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.

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.

Mr. Neal Williams
Village of Rantoul Mayor
333 South Tanner
Rantoul, IL 61866

Dear Village of Rantoul Mayor Williams,

The American Rottweiler Club (ARC) is the American Kennel Club Parent Club of the Rottweiler in the United States with 1000 members, many of whom live in Illinois.  As the Parent Club, ARC promotes conformation, obedience, rally, agility, herding, carting, therapy, search and rescue, tracking, etc.

We support and encourage efforts to improve public perception of the Rottweiler through proper training, socialization, and participation in programs such as therapy dog work, school education, and other activities that demonstrate positive Rottweiler traits, as well as through publicizing good deeds performed by Rottweilers.

Rottweilers searched the remains of the Twin Towers in New York City and the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City.  Rottweilers are doing classes in responsible dog ownership in elementary schools.  Rottweilers live as members of families.

All the while responsible owners work diligently to protect and preserve the right to own this wonderful companion breed by working to promote laws that are non-breed specific.

The American Rottweiler Club Board and Membership is opposed to the proposed breed specific ban as well as responsible owner limitations per home.

Strategies that can be used in an effort to prevent dog bites include enforcement of generic, non-breed-specific dangerous dog laws, with an emphasis on chronically irresponsible owners; enforcement of animal control ordinances such as leash laws; prohibition of dog fighting; and school-based and adult education programs that teach pet selection, pet care and responsible ownership.

Please contact me and the American Rottweiler Club Board with any questions that you might have concerning the Rottweiler.  We will be happy to respond in any way to help you.

Sincerely,
Gwen Chaney
President
American Rottweiler Club, Inc.

email:  GAChaney2@aol.com
www.amrottclub.org

The Honorable Lisa Gladden
Vice-Chair, Senate Judicial Proceedings Committee
Maryland Senate
2 East Miller Senate Bldg.
110 College Avenue
Annapolis, MD 21401-1991

RE:  Maryland SB 318 – Opposed

Dear Senator Gladden and Respected Members of the Maryland Senate Judicial Proceedings 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 Maryland SB 318, A Bill That Criminalizes The Ownership and Limits The Possession of Breeding Dogs.

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 Maryland SB 318 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.

SB 318 is not only irresponsible, and sets a dangerous precedent for the type and scope of legislation, and exceeds the legal and constitutional scope of state legislatures.

In addition:

 SB 318 criminalizes dog ownership
 SB 318 fails to improve upon existing animal cruelty statues
 SB 318 places arbitrary limits on animal ownership
 SB 318 deprives dog-owing citizens of Due Process & Equal Protection
 SB 318 creates a proxy for warrantless searches and seizures
 SB 318 threatens animal agriculture & food production

SB 318 – Criminalizing Dog Ownership

It is abundantly clear that the intent of this bill is to criminalize 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:

FOR the purpose of prohibiting a person from owning, possessing, controlling, Or otherwise having custody of more than a certain number of breeding dogs at anytime;

We take exception to the very language of SB 318, which alludes to “possession of intact dogs” as if intact dogs were in nature a dangerous, illegal substance, such as crack cocaine – and needing to be heavily regulated as illegal drugs.

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

SB 318 – Criminalizing Dog Breeding

SB 318 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 Maryland’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.

Constitutionality Of Imposing Limits On Animal Ownership

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

Maryland SB 318 states,

10–624.C) A PERSON MAY NOT OWN, POSSESS, CONTROL, OR OTHERWISE HAVE CHARGE OR CUSTODY OF MORE THAN 50 BREEDING DOGS OVER THE AGE OF 4 MONTHS AT ANY TIME.

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.

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 Maryland be abridged, and is it the intent o f SB 318 to deprive such citizens not only of Due Process but Equal Protection as well?

Unintended Consequences Of SB 318’s  Limits On Animal Ownership

In placing arbitrary and highly subjective limits on animal ownership in the State of Maryland, we respectfully ask you to consider the host of unintended consequences brought forth by SB 318.

Would the Esteemed Members of the Committee be then able to legally discern the difference between “breeding dogs” and the ownership, possession, control, charge or custody if such language applied to “breeding horses”, “breeding pigs”, “breeding goldfish” or any other animal, whether said animals were livestock or pets?

We would also ask that the Esteemed Members of the House Judiciary Committee strongly consider what impact any future amendments, even a slight amendment, which would substitute “animals” for the word “dogs”.

This potential future amendment of SB 318 would then read as follows:

10–624.C) A PERSON MAY NOT OWN, POSSESS, CONTROL, OR OTHERWISE HAVE CHARGE OR CUSTODY OF MORE THAN 50 BREEDING ANIMALS OVER THE AGE OF 4 MONTHS AT ANY TIME.

Such an amendment may have a serious, if not devastating impact not only on the State’s agricultural industry but on the overall economic health of every county and district in Maryland.

What would happen to the farming community, the poultry or egg industries in Maryland should SB 318 limit the number of “breeding animals”? No more than 10 breeding hens over the age of 4 months?

What then of the impact upon Maryland’s famous seafood industries, fishing, crabbing and tourism?

What would happen to the restaurant industry in Maryland if no one could possess or own more that “50 breeding animals” OR “more than 10 breeding animals over the age of 4 months’?

It is quite clear that passage of SB 318 would lead to a series of unintended consequences and the risk of multiple legal actions against the State of Maryland from every industry sector in the state.

Imposing Commercial Facility Standards On Home & Hobby Breeders

SB 318 mandates the implementation of rigid engineering requirements for enclosures for anyone owning 10 or more intact dogs over 4 months of age without regard to the fiscal impact that such standards would have on targeted breeders or the enforceability of such requirements.

10–624.C) (D) (1) A PERSON WHO OWNS, POSSESSES, CONTROLS, OR
OTHERWISE HAS CHARGE OR CUSTODY OF MORE THAN 10 BREEDING DOGS
OVER THE AGE OF 4 MONTHS SHALL PROVIDE FOR EACH DOG:

(I) AN ENCLOSURE WITH:
1. AN INTERIOR HEIGHT OF AT LEAST 6 INCHES HIGHER THAN THE HEAD OF THE TALLEST DOG IN THE ENCLOSURE WHEN THE DOG IS IN A NORMAL STANDING POSITION; AND

SB 318’s Arbitrary Enclosure Requirements Are Booby Trapped Backdoors To Anti-Dog, Anti-Breeding Legislation

The enclosure requirements specified in SB 318, may seem innocuous, however they are anything but. There are numerous issues for the Committee to consider:

1. These arbitrary enclosure requirements are not in any way based in science concerning the humane treatment of dogs.
2. These arbitrary enclosure requirements are a back door to anti-tethering laws, the intent of which is to criminalize the safe and humane restrain and containment of dogs.
3. These arbitrary enclosure requirements are a back to placing limits on the ownership, keeping breeding of hunting dogs, sled dogs and ownership and keeping of American Pit Bull Terriers.
4. These arbitrary enclose requirements leave open the issue of enforcement – what personnel will be responsible for the enforcement of this clause?
5. The arbitrary enclosure requirements are a backdoor to warrantless searches and seizures, as detailed below.

