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

By KEVIN CORVO

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ARC Bill Summary:

AMENDED IN SENATE MAY 28, 2009
AMENDED IN SENATE MAY 5, 2009
AMENDED IN SENATE APRIL 21, 2009
AMENDED IN SENATE APRIL 2, 2009

SENATE BILL No. 250
Introduced by Senator Florez
February 24, 2009

An act to add Sections 30804.6 and 31751.4 to the Food and Agricultural Code, relating to animals.

legislative counsel’s digest

SB 250, as amended, Florez. Dogs and cats: spaying and neutering.

Existing law generally prohibits public pounds and private shelters from selling or giving away any dog or cat that has not been spayed or neutered; provides, under certain circumstances, for the sale or giving away of a dog or cat that has not been spayed or neutered upon the payment of a refundable deposit, as specified; provides for the imposition of fines or civil penalties against the owner of a nonspayed or unneutered dog or cat that is impounded by a public pound or private shelter; and immunizes cities and counties, societies for the prevention of cruelty to animals, and humane societies from an action by the owner of a dog or cat for spaying or neutering the dog or cat in accordance with the law. A violation of any of these provisions is an infraction, punishable as specified.

This bill would provide, in addition, that every dog owner shall secure a license for the dog, as required by state or local law, and that no person shall own, keep, or harbor, except as specified, an unsterilized dog, as defined. It would make it unlawful for any person who owns, keeps, or harbors any unsterilized cat, as defined, 6 months of age or older to allow or permit that cat to roam at large. It would require any owner or custodian, as defined, of an unsterilized dog to have the animal sterilized at 6 months of age, provide obtain a certificate of sterility, or, if provided by local ordinance, obtain an unaltered dog license. It would require an owner or custodian of an unsterilized cat who permits that cat to roam at large to have the cat sterilized or provide obtain a certificate of sterility. It would allow an unaltered dog license to be denied, revoked, and reapplied for, as specified, and the licensing agency to utilize its existing procedures or to establish new procedures for any appeal of a denial or revocation of an unaltered dog license. The bill would authorize the licensing agency to assess a fee for the procedures related to the issuance, denial, or revocation of an unaltered dog license.

This bill would require an owner or custodian who offers any unsterilized dog or cat for sale, trade, or adoption to meet specified requirements. It would permit any authorized penalty for a violation of certain provisions relating to dogs to be imposed only if the owner or custodian is concurrently cited for violation of one or more of other specified provisions. It would require, if an unaltered dog or cat is impounded pursuant to state or local law, the owner or custodian to meet specified requirements, including paying the costs of impoundment. It would require all costs, fines, and fees collected under the bill to be paid to the licensing agency for the purpose of defraying the cost of the implementation and enforcement of the bill. By creating new crimes and imposing new duties on local animal control agencies, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program upon local governments.

The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.

This bill would provide that with regard to certain mandates no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.

With regard to any other mandates, this bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs so mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above.

The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.
This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.

Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: yes. State-mandated local program: yes.

The people of the State of California do enact as follows:
1 SECTION 1. Section 30804.6 is added to the Food and
2 Agricultural Code, to read:
3 30804.6. (a) (1) Every dog owner shall secure a license for
4 the dog pursuant to Section 121690 of the Health and Safety Code
5 or as required by the local licensing agency.
6 (2) No person shall own, keep, or harbor an unsterilized dog in
7 violation of this section.
8 (3) An owner or custodian of an unsterilized dog shall have the
9 dog sterilized by the age of six months, provide obtain a certificate
10 of sterility, or, if provided for by ordinance of the responsible city,
11 county, or city and county, obtain an unaltered dog license in
12 accordance with this section.
13 (4) This subdivision shall not apply to a dog with a high
14 likelihood, due to age or infirmity, of suffering serious bodily harm
15 or death if surgically sterilized. The owner or custodian shall obtain
16 written confirmation of this fact from a veterinarian licensed in
17 this state. If the dog is able to be sterilized at a later date, that date
18 shall be stated in the written confirmation. If the date for
19 sterilization in the written confirmation is more than 30 days after
20 the date that the owner or custodian receives that confirmation,
21 the owner or custodian shall apply for an unaltered dog license
22 pursuant to any applicable city, city and county, or county
23 ordinance.
24 (b) An unaltered dog license may be denied or revoked for one
25 or more of the following reasons:
26 (b) The licensing agency shall utilize its existing procedures or
27 may establish procedures for the denial or revocation of an
28 unaltered dog license and may deny or revoke a license for one
29 or more of the following reasons:
30 (1) The owner, custodian, applicant or licensee is not in
31 compliance with all of the requirements of this section.

(2)
The owner, custodian, applicant, or licensee has violated a state law, or a city, county, or other local governmental provision relating to the care and control of animals.

(3)
Any unaltered dog license held by the applicant has been revoked for violating a state law, or a city, county, or other local government provision relating to the care or control of animals.

(4)
The license application is discovered to contain a material misrepresentation or omission of fact.

(c)
The licensing agency shall utilize its existing procedures or may establish procedures for any appeal of a denial or revocation of an unaltered dog license, which appeal procedure may include written notice of the denial or revocation and a reasonable opportunity for the owner or custodian to respond.

(d) The licensing agency may assess a fee for the procedures related to the issuance, denial, or revocation of an unaltered dog license consistent with this chapter.

(d)

(e)
An owner or custodian who offers any unsterilized dog for sale, trade, or adoption at four months of age or older or the age required by the licensing agency shall be required to include a valid unaltered dog license number with the offer of sale, trade, or adoption, or shall otherwise state and establish compliance with this section. The unaltered dog’s license number, and any existing microchip number for the dog, shall appear on the document transferring ownership of the dog to the new owner.

(e)

(f)
(1) Any authorized penalty may be imposed upon an owner or custodian of an unlicensed, unaltered dog for a violation of this section only if the owner or custodian is concurrently cited for one or more of the following:

(A) Permitting the subject dog to roam at large.

(B)
Failure to provide adequate care for the subject dog in violation of animal cruelty provisions.

(C) Rabies quarantine violations for the subject dog.

(D)
Fighting dog activity in violation of Section 597.5 of the Penal Code.

(E)
Failure to comply with the local jurisdiction’s requirements for the keeping of a dog that has been adjudicated by a court or an agency of appropriate jurisdiction to be potentially dangerous, dangerous, or vicious.

(F) Failure to possess an unaltered dog license.

(2)
Any owner or custodian of an unaltered dog who is found to be subject to a penalty under paragraph (1) shall be required to surgically sterilize the unaltered animal in accordance with this section. The licensing agency shall utilize its existing procedures

may utilize procedures as they exist on the effective date of this Section for any appeal of this requirement.

(3)
Any owner or custodian of an unaltered dog who is lawfully using that dog for the pursuit or take taking of mammals pursuant to Section 265 of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations or for the lawful pursuit or taking of migratory game birds, game birds, ducks, and other permitted water fowl and has lawfully purchased a hunting license as provided in Section 3031 of the Fish and Game Code is not shall not be in violation of subparagraph (A) of paragraph (1).

(4)
At the time a citation is issued pursuant to paragraph (1) or (2), the licensing agency may provide the owner or custodian information as to the availability of sterilization services for free or at a reduced cost.

(f)
If an unlicensed unaltered dog is impounded pursuant to state or local law, in addition to satisfying applicable requirements for the release of the animal, including, but not limited to, payment of impound fees pursuant to this section, the owner or custodian shall also do one of the following:

(1)
Provide written proof of the dog’s prior sterilization, if conditions cannot or do not make this assessment obvious to the licensing agency personnel.

(2)
Have the dog surgically sterilized by a veterinarian associated with the licensing agency at the expense of the owner or custodian. That expense may include additional fees due to any extraordinary care required.

(3)
Arrange to have the dog surgically sterilized by another veterinarian licensed in this state.

(4)
At the discretion of the licensing agency, the dog may be released to the owner or custodian if he or she pays a refundable deposit consistent with existing practices and procedures, or signs a statement under penalty of perjury representing that the dog will be surgically sterilized and that he or she will submit a statement by the deadline set by the licensing agency, but in no case less than 10 days after the release, signed by the veterinarian,

confirming that the dog has been surgically sterilized or is incapable of breeding, or confirming that the veterinarian has scheduled the operation within a reasonable time.

(g)
The owner or custodian of the unaltered dog shall be responsible for the established costs of impoundment, which shall include daily board costs, vaccination, medication, and any other diagnostic or therapeutic applications as required by this section. The owner or custodian shall comply with any additional impoundment procedures.

(h)
All costs and fines collected under this section and the fees collected under subdivision (g) shall be paid to the licensing agency for the purpose of defraying the cost of the implementation and enforcement of this section.

(i)
Nothing in this section shall prohibit a local jurisdiction from enforcing or enacting local measures that require the spaying or neutering of all dogs, and this section shall not prohibit a local jurisdiction from enacting or enforcing other local measures pertaining to the obligations of a person owning or possessing a dog.

(j)
For the purposes of this section, the following terms have the following meanings:

(1)
“Licensing agency” means the municipal city or county animal control agency or other entity responsible for enforcing laws relating to animals.

(2)
“Custodian” means any person who undertakes the personal care and control of a dog, or any person who intentionally provides care, security, or sustenance for a dog on the person’s property for any period exceeding 30 days. “Custodian” does not include a licensing agency.

(3)
“Sterilize” means to permanently eliminate the ability of a dog to reproduce by removing the sex organs or prohibiting their functions preventing them from functioning.

SEC. 2. Section 31751.4 is added to the Food and Agricultural Code, to read:

31751.4. (a) (1) It is unlawful for any person who owns, keeps, or harbors any unsterilized cat six months of age or older to allow or permit that unsterilized cat to roam at large.

(2)
An owner or custodian of an unsterilized cat who permits that cat to roam at large shall have the animal sterilized, or provide obtain a certificate of sterility.

(3)
This subdivision shall not apply to a cat with a high likelihood, due to age or infirmity, of suffering serious bodily harm or death if sterilized. The owner or custodian shall obtain written confirmation of this fact from a veterinarian licensed in this state. If the cat is able to be sterilized at a later date, that date shall be stated in the written confirmation.

(b)
An owner or custodian who offers any unsterilized cat for sale, trade, or adoption shall notify the licensing agency, if the jurisdiction requires the licensing of cats, of the name and address of the transferee within 10 days after the transfer. Any existing microchip number for the cat shall appear on a document transferring ownership of the cat to the new owner.

(c)
If an unaltered cat is impounded pursuant to state or local law, in addition to satisfying applicable requirements for the release of the animal, including, but not limited to, payment of impound fees pursuant to this section, the owner or custodian shall also do one of the following:

(1)
Provide written proof of the cat’s prior sterilization, if conditions cannot or do not make this assessment obvious to the licensing agency personnel.

(2)
Have the cat surgically sterilized by a veterinarian associated with the licensing agency at the expense of the owner or custodian. That expense may include additional fees due to any extraordinary care required.

(3)
Arrange to have the cat surgically sterilized by another veterinarian licensed in this state.

(4)
At the discretion of the licensing agency, the cat may be released to the owner or custodian if he or she pays a refundable deposit consistent with existing practices and procedures, or signs a statement under penalty of perjury representing that the cat will be surgically sterilized and that he or she will submit a statement by the deadline set by the licensing agency, but in no case less than 10 days after the release, signed by the veterinarian, confirming that the cat has been surgically sterilized or is incapable of breeding, or confirming that the veterinarian has scheduled the operation within a reasonable time.

(d)
The owner or custodian of the unaltered cat shall be responsible for the established costs of impoundment, which shall include daily board costs, vaccination, medication, and any other diagnostic or therapeutic applications as required by this section.

The owner or custodian shall comply with any additional impoundment procedures.

