Editor's Note
AKC's Public Education and Legislation division is the beneficiary of some recent restructuring in operations. The Canine Good Citizen ® department now joins Public Education, Legislation, and Club Education as part of our efforts to promote responsible dog ownership. The CGC program is viewed by many legislators, educators, animal welfare groups, and others as the "gold standard" for measuring canine good manners. We are delighted to have this department as part of our division, and readers will be hearing more about this fabulous program in the months to come.
If you're following legislation in states other than your own, don't forget to check with the state or local federation of dog clubs or the AKC to coordinate efforts supporting or opposing a measure. You may need to know about amendments or other strategies local fanciers are working on before you contact legislators or send out information to fellow fanciers. Coordinating our messages will help all of us achieve greater success.
Regards,
Friendlier Skies for Fanciers
The AKC and the purebred dog fancy scored another major victory on February 15th when United Airlines announced it would lift its restrictions on shipping dogs as excess baggage, effective immediately. Dog owners who choose United will now be able to ship their animals unaccompanied as cargo, travel with them as excess baggage, or carry them on in the cabin if they fit under the seat.
Since United Airlines first began the embargo in June 2000, AKC has worked diligently to oppose the restriction at many levels. In addition to publicizing our position through articles, Web postings and booth fliers, AKC initiated a letter-writing campaign to the carrier. Thousands of fanciers heeded AKC’s call and urged the airline to remove the restrictions. AKC President Al Cheauré also contacted United to express dog owners’ concerns. These letters undoubtedly played a significant role in the airline’s decision to reverse the baggage policy, and we extend our appreciation to all those who took the time to send letters and e-mail messages on the issue.
While United’s policy change is certainly good news, dog owners still face concerns when it comes to traveling their dogs by air. First, American Airlines has refused to rescind its discriminatory ban on shipping Rottweilers, Doberman Pinschers, American Staffordshire Terriers, Bull Terriers, American Pit Bull Terriers and any dogs containing a mix of those breeds. Second, fanciers are still awaiting word from the Department of Transportation (DOT) following a public comment period on proposed federal regulations on shipping animals. As written, the proposal is so broad that it would be almost impossible for airlines to implement, and carriers who choose to transport animals would incur substantial increased costs that would trickle down to the shipping public. The AKC continues to work with the Air Transportation Authority and members of Congress to find a reasonable compromise on these issues.
For years, various restrictions on air transport of dogs have adversely affected breeders, exhibitors, and ordinary dog owners who need or want to travel with their dogs. Some of these restrictions have gradually been eased, but United Airlines’ policy change represents an important victory for everyone who wishes to travel safely and affordably with their dogs on the same plane. Thanks to concerned fanciers and the American Kennel Club, travelers can now turn to United Airlines for a full range of options when they fly with their dogs.
Around the Nation
Legislation That Affects You
CALIFORNIA - San Francisco’s "guardian" ordinance officially became law on January 24th. The city’s animal control code will now use the terms "guardian" and "owner" interchangeably. The Board of Supervisors approved the ordinance earlier this month and sent it to the mayor’s desk for his action. When Mayor Willie Brown Jr. neither signed nor vetoed the ordinance within the allotted ten-day period, the measure automatically became law. The disappointing loss culminates years of opposition from the AKC and San Francisco fanciers who believe that this change may remove residents’ legal rights to protect their dogs, while doing nothing to prevent a person from abusing animals.
COLORADO - In February, Rep. Mark Cloer introduced legislation that would elevate the status of pets from property to "companions." H1260 would have allowed owners to collect damages of up to $100,000 from veterinarians whose negligent care resulted in the injury or death of a pet. Owners could also have collected the same amount from any person who cruelly tortured or killed a pet. The bill required veterinarians to obtain an owner’s written consent before performing a service involving substantial risk to a companion dog or cat. Veterinarians would also have had to discuss alternative approaches to the procedure. The bill was referred to the House Committee on Agriculture, Livestock and Natural Resources, where it died in a hearing on February 14th. The Colorado Veterinary Medical Association (CVMA) opposed H1260, arguing that it would significantly increase the cost of veterinary care. In addition to concerns that the bill would increase costs of vet care, the American Humane Association and the Colorado Federation of Animal Welfare Agencies believed that it would have created many legal issues for shelters. The Colorado Federation of Dog Clubs worked closely with the veterinary community and other allied groups to defeat the bill..
CONNECTICUT - H5296 was introduced by Rep. Carl Dickman. The bill requires a hearing be held to determine whether the restraint of a biting or attacking dog is sufficient. H5296 was referred to the Joint Committee on Environment. One week after filing H5296, Rep. Dickman introduced H6061, which was referred to the same committee. H6061 contains the same language as the first bill but amends a different chapter of the state’s general statutes.
- The Joint Committee on Environment introduced H6366 in January. The bill would allow the Commissioner of Agriculture to inspect "animal welfare shelters," which includes individuals and groups participating in rescue. The commissioner may order shelters to improve conditions he or she feels are unsanitary and could ultimately order the shelter to close if conditions do not improve.
DELAWARE - Sponsored by Sen. Steven Amick, S29 prohibits the transport of dogs in an unenclosed area of a truck. First offenses will result in a fine of $25-$155. Subsequent offenses within a 12-month period will carry fines of $57.50-$230. S29 was referred to the Senate Committee on Agriculture.
HAWAII - Rep. Michael Magaoay is sponsoring H148, which would expand the state’s dangerous dog law. The bill defines dangerous dog as one that "without provocation, attacks a person or animal or behaves in a manner that a reasonable person would believe poses an imminent threat of bodily injury to people, or serious injury or death to a domestic animal." Owners of dogs deemed dangerous would be required to microchip their pets and keep them leashed whenever in public. If owners allow their dangerous dogs to roam, they will receive a warning. A second offense requires that the dog be impounded until a court hearing, and owners must obtain $100,000 liability insurance or euthanize the dog. Owners will face a jail sentence of 10-30 days if their loose dog bites and injures someone. H148 was referred to the House Committee on Judiciary. S1680, Sen. Shan Tsutsui’s companion bill, was referred to the Senate Committee on Water, Land and Agriculture.
- Rep. David Pendleton is sponsoring legislation to establish procedures and requirements to allow the entry of dogs, cats and other carnivores into the state without quarantine. Animals must be microchipped and have a valid health certificate no more than two weeks old stating that they have been vaccinated against rabies and other diseases. H664 was referred to the House Committee on Agriculture. Sen. Fred Hemmings introduced a companion bill, S1175, in the Senate. It was referred to both the Committee on Water, Land, and Agriculture, and the Committee on Transportation, Military Affairs and Government Operations. AKC sent letters of support to appropriate lawmakers.
ILLINOIS - Introduced by Rep. Gary Hannig, H1259 would amend the state’s dangerous dog bill to permit municipalities to enact dangerous dog ordinances that are stronger than that of the state. However, according to current state law, cities and towns cannot enact breed-specific laws. H1259 was referred to the House Committee on Local Government.
INDIANA - S431 amends the state’s cruelty laws by requiring courts to order those convicted of such acts to undergo psychological or behavioral counseling. Sponsored by Sen. Timothy Lanane, the bill was referred to the Senate Committee on Public Policy.
- H1882 was introduced by Rep. Matt Pierce in January. A companion to S190, the bill specifies that an owner can be held civilly and criminally liable if his dog attacks someone, even if the attack takes place on the owner’s property. While the AKC understands that certain individuals such as meter readers and postal workers must enter private property to perform their duties and should be protected, we have concerns with a vague provision that protects victims who "reasonably believe they are permitted to enter the dog owner’s property." H1882 was referred to the House Committee on Judiciary.
IOWA - Rep. George Eichhorn introduced H153 in February. The bill makes it a serious misdemeanor to award or advertise the award of a pet in a game of chance, fair event or as a business incentive. The crime is punishable by up to a year in prison and fines of $250-$1,500. H153 was referred to the House Committee on Judiciary. AKC supports passage of H153. It is illegal to give away live animals in games of chance in at least six states. The AKC considers such games not to be reasonable or appropriate methods to obtain or transfer dogs.
- Davenport fanciers were quick to contact the AKC when a second dog attack in six months prompted Aldermen to propose a breed-specific law. The Canine Legislation department, which had contacted local legislators when concerns first arose last September, sent talking points and information packets to dog owners. Fortunately, the Board of Aldermen listened to AKC and fanciers’ arguments and agreed to drop breed-specific proposals in favor of strengthening enforcement of existing laws. Congratulations!
- When West Bend fanciers learned their officials were considering a breed-specific ordinance, they promptly contacted the AKC for help. Armed with information packets and a statement from the Canine Legislation department, fanciers met with city council members and convinced them to review a more reasonable, enforceable dangerous dog law. The fight is not over, but residents are hopeful they will be able to avoid legislation that targets specific breeds.
MARYLAND - Delegate Charles Boutin is sponsoring H624, which would make it illegal to stage a dog fight and to own, sell, transport or train dogs to be used in a fight. Possession of dog fighting implements that could be used to train a fighting dog would also be prohibited. The Maryland Dog Federation and AKC are concerned that there is no exemption for those who own such equipment when it is used solely for the purpose of maintaining the animal’s health. H624 was referred to the House Committee on Judiciary.
- H355 prohibits the debarking of dogs unless a vet certifies that the procedure is done to protect the health or life of the dog. Applications for licenses must state whether the dog has been surgically debarked or silenced. Violators would be guilty of a misdemeanor with fines of up to $1,000 and/or up to a year in prison. A hearing was scheduled with the Environmental Matter Committee for February 20th. The Maryland Dog Federation and AKC have concerns about the bill and believe it should focus instead on making it illegal to use a dangerous dog in the commission of a crime. For more information, contact Adrianne Lefkowitz (euniverz@aol.com)
- In a separate matter, the Maryland Dog Federation is soliciting stories from Prince George’s County dog owners who have been negatively impacted by the county’s breed-specific ordinance. The group will be presenting the information to county officials as part of their effort to repeal the breed ban. For more information, contact the Maryland Dog Federation (euniverz@aol.com).
MINNESOTA - Sen. Wesley Skoglund’s S126 would make it a gross misdemeanor to own or possess fighting dogs. Evidence of fresh wounds or scars, or training equipment and other paraphernalia, would be used prove that the dog is being used to fight. If owners can prove at a designated hearing that wounds are not the result of fighting, or that training equipment is being used only to maintain the dog’s health, they will not be prosecuted. The bill also contains provisions for the seizure and care of animals presumed to be fighting dogs. S126 was referred to Senate Committee on Agriculture, General Legislation and Veterans Affairs. A companion bill, H28, was introduced in the House in January.
MISSISSIPPI - H89 died in committee. The bill would have prohibited debarking or surgically silencing a vicious dog.
- H488, legislation that would have made cruelty to animals a misdemeanor offense, also died in committee.
NEBRASKA - Two of Sen. Ernie Chambers’ bills passed the Legislative Committee on Agriculture and have been sent to the full legislature. LB273 establishes housing requirements for commercial breeders, including having ample food and water, sanitary conditions and adequate space for dog and cats to move around. (Commercial breeders are currently defined as those who sell, exchange or lease more than 30 dogs and cats per year.) LB274 requires pet dealers to provide buyers with information about the benefits of spaying and neutering. Both bills were amended in committee, but text changes are not available as this newsletter goes to press.
NEW HAMPSHIRE - HCR1 was reported favorably by the House Committee on Environment and Agriculture. It passed the full House in February and now moves to the Senate. Sponsored by Rep. Jay Phinizy, who is also an AKC delegate, the resolution officially endorses the Canine Good Citizen program.
- Dog Owners of the Granite State (DOGS) is opposing S79, which would allow any police, animal control or humane society officer to seize a person’s animals if they are suspected of cruelty. The owner would be required to post a bond for the animals’ care regardless of whether he or she is convicted. The bill gives officers 24 hours before they are required to notify the owner of such seizure and allows them 15 days before they must document the animals’ condition. Posting bond does not prevent the police or humane agency from disposing of seized animals if they choose. Sponsored by Senator Roberge, S79 was referred to the Senate Committee on Wildlife and Recreation. A hearing was held in mid-February.
NEW JERSEY - There has been no recent action on Assemblyman John J. Burzichelli’s A2906, although New Jersey fanciers continue to press lawmakers to consider responsible owners. The bill would severely restrict ownership of "pit bulls" including "American Pit Bull Terriers, American Staffordshire Terriers, Staffordshire Bull Terriers, Staffordshire Terriers, and any dog determined to be a pit bull type." The sponsor has stated that he has added Rottweilers, but no official amendment to do so has yet been made. AKC continues to work with the New Jersey Federation of Dog Clubs and additional dog owners to oppose the bill. New Jersey dog owners who have not already done so are encouraged to contact their assemblymen immediately to express their concerns over the bill.
A2906 Requires:
· A special license for all "pit bulls" ($150-700)
· A municipality may require anyone who owns a dog to prove that it is not a pit bull (A municipality will visually inspect the dog to determine whether it is a pit bull). Very few municipalities have staff with any breed identification knowledge or experience.
· Confinement in permanent enclosure (including a secure pen and a 6-ft. fence).
· Pit Bulls must be muzzled when off owner’s property and leashed with a tether not more than 3-feet long. The tether must be approved by an animal control officer.
· The municipality must inspect the enclosure and the licensee’s property at least monthly.
· Liability insurance.
· Violators will be subject to fines of up to $1000 per day.
NEW MEXICO - Sponsored by Rep. Joseph Thompson, H19 establishes the crime of animal hoarder. The bill defines "hoarder" as one who posses over 15 animals and fails to provide adequate nutrition, shelter and veterinary care. Animal control officers would be permitted to seize animals they feel are victims of hoarding until a court hearing can be held to determine the owner’s guilt or innocence. New Mexico fanciers are extremely concerned about H19 and the fact that anyone who owns more than 15 animals could have them seized under the presumption that they are a "hoarder." The bill was amended and passed by the House Committee on Agriculture and Water Resources, but the new language is not available as this newsletter goes to press. For more information, contact Norm Wilson (105645.2271@compuserve.com).
- In January, the AKC learned that Kirtland Air Force Base had banned "Rottweilers, ‘pit bulls,’ and other breeds considered aggressive." The Canine Legislation department sent a statement of opposition and an information packet to the base commander, urging her to reconsider the issue.
NEW YORK - S2571 creates a state registry for dangerous dogs. Introduced by Assemblyman Steve Levy, the bill requires owners of such dogs to pay a registration fee and obtain $1 million in liability insurance. S2571 also increases the penalties for owners who allow their dangerous dogs to bite or attack. If the dog causes serious injury, the owner will face a fine of $2,000-$5,000. If a person is killed by a dog that was previously declared dangerous, the owner could be convicted of a Class D felony. According to New York state law, a "dangerous dog" is defined as "any dog which (a) without justification attacks a person and causes physical injury or death, or (b) poses a serious and unjustified imminent threat of harm to one or more persons, or (c) without justification attacks a service dog, guide dog or hearing dog and causes physical injury or death."
- Complicating the dangerous dog issue further, Sen. Brown’s S1314 would amend that definition to include a dog that attacks and injures a domesticated dog or cat without provocation, as long as the victim animal was not trespassing. S1314 was referred to the Senate Committee on Consumer Protection.
- Legislation to protect homeowners has been introduced by Assemblyman Anthony Seminerio. A3060 would prevent insurance companies from discriminating against homeowners based on the breed of dog they own. It does allow companies to protect themselves from risks incurred by insuring a dog with a bite history. The bill was referred to the Assembly Committee on Insurance. As in years past, AKC will actively support this bill.
- Before fanciers were aware, Schenectady County enacted a resolution declaring "pit bulls" hazardous and requiring municipalities within the county to regulate these dogs or face loss of funding. Cities and towns will now be required to have owners of dangerous dogs show proof of a $5,000 insurance bond as well as proof that the dogs are properly confined. Otherwise, they will not receive their share of county-collected licensing fees. In response, the Canine Legislation department sent a statement of opposition to members of the county legislature.
- The City of Yonkers is considering amending its current breed-specific ordinance to come into compliance with state law. In February, the Canine Legislation department sent a statement and dangerous dog packet to Yonkers’ corporation counsel, who is drafting new legislation.
- In February, the City of Hornell enacted a breed-specific measure without local fanciers’ knowledge. The ordinance requires "pit bull" owners (defined as Staffordshire Bull Terriers, American Staffordshire Terriers, American Pit Bull Terriers or any mix of those breeds) to register their dog with the city and obtain $100,000 liability insurance policy. The Canine Legislation department responded with a statement of opposition to the mayor and common council members.
NORTH CAROLINA - Upon learning that Iredell County was considering revisions to its dangerous dog ordinance, the Canine Legislation department sent information packets to county officials. Local fanciers are urged to monitor the situation and offer input.
NORTH DAKOTA - S2196 passed the Senate Committee on Agriculture. The bill adds a seat on the state’s Board of Animal Health to allow for representation of domestic pets. AKC is working with North Dakota fanciers to support this bill.
RHODE ISLAND - In January, the Supreme Court of Rhode Island rejected a sheriff’s argument that a property owner should have known his dog would attack the officer simply because the animal was a "pit bull." The ruling upheld a lower court’s decision, stating that the creation of a species-specific standard of care was not an issue the Court should address. The Court also cited lack of proof that the property owners knew the dog was a "pit bull." The defendants were thus entitled to protection under the state’s "one-bite rule" that allows a dog on its own property one bite before its owner can be held responsible.
SOUTH CAROLINA - The Mauldin City Council is considering repealing a dog licensing ordinance originally created to track down owners of loose pets. Officials cite low compliance and note that those who do follow the law are generally responsible owners who would not let their dogs stray. Since veterinarians in South Carolina are already required to maintain vaccination and pet ownership records, many feel the law is unnecessary.