SB 318: Criminalizes Humane Restraint & Containment

A primary flaw of SB 318 is criminalization of the humane and responsible restraint of dogs by imposing “enclosure” requirements.

If addressing animal cruelty is the intent of the bill’s sponsors, the American Rottweiler Club places itself at the disposal of the Committee to help facilitate the deeper understanding of animal husbandry, be it dogs or any other animal.

For thousands of years, the leashing or tethering of dogs has been a time-honored and humane means of safely containing or restraining dogs.

SB 318 eliminates by stature the very method of safe and humane restraint or containment, thereby significantly reducing, if not eliminating entirely, the ownership, breeding and keeping of multiple, intact dogs, and in particular, sled dogs, hunting dogs and American Pit Bull Terriers.

SB 318: Outlawing Hunting Dogs Via Criminalization Of Humane Restraint & Containment Of Hunting Dogs

Thousands of hunting dogs and dog owners in Maryland will fall under SB 318 and its provisions will lead to the extermination of innocent dogs and heartbreak for Maryland’s dog-owning citizens.

It is important to point out to the Committee the types of hobby breeders and dog enthusiasts impacted by this clause, which includes:

 Hunting Dog Owners/Field Trial Enthusiasts – Hunters and those participating in Field Trials own large numbers of intact dogs, such as Hounds or Sporting Dogs, such as German Shorthaired Pointers.  These dogs are traditionally by “staked out” – that is to say tethered, a traditional and humane means of restraint or containment.

Maryland Sportsmen’s associations should be alerted to the impact of SB 318 upon hunting and field trial activities throughout the state.

SB 318: Outlawing Sled Dog Via Criminalization Of Humane Restraint & Containment Of Sled Dogs

Sled dogs are kept in teams, or packs, and the imposition of said arbitrary enclosure requirements thus criminalize the keeping of sled dogs.

 Sled Dog Enthusiasts/Mushers – These dogs are traditionally by “staked out” – that is to say sled dogs, such as Alaskan Malamutes, Siberian Huskies and other Northern breeds are tethered, a traditional and humane means of restraint or containment.

Numerous sled dog and mushing organizations should be altered to the threat that SB 318 presents.

SB 318: Outlawing American Pit Bull Terriers Via Criminalization Of  Humane Restraint & Containment

Literally thousands of dogs, dog owners, breeders and fanciers of the American Pitbull Terrier will be impacted by SB 318.

 American Pit Bull Terrier Owners/Breeders – These dogs are traditionally by “staked out” – that is to say tethered, a traditional and humane means of restraint or containment.

The American Pit Bull Terrier is the second most popular breed recorded by the country’s second largest registry, the United Kennel Club, and the most popular breed registered by the American Dog Breeders Association, the country’s third largest registry.

In addition, numerous specialty registries will be impacted by SB 318, such as the All American Dog Registry and other single breed registry.

We question if is the desire to eliminate American Pit Bull Terriers from the State of Maryland through backdoor legislation such as SB 318?

SB 318: Criminalizing Humane Restraint & Containment Of Farm Animals

Whether it is the intention or not of the Committee to limit the ownership, breeding, passion of farm animals, it is clear that with just a minor change, SB 318 quickly becomes a bill that threatens all animal agriculture in the State of Maryland.

Similar bills have been introduced in recent days in state legislatures across the country, backed by, if not authored by, the Humane Society of the United States, an organization with a stated goal of eliminating all animal agriculture.

Anti-containment laws are the foundation upon which HSUS has built is state legislative strategy, from chickens in California to hogs in Iowa.

Sleepy state legislators may be unaware of the anti-animal agriculture activity happening in other states, however to quote the CEO of the Humane Society of the United States, Wayne Pacelle, who summarized his philosophy over ten years ago in Animal People News:

“We have no ethical obligation to preserve the different breeds of livestock produced through selective breeding … One generation and out. We have no problems with the extinction of domestic animals. They are creations of human selective breeding.” - Wayne Pacelle, CEO, Humane Society of the United States

It is of course the presumption that all animals raised for food production in Maryland and in the United States be treated humanely.

However, it is quite clear that HSUS-backed legislation such as SB 318 is a backdoor attack upon ALL breeding of animals, food, livestock or pets.

Elimination Of Hobby Breeders Via Unreasonable Exercise Requirements

We would respectfully ask if it is indeed the intention of the sponsors of SB 318 to eliminate home & hobby breeders from the State Of Maryland?

It is abundantly clear that the intent of this bill is to eliminate the vast majority of h criminalize 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:

10–624.C) (D) (1) A PERSON WHO OWNS, POSSESSES, CONTROLS, OR
OTHERWISE HAS CHARGE OR CUSTODY OF MORE THAN 10 BREEDING DOGS
OVER THE AGE OF 4 MONTHS SHALL PROVIDE FOR EACH DOG:

(I) AN ENCLOSURE WITH:

1. AN INTERIOR HEIGHT OF AT LEAST 6 INCHES HIGHER THAN THE HEAD OF THE TALLEST DOG IN THE ENCLOSURE WHEN THE DOG IS IN A NORMAL STANDING POSITION; AND

SB 318: Eliminating Breeding  Animals Though Criminal Statute

The care, health and well being and the welfare of ALL animals is covered with a wide umbrella under the State’s existing animal cruelty statutes.

Yet the sponsors of SB 318 seek to again set arbitrary limits upon home and hobby breeders that are nearly impossible to meet – and perhaps that is most telling about the intent on not just this provision but the entire bill.

(II) UNLESS THE DOG IS CERTIFIED BY A DOCTOR OF
VETERINARY MEDICINE TO BE MEDICALLY PRECLUDED FROM EXERCISE, A
MINIMUM OF TWO EXERCISE PERIODS EACH DAY FOR A TOTAL OF AT LEAST 2
HOURS OF EXERCISE EACH DAY.

(2) THE EXERCISE REQUIRED UNDER PARAGRAPH (1)(II) OF THIS
SUBSECTION:

(I) SHALL INCLUDE REMOVING THE DOG FROM ITS
PRIMARY ENCLOSURE AND ALLOWING THE DOG TO WALK FOR THE ENTIRE EXERCISE PERIOD; AND

(II) UNLESS PRESCRIBED BY A DOCTOR OF VETERINARY
MEDICINE, MAY NOT INCLUDE USE OF A TREADMILL, CAT MILL, JENNY MILL,SLAT MILL, OR SIMILAR DEVICE.

