Legend key:
Please click on a state from the map above to find a list of legislative alerts for that state.  

Map Copyright: FOTW United States map by Mark Sensen and boundaries’ data by Guiseppe Bottasini, based on material from Virtual Tourist. If you wish to reuse them on your website, read the copyright rules.

Canada

10/26/10 - Shelby County, AL
The Shelby County Planning Commission is recommending that a definition for “kennel” be added to zoning regulations and requesting that the Shelby County Commission consider drafting comprehensive animal control regulations.

3/1/10 Senate Bill 18, a mandatory spay/neuter bill, has been introduced and referred to the Senate Agriculture, Conservation, and Forestry Committee. A similar bill was filed in 2009, but never received a hearing. Bill Information

11/8/09 - Alabama – The Alabama Legislature has pre-filed a mandatory spay/neuter bill for their 2010 legislative session. The AKC is currently analyzing this legislation and working with the Alabama Canine Coalition on a strategy to defeat the bill. A similar bill introduced in 2009 did not receive a hearing.

6/30/09 - Alabama – SB 554 would require all dogs 6 months or older to be spayed/neutered, with few exceptions.

Arizona

4/22/10 - House Bill 2375 seeks to ban the ownership, sale, and transportation of “dangerous wildlife” As introduced, HB 2375 would have defined all carnivores as "dangerous wildlife" with no exceptions, thereby banning Arizonans from owning and selling dogs in the state. The bill has been amended to clarify that domestic animals are exempted. Further amendments are also expected. HB 2375 has passed the House Natural Resources & Rural Affairs Committee.

5/13/08 Arizona– House Bill 2615 seeks to prohibit persons from owning or keeping a dog or cat that is more than six months old if the animal has not been spayed or neutered, unless the person has acquired an intact permit for the animal. It is a substantive copy of California AB 1634. There has been no movement on this bill since its introduction and assignment to three House committees.

3/7/08 - Update: Arizona Mandatory Spay/Neuter Bill's Committee Assignments Arizona House Bill 2516 has been assigned to three legislative committees: the House Committee on Counties, Municipalities, and Military Affairs; the House Committee on Government; and the House Committee on Rules. The bill, which seeks to prohibit persons from owning or keeping a dog or cat that is more than six months old if the animal has not been spayed or neutered, unless the person has acquired an intact permit for the animal, has not yet been scheduled for hearing. However, it is imperative that all concerned breeders and responsible dog owners in Arizona contact the committee members listed below and voice their strong opposition to the bill.

Read a copy of the bill

WHAT YOU CAN DO:
Arizona's concerned breeders and responsible dog owners should contact the committee members. Voice your vehement opposition to HB 2516, and ask the committee members to do the same. Get a list of committee members.

Arizona Alert: Mandatory Spay/Neuter Bill Introduced House Bill 2516, which seeks to prohibit persons from owning or keeping a dog or cat that is more than six months old if the animal has not been spayed or neutered, unless the person has acquired an intact permit for the animal, has been introduced. If adopted, this unreasonable and unenforceable bill will have a profound negative impact not only upon responsible dog breeders in Arizona, but also upon all current and prospective dog owners. It is vital that all breeders and concerned dog owners in Arizona contact their elected state legislators and voice their strong opposition to the bill.

As introduced, HB 2516 will:
· Prohibit a person from owning or keeping a dog or cat that is more than six months old if the animal has not been spayed or neutered, unless the person qualifies for and purchases an intact permit.
· Allow the fee for the permit to be set by the county enforcement agent or by the local jurisdiction.
· Require the fee for the permit to be no more than what is "reasonably necessary" to fund the administration of the intact permit program.

HB 2516 will require breeders to pay an undetermined annual fee for every intact dog they possess, and is a blatant attempt at imposing a significant financial burden upon responsible dog breeders and owners.

As a recently introduced bill, HB 2516 has not been referred to a committee within the Arizona House of Representatives.

WHAT YOU CAN DO: Please contact your State Representative and State Senator and ask them to oppose HB 2516. Find out who represents you in the Arizona Legislature.

Colorado

4/5/11 Colorado update:
Senate Bill 11-009 sought to make significant changes to the impoundment laws and the ability of owners to get their animals back if they are seized during a cruelty investigation. SB 11-009 passed the Senate, but was pulled by a sponsor in the House Agriculture Committee. Read more about this victory.

3/22/11 Update on recent CO bill:

Colorado Senate Bill 11-009, which made significant changes to the impoundment laws and the ability of owners to get their animals back if they are seized during a cruelty investigation, was postponed indefinitely in the House Agriculture, Livestock & Natural Resources Committee and will not advance this year.

3/17/11 CO Committee to Consider Harsh Changes to Impoundment Laws on 3/21

March 17, 2011

The Colorado House Agriculture, Livestock & Natural Resources Committee is expected to consider a bill on Monday, March 21, that makes significant changes to the impoundment laws and the ability of owners to get their animals back if they are seized during a cruelty investigation.

The AKC strongly supports the humane treatment of dogs and believes that no dog should be kept in circumstances where its needs cannot be adequately fulfilled. Senate Bill 11-009, however, severely restricts the rights of animal owners who are being charged with cruelty, even if the charges are later dismissed. Our concerns include, but are not limited to, the following:

Potential loss of ownership rights and right to challenge extensive costs – This bill requires that the person charged with cruelty continually pay for the costs of caring for dogs seized. If the owner does not pay at any point, they lose the right to challenge the costs and ownership rights in the trial. These hearings can be very lengthy, especially since SB 11-009 transfers them to criminal court and allows up to 30 days before an initial hearing is conducted.

There is no provision for those with low incomes who may not be able to pay the costs as well as legal fees. It also does not provide reimbursement for owners who are found not guilty or have the charges dismissed. A dog owner should not be forced to forfeit their right of property or right to challenge a fee simply because they cannot afford to pay the costs.

Provision that the court must consider a warrant to be sufficient cause for impoundment – A warrant alone should not be considered sufficient cause. With this provision, no other evidence may be considered. Specific evidence and testimony regarding the findings and reasons for impoundment should be considered by the court.

Responsible dog owners in Colorado are encouraged to contact the House Agriculture, Livestock, & Natural Resources Committee and express your concerns with this bill that violates the rights of animal owners before a verdict is reached.

3/1/09 - Harmful Colorado Bill Tabled Indefinitely
In early February, the Colorado House Agriculture Committee voted to table indefinitely House Bill 1172, which sought to strictly regulate dog breeders. HB 1172 would have: limited the number of dogs a person could own to 25, provided the Commissioner of Agriculture with extraordinary rulemaking powers, and have infringed upon privacy rights by allowing inspections of breeder’s facilities at any time.

7/12/10: Connecticut update: Senate Bill 274 has been signed by the Governor.

5/24/10 Connecticut update: Senate Bill 274 originally sought to prohibit as “unreasonable” the tethering of dogs and the use of primary dog enclosures smaller than 100 square feet, regardless of the size of the dog. Due to efforts led by the Connecticut federation and assisted by AKC GR, the unreasonable enclosure space requirement has been removed. The bill has passed both Houses, and is en route to the Governor.

4/22/10 - Senate Bill 274 would prohibit the tethering of dogs and require all dog enclosures to be at least 100 square feet, regardless of the breed or size of the dog. AKC The Joint Committee on the Environment held a public hearing on this bill on March 8, 2010.

Florida

2/8/11 Jacksonville, FL- update:
The Jacksonville City Council amended a problematic animal control ordinance prior to passage. While some concerns still remain, modifications were made to mandatory sterilization requirements for impounded dogs, mandatory microchipping requirements, overly-broad dangerous dog provisions, and definitions and licensing requirements for hobby and occasional breeders. In the months from introduction to passage, 177 changes were made to the original bill.

9/23/10 - Jacksonville, FL:
The City of Jacksonville is considering an ordinance that limits the number of intact dogs and cats over eight weeks old on a property to 40 and defines anyone who sells, trades or gives away more than 6 dogs, cats or other animals (combined) in a year as an “animal dealer.” “Animal dealers” would be subject to undetermined annual fees, zoning review, and extensive record keeping and kennel engineering requirements. A dog or cat owner not defined as an “animal dealer” who maintained more than 5 intact cats and/or dogs over the age of 8 weeks would be required to obtain an “excessive intact animal” permit, even if the animals are not bred. The annual “excessive intact animal permit - hobby breeder” fee would cost $100 per animal for up to 20 intact animals over eight weeks old. “Professional breeder” permits would be required for anyone who maintains 21-40 intact animals over eight weeks old, at an annual fee of $100 per animal for up to 20 and $200 per animal for 21-40. Other areas of concern include, but are not limited to, definitions of potentially dangerous dogs, and non-refundable boarding fees for impounded animals regardless of whether the owner is found not guilty of charges. Fines for minor infractions range from $100 to $500 on a first offense. AKC GR has learned that amendments have been approved, but they are not yet publicly available. AKC Government Relations has sent information to council members, alerted area fanciers, is working with the AKC Florida federation, and continues to provide support to local clubs working with the council in opposition to this proposal.

5/24/10 Senate Bill 122 – Senate Bill 122 sought to require those defined as “pet dealers” (selling 20 or more dogs per year) to provide a written disclosure to dog buyers that impugns the genetic health of purebred dogs. It also attempted to unreasonably raise penalties for violations of Florida’s consumer protection law up to $10,000. The bill passed the Senate Agriculture Committee, but died in the Senate Judiciary Committee. AKC GR posted a Legislative Alert and worked with the Florida federation to defeat this proposal.

3/1/10 Prefiled Senate Bill 122 would require virtually all dog breeders to provide additional information relating to the genetic disorders to which dogs and cats are susceptible in the written notice that they provide to a consumer at the time of sale. The bill also attempts to redefine the term "pet dealer" for purposes of allowing a purchaser to return an animal to the pet dealer and receive a refund, exchange the animal, or receive a reimbursement of expenses. A version of this bill was introduced in the 2009 regular session, but did not receive a hearing.

3/1/09 - Florida Mandatory Spay/Neuter Bill Introduced
Legislation that seeks to prohibit persons from owning or maintaining an intact dog or cat older than four months old has been filed in the Florida House. If adopted, Florida House Bill 451 would have a profound negative impact not only on responsible dog breeders in Florida, but also on all current and prospective dog owners. It is vital that all breeders and concerned dog owners in Florida contact their elected state legislators and voice their strong opposition to this unreasonable and unenforceable measure.

As currently written, HB 451 would:

• Require owners of every dog or cat in Florida to have each animal sterilized within 30 days of the animal reaching four months of age, or within 30 days of the owner receiving the animal.
• Provide ambiguous exemptions, including dogs with veterinary certification showing that sterilization would endanger the animal’s health, until such issues no longer exist; Greyhounds currently used for racing, until retirement; show animals registered with an established breed registration organization to be approved by the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services; dogs or cats that have earned, or are in the process of earning, a competitive sports title; animals trained, or in training, for use in law enforcement, military, or rescue; and animals for which an owner holds a valid breeding permit issued in accordance with an ordinance of a county or municipality.
The Florida Legislature will convene its session in early March. As a recently filed bill, HB 451 has not yet been referred to a committee within the Florida House of Representatives. However, it is important that all responsible dog breeding and owning Floridians write their elected officials in Tallahassee now, respectfully expressing their strong opposition to HB 451, and asking them to oppose the bill. This will help ensure that the bill will not be considered when the legislature comes into session.

1/28/08 - Palm Beach County, FL Considers Mandatory Spay/Neuter and Hobby Breeder Licensing

On January 15th, Palm Beach County Commissioners are scheduled to hold a first hearing on a proposed ordinance which will make drastic changes to the animal control ordinance, dramatically impacting responsible owners and breeders. Although the County Commission directed staff to begin drafting this ordinance back in April of 2007, an amended draft was posted to their website only on January 8th. Furthermore this is only a draft and may still be amended prior to the January 15th meeting.

Concerned dog owners are asked to immediately call the county commissioners and request that consideration of the ordinance be postponed until the February 5th meeting to allow for sufficient public review. County Commissioners contact information.

The ordinance will impose mandatory spay/neuter of any dog over the age of 6 months unless the owner qualifies for and purchases a $75 intact animal license, or declares in writing that the dog will not be used for breeding. The ordinance will further require hobby breeders, defined as any individual that produces up to 2 litters or 19 dogs per calendar year, to buy a permit and to submit to home inspections. Neither the proposed ordinance nor the existing fee schedule list what the fee for this permit will be. Mandatory microchip for any animal adopted or released from a shelter, even on a first offense, is also proposed in this ordinance.

More Information on This Proposal

FLORIDA – HB 317, introduced by Rep. Culp, is under consideration by the House Safety and Security Council. It amends the current animal cruelty law by providing that a first-time offender convicted of cruelty to animals will be subject to the following mandatory minimums: $500 fine, incarceration period of 30 consecutive days, and 100 hours of community service.

7/1/08- GA - Governor Sonny Perdue Signs AKC Supported Anti-Dog Fighting Legislation

On May 6, Georgia Governor Sonny Perdue signed into law tough new anti-dogfighting legislation that was supported by the American Kennel Club and the Georgia Canine Coalition. Members of the Georgia Canine Coalition were present for the signing and were congratulated for their hard work on behalf of dogs and responsible dog owners.

The new law makes it a felony to own a dog for fighting, to bet on a dog fight, or to allow a dog fight on one's premise. It also makes it a misdemeanor on the first offense and a felony on subsequent offenses to be a spectator at a dog fight.

The American Kennel Club supports state laws making any form of participation in organized dog fights a felony. The AKC unequivocally opposes dog fighting and the breeding and/or training of dogs for fighting. The AKC opposes the training of dogs for uncontrolled aggressive behavior toward other dogs and people.

3/1/09 - Hearing Set for IL Breeder Licensing Bill
HB 198 was pulled from the agenda on February 10th, but is now scheduled for a hearing on February 19th at 2pm.

Illinois House Bill 198 will be heard by the House Business/Occupational Licenses. Representative John Fritchey is sponsoring HB 198, which would regulate dog breeders by limiting the number of dogs they can own and requiring licensing for anyone who maintains three or more females (even if they are not bred) "for the purpose of the sale of their offspring." The bill would also mandate unannounced inspections, fingerprinting, and require breeders to pay an unspecified license fee.All concerned responsible dog breeders and owners in Illinois are urged to attend the committee hearing to show respectful yet strong opposition to the bill; additionally, all Illinois residents are urged to write their elected officials and the bill’s chief sponsor, Representative John Fritchey, to express their strong opposition if they have not already done so.

11/22/08 Chicago, IL – Mandatory Spay/Neuter

The Chicago City Council's Finance Committee, in consideration of a proposed mandatory spay/neuter ordinance, was put off by committee chairman Alderman Ed Burke. After several hours of testimony, Alderman Burke delayed a vote to allow more testimony to be heard. No new hearing date has been set.

AKC's Government Relations Department continues to actively monitor developments regarding the Chicago ordinance proposal, and continues to work with responsible dog breeders and owners in the Chicago area in opposition to this unreasonable and unenforceable proposal.

7/1/08 Chicago, IL – considering Mandatory Spay/Neuter and criminal background checks for dog breeders. Two Chicago Aldermen are sponsoring a new ordinance that would require all dogs to be spayed/neutered by the age of six months unless they qualify for an unneutered animal license. Chicago residents are asked to contact their representative on the Board of Aldermen to oppose
this measure. To qualify for an unneutered animal license the animal must meet one of the
following qualifications:

- Certified by a veterinarian as having a valid medical reason for not being sterilized.
- Owners with a valid breeding permit.
- Dogs and cats of breeds approved by and registered with a registry or association recognized by the commission whose programs and practices are consistent with the humane treatment of animals, and the dogs or cats are kept for the purposes of showing or competing in legitimate shows or competitions hosted by or under the approval of recognized registry or
association.
- Dogs that have earned or are actively being trained and are in the process of earning an agility, carting, herding, protection, rally, hunting, working or other title from a registry or association recognized by the commission whose programs and practices are consistent with the humane treatment of animals.
- Service dogs as defined by Illinois state law.
- Dogs owned by a guard dog service.
- Law enforcement and military dogs.

This new ordinance would also remove an existing exemption for residents who occasionally sell animals they bred and raised, meaning that anyone who breeds a litter would be deemed an "animal care facility" and must purchase a $330.00 license. In addition, to qualify for a breeding license a resident would need to submit to both a criminal background check and an inspection of their home. This is an unreasonable violation of the privacy and rights of responsible owners who are respected members of the Chicago community. This unreasonable and unenforceable ordinance will have a profound negative impact not only upon responsible dog breeders in Chicago, but also upon all current and prospective dog owners.

The proposed ordinance will now be referred to a subcommittee of the Board of Aldermen.

ILLINOIS – HB 203, known as the Retail Sale of Dogs and Cats Act, is sponsored by Representative Froehlich and has been referred to the House Committee on Agriculture and Conservation. The bill, if passed and signed into law, will impose various requirements on pet dealers (defined as anyone who sells more than 25 dogs per year), including that an animal must be examined by a licensed veterinarian before being placed with other animals by the pet dealer. Pet dealers will also be required to give the purchaser of a dog a written statement containing certain information about the animal purchased, and must maintain a record of that information. Pet dealers must also provide remedies for a purchaser if an animal becomes ill or dies as a result of an illness that existed in the animal at the time of purchase.
For more information on legislative activity in Illinois, please contact the Illinois Dog Clubs and Breeders Association at MAJWIZ@aol.com or lotzadots101@aol.com.

3/1/09 - Indiana Breeders Bill
The Indiana House Courts and Criminal Code Committee has agreed to hear a proposed amendment on February 11 that would require any breeder who owns 10 or more intact female dogs over four months old to register as a commercial breeder. The amendment also bans ownership of more than 20 intact dogs that are a year of age or older.

This last-minute, proposed amendment would be placed into a bill regarding animal cruelty.

All responsible dog owners and breeders in Indiana should contact the members of the committee and tell them to vote NO on House Bill 1468 Amendment #1.

