This page is dedicated to legislation, generalized and breed specific. At this time, "pitbulls" and any dog that resembles them, is being prejudiced against in several states due to irresponsible ownership, and breeders who are not taking responsibility for their pups and allowing them to go to the wrong homes. This is quickly increasing with the addition of other breeds, such as Rottweilers, Dobermans, German Shephards, Chows Chows, Huskies and the list goes on.
Another huge problem being faced by pet owners and hobby breeders are the Animal Rights groups and their attempts at ending pet ownership and the purebred dog. Organizations such as HSUS ( Humane Society of the U.S ) PETA ( People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) and several others are behind all the proposed mandatory spay/neuter bills being introduced, anti-tethering, anti- crop and dock and they title them with names that are very misleading to the general public - Healthy Pets Act and the Animal Protection Act. All these bills are trying to do is to regulate pet owners into giving up their freedom of choice and these type of bills will also greatly impact the future of the purebred dog and cat. Why would it be OK to import unhealthy and uncared for animals from Mexico and Puerto Rico, which is what these "animal rights" enthusiasts feel is appropriate.
We are owners of our dogs and cats, and one should NEVER use or refer to the term "guardian". Once we are deemed "guardians" of our pets, we will lose all rights as to how we can care for them and what we can do with them, ie: conformation, obedience, working and training venues.
Responsible ownership is key to us keeping our rights to owning our dogs and cats.
I will try to keep this updated with information regarding legislation and the areas it is being proposed in. I will also try to keep it updated with the states and cities that are looking into Dangerous Dog legislation. Certain legislators deserve our Thanks for understanding the need to make the owners responsible. ANY dog can bite or attack, and owners need to realize that they are beginning to be held more accountable and responsible for the actions of their pets.
**************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************
MA Bill H5092 - Very bad MA anti-dog Bill has been filed !!!!
In a stunning procedural move, Massachusetts House Bill 1948, which was a reasonable and non-discriminatory dangerous dog bill supported by both the AKC and the Massachusetts Federation of Dog Clubs, has been replaced by House Bill 5092, a conglomeration of many anti-dog, anti-responsible breeder, and anti-responsible owner proposals. The American Kennel Club is not only deeply concerned with the many unacceptable provisions of the bill, but is also disturbed by the procedural maneuver used to deny the concerned dog-owning citizens of Massachusetts an opportunity to state their objections to the egregious bill in a committee hearing format.
Representative Brad Hill sponsored HB 1948, the pragmatic dangerous dog bill, this legislative session. That bill was assigned to the Joint Municipalities Committee, which subsequently sent to it to "study". That action usually indicates that the bill will not be considered for the remainder of the session. However, on July 28th, part of the bill was recommitted to the Joint Municipalities Committee, which then produced HB 5092. Among the many problematic provisions to HB 5092, the most egregious include:
- Imposing mandatory spay/neuter of all dogs over 12 months of age; or in the alternative, owners will have to qualify for and annually purchase an intact animal permit at a cost of up to $500 per dog.
- Limiting the number of reproductive events per female dog to one litter per year, with few exceptions.
- Requiring the reporting of all sales of puppies to local jurisdictions.
- Eliminating the practice of humane tethering, without allowances for hunting or sled dogs.
- Allowing towns and cities to impose breed-specific ordinances.
- Instituting state-mandated vaccination schedules, instead of allowing vaccination schedules to be provided by, and in consultation with, a veterinarian.
- Establishing unreasonable nuisance laws that can result in the forced sterilization, banishment, or euthanization of dogs.
Legislative staff in Massachusetts has confirmed with the Massachusetts Federation that the House Steering, Policy, and Scheduling Committee currently has cognizance of the bill. This committee does not consider the policy of pending legislation. Instead, it acts as a manager of legislation, determining which bills will be sent to the full House for its consideration, and the timing thereof. Effectively, this means that at any time the House Steering, Policy, and Scheduling Committee will send HB 5092 to the full House for its consideration and vote, effectively denying Massachusetts citizens the opportunity to participate in the legislative process by stating their objections to the bill in a policy committee hearing!
WHAT YOU CAN DO:
t is imperative that Massachusetts residents contact the members of the Steering, Policy, and Scheduling Committee, and implore them to not send HB 5092 to the floor for a vote. Instead, encourage them to return the bill to study, or in the alternative back to the Joint Municipalities Committee for consideration and public comment on the policies contained in HB 5092.