EXAMPLE: A hobby breeder owns 10 breeding dogs, and is therefore subject to SB 318, is now required to spend 20 hours a day exercising dogs, unless medically precluded by certification from a veterinarian.

It is unreasonable to expect that a home or hobby breeder does not a) already provide adequate exercise for the health of their dogs, and b) to prescribe such arbitrary exercise regimen via criminal statute and c) to require certification for exemption from a veterinarian.

.

SB 318: Eliminating Breeding of FARM Animals Though Criminal Statute

We respectfully request the Committee again consider the possible amendment OR substitution of the word “animal” in place of the word “dog”.

Poultry farmers, hog farmers, cattle producers, egg producers – indeed any and all farmers or animal agriculture concerns should be alerted to the threat to animal agriculture and food production in the State of Maryland via criminal statute.

(II) UNLESS THE DOG “ANIMAL”  IS CERTIFIED BY A DOCTOR OF VETERINARY MEDICINE TO BE MEDICALLY PRECLUDED FROM EXERCISE, A MINIMUM OF TWO EXERCISE PERIODS EACH DAY FOR A TOTAL OF AT LEAST 2
HOURS OF EXERCISE EACH DAY.

(2) THE EXERCISE REQUIRED UNDER PARAGRAPH (1)(II) OF THIS
SUBSECTION:

(I) SHALL INCLUDE REMOVING THE DOG “ANIMAL”  FROM ITS PRIMARY ENCLOSURE AND ALLOWING THE DOG TO WALK FOR THE ENTIRE EXERCISE PERIOD; AND

(II) UNLESS PRESCRIBED BY A DOCTOR OF VETERINARY MEDICINE, MAY NOT INCLUDE USE OF A TREADMILL, CAT MILL, JENNY MILL,SLAT MILL, OR SIMILAR DEVICE.

SB 318: Criminalization Of Standard Exercise Equipment

It is important to point out that SB 318 criminalizes the use of standard exercise equipment typically used to assist in the health and training of performance and hunting dogs.

(II) UNLESS PRESCRIBED BY A DOCTOR OF VETERINARY MEDICINE, MAY NOT INCLUDE USE OF A TREADMILL, CAT MILL, JENNY MILL,SLAT MILL, OR SIMILAR DEVICE.

We’d like to ask the Committee Members if the same standards applied to humans, would they like to see the criminalization of the use or ownership of treadmills or any other exercise device unless the need for such a device (treadmill, etc. ) has been certified by a doctor as medically necessary?

Indeed, the manufacturers of all exercise devices made for or used by pet owners, home or hobby breeders should be alerted to potential infringements of lawful intra- and interstate commerce.

SB 318: Enforcement Issues

We ask the Esteemed Members of the Committee to consider what personnel at the local or state level will be responsible for identifying “intact breeding dogs”?

SB 318, 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 SB 318 is an unintended consequence of significant magnitude.

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, 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, anti-breeding 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.

SB 318:  Eliminating Presumption Of Innocence

SB 318 eliminates the presumption of innocence making all dog owners of multiple “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.

SB 318: Proxy For Warrantless Search & Seizure

It should be noted that SB 318 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 SB 318 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 would constitutes “probable cause” under SB 318 – just a law enforcement officer’s word that pets may be intact, OR have not had the prescribed 2 hours of exercise on a given day?

Surely the State’s existing animal cruelty statutes more than adequately cover any acts of cruelty, such as the deprivation of food and water, or in cases of negligence.

SB 318:  Lowering Thresholds of Evidence For Probable Cause

Furthermore, the issuance of any warrant under SB 318 would be based on a visual ID that the alleged dogs have testicles OR would it then be a case of “probable cause” to demand inspection of the abdomen of a female dog to check for evidence of a scar from spay surgery?

A) the basis for “probable cause” is nothing more than the subjective and arbitrary opinion of alleged “intact breeding dog” 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 SB 318, there are any number of situations that would be the basis for bypassing  Due Process:

SENARIO A:   Warrantless Search of Premise

The mere possession of multiple “pitbulls”, “sled dogs” or even hunting dogs – which are all traditionally staked  – would now constitute a criminal act under SB 318, thus allowing law enforcement officers access to the premises without a warrant.

EX: A police officer drives by a home and sees a multiple dogs staked in the yard.  The officer (subjectively) identifies the dogs as a “intact”, 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 “intact pit bulls, hunting dogs, sled dogs”  or “showdogs” in a car constitutes a criminal act in that possession of a “more than 10 breeding dogs over the age of 4 months” 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 dogs as a “intact breeding 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.

SB 318: Violations Of Equal Protection

SB 318 also sets the stage for issues with Equal Protection, in that owners of “intact dogs” or “targeted breeds – ie. American Pit Bull Terriers” or owners of hunting dogs or sled dogs, are 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.

HB 485 clearly violates Equal Protection by singling out owners of multiple “intact dogs”, and granting exemptions to those “similarly situated”, such as in:

10–624 (B) THIS SECTION DOES NOT APPLY TO:
(1) A PUBLICLY OPERATED ANIMAL CONTROL FACILITY OR
ANIMAL SHELTER;
(2) A PRIVATE, CHARITABLE, NONPROFIT HUMANE SOCIETY OR

ANIMAL ADOPTION ORGANIZATION;
(3) A VETERINARY FACILITY;
(4) A RETAIL PET STORE;
(5) A RESEARCH INSTITUTION; OR
(6) A BOARDING FACILITY.

The provisions of SB 318 are completely without merit, as the State Of Maryland has not proven nor cannot prove, a rational or legal basis upon which to base these provisions.

SB 318 also begs the questions, “Are owners of a spayed or neutered dogs entitled to any greater Constitutional protections than owners of intact or breeding dogs”? AND,

“Are dogs in shelters, retail stores, veterinary or boarding facilities entitled to any fewer protections than privately-owned, intact dogs”?

Selective Enforcement & Racial Bias

We urge the Senate Judiciary and Government Operations Committee to reconsider and reject this bill, since it is already quite clear that should SB 318 become law, it could only be enforced selectively and subjectively.

However, there is an even greater risk in SB 318 as it relates to Unequal Protection, which is where race or ethnicity comes into the equation, and the potential for the abuse of our justice system is great.

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 outwardly racist viewpoint is interpreted by most to mean that “pit bull dogs” are owned by those in the minority community.

It 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.

