No matter if you choose to give a home to a shelter dog, or to a pure-bred do your homework. Ask all of the right questions so that both you and your new dog are happy with each other. A dog is a commitment of your time, an investment of your money, and a responsibility for the entirety of the dog’s life.

Most people do not see sixteen years or more stretching out before them when they fall in love with a cute puppy. They only think in the here, and now. Be aware that the beautifully groomed, and impeccably mannered dogs that you see on Animal Planet’s televised dog shows are the products of many generations of selective breeding for stable temperament, intelligence, trainability, and sound healthy body structure. The owners put intensive training, socialization, and meticulous grooming into the dogs to bring them to this example of perfection. Each breed of pure-bred dogs were developed for a particular purpose. Working dogs, sporting dogs, field dogs, terriers, and most hound breeds are high energy, and need lots of exercise.

Select a dog that suits your life style, just as you would select an automobile. If you have a large family, a two seat roadster might make your heart yearn, but it would not be a practical family car. If you have a tiny city apartment a Scottish Deerhound isn’t recommended. Consider not only your lifestyle, but also the dog’s needs. Once you have decided upon a pure-bred dog, next choose a breeder. Take your time. Look for the right person. The one with whom you feel comfortable, one who doesn’t try to rush you into a sale, but reassures you that if you are willing to wait he/she will be willing to work with you to be sure you get exactly the puppy that you want. Do not be in a hurry. Be as selective in choosing a dog as you would be buying any other large ticket item. You will be paying for the dog for the entirety of its life. Think of it as a long term investment of the heart, and wallet.

Pure-bred dogs from reputable breeders come with a registration paper, a pedigree, a shot record, a worming record, a health certificate, and a written contract/guarantee.

If you have decided to open your home, and heart to a shelter dog be just as cautious. Shelters being not for profit corporations do not have to meet the same health requirements as do private dog breeders. They can, and do import animals from China, Romania, the Middle East, the Caribbean, and Mexico.(1) These dogs do not have to meet the same quarantine requirements for importation that do the dogs that are bought by private individuals from foreign breeders. In fact shelters are being shut down all over the USA from out of control diseases from imported strays brought in to fill the empty cages.(2) Rabies is a concern.

Although the Center For Disease Control issued a press report claiming to have eradicated rabies in domestic pets in the USA, an 11 year old California boy died from a strain of rabies that there were no medical protocols to treat.(3) Be sure to ask where the dog originated, and try to get proof that the dog is healthy, and has been socialized..(4) Try to obtain as much information as possible. The health, and safety of yourself, and your family comes first. Shelters do not have to guarantee the dog’s health, or temperament, or your safety.

(1) TUFTS: FILLING EMPTY DOG POUNDS (FROM 02-06-03) http://enews.tufts.edu/stories/020603FillingEmptyPounds.htm

 Pet Underpopulation: The Pet Shortage in the US by Laura Baughan

http://spanieljournal.com/33lbaughan.html

(2) Dog imports raise fears of a resurgence of disease http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-10-21-dog-imports_N.htm

Outbreak of Drug-Resistant Salmonella at an Animal Shelter http://www.animalsheltering.org/resource_library/magazine_articles/nov_dec_2004/outbreak_of_drug-resistant_salmonella.html

Disease shuts animal shelter (Las Vegas) http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/2007/Feb-10-Sat-2007/news/12517017.html

(3) Rabies Treatment Saves One, Does Not Work for All http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,267191,00.html

Human Rabies — Indiana and California, 2006 http://www.cdc.gov/MMWR/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5615a1.htm

(4) 8 Things You (Probably) Didn’t Know About Dog Shelters http://www.toybreeds.com/animalshelters.htm

ABC NEWS: 300,000 Imported Puppies Prompt Rabies Scare 

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/story?id=3765973&page=1

Cherie Graves, chairwoman Responsible Dog Owners of the Western States

P.O. Box 1406

Newport, WA 99156

http://www.povn.com/rdows

http://www.povn.com/rdows/donations.html

https://rdows.wordpress.com

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/UAOA

http://www.unitedAnimalownersalliance.com

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/RDOWS

Advertisements

15 December 2007 Recently Amber, a California Healthy Pets Act blogger new to the scene (and to California) wrote “Bill Hemby Chairman of PetPAC has lied so many times about AB1634 California’s Healthy Pets ACT that we lost count.”  Since my curiosity was piqued, I thought I would click on the link.  What to my wondering eyes did appear but a sad-faced doggie behind bars with a message “HE NEEDS OUR HELP.”Now, that’s a surprise.  It is a similar sad-faced doggie just like the ones “used” by the Humane Society of the United States when they are soliciting for their donation du jour.  We all know by now the woman-behind-the-man-behind-the-bill, but please add PETA and the Humane Society of the United States to the list of organizations working fast and furious behind the scenes of California Assembly Bill 1634 to remove Fluffy and Fido from the family photo! ‘Tis the season so I read on.  New blogger (obviously drinking kool-aid from the California Healthy Pet punchbowl) writes:  “LET’S SET THE RECORD STRAIGHT.”   Imagine my disappointment when new blogger failed to accomplish her goal.  She presented “lies”.  She presented “facts”.  She did NOT present the truth!! Since I had some time on my hands between decorating the tree and wrapping presents for my dog’s extensive list of canine friends, I thought “I” would help to set the record straight.  I did have to take a break or two to pop more non-vegan cookies into the oven and slice a ham for our holiday gathering with friends this evening, but the importance of setting the record straight kept my fingers busily clicking away on the keyboard. New blogger is most concerned with the nature of PetPAC.  Perhaps new blogger needs to delve more deeply into the nature of Social Compassion in Legislation instead, a key supporter of AB1634.  Principals are Judie Mancuso, her husband Rolf Wicklund, Jane Garrison, and her husband (the chiropractor?) Mark Garrison.  I do think a few of those names are PETA-esque.  I wonder if they are on Ingrid Newkirk’s and Wayne Pacelle’s Christmas card lists.  (Is Christmas a vegan holiday?) Why does Social Compassion in Legislation want to be just a figurehead supporter asking for donations (“click to donate”)?  Wouldn’t you think they would want financial contributors to know all about their good works so that those potential contributors could delve deeper into their pockets this holiday season and SEND MONEY?  If you have free time, google Social Compassion in Legislation.  You will find bubkus! [also spelled bubkes or bupkis … means you will find “nothing at all”] I thought I would share some further insight into the “coalition”.  By the way, I have heard on numerous occasions by Ms. Mancuso that “hers” is a Republican coalition.  Do you honestly think the puppies and kitties care if you vote Democrat or Republican? A recent press event held in Los Angeles by Lloyd Levine and “legendary” television star Bob Barker and members of the coalition informed one and all of the return of this blithering bill.  Senators have had to ask Santa for fax machines throughout the State to accommodate the ensuing piles of SUPPORT or OPPOSITION faxes soon to arrive with the New Year. The Associated Press had another report recently (14 Dec) that I thought I would share with you:  “PRICE WAS RIGHT, BUT THE CAR WAS WRONG, CONTESTANT SAYS” According to a lawsuit filed this week in Los Angeles Superior Court, in June 2004, a contestant on “The Price Is Right” guessed that a sports car was worth $33,495 and left the stage thinking she had just won a new 2004 Pontiac GTO Coupe.  In her lawsuit against the game show, CBS Broadcasting, the auto dealership that provided the vehicle and the transportation company that delivered it, the contestant alleges the GTO Coupe she received was not new, as she had been promised, and had been in an accident. When she took the car, which arrived in her home state of Washington in September 2004, in for service the next year, she was told that it had suffered structural damage to the frame and front end, “but the repair work was such that an obvious effort had been made to conceal or hide the damage.”    OOPS! For full text of above referenced AP article, please click here: 

<http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/state/20071214-1638-ca-wrongcar.html>

