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 breed-specific anti-pet ordinance was driven by residents upset by the fact that new neighbors who own “pitbulls” moved into the area. The dogs have not bitten anyone, however, neighbors are not happy and petitioned the town to pass a ban.  Mashpee residents will vote on the ordinance on October, 19th at a live townhall meeting.  A copy of the proposed ordinance is below:

Article 17

Proposed Pit Bull Regulation

Town of Mashpee

Section 1. Purpose

Dogs known as “pit bulls” have generally-exhibited traits such as (i) powerful instincts for
dominance which naturally result in a proclivity for fighting; (ii) a strong prey drive, which
inspires a natural chase instinct that often results in their aggressive pursuit of cats, rabbits, other
dogs, and human children; (iii) a stubbornness that results in sustained, unyielding
aggressiveness once an attack begins; (iv) powerful jaws capable of crushing bones and hanging
on to victims even while the animal withstands infliction of injury or pain; and (v) a combination
of stamina, agility, strength, and “gameness” (the will to successfully complete a task). Judicial
and legislative bodies have reacted by noting that the classification of pit bulls as dangerous
animals has a rational basis in fact and that adopting controlling measures in order to reduce the
likelihood of human injury bears a rational relationship to the governmental objectives of
preserving public health, public safety, and public welfare. The Town of Mashpee believes it is
necessary to regulate, subject to certain exceptions with certain restrictions, pit bulls in order to
fulfill its primary mandate to protect human health, safety, and welfare within the Town.

Section 2. Definitions

PIT BULL – Any dog that is an American Pit Bull Terrie, American Staffordshire Terrie,
Staffordshire Bull Terrier, or any dog of mixed breed displaying the majority of the physical
traits of any one (1) or more of the above breeds, or any dog exhibiting those distinguishing
characteristics which substantially conform to the standards established by the American Kennel
Club or United Kennel Club for any of the above breeds, such characteristics being identifiable
as an element of its breeding by a licensed veterinarian, by the animal control officer, or by any
other qualified person, or any dog registered or licensed as a pit bull. Specifically excepted from
this definition is any dog with proof by American Kennel Club or United Kennel Club papers or
by a written certification or written notice from a veterinarian licensed in the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts that the dog does not contain in its lineage any American Pit Bull terrier,
American Staffordshire Terrier, or Staffordshire Bull Terrier. As per an animal DNA lineage test

TOWN – The Town of Mashpee

OWNER – Any person who owns, possesses, keeps, exercises control over, maintains, harbors,
transports, or sells a pit bull:

KEEPER – Any person who possesses, keeps, exercise control
over, maintains, harbors, transports, or sells a pit bull whether or not that person is an owner;

HOUSEHOLD – All persons residing in one dwelling unit in the Town of Mashpee whether
such persons are related by blood or by marriage or are unrelated.

ANIMAL CONTROL OFFICER – The Animal Control Officer of the Town of Mashpee

MUZZLE – A restraining appliance made of metal, plastic, leather, cloth or a combination of
these materials that, when fitted and fastened over a pit bull’s snout/mouth/head, prevents the pit
bull from biting but allows room for the pit bull to breather/pant;

SECURE TEMPORARY ENCLOSURE – A secure enclosure used for purposes of transporting
a pit bull and which includes a top and bottom permanently attached to the sides except for a
securable door used for the ingress and egress of a pit bull. Such enclosure must be of such
material, and such door closed and secured in such a manner, that the pit bull cannot exit the
enclosure without human assistance.

HEARING OFFICER – The Town of Mashpee Board of Selectmen or the Town board or Town
official designated by the Town Board of Selectmen to conduct hearings required by this by-law.

Section 3. Pit Bulls Prohibited

It shall be unlawful for any person to own, possess, keep, exercise control over, maintain, house,
harbor, transport, or sell within the Town any pit bull, subject only to the exceptions set forth in
sub-paragraphs (b)-(g), below.

The owner or keeper of a pit bull that is registered and licensed with the Town Clerk as of the
date of enactment of this by-law may apply for a pit bull license in accordance with the
requirements of section 4, below, such license to be the subject of annual renewal. Any owner or
keeper who has applied for and received a pit bull license in accordance with this sub-paragraph
and who maintains the pit bull at all times in compliance with the pit bull license requirements of
section 4, below, and all other applicable requirements of this Section…may keep a pit bull
within the Town.

Any person who is not covered by sub-paragraph (b), above, shall be entitled to apply for one
annual pit bull license in accordance with the requirements of section 4, below. Notwithstanding
the foregoing, no household in the Town shall be occupied at any one time by more than one
owner or keeper of a pit bull licensed under this sub-paragraph (c) and in accordance with this
Section

The Town Kennel may temporarily harbor and transport any pit bull for purposes of enforcing
the provisions of this Section

Any humane society operating an animal shelter which is registered and licensed by the Town
may temporarily hold any pit bull that it has received or otherwise recovered, but only for so
long as it takes to contact the Town Kennel and either turn the pit bull over to the Town Kennel
employees or to receive permission to destroy or to have destroyed the pit bull pursuant to the
provisions of sections 5 and 6, below, if applicable.

A person may temporarily transport into and hold in the Town a pit bull for the sole purpose of
showing such pit bull in a place of public exhibition, contest, or show sponsored by a dog club
association or similar organization, provided that the sponsor have received written permission
from the Town’s Board of Selectmen, have obtained all other permits or licenses required by bylaw,
and furnishes protective measures adequate to prevent pit bulls from escaping or injuring
members of the public. The person who transports and holds a pit bull for showing shall at all
times while the pit bull is being transported within the Town keep the pit bull confined in a
secure temporary enclosure.

Failure by the owner to keeper to comply or remain in compliance with all of the terms of an
applicable exception set forth above shall subject the pit bull to immediate impoundment and/or
disposal pursuant to section 5 and 6, below, and shall operate to prevent the owner or keeper
from asserting such exception as a defense in any proceeding under sections 5, 6 and 7, below.

Section 4. Pit Bull License Requirements

The owner or keeper of any pit bull who is allowed to apply for an annual pit bull license under
section 3(b) or section 3(c) above, shall at the time of application for the annual pit bull license
comply with or otherwise provide sufficient evidence that the owner or keeper is in compliance
with all of the following regulations:

The owner or keeper of the pit bull shall keep current the license for such pit bull through annual
renewal. Such license is not transferable and shall be renewable only by the holder of the
license. A pit bull license tag must be obtained by the owner or keeper at the time of issuance of
the license. Such license tag shall be attached to the pit bull by means of a collar or harness and
shall not be attached to any pit bull other than the pit bull for which the license was issued. If the
pit bull tag is lost or destroyed, a duplicate tag may be issued upon the payment of a twenty
dollar ($20) fee;

(a) The owner or keeper must be at last 21 years of age;

(b) The license application form to be completed by the owner or keeper and presented to the
Town Clerk shall require (i) the complete legal name of the pit bull’s owner and/or
keeper and presentation of a positive form of government-issued picture identification
(no photocopies) for the owner and/or keeper, and the Animal Control Officer shall make
a copy of such identification and attach it to the application; (ii) the complete residential
address of the pit bull’s owner and/or keeper; (iii) the complete address where the pit bull
will be primarily housed/sheltered; (iv) the telephone number of the pit bull’s owner or
keeper; (v) the complete details of the pit bull’s physical identification, including but not
limited to breed, sex, weight, color, markings, and any other distinguishing physical
characteristics, all provided by the owner and/or keeper; (vi) a photograph of the pit bull
that is not more than thirty (30) calendar days old; and (vii) the complete details of the pit
bull’s documented identification, including but not limited to the pit bull’s registration
and/or license number as issued by the Town and true and accurate copies of the pit bull’s
rabies vaccination and a copy of the pit bull’s health record as prepared by a veterinarian
which shall not be dated more than thirty (30) calendar days from the application for
registration of the pit bull under this sub-section;

(c) The owner or keeper shall present to the Town Clerk proof that the owner or keeper has
procured liability insurance in the amount of a 1 million/2 million policy, covering any
damage or injury which may be caused by a pit bull during the twelve-month period
covered by the pit bull license. The policy shall contain a provision requiring the
insurance company to provide written notice to the Town Clerk not less than fifteen (15)
days prior to any termination of the policy and not less than five (5) days subsequent to
cancellation or expiration of the policy;

(d) The owner or keeper, at the owner’s or keeper’s own expense, shall have had the pit bull
spayed or neutered and shall present to the Town Clerk in connection with the license
application documentary proof from a licensed veterinarian that this sterilization has been
performed. This requirement shall be waived upon a written statement from a licensed
veterinarian that the procedure should not or cannot be performed for reasons of the
health or age of the animal.

(e) Upon the owner’s or keeper’s successful application, the Animal Control Officer shall
provide to the successful owner or keeper registering a pit bull (i) a pit bull license tag;
(ii) a complete copy of the application for registration and license as submitted by the
owner or keeper; (iii) a written summary of all methods for contacting the Animal
Control Officer, including but not limited to the Animal Control Officer’s telephone
number during business hours, the Animal Control Officer’s telephone number during
non-business hours, the telephone number of the Town Police Department, and the 24-
hour helpline or hotline for the Town; and (iv) a legible copy of this Section
(f) The license tag issued by the Animal Control Officer pursuant to this section shall be
attached to the pit bull by means of a collar or harness and shall not be attached to any pit
bull other than the pit bull for which the license tag was issued. If the pit bull license tag
is lost or destroyed, a duplicate may be issued by the Animal Control Officer upon the
owner or keeper’s application and payment of a fee in the amount of twenty-five dollars
($25.00);

(g) The Animal Control Officer and the Town Clerk shall each maintain a file containing the
license numbers, pit bull tag numbers, and the names and addresses of the owner or
keepers. The owner or keeper shall notify the Animal Control Officer and the Town
Clerk in writing of any change of address;

(h) At all times when a pit bull is at the property of the owner or keeper, the owner or keeper
shall keep the pit bull confined, either in a secure temporary enclosure or within the
premises of the owner or keeper or within a fenced enclosure from which the dog cannot
escape. At all times when a pit bull is away from the property of the owner or keeper, the
owner or keeper shall keep the pit bull either securely leashed and muzzled or in a secure
temporary enclosure;

(k) The owner or keeper shall not sell or otherwise transfer the pit bull to any person resident
in the Town except a member of the owner’s or keeper’s immediate family who will then
become the owner or keeper and will be subject to all of the provisions of this section
The owner or keeper shall notify the Town Clerk within five days in the event that the pit
bull is lost, stolen, dies, or has a litter. In the event of a litter, the owner or keeper (i)
must deliver the puppies to the Town Kennel for destruction or (ii) shall permanently
remove the puppies from the Town and provide sufficient evidence of such removal by
the time the puppies are weaned. In no event shall the owner or keeper be allowed to
keep in the Town a pit bull puppy born after the date of enactment of this Section that is
more than eight weeks old. Any pit bull puppies kept contrary to the provisions of this
subsection are subject to immediate impoundment and disposal pursuant to this Section

(l) The owner or keeper shall have posted at each possible entrance to the owner’s or
keeper’s property where the pit bull is kept a conspicuous and clearly legible sign. Such
sign must be at least eight and one-half (8 ½) inches by eleven (11) inches in rectangular
dimensions and shall contain only the words “WARNING – PIT BULL DOG” in
lettering which is not less than two inches in height and which is in sharp contract with
the background of the sign.

Section 5. Impoundment

(a) Any pit bull found by the Animal Control Officer or any member of the Town Police
Department to be on the loose, at-large, or unconfined, or which has been observed by the
Animal Control Officer or any member of the Police Department to have mauled, bitten,
attacked, threatened, or in any way menaced another animal or human shall be presumed
to be in violation of this by-law and shall be subject to immediate impoundment;

(b) The Animal Control Officer is authorized to immediately impound any Pit Bull which is
in violation of this by-law and which does not fall within the exceptions listed therein.
The Animal Control Officer is authorized to house and/or dispose of any impounded Pit
Bull at his/her sole professional discretion.

Section 6. Impoundment Procedure and Enforcement

(a) The Animal Control Officer is empowered to make whatever inquiry or investigation is
deemed necessary to ensure compliance with the provisions of this by-law. The Animal
Control Officer is empowered to seize and impound any pit bull found to be in violation
of this by-law or any pit bull for which the owner or keeper has failed to comply with the
provisions of this Section

(b) The Animal Control Officer shall not release a pit bull from impoundment unless the
owner or keeper (i) provides proof of registration and license satisfactory to the Animal
Control Officer, (ii) provides adequate proof that any violations of this by-law have been
corrected in a manner satisfactory to the Animal Control Officer, (iii) remits payment to
the Animal Control Officer of all fines issued pursuant to violations under this by-law;
and (iv) remits payment to the Animal Control Officer for the costs associated with the
impounding of the pit bull and the term of impoundment of the pit bull;

(c) The Animal Control Officer and the Town Police Department shall each have the
authority and shall cooperate with each other to the greatest extent possible to enforce the
provisions of this by-law. The Town Police Department shall notify the Animal Control
Officer of any location or address at which a pit bull is observed;

(d) A pit bull found in violation of this by-law shall be subject to immediate impoundment;

(e) Any violation of this Section shall be subject to a fine of twenty-five dollars ($25.00) for
the first offense, and a fine of one hundred dollars ($100) for each additional offense. In
addition, upon any violation of this Section the owner’s or keeper’s pit bull shall be
subject to impoundment. Each day a violation exists shall be considered a separate and
distinct violation.

Section 7. Appeal Procedure

(a) The owner or keeper of a dog that has been impounded pursuant to this by-law or that has
been the subject of a citation for a violation under this by-law may dispute the
classification of such a dog as a pit bull or whether the provisions of this by-law for
enforcement have been complied with by filing a written petition with the Animal
Control Officer for a hearing concerning such classification no later than seven (7)
calendar days after the date of impoundment or citation. A petition shall include, but not
be limited to, (i) the complete legal name and social security number of the pit bull’s
owner and/or keeper; (ii) the complete residential address of the pit bull’s owner and/or
keeper; (iii) the complete address where the pit bull is primarily housed/sheltered; (iv) the
telephone number of the pit bull’s owner and/or keeper; (v) the complete details of the pit
bull’s documented identification, including but not limited to the pit bull’s registration
and/or license number as issued by the Town; and (vi) a summary of the facts that the
petitioner wishes to introduce for consideration in support of the petitioner’s appeal. The
written petition shall be submitted under oath or affirmation.

(b) The hearing will be held before the hearing officer. Any facts which the petitioner
wishes to be considered shall be submitted under oath or affirmation, either in writing or
orally at the hearing. The hearing officer shall make a final determination of the
petitioner’s appeal. Such final determination shall be considered a final action by a
municipal board. If the dog is found to be a pit bull and the impoundment or the citation
is in compliance with this by-law, the pit bull shall be destroyed unless the owner or
keeper produces evidence deemed sufficient by the hearing officer that the pit bull is to
be removed permanently from the Town and the owner or keeper pays the cost of
impoundment. If the dog is found not to be a pit bull or the impoundment or citation is
determined by the hearing officer not to have complied with this by-law, the dog shall be
released to the owner or keeper with no impoundment fee imposed unless the dog was
impounded as a result of the provisions of Section

Submitted by Petition

The Board of Selectmen does not recommend approval by a vote of 4-0, one absent.
The Finance Committee does not recommend approval by a vote of 5-0, one abstained, one
absent.

The breed-specific anti-pet ordinance was crafted by Mark. D. Clark  and Susan Riggs, acting City Attorneys,of the law firm Spilman Thomas & Battle at the request of Mayor Mullens.  A copy of the proposed ordinance is below:

AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ARTICLE 505 OF  THE CODE OF THE CITY OF SOUTH CHARLESTON REGARDING DANGEROUS DOGS IN THE CITY LIMITS.

WHEREAS, the City of South Charleston has determined that dangerous dogs, including, but not limited to Pit Bulls, Rottweilers and Presa Canaries, pose a threat to the well-being of persons and property of citizens of South Charleston and the keeping of dangerous dogs within the city limits must be regulated in order to manage and minimize harm to the inhabitants of and visitors to the City of South Charleston; and

WHEREAS, Pit Bulls, Rottweilers and Presa Canaries, as breeds of dog, have certain characteristics that have been selectively bred into or are otherwise commonly found, and these characteristics may be intensified by improper treatment and/or training; these generally~exhibited traits included, but are not limited to, (i) powerful instincts for dominance which naturally result in a proclivity for fighting; (ii) a strong prey drive, which inspires a natural chase instinct that often results in their aggressive pursuit of cats, other dogs, and humans; (iii) a stubbormiess that results in sustained, unyielding aggressiveness once an attack begins; (iv)powerful jaws capable of crushing bones and hanging on to victims even while the animal
withstands infiiction of injury or pain; and (v) a combination of stamina, agility, and strength; and

WHEREAS, the combination and evolution of these characteristics in Pit Bulls,
Rottweilers and Presa Canaries, and other dogs deemed dangerous by this section, and the exhibition of these characteristics and encounters injurious to humans and other mammals have served to evidence their dangerousness; judicial and legislative bodies have reacted by noting that the classification of Pit Bulls, Rottweilers and Presa Canaries as Dangerous Dogs has a rational basis in fact and that adopting controlling measures in order to reduce the likelihood of injury to persons and their pets bears a rational relationship to the governmental objective of preserving public health, public safety, and public welfare; and

WHEREAS, the mere presence of Dangerous Dogs poses a significant threat to the health, welfare, and safety of the inhabitants of and visitors to the City of South Charleston; and

July 13, 2009

Mr. Brent Howard
President, Whitehall City Council
360 S. Yearling Rd
Whitehall, OH 43213
RE: “PIT BULL” BAN – OPPOSED

Dear President Howard and Respected Members of the Whitehall City Council:
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 a Whitehall breed ban ordinance.

Since its inception, the American Rottweiler Club has devoted significant time and resources in educating the public on dog bite prevention and safety around dogs. Our highly specialized knowledge and expertise in dogs is derived from literally hundreds of years of collective canine experience in matters of training, behavior and sound temperaments.

We therefore respectfully submit our official and unequivocal opposition to any breed-specific ordinance, AKA Whitehall Pit Bull Ban Ordinance and to any other bill creating breed specific legislation for “pit bull dogs” or any other breed or “type” of dog.

As outlined in detail below, as such legislation is dangerous and irresponsible. In addition, breed-specific ordinances – AKA a Whitehall Pit Bull Ban Ordinance:

 Criminalizes dog ownership
 Deprives dog-owing citizens of Due Process
 Creates a proxy for warrantless searches and seizures
 Set the stage for mass extermination of innocent dogs and in the end
 Fail to protect the public health and safety

The Duty To Protect The Public Health & Safety

Protecting the public health and safety – especially that of innocent children and the elderly – is and always has been the top priority of The American Rottweiler Club, a priority which the Great State of Whitehall, Ohio no doubt shares and which may be the very reason A Whitehall Pit Bull Ban Ordinance may have been intended.

Recent news reports about dog bite incidents in Whitehall, Ohio have heightened awareness about the dangers of loose running or uncontrolled dogs, an issue responsible for the vast majority of dog bites in the U.S.

However, we feel it our duty to advise the Whitehall City Council that breed specific legislation is a failed policy in the prevention of dog bites or fatalities, and that the enactment of a Whitehall Pit Bull Ban Ordinance will not only fail to protect the public but may actually increase the risk of dog bites or fatalities.

Breed specific policies pose a danger to public health.

The American Rottweiler Club bases its position on official information from The Centers For Disease Control (CDC), the country’s highest authority on matters of public health and safety.

As you are aware, the CDC is the federal agency charged with overseeing the public and safety for the United States, and as such is the official governmental repository for dog bite data, which is collected from public health offices on an annual basis.

In terms of a WHITEHALL PIT BULL BAN ORDINANCE, we must advise the Whitehall City Council that the Centers For Disease Control, as well as the American Veterinary Medical Association, both strongly oppose breed specific legislation and have stated their respective official positions for the public record.