VIRGINIA - The rescue bill (S950), which passed the Senate earlier this year, was amended in the House and sent back to the Senate for concurrence. Although the bill removes the definition of "companion animal rescue agency" from a shelter-related law that passed last year, eliminating the need for them to be licensed, the House version also included several provisions that rescue groups found objectionable. They convinced the Senate to unanimously oppose the House substitute, and as this newsletter goes to press, it is unclear whether S950 will go to conference committee before the legislature adjourns.
- H1861 was slightly amended in committee and engrossed by the House in January. The bill now raises the minimum liability insurance requirement for owners of dangerous dogs to $100,000, but it gives municipalities the choice of whether to enact this particular provision. The amended version of H1861 still adds animal control officers’ previous findings to the list of factors in determining whether a "dangerous" dog is, in fact, "vicious." It also removes the cap on the mandatory fee for dangerous dogs in municipalities that have enacted such an ordinance.
WASHINGTON - Rep. Michael Carrell introduced H1257 in January. The bill expands the state’s dog fighting law to include the sale or purchase of a dog for that purpose. It also adds the directive that mere ownership or possession of an animal should not create a presumption that the animal is used for fighting.
- Rep. William Grant’s H1400 would permit local sheriffs to kill potentially dangerous, "marauding" or stray dogs that have no visible identification and are threatening to attack. The vaguely worded bill does not outline how an official will identify a dog as potentially dangerous or "marauding," nor does it account for the use of microchip or tattoo as a means of less visible identification. Thus an officer could mistakenly kill any dog he or she believes might attack. H1400 is now with the House Committee on Judiciary.
- Seattle fanciers were no doubt disappointed when the City Council voted not to expand off-leash areas at Westcrest Park. Dog owners contend that the forest trail in question was part of the original plans for the off-leash park when it was approved several years ago. However, environmentalists successfully argued that loose dogs would trample vegetation and scare wildlife.
WEST VIRGINIA - H2753 makes it a felony to be knowingly involved in an animal fighting venture. Those convicted of organizing a fight or owning fighting dogs or training equipment could now be guilty of a felony. Penalties would include fines of $1,000-$5,000 and a jail term of 1-5 years. Sponsored by Delegate John Overington, H2753 was referred to the House Committee on Judiciary.
WYOMING - Sponsored by Senator Henry Coe, S125 would increase the penalty for cruelty to animals to a felony if the act results in the death of the animal. Violators could receive up to 5 years in prison and a $10,000 fine. Wyoming’s definition of cruelty does include "intent to cause injury," which protects people who did not purposely harm an animal. The Senate Appropriations Committee unanimously approved S125 in February, but a similar bill failed in the House Judiciary Committee. H113, "Dexter’s Bill," would have created a felony for aggravated cruelty, with penalties of up to five years in prison and/or a $5000 fine.
Questions regarding "Legislation Around the Nation?" Please contact the Canine Legislation Department for more information regarding bills and ordinances for which no Liaison name or number has been provided.
And the Award Goes To . . . .
The award could go to you or your AKC-affiliated club or federation! The American Kennel Club recognizes the efforts of our hard-working Legislative Liaisons and Public Education Coordinators with the Community Achievement Award. Awards are granted quarterly, and honorees receive a certificate of recognition and $1,000 to further canine legislation and public education efforts within their communities. We know there are lots of deserving folks out there, but we need to hear from you! Nomination forms are available on AKC’s Web site, www.akc.org, or you can contact our Public Education department for more information (919-816-3712, publiced@akc.org.) Don’t wait--nominate your club, federation, fellow member or even yourself today. You deserve it!
AVMA Seeks Comments on Model Veterinary Practice Act
Many fanciers have contacted the Canine Legislation department regarding the American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA)’s proposed Model Veterinary Practice Act. The draft represents model legislation the veterinary community would like state legislatures to enact in the future. AKC is aware of the model, and we are currently reviewing it to see how it may impact responsible dog owners and breeders. In the interim, we suggest that concerned dog owners submit comments directly to the AVMA. The proposal will be posted in the AVMA’s Web site (www.avma.org) until March 1, 2003 and will also be available via AKC’s Web site (www.akc.org) after that date. Individuals interested in commenting on the proposed revision may do so by mailing written comments to Dr. Beth Sabin, AVMA, 1931 N Meacham Rd, Suite 100, Schaumburg, IL 60173-4360. Comments will not be accepted by e-mail or fax and must be postmarked by March 15, 2003.
