Legal News

Nye Co, NV:

[Animal Control officer Tim] McCarty was able to convince the owners of FLOCK (For the Love of Cats and Kittens) to surrender ownership and custody of the some 700 or more cats to the county which, in turn, placed the animals in the care of a rescue organization, Best Friends Animal Society.
[...]
Nye County then filed charges of animal neglect against FLOCK for failure to provide food, water and veterinary care in violation of Nevada Rev. Statutes §574.100.

That was two years ago. The case comes up for trial this week.

***

Pennsylvania:

Holly Crawford, who inspired outrage in legions of animal lovers when her Pennsylvania home was raided and several pierced animals were seized in late 2008, has been convicted of animal cruelty.

Crawford, a dog groomer by trade, had been marketing so-called "gothic kittens" -- with piercings in their ears and necks -- for sale on the Internet auction site eBay.

Ms. Crawford was found guilty last week of animal cruelty. The prosecutor will seek a prison term of 12 - 18 months. Sentencing is scheduled for March 31.

***

Proposed legislation in NY called Oreo's Law, supported by many animal advocates but opposed by the ASPCA, has a website which includes responses to claims made by ASPCA in their opposition:

Oreo’s Law is based on nearly identical California legislation which has been in effect for over a decade. Despite similar dire predictions [that dangerous dogs will be released into communities] in California, there is no evidence this has occurred.

[...]

To oppose a law with such vast lifesaving potential for all animals entering a shelter based on dire predictions about aggressive dogs which have not materialized despite 11 years of experience in California is unethical and indefensible.

There is also an action page on the site with contact information.

Al Franken Meets a Service Dog

I got a bit choked up watching this vid featuring Senator Al Franken (D-MN) talk about the event that inspired him to draft service dog legislation for our veterans.

What if We All Neutered Our Pets Today?

I no longer believe in the concept of "pet overpopulation" in this country. That myth has been debunked to my satisfaction by Nathan Winograd. But setting that aside, let's say for the sake of discussion that there are - if not a surplus of pets, at least way too many being killed in animal shelters. It's good to have a general agreement on what the problem is when considering possible solutions. So let's consider this guy's idea, which is not his alone, but rather one shared by many people concerned about pets being killed in shelters:

The Executive Director of what is now the Humane Society of Northeast Georgia in Gainesville says he would support a law requiring cat and dog owners to spay and neuter their pets.

As regular readers know, I do not support mandatory spay-neuter laws in any way, shape or form. But again, for discussion purposes, let's give the proposal a whirl.

So we all spay and neuter our pets. Well hold on a sec actually because I could not afford to spay and neuter all of mine at once. And there are most likely many others like me. So will there suddenly be funding for low cost spay-neuter services everywhere they are needed, especially in rural areas of the South for owners like me? That seems hard to believe since, if funding were available, wouldn't we have low cost spay-neuter services available everywhere already? But let's just say that all the needed neuter clinics appear magically throughout the U.S. Further, let's set aside the concerns about vaccinations (mandatory or owner discretion?), individuals with medical concerns (senior pets, anesthesia sensitivity, etc.), transportation (how do I get my pets to and from the clinic?) and any other potential conflicts. We'll just make this happen.

So now we've all got our pets neutered. But wait - is it reasonable to assume that every single pet owner complied? Probably not. People who rely on selling puppies and kittens as a means of income may not be willing to give up their livelihoods and in fact, unscrupulous individuals may see a black market developing for their product. Other owners may be involved with criminal activities involving their dogs and cats (dogfighting, crush videos) and may intend to continue but even if they were willing to abandon their practices, they likely wouldn't want to come forward to have any official records created on their animals.

In my estimation, we'd still have black market entrepreneurs and other criminals with intact dogs and cats. Then there are the strays, reproducing at will all over the country. Stray dogs and cats, lacking in socialization and definitely going without health screening or even basic health care. Litters born under abandoned trailers in the cold and the wet. Those lucky enough to survive spend their lives evading animal control, scrounging for scraps, and reproducing at will.

Back at home, 10 years into the future, all my pets will have died. And so will everyone else's who complied with the MSN law. But we really want to have pets. Veterans and other individuals need service dogs to assist them in day to day life. Farmers need stock dogs. Families need companion animals. Etc. What are we to do?