 Okay, where was I?  Oh, I remember.  Back to setting the record straight. Let’s chat awhile about pet overpopulation.  Do you know that there is actually a SHORTAGE OF ADOPTABLE DOGS in the United States?  Let me repeat for those AB1634 “supporters” who might be reading challenged.  There is actually a SHORTAGE OF ADOPTABLE DOGS in the United States!!   Do you know that there is a prison program offered by the Marin Humane Society?   Oh, I see a potential problem looming.   Perhaps the California Healthy Pet “supporters” are geographically challenged and are NOT aware that the Marin Humane Society is located in CALIFORNIA!!   Perhaps the California Healthy Pet “supporters” are NOT aware that the Marin Humane Society is located in NOVATO, CALIFORNIA, only 100 miles from Santa Cruz, CA, the sacred capitol of all things right with sheltering according to Assembly Member Lloyd Levine and the coalition. What’s that?  You don’t remember Santa Cruz being a role model to emulate?   Just this week it was announced in Santa Cruz County that their Animal Services Authority General Manager, Katherine Vos, was ousted!  Loyal shelter workers staged a sickout.  Both volunteers and employees were AFRAID TO SPEAK TO THE MEDIA … for fear of losing their jobs!   Why is that?  What could possibly be gleaned by this change in command in Santa Cruz?  Someone wouldn’t be trying to “conceal or hide” anything, would they? In response to the article about Katherine Vos leaving Santa Cruz, I thought I would do a bit of my own homework.  Here is some interesting information straight from the minutes of the Santa Cruz Board meetings: Dec 2007:  It is announced that Animal Services Authority (ASA) General Manager, Katherine Vos, will leave in January 2008.  [Was it politically motivated??? ] Let’s go back. April 2007:  Newly appointed General Manager to the ASA, Katherine Vos, is introduced to the Board. May 2007:  Lisa Carter, Executive Director of the SPCA, encouraged the board to endorse the California Healthy Pet Act, AB 1634.  [This is the same woman who just happened to call-in to the recent KGO radio program with Judie Mancuso.  Interesting how Lisa always gets on every radio program that Ms. Mancuso is doing.  To be fair, KGO’s radio host did describe Lisa as “one of her dearest friends.”]   To continue setting the record straight, the County of Santa Cruz took over animal-control services and the bulk of sheltering in 2002 amid a FINANCIAL SCANDAL at the local SPCA.  The SPCA now serves as an advocacy and education group but does NOT handle shelters!! (see below)   Financial scandal?  Doesn’t handle shelters?  OOPS! At the Board meeting in May, Ms. Carter passed out a copy of the California Healthy Pet Act and a list of sponsors and supporters.  Please note the following: BOARD ACTION:   The Board recommended staff put this item on the next agenda for a vote with a copy of the bill and a comprehensive analysis.  [If Santa Cruz has been consistently touted as Lloyd Levine’s “model,” then wouldn’t they jump at the chance to support the bill?  This appears odd to me.] Annette Hogue, Watsonville Shelter Volunteer wanted to show her support for the California Healthy Pet Act, AB 1634.  Sammy Ettenger, SPCA, explained the difference in understanding of the California Healthy Pet Act, AB 1634.  Lynne Achterberg, Project Purr, handed out their newsletter.  [And “still” the Board took no action to “support” the bill despite the fact that Santa Cruz is the RECOMMENDED STATE ROLE MODEL for the California Healthy Pet Act?]  Let’s look further. June 2007:  BOARD ACTION:   Take no action on the bill at this time.  Board directed General Manager to draft a letter with comments in regards to Santa Cruz ordinance verses the AB1634 bill.  [Even though “supporters” were pushing AB1634 down the throats of the Board members via feeding tube, the BOARD STILL TOOK NO ACTION!]  Sept 2007:  BOARD ACTION:  Accept and file report and directed the ASA General Manager to bring back to the board an update on efforts made to decrease the euthanasia rates at the Santa Cruz County Animal Services Authority Shelters.   [What’s this?  Santa Cruz needs to DECREASE THEIR RATE OF EUTHANASIA?  Do you think Lloyd Levine knows about this?  Do you think Lloyd Levine cares?  Let’s go a bit further down memory lane together, shall we?  Gotta set the record straight!] May 2003:  On April 26, 2003 through April 28, 2003, the Santa Cruz Sentinel published an expose of the issues surrounding the Santa Cruz SPCA and how it led to the creation of the ASA.  In addition to the SPCA article of April 26th, an article regarding the status of the ASA and it’s role in the delivery of animal services was published.  These articles have drawn considerable attention to the agency.  OOPS!!  An expose?  Missing funds?  Corruption?  And shelter shutdown? Sept 2003:  FIELD SERVICES:  In late September, with a full complement of Animal Control staff on board, we will be refining our animal control dispatch services with a training day on the enhanced uses of our Chameleon animal control data base system. In addition to this training, our new clerk/dispatcher will be spending a day at NetCom learning some basic dispatch procedures that can assist us in our own operations. [Hmmmm….. This couldn’t be the same Chameleon animal control data base system that Ed Boks, General Manager at LA Animal Services and California Healthy Pets Act coalition member, is using, could it?  Must be a coincidence.  I do recall reading on a few occasions by another well-researched blogger that Chameleon is Ed’s software-of-choice for “cooking the books”!  Not my choice of words but interesting nonetheless, eh?]    Nov 2003:  Accepted a report from the General Manager.  Animal Control and shelter activity has continued to increase over prior months.  In addition, there has been a noticeable increase in field activity such as animal biting incidents and barking dog complaints.   [What’s this?  Animal biting incidents?  I didn’t think this was possible with spayed and neutered dogs according to Lloyd Levine and Judie Mancuso.  Could this possibly mean that Santa Cruz is failing in accomplishing their goal?  Santa Cruz canines nibbling on neighbors and chomping on the postman and the meter reader?] Here is more from the Board meeting in November 2003. The shelter has gained in traffic through the facility. The latter is reflected in the ASA’s increase in revenue generated in Humane Services, which included adoptions, reclaim fees and other shelter-related activities. Staffing has consistently presented a problem in our response to the workload created by this increase in shelter visits by the public. [It appears then that this is a “revenue generating” bill?  Is that what Levine and Mancuso mean when they say “SAVE MONEY, SAVE LIVES”?  Has Mr. Levine NOT read the part in the Santa Cruz Board meeting minutes that staffing has consistently been presented with problems with the ADDITIONALLY CREATED WORKLOAD caused by MSN?  Isn’t AB1634 the cure-all feel-good bill of the future?] The California Healthy Pets website says communities will be SAFER.  They drool on by informing that “Mandatory spaying and neutering will reduce the dangers caused by roaming stray animals, the transmission of rabies, and injuries from dog bites. Unaltered dogs are three times more likely to attack humans and other pets.”   Since Santa Cruz field authorities state that there is a noticeable increase in field activities such as animal biting incidents WITH mandatory spay/neuter, it would appear that “mandatory” spaying and neutering is DETRIMENTAL to communities and NOT SAFER!   OOPS!   Must be an oversight on the California Healthy Pets website.  I do hope their new blogger is reading this! Here is a link to the recent Santa Cruz Sentinel article “Animal Shelter Workers Protest Leader’s Departure” (12 Dec 2007) <http://www.santacruzsentinel.com/story.php?storySection =Local&sid=51502> It appears the first paragraph explains things quite nicely.  Workers suspected that Katherine Vos resigned Monday “under pressure.”  The article also states that “workers declined to comment to the press on Tuesday in fear of losing their positions.”  Some shelter workers called in sick on Tuesday to protest a decision they said was “forced on them.” Vos, the second general manager to oversee shelters in Scotts Valley and Watsonville since the county agency was formed in 2002, stated “I know there’s been a lot of dissension about me leaving and this is not what I wanted.”  (The shelters house a combined 6,500 animals.) The county took over animal-control services and the bulk of sheltering in 2002, amid a FINANCIAL SCANDAL at the local SPCA. The SPCA now serves as an advocacy and education group but does not handle shelters.  The Animal Services Authority is governed by a board of city and county administrators and law enforcement heads. Only one elected official, Sheriff Steve Robbins, serves on the board.  Vos has worked in animal sheltering and enforcement for more than 25 years, and is vice president of the state Animal Control Directors Association. Before coming to Santa Cruz she worked as chief animal control officer for El Dorado County and chief animal care officer for Sacramento Animal Care Services.   [Wouldn’t you think Santa Cruz would want to keep the VP of the Animal Control Directors Association on their payroll?] Continuing on setting the record straight, here is a link to an article about “Taiwanese” dogs in the State of California. <http://www.cooldoghalloffame.com/rescue-dog-hall-of-fame/prison-program-turns-problem-dogs-into-pets/1377> From the San Francisco Chronicle (14 Dec).  “Taiwan? There are dogs in shelters here from Taiwan? Yes, there are. In some parts of the United States there is a shortage of adoptable dogs, not an overpopulation. Dogs are being imported to the U.S. from Puerto Rico to as far away as Taiwan to fill shelters here so people can adopt them. It’s currently easy to import dogs into the U.S. though, as diseases like the canine version of rabies are eliminated here, more people are worrying about the diseases that such dogs may bring with them into this country.”  [Thanks to Cool Dog Hall of Fame!] “PRISON PROGRAM TURNS PROBLEM DOGS INTO PETS” Last year, Melody was just another typical mongrel from Taiwan: sharp features, pointy ears, curly tail.   [please click on above link for full text of article]  In closing, Santa Cruz MSN is a miserable failure.  No “ifs”, “ands” or “buts” about it.  It failed.  Plain and simple.  However, Lloyd Levine and Judie Mancuso are going to continue beating a dead horse.  By the way, when I asked Ms. Mancuso in October 2007 the following question, “Judie, whose bill is this? Yours? Or Lloyd’s?”  Her reply was swift.  “Why it is MY BILL, of course!  Lloyd is busy with his Senate campaign.”   I had no idea that Ms. Mancuso was now an elected official.  I must have missed that part.  My bad.   The Santa Cruz shelter statistics that are being utilized by the coalition are unverifiable.  Please note that when mandatory spay/neuter was first implemented in Santa Cruz (1995-1997), sky rockets were going off.  Impounds and euthanasia went through the roof.   There is NOTHING “healthy” about AB1634.  This unfunded bill will cost the State of California MILLIONS OF DOLLARS.  The California Healthy Pets Act will NOT save the state ANY money.  It will NOT save lives.  Thousands more dogs and cats will lose their lives in shelter “death camps” needlessly throughout the state! Let’s kick this bill to the curb and get back to what we all love … our companion animals.  Make 2008 the year that this legislation goes to that great big doghouse in the sky. NOW the record has been set straight! Happy Holidays,Brat Zinsmaster P.S.  Please feel free to share this “record” with your Assembly Members and Senators, with your local news media (print and radio), with your local shelters, the butcher, the baker, and the candlestick maker.  Permission to cross post is encouraged!

Monthly Legislation Report for December, 2007Authored by: Ken Sondej & Linda D. WitouskiKen Sondej – 4winds@viawest.netAmerican Kennel Club Legislative Liaison – Silver State Kennel Club Legislative Liaison – National Pet PressLegislative Liaison – Nevada Dog Fanciers Assc. Director Government Affairs and Legislative Advisor – Adopt A Rescue PetNevada Director Responsible Dog Owners Western States (RDOWS)Advisor – Indiana Animal Owners AllianceAdvisor to Clubs and groups in Southern Nevada, Arizona, California Linda Witouskidropfred13@aol.com

