contact us

Staffordshire Terrier Club of America - Legislative Committee

: :  Categories

: :  Archived News

: :  Calendar

  • July 2010
    M T W T F S S
    « Jun    
     1234
    567891011
    12131415161718
    19202122232425
    262728293031  

: :  Control Panel

Identification

Legislative News

Montana

January 22nd, 2009

Montana legislator, Robyn Driscoll’s House Bill 191 would ban Staffordshire Bull Terriers, American Staffordshire Terriers, American Pit Bull Terriers, American Bulldogs as well as “any dog that has been registered at any time as a pit bull terrier or has the physical characteristics that substantially conform to the standards established for the breeds listed in this subsection by the American kennel club or the united kennel club.“  in the entire state of Montana.   If passed, the bill calls for the surrender and euthanization of all members of the above breeds, at the owner’s expense, within ten days.

The hearing on HB191 is scheduled for 3:00pm on 1/22/09.

The STCA Legislative committee has been in contact with local all breed clubs in Montana, as well as writing letters to Montana legislators in an effort to balk this proposed bill’s progress, and to protest the use of our breed standard in any type of breed specific legislation.   Please contact your regional representative for more information on what you can do to help, regardless of whether or not you live in Montana.

Lowell, Massachusetts

January 17th, 2009

The STCA AKC Delegate, Holly Stump, took a proactive approach to prevent the passing of a proposed Breed Specific ordinance in her home state. The following is her first hand account of how she fought BSL in Lowell Massachusetts and got legislators to see that there is a better way:

In preparation:

I have been talking with two rescue groups from area to help get folks to attend. Also Lowell Humane Society executive director ( Jill O’Connel ) and the Lowell ACO officer ( Bill Potter ). I wrote to city solicitor, city manager and mayor and all council members and attached lots of good info. One councilor ( Ammand Mercier ) has a daughter Pauline who is involved with PBRC. I have been trying to reach her to see if we can get to him. I am constantly told councilors are also controlled by mayor who is very much the drive behind this thing. I confirmed with city clerk that the meeting is open to non residents. Found out the Lowell Sun journalist who has been covering this is a Pit Bull owner.. Jennifer Myers. I wrote to her as well…. I obtained a copy of what they put in place Dec 23, 2008 ( basically Haverhill’s that many of us contributed to last year ) and what they are proposing to layer on top ( pit bull specific ). This includes muzzling when off of owners property, No open windows or screened doors in structures where dogs are present, required singe for areas dog is to be confined (indoor and outdoor), not allowed in city Dog Parks, special license ( max 2 per household), required spay/ neuter with medical exemption only . “ The ACO is authorized to immediately impound any PB in violation of article IV and which does not fall within the listed exceptions listed therein. The ACO is authorized to house and/or dispose of any impounded PB at his/her sole professional discretion. ACO is authorized to expand the provisions of article IV to include additional breeds of dogs upon ordinance amendment approval by Lowell City Council; based on a cursory showing of the reasons for such expansions. Any PB or any dangerous or vicious dog found within the city, as determined by ACO, or any police officer of the LPD, to be a dog trained for dog fighting, or a PB or any dangerous or vicious dog owned or harbored on property known for drug trafficking or gang activity shall be impounded and destroyed by the ACO. The ACO or any LPD officer may shoot a PB or any dangerous or vicious dog trained for fighting or kept in connection with drug trafficking or gang activity if it is reasonably believed that said PB or any dangerous or vicious dog is attacking or about to attack the ACO, the police officer or any person.

At the public hearing:

