The American Rottweiler Club is adamantly opposed to anti-pet legislation as ineffective and even dangerous in the prevention of dog bites and the protection of animals.

AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE OFFICIAL ZONING ORDINANCE FOR THE
CITY OF JACKSON, TENNESSEE

SECTION 1. Be it ordained by that the Council of the City of Jackson, Tennessee amend the text
of the official Animal Control Ordinance, Title 10, Chapter 1 by adding Sections 10-105 through
10.111 to the existing Animal Control ordinance as indicated by the underlined sections below:

TITLE 10
ANIMAL CONTROL
CHAPTER

1. IN GENERAL.
2. LIVESTOCK AND OTHER FARM ANIMALS.
3. VICIOUS DOGS.
CHAPTER 1
IN GENERAL
SECTION
10-101. Definitions.
10-102. Running at large prohibited.
10-103. Noise prohibited.
10-104. Cruelty to animals.

10-101. Definitions. Whenever in this title the following terms are used, they shall have
the meanings respectively ascribed to them in this section.

(1) “Animals and fowls” as specifically named by whatever name they might be
called, and includes every age and sex of each of the herein named species of animals and fowls.
(2) “Approval” means approval by the health officer pursuant to power granted to
him in this chapter.
(3) “Health officer” is the director of health and sanitation of the city.
(4) “Keeper” refers to any person owning, keeping, having, using or maintaining any
of the animals or fowls herein referred to.
(5) “Rodent-proof” is a state or condition not conducive to entry, feeding or
harboring of rodents.
(6) “Sanitary” means a condition of good order and cleanliness which precludes the
probability of disease transmission. (1972 Code, § 6-1)
10-102. Running at large prohibited. It shall be unlawful for any person raising,
owning and/or keeping any dog or other animal to willfully suffer or permit any such creature to
run at large upon the public streets, avenues, alleys, parks or other public property of the city, or
to willfully suffer or permit any dog or other animal to run at large or to go upon the premises
owned or in possession of or under the control of any other person in the city. (1972 Code, § 6-
38)
10-103. Noise prohibited. No person shall willfully or knowingly keep or harbor on his
premises any dog or other animal that makes or creates loud and obnoxious noises by whatever
method created, thereby disturbing the peace of the neighborhood or disturbing the occupant of
adjacent premises or people living in the vicinity of such loud and obnoxious noise.
A person shall be deemed to have willfully and knowingly violated the terms of this
section if such person shall have been notified by any police officer of such disturbance and shall
have refused for a period of twenty-four (24) hours to correct such disturbance and prevent its
recurrence. (1972 Code, § 6-39)
10-104. Cruelty to animals. It shall be unlawful for any person to cruelly maltreat any
dumb animal in the city; or to willfully and wantonly kill, maim, wound, poison or disfigure any
horse, ass, mule, cattle, sheep, goat, swine, dog or other domesticated animal, bird or beast of any
kind; or to mutilate, cruelly kill, over-drive, over-ride or over-load, or unnecessarily confine, or in
any manner oppress the same; or to unnecessarily fail to provide the same with proper food, drink
or shelter; or to drive, work or use the same when such animal is maimed, wounded, sick, lame or
otherwise unfit for labor; or to willfully abandon the same to die; or to carry or to cause the same
to be carried, hauled or forced along in a cruel or inhumane manner; or to leave any animal tied
up or confined anywhere, day or night, for more than six (6) hours at a time without properly
feeding, watering and caring for the same. This section shall not be construed to prevent
policemen or other persons from destroying dogs or other animals when lawfully entitled to do
so. (1972 Code, § 6-7)
10-105. Number of animals.
(a) No more than a combined total of 6 adult dogs or adult cats are allowed per
residence.
(b) References to dogs and cats only refer to dogs and cats older than six (6) months.
There are no restrictions on the number of dogs and cats younger than six (6) months old that can
be on the premises.
(c) If it is determined that a person is in violation of this section, such person shall be
allowed thirty (30) days from the notice of violation to cure same.
(d) Any person who wishes to exceed the maximum combined number of six (6) dogs or
cats must apply to the City Revenue Office for a special “Animal Lodging” permit.
10-106. Animal Lodging Permits.
(1) No person shall have over a combined total of six (6) adult dogs or cats per residence
without first obtaining an operational permit (hereinafter, “permit”) issued by the City of Jackson
Revenue Office.
(2) A permit shall be issued only after the City of Jackson Animal Control Office
completes an inspection and determines that the minimum requirements and standards, as set
forth herein have been met. After approval, a permit shall be issued upon payment of the
applicable fee. The permit shall be prominently displayed on the premises where animals are
located. The cost of a permit and other related fees should be $50.00.3) The permit is valid for a
period of one (1) year from the date of issue, unless otherwise stated or revoked. The permit shall
be renewed annually. Said permit is not transferable, assignable or refundable. Renewal
applications for permits shall be made within thirty (30) days prior to the expiration date.