American Kennel Club JudgeAmerican Kennel Club Delegate – Myrtle Beach Kennel Club – SCAmerican Kennel Club Legislative Liaison – South Carolina & PennsylvaniaLegislative Liaison/Staff Writer – National Pet Press/TDPLegislative Chair/BOD – Myrtle Beach Kennel ClubLegislative Chair – Yankee Miniature Pinscher ClubLegislative Chair – Miniature Pinscher Club of America, Inc.Member: NAIA, MOF, ERPT, DSJA, DJAA, MBKC, YMPC, MPCA _______________________________________________________________________Handy TOLL FREE NUMBERS – Capitol Switchboard
Here are some toll-free numbers for the Capitol Switchboard:
1-866-220-0044
1-866-340-9281
1-877-851-6437
1-888-355-3588
1-800-833-6354
1-800-450-8293
1-877-762-8722
1-877-762-8762
___________________________________________________________________________FEDERALHR2491 – Law on Trusts for Pets in the House Ways and Means Committee   text available upon requestSA 3723 – 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).  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 United States from foreign countries. Regulations would be promulgated 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.  A attempt by Sen Richard Durbin (D-IL) to attach a amended-partial PAWS (2005) to the Farm Bill (HR2419) amendment failed and was “ordered to lie on the table”.UPDATE:
Senator Durbin has revised SA 3723, removing all references to expanded breeder regulation and third-party inspection. The new amendment contains restrictions on puppy imports which, should they become law, would not only be unenforceable, they wouldn’t adequately protect U.S. dogs’ health or wellbeing.  It is obvious that the PAWS supporters have not abandoned, only postponed their efforts to license and regulate the private sector.
STATES – IN ALPHABETICAL ORDERALABAMAAnniston – Passed an ordinance defining a “vicious dog” as: any pit bull terrier, which shall be defined as an American Pit Bull Terrier or Staffordshire Bull Terrier or any American Staffordshire Terrier breed of dog, or any mixed breed of dog which contains as an element American Pit Bull Terrier, American Staffordshire Terrier or Staffordshire Bull Terrier as to be identified predominantly as American Pit Bull Terrier, American Staffordshire Terrier or Staffordshire Bull Terrier.  text available upon requestDothan – officials are considering a tougher law that would prohibit any dogs – or cats – from being loose outside, even on private property and requiring a $5 per animal licensing fee could help fund an affordable spay/neuter program. The committee suggested a higher fee, like $50, if the animal has not been altered.ALASKAKenai – proposed change to the Animal Control ordinance regarding kennel permits, renewals, application, location, property values and noise nuisances.  There is no distinction between hobby or commercial breeders in the ordinance.  There is no grandfather clause and each application must be renewed each year subject to approval or disapproval.   partial information is available upon request.ARKANSASLittle Rock – Board of Directors to regulate pit bulls and classify them as a dangerous breed, but they stop short of banning the dogs in an ordinance.  Under the proposed ordinance, Little Rock residents still will be allowed to have pit bulls, and new residents can move with their dogs into the city after the ordinance passes. But they will have to register them with Animal Services, pose for a photograph with the dog, sterilize the animal and pay an additional fee to have a dangerous breed permit.  The dog would have to be kept indoors or in an outside enclosure. If outside the enclosure, the animal would have to wear a muzzle. If a registered dog were to bite someone, the owner’s dangerous breed license could be revoked.  The ordinance, which limits owners to two dogs per household, would apply to American pit bull terriers, Staffordshire terriers, American Staffordshire terriers and any mix of those breeds.CALIFORNIASacramento – Ballot Initiative to prohibit mandatory sterilization of puppies and kittensSacramento – Ballot Initiative to prohibit mandatory chipping of animals and humans.Sacramento – Ballot Initiative to lift restrictions on the number of pets a person can ownSacramento – Ballot Initiative to forbid the killing of animals unless seven conditions were met, such as lack of empty cages or kennels and the determination that the animal is not a feral cat that could be sterilized and released.Sacramento – Ballot Initiative to cap license feesModesto – City Council committee will be discussing changes in the animal control ordinance that would put more teeth into penalties that police can levy against animal owners whose pets run loose, show vicious behavior or don’t have licenses.  One change would declare some animal code violations a misdemeanor instead of an infraction, enabling officers to arrest reckless pet owners for repeated offenses. It also would give officers more authority to seize dangerous dogs.  The other change would restore a former police practice the city attorney scuttled this year. It would allow officers to bundle fines for multiple animal code infractions on a single ticket.Riverside – proposal of a new series of flat fees, replacing a matrix of fees for a la carte services that its chief veterinarian described as confusing and complicated. Owners would be asked to pay $25 for spaying or neutering cats and $50 for dogs, regardless of size. Owners now are charged according to the animals’ weights.  County would begin vaccinating all cats for rabies and ensuring that all dogs and cats are free of intestinal worms before turning over the animals to the new owners, an important measure to ensure public health.  County shelters also would begin to implant scannable microchips in all dogs and cats before turning them over to new owners and collect a fee for that service.  County also would raise boarding fees to $12 per day for stray or impounded animals.FLORIDABoca Raton – Palm Beach County – County commissioners have approved a new and revised schedule of fees for Palm Beach County Animal Care and Control, including: Increased fees for licensing non-sterilized dogs and cats — up from $38 to $75.  – Requiring pet owners whose un-neutered animal is picked up by animal control to pay $300 to have the animal returned. Commissioners have also endorsed a mandatory spay and neutering program for all dogs and cats.  Boca Raton hasn’t made it mandatory, the idea of responsible pet ownership is contained in city code.Miami-Dade County – new proposed local law banning tying dogs to any stationary object, such as a house, fence or post.  If this law passes you are still allowed to tie your dog up, as long as you stay near them and keep a very close eye. What you can’t do is tie your dog up and leave them all alone.Palm Beach County – proposed Animal Care and Control fee increases for Rabies License Tags Fees; Service Fees and Citation Fees; provide direction regarding mandatory spay/neuter of dogs and cats; and provide direction regarding backyard breeding of dogs and cats.  Mandatory spay/neuter of all dogs and cats in PBC, intact license fee of $75 per dog or cat per year and breeder permits – you will be able to apply for a breeding permit by paying a $100 fee, filling out an application from Palm Beach County Animal Care & Control, allowing AC&C to come and “inspect” your home, and AC&C will do a “background check” to insure you aren’t a criminal.  Passed – Effective 01/01/08.Volusia – officials expect to take another look at laws meant to reduce the number of dogs and cats euthanized every year in the county. County attorneys have started reviewing mandatory spay and neuter laws from other areas.INDIANADuBois County – Jasper – County Commissioners are considering a proposal that calls for all dogs and cats to be licensed annually.  If an animal is spayed and neutered, the price could range from $1 to $5 a year.  If an animal is not spayed or neutered, the fee could range from $150 to $200 per animal.  The figures are examples, not recommendations. A key is that any license fee for intact animals be higher than a veterinarian’s charge for spay/neuter surgeries.  The proposal included dog and cat census forms to be mailed with property tax forms.  License fees would be used to pay for an animal control officer and associated costs.Ft Wayne – City Council unanimously supported stricter rules for owners of pets that bite, for tethering animals and for owners of animals that repeatedly break the law.  Under the law, pets who bite while on the loose or who are tethered must be spayed or neutered.  The law also created a “potentially dangerous” label for dogs, that allows for other restrictions for the animals based on the severity of the bite, but all animals labeled potentially dangerous must be spayed or neutered. For harsher bites, the owner could be forced to attend educational classes, muzzle the animal while off a leash and confine the dog in a kennel while alone.  The bill also restricts how dogs can be tethered. It prohibits dogs from being tethered overnight, tethering a dog younger than 6 months old or for tethered dogs to be within 3 feet of the property line or right of way, including sidewalks.   Approved 12/04/07 and must formally approve the law during its regular meeting next week.IOWACamanche – City Council decided to table approving the first consideration of an ordinance regulating the existence of pit bulls within city limits until a full council could be present for the discuss.  The city never noticed a problem with pit bulls within the city, the question is whether the city wants to be proactive or reactive to a dog attack.  The issue will be placed on the next council agenda for further discussion.UPDATE: City Council decided to stop trying to potentially enact an ordinance regulating the existence of pit bulls within city limits. Dead 12/03/07South Sioux City – city council voted to approve breed specific regulations for dogs. The new legislation targets pit bulls and other breeds considered aggressive and risky to the public, though the council will have to approve the measure two more times.  The proposed law says owners must register and micro-chip dangerous dogs, pay an annual fee of $65, take out a liability insurance policy of at least $250,000, secure the dog in a pen meeting specific requirements, post warning signs on their property and leash and muzzle the animal in public.  First reading11/26/07KANSASMcPherson – City Commission will discuss pit bull regulationsKETUCKYFrankfort – Pam Rogers of the Kentucky Humane Society commented that come the first of the year they will in fact be pushing for forfeiture bonds on any animals taken.  It is also written in a way that you are guilty no matter what.Louisville A bipartisan group of Louisville Metro Council members unanimously approved modifications to the city’s dangerous-dog ordinance yesterday, including one that would drop unaltered dogs from the definition of those that could be considered dangerous.  The subcommittee also modified how Metro Animal Services would deal with unlicensed animals.  The law says a dog is “at risk” of being dangerous if it menaces, chases, displays threatening or aggressive behavior to people; causes physical injury to domestic pets or livestock; is found unrestrained; or is unaltered.  The subcommittee’s revision strikes unaltered from that definition. Another major change comes in the way Animal Services officers would deal with unlicensed pets. Under current law, officers can issue citations or impound unlicensed animals.  The subcommittee discussed that subject for about 45 minutes yesterday before deciding that officers should first warn owners of unlicensed pets, allowing 15 days to get the animal licensed.  If they don’t comply, the owners can then be cited and will have to pay a $30 fine plus the cost of a license, which is $9 for an altered animal and $35 for an unaltered animal.  Animal Services would be allowed to impound the animal if the owner fails to license it 30 days after receiving the citation.MAINEMaine has quietly passed extremely restrictive laws, in the last 2 years, and continues with more bills up for review in Jan. There are so few dog breeders in the state, that Maine was literally blindsided, and was not aware of these bills. The few breeders in Maine are now trying to prevent more legislation, and the mood of the legislators is not favorable to dog breeders, so the existing laws are now on the books.

1) 5 or more intact dogs/cats require a state license and inspection.

2) contract requirements for our animals, above and beyond our own contracts

3) rabies licenses now going to the state, so they can track down people with 5 or more intact animals.

4) advertising law – if people sell more than one dog/cat in a calendar year, they must have a state license # or a vendor’s #, obtained from the Department of Agriculture.