13 spoke in opposition and two in favor. The two in favor were Lowell residents. One had a dog attacked by a loose PB. The other had a dog attacked by a mastiff that blasted through a screen door. The 13 that spoke in opposition were a mix of outside experts, Lowell organizations and Lowell residents (I think 6). There were more ( about 12 ) residents there opposed but they did not speak, they sat with the opposed group so the numbers were noticed. Myself ( representing NAIA and Mass Fed of Dog Clubs and Responsible Dog Owners ), Emanuel Maciel ( New Bedford ACO and President of MA ACO’s Association, Alan Borgal ( Director of the Center for Animal Protection/ Animal Rescue League of Boston), Dr, Amy Marder ( Vet and behaviorist ), Mike Keiley ( Manager MSPCA MA Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals at Nevins Farms Methuen ), Kara Holmquist ( Advocacy MSPCA), Lowell Unleashed (group of 10- one speaker) all spoke against the ordinance with focus on different areas of expertise. This testimony combined with well delivered and highly factual testimony from local residents had very positive results. Some of the council openly admitted to coming to the meeting with minds basically made up to support this proposal. They all however voted to postpone the vote on passing the ordinance. This was lead by Councilor James Milinazzo’s (Public Safety Committee chair) reversal of the committee’s recommendation formed just two weeks ago on this ordinance. This move proves that democracy and local government can and does work when given a chance. Many of the organization present offered to help Lowell and the offer was accepted. There is lots of work to be done, as some councilors are not yet fully on board with going to something that is 100% non breed specific, but we do have the door open and we will be part of the ongoing efforts in the city of Lowell.

Holly

I sent letters to city staff, mayor and council as well as a letter to the editor of local paper acknowledging and commending them all on the dedication which they are demonstrating while addressing the issue of dangerous dogs in Lowell.

Ridgeland, MS Breed Ban Proposal

October 7th, 2008

Ridgeland, Mississippi is proposing to ban American pit bull terriers, Staffordshire Bull Terriers, American Staffordshire Terriers, Rottweilers and “any dog whose mama or daddy is one of those things,” which is a direct quote from City Attorney James Gabriel.  Alderman Gerald Steen is the biggest proponent of the ban, and Aldermen Ken Heard and Scott Jones said they are not convinced the city should ban certain breeds.
If the amendment passes, any dog owner keeping banned dogs will have 30 days to remove the dogs.

Any person found guilty of violating the ordinance, considered a misdemeanor crime, may be fined no more than $1,000 and/or imprisoned no more than 90 days, however each day of violation will be considered a separate offense and will be enforced as such, including a new fine etc & etc.

STCA members are encouraged to write letters to any and all city officials, including Ridgeland Chief of Police, Jimmy Houston, who is in favor of the ban.

Ridgeland’s proposed ban is a replica of the ban already enacted by the neighboring city of Clinton, MS.

Please contact an STCA regional representative for form letter suggestions, and other ideas to oppose this legislation.  There are many ‘Staff breeders in and around MS, let’s not let this legislation continue to spread in that area!

Massachusetts Alert – State Wide Legislation

September 18th, 2008

In a stunning procedural move, Massachusetts House Bill 1948, which was a reasonable and non-discriminatory dangerous dog bill supported by both the AKC and the Massachusetts Federation of Dog Clubs, has been replaced by House Bill 5092, a conglomeration of many anti-dog, anti-responsible breeder, and anti-responsible owner proposals. The American Kennel Club is not only deeply concerned with the many unacceptable provisions of the bill, but is also disturbed by the procedural maneuver used to deny the concerned dog-owning citizens of Massachusetts an opportunity to state their objections to the egregious bill in a committee hearing format.

Representative Brad Hill sponsored HB 1948, the pragmatic dangerous dog bill, this legislative session. That bill was assigned to the Joint Municipalities Committee, which subsequently sent to it to “study”. That action usually indicates that the bill will not be considered for the remainder of the session. However, on July 28th, part of the bill was recommitted to the Joint Municipalities Committee, which then produced HB 5092. Among the many problematic provisions to HB 5092, the most egregious include:

- Imposing mandatory spay/neuter of all dogs over 12 months of age; or in the alternative, owners will have to qualify for and annually purchase an intact animal permit at a cost of up to $500 per dog.

- Limiting the number of reproductive events per female dog to one litter per year, with few exceptions.

- Requiring the reporting of all sales of puppies to local jurisdictions.

- Eliminating the practice of humane tethering, without allowances for hunting or sled dogs.

- Allowing towns and cities to impose breed-specific ordinances.

- Instituting state-mandated vaccination schedules, instead of allowing vaccination schedules to be provided by, and in consultation with, a veterinarian.

- Establishing unreasonable nuisance laws that can result in the forced sterilization, banishment, or euthanization of dogs.

