ohmidog!

The Los Angeles City Council tentatively approved an ordinance Wednesday that will make it the largest city in the nation to ban pet shops from selling dogs obtained from commercial breeders.

The council voted 12-2 in favor of the ordinance, the Los Angeles Times reports.

People can still buy dogs directly from breeders, but pet stores will be limited to selling animals obtained from shelters, humane societies and rescue groups.

The law is aimed at curbing puppy mills and preventing tens of thousands of animals from being euthanized in city shelters each year.

Stores that violate the restrictions could face penalties starting at $250.

Similar ordinances are in effect in at least three other California cities — Irvine, Hermosa Beach and West Hollywood.

Pet shop owners called the law unfair.

“It’s just making us suffer,” said Candice Ro, owner of Olympic Pet Shop in Koreatown.

Councilman Paul Koretz, a longtime supporter of animal rights, championed the ban and said lawmakers have a duty to stick up for animals who “cannot speak for themselves.”

City officials said the ban, which returns to the council for a final vote next week, could affect two dozen pet stores. The restrictions will be reviewed after three years to determine if they should be continued.

Authorities in Arizona are taking a closer look at how Tucson Greyhound Park has managed to go 60 years without getting a city license for any of the dogs on the premises.

The Arizona Daily Star reports that there’s no record of any exemption being granted by South Tucson, the municipality in which the track operates, or by Pima County.

An ordinance in South Tucson requires dog owners pay a $45 licensing fee.

Under the ordinance, any unaltered dog kept within the city for 30 consecutive days each year is required to have a license.

Yet Tucson Greyhound Park, a home of sorts to more than 700 dogs, hasn’t gotten a license for any of them in six decades. At $45 per license, given all those dogs and all those years, that’s a pretty significant savings.

Kim Janes, manager of Pima County Animal Care, said he doesn’t know why the park considered itself exempt. He said his office began investigating the matter about a year ago.

His office found no state statutes that spared greyhound tracks from paying the fee.

The South Tucson’s City Attorney’s Office contacted his office last week, informing him that dogs at the park should be licensed, and Janes planned to send officers to the park this week.

“We are going to be talking to the track and say they need to have some information for us,” he said. “When we come out, we will need to see rabies vaccinations and proof of when the dog got here. If (they) don’t have proof, we are going to assume it has been here more than 30 days.”

Tucson Greyhound Park CEO and General Manager Tom Taylor said the greyhounds don’t need a license because the state requires every greyhound to receive a rabies vaccination before entering the state or being qualified to race. Since rabies vaccinations are the primary reason for licensing, he said, there’s no need for the park to register the dogs locally.

“Since 1944, we have never had to have them licensed,” he said.

Taylor said he suspects negative media coverage about the track, and animal welfare organizations seeking to ban greyhound racing, are behind the crackdown.

A tornado that whipped through  Joplin, Missouri, spared Kain, a pit bull, and Kita, a Rottweiler, even though the house collapsed around them.

Less forgiving is the town of Carl Junction, where their displaced family moved afterwards — only to find out that pit bulls and Rottweilers are illegal.

Carl Junction is one of many cities and towns around the country that have legislation prohibiting pit bulls and other breeds within the city limits, according to The Joplin Globe, which reported on the family’s situation this week.

And city officials are unwilling to make an exception to the rule, meaning Dave DeWolfe and his family — who followed the sounds of the whimpers and rescued their dogs after the tornado — will now be required to give them up, at least if they want to stay in Carl Junction.

After the tornado, DeWolfe’s daughter, Janelle Mawhinney, provided temporary shelter for family members at her apartment, but she couldn’t take the dogs. They were placed in a temporary shelter set up by the ASPCA.

Every day, DeWolfe says, they’d stop in to visit. In July, they found a new home in nearby Carl Junction, reclaimed their dogs and moved in.

“We thought it was too good to be true: a decent neighborhood, a good price, everything came through with the bank, and we were so happy about it,” he said.

Not long after settling in, they were reading a “welcome” packet from the city when they saw that Carl Junction’s hospitality didn’t extend to pit bulls and Rottweilers. Neither are permitted with the city limits.

Then, this month, DeWolfe was informed by the city’s animal control officer that he was violating the city ordinance. He went to the city council, saying he would do ”whatever it takes” to keep the dogs, even if it meant crating or muzzling them.

“It’s my fault,” he said. “I should have checked the laws.”

City council members said they didn’t want to set a precedent by allowing the family to keep the dogs.

Carl Junction’s ban on the two breeds was put in place in 1995. It carries fines of $200 to $500. The only exception to the law is for dog owners who registered with the city prior to the ordinance going into effect.

DeWolfe and his wife have turned to Craigslist in an attempt to find the two dogs a permanent home.

“We try to work with our residents whenever we can,” Carl Junction Police Chief Delmar Haase said. “But approving one would set a precedent. We’ve had this ordinance for quite some time, and all the dogs grandfathered in under it are now gone. We’ve had quite a few requests and if you open it up to one, you’ve just defeated your ordinance.”

Defeating, if you ask me, is just what the ordinance needs.

(Photo: By T. Rob Brown / Joplin Globe)

The Los Angeles City Council voted unanimously this week to start imposing fines on the owners of dogs that bark excessively.

What’s excessively?

A dog’s barking would be considered excessive if it continued non-stop for 10 minutes or more, or intermittently for 30 minutes or more, Assistant City Attorney Dov Lesel said.

Fines would start at $250 for a first offense, $500 for a second and $1,000 for a third if a hearing conducted by the Department of Animal Services determines that a dog barks too much, the Los Angeles Times reported.

The new ordinance also gives animal services officials the power to ticket the owners of unlicensed barking dogs. Previously, hearings did not proceed against residents who did not have licensed dogs.

Despite concerns among some that the fines are too high, Brenda Barnette, general manager of the Animal Services Department, called them reasonable, and added that dog owners would have time to remedy the problem before a fine would be imposed.

“If a dog hears somebody or something and barks, that’s a good thing. That’s a warning,” Barnette said. “If a dog just stays out and barks and barks, that’s really not reasonable.”

Barnette said her department has a six-month backlog of hearings, most of which involve excessive barking cases.

Once signed by the mayor, the amended ordinance is expected to take effect before the end of the year.

(Photo: Los Angeles Times)

Glendale, California, has joined the list of cities voting to ban the retail sale of commercially bred dogs and cats in pet stores.

The Glendale City Council unanimously approved the ordinance in August. It goes into effect later this month, but store owners have a year to come into compliance.

According to Examiner.com in Los Angeles, those pushing for the ordinance included Christy Schilling, a Glendale resident instrumental in helping to convert Glendale’s Pet Rush from selling puppy mill dogs to only offering rescued dogs for adoption, and Lindