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

Article 17

Proposed Pit Bull Regulation

Town of Mashpee

Section 1. Purpose

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

Section 2. Definitions

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

TOWN – The Town of Mashpee

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Section 3. Pit Bulls Prohibited

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Section 4. Pit Bull License Requirements

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Section 5. Impoundment

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

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

Section 6. Impoundment Procedure and Enforcement

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

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

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

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

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

Section 7. Appeal Procedure

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

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

Submitted by Petition

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

July 13, 2009

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

Dear President Howard and Respected Members of the Whitehall City Council:
The American Rottweiler Club, Inc. (ARC), the parent club of the American Kennel Club (AKC) for the Rottweiler breed in the United States, representing thousands of dog owners, is writing to express our grave concern over a Whitehall breed ban ordinance.

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

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

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

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

The Duty To Protect The Public Health & Safety

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

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

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

Breed specific policies pose a danger to public health.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Correcting The Myth – CDC Dog Bite Facts

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A WHITEHALL PIT BULL BAN ORDINANCE: Criminalizing Dog Ownership

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Interference With Lawful Activities

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

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

A WHITEHALL PIT BULL BAN ORDINANCE: Breed Identification Issues

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Enforcement: Difficult, Expensive & Ineffective

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

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

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

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

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

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

The impact of breed specific laws is the swelling of already overburdened shelter populations, budgets that quickly spiral out of control, and the unnecessary euthanasia of healthy dogs.

Instead of functioning life-saving stations, local shelters will become death camps for innocent dogs.

A WHITEHALL PIT BULL BAN ORDINANCE: Liability Issues

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A WHITEHALL PIT BULL BAN ORDINANCE: Eliminating Presumption Of Innocence

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

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

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

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

Since:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lowering Thresholds of Evidence For Probable Cause

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

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

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

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

For example:

SENARIO A: Warrantless Search of Premises

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

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

SCENARIO B: Warrantless Searches – Traffic Stops

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

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

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

Establishment Of Unequal Protection

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

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

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

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

Selective Enforcement & Racial Bias

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Expensive Legal Challenges

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

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

Closing Thoughts

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

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

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

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

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

We urge the Committee Members to reject A WHITEHALL PIT BULL BAN ORDINANCE in its entirety, and not allow this dangerous and misguided piece of legislation, no matter how well- intentioned, to bring about the destruction of innocent dogs, rip families apart from their beloved pets, deprive people of their civil rights and create untold heartbreak for the dog-owning citizens of the City of Whitehall, Ohio.

Very truly yours,

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

cc: American Rottweiler Club Board, Peter Piusz, Delegate

ADDENDUM

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

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

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

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

By KEVIN CORVO

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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

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

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