According to the CDC, the vast majority of 800,000 dog bites that occur annually in the United States are minor in nature. Fewer than 24 fatalities occur each year due to dog attacks, and are extremely rare events, according to the CDC, is .000578 rated next to human and dog populations in the U.S.

Dog bite incidents are highly preventable through basic dog bite prevention education of children, parents and elderly populations, as unsupervised children and the elderly are often victims of loose, roaming dogs, or because they fail to recognize when a dog feels threatened or is ill, or aggressive canine behavior and respond appropriately.

The American Rottweiler Club works with communities across the nation to educate the public and policy makers about simple measures that yield large results, such as strict enforcement of local leash laws, educating parents about the importance of never leaving children unsupervised around dogs, and community dog bite prevention education.

Correcting The Myth – CDC Dog Bite Facts

With regard to A WHITEHALL PIT BULL BAN ORDINANCE, the presumption of the bills’ author is that “Pit Bulls” are inherently dangerous animals. This is a myth that must be corrected.

We therefore advise the Whitehall City Council that the CDC and the American Veterinary Medical Association conducted an extensive study of dog bites and fatalities in the United States, covering a period of over 20 years of data.

Published in the Journal of American Veterinary Medicine, the study concluded that no one single breed of dog is inherently dangerous, (http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/duip/dogbreeds.pdf), and that other breeds or types of dogs may bite at a higher rate.

In addition, it was found that other factors – especially owner behavior – were more predictive than breed. The CDC thus concluded that the breed of dog was not relevant in tracking or preventing dog bites and fatalities.

The CDC study also concluded that breed bans and other laws aimed at specific breeds or types of dogs are not effective in the prevention of dog bites or attacks; and such laws actually places the public at greater risk of harm due to a false sense of security these laws create.

Upon completion of the study, the CDC and the AVMA issued a joint report entitled A Community Approach To Dog Bite Prevention, which outlines in detail sound public health policy in the prevention of dog bites and fatalities and strongly advises local governments against the enactment of breed specific laws and measures, warning of the dangers of breed specific legislation.

For your reference and convenience, we have attached a copy of A Community Approach To Dog Bite Prevention as well as a warning letter from the American Veterinary Medical Association regarding any misinterpretation or misrepresentation of the data.

We strongly recommend that the Whitehall City Council act to protect the public by following the public safety guidelines set forth by the Centers For Disease Control.

A WHITEHALL PIT BULL BAN ORDINANCE: Criminalizing Dog Ownership

A primary flaw of A WHITEHALL PIT BULL BAN ORDINANCE is criminalization of the ownership of dogs and the attempt to regulate “pit bulls”.

We advise you that no such breed of dog exists, and a “Pit Bull” is not recognized by any registry anywhere in the world.

It should be known that the term “Pit Bull” is a slang term coined by the media and inappropriately applied to describe a collection of dogs that “look” a certain way.

In recent years, the term “Pit Bull” has been used indiscriminately used by the media to sensationalize and inflame news stories concerning dog bites or attacks, which are relatively rare occurrences in contrast to human and canine populations.

The misuse of this slang term, “pit bull”, has led to widespread issues with breed identification or rather breed “misidentification – so much so that the Centers For Disease Control, the country’s top dog bite experts, stopped collecting dog bite data by breed in 2004.

We must point out that A WHITEHALL PIT BULL BAN ORDINANCE carries a provision that defines a “vicious” animal as:

“Any animal, whether wild or domestic, which by virtue of its species, physical attributes, temperament and other characteristics presents a substantial risk of serious physical harm to persons.”

This discriminatory language and its intent are in direct contradiction to the findings of the Centers For Disease Control, and automatically makes criminals of dog owners simply for owning the “wrong breed” of dog.

Interference With Lawful Activities

By criminalizing dog owners, the State Of Whitehall, Ohio, will, under A WHITEHALL PIT BULL BAN ORDINANCE, unnecessarily interfere with the normal and lawful activities of all dog owners, dog clubs and dog registries that organize and participate in lawful, sanctioned dog events and other legal activities.

 A WHITEHALL PIT BULL BAN ORDINANCE may criminalize dog shows & dog sports and other canine activities
 A WHITEHALL PIT BULL BAN ORDINANCE may criminalize the breeding of dogs
 A WHITEHALL PIT BULL BAN ORDINANCE may criminalize the sale or transfer of dogs
 A WHITEHALL PIT BULL BAN ORDINANCE may criminalize the transportation of dogs

A WHITEHALL PIT BULL BAN ORDINANCE: Breed Identification Issues

It is of the very greatest concern that the language of A WHITEHALL PIT BULL BAN ORDINANCE is so broad and so extremely vague that if enacted, would encompass more than 30 breeds of dogs – literally a multitude of breeds and mixed breed dogs would be incorrectly deemed “illegal” as “Pit Bulls”.

The language below could be used to inappropriately, subjectively and arbitrarily indentify dogs as the mythical “Pit Bull”:

“Any animal, whether wild or domestic, which by virtue of its species, physical attributes, temperament and other characteristics presents a substantial risk of serious physical harm to persons.”

The danger in this language is that A WHITEHALL PIT BULL BAN ORDINANCE could be interpreted to include almost any mixed breed dog or any dog of unknown parentage.

Again – there is no such breed as a “Pit Bull”.

Next, it seems A WHITEHALL PIT BULL BAN ORDINANCE leaves breed identification of dogs solely to county or local officials, or shelter workers, none of whom have the training, skill or depth of experience to appropriately identify specific breeds of dogs against a set breed standards, let alone a non-existent breed termed “pit bull”.

In practice, the identification of purebred dogs, matching a dog against breed standards, takes years of training and education in order to appropriately identify breeds within the context.

The identification of mixed breed dogs, or shelter dogs whose background or parentage is not known, is not based in any science whatsoever.

As the Esteemed Members of the City Council would no doubt agree, merely “guessing” at a dog’s breed or parentage by such non-experts as local officials, animal control officers or shelter workers is certainly not the basis upon which to predicate a decision that may cost an owner his or her beloved dog or worse, a cost a dog its life.

Enforcement: Difficult, Expensive & Ineffective

Numerous communities across the country have considered breed specific legislation and made the determination that such laws are ineffective, expensive and difficult to enforce.

Breed specific laws such as A WHITEHALL PIT BULL BAN ORDINANCE can add significant costs to local municipal budgets; dramatically escalate the number of hours police or animal control work, and all without of reducing dog bite incidents, vicious dog complaints or achieving the objective of enhanced public safety.

Cities opting out of breed specific legislation have instead chosen to enforce or strengthen existing laws and address the issue of dangerous dogs following the guidelines set forth by both the CDC and the AVMA.

Increased Surrenders, Overburdened Shelters & Out-Of-Control Budgets

Shelters in cities where breed specific 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, breed-specific 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 breed specific laws 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.

A WHITEHALL PIT BULL BAN ORDINANCE: Liability Issues

The City of Whitehall must made aware of, and bear the serious liability it will incur under A WHITEHALL PIT BULL BAN ORDINANCE, for allowing such non-experts as law enforcement personnel or shelter workers to act in any capacity which would result in the unnecessary deaths of innocent animals.

In doing so, the City of Whitehall, Ohio will facilitate the arbitrary seizure, impoundment and destruction of private personal property – thereby depriving a citizen the right to Due Process – all on the basis on a dog’s “looks” and not any behavior.

We respectfully ask you to consider just what qualifications do local police or animal control or peace officers, or shelter workers possess as “breed identification experts”, with the power to seize and kill?

Just as questionable is the use of technologies such as DNA testing to establish canine breed identity, which is not just cost-prohibitive ($65 – $200 per test), but unreliable, as the DNA test accuracy may be as low as 23%.

These low and/or unstable levels of the accuracy of canine DNA identity tests then may leave the door open to significant liability for the municipality, county and the state.

As previously stated, the “pit bull” is a breed which does not exist and is not therefore recognized by any dog registry anywhere in the world.

Therefore, we ask the Esteemed Members of the City Council to consider what personnel at the local or state level will be responsible for identifying dogs as “Pit Bulls”?

A WHITEHALL PIT BULL BAN ORDINANCE, left to the subjective interpretation of breed identification of local animal control or police, or humane societies will criminalize ordinary dogs and make criminals of dog owners and send innocent dogs to their deaths.

It is the position of the ARC that that the liability incurred under A WHITEHALL PIT BULL BAN ORDINANCE is an unintended consequence of significant magnitude.

A WHITEHALL PIT BULL BAN ORDINANCE: Eliminating Presumption Of Innocence

A WHITEHALL PIT BULL BAN ORDINANCE eliminates the presumption of innocence making all dog owners of “targeted breeds” guilty and without recourse.

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

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

It is frightening to think that in Whitehall, Ohio the average dog owner will be deemed a criminal by any local authority which will apply a highly subjective interpretation of the term “Pit Bull” and lacks any expertise in canine identification.

Since:

A) “Pit Bulls’ are not a breed of dog, and

B) there is no rational basis in science or law to “prove” any dog is “not a Pit Bull”, and

C) there are no genetic tests that exist to prove or disprove with any accuracy that a dog is “not a Pit Bull”, dog owners and the lives of innocent dogs will be at the complete mercy of local officials, and their respective, if not prejudicial opinions.

Furthermore, it is unclear if there exists a hearing or an appeals process by which may defend themselves against charges.

Under this bill, after a dog owner has had his or her dog seized by local law enforcement, and the loss of presumption of innocence automatically makes dog owners guilty.

A WHITEHALL PIT BULL BAN ORDINANCE then violates every principle of democracy and mocks our judicial process.

Dog owners are then are subject to the forfeiture of their property – their dog – prior to any hearing or disposition of the “criminal charge”, and then the final insult is to suffer the euthanization – the deliberate killing of their beloved pet by the State of Whitehall, Ohio.

A WHITEHALL PIT BULL BAN ORDINANCE: Proxy For Warrantless Search & Seizure

It should be noted that A WHITEHALL PIT BULL BAN ORDINANCE contains the proxy for warrantless searches and seizures, seriously compromises the constitutional protections to which all citizens are entitled under the guise of animal protection.

Civil liberties groups and criminal defense attorneys should be alerted to the fact that A WHITEHALL PIT BULL BAN ORDINANCE is a smokescreen to lower the threshold of evidence needed to support the issuance of search warrants.

We respectfully ask the Committee Members just what constitutes “probable cause” – just a law enforcement officer’s word that a pet is a “Pit Bull or “vicious”?

Lowering Thresholds of Evidence For Probable Cause

Furthermore, the issuance of any warrant would be highly questionable since:

A) the basis for “probable cause” is nothing more than the subjective and arbitrary opinion of breed identification of alleged “Pit Bull” breed by local animal control or police with no legal or rational basis

B) is done so in the context of reverse onus clause, thereby eliminating the presumption of innocence.

In contemplating the enforcement of A WHITEHALL PIT BULL BAN ORDINANCE, there exists any number of situations that would be the basis for bypassing Due Process.

For example:

SENARIO A: Warrantless Search of Premises

The mere possession of a “Pit Bull or vicious dog” constitutes a criminal act OR the word of a law enforcement office that an animal is in need of food or water allows access to the premises.

EX: A police officer drives by a home and sees a dog in the yard. The officer (subjectively) identifies the dog as a “Pit Bull”, the presence of which is “illegal”. The dog owner is presumed guilty of a criminal act. The police officer now may access the premises and bypasses the need for a search warrant.

SCENARIO B: Warrantless Searches – Traffic Stops

Driving with a “Pit Bull” dog in a car constitutes a criminal act in that possession of a “Pit Bull” is an illegal act and transporting a “Pit Bull” is an illegal act.

EX: A police officer on highway patrol or traffic duty sees a car with a dog inside. The officer has no probable cause for a traffic stop (speeding, seat belt or other violations).The officer (subjectively) identifies the dog as a “Pit Bull”, the presence of which is “illegal”.

The dog owner is presumed guilty of a criminal act. The police officer now has “cause” for a traffic stop.

Establishment Of Unequal Protection

A WHITEHALL PIT BULL BAN ORDINANCE also sets the stage for Unequal Protection, in that owners of “targeted breeds” or mixed breed dogs that “display the physical traits of any one or more of those breeds”, are held to a different and higher legal standard than other dog-owning citizens, which is then subjectively and/or arbitrarily applied.

Does the City of Whitehall, Ohio seek to criminalize the ownership, possession, transfer, transport or sale of Golden Retrievers or Labradoodles as well?

The provisions of A WHITEHALL PIT BULL BAN ORDINANCE are completely without merit, as the State of Whitehall, Ohio has not proven nor cannot prove a rational or legal basis upon which to base these provisions.

A WHITEHALL PIT BULL BAN ORDINANCE begs the question, “Are owners of a certain type of dog entitled to any fewer Constitutional protections than owners of Golden Retrievers or Labradoodles”?

Selective Enforcement & Racial Bias

We urge you to reconsider and reject this ordinance, since it is already quite clear that should A WHITEHALL PIT BULL BAN ORDINANCE become law, it could only be enforced selectively and subjectively.

Under A WHITEHALL PIT BULL BAN ORDINANCE, almost any medium or large dog from more than 30 different purebred dog breeds and almost any medium or large mixed breed dog could be subjectively identified by local officials as an illegal “pit bull dog”.

However, there is an even greater risk in A WHITEHALL PIT BULL BAN ORDINANCE as it relates to Unequal Protection, which is where race or ethnicity comes into the equation, and may hold the potential for the abuse of our justice system.

There is a pervasive myth, perpetuated throughout the media, that the majority of dog owners of alleged “pit bull dogs” are “gang members, criminals, and drug dealers”. This notion is completely unsubstantiated and without merit.

However, this viewpoint is interpreted by most to mean that “pit bull dogs” are owned by those in the minority community. It then becomes a question of which dog owners will be selectively targeted for enforcement and prosecution by local authorities and to what extent will law enforcement engage in racial profiling.

A WHITEHALL PIT BULL BAN ORDINANCE leaves to the door open to abuse of powers by local law enforcement officials and creates a number of questions. For instance:

• Will minority or poor dog owners be targeted for enforcement over non-minority or middle class dog owners?
• Will owners of multiple dogs or breeders be targeted for enforcement? • Will A WHITEHALL PIT BULL BAN ORDINANCE be used to dispense with evidence thresholds necessary to establish probable cause and create a proxy to bypass due process?Civil Rights & Constitutional Issues

A WHITEHALL PIT BULL BAN ORDINANCE presents a multitude of civil rights issues and constitution challenges, including but not limited to unequal protection, violation of due process, removal of the presumption of innocence, selective enforcement, and the taking of private property.

A WHITEHALL PIT BULL BAN ORDINANCE also sets the stage for unequal protection in that owners of subjectively targeted breeds or mixed breed dogs are thus arbitrarily and subjectively held to a different and higher legal standard than other dog-owning citizens, for which the State of Whitehall, Ohio has not proven nor cannot prove a rational or legal basis.

And since dogs are considered private and valuable property, violations of the 4th, 5th and 14th amendments are of concern, as outlined in the attached report by the Centers for Disease Control and the AVMA.

Expensive Legal Challenges

A WHITEHALL PIT BULL BAN ORDINANCE, with its many issues and potential infringements of civil rights and constitutional protections, would place the State of Whitehall, Ohio, and the counties and municipalities in the state in a position of defending against what could be a multitude of lawsuits brought on behalf of dog-owning citizens.

The American Rottweiler Club respectfully points out that A WHITEHALL PIT BULL BAN ORDINANCE is fraught with issues not only with regard to public safety, but issues that make A WHITEHALL PIT BULL BAN ORDINANCE a potential minefield of expense, legal issues, unintended consequences and a waste of valuable taxpayer dollars.

Closing Thoughts

In closing, the American Rottweiler Club rejects the criminalization of responsible dog ownership, the flawed concept of outlawing a breed of dog which does not exist, and the erosion by proxy laws of the civil rights and liberties guaranteed to all citizens of the United States under the guise of public safety or animal protection.

The American Rottweiler Club, having conducted a thorough analysis of this bill, concludes that a Whitehall Breed Ban/Pit Bull Ban Ordinance would:

• Criminalize dog ownership
• Fail to protect public health & safety
• Allow dogs to be arbitrarily seized and killed
• Create a proxy for warrant search & seizure under the guise of animal protection
• Deprive citizens of Due Process
• Violate 4th, 5th & 14th Amendments
• Incur liability for local, county and state governments
• Waste valuable tax-payer dollars

The American Rottweiler Club urges the City of Whitehall, Ohio and the Esteemed Members o the City Council to act appropriately and responsibly to protect the public safety of its citizens by adopting and enforcing strong breed-neutral laws as recommended by the American Kennel Club, the American Veterinary Medical Association and the Centers For Disease Control.

It is our further recommendation that the City of Whitehall, Ohio focus efforts on dog bite prevention and public education efforts, as well as the effective enforcement of existing animal cruelty and animal control laws, with an emphasis on loose running dogs.

We urge the Committee Members to reject A WHITEHALL PIT BULL BAN ORDINANCE 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, rip families apart from their beloved pets, deprive people of their civil rights and create untold heartbreak for the dog-owning citizens of the City of Whitehall, Ohio.

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

ADDENDUM

EXHIBIT A: Centers For Disease Control Special Report: Breeds of dogs involved in fatal human attacks in the United States between 1979 and 1998,
JAVMA, Vol 217, No. 6, September 15, 2000

EXHIBIT B: A Community Approach To Dog Bite Prevention, American Veterinary Medical Association Task Force on Canine Aggression and Human-Canine Interactions, JAVMA, Vol 218, No. 11, June 1, 2001

EXHIBIT C: American Veterinary Medical Association Letter Regarding Misuse Of Data To Support Breed Specific Legislation

http://www.snponline.com/articles/2009/07/08/multiple_papers/news/allwhvicio_20090708_1240pm_3.txt

By KEVIN CORVO

Published: Wednesday, July 8, 2009 5:36 PM EDT

An ordinance banning all pit bulls and other dogs deemed vicious in Whitehall received a first reading at the Tuesday, July 7 meeting of Whitehall City Council.

Another ordinance creating an animal control and code enforcement officer also received a first reading.

Councilwoman Jackie Thompson is the sponsor of the former; Mayor John Wolfe and Councilman Bob Bailey are the sponsors of the latter.

Thompson’s initial effort to ban pit bulls was defeated last year 5-2, after which council members voted 6-1 to adopt an ordinance Bailey crafted that placed stricter regulations on the harboring of vicious dogs.

Both new ordinances are scheduled for a second reading at the July 21 council meeting.

Although there was no formal discussion and both ordinances were read only by title, several residents and council members weighed in about canines during respective polling periods.

Patty Manning said residents should be permitted to have more than three dogs if they can demonstrate the ability to properly care for the additional dogs.

Residents are currently limited to three dogs, and city officials have began enforcing the regulation, requiring some residents, like Manning, to get rid of one or more dogs.

Penny Russell told council members her son, while delivering newspapers June 18, was bitten by a dog. Russell said, after great difficulty, the family learned the dog, a German shepherd and collie mix, was licensed and current on shots.

Russell said the experience demonstrated a need to limit the number of dogs a person can own, as some people cannot properly manage even one dog.

Manning concurred that some people cannot take care of any number of dogs, but those who can should not be automatically prevented from doing so.

During council polling, Thompson campaigned for her renewed effort to ban pit bulls.

“We have invited the pit bulls to our city,” Thompson. “We have invited them and now we are suffering the consequences.”

Current legislation is not working for pit bulls, and the miniscule number of pit bulls properly licensed and perhaps not a public threat do not match up against the safety of the city’s 17,000 residents, Thompson said.

“You can’t control these dogs,” she said.

Russell questioned a provision in Thompson’s ordinance that defines a “vicious” animal as, “Any animal, whether wild or domestic, which by virtue of its species, physical attributes, temperament and other characteristics presents a substantial risk of serious physical harm to persons.”