SB 318 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 hunting dogs or American Pit Bull Terriers be targeted for enforcement?
• Will SB 318 be used to dispense with evidence thresholds necessary to establish probable cause and create a proxy to bypass Due Process?

Civil Rights & Constitutional Issues

SB 318 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.

SB 318 also sets the stage for unequal protection in that owners of subjectively targeted breeds or intact or 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 Maryland 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

SB 318, with its many issues and potential infringements of civil rights and constitutional protections, would place the State Of Maryland, 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 SB 318 is fraught with issues not only with regard to public safety, but issues that make SB 318 a potential minefield of expense, legal issues, unintended consequences and a waste of valuable taxpayer dollars.

Legal challenges to the constitutionality of such legislation is now underway in other states, including Pennsylvania, where a large group of plaintiffs, including dog owners, breeders and enthusiasts has filed suit against lawmakers there.

Closing Thoughts

In closing, the American Rottweiler Club rejects the criminalization of responsible dog ownership, the flawed concept of outlawing or eliminating though 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 Maryland SB 318 would:

• Criminalize dog ownership
• Fail to protect the welfare of ALL dogs
• Interfere with legal activities
• Create a proxy for warrant search & seizure under the guise of animal protection
• Deprive citizens of Equal Protection & Due Process
• Threaten animal agriculture and food production
• Violate 4th, 5th & 14th Amendments
• Incur liability for local, county and state governments
• Waste valuable tax-payer dollars

SB 318:  In Summary

The American Rottweiler Club urges the State Of Maryland and the Esteemed Members of the House Judiciary Committee to act appropriately and responsibly to protect the welfare of animals through the effective enforcement of existing animal cruelty and animal control laws.

We respectfully ask if the Committee not allow deep-pocketed special interest groups who back SB 318 and similar bills to prevail over the safe and humane treatment animals while seriously eroding the constitutional protections of everyday citizens.

We urge the Committee Members to reject SB 318 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 Maryland 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,

Gwen Chaney
President
American Rottweiler Club, Inc.
w) www.AmRottClub.org

cc: American Rottweiler Club Board, Peter Piusz, Delegate

]]> http://paws4laws.com/official-arc-response/american-rottweiler-club-formal-respond-to-md-sb-318/feed/ 0 http://paws4laws.com/state-bills/maryland-sb-319-a-bill-limiting-possion-of-breeding-dogs/ http://paws4laws.com/state-bills/maryland-sb-319-a-bill-limiting-possion-of-breeding-dogs/#comments Thu, 21 May 2009 17:00:19 +0000 admin23 http://legislation.americanrottweilerclub.org/?p=68 Does the State Of Maryland Want To Make Owning Dogs A Crime?  Yes, siree, Bob! Especially Sexually Intact Dogs

DOWNLOAD THE BILL HERE: http://mlis.state.md.us/2009rs/bills/sb/sb0318f.pdf

EXPLANATION: CAPITALS INDICATE MATTER ADDED TO EXISTING LAW.
[Brackets] indicate matter deleted from existing law.
*sb0318*

SENATE BILL 318
E1 9lr1811
CF 9lr1151

By: Senators Gladden, Della, Madaleno, and Stone
Introduced and read first time: January 28, 2009
Assigned to: Judicial Proceedings

A BILL ENTITLED AN ACT concerning Criminal Law – Crimes Relating to Animals – Limitations on Possession of
Breeding Dogs

FOR the purpose of prohibiting a person from owning, possessing, controlling, or
otherwise having custody of more than a certain number of breeding dogs at any
time; establishing enclosure size and exercise requirements to be met by a
person owning, possessing, controlling, or otherwise having custody of more
than a certain number of breeding dogs; establishing a penalty for a violation of
this Act; exempting certain facilities from the requirements of this Act; defining
certain terms; and generally relating to limitations on the possession of
breeding dogs.

BY adding to
Article – Criminal Law
Section 10–624
Annotated Code of Maryland
(2002 Volume and 2008 Supplement)

SECTION 1. BE IT ENACTED BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF
MARYLAND, That the Laws of Maryland read as follows:
Article – Criminal Law
10–624.
(A) (1) IN THIS SECTION THE FOLLOWING WORDS HAVE THE
MEANINGS INDICATED.
(2) “BREEDING DOG” MEANS A DOG WITH INTACT SEXUAL ORGANS.
2 SENATE BILL 318
(3) (I) “RETAIL PET STORE” MEANS A COMMERCIAL
ESTABLISHMENT THAT ENGAGES IN A FOR–PROFIT BUSINESS OF SELLING AT
RETAIL CATS, DOGS, OR OTHER ANIMALS TO BE KEPT AS HOUSEHOLD PETS.
(II) “RETAIL PET STORE” DOES NOT INCLUDE A PERSON OR
ESTABLISHMENT THAT BREEDS OR RAISES ANIMALS TO SELL, EXCHANGE,
BROKER, OR OTHERWISE TRANSFER THE ANIMALS TO THE PUBLIC AS
HOUSEHOLD PETS.
(B) THIS SECTION DOES NOT APPLY TO:
(1) A PUBLICLY OPERATED ANIMAL CONTROL FACILITY OR
ANIMAL SHELTER;
(2) A PRIVATE, CHARITABLE, NONPROFIT HUMANE SOCIETY OR
ANIMAL ADOPTION ORGANIZATION;
(3) A VETERINARY FACILITY;
(4) A RETAIL PET STORE;
(5) A RESEARCH INSTITUTION; OR
(6) A BOARDING FACILITY.
(C) A PERSON MAY NOT OWN, POSSESS, CONTROL, OR OTHERWISE HAVE
CHARGE OR CUSTODY OF MORE THAN 50 BREEDING DOGS OVER THE AGE OF 4
MONTHS AT ANY TIME.
(D) (1) A PERSON WHO OWNS, POSSESSES, CONTROLS, OR
OTHERWISE HAS CHARGE OR CUSTODY OF MORE THAN 10 BREEDING DOGS
OVER THE AGE OF 4 MONTHS SHALL PROVIDE FOR EACH DOG:
(I) AN ENCLOSURE WITH:
1. AN INTERIOR HEIGHT OF AT LEAST 6 INCHES
HIGHER THAN THE HEAD OF THE TALLEST DOG IN THE ENCLOSURE WHEN THE
DOG IS IN A NORMAL STANDING POSITION; AND
2. SUFFICIENT SPACE TO ALLOW THE DOG TO TURN
ABOUT FREELY, STAND, SIT, AND LIE DOWN SUCH THAT, WHEN FULLY
EXTENDED, NO PART OF THE DOG’S BODY TOUCHES ANY SIDE OF THE
ENCLOSURE OR ANY OTHER DOG IN THE ENCLOSURE; AND

