The Board of Supervisors in Riverside, CA is proposing a mandatory spay/neuter and microchip ordinance. The plan is to sterilize any dogs who are picked up running at large, that are unlicensed, that bite, or otherwise violate a state or local law. All dogs and cats in the county would HAVE to be micro chipped.

http://www.pe.com/localnews/inland/stories/PE_News_Local_S_spay16.387cb35.html

There was a hearing on Tuesday, 12/17 and the room was filled with animal rights groups who talked about why this would be good for animals. There were very few breeders in attendance and few spoke in opposition.

There will be another hearing on January 12, 2009 at 9:30 am at Board chambers, 4080 Lemon St., Riverside

Ear Cropping and Tail Docking
(EB revised 11/2008)
The AVMA opposes ear cropping and tail docking of dogs when done solely for cosmetic purposes. The AVMA encourages the elimination of ear cropping and tail docking from breed standards.

The STCA will be sending an official letter expressing our dissappointment to the AVMA, and encourages all members to do the same.  The Animal Rights groups will waste no time in taking advantage of this large organization’s new stance when it comes to pushing for cropping/docking bans in the United States!

The Durham Kennel club, of neighboring Durham county, officially opposed the ordinance, sending a representative to read a statement authored by STCA Legislative Committee member, Kristin Tresidder, advocating the enforcement of current animal cruelty laws.

Here is a copy of the letter that was sent to the commissioners, and read at the public hearing:

“Commissioners;

Comprised of over 250 members, more than 40 of which reside in Orange County, the Durham Kennel Club (DKC) has been promoting the care and welfare of North Carolina’s dogs for over thirty-nine years. Through owner education and community involvement, the DKC has striven for the betterment of all dogs, regardless of their background. The DKC officially opposes legislation limiting the rights of responsible dog owners to keep dogs in a humane manner, including anti-tether legislation. Where there are already laws in place dealing with neglect and animal cruelty, there is no need for further legislation to address the same issues.

The Orange County Animal Cruelty ordinance currently in place states:

“All animals in Orange County are required to have the following:

* Adequate Food - Animals should be fed with foodstuff that is nutritious and suitable for the species and age group. Such foodstuff shall be provided at least every 24 hours and served in a clean receptacle, dish, or container that is free of contaminants that may be injurious to the health of the animal.

* Adequate Water - Animals must receive constant access to a supply of clean, fresh water provided in a sanitary manner.

* Adequate Shelter - Non-aquatic animals shall be provided shelter which will keep them dry, out of the direct path of winds and the sun, and at a temperature level that is healthful for the animal. The animal containment area shall be free of accumulated waste and debris so that the animal can walk or lie down without coming in contact with any such waste or debris, and a suitable method of draining shall be provided to eliminate rapidly excess water or moisture.

* Aquatic animals shall have an adequate amount of clean water in which to move..”
http://www.co.orange.nc.us/animalservices/occruelty.asp

Considering that it is entirely possible, indeed easy, to tether a dog while meeting all of the stated requirements above, it is contradictory to define tethering in and of itself an act of cruelty punishable by law. Dogs tethered in a manor inconsistent with existing laws are already protected under said laws. We support the cruelty laws as they stand now and fully condone continued efforts to enforce them against those that choose not to comply. Those dog owners who keep their dogs responsibly on tethers, meeting all the requirements of the law, should not be penalized for the negligent actions of those who choose not to abide by the law.

Every “issue” broached in the proposed anti-tether legislation is already addressed by the current animal cruelty laws: adequate shelter, veterinary care, food and water, waste removal, etc. Anti-tether bills, such as this one are couched in emotional appeals, and personal anecdotes, rather than being based on factual evidence. Pictures of starving puppies on logging chains are used to sell a horror story, one not representative of the norm, to sympathetic dog lovers, the majority of which keep their dogs strictly inside as house dogs. It is entirely possible to tether a dog responsibly in a manner consistent with, and even above and beyond, all existing levels of mandatory care. Whether an outdoor dog lives in a kennel or on a tether, the obligation exists to keep the dog responsibly, which is contingent upon a combination of love, and common sense – neither of which can be created through legislation. “

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!

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.

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

Of the seventy four speakers at the meeting, sixty seven were in support and seven against, including private citizens, representatives of the North Carolina Responsible Animal Owners Alliance, the Cape Fear APBT club, and the STCA.  The seven speakers who were against the ordinance and in support of responsible animal confinement, be it in kennels or on tethers, were often subjected to derisive heckling and veiled threats by the proponents of the tethering ban and kennel size restrictions.

Those in favor of the ban relied almost solely on anecdotal evidence and personal grievances against neighbors to bolster their case, while those against were able to offer scientific studies and existing laws with subsequent penalties as evidence that the new ordinance banning tethering was unnecessary and would not be more effective than the current statutes.

In retrospect, it would have been useful to speak at greater length about the impracticalities of the kenneling size restrictions, as that is being largely ignored by proponents of the ban, as well as those who are against it.  Many more people keep their dogs in kennels than on runs, and it is doubtful that all of them meet the minimum size requirements proposed in the new ordinance.  If this law passes, the use of a 5′x10′ kennel will become a crime in Durham County, no matter how small the dog it contains, and that could be an eye opener for many who thought that they were in simply favor of ‘unchaining the dogs.’