(e)
All costs and fines collected under this section and the fees collected under subdivision (e) shall be paid to the licensing agency for the purpose of defraying the cost of the implementation and enforcement of this section.

(f)
Nothing in this section shall prohibit a local jurisdiction from enforcing or enacting local measures that require the spaying or neutering of all cats, and this section shall not prohibit a local jurisdiction from enacting or enforcing other local measures pertaining to the obligations of a person owning or possessing a cat.

(g)
For the purposes of this section, the following terms have the following meanings:

(1)
“Custodian” means any person who undertakes the personal care and control of a cat, or any person who intentionally provides care, security, or sustenance for a cat on the person’s property for any period exceeding 30 days. “Custodian” does not include a licensing agency.

(2)
“Licensing agency” means the municipal city or county animal control agency or other entity responsible for enforcing laws relating to animals.

(3)
“Sterilize” means to permanently eliminate the ability of a cat to reproduce by removing the sex organs or prohibiting their functions preventing them from functioning.

SEC. 3. No reimbursement is required by this act pursuant to Section 6 of Article XIIIB of the California Constitution for certain costs that may be incurred by a local agency or school district because, in that regard, this act creates a new crime or infraction, eliminates a crime or infraction, or changes the penalty for a crime or infraction, within the meaning of Section 17556 of the Government Code, or changes the definition of a crime within the meaning of Section 6 of Article XIII B of the California Constitution.

However, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that this act contains other costs mandated by the state, reimbursement to local agencies and school districts for those costs shall be made pursuant to Part 7 (commencing with Section 17500) of Division 4 of Title 2 of the Government Code.

123456789

SECTION 3. No reimbursement is required by this act pursuant to Section 6 of Article XIII B of the California Constitution because the only costs that may be incurred by a local agency or school district will be incurred because this act creates a new crime or infraction, eliminates a crime or infraction, or changes the penalty for a crime or infraction, within the meaning of Section 17556 of the Government Code, or changes the definition of a crime within the meaning of Section 6 of Article XIII B of the California Constitution.

O

This piece of Anti-Pet Legislation criminalizes owners of docked dogs.  Sponsored By Deborah J.  Glick and backed by the extremist Humane Society of the United States, NY A07218 contains numerous Civil Rights Violations, including basis for Warrantless Searches, Selective Enforcement,  Racial Profiling and Unequal Protection.  NY A07218  will end dog shows throughout New York State  - resulting in a loss of revenue for local businesses, tax revenue for the state, and loss of revenue for the veterinary profession.

DOWNLOAD A COPY OF NY A07218

NEW YORK BILL NO A07218

SPONSOR: Deborah J. Glick (MS)

CO-SPONSORS: Nelson L. Castro, William Colton, Jeffrey Dinowitz, Patricia A. Eddington, Micah Kellner, Amy Paulin, Linda B. Rosenthal

MLTSPNSR: Greg Ball, William F. Boyland, Richard M. Gottfried, John J. McEneny

Amd S365-a, Ag & Mkts L
Prohibits the docking of dog tails for reasons other than to protect the life
or health of the dog as deemed necessary by a duly licensed veterinarian; does not apply to dogs that have been certified as tail docked prior to August 1, 2009

A07218 Memo:
BILL NUMBER: A7218
TITLE OF BILL: An act to amend the agriculture and markets law, in
relation to making tail docking of dogs unlawful

PURPOSE OR GENERAL IDEA OF BILL: Prohibits the docking of dog tails for
reasons other than to protect the life or health of the dog as deemed
necessary by a duly licensed veterinarian.

SUMMARY OF SPECIFIC PROVISIONS: Section 1. The agriculture and markets
law is amended by adding a new section 365-a: Any person who cuts the
tail of a dog for reasons other than to protect the life or health of
the animal is guilty of a misdemeanor, punishable by a fine of not more
than five hundred dollars. Any person who shows or exhibits a dog whose
tail has been docked or altered, at a show or other exhibition, is guilty
of a misdemeanor, punishable as above. Any dog owner who is injured
or damaged by a violation of these provisions may institute a private
right of action in the supreme court of this state, to obtain redress
for such injury or violation. The provisions shall not apply to any dog
or person who is the owner of any dog whose tail has been certified as
docked, cut or altered prior to August 1, 2009.

JUSTIFICATION: The enactment of this bill would ensure that dogs are not
caused unnecessary risk and pain by cosmetic tail docking. Performed
under anesthetic, the procedure carries within it inherent risks of
blood loss and infection, as well as causing lasting chronic tension in
the back and hindquarter muscles of dogs after the procedure. While
illegal in many countries, docking procedures are so prevalent today
that dogs of some breeds are not recognizable when they are in fact
intact. This legislation would ensure that dogs are no longer subjected
to lasting pain as a result of docking, and also that shows and exhibitions
will no favor dogs whose tails have been docked.

PRIOR LEGISLATIVE HISTORY: New Bill

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS: None to the State

EFFECTIVE DATE: This act shall take effect August 1, 2009; provided,
however, if it shall become law after such date it shall take effect
immediately and shall be deemed to have been in full force and effect on
and after August 1, 2009.

————————————————————————————————–

The American Rottweiler Club opposes NY A07218 and will provide an official response and a full analysis to each of the sponsors of A07218

http://tinyurl.com/NYA07218

WHAT YOU CAN DO:

Write, call and visit the sponsors of NY A07218 and let them know your viewpoint.

NY State Assembly Agriculture Committee – 2009

Committee Chair – William Magee
Assembly District – 111th
Counties Represented – Madison, Oneida, Otsego
Albany Office – LOB 828
Albany, NY 12248
Telephone (Albany) – 518-455-5807
E-Mail – MageeW@assembly.state.ny.us

Marc Alessi
Assembly District – 1st
Counties Represented – Suffolk
Albany Office – LOB 419
Albany, NY 12248
Telephone (Albany) – 518-455 -5294
E-Mail – AlessiM@assembly.state.ny.us

George Amedor
Assembly District – 105th
Counties Represented – Montgomery, Schenedtady
Albany Office – LOB 426
Albany, NY 12248
Telephone (Albany) – 518-455-5197
E-Mail – AmedorG@assembly.state.ny.us

Michael Benedetto
Assembly District – 82nd
Counties Represented – Bronx
Albany Office – LOB 919
Albany, NY 12248
Telephone (Albany) – 518-455-5296
E-Mail – BenedeM@assembly.state.ny.us

Marc W. Butler
Assembly District – 117th
Counties Represented – Otsego, Herkimer, Fulton
Albany Office – LOB 318
Albany, NY 12248
Telephone (Albany) – 518-455-5393
E-Mail – ButlerM@assembly.state.ny.us

Clifford W. Crouch
Assembly District – 107th
Counties Represented – Chenango, Broome, Delaware, Ulster
Albany Office – LOB 450
Albany, NY 12248
Telephone (Albany) – 518-455-5741
E-Mail – CrouchC@assembly.state.ny.us

Francine Delmonte
Assembly District – 138th
Counties Represented – Niagara
Albany Office – LOB 553
Albany, NY 12248
Telephone (Albany) – 518-455-5284
E-Mail – DelMonF@assembly.state.ny.us

RoAnn M. Destito
Assembly District – 116th
Counties Represented – Oneida
Albany Office – LOB 621
Albany, NY 12248
Telephone (Albany) – 518-455-5454
E-Mail – DestitR@assembly.state.ny.us

Gary D. Finch
Assembly District – 123rd
Counties Represented – Broome, Tioga, Chenango, Cayuga, Cortland
Albany Office – LOB 320
Albany, NY 12248
Telephone (Albany) – 518-455-5878
E-Mail – FinchG@assembly.state.ny.us

Tim Gordon
Assembly District – 108th
Counties Represented – Columbia, Rensselaer, Greene, Albany
Albany Office – LOB 529
Albany, NY 12248
Telephone (Albany) – 518-455-5777
E-Mail – GordonT@assembly.state.ny.us