5) sales tax

6) inspection of records

7) inspection of homes, if dogs kept in the house

There is a bill that just passed at the emergency session, to create a breeder’s certificate.  The intent of this bill is not currently known.MARYLANDBaltimore – County Council members rejected last night a measure that would have placed the region’s toughest restrictions on pit bull owners, siding with dog owners who argued that singling out the breed would be unfair and likely ineffective.  By a 6-1 vote, the council killed a proposal that would have required pit bull owners to keep their dogs in concrete-based kennels and post warning signs on their lawns. The author of the proposal, Councilman Vincent J. Gardina, was the only member to vote in favor of it.   Defeated 11/15/07MINNESOTAApple Valley – city council approved stricter rules for aggressive dogs which could mean forcing some of them out of neighborhoods.  As of December 1st, 2007, any dog labeled dangerous will no longer be able to live in a residential area but instead must live in an industrial area.  Dangerous dogs are not determined by breed but are dogs that when unprovoked, cause serious bodily harm to humans.MISSOURIIndependence (Jackson County) – city council has decided to amend their current animal ordinance to one of breed specific restrictions of ‘pit bulls’ by: 1. Spaying/neutering. 2. Microchipping. 3. Muzzling whenever outside of home or kennel and on a 3 foot leash. 4. Obtaining $100,000 insurance. 5. Registering each year with at least 2 photos on file. 6. Outside enclosure specifically defined. 7. Signage visible from nearby road. ‘Pit bulls’ are defined as “Any dog that exhibits those distinguishing characteristics which substantially conform to the standards established by the American Kennel Club for American Staffordshire Terrier, or Staffordshire Bull Terriers, or substantially conform to the standards established by the United States Kennel Club for American Pit Bull Terriers, including any mixed breed of dog which contains as an element of its breeding as the breed of Staffordshire Bull Terrier, American Staffordshire Terrier, or American Pit Bull Terrier.”Independence – (Jackson County) UPDATE – dog owners are advised to maintain close supervision of their pets following city council’s first reading on a vicious dog ordinance.  Ordinance, which will go into effect following a second reading during the Dec. 3 meeting, owners will be fined $500 if a dog bite is reported. The animal must also be registered with the city as a vicious animal.  Council elected to remove specific dog breeds from the ordinance in hopes of avoiding court challenges.  Ordinance lists four criteria in defining a vicious dog, including: Any dog that has caused death or serious injury to a person engaged in lawful activity. Any dog that has attacked or bitten, without provocation, a person engaged in lawful activity. Any dog that has killed or injured another animal after the owner has been given written or verbal notice to keep the animal confined or muzzled.  Any dog that has been declared to be vicious by a physician attending to a person who has been bitten or attacked by said dog.   Passed 11/05/07Joplin – City Council discussing proposed ordinance changes aimed at cutting down on animal nuisances in the city, recommending restriction on people from keeping litters of puppies and kittens for up to six months of age – health department recommends that be lowered to 10 weeks of age.  Another change would prohibit feeding feral animals.NEW HAMPSHIREConcordHB 1301 – AN ACT relative to the definition of service dogs.  This bill expands the definition and use of service dogs to apply to persons with recognized seizure disorders.   text available upon requestConcordHB1293 – AN ACT relative to eligibility requirements for the state animal population control program.   text available upon requestConcord – HB 1298-FN – AN ACT making changes to the veterinary/medical/optometric education  program.  text available upon requestConcord – HB1143 – AN ACT relative to penalties for failure to provide outdoor dogs with  necessary shelter.  text available upon requestConcord – HB 1314 – AN ACT relative to animal cruelty.  This bill removes “worrying” from the list of legal reasons allowing the killing of a dog.  This bill also makes it illegal to take the life of an animal without lawful authority  text available upon requestConcord – HB 1430 – AN ACT relative to the application of animal cruelty laws to horse and dog race tracks  text available upon requestNEW JERSEYTrentonA-909 – to forbid traditional animal-testing methods if there is a federally recommended alternative  (passed AssemblyA-4026 – Require courts to issue protective orders against animal abusers  A-2645 – Permit tenants to keep pets provided they are spayed or neutered and properly cared for and controlled  A-2649 – Revamp the animal cruelty laws, upgrading offenses, hiking minimum fines and adding new offenses for hoarding, euthanizing improperly, failing to provide minimum care, committing animal cruelty in the presence of a child and “cruel commercial exploitation” A-3192 – Create a civil action against the owner of a pet that hurts or kills another’s pet  (passed AssemblyA-4171 – Provide pet food safety standards  A-4217 – Allow a civil action for injury or death due to tainted pet food, with up to $15,000 in loss of companionship damages S-161 – a new offense for injuring an animal while committing or fleeing a crime  (passed Senate)Trenton (additional)- a bill introduced yesterday (11/20/07) that would revise state law regarding dangerous dogs, allowing the court to send a dog home under certain conditions even after the canine has been declared “vicious” by a judge.  The proposed law is retroactive to Jan. 1, 2007.   New law would insert language usually found in human criminal cases, requiring the prosecutor to prove the dog was not provoked “beyond a reasonable doubt,” according to a copy of the bill  The proposed bill also removes a requirement that the dogs re leased under the aforementioned conditions be tattooed with a registration number.  Under the current law that deals with canine violence, a dog can be labeled “vicious” if the state or municipality proves the animal attacked without provocationNEW MEXICOAlbuquerque – “Importation Rule” for non-native species coming into New Mexico.  This rule concerns “non-domestic” animals of all kinds (birds, reptiles, amphibians, arachnids, etc.). The basic idea is that anyone bringing any such animal into NM must obtain a vet inspection, obtain a permit 2 weeks in advance, and pay a fee of $25 per animal.Bernalillo County – County Commissioners have drafted extensive amendments to the current animal ordinance. Proposed changes include but are not limited to: – Hobby breeder site means a non-commercial animal facility or premises operated by a person involved in controlled breeding of dogs or cats which are registered with a recognized registry organization, or which are a member of a breed which is not eligible to be registered, if that breed has been approved by the county manager or his designee. – Multiple animal site means a non-commercial premises where more than six dogs, or cats, or any combination thereof, over three months of age must be spayed or neutered, if they’re not bred or sold for resale, testing, research, or laboratory experimentation. – Hobby breeders are required to have a permit and their premises may be inspected. Unsterilized adult dogs have be separated by sex when not being bred or otherwise approved.  – No person or household shall own, harbor or keep more than four dogs, cats in any combination thereof over the age of three months without a valid professional animal permit, hobby breeder site permit, multiple animal site permit, or shelter permit. – A hobby breeder or multiple animal ‘kennel’ must include 75 square feet per dog weighing less than 30 pounds; 100 square feet per dog between 30 and 59 pounds, and 125 square feet per dog over 60 pounds. – Puppies can only be bartered for, sold, given away or other transfer or conveyance from the residential location listed on the litter permit or hobby breeder permit. – All dogs must be licensed and micro chipped. – All tail docking and ear cropping must be done by a licensed veterinarian.Bernalillo County (con’t) – proposed mandatory S/N changes to the ordinance. It appears the exemption for “show dogs” has been removed and a “special permit” is required. To obtain a “special permit” you must have records for a microchip. (The county has no way to store information regarding microchips and/or tattoos.) Ordinance limits six dogs or cats or combination per household. Leashes may not exceed 6 foot.Bernalillo County – UPDATE 11/26 meeting – Commissioners considered new proposals include higher license fees and mandatory micro-chipping. Cruelty laws would be expanded to include negligence, failure to provide basic veterinary care, and the amateur practices of ear-cropping, tail docking, and removing the dog’s ability to bark. higher permit fees for people who breed and sell animals, along with stricter record keeping requirements and inspections.NORTH CAROLINADenver – Lincoln County Commissioners are now looking into adopting an ordinance that would limit the number of animals allowed for each acre of land.Orange County -. is about to implement a 3 hour limit on tethered dogs, except for training and events, but then it would be a max. of 7 days (???).  Additional language not currently available.OHIOCrawford County – Dog Warden wants to inform all owners, keepers and harborers of dogs belonging to the breed commonly known as pit bulls, that due to a recent Ohio Supreme Court decision, these dogs shall be covered by liability insurance coverage in the amount of $100,000. These dogs must be properly confined in a locked kennel with a top, a locked fence or other locked enclosure that has a top. While these dogs are off the premises of the owner, keeper or harbored, they must be walked on a chain-linked leash or tether that is not more than 6 feet in length and under control of a person of suitable age to adequately restrain such a dog.St. Paris – Village Council passes dog control legislation.  The ordinance specifies that owners of dogs commonly known as “pit bulls” must file ownership acknowledgement with the county dog warden, and that pit bull puppies are only legal to own up to three months of age.  Vicious dogs, under the ordinance, must be kept in a confined kennel with secure roof and sides, and when not on the owner’s property must be kept leashed and muzzled, in accordance with the Ohio Revised Code. The owners must have “beware of dog” signage as well and will be liable for all damage caused to parks or public property by their dogs.  Passed 12/03/07OKLAHOMAOklahoma City – State Representative Lee Denney has introduced his Oklahoma Pet Quality Assurance and Protection Act. The draft of the bill states that people who sell more than 25 dogs a year must get a Quality Assurance License.  To quality for a Quality Assurance License breeders must be at least 21-years-old and pass a written exam. They must also meet some basic requirements including breeding standards, housing and sanitation, veterinary care, exercise and socialization and lineage certification. The requirements will be enforced by inspectorsOklahoma City – City of Oklahoma City’s policy of not allowing pit bull terriers to be adopted from its animal shelter violates state law, an appeals court has ruled.  The Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals found Oklahoma City’s policy breached state law that bans “breed specific” regulation of dangerous dogs by a municipality. As a result, Oklahoma City’s rule was unenforceable, the appellate found.  “The plain meaning of the statute forbids (the) City from regulating potentially dangerous or dangerous dogs by breed,” the ruling states. “The Policy adopted by City’s Animal Welfare Superintendent does just that. Therefore, the Policy is in conflict with the statute and must fail.”OREGONSalemSB0570 – Requires Office of Emergency Management to prepare written animal emergency operations plan to provide for animals during major disaster or emergency.   text available upon requestSalemSB1017 – Requires that certain public or private officials report suspected animal abuse. Requires that veterinarians and certain public or private officials report suspected animal neglect in first degree.   text available upon requestSOUTH CAROLINACharleston – County Council already has laws in place that say stray animals must be sterilized before they are returned to their owners, but County Council would modify those laws under two amendments expected to pass council this week.  If the modifications are approved, pet owners could have their dogs neutered by the veterinarian of their choice and no animal would be neutered or spayed sooner than five days from the date it is picked up.  County law exempts pets if a veterinarian advises against sterilization, if the owner can prove the pet participated in a nationally recognized conformation or obedience show within the past year, or if the pet assists a disabled person.SOUTH DAKOTAWebster – City officials are leaning toward approval of an ordinance that will ban many exotic and not-so-exotic pets. The measure is designed to deal with vicious animals. Among those that would generally be outlawed would be pit bulls, Rottweilers, Doberman pinschers, porcupines, ostriches, wart hogs and boa constrictors.  The proposed new ordinance would exempt animals from being classified as vicious if their actions are consistent with protecting property and owners of dangerous dogs and other vicious critters would be grandfathered in.TENNESSEEBrownsville – city officials are looking at two tough new ordinances.  Under scrutiny are any breed of so-called vicious dogs ­ especially pit bulldogs, and they are about to be illegal in Brownsville. City leaders have also taken steps to restrict the number of pets residents of Brownsville may own.  Under the new vicious dog ordinance it will be illegal to own a pit bulldog. The ordinance states, “It shall be unlawful to keep, harbor, own, or in any way possess a pit bull dog” in Brownsville.  The ordinance allows current pits to stay with their owners but only under strict guidelines that include registering the animals with the city, paying an annual permit fee, housing them appropriately and buying liability insurance covering each animalDyersburg – city is currently reviewing the MTAS (Municipal Technical Advisory Service – Knoxville, TN) pit bull ordinance banning all pit bulls. The proposed ordinance, if passed, mandates registration of the animals and outlaws ownership of new pit bulls, mandates the dogs must be muzzled while being walked, with leashes no longer than four feet and walked by person with the physical ability to restrict the dog’s movement, existing vicious dog ordinance requires animals deemed dangerous to the community to be housed in a fenced cage with a concrete base and padlocks. Resident who do not comply with the registry can have their dogs seized and impounded.  This ordinance is in place in several cities in Tennessee, some dating back for several years. In addition, its important to note that Dyersburg sits in the same general area where three pit bull bans recently passed.Knoxville and Knox County – board members agreed to ask the county to change its policy regarding “Level 1 Dangerous Dogs” to require that these animals be spayed or neutered at owners’ expense. Currently, only dogs classified as “Level 2 Dangerous Dogs” are required to be altered. A “Level 1 Dangerous Dog” is defined as an animal that has met one of the following criteria: -When unprovoked and while on the property of its owner, attacked a person on two or more occasions within the prior 24-month period. -Has within the prior 24-month period, while off the property of its owner, engaged in any behavior when unprovoked that reasonably would have required a person to take defensive action to prevent bodily injury. -Has, when unprovoked while off the property of its owner, bitten a person or domestic animal, causing a minor injury. Board also decided to ask that additional language be added to the city ordinance and new language added to the county ordinance dealing with owner responsibility.  The new language would stipulate that if a dog owner shows continuous disregard for animal laws, the right to petition for the dog to be destroyed takes effect. The Board’s recommendations will now go before the County Commission for consideration.Rockwood (Wate) – Mayor Mike Miller is drafting an ordinance to ban pit bulls banned within city limits. The ordinance will go before the Rockwood City Council at its meeting on January 21TEXASIrving – City Council unanimously approved an ordinance that bans tethering unattended dogs any time, any place.   Passed 11/01/07WASHINGTONSpokane – City’s “dangerous dog” ordinance is unconstitutional because it denies pet owners the right of due process, a Superior Court judge ruled Friday (11/30/07) in a case that may have far-reaching effects.WASHINGTON, DC.Washington, D.C.- Public Safety Committee sent a new policy, which allows adoption of pit bulls but attaches breed-specific guidelines, forward to the full board with no recommendation.  Before May 2007 all pitbulls not claimed by owner were euthanized.  May 2007 the Virginia attorney general’s opinion that breed-specific euthanasia violates state law, so the shelter has set up procedures to transfer pit bulls to approved breed rescue groups, and has euthanized based on the animal’s score on a temperament test.  A majority of the “supervisor-appointed” Animal Advisory Committee members wants the policy to have no mention of any breed.  The policy recommended by Animal Care and Control Director Tom Koenig and his staff lists breeds “known to be used to illegal activities” and puts tight controls on who can adopt them.WISCONSINMadisonAB 567 Amendments: 1. The ‘8 breeding females’ benchmark in the definition of a ‘commercial breeder’ has been removed and the number of dogs sold in a year has been changed to 50. Thus, now only those who sell 50 or more dogs in a calendar year are covered by the licensure portion of the bill. 2. The ‘puppy lemon law’ portion of the legislation has been modified. Specifically, the substitute amendment now allows for the seller of the puppy to provide a list of potential breed specific or individual puppy specific health issues/problems associated with that dog or breed. If a purchaser receives this list provided by the seller, they would then NOT be eligible for a right to remedy for these issues laid out before the sale by the seller. 3. Under the substitute amendment draft, the seller would have the right to a second opinion from a veterinarian of their own choosing prior to providing a remedy. 4. The draft clarifies that no communicable disease the puppy gets after leaving the care of the seller is not eligible for a right to remedy. Likewise, any action or inaction by the purchaser causing damage or harm to the health of the animal is specifically exempt from the right to remedy.    text available upon requestMadisonSB308 Amendments: 1. The ‘8 breeding females’ benchmark in the definition of a ‘commercial breeder’ has been removed and the number of dogs sold in a year has been changed to 50. Thus, now only those who sell 50 or more dogs in a calendar year are covered by the licensure portion of the bill. 2. The ‘puppy lemon law’ portion of the legislation has been modified. Specifically, the substitute amendment now allows for the seller of the puppy to provide a list of potential breed specific or individual puppy specific health issues/problems associated with that dog or breed. If a purchaser receives this list provided by the seller, they would then NOT be eligible for a right to remedy for these issues laid out before the sale by the seller. 3. Under the substitute amendment draft, the seller would have the right to a second opinion from a veterinarian of their own choosing prior to providing a remedy. 4. The draft clarifies that no communicable disease the puppy gets after leaving the care of the seller is not eligible for a right to remedy. Likewise, any action or inaction by the purchaser causing damage or harm to the health of the animal is specifically exempt from the right to remedy.   text available upon requestMenomonee Falls – village board seems to be focused on a limit law for no apparent reason. So far the village attorney seems to be taking the easy route by merely adopting the ordinance from an adjoining village.  There is a question regarding grand father clauses, and/or fancier licenses OTHER COUNTRIES OF INTERESTCanadaBritish Columbia – Port Edward – district discussing what to do about an ongoing issue of feral cats now spreading through that communityBritish Columbia – Prince Rupert – proposed animal-control bylaw could limit the number of cats and dogs people can own, require signs for dangerous dogs and increase license fees.  The bylaw limits to three the number of cats and dogs a person can own, and under the new bylaw both dogs and cats would be licensed. Annual license fees would increase by as much as 50 per cent, with a lesser fee for spayed or neutered animals.  If a person currently has more than three animals, their animals will be grandfathered in as exceptions.  The bylaw also includes a section of prevention of cruelty that allows the bylaw officer to take action against people mistreating animals.  Under the bylaw, all animals shall be kept with suitable water and food, in a clean environment with the opportunity for daily exercise. Choke chains will not be allowed and people will not be able to keep an animal enclosed without adequate ventilation – for example, in a car in the summer with the windows rolled up.  The bylaw includes regulations for both vicious dogs and some specific breeds. Anyone who owns either a vicious or restricted dog will have to meet guidelines for containing the animal as well as posting signage to inform the public.  The bylaw also bans exotic animals, effectively outlawing circuses.British Columbia – Victoria – The Spay/Neuter Action Bylaw Committee (public group not part of the government) is proposing a mandatory spay/neuter bylaw for domestic cats and dogs across the Capital Region.  No resident shall own or harbor a dog over the age of five (5) months which has not been spayed or neutered by a licensed veterinary surgeon unless the owner is in possession of a breeding permit.Labrador – government to give its animal protection laws more teeth, bigger fines for people convicted of animal cruelty, as well as regulations on the length of time dogs can be left tied up.Newfoundland – government to give its animal protection laws more teeth, bigger fines for people convicted of animal cruelty, as well as regulations on the length of time dogs can be left tied up.Ontario – New Tecumseth (includes the amalgamated towns of Alliston, Beeton and Tottenham) – proposal to regulate, impound dogs at large and establish penalties.  text available upon requestNorthern IrelandBelfast – Assembly to debate dangerous dogs legislation.  A motion, aimed at strengthening dangerous dog legislation of dog attacks on livestock were treated as criminal offences, attacks on other pets were not.  Alliance MLA Naomi Long said more attention should be given to the behavior of dogs and their owners rather than banned breeds.  Also the issue of people cross-breeding illegal breeds and importing dangerous dogs also needed to be addressed.SwedenStockholm – adopted a new law aimed at tackling the problem of aggressive dogs by allowing police to seize dangerous canines and even ban some people from owning or handling them.  The aim is to reduce the problems that are linked to lacking care for dogs and cats.  People who have seriously failed in their care of a dog or cat will be subject to fines or up to one year in prison.  The Swedish Kennel Club, only one death has been attributed to a dog attack since the 1960s.   Effective January 2008.U.A.E. – Dubai – Dubai Municipality will confiscate 16 breeds of dogs from January 1, 2008.  The list includes the American Pit Bull Terrier and other dogs historically used for fighting, but also the Shar Pei, Husky and Doberman while omitting the German Shepherd. 