Legislative staff in Massachusetts has confirmed with the Massachusetts Federation that the House Steering, Policy, and Scheduling Committee currently has cognizance of the bill. This committee does not consider the policy of pending legislation. Instead, it acts as a manager of legislation, determining which bills will be sent to the full House for its consideration, and the timing thereof. Effectively, this means that at any time the House Steering, Policy, and Scheduling Committee will send HB 5092 to the full House for its consideration and vote, effectively denying Massachusetts citizens the opportunity to participate in the legislative process by stating their objections to the bill in a policy committee hearing!

WHAT YOU CAN DO:
It is imperative that Massachusetts residents contact the members of the Steering, Policy, and Scheduling Committee, and implore them to not send HB 5092 to the floor for a vote. Instead, encourage them to return the bill to study, or in the alternative back to the Joint Municipalities Committee for consideration and public comment on the policies contained in HB 5092.

Members of Massachusetts House Steering, Policy, and Scheduling Committee

Representative Paul J. Donato RM. 185 State House Boston, MA 02133 PHONE: 617-722-2960 FAX: 617-722-2713 Rep.PaulDonato@hou.state.ma.us

Representative Joyce A. Spiliotis RM. 236 State House Boston, MA 02133 PHONE: 617-722-2430 Rep.JoyceSpiliotis@hou.state.ma.us

Representative Paul C. Casey RM. 238 State House Boston, MA 02133 PHONE: 617-722-2380 Rep.PaulCasey@hou.state.ma.us

Representative James B. Eldridge RM. 33 State House Boston, MA 02133 PHONE: 617-722-2060 Rep.JamesEldridge@hou.state.ma.us

Representative Alice Hanlon Peisch RM. 167 State House Boston, MA 02133 PHONE: 617-722-2230 Rep.AlicePeisch@hou.state.ma.us

Representative Denis E. Guyer RM. 443 State House Boston, MA 02133 PHONE: 617-722-2460 Rep.DenisGuyer@hou.state.ma.us

Representative Tom Sannicandro RM. 473F State House Boston, MA 02133 PHONE: 617-722-2210 FAX: 508-626-0692 Rep.TomSannicandro@hou.state.ma.us

Representative James T. Welch RM. 43 State House Boston, MA 02133 PHONE: 617-722-2030 Rep.JamesWelch@hou.state.ma.us

Representative Lori A. Ehrlich RM. 540 State House Boston, MA 02133 PHONE: 617-722-2090 Rep.LoriEhrlich@hou.state.ma.us

Representative Bradford Hill RM. 542 State House Boston, MA 02133 PHONE: 617-722-2489 Rep.BradHill@hou.state.ma.us

Representative Elizabeth A. Poirier RM. 542 State House Boston, MA 02133 PHONE: 617-722-2976 FAX: 617-626-0108 Rep.ElizabethPoirier@hou.state.ma.us

Massachusetts residents are also encouraged to contact their own state representative and express their vehement opposition to egregious provisions of HB 5092, and urge them to do the same.

Hope Mills, NC

September 18th, 2008

After an unfortunate, but vague run in between a pit bull and a police officer, the town of Hope Mills, North Carolina is proposing to ban all “vicious dogs” from the city limits. So far as I can tell, the definition of vicious simply means that the dog is a Pit Bull, a Rottweiller, or a Doberman. One commissioner, by the name of Collins, went so far as to go on record saying,  “Through all my years of law enforcement, pits, Doberman and Rottweilers have been the most vicious …I’m concerned about the public safety and the citizens.”  Hope Mills’ Commissioner Maynor said, “I think we need to do whatever it takes…If it’s banning them within the city, then so be it.”

While there is no breed specific wording yet in the written legislation, NC residents would do well to take a proactive approach towards this situation.  The Legislative Liasions for the NC region will be sending a letter containing both the STCA’s position on BSL and some proposals to help Hope Mills better deal with the owners of dangerous dogs of any breed.

Hope Mills city officials can be reached as follows:

Mayor Eddie Dees
Mayor Pro Tempore Robert Gorman
Commissioner Tonzie Collins
Commissioner Eddie Maynor
Commissioner Doris Luther
Commissioner Jackie Warner

Town of Hope Mills
PO Box 367
5770 Rockfish Road
Hope Mills, NC 28348

Main Phone Number: 910-424-4555
Central Fax Number: 910-424-4902

Office Hours: 8 am to 5 pm Monday thru Friday

Join The STCA|BSL/Canine Legislation|STCA News|Site Map