D
Off LEASH
og owners from coast to coast are facing legislative issues that could have significant ramifications, some positive and others negative. In New York, there is a bill being considered that would put an end to discriminating against homeowners based on the breed of dog that they keep. Assembly Bill 3952 would prohibit insurance companies from denying, cancelling or raising premium rates for homeowners’ insurance based on the breed or mixed-breed of dog owned by the policyholder. The bill does allow for insurance companies to take the action of imposing a “reasonably increased premium” or rate or to cancel or deny a policy if the applicant owns a dog that has been declared dangerous as defined in current law. The bill has passed the New York Assembly and is pending in the Senate Insurance Committee. It’s hoped that everyone will get on board with this fair and reasonable proposal. New York State law already expressly prohibits municipalities from passing laws that target specific breeds of dogs and AB 3952 would prohibit insurance companies from discriminating against owners of specific breeds of dogs as well. To contact members of the NY State Insurance Committee to voice support of this bill log on to http://www.nysenate.gov/ committee/insurance. Perhaps more pressing proposals, at least to those New Yorkers that are considered “pet dealers” in the state, are Assembly Bill 740 and Senate Bill 3753. These tandem bills would clarify that counties and municipalities may enact laws, rules, and regulations governing pet dealers, which are defined in current law as those who sell nine or more dogs per year. Those breeders who raise fewer than 25 dogs per year on their residential premises are exempt from this definition under current law. These proposed bills would require that such regulations could not be less stringent than state law and that if the regulations are more stringent, it would be incumbent on the local government to enforce those regulations. In addition, the bills would allow municipalities to enact local laws and regulations governing pet dealers. These laws could include requiring mandatory spay/neuter of dogs prior to sales by pet dealers, in addition to regulations concerning the health and safety of animals maintained by pet dealers. Anyone who fits the definition of “pet dealer” in the Empire State is urged to contact their State Senator to voice their concern with these bills, as they may be subjected to overly strict, burdensome and unnecessary new laws. Local government officials may also want to voice their concerns over the possibility of being overwhelmed with enforcing
48 Dog News
Legislative Alerts From L.A. to NY ByShaun Coen
new regulations. Time is of the essence in this matter, as Senate Bill 3753 is on the third reading calendar and may be voted on any day. Assembly Bill 740 is pending in the Rules Committee and could be coming up for a vote in the very near future, so concerned parties should contact their State Assemblymembers too.
O
ver on the left coast, dog owners are also on alert. The Los Angeles City Council has proposed revisions to amend the current mandatory spay/neuter ordinance to require spay/neuter for any licensed dog that is impounded twice. Other modifications include requiring holders of breeding permits to submit to inspection by the L.A. Department of Animal Services and to implant each offspring with an animal identification device identifying the owner and breeder of the animal and in the event ownership is transferred, the identity of the breeder must remain listed along with the new owner. In the City of Los Angeles all dogs and cats must be sterilized unless the animal qualifies for an exemption or the owner purchases a breeding permit. In January, 2008 an ordinance allowed dogs and cats that are registered with a breed registry and show animals that have competed within the previous two years to be exempt, along with dogs pursuing agility, herding, working and other titles. This newly proposed ordinance would remove exemptions for dogs that have earned or are being trained for and are in the process of earning a title in agility, carting, herding, hunting, working or other title even though there is no evidence that these exemptions are currently being exploited. As revised, the ordinance now also includes requirements that stray dogs and cats be implanted with a microchip at the owner’s expense prior to their release and in the event an animal is impounded a second time, sterilization would be mandatory. This is a totally unreasonable standard. If a wily puppy gets loose at just a few months of age and not again until several years later, due to no fault of the owner – a child, guest or delivery person accidentally
leaves a gate open, for instance – should a permanent fix be the result? Such a scenario doesn’t necessarily constitute the actions of an irresponsible owner. Should this ordinance as written come to fruition the reward for being a responsible breeder and applying for a permit is opening yourself and your home up to a warrantless search by the LA Department of Animal Services. That’s right, choosing to breed or own intact dogs will result in waiving your constitutional rights. Dog breeders would no longer be treated as equals under the law, as even those suspected of committing major felonies have rights and warrants must be obtained before their homes can be searched. In addition, as no standards for breeders are established with this proposed legislation, breeders have no idea what they would be judged on should the Department of Animal Services come calling. Furthermore, breeders would be required to implant all dogs sold with a microchip, “to maintain the breeder’s identity as well as that of the new owner’s” on the microchip. Microchipping can be an invaluable tool to assist in animal recovery, but as the American Kennel Club points out, this proposal indicates a lack of understanding about how microchips and registries operate. According to an AKC legislative alert, “Microchips themselves do not contain any information, rather when scanned they display a unique number which can be used to access the owner’s information in the database of a microchip registry…if the chips are purchased directly by a breeder then the system will retain their information as the point of sale. However, if the chip is purchased from a veterinarian, shelter or public group then no such record will exist. A breeder could register the chip initially but the new owner would be able to remove that information at his/his discretion. The breeder has no control over the information and therefore it is not reasonable to require that their contact information remain associated with a specific microchip.” Sounds like seriously misguided legislation drafted by misinformed, ill-advised councilmembers. All concerned dog owners and breeders in Los Angeles are urged to enlighten the Council about the problems with this ordinance immediately. Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa can be reached at mayor@lacity.org or 213 978-0600 and a complete list of council members’phone numbers and email addresses can be found at http://www.lacity.org/government/ElectedOfficialOffices/CityCouncil/CouncilDirectory/index.htm.