We can try to trap and domesticate a stray dog or cat. That may or may not work out so well, especially if our needs are for a particular type of pet. And if we successfully catch and tame a stray pet, the animal will need to undergo training for the work we require him to perform. He may or may not be physically and mentally suited for this training. If we get lucky and all goes well, we can hope that he is able to provide several years of service/companionship but of course he'd have to be neutered, leaving us stranded in the same boat eventually.

Alternately, to find a pet of a specific type, with predictable behavior and aptitude, we could seek out a criminal. Because those are the only people with intact pets who would be breeding anymore in this country. Again, that may or may not work out so well and probably isn't worth the risk.

Finally we might have the option of importing a pet from a foreign country. But surely foreign breeders will seize the opportunity to make financial and other demands on U.S. buyers, since the market will bear it. And some breeders will not sell stock to a country where sterilization is mandatory. The average pet owner will most likely be unable to import a pet. Perhaps U.S. shelters will import pets from foreign sources - strays rounded up off the streets or taken from shelters. Will these pets be well cared for in transit and what will the cost be to adopt these precious few available pets? If we look at how American consumers have historically fared when we've relied upon foreign products, we could get a glimpse into how the foreign pet trade might look.

So where are we in 10 years if we pass mandatory neuter laws all over the U.S.? We can have a pet, provided we're skilled in trapping and taming strays, willing to buy from a criminal and hope we don't get caught, or wealthy enough to import a pet. These unlikely and undesirable options will not apply to the average pet owner though. The average pet owner will be a thing of the past - not in 1000 years or 100 years but in 10 years.

There is another approach to tackling the problem of killing shelter pets. It makes sense and allows all of us to keep owning pets for as long as we can do it responsibly. No Kill now.

I Wish Al Franken was My Senator

Al Franken (D-MN) has got his first piece of legislation - the Service Dogs for Veterans Act - on the President's desk:

The Veterans Administration would develop partnerships with organizations that provide disabled veterans with service dogs. Franken said he introduced the legislation after meeting a veteran who said his service dog improved his quality of life.

He said the measure will cost about $5 million and is designed to not edge out non-profits doing similar work.

"The government is going to pay for essentially every other dog. What I didn't want to happen was to dry up the funding for the organizations like Hearing and Service Dogs in Minneapolis and all of these non-profits who have been providing dogs to some vets."

Awesome! A rookie Senator getting bipartisan support (from some very wishy-washy Senators I might add) for his first piece of legislation, Franken says:

"There is evidence to suggest that increasing the number of service dogs would reduce the alarming suicide rate among veterans, decrease the number of hospitalizations, and lower the cost of medications and human care. We’re talking about a real return on investment that will pay dividends for these veterans for years to come.”

We often feel spurred to action when we disagree with the words and deeds of our elected officials. But we should thank them when they do good too. Why not take a moment to thank Senator Franken for recognizing the significance of the human-canine bond and its beneficial effects on the lives of our brave service men and women?

What's Going on in IN Dog Seizure Case?

The Indiana Attorney General's Office and HSUS "raided" a dairy farm Monday and seized 240 dogs on the grounds that the farm's owners had not paid taxes on the dog breeding operation. Squeeze me? Isn't there such a thing as an IRS audit or even some sort of warning letter? They say the owners haven't paid taxes so they just waltz in and take all the dogs? If I were the owners, I'd be wondering what the charges were:

No criminal charges have been filed, and the Garwoods [the farm owners] were not arrested.

Hmmm. No charges, no arrests and yet they seize 240 dogs. Oh and bonus: there are already plans to start adopting the dogs out shortly. Due process, anyone? Oh wait, the owners can't answer the charges against them because there are no charges. Clever clever. From the HSUS release:

Today's sales-tax-enforcement action took place under pre-existing law. A new law passed by the Legislature that takes effect July 1, House Enrolled Act. 1468, will give the state of Indiana additional enforcement authority against commercial dog-breeding operations. It requires that caged dogs be allowed out for exercise and increases the penalties for animal cruelty.
Puppy producers and brokers will be required to register with the State of Indiana, and that in turn could more readily trigger sales-tax investigations.

Oh glee.

I can't help but wonder if IN "puppy producers" aka breeders will want to register with the state, pay the annual fee (ranging from $75 - $500) and subject themselves to possible seizure of their dogs based upon allegations - not charges - of tax evasion. Some might think it's too risky and too great an infringement on their civil rights. In other words, some breeders may cease breeding altogether. Or maybe that was the point.

Holding Ourselves Accountable: Confinement

It seems like I come across this type of story fairly regularly: one starting out with a pet Pitbull and from there, everything goes wrong. This one is from San Antonio, TX:

After repeated instances of pit bulls running loose from a home in the 8400 block of Timber Mill, at least 20 residents have signed a petition that states that they feel like “prisoners in their own home.” Now, one of the dogs — an excitable but not particularly aggressive canine named Genghis Khan — could face euthanasia.

Rather than quote much more from the article (you can read the lunacy for yourself), suffice to say that both sides have gone a bit (or more) wonky. And ultimately a dog with no record of biting may be killed. It does seem as if the whole situation - and many of these types of stories - could have been prevented from escalating if the owner had kept the dog confined. Keeping a dog reliably confined to your own property is a basic tenet of responsible ownership. Of course an accident can happen where a dog escapes but provided this is a rare occurrence and the owner has a history of responsible behavior, neighbors are likely to be more understanding than in the case of a dog who roams loose on a regular basis.

The days of letting the dog out the front door and assuming he stays in your unfenced yard are over. Or maybe you think he just visits neighbors who squeal with delight seeing your dog trounce upon their flowerbeds, fight or mate with their dogs, and potty on their lawns. Yeah, no. The fact is that many areas, both urban and rural, now have leash laws. And in some places, property owners can legally shoot your dog if he is on their property and for example, chasing livestock.

It does no good to campaign for an end to breed specific legislation if we, as dog owners, are not following the dog laws already on the books. Most of us do obviously but as a community we need to do better. Educating dog owners - and their kids at school - on responsible ownership, including adherence to existing laws, is essential. We can't all afford to fence in our yards or hire dog walkers while we're at work but we can - and must - work within our means to hold up our end of the bargain as responsible dog owners and members of the community.

One way to educate your neighbors is by example. If and when an anti-pet law such as BSL or MSN rears its ugly head in your area, you can stand up as a voice for responsible owners and their pets. Others may disagree with your opinion but they won't be able to dispute your track record of complying with existing dog laws and acting responsibly. That gives you an edge right out the starting gate. And in this climate of anti-dog legislation, we need any advantage we can give ourselves.

Related Reading: The Future of Dogs by Walt Hutchens

I'm Not on Board with HSUS Proposed Laws and I Love Pets

In a recent post, Wayne Pacelle of HSUS states he is "astonished" that responsible breeders are not on board with the many dog breeding bills HSUS has introduced across the country recently. He says that those of us who oppose these bills are paranoid, friends of the NRA, and apparently don't care about animals. Despite Wayne's diagnosis, I'm going to cling to the hope that I don't suffer from paranoia. (Who told you that anyway?) I am not a friend of the NRA although I do support the rights of hunters to hunt responsibly. (I'm so complicated-like.) And I'm quite certain I care about animals and especially dogs.

Now Wayne must be supa-astonished.

Here's the thing: Puppy mills suck. We agree. But there are already laws on the books regarding the treatment of dogs in breeding facilities and an agency charged with enforcement - the USDA. Just because the USDA has been falling down on the job for years, failing to even inspect some of these mills regularly doesn't mean I think we need to pile more laws on the problem. The legislation HSUS proposes would, in some cases, clearly infringe on the rights of responsible breeders and subject them to warrantless home searches. Put me down for OPPOSE on that one.

Why doesn't the HSUS use its vast resources to help get the USDA the tools it needs to do its job? If they get enough inspectors out in the field and have sufficient follow through on citations, that would be a welcome change that I think many people would be happy about. And once they get a good system going, maybe laws will need tweaking here and there, I don't know. But I know I'd be a lot more open to hearing about it from a government agency like the USDA who'd been doing its job than hearing from a private fundraising group like HSUS who wants to add intrusive laws on top of the already unenforced regulations.

So Wayne, you got me wrong on this. And the admission that you are "astonished" at the opposition should show you how off base you are. We want some of the same things, I think. Is there a way to work together toward getting better care for pets? We are a no kill nation and a humane society. Join us. Otherwise, if you're just going to continue trying to force your will down our legislative throats, expect further astonishment. We're going to keep resisting these laws because we care about animals and our rights as U.S. citizens. We want our government to do its job and we want special interest group lobbyists like HSUS out of our state legislatures. That's not so surprising, is it?