The Denver ordinance bans ownership or possession of the Staffordshire
Bull Terrier, the American Staffordshire Bull Terrier and the American
Pit Bull Terrier and/or any dog with a majority of physical traits of
one or more of these breeds within the city or county of Denver. Since
2005, as a result of this ordinance, several hundred dogs within the
city limits had been euthanized.

The AKC’s position statement on BSL reads as follows:

“The AKC supports reasonable, enforceable, non-discriminatory laws to
govern the ownership of dogs and that dog owners should be
responsible for their dogs. We support laws that: establish a fair
process by which specific dogs are identified as “dangerous” based on
stated, measurable actions; impose appropriate penalties on
irresponsible owners; and establish a well-defined method for dealing
with dogs proven to be dangerous. We believe that, if necessary, dogs
proven to be “dangerous” may need to be humanely destroyed. The AKC
strongly opposes any legislation that determines a dog to be “dangerous”
based on specific breeds or phenotypic classes of dogs.”

Please send your support for their decision to fight BSL in Denver to the AKC!

The following is a copy of the letter sent by the Region 3 STCA Legislative Liaisons to the five County Commisioners:

The Staffordshire Terrier Club of America opposes any and all legislation limiting the rights of dog owners to keep dogs in a responsible manner, including anti-tether legislation. Where there are already laws in place dealing with neglect and animal cruelty, there is no need for further legislation to address the same issues.

The Durham County Animal Cruelty code currently in place states:
“It is not considered animal cruelty to house an animal outdoors. However, all animals must be provided adequate food, a constant supply of clean, fresh water and adequate shelter from the weather at all times.

Animals that are tethered outdoors are required to have no less than 10 feet of chain with swivels on both ends and are to be tethered in such a manner that the animal cannot become entangled. A chain or tether cannot exceed 10% of the animals body weight. A chain cannot be used as a primary collar. For the purpose of chaining or tethering a collar must be made of nylon or leather

It is unlawful to allow a collar, rope or chain to become embedded in or cause injury to an animal’s neck. It is important to monitor a growing animal’s collar for the necessity of adjustment. It is also unlawful to use a choke or pinch collar to be used as a primary collar when the animal is left unsupervised.”
http://www.durhamcountync.gov/departments/anml/Animal_Cruelty.html
Considering that it is entirely possible to tether a dog and meet all of the stated requirements above, it is contradictory to define tethering in and of itself an act of cruelty. Dogs tethered in a manor inconsistent with existing laws are already protected under said laws. We support the laws as they stand now and fully condone continued efforts to enforce them against those that choose not to comply. Those dog owners who keep their dogs responsibly on tethers, meeting all the requirements of the law, should not be penalized for the negligent actions of those who choose not to abide by the law.

Please add your voice by either coming out to the meeting at 7:00pm on August 25th, or by writing, emailing, or calling the following Durham County Commissioners:

Ellen W. Reckhow
Chairman
E-mail: ereckhow@aol.com
Mailing Address:
11 Pine Top Place
Durham, NC 27705
Phone Numbers:
(919) 383-3883 (H)
(919) 383-3833 (Fax)

Michael D. Page
Vice Chairman
E-mail: mpage@durhamcountync.gov
Mailing Address:
702 Basil Drive
Durham, NC 27713
Phone Numbers:
(919) 361-2146 (H)
(919) 699-3299 (C)
(919) 806-0866 (Fax)

Lewis A. Cheek
E-mail: lewis_cheek@nc.rr.com
Mailing Address:
5105 Copper Ridge Drive, #308
Durham, NC 27707
Phone Numbers:
(919) 401-8538 (Fax)

Philip R Cousin, Jr.
E-mail: prcousin@earthlink.net
Mailing Address:
509 Wellingham Drive
Durham, NC 27713
Phone Numbers:
(919) 683-1379 (W)
(919) 572-2257 (H)
(919) 572-9161 (Fax)

Becky M Heron
E-mail: bmheron@durhamcountync.gov
Mailing Address:
4425 Kerley Road
Durham, NC 27705
Phone Numbers:
(919) 489-4402 (H)
(919) 419-1398 (Fax)

The new and improved STCA Legislative Committee has found a new way to allow you to “showcase” your wonderful Staf with everyone in attendance at the banquet! The slide show will also be available on CD for purchase during the Club Banquet.

For a donation, your AST can be seen on the “Big Screen” during our National Club Banquet. Your donations will go to help build our club’s Legislative Defense Fund, with proceeds earmarked to help various clubs around the country defray the costs of battling crippling BSL and various other laws and lawsuits aimed at making owning our breed, or purebred dogs in general a thing of the past.

For the full specifics on this fundraiser please check out the page below.

2008 National Specialty Legislative Committee Fundraiser

Also make sure to check out the new region specific legislative pages by clicking your appropriate region on the map found on our STCA Legislative Zones page.

The Legislative Committee and the STCA thank you for your support!