If adopted, the amendment would, among other provisions:

• Require any breeder who owns at least 10 intact female dogs over 4 months old to register as a commercial breeder and renew the license each year.
• Ban the ownership of more than 20 intact dogs over one year of age.
• Establish strict engineering requirements regarding enclosures for the animals.
• Allow local governments to adopt stricter laws than those outlined in this amendment.

INDIANA – HB 1719 has been introduced by Rep. Bardon and referred to the House Committee on Rules and Legislative Procedures. If passed, it will require that dogs be implanted with a microchip that contains an identification number and can be read with a standard scanner. All data will be registered with a state-run agency. It also requires that the owners of dogs that are not neutered or spayed to pay a $50 annual fee and to post “Beware of Dog” signs on the premises where the dog is kept. Further, the bill establishes penalties for noncompliance, and allows a county, city, or town, to adopt a dog control ordinance that is more restrictive than state law. For more information on this proposal, please read AKC's Legislative Alert.

10/26/10 - Cedar Rapids, IA
The Cedar Rapids City Council rejected a number of changes to its animal control ordinance, including differential licensing for intact and sterilized dogs. A discounted multiple dog license was proposed, but only for owners of sterilized dogs. The proposal also included new, vague definitions for “potentially dangerous” and “dangerous” animals and could require sterilization for any dog that bits once, regardless of the severity of the injury.

8/1/09 Wichita, Kansas

The Wichita City Council passed a law that limits animal ownership. Wichita residents may own two animals, or obtain an Animal Maintenance Permit which allows them to own up to four animals. “Pit bull” owners may not apply for an Animal Maintenance Permit, and are required to sterilize their dogs. The new law also defines “breeder” as anyone who owns two intact females, regardless of age. All breeders must obtain a breeder’s permit. The AKC notified Wichita AKC officials and fanciers of the public meetings and provided talking points and materials. In addition, the AKC sent a letter and memo to the Council opposing the ordinance and providing suggestions for alternative solutions.

11/17/09 - New Orleans to Consider MSN & Breeding Limits
The AKC has confirmed that the New Orleans City Council has delayed the vote on the mandatory spay/neuter proposal until Thursday, November 5. The New Orleans City Council will then consider Councilwoman Cynthia Hedge-Morrell’s mandatory spay/neuter ordinance.

If enacted, the ordinance will:
• Require all dogs six months of age or older (with few exceptions) to be spayed or neutered or force owners to purchase costly $50 breeder permits to keep any dog intact.
• Limit female dogs from whelping more than one litter per year, or whelping a litter if the female is younger than 18-months of age.
• Permit the Louisiana SPCA (LA/SPCA), which will be responsible for enforcement of this ordinance, to determine whether or not an applicant for a breeder license has "space determined to be suitable...in which to breed dogs and raise puppies."
• Impose significant fines for those who are found to be in violation of the ordinance, with the income from the fines to be used to further finance the LA/SPCA’s animal control efforts.
All responsible dog breeders and owners in the New Orleans area are encouraged to attend the City Council meeting to speak in opposition to the ordinance, and to contact the City Council members. Respectfully yet strongly express your opposition to this unreasonable and unenforceable proposal, and urge them to vote against it. Encourage them to begin an in-depth study of any existing animal population issues in New Orleans, and to work on better enforcement of the City’s existing animal ordinance.

2/12/11

MAINE: Restrictive Breeder Bill Pulled by Sponsor

Good News for MAINE! by Julie Rembrandt Seeley, Corresponding Secretary
Massachusetts Federation of Dog Clubs & Responsible Dog Owners

Following a shocking announcement yesterday at the AWAC meeting about a new restrictive breeding bill Maine dog owners/breeders from around the state contacted the sponsor of the bill to openly and candidly share their concerns about the contents of this bill.

As a result, Representative Jeff Timberlake (R), sponsor of Maine LD 491 An Act to Require All Kennels Engaged in Breeding To Be Licensed and Inspected by the State called me moments ago. His conversation included a request to 'call off the hounds' for he has pulled the bill, requesting that no public hearing be held, and that it die right there where it is. He is a freshman legislator serving on the Agriculture, Conservation, and Forestry Committee, the committee which most often hears the animal welfare bills pertaining to canine legislation and other animal issues.

Below is the url for the language of LD 491 in a "pdf" version so everyone should be able to read, and print, this without a problem.

http://www.mainelegislature.org/legis/bills/bills_125th/billpdfs/HP038401.pdf

1/23/11 York, ME:

The Town of York is undertaking a comprehensive review of their zoning ordinance. The review is expected to include a definition of animal breeding and where it will be considered an acceptable land use in the town.

Responsible owners and breeders are encouraged to contact town officials and offer their expertise and suggestions on drafting any language that is likely to affect animal owners and breeders. This is an opportunity for residents to become involved in the process from the beginning and to draft language that will not place unreasonable burdens or restrictions on responsible breeders.

3/30/11 Medford, MA:
The Medford City Council is considering a mandatory spay/neuter proposal. While a final draft is not yet available, the AKC has sent a letter of concern regarding mandatory sterilization laws and suggested more positive alternatives.

5/24/10 House Bill 344, which makes most cases of surgical debarking illegal, was signed into law by Governor Patrick on April 22, 2010. AKC GR contacted legislators, posted a Legislative Alert and worked with the Massachusetts federation to address this bill.

4/22/10 - House Bill 344 would make debarking illegal. This bill passed the House of Representatives and is now in the Senate. The American Kennel Club is concerned that, if enacted, this legislation will lead to the unnecessary euthanization of many animals. We encourage all dog breeders and owners in Massachusetts to contact their Senator in the General Court and respectfully express your concerns with the HB 344.

Much misinformation exists about devocalization of dogs. This procedure, which is performed by a veterinarian using laser or biopsy technology, is safe and relatively non-invasive. It is an acceptable medical procedure that is often done as a "last resort" when all other methods of modifying a dog's behavior have failed. For many responsible dog owners, debarking is the only alternative to euthanizing or surrendering their canine companion to a local shelter when their pet's noisy behavior continually disturbs the community. The decision to debark a dog is one that is best left to the dog owner and his veterinarian.

The American Kennel Club is not the only organization concerned with HB 344. The American Veterinary Medical Association condones the performance of devocalization procedures as a final alternative; and both the Massachusetts Veterinary Medical Association and the Massachusetts Federation of Dog Clubs and Responsible Dog Owners specifically oppose HB 344.

WHAT YOU CAN DO:

Concerned Massachusetts residents are encouraged to contact their State Senators and respectfully express your concerns with HB 344.

3/1/10 HB1977 – The group has urged members to support this bill, called An Act Relative to At Risk Dogs. This bill not only gives animal control officers throughout the state a much-needed tool to identify dangerous and at risk dogs but also provides guidelines for restrictions /requirements to be assigned when dangerous or at risk designations are made to prevent them from endangering anyone. Owners are on notice of what behaviors are considered for these designations eliminating any due process concerns. In general a dog only becomes a threat when it has an irresponsible owner. By including due process, responsible owners are not held paying the price for the irresponsible owners. On February 9, 2010, the Joint Committee on Municipalities and Regional Government reported favorably on this bill.

HB3704 – Likewise, the group has urged members to support this bill, called An Act Relative to the Regulation of Animal Shelters. This bill would allow the Department of Agricultural Resources to promulgate appropriate regulations, with the involvement of the regulated community, to ensure animal health and safety. On February 9, 2010, the Joint Committee on Municipalities and Regional Government reported favorably on this bill.

In addition, we were pleased to learn that the committee sent several bills back to study:
HB1997, An Act Relative to Animals, mandates a statewide leash law, promotes breed specific legislation and provides unreasonable requirements for intact animal permits.

SB774, An Act Relative to Puppy Mills, attempts to specify requirements for kennel licenses and requires anyone with four or more dogs to obtain a kennel license, and, thereby be forced to comply with very restrictive requirements.

SB763, An Act Relative to the Establishment of a Dangerous Dog Registry defines dangerous dogs and creates a statewide online registry for dangerous dogs to be maintained by the Department of Public Safety. The language in the bill raises questions of privacy and the definition of "dangerous dog" included in this bill is not as effectively constructed as in HB1977 which is more comprehensive.

HB1968, An Act Relative to the Destruction of Dangerous Dogs raises the fine from $25 to $2000 in the event an owner does not kill, confine, or restrain a dog within 24 hours of being given notice to do so.

10/1/09 Senate Bill 774 – This bill seeks to restrict the rights of responsible dog breeders, including requiring any owner of four or more dogs to obtain a kennel permit. It also limits ownership to 25 dogs, restricts breeding ages, allows for warrantless inspections, and imposes strict engineering standards for kennels.

9/1/09 House Bill 1997 – HB 1997 requires owners of unsterilized dogs to purchase an intact animal permit for an undisclosed fee. It also allows municipalities to adopt breed-specific legislation, allows for euthanasia of dogs deemed to be a nuisance, and severely limits the means by which owners may restrain their dog. The bill was heard by the Joint Committee on Municipalities and Regional Government on July 14, but has yet to receive a vote.

6/30/09 - Massachusetts – Senate Bill 774 would prohibit any person from owning, possessing, controlling, or otherwise having charge of more than 25 intact dogs over six months of age. Female dogs may only be allowed to whelp one litter per year and only dogs between the ages of 18 months and 8 years may be used for breeding. The bill also prohibits ear cropping, tail docking, debarking, and surgical births except under anesthesia and by a licensed veterinarian.

The bill gives great latitude to the Mayor or Selectmen of the towns to revoke kennel licenses for such ill-defined terms as vicious disposition of the dogs. The bill also attempts to set standards for puppy mills but there is no clear definition of a puppy mill.

11/22/08 - MA - MA HB 5092 Will Not Move Forward!

The Massachusetts Legislature’s Joint Committee on Municipalities and Regional Government decided to send House Bill 5092 to “study,” which effectively ends the consideration of this onerous bill for the remainder of the current legislative session. (For more information on HB 5092, click here.)

In addition to the over 200 concerned responsible dog breeders and owners who appeared in opposition to the bill, legislative staff in Massachusetts report that thousands of opposition calls, e-mails, and letters were received prior to the committee’s meeting. The American Kennel Club congratulates everyone involved in the successful effort in opposing HB 5092.

5/7/11 The Cecil County (MD) Board of County Commissioners will likely discuss numerous changes to its kennel and licensing laws during its 2012 budget public hearing on May 10, 2011. While it is not certain that a final vote will be taken on these changes on Tuesday, it is important that the commission hear that residents are concerned with the proposal.

Background:

Current law requires a kennel license for anyone “engaged in the business of breeding, buying, selling, boarding, grooming or training” five or more “customary household pets” over four months of age.

A proposal released in February would significantly broaden these requirements by requiring those that meet this definition to obtain an annual commercial kennel license, an individual license for every dog they own, and a business license. Commercial kennels must schedule annual inspections with the Animal Care & Control Authority, the Department of Environmental Health and the Department of Permits and Inspections.

These kennels may be given a special exemption to exist in certain residential zones, provided they comply with numerous requirements, including having a minimum of 5 acres if the dogs are kept outside, or 2 acres if the dogs are kept in a soundproof building.

Among other provisions, the proposal would also require a higher individual dog license fee for owners of intact dogs.

Licensing/Inspections for Dog Sport Participants?

Since February, a task force has been assigned to examine this proposal and present amendments to the commission. The AKC has learned that these amendments may include changing the definition of “commercial kennel” to those who breed two or more litters and buy or sell any dogs for compensation.

Furthermore, these amendments may propose a “hobby kennel” license for anyone who keeps dogs for hunting, tracking, participating in dog shows, performance events, or field or obedience trials. Even if dogs are not being bred and sold, those meeting this definition would be required to obtain an annual hobby kennel license and individual licenses for every dog they own, obtain site approval from the Planning and Zoning Commission, develop a program of veterinary care and exercise for dogs and display them in a prominent location, and submit to annual inspections prior to renewing the license.

Both commercial and hobby kennels may also be subject to unannounced inspections at any time.

4/5/11 Maryland update:
House Bill 940/Senate Bill 839 would create a licensing program for all who own or have custody of “10 or more unspayed dogs over the age of six months” and intend to breed any of the dogs and sell any offspring. The bill would also allow counties to establish additional kennel license fees to cover administration costs associated with the licensing program and allow them to enact more stringent kennel licensing laws. HB 940 has passed the House and is pending in the Senate Education, Health & Environmental Affairs Committee. SB 839 passed the Senate Education, Health & Environment Committee on March 21.

2/21/11 HB940/SB839
This year's anti-breeder bill:
A direct and unnecessary attack on hobby and show breeders

HB940, a bill that would require many show and hobby breeders to report personal information to the Maryland Department of Labor and Licensing Regulations, was introduced on February 14, 2011. Testimony on this bill will be heard in the House Economic Matters Committee on Tuesday, March 8th at 1pm in Annapolis.

This bill amounts to an unfunded mandate that unnecessarily targets hobby and show breeders throughout the Free State.

3/1/09 - Maryland Alert: Strict Breeders Bill to be Heard February 18
Maryland Senator Lisa Gladden has introduced Senate Bill 318, a bill that aims to strictly regulate dog breeders in Maryland by imposing ownership limits, strict enclosure and exercise requirements, and other requirements. All concerned responsible dog breeders and owners in Maryland should contact their State Senator and the members of the Senate Judicial Proceedings Committee, which will consider the bill on Wednesday, February 18, and respectfully urge them to oppose SB 318.

If adopted, SB 318 would, on the enactment date of October 1, 2009:

• Mandate the implementation of rigid engineering requirements for enclosures for anyone owning 10 or more intact dogs over 4 months of age without regard to the fiscal impact that such standards would have on targeted breeders or the enforceability of such requirements.
• Prohibit anyone from owning, possessing, controlling, or have charge or custody more than 50 “breeding” dogs over the age of 4 months at any time.
• Require detailed exercise regulations for anyone owning 10 or more dogs over 4 months of age. This includes two separate daily 2 hour exercise regimens unless a veterinarian has determined that the dog is medically unable to exercise.
• Exempt public animal shelters, nonprofit humane societies/animal adoption organizations, veterinary facilities, retail pet stores, research institutions, and boarding facilities from the requirements of this law.
Maryland Alert- Breeders Bill to Be Considered Thursday, February 12
The Maryland House of Representatives Judiciary Committee is scheduled to hear a strict breeders bill on Thursday, February 12.

Maryland Delegate Michael Smigiel has introduced House Bill 495, which, like Senate Bill 318, aims to strictly regulate dog breeders in Maryland by imposing ownership limits, strict enclosure and exercise requirements, and other requirements.

If adopted, HB 495 would, on the enactment date of October 1, 2009:

• Mandate the implementation of rigid engineering requirements for enclosures for anyone owning 10 or more intact dogs over 4 months of age without regard to the fiscal impact that such standards would have on targeted breeders or the enforceability of such requirements.
• Prohibit anyone from owning, possessing, controlling, or have charge or custody of more than 50 “breeding” dogs over the age of 4 months at any time.
• Require detailed exercise regulations for anyone owning 10 or more intact dogs over 4 months of age. This includes two separate daily 2 hour exercise regimens unless a veterinarian has determined that the dog is medically unable to exercise.
• Exempt public animal shelters, nonprofit humane societies/animal adoption organizations, veterinary facilities, retail pet stores, research institutions, and boarding facilities from the requirements of this law.

4/22/10 - On March 9, the Minnesota Senate Agricultural and Veterans Committee voted down Senate File 7, which sought to regulate the activities of dog owners and breeders who possess six or more adult intact female dogs. This action effectively prohibits further consideration of SB 7. The companion bill, House File 253, is still under consideration by the House Agriculture and Veterans Affairs Committee. It remains unclear whether any member of the committee plans to take action on HF 253.

3/1/09 - Minnesota Alert: Breeders Bills Up for Consideration on Jan. 27
Two Minnesota Senate proposals, SF 7 and SF 201, each featuring different breeder regulation proposals, will be heard on Tuesday, January 27, by the Senate Agriculture and Veterans Affairs Committee.

SENATE FILE 7

Sponsored by Senator Don Betzold, SF 7 seeks to establish strict regulatory requirements for breeders, to require inspections of breeders’ facilities, and to impose undisclosed fee increases upon breeders. The proposed changes in this bill include:

• Changing the definition of "breeder" to those who own 6 or more intact adult females, defined as any dog over 24 weeks old, for breeding purposes and who are engaged in the business of direct or indirect sale or exchange.
• Limiting, by July 2010, the number of dogs a breeder may keep at a facility for the purpose of breeding to 50.
• Requiring all breeders to obtain an annual license for each facility they own and operate. Additionally, the statement must include the number of adult dogs and the estimated number of puppies to be kept, housed, and maintained at the facility for the year. Licenses must be prominently displayed in each facility.
• Mandating all breeders to pay an undisclosed fee to register their facility.
• Calling for the annual inspection of each facility, with no advance notice required.
• Imposing strict requirements for breeders beyond current federal and local laws and regulations.
If passed and signed into law, the changes proposed in this legislation would have a significant, negative impact on dog breeders in Minnesota. The changes proposed in Senate Bill 7 are impractical, costly, and unenforceable. Breeders and concerned dog owners should contact their senator and committee members to express their opposition to Senate Bill 7.

SENATE FILE 201

Sponsored by Senator Steve Dille, this bill seeks to provide for the registration of, and standards of care applicable to, dog and cat breeders in Minnesota. Substantially different from SF 7, SF 201 seeks to:

• Permit animal control authorities to charge dog breeders unidentified "reasonable" fees for registration.
• Define "breeder" as someone other than a hobby breeder, who is engaged in the business of breeding animals for sale and who possesses 20 or more intact adult females for the purposes of breeding.
• Defines "hobby breeder" as someone who is engaged in the business of breeding animals for direct sale and who possesses less than 10 intact adult females for the purpose of breeding. It is unclear how those owning between 11-19 intact adult females would be regulated.
• Require breeders to register, by March 1, 2010, with the local animal control authority. Registration is required every four years thereafter.
• Allow breeders the option of complying with USDA care standards or complying with standards issued by the Commissioner of Agriculture.
• Limit investigations to only those instances when a formal complaint alleging violations of standards of care is received by the Minnesota Board of Animal Health, a local animal control authority, a peace officer, or a feedlot inspector.
• Allow breeders 30 days after notification to correct any violations found during an investigation.
• Permit seizure of affected animals only in cases where a breeder has not corrected a violation after 30 days and only if such violations threaten the health and welfare of an animal.
All concerned responsible dog breeders and owners in Minnesota should contact the committee members listed and express your concerns about the provisions of SF 201.