(4) A new establishment shall use its initial permit issue date as the anniversary date for
the purposes of permit expiration and renewal.
(5) Each separate property shall be required to have a permit.
(6) It shall be a condition of the issuance of any permit that the City of Jackson Animal
Control Office shall be allowed, at any reasonable time, to inspect without notice, all domestic
animals and all premises where animals are kept.
(7) Failure to apply for a permit shall constitute a violation.
Deleted: (
(8) References to dogs and cats only refer to dogs and cats older than six (6) months.
There are no restrictions on the number of dogs and cats younger than six (6) months old that can
be on the premises.
(9) If it is determined that a person is in violation of this section, such person shall be
allowed thirty (30) days from the notice of violation to cure same.
(10) Rescue organizations are exempt from this section.
10-107. Restraint & Confinement to Property. Dogs or cats shall not be chained, tied,
fastened to dog houses, trees, fences, or other stationary objects as a means of confinement to
property. Dogs may be restrained by means of a fence, pen or a trolley system, which is a tether
attached to a pulley on a cable run, if the following conditions are met:
(1) Only one dog may be tethered to each cable run.
(2) The tether must be attached to a properly fitting collar or harness worn by the dog,
with enough room between the collar and the dog’s throat through which two fingers may fit.
Choke collars and pinch collars are prohibited for purposes of tethering a dog to a cable run.
(3) There must be a swivel on at least one end of the tether to minimize tangling of the
tether.
(4) The tether and cable run must be of adequate size and strength to effectively restrain
the dog. The size and weight of the tether must not be excessive, as determined by the Animal
Control officer, considering the age, size and health of the dog.
(5) The cable run must be at least (20) feet in length and mounted at least four (4) feet
and no more than seven (7) feet above ground level.
(6) The length of the tether from the cable run to the dog’s collar should allow access to
the maximum available exercise area and should allow continuous access to water and shelter.
The trolley system must be of appropriate configuration to confine the dog to the owner’s
property, to prevent the tether from extending over and object or an edge that could result in
injury or strangulation of the dog, and to prevent the tether from becoming tangled with other
objects or animals.
(7) When a dog is confined outside by means of an enclosure or an electronic
containment device, the area must be of size for adequate movement of the dog and cleaning.
(8) No person shall transport any animal in an open truck without adequate physical
restraint, which will prevent the animal from exiting the vehicle or hanging itself.
10-108. Enforcement.
(1) The provisions of this section shall be enforceable by any law enforcement, animal
control, or code enforcement officer within their jurisdiction.
(2) This section is enforceable by all means provided by law. The maximum fine is $50
per day per violation. Additionally, the City may choose to enforce this section by seeking
injunctive relief in the Environmental Court. In addition to the enforcement procedures provided
herein, this section may be enforced by any other means provided by law, by actions at law and in
equity, and if the City prevails in such action, the City shall be entitled to its costs and reasonable
attorney’s fees incurred in such action.
10-109. Unaltered Animals. Anyone with an unaltered cat or dog over the age of 6
months, if unaltered for any other reason than medical purposes, is required to pay an annual fee
for a breeding license in the amount of $200.00 per owner. The fee will be collected by the City
of Jackson Revenue Office. It is the legislative intent that the provision of this section shall not
apply to the training or use of hunting dogs for sport nor shall it apply to the training and use of
dogs for law enforcement purposes, nor shall it apply to the use of dogs in competitive shows or
dogs that service those with disabilities.
10-110. Removal of animals. The city Animal Control Officer or any humane officer or
police officer may initiate before a city judge a search warrant for any premises upon a showing
of probable cause to believe that a violation of any provision of this section is occurring or has
occurred within a reasonable time thereon; and take charge of and impound the animals or fowl
involved in such violations. The matter of disposition of any such animal shall be determined by
a city judge.
10-111. Use of Fees Collected. One half of the funds collected from these fees will be
deposited in the General Fund of the City of Jackson. One-half of the funds will be
utilized for a low cost spay and neuter program, for which the City will contract with a
local animal rescue group that is designated by the Internal Revenue Service as a 501 (c)
(3) non-profit organization . The contracting non-profit agency will be required to
provide an annual report to the City accounting for use of the funds. One quarter of the
funds will be used by the Health and Sanitation Department to fund a certified humane
officer’s expenses to investigate animal abuse cases.
Submitted by City Councilman Frank Neudecker
TITLE 10
ANIMAL CONTROL
CHAPTER
1. IN GENERAL.
2. LIVESTOCK AND OTHER FARM ANIMALS.
3. VICIOUS DOGS.