Will Warrantless Searches Save NC Shelter Pets from their Executioners?

A vague and intrusive breeder bill being considered in NC prompted an opinion piece in The News & Observer:

These animals come at a cost to taxpayers, who bear the burden of sheltering and killing the unlimited rejects of the commercial breeding industry. Animal shelters are easy dumping grounds for breeders seeking to dispose of animals deemed unsuitable for sale. These sick, genetically deformed dogs are then euthanized at the taxpayers' expense.

To paraphrase - If you don't support this bill, we'll keep killing shelter animals and you'll pay us to do it.

Newsflash: Taxpayers do not want to pay for killing shelter pets because shelter pets should be vetted, redeemed, rehomed, rehabilitated or placed into rescue - not killed. Euthanasia should be reserved to end suffering for those animals deemed medically hopeless or medically unmanageable by a Vet. Further, taxpayers do not want to fund your Breeder Police under a bill so vague that it puts many non-commercial breeders at risk of warrantless home searches.

The SPCA of Wake County does have an agenda: to end the killing of adoptable companion animals and to prevent the cruelty inflicted on animals.

The proven method to end the killing of adoptable pets in shelters is the implementation of the No Kill Equation. Embrace it, own it. Involve your community. We are a no kill nation of pet lovers who cherish our rights as U.S. citizens and won't be fooled into giving them up by scare tactics and misguided legislative proposals. Join us.

Ill Conceived Pet Legislation - More, More, More

HSUS to the dog breeders of Delaware:  Weer in ur stayt, writin' ur loz:

House Bill 95 - This bill adopts the recommendations of the Humane Society of the United States regarding restrictions on the large-scale for-profit dog breeding operations commonly known as “puppy mills.”

Bill includes dog limits, how often breeders must take their dogs to the Vet, age restrictions, Vet approval required to breed, no back-to-back litters and more.  

Individual judgement of the responsible, experienced breeder?  86 that.  We're going with the HSUS!  True, they're not dog breeders or even a veterinary organization but surely HSUS knows so much about ethical dog breeding (by magic!) that its recommendations should be made into law.

Additional reading:

The Monthly National Legislation Report (alphabetical listings by state)  - March 2009

American Sporting Dog Alliance - "179 Animal Rights Anti-Dog Bills Introduced In 34 States"
 

Action Alert for SC Pet Owners

The SC Legislature is continuing to work on S0223 - a bill which amounts to extortion of pet owners accused (not convicted, mind you) of animal cruelty in the state. A few changes have been made to the language since I first blogged on it, but the substance remains the same:
Anyone charged with animal cruelty or dogfighting (Note - this latter is a presumption on my part. The bill states "Chapter 24 of Title 16" but there is no such Chapter. Chapter 27 of Title 16 is the Animal Fighting and Baiting Act and since dogs are routinely seized in those cases, my guess is that "Chapter 24" is a typo.) and whose pets have been seized can be charged a monthly fee by the organization housing the pets. Specifically:

The court shall set the amount of funds necessary for thirty days' care after taking into consideration all of the facts and circumstances of the case, including the need to care for and provide for the animal pending the disposition of the litigation, the recommendation of the custodian of the animal, the estimated cost of caring for and providing for the animal, and the defendant's ability to pay.

For each 30 day period the case remains unresolved, the fees are automatically renewed. The defendant must pay the court determined fees every 30 days.

• If the defendant can't come up with the money each month, he loses rights of ownership to his pets. The custodian is then allowed to adopt them out or kill them as they see fit.
• If the defendant's case eventually results in a not guilty determination, he still has to pay all the fees, current through the day he was cleared of charges. (If the custodian hasn't withdrawn every last penny from the account, the defendant can get a refund of any leftover funds.) If he can't come up with the money, he loses his pets. The custodian is then allowed to adopt them out or kill them as they see fit.
• And of course, if the defendant is ultimately found guilty and has been paying the monthly fees all along, he loses rights of ownership to his pets. The custodian is then allowed to adopt them out or kill them as they see fit.

Wait, there's more! Now how much would you pay?