4/13/11 Saginaw, MI:

The Saginaw City Council is seeking to limit all dog ownership to three dogs per household.

Local clubs and dog owners are strongly encouraged to contact the mayor and city council and ask them to oppose these proposals. It is expected that the proposals will be formally introduced on April 18 and scheduled for a final vote on May 9.

Read the proposals here.

Summary:
All dog owners (regardless of breed) would be limited to owning three dogs over four months of age, regardless of breed. Those who currently own more than three dogs would be permitted to keep them, but could not own more than three in the future.
All dog owners must abide by numerous requirements, including:

Never allowing a dog outside a kennel or fenced yard unless it is securely leashed with a lead of adequate strength. The dog must never be tethered to an inanimate object.
Never keeping a dog on a porch, patio or in any part of a house or structure that “would allow the dog to exit such building on its own volition”.
A person may not be a “commercial dog breeder” or “broker” without registering with the City Clerk and obtaining a business license. These terms are not defined.

1/24/11- Saginaw, Michigan
Saginaw, MI Seeks to Restrict Ten Large Dog Breeds
http://www.akc.org/news/index.cfm?article_id=4292

The Saginaw City Council will likely consider a proposal in February that would declare ten dog breeds as “dangerous” and limiting all dog ownership to three dogs per household. Local clubs and dog owners are strongly encouraged to contact the mayor and city council and ask them to oppose these proposals.

While a draft is not yet available, it is believed that the following breeds will be declared “dangerous”:

Rottweilers German Shepherds
“Huskies” Alaskan Malamutes
Great Danes St. Bernards
Doberman Pinschers Chow Chows
“Pit Bulls” Presa Canarios

Owners of these breeds would be required to pay a $50 registration fee a place a warning sign on their property. Owners would also be required to muzzle the dog when in public places.

In another proposal, all dog owners (regardless of breed) would be limited to owning three dogs.

The AKC strongly believes that dog owners should be responsible for their dogs and promote public education programs designed to teach responsible dog ownership. We oppose, however, legislation that seeks to single out specific dog breeds as dangerous and seeks to arbitrarily limit dog ownership.

12/15/10 - Michigan:
House Bill 6561 – This legislation would require a license for all “large-scale commercial kennels”, defined as those who produce 10 or more litters in a calendar year. The county treasurer may charge a “reasonable fee” for the cost of the license, but the amount of this fee is not included in the bill. Those licensed in this bill would be required to comply with all the provisions of House Bill 6562. The bill has been assigned to the House Agriculture Committee, but has not yet been scheduled for a hearing.

House Bill 6562 – This bill, entitled the “Puppy Protection Act”, details the standards that must be held by all “large-scale commercial kennels” (This is defined in HB 6561 as kennels that produce 10 or more litters per year). Among other provisions, the bill limits ownership to 50 intact dogs over four months of age at any time and requires all enclosures to be kept between 50 degrees and 85 degrees Fahrenheit, regardless of the age or breed of the dog. A large-scale commercial kennel may not produce more than 10 litters per year unless it is in compliance with all the care and conditions policies outlined in this bill. HB6562 has also been assigned to the House Agriculture Committee, but has not yet been scheduled for a hearing.

10/26/10 - Senate Bill 1503 seeks to regulate “commercial breeders”, defined as those who possess or maintain 25 or more unaltered dogs or cats over four months of age in whole or in part for the purpose of sale. It is unclear if this would include co-ownerships. Breeders are subject to inspection and cannot sell a dog until it has received all vaccinations including rabies. The bill has been referred to the Committee on Agriculture and Bioeconomy. AKC is closely monitoring this legislation and will provide more information should the bill gain traction.

3/30/11 Mississippi:
Senate Bill 2821 – As amended by the House, this bill establishes the offense of felony animal cruelty against cats and dogs. AKC’s concerns with the bill include vague definitions of animal cruelty, potential impact on the existing problematic seizure bond statute, and a mandate that animal welfare organizations that hold impounded dogs must sterilize them prior to release. There is no exemption from sterilization for an owned dog that accidentally escapes its enclosure or for dogs owned by a person found not guilty of civil or criminal charges. The bill will now go to a joint conference committee.

2/8/11 Mississippi:
There are numerous bills addressing animal cruelty in Mississippi. Additional information will be provided should any of these bills advance. Bill text for HB373, HB381, HB467, HB505, SB2069, SB2074, SB2102, SB2103, and SB2127 can be reviewed by visiting the 2011 Legislation Tracking Page and clicking on the state of Mississippi.

5/1/10 - The City of Laurel, Mississippi, is scheduled to give final approval to numerous changes to the city’s animal control code on Tuesday, May 4. These changes include a number of problematic provisions, including:

Ownership limit of 3 dogs per household in residential areas. The AKC opposes limit laws, as they are arbitrary and do not address the issue of irresponsible dog ownership. Instead, the AKC supports strong enforcement of leash, nuisance, and other general animal control laws to ensure that all dog owners, regardless of the number of dogs they own, are held responsible for their animals. Click here to read more about the AKC’s position on animal limit laws.

At-Large Fines that are 5 times higher for certain breeds. If a dog is found at large in the community, the owner is fined $50 for the first offense and $100 for a second offense. The fee is $250/$500, however, if the at-large dog is one of the following breeds (as named in the proposed ordinance):
German Shepherd Dog
Chow Chow
Doberman Pinscher
Rottweiler
American Staffordshire Terrier
Staffordshire Pit Bull Terrier
American Pit Bull Terrier

Furthermore, the vague language contained in this section could be interpreted as allowing animal control to euthanize any of these breeds found at-large if the owner cannot be immediately found.

The AKC believes that any law seeking to regulate dangerous dogs should establish a fair process by which specific dogs are identified as “dangerous” based on stated, measurable actions; impose appropriate penalties on irresponsible dog owners; and establish a well-defined method for dealing with dogs proven to be dangerous. Click here to read more about the AKC’s position on breed-specific legislation.

How You Can Help:

· Attend the City Council Meeting on Tuesday, May 4 and respectfully ask the Council to amend these portions of the proposal. The details are as follows:
Date: Tuesday, May 4
Time: 5:30 p.m.
Location: Laurel City Hall
Laurel, Mississippi

· Contact the City Council and respectfully express your concerns. All letters should be addressed to the Laurel City Council and e-mailed to sharonking@laurelms.com.

4/5/11 St. Joseph, MO update:
The proposal has been postponed until the May 16 meeting.

2/15/11 February 15, 2011

The St. Joseph (MO) City Council is considering a proposal that would require licensing, inspection, and strict care and conditions requirements for anyone who owns three intact dogs of any age for breeding or exhibition. The guidelines would also affect anyone who is involved with boarding or rescue.

This proposal could be considered as soon as Tuesday, February 22, so it is essential that local residents contact the council TODAY and ask them to not proceed with this proposal.

Summary:

The proposal seeks to take Proposition B, which passed on the ballot in November 2010, and apply it on the local level. However, this proposal changes many of the definitions, thereby making it even more stringent than Proposition B.

As currently written, the following people would be subject to licensing and annual inspection:

Owners of three intact dogs or cats of any age who keep dogs for breeding or exhibition. This low threshold could include inspection of private homes.
All who board animals for any length of time, except for veterinary clinics or those who provide temporary care for dogs or cats owned by friends, or dogs or cats in the owner’s residence.
Anyone whose “primary purpose is to act as an animal rescue, to collect and care for unwanted dogs or cats or to offer them for adoption.”

In addition to annual inspections, licensees must comply with numerous regulations including providing unfettered access to the outdoors and an exercise area that is at least two times the size of the indoor area provided to the dogs or cats (presumably, this would mean an area two times the size of the home if the dogs are kept indoors).

2/8/11 Missouri:
Several pieces of legislation have been introduced to modify or repeal Proposition B, which passed on the ballot in November 2010:

House Bill 94/Senate Bill 4 – These bills seek to completely repeal the proposition.
House Bill 99 – This bill seeks to add a “grandfather clause” and exempt all facilities, dealers, breeders, pet shops, shelters, and kennels licensed before November 2, 2011. All those licensed after this date must comply with the regulations.
House Bill 131 – This bill seeks to modify Proposition B. It replaces the term “puppy mill” with “dog breeders” and removes the 50-dog ownership limit and other provisions.
Senate Bill 95 – This bill renames the law the “Puppy Cruelty Prevention Act” and expands the measure to cover anyone who owns 10 female dogs over the age of 6 months, regardless of whether the dogs are intact. It also removes the exemptions for shelters and those not breeding/selling dogs.
Senate Bill 113 – This bill seeks to make a number of changes to Proposition B, including removing the 50-dog ownership limit and changing the exercise and housing requirements to match those recommended by the Missouri Department of Agriculture. The bill would also change the required rest between breeding cycles from 18 months to 12 months, and allow time to correct violations prior to being charged. The Department of Agriculture would also have the ability to determine whether or not the violation is serious enough to warrant prosecution or inspections. SB 113 also removes the current exemptions for retail pet stores, animal shelters, dog trainers, and hobby/show breeders who own 10 or fewer intact females and sell their offspring.

12/15/10 Missouri- Update:

The statutory ballot initiative, known as Proposition B or “The Puppy Mill Cruelty Prevention Act,” was narrowly approved in the most recent election. The measure limits to 50 the number of intact females a kennel may own. It also includes a number of other care and conditions requirements for commercial breeders, similar to those that are already part of existing Missouri commercial breeder law.

9/2/10: MO Update:

A statutory initiative relating to dog breeding will be placed on the November 2010 ballot. The Missouri Secretary of State has certified that supporters of the initiative, which duplicates previous unsuccessful legislative efforts, have submitted the required number of petition signatures to place the initiative on the November ballot. The initiative contains a 50 dog ownership limit. The Missouri Federation of Animal Owners and other groups opposed to the initiative lost a court challenge to change the language.
The American Kennel Club strongly believes that ALL dogs-not just those who are part of a breeding program-deserve:
Sufficient food and clean water
Necessary veterinary care
Sufficient housing, including protection from the elements
Sufficient space to turn and stretch freely, lie down and extend his or her limbs;
Regular exercise; and
Adequate rest between breeding cycles.
However, the way in which some of these terms are defined in the proposed Missouri ballot measure do absolutely nothing to improve the wellbeing of animals; instead, it would add excessive expenses to responsible breeders who strive to produce well-bred family pets at a reasonable cost.
The proposal also seeks to limit the number of dogs an individual may own. This confuses the real issue of animal welfare, which focuses on the quality of care given to animals, not the number of animals an individual owns. Responsible breeders are not defined by the number of dogs kept, or whether they make a profit in selling dogs. Rather, responsible breeders are characterized by the quality of care and conditions that they provide their dogs and the quality (including health, temperament and breed type) of the puppies they produce.
Cruelty and negligence can occur regardless of the number of dogs a person has.

8/23/10 MO update:
A statutory initiative relating to dog breeding will be placed on the November 2010 ballot. The Missouri Federation of Animal Owners and other groups opposed to the initiative lost a court challenge to change the language.

5/24/10 Possible breeder regulation ballot initiative – A statutory initiative relating to dog breeding may be placed on the November 2010 mid-term election ballot. Supporters of the initiative, which duplicates previous unsuccessful legislative efforts, claim to have collected the required number of signatures to put the initiative on the November ballot. The initiative contains a 50-dog ownership limit. AKC has issued a legislative alert expressing opposition to the proposal, and continues to work with the Missouri federation to defeat this initiative effort.

Update:

House Joint Resolution 86 – This resolution would have place an amendment to Missouri’s constitution on the November 2010 ballot. If the ballot measure is approved by the voters, it will protect the rights of Missouri residents to raise animals in a humane manner that protects animal health without allowing the state to impose undue economic burdens on owners. The AKC and its Missouri federation both strongly supported this resolution, which passed the Missouri House of Representatives on March 4. The resolution did not pass the Senate prior to the end of the legislative session. Read AKC's Legislative Alert about HJR 86.

4/22/10 - House Joint Resolution 86 – This resolution would place an amendment to Missouri’s constitution on the November 2010 ballot. If the ballot measure is approved by the voters, it will protect the rights of Missouri residents to raise animals in a humane manner that protects animal health without allowing the state to impose undue economic burdens on owners. The AKC and its Missouri federation both strongly support this resolution, which passed the Missouri House of Representatives on March 4. The resolution will next be considered by the Senate.

Possible breeder regulation ballot initiative – A statutory initiative relating to dog breeding may be placed on the 2010 mid-term election ballot. Supporters of the initiative, which duplicates previous unsuccessful legislative efforts, are currently collecting the required number of signatures to ensure the initiative is placed on the November ballot. The initiative contains a 50-dog ownership limit.

1/12/10 Missouri dog breeding and dog limit initiative
There is an initiative petition effort underway in Missouri that, if successful, would allow Missouri citizens the opportunity to create law that will unreasonably restrict the operations of responsible dog breeders. Similar legislation has failed to garner support in the Missouri Legislature. Missouri law requires proponents of this initiative to collect a required number of voters' signatures prior to it being placed on the November 2010 ballot.

The American Kennel Club strongly believes that ALL dogs-not just those who are part of a breeding program-deserve:

Sufficient food and clean water
Necessary veterinary care
Sufficient housing, including protection from the elements
Sufficient space to turn and stretch freely, lie down and extend his or her limbs;
Regular exercise; and
Adequate rest between breeding cycles.
However, the way in which some of these terms are defined in the proposed Missouri ballot measure do absolutely nothing to improve the wellbeing of animals; instead, it would add excessive expenses to responsible breeders who strive to produce well-bred family pets at a reasonable cost.

The proposal also seeks to limit the number of dogs an individual may own. This confuses the real issue of animal welfare, which focuses on the quality of care given to animals, not the number of animals an individual owns. Responsible breeders are not defined by the number of dogs kept, or whether they make a profit in selling dogs. Rather, responsible breeders are characterized by the quality of care and conditions that they provide their dogs and the quality (including health, temperament and breed type) of the puppies they produce.

Cruelty and negligence can occur regardless of the number of dogs a person has.

The AKC does not support this petition, and is working with the Missouri Federation of Animal Owners to address it.

6/30/09 -Missouri

House Bill 1004 – A bill has been introduced in the Missouri house to limit ownership to 50 dogs.

House Concurrent Resolution 4 – This bill encourages dog training programs and kennel clubs to provide training and education for community pet owners that result in dogs obtaining “Canine Good Citizen®” (CGC) certificates. This bill has passed the House of Representatives and the Senate Rules, Joint Rules, Resolutions, and Ethics Committee and is awaiting a vote by the full Senate.

MISSOURI – The Grain Valley Board of Aldermen continues to consider a proposal to limit the number of animals allowed at a residence and possible breed restrictions. The Canine Legislation Department has sent a letter to the board encouraging them to reject both breed-specific legislation and a limit law in favor of a nuisance ordinance and a dangerous dog ordinance.

- The Lee’s Summit City Council has rejected breed-specific legislation, but is now considering a mandatory spay/neuter ordinance. The council will be holding a public meeting on the issue, but it has not yet been scheduled. The Canine Legislation Department sent local fanciers material on the ineffectiveness of breed-specific legislation and will be working with local dog owners to oppose the mandatory spay/neuter proposal.

4/5/11 Montana update:
House Bill 390 and House Bill 515, which sought to regulate and limit dog breeders, were tabled in committee.

3/30/11 - Montana
House Bill 390 seeks to require registration of facilities that sell 30 or more dogs per year. The bill also requires the Montana Department of Livestock to adopt rules governing inspections, recordkeeping, and standards for dog care and housing at registered facilities. HB 390 is scheduled be heard by the Montana House Agriculture Committee.

Nebraska

4/5/11 Nebraska update – Legislative Bill 427:
The Agriculture Committee conducted a public hearing of the bill on February 8, but no action was taken. Read the AKC’s Legislative Alert on LB 427.

1/23/11: Nebraska:Legislative Bill 427

This bill seeks to further regulate "commercial dog breeders" in Nebraska. Current law defines "commercial breeders" as anyone owns or harbors four or more intact dogs or cats, who sells at least 31 dogs and cats per year, whose dogs/cats produce four or more litters per year, or who knowingly sells or leases dogs/cats for later retail sale or brokered trade.

With this low threshold in current law, LB 427 would require anyone who owns four intact dogs of any age to comply with strict engineering standards and breeder restrictions.

Background:

Under existing "commercial breeder" regulations, those who fall under the state definition of "commercial breeder" are required to be licensed, be inspected at least once every two years, and comply with basic standards of care. These standards include maintaining sanitary conditions; providing adequate food and clean water; providing adequate socialization and exercise; and providing adequate space based on the age, size, weight, and breed. Current law also requires that breeders develop and maintain a veterinary care plan in conjunction with a veterinarian and provide veterinary care "without delay when necessary."

The AKC strongly believes that all dogs deserve lives in safe, healthy environments, and that they should not be kept in conditions where their basic needs are not met. Current law already addresses these concerns. The new restrictions outlined in Legislative Bill 427 place undue, unnecessary and expensive burdens on responsible breeders and owners of intact dogs.