e Liaison – Nevada Dog Fanciers Assc. Director Government Affairs and Legislative Advisor – Adopt A Rescue Pet Nevada Director Responsible Dog Owners Western States (RDOWS) Advisor – Indiana Animal Owners Alliance Advisor to Clubs and groups in Southern Nevada, Arizona, California Linda Witouski – dropfred13@aol.com American Kennel Club Judge American Kennel Club Delegate – Myrtle Beach Kennel Club – SC American Kennel Club Legislative Liaison – South Carolina & Pennsylvania Legislative Liaison/Staff Writer – National Pet Press/TDP Legislative Chair/BOD – Myrtle Beach Kennel Club Legislative Chair – Yankee Miniature Pinscher Club Legislative Chair – Miniature Pinscher Club of America, Inc. Member: NAIA, MOF, ERPT, DSJA, DJAA, MBKC, YMPC, MPCA _______________________________________________________________________ Handy TOLL FREE NUMBERS – Capitol Switchboard Here are some toll-free numbers for the Capitol Switchboard: 1-866-220-0044 1-866-340-9281 1-877-851-6437 1-888-355-3588 1-800-833-6354 1-800-450-8293 1-877-762-8722 1-877-762-8762 ___________________________________________________________________________ FEDERAL HR2491 – Law on Trusts for Pets in the House Ways and Means Committee text available upon request SA 3723 – 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). 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 United States from foreign countries. Regulations would be promulgated 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. A attempt by Sen Richard Durbin (D-IL) to attach a amended-partial PAWS (2005) to the Farm Bill (HR2419) amendment failed and was “ordered to lie on the table”. UPDATE: Senator Durbin has revised SA 3723, removing all references to expanded breeder regulation and third-party inspection. The new amendment contains restrictions on puppy imports which, should they become law, would not only be unenforceable, they wouldn’t adequately protect U.S. dogs’ health or wellbeing. It is obvious that the PAWS supporters have not abandoned, only postponed their efforts to license and regulate the private sector. STATES – IN ALPHABETICAL ORDER ALABAMA Anniston – Passed an ordinance defining a “vicious dog” as: any pit bull terrier, which shall be defined as an American Pit Bull Terrier or Staffordshire Bull Terrier or any American Staffordshire Terrier breed of dog, or any mixed breed of dog which contains as an element American Pit Bull Terrier, American Staffordshire Terrier or Staffordshire Bull Terrier as to be identified predominantly as American Pit Bull Terrier, American Staffordshire Terrier or Staffordshire Bull Terrier. text available upon request Dothan – officials are considering a tougher law that would prohibit any dogs – or cats – from being loose outside, even on private property and requiring a $5 per animal licensing fee could help fund an affordable spay/neuter program. The committee suggested a higher fee, like $50, if the animal has not been altered. ALASKA Kenai – proposed change to the Animal Control ordinance regarding kennel permits, renewals, application, location, property values and noise nuisances. There is no distinction between hobby or commercial breeders in the ordinance. There is no grandfather clause and each application must be renewed each year subject to approval or disapproval. partial information is available upon request. ARKANSAS Little Rock – Board of Directors to regulate pit bulls and classify them as a dangerous breed, but they stop short of banning the dogs in an ordinance. Under the proposed ordinance, Little Rock residents still will be allowed to have pit bulls, and new residents can move with their dogs into the city after the ordinance passes. But they will have to register them with Animal Services, pose for a photograph with the dog, sterilize the animal and pay an additional fee to have a dangerous breed permit. The dog would have to be kept indoors or in an outside enclosure. If outside the enclosure, the animal would have to wear a muzzle. If a registered dog were to bite someone, the owner’s dangerous breed license could be revoked. The ordinance, which limits owners to two dogs per household, would apply to American pit bull terriers, Staffordshire terriers, American Staffordshire terriers and any mix of those breeds. CALIFORNIA Sacramento – Ballot Initiative to prohibit mandatory sterilization of puppies and kittens Sacramento – Ballot Initiative to prohibit mandatory chipping of animals and humans. Sacramento – Ballot Initiative to lift restrictions on the number of pets a person can own Sacramento – Ballot Initiative to forbid the killing of animals unless seven conditions were met, such as lack of empty cages or kennels and the determination that the animal is not a feral cat that could be sterilized and released. Sacramento – Ballot Initiative to cap license fees Modesto – City Council committee will be discussing changes in the animal control ordinance that would put more teeth into penalties that police can levy against animal owners whose pets run loose, show vicious behavior or don’t have licenses. One change would declare some animal code violations a misdemeanor instead of an infraction, enabling officers to arrest reckless pet owners for repeated offenses. It also would give officers more authority to seize dangerous dogs. The other change would restore a former police practice the city attorney scuttled this year. It would allow officers to bundle fines for multiple animal code infractions on a single ticket. Riverside – proposal of a new series of flat fees, replacing a matrix of fees for a la carte services that its chief veterinarian described as confusing and complicated. Owners would be asked to pay $25 for spaying or neutering cats and $50 for dogs, regardless of size. Owners now are charged according to the animals’ weights. County would begin vaccinating all cats for rabies and ensuring that all dogs and cats are free of intestinal worms before turning over the animals to the new owners, an important measure to ensure public health. County shelters also would begin to implant scannable microchips in all dogs and cats before turning them over to new owners and collect a fee for that service. County also would raise boarding fees to $12 per day for stray or impounded animals. FLORIDA Boca Raton – Palm Beach County – County commissioners have approved a new and revised schedule of fees for Palm Beach County Animal Care and Control, including: � Increased fees for licensing non-sterilized dogs and cats — up from $38 to $75. – Requiring pet owners whose un-neutered animal is picked up by animal control to pay $300 to have the animal returned. Commissioners have also endorsed a mandatory spay and neutering program for all dogs and cats. Boca Raton hasn’t made it mandatory, the idea of responsible pet ownership is contained in city code. Miami-Dade County – new proposed local law banning tying dogs to any stationary object, such as a house, fence or post. If this law passes you are still allowed to tie your dog up, as long as you stay near them and keep a very close eye. What you can’t do is tie your dog up and leave them all alone. Palm Beach County – proposed Animal Care and Control fee increases for Rabies License Tags Fees; Service Fees and Citation Fees; provide direction regarding mandatory spay/neuter of dogs and cats; and provide direction regarding backyard breeding of dogs and cats. Mandatory spay/neuter of all dogs and cats in PBC, intact license fee of $75 per dog or cat per year and breeder permits – you will be able to apply for a breeding permit by paying a $100 fee, filling out an application from Palm Beach County Animal Care & Control, allowing AC&C to come and “inspect” your home, and AC&C will do a “background check” to insure you aren’t a criminal. Passed – Effective 01/01/08. Volusia – officials expect to take another look at laws meant to reduce the number of dogs and cats euthanized every year in the county. County attorneys have started reviewing mandatory spay and neuter laws from other areas. INDIANA DuBois County – Jasper – County Commissioners are considering a proposal that calls for all dogs and cats to be licensed annually. If an animal is spayed and neutered, the price could range from $1 to $5 a year. If an animal is not spayed or neutered, the fee could range from $150 to $200 per animal. The figures are examples, not recommendations. A key is that any license fee for intact animals be higher than a veterinarian’s charge for spay/neuter surgeries. The proposal included dog and cat census forms to be mailed with property tax forms. License fees would be used to pay for an animal control officer and associated costs. Ft Wayne – City Council unanimously supported stricter rules for owners of pets that bite, for tethering animals and for owners of animals that repeatedly break the law. Under the law, pets who bite while on the loose or who are tethered must be spayed or neutered. The law also created a “potentially dangerous” label for dogs, that allows for other restrictions for the animals based on the severity of the bite, but all animals labeled potentially dangerous must be spayed or neutered. For harsher bites, the owner could be forced to attend educational classes, muzzle the animal while off a leash and confine the dog in a kennel while alone. The bill also restricts how dogs can be tethered. It prohibits dogs from being tethered overnight, tethering a dog younger than 6 months old or for tethered dogs to be within 3 feet of the property line or right of way, including sidewalks. Approved 12/04/07 and must formally approve the law during its regular meeting next week. IOWA Camanche – City Council decided to table approving the first consideration of an ordinance regulating the existence of pit bulls within city limits until a full council could be present for the discuss. The city never noticed a problem with pit bulls within the city, the question is whether the city wants to be proactive or reactive to a dog attack. The issue will be placed on the next council agenda for further discussion. UPDATE: City Council decided to stop trying to potentially enact an ordinance regulating the existence of pit bulls within city limits. Dead 12/03/07 South Sioux City – city council voted to approve breed specific regulations for dogs. The new legislation targets pit bulls and other breeds considered aggressive and risky to the public, though the council will have to approve the measure two more times. The proposed law says owners must register and micro-chip dangerous dogs, pay an annual fee of $65, take out a liability insurance policy of at least $250,000, secure the dog in a pen meeting specific requirements, post warning signs on their property and leash and muzzle the animal in public. First reading11/26/07 KANSAS McPherson – City Commission will discuss pit bull regulations KETUCKY Frankfort – Pam Rogers of the Kentucky Humane Society commented that come the first of the year they will in fact be pushing for forfeiture bonds on any animals taken. It is also written in a way that you are guilty no matter what. Louisville – A bipartisan group of Louisville Metro Council members unanimously approved modifications to the city’s dangerous-dog ordinance yesterday, including one that would drop unaltered dogs from the definition of those that could be considered dangerous. The subcommittee also modified how Metro Animal Services would deal with unlicensed animals. The law says a dog is “at risk” of being dangerous if it menaces, chases, displays threatening or aggressive behavior to people; causes physical injury to domestic pets or livestock; is found unrestrained; or is unaltered. The subcommittee’s revision strikes unaltered from that definition. Another major change comes in the way Animal Services officers would deal with unlicensed pets. Under current law, officers can issue citations or impound unlicensed animals. The subcommittee discussed that subject for about 45 minutes yesterday before deciding that officers should first warn owners of unlicensed pets, allowing 15 days to get the animal licensed. If they don’t comply, the owners can then be cited and will have to pay a $30 fine plus the cost of a license, which is $9 for an altered animal and $35 for an unaltered animal. Animal Services would be allowed to impound the animal if the owner fails to license it 30 days after receiving the citation. MAINE Maine has quietly passed extremely restrictive laws, in the last 2 years, and continues with more bills up for review in Jan. There are so few dog breeders in the state, that Maine was literally blindsided, and was not aware of these bills. The few breeders in Maine are now trying to prevent more legislation, and the mood of the legislators is not favorable to dog breeders, so the existing laws are now on the books. 1) 5 or more intact dogs/cats require a state license and inspection. 2) contract requirements for our animals, above and beyond our own contracts 3) rabies licenses now going to the state, so they can track down people with 5 or more intact animals. 4) advertising law – if people sell more than one dog/cat in a calendar year, they must have a state license # or a vendor’s #, obtained from the Department of Agriculture. 5) sales tax 6) inspection of records 7) inspection of homes, if dogs kept in the house There is a bill that just passed at the emergency session, to create a breeder’s certificate. The intent of this bill is not currently known. MARYLAND Baltimore – County Council members rejected last night a measure that would have placed the region’s toughest restrictions on pit bull owners, siding with dog owners who argued that singling out the breed would be unfair and likely ineffective. By a 6-1 vote, the council killed a proposal that would have required pit bull owners to keep their dogs in concrete-based kennels and post warning signs on their lawns. The author of the proposal, Councilman Vincent J. Gardina, was the only member to vote in favor of it. Defeated 11/15/07 MINNESOTA Apple Valley – city council approved stricter rules for aggressive dogs which could mean forcing some of them out of neighborhoods. As of December 1st, 2007, any dog labeled dangerous will no longer be able to live in a residential area but instead must live in an industrial area. Dangerous dogs are not determined by breed but are dogs that when unprovoked, cause serious bodily harm to humans. MISSOURI Independence (Jackson County) – city council has decided to amend their current animal ordinance to one of breed specific restrictions of ‘pit bulls’ by: 1. Spaying/neutering. 2. Microchipping. 3. Muzzling whenever outside of home or kennel and on a 3 foot leash. 4. Obtaining $100,000 insurance. 5. Registering each year with at least 2 photos on file. 6. Outside enclosure specifically defined. 7. Signage visible from nearby road. ‘Pit bulls’ are defined as “Any dog that exhibits those distinguishing characteristics which substantially conform to the standards established by the American Kennel Club for American Staffordshire Terrier, or Staffordshire Bull Terriers, or substantially conform to the standards established by the United States Kennel Club for American Pit Bull Terriers, including any mixed breed of dog which contains as an element of its breeding as the breed of Staffordshire Bull Terrier, American Staffordshire Terrier, or American Pit Bull Terrier.” Independence – (Jackson County) UPDATE – dog owners are advised to maintain close supervision of their pets following city council’s first reading on a vicious dog ordinance. Ordinance, which will go into effect following a second reading during the Dec. 3 meeting, owners will be fined $500 if a dog bite is reported. The animal must also be registered with the city as a vicious animal. Council elected to remove specific dog breeds from the ordinance in hopes of avoiding court challenges. Ordinance lists four criteria in defining a vicious dog, including: Any dog that has caused death or serious injury to a person engaged in lawful activity. Any dog that has attacked or bitten, without provocation, a person engaged in lawful activity. Any dog that has killed or injured another animal after the owner has been given written or verbal notice to keep the animal confined or muzzled. Any dog that has been declared to be vicious by a physician attending to a person who has been bitten or attacked by said dog. Passed 11/05/07 Joplin – City Council discussing proposed ordinance changes aimed at cutting down on animal nuisances in the city, recommending restriction on people from keeping litters of puppies and kittens for up to six months of age – health department recommends that be lowered to 10 weeks of age. Another change would prohibit feeding feral animals. NEW HAMPSHIRE Concord – HB 1301 – AN ACT relative to the definition of service dogs. This bill expands the definition and use of service dogs to apply to persons with recognized seizure disorders. text available upon request Concord – HB1293 – AN ACT relative to eligibility requirements for the state animal population control program. text available upon request Concord – HB 1298-FN – AN ACT making changes to the veterinary/medical/optometric education program. text available upon request Concord – HB1143 – AN ACT relative to penalties for failure to provide outdoor dogs with necessary shelter. text available upon request Concord – HB 1314 – AN ACT relative to animal cruelty. This bill removes “worrying” from the list of legal reasons allowing the killing of a dog. This bill also makes it illegal to take the life of an animal without lawful authority text available upon request Concord – HB 1430 – AN ACT relative to the application of animal cruelty laws to horse and dog race tracks text available upon request NEW JERSEY Trenton – A-909 – to forbid traditional animal-testing methods if there is a federally recommended alternative (passed Assembly) A-4026 – Require courts to issue protective orders against animal abusers A-2645 – Permit tenants to keep pets provided they are spayed or neutered and properly cared for and controlled A-2649 – Revamp the animal cruelty laws, upgrading offenses, hiking minimum fines and adding new offenses for hoarding, euthanizing improperly, failing to provide minimum care, committing animal cruelty in the presence of a child and “cruel commercial exploitation” A-3192 – Create a civil action against the owner of a pet that hurts or kills another’s pet (passed Assembly) A-4171 – Provide pet food safety standards A-4217 – Allow a civil action for injury or death due to tainted pet food, with up to $15,000 in loss of companionship damages S-161 – a new offense for injuring an animal while committing or fleeing a crime (passed Senate) Trenton (additional)- a bill introduced yesterday (11/20/07) that would revise state law regarding dangerous