Russell called the provision “too broad a power for government.”

“You could use the size or anything to say a dog is vicious,” Russell said.

Thompson also questioned the selection process of members of the city’s vicious dog appeals board and criticized the inclusion of HELP FIDO, a nonprofit organization supporting canine care, in a Whitehall service directory.

HELP FIDO opposed Thompson’s pit bull ban last year, and, according to Thompson, continues to lobby against her effort, considered breed-specific legislation, on its Web site.

Bailey used his council polling to posit that the ordinance he proposed and council adopted last year is working.

“What we have is a mechanism that needs to get on the ground and running,” said Bailey, adding the addition of the animal control and code enforcement officer will “further enhance” the city’s ability to control vicious animal situations.

Bailey said the vicious dog appeals board should determine whether a dog is vicious.

“We can’t penalize (the owners) who are responsible,” Bailey said.

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

July 7, 2009

The Honorable Don Davis

VIA FAX:  916-327-2188

North Carolina Senate
300 N. Salisbury Street, Room 525
Raleigh, NC 27603-5925

RE: NORTH CAROLINA SB 460 – OPPOSED

Dear Senator Davis:

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 North Carolina SB 460 – A Bill That Criminalizes Certain 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, and supporting to scores of animal rescue and sheltering organizations across the United States through direct donations, 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 North Carolina SB 460 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.

North Carolina SB sets a dangerous precedent for the type and scope of legislation including

• NC SB 460 makes criminals of responsible, tax-paying pet owners based on the reproductive status and/or numbers of pets
• NC SB 460 will escalate costs for the state and municipalities already in financial crisi
• NC SB 460 deprives dog-owning citizens of Due Process
• NC SB 460 creates the possibility of warrantless searches and seizures

NC SB 460 – Criminalizing Dog Ownership & Dog Breeding

NC SB 460 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.

NC SB 460 imposes higher standards for dog breeding than any other animal including pets such as cats

Additionally, this bill requires a veterinarian’s certification for suitability to breed – such certification does not exist and opinions could be very diverse.  Accidental breedings could result in criminal penalties and revocation or failure to renew license.

This bill seems to stem from the misconception that owners of breeding stock, intact dogs, or multiple dogs are 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 North Carolina’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 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 a misguided approach.

NC SB 460 – Fails To Improve Upon Existing Animal Cruelty  Statutes

NC SB 460 does nothing to improve the state’s current animal cruelty laws.

Furthermore, there ALREADY is existing law to deal with puppy mills:

•    Cruelty laws (The Wayne County operation has been indicted for 12 criminal counts)
•    Animal Welfare Act currently regulates commercial breeders who have more than 5 litters annually
•    Adds second duplicative level of licensing for the target audience – the large scale commercial breeder who is currently covered as a dog dealer

NC SB 460 – Vague and Unacceptable

NC SB 460 carries the requirement for annual veterinary certification of “suitable health” for breeding.  This vague and completely unacceptable.

Certification could require anything from routine physical exam to an expensive panel of blood tests and x-rays.

There are no standardized, specific laboratory tests or specialized reproductive examination procedures that are suitable for assessing the health status of bitches for breeding. No other species has this pre-breeding regulation in place.

This provision only serves to make breeding dogs more expensive and more complicated.

Finally, the decision to breed or not breed a dog should remain at the discretion of the owner and their veterinarian and not become a legislative mandate.

NC SB 460  – Fiscally Irresponsible

Implementation of NC SB 460 adds greatly to the current state budget deficit.

The State of North Carolina’s Fiscal Research Division shows in an analysis released on June 29, 2009, estimate the cost of annual licensing, inspections and enforcement will exceed $425,000 per year.

In addition, the Fiscal Note indicates previous kennel takeovers have cost more than $345,000 in additional costs for care of animals while in custody and the cost to Wayne County for assuming custody of seized dogs for less than a week was greater than $100,000

There will be no “windfall” of underpaid sales taxes to accrue to the State North Carolina exempts the sale of animals from sales tax.

58-24 ANIMALS AND ANIMAL CAGES   Purchases of animals from a commercial animal breeder or producer by
manufacturers, research laboratories, other businesses or individuals
are exempt from tax.

Furthermore, there is also no “windfall” of under-reported income tax from dog breeders as puppy farmers already pay income taxes just like pig or turkey farmers and other citizens

It would be fiscally irresponsible for the members of the North Carolina Legislature to impose new costs while at the same time cutting other social programs, cuts which hurt the citizens of North Carolina.

NC SB 460: Violations of the 14th Amendment & Constitutionality Of Imposing Limits On Animal Ownership

It is the contention of the American Rottweiler Club that the State would exceed its authority by attempting to regulate the ownership or possession of property – a violation of the 14th Amendment.

The Committee of course is fully aware that the 14th Amendment makes clear that:

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

NC SB 460 violates the 14th Amendment by predicating animal ownership upon compliance with these arbitrary and revokeable licensing requirements:

§ 19A 29.2. reads

“Denial of access to the commercial breeding operation shall be grounds for revocation of the commercial breeders license.” The law should be very clear that only the kennel area can be inspected. Entry and search of private residence should not be included as a requirement of inspection and licensure; to do so would be considered a warrantless search and invasion of privacy.

In addition, § 19A 30. (3a) reads that a license can be revoked for failure to comply with the statutes and rules governing commercial breeding operations. This would include infractions of required paperwork and record-keeping. License revocation is far too severe a penalty for such mistakes.

Does the State of North Carolina intend to limit the ownership of property by making it “revokeable”?

We, therefore, ask if it is the intent of this Committee to see that the rights of tax-paying, law-abiding and dog-owning citizens in North Carolina be abridged, and is it the intent of NC SB 460 to deprive such citizens not only of Due Process but Equal Protection as well?

NC SB 460: Possible Warrantless Search & Seizure

It should be noted that NC SB 460 contains provisions making warrantless searches and seizures likely, seriously compromising the constitutional protections to which all citizens are entitled under the guise of animal protection.

• Allows Inspections of private property at any time. The bill allows law enforcement and local animal control to search the private property at any time of day or night of anyone who falls under the definition of “commercial breeder”.

• Allowance for seizure of animals for those who do not comply with the new regulations, with no opportunity to come into compliance. If a commercial breeder is unlicensed, animals will be subject to immediate seizure and impoundment and may be sold or euthanized with no opportunity to come into compliance with the law.

We respectfully ask the Committee Members just what would constitute “probable cause” under NC SB 460 – is it the appointed, authorized representative’s word that pets “may” be intact?

NC SB 480 – Civil Rights & Constitutional Issues

NC SB 460 presents a multitude of civil rights issues and constitution challenges, including but not limited to unequal protection, violation of due process, removal of the presumption of innocence, selective enforcement, interference with lawful activities and loss of personal rights.

NC SB 460 also sets the stage for unequal protection in that owners of subjectively targeted breeds or intact dogs of breeding stock are thus arbitrarily and subjectively held to a different and higher legal standard than other dog-owning citizens, for which the State Of North Carolina has not proven nor cannot prove a rational or legal basis.

Closing Thoughts

In closing, the American Rottweiler Club rejects the potential 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 of the 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 North Carolina SB 460 would:

• May criminalize dog ownership
• Fails to protect the welfare of ALL dogs
• Deprives citizens of Due Process
• Wastes valuable tax-payer dollars

NC SB 460:  In Summary

The American Rottweiler Club urges the members of the General Assembly of the State Of North Carolina to act appropriately and responsibly by voting NO on North Carolina SB 460.

We urge the Committee Members to reject NC SB 460 in its entirety, and not allow this 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 rights.

We thank you for your attention to this very important matter and remain committed to providing the State of North Carolina 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

NC SB 460 Sponsor, Don Davis

Doug Berger; Stan Bingham; Daniel G. Clodfelter; Charlie S. Dannelly; Katie G. Dorsett; Don East; Tony Foriest; Linda Garrou; Steve Goss; Malcolm Graham; Fletcher L. Hartsell, Jr.; David W. Hoyle; Neal Hunt; Clark Jenkins; Ed Jones; Eleanor Kinnaird; Vernon Malone; Floyd B. McKissick, Jr.; Martin L. Nesbitt, Jr.; Larry Shaw; R. C. Soles, Jr.; Josh Stein; Richard Stevens; Don Vaughan; David F. Weinstein.

NC SB 460 is also supported by North Carolina Senators Tom Apodaca (Buncombe), Julia Boseman (New Hanover), Daniel Clodfelter (Mecklenburg),  Charlie Dannelly (Mecklenburg), Linda Garrou (Forsyth), David Hoyle (Gaston),  Neal Hunt (Wake), Clark Jenkins (Edgecombe), Ellie Kinnaird (Orange), Martin Nesbitt (Buncombe), Tony Rand (Cumberland), Bob Rucho (Mecklenburg), RC Soles (Brunswick), Josh Stein (Wake).

The American Rottweiler Club urges members and pet owners alike to contact North Carolina State elected representatives to immediately oppose this bill.

The language of NC SB 460 is below:

—————————————————————————————————————–

GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF NORTH CAROLINA
SESSION 2009
S 1
SENATE BILL 460*
Short Title: Commercial Dog Breeders. (Public)

Sponsors: Senators Davis, Vaughan; Allran, Berger of Franklin, Bingham, Clodfelter,
Dannelly, Dorsett, East, Foriest, Garrou, Goss, Graham, Hartsell, Hoyle, Hunt,
Jenkins, Jones, Kinnaird, Malone, McKissick, Nesbitt, Shaw, Soles, Stein,
Stevens, and Weinstein.
Referred to: Commerce.

March 9, 2009
*S460-v-1*
1 A BILL TO BE ENTITLED
2 AN ACT TO REGULATE THE COMMERCIAL BREEDING OF DOGS.
3 The General Assembly of North Carolina enacts:
4 SECTION 1. G.S. 19A-21 reads as rewritten:
5 Ҥ 19A-21. Purposes.
6 The purposes of this Article are (i) to protect the owners of dogs and cats from the theft of
7 such pets; (ii) to prevent the sale or use of stolen pets; (iii) to insure that animals, as items of
8 commerce, are provided humane care and treatment by regulating the transportation,
9 commercial breeding, sale, purchase, housing, care, handling and treatment of such animals by
10 persons or organizations engaged in transporting, breeding, buying, or selling them for such
11 use; (iv) to insure that animals confined in commercial breeding operations, pet shops, kennels,
12 animal shelters and auction markets are provided humane care and treatment; (v) to prohibit the
13 sale, trade or adoption of those animals which show physical signs of infection, communicable
14 disease, or congenital abnormalities, unless veterinary care is assured subsequent to sale, trade
15 or adoption.”
16 SECTION 2. G.S. 19A-23 reads as rewritten:
17 Ҥ 19A-23. Definitions.
18 For the purposes of this Article, the following terms, when used in the Article or the rules
19 or orders made pursuant thereto, shall be construed respectively to mean:
20 …
21 (5b) “Commercial breeder” means any person who, during any 12-month period,
22 maintains 15 or more adult female dogs for the primary purpose of the sale
23 of their offspring as companion animals.
24 (5c) “Commercial breeding operation” means the physical location or facility at
25 which a commercial breeder breeds or maintains adult female dogs and their
26 offspring.”
27 SECTION 3. G.S. 19A-24(a) reads as rewritten:
28 “(a) The Board of Agriculture shall:
29 (1) Establish standards for the care of animals at animal shelters, boarding
30 kennels, pet shops, and public auctions. A boarding kennel that offers dog
31 day care services and has a ratio of dogs to employees or supervisors, or
32 both employees and supervisors, of not more than 10 to one, shall not as to
33 such services be subject to any regulations that restrict the number of dogs
34 that are permitted within any primary enclosure.
General Assembly of North Carolina Session 2009
Page 2 Senate Bill 460*-First Edition
1 (1a) Establish standards for the care of animals at commercial breeding
2 operations. The standards adopted shall include provisions for adequate daily
3 exercise, adequate veterinary care, appropriate housing for adult females,
4 females with litters and weaned puppies, and record keeping.
5 (2) Prescribe the manner in which animals may be transported to and from
6 registered or licensed premises.
7 (3) Require licensees and holders of certificates to keep records of the purchase
8 and sale of animals and to identify animals at their establishments.
9 (4) Adopt rules to implement this Article, including federal regulations
10 promulgated under Title 7, Chapter 54, of the United States Code.
11 (5) Adopt rules on the euthanasia of animals in the possession or custody of any
12 person required to obtain a certificate of registration under this Article. An
13 animal shall only be put to death by a method and delivery of method
14 approved by the American Veterinary Medical Association, the Humane
15 Society of the United States, or the American Humane Association. The
16 Department shall establish rules for the euthanasia process using any one or
17 combination of methods and standards prescribed by the three
18 aforementioned organizations. The rules shall address the equipment, the
19 process, and the separation of animals, in addition to the animals’ age and
20 condition. If the gas method of euthanasia is approved, rules shall require (i)
21 that only commercially compressed carbon monoxide gas is approved for
22 use, and (ii) that the gas must be delivered in a commercially manufactured
23 chamber that allows for the individual separation of animals. Rules shall also
24 mandate training for any person who participates in the euthanasia process.”
25 SECTION 4. G.S. 19A-30 reads as rewritten:
26 Ҥ 19A-30. Refusal, suspension or revocation of certificate or license.
27 The Director may refuse to issue or renew or may suspend or revoke a certificate of
28 registration for any animal shelter or a license for any commercial breeder, public auction,
29 kennel, pet shop, or dealer, if after an impartial investigation as provided in this Article he
30 determines that any one or more of the following grounds apply:
31 (1) Material misstatement in the application for the original certificate of
32 registration or license or in the application for any renewal under this
33 Article;
34 (2) Willful disregard or violation of this Article or any rules issued pursuant
35 thereto;
36 (3) Failure to provide adequate housing facilities and/or primary enclosures for
37 the purposes of this Article, or if the feeding, watering, sanitizing and
38 housing practices at the animal shelter, public auction, pet shop, or kennel
39 are not consistent with the intent of this Article or the rules adopted under
40 this Article;
41 (3a) Failure to comply with the statutes and rules governing commercial breeding
42 operations.
43 (4) Allowing one’s license under this Article to be used by an unlicensed person;
44 (5) Conviction of any crime an essential element of which is misstatement,
45 fraud, or dishonesty, or conviction of any felony;
46 (6) Making substantial misrepresentations or false promises of a character likely
47 to influence, persuade, or induce in connection with the business of a public
48 auction, commercial kennel, commercial breeding operation, pet shop, or
49 dealer;
General Assembly of North Carolina Session 2009
Senate Bill 460*-First Edition Page 3
1 (7) Pursuing a continued course of misrepresentation of or making false
2 promises through advertising, salesmen, agents, or otherwise in connection
3 with the business to be licensed;
4 (8) Failure to possess the necessary qualifications or to meet the requirements of
5 this Article for the issuance or holding of a certificate of registration or
6 license.
7 The Director shall, before refusing to issue or renew and before suspension or revocation
8 of a certificate of registration or a license, give to the applicant or holder thereof a written
9 notice containing a statement indicating in what respects the applicant or holder has failed to
10 satisfy the requirements for the holding of a certificate of registration or a license. If a
11 certificate of registration or a license is suspended or revoked under the provisions hereof, the
12 holder shall have five days from such suspension or revocation to surrender all certificates of
13 registration or licenses issued thereunder to the Director or his authorized representative.
14 A person to whom a certificate of registration or a license is denied, suspended, or revoked
15 by the Director may contest the action by filing a petition under G.S. 150B-23 within five days
16 after the denial, suspension, or revocation.
17 Any licensee whose license is revoked under the provisions of this Article shall not be
18 eligible to apply for a new license hereunder until one year has elapsed from the date of the
19 order revoking said license or if an appeal is taken from said order of revocation, one year from
20 the date of the order or final judgment sustaining said revocation. Any person who has been an
21 officer, agent, or employee of a licensee whose license has been revoked or suspended and who
22 is responsible for or participated in the violation upon which the order of suspension or
23 revocation was based, shall not be licensed within the period during which the order of
24 suspension or revocation is in effect.”
25 SECTION 5. Article 1A of Chapter 19A of the General Statutes is amended by
26 adding a new section to read:
27 Ҥ 19A-29.1. License required for commercial breeder; penalty.
28 (a) No commercial breeder shall operate in the State without first obtaining a
29 commercial breeders license. Application for a license shall be in the manner provided by the
30 Director. The license period shall be the fiscal year and the license fee shall be fifty dollars
31 ($50.00) for each license period or part thereof, beginning with the first day of the fiscal year.
32 (b) Failure of a commercial breeder to obtain a license as set forth in subsection (a) of
33 this section shall constitute a Class 2 misdemeanor. Continued illegal operation after conviction
34 shall constitute a separate offense. Animals found in the possession or custody of an unlicensed
35 commercial breeder shall be subject to immediate seizure and impoundment and upon
36 conviction of the unlicensed commercial breeder, shall become subject to sale or euthanasia in
37 the discretion of the Director.”
38 SECTION 6. Article 1A of Chapter 19A of the General Statutes is amended by
39 adding a new section to read:
40 Ҥ 19A-29.2. Additional standards of care for commercial breeders; inspections.
41 (a) Commercial breeders shall not breed female dogs less than 18 months or more than
42 eight years of age and shall provide adequate veterinary care to the female adult dogs and their
43 offspring. An adult female dog shall not be bred without an annual certification from a licensed
44 veterinarian that the dog is in suitable health for breeding.
45 (b) Commercial breeding operations shall be subject to inspection by duly appointed
46 employees of the Department or by local animal control officers. In conducting such
47 inspections, the Department employee or local animal control officer may inspect the records of
48 the commercial breeder, the premises where animals are bred and maintained, and any animal
49 used in the breeding program or their offspring. Denial of access to the commercial breeding
50 operation shall be grounds for revocation of the commercial breeders license.”
General Assembly of North Carolina Session 2009
Page 4 Senate Bill 460*-First Edition
1 SECTION 7. Article 1A of Chapter 19A of the General Statutes is amended by
2 adding a new section to read:
3 Ҥ 19A-29.3. Penalties for commercial breeder failing to provide adequate care for
4 animals; disposition of animals.
5 The failure of a commercial breeder to adequately house, exercise, feed, water, provide
6 adequate veterinary care, or otherwise meet the standards of care for the animals in the
7 commercial breeder’s custody or possession shall constitute a Class 3 misdemeanor, and the
8 commercial breeder shall be subject to a fine of not less than fifty dollars ($50.00) per animal
9 or more than a total of one thousand dollars ($1,000.00). The animals in the possession or
10 custody of the commercial breeder shall be subject to seizure and impoundment and upon
11 conviction may be sold or euthanized at the discretion of the Director, and the failure shall also
12 constitute grounds for revocation of the commercial breeder’s license.”
13 SECTION 8. This act becomes effective December 1, 2009, and applies to the
14 commercial breeding of dogs on or after that date.

OH HB 124 faciliates warrantless searches and seizures, creates a  politically-appointed PRIVATE law enforcement “authority” answerable  to no one, a “slush fund”of revenue for these politicial appointees’budget and contains numerous other violations of civil rights.

OH HB 124  criminalizes dog ownership
OH HB 124  fails to improve upon existing animal cruelty statues
OH HB 124  places arbitrary limits on animal ownership
OH HB 124  deprives dog-owning citizens of Due Process & Equal Protection
OH HB 124  creates a proxy for warrantless searches and seizures
OH HB 124  threatens animal agriculture & food production

The text of OH HB 124 is below:
———————————————————-

As Introduced

128th General Assembly
Regular Session
2009-2010

H. B. No. 124

Representatives Hagan, Weddington

Cosponsors: Representatives Harris, Ujvagi, Yuko, Combs, Heard, Skindell, Patten, Letson, Winburn, Williams, B., DeGeeter, Foley, Chandler, Celeste, Slesnick, Brown, Bacon

A BILL

To amend sections 955.02, 955.10, 955.12, 955.20, 955.26, and 1901.183 and to enact sections 956.01, 956.011, 956.02 to 956.08, 956.081, 956.09 to 956.20, 956.98, and 956.99 of the Revised Code to establish licensing requirements and standards of care for certain dog breeding kennels, dog intermediaries, and animal rescues for dogs.

