|
The year 2002 saw a continuation of passage of some state bills and local ordinances that have been making their way across the country, such as creation of felony provisions for certain instances of animal cruelty, and the ill-advised pet numbers limit laws. In ways, it seemed that 2002 was the year that every state and city jumped on the bandwagon to rewrite old animal laws or to write new ones. A closer inspection, though, reveals that the year just might be known more by laws that failed rather than those that passed, as animal advocates have become increasingly more aware of legislative activity and more knowledgeable about important issues that affect them as pet owners.
The most important concept in assessing the value of legislation is that good ideas do not necessarily translate into good laws. Examples of this concept from the 2002 legislative year come from voter initiatives on animal issues that were passed in the states of Oklahoma and Florida. Implementation of the new Oklahoma law is being delayed while the courts review it. The intent of the legislation had been to prevent the activity of cockfighting in the state, but the wording was such that it is possible that it was actually made illegal to simply own a chicken in the state! Similarly, while virtually every media and pundit in the state of Florida condemned another state ballot initiative, appeals to the public's love of animals resulted in its passage by a slim majority. Presented to the voting public as a measure to stop cruel treatment of pregnant pigs, what it actually did was to inappropriately include a statement of pig's "rights" in the state Constitution, while affecting only two pig farmers in the entire state.
While neither of these measures directly impact cat ownership, they are a lesson to voters in states where the Initiative and Referendum process can bypass the studied deliberation of our elected legislative bodies.
Proposals have been introduced in several cities, including Los Angeles, San Francisco and San Mateo, California to insert the term "pet guardian" into local ordinance as either an adjunct to or to replace the term "pet owner". At press time San Francisco Board of Supervisors had yet to have their final vote, but the measure was defeated in the other cities as the local lawmakers were made aware of the far-reaching consequences. This is not a simple warm and fuzzy wording change that would have no impact, as claimed by In Defense of Animals, the animal rights organization leading the campaign. Words like "owner" and "guardian" have specific legal meaning, and such a change could limit pet owners ability to properly care for and protect their pets.
It was cat and dog fanciers who first recognized the inherent dangers of this campaign, but gradually a much broader cross-section of professional and humane organizations are going on record as opposing it. Actively opposing, with the Cat Fanciers' Association and the American Kennel Club, are the California Veterinary Medical Association, the Pet Industry Joint Advisory Council, The Animal Council, the National Animal Interest Alliance, The Civil Justice Association of California and many other groups.
Despite the high-profile passage in 2000 of breeding limitation ordinances in Los Angeles, California and its copycat in Richmond, Virginia, only a few other local jurisdictions have considered similar ordinances in 2002. Those that have, such as Indianapolis, Indiana, and Baltimore, Maryland have resulted in setting the more punitive and coercive ordinance aside in order to consider the positive, incentive-based programs that are proving successful across the country. Unfortunately, when local jurisdictions begin researching other ordinances and recommendations, they often are unaware of the newest studies and data that condemn these outmoded ordinances as counter-productive.
Pet numbers limits are still a favored tool of local animal control agencies because of ease of enforcement. This deterrent to pet ownership is unpopular with fanciers, rescuers and pet lovers everywhere, many of whom are now willing to speak up and tell their town or county legislators to look for less arbitrary measures to control animal nuisance. Some cities, such as Cary, North Carolina have recognized these problems and abandoned existing limit laws.
Akron, Ohio saw cat lovers and City Council square off against one another in 2002, as Council passed a cat confinement ("leash") law, which led immediately to a trap-and-kill program estimated to kill 3,500 cats yearly. At year's end the issue is now in the Courts, with no amicable solution in sight, even though Council had received more than 1200 letters protesting their position, and only ten in support.
State legislatures across the country also were aided by the growing involvement of cat fanciers who could provide them with up to date and accurate data and information on trends in lawmaking. And again, bills that were defeated were significant as illustrating that influence.
Probably the most impressive state legislative grass roots success was the defeat of California SB 1373. Supporters of this bill were determined to end all purposeful breeding of cats and dogs in the state. Among the burdensome requirements for breeders and pet store dealers were annual registration with local animal control agencies and a fee, mandated microchipping for every cat/dog sold, and extensive reporting procedures along with excessive and punitive fines. Breeders would have been forced to pass on unnecessary expenses to buyers or absorb the costs and associated risks themselves. Other California bills did pass, including AB 1336, requiring that pet store dealers provide new pet owners information about the benefits of spaying and neutering and licensing. SB 1357 also passed requiring every pet store to hand out free care sheets to pet buyers with recommendations for appropriate care of the type of animal. What may have seemed like a nice idea entails agreement on approved care and feeding language, signed proof of customer receipt of care sheets and store liability issues. All of this adds costs and risks for the sellers of animals with minimal benefit to buyers.
In keeping with the declining popularity of the pet taxes, New Hampshire's SB 406, originally a state pet licensing bill, was amended to provide for a program of reduced cost sterilization surgery for pets adopted from animal shelters in the state by people on specified government assistance. The licensing provision was dropped.
Pet-friendly license plate bills were passed in Georgia, Illinois and Missouri as one means of funding programs for low-cost or free neutering/spaying of those states' pets and unowned/feral cats.
Three states - Illinois, New Mexico and Vermont considered bills relating to the hoarding of animals. The Vermont and New Mexico bills failed, but Illinois has now defined an "animal hoarder" for the purpose of imposing counseling and for criminal penalties. Other states, including Oregon and New Jersey passed bills that will allow persons to provide for their pets in their wills or living trusts.
Another stunning victory for the newly-honed skills of pet fanciers was the defeat of the so-called Puppy Protection Act (S1478/HR3058) in the United States Congress. This bill was directed to United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) licensed dog dealers/breeders; however cat fanciers vehemently opposed the increase in scope of the federal Animal Welfare Act. The bill included socialization engineering standards, limits on the breeding of females, and an inflexible "three strikes" policy that would have deprived the USDA of its ability to work with commercial breeders to improve conditions. The legislative tactic of "attaching" one bill to another saw this bill added to the important 2002 Farm Bill, which was then passed by the Senate. Fanciers flooded the conference committee, asking members to drop the Puppy Protection Act provisions from the Farm Bill, and this was the ultimate action taken.
At year's end, fanciers were surprised and alarmed to see a Call for Comment by the Federal Aviation Administration. A compromise to the 1999 "Boris Bill", also called the Safe Air Travel for Pets Act, was reached that would require airlines to file reports on incidents involving loss, injury or death of any animal during air transport and would increase training of air personnel in handling of animals. Now, after over 28 months, the proposed Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Rulemaking comment period is underway. The Department of Transportation's (DOT) proposed regulations are overly broad and would make it almost impossible for the airlines to comply. Other issues are detrimental to the interests of owners who ship cats, dogs and other animals. Fanciers responded in December to this comment period, objecting to all the provisions that would not benefit animals travelling by air and could lead to a shut down of air transport of animals in the United States.
To correspond with the CFA Legislative Committee, please send email to legislation@cfa.org
|