CHAPTER 1
IN GENERAL
SECTION
10-101. Definitions.
10-102. Running at large prohibited.
10-103. Noise prohibited.
10-104. Cruelty to animals.
10-105. Number of animals.
10-106. Restraint & Confinement to Property.
10-107. Breeders License
10-108. Enforcement.
10.109. Removal of Animals.
10.110. Use of Fees Collected
10-101. Definitions. Whenever in this title the following terms are used, they shall have
the meanings respectively ascribed to them in this section.
1) “Animals and fowls” as specifically named by whatever name they might be
called, and includes every age and sex of each of the herein named species of
animals and fowls.
2) “Approval” means approval by the health officer pursuant to power granted to
him in this chapter.
3) “Health officer” is the director of health and sanitation of the city.
4) “Keeper” refers to any person owning, keeping, having, using or maintaining any
of the animals or fowls herein referred to.
5) “Rodent-proof” is a state or condition not conducive to entry, feeding or harboring
of rodents.
6) “Sanitary” means a condition of good order and cleanliness, which precludes the
probability of disease transmission. (1972 Code, § 6-1)
7) “Fence” is a barrier enclosing or bordering an area usually made of posts and
wire, wood, or approved metal or vinyl or Fence: A structure of wire, wood,
stone, brick or other materials, excluding invisible fencing, which is of sufficient
height and strength to act as a barrier against the passage of the animal it is
intended to enclose.
“Humane Treatment” means a domesticated dog or cat has received required
vaccinations. The animal has adequate food, water, shelter, and has the ability to
move freely within a confined area.
9) “Adequate space” means a sufficient safe space for adequate exercise suitable to
the age, size, species and breed of animal. For dogs, adequate space means an
enclosure with a minimum of 150 square feet per adult dog.
10) “Breeding”
10-102. Running at large prohibited. (a) The owner of a dog commits an offense if that
dog goes uncontrolled by the owner upon the premises of another without the consent of
the owner of the premises or other person authorized to give consent, or goes
uncontrolled by the owner upon a highway, public road, street or any other place open to
the public generally.
1) It is an exception to the application of this section that:
a. The dog was being moved from one place to another by the owner of the dog;
b. The dog is a police or military dog, the injury occurred during the course of
the dog’s official duties and the person injured was a party to, a participant in
or suspected of being a party to or participant in the act or conduct that
prompted the police or military to utilize the services of the dog;
c. The violation occurred while the injured person was on the private property of
the dog’s owner with the intent to engage in unlawful activity while on the
property;
d. The violation occurred while the dog was protecting the dog’s owner or other
innocent party from attack by the injured person or an animal owned by the
injured person;
e. The violation occurred while the dog was securely confined in a kennel, crate
or other enclosure; or
f. The violation occurred as a result of the injured person disturbing, harassing,
assaulting or otherwise provoking the dog.
10-103. Noise prohibited. No person shall willfully or knowingly keep or harbor on his
premises any dog or other animal that makes or creates loud and obnoxious noises by
whatever method created, thereby disturbing the peace of the neighborhood or disturbing
the occupant of adjacent premises or people living in the vicinity of such loud and
obnoxious noise.
A person shall be deemed to have willfully and knowingly violated the terms of this
section if such person shall have been notified by any police officer of such disturbance
and shall have refused for a period of twenty-four (24) hours to correct such disturbance
and prevent its recurrence. (1972 Code, § 6-39)
10-104. Cruelty to animals. It shall be unlawful for any person to cruelly maltreat any
animal in the city; or to willfully and wantonly kill, maim, wound, poison or disfigure
any horse, ass, mule, cattle, sheep, goat, swine, dog or other domesticated animal, bird or
beast of any kind; or to mutilate, cruelly kill, over-drive, over-ride or over-load, or
unnecessarily confine, or in any manner oppress the same; or to unnecessarily fail to
provide the same with proper food, drink or shelter; or to drive, work or use the same
when such animal is maimed, wounded, sick, lame or otherwise unfit for labor; or to
willfully abandon the same to die; or to carry or to cause the same to be carried, hauled or
forced along in a cruel or inhumane manner; or to leave any animal tied up or confined
anywhere, day or night, for more than six (6) hours at a time without properly feeding,
watering and caring for the same. This section shall not be construed to prevent
policemen or other persons from destroying dogs or other animals when lawfully entitled
to do so. (1972 Code, § 6-7)
10-105. Number of animals.
In no event shall any person keep at his or her premises more pet animals than can be
properly maintained in a healthy condition without presenting a health or safety hazard to
the owners, keeper or others and without constituting a nuisance to the occupants or
neighboring properties.
10-106. Restraint & Confinement to Property.
It shall be unlawful for any owner or possessor of any dog to fail to keep the dog under