SENATE BILL 318 3
(II) UNLESS THE DOG IS CERTIFIED BY A DOCTOR OF
VETERINARY MEDICINE TO BE MEDICALLY PRECLUDED FROM EXERCISE, A
MINIMUM OF TWO EXERCISE PERIODS EACH DAY FOR A TOTAL OF AT LEAST 2
HOURS OF EXERCISE EACH DAY.
(2) THE EXERCISE REQUIRED UNDER PARAGRAPH (1)(II) OF THIS
SUBSECTION:
(I) SHALL INCLUDE REMOVING THE DOG FROM ITS
PRIMARY ENCLOSURE AND ALLOWING THE DOG TO WALK FOR THE ENTIRE
EXERCISE PERIOD; AND
(II) UNLESS PRESCRIBED BY A DOCTOR OF VETERINARY
MEDICINE, MAY NOT INCLUDE USE OF A TREADMILL, CAT MILL, JENNY MILL,
SLAT MILL, OR SIMILAR DEVICE.
(E) A PERSON WHO VIOLATES THIS SECTION IS GUILTY OF A
MISDEMEANOR AND ON CONVICTION IS SUBJECT TO A FINE NOT EXCEEDING
$1,000.
SECTION 2. AND BE IT FURTHER ENACTED, That this Act shall take effect
October 1, 2009.

The Honorable Joseph Vallario, Jr.
Chair, House Judiciary Committee
Maryland House of Delegates
House Office Building, Room 101
6 Bladen St., Annapolis, MD 21401

RE:  Maryland HB 495 – Opposed

Dear Delegate Vallario and Respected Members of the Maryland House Judiciary 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 Maryland HB 495, A Bill That Criminalizes The Ownership and Limits The Possession of Breeding Dogs.

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 Maryland HB 495 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.

HB 495 is not only irresponsible, and sets a dangerous precedent for the type and scope of legislation, and exceeds the legal and constitutional scope of state legislatures.

In addition:

 HB 495 criminalizes dog ownership
 HB 495 fails to improve upon existing animal cruelty statues
 HB 495 places arbitrary limits on animal ownership
 HB 495 deprives dog-owing citizens of Due Process & Equal Protection
 HB 495 creates a proxy for warrantless searches and seizures
 HB 495 threatens animal agriculture & food production

HB 495 – Criminalizing Dog Ownership

It is abundantly clear that the intent of this bill is to criminalize 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:

“For the purpose of prohibiting a person from owning, possessing, controlling,
Or otherwise having custody of more than a certain number of breeding dogs
at anytime;”

We take exception to the very language of HB 495, which alludes to “possession of intact dogs” as if intact dogs were in nature a dangerous, illegal substance, such as crack cocaine – and needing to be heavily regulated as illegal drugs.

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

HB 495 – Criminalizing Dog Breeding

HB 495 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 Maryland’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.

Constitutionality Of Imposing Limits On Animal Ownership

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

Maryland HB 495 states,

10–624.C) A PERSON MAY NOT OWN, POSSESS, CONTROL, OR OTHERWISE HAVE CHARGE OR CUSTODY OF MORE THAN 50 BREEDING DOGS OVER THE AGE OF 4 MONTHS AT ANY TIME.

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.

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 Maryland be abridged, and is it the intent o f HB 495 to deprive such citizens not only of Due Process but Equal Protection as well?

Unintended Consequences Of HB 495’s  Limits On Animal Ownership

In placing arbitrary and highly subjective limits on animal ownership in the State of Maryland, we respectfully ask you to consider the host of unintended consequences brought forth by HB 495.

Would the Esteemed Members of the Committee be then able to legally discern the difference between “breeding dogs” and the ownership, possession, control, charge or custody if such language applied to “breeding horses”, “breeding pigs”, “breeding goldfish” or any other animal, whether said animals were livestock or pets?

We would also ask that the Esteemed Members of the House Judiciary Committee strongly consider what impact any future amendments, even a slight amendment, which would substitute “animals” for the word “dogs”.

This potential future amendment of HB 495 would then read as follows:

10–624.C) A PERSON MAY NOT OWN, POSSESS, CONTROL, OR OTHERWISE HAVE CHARGE OR CUSTODY OF MORE THAN 50 BREEDING ANIMALS OVER THE AGE OF 4 MONTHS AT ANY TIME.

Such an amendment may have a serious, if not devastating impact not only on the State’s agricultural industry but on the overall economic health of every county and district in Maryland.
What would happen to the farming community, the poultry or egg industries in Maryland should HB 495 limit the number of “breeding animals”? No more than 10 breeding hens over the age of 4 months?

What then of the impact upon Maryland’s famous seafood industries, fishing, crabbing and tourism?  What would happen to the restaurant industry in Maryland if no one could possess or own more that “50 breeding animals” OR “more than 10 breeding animals over the age of 4 months’?

It is quite clear that passage of HB 495 would lead to a series of unintended consequences and the risk of multiple legal actions against the State of Maryland from every industry sector in the state.

Imposing Commercial Facility Standards On Home & Hobby Breeders

HB 495 mandates the implementation of rigid engineering requirements for enclosures for anyone owning 10 or more intact dogs over 4 months of age without regard to the fiscal impact that such standards would have on targeted breeders or the enforceability of such requirements.

10–624.C) (D) (1) A PERSON WHO OWNS, POSSESSES, CONTROLS, OR
OTHERWISE HAS CHARGE OR CUSTODY OF MORE THAN 10 BREEDING DOGS
OVER THE AGE OF 4 MONTHS SHALL PROVIDE FOR EACH DOG:

(I) AN ENCLOSURE WITH:
1. AN INTERIOR HEIGHT OF AT LEAST 6 INCHES HIGHER THAN THE HEAD OF THE TALLEST DOG IN THE ENCLOSURE WHEN THE DOG IS IN A NORMAL STANDING POSITION; AND

HB 495’s Arbitrary Enclosure Requirements Are Booby Trapped Backdoors To Anti-Dog, Anti Breeding Legislation

The enclosure requirements specified in HB 495, may seem innocuous, however they are anything but. There are numerous issues for the Committee to consider:

1. These arbitrary enclosure requirements are not in any way based in science concerning the humane treatment of dogs.
2. These arbitrary enclosure requirements are a back door to anti-tethering laws, the intent of which is to criminalize the safe and humane restrain and containment of dog
3. These arbitrary enclosure requirements are a back to placing limits on the ownership, keeping breeding of hunting dogs, sled dogs and ownership and keeping of American Pit Bull Terriers.
4. These arbitrary enclose requirements leave open the issue of enforcement – what personnel will be responsible for the enforcement of this clause?
5. The arbitrary enclosure requirements are a backdoor to warrantless searches and seizures, as detailed below.