LB 427 Summary:

Legislative Bill 427 seeks to add more arbitrary and restrictive requirements for all dog breeders and the owners of four or more intact dogs. In addition, it creates the opportunity for breeders to obtain an "outstanding" designation from the state if the breeder complies with even more restrictive requirements. Those who achieve this designation will receive a certification and be listed on a public web site. Here are some highlights:

Breeding Restrictions – A female dog may not be bred more than once every 12 months unless the dog has been given a physical by a licensed vet. The breeder must restrict the breeding to once every 18 months to obtain "outstanding" status. The dog may only be bred if she is between the ages of 12 months and 8 years.
New Primary Enclosure Requirements – The primary enclosure must be large enough for the dog to lie down, stand up, and turn around without touching another dog. To obtain the "outstanding" designation, the breeder must comply with a complicated mathematical formula for enclosure sizes.
New Requirements for Exercise Areas – Each primary enclosure must have an entry with unfettered access (or allow access at least twice a day) to an outdoor exercise area that is at least 10 times the size of the primary enclosure. Breeders have until July 1, 2016, to comply, but will not be considered "outstanding" if they use this grace period.

How You Can Help:
This bill could be considered as early as the first week in February. Also, unlike other state legislatures, the Nebraska Legislature has only one chamber. Therefore, the bill may move very quickly.

We encourage all responsible dog owners and breeders to contact their State Senator and express any concerns you have with Legislative Bill 427.

1/28/11 NV – includes Reno and surrounding areas:

Washoe County’s Regional Animal Services will hold two public workshops to discuss proposed changes to the animal control ordinance, including requiring kennel permits in the unincorporated areas of the county.

The measure will also add provisions for a new “Variance Permit,” available to those who own 4 or 5 sterilized dogs (current limit is 3 dogs). The ordinance will also mandate at-large dogs be microchipped upon redemption and makes other changes to the existing animal cruelty and dog licensing laws.

Responsible owners and breeders are encouraged to attend the county’s public workshops on this proposal to voice their concerns.

11/22/08 - Nevada

The Clark County Animal Control Advisory Board is considering recommending a mandatory spay/neuter ordinance to the County Commission. Las Vegas is the largest city in this county and AKC is working with local clubs and breeders to oppose this measure. The county already requires that breeders obtain a pet fancier permit that requires a home inspection.

3/1/10 House Bill 1624 seeks to impose an ownership limit of no more than 50 intact dogs; to require those with more than 10 intact dogs to adhere to the same operations standards as pet shops and animal shelters; and to deputize individuals not trained or sworn in as public officers to enforce the provisions of the bill, including the power to enter private premises and seize property. The bill will be heard by the House Environment and Agriculture Committee on Thursday, January 21.

3/1/09 - New Hampshire Bill Restricting Sale of Litters
The New Hampshire House Environment and Agriculture Committee is scheduled to hear House Bill 337 on Wednesday, February 11. This measure would prevent any dog owner from selling more than one dog or cat per year without a temporary license, which expires after 60 days.

All New Hampshire residents should contact the sponsor of House Bill 337, the members of the Environment and Agriculture Committee, and their Representatives to express opposition to the bill. (Visit this web page for contact information:http://www.akc.org/news/index.cfm?article_id=3728)

The provisions of House Bill 337 are as follows:

• Any dog or cat owner not engaged in the business of selling animals may not sell more than one dog or cat per year without a $25 temporary license.
• The temporary license expires after 60 days.
• No more than two temporary licenses may be issued in a year.
• Any owner that violates this section must pay a fine between $50 and $200.
• Persons and entities engaged in the business of selling animals, including commercial kennels (10 or more litters or more than 50 puppies per year) are exempt.
• Fees from the temporary licenses and violations will be deposited in the Companion Animal Neutering Fund.

New Jersey

1/5/11 - New Jersey:
Senate Bill 2517/ Assembly Bill 678 – These bills would mandate the sterilization of all dogs and cats prior to being released from the local shelter, even if the dog is reclaimed by the owner. Exceptions are made for dogs that have finished their championship with the AKC or another recognized registry, or dogs that have a “breed ring show record” dating no more than a year prior to the dog entering the shelter or pound. S. 2517 has been assigned to the Senate Economic Growth Committee. A. 678 has been assigned to the Assembly Agriculture and Natural Resources Committee. Neither is currently scheduled for hearings.

12/15/10 - High Bridge, NJ:
The High Bridge Common Council will be considering an amended barking dog ordinance on November 18. The current proposal defines a violation as a dog “vocalizing” for 20 minutes without interruption, unless the dog was provoked. Three warnings are required before a citation may be written. The original proposal, which stated that a dog was in violation after five minutes of barking (with at least 4 barks per minute), was tabled by the council after concerns were raised by local dog owners and AKC clubs.11/8/09 - New Jersey

Assembly Bill 1591 –This bill prohibits certain breeding practices and limits the selling of cats or dogs as pets to 25 animals per year per breeder. "Breeder" is defined under the bill as any person who owns or operates a breeding facility and sells more than five cats or dogs per year. The bill also requires annual registration for breeders selling cats or dogs as pets in the state. A. 1591 has been referred to the Assembly Agriculture and Natural Resources Committee.

Assembly Bill 2536/Senate Bill 1396/Senate Bill 1959 – These bills deem that failure to provide minimum care to dogs is a criminal and civil offense. “Minimum care” is defined as care sufficient to preserve the animal’s health and well-being, including adequate protection from the weather, veterinary care deemed necessary by a reasonably prudent person, and food of sufficient quantity and quality to allow for normal growth, except in cases of emergency or circumstances beyond a person’s reasonable control. This bill has not yet received a hearing. A. 2536 has been referred to the Assembly Agriculture and Natural Resources Committee. S. 1396 and S. 1959 has been assigned to the Senate Economic Growth Committee.

Senate Bill 364 – S. 364 directs the Department of Health and Senior Services to review current regulations concerning the proper care and housing of animals, determine the proper care and housing for each species of animal sold by kennels, pet shops and any other retail establishments selling animals, and adopt new rules and regulations as necessary. The bill also establishes penalties for kennel and pet shop owners guilty of overcrowding animals. S. 364 has been referred to the Senate Economic Growth Committee.

3/7/08 -Mandatory Spay/Neuter Reintroduced in New Jersey
Senator Van Drew has introduced Senate Bill 971, a bill which threatens the rights of responsible dog owners in New Jersey. This bill is a reintroduction of 2006's AB 3542. Fanciers, concerned dog owners, and responsible breeders should immediately contact their representatives in the New Jersey State Legislature, and the members of the Senate Economic Growth Committee who will first hear this bill, and express their vehement opposition to this bill.

The bill would require that before a dog could be released from any shelter or pound it must be sterilized, unless the owner can provide documentation of the following:
· that the dog "has been shown" within the last 12 months; or
· that the owner is a "professional licensed breeder registered with the American Kennel Club"; or
· a licensed veterinarian has determined that sterilization would be detrimental to the dog's health.

Sterilization is required for all dogs impounded, even if it is the first time the dog has been detained.

The majority of purebred dogs never compete in AKC events and would not be eligible for this exemption. Further, the American Kennel Club does not license breeders. Therefore, this bill creates conditions that the vast majority of responsible dog owners cannot possibly meet.

Read a copy of the bill

WHAT YOU CAN DO:
· Contact the members of the NJ Senate Economic Growth Committee. Urge them
to oppose SB 971. Contact members of the committee

Reintroduced New Jersey Bill Bad News For Breeders Assemblyman Neil Cohen and Assemblywoman Joan Voss have introduced Assembly Bill 1591, a bill which threatens the rights of responsible breeders in New Jersey. This bill is a reintroduction of 2006’s AB 3401. Fanciers, concerned dog owners, and responsible breeders should immediately contact their representatives in the New Jersey State Legislature, and the members of the Assembly Agriculture and Natural Resources Committee who will first hear this bill, and express their vehement opposition to this bill.

The bill defines a “breeder“ as any person who sells or offers to sell more than five puppies per year. In addition to this incredibly low threshold, the bill requires breeders to comply with a host of restrictive regulations and institutes steep fines for violations. AB 1591 also prohibits any breeder from selling more than 25 dogs in one year.

AB 1591 goes far beyond encouraging responsible breeding. Under AB 1591, all breeders would be required to comply with draconian regulations including maintaining specified temperatures, keeping animals only on nonporous surfaces, and circulating air at precise levels. The measure further mandates the acceptable dimensions for crates and runs, and sets minimum socialization standards. Finally, all breeders are required to register annually with the Department of Health. This list will be published and made available to the public.

All breeders are required to furnish specified information to pet purchasers and provide a full refund for any reason for a pet returned within 14 days. Any dog which is sold with a pedigree can be returned for a full refund within 26 months if any congenital or genetic defects are discovered.

Violations can be punished with monetary fines or suspension of the license to sell pets. A first violation can result in a prohibition on selling cats or dogs for five years and subsequent offenses can add an additional five years for each violation. Civil penalties may also be administered. For a first offense, a breeder shall be fined $5,000 and for a second offense the breeder may be fined $10,000 for each subsequent offense. A member of the public who supplies information that results in fines or suspension will be eligible for an award of 10 percent of the civil penalty or $250, whichever is greater.

Read a copy of the bill.

More information on who to contact and what you can do.

New Jersey - Assembly Bill 2649. The proposal attempts to replace New Jersey's already comprehensive and reasonable animal cruelty laws and humane care standards with an unnecessary, confusing, and haphazard system that will not only affect the health of the general public, but will also threaten the due process rights of individual animal owners.

Among AB 2649's 56 pages, its most egregious proposals include the following:

• Any person, regardless of their lack of knowledge, training, or expertise, could accuse another person of animal cruelty, while receiving immunity from prosecution for cruelty themselves. Without providing redress for someone who has been unjustifiably and vindictively accused of animal cruelty, this provision is ripe for abuse.

• The definition of "minimum care" required for the care of animals will be lessened to include "veterinary care deemed necessary by a reasonably prudent person". AKC believes that veterinary care in all cases should be administered with a professional standard of care with the highest levels of professionalism and competence, as deemed necessary by a licensed veterinarian.

• The definition of "cruelly restraining a dog" specifically bans the tethering of dogs with less than 15 feet of tether. This provision does not expressly provide an exemption for dogs being groomed on grooming tables in any setting, including grooming salons and dog shows. With substantive animal cruelty provisions already in place, New Jersey state and local governments need to enforce existing law in cruel tethering cases. Irresponsible owners who are not providing humane treatment for their animals can and should be prosecuted under current law.

What You Can Do:
Contact your representative in the New Jersey General Assembly and express your opposition to AB 2649.

NEW JERSEY – Asm. Van Drew is sponsoring A3542, a bill to require animals returned to their owners from shelters be sterilized, even on a first offense unless the owner can prove they have been active in AKC activities. The bill also increases the surcharge for an unsterilized dog from $3 to $20, eliminates the range for dog licenses fees established by municipal ordinance provided under current law, and increases the dog license fee to $10, whether set by ordinance or if no ordinance exists. The effect of these increases is that licensing an unsterilized dog would cost $30 per year and the license would have to be applied for each year, and the license for a sterilized dog would be $10 per year and could be applied for every two years, instead of each year. Monies raised would be put in to a “Cat and Dog Sterilization Fund” to fund the sterilizations required by the bill. A3542 has been referred to the Assembly Committee on Agriculture and Natural Resources.

12/15/10 - Rio Rancho, NM update:
The Rio Rancho City Council has postponed a hearing on changes to the city’s animal control ordinance until March 2011. The city council has been holding a series of public workshops on the issue and changes have been suggested by the council. More work sessions are expected and a final draft should be available prior to the March 2011 meeting.

10/26/10 - Rio Rancho, NM
On November 2nd, the Rio Rancho City Council will consider changes to the city’s animal control ordinance including mandatory spay/neuter of dogs and cats, pet limits, and requiring permits for breeders, animal rescues, animal shelters, boarding kennels, groomers, pet day cares, training facilities, pet stores and pet sitters. Hobby breeders, defined as producing even a single litter, will be required to obtain a conditional use permit from the zoning department, as well as a business permit to sell the dogs and allow for an inspection of the their facility.

11/17/09 - Las Vegas to Consider Mandatory Spay/Neuter Ordinance:
Provisions of the Ordinance include:

• All dogs and cats over the age of 4 months must be spayed or neutered unless the owner qualifies for an exemption
• All puppies or kittens born to dogs and cats that have not been spayed/neutered as required will be forfeited and may be given to the local shelter for adoption
• Fines for violation
• Impounded dogs or cats that are intact, but whose owners do not qualify for an exemption must be sterilized prior to release
• Provides that impounded animals be kept for only 72 hours
• Requires that impounded animals be microchipped and that the owner pay for the microchipping prior to release
• Pet Stores are required to provide certain information to Department of Detention and Enforcement
The Silver State Kennel Club is working with the city council to address their concerns with the ordinance. Legislative Liaison Ken Sondej who can be reached at 4winds@viawest.net is coordinating speakers for the committee meeting on November 3rd.

3/30/11 NYC, NY:
The New York City Council approved a new ordinance that would prohibit the restraining (tethering) of animals outdoors for longer than three continuous hours within a 12-hour period. As amended, the measure would also prohibit the tethering of an animal on a choke or pinch collar or other devices "for any amount of time" (e.g. temporarily). The AKC is in contact with New York City officials on this issue, and we will be working with them to clarify the regulatory language in an upcoming rules hearing on this issue. Read the AKC’s Legislative Update on this issue.

3/30/11 NY:
Assembly Bill 269 – Current law states that overdriving, overloading, torturing, injuring, or failing to provide necessary sustenance to an animal is a Class A misdemeanor. This bill would increase the penalty for committing these acts against a companion animals to a Class E felony. This bill has been assigned to the House Agriculture Committee.

2/8/11 New York:
New York Assembly Bill 3595 would prevent senior citizens from being denied occupancy or evicted from a multiple dwelling because they own a pet. We encourage all New York residents to contact their State Assemblyperson and the members of the Assembly Housing Committee, and ask them to support this legislation.

Summary:

There are many positive aspects to A.3595, including:

• Recognition of the Benefits of Pet Ownership – This bill begins by listing numerous benefits of pet ownership on the owner’s physical and mental health, and states that a person should not have to choose between remaining in their home and keeping their pet.
• Protection for Senior Citizen Pet Owners – A senior citizen may not be denied occupancy or evicted from a multiple dwelling unit simply because they own or keep “a common household pet or pets”.
• Respect for Other Tenants – The bill does not apply to pets that cause damage, create a nuisance, or substantially interfere with the health, safety, and welfare of other tenants or occupants.
• Accountability for Pet Owners – The owner of the multiple dwelling may establish reasonable rules, including requiring leashes in common areas, removal of animal waste, the use of reasonably designated elevators, and compliance with state and local health, animal control, and animal cruelty laws.

2/8/11 New York:
These bills have been prefiled – none has been scheduled for a hearing:

Assembly Bill 78 – Currently New York law defines “pet dealer” as anyone who sells or offers to sell nine or more dogs each year. This bill seeks to change the definition to a person who meets any of the following criteria: Anyone who sells or offers for sale 9 or more dogs per year that were raised somewhere other than their premises, owns at least 4 intact female dogs or cats at least 6 months of age and sells or offers to sell any offspring, or anyone who sells at least 10 dogs in a calendar year. The bill also removes the current exemption for anyone who sells fewer that 25 dogs a year directly to the consumer. The bill has been referred to the Assembly Agriculture Committee.

Senate Bill 946 – This bill clarifies larceny statutes by stating that pets are included in the definition of property. The bill has been assigned to the Senate Codes Committee.

Senate Bill 1310 – This bill directs the State Department of Health to oversee dog licensing for cities with populations of over 2 million people. Among other provisions, it requires a higher-priced license for owners of intact dogs and mandatory sterilization for any dog that is impounded, even if the dog is reclaimed by its owner. This bill has been assigned to the Senate Agriculture Committee.

1/5/11- NYC Seeks to Triple Licensing Fees for Intact Dogs:
The New York City Council is seeking to triple the licensing fees for intact dogs in order to help the city’s animal population control fund. Licensing fees for sterilized dogs will remain the same.

A report submitted to the council’s Committee on Health stated that approximately 80 percent of the city’s dogs are unlicensed. Increasing the license fee for all intact dogs will not solve the enforcement problem.

The AKC believes that burdensome requirements on owners of intact dogs do not address the issue of irresponsible ownership. We believe that stricter enforcement of leash and nuisance laws and programs that educate the public about responsible breeding practices are more effective solutions.

Read the proposal here.

How You Can Help
This ordinance is proposed to be enacted by January 2, 2011. Contact Mayor Bloomberg and the New York City Council to express your opposition to raising the license fees for owners of intact dogs, and encourage them to focus on stronger enforcement of animal control laws for ALL dog owners.

The contact information for the mayor is as follows:
Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg
City Hall
New York, NY 10007
Phone: 311 (or 212-NEW-YORK outside NYC)
Fax: (212) 312-0700

E-mail: http://www.nyc.gov/html/mail/html/mayor.html

12/20/10 - New York State Information Alert

Currently the New York State Department of Agriculture & Markets handles dog licensing for most municipalities in the state. In the 2010 budget passed by the New York Legislature, this responsibility was handed over to local municipalities, effective January 1, 2011.

The American Kennel Club encourages all dog owners to know, understand, and follow the laws of their jurisdictions. In response to this new licensing structure, we strongly suggest that dog owners in the state of New York should closely monitor new ordinances and regulations proposed by their county and city governments that will determine local licensing fees, requirements and changes to animal control policies.

Certain provisions that exist under current New York state law may or may not be adopted by local governments. For example, the current state law provides the option of a purebred license, wherein the owner of one or more purebred dogs registered by a recognized registry association may annually make application for a purebred license in lieu of individual dog licenses. The provision for purebred licenses will become optional for local governments on January 1, 2011.

One example of the impact of these changes is the city of Lackawanna, which has already informed its residents that it will be offering only single dog licenses, thereby forcing all dog owners to comply with its two-dog limit passed in July 2006.

All New York dog owners need to be more vigilant than ever in monitoring dog-related ordinances in their communities and to work proactively to ensure that laws impacting dog ownership and breeding are reasonable, enforceable and non-discriminatory.