dogs, allowing the court to send a dog home under certain conditions even after the canine has been declared “vicious” by a judge. The proposed law is retroactive to Jan. 1, 2007. New law would insert language usually found in human criminal cases, requiring the prosecutor to prove the dog was not provoked “beyond a reasonable doubt,” according to a copy of the bill The proposed bill also removes a requirement that the dogs re leased under the aforementioned conditions be tattooed with a registration number. Under the current law that deals with canine violence, a dog can be labeled “vicious” if the state or municipality proves the animal attacked without provocation NEW MEXICO Albuquerque – “Importation Rule” for non-native species coming into New Mexico. This rule concerns “non-domestic” animals of all kinds (birds, reptiles, amphibians, arachnids, etc.). The basic idea is that anyone bringing any such animal into NM must obtain a vet inspection, obtain a permit 2 weeks in advance, and pay a fee of $25 per animal. Bernalillo County – County Commissioners have drafted extensive amendments to the current animal ordinance. Proposed changes include but are not limited to: – Hobby breeder site means a non-commercial animal facility or premises operated by a person involved in controlled breeding of dogs or cats which are registered with a recognized registry organization, or which are a member of a breed which is not eligible to be registered, if that breed has been approved by the county manager or his designee. – Multiple animal site means a non-commercial premises where more than six dogs, or cats, or any combination thereof, over three months of age must be spayed or neutered, if they’re not bred or sold for resale, testing, research, or laboratory experimentation. – Hobby breeders are required to have a permit and their premises may be inspected. Unsterilized adult dogs have be separated by sex when not being bred or otherwise approved. – No person or household shall own, harbor or keep more than four dogs, cats in any combination thereof over the age of three months without a valid professional animal permit, hobby breeder site permit, multiple animal site permit, or shelter permit. – A hobby breeder or multiple animal ‘kennel’ must include 75 square feet per dog weighing less than 30 pounds; 100 square feet per dog between 30 and 59 pounds, and 125 square feet per dog over 60 pounds. – Puppies can only be bartered for, sold, given away or other transfer or conveyance from the residential location listed on the litter permit or hobby breeder permit. – All dogs must be licensed and micro chipped. – All tail docking and ear cropping must be done by a licensed veterinarian. Bernalillo County (con’t) – proposed mandatory S/N changes to the ordinance. It appears the exemption for “show dogs” has been removed and a “special permit” is required. To obtain a “special permit” you must have records for a microchip. (The county has no way to store information regarding microchips and/or tattoos.) Ordinance limits six dogs or cats or combination per household. Leashes may not exceed 6 foot. Bernalillo County – UPDATE 11/26 meeting – Commissioners considered new proposals include higher license fees and mandatory micro-chipping. Cruelty laws would be expanded to include negligence, failure to provide basic veterinary care, and the amateur practices of ear-cropping, tail docking, and removing the dog’s ability to bark. higher permit fees for people who breed and sell animals, along with stricter record keeping requirements and inspections. NORTH CAROLINA Denver – Lincoln County Commissioners are now looking into adopting an ordinance that would limit the number of animals allowed for each acre of land. Orange County -. is about to implement a 3 hour limit on tethered dogs, except for training and events, but then it would be a max. of 7 days (???). Additional language not currently available. OHIO Crawford County – Dog Warden wants to inform all owners, keepers and harborers of dogs belonging to the breed commonly known as pit bulls, that due to a recent Ohio Supreme Court decision, these dogs shall be covered by liability insurance coverage in the amount of $100,000. These dogs must be properly confined in a locked kennel with a top, a locked fence or other locked enclosure that has a top. While these dogs are off the premises of the owner, keeper or harbored, they must be walked on a chain-linked leash or tether that is not more than 6 feet in length and under control of a person of suitable age to adequately restrain such a dog. St. Paris – Village Council passes dog control legislation. The ordinance specifies that owners of dogs commonly known as “pit bulls” must file ownership acknowledgement with the county dog warden, and that pit bull puppies are only legal to own up to three months of age. Vicious dogs, under the ordinance, must be kept in a confined kennel with secure roof and sides, and when not on the owner’s property must be kept leashed and muzzled, in accordance with the Ohio Revised Code. The owners must have “beware of dog” signage as well and will be liable for all damage caused to parks or public property by their dogs. Passed 12/03/07 OKLAHOMA Oklahoma City – State Representative Lee Denney has introduced his Oklahoma Pet Quality Assurance and Protection Act. The draft of the bill states that people who sell more than 25 dogs a year must get a Quality Assurance License. To quality for a Quality Assurance License breeders must be at least 21-years-old and pass a written exam. They must also meet some basic requirements including breeding standards, housing and sanitation, veterinary care, exercise and socialization and lineage certification. The requirements will be enforced by inspectors Oklahoma City – City of Oklahoma City’s policy of not allowing pit bull terriers to be adopted from its animal shelter violates state law, an appeals court has ruled. The Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals found Oklahoma City’s policy breached state law that bans “breed specific” regulation of dangerous dogs by a municipality. As a result, Oklahoma City’s rule was unenforceable, the appellate found. “The plain meaning of the statute forbids (the) City from regulating potentially dangerous or dangerous dogs by breed,” the ruling states. “The Policy adopted by City’s Animal Welfare Superintendent does just that. Therefore, the Policy is in conflict with the statute and must fail.” OREGON Salem – SB0570 – Requires Office of Emergency Management to prepare written animal emergency operations plan to provide for animals during major disaster or emergency. text available upon request Salem – SB1017 – Requires that certain public or private officials report suspected animal abuse. Requires that veterinarians and certain public or private officials report suspected animal neglect in first degree. text available upon request SOUTH CAROLINA Charleston – County Council already has laws in place that say stray animals must be sterilized before they are returned to their owners, but County Council would modify those laws under two amendments expected to pass council this week. If the modifications are approved, pet owners could have their dogs neutered by the veterinarian of their choice and no animal would be neutered or spayed sooner than five days from the date it is picked up. County law exempts pets if a veterinarian advises against sterilization, if the owner can prove the pet participated in a nationally recognized conformation or obedience show within the past year, or if the pet assists a disabled person. SOUTH DAKOTA Webster – City officials are leaning toward approval of an ordinance that will ban many exotic and not-so-exotic pets. The measure is designed to deal with vicious animals. Among those that would generally be outlawed would be pit bulls, Rottweilers, Doberman pinschers, porcupines, ostriches, wart hogs and boa constrictors. The proposed new ordinance would exempt animals from being classified as vicious if their actions are consistent with protecting property and owners of dangerous dogs and other vicious critters would be grandfathered in. TENNESSEE Brownsville – city officials are looking at two tough new ordinances. Under scrutiny are any breed of so-called vicious dogs ­ especially pit bulldogs, and they are about to be illegal in Brownsville. City leaders have also taken steps to restrict the number of pets residents of Brownsville may own. Under the new vicious dog ordinance it will be illegal to own a pit bulldog. The ordinance states, “It shall be unlawful to keep, harbor, own, or in any way possess a pit bull dog” in Brownsville. The ordinance allows current pits to stay with their owners but only under strict guidelines that include registering the animals with the city, paying an annual permit fee, housing them appropriately and buying liability insurance covering each animal Dyersburg – city is currently reviewing the MTAS (Municipal Technical Advisory Service – Knoxville, TN) pit bull ordinance banning all pit bulls. The proposed ordinance, if passed, mandates registration of the animals and outlaws ownership of new pit bulls, mandates the dogs must be muzzled while being walked, with leashes no longer than four feet and walked by person with the physical ability to restrict the dog’s movement, existing vicious dog ordinance requires animals deemed dangerous to the community to be housed in a fenced cage with a concrete base and padlocks. Resident who do not comply with the registry can have their dogs seized and impounded. This ordinance is in place in several cities in Tennessee, some dating back for several years. In addition, its important to note that Dyersburg sits in the same general area where three pit bull bans recently passed. Knoxville and Knox County – board members agreed to ask the county to change its policy regarding “Level 1 Dangerous Dogs” to require that these animals be spayed or neutered at owners’ expense. Currently, only dogs classified as “Level 2 Dangerous Dogs” are required to be altered. A “Level 1 Dangerous Dog” is defined as an animal that has met one of the following criteria: -When unprovoked and while on the property of its owner, attacked a person on two or more occasions within the prior 24-month period. -Has within the prior 24-month period, while off the property of its owner, engaged in any behavior when unprovoked that reasonably would have required a person to take defensive action to prevent bodily injury. -Has, when unprovoked while off the property of its owner, bitten a person or domestic animal, causing a minor injury. Board also decided to ask that additional language be added to the city ordinance and new language added to the county ordinance dealing with owner responsibility. The new language would stipulate that if a dog owner shows continuous disregard for animal laws, the right to petition for the dog to be destroyed takes effect. The Board’s recommendations will now go before the County Commission for consideration. Rockwood (Wate) – Mayor Mike Miller is drafting an ordinance to ban pit bulls banned within city limits. The ordinance will go before the Rockwood City Council at its meeting on January 21 TEXAS Irving – City Council unanimously approved an ordinance that bans tethering unattended dogs any time, any place. Passed 11/01/07 WASHINGTON Spokane – City’s “dangerous dog” ordinance is unconstitutional because it denies pet owners the right of due process, a Superior Court judge ruled Friday (11/30/07) in a case that may have far-reaching effects. WASHINGTON, DC. Washington, D.C.- Public Safety Committee sent a new policy, which allows adoption of pit bulls but attaches breed-specific guidelines, forward to the full board with no recommendation. Before May 2007 all pitbulls not claimed by owner were euthanized. May 2007 the Virginia attorney general’s opinion that breed-specific euthanasia violates state law, so the shelter has set up procedures to transfer pit bulls to approved breed rescue groups, and has euthanized based on the animal’s score on a temperament test. A majority of the “supervisor-appointed” Animal Advisory Committee members wants the policy to have no mention of any breed. The policy recommended by Animal Care and Control Director Tom Koenig and his staff lists breeds “known to be used to illegal activities” and puts tight controls on who can adopt them. WISCONSIN Madison – AB 567 Amendments: 1. The ‘8 breeding females’ benchmark in the definition of a ‘commercial breeder’ has been removed and the number of dogs sold in a year has been changed to 50. Thus, now only those who sell 50 or more dogs in a calendar year are covered by the licensure portion of the bill. 2. The ‘puppy lemon law’ portion of the legislation has been modified. Specifically, the substitute amendment now allows for the seller of the puppy to provide a list of potential breed specific or individual puppy specific health issues/problems associated with that dog or breed. If a purchaser receives this list provided by the seller, they would then NOT be eligible for a right to remedy for these issues laid out before the sale by the seller. 3. Under the substitute amendment draft, the seller would have the right to a second opinion from a veterinarian of their own choosing prior to providing a remedy. 4. The draft clarifies that no communicable disease the puppy gets after leaving the care of the seller is not eligible for a right to remedy. Likewise, any action or inaction by the purchaser causing damage or harm to the health of the animal is specifically exempt from the right to remedy. text available upon request Madison – SB308 Amendments: 1. The ‘8 breeding females’ benchmark in the definition of a ‘commercial breeder’ has been removed and the number of dogs sold in a year has been changed to 50. Thus, now only those who sell 50 or more dogs in a calendar year are covered by the licensure portion of the bill. 2. The ‘puppy lemon law’ portion of the legislation has been modified. Specifically, the substitute amendment now allows for the seller of the puppy to provide a list of potential breed specific or individual puppy specific health issues/problems associated with that dog or breed. If a purchaser receives this list provided by the seller, they would then NOT be eligible for a right to remedy for these issues laid out before the sale by the seller. 3. Under the substitute amendment draft, the seller would have the right to a second opinion from a veterinarian of their own choosing prior to providing a remedy. 4. The draft clarifies that no communicable disease the puppy gets after leaving the care of the seller is not eligible for a right to remedy. Likewise, any action or inaction by the purchaser causing damage or harm to the health of the animal is specifically exempt from the right to remedy. text available upon request Menomonee Falls – village board seems to be focused on a limit law for no apparent reason. So far the village attorney seems to be taking the easy route by merely adopting the ordinance from an adjoining village. There is a question regarding grand father clauses, and/or fancier licenses OTHER COUNTRIES OF INTEREST Canada British Columbia – Port Edward – district discussing what to do about an ongoing issue of feral cats now spreading through that community British Columbia – Prince Rupert – proposed animal-control bylaw could limit the number of cats and dogs people can own, require signs for dangerous dogs and increase license fees. The bylaw limits to three the number of cats and dogs a person can own, and under the new bylaw both dogs and cats would be licensed. Annual license fees would increase by as much as 50 per cent, with a lesser fee for spayed or neutered animals. If a person currently has more than three animals, their animals will be grandfathered in as exceptions. The bylaw also includes a section of prevention of cruelty that allows the bylaw officer to take action against people mistreating animals. Under the bylaw, all animals shall be kept with suitable water and food, in a clean environment with the opportunity for daily exercise. Choke chains will not be allowed and people will not be able to keep an animal enclosed without adequate ventilation – for example, in a car in the summer with the windows rolled up. The bylaw includes regulations for both vicious dogs and some specific breeds. Anyone who owns either a vicious or restricted dog will have to meet guidelines for containing the animal as well as posting signage to inform the public. The bylaw also bans exotic animals, effectively outlawing circuses. British Columbia – Victoria – The Spay/Neuter Action Bylaw Committee (public group not part of the government) is proposing a mandatory spay/neuter bylaw for domestic cats and dogs across the Capital Region. No resident shall own or harbor a dog over the age of five (5) months which has not been spayed or neutered by a licensed veterinary surgeon unless the owner is in possession of a breeding permit. Labrador – government to give its animal protection laws more teeth, bigger fines for people convicted of animal cruelty, as well as regulations on the length of time dogs can be left tied up. Newfoundland – government to give its animal protection laws more teeth, bigger fines for people convicted of animal cruelty, as well as regulations on the length of time dogs can be left tied up. Ontario – New Tecumseth (includes the amalgamated towns of Alliston, Beeton and Tottenham) – proposal to regulate, impound dogs at large and establish penalties. text available upon request Northern Ireland Belfast – Assembly to debate dangerous dogs legislation. A motion, aimed at strengthening dangerous dog legislation of dog attacks on livestock were treated as criminal offences, attacks on other pets were not. Alliance MLA Naomi Long said more attention should be given to the behavior of dogs and their owners rather than banned breeds. Also the issue of people cross-breeding illegal breeds and importing dangerous dogs also needed to be addressed. Sweden Stockholm – adopted a new law aimed at tackling the problem of aggressive dogs by allowing police to seize dangerous canines and even ban some people from owning or handling them. The aim is to reduce the problems that are linked to lacking care for dogs and cats. People who have seriously failed in their care of a dog or cat will be subject to fines or up to one year in prison. The Swedish Kennel Club, only one death has been attributed to a dog attack since the 1960s. Effective January 2008. U.A.E. – Dubai – Dubai Municipality will confiscate 16 breeds of dogs from January 1, 2008. The list includes the American Pit Bull Terrier and other dogs historically used for fighting, but also the Shar Pei, Husky and Doberman while omitting the German Shepherd.