BE IT ENACTED BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE STATE OF OHIO:

Section 1. That sections 955.02, 955.10, 955.12, 955.20, 955.26, and 1901.183 be amended and sections 956.01, 956.011, 956.02, 956.03, 956.04, 956.05, 956.06, 956.07, 956.08, 956.081, 956.09, 956.10, 956.11, 956.12, 956.13, 956.14, 956.15, 956.16, 956.17, 956.18, 956.19, 956.20, 956.98, and 956.99 of the Revised Code be enacted to read as follows:

Sec. 955.02. A As used in this chapter, “dog kennel” or “kennel owner is a person, partnership, firm, company, or corporation professionally engaged in the business ” means an establishment that keeps, houses, and maintains adult dogs, as defined in section 956.01 of the Revised Code, for the purpose of breeding the dogs for hunting or for a fee or other consideration received through a sale, exchange, or lease and that is not a regulated dog breeding kennel licensed under Chapter 956. of the Revised Code.

Sec. 955.10. No owner of a dog, except a dog constantly confined to a registered dog kennel registered under this chapter or a regulated dog breeding kennel licensed under Chapter 956. of the Revised Code, shall fail to require the dog to wear, at all times, a valid tag issued in connection with a certificate of registration. A dog’s failure dog found not wearing at any time to wear a valid tag shall be prima-facie evidence of lack of registration and shall subject any dog found not wearing such a tag to impounding, sale, or destruction.

Sec. 955.12. The board of county commissioners shall appoint or employ a county dog warden and deputies in such number, for such periods of time, and at such compensation as the board considers necessary to enforce sections 955.01 to 955.27, 955.29 to 955.38, and 955.50 to 955.53 of the Revised Code.

The warden and deputies shall give bond in a sum not less than five hundred dollars and not more than two thousand dollars, as set by the board, conditioned for the faithful performance of their duties. The bond or bonds may, in the discretion of the board, be individual or blanket bonds. The bonds shall be filed with the county auditor of their respective counties.

The warden and deputies shall make a record of all dogs owned, kept, and harbored in their respective counties. They shall patrol their respective counties and seize and impound on sight all dogs found running at large and all dogs more than three months of age found not wearing a valid registration tag, except any dog that wears a valid registration tag and is: on the premises of its owner, keeper, or harborer, under the reasonable control of its owner or some other person, hunting with its owner or its handler at a field trial, kept constantly confined in a registered dog kennel registered under this chapter or a regulated dog breeding kennel licensed under Chapter 956. of the Revised Code, or acquired by, and confined on the premises of, an institution or organization of the type described in section 955.16 of the Revised Code. A dog that wears a valid registration tag may be seized on the premises of its owner, keeper, or harborer and impounded only in the event of a natural disaster.

If a dog warden has reason to believe that a dog is being treated inhumanely on the premises of its owner, keeper, or harborer, the warden shall apply to the court of common pleas for the county in which the premises are located for an order to enter the premises, and if necessary, seize the dog. If the court finds probable cause to believe that the dog is being treated inhumanely, it shall issue such an order.

The warden and deputies shall also investigate all claims for damages to animals reported to them under section 955.29 of the Revised Code and assist claimants to fill out the claim form therefor. They shall make weekly reports, in writing, to the board in their respective counties of all dogs seized, impounded, redeemed, and destroyed and of all claims for damage to animals inflicted by dogs.

The wardens and deputies shall have the same police powers as are conferred upon sheriffs and police officers in the performance of their duties as prescribed by sections 955.01 to 955.27, 955.29 to 955.38, and 955.50 to 955.53 of the Revised Code. They shall also have power to summon the assistance of bystanders in performing their duties and may serve writs and other legal processes issued by any court in their respective counties with reference to enforcing those sections. County auditors may deputize the wardens or deputies to issue dog licenses as provided in sections 955.01 and 955.14 of the Revised Code.

Whenever any person files an affidavit in a court of competent jurisdiction that there is a dog running at large that is not kept constantly confined either in a registered dog kennel registered under this chapter or a regulated dog breeding kennel licensed under Chapter 956. of the Revised Code or on the premises of an institution or organization of the type described in section 955.16 of the Revised Code or that a dog is kept or harbored in the warden’s jurisdiction without being registered as required by law, the court shall immediately order the warden to seize and impound the dog. Thereupon the warden shall immediately seize and impound the dog complained of. The warden shall give immediate notice by certified mail to the owner, keeper, or harborer of the dog seized and impounded by the warden, if the owner, keeper, or harborer can be determined from the current year’s registration list maintained by the warden and the county auditor of the county where the dog is registered, that the dog has been impounded and that, unless the dog is redeemed within fourteen days of the date of the notice, it may thereafter be sold or destroyed according to law. If the owner, keeper, or harborer cannot be determined from the current year’s registration list maintained by the warden and the county auditor of the county where the dog is registered, the officer shall post a notice in the pound or animal shelter both describing the dog and place where seized and advising the unknown owner that, unless the dog is redeemed within three days, it may thereafter be sold or destroyed according to law.

As used in this section, “animal” has the same meaning as in section 955.51 of the Revised Code.

Sec. 955.20. The registration fees provided for in sections 955.01 to 955.14 of the Revised Code and money transferred to the county under section 956.07 of the Revised Code constitute a special fund known as “the dog and kennel fund.” The fees shall be deposited by the county auditor in the county treasury daily as collected and. Money in the fund shall be used for the purpose of defraying the cost of furnishing all blanks, records, tags, nets, and other equipment, for the purpose of paying the compensation of county dog wardens, deputies, poundkeepers, and other employees necessary to carry out and enforce sections 955.01 to 955.261 of the Revised Code, and for the payment of animal claims as provided in sections 955.29 to 955.38 of the Revised Code, and in accordance with section 955.27 of the Revised Code. The board of county commissioners, by resolution, shall appropriate sufficient funds out of the dog and kennel fund, not more than fifteen per cent of which shall be expended by the auditor for registration tags, blanks, records, and clerk hire, for the purpose of defraying the necessary expenses of registering, seizing, impounding, and destroying dogs in accordance with sections 955.01 to 955.27 of the Revised Code, and for the purpose of covering any additional expenses incurred by the county auditor as authorized by division (F)(3) of section 955.14 of the Revised Code.

If the funds so appropriated in any calendar year are found by the board to be insufficient to defray the necessary cost and expense of the county dog warden in enforcing sections 955.01 to 955.27 of the Revised Code, the board, by resolution so provided, after setting aside a sum equal to the total amount of animal claims paid or filed in that calendar year, or an amount equal to the total amount of animal claims paid or allowed the preceding year, whichever amount is larger, may appropriate further funds for the use and purpose of the county dog warden in administering those sections.

Money received by a county under section 956.07 of the Revised Code is subject to audit by the auditor of state.

Sec. 955.26. Whenever, in the judgment of the director of health, any city or general health district board of health, or persons performing the duties of a board of health, rabies is prevalent, the director of health, the board, or those persons shall declare a quarantine of all dogs in the health district or in a part of it. During the quarantine, the owner, keeper, or harborer of any dog shall keep it confined on the premises of the owner, keeper, or harborer, or in a suitable pound or, kennel, or other suitable place, at the expense of the owner, keeper, or harborer, except that a dog may be permitted to leave the premises of its owner, keeper, or harborer if it is under leash or under the control of a responsible person. The quarantine order shall be considered an emergency and need not be published.

When the quarantine has been declared, the director of health, the board, or those persons may require vaccination for rabies of all dogs within the health district or part of it. Proof of rabies vaccination within a satisfactory period shall be demonstrated to the county auditor before any registration is issued under section 955.01 of the Revised Code for any dog that is required to be vaccinated.

The public health council shall determine appropriate methods of rabies vaccination and satisfactory periods for purposes of quarantines under this section.

When a quarantine of dogs has been declared in any health district or part of a health district, the county dog warden and all other persons having the authority of police officers shall assist the health authorities in enforcing the quarantine order. When rabies vaccination has been declared compulsory in any health district or part of a health district, the dog warden shall assist the health authorities in enforcing the vaccination order.

Notwithstanding the provisions of this section, a city or general health district board of health may make orders pursuant to sections 3709.20 and 3709.21 of the Revised Code requiring the vaccination of dogs.

Sec. 956.01. As used in this chapter:

(A) “Adult dog” means a dog that is twelve months of age or older.

(B) “Animal rescue for dogs” means an individual or organization recognized by the director of the kennel control authority that keeps, houses, and maintains dogs and that is dedicated to the welfare, health, safety, and protection of dogs, provided that the individual or organization does not operate for profit, does not sell dogs for a profit, does not breed dogs, and does not purchase more than nine dogs in any given calendar year unless the dogs are purchased from a dog warden appointed under Chapter 955. of the Revised Code, a humane society established under Chapter 1717. of the Revised Code, or another animal rescue for dogs. “Animal rescue for dogs” includes an individual or organization that offers dogs for adoption and charges reasonable adoption fees approved by the director of the authority under this chapter to cover the costs of the individual or organization, including, but not limited to, costs related to spaying or neutering dogs.

(C) “Animal shelter for dogs” means a facility that keeps, houses, and maintains dogs and that is operated by a humane society established under Chapter 1717. of the Revised Code, animal welfare society, society for the prevention of cruelty to animals, or other nonprofit organization that is devoted to the welfare, protection, and humane treatment of dogs and other animals.

(D) “Boarding kennel” means an establishment operating for profit that keeps, houses, and maintains dogs solely for the purpose of providing shelter, care, and feeding of the dogs in return for a fee or other consideration.

(E) “Breeding dog” means an unneutered, unspayed dog that is primarily harbored or housed on property that is the dog’s primary residence.

(F) “Regulated dog breeding kennel” means an establishment that keeps, houses, and maintains adult breeding dogs that produce either at least nine litters of puppies or at least forty puppies in any given calendar year and, in return for a fee or other consideration, sells, exchanges, or leases adult dogs or puppies.

(G) “Regulated dog intermediary” means a person who buys, sells, offers to sell, donates, gives, or exchanges more than nine dogs annually in this state or who sells or gives one or more dogs to a pet store annually. “Regulated dog intermediary” does not include an animal rescue for dogs, an animal shelter for dogs, a humane society established under Chapter 1717. of the Revised Code, a medical kennel for dogs, a research kennel for dogs, or a veterinarian.

(H) “Enclosure, crate, or cage” does not include an enclosure, crate, or cage that is used during the transportation of a dog or used for medical purposes.

(I) “Environmental division of the Franklin county municipal court” means the environmental division of the Franklin county municipal court created in section 1901.011 of the Revised Code.

(J) “Medical kennel for dogs” means a facility that is maintained by a veterinarian and operated primarily for the treatment of sick or injured dogs.

(K) “Pet store” means a retail store that sells dogs to the public.

(L) “Puppy” means a dog that is under twelve months of age.

(M) “Research kennel for dogs” means a facility housing dogs that is maintained exclusively for research purposes.

(N) “Veterinarian” means a veterinarian licensed under Chapter 4741. of the Revised Code.

Sec. 956.011. Medical kennels for dogs, research kennels for dogs, and veterinarians are not required to obtain a license under this chapter or comply with any other requirements of this chapter and rules adopted under it.

Sec. 956.02. There is hereby created the kennel control authority for the purpose of administering this chapter and rules adopted under it by the director of the authority and ensuring the welfare and humane treatment of dogs and their offspring in accordance with this chapter and rules adopted under it. The kennel control authority board created in section 956.18 of the Revised Code shall designate a suitable individual as director of the authority, who shall serve at the board’s pleasure.

The director may contract with any political subdivision of the state to assist the director and the director’s authorized representatives in administering and enforcing this chapter and the rules adopted under it.

Sec. 956.03. The director of the kennel control authority shall adopt rules in accordance with Chapter 119. of the Revised Code establishing all of the following:

(A) Requirements and procedures governing regulated dog breeding kennels, including the licensing and inspection of and record keeping by regulated dog breeding kennels, in addition to the requirements and procedures established in this chapter. The rules shall require that a regulated dog breeding kennel be assigned a license number and that a regulated dog breeding kennel provide the license number and the applicable vendor number assigned by the department of taxation whenever it solicits business or it is solicited for business. In addition, the rules shall require any other person to provide such a vendor number when soliciting to sell an adult dog or a puppy or when solicited for such a sale.

(B) Requirements and procedures for conducting background investigations of each applicant for a license issued under section 956.04 of the Revised Code in order to determine if the applicant has been convicted of or pleaded guilty to any of the violations specified in division (H) of that section. The rules shall provide that background investigations shall be conducted solely by the attorney general on behalf of the kennel control authority. The rules shall establish procedures for annually updating background investigation information regarding an applicant after an initial background investigation has been conducted with respect to an initial application for a license submitted under that section.

(C) Requirements and procedures governing regulated dog intermediaries, including the licensing of and record keeping by regulated dog intermediaries, in addition to the requirements and procedures established in this chapter. The rules shall require that a regulated dog intermediary be assigned a license number and that a regulated dog intermediary provide the license number and the applicable vendor number assigned by the department of taxation whenever it solicits business or it is solicited for business.

(D) Requirements and procedures governing animal rescues for dogs, including the licensing and inspection of and record keeping by animal rescues for dogs, in addition to the requirements and procedures established in this chapter;

(E) The form of applications for licenses issued under this chapter and the information that is required to be submitted in the applications. The rules shall require an animal rescue for dogs to provide in an application for a license the name and address of each foster home that it utilizes.

(F) A requirement that each regulated dog breeding kennel submit to the director, with an application for a regulated dog breeding kennel license, evidence of insurance or, in the alternative, evidence of a surety bond payable to the authority to ensure compliance with this chapter and rules adopted under it. The face value of the insurance coverage or bond shall be in the following amounts:

(1) Five thousand dollars for regulated dog breeding kennels keeping, housing, and maintaining not more than twenty-five adult dogs;

(2) Ten thousand dollars for regulated dog breeding kennels keeping, housing, and maintaining at least twenty-six adult dogs, but not more than fifty adult dogs;

(3) Fifty thousand dollars for regulated dog breeding kennels keeping, housing, and maintaining more than fifty adult dogs.

The rules shall require that the insurance be payable to the state or that the surety bond be subject to redemption by the state, as applicable, upon a suspension or revocation of a regulated dog breeding kennel license for the purpose of paying for the maintenance and care of dogs that are seized or otherwise impounded from the regulated dog breeding kennel in accordance with this chapter.

(G) Procedures for inspections conducted under section 956.10 of the Revised Code in addition to the procedures established in that section, and procedures for making records of the inspections;

(H) Requirements and procedures that are necessary to implement and enforce the requirements pertaining to pet stores that are established in section 956.19 of the Revised Code;

(I)(1) A requirement that an in-state retailer or direct seller of a puppy or adult dog provide to the purchaser the complete name, address, and telephone number of all regulated dog breeding kennels, regulated dog intermediaries, and private owners that kept, housed, or maintained the puppy or adult dog prior to its coming into the possession of the retailer or direct seller, or proof that the puppy or adult dog was acquired through an animal rescue for dogs, animal shelter for dogs, or humane society established under Chapter 1717. of the Revised Code, or a valid health certificate from the state of origin pertaining to the puppy or adult dog;

(2) A requirement that an out-of-state retailer or direct seller of a puppy or adult dog that is conducting business in this state provide to the purchaser a valid health certificate from the state of origin pertaining to the puppy or adult dog and the complete name, address, and telephone number of all dog breeding kennels, sellers, and private owners that kept, housed, or maintained the puppy or adult dog prior to its coming into the possession of the retailer or direct seller or proof that the puppy or adult dog was acquired through an animal rescue for dogs, animal shelter for dogs, or humane society in this state or another state.

(J) A requirement that a person who advertises the sale of a puppy or adult dog include with the advertisement the person’s vendor number assigned by the tax commissioner if the sale of the puppy or dog is subject to the tax levied under Chapter 5739. of the Revised Code;

(K) Requirements and procedures governing the registration of litters under section 956.20 of the Revised Code;

(L) A requirement that a licensed regulated dog breeding kennel and a licensed regulated dog intermediary comply with Chapter 5739. of the Revised Code. The rules shall authorize the director to suspend or revoke a license for failure to comply with that chapter. The director shall work in conjunction with the tax commissioner for the purposes of this division.

(M) Any other requirements and procedures that are determined by the commission to be necessary for the administration and enforcement of this chapter and rules adopted under it.

Sec. 956.04. (A)(1) No person shall operate a regulated dog breeding kennel in this state without a regulated dog breeding kennel license issued by the director of the kennel control authority in accordance with this section and rules adopted under section 956.03 of the Revised Code.

(2) The director shall not issue a license under this section unless the director determines that the applicant will operate or will continue to operate the regulated dog breeding kennel in accordance with this chapter and rules adopted under it.

(B) In determining whether an establishment is a regulated dog breeding kennel requiring a license under this chapter, the director shall determine if, in any given year, the establishment is a regulated dog breeding kennel as defined in section 956.01 of the Revised Code. All facilities that are located at an individual postal address shall be licensed as one regulated dog breeding kennel. Not more than one license shall be issued under this section for any given postal address.

(C) A person who is proposing to operate a new regulated dog breeding kennel, at least ninety days prior to the operation of the regulated dog breeding kennel, shall submit an application for a license to the director. The application shall be submitted in the form and with the information required by rules adopted under section 956.03 of the Revised Code and shall include with it at least all of the following:

(1) An affidavit signed under oath or solemn affirmation of the number of adult dogs that are kept, housed, and maintained by the applicant at the location that is the subject of the application;

(2) An estimate of the number of puppies to be kept, housed, and maintained and of the number of litters of puppies or total number of puppies to be produced during the annual term of the license;

(3) Photographic evidence documenting the facilities where dogs will be kept, housed, and maintained by the applicant. The kennel control authority may conduct an inspection of the facilities that are the subject of an application in addition to reviewing photographic evidence submitted by an applicant for a license.

(4) A signed release permitting the performance of a background investigation regarding the applicant in accordance with rules adopted under section 956.03 of the Revised Code;

(5) The names and addresses and any other identifying information required by rules adopted under section 956.03 of the Revised Code of all persons who will have custody of or control over dogs kept by the applicant.

(D) During the month of December, but before the first day of January of the next year, a person who is proposing to continue the operation of a regulated dog breeding kennel shall obtain a license for the regulated dog breeding kennel from the director for the following year. The person shall submit the application to the director on or before the last day of November of the year preceding the year for which the license is sought.

(E) The owner or operator of a regulated dog breeding kennel that is in operation on the effective date of this section shall submit to the director an application for a regulated dog breeding kennel license not later than three months after the effective date of this section. The director shall issue or deny the application for a license within ninety days after the receipt of the completed application.

(F) A person who has received a license under this section, upon sale or other disposition of the regulated dog breeding kennel, may have the license transferred to another person with the consent of the director, provided that the transferee otherwise qualifies to be licensed as a regulated dog breeding kennel under this chapter and rules adopted under it and does not have a certified unpaid debt to the state.

(G) An applicant for a license issued under this section shall demonstrate that the regulated dog breeding kennel that is the subject of the application complies with the standards of care and other standards established under this chapter.

(H) No person shall be licensed as or operate a regulated dog breeding kennel who has been convicted of or pleaded guilty to violating section 959.01, 959.02, 959.03, 959.13, 959.131, 959.15, or 959.16 of the Revised Code or an equivalent municipal ordinance, law of another state, or law of the federal government or has been convicted of or pleaded guilty to violating more than once section 2919.25 of the Revised Code or an equivalent municipal ordinance, law of another state, or law of the federal government.