12/15/10 - Newstead, NY:
The Newstead Town Council decided not to pursue an ordinance that would impose a three-dog ownership limit and require public muzzling for “pit bulls”. The AKC sent a letter expressing concerns with the proposal, and local media cited AKC’s letter as one of the reasons the council changed its course. The Council has set up a committee comprised of breeders and dog owners to develop a more effective proposal.

10/26/10 - Gates, NY
The Gates City Council has instituted a moratorium on the enforcement of the city’s limit law after a local couple was charged and told to remove one of their 3 dogs from the home. AKC GR sent a letter to the mayor and city council urging a repeal and encouraging the community to write and enforce clear and effective leash and nuisance laws.

7/12/10: New York update: Assembly Bill 5507 has been held in the Assembly Agriculture Committee.

5/24/10 - Assembly Bill 5507, known as "Charlemange's Law", will significantly impact certain responsible dog breeders if enacted as introduced. The bill seeks to amend the state's existing definition of "pet dealer", to include those who sell or offer to sell more than five (reduced from nine) animals per year at wholesale or retail. Additionally, the bill seeks to reduce the current threshold of the pet dealer definition exception, from anyone who sells or offers to sell directly to the consumer fewer than twenty-five animals per year born or raised on the breeder's residential premises to ten animals per year. AB 5507 also seeks to impose significant restrictions on the operations of those deemed pet dealers. The bill creates a definition of "commercial kennel", defines extensive care and conditions requirements for commercial kennels, and requires at least annual inspections of such facilities. The bill will be considered by the New York Assembly Agriculture Committee on Tuesday, May 18.

New York Alert: Extensive Breeder Regulations to be Considered Tuesday, May 18

New York Assembly Bill 5507, known as "Charlemagne’s Law", will be considered by the New York Assembly Agriculture Committee tomorrow, Tuesday, May 18. Among its many provisions, the bill seeks to amend the state’s existing definition of "pet dealer", creates a new definition of "commercial kennels", and seeks to impact those designated as such with extensive operational restrictions. The American Kennel Club opposes a number of provisions in AB 5507. We urge all responsible dog owners and breeders in New York to contact the Assembly Agriculture Committee members listed below, and express their opposition.

If enacted as introduced, AB 5507 will:

Amend the state’s existing definition of "pet dealer", to include those who sell or offer to sell more than five (reduced from nine) animals per year at wholesale or retail.
Reduce the current threshold of the pet dealer definition exception, from anyone who sells or offers to sell directly to the consumer fewer than twenty-five animals per year born or raised on the breeder’s residential premises to 10 animals per year.
Allow the inspection of any animal facility, defined as "any area built, installed, or designed to serve as a breeding or maintaining area for animals".
Impose a variety of onerous kennel engineering standards and other requirements on "commercial kennels", defined as anyone who sells a dog to a pet dealer or sells or transfers more than 60 dogs per year. These new provisions would like be extremely costly to responsible breeders while doing little to help protect the health and welfare of dogs.
The American Kennel Club strongly supports humane treatment of dogs, including an adequate and nutritious diet, clean water, clean living conditions, regular veterinary care, kind and responsive human companionship, and training in appropriate behavior. The AKC also supports reasonable and enforceable laws that protect the welfare and health of purebred dogs and do not restrict the rights of breeders and owners who take their responsibilities seriously.

How You Can Help:

· Attend the New York Assembly Agriculture Committee meeting and respectfully express any concerns you have with AB 5507. The meeting details are as follows:

Date: Tuesday, May 18, 2010
Time: 1:00 p.m.
Location: Legislative Office Building , Room 829
Albany , NY

· Contact the members of the Assembly Agriculture Committee and respectfully express any concerns you have with AB 5507.

8/1/09 New York

Senate Bill 5392 – This bill limits ownership to no more than 50 intact dogs over 4 months of age if they are kept for the purpose of breeding and selling the offspring. The bill also allows New York police officers, officers of the ASPCA and any other "duly incorporated society for the prevention of cruelty to animals" to seize animals kept in violation of the limit law as long as a complaint has been issued. A warrant must be issued before the animals may be taken. The bill passed the Senate Agriculture Committee and now goes to the Codes Committee. Click for for more information, including a sample letter to personalize and send.

6/30/09 - New York

Senate Bill 4515 – This bill would require the registration and regulation of animal “breeders”, which is defined as any person who breeds three or more animals for sale per year for profit. Breeders would be subject to annual licensing, strict engineering requirements, and inspections twice each year at the breeder’s expense. It also limits “pet dealers” in New York to obtaining dogs only from NY licensed breeders.

Senate Bill 4690 – This legislation would limit ownership to 50 unsterilized dogs and allow any police officer or officer of the ASPCA or any other humane organization to seize dogs kept in violation of this ownership limit if certain due process requirements are met. The bill also expands the definition of “Pet Dealer” to include any person who engages in the sale or offering of sale more than nine animals per year.

NY - Tether Law – S2052
Keeping dogs chained-sometimes called "tethering"-is cruel because it deprives these highly-social pack animals of proper socialization, and often leaves them unable to reach whatever shelter, food, and water they've been provided (if any!). It isolates them from any meaningful human contact or interaction. They often become "nuisance barkers," which often leads to complaints by neighbors, which subsequently leads to either "getting rid of the dog," or "correction" by the owners. The dogs also grow aggressively protective of their tiny space and often attack children (or adults) who come near them. A piece of legislation that would help make the state a safer, more humane place for dogs and the public-Senate Bill 2052-was introduced on January 30. Please urge your legislators to do the right thing and support this legislation today!

If it becomes law, S2052 would prohibit the tethering of a dog to any fixed object or running cable trolley system for more than six hours total in any 24-hour period. (For example--two hours in the morning, two hours in the afternoon, and two hours in the evening.) The bill would require that all tethers attached to a fixed point be at least 15 feet in length. It would also mandate that all tethers attach only to a properly-fitted collar or harness, thus hopefully preventing dogs from becoming injured, strangled, or entangled, or having their collars embedded in their necks.

NEW YORK – Asm. Peralta has introduced A1677, which seeks to require all dogs over four months of age to be microchipped and registered with a new state-run registry. Additionally, all microchips and information stored in them must be compatible with scanners used by the New York State Department of Agriculture and Markets. If passed and signed into law, violators of the provisions of A1677 will be subject to fines of up to $100. For further information, please read AKC's Legislative Alert.

North Carolina

1/13/10 - Lee County, NC to Host Informational Sessions on Mandatory Sterilization, Limits Etc. on Thursday 1/13 and 1/20

The Lee County Board of Commissioners will be hosting public forums to discuss a proposed animal control ordinance. While much of the proposal is focused on measures to protect the public from dangerous animals and prevent the spread of rabies, there are some sections of the proposal which are problematic. We encourage local responsible dog owners to attend these sessions, inform commissioners about their concerns and to work with the commissioners to amend the measure to remove or modify the provisions that are unfair to responsible owners and breeders.

Lee County Informational Meeting Details:
Date: Thursday, January 13th
Time: 6:00pm – 8:00pm
Location: Greenwood Elementary School
1127 Greenwood Road
Sanford, NC 27330

Date: Thursday, January 20th
Time: 6:00pm – 8:00pm
Location: Broadway Elementary School
307 South Main Street,
Broadway, NC 27505

Provisions of the ordinance include the following:
· Required sterilization of a dog on a second impoundment - The AKC believes that requiring that a dog be sterilized on a second impoundment is not reasonable. The violations may occur years apart and not be indicative of an irresponsible dog owner. Even responsible owners can have an animal escape due to a mistake by a meter reader, gardener, or friend leaving a gate open. If the intent is to address those owners who habitually allow their dogs to run at-large, a designated time frame for the impoundments to occur should be specified. The AKC does support the proposed graduated fines for owners whose dogs are impounded.

· Requirement that a dog be microchipped on a first impoundment

· A special permit requirement for anyone who owns more than thirty (30) combined dogs and cats – The fee will be at least $200, although the Lee County Board of Health will determine the exact fee. It is unclear what the requirements or process will be to obtain this special permit. AKC also believes that whenever possible, fees should be specified in the code rather than set by non-elected officials outside the legislative process.
· Minimum size requirements for any enclosure, pen or fenced in area, although dogs are not required to be kept in enclosures – An enclosure for one dog must be 100 square feet with sides at least 6-feet high. If the enclosure is utilized for more than one dog, it must be 100 square feet plus an additional square foot for each pound of the dogs’ total weight that exceeds 100 pounds. It is unclear exactly who this provision is aimed at, and what the basis is for the space formula.

· Established standards for tethered dogs

The draft of this measure can be seen on the county’s website here.

What You Can Do
· Attend the Lee County Commissioners meeting Monday December 6th and respectfully ask that the commissioners may changes to ensure that responsible breeders and owners are protected.

· Contact the members of the Lee County Board of Commissioners and respectfully ask them to make specific changes. The contact information is as follows:

Commissioner Richard B. Hayes, Chairman
2004 Vantage Point
Sanford, NC 27330
rhayes@leecountync.gov
Home: 919-774-7658

Commissioner Larry C. "Doc" Oldham, Vice Chairman
714 Clifton Ln.
Sanford, NC 27330
loldham@leecountync.gov
Home: 919-776-6615

Commissioner Amy M. Dalrymple
1449 Dalrymple Farm Rd.
Sanford, NC 27330
adalrymple@leecountync.gov
Fax: 919-258-5950
Home: 919-258-6695

Commissioner James C. Kelly
937 Valley Rd.
Sanford, NC 27330
jkelly@leecountync.gov
Home: 919-718-6513
Fax: 919-718-6607

Commissioner Nathan E. Paschal
5594 Carbonton Rd.
Sanford, NC 27330
epaschal@leecountync.gov
Home: 919-776-3257
Fax: 919-776-0126

Commissioner Robert T. Reives
827 Primrose Ln.
Sanford, NC 27330
rreives@leecountync.gov
Home:919-774-4434
Fax: 919-777-6567

Commissioner Linda A. Shook
7992 Villanow Dr.
Sanford, NC 27332
lshook@leecountync.gov
Home: 919-775-5557
Fax: 919-774-1120

12/15/10 - The North Carolina Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services has accepted public input for a study of “companion animal welfare”. The study will focus on the welfare of dogs and cats, the oversight of public and private animal shelters, the state’s spay/neuter program, the scope of commercial breeding operations, and the protection of consumers who purchase companion animals. Upon completion, the findings of the report will be provided to the state legislature.

Guilford County, NC:
The Guilford County Board of Commissioners approved an ordinance that regulates and defines high-volume breeders as anyone who owns seven or more intact females, regardless of whether they are bred. It further defines high-volume retailers as anyone who sells more than 50 dogs per year. Residents meeting these thresholds will be required to comply with a host of burdensome engineering standards and allow inspections of their private property even when no proof of animal cruelty or neglect exists. A previous version of the ordinance contained an exemption for breeders who passed AKC’s rigorous inspections programs, but this was removed.

8/2/10 - Senate Bill 460 died in the House of Representatives. Read more about this victory

6/17/10 NC Alert: Hearing on SB 460 Likely Next Week
[Thursday, June 17, 2010]

The AKC Government Relations Department has learned that the House Finance Committee will likely consider Senate Bill 460 on Thursday, June 24.

5/24/10 - The North Carolina General Assembly officially convened their 2010 regular session last week. Over the next few months, they will work on a state general budget and decide whether or not to consider many pieces of legislation, including Senate Bill 460.

SB 460 seeks to regulate dog breeding in North Carolina. The American Kennel Club supports reasonable and enforceable laws that target irresponsible dog owners and substandard animal care. However, SB 460 does none of these things nor does it improve the wellbeing of dogs. Some specific concerns with this bill include:

Vague definition of “commercial breeder”. The bill defines “commercial breeder” as someone who owns 15 or more intact female dogs “of breeding age” and 30 or more puppies. It is not clear if this is a cumulative number owned over a lifetime, or the number on a property at one time. If the measure is intended to address commerce, this should be defined by the number of dogs sold, rather than by what an individual owns.

North Carolina already has effective animal abuse laws. SB 460 will do nothing to protect the health or welfare of dogs in North Carolina. North Carolina’s existing animal welfare statutes, if properly enforced, actually do a better job of protecting dogs than the provisions of SB 460 will, should the bill be enacted.

Creation of a new, unfunded mandate for counties. SB 460 gives the state authority to initiate investigations on complaints against commercial breeders, but it makes county authorities responsible for conducting the investigations and follow-up work pursuant to the state’s motion. It does not, however, provide funding for this.

False and misleading legislative findings. The bill’s legislative findings are based on unsubstantiated claims and state that the bill does not interfere with a person's right to participate in hunting and working activities with their dog. However, the bill only exempts those who board or train – not those who breed – dogs for show, hunting, working, etc.

Animal rights groups are already lobbying their legislators to encourage them to take up this bill. To counteract this push, we are asking all North Carolina dog clubs, breeders, and responsible dog owners to also contact their state representative and respectfully inform them that you are a constituent and oppose SB 460.

Urge your Representative to oppose SB 460 and not let the bill move forward. Explain that reasonable people oppose this misleading bill, which creates an unfunded mandate and does nothing to improve the well-being of dogs. Remind them that the state has good negligence and cruelty laws, which if fully enforced, address the issue of substandard kennels. Thank them for their service, and tell them you will remember their assistance in opposing this bill at election time.

For information on how to contact your legislators, visit the North Carolina General Assembly’s web site and put your zip code in the “Who Represents Me?” box on the right side of the home page.

9/1/09 North Carolina

Senate Bill 460 as amended provided a vague definition of “commercial breeder” that included anyone who owns or maintains at least 15 intact females at least one year of age and 30 puppies. It also had problematic legislative findings and created an unfunded mandate for counties to inspect complaints. The bill sponsor pulled SB 460 from consideration in the House Finance Committee, and the bill is dead for the year.

6/30/09 - North Carolina

Senate Bill 460 – This bill defines “commercial breeder” as "any person who, during any 12-month period, owns or maintains 15 or more intact female dogs of breeding age for the primary purpose of the sale of their offspring as companion animals. Breeding facilities could be subject to random inspections, including potential warrantless searches of licensees’ homes. The bill passed the Senate Commerce Committee and is awaiting a hearing in the Senate Finance Committee.

House Bill 733 – This bill seeks to strictly regulate dog breeding in the Tarheel State by imposing ownership and breeding limits. The bill defines “commercial breeder” as any person who maintains 15 or more adult female dogs during any 12-month period for the purpose of selling their offspring and limits ownership to 20 female dogs over four months of age at any time. The bill also bans the breeding of female dogs less than 18 months or over eight years of age.

NC - the Town of Fuquay-Varina will hold a public hearing at 7pm Monday, October 1st at the Town Hall (401 Old Honeycutt Road) to discuss proposed changes to the zoning ordinance. Fanciers and concerned dog owners are strongly encouraged to attend.

These changes include the establishment of a kennel definition which defines a kennel as any residence having 4 or more dogs, cats or other domestic animals. The ordinance further states that kennels can only be located on lots of 2 acres or greater. Therefore, any person in a residential neighborhood with a lot smaller than 2 acres would be prohibited from owning more than 3 domestic animals. The measure does NOT include a grandfather clause, so residents could be forced to surrender any animals over the limit.

The AKC Canine Legislation department is sending a letter to the Fuquay-Varina Town Commissioners along with copies of our Limit Laws: Better Alternative brochure. (This can be seen on our website at
http://www.akc.org/pdfs/GLEG02.pdf .)

It appears that this ordinance is being drafted in response to the behavior of one irresponsible dog owner. As you know, good nuisance laws and an enforced leash law would provide the town with the tools to address this person’s inappropriate behavior.

If you are unable to attend the meeting, but would still like your voice to be heard on this issue, please write a letter or email to the town commissioners before the meeting. Their contact information can be found online at

http://www.fuquay-varina.org/commissioners/.

10/26/10 - North Olmstead, OH
The North Olmsted City Council unanimously postponed a vote on a dog breeding proposal and sent it back to committee after numerous concerns were voiced by local dog owners. As introduced, the proposal defined “breeder” as anyone who has ever had an unspayed female on their premises, had two litters birthed within 18 months on their premises, and has advertised the sale of puppies under 6 months of age or advertised an unspayed female dog for breeding purposes. The definition would apply even if someone met these criteria before the proposed law was enacted. Under the proposed law, breeders could keep two intact dogs, as long as their residential lot is at least one acre. An additional acre is required for each additional intact dog, regardless of breed.

9/23/10: House Bill 570 – This legislation seeks to provide an alternative to Senate Bill 95. It defines a commercial breeder as anyone who maintains at least five dogs used for breeding; promotes, advertises, operates, supervises, or manages the business of breeding dogs; or sells, leases, trades, barters or auctions dogs. The bill also places an ownership cap of 50 dogs, bans debarking, ear cropping, and tail docking, and allows for inspections and seizure of animals regardless of whether the kennel owner is present. The bill was introduced on August 23, and has not yet been assigned to committee. For more information on this bill, visit http://www.akc.org/news/index.cfm?article_id=4175.

7/12/10: Ohio update:
Senate Bill 95 , which seeks to regulate “high volume” dog breeding in Ohio, was passed by the Senate State & Local Government & Veterans Affairs Committee. It defines “high volume dog breeder” as one who produces at least 9 litters and sells at least 60 puppies and/or adult dogs per year. Numerous amendments have been added to address many of the AKC’s concerns, including ensuring breeder representation on the new Kennel Control Authority Board and eliminating the limits on breeding ages. Other problematic provisions remain, however, including a definition of “kennel” that could be interpreted to mean any owner of a purebred dog and problematic standards for “high volume breeders".

5/24/10 - As introduced, Senate Bill 95 and House Bill 124 seek to regulate dog breeding in Ohio and contain numerous provisions of concern to the AKC. The bills have received hearings, but no votes at this time. A substitute bill for Senate Bill 95 was introduced which addressed many of the AKC’s concerns, but still contains some problematic provisions. Visit the AKC Government Relations web page or contact the GR Department for the latest information.