Members of Massachusetts House Steering, Policy, and Scheduling Committee
Representative Paul J. Donato RM. 185 State House Boston, MA 02133 PHONE: 617-722-2960 FAX: 617-722-2713 Rep.PaulDonato@hou.state.ma.us
Representative Joyce A. Spiliotis RM. 236 State House Boston, MA 02133 PHONE: 617-722-2430 Rep.JoyceSpiliotis@hou.state.ma.us
Representative Paul C. Casey RM. 238 State House Boston, MA 02133 PHONE: 617-722-2380 Rep.PaulCasey@hou.state.ma.us
Representative James B. Eldridge RM. 33 State House Boston, MA 02133 PHONE: 617-722-2060 Rep.JamesEldridge@hou.state.ma.us
Representative Alice Hanlon Peisch RM. 167 State House Boston, MA 02133 PHONE: 617-722-2230 Rep.AlicePeisch@hou.state.ma.us
Representative Denis E. Guyer RM. 443 State House Boston, MA 02133 PHONE: 617-722-2460 Rep.DenisGuyer@hou.state.ma.us
Representative Tom Sannicandro RM. 473F State House Boston, MA 02133 PHONE: 617-722-2210 FAX: 508-626-0692 Rep.TomSannicandro@hou.state.ma.us
Representative James T. Welch RM. 43 State House Boston, MA 02133 PHONE: 617-722-2030 Rep.JamesWelch@hou.state.ma.us
Representative Lori A. Ehrlich RM. 540 State House Boston, MA 02133 PHONE: 617-722-2090 Rep.LoriEhrlich@hou.state.ma.us
Representative Bradford Hill RM. 542 State House Boston, MA 02133 PHONE: 617-722-2489 Rep.BradHill@hou.state.ma.us
Representative Elizabeth A. Poirier RM. 542 State House Boston, MA 02133 PHONE: 617-722-2976 FAX: 617-626-0108 Rep.ElizabethPoirier@hou.state.ma.us
Massachusetts residents are also encouraged to contact their own state representative and express their vehement opposition to egregious provisions of HB 5092, and urge them to do the same. Massachusetts residents can find out who their state representative is by inputting their zip code in the icon in the right column of this page.
***************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Date: July 30, 2008
Contact: Daisy Okas
Phone: 212-696-8343
AKC REPRESENTS DOG OWNERS IN
CHALLENGE TO DENVER BREED BAN
New York, NY - The American Kennel Club(r) (AKC(r)) will be joining
Karen R. Breslin of the Progressive Law Center, LLC of Lakewood,
Colorado and the Washington D.C. office of Kaye Scholer LLP in
representing dog-owning plaintiffs Sonya Dias and others who are
asserting that the Denver ordinance banning pit bulls within the city
limits is unconstitutional.
In March the United States District Court for the District of Colorado,
where the plaintiffs' 2007 lawsuit was originally filed, dismissed the
suit without granting a hearing. A brief is being filed today in the
United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit asking to reverse
that court's decision and grant the plaintiffs/appellants a hearing on
the unconstitutionality of the Denver breed ban. The original lawsuit
stated Dias and the other owners were forced to move out of Denver with
their dogs because of the ban which they asserted was a violation of,
among other things, their constitutional rights.
The Denver ordinance bans ownership or possession of the Staffordshire
Bull Terrier, the American Staffordshire Bull Terrier and the American
Pit Bull Terrier and/or any dog with a majority of physical traits of
one or more of these breeds within the city or county of Denver. Since
2005, as a result of this ordinance, several hundred dogs within the
city limits had been euthanized.
The AKC supports reasonable, enforceable, non-discriminatory laws to
govern the ownership of dogs. The AKC believes that dog owners should be
responsible for their dogs. We support laws that: establish a fair
process by which specific dogs are identified as "dangerous" based on
stated, measurable actions; impose appropriate penalties on
irresponsible owners; and establish a well-defined method for dealing
with dogs proven to be dangerous. We believe that, if necessary, dogs
proven to be "dangerous" may need to be humanely destroyed. The AKC
strongly opposes any legislation that determines a dog to be "dangerous"
based on specific breeds or phenotypic classes of dogs.