HB 495: Criminalizes Humane Restraint & Containment

A primary flaw of HB 495 is criminalization of the humane and responsible restraint of dogs by imposing “enclosure” requirements.

If addressing animal cruelty is the intent of the bill’s sponsors, the American Rottweiler Club places itself at the disposal of the Committee to help facilitate the deeper understanding of animal husbandry, be it dogs or any other animal.

For thousands of years, the leashing or tethering of dogs has been a time-honored and humane means of safely containing or restraining dogs.

HB 495 eliminates by stature the very method of safe and humane restraint or containment, thereby significantly reducing, if not eliminating entirely, the ownership, breeding and keeping of multiple, intact dogs, and in particular, sled dogs, hunting dogs and American Pit Bull Terriers.

HB 495: Outlawing Hunting Dogs Via Criminalization Of Humane Restraint & Containment Of Hunting Dogs

Thousands of hunting dogs and dog owners in Maryland will fall under HB 495 and its provisions will lead to the extermination of innocent dogs and heartbreak for Maryland’s dog-owning citizens.

It is important to point out to the Committee the types of hobby breeders and dog enthusiasts impacted by this clause, which includes:

 Hunting Dog Owners/Field Trial Enthusiasts – Hunters and those participating in Field Trials own large numbers of intact dogs, such as Hounds or Sporting Dogs, such as German Shorthaired Pointers.  These dogs are traditionally by “staked out” – that is to say tethered, a traditional and humane means of restraint or containment.

Maryland Sportsmen’s associations should be alerted to the impact of HB 495 upon hunting and field trial activities throughout the state.

HB 495: Outlawing Sled Dog Via Criminalization Of Humane Restraint & Containment Of Sled Dogs

Sled dogs are kept in teams, or packs, and the imposition of said arbitrary enclosure requirements thus criminalize the keeping of sled dogs.

 Sled Dog Enthusiasts/Mushers – These dogs are traditionally by “staked out” – that is to say sled dogs, such as Alaskan Malamutes, Siberian Huskies and other Northern breeds are tethered, a traditional and humane means of restraint or containment.

Numerous sled dog and mushing organizations should be altered to the threat that HB 495 presents.

HB 495: Outlawing American Pit Bull Terriers Via Criminalization Of  Humane Restraint & Containment

Literally thousands of dogs, dog owners, breeders and fanciers of the American Pitbull Terrier will be impacted by HB 495.

 American Pit Bull Terrier Owners/Breeders – These dogs are traditionally by “staked out” – that is to say tethered, a traditional and humane means of restraint or containment.

The American Pit Bull Terrier is the second most popular breed recorded by the country’s second largest registry, the United Kennel Club, and the most popular breed registered by the American Dog Breeders Association, the country’s third largest registry.

In addition, numerous specialty registries will be impacted by HB 495, such as the All American Dog Registry and other single breed registry.

We question if is the desire to eliminate American Pit Bull Terriers from the State of Maryland through backdoor legislation such as HB 495?

HB 495: Criminalizing Humane Restraint & Containment Of Farm Animals

Whether it is the intention or not of the Committee to limit the ownership, breeding, passion of farm animals, it is clear that with just a minor change, HB 495 quickly becomes a bill that threatens all animal agriculture in the State of Maryland.

Similar bills have been introduced in recent days in state legislatures across the country, backed by, if not authored by, the Humane Society of the United States, an organization with a stated goal of eliminating all animal agriculture.

Anti-containment laws are the foundation upon which HSUS has built is state legislative strategy, from chickens in California to hogs in Iowa.

Sleepy state legislators may be unaware of the anti-animal agriculture activity happening in other states, however to quote the CEO of the Humane Society of the United States, Wayne Pacelle, who summarized his philosophy over ten years ago in Animal People News:

“We have no ethical obligation to preserve the different breeds of livestock produced through selective breeding … One generation and out. We have no problems with the extinction of domestic animals. They are creations of human selective breeding.”  - Wayne Pacelle, CEO, Humane Society of the United States

It is of course the presumption that all animals raised for food production in Maryland and in the United States be treated humanely,

However, it is quite clear that HSUS-backed legislation such as HB 495 is a backdoor attack upon ALL breeding of animals, food, livestock or pets.

Elimination Of Hobby Breeders Via Unreasonable Exercise Requirements

We would respectfully ask if it is indeed the intention of the sponsors of HB 495 to eliminate home & hobby breeders from the State Of Maryland?

It is abundantly clear that the intent of this bill is to eliminate the vast majority of h criminalize 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:

10–624.C) (D) (1) A PERSON WHO OWNS, POSSESSES, CONTROLS, OR
OTHERWISE HAS CHARGE OR CUSTODY OF MORE THAN 10 BREEDING DOGS
OVER THE AGE OF 4 MONTHS SHALL PROVIDE FOR EACH DOG:

(I) AN ENCLOSURE WITH:
1. AN INTERIOR HEIGHT OF AT LEAST 6 INCHES HIGHER THAN THE HEAD OF THE TALLEST DOG IN THE ENCLOSURE WHEN THE DOG IS IN A NORMAL STANDING POSITION; AND

HB 495: Eliminating Breeding  Animals Though Criminal Statute

The care, health and well being and the welfare of ALL animals is covered with a wide umbrella under the State’s existing animal cruelty statutes.

Yet the sponsors of HB 495 seek to again set arbitrary limits upon home and hobby breeders that are nearly impossible to meet – and perhaps that is most telling about the intent on not just this provision but the entire bill.

(II) UNLESS THE DOG IS CERTIFIED BY A DOCTOR OF
VETERINARY MEDICINE TO BE MEDICALLY PRECLUDED FROM EXERCISE, A
MINIMUM OF TWO EXERCISE PERIODS EACH DAY FOR A TOTAL OF AT LEAST 2
HOURS OF EXERCISE EACH DAY.

(2) THE EXERCISE REQUIRED UNDER PARAGRAPH (1)(II) OF THIS
SUBSECTION:

(I) SHALL INCLUDE REMOVING THE DOG FROM ITS
PRIMARY ENCLOSURE AND ALLOWING THE DOG TO WALK FOR THE ENTIRE EXERCISE PERIOD; AND

(II) UNLESS PRESCRIBED BY A DOCTOR OF VETERINARY
MEDICINE, MAY NOT INCLUDE USE OF A TREADMILL, CAT MILL, JENNY MILL,SLAT MILL, OR SIMILAR DEVICE.