Sec. 956.05. (A)(1) No person shall act as or perform the functions of a regulated dog intermediary in this state without a regulated dog intermediary license issued by the director of the kennel control authority in accordance with this section and rules adopted under section 956.03 of the Revised Code.

(2) The director shall not issue a license under this section unless the director determines that the applicant will act as or perform the functions of a regulated dog intermediary in accordance with this chapter and rules adopted under it.

(B) A person who is proposing to act as or perform the functions of a regulated dog intermediary shall submit an application for a license to the director. During the month of December, but before the first day of January of the next year, a person who is proposing to continue to act as or perform the functions of a regulated dog intermediary shall obtain a license from the director for the following year. The person shall submit the application to the director on or before the last day of November of the year preceding the year for which the license is sought.

(C) A person who is acting as or performing the functions of a regulated dog intermediary on the effective date of this section shall submit to the director an application for a regulated dog intermediary license not later than three months after the effective date of this section. The director shall issue or deny the application for a license within ninety days after the receipt of the completed application.

(D) No person shall be licensed as or act as or perform the functions of a regulated dog intermediary who has been convicted of or pleaded guilty to violating section 959.01, 959.02, 959.03, 959.13, 959.131, 959.15, or 959.16 of the Revised Code or an equivalent municipal ordinance, law of another state, or law of the federal government or has been convicted of or pleaded guilty to violating more than once section 2919.25 of the Revised Code or an equivalent municipal ordinance, law of another state, or law of the federal government.

Sec. 956.06. (A) No person shall operate an animal rescue for dogs without a license to do so issued by the director of the kennel control authority in accordance with rules adopted under section 956.03 of the Revised Code. No license application fee shall be charged to an animal rescue for dogs. The director shall maintain a database of all persons that are licensed to operate an animal rescue for dogs in this state.

(B) No person shall be licensed as or operate an animal rescue for dogs who has been convicted of or pleaded guilty to violating section 959.01, 959.02, 959.03, 959.13, 959.131, 959.15, or 959.16 of the Revised Code or an equivalent municipal ordinance, law of another state, or law of the federal government or has been convicted of or pleaded guilty to violating more than once section 2919.25 of the Revised Code or an equivalent municipal ordinance, law of another state, or law of the federal government.

Sec. 956.07. (A) A person who is applying for a license to operate a regulated dog breeding kennel or to act as or perform the functions of a regulated dog intermediary under section 956.04 or 956.05 of the Revised Code, as applicable, shall include with the application for a license a nonrefundable license application fee as follows:

(1) For a regulated dog breeding kennel:

(a) One hundred fifty dollars if breeding dogs at the regulated dog breeding kennel annually produce at least nine, but not more than fifteen litters or, if fewer than nine litters are produced, at least forty puppies are produced in a calendar year at the kennel;

(b) Two hundred fifty dollars if breeding dogs at the regulated dog breeding kennel annually produce at least sixteen, but not more than twenty-five litters;

(c) Three hundred fifty dollars if breeding dogs at the regulated dog breeding kennel annually produce at least twenty-six, but not more than thirty-five litters;

(d) Five hundred dollars if breeding dogs at the regulated dog breeding kennel annually produce at least thirty-six, but not more than forty-five litters;

(e) Seven hundred fifty dollars if breeding dogs at the regulated dog breeding kennel annually produce forty-six or more litters.

(2) For a regulated dog intermediary, five hundred dollars.

(B) The owner of a boarding kennel shall register the boarding kennel with the director of the kennel control authority by paying an annual fee of fifty dollars.

(C) Money collected by the director from application and registration fees submitted under this section shall be transmitted by the director to the treasurer of state to be credited to the regulated dog breeding kennel control license fund created in section 956.17 of the Revised Code. However, the treasurer of state shall transfer to the county in which a regulated dog breeding kennel is or will be located fifty dollars of the application fee received from the person who is applying for a license to operate the regulated dog breeding kennel or an amount equal to the fee charged on January 1, 2009, by the county for the registration of a kennel under section 955.04 of the Revised Code, whichever is greater. The county auditor shall deposit the money in the county’s dog and kennel fund created in accordance with section 955.20 of the Revised Code.

Sec. 956.08. No person operating a regulated dog breeding kennel or acting as or performing the functions of a regulated dog intermediary shall do any of the following:

(A) Fail to keep or confine a dog in accordance with one of the following:

(1) In an indoor enclosure with an attached outdoor enclosure that is accessible to the dog, provided that not more than three dogs are kept or confined in the indoor or outdoor enclosure at any one time. For dogs that weigh less than twenty pounds, the indoor enclosure shall be at least four feet by four feet with an attached outdoor enclosure of at least four feet by eight feet. For dogs that weigh at least twenty pounds, but less than fifty-one pounds, the indoor enclosure shall be at least four feet by six feet with an attached outdoor enclosure of at least four feet by twelve feet. For dogs that weigh fifty-one pounds or more, the indoor enclosure shall be at least four feet by eight feet with an attached outdoor enclosure of at least four feet by sixteen feet.

(2) In an indoor enclosure with no attached outdoor enclosure, but with an exercise period in an outdoor enclosure that is provided at least two hours each day, provided that not more than three dogs are kept or confined in the indoor or outdoor enclosure at any one time. For dogs that weigh less than twenty pounds, the indoor enclosure shall be at least four feet by four feet, and outdoor exercise shall take place in an enclosed area that is at least ten feet by ten feet. For dogs that weigh at least twenty pounds, but less than fifty-one pounds, the indoor enclosure shall be at least four feet by six feet, and outdoor exercise shall take place in an enclosed area that is at least twenty feet by twenty feet. For dogs that weigh fifty-one pounds or more, the indoor enclosure shall be at least four feet by eight feet, and outdoor exercise shall take place in an enclosed area that is at least forty feet by forty feet.

For purposes of complying with division (A)(2) of this section, an indoor enclosure may be utilized for exercise when weather does not permit access to an outdoor enclosure. However, the indoor exercise enclosure shall comply with the size requirements that are established in this division for outdoor enclosures that are used for exercise. In addition, exercise is not required for a dog that has an illness and for which exercise would be detrimental to recovering from the illness. In addition, for purposes of complying with division (A)(2) of this section, enclosures may be stacked on top of one another, but there shall be a nonporous barrier separating the floor and ceiling of stacked enclosures.

(B) Keep or confine dogs in an enclosure, crate, or cage that are incompatible based on observation;

(C) Keep or confine more than three adult dogs in one enclosure, crate, or cage;

(D) Keep or confine a female dog in heat in the same enclosure, crate, or cage with a sexually mature male dog except for the time period that is necessary for breeding the female dog;

(E) Keep or confine a female dog that is nursing in an enclosure, crate, or cage with another adult dog;

(F) Keep or confine a dog in an enclosure, crate, or cage without access to either natural or artificial light during daytime hours;

(G) Keep or confine a dog in an enclosure, crate, or cage outdoors unless the dog has access at all times to a dry insulated indoor shelter or dog house with clean straw or other nontoxic insulating material in an amount that is sufficient to permit the dog to burrow under the straw or material while at the same time using the straw or material as bedding;

(H) Keep or confine a dog in an enclosure, crate, or cage if urine or feces have accumulated beyond an amount that is expected to accumulate in a normal twenty-four-hour period or, if the dog is a female dog with a litter, in a normal twelve-hour period;

(I) Keep or confine a dog in an enclosure, crate, or cage without access to clean unfrozen water at all times unless the dog is being used for hunting or sledding, in which case access to clean unfrozen water shall be provided not less than one time per eight-hour period. Water shall be provided to a dog in an open bowl or container that is not a drip bottle or limited intake mechanism.

(J) Keep or confine a dog in an enclosure, crate, or cage without access to adequate and wholesome food on a daily basis so as to ensure a proper and healthy weight unless medically contraindicated;

(K) Keep or confine a dog in an enclosure, crate, or cage with flooring material that is incapable of being cleaned or sanitized or that is likely to cause injury to the pads of a dog’s feet;

(L) Keep or confine a dog in an enclosure, crate, or cage without providing a solid, nonporous surface, free from moisture or feces, that comprises at least fifty per cent of the floor of the enclosure, crate, or cage. The solid surface may include soft bedding. Female dogs with litters and puppies twelve weeks of age or less shall be housed in an enclosure, crate, or cage with a solid, nonporous surface, free from moisture or feces, that comprises one hundred per cent of the floor of the enclosure, crate, or cage. Nonporous surfaces shall not be made of metal.

(M) Keep or confine a dog in an enclosure, crate, or cage in unsanitary conditions;

(N) Keep or confine a dog in an enclosure, crate, or cage that is in contact with or in the immediate vicinity of any animal with a diagnosed or suspected disease that is contagious to dogs;

(O) Keep or confine a dog in an enclosure, crate, or cage without adequate ventilation;

(P) Keep or confine a dog in an enclosure, crate, or cage without providing shelter from the elements;

(Q) Keep or confine a dog in an outdoor run or kennel where shade is not provided during the months of May through September. The shade so provided shall provide a reduction of temperature of at least five degrees from nonshaded areas.

(R) Keep or confine a dog in an indoor enclosure, crate, or cage where the temperature is below fifty degrees fahrenheit or over ninety degrees fahrenheit;

(S) Fail to equip a kennel with a smoke alarm and provide a means of fire suppression such as a sprinkler system or fire extinguishers in all kennel housing units;

(T) Fail to keep the area around a kennel in good repair, clean, and free from accumulations of junk, waste products, and discarded materials to protect dogs from injury and to prevent infestation by rodents or other pests. Weeds, grasses, bushes, and trees shall be controlled at the property on which a kennel is located to allow for effective pest control and to protect the health and safety of the dogs that are housed at the kennel.

(U) Fail to provide a dog with at least two hours per day of interaction with other dogs, provided that the dog is not sick and does not present a risk of illness to other dogs;

(V) Fail to sanitize food and water receptacles at least every two weeks or more often if necessary to prevent an accumulation of dirt, debris, food waste, excreta, and other disease hazards;

(W) Fail to provide a dog with appropriate veterinary care and treatment for any disease, illness, or injury;

(X) Fail to provide a breeding dog with a clean whelping box when needed;

(Y) Fail to trim an adult dog’s nails so that there is curling or an impairment of the dog’s gait;

(Z) Fail to provide regular care to a dog to prevent matting of fur from fecal matter or bodily fluids;

(AA) Fail to provide a dog with appropriate protection from fleas, ticks, biting insects, and stinging insects or treatment for worms if the dog is so afflicted;

(BB) Fail to provide an adult dog with appropriate vaccinations as determined by the dog’s veterinarian;

(CC) Fail to provide each puppy that is three months of age or older with appropriate phase-in booster vaccines if determined necessary by the puppy’s veterinarian;

(DD) Fail to provide heartworm preventative to a breeding dog as determined by the dog’s veterinarian;

(EE) Fail to ensure that a dog in the person’s possession or control requiring euthanization is euthanized by a veterinarian or a person under the direct supervision of a veterinarian;

(FF) Fail to ensure that a dog that is being euthanized is not left unattended between the commencement of the process and death;

(GG) Beat or brutalize a dog within the person’s custody or control;

(HH) Fail to provide all dogs in a kennel with a manual physical inspection at least once each week;

(II) Breed a dog that is less than eighteen months of age or more than nine years of age or breed a female dog without a certificate from a licensed veterinarian that the female dog is in proper health for breeding;

(JJ) Permit a dog to have more than one litter per calendar year;

(KK) Dock a dog’s tail, crop a dog’s ear, remove a dog’s claws, or debark a dog. Tail docking, ear cropping, the removal of a dog’s claws, or debarking shall only be conducted by a licensed veterinarian.

(LL) Fail to prepare and implement a plan for the disposal of waste that is generated by dogs at the kennel;

(MM) Keep a dog in an enclosure, crate, or cage that includes exposed metal caging without a protective plastic or rubber coating.

Divisions (A), (F), (G), (I), (J), (L), and (P) of this section do not apply during the temporary transportation of a dog from one location to another location.

Sec. 956.081. (A) On and after the effective date of this section, no person shall sell a dog at a flea market, market day, garage sale, conference, or other public place other than at a pet store that is licensed under this chapter as a regulated dog intermediary. This division does not prohibit the sale of dogs by a licensed regulated dog breeding kennel or licensed regulated dog intermediary at the location that is listed as the address of the kennel or intermediary on the applicable license application submitted by or on behalf of the kennel or intermediary.

(B) On and after two hundred seventy days after the effective date of this section, no person shall sell a dog at an auction or conduct an auction for the purpose of selling dogs. However, no out-of-state resident shall sell a dog at an auction conducted in this state on and after the effective date of this section.

(C) This section does not apply to adoption events that are held by an animal rescue for dogs or an animal shelter for dogs.

Sec. 956.09. The director of the kennel control authority shall appoint kennel control enforcement inspectors for the purpose of enforcing the requirements and standards established by this chapter and rules adopted under it and to act as authorized agents of the authority. Inspectors shall serve at the pleasure of the director and shall be employees of the kennel control authority. Inspectors may issue citations and orders that are necessary to enforce this chapter and rules adopted under it. The director shall provide each kennel control enforcement inspector with an identifying badge and an official uniform. A kennel control enforcement inspector shall have training in animal husbandry, kennel management, record keeping, and first aid.

Sec. 956.10. (A) At least once biennially, the director of the kennel control authority or the director’s authorized representative shall inspect a regulated dog breeding kennel that is subject to licensure under this chapter and rules adopted under section 956.03 of the Revised Code to ensure compliance with this chapter and rules adopted under it, including, but not limited to, the standards of care established in section 956.08 of the Revised Code. In addition, upon a complaint, the director may inspect an animal rescue for dogs to ensure compliance with this chapter and rules adopted under section 956.03 of the Revised Code, including, but not limited to, the standards of care established in section 956.08 of the Revised Code. Inspections shall be conducted without prior notification to the licensee or persons associated with the licensee. In addition, upon the request of a member of the public, a public official, an animal rescue for dogs, or an animal shelter for dogs, the director or the director’s authorized representative shall inspect any facility at which a person is acting as or performing the functions of a regulated dog intermediary to ensure such compliance.

The director or the director’s authorized representative shall inspect a boarding kennel when the director or the director’s authorized representative has received information that the boarding kennel is breeding dogs and is subject to licensure under this chapter and rules adopted under section 956.03 of the Revised Code.

Inspections shall be conducted in accordance with rules adopted under section 956.03 of the Revised Code. A record of each inspection shall be made by the inspector who is responsible for the inspection in accordance with those rules.

(B) The director or the director’s authorized representative, upon proper identification and upon stating the purpose and necessity of an inspection, may enter at reasonable times on any public or private property, real or personal, to inspect or investigate and to examine or copy records in order to determine compliance with this chapter and rules adopted under it. The director, the director’s authorized representative, or the attorney general upon the request of the director may apply to the environmental division of the Franklin county municipal court for an appropriate court order or search warrant as necessary to achieve the purposes of this chapter and rules adopted under it. A judge of that court may issue such a warrant.

(C) No owner or operator of a regulated dog breeding kennel, person acting as or performing the functions of a regulated dog intermediary, owner or operator of an animal rescue for dogs, or owner or operator of a boarding kennel shall interfere with an inspection or refuse to allow an inspector full access to all areas where dogs are kept or cared for. If entry is refused or inspection or investigation is refused, hindered, or thwarted by a regulated dog breeding kennel, regulated dog intermediary, or animal rescue for dogs the director may suspend or revoke the kennel’s, intermediary’s, or rescue’s license in accordance with this chapter.

(D) If entry that is authorized by division (B) of this section is refused or if an inspection or investigation is refused, hindered, or thwarted by intimidation or otherwise and if the director, an authorized representative of the director, or the attorney general applies for and obtains a court order or a search warrant under division (B) of this section to conduct the inspection or investigation, the owner or operator of the premises where entry was refused or inspection or investigation was refused, hindered, or thwarted is liable to the director for the reasonable costs incurred by the director for the regular salaries and fringe benefit costs of personnel assigned to conduct the inspection or investigation from the time the entry, inspection, or investigation was refused, hindered, or thwarted until the court order or search warrant is executed; for the salary, fringe benefits, and travel expenses of the director, an authorized representative of the director, or the attorney general incurred in obtaining the court order or search warrant; and for expenses necessarily incurred for the assistance of local law enforcement officers in executing the court order or search warrant. In the application for a court order or a search warrant, the director, the director’s authorized representative, or the attorney general may request and the environmental division of the Franklin county municipal court, in its order granting the court order or search warrant, may order the owner or operator of the premises to reimburse the director for any of those costs that the court finds reasonable. From money recovered under this division, the director shall reimburse the attorney general for the costs incurred by the attorney general in connection with proceedings for obtaining the court order or search warrant, shall reimburse the political subdivision in which the premises is located for the assistance of its law enforcement officers in executing the court order or search warrant, and shall deposit the remainder in the state treasury to the credit of the regulated dog breeding kennel control license fund created in section 956.17 of the Revised Code.

(E) A dog warden appointed under Chapter 955. of the Revised Code or an agent of a humane society established under Chapter 1717. of the Revised Code entering on public or private property to make investigations and inspections in accordance with Chapter 955. or 1717. of the Revised Code, as applicable, shall report any violations of this chapter and rules adopted under it to the director or a kennel control enforcement inspector and may examine and copy any records that are required to be maintained under rules adopted under this chapter.

Sec. 956.11. (A) The director of the kennel control authority or the director’s authorized representative may impound a dog if the director or the director’s authorized representative has probable cause to believe that the dog is being kept by a regulated dog breeding kennel, regulated dog intermediary, or animal rescue for dogs in a manner that materially violates this chapter or rules adopted under it and if the dog’s health or safety appears to be in imminent danger.

(B) The director or the director’s authorized representative shall give written notice of the impoundment by posting a notice on the door of the premises from which the dog was taken or by otherwise posting the notice in a conspicuous place at the premises from which the dog was taken. The notice shall provide a date for an adjudication hearing, which shall take place not later than five business days after the dog is taken and at which the director shall determine if the dog should be permanently relinquished to the custody of the kennel control authority.

(C) The owner or operator of the applicable regulated dog breeding kennel, the person acting as or performing the functions of a regulated dog intermediary, or the owner or operator of the applicable animal rescue for dogs may appeal the determination made at the adjudication hearing in accordance with section 119.12 of the Revised Code, except that the appeal may only be made to the environmental division of the Franklin county municipal court. If a dog has been impounded and the owner or operator of the applicable regulated dog breeding kennel, the person acting as or performing the functions of a regulated dog intermediary, or the owner or operator of the applicable animal rescue for dogs appeals the determination made at an adjudication hearing, that person shall file an appeal bond that is sufficient to cover the costs of keeping, housing, and maintaining the dog in a manner and amount to be determined by the environmental division of the Franklin county municipal court.

(D) The director may enter into contracts or agreements with an animal rescue for dogs, an animal shelter for dogs, a boarding kennel, a veterinarian, a dog warden appointed under Chapter 955. of the Revised Code, or a humane society established under Chapter 1717. of the Revised Code for the purpose of keeping, housing, and maintaining dogs that are impounded under this section. If, after the final disposition of an adjudication hearing and any appeals from that adjudication hearing, it is determined that a dog shall be permanently relinquished to the custody of the kennel control authority, the dog may be adopted directly from the animal rescue for dogs, animal shelter for dogs, boarding kennel, veterinarian, dog warden, or humane society where it is being kept, housed, and maintained, provided that the dog has been spayed or neutered unless there are medical reasons against spaying or neutering as determined by a veterinarian. The animal rescue for dogs, animal shelter for dogs, boarding kennel, veterinarian, dog warden, or humane society may charge a reasonable adoption fee. The fee shall be at least sufficient to cover the costs of spaying or neutering the dog unless it is medically contraindicated.