**************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************
The below is a huge accomplishment and realization by a government that has had in place for 15 yrs. a ban on "pitbulls".
Netherlands Will Lift Ban on Pit Bulls, Saying No Decrease in Bites
AMSTERDAM, Netherlands — The Dutch government says it will lift a long-standing ban on pit bulls because it did not lead to any decrease in bite incidents.
Agriculture Minister Gerda Verburg has informed parliament of the decision, which follows the advice of a commission of experts appointed to review the policy.
Instead, the country will focus on enforcing local leashing laws and owner education programs.
Spokesman Koen Geelink said Monday the ministry hopes to have a new policy in place by year-end, in which dogs that have displayed aggression will be tested by an expert.
The country banned the breeding and possession of pit bulls in 1993, after three children were killed by the dogs.
********************************************************************************************************************************************************
Excellant Article from the MA Boston Globe:
Banning pit bulls won't solve problem
Sometimes I think having no pit bulls wouldn't be that bad a thing, but not for the reasons you might imagine. If pit bulls weren't around, they couldn't be beaten, starved, left chained outside with little protection from the elements, subjected to ear croppings with scissors and no pain relief, made to bear puppies with next to no food. And finally, if pit bulls weren't around, they couldn't be tossed dead (or nearly so) into a vacant lot when they come up on the losing side of a dogfight.For every headline-grabbing attack by a pit bull, there are countless cruelties inflicted on these dogs by humans. As a person recently noted on a dog-related Web log: ''It's amazing how many other kinds of dogs in the best homes bite. It's amazing how many pit bulls in the worst homes don't."But those who do . . . oh, what fear and anger they cause. It's no surprise, given the horror of recent attacks, that the call to eliminate pit bulls has never been louder. But that call remains the wrong one: Breed-specific legislation is not the answer to the problem of dangerous dogs.It doesn't help much to argue that the odds of an attack by a pit bull are so low as to be insignificant compared with life's other risks, not in the face of saturation media coverage of every such attack. It doesn't help much to argue that a well-bred and properly raised pit bull can be a better companion than many other popular breeds, based on temperament-testing statistics that show these dogs to be stable and calm.So let's try this: If you want to be protected against a dog attack, banning the pit bull isn't going to accomplish that goal. That's because every large breed or mix you can think of, and many small ones you can't imagine, have been involved in attacks on humans.You cannot predict the likelihood of an attack by the type of dog, but you can see clear trends based on other criteria.Poorly bred, unsocialized, unneutered, and untrained dogs are most often involved in attacks. If you want to prevent those attacks, you need to address those root causes.We need to make it harder for people to casually breed and quickly sell dogs, and we need to make it easier to have animals neutered. We need to recognize that dog-fighting is as much of a danger to our communities as it is to the animals participating in this illegal but popular blood sport. We need to outlaw keeping dogs on chains, a cruel practice that leaves animals feeling isolated, territorial, and more likely to attack.And even as we need to crack down on irresponsible and criminal dog owners, we need to help those people who want to do right. We need to educate prospective dog owners on responsible care, training, and socializing, so that they may raise dogs who are not dangerous.And yes, we need to establish zero tolerance for all dangerous dogs, with no second chances: If a dog attacks someone, that animal needs to be put down.We need to stop looking for scapegoats in the face of every pit bull, and address the human reasons behind the problem of dangerous dogs.Only then can we hope to be safer around not only the pit bull, but all dogs. And maybe then the pit bull will be safer around us, too.
**************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************
United States: PAWS is back - there currently is no information on where the AKC and other organizations stand, but we need to start reaching out to our local clubs and parent organizations and get letters in.
ALERT - PAWS amendment (SA 3723)
> to the federal Farm Bill H.R. 2419
> The Cat Fanciers' Association
> Forwarding is encouraged
> Joan Miller, CFA Legislative Coordinator
>
> Fanciers;
>
> Today we received the text for an amendment to the huge Farm Bill, H.R.
> 2419, submitted by Senator Richard Durbin (D - IL). The language is very
> similar to the "PAWS" bill (the Pet Animal Welfare Statute of 2005)
> "discussion draft". (The amendment text with an integrated document,
> prepared by Sharon Coleman, inserts the language into the existing AWA will
> be on the CFA website as soon as possible.)