EXAMPLE: A hobby breeder owns 10 breeding dogs, and is therefore subject to HB 495, is now required to spend 20 hours a day exercising dogs, unless medically precluded by certification from a veterinarian.

It is unreasonable to expect that a home or hobby breeder does not a) already provide adequate exercise for the health of their dogs, and b) to prescribe such arbitrary exercise regimen via criminal statute and c) to require certification for exemption from a veterinarian.

HB 495: Eliminating Breeding of FARM Animals Though Criminal Statute

We respectfully request the Committee again consider the possible amendment OR substitution of the word “animal” in place of the word “dog”.

Poultry farmers, hog farmers, cattle producers, egg producers – indeed any and all farmers or animal agriculture concerns should be alerted to the threat to animal agriculture and food production in the State of Maryland via criminal statute.

(II) UNLESS THE DOG “ANIMAL”  IS CERTIFIED BY A DOCTOR OF
VETERINARY MEDICINE TO BE MEDICALLY PRECLUDED FROM EXERCISE, A
MINIMUM OF TWO EXERCISE PERIODS EACH DAY FOR A TOTAL OF AT LEAST 2
HOURS OF EXERCISE EACH DAY.
(2) THE EXERCISE REQUIRED UNDER PARAGRAPH (1)(II) OF THIS
SUBSECTION:

(I) SHALL INCLUDE REMOVING THE DOG “ANIMAL”  FROM ITS
PRIMARY ENCLOSURE AND ALLOWING THE DOG TO WALK FOR THE ENTIRE EXERCISE PERIOD; AND

(II) UNLESS PRESCRIBED BY A DOCTOR OF VETERINARY
MEDICINE, MAY NOT INCLUDE USE OF A TREADMILL, CAT MILL, JENNY MILL,SLAT MILL, OR SIMILAR DEVICE.

HB 495: Criminalization Of Standard Exercise Equipment

It is important to point out that HB 495 criminalizes the use of standard exercise equipment typically used to assist in the health and training of performance and hunting dogs.

(II) UNLESS PRESCRIBED BY A DOCTOR OF VETERINARY
MEDICINE, MAY NOT INCLUDE USE OF A TREADMILL, CAT MILL, JENNY MILL,SLAT MILL, OR SIMILAR DEVICE.

We’d like to ask the Committee Members if the same standards applied to humans, would they like to see the criminalization of the use or ownership of treadmills or any other exercise device unless the need for such a device (treadmill, etc. ) has been certified by a doctor as medically necessary?

Indeed, the manufacturers of all exercise devices made for or used by pet owners, home or hobby breeders should be alerted to potential infringements of lawful intra- and interstate commerce.

HB 495: Enforcement Issues
We ask the Esteemed Members of the Committee to consider what personnel at the local or state level will be responsible for identifying “intact breeding dogs”?

HB 495, 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 HB 495 is an unintended consequence of significant magnitude.

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, 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, anti-breeding 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.

HB 495:  Eliminating Presumption Of Innocence

HB 495 eliminates the presumption of innocence making all dog owners of multiple “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.

HB 495: Proxy For Warrantless Search & Seizure

It should be noted that HB 495 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 HB 495 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 would constitutes “probable cause” under HB 495 – just a law enforcement officer’s word that pets may be intact, OR have not had the prescribed 2 hours of exercise on a given day?

Surely the State’s existing animal cruelty statutes more than adequately cover any acts of cruelty, such as the deprivation of food and water, or in cases of negligence.

HB 495:  Lowering Thresholds of Evidence For Probable Cause

Furthermore, the issuance of any warrant under HB 495 would be based on a visual ID that the alleged dogs have testicles OR would it then be a case of “probable cause” to demand inspection of the abdomen of a female dog to check for evidence of a scar from spay surgery?

A) the basis for “probable cause” is nothing more than the subjective and arbitrary opinion of alleged “intact breeding dog” 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 HB 495, there are any number of situations that would be the basis for bypassing Due Process:

SENARIO A:   Warrantless Search of Premise

The mere possession of multiple “pitbulls”, “sled dogs” or even hunting dogs – which are all traditionally staked  – would now constitute a criminal act under HB 495, thus allowing law enforcement officers access to the premises without a warrant.

EX:  A police officer drives by a home and sees a multiple dogs staked in the yard.  The officer (subjectively) identifies the dogs as a “intact”, 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 “intact pit bulls, hunting dogs, sled dogs”  or “showdogs” in a car constitutes a criminal act in that possession of a “more than 10 breeding dogs over the age of 4 months” 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 dogs as a “intact breeding 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.

HB 495: Violations Of Equal Protection

HB 495 also sets the stage for issues with Equal Protection, in that owners of “intact dogs” or “targeted breeds – ie. American Pit Bull Terriers” or owners of hunting dogs or sled dogs, are 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.

HB 485 clearly violates Equal Protection by singling out owners of multiple “intact dogs”, and granting exemptions to those “similarly situated”, such as in:

10–624 (B) THIS SECTION DOES NOT APPLY TO:
(1) A PUBLICLY OPERATED ANIMAL CONTROL FACILITY OR
ANIMAL SHELTER;
(2) A PRIVATE, CHARITABLE, NONPROFIT HUMANE SOCIETY OR
HB 495: Violations Of Equal Protection Cont’d.

ANIMAL ADOPTION ORGANIZATION;
(3) A VETERINARY FACILITY;
(4) A RETAIL PET STORE;
(5) A RESEARCH INSTITUTION; OR
(6) A BOARDING FACILITY.

The provisions of HB 495 are completely without merit, as the State Of Maryland has not proven nor cannot prove, a rational or legal basis upon which to base these provisions.

HB 495 also begs the questions, “Are owners of a spayed or neutered dogs entitled to any greater Constitutional protections than owners of intact or breeding dogs”? AND,

“Are dogs in shelters, retail stores, veterinary or boarding facilities entitled to any fewer protections than privately-owned, intact dogs”?

HB 496 Fosters Selective Enforcement & Racial Bias/ Racial Profiling

We urge the Senate Judiciary and Government Operations Committee to reconsider and reject this bill, since it is already quite clear that should HB 495 become law, it could only be enforced selectively and subjectively.

However, there is an even greater risk in HB 495 as it relates to Unequal Protection, which is where race or ethnicity comes into the equation, and the potential for the abuse of our justice system is great.

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 outwardly racist viewpoint is interpreted by most to mean that “pit bull dogs” are owned by those in the minority community.

It 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.

HB 495 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 hunting dogs or American Pit Bull Terriers be targeted for enforcement?
• Will HB 495 be used to dispense with evidence thresholds necessary to establish probable cause and create a proxy to bypass Due Process?