Sec. 956.12. If the director of the kennel control authority or the director’s authorized representative determines that a person has violated, is violating, or is threatening to violate this chapter or rules adopted under it, the director may issue and cause to be served by certified mail or personal service a citation of violation and an order requiring the person to cease the acts or practices appearing to the director or the director’s authorized representative to constitute a violation of this chapter or rules adopted under it or requiring the person to take corrective actions to eliminate the conditions appearing to the director or the director’s authorized representative to constitute a violation of this chapter and rules adopted under it. The order shall state specifically the provision or provisions of this chapter or the rule or rules adopted under this chapter that appear to the director or the director’s authorized representative to have been violated or threatened to be violated and the facts constituting the violation or threatened violation, the actions that the person must take to correct the deficiencies, and the time period within which the person must correct the violations.

Sec. 956.13. (A) The director of the kennel control authority may assess a civil penalty against a person violating this chapter or rules adopted under it if all of the following occur:

(1) The person has received an order and been notified of the violation by certified mail as required in section 956.12 of the Revised Code.

(2) After the time period for correcting the violation specified in the order has elapsed, the director or the director’s authorized representative has inspected the premises where the violation has occurred and determined that the violation has not been corrected, and the director has issued a notice of an adjudication hearing pursuant to division (A)(3) of this section.

(3) The director affords the person an opportunity for an adjudication hearing under Chapter 119. of the Revised Code to challenge the director’s determination that the person is not in compliance with this chapter or rules adopted under it, the imposition of the civil penalty, or both. A person may waive the opportunity for an adjudication hearing.

(B) If the opportunity for an adjudication hearing is waived or if, after an adjudication hearing, the director determines that a violation of this chapter or a rule adopted under it has occurred or is occurring, the director may assess a civil penalty. The civil penalty may be appealed in accordance with section 119.12 of the Revised Code, except that the civil penalty may only be appealed to the environmental division of the Franklin county municipal court.

(C) Civil penalties shall be assessed in the following amounts:

(1) A person who has violated division (A)(1) of section 956.04, division (A)(1) of section 956.05, or division (A) of section 956.06 of the Revised Code shall pay a civil penalty in an amount that is equal to two times the amount of the license fee that should have been paid by the person under section 956.07 of the Revised Code.

(2) A person who has violated division (H) of section 956.04, division (D) of section 956.05, or division (B) of section 956.06 of the Revised Code shall pay a civil penalty of not more than fifteen thousand dollars.

(3) A person who has violated any other provision of this chapter or rules adopted under it, including, but not limited to, the standards of care established in section 956.08 of the Revised Code, shall pay a civil penalty of twenty-five dollars.

Each day that a violation continues constitutes a separate violation.

Sec. 956.14. The attorney general, upon the request of the director of the kennel control authority, may bring an action for injunction against a person who has violated, is violating, or is threatening to violate this chapter, rules adopted under it, or an order issued under section 956.12 of the Revised Code. An action for injunction shall be filed in the environmental division of the Franklin county municipal court, which shall have exclusive jurisdiction to grant preliminary and permanent injunctive relief under this chapter. The environmental division of the Franklin county municipal court shall grant such injunctive relief upon a showing that the person against whom the action is brought has violated, is violating, or is threatening to violate this chapter, rules adopted under it, or an order issued under it. The court shall give precedence to such an action over all other cases.

Sec. 956.15. (A) The director of the kennel control authority shall deny an application for a license that is submitted under section 956.04, 956.05, or 956.06 of the Revised Code for any of the following reasons:

(1) The applicant for the license has violated any provision of this chapter or a rule adopted under it.

(2) The applicant has been convicted of or pleaded guilty to violating section 959.01, 959.02, 959.03, 959.13, 959.131, 959.15, or 959.16 of the Revised Code or an equivalent municipal ordinance, law of another state, or law of the federal government or has been convicted of or pleaded guilty to violating more than once section 2919.25 of the Revised Code or an equivalent municipal ordinance, law of another state, or law of the federal government.

(3) The director determines that the applicant for the license does not have the expertise or capacity to comply with this chapter or rules adopted under it.

(B) The director may suspend or revoke a license issued under this chapter for violation of any provision of this chapter or a rule adopted or order issued under it.

(C) An application or a license shall not be denied, suspended, or revoked under this section without a written order of the director stating the findings on which the denial, suspension, or revocation is based. A copy of the order shall be sent to the applicant or license holder by certified mail or may be provided to the applicant or license holder by personal service. In addition, the person to whom a denial, suspension, or revocation applies may request an adjudication hearing under Chapter 119. of the Revised Code. The director shall comply with such a request. The determination of the director at an adjudication hearing may be appealed in accordance with section 119.12 of the Revised Code, except that the determination may be appealed only to the environmental division of the Franklin county municipal court.

Sec. 956.16. The director of the kennel control authority, the director’s authorized representative, or the attorney general may require the attendance of witnesses and the production of books, records, papers, and dogs that are needed either by the director or the attorney general or by any party to a hearing before the director and for that purpose may issue a subpoena for any witness or a subpoena duces tecum to compel the production of any books, records, papers, or dogs. The subpoena shall be served by personal service or by certified mail. If the subpoena is returned because of inability to deliver, or if no return is received within thirty days after the date of mailing, the subpoena may be served by ordinary mail. If no return of ordinary mail is received within thirty days after the date of mailing, service shall be deemed to have been made. If the subpoena is returned because of inability to deliver, the director or the attorney general may designate a person or persons to effect either personal or residence service on the witness. The person designated to effect personal or residence service under this section may be the sheriff of the county in which the witness resides or may be found or any other duly designated person. The fees and mileage of the person serving the subpoena shall be the same as those allowed by the courts of common pleas in criminal cases and shall be paid from the funds of the authority. Fees and mileage for the witness shall be the same as those allowed for witnesses by the courts of common pleas in criminal cases and shall be paid from the funds of the authority upon request of the witness following the hearing.

Sec. 956.17. All money collected by the director of the kennel control authority from license and registration fees under sections 956.07 and 956.20 of the Revised Code and all money collected from civil penalties assessed under section 956.13 of the Revised Code shall be deposited in the state treasury to the credit of the regulated dog breeding kennel control license fund, which is hereby created. The director shall use money in the fund for the purpose of administering this chapter and rules adopted under it.

Sec. 956.18. (A) There is hereby created the kennel control authority board consisting of one member of the senate appointed by the president of the senate, one member of the house of representatives appointed by the speaker of the house of representatives, and the following seven members appointed by the governor:

(1) Two members representing animal care and welfare organizations in this state;

(2) One member who is a county dog warden;

(3) One member who is a veterinarian;

(4) One member representing pet stores in this state that are licensed under this chapter as regulated dog breeding kennels or regulated dog breeding intermediaries;

(5) One member who is a member in good standing of a national breed parent club of the American kennel club;

(6) One member representing the public.

Initial appointments to the board shall be made not later than sixty days after the effective date of this section. Terms of office of the members appointed by the president of the senate and the speaker of the house of representatives shall coincide with their terms of office as members of the senate and the house of representatives, as applicable. Of the initial appointments made by the governor, two shall be for one-year terms, two shall be for two-year terms, and three shall be for three-year terms. Thereafter, terms of office of members appointed by the governor shall be three years, with each term ending on the same day of the same month as did the term that it succeeds. Each member shall hold office from the date of appointment until the end of the term for which the member was appointed. Members may be reappointed. Vacancies shall be filled in the manner provided for the original appointments. Any member appointed to fill a vacancy occurring prior to the expiration date of the term for which the member’s predecessor was appointed shall hold office for the remainder of the term. A member shall continue in office subsequent to the expiration date of the member’s term until the member’s successor takes office or until a period of sixty days has elapsed, whichever occurs first.

(B) The governor shall select a chairperson from among the board’s members. A majority of the members of the board constitutes a quorum. The board shall meet at least four times a year in Columbus or at other locations selected by the chairperson. The chairperson shall determine the agenda for each meeting of the board. However, if the member appointed by the president of the senate and the member appointed by the speaker of the house of representatives jointly request in writing that an item be placed on the agenda for a meeting of the board, the chairperson shall place the item on the agenda at the board’s next regularly scheduled meeting occurring more than ten days after the request has been made.

Members of the board shall serve without compensation for attending board meetings. Members of the board shall be reimbursed for their actual and necessary expenses incurred in the performance of official duties as members of the board.

(C) The board shall provide oversight and evaluation of the administration of this chapter and rules adopted under it, including the operation of the kennel control authority created in section 956.02 of the Revised Code. The oversight and evaluation may include, but not be limited to, a determination of whether this chapter and rules adopted under it and the operation of the authority have resulted in the prevention of cruelty to and abuse of dogs and an evaluation of the sanctions imposed on violators of this chapter and rules adopted under it. In addition, the board may make recommendations to the director of the kennel control authority for changes to the administration of this chapter and rules adopted under it and to the general assembly for changes to this chapter that the board considers necessary for the effective enforcement of this chapter and rules adopted under it. The board may inspect records kept by the kennel control authority and may interview kennel control enforcement inspectors. The board, by the thirty-first day of December each year, shall issue a report of its findings and submit it to the authority, the president of the senate, and the speaker of the house of representatives.

Sec. 956.19. (A) In accordance with rules adopted under section 956.03 of the Revised Code, at the time of the sale of a dog, a pet store shall provide the buyer of the dog with either of the following:

(1) A certificate of medical health that has been completed and attested to by a veterinarian and that states that the veterinarian has examined the dog and has not found evidence of disease, illness, or injury at the time of the examination;

(2) A money-back guarantee that is valid for not less than twenty-one days after the date of purchase of the dog. The guarantee shall authorize the purchaser of the dog to receive the purchase price of the dog from the pet store within that twenty-one-day period if the purchaser presents a statement to the pet store from a veterinarian who has examined the dog within fourteen days of the purchase of the dog that the dog has a significant disease, illness, or injury that was in existence at the time of the purchase of the dog.

(B) A pet store shall post written notice of the pet store’s responsibility under this section in a conspicuous location near the pet store’s cash register. The written notice shall be posted in accordance with rules and shall be in prominent and easily read type that is not less than eighteen-point type.

(C) At a time prior to the sale of a dog, a pet store shall provide the name, complete address, and telephone number of the breeder that bred the dog, the regulated dog breeding kennel where the dog was kept, housed, and maintained, and the regulated dog intermediary from whom the pet store acquired the dog, as applicable. The pet store also shall provide the telephone number and the address of the kennel control authority.

(D) No pet store shall fail to comply with this section.

(E) A pet store that fails to comply with division (A)(1) of this section with respect to the sale of a dog or a pet store that fails to refund the purchase price of a dog in accordance with division (A)(2) of this section is liable to the purchaser of the dog for an amount that is equal to the actual damages incurred by the purchaser within one year after the date of the purchase of the dog, except that veterinary expenses are limited to not more than five hundred dollars. The pet store also is liable for any attorney’s fees and costs incurred by the purchaser. In addition, the buyer of the dog may keep the dog.

(F) The director of the kennel control authority or the director’s authorized representative shall enforce this section. Kennel control enforcement inspectors may make inspections of pet stores for the purpose of enforcing this section.

Sec. 956.20. No regulated dog breeding kennel shall sell or otherwise transfer a puppy that is less than ninety days old without registering the litter in which the puppy was born with the director of the kennel control authority in accordance with rules adopted under section 956.03 of the Revised Code and paying a registration fee of twenty-five dollars per litter. This section does not apply to an animal rescue for dogs or an animal shelter for dogs.

Sec. 956.98. No person shall violate this chapter or a rule adopted or order issued under it.

Sec. 956.99. Whoever violates section 956.98 of the Revised Code is guilty of a misdemeanor of the first degree.

Sec. 1901.183. In addition to jurisdiction otherwise granted in this chapter, the environmental division of a municipal court shall have jurisdiction within its territory in all of the following actions or proceedings and to perform all of the following functions:

(A) Notwithstanding any monetary limitations in section 1901.17 of the Revised Code, in all actions and proceedings for the sale of real or personal property under lien of a judgment of the environmental division of the municipal court, or a lien for machinery, material, fuel furnished, or labor performed, irrespective of amount, and, in those cases, the environmental division may proceed to foreclose and marshal all liens and all vested or contingent rights, to appoint a receiver, and to render personal judgment irrespective of amount in favor of any party;

(B) When in aid of execution of a judgment of the environmental division of the municipal court, in all actions for the foreclosure of a mortgage on real property given to secure the payment of money, or the enforcement of a specific lien for money or other encumbrance or charge on real property, when the real property is situated within the territory, and, in those cases, the environmental division may proceed to foreclose all liens and all vested and contingent rights and proceed to render judgments, and make findings and orders, between the parties, in the same manner and to the same extent as in similar cases in the court of common pleas;

(C) When in aid of execution of a judgment of the environmental division of the municipal court, in all actions for the recovery of real property situated within the territory to the same extent as courts of common pleas have jurisdiction;

(D) In all actions for injunction to prevent or terminate violations of the ordinances and regulations of any municipal corporation within its territory enacted or promulgated under the police power of that municipal corporation pursuant to Section 3 of Article XVIII, Ohio Constitution, over which the court of common pleas has or may have jurisdiction, and, in those cases, the environmental division of the municipal court may proceed to render judgments, and make findings and orders, in the same manner and to the same extent as in similar cases in the court of common pleas;

(E) In all actions for injunction to prevent or terminate violations of the resolutions and regulations of any political subdivision within its territory enacted or promulgated under the power of that political subdivision pursuant to Article X of the Ohio Constitution, over which the court of common pleas has or may have jurisdiction, and, in those cases, the environmental division of the municipal court may proceed to render judgments, and make findings and orders, in the same manner and to the same extent as in similar cases in the court of common pleas;

(F) In any civil action to enforce any provision of Chapter 3704., 3714., 3734., 3737., 3767., or 6111. of the Revised Code over which the court of common pleas has or may have jurisdiction, and, in those actions, the environmental division of the municipal court may proceed to render judgments, and make findings and orders, in the same manner and to the same extent as in similar actions in the court of common pleas;

(G) In all actions and proceedings in the nature of creditors’ bills, and in aid of execution to subject the interests of a judgment debtor in real or personal property to the payment of a judgment of the division, and, in those actions and proceedings, the environmental division may proceed to marshal and foreclose all liens on the property irrespective of the amount of the lien, and all vested or contingent rights in the property;

(H) Concurrent jurisdiction with the court of common pleas of all criminal actions or proceedings related to the pollution of the air, ground, or water within the territory of the environmental division of the municipal court, for which a sentence of death cannot be imposed under Chapter 2903. of the Revised Code;

(I) In any review or appeal of any final order of any administrative officer, agency, board, department, tribunal, commission, or other instrumentality that relates to a local building, housing, air pollution, sanitation, health, fire, zoning, or safety code, ordinance, or regulation, in the same manner and to the same extent as in similar appeals in the court of common pleas;

(J) With respect to the environmental division of the Franklin county municipal court, in any civil action to enforce a provision of Chapter 956. of the Revised Code and to hear appeals from an adjudication hearing conducted under that chapter.

Section 2. That existing sections 955.02, 955.10, 955.12, 955.20, 955.26, and 1901.183 of the Revised Code are hereby repealed.

Section 3. It is the intent of the General Assembly to appropriate money to the Regulated Dog Breeding Kennel Control License Fund created in section 956.17 of the Revised Code to enable the Kennel Control Authority created in section 956.02 of the Revised Code to begin administering Chapter 956. of the Revised Code and rules adopted under it.

FREE DOWNLOAD OF ENTIRE ARC SPECIAL REPORT -  CLICK THE ADD TO CART BUTTON BELOW

The Impact of Animal Rights Extremism Upon the Veterinary Profession and Globalization of Animal Welfare Legislation

June 17, 2009

Prepared By The Legislative Committee
Of The American Rottweiler Club

About The American Rottweiler Club

The American Rottweiler Club is a 501 (c) 3 organization dedicated to the promotion of the Rottweiler breed in the United States, the advancement of animal welfare and animal health, and advocating for fair, enforceable legislation that protects animals and the public health.

About This Special Report

The American Rottweiler Club has gathered citations from numerous veterinary journals, publications both on- and off-line and out-of-print texts for commentary and criticism; which constitutes “fair use” of these materials in the preparation and presentation of this Special Report.

We wish to thank the ARC Legislative Committee, specifically Barbara Haywood and Gwen Chaney, for their extensive research and contributions to this report, Ms. Barbara Kolk of the AKC Library for her specialized contributions of the historical texts and knowledge of breeds in the context of 18th, 19th and 20th century literature, and the many breed clubs around the world who have shared their insights regarding animal rights extremism and its impact upon the veterinary profession, positions and legislation on a global basis.

ARC’s Commitment To Animal Welfare

The American Rottweiler Club is deeply committed to the highest level of care for our dogs, and NOTHING is more important than the health and welfare of our dogs, which is the very reason for the existence of our club.

That the American Rottweiler Club is a clearly and unequivocally opposed to inhumane treatment of any animal is a fact without question.

As careful and conscientious stewards of our breed, our mission is and always has been to promote the health and welfare of the Rottweiler. The dedication, knowledge and passion that our members bring to the table helps to elevate the welfare of the Rottweiler and indeed, all dogs.

Rottweiler owners, through various Rottweiler groups, fund veterinary medical research at numerous vet schools across the country, and provide financial support to at least forty-five different Rottweiler rescue groups, including groups that rescue mixed breed dogs, as well as dogs with and without docked tails.

Our commitment to our dogs, the advancement of animal welfare and the human-animal bond, runs deep.

The Rottweiler Breed Standard and ARC Mandatory Practices

The American Rottweiler Club welcomes all input, suggestions and recommendations from the AVMA, as we value this input which in turn facilitates an open dialogue between our organizations.

We advise the AVMA that it is the American Rottweiler Club, in our role as the AKC Parent Club for the Rottweiler in the United States, which is solely responsible for setting and maintaining the Breed Standard for the Rottweiler.

Safeguarding the health and welfare of the Rottweiler is one of the purposes for which breed clubs are intended. The American Rottweiler Club also supports Mandatory Practices for its members. These rules and guidelines have their basis in the support and advancement of the health and welfare of our breed. Through these practices and other guidelines, our members ever strive to protect future generations of our breed.

The Breed Standard and Mandatory Practices are truly a testament to the deep and unshakeable commitment the American Rottweiler Club and its members have in the advancement of animal welfare.

Changes to our Breed Standard have been carefully developed and managed since the recognition of the Rottweiler in 1939.

The ARC Position On Tail Docking

We concur with the American Kennel Club that ear cropping and tail docking, as prescribed in certain breed standards, is an acceptable practice integral to defining and preserving breed character, enhancing good health, and preventing injuries – and not merely for cosmetic purposes.

The Rottweiler Breed Standard was first approved in 1939, eight years after the first Rottweiler was registered in the AKC Stud Book.

Prior to that time, the Rottweiler was a docked breed in Europe. The ARC stands firm in supporting our Breed Standard “Tail – Tail docked short, close to body, leaving one or two tail vertebrae.”

These Breed Standards have been carefully developed from centuries of breeding and sound veterinary medical advice to promote the optimum health and functionality of the Rottweiler in every role imaginable, from beloved household pets, to therapy dogs, to herding or working dogs.

As the many veterinary medical professionals who have cared for our breed since 1939 can attest, as well as those veterinarians caring for any number of the 79 docked or cropped breeds, tail docking and dew claw removal, when done within days of birth on a healthy puppy, are as non-invasive a surgery that is ever performed on any canine. The puppies never miss a meal.

It is the position of the American Rottweiler Club that the AVMA’s revised policy defining all tail docking as “cosmetic” by default does a great disservice to our members and their professional veterinary medical care providers, who have worked together over the years to provide the very highest levels of care to our beloved breed.

ARC Rejects The AVMA’s Revised Crop & Dock Policy

The American Rottweiler Club, having duly considered each and every aspect of the AVMA revised policy on ear cropping and tail docking, rejects this policy in its entirety.

The AVMA position change carries the burden of a vast number of intended and unintended consequences, which are detailed in this letter.