>
> SB 1139 PAWS failed to pass in the Senate in 2006 because it did not have
> enough support. The only "hearing" was a discussion in the
> Senate Subcommittee on Research, Nutrition and General Legislation chaired
> by the primary author, Senator Rick Santorum. There was some talk about
> revisions but the draft version did not go any further.
>
> NEW PAWS: Exception is similar to SB 1139 - anyone who sells not more
> than 25 dogs/cats from not more than 6 litters per calendar year (whichever
> is greater). If the kittens/puppies are all sold at retail, and not for
> resale, the breeder would NOT have to be federally regulated as long as the
> dogs/cats are bred or raised on the premises of the "seller". In addition a
> total of 25 other dogs and cats not bred or raised on the premises can be
> sold (allows for rescue or former show/breeding pets). Now some may feel
> that selling 7 litters or 26 kittens is a "high volume" activity. However,
> female pedigreed cats of many breeds need to deliver a litter approximately
> 8 months apart to avoid uterus infections or loss of condition. This means
> a household with perhaps 4 or 5 female cats would usually have over 6
> litters and therefore be considered a "high-volume retailer" subject to
> unannounced inspection, regulation and standards that are designed for
> commercial housing of animals. Many small or moderate high quality breeders
> would have to be regulated.
>
> New PAWS has some additions - most notable is the concept of the
> "certified third-party inspector". This can be a nonprofit organization
> certified by the Secretary of Agriculture to inspect breeding
> facilities. Instead of having inspections by USDA inspectors one could
> choose to comply with standards established by a certified third-party
> inspector. Breeders could have the HSUS, or perhaps AKC inspectors, coming
> into their homes - probably with a hefty fee. But the standards and
> inspection protocols must be "at least as protective of animal welfare as
> those promulgated by the Secretary" according to the Animal Welfare Act.
> The USDA standards don't work well for a home-based cat fancier with female
> breeding cats and kittens wandering in the house among their altered pet
> cats. USDA standards are designed for commercial facilities with animals in
> separate primary enclosures impervious to moisture.
>
> There are also provisions for the importation of dogs and cats into the
>
> within 24 months, so we don't know what to expect here.
>
> The ability of the USDA to apply to court for a temporary restraining
> order or injunction increases the ability to protect animals covered in the
> existing Animal Welfare Act and CFA has previously supported this.
>
> Some preliminary research today reveals this amendment was made on
> November 15, 2007, but not seen until today. Previous PAWS
> collaborators included the AKC, HSUS and AVMA but none so far have positions
> on their websites. Many dog fanciers, cat fanciers, organizations, clubs
> and veterinarians joined the opposition.
>
> STRATEGY - On July 27, 2007 the House passed its version of Farm Bill
> legislation, H.R. 2419, "The Farm, Nutrition, and Bioenergy Act of 2007,"
> by a vote of 231-191. This is a total package of $286 billion over five
> years. The bill has already passed through the Senate Agriculture
> Committee. Now Senate floor debate on the bill is underway with numerous
> other amendments to cover besides this one.
>
> Should the amendment remain in the Farm Bill that eventually passes on the
> Senate floor the bill would then go to a Conference Committee to resolve
> differences with the House version. We would then contact those Committee
> members to express our views. This will be an ongoing process over a period
> of months.
>
> WHAT TO DO NOW:
> 1. Your help to prepare for a strong efficient response will be greatly
> appreciated. Know who your own two senators are. We will want every cat
> and dog fancier to send a letter by FAX to their *own* *two Senators*telling them of concerns with Amendment SA 3723 asking them to vote no on
> the Senate floor. Suggested points to make will be in a future alert.
> 2. Let us know if you have any personal contacts in your
> Senators' district or
> responses you receive.
> 3. It will be important for us to build an opposition list of clubs and
> organizations as we did before. Discuss the Amendment provisions with your
> club and be ready for a club officer to send a letter as soon as a list is
> formed.
>
> Home-raised kittens and puppies are the optimum for fine pets. We will
> not have a cat fancy or preserve our pedigreed breeds if individuals must
> be subjected to commercial standards and home inspections. Some may suggest
> raising the threshold for "high-volume" breeders/sellers as a way to
> differentiate "hobby" breeders. Though this is always a possibility, the
> door would then be open for future lowering. Once the AWA begins regulation
> of any persons who sell directly at retail there is no going back.
