Proposed Alabama Bill Requires Pet Sterilization - Privately owned dogs and cats within the state of Alabama would need to be spayed or neutered under a bill introduced by Senator Del Marsh. Senate Bill 554 relates to dogs and cats that are 6 months of age and older. It provides for civil fines as well as certain exceptions. If enacted, SB 554 will provide that an owner of an un-sterilized dog 6 months of age or older who is the subject of a complaint may be cited and, in addition to any fine, pay civil penalties as follows:

• $50 on the first occurrence;
  

• $100 on the second occurrence;
  

• Require sterilization of the dog on the third occurrence;
  

• For cat owners, sterilization will be required on second occurrence.

The bill defines "complaint" as any oral or written complaint to a local animal control agency that “alleges that the dog, cat or owner of the dog or cat has violated this act, any other provision of state law that relates to dogs or cats, or a local animal control ordinance. "Complaint" will not include an allegation of excessive noise or barking.

The Northwest Herald - Don’t mess with McHenry County’s pet lovers. Almost 150 of them crammed into a small meeting room to tell the McHenry County Animal Control Advisory Committee that the idea of limiting the number of animals that residents can own was a bad one.  “This panel, the health department and the County Board do not have to do this to show us that they’re doing something,” Rang said. “Just the fact that you’re even thinking about this scares the hell out of me.” Some residents murmured during the meeting that the county was considering limits for the sole purpose of keeping up with other governments. Other speakers said they worried that limiting animal ownership would actually run contrary to the health department’s mission because people would stop vaccinating their pets and paying for veterinary care out of fear of being discovered as having too many animals.

Pet Owners Must Get Rid of Dogs - Shelley, Idaho - New ordinance allows only two dogs per household. This woman has lived in rural Shelley for 7-years with her four dogs, now the city says pay the fines to keep them, give them away, or put them to sleep. Seth, Maggie, Buu, and Muggzy are Linda Fitzpatrick's best friends. Now she faced with the decision of which two to get rid of.  "Unfortunately none of them are adoptable, basically because of age or illness," says Fitzpatrick. About a month ago two officers showed up to tell Linda the two dog limit per house hold law in Shelley. Until she got rid of two, she would be fined $50 every day the four remained on the property.

The Herald & Review - Changes to tighten Macon County's ordinance and raise the fines for violating it would apply only to unincorporated areas of the county outside any city or village limits.  Nine citizens spoke out against changing the ordinance.  Opponent complaints centered on proposed provisions that would require the purchase of a special license to breed a dog or cat and to own eight or more dogs and/or cats. Sheriff Thomas Schneider said he thought requiring inspections as a condition of getting a license was too intrusive.

Prattville Progress - Former county commissioner Mike Morgan said the provisions of limited home rule give the county the right to implement leash laws and other local legislation without approval of the state Legislature. Commission Chairman Danny Chavers promised that the county would look into the passage of a similar to one implemented in Cherokee County.  "There does need to be some changes, since our leash law is from 1961," Chavers said. "

The Heartland Institute - The Kansas Supreme Court has ruled counties may not impose more stringent agricultural environmental and pollution controls than are imposed under state law. The decision marks a victory for farmers, and in particular family farmers, who would otherwise face the confusing task of complying with multiple conflicting laws. A district judge held the county resolution exceeded the county's home rule authority and found that   the county resolution's provisions regarding separation distances constituted an unlawful attempt to engage in zoning of agricultural land. President of the Kansas Farm Bureau, called the state supreme court's decision "an enormous victory for Kansas farmers, ranchers, and rural communities.

Prince George's COUNTY Animal Ordinance Excerpts
  an example of what could be enacted in Marshall County

Leash Law  - It is against the law for the owner or custodian of any animal to allow the animal to run at-large. Any dog or cat that is found at-large may be impounded. A Violation Notice may be issued by a County Police Officer or Animal Control Officer to the owner of an animal found at-large.

Removal of Excrement - The owner or custodian of any dog or cat is required to remove their pet's excrement from public or private property unless otherwise allowed to remain on the property by the property owner or occupant thereof.

Manner of Keeping Animals - No person shall keep or maintain any animal in such a manner as to cause the animal to become a public nuisance, or disturb the peace, comfort or health of any person.

Unnecessary Noises by Animals - Animals that cause frequent or continued noise will not be allowed to disturb the comfort or repose of any person in the vicinity.

Animal Hobby Permit - Anyone who keeps or harbors five or more animals larger than a guinea pig over the age of four months must first obtain an animal hobby permit.

 

The News Herald - Morganton, NC - In talking with people about the proposed Burke County animal ordinance, I have learned that far too many people have not even read the ordinance and therefore don't realize what a negative impact it will have on them. Did you know the ordinance includes the following:

1. You must notify animal control if you feed or keep a stray.

2. You will not be permitted to give away, sell or adopt a stray without first surrendering the animal to animal control.

3. If you fail to notify animal control about a stray you "shall be guilty of a class 3 misdemeanor."

4. An animal surrendered by its owner – or anyone who claims to be the owner – may be destroyed immediately?

5. If you violate any provision of this ordinance, you must pay a penalty within five days, plus court costs, in a civil action. If you fail to pay within five days, you must pay an additional penalty of $50 per violation per day until the violation is corrected.

6. You may be punished and fined for helping an animal in need.

 

Questions About Animal Search & Seizure

LOUISVILLE, KY (WAVE) - Council members came up with a new animal ordinance to make the city safer, but the rewritten ordinance is stirring up a firestorm of  controversy, with some people are complaining that Animal Services officers are going after harmless animals. The new law gives Metro Animal Services something it's officers never had before: the ability to investigate. Now it can get warrants, go into a home and seize animals. The question now is whether they have the right targets and if they are acting above the law in any way. One of several attorneys representing breeders sent the Council a letter, claiming the methods used by Animal Services are intimidating and possibly illegal. 

"A person charged with murder has more rights than we do," said Janet Head, a part-time breeder who recently had her dogs seized. Head and her sister spent the last two days in court trying to get their five miniature Schnauzer dogs and puppies back. The two sisters say they just called Metro Animal Services last week to find out what kind of license they needed for their small part-time breeding business. Then, on Monday, Janet got a call from a neighbor who saw officers from Animal Services inside her house taking her dogs.  "They were coming in and out of our front door according to our neighbors," Head said. "And I think they broke into my house, and I think that's terrible!" 

The officers left a search warrant in Head's door, then paid a visit to her sister's home. "I was very panicked," Cogswell said. That's when an officer told her that her three dogs were being taken from her. "I said: 'what are they going to do?' And he said they're not going to do anything to them tonight, but they will be neutered or spayed," Cogswell said. Both women say altering the show dogs will reduce their value. 

Dr. Damon Campbell a Louisville Veterinarian who has taken care of the women's dogs disagrees with the way Animal Services handled the situation. "These ladies are legitimate breeders," Campbell said. "They take good care of their animals." Campbell told us all the dogs were up to date on their shots and he can't believe the sisters are a target of  animal control. "This is not where the problem is. These are not vicious animals. They don't attack people - and they're toy dogs!" Campbell believes it's all about money: Cogswell and Head had to pay more than $1,300  to get the dogs back. Metro Animal Services spokeswoman Jackie Gulbe said the women were targeted because they didn't have a proper license. "A kennel license is nothing new, and it's been on the books for decades." Gulbe insists the ordinance calls for an end to back yard breeders and they can't discriminate between miniature schnauzers and pit bulls. She says they are simply following the law.