Any person violating the laws in relation to cruelty to animals may be arrested and held, without warrant, in the same manner as in the case of persons found breaking the peace.

And as a special bonus:

Individuals from humane type groups can be deputized with the power to arrest without warrant, seize animals and take custody of those animals. Then you gotta pay 'em.

For an idea of what the courts deem a reasonable fee for seized dogs, we can look at the recent Wilkes Co, NC case where 127 Pitbulls were seized. In that case, the fee for 60 days worth of "care" for the dogs was $53,000.

I'm not sure where the bar has to be set these days in order to motivate pet owners to take action but this bar's in the dirt. Contact your elected representatives and let them know, politely and respectfully, that this bill is wrong for South Carolina:

Members of the House

Members of the Senate

Sponsor:
Senator Lourie
601 Gressette Bldg.
Columbia, SC 29201

e-mail: JBL@scsenate.org
Phone: (803) 212-6116

Illinois Breeder Bill Gone Wild

Lawmakers in IL have proposed a bill to regulate dog breeders. Emphasis on regulate:

Under "Definitions":

"Sanitized" means [...] Washing all soiled surfaces with appropriate detergent solutions or disinfectant products followed by a clean water rinse that removes all organic material and mineral buildup.

How do I know if I've removed all mineral buildup? How will the inspectors determine if I've removed all mineral buildup?



"Unaltered dog" means any dog that is not spaded or neutered.

Dude, really? SPADED? Before you attempt to write a law that will impact the lives of IL citizens, you might want to, oh I don't know, figure out what the hell you're talking about.

So who needs to apply for a license?

Any person who maintains 3 or more female dogs for the purpose of the sale of their offspring must be licensed under this Act.

OK that will include most all breeders. Way to not make anyone feel left out. What does the application for the license involve (besides the non-refundable fee, natch)?


The Department must require information from the applicant that, in its judgment, will enable the Department to determine the qualifications of the applicant for license. Such information must include the location of all facilities to be used, description of facilities to be used, present and previous business connections and experience, bank and professional references [...]


Wow - that's a lot of personal information for me to hand over to the state. I hope there isn't much more. I mean, I'm not a puppy mill, I just own 3 or more intact bitches and breed a litter once in awhile.


Applicants for licensure must have their fingerprints submitted to the Illinois State Police in an electronic format that complies with the form and manner for requesting and furnishing criminal history record information as prescribed by the Illinois State Police. These fingerprints must be checked against the most current Illinois State Police and Federal Bureau of Investigation criminal history record databases. The Illinois State Police may charge applicants a fee for conducting the criminal history records check [...] The Department may require applicants to pay a separate fingerprinting fee [...]

ZOMG! This sounds kinda like I'm under arrest. And they're charging me for the privilege...



Every year the Department must conduct at least one unannounced inspection of the licensee. An inspection fee may be set by rule.

IL hearts fees.

There's lots more in this bill including how often you must take your dogs to the Vet, inability to use your own judgment on breeding (Vet's approval required, age limitations set) and provision for inspection even if you don't apply for the license but authorities say you should have applied. I interpret that to mean if animal control thinks you have 3 intact bitches, they can bust down your door and demand access to your "facility", records, dogs, etc.

Read the whole ill-begotten thing here.

IL residents can find contact info for members of the House and Senate and let them know their opinion of HB0198. The bill's primary sponsor is Rep. Fritchey and the complete list of sponsors can be found here.




State Pet Laws: Who Speaks for You?

Here is a sampling of proposed legislation affecting pet owners around the US. All bracketed additions are mine. Our representatives are elected to speak for us, their constituents. If you find the bills they are considering to be misrepresentative of your view of fair, reasonable and necessary legislation, I suggest you speak for yourself. Find your state representatives and contact them with your polite and respectful opinions.


Arkansas, Senate Bill 864 (pdf)
Sponsor: Senator Madison
Excerpts:

An owner of twelve (12) or more dogs, cats, or any combination of dogs and cats shall annually obtain a license issued by the Arkansas Agriculture Department.
[Cost of license=$250]

Twenty-four (24) or more dogs, cats, or any combination of dogs and cats is one thousand dollars ($1,000).

An official of the department, a public health or safety official, and an officer employed or appointed by an agency of the state, county, municipality, or other governmental or political subdivision of the state that is responsible for animal control operations in its jurisdiction, upon receiving a complaint or upon his or her own motion, may investigate a violation of this section during daytime hours.
The investigation may include the inspection of the dogs or cats on the premises and any place where dogs or cats are kept or maintained.