>
> Many organizations, clubs and individuals worked well before to defeat the
> original PAWS. I am confident that we can do this again with your input and
> help.
***************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************
Massachusetts:
New Bedford, MA:
*The city of New Bedford MA has in place a Dangerous Dog Ordinance that has proved to be effective since it was approved in 2005.. I was fortunate enough to have had the opportunity to assist in writing the ordinance.
Methuen, Brockton, Reading, Salem, N Attleboro and Gloucester MA have also looked into tougher generic dog laws to truly provide public safety in their cities, after realizing thru working with myself and other members of organizations such as the ADOA and MassFed, that a specific breed ban is not the answer.
Haverhill MA:
Haverhill has rewritten their dog law and now has passed a generic dangerous dog ordinance which make the owners more responsible for the actions of their dogs.
Boston MA:
Passed BSL against "pitbulls" and any dog resembling them. The dogs are required to be muzzled in public, spayed/neutered, and owners require a "Dangerous Dog" sign be posted on their property.
Lynn MA:
Due to an unfortunate attack, the Lynn council once again wanted to try to ban "pitbulls". The ACO has been contacted and he is looking to go down a different road with stronger, generic dog laws. This is being worked on and I will update as things progress.
**************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************
*California:* Spay/Neuter is back - it did not pass last year and the same legislator is pushing for it again. Please do not be taken by the wording - this legislation is being created to end all pet ownership and the purebred dog and cat.
Levine, Barker, California Healthy Pets Coalition, Kick off Year Two of Assembly Bill 1634 Effort
AB 1634 Saves Taxpayers Millions of Dollars, Cuts the Need to Euthanize Millions of Animals, and Relieves Overcrowded Animal Shelters
SACRAMENTO – Assemblymember Lloyd Levine (D-Van Nuys) today was joined by legendary television star Bob Barker and many members of the California Healthy Pets Coalition in re-launching Assembly Bill 1634 – the California Healthy Pets Act – a measure that aims to prevent the needless killing of hundreds of thousands of animals a year, while simultaneously saving taxpayers millions of dollars.
The measure, which cleared two Assembly Committees and was ultimately passed on to the Senate by the full Assembly, is currently in the Senate Local Government Committee where it will be heard in early 2008.
“Since the end of the legislative session, our coalition has been working with stakeholders and other members to strengthen Assembly Bill 1634,” said Assemblymember Levine, who also serves as Chair of the Assembly Select Committee on Animal Welfare. “At the same time, we’ve continued to keep the door open to listen to the legitimate concerns of the bill’s detractors. I am confident that with the work we’ve put in, 2008 is going to be a successful year for our bill, which in turn means good things for our state’s budget and animal shelters.”
AB 1634 asks that most dogs and cats in the State of
The bill is largely modeled upon a successful mandatory spay and neuter ordinance that the
“The facts of this issue are really very simple. We have overcrowded shelters that are costing the taxpayers millions of dollars annually,” said Judie Mancuso, Sponsor/Campaign Director for the California Healthy Pets Coalition. “This is the right legislation at the right time – a common-sense, humane and taxpayer-friendly solution to a real and costly problem. The needless killing of over 500,000 healthy animals and the waste of hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars each year must end. With both the state and local governments facing critical budget decisions, we need to look for savings wherever we can.”
The California Healthy Pets Act is supported by elected officials, law enforcement agencies, city and county agencies, humane societies and SPCAs, veterinarians and veterinary hospitals, national animal welfare organizations,
http://www.naiaonline.org/library/Appeasing_Animal_Rights_Activists.htm
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/07-08/bill/asm/ab_1601-1650/ab_1634_bill_20070627_amended_sen_v93.html
**************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************
Denver CO: The AKC has joined in the legal battle in Denver !!
* Owners in Denver are still fighting for their dogs lives where BSL has totally banned "pitbulls" and related breeds or mixes. Dogs are being euthanized, and people are trying to get their dogs out of the city.
Members of the Veterinarian Councils and others are beginning to take a look into the careless and needless euthanasia of dogs in Denver. Denver is currently being sued by 3 individuals who will not give up their right to own their breed of choice and who will not allow their dogs to be euthanized.
**************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************