restraint or control as provided for in this section.
A dog is considered not under restraint or control when it is running at large, whether
wearing a collar and tag or not. Reasonable care and precautions shall be taken to prevent
the dog from leaving the real property limits of its owner, possessor, or custodian, and
ensure that:
It is securely and humanely enclosed within a house, building, fence, pen of
adequate size or other enclosure of adequate size out of which it cannot climb,
dig, jump, or otherwise escape on its own volition; and that such enclosure is
securely locked at any time the animal is left unattended
Fences for all dogs must be of sufficient height, strength, and repair to safely
contain the dogs on the premises and prevent children from entering the yard or
enclosure.
It is on a leash and under the control of a competent person; or it is off leash and
obedient to and under voice command of a competent person who is in the
immediate proximity of the dog any time it is not restrained as provided for
above.
Dogs or cats shall not be chained, tied, fastened to dog houses, trees, fences, or
other stationary objects as a means of confinement to property.
10-107. Breeder License – Any person who possesses or maintains less than twenty
adult female dogs in whole or in part for the purpose of the sale of their
offspring as companion animals will require a yearly license issued by the city
of Jackson. Fee should be established by City Council vote and periodically
reviewed. License approval will require a background check before license can
be granted as well as an inspection of the grounds. Background checks will be
performed by __________________. Property inspections shall be performed
by _________________________. Note: Should grounds will be inspected
randomly or annually by city health officials as a prerequisite to obtaining a
license.
10-108. Enforcement
1. The provisions of this section shall be enforceable by any law enforcement,
animal control, or code enforcement officer within their jurisdiction.
2. This section is enforceable by all means provided by law. The maximum fine is
$50 per day per violation. Additionally, the City may choose to enforce this
section by seeking injunctive relief in the Environmental Court. In addition to the
enforcement procedures provided herein, this section may be enforced by any
other means provided by law, by actions at law and in equity, and if the City
prevails in such action, the City shall be entitled to its costs and reasonable
attorney’s fees incurred in such action.
10-109. Removal of animals. The city Animal Control Officer or police officer may
initiate before a city judge a search warrant for any premises upon a showing of
probable cause to believe that a violation of any provision of this section is
occurring or has occurred within a reasonable time thereon; and take charge of
and impound the animals or fowl involved in such violations. Animal shall be
placed in the care of the Animal Control and their facilities.
Note: Friday US District Judge Charles Simpson III ruled on the following
1. Section 91.022 of the Louisville/Jefferson County Metro Gov. Code of
ordinances (LJCMGC) is declared unconstitutional insofar as it requires owners
of unaltered dogs to obtain written approval of their enclosures. Plaintiffs’
motion for summary judgment (DN 20) is GRANTED in this respect, and
Metro’s motion for summary judgment (DN27) is DENIED to the same extent.
Metro is hereby enjoined from enforcing 91.022’s written approval requirement.
2. Section 91.101 of the LJCMGC of Ordinances is declared unconstitutional
insofar as it threatens to deprive pet owners of their property rights without a
finding of guilt. Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgement (DN 20) is
GRANTED in this respect, and Metro’s motion for summary judgement(DN 27)
is DENIED to the same extent. Metro is hereby enjoined from enforcing 91.101
in the manner just described.
3. Plaintiffs’ Fourth Amendment claims regarding 91.073(D), 91.094(A)
and 91.101.(A) are hereby DISMISSED for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
The Court is without authority to rule on the parties’ motions for summary
judgment as regards those claims.
10-110. Use of Fees Collected. All of the funds will be utilized for a low cost spay and
neuter program, for which the City will contract with a local veterinary clinic.
The contracting clinic will be required to provide an annual report to the City
accounting for use of the funds.
Add to
Vicious Dogs
Owners of dogs that have been determined as vicious by means of (Vicious Dog Board)
who maintain their dogs out-of-doors shall fence a portion of their property with a second
perimeter or area fence. Within this perimeter or area fence, the vicious animal must be
humanely confined inside a pen or kennel of adequate size. The pen or kennel may not
share common fencing with the area or perimeter fence. The kennel or pen must have
secure sides and a secure top attached to all sides. The sides must either be buried two
feet into the ground or sunken into a concrete pad. The gate to the kennel shall be inwardopening
and shall be kept locked except when tending to the animal’s needs such as
cleaning the kennel or providing food and water.
Proposal Dr. Lake Proposal Councilman
Neudecker
Definitions – “Fence” is a barrier enclosing
or bordering an area usually
made of posts and wire, wood,
or approved metal or vinyl or -
- “Fence” is a structure of wire,
wood, stone, brick or other