This bill allows for warrantless searches of owners' kennels and/or yards and/or homes.


Maryland, House Bill 495 (pdf)
Sponsors: Delegates Smigiel, Ali, Barkley, Bartlett, Barve, Beidle, Bronrott, Cardin, Dumais, Frush, Gilchrist, Glenn, Hubbard, Hucker, Impallaria, Kelly, Kipke, Kramer, Lee, Manno, Mathias, McComas, McConkey, McDonough, Minnick, Montgomery, Ramirez, Shewell, Stein, Valderrama, and Waldstreicher
Excerpts:

A PERSON WHO OWNS, POSSESSES, CONTROLS, OR OTHERWISE HAS CHARGE OR CUSTODY OF MORE THAN 10 BREEDING DOGS OVER THE AGE OF 4 MONTHS SHALL PROVIDE FOR EACH DOG:
(I) AN ENCLOSURE WITH:
1. AN INTERIOR HEIGHT OF AT LEAST 6 INCHES HIGHER THAN THE HEAD OF THE TALLEST DOG IN THE ENCLOSURE WHEN THE DOG IS IN A NORMAL STANDING POSITION; AND
2. SUFFICIENT SPACE TO ALLOW THE DOG TO TURN ABOUT FREELY, STAND, SIT, AND LIE DOWN SUCH THAT, WHEN FULLY EXTENDED, NO PART OF THE DOG’S BODY TOUCHES ANY SIDE OF THE ENCLOSURE OR ANY OTHER DOG IN THE ENCLOSURE; AND
(II) UNLESS THE DOG IS CERTIFIED BY A DOCTOR OF VETERINARY MEDICINE TO BE MEDICALLY PRECLUDED FROM EXERCISE, A MINIMUM OF TWO EXERCISE PERIODS EACH DAY FOR A TOTAL OF AT LEAST 2 HOURS OF EXERCISE EACH DAY.

(2) THE EXERCISE REQUIRED UNDER PARAGRAPH (1)(II) OF THIS SUBSECTION:
(I) SHALL INCLUDE REMOVING THE DOG FROM ITS PRIMARY ENCLOSURE AND ALLOWING THE DOG TO WALK FOR THE ENTIRE EXERCISE PERIOD; AND
(II) UNLESS PRESCRIBED BY A DOCTOR OF VETERINARY MEDICINE, MAY NOT INCLUDE USE OF A TREADMILL, CAT MILL, JENNY MILL, SLAT MILL, OR SIMILAR DEVICE.

What if the "enclosure" you provide for your dogs is your home? What if you know how to use a treadmill responsibly for occasional, directly supervised exercise of your pet? What if your boss says you have to work late and you don't manage to get in the full 2 hours for each dog that day? Who is going to monitor and enforce these regulations? I have questions!


Nevada, Senate Bill 241 (pdf)
Sponsors: SENATORS BREEDEN, CARLTON, WIENER, TOWNSEND; HORSFORD, LEE, PARKS AND WOODHOUSE
Excerpts:

Legislative Counsel’s Digest:
Section 4 of this bill prohibits a person from breeding cats and dogs for sale in Nevada without first obtaining a license as a breeder from the State Department of Agriculture and makes a violation of the licensure provision a misdemeanor. Section 4 also imposes an annual $500 licensing fee on breeders. Section 5 of this bill: (1) sets forth the qualifications a person must meet to be issued a license as a breeder, including good moral character and a lack of any convictions of violating a provision of chapter 574 of NRS relating to cruelty to and care of animals; (2) requires the license to be renewed annually [...] Section 11 of this bill sets forth the duties of a breeder, including ensuring that cats or dogs he breeds and sells have all their necessary immunizations, that no cat or dog is bred for more than two litters, that each cat or dog is implanted with a microchip before it is sold and that the breeder registers each litter with the Department.

So the state of Nevada is going to determine which breeder applicants have "good moral character"? Huzzah!