Aileen M. Gunther
Assembly District – 98th
Counties Represented – Orange, Sullivan
Albany Office – LOB 435
Albany, NY 12248
Telephone (Albany) – 518-455- 5355
E-Mail – GunthA@assembly.state.ny.us

Stephen Hawley
Assembly District – 139th
Counties Represented – Niagara, Orleans, Genesee, Monroe
Albany Office – LOB 531
Albany, NY 12248
Telephone (Albany) – 518-455-5811
E-Mail – HawleyS@assembly.state.ny.us

Barbara Lifton
Assembly District – 139th
Counties Represented – Cortland, Tompkins
Albany Office – LOB 555
Albany, NY 12248
Telephone (Albany) – 518-455-5444
E-Mail – LiftonB@assembly.state.ny.us

Peter D. Lopez
Assembly District – 127th
Counties Represented – Greene, Otsego, Delaware, Schoharie, Ulster, Columbia, Chenango
Albany Office – LOB 429
Albany, NY 12248
Telephone (Albany) – 518-455-5363
E-Mail – LopezP@assembly.state.ny.us

Alan Maisel
Assembly District – 59th
Counties Represented – Kings
Albany Office – LOB 528
Albany, NY 12248
Telephone (Albany) – 518-455-5211
E-Mail – MaiselA@assembly.state.ny.us

Margaret M. Markey
Assembly District – 30th
Counties Represented – Queens
Albany Office – LOB 654
Albany, NY 12248
Telephone (Albany) – 518-455-4755
E-Mail – MarkeyM@assembly.state.ny.us

John J. McEneny
Assembly District – 104th
Counties Represented – Albany
Albany Office – LOB 648
Albany, NY 12248
Telephone (Albany) – 518-455-4178
E-Mail – McEnenJ@assembly.state.ny.us

Bob Reilly
Assembly District – 109th
Counties Represented – Albany, Saratoga
Albany Office – LOB 452
Albany, NY 12248
Telephone (Albany) – 518-455-5931
E-Mail – ReillyR@assembly.state.ny.us

Peter M. Rivera
Assembly District – 76th
Counties Represented – Bronx
Albany Office – LOB 826
Albany, NY 12248
Telephone (Albany) – 518-455-5102
E-Mail – RiveraP@assembly.state.ny.us

Linda B. Rosenthal
Assembly District – 67th
Counties Represented – New York

NEW YORK STATE SENATE AGRICULTURE COMMITTEE

Darrel Aubertine – Chairman – email: aubertin@senate.state.ny.us
William Stachowski – stachows@senate.state.ny.us
Catharine Young – does not appear to have email – Albany fax is (518) 426-6905
Velmanette Montgomery – montgome@senate.state.ny.us
Neil Breslin – breslin@senate.state.ny.us
David Valesky – valesky@senate.state.ny.us
James Seward – does not appear to have email or a fax!
George Winner – does not appear to have email – Albany fax is (518) 426-6976
Michael Ranzenhofer – does not appear to have email or a fax!

Those STATE SENATORS without email addresses have a comment form on their web pages which can be accessed through the list of senators

http://www.senate.state.ny.us/senatehomepage.nsf/senators?OpenForm

Councilman Brendan Clancy
2ndDistrict
City Hall Council Chambers
6070 Central Avenue
Portage, IN 46368
219-406-4732
ClancyPortage2@hotmail.com

Dear Honorable Councilman Clancy,

The American Rottweiler Club (ARC) is the American Kennel Club Parent Club of the Rottweiler in the United States with over 1000 members, many of whom live in Indiana.

As the Parent Club, ARC promotes conformation, obedience, rally, agility, herding, carting, therapy, search and rescue, tracking, as well as maintenance of excellent health care.

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 productive 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 are opposed to the proposed City of Portage breed specific legislation condemning Rottweilers, Pit Bulls, German Shepherd Dogs, Akitas, and Doberman Pinschers, as well as any breed of dog as vicious. The propensity of a violent disposition is a direct result of the training and socialization by the owner.

There are strategies that can be used in an effort to prevent dog bites which include enforcement of generic, non-breed-specific dangerous dog 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