materials, excluding invisible
fencing, which is of sufficient
height and strength to act as a
barrier against the passage of
the animal it is intended to
enclose.
- “Adequate space” means a
sufficient safe space for
adequate exercise suitable to
the age, size, species and breed
of animal. For dogs, adequate
space means an enclosure with
a minimum of 150 square feet
per adult dog.
- “Breeding”
Number of animals – No more than a combined
total of 6 adult dogs or adult
cats are allowed per
residence.
- No restrictions on the
number of dogs and cats
younger than six (6) months
old
- Thirty days from the
notice of violation to
resolve
- May exceed the maximum
via a special “Animal
Lodging” permit.
- Prerequisite to permit -
City of Jackson Animal
Control Office completes an
inspection
- Permit is recommended at
$50.00
- The permit is valid for a
period of one (1) year from
the date of issue
- In no event shall any person
keep at his or her premises
more pet animals than can be
properly maintained in a
healthy condition without
presenting a health or safety
hazard to the owners, keeper or
others and without constituting
a nuisance to the occupants or
neighboring properties.
Restraint &
Confinement to Property
- Dogs or cats shall not be
chained, tied, fastened to
dog houses, trees, fences, or
other stationary objects as a
means of confinement to
property. Dogs may be
restrained by means of a
fence, pen or a trolley
- Dogs or cats shall not be
chained, tied, fastened to dog
houses, trees, fences, or other
stationary objects as a means of
confinement to property.
- Enclosed within a house,
building, fence, pen of
adequate size or other
system, which a tether is
attached to a pulley on a
cable run….
- When a dog is confined
outside by means of an
enclosure or an electronic
containment device, the area
must be of size for adequate
movement of the dog and
cleaning.
- No person shall transport
any animal in an open truck
without adequate physical
restraint.
enclosure of adequate size out
of which it cannot climb, dig,
jump, or otherwise escape on
its own volition; and that such
enclosure is securely locked at
any time the animal is left
unattended
- Fences for all dogs must be of
sufficient height, strength, and
repair to safely contain the
dogs on the premises and
prevent children from entering
the yard or enclosure.
- It is on a leash and under the
control of a competent person;
or it is off leash and obedient to
and under voice command of a
competent person who is in the
immediate proximity of the dog
any time it is not restrained as
provided for above.
- Invisible fences are not
considered secure encloses
Enforcement
Enforceable by any law
enforcement, animal
control, or code
enforcement officer
This section is enforceable
by all means provided by
law. The maximum fine is
$50 per day per violation.
City may choose to enforce
in the Environmental Court.
The City shall be entitled to
its costs and reasonable
attorney’s fees incurred.
Same
Recommend a change in
maximum fine to refer to state
law that limits fines
Unaltered Animals Anyone with an unaltered
cat or dog over the age of 6
months is required to pay an
annual fee for a breeding
license in the amount of
$200.00 per owner.
Not included
Exceptions: if unaltered for
any other reason than
medical purposes.
The training or use of
hunting dogs for sport
The training and use of dogs
for law enforcement
purposes
The use of dogs in
competitive shows
Dogs that service those with
disabilities.
Removal of animals By:
- Animal Control Officer
- any humane officer
- police officer
- May initiate before a city
judge a search warrant for
any premises upon a
showing of probable cause
to believe that a violation
- Take charge of and
impound the animals or
fowl involved in such
violations.
- The matter of disposition
of any such animal shall be
determined by a city judge
By:
Animal Control Officer
Police officer
May initiate before a city judge
a search warrant for any
premises upon a showing of
probable cause to believe that a
violation Evidence of such
violations must be presented to
the court of jurisdiction and
upon a guilty verdict take
charge of and impound the
animals or fowl involved in
such violations. Animal shall
be placed in the care of the
Animal Control and their
facilities.
Breeding License Anyone with an unaltered
cat or dog over the age of 6
months, if unaltered for any
other reason than medical
purposes, is required to pay
an annual fee for a breeding
license in the amount of
$200.00 per owner
Any person who possesses or
maintains less than twenty
adult female dogs for the
purpose of the sale
Require a yearly license issued
by the city of Jackson.
Fee should be established by
City Council vote and
periodically reviewed.
Approval will require a
background check before
license can be granted as well
as an inspection of the grounds.
Background checks will be
performed by
__________________.
Property inspections shall be
performed by
_________________________.
Use of Fees Collected One half of the funds
collected from these fees
will be deposited in the
General Fund
One-half of the funds will
be utilized for a low cost
spay and neuter program
The City will contract with
a local animal rescue group
use of the funds.
One quarter of the funds
will be used by the Health
and Sanitation Department
to fund a certified humane
officer’s expenses.
All of the funds and fines will
be utilized for a low cost spay
and neuter program
The City will contract with a
local veterinary clinic for the
use of funds.