1/12/10 House Bill 124 – As introduced, this bill included many arbitrary and unenforceable requirements for kennels, limits and restrictions on breeding ages and numbers of litters, and unclear licensing requirements. A substitute amendment has been offered that addresses some issues, including allowing breeders to dock tails and remove dewclaws if the puppy is under 96 hours old. Many concerns still remain. The bill has received a hearing, but has not yet had a vote in committee. Read the latest on House Bill 124.

11/17/09 - Senate Bill 95 - the Ohio Senate State & Local Government and Veterans Affairs Committee will allow supporters of Senate Bill 95 to testify in a hearing on October 6. Opponents of the measure will be given an opportunity to speak at a later hearing. All concerned dog owners and breeders in Ohio are encouraged to contact the committee, as well as their State Senator, to express any concerns or feedback they have on this bill.

The AKC is concerned with many provisions in Senate Bill 95 as introduced, including, but not limited to:

• Broad definition of "Regulated Dog Intermediary". Anyone who sells, exchanges, donates, or gives away at least nine dogs a year or sells or gives one dog to a pet store is subject to a $500 annual license fee. This definition also does not exclude breeders, and it is unclear if those who acquire a dog breeding kennel license must also obtain a regulated dog intermediary license.
• Arbitrary, unenforceable kennel requirements and standards of care. The detailed requirements outlined in this bill are nearly impossible to enforce and do not account for the varying needs of different dog breeds or the enormous costs these new standards would impose on responsible breeders.
• Little breeder representation within Kennel Control Authority Board. Besides one member "in good standing of a national breed parent club of the American Kennel Club", breeders have no representation on the board that will set the standards of care, oversee licensing, and conduct inspections. While the AKC appreciates that parent clubs are being recognized for their expertise, breeders should have more than one representative on a board regulating dog breeding in Ohio.
In addition, the bill creates a new board to oversee implementation and inspections, which the Ohio Legislative Service Commission reports will likely cost the state hundreds of thousands of dollars, depending on the amount the state receives in license fees. The Commission acknowledges that the number of dog kennels in Ohio requiring licensing under this bill is unknown, so they cannot accurately project the amount of revenue the fees will generate for the state

6/30/09 - Ohio - Senate Bill 95/House Bill 124 – These bills were recently introduced, and feature 42 pages of breeder oversight and restriction provisions. They include provisions for search and seizures, limiting ear cropping and tail docking, limiting bitches to one litter per year, providing the Ohio Humane Society with greater powers, and creating a kennel control authority board.

4/5/11 Oklahoma:
Senate Bill 773 seeks to make numerous amendments to the commercial pet breeders laws. Among other provisions, the committee amendment would exempt all those who breed hunting, sporting and working dogs and require that any rules established by the Commercial Pet Breeders Board be first approved by the state Department of Agriculture, Food & Forestry. The requirements for annual inspections are removed and replaced with inspections on receipt of a written complaint. These complaints may be made against breeders, animal shelters, or rescues that have contracts with local municipalities. The amendment has been approved by the House Agriculture & Rural Development Committee and now goes to the Appropriations Committee.

1/5/11 - Oklahoma :
Oklahoma has created the Oklahoma State Board of Commercial Pet Breeders to regulate commercial animal breeding in the state. This is in response to Senate Bill 1712, which passed the legislature earlier this year. The board has published draft regulations for comment, which define a “commercial pet breeder” as any person who possesses or has possessed eleven or more adult intact females in the past twelve months. Problematic provisions include high application and inspection fees, vague definitions, and strict kennel and handling requirements.

5/24/10 - Senate Bill 1712, called the “Commercial Pet Breeders Act”, classifies anyone with 11 or more intact females as a commercial breeder. Commercial breeders now have to be licensed and have their facilities inspected. The bill also creates the Board of Commercial Pet Breeders to oversee enforcement. SB 1712 was signed by the Governor on May 5, 2010. Read the AKC Legislative Alert.

4/22/10 - Senate Bill 1340 – This bill, entitled the “Kennel Definitions Act”, defines a “commercial breeder” as one who harbors 25 intact females. The bill would require show and hobby breeders to adhere to the same care and conditions requirements as commercial breeders. SB 1340 also provides consumer protection language and seeks to be the first law to explicitly define the term “puppy mill.” The bill has passed the Senate as well as the House Economic Development and Financial Services Committee.

Senate Bill 1712 – This bill, called the “Commercial Pet Breeders Act”, would classify anyone with 11 or more intact females as a commercial breeder. Commercial breeders would have to be licensed and have their facilities inspected. The bill would also create the Board of Commercial Pet Breeders to oversee enforcement. SB 1712 has passed the Senate, as well as the House Economic Development and Financial Services Committee.

3/1/10 Senate Bill 1712 – This bill, called the “Commercial Pet Breeders Act”, would classify anyone with 11 or more intact females as a commercial breeder. Commercial breeders would have to be licensed and have their facilities inspected. The bill will also create the Board of Commercial Pet Breeders to oversee enforcement of the Act. SB 1712 has been assigned to the Senate Appropriations’ Subcommittee on Natural Resources and Regulatory Services.

3/1/10 Senate Bill 1340, called the “Kennel Definitions Act”, defines a “commercial breeder” as one who harbors 25 intact females. The bill would also require show and hobby breeders to adhere to the same care and conditions requirements as commercial breeders. SB 1340 also provides consumer protection language and seeks to be the first law to legally define the term “puppy mill”.
Senate Bill 2186 would create the Companion Pet Protection Act. The bill classifies anyone who harbors more than 25 intact female dogs as a commercial breeder. It further requires these breeders to be USDA certified and follow federal care and conditions guidelines. The bill also requires hobby and show breeders to register with the state.
House Bill 2743 would create the Oklahoma Pet Quality Assurance and Protection Act, and would require anyone who transfers more than 35 or more dogs or cats to adhere to the provisions of the act. The act would require licensure and inspection of facilities, and empower the state’s Board of Agriculture to develop rules, as advised by a citizen committee, for care and conditions in licensed facilities.

6/30/09 - Oklahoma – As originally written, HB 1332 would have provided, among other things, for warrantless search and seizure and required that out-of-state breeders be licensed in Oklahoma to transport animals in Oklahoma. An amendment has removed some of the problematic language, but some concerns remain. The bill has passed the House, and will now be sent to a conference committee for amendments prior to reconsideration by the full Senate.

5/13/08 - Oklahoma, Ponca City - This proposed ordinance mandates that owners spay or neuter their dogs unless they obtain a potentially costly permit for each intact dog. The City Commission is considering this proposal, and may refer it back to the Animal Control Board for further review.

4/5/11 Oregon:
House Concurrent Resolution 12 recognizes the AKC Canine Good Citizenship program, encourages owners to train their dogs and urges kennel clubs to provide training programs in their communities. The measure is in the House Rules Committee.

House Bill 3047 will expand the definition of “farm use” to include land used for the purpose of breeding, raising, kenneling, showing or training dogs for racing or other canine skills including, agility, obedience, tracking, lure coursing and herding. The measure will be heard in the House Agriculture and Natural Resources Committee on March 28th. The GR department has sent a letter of support to the members of the committee and asked Oregon dog clubs to support the measure.

2/8/11 Oregon:
House Bill 2471 – This bill seeks to prohibit people who have been convicted of animal abuse, animal neglect or animal assault from being employed by a kennel or grooming parlor. The bill also changes “owner” to “keeper” in certain sections of law.

House Bill 2724 – This bill would create the crime of animal endangerment, defined as leaving a dog or cat in a car when the weather is a danger to the animal’s health. HB 2724 will allow law enforcement officers to remove the animal and to cite the owner for a Class B traffic violation.

6/30/09 - Oregon bills:

House Bill 2470 – House Bill 2470 severely limits the rights of breeders. Among other provisions, House Bill 2470 imposes significant and cumbersome operational requirements on all who own 10 or more intact dogs of any age and requires breeders to comply with an unreasonable two-year consumer protection term. The bill also outlaws anyone from possessing more than 25 intact dogs 4 months of age or older. HB 2470 passed the House and is awaiting a hearing by the Senate Consumer Protection and Public Affairs Committee.

House Bill 2986 – This bill prohibits breeding dogs that share a common parent or grandparent. It makes the first violation subject to maximum fine of $360 and a second or subsequent violation subject to maximum fine of $720. The bill also requires breeder to keep records showing parentage and grandparentage of dogs and puppies. This bill has not yet received a hearing.

4/5/11 Rhode Island:
Senate Bill 140 – This bill, in addition to other provisions, would make it a violation of the animal cruelty statute to keep any dog “outside, tethered, penned, caged or otherwise confined” for more than one hour without access to an outdoor housing facility, unless the person caring for the dog also remains outside. As currently written, this could mean that someone allowing their dog to play in a fenced-in backyard for an hour must have an outdoor facility available, unless they remain outside with the dog. The Senate Environment and Agriculture Committee held this bill for further study.

8/2/10 - Senate Bill 2022 passed the Senate, but was held in the House Judiciary Committee. The legislature has concluded its business for the year.

7/12/10 Rhode Island:
The Rhode Island Senate has passed Senate Bill 2022. As currently written, this bill would outlaw keeping any dog outside, tethered, penned, caged, fenced or otherwise confined for more than one hour without access to an “outdoor housing facility” unless the person in charge of the dog was also outside with it. The measure also uses “guardianship” language, which could undermine owners’ legal rights to their animals, and authorizes local humane society personnel to act as enforcement officers without requiring standard legal and procedural training. The bill will now be considered by the House Judiciary Committee.

2/8/11 South Carolina:
House Bill 3209 – This legislation provides that an order for protection from domestic abuse may also prohibit harm or harassment of pets owned by the petitioner. H.3209 is referred to the House Committee on Judiciary.

Senate Bill 200 – This bill would establish that a defendant in a civil or criminal case may be ordered to deposit funds for 30 days' care of impounded animals or forfeit rights of ownership, with no return of expended funds if determined not guilty. S.223 is referred to the Senate Committee on Agriculture and Natural Resources.

Senate Bill 223 – This bill defines cruel confinement and restraint, makes it unlawful to confine or restrain animals in a cruel manner, and preempts all local laws governing the confinement and restraint of animals. S.223 is referred to Committee on Agriculture and Natural Resources.

Senate Bill 226 – This bill provides for registration with the county sheriff and community notification of persons convicted of felony animal abuse. S.223 is referred to the Senate Committee on Judiciary

4/3/08 - South Carolina Bill 833 – tethering amended
South Carolina Senate Bill 833 is currently under consideration by the full Senate. The bill—which originally attempted to only address the restraint of dogs—has been amended and now unreasonably seeks to seriously limit the confinement of dogs in pens or crates. It is vital that all South Carolina enthusiasts, fanciers, and concerned dog owners contact the bill's sponsor and their state senator and voice their respectful opposition to this bill as written.

As currently written, SB 833 seeks to unreasonably define "confine an animal in a cruel manner" to include:
· Confining an animal for an unreasonable period of time. As used here, "unreasonable" is not defined. As such, arbitrary enforcement of this potential law can have a drastic affect on dogs in crates or pens at home; dogs in crates or pens at exhibitions, including dog shows and events; or
dogs in transport to exhibitions. SB 833 includes a list of activities that will be exempted from the provisions of the bill, but does not grant an exemption to the exhibition of animals, to animals transported for exhibition, or to related and incumbent activities.
· Confining that does not permit an animal access to sustenance. This provision is vague as to what types of sustenance would be required. Additionally, it does not take into consideration the accepted practice of dogs that, at exhibitions, are housed in crates or pens and have steady but
intermittent access to water and food in consideration of the animal's health, safety, or activity.

WHAT YOU CAN DO:
South Carolina residents are encouraged to contact SB 833's sponsor, Senator Knotts, and urge your opposition to the bill as currently written. Encourage him to amend the bill to ensure that all onerous provisions of the bill are addressed while still attempting to protect animals subjected to cruel treatment. Also contact your state senator and express your concerns and urge amendment.

E-mail: Senator John M. "Jake" Knotts, Jr. (Sponsor)

Find your South Carolina State Senator

SOUTH CAROLINA – SB 234 will prohibit the denial, cancellation, or non-renewal of homeowners’ insurance based solely on the presence of one or more dogs, unless a specific dog on the premises has a documented history of causing significant damage to real or personal property or serious bodily injury to a person. The bill was introduced by Sen. Reese and has been assigned to the Senate Committee on Banking and Insurance.

10/26/10 - Nashville, TN
The Nashville Metro Health Department is considering proposing an ordinance that, among other provisions, would restrict the number of dogs and cats (combined) older than four months that may be maintained on a property. The draft proposal would allow five cats and/or dogs on properties of less than an acre, ten on 1.5 to 2.5 acres, twenty on 2.5 to 5 acres, and 21 or more on larger properties.

10/26/10 - Memphis, TN
The Memphis City Council has adopted changes to their animal control ordinance, including mandatory sterilization of all dogs unless the owner purchases a $200 Fertile Animal Permit. The ordinance also defines any dog that has “bitten once and been at-large twice” as a dangerous dog.

8/6/10 - Memphis to Consider Mandatory Spay/Neuter, New Dangerous Dog Definitions & Fee Increases on August 10th!

The Memphis City Council Services & Neighborhood Committee will consider four ordinances amending the city’s animal control laws on Tuesday, August 10th. The proposal will require mandatory spay/neuter of all dogs over 29 pounds, define any dog that has “bitten once and been at-large twice” as a dangerous dog, increase fees for owners of intact dogs and limit tethering. It is vital that responsible dog owners and breeders attend this meeting to oppose these changes. Read More.

2/15/10 The Johnson City Commission will have a second reading of a mandatory spay/neuter ordinance at their February 18th meeting. The commissioners will cast a final vote upon third reading. It is imperative that responsible owners and breeders attend this meeting to express their opposition to this measure.

Johnson City Commission Meeting
Thursday, February 18th
6pm
601 East Main St.
Johnson City, TN 37601

Johnson City currently requires that all animals over 3 months of age be registered with the city’s Animal Control Center, but there is not a fee. The owner must provide a copy of the animal’s rabies vaccination and the registration is good for 3 years.

The proposed ordinance would require that all dogs and cats over the age of 6 months be spayed or neutered unless the owner obtains a $25 unaltered animal permit from the Washington County/Johnson City Animal Control Center. The ordinance requires that the certificate be available for inspection at all times.

This ordinance will only be enforced if the owner violates another provision of the city’s animal control code, but even a first violation will require that the animal be spayed or neutered.

6/30/09 - Tennessee – House Bill 386 and Senate Bill 258 seek to limit the number of dogs an individual may own; implement inspections of any premises without warrant or proving probable cause, where more than 20 intact companion animals over six months old are maintained; and permit the Commissioner of Agriculture to confiscate animals and allow national humane organizations to house these animals.

4/13/11

Two House bills that place unreasonable burdens on responsible Texas dog owners and breeders but do not improve animal welfare made significant progress in the Texas House last week.

House Bill 1451, which would regulate and define as a commercial breeder those who own 11 or more intact female dogs or cats, has been approved by House Committee on Licensing and Administrative Procedures and has been placed on the Local, Consent and Resolutions Calendar for Thursday, April 14th. This calendar is for noncontroversial, unopposed bills. It is not reasonable that HB 1451, which had significant opposition in committee, be considered on this calendar. It is crucial that responsible breeders and owners call their Representatives and ask to have this pulled off the calendar for a full vote of the House.

A procedural move to suspend House rules last week to enabled the House County Affairs Committee to hear House Bill 2116, another bill regulating owners and breeders, without notice of a public hearing. Although HB 2116 was left pending in committee, we expect the author to introduce a substitute bill shortly and ask for an immediate vote on this legislation.

Responsible breeders and owners are urged to immediately call or email their representative in the Texas House and ask him or her to oppose HB 1451 and HB 2116.

Click here and type in your address to find the name and contact information for your State Representative.

The American Kennel Club strongly supports humane treatment of dogs, including an adequate and nutritious diet, clean water, clean living conditions, regular veterinary care, kind and responsive human companionship, and training in appropriate behavior. The AKC also supports reasonable and enforceable laws that protect the welfare and health of purebred dogs and do not restrict the rights of breeders and owners who take their responsibilities seriously.

To read the AKC’s letter on House Bill 1451 please click here.

To read the AKC’s letter on House Bill 2116 please click here.

Provisions of House Bill 1451

Defines a breeder as anyone who possesses 11 or more intact females.Simply owning a certain number of intact dogs does not indicate a large-scale breeding operation. This definition may encompass many small hobby breeders or sportsmen who produce only one or two litters a year.

Mandates an unannounced inspection by the Texas Department of Licensing and Regulation (TDLR), or their designee every 18 months. Due to the low thresholds in the bill, many of the breeders who will be licensed are not commercial operations and do not have regular business hours. Often, these people utilize their homes to breed their dogs. The AKC believes that to ensure that privacy and due process rights are protected, inspections, especially of private residences, should be performed pursuant to a warrant. Further, as these inspections are unannounced, it is unclear what would happen if a breeder is not at home when an inspector has gone to the expense of traveling to visit them.
Allows TDLR to charge an unspecified fee for licensure and inspection. The measure says fees should cover the cost of establishing and implementing an inspections program. HB 1451 further allows a tiered licensing schedule based on the number of dogs owned, but the cost may be excessive for someone who breeds only a litter or two a year. The fiscal note anticipates that this program will cost over $1.3 million to implement, with the full cost borne by the breeders. If the board’s estimate of one thousand breeders is close to accurate (and we believe this number to be high), then individual licenses are likely to cost thousands of dollars annually.
Requires an annual veterinary examination.This is burdensome for breeders in rural areas who have to transport their animals to a veterinarian. It also forces the breeder to spend money on healthy animals when the funds would better be used to care for animals with health concerns and to maintain and improve facilities. Parents are not required to have their children seen by a physician annually, nor are farmers and ranchers whose animals enter our food supply required to have annual veterinary examinations of each animal. This provision is costly and strips owners of their right to decide what care is best for their animals.
Establishes a public database of licensees and disciplinary actions. The thresholds in this bill are so low as to include many who breed dogs in their homes. It is unreasonable for a small breeder to be required to post their name, address and other personal information on a public registry.
Provisions of House Bill 2116

Prohibits any dog from being left outside and unattended in an enclosure unless at least 150 square feet of space is provided for each dog. This may mean some owners are unable to use existing dog runs or even yards if they do not contain enough square footage. This threshold is arbitrary, not based on any accepted animal husbandry principles and does not take into account a dog’s breed or activity level.
Defines a breeder as anyone who possesses 11 or more intact females. Simply owning a certain number of intact dogs does not indicate a large-scale breeding operation. This definition may encompass many small hobby breeders or sportsmen who produce only one or two litters a year.
Directs the Health & Humane Services Commission to promulgate additional regulations for commercial breeders. AKC believes that irresponsible breeders and owners can be successfully addressed using the state’s existing animal cruelty laws. Any additional regulations should be written by officials with extensive animal husbandry knowledge working in consultation with responsible breeders.

4/5/11 Texas:
House Bill 2116 will define anyone who owns 11 or more intact female animals (dogs or cats) and is engaged in the breeding and sale of animals for a profit as a commercial breeder. Under this measure, regulations for proper feeding, watering, housing, care, veterinary care, grooming, treatment, transportation and disposition of dogs would be drafted and enforced by the Texas Health and Human Services Commission. The bill also restricts tethering and outdoor confinement of dogs. The bill has been referred to the House Committee on County Affairs.
House Bill 3044 will allow county commissioners to prohibit the sale of dogs and cats on a public highway or road, in the right-of-way of a public highway or road, or in a parking lot.

Senate Bill 1517 will require any dog adopted out or returned to an owner by a releasing agency be sterilized unless specified conditions are met. The bill will require that owners of dogs and cats that are not sterilized obtain a $50 intact animal permit for each intact animal.

3/30/11 TX:
House Bill 998 will require the owner of any unneutered male dog over 20 lbs that is ever off the premises of the owner off-lead to purchase $100,000 per occurrence in liability insurance to cover instances of property damages, bodily injury or death. Read AKC’s alert on HB 998.

3/11/11 House Bill 1451 which will define and regulate breeders of dogs and cats will be heard in the House Committee on Licensing and Administrative Procedures on Tuesday, March 15th. Because the author is preparing extensive amendments and plans to introduce a substitute bill, no vote will be taken at this hearing. Responsible dog breeders are encouraged to attend the public hearing or contact the committee and the author’s office with their specific and respectful comments on the bill.

As introduced, HB 1451 defines a commercial breeder as anyone who owns eleven intact female animals (dogs and cats) and is engaged in the business of breeding animals for direct or indirect sale. The bill requires inspections of private property without any proof of animal neglect or cruelty, and breeders will be charged unspecified fees for their license.

The American Kennel Club strongly supports humane treatment of dogs, including an adequate and nutritious diet, clean water, clean living conditions, regular veterinary care, kind and responsive human companionship, and training in appropriate behavior. The AKC also supports reasonable and enforceable laws that protect the welfare and health of purebred dogs and do not restrict the rights of breeders and owners who take their responsibilities seriously.

House Committee on Licensing and Administrative Procedure Hearing
Tuesday, March 15, 2011
8am
State Capitol Room E2-012

Additional provisions of the bill as drafted include:
Requires an annual unannounced inspection of a breeder’s property. The low thresholds in the bill mean that small breeders will be included, many of whom may not have regular business hours. It is unclear what would happen if an inspector arrived and the owner was unavailable.

Inspections can be conducted by third-party designees, including local animal control officers and contract employees. Although the bill says the state “may” provide training to these inspectors, it does not mandate it. This creates the possibility that rules may not be equitably applied and that some inspectors may have little to no experience in animal husbandry.

Fees are not specified in the bill although the measure says they should cover the cost of establishing an inspections program, possible training for inspectors, and paying for the time and travel necessary to conduct inspections. It is possible that a tiered licensing schedule will be established based on the number of dogs owned, but the cost is likely to be excessive for someone who breeds only a few litters per year.

The bill will limit breeders to 50 intact females unless the breeder submits a special application and complies with any additional requirements developed in the regulation process.

Requires breeders undergo a criminal background check. AKC believes that it is appropriate to ensure that licenses are not provided to those who have animal cruelty violations, but that including unrelated offenses that have no bearing on the fitness of a dog breeder is unreasonable. This will also be an additional financial burden on the applicant who will likely bear the cost of the background check.

Establishes a public database of licensees and disciplinary actions. The thresholds in this bill are so low as to include many breeders who breed in their homes. It is unreasonable for a small breeder to be required to post their name, address and other personal information on a public registry.

Establishes the “Commercial Breeder Enforcement Enhancement & Training Fund” which may offer rewards for information leading to disciplinary action. This incentivizes frivolous reports of insignificant violations and will create a burden for inspectors and for the breeders who must fund the program. The bill does not address who pays the costs if a breeder is found innocent of allegations.

Regulations would be written and enforced by the Texas Commission of Licensing and Regulation. AKC is concerned that none of the commissioners has a background in agriculture or animal husbandry. We believe that it is vital that stakeholders, including responsible breeders, be involved in the drafting of regulations governing responsible animal ownership and breeding.

2/8/11 House Bill 323 /Senate Bill 279 will prohibit the removal of a pet, companion or assistance animal from the possession of a person named in a protective order. It also seeks to make it a crime to harm, threaten, or interfere with the care, custody, or control of a pet, companion animal, or assistance animal owned by a person named in a protective order.

12/15/10 - Longview, TX:
The Longview City Council has approved an ordinance which will limit residents to any combination of six dogs and/or cats. A dog that is impounded for roaming at-large will be required to be sterilized, even on a first offense, unless the owner pays a fine of at least $250.

9/23/10: El Paso, TX update:
The El Paso City Council has postponed a hearing for 60 days on changes to the animal control code. The original proposal included the establishment of differential license fees, breeder licensing and inspections, a requirement that a dog be sterilized on a second impoundment and a ban on the sale of cats and dogs within city limits. A working group has been formed to draft a new ordinance. AKC GR staff has sent a letter opposing these changes to the city council, has posted a legislative alert on our website and continues to work with local clubs to oppose these and other proposed unreasonable changes.

8/6/10 - El Paso City Council to Consider Numerous Licensing & Breeder Restrictions on August 10th The El Paso City Council will hold a public hearing Tuesday August 10th to discuss possible changes to the animal control code including differential license fees, breeder licensing and inspections, and a ban on sales of cats and dogs in pet stores. It is vital that responsible dog owners, breeders and fanciers oppose this legislation. Read More

8/2/10 - Waco - The Waco City Council has approved a mandatory spay/neuter ordinance which requires any resident with an intact dog to obtain a $50 license. Sterilized dogs are not required to be licensed.

8/2/10- Austin - The Austin Animal Advisory Commission is considering an ordinance to require pet traders (those who sell more than 15 dogs or cats in a year) pay a $50 fee for each intact animal they sell and file a variety of paperwork with the city. A second proposed ordinance would ban retail sales of dogs and cats within the city limits.

6/30/09 - Texas bills:

House Bill 458 – This bill seeks to allow Commissioners Courts of any county with a population of one million or more—which includes Harris County (Houston), Dallas County (Dallas), Tarrant County (Ft. Worth), Bexar County (San Antonio), and Travis County (Austin)—to limit the number of dogs an individual may keep at a residence located in a residential subdivision in an unincorporated area of the county. This bill passed the House County Affairs Committee and is awaiting a vote by the full House of Representatives.

House Bill 3180/Senate Bill 1910 – These bills establish strict licensing and regulation requirements for commercial dog and cat breeders. The bills also limit ownership to 50 intact animals. This bill received a hearing in the House Licensing and Administrative Procedures Committee, but no vote was taken.

House Bill 4277/Senate Bill 1845 – These bills impose a mandatory spay/neuter requirement for dog owners in Texas. The bill requires every person who owns a dog or cat at least six months of age to sterilize the animal with very few exceptions. Owners wishing to own an intact dog may purchase a $300 permit for each animal. These bills have not yet received a hearing.

7/1/08- Dallas, TX - The Dallas City Council will consider proposed changes to the Dallas animal control ordinance on Wednesday, June 18th, at 9:00 AM, at Dallas City Hall, 1500 Marilla Street, Dallas. These changes include mandatory spay/neuter, breeder permitting, and limits on the number of pets that can be owned.

The American Kennel Club opposes the concepts of breeding permits, breedings bans, or the mandatory spay/neuter of purebred dogs. Instead, we support reasonable and enforceable laws that protect the health and welfare of purebred dogs and do not restrict the rights of breeders and owners who take their responsibilities seriously.

Unfortunately, the proposed draconian changes to Dallas' animal control ordinances conflict with the positions stated above. For example, the proposed changes would:

Require Dallas dog owners to spay or neuter each dog they own. The AKC believes that mandatory spay/neuter is an ineffective solution to animal control problems because it fails to address the heart of animal control issues-irresponsible ownership. Mandatory spay/neuter laws are extremely difficult to enforce and can be evaded by irresponsible animal owners who do not license their pets. More laws, rules, and regulations increase the workload of already financially strained animal control offices, making it even more difficult for them to perform their duties.

To keep a dog intact, breeders are required to purchase a $500 breeder permit for each intact dog every year. However, breeder licensing fees place an undue burden on responsible breeders and owners and fail to address irresponsible individuals who neither comply with existing law nor will
comply with new laws. Such fees therefore punish responsible breeders who give the care and attention that puppies need in order to grow into healthy, well-adjusted companions and neighbors. Responsible local breeders encourage responsible dog ownership and should be viewed as assets to their communities and should not be subjected to punitive fees.

Impose a limit on the number of pets owned to six dogs or cats (or combination of both) per dwelling. However, limit laws are easily evaded, difficult to enforce, and fail to address the actions of irresponsible owners. In the alternative to limit laws, effective enforcement of existing leash and curbing laws, rather than passage of burdensome new laws, will prevent pet owners from allowing their animals to run loose.

WHAT YOU CAN DO:

It is imperative that all Dallas-area residents call and fax Mayor Tom Leppert and the members of the Dallas City Council to respectfully let them know that you OPPOSE the proposed changes to Dallas's animal ordinance.

5/13/08 - Texas, Dallas - A burdensome ordinance is currently pending in the Quality of Life Committee of the Dallas City Council that, if enacted, will mandate dogs be spayed or neutered unless the owner obtains a breeder permit for each intact dog. Breeder permits will only be issued to owners of dogs of recognized breeds that are registered with a national registry and who are members of a purebred dog club that has been approved by the Director of Animal Services. The permit will cost a staggering $500 per year per dog and will restrict breeding to one litter per permit per year. Breeders are prohibited from selling puppies until they reach eight (8) weeks of age and have been immunized. It would also limit the number of pets that may be owned to six (dogs, cats, or combination of both). The Quality of Life Committee will be briefed on this proposal on April 28, 2008.

4/3/08- Dallas, TX-breeder permitting and MSN
The Dallas, Texas City Council will soon consider major changes to the Dallas animal control ordinance. The changes include breeder permitting, limits on the number of pets that can be owned, stricter dangerous dog language, and a ban on tethering.

Breeder Permitting
· This proposed ordinance mandates that you spay or neuter your dog unless you obtain a breeder permit for each intact dog.
· Breeder permits will only be issued to owners of dogs of "recognized" breeds.
· The permit will cost $500 per year and will restrict breeding to one litter per permit per year. Further, breeders are prohibited from selling puppies until they reach eight (8) weeks of age and have been immunized.
· In order to redeem a dog from impoundment, it must be spayed or neutered or the owner must purchase a breeder permit for that animal.

Breeder licensing fees place an undue burden on responsible breeders and owners and fail to address irresponsible individuals who neither comply with existing law nor will comply with new regulations. Such fees therefore punish responsible breeders who give the care and attention that puppies need in order to grow into healthy, well-adjusted companions and neighbors.

Pet Limit
· The proposal also creates a limit of six dogs or cats or combination of both per dwelling.
· There will be a grandfather clause for current owners who list all their current animals with the Director of Animal Services and are in compliance with all other regulations.
· There will also be an exemption to foster care providers who have been approved by the Director of Animal Services.

Not only are limit laws easily evaded and difficult to enforce, they fail to address the heart of animal control problems--irresponsible ownership.

Dangerous Dogs, Tethering and Confinement Requirements
· The draft ordinance requires all dogs deemed dangerous to be spayed or neutered. · The owner of a dangerous dog must obtain liability insurance of $100,000.
· Any dog that has been determined to be dangerous by another jurisdiction will not be allowed into the city.
· Any tether used must be at least 10 feet long and be attached to the dog's collar or harness and not the dog itself.
· The area in which dogs are kept must be at least 150 square feet per dog, if the dog(s) lives primarily outside.

At this time, the proposal is still in draft form. This proposal has not been scheduled for a hearing by the City Council. You may contact the Mayor and your City Council representative to express your concerns about these proposals. Find your City Council representative.

TX - San Antonio Proposal Bad for All Dog Owners
The American Kennel Club and its Texas federation of dog owners, the Responsible Pet Owners Alliance, are deeply concerned about the proposed changes to the City of San Antonio's animal ordinance. These changes, as will be proposed by the city's Animal Care Services Advisory Board, unfairly target responsible dog breeders and owners, have no chance of improving the quality of life for animals, and will have a significant negative impact on San Antonio's economy. It is imperative that breeders and concerned dog owners in San Antonio contact the Mayor and the members of the City Council to vehemently express their opposition.

The American Kennel Club supports reasonable and enforceable laws that govern dog ownership. We believe that the proposed animal ordinance is unreasonable, unenforceable, and a risk to the public welfare. Among its many onerous provisions, the current version of the proposal would require compliance with these most burdensome policies:
- Mandate the spay/neuter of all dogs. In the alternative, owners would be required to annually purchase both a license ($75) and an intact permit ($50) for each unsterilized dog. Totaling $125, this is twelve-and-one-half times more expensive than the annual fees owners of a sterilized dog will be required to pay ($10). Egregiously high fees, like those that would be imposed by this proposal, make spaying and neutering de facto mandatory because only a small number of people could afford to pay such high fees.

- Classify most kennels as a "commercial kennel" and impose considerable regulations upon such facilities. As currently defined by the proposal, most places where dogs are kept could reasonably qualify as commercial kennels, including homes of many hobby breeders and rescue groups. Such facilities will be subsequently subject to currently undefined license fees for such establishments, unreasonable building standards that will be impossible for smaller breeders and dog owners who maintain dogs in their own residential premises to comply with, and unproven animal husbandry standards that risk transfer of infectious and contagious diseases.

- Require any person who breeds a female dog to obtain a $50 litter permit
prior to, or within ten days of, a litter's birth. Such permit is limited to one litter per female dog per year.

WHAT YOU CAN DO:
Contact the Mayor and the members of the San Antonio City Council who will consider this proposal. Tell them that you are against the proposed changes to San Antonio's animal ordinance. Mail all letters to:

[Recipient]
City of San Antonio
P.O. Box 839966
San Antonio, TX 78283

Mayor Phil Hardberger
Phone: (210) 207-7060
Fax: (210) 207-4168
E-mail: phardberger@sanantonio.gov

For a sample letter and Council members, go to Legislative Alerts at
www.akc.org.

3/30/11 Utah update:
House Bill 124 places numerous requirements on “commercial breeders,” defined as anyone who owns six or more dogs “for breeding” and sells or provides the offspring of the dog to another person. Commercial breeders may not sell or solicit the sale of a dog unless the commercial breeder has a valid breeder license, business license, and land use approval from the Land Use Authority. This bill died 5-6 in the House Revenue and Taxation Committee. It is possible the sponsor may try to bring it back later in session.

2/22/11 The AKC Government Relations Department has just learned that the Utah House Revenue and Taxation Committee is scheduled to consider a bill tomorrow that would define anyone who owns at least six intact dogs or cats over the age of six months as a “commercial breeder”. The bill would require all commercial breeders to obtain several licenses in order to sell, solicit or advertise a dog for purchase.

Summary:

House Bill 124 vaguely defines “commercial breeder” as anyone who for a fee “or other consideration” maintains six or more dogs “for breeding” and

1) Sells, leases, trades, barters or auctions any of the dogs, or
2) Provides the offspring of one of the dogs to another person, or
3) Buys, sells, leases, trades or provides a dog to someone at wholesale for resale to another person.

This broad and vague definition could require Utah fanciers and hobby breeders to obtain the following three licenses in order to sell or advertise the sale of one dog:

1) A business license
2) An approved land use application from the land use authority
3) A sales and use tax license

The bill would require that the licensing and record-keeping be handled by Utah cities and counties, yet no additional funding is provided to cover these duties.

12/8/10 - Salt Lake City

Last night, the Salt Lake County Council gave preliminary approval to a proposal that limits dog breeding in Salt Lake County and places numerous regulations on responsible breeders. Although the AKC agrees with many provisions, including the importance of regular veterinary care, sufficient housing and protection from the elements, there are still several provisions of grave concern that will not protect the health and safety of dogs, or the rights of responsible owners and breeders.

The council is expected to give final approval on Tuesday, December 14. The AKC urges all local clubs and breeders in Salt Lake County to contact the members of the county council and express any concerns you have with the proposal as currently written. Click here for the council’s contact information.

Summary

The proposal only relates to those who live in unincorporated areas of Salt Lake County. Also, those who are licensed by the USDA would be exempt from the licensing provisions. Click here to read the proposal in its entirety.

The AKC has several concerns with the proposal as currently written, including:

· Definition of “Volume Dog Breeder” – As currently written, a “volume dog breeder” is anyone who whelps more than one litter of dogs in a 12-month period. Anyone who falls under this definition must be licensed and inspected each year.
· Unannounced Inspections – The proposal requires an annual inspection, but also allows inspections “upon receipt of a complaint or on [the division’s] own motion.” This allows arbitrary inspections at any time during business hours at the discretion of the county’s Animal Services Division. There is no requirement that complaints be substantiated prior to inspection.
· Problematic Standards of Care – All dogs must be provided constant and unfettered access to an indoor enclosure with solid floors. There are no exceptions for other types of safe, sanitary flooring.