Civil Rights & Constitutional Issues

HB 495 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

HB 495 also sets the stage for unequal protection in that owners of subjectively targeted breeds or intact or 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 Maryland 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

HB 495, with its many issues and potential infringements of civil rights and constitutional protections, would place the State Of Maryland, 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 HB 495 is fraught with issues not only with regard to public safety, but issues that make HB 495 a potential minefield of expense, legal issues, unintended consequences and a waste of valuable taxpayer dollars.

Legal challenges to the constitutionality of such legislation is now underway in other states, including Pennsylvania, where a large group of plaintiffs, including dog owners, breeders and enthusiasts has filed suit against lawmakers there.

Closing Thoughts

In closing, the American Rottweiler Club rejects the criminalization of responsible dog ownership, the flawed concept of outlawing or eliminating though 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 Maryland HB 495 would:

• Criminalize dog ownership
• Fail to protect the welfare of ALL dogs
• Interfere with legal activities
• Create a proxy for warrant search & seizure under the guise of animal protection
• Deprive citizens of Equal Protection & Due Process
• Threaten animal agriculture and food production
• Violate 4th, 5th & 14th Amendments
• Incur liability for local, county and state governments
• Waste valuable tax-payer dollars

HB 495:  In Summary

The American Rottweiler Club urges the State Of Maryland and the Esteemed Members of the House Judiciary Committee to act appropriately and responsibly to protect the welfare of animals through the effective enforcement of existing animal cruelty and animal control laws.

We respectfully ask if the Committee not allow deep-pocketed special interest groups who back HB 495 and similar bills to prevail over the safe and humane treatment animals while seriously eroding the constitutional protections of everyday citizens.

We urge the Committee Members to reject HB 495 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 Maryland 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,

Gwen Chaney
President
American Rottweiler Club, Inc.

w) www.AmRottClub.org

cc: American Rottweiler Club Board, Peter Piusz, Delegate

IMPORTANT:  Below is the ACTUAL language of MD. HB 495
FISCAL AND POLICY NOTE
House Bill 495  (Delegate Smigiel, et al.)
Judiciary

Criminal Law – Crimes Relating to Animals – Limitations on Possession of Breeding Dogs

This bill prohibits a person from owning, possessing, controlling, or otherwise having charge or custody of more than 50 “breeding dogs” over the age of four months at any time. A person who owns, possesses, controls, or otherwise has charge or custody of more than 10 breeding dogs over the age of four months must provide each dog with an enclosure of a specified size and, unless the dog is certified by a doctor of veterinary medicine to be medically precluded from exercise, a minimum of two exercise periods each day for a total of at least two hours of exercise, in a certain manner, each day.

A violator is guilty of a misdemeanor and subject to a maximum fine of $1,000.
Fiscal Summary
State Effect: Minimal increase in general fund revenues due to the bill’s penalty provision. No effect on expenditures.

Local Effect: It is assumed that the requirements of the bill can be handled with existing budgeted resources in most jurisdictions. To the extent a more rigorous enforcement program is determined to be needed in any jurisdiction additional resources, including overtime, may be needed.

Small Business Effect: Minimal.

Analysis
Bill Summary: The bill’s provisions do not apply to: (1) a publicly operated animal control facility or animal shelter; (2) a private, charitable, nonprofit humane society or animal adoption organization; (3) a veterinary facility; (4) a retail pet store; (5) a research institution; or (6) a boarding facility.

Current Law: The Secretary of Health and Mental Hygiene may prohibit the importation, selling, trading, purchasing, bartering, breeding, raising, keeping, or possession of any animals found to be dangerous to human health and safety. This authority does not apply to domestic cats, dogs, or ferrets; animals used for agricultural, scientific, or educational purposes; animals used for public exhibitions; or any animal that the Secretary determines is not a threat to human health and safety. These provisions may not be construed to prohibit the breeding, raising, keeping, or possession of turtles by a person who has obtained a permit. (See Health-General Article § 18-219.)

To determine if dogs are being treated inhumanely in violation of any law, an authorized director of a humane society, accompanied by a sheriff or a deputy sheriff, may inspect a premises:

• where a person is engaged in the business of buying, selling, trading, or breeding

dogs; or •of a kennel where 25 or more dogs are kept.

A person who makes such an inspection must give prior written notice of the time and date of the inspection to the owner or occupant of the premises.

In Baltimore City, the Baltimore City Health Department is required to enforce these inspection provisions. Enforcement in Baltimore County is handled by the Baltimore County Department of Health, Division of Animal Control or an organization approved by the Baltimore County government.

These premises inspection provisions do not apply to premises:

• where dogs are kept or bred solely for medical or related research or laboratory tests;

• operated by a licensed and regularly practicing veterinarian; or where hunting dogs are housed, if the buying, selling, trading, or breeding is incidental to the main purposes of housing, keeping, and using dogs. (See Criminal Law Article § 10-616.)

HB 495 / Page 2

Local Fiscal Effect: Because dog kennels and businesses may be inspected for humane treatment under State law and local ordinances, it is assumed that the requirements of this bill can be handled with the existing budgeted resources of local jurisdictions.

The number of facilities statewide with more than 50 breeding dogs older than four months is unknown. The number of facilities covered under the bill with more than 10 dogs older than four months is also unknown. Washington County believes that it has one kennel with approximately 50 dogs that may expand to a 75 dog capacity. Worcester County advises that there are two persons in the county licensed as a dog kennel with more than 50 dogs. By local ordinance, each of these counties requires licensing for kennels with more than six dogs. Based on a limited survey of local jurisdictions, the Department of Legislative Services advises that the bill’s requirements can be handled with the existing budgeted requirements of most local jurisdictions.

Montgomery County advises that there are two facilities in the county with more than 50 breeding dogs. The county also advises that enforcement of the bill’s exercise requirement would necessitate additional expenditures for overtime pay (at $44.86 per hour) for two Animal Services Division officers to do surveillance at each of 18 facilities in the county for a 24-hour period, twice yearly, at an annual cost of about $38,800. To the extent a more rigorous enforcement program is determined to be needed in any jurisdiction, some additional resources, including overtime, may be needed.

Additional Information
Prior Introductions: None.
Cross File: SB 318 (Senator Gladden, et al.) – Judicial Proceedings.

Information Source(s): Judiciary (Maryland District Court); Office of the Attorney

General; Baltimore City; Kent, Montgomery, Washington and Worcester counties,

Department of Legislative Services Fiscal Note History: First Reader – February 11, 2009 mlm/kdm

Analysis by: Guy G. Cherry Direct Inquiries to: (410) 946-5510 (301) 970-5510

—————————————————————————

Read the American Rottweiler Clubs Response To MD. 495