The Honorable Kevin de Leon

VIA FAX
Chair, Assembly Appropriations Committee
California State Assembly
State Capital
Sacramento, CA  95814

RE:  CALIFORNIA 250 – OPPOSED

Dear Chairman de Leon and Respected Members of the Appropriations Committee:

The American Rottweiler Club, Inc. (ARC), the parent club of the American Kennel Club (AKC) for the Rottweiler breed in the United States, representing thousands of dog owners, is writing to express our grave concern over California SB 250 – A Bill That Potentially Criminalizes Dog Ownership

Since its inception, the American Rottweiler Club has been deeply engaged in advancing animal welfare and the humane care and treatment of dogs.

ARC members and supporters devote significant time, effort and resources in educating the public on responsible dog ownership, dog bite prevention and safety around dogs, especially where children and the elderly are concerned, and supporting to scores of animal rescue and sheltering organizations across the United States through direct donations and grants and volunteer support.

The American Rottweiler Club is adamantly opposed to the cruel and inhumane treatment of dogs, the exploitation of innocent animals, and illegal, sub-standard breeding operations.

We therefore respectfully submit our official and unequivocal opposition to California SB 250 and to any other bill which makes criminals out of law-abiding, tax-paying citizens and home and hobby breeders, or anyone owning intact dogs.

California SB 250 is not only irresponsible, cruel and inhumane, it sets a dangerous precedent for the type and scope of legislation.

• CA SB 250 potentially makes criminals of responsible, tax-paying pet owners based on the reproductive status of the pet
• CA SB 250 will escalate costs for the state and municipalities already in financial crisis
• CA SB 250 will reduce licensing compliance
  
• CA SB 250 places arbitrary limits on animal ownership
• CA SB 250 kills or harms innocent animals

CA SB 250 – Criminalizing Dog Ownership

It is abundantly clear that the intent of this bill is to criminalize certain dog ownership – starting with the very title of the bill – and adding the language of this bill under the criminal code, as follows on Line 4:

To establish licensing requirements and standards of care of certain dog breeding kennels, dog intermediaries, and animal rescues for dogs.

We take exception to the very language of CA SB 250 which alludes to “possession of intact dogs” as if intact dogs were in nature a dangerous, illegal substance – and needing to be heavily regulated as illegal drugs.

We question whether the State of California truly intends to set a precedent of criminalizing the ownership of dogs, and the ownership of breeding dogs, and animal rescues as statute can and will be interpreted to criminalize the ownership and breeding of any animal.

CA SB 250 – Criminalizing Dog Breeding

CA SB 250 seems to take aim at anyone engaged in the breeding of dogs, and makes criminals out of vast majority of breeders who are responsible, law-abiding and caring individuals or establishments, deeply dedicated to the welfare of dogs.

This misguided bill seems to stem from a misrepresentation that owners of breeding stock, intact dogs, or multiple dogs are presented as de facto “puppy mills” – which is certainly not the case.

We respectfully point out that the term, “puppy mill” is highly inflammatory and deliberately misleading.

Most home and hobby breeders – as well as the vast majority of commercial kennels – operate under a set of standards set forth not just by the state, but by the very organizations to which we belong, concerning the care, treatment, feeding, and training of healthy dogs.