The American Rottweiler Club has articulated the core issues with the revised AVMA policy on ear cropping and tail docking, which include, but are not limited to, the following:

1. The AVMA now defines ALL cropping/docking procedures as “cosmetic” – and in so doing negates any other basis for these procedures

2. The AVMA position lacks any empirical, data-driven scientific evidence

3. The AVMA position aligns with animal rights extremists, relies solely on citations specific to anti-crop/anti-dock campaigners in the UK, Australia and New Zealand, responsible for driving the anti-cropping/docking legislation in those countries or outdated, historical materials dating to the 19th and early 20th centuries.

4. NONE of the AVMA citations emanate from veterinary authors or related veterinary journals in the United States

5. Current AVMA publications concerning ear cropping and tail docking are deliberately false and misleading

6. The AVMA “Guidelines For Response” are in effect a reverse onus

7. The AVMA “Guidelines For Response” holds dissenters to a different and higher standard of “proof” than the AVMA requires of itself

8. The AVMA position interferes with the private relationship between dog owners and their veterinary healthcare providers

9. The AVMA position is the foundation for the criminalization of dog ownership and standard and legal veterinary medical practices.

10. The AVMA position is part of an initiative to “globalize” animal welfare laws

About Our Official Response

It was imperative that the American Rottweiler Club respond to the AVMA regarding this important policy change in a thoughtful and precise manner.

With regard to the direction given to the ARC by the AVMA in the context of “AVMA Guidelines for Response”, which dictates that “requests for revisions of policy be accompanied by “data-based evidence” that supports the benefits (or detriments)” of said policies, we have worked hard to fulfill these guidelines.

Therefore, due diligence dictated that if our response was to adhere to the AVMA Guidelines or Response, that we conduct in-depth research and review of the contemporary and historical veterinary literature, and follow it with a complete audit and analysis, in order to provide the requested data-based evidence.

To aid in our research, the American Rottweiler Club has gathered a broad network of expert veterinary medical, historical and legal resources.

The scope of our research has literally covered several hundred years, and you will be pleased to know that our efforts have included a complete and thorough search for each statement made by the AVMA, and every publicly available reference cited by the AVMA in support of its revised position opposing all ear cropping and tail docking.

We are sure that the esteemed members of the AVMA Animal Welfare Committee will agree that the sound research, analysis and summary of the AVMA position materials is of benefit to all stakeholders, including other dog clubs or animal-related organizations, pet owners, veterinarians and public policy makers concerned with the AVMA’s revised policy on cropping and docking.

ARC Research & Analysis Summary

Our research included sourcing each AVMA citation, analyzing the written text of AVMA position publications concerning tail docking in the context of the citations, and providing a summary of the relevance of the actual citations to the AVMA’s position paper.

We felt it important to facilitate a clear understanding of this response for both the members of the American Rottweiler Club as well as the AVMA.

Therefore, we have provided the esteemed members of the AVMA Animal Welfare Committee a compendium of our research and analyses, which includes:

• A full audit and analysis of the AVMA’s revised crop/dock position
• A full audit and analysis of the AVMA’s online publication, Canine Tail Docking: Frequently Asked Questions, inluding research & analysis of twenty-five (25) citations liste
• A full audit and analysis of the AVMA’s paper, The Welfare Implications of Dogs: Tail Docking, (Oct. 2008) including research & analysis of each of the thirteen (13) citations
• Inventory of non-US-based citations
• Bios and biases of authors cited by AVMA’s Animal Welfare Committee
• Timeline of anti-cropping/docking movement

Summary Of Findings

Our findings of the materials and citations used by the AVMA are troubling, to say the least.

The results of the research and audit conducted by the ARC clearly show that the revised AVMA policy is not based on any data-driven science whatsoever, but rather a political philosophy, which signals a new and disturbing change from within the AVMA organization.

This change is one clearly aligned with a political agenda and reveals the drive to “harmonize” animal welfare laws and policies with those found abroad, (UK, EU, AU, NZ) here in the United States.

In other words – the globalization of the animal rights agenda is within reach and proponents seek to impose its extremist philosophy upon the citizens of the United States via the AVMA.

Most alarming is the fact that the AVMA, an organization which purports to be an “authoritative, science-based resource for animal welfare”, has now departed from its standard of veterinary and journalistic ethics by publishing a biased position, one which lacks any basis in science, an action which seriously undermines the public trust.

While a complete summary our research can be found in the Addendum to this document, we note the following:

NONE of the citations used by the AVMA contain any empirical, science-based or data-based evidence whatsoever

Most of the authors cited by the AVMA show a clear bias for an “animal rights” agenda

Many of the AVMA citations date to the 19th century, when medicine in general, let alone veterinary medicine, was practiced without the benefit of sterile instruments or in sterile environments

None of the contemporary veterinary citations used by the AVMA originate in the United States

The Reverse Onus In “AVMA Guidelines For Response”

The “AVMA Guidelines For Response” – sent to the American Rottweiler Club by the AVMA – contain the singular yet disingenuous requirement that anyone opposing or challenging the AVMA Revised Policy on Ear Cropping and Tail Docking must supply “data-based evidence” (as compared to anecdotal opinion) that “supports the practices of tail docking and ear cropping as “cosmetic procedures”.

By its own admission, the AVMA is fully aware that no such data-based evidence exists – because no studies have been conducted to support the therapeutic value of “cosmetic” procedures – i.e. cropping or docking of dogs.

Yet, the AVMA has set the submission of such “data-based evidence” to be the only means by which the AVMA will consider any request for a revision to the policy.

Such a requirement might be analogous to the famous directive in the Wizard of Oz, in which the wizard utters “Bring Me The Broom of The Wicked Witch Of The West”, clearly setting a task which is deemed a failure from the start.

By requiring that one must PROVE the existence of research that does not exist, the AVMA has thereby created a reverse onus.

This seems more an act of backroom political manipulations, one designed to squash any legitimate criticism, rather than a sincere effort coming from an organization founded for the purpose of advancing science and ethics in the practice of veterinary medicine.

The AVMA Sets Double Standard For Dissenting Groups

The American Rottweiler Club is submitting this letter to the Animal Welfare Committee in an earnest and sincere effort to appeal this revision of policy.

However, we have found that the parameters set by the AVMA for submissions of opposition to be quite disingenuous.

This is due to the fact that the AVMA has set a higher and different standard of measure against which the Animal Welfare Committee would judge the merits of a possible review of those in dissent, while at the same time lowering or eliminating the application of those same standards when applied to itself.

Again, we are specifically referring to the requirement that those in opposition “supply data-based evidence”, when none exists.

Therefore, the AVMA has knowingly set a task which cannot be accomplished by any organization which disagrees with or challenges the AVMA policy – because such research does not exist, for or against.

Transparency & Composition Of AVMA’s Animal Welfare Committee & Subcommittees

In making this policy revision, we naturally asked the questions, “How was this decision made?” and “Who at the AVMA made this decision?” and “Whose interest does this decision serve?”

The answers to Who, How and Why, we’re told by the AVMA in the context of the AVMA Guidelines For Response, is that recommended revisions to policy are made:

1. After completion of literature reviews by the Animal Welfare Committee (or subcommittee)
2. Followed by deliberations by an assigned subcommittee of the Animal Welfare Committee
3. Followed by deliberations by the full Animal Welfare Committee
4. Followed by submissions of the subcommittee to the Executive Board

In addition to the professional community, the AVMA serves the public interest – and in doing so, has an ethical obligation to ensure that its organizational structure is fully transparent.

Such transparency is necessary to ensure that policies and position statements are made in the interest of the science of animal welfare, and not in the interest of special groups. As to Why and How the committee came to decide upon the revised cropping and docking policy:

“As part of the review of the 1999 policy, which began more than 18 months ago, the committee and the Animal Welfare Division searched the scientific literature for evidence showing cosmetic ear crops of dogs have therapeutic effects. That search revealed that justifications for the procedures lacked substantial scientific support, with the exception of some suggestive, but inconclusive, data related to German Shorthaired Pointers before and after a docking ban in Sweden, Dr. Golab said.”

We therefore ask the AVMA the following questions:

Who sits on the AVMA Animal Welfare Committee?

Who sits on the AVMA Animal Welfare Subcommittee?

How many members sit on each committee?

What is the composition of the committees – how many veterinarians versus the number of allied professionals or laypeople

What are the organizational affiliations of the committee members?

Transparency & Composition Of AVMA’s Animal Welfare Committee & Subcommittees – cont’d.

In the interest of transparency, we respectfully ask the AVMA to release for the record, the names of the members of both the AVMA Animal Welfare Committee and the “assigned subcommittee” who served to recommend the policy change on ear cropping and tail docking.

In terms of the history of this committee, on January 15, 2005, JAVMA News reported that then president, Dr. Bonnie Beaver instituted the creation of the Animal Welfare Division, Animal Welfare Advisory Committee, “intended to be a ‘visionary group’ that would advise the Executive Board about future welfare issues”.

Consisting of five voting members appointed by the Executive Board, at least three members must be veterinarians, which infers that there are members who are not veterinarians, assembled to “judge proposed animal welfare position statements and resolutions”, “recommend positions or actions”, and “work with the animal welfare committees of allied organizations”.

We also respectfully ask the AVMA to make full disclosure regarding this committee.

AVMA Defines ALL Docking & Cropping As “Cosmetic”

The revised AVMA policy – by default – now defines all cropping and docking procedures to be “cosmetic” – a position which has no basis in science.

“The AVMA opposes ear cropping and tail docking of dogs when done solely
for cosmetic purposes. The AVMA encourages the elimination of ear cropping
and tail docking from breed standards”.

AVMA Policy: Ear Cropping and Tail Docking of Dogs
(Oversight: AWC; HOD 07/1999, EB revised 11/2008)

This simple-sounding statement may sound innocuous on the surface. It is nothing of the sort. n It holds a deep well of consequences for animals, animal owners, and the veterinary profession, both intended and unintended.

AVMA Position Lacks Scientific Support

We respectfully point out to the AVMA that there is a lack of scientific support regarding the procedures – both for and against ear cropping & tail docking” – period.

Defending the revised policy, the AVMA stated,

“The basis of the policy’s most recent revision wasn’t just someone’s
unsubstantiated opinion,” Dr. Golab said. “The results of the committee’s
scientific review provide good justification for the policy. Any policy that
comes out of the AVMA will be a combination of professional opinion,
practical experience, and what we know about the science. In this
case, the science appears to lend clear support to the policy.”

Ear crop, tail dock policy not a radical departure, AVMA says
Science doesn’t show therapeutic benefits of cosmetic procedures
- AVMA News, March 15, 2009

We respectfully but adamantly disagree with Dr. Golab’s statement above. Having conducted a thorough review of the veterinary literature:

1. We find that the basis for the AVMA revised position IS unsubstantiated opinion – albeit a published unsubstantiated opinion.

2. We find the results of the committee’s “scientific review” do not provide justification for the change in policy due to the fact that there is no data-based science to support the AVMA position – only opinion, and primarily the opinion of anti-docking, animal rights activists.

3. We find that the basis for formulating AVMA policy as stated above – “professional opinion, practical experience and what we know about science”, to be extremely vague and lacking the basic foundation of true, empirical data-driven science.

4. We find that science does NOT support this AVMA policy.

By its own admission, the AVMA recognizes the lack of any scientific studies with regard to cropping and docking, stating “the practice has been the subject of very few controlled studies comparing otherwise equivalent dogs whose tails are docked or undocked”.

AVMA Backgrounder: Welfare Implications Of Dogs: Tail Docking
(October 13,/2008)

WELFARE CONCERNS—RISKS
The welfare issues surrounding tail docking have been extensively reviewed,1,2,3,4
but the practice has been the subject of very few controlled studies comparing otherwise equivalent dogs whose tails are docked or undocked.

http://www.avma.org/issues/animal_welfare/dogs_tail_docking_bgnd.asp

In fact, NONE of the AVMA referenced citations listed as sources in the AVMA Backgrounder: Welfare Implications Of Dogs: Tail Docking refer to any controlled studies whatsoever.

The truth is that no research has ever been conducted in this area to prove or disprove the “therapeutic” value of ear crops or tail docks, and any inference by the AVMA that such procedures are harmful or cruel are false and misleading.

We respectfully request that if the AVMA has knowledge of any controlled studies comparing the differences between docked and undocked dogs, that the AVMA make full disclosure of this critical information.

“There have been no scientific studies or double blind trials conducted to compare the effects of tail docking in one sample of dogs with a similar sample of undocked dogs. Similarly, there have been no studies to measure the initial pain and the ongoing pathological pain inflicted on docked dogs”.

Robert Wansborough, Australian Veterinarian & Anti-Docking Activist
AVMA Welfare Implications of Dogs: Tail Docking Oct. 13, 2008 – Citation # 3

Furthermore, there is no compelling evidence anywhere in the world, nor in any repository of veterinary literature, which proves that docked dogs suffer from pain, impaired ability to communicate with humans or other dogs, or that they suffer behavioral or emotional issues, or a loss of balance.

We therefore submit that there exists no data-based, empirical evidence “proving” that ear crops or tail docks cause pain, increase risk of infection, prevent or inhibit communication or locomotion, or are in any other way, detrimental to dogs.

AVMA Position Aligns With Animal Rights Groups

While the AVMA claims not to support one side or the other in issues, we have noted that this particular AVMA revision in policy signals a troubling change within the organization.

The March 15, 2009 edition of the JAVMA News contained an article which was clearly intended to defend its newly revised position from critics, especially those making the obvious connection between the AVMA and the radical Animal Rights agenda of anti-cropping and anti-docking.

The JAVMA News article entitled, “Ear crop, tail dock policy not a radical departure, AVMA says” (http://www.avma.org/onlnews/javma/mar09/090315c.asp) also contains the sub-headline, “Science doesn’t show the therapeutic benefits of cosmetic procedures”.

It opens with a mention that the Humane Society of the United States, an animal rights lobbying group, commending the AVMA for its stance and outlines the history of the policy, and how the Animal Welfare Committee came to review the position.

Perhaps to justify its new position, the AVMA prominently featured a quote from a letter to the JAVMA editor by Dr. Barbara Hodges on behalf of the Humane Society VMA,

“It is a strong statement in opposition to these procedures when performed for nontherapeutic purposes,” wrote Dr. Barbara Hodges.

Notably absent from this JAVMA News article was an opposing point of view, along with balance. Such balance is an ethical necessity in journalism – whether published in a professional journal such as JAVMA or in public-facing media such as the New York Times.

The exclusion of other points of view, make clear the direction in which the AVMA seems headed. Along with the AVMA, other groups that oppose ear cropping and tail docking include:

 People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals
 Humane Society of the United States
 Association of Veterinarians for Animal Rights
 In Defense of Animals

In 2008, the Association of Veterinarians for Animal Rights “combined” – or merged with the Humane Society of the United States to form the Humane Society VMA.

Humane Society of the United States = Association of Veterinarians or Animal Rights.

New name, same agenda.

According to past JAVMA News articles, the Humane Society VMA (Association of Veterinarians for Animal Rights) now submits resolutions to the AVMA for consideration on a regular basis.

ARC Rejects Tail Docking Myths Unsupported By Science

As the AVMA’s own citations show, no “data-based evidence” exists regarding tail docking.

The American Rottweiler Club rejects the hyper-inflated claims of extremist groups seeking to advance a legislative agenda of anti-cropping/anti-docking measures.

Unfounded claims by these groups include animal cruelty, extreme pain, risk of infection, impairment of locomotion, impairment of communication, and so on.

There is a complete lack of any proof period, and none of these “conditions” have been the experience of breeders, or the veterinarians who have cared for the millions of cropped and docked dogs over the course of the last century.

Comparison Of Tail Docking To Other “Non-Theraputic” Procedures

If there was a procedure to be singled out for comparison on the issues of pain, risk of infection, length of recovery – and a lack of therapeutic effect – it would be spay/neuter surgeries.

The veterinary literature is overwhelmingly conclusive in finding that spay and neuter is not therapeutic in nature, but rather is detrimental to the health and welfare of the dogs, causing some cancers, hormonal interruptions, aggressive behavior and other maladies attributed to the spaying or neutering of dogs.

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.

JAVMA News: EXECUTIVE BOARDCOVERAGE (May 15, 2009)
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

Science has indeed shown that animals undergoing such procedures suffer pain, are at increased risk of infection, experience extended recovery times and also suffer a host of ill-effects.

Will then the AVMA revise its existing policy, to recommend the elimination of spay/neuter surgeries as procedures done purely for the benefit of humans, with little or no therapeutic value?

AVMA Materials Are Misleading
The AVMA has published several papers on its website regarding cropping and docking which contain false and misleading information. The American Rottweiler Club, having researched each and every citation presented by the AVMA, concludes that the information the AVMA presents is misleading, at best.

While a full list of the citations is found in the addendum, we call your attention to the alarming number of misleading citations contained just in one document alone.

AVMA Welfare Implications of Dogs: Tail Docking (Oct. 2008)

Written by the AVMA’s Animal Welfare Committee,

A full audit of each of the references cited by the AVMA is included in this document.

In the paragraph below is an excerpt of the AVMA Welfare Implications of Dogs: Tail Docking (Oct. 2008), in which the AVMA deliberately infers that tail docking is considered unacceptable by most veterinarians and the public:

LEGISLATION AND ACCEPTABILITY
Across a range of countries routine docking is considered unacceptable by most veterinarians (83 to 92%9,10) and the general public (68 to 88%11). In contrast, many breeders with a prior commitment to this practice12 remain in favor of tail docking (84 to 87%13,).

After reading the paragraph above, most readers would conclude that both the veterinary community AND the public – including those here in the UNITED STATES – view routine docking as “unacceptable” by large margins – 83 to 92% for veterinarians and 68 to 88% for the public.

The above section of this AVMA publication is misleading.

The AVMA presents this information A) as if this was true in the United States and B) as if the AVMA had firsthand experience of this study by presenting this information in the context of being written by the AVMA itself – seemingly to represent those views to include those held in United States.

But most readers would be shocked to learn that the percentages quoted by the AVMA in the paragraph above have NOTHING to do with any survey of the views of the veterinary community here in the United States, nor does it represent the views of the public here in the United States.

Instead, this paragraph deceptively refers to two highly disputed surveys in Australia and the UK.

The AVMA writes that “routine docking is considered unacceptable by most veterinarians (83 to 92%9,10) and the general public (68 to 88%11).

Other misleading citations in this AVMA document refer to:

 Citation #9 refers to a 1996 article in the Australian Veterinary Journal by three activist veterinarians, seeking to support the enactment of anti-docking legislation. The article was entitled, “Tail docking in dogs: a sample of attitudes of veterinarians and dog breeders in Queensland.

 Citation #10 refers to a 1992 survey of a small sample British veterinarians – just 25% of small animal veterinarians – a survey which was highly contested by the UK’s Council of Docked Breeds for being driven by animal rights extremists at the RSPCA http://www.cdb.org/vets/bsava.htm According to the UK Council of Docked Breeds, this sample was too narrow to accurately represent the views of the majority of veterinarians in the UK.

 Citation #11 refers to another poll (highly contested by the NZ Council of Docked Breeds) conducted by the vegan/animal rights activists at the New Zealand SPCA NZ SPCA (Expose Animal Cruelty – Open Your Fridge) which allegedly showed public support for a ban on tail docking in the 2005 document, “Submission to Government Administration Committee”, another effort in to push through a tail docking ban in that country http://rnzspca.org.nz/images/stories/submissions/submission-taildocking_bill.pdf The sample size of the NZ SPCA survey is not mentioned, nor are any other survey details, (age, how/when/where conducted, survey demographics, etc.)

The AVMA then writes, “In contrast, many breeders with a prior commitment to this practice12 remain in favor of tail docking (84 to 87%13,)”, which refers to:

 Citation #12 refers to a 2003 article by Australian anti-docking supporters Bennett and Perini in the Australian Veterinary Journal entitled, “Tail docking in dogs: can attitude change be achieved?” Neither Patricia Bennett or E. Perini are veterinarians, but psychologists.