The proposal would also limit dogs to two litters in any 18-month period (it appears this also applies to stud dogs). The AKC believes that all decisions regarding breeding should be made by a breeder in conjunction with a veterinarian, and not subject to arbitrary government restrictions.

The AKC strongly supports the humane treatment of dogs. We believe all dogs should be bred and raised in a safe, healthy environment, and support laws that ensure this without imposing burdensome and costly regulations or infringing on the rights of responsible dog breeders.

The AKC Government Relations Department will continue to monitor this proposal. Please contact us at (919) 816-3720 or doglaw@akc.org with any further questions, or to obtain the latest information.

Vermont

VERMONT - H 67 has been assigned to the House Committee on Commerce. Introduced by Reps. Dostis and Minter, the bill will prohibit the presence of dogs as a factor in the business of homeowner’s insurance, except when a specific dog is documented to have caused significant damage to real or personal property or bodily injury to a person.
Please contact the Vermont Federation of Dog Clubs at rpoa@texas.net or Jgrcorgis@aol.com for more information about how you assist with canine legislation in Vermont.

9/23/10: Clarke County, VA:
The Clarke County Board of Supervisors approved removing the term “commercial” from the county’s kennel definition, thereby requiring any dog breeder with more than 15 intact and altered dogs to obtain a $5000 special use permit. AKC sent a letter to the supervisors opposing these changes and worked to assist local fanciers in their attempts to educate county officials.3/1/10 The Madison County Board of Supervisors will be voting on an ordinance on Wednesday, March 3rd which will remove the current exemption for home litters kept less than six months. Under the new provision, anyone breeding a single litter would need to obtain a special use permit.

Madison County Board of Supervisors Meeting
Wednesday, March 3rd
7:30 pm
County Administration Building
414 N. Main Street
Madison, VA 22727

This proposal will completely outlaw any residential breeding of dogs and severely restrict the rights of responsible breeders in other districts by placing unreasonable financial burdens on them.

Special use permits for kennels are only allowed in the conservation and agricultural districts. In the conservation district you must have 10 acres per use – meaning that if you had a residence on the property, you would need to have a minimum of 20 acres to be eligible for the special use permit. In the agricultural district you would need 3 acres per use – or a minimum of 6 acres for a home and a kennel.

Further, a special use permit requires notification of the Virginia Department of Transportation which may require you to make changes to the property entrance to accommodate projected traffic flow. The Virginia Health Department must also be notified and could impose additional restrictions.

Special use permits are subject to a public hearing before the Planning Commission who then makes a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors who grants or denies final approval.

The American Kennel Club opposes the concept of breeding permits, breeding bans or mandatory spay/neuter of purebred dogs. Instead, we support reasonable and enforceable laws that protect the welfare and health of purebred dogs and do not restrict the rights of breeders and owners who take their responsibilities seriously.

It is vital that responsible owners and breeders attend the Board of Supervisors meeting and oppose this unnecessary and burdensome change. If you are unable to attend the meeting, please send a polite letter to the supervisors expressing your concerns with this proposal and the hardships it would place on you as a responsible breeder.

Board of Supervisors
Dave Allen dallen@madisonco.virginia.gov
James Arrington jarrington@madisonco.virginia.gov
Jerry Butler jbutler@madisonco.virginia.gov
Eddie Dean edean@madisonco.virginia.gov
Pete Elliott pelliott@madisonco.virginia.gov

3/1/09 - Mandatory Spay Neuter Bill Defeated in Virginia
Virginia dog owners won a major victory on January 26, when the Virginia Senate Agriculture Committee defeated a mandatory spay/neuter bill by an 8-6 vote. Senate Bill 1151 imposed a mandatory spay/neuter requirement on dogs picked up by animal control more than once.

3/7/08
VA Update: Mandatory Spay/Neuter Bill Tabled in Committee!
Subcommittee #1 of the Virginia House Agriculture, Chesapeake, and Natural
Resources Committee considered and tabled HB 1570, which would have mandated the spaying or neutering of certain companion animals. This effectively kills this legislation for the 2008 legislative session.

VA Mandatory Spay/Neuter Bill Assigned to Committee Virginia House Bill 1570, which seeks to mandate the spaying or neutering of companion animals, has been assigned to the House Committee on Agriculture, Chesapeake, and Natural Resources. Though the bill is currently not scheduled for consideration, it remains imperative that breeders and concerned dog owners in Virginia contact their Delegate and ask them to oppose this legislation.

See a sample letter.

WHAT YOU CAN DO: Write or call the members of the House Committee on Agriculture, Chesapeake, and Natural Resources, and ask them to oppose HB
1570. Please address your correspondence to:

Delegate _____________________
General Assembly Building
P.O. Box 406
Richmond, VA 23218

1/5/11 - Pierce County, WA:
The Pierce County Animal Control Advisory Panel will discuss possible breeder licensing and significant fee increases at their upcoming meeting December 21st. It is vital that concerned fanciers, breeders and responsible dog owners voice their concerns.
Please see specific information below about the meeting and the proposed changes.

Background:

Pierce County currently licenses kennels in separate categories and for corresponding fees as follows: Commercial Kennel/Cattery - $250, Boarding Kennel/Cattery - $200, Foster Shelter Kennel/Cattery $75 (sterilized) or $150 (intact animals), Hobby Kennel Cattery with 6 to 20 animal -$150, Private Kennel/Cattery $150. The proposed changes will increase fees and alter the distinctions between commercial and hobby kennels.

Proposed Changes

$200 Kennel license for any resident housing 6 to 15 dogs
$250 Breeder License (in addition to kennel license)
Hobby Kennel/Cattery License – fee not stated, for those keeping animals for hunting, breeding for exhibition, organized events, field work or obedience trials (breeders would also need $250 breeder’s license)
Require individual licensing of dogs at a kennel (in addition to kennel license fee)
Consolidate definitions for boarding, commercial, short-term and private kennels

Potential Impact of Changes

Pierce County hosted 192 AKC-sanctioned events in 2009, including dog shows, agility, rally, obedience, and herding trials. These events attracted over 34,000 participants who contributed approximately $1.1 million to the local economy by purchasing food, gas, lodging and other items during their visit. Passage of laws that are burdensome to responsible breeders would indicate that these responsible owners and our events are not welcome in Pierce County.

These measures will place burdens on responsible owners and breeders and will do nothing to address the irresponsible pet owners who do not comply with current laws. Resources would be better used to enforce current licensing laws and address animals and owners who are creating problems in the community.

What You Can Do

· If you are a club officer, please contact Susan Peterson at ragtimef2@gmail.com and let her know how many members are in your club and if she can officially represent your club’s opposition to this measure.

· Email the Pierce County Auditor at pcauditor@co.pierce.wa.us and politely state your opposition to these burdensome and ineffective measures.

· Attend the Animal Control Advisory Panel’s meeting December 21st and voice your concerns during public comment.

Pierce County Animal Control Advisory Panel Meeting
Tuesday, December 21st
6pm
Public Meeting Room
Pierce County Annex
2401 S. 35th Street
Tacoma, WA 984096/30/09 - Washington – On April 30, Governor Gregoire signed Senate Bill 5651, which limits ownership to 50 intact dogs over 6 months old, limits breeding ages, and incorporates questionable legislative findings.

WASHINGTON – The City of Tacoma hosted a public hearing December 12th on changes to the animal control ordinance including possible mandatory spay/neuter of dogs. The proposal would require owners of intact animals to purchase a breeder’s permit, regardless of whether they intend to breed the animal or not, in addition to the existing $55 intact animal license fee. The cost of the breeder’s permit has not been established. The measure would also require any animal at-large to be spayed or neutered, even on a first offense. At this time, the city is only collecting information. The proposal has not been finalized and city officials have indicated they will host further public hearings on the issue. The Canine Legislation Department will post updates as they become available.

Washington D.C.

West Virginia

3/15/11 Good news!

Thanks to the numerous phone calls and e-mails generated by local AKC clubs and concerned breeders, the West Virginia Legislature has adjourned without taking further action on House Bill 2883, a bill that would have limited dog ownership and restricted breeding.

The AKC strongly supports the humane treatment of dogs, including providing an adequate and nutritious diet, clean living conditions, regular veterinary care, kind and responsive human companionship and training in appropriate behavior. We also support current West Virginia law, which, among other provisions, makes it unlawful for anyone to withhold proper sustenance, protective shelter and medical treatment.

As written, however, HB 2883 limited dog ownership and would have created many new, arbitrary and expensive regulations for dog breeders. Read the AKC’s letter to the West Virginia Senate Judiciary Committee, which outlined our concerns with this bill.

This bill will likely return next session, and there were other dog-related measures introduced this year in West Virginia that did not gain traction. Several clubs and breeders have expressed an interest in forming an AKC federation for West Virginia, in order to have a united coalition to address canine legislation. If you or your club would be interested in helping form an AKC federation for West Virginia, please contact the AKC Government Relations Department at doglaw@akc.org.

2/23/11 WV Update: Strict Breeder Bill Passes Committee

February 23, 2011

Yesterday the West Virginia House Judiciary Committee passed House Bill 2883, which seeks to limit dog ownership and restrict breeding. It is imperative that all responsible dog owners and breeders in West Virginia contact your State Delegate and ask them to vote “no” on HB 2883.

Click here to find the name and contact information for your State Delegate.

Click here for a sample letter to personalize.

Click here to read the AKC’s letter to the West Virginia House of Delegates.

Summary:

As introduced, House Bill 2883 defines "commercial dog breeder" as anyone who maintains 11 or more intact dogs over one year of age and "is engaged in the business of breeding animals for direct or indirect sale." Those licensed by the USDA would not be exempt. Only those who hold an occupational permit and have registered a greyhound kennel name with the West Virginia Racing Commission would be exempt from this bill.

All licensees would be subject to inspection at least twice a year. Five days’ notice would be given prior to the inspection.

The AKC strongly supports the humane treatment of dogs, including providing an adequate and nutritious diet, clean living conditions, regular veterinary care, kind and responsive human companionship and training in appropriate behavior. We also support current West Virginia law, which, among other provisions, makes it unlawful for anyone to withhold proper sustenance, protective shelter and medical treatment.

However, the AKC is gravely concerned by a number of provisions in this bill as introduced including:

Ownership Limits – Breeders would be limited to owning 50 intact dogs over one year of age. Limits on dog ownership are arbitrary and ineffective, and punish responsible dog owners who take excellent care of their animals. Additionally, breeders would be given only 30 days to comply with the limit, meaning that many dogs would likely end up in local shelters and/or euthanized at taxpayers’ expense. Click here for talking points on animal limit laws.
Breeding age limits – A dog may only be bred if it is between the ages of 18 months and 8 years. The AKC believes that the decision to breed should be made by the breeder in conjunction with their veterinarian, and not subject to arbitrary government restrictions.
Problematic new engineering standards – House Bill 2883 creates numerous new engineering standards and requirements for commercial breeding kennels. Current law already addresses the issues of proper shelter, sustenance, and acts of animal cruelty, rendering House Bill 2015 an unnecessary burden on responsible West Virginia breeders, law enforcement officers, and taxpayers.

2/8/11 West Virginia:
House Bill 2015 seeks to require a license for all “commercial dog breeders,” defined as anyone who owns at least 20 intact dogs over one year of age and is engaged in the business of breeding animals for sale. Those who have a registered greyhound kennel with the West Virginia Racing Commission are exempt. Female dogs may only be bred if they are between 18 months and 8 years of age, and there is a 50-dog ownership limit. Inspections would occur twice annually, and inspectors must give five days’ notice prior to the inspection. Similar bills in 2009 and 2010 did not advance. The bill has been assigned to the House Agriculture and Judiciary Committees.

2/2/11 The West Virginia House Agriculture Committee is scheduled to consider House Bill 2015 this Tuesday, February 2. This problematic bill would limit dog ownership and place restrictions on dog breeding.

The AKC strongly supports the humane treatment of dogs, including providing an adequate and nutritious diet, clean living conditions, regular veterinary care, kind and responsive human companionship and training in appropriate behavior. We also support current West Virginia law, which, among other provisions, makes it unlawful for anyone to withhold proper sustenance; protective shelter and medical treatment.

House Bill 2015 defines “commercial dog breeder” as anyone who maintains 20 or more intact dogs over 1 year of age and “is engaged in the business of breeding animals for direct or indirect sale.” Those licensed by the USDA would not be exempt. Only those who hold an occupational permit and have registered a greyhound kennel name with the West Virginia Racing Commission would be exempt from this bill.

Those licensed under this bill would be subject to inspection at least twice a year. Five days’ notice would be given prior to the inspection.

AKC has grave concerns with several provisions in House Bill 2015, including:

Ownership limits – This bill would impose an ownership limit of 50 dogs, and gives breeders over the limit only 30 days to comply with the limit. Limits on dog ownership are arbitrary and ineffective, and punish responsible dog owners who take excellent care of their animals. Click here for talking points on animal limit laws.
Breeding age limits – A dog may only be bred if it is between the ages of 18 months and 8 years. The AKC believes that the decision to breed should be made by the breeder in conjunction with their veterinarian, and not subject to arbitrary restrictions.

House Bill 2015 creates numerous new engineering standards and requirements for commercial breeding kennels. Current law already addresses the issues of proper shelter, sustenance, and acts of animal cruelty, rendering House Bill 2015 an unnecessary burden on responsible West Virginia breeders, law enforcement officers, and taxpayers.

2/8/11 Wyoming:
Senate File 66 creates the Wyoming Pet Animal Program, an advisory board to develop a “pet animal welfare program,” “promote the protection and overall health of pet animals,” and “provide…protection and management services,” among other tasks. A “pet animal” is defined as any privately owned vertebrate or invertebrate except livestock. It also allows counties to establish a license fee of $200-$500 for all pet stores, kennels, groomers, breeders, shelters, and rescues. The bill has been assigned to the Senate Agriculture Committee

2/3/11 Wyoming:
Wyoming Senate File 100 seeks to add “puppy mills” and “animal hoarding” to the definition of animal cruelty. The bill has passed the Wyoming Senate and will likely be considered by the House Agriculture Committee very soon.

This bill has been amended to address some of the AKC’s concerns, but it is still very vague and could label responsible dog owners and breeders as “hoarders” or “puppy mills”.

This bill is moving very quickly, so it is essential that all concerned dog owners and breeders in Wyoming contact the House Agriculture Committee and their Representative immediately to express concerns. Please see the bottom of this message for contact information.

Summary:

Senate File 100 seeks to amend the cruelty statutes by adding definitions of “animal hoarder” and “puppy mill” to the definition of cruelty. The bill contains the following components:

Definition of “animal hoarder” – The bill defines a hoarder as someone who keeps an animal in an overcrowded environment or “displays an inability to understand the nature…for the conditions under which the companion animal is living.”

The terms used in this definition are undefined and therefore open to broad interpretation. In addition, this language essentially prevents an innocent person from defending themselves, and there is no recourse for owners who wish to challenge being labeled as a hoarder.

Definition of “puppy mill” – SF100 defines this term as a “substandard commercial breeding facility” where animals are kept in substandard conditions, including failing to provide proper food, drink, protection from the elements or veterinary care.

The AKC completely agrees that these basic needs are essential, and appreciates the amendments that make this definition more reasonable; however, we remain concerned that the term “substandard” is still not fully defined and therefore left open for interpretation. We would also like to see the term “puppy mill” removed from statute, as this term is offensive to responsible breeders.

January 20, 2011: Wyoming Cruelty Bill Advances



On January 19, the Wyoming Senate Agriculture Committee unanimously passed Senate File 100, which seeks to add “puppy mills” and “animal hoarding” to the definition of animal cruelty.

The AKC strongly supports the humane treatment of dogs, including providing an adequate and nutritious diet, clean living conditions, regular veterinary care, kind and responsive human companionship and training in appropriate behavior. However, this bill confuses the issue of substandard care with the number of animals a person owns and places vague definitions in statute. Also, the term “puppy mill” is offensive to the numerous responsible breeders who take excellent care of their animals. This term should not be placed in state law.

This bill is moving very quickly, so it is essential that all concerned dog owners and breeders in Wyoming contact the members of the Appropriations Committee, as well as your state Senator and Representative as soon as possible to express your concerns. Please see the bottom of this message for contact information.

Summary:

The AKC believes that existing Wyoming cruelty laws are sufficient to address the mistreatment of animals, and the AKC supports strong enforcement of these laws.

Senate File 100 seeks to amend the cruelty statutes by adding definitions of “animal hoarder” and “puppy mill” to the definition of cruelty. Although the bill has been amended, the new version is not yet available. The AKC has numerous concerns with SF 100 as introduced, including, but not limited to:

Definition of “animal hoarder” – The bill defines a hoarder as someone who owns 15 or more companion animals and violates other provisions including keeping an animal in an overcrowded environment (this vague term is not defined).
Definition of “puppy mill” – SF100 defines this term as a “dog or cat breeding facility” where there are more than 50 animals kept in “substandard conditions regarding the well-being of animals” (this is not defined). It is further defined as a facility that “is operated with an emphasis upon profits above animal welfare.”

How You Can Help

Contact the members of the Senate Appropriations Committee and let them know your concerns about this legislation and this use of taxpayer funds. SF 100 appropriates $200,000 to implement this measure. The introduced version of the bill also appropriates $400,000 from the Wyoming Livestock Board’s budget for this bill. Click on the names of each member of the committee for their contact information:
Senator Phil Nicholas, Chairman

Senator John Hastert

Senator Curt Meier

Senator R. Ray Peterson

Senator Michael Von Flatern

Contact your State Senator and Representative and ask them to not support this legislation as introduced. Click here to find the names and contact information for your elected officials.

The AKC Government Relations Department (AKC GR) will continue to provide information as it becomes available. Contact AKC GR at (919) 816-3720 or doglaw@akc.org for more information.