We would like to make very clear that any substandard and inhumane conditions at kennels – whether they be commercial operations or privately-owned home or hobby kennels – are still substandard and inhumane, and therefore subject to the strict enforcement of California’s anti-cruelty statutes.

Sadly, it is the lack of enforcement, and the lack of state or municipal funding for enforcement, combined with a lacking of understanding of basic animal husbandry, that often is to blame for allowing such conditions to exist.

We, therefore, recommend to the Committee that strong enforcement of the State’s animal cruelty laws are the correct remedy to such filthy and cruel establishments, but that criminalizing the ownership and breeding of dogs – or criminalizing the ownership or breeding of any animals for that matter – is not only a misguided approach, but may in fact constitute a serious violation of the 14th Amendment.

CA SB 250  – Substantially Increases Costs Through Unfunded Mandate

Already in a fiscal crisis, the State of California can ill-afford yet another unfunded mandate that will dramatically increase costs or the state, municipalities and pet owners.

The State of California’s Department of Finance strongly recommends AGAINST SB 250, in an analysis released on May 5, 2009, a copy of which is attached:

FISCAL SUMMARY

This bill would result in a substantial increase to the General Fund cost of the Animal Adoption mandate. The Animal Adoption mandate currently costs more than $24 million annually to reimburse local government shelters’ cost to care for impounded animals. Given the current economic climate, requiring the owners of dogs and cats to pay for sterilization procedures would result in more animals being abandoned or surrendered because of the owners’ inability to finance the sterilization procedure and pay additional fines.

This bill could create a new state-mandated local program by requiring local agencies to utilize existing procedures or establish new procedures for unaltered dog license denials and appeals, which would create additional pressures on the General Fund. The increased administrative costs of these new tasks are unknown.

Because fines for owning an unsterilized dog or cat would only be assessed if there were a concurrent citation for another violation, this bill would also limit local agencies’ ability to collect additional revenue to offset new costs associated with enforcing the bill’s new provisions.

COMMENTS

The Department of Finance is opposed to this measure because it would increase costs for an existing state-mandated local program, potentially create a new state mandated local program, and result in General Fund costs that are not included in the 2009-10 Budget Act.

For the members of the California Legislature to impose such a mandate is highly irresponsible and resulting in extreme harm to pets, pet owners and to the citizens of California.

CA SB 250 – Reduced Licensing Compliance & Loss of State Revenue

Punitive anti-pet laws like CA SB 250 actually reduce licensing compliance.  As reported by the National Animal Interest Alliance, only 17% of California’s pet owners license their pets.

This low compliance rate will dwindle even lower – resulting in the LOSS of state revenue, not a gain.

Proponents of CA SB 250 have relied on a punitive and permanently flawed “self-funding” revenue model which imposes high fees and has a dismal track record.

CA SB 250 – Increased Surrenders, Overburdened Shelters & Killing Innocent Animals

Shelters in cities where mandatory sterilization laws have been enacted have seen a sharp spike in owner surrenders, which in turn increases sheltering costs and euthanasia of formerly-owned dogs.

This is directly due to the fact that many dog owners become fearful of new, anti-dog, anti-breeding laws, and find it difficult, expensive to comply or cannot afford to move out of town or out of state with their dogs.

The impact of anti-dog laws such as CA SB 250 is the swelling of already overburdened shelter populations, budgets that quickly spiral out of control, and the unnecessary euthanasia of healthy dogs.  Instead of functioning life-saving stations, local shelters will become death camps for innocent dogs.

In short, mandatory sterilization laws are a proven failure and KILL innocent animals.

CA SB 250 – Government Interference In Practice Of Veterinary Medicine

Does the State wish to dictate the practice of veterinary medicine to veterinarians?

By mandating sterilization procedures for all pets, the State of California is creating government interference in the private practice of veterinary medicine.

The direct result of this will also be that veterinarians will find themselves constrained in their practice by what any state legislature deems to be a “mandatory practice”.

If such government interference is allowed to take hold, which veterinary procedures will next be mandated or outlawed, banned or restricted based on political correctness or the opinions of a small but vocal group of animal activists?

Will the practice of veterinary medicine then be subject to the whims of uninformed local or state legislators? Such policy is folly, and can only lead to great harm to animals, pet owners and to the veterinarians themselves.

CA SB 250 -  Interferes With Private Relationships With Veterinary Healthcare Providers & Pet-Owning Clients

As responsible and caring dog owners, we depend on our veterinarians to work with us to make wise decisions concerning health of our dogs.