New York, State Assembly Bill A05507 (summary)
Sponsor: Ball (MS)
Excerpts:

[...]change the definition of a "pet dealer"
to mean any person who engages in the
sale of more than five animals (rather than
nine) per year directly to the consumer.
The definition of "pet dealer" is also
amended such that a breeder is considered a
pet dealer if he or she sells directly to
the consumer fewer than ten animals per
year (rather than twenty five) that are
raised on the breeders residence. 

This bill is supposedly designed to regulate "puppy and kitten mills" but the definition changes seem to include just about anyone who breeds dogs or cats.


Tennessee, Senate Bill 0258 (summary)
Sponsors: Senators Jackson, Ketron
Excerpts:

A "commercial breeder" is a person who possesses or maintains at least 20 female dogs in order to sell their offspring as companion animals.
[...]
An application for a license as a commercial breeder would be made to the commissioner on a form provided by the commissioner. Each application for a license must be accompanied by a license fee based upon the following:

(1) Possessing or maintaining 20-40 adult companion animals per year, $500; or
(2) Possessing or maintaining 41-75 adult companion animals per year, $1,000.
[...]
A license would not be issued to any commercial breeder who possesses or maintains more than 75 unsterilized companion animals over the age of six months.
[...]
This bill requires each commercial breeder to file semi-annual reports containing the following information:

(1) The number of dogs or cats in the possession of the commercial breeder on the date the report is filed;
(2) The number of dogs and cats sold during the reporting period and the names and addresses of the persons to whom they were sold; and
(3) The number of dogs and cats received by the commercial breeder during the reporting period under circumstances other than purchase and the names and addresses of the persons from whom they were obtained.

The premises of a commercial breeder must be made available to the commissioner for inspection at all reasonable times. The commissioner would make or cause to be made such inspections or investigations of the premises and records as considered necessary.

This bill also contains the "good moral character" requirement for applicants. Again, I'm seeing warrantless searches and there is a provision for animal seizure as well. Turning in the names and addresses of buyers to the state seems excessively intrusive to me. Why do they want that information, how will the state use it and what steps will be taken to protect the privacy of buyers? Or will buyers' names and addresses become public information?


Additional bills affecting pet owners:

Illinois

Chicago, IL - Mandatory Spay-Neuter
HSUS support for Chicago MSN
Vote delayed due to opposition - March 23, 2009

North Carolina


Additional info:
Pet-Law - state list
SAOVA

HSUS and Anti-Pet Laws
HSUS Legislative Agenda 2009 (pdf)

SC Bill Helps Battered Women and Their Pets

When faced with a crisis, it seems normal to me to cling to our family/loved ones and our home. But when staying at home becomes part of the crisis, some pet owners hold on to their loved ones - including their pets - even more. We saw this during Katrina when some owners refused to evacuate because the shelters would not accept their pets. Lesson learned and many emergency shelters set up during post-Katrina storms allowed pets. The reasons battered women stay in their homes are more complex but similarly, they sometimes don't want to go to a shelter which requires them to leave their pets in a violent home. A South Carolina bill addresses this issue:

Under the bill, abused women seeking temporary restraining orders against abusive husbands, boyfriends and fathers of their children could ask a Family Court judge for custody of a pet, even if the abuser owns the pet.

[...]

“It’s something I feel we’ve needed for years,” said Nancy Barton, executive director of Sistercare, an organization that offers a variety of services for battered women and their children in the Columbia area. “We hear from women who say, ‘I need to leave, but if I do, I know he’ll kill my dog or my cat.’”

According to the National Coalition Against Domestic Violence, 71 percent of pet owners entering domestic-violence shelters report that their batterer had threatened, injured or killed family pets.

Maine, New York and Vermont have enacted legislation to strengthen domestic-violence protective orders to include pets.

The bill being considered in South Carolina would apply to all kinds of pets, including horses and livestock.

[...]

“If there’s anything we can do to help lower the barriers that prevent women from seeking help, let’s do it,” [Vicki] Bourus [director of the S.C. Coalition Against Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault] said. “We’re not reaching enough of them as it is. Many of them just won’t leave those pets. And think of how helpless an animal is in the hands of an ill-intended person.”

Nationally, an increasing number of shelters for abused women have added kennels or created animal foster care programs in an effort to protect victims.

Read the full article here and don't miss the comments underneath from Idiot McStupidTalk and Friends.

If you are a SC resident, contact your representative to voice support for House bill 3117:

Sponsor: Representative Gilda Cobb-Hunter

SC House of Representatives