 Citation #13 refers to a survey by UK Council of Docked Breeds that is no longer available on the web.
This AVMA publication, Welfare Implications of Dogs: Tail Docking (Oct. 2008), was written and “prepared as a service by the American Veterinary Medical Association’s Animal Welfare Division”.

AVMA Position Is Foundation For Anti-Cropping & Anti-Docking Legislation

The AVMA revision of policy has now set in motion a tremendous surge of anti-cropping, anti- docking legislation, driven largely by the HSUS lobbying machine.

These HSUS backed-bills have has been quickly introduced into several state legislatures, including the AVMA’s home state of Illinois. Samples of anti-cropping/anti-docking legislation proposed include:

ILLINOIS

Illinois bill introduced to State Legislation making cropping & docking a crime, defining it as not just animal abuse, but torture.

NEW YORK

New York state bill making it a crime to show any dog that has been docked, thereby greatly reducing, if not eliminating, the hundreds of dog shows held annually throughout New York State.

CALIFORNIA

California state bill making it a crime to dock cattle, a strategy which will no doubt seek to expand language to include other species – such as dogs – and thereby accomplishing the anti-docking objective of animal rights extremist through the backdoor.

PENNSYLVANIA

Pennsylvania state bill codifying the criminalization of possession of a cropped or docked dog as prima facie evidence of a crime unless in possession of a “certificate”. Debarking, declawing and surgical births are also included.

AVMA Invites Government Interference In Practice Of Veterinary Medicine

In revising its position on ear cropping and tail docking, the AVMA has also set the stage for government interference in the private practice of veterinary medicine.

The resulting spate of legislation based on AVMA policy which in turn criminalizes the procedures, will no doubt have a chilling effect on the performance of ear cropping and tail docking– which seems the intent of the AVMA policy.

But 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 practice that constitutes “abuse, torture or animal cruelty”.

If such government interference is allowed to take hold, which veterinary procedures will next be 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, all based on questionable AVMA policy?

Such policy is folly, and can only lead to great harm to animals, pet owners and to the veterinarians themselves.

AVMA Position – Criminalizing Veterinary Medicine & Practitioners

In revising its position on cropping and docking, the AVMA surely has considered the impact that the resulting anti-cropping & docking legislation will have upon the larger, mainstream, professional veterinary community.

As has been the case in the UK, and other countries where anti-docking measures have passed, anti-docking proponents have injected severe penalties into legislation which severely punish the veterinary professionals who perform these procedures.

Professional veterinary associations abroad have even charged veterinarians with professional misconduct, imposing fines, loss of licensure and pressing for criminal prosecutions.

In light of these realities, the American Rottweiler Club is seeking a direct answer from the AVMA on behalf of its members and the veterinarians that care for our breed:

QUESTION A:
Does the AVMA support the criminalization of these lawful veterinary procedures, and does the AVMA support the soon-to-follow criminalization of the professional community they represent?

QUESTION B :
Does the AVMA support sanctioning veterinarians with crimes of professional misconduct, including fines and loss of licenses for performing such procedures?

QUESTION C:
Does the AVMA support the criminal prosecution of veterinarians who perform cropping & docking procedures, including the penalties of fines and jail time?

AVMA Position – Interferes With Private Relationships With Veterinary Healthcare Providers

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

However, the revised AVMA policy – regardless of the status of any legislation – will now significantly interfere with the private and protected relationship between an animal owner and his or her veterinary healthcare provider.

As noted by the Utah VMA, it is not for the AVMA to decide which surgeries pet owners want or do not want for their pets – as these are decisions that are best made privately by pet owners and their veterinarians.

AVMA Position – Criminalizes Dog Ownership

As evidenced by the surge in anti-cropping/anti-docking bills before numerous state legislatures, the AVMA position change on ear cropping and tail docking has already had the impact of swiftly criminalizing the ownership of cropped or docked dogs.

These laws create an entire criminal class out of law-abiding pet owners who are your clients, as consumers of veterinary medical services.

We have detailed the legal impact of revised AVMA policy on dog owners below.

AVMA Position – Eliminating Presumption Of Innocence

Legislation based on revised AVMA policy eliminates the presumption of innocence making all dog owners of “cropped or docked dogs” automatically guilty – possession of a cropped or docked dog is prima facie evidence of a violation of law.

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 – but to do so based on a lack of data-driven scientific evidence is unthinkable.

We 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.

AVMA Position – Proxy For Warrantless Search & Seizure

It should be noted that legislation based on revised AVMA policy contains the proxy for warrantless searches and seizures, which seriously compromises the constitutional protections to which all citizens are entitled – under the guise of animal protection.

Civil liberties groups and criminal defense attorneys should be alerted to the fact that such legislation is a smokescreen to lower the threshold of evidence needed to support the issuance of search warrants.

AVMA Position – Lowers Thresholds of Evidence For Probable Cause

Furthermore, the issuance of any warrants, arrests or other violations of law would be based on a visual ID that the alleged dogs have cropped ears or docked tails.

Would it then not be a case of “probable cause” for law enforcement personnel to demand that pet owners produce a “certificate” that shows said dog’s minor surgical procedure – crop/dock – was performed by a “licensed, trained veterinarian? These are already being proposed in some states, Pennsylvania being but one example.

A) the evidentiary basis for “probable cause” is the visual ID of a Rottweiler or Welsh Corgi with a docked tail

B) this “probable cause” is nothing more than proxy for warrantless searches by local animal control or police

C) such proxies would be the basis for bypassing Due Process:

SENARIO A: Warrantless Search of Premises

The mere possession of cropped or docked dogs would now constitute a criminal act, thus allowing law enforcement officers access to a premises without a warrant.

EXAMPLE: A police officer drives by a home and sees dogs with cropped ears staked in the yard. The officer identifies the dogs as “cropped”, the presence of which is “illegal”. The dog owner is presumed guilty of a criminal act. The police officer now may access the premises and bypasses the need for a search warrant.

SCENARIO B: Warrantless Searches – Traffic Stops

Driving with a cropped or docked dog – or “showdogs” – in a car constitutes a criminal act unless said owner can produce a “certificate” of legal cropping or docking

EXAMPLE: A police officer on highway patrol or traffic duty sees a car with a dog inside. The officer has no probable cause for a traffic stop (speeding, seat belt or other violations).The officer (subjectively) identifies the dogs as a “docked dogs”, the presence of which is “illegal”.

The dog owner is presumed guilty of a criminal act. The police officer now has “cause” for a traffic stop.

AVMA Position: Basis For Violations Of Equal Protection
Legislation based on the AVMA revised policy also sets the stage for violations of Equal Protection.

Owners of “targeted breeds – i.e. cropped or docked breeds, such as the Rottweiler or American Pit Bull Terrier – will be subject to a different and higher legal standard than other dog-owning citizens, which is then subjectively and/or arbitrarily applied.

The Equal Protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment protects against arbitrary government action by requiring similar treatment of those who are similarly situated.

Such legislation clearly violates Equal Protection by singling out owners of multiple “cropped or docked breeds”, and granting exemptions to those “similarly situated.”

As in the case of breed specific legislation, anti-docking proponents have not proven, nor cannot prove, a rational or legal basis upon which to base these provisions, given the fact that no data-based, scientific evidence exists to support such laws.

This scenario also begs the question,

“Are owners of dogs with natural ears or tails entitled to any greater Constitutional protections than owners of cropped or docked dogs”?

It is the position of the American Rottweiler Club that all dog owners are entitled to Equal Protection under the law.

AVMA Position: Fosters Selective Enforcement
However, there is an even greater risk in legislation based on AVMA policy as it relates to Unequal Protection.

There is a pervasive myth, perpetuated throughout the media, that the majority of Rottweiler owners or even owners of “pit bull type dogs” are “gang members, criminals, and drug dealers”.

This notion is completely unsubstantiated and without merit. However, this viewpoint is interpreted by most to mean that Rottweilers or “pit bull dogs” are owned by those in certain segments of society.

It then becomes a question of which dog owners will be selectively targeted for enforcement and prosecution by local authorities, and to what extent will law enforcement engage in “profiling”.

Clearly, legislation based on AVMA revised policy leaves the door open to abuse of powers by local law enforcement officials and creates a number of questions.

For instance:

 Will minority or poor dog owners be targeted for enforcement over non-minority or middle class dog owners?

 Will owners of hunting dogs or American Pit Bull Terriers be targeted for enforcement?

 Will anti-cropping/anti-docking legislation be used to dispense with evidence thresholds necessary to establish probable cause as in the case of breed-specific legislation, and thereby create a proxy to bypass Due Process?

AVMA – Is Global Harmonization Harmful To “Good” Science?

It’s clear that on a global basis, the anti-cropping/anti-docking movement led by extremist groups has been successful in the banning and criminalization of these procedures

And insofar as AVMA positions and publications are concerned, the AVMA has relied heavily on these anti-cropping/anti-docking sources abroad as the basis upon which to predicate the change in position.

The addition of Dr. Emily Patterson-Kane in 2007 to the AVMA’s Animal Welfare Division seems to have directly influenced the content of the papers published by the AVMA on the subject of cropping and tail docking.

Hired in 2007, Dr. Patterson-Kane, a New Zealand native, holds a PhD in animal psychology from Victoria University in Wellington. Her research interests include human judgments of animal welfare.
Dr. Patterson-Kane sees her mission as one that brings change to the AVMA.

“I guess I understand that I have my position on animal welfare issues, and the AVMA has theirs. I came on board to be part of a shift within the AVMA that reflects and promotes a shift in the veterinary p

- Dr. Emily PattersonKane, Dolittler: An interview with AVMA animal welfare insider Emily Patterson-Kane, PhD

Dr. Patterson-Kane works as a member of the three-person team on AVMA’s Animal Welfare Division, directed by Dr Gail Golab, the very same division which is directly responsible for the preparation of the AVMA’s publications, Welfare Implications of Dogs: Tail Docking, and AVMA FAQ’s: Tail Docking, which contain arguably misleading information and citations.

Of note – there is not a single U.S. based study or paper amongst the AVMA citations, most of which rely heavily upon those by animal rights activists veterinarians in the UK, Australia and New Zealand.

We also note that Dr. W. Ron DeHaven, CEO, and Dr. Gail Golab, Animal Welfare Division, were among “more than 400 veterinarians, government officials, humane group representatives, and industry representatives who met to discuss animal welfare standards” at the second global animal welfare conference of the World Organization for Animal Health (OIE) held in Cairo, Egypt, as reported in the December 15, 2008 JAVMA News.

Is the AVMA sacrificing sound science in the drive for global harmonization?

The drive for the globalization of animal welfare is evident. The American Rottweiler Club fully supports initiatives to improve animal welfare, but rejects the importation of animal rights philosophy under the guise of animal welfare.

AVMA HOD Resolution 4 – Same Intent, Different Language

Recognizing the inherent flaws of the current AVMA cropping and docking policy, the Utah Veterinary Medical Association offered the following formal resolution to re-revise the language of the AVMA position of Ear Cropping and Tail Docking, as reported in the June 15, 2009 edition of JAVMA News:

Revise Policy on Ear Cropping and Tail Docking of Dogs
“RESOLVED, that the American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) revise the AVMA policy on Ear Cropping and Tail Docking of Dogs as indicated below (deletions are struckthrough and additions are underlined):”

Ear Cropping and Tail Docking of Dogs
The AVMA opposes ear cropping and tail docking of dogs when done solely for cosmetic purposes. Although cosmetic ear cropping and tail docking of dogs has little or no therapeutic basis, it is a procedure that is condoned by the American Kennel Club and by many members of society. It is imperative that the procedures be performed by trained, licensed, and caring veterinarians using current standard of care. The AVMA encourages the elimination of ear cropping and tail docking from in breed standards. Members of the AVMA will conform to all state mandates concerning the procedures.

Resolution 4 gives the HOD a chance to weigh in on the recently revised AVMA policy. In November 2008, the Executive Board amended the policy to state that the AVMA opposes these procedures when done solely for cosmetic purposes. In addition, the amended policy encourages the elimination of ear cropping and tail docking from breed standards.

The Utah VMA proposes amending the policy to, among other things, retract AVMA opposition to the procedures.
The Utah VMA writes in the resolution background that the Executive Board action was made without input from the HOD. The board was within its purview to do so, but the revised policy took a “much more hard line slant” than earlier iterations on the matter, which included warnings about the risks of cosmetic ear crops and tail docks, the Utah VMA wrote.

Society has mixed feelings about the procedures, which are minor surgeries, relatively safe, and cause little discomfort to the animals, the Utah VMA continued. Moreover, public demand for ear crops and tail docks is high, and many AVMA members continue performing the procedures.

“The issue for the AVMA is not to decide what surgery pet owners want or do not want for their pets, but rather to be sure all surgical procedures performed by licensed veterinarians are with proper protocol and proper postoperative care,” the association wrote.

Veterinarians are not compelled to perform the procedures, the Utah VMA added, and the resolution indicates only that these procedures should be performed by licensed professionals who are willing and able to do them.

AVMA HOD Resolution 4 – Same Intent, Different Language – cont’d.

The American Rottweiler Club is in agreement with the Utah VMA on the following points:

 That cropping or docking procedures are minor surgeries, relatively safe, and cause little discomfort to the animals

 Many AVMA members continue performing the procedures

 The issue for the AVMA is not to decide what surgery pet owners want or do not want for their pets

 Veterinarians are not compelled to perform the procedures

However, in actuality AVMA HOD Resolution 4 is nothing more than doublespeak or “smoke and mirrors” – a diversion designed to appease critics – it contains nearly identical language and carries the same intent of the AVMA policy – the elimination and criminalization of ear cropping and tail docking.

1. UTAH VMA “Although cosmetic ear cropping and tail docking of dogs has little or no therapeutic basis”.

ISSUE: HOD Resolution 4 leaves intact the de facto definition that such procedures are merely “cosmetic” and hold little or no therapeutic value.

2. UTAH VMA “it is a procedure that is condoned by the American Kennel Club and by many members of society”.

ISSUE HOD Resolution 4 marginalizes the procedures through use of the word “condoned”.

3. UTAH VMA “It is imperative that the procedures be performed by trained, licensed, and caring veterinarians using current standard of care”.

ISSUE HOD Resolution 4, left open to interpretation by an uninformed public or policymakers – will exclude skilled and knowledgeable laypeople and leave puppies at risk due to lack of understanding.

4. UTAH VMA “The AVMA encourages the elimination of ear cropping and tail docking from in breed standards.”

ISSUE HOD Resolution 4 STILL supports the AVMA position of the elimination of all ear cropping and tail docking.

5. UTAH VMA ”Members of the AVMA will conform to all state mandates concerning the procedures”.

ISSUE HOD Resolution 4 still provides the basis for and supports the criminalization and prosecution of veterinarians who perform these procedures.

Legal, Moral & Ethical Considerations For The AVMA
The impact of the AVMA’s revised position on ear cropping and tail docking is fraught with issues, and leaves open the real questions about the responsibility the AVMA must bear for the intended or unintended consequences which will result.

There are also numerous legal, moral and ethical considerations which seem to have been ignored.

With all due respect, and considering the absolute fact that no data-driven science exists to support the AVMA’s revised position on cropping and docking, we ask the AVMA and the Animal Welfare Committee to answer the following questions:

A. Is it ethical for a science-based organization such as the AVMA to base policy on a lack of data-driven science? What does this bode for the future of the organization, its membership and pet owners?

B. Does the AVMA have a moral obligation to uphold the tenets of science, or will the AVMA bow to popular opinion or politically correct philosophy to drive other policy decisions as well?

C. What are the potential legal ramifications of AVMA policy based on the opinions of animal rights extremists rather than data-driven science?

The Future Of Our Breed
What is the future of the Rottweiler and the future of all cropped or docked breeds?

In revising policy to define ALL crop/dock procedures as “cosmetic” and in doing so, clearly using citations that a) lack any empirical research and b) are drawn from sources that support the animal rights agenda, the AVMA has signaled support to see these procedures defined as animal cruelty or even torture – and ownership of cropped or docked dogs defined as a criminal offense.

As one of its primary functions, the American Rottweiler Club is charged with safeguarding the Rottweiler breed and the breed standard, and upholding high standards of animal welfare and care for our dogs.

We cannot allow the future of the Rottweiler, or our breed standard, to be rewritten by the AVMA, in the context of policies clearly lacking empirical support, yet call for the elimination of tail docking in our breed. Nor can we allow special interest organizations to dictate legislation, with the help of the AVMA under the guise of this biased policy.

Should the AVMA continue to follow the lead of animal rights activists calling for anti-cropping/anti-docking legislation in UK, Australia and New Zealand, and the EU, then the very future of our breed – and all cropped or docked breeds – is at stake.

Equally concerning is the AVMA globalization strategy, which seeks to align policy and position with policies in the UK, Australia, New Zealand and the EU.

Following the successful passage of anti-cropping, anti-docking legislation and policy, animal rights campaigners in the UK, Australia, New Zealand, and the EU have now moved on to attacking breeding practices as cruel and inhumane.

We must wonder, then, if supporting such positions is in fact laying the foundation for the future of the AVMA, one in which the purposeful breeding of dogs would be considered cruel and/or inhumane.

If this is to be the case, the future ownership of pets, and indeed all animals, is at stake.

The Future Of The AVMA
In the past, the American Veterinary Medical Association has been an institution which has facilitated the profession of veterinary medicine, and has acted as the repository of thought, research and analysis based in science.

To quote AVMA CEO, Dr. W. Ron DeHaven,

“Among the most important responsibilities that veterinarians have in development and implementation of animal welfare standards is to ensure those standards are science-based and that consideration has been given to interactions among the various components of animal care systems.”

We couldn’t agree more with Dr. DeHaven – animal welfare standards MUST be science-based.

However, we must share our concern that if, by sending science-based standards to the wayside in favor of political correctness, AVMA policies are to be incrementally rewritten to support and advance the animal rights agenda, then the trust and esteem which was well-placed in the AVMA by our organization and others would be seriously undermined.

We feel strongly that the future of the AVMA must include an inalienable duty to ensure that policies and positions are based on a standard of fair and unbiased science.

Anything less undermines the confidence of all stakeholders and constituents in the objectivity of your organization.

Formal Request For Revision Of Tail Docking Policy
The American Rottweiler Club formally requests that the American Veterinary Medical Association immediately revise its current policy on tail docking.

This formal request for revision meets and exceeds the “AVMA Guidelines For Response”, and is accompanied by the full scope of research and analysis of the literature concerning this issue, which clearly shows all such published papers lack the “data-based evidence” that the AVMA “requires” for policy revisions.

Furthermore, having conducted an intensive research study, we find that the AVMA has relied solely on the use of anecdotal opinions of contemporary animal rights extremists as well as the outdated, historical references illegitimately used to convey the inference that the AVMA relied on “science” to support its position – science which does not exist.

The American Rottweiler Club rejects the categorization of tail docking as “cosmetic” surgery, as well as future criminalization of the procedure or the ownership of docked dogs.

We therefore respectfully request that the AVMA reconsider and review its most recent revision to its Tail Docking Policy, based on the information presented herein, including but not limited to:

 the lack of empirical data to support the position

 the use of anecdotal opinion

 the sources cited by the AVMA in support of this new revision are overwhelmingly from animal rights campaigners in other countries who have led the anti-crop/dock movement abroad, resulting in the criminalization of the procedures and criminalization of ownership of cropped or docked dogs

The American Rottweiler Club urges the American Veterinary Medical Association, and the esteemed members of the Animal Welfare Committee, and the Executive Board, to act appropriately and responsibly, using data-driven science to develop or revise positions which so greatly influence the members of the public, the press, and policymakers.

FREE DOWNLOAD OF ENTIRE ARC SPECIAL REPORT – CLICK THE ADD TO CART BUTTON BELOW