CA SB 250 will significantly interfere with the private and protected relationship between an animal owner and his or her veterinary healthcare provider.

Decisions about surgeries that carry risks – are decisions that pet owners need to make in consultation with their veterinarians – not the state legislature.

CA SB 250 –  Negative Impact & Health Risks Mandatory Spay/Neuter Surgeries

The veterinary literature is overwhelmingly conclusive in finding that spay and neuter is not therapeutic in nature, but rather is extremely detrimental to the health and welfare of the dogs.

Spay/neuter surgeries cause some cancers, hormonal interruptions, aggressive behavior and other maladies attributed to the spaying or neutering of dogs.

In the May 15, 2009 edition of the Journal o the American Veterinary Medical Association, the AVMA wrote:
AVMA: Mandatory Spay/Neuter A Bad Idea

“Prevention of unexpected litters; reduced incidences of some cancers and reproductive diseases; and prevention and amelioration of certain undesirable behaviors have been documented as benefits to spaying/neutering dogs and cats. However, potential health problems associated with spaying and neutering have also been identified, including an increased risk of prostatic cancer in males; increased risks of bone cancer and hip dysplasia in large-breed dogs associated with sterilization before maturity; and increased incidences of obesity, diabetes, urinary tract infections, urinary incontinence, and hypothyroidism”.

http://www.avma.org/onlnews/javma/may09/090515j.asp

Animals undergoing mandatory spay/neuter surgeries:

• suffer pain
• are at increased risk of infection
• experience extended recovery times
• suffer a host of ill-effects

Furthermore, most spay/neuter surgeries are “for the benefit of humans” and the positive effects are outweighed by the impressive list of negative side effects.

CA SB 250: Threatens Food & Agriculture By Changes To Legal Status Of Animals

CA SB 250 further threatens California’s immense agricultural industry with a backdoor assault on the legal status of animals as property.

Extremists in the animal rights movement see the elimination of the legal status of animals as property, and the subsequent elimination of animals in the food supply chain, and indeed all animal use as the end goal.

In is analysis of CA SB 250, the California Department of Finance calls attention to this issue in the following statement:

This bill would add the term “custodian” to the Food and Agricultural Code, which would have far-reaching implications. Specifically, the term “custodian” may reduce the legal status and value of dogs and cats and restrict the rights of owners, veterinarians, and government agencies to protect and care for animals.

Clearly, CA SB 250 could have deep and devastating consequences for the future of animal agriculture in California.

CA SB 250:  Eliminating Presumption Of Innocence

CA SB 250 eliminates the presumption of innocence making all dog owners of “intact dogs” guilty and without recourse.

Under the rules of our judiciary, it is unimaginable to think that a state government would create a reverse onus – thus shifting the burden of proof from the state to the accused.

This bill is counter to the very principles upon which our democracy stands.

Our response is to respectfully remind the Committee Members that our judicial system operates upon the presumption that all citizens in the United States are innocent until proven guilty, not the reverse.

Furthermore, there is no hearing or an appeals process by which may defend themselves against charges.

Closing Thoughts

In closing, the American Rottweiler Club rejects the criminalization of responsible dog ownership, the flawed concept of outlawing or eliminating through heavy-handed regulation the lawful breeding, ownership, and custody of dogs – or ANY animals.

We formally oppose the erosion by proxy laws of the civil rights and liberties guaranteed to all citizens of the United States under the guise of animal protection.

The American Rottweiler Club, having conducted a thorough analysis of this bill, concludes that California SB 250 would:

• Criminalize dog ownership
• Fail to protect the welfare of ALL dogs
• Threaten animal agriculture and food production
• Waste valuable tax-payer dollars

CA SB 250:  In Summary

The American Rottweiler Club urges the State Of California and the Esteemed Members Committee to act appropriately and responsibly by voting NO on California SB 250.

We urge the Committee Members to reject CA SB 250 in its entirety, and not allow this dangerous and misguided piece of legislation, no matter how well- intentioned, to bring about the destruction of innocent dogs, eliminate the responsible and ethical ownership of dogs, discriminate against owners of intact dogs, and deprive people of their civil rights.

We thank you for your attention to this very important matter and remain committed to providing the State of California with expert advice in matters of animal husbandry and the humane care and treatment of dogs.  We would be honored to be called upon to serve.

Very truly yours,

Jeff Shaver
President
American Rottweiler Club, Inc.
jshaver522@yahoo.com
(web site) www.AmRottClub.org

cc: American Rottweiler Club Board, Peter Piusz, Delegate