 RESPONSIBLE DOG OWNERS OF THE WESTERN STATES

 

P.O. Box 1406  Newport, WA 99156Web Site http://www.povn.com/rdows E-mail US rdows@povn.comBlog https://rdows.wordpress.com  E-mail List http://groups.yahoo.com/group/rdows Cherie Graves, Chairwoman, WA, (509) 447-2821Judy Schreiber-Dwornick, Assistant to the Chair, Director at Large, rdowsdirectoratlarge@gmail.comHermine Stover, Secretary, Press Liaison, CA, hermine@endangeredspecies.comArkansas Director, Roger Schnyer  cajun9@sbcglobal.netCalifornia Director, Jan Dykema bestuvall@sbcglobal.netIllinois Director, Elizabeth Pensgard bpensgard@yahoo.comIndiana Director, Charles Coffman candkcoffman@comcast.netIowa Director, Leisa Boysen rdows_iowa@yahoo.comMississippi Director, Dan Crutchfield farmer1@telepak.netNevada Director, Ken Sondej 4winds@viawest.netOhio Director, Tiffany Skotnicky ohdirrdows@yahoo.comOklahoma Director, Jade Harris aadrlegislation@yahoo.com

Tennessee Director, Gina Cotton ginacotton@msn.com

Texas Director, Alvin Crow crobx@austin.rr.com

 

Responsible Dog Owners of the Western States (RDOWS) was formed October 15, 1989 to protect the civil rights, Constitutional rights, and interests of dog owners. We the members of the Responsible Dog Owners of the Western States  find that the intent of the amendments SA 3723, and SA 3500 of H.R. 2419 (see below) is to destroy traditional animal husbandry practices of pet animals in the United States of America, and is a legislated attack upon the pet animal industry in the United States of America.

The pet animal industry pumps a very healthy $50 billion dollars annually into our economy. Congress should be working to protect the pet animal industry, not to destroy it. We further determine that this amendment, formerly known as the Pet Animal Welfare Act has nothing to do with the welfare of animals. If passed, the amendment will effectively remove the care and nurture of pet animals from the security of our homes and force breeders to raise animals in an institutional environment that is not conducive to a sound well socialized animal. 

RDOWS by issuing this opposition statement is formally adding our credentials, and support to other organizations,  that stand in opposition to amendment SA 3500, and SA 3723 of H.R. 2419.

Below are the enumerated reasons that the RDOWS stands firmly in opposition to amendment SA 3500, and SA 3723 of H.R. 2419.

1.) The Amendments would limit breeders  to an arbitrary number of animals that may be sold in a given year without having a USDA approved facility. That number is 25 animals, or six litters in any given year. One pup, or one kitten over those numbers,  and the breeder/rescuer will be subject to build a USDA approved building.  This will lead to numerous healthy animals being killed to avoid compliance with federal law. These arbitrary numbers could be amended far lower in the future with no public notice, debate, or input.

2.) Calls for third party inspectors from non-profit organizations in private homes. This is a giving over of police powers to a non-governmental organization.

3.) Reclassifies hobby breeders as dealers, and holds them to a set of care, and housing laws, and regulations that are not yet written. This is in direct violation of the Bill of Rights, Amendment IV.

4.)  Proposes to regulate on a federal level that which is best left to each state, and locale.

5.) The existing Animal Welfare Act is more than sufficient to deal with the real problems of animal neglect and over use. 

6.) The amendment is supported by animal rights groups whose stated goals are not the care, and nurture of pet animals, but their total abolition from the ownership, care and use of the people.  Amendment SA 3500, and Amendment 3723 of H.R. 2419 takes the animal rights zealots several steps closer to their goal.

7.) The American Kennel Club’s data banks, and registry records will be made accessible to the USDA. The USDA will have access to the home addresses, telephone numbers, and breed information of every breeder that registers their dogs with the AKC.

8.) The Amemdments allow not-for profit groups to import animals from foreign nations into the United States unchecked. These animals are already being imported in vast numbers  bringing in diseases that are not indemic to the USA, and  for which we have no medical protocols. Shelters are being shut down all across the nation to stop the spread of these diseases brought in with these animals. An 11 year old California boy was bitten by an imported shelter dog, contracted a strain of rabies that resisted all treatment, and died. It is not only extremely irresponsible to allow for the unchecked importation of animals by non-profit groups it is a national health threat. 

9.) These amendments are a direct violation of our rights of commerce.

10.) These amendments violate our right to travel unimpeded upon our legitimate business.

In conclusion Responsible Dog Owners of the Western States states that there can be no workable compromise to amendment SA 3500, ans Amendment SA 3723 of H.R. 2419.  RDOWS stands firmly in the position that the existing Pet Animal Welfare Act is sufficient, if enforced,  to control breeders, and animal dealers as it was passed in 2003.


