recoup the costs to administer and enforce mandated pet sterilization
laws from penalties and fees alone. To pay for the new bureaucracy, funds are taken from other city and county services, including
law enforcement and public safety.
The Legislative analysis of AB 1634 states that animal control costs are likely to immediately increase as more pets are
surrendered to shelters, euthanasia rates rise, and licensing drops off. In Los Angeles, shelter costs rose by 269% following
enactment of a similar measure.
In addition, the bill's requirements to receive a government-issued exemption permit for police dogs are arbitrary and
restrictive. As a result, "The availability of police dogs available for crime prevention, criminal apprehension, bomb and
drug detection, and search and rescue operations will drop dramatically," said Hemby.
The 25,000-member National Coalition of Public Safety Officers (NCPSO) today joined other law enforcement groups in opposing
AB 1634. Law enforcement opposition also includes the California Organization of Police and Sheriffs, California Rescue Dog
Association (the largest of the K9 search-and-rescue organizations), the United States Police Canine Association, Western
States Police Canine Association, Manteca Police Officers Association, Manteca Police Employees Association, Canine Specialized
Search Team, and John Riboni, Director of K9 Training for Placer County Sheriffs Department, Roseville Police Department,
Lincoln Police Department, and Rocklin Police Department.
"IT IS ALL ABOUT THE MONEY." Fines, licenses, permits, fees, penalties, it never stops, and it WON'T
Stop until more people SAY NO!
My whole objective to Nais was to only have Nais related information. I feel dog laws need to be
brought up since Louisville Ky signed into law the most horrendous bill ever against dogs! Its is happening in every
city. I use to show so I know how this law could impact a pure bred dog. Louisville Ky is home to many cluster
shows that generatemillions of dollars to the local economy. Look it up and read the
bill.
I only have one thing to say, Boycott!!! Let the city loose out of all the money, sooner or
later the business's will see the pinch. And when you do boycott write the business that you would have patronized
know why.
Now this new pending law for New York comes , You must have you dog microchipped and enrolled
in the State Registry. Some people will say this is fine, it will help to locate my lost dog. Do you see what is happening
here. Laws are already in place, you go to the vet, you have to have a rabies shot which comes with a numbered tag, you
then have to have a yearly city license which is another numbered tag and then you will have to have an RFID chip with another
number. Wow 3 numbers for one Pet and you get to pay for all 3 of them.
Now how come they dont have to report movement??? Can you just see all the New Yorkers coming
out of there apartments and going back in , in and out movement and you know there will be commingling on th ecity streets.
What makes you think this new law will be any different then the old. We the Legal citizens
of the US who abide by the law get what is required as we are a sitting target. Do you honestly think a crook is going
to abide by this. No and no again. Well people here is a fact 1.5 million chips were sold and 4,000 dog were reunited
with their owners. Is that all or does this number show responsible pet ownership? Now lets go to double dipping
the legal US citizen. If the law requires you to have a chip, why do you have to have a license too? Same if you adopt a dog
or cat out of the pound they microchip, which you pay for and the pet is registered in your name, then you have to have
a license for a fee. Do you see the MONEY. Boy what a Scam! Now lets go to the penalty if you do not comply fluffy gets put
to sleep.
[Monday,
February 05, 2007]
New York State Assembly Bill 1677, introduced by Assemblyman Peralta, seeks to require all dogs over four months of age to
be microchipped and registered with a new state-run registry. If passed and signed into law, these changes could have a significant
impact on breeders and dog owners in New York. It is imperative that breeders and concerned dog owners contact their Assemblyman
and the committee chairman to express their opposition.
As part of the American Kennel Club's ongoing efforts to promote responsible dog ownership, we encourage dog owners to properly
identify their pets. We believe, however, that the final decision about identification—whether by collar, tattoo or
microchip—should be made by the owner, not the government. Additionally, we believe that nationalized microchip enrollment
is far superior to local or state registries. A significant portion of recoveries involve pets that have crossed state lines
or passed from one area to another. Creating regionalized recovery systems will make consumers feel that they are protected
in a state database. They will be less likely to enroll in a national database and the end result will inevitably be lost
pets that are not properly reunited with their owners because of the disjointed nature of state/regional recovery systems.
The proposed set of laws would require that:
a.. All dogs four months of age be microchipped.
b.. All microchipped and/or licensed dogs be registered with a new state identification registry.
c.. All microchips and stored information be compatible with scanners used by the State Department of Agriculture and Markets.
d.. Violators of this bill be subject to fines of up to $100.
WHAT TO DO:
Contact the members of the New York Assembly Committee on Agriculture who will consider this bill.
For more information, contact AKC's Canine Legislation Department at (919) 816-3720, or e-mail at doglaw@akc.org.
,_.___
We have no ethical obligation to preserve the different breeds of livestock produced through
selective breeding. ...One generation and out. We have no problems with the extinction of domestic animals. They are creations
of human selective breeding -- Wayne Pacelle - Former National Director of Fund for Animals.
NEW MEXICO
Aztec considers new animal ordinance: AZTEC, N.M. Aztec city commissioners are considering a new chapter of city code
that would allow animal control officers to fine residents who don't spay or neuter their pets. Under a revamped set of
animal ordinances, owners could be charged 25 dollars for unsterilized animals. That fine could be refunded upon proof of
sterilization. People with five or more animals could apply for an annual animal fancier permit for 50 dollars, which
allows up to ten animals. That would prevent pet owners from appearing before the City Commission for rezoning. Owners
who want to breed their pets could get a 75-dollar annual breeders permit. Aztec residents have 45 days to comment before
the commission considers the proposals at a final reading.
Premises Registration will be an "Official" USDA unique seven Character identifier.
In the New User Guide it states on Page 22:
The premises identification number (PIN) is assigned permanently to a geophysical location.
If an owner or entity sells his/her farm, the next operators of the premises use the original premises identification number
that had been assigned to that location. If the seller buys a new location to build a new operation that never had livestock,
he/she would register that location and obtain a new premises identification number (PIN).
Premises Identification = Encumbrance
Comments on the site are very welcomed.. If you see something that is in error, point it out, if you have a document that
needs posting, provide the information and if its state specific post the state.. This site is for all livestock owners..