SA 3723. Mr. DURBIN submitted an amendment intended to be proposed to amendment SA 3500 proposed by Mr. HARKIN (for himself, Mr. CHAMBLISS, Mr. BAUCUS, and Mr. GRASSLEY) to the bill H.R. 2419, to provide for the continuation of agricultural programs through fiscal year 2012, and for other purposes; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:

    On page 1362, between lines 19 and 20, insert the following:

   SEC. 11072. REGULATION OF THE PET INDUSTRY.

    (a) High-Volume Retailers and Importers.–

    (1) IN GENERAL.–The Animal Welfare Act is amended by adding after section 19 (7 U.S.C. 2149) the following:

   “SEC. 20. REGULATION OF HIGH-VOLUME RETAILERS AND IMPORTERS.

    “(a) Definitions.–In this section:

    “(1) CERTIFIED THIRD-PARTY INSPECTOR.–The term `certified third-party inspector’ means a nonprofit organization certified by the Secretary in accordance with subsection (d).

    “(2) IMPORTER.–The term `importer’ has the same meaning as the term `regulated person’, except that the term also includes any person that imports into the United States any dog or cat for resale.

    “(3) REGULATED PERSON.–

    “(A) IN GENERAL.–The term `regulated person’ means any person who in commerce, for compensation or profit, delivers for transportation, or transports, except as a carrier, buys, or sells, or negotiates the purchase or sale of–

    “(i) any dog or other animal (whether alive or dead) for research, teaching, or exhibition;

    “(ii) any dog or cat (whether alive or dead) at wholesale or retail; or

    “(iii) any dog or cat imported into the United States for resale.

    “(B) EXCEPTIONS.–The term `regulated person’ does not include–

    “(i) a retail pet store, except for a retail pet store that sells–

    “(I) any animal to a research facility, an exhibitor, or a regulated person; or

    “(II) any dog or cat imported into the United States directly by the retail pet store;

    “(ii) any animal shelter, rescue organization, or other person that does not operate for profit; or

    “(iii) any person that–

    “(I) sells dogs and cats only at retail;

    “(II) does not import dogs and cats for resale; and

    “(III)(aa) sells not more than the total number of dogs and cats described in subparagraph (C); or

    “(bb) in accordance with regulations promulgated by the Secretary, is determined to be in compliance with the standards of a third-party inspector certified under subsection (d).

    “(C) DESCRIPTION.–The number of dogs and cats referred to in subparagraph (B)(iii)(III)(aa) is not more than–

    “(i) a total of 25 dogs and cats not bred or raised on the premises of the seller during a calendar year; or

    “(ii)(I) the number of dogs and cats bred or raised during a calendar year on the premises of the seller and sold directly at retail to persons who purchase the dogs and cats for personal use and enjoyment and not for resale, provided that the total number sold during a calendar year is not more than the greater of 25 dogs and cats or the dogs and cats from not more than 6 litters; and

    “(II) a total of 25 other dogs and cats not bred or raised on the premises of the seller during the calendar year.

    “(4) RETAIL.–The term `retail’ means any sale that is not at wholesale.

    “(5) RETAIL PET STORE.–

    “(A) IN GENERAL.–The term `retail pet store’ means a retail business establishment that–

    “(i) maintains a physical premises that is open to the public; and

    “(ii) sells pet animals directly to the public from the retail business premises.

    “(B) EXCLUSION.–The term `retail pet store’ does not include–

    “(i) a person breeding dogs or cats to sell at wholesale or retail; or

    “(ii) a person importing dogs or cats from outside the United States for resale.

    “(6) WHOLESALE.–The term `wholesale’ means the sale of an animal for resale.

    “(b) Treatment of Regulated Persons.–The Secretary shall treat a regulated person in the same manner that the Secretary treats a dealer under this Act.

    “(c) Alternative Licensing Option.–The Secretary may issue a license under section 3 to a regulated person that deals in dogs or cats if the regulated person–

    “(1) has demonstrated that the facilities of the regulated person comply with standards promulgated by the Secretary in accordance with section 13; or

    “(2) has demonstrated in accordance with regulations promulgated by the Secretary that the facilities of the regulated person comply with standards established by a certified third-party inspector.

    “(d) Third-Party Inspectors.–

    “(1) REGULATIONS.–

    “(A) IN GENERAL.–Not later than 36 months after the date of enactment of this subsection, the Secretary shall promulgate regulations under which the Secretary may certify nonprofit organizations that the Secretary determines to have standards and inspection protocols that are at least as protective of animal welfare as those promulgated by the Secretary in accordance with section 13(a)(2).

    “(B) REQUIREMENTS.–Regulations promulgated under subparagraph (A) shall–

    “(i) establish procedures under which the Secretary may certify third-party inspectors, including provisions for public notice of–

    “(I) third-party certification applications;

    “(II) certification decisions by the Secretary; and

    “(III) the standards and inspection protocols of certified third-party inspectors;

    “(ii) require each certified third-party inspector to be recertified not less than once every 3 years;

    “(iii) establish procedures under which the Secretary shall decertify a certified third-party inspector that the Secretary determines has failed to maintain standards and inspection protocols that are at least as protective of animal welfare as those promulgated by the Secretary in accordance with section 13(a)(2);

    “(iv) require each certified third-party inspector to immediately notify the Secretary of any person inspected by the certified third-party inspector–

    “(I) whose conduct places the health of an animal in serious danger; or

    “(II) who otherwise fails to comply with the standards established by the inspector (including a description of the specific failure);

    “(v) require each certified third-party inspector to submit to the Secretary an annual summary report describing–

    “(I) the number of inspections conducted;

    “(II) the number of persons found to be out-of-compliance with the standards of the certified third-party inspector and the response actions taken;

    “(III) the types of non-compliance found; and

[Page: S14535]

    “(IV) such other information about the program of the certified third-party inspector as the Secretary shall require, without revealing personal information about inspected persons, to ensure that the program of the third-party inspector is maintaining standards and inspection protocols that are at least as protective of animal welfare as those promulgated by the Secretary in accordance with section 13(a)(2);

    “(vi) require certified third-party inspectors to submit to the Secretary copies of all inspection reports on an annual basis;

    “(vii) establish procedures under which the Secretary may require certified third-party inspectors to participate in training and education programs carried out through the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service; and

    “(viii) establish procedures for compliance audits of third-party inspections.

    “(C) FOIA EXEMPTION.–Section 552 of title 5, United States Code (commonly known as the `Freedom of Information Act’) shall not apply to reports described in subparagraph (B)(vi).

    “(2) INSPECTIONS.–

    “(A) IN GENERAL.–The Secretary shall promulgate regulations under which a regulated person dealing in dogs and cats may elect to have a certified third-party inspector inspect the regulated person and report the results of the inspection to the Secretary in lieu of inspection by the Secretary.

    “(B) THIRD-PARTY INSPECTIONS OPTIONAL.–No regulated person shall be required under this Act to be inspected by a certified third-party inspector.

    “(C) LIMITATION.–No person other than a regulated person may make the election described in subparagraph (A).

    “(3) ENFORCEMENT.–

    “(A) IN GENERAL.–The Secretary shall have exclusive enforcement authority over any violation of this Act.

    “(B) INITIATION OF ACTION.–The Secretary shall investigate and, if appropriate, initiate enforcement action under this Act, immediately upon receiving notification under paragraph (1)(B)(iv).

    “(4) USE OF APPROPRIATED FUNDS.–

    “(A) IN GENERAL.–The Secretary may use funds appropriated to the Department of Agriculture to carry out this subsection.

    “(B) PROHIBITION.–A certified third-party inspector may not use funds appropriated to Department of Agriculture.

    “(e) Access to Source Records for Dogs and Cats.–Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, all regulated persons and retail pet stores shall prepare, retain, and make available at all reasonable times for inspection and copying by the Secretary, for such reasonable period of time as the Secretary may prescribe, a record of–

    “(1)(A) the name and address of the person from whom each dog or cat acquired for resale was purchased or otherwise acquired; or

    “(B) if that information is not known, the source of the dog or cat; and

    “(2) if the person from whom the dog or cat was obtained is a dealer licensed by the Secretary, the Federal dealer identification number of the person.

    “(f) Importation of Live Dogs and Cats.–

    “(1) FINDINGS.–Congress finds that–

    “(A) regulating imports of dogs and cats for resale, including restricting importation of puppies and kittens for resale, is consistent with provisions of international agreements to which the United States is a party that expressly allow for measures that are necessary–

    “(i) to protect animal life or health;

    “(ii) to protect human health; and

    “(iii) to enjoin the use of deceptive trade practices in international and domestic commerce;

    “(B) the importation of puppies into the United States for resale is increasing;

    “(C) the breeding of puppies and kittens in foreign countries for resale in the United States creates opportunities and incentives for evasion of United States laws (including regulations) relating to the humane care and treatment of breeding stock, puppies, and kittens;

    “(D) the conditions under which puppies are transported into the United States for resale are frequently inhumane and in violation of domestic and international standards;

    “(E) there is an unacceptably high incidence of disease and death among puppies imported into the United States for resale;

    “(F) the importation of puppies and kittens for resale creates unacceptable incentives for evasion of United States laws (including regulations) intended to protect animal and human health in the United States, including quarantine regulations; and

    “(G) puppies and kittens imported for resale may be accompanied by fraudulent health and breeding documents, imposing high economic and emotional costs and fraud on United States citizens.

    “(2) ENFORCEMENT.–An importer that fails to comply with any Federal law (including a regulation) relating to the importation of live dogs and cats into the United States shall be subject to this Act, including penalties under section 19.

    “(3) REGULATIONS.–Not later than 24 months after the date of enactment of this section, the Secretary, in consultation with the Secretary of Health and Human Services, the Secretary of Commerce, and the Secretary of Homeland Security, shall promulgate regulations relating to the importation of live dogs and cats into the United States for resale.

    “(4) REQUIREMENTS.–Regulations promulgated under paragraph (3) shall require that–

    “(A) any importer that imports into the United States a dog or cat in violation of this Act shall provide for the care, forfeiture, and adoption of the dog or cat, at the expense of the importer; and

    “(B) dogs imported into the United States for resale–

    “(i) be not less than 6 months of age;

    “(ii) have received all necessary vaccinations, as determined by the Secretary; and

    “(iii) be in good health, as determined by the Secretary.”.

    (2) REGULATIONS.–Not later than 36 months after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall promulgate final regulations to carry out the amendment made by paragraph (1)

    (3) EFFECTIVE DATE.–The amendment made by paragraph (1) takes effect on the date on which final regulations described in paragraph (2) take effect.

    (b) Extension of Temporary Suspension Period.–Section 19(a) of the Animal Welfare Act (7 U.S.C. 2149) is amended–

    (1) by inserting “(1)” after “(a)”; and

    (2) by adding at the end the following:

    “(2) Extension of Temporary Suspension Period.–If the Secretary has reason to believe that a violation that results in a temporary suspension pursuant to paragraph (1) is continuing or will continue after the expiration of the 21-day temporary suspension period described in that paragraph, and the violation will place the health of any animal in serious danger in violation of this Act, the Secretary may extend the temporary suspension period for such additional period as is necessary to ensure that the health of an animal is not in serious danger, as determined by the Secretary, but not to exceed 60 days.”.

    (c) Authority To Apply for Injunctions.–Section 29 of the Animal Welfare Act (7 U.S.C. 2159) is amended–

    (1) in subsection (a), by inserting “or that any person is acting as a dealer or exhibitor without a valid license that has not been suspended or revoked, as required by this Act,” after “promulgated thereunder,”;

    (2) in subsection (b), by striking the last sentence; and

    (3) by adding at the end the following:

    “(c) Injunctions; Representation.–

    “(1) INJUNCTIONS.–The Secretary may apply directly to the appropriate United States district court for a temporary restraining order or injunction described in subsection (a).

    “(2) REPRESENTATION.–Attorneys of the Department of Agriculture may represent the Secretary in United States district court in any civil action brought under this section.”.

    (d) Effect on State Law.–Nothing in this section or the amendments made by this section (including any regulations promulgated as a result of this section) preempts any State law (including a regulation) that provides stricter requirements than the requirements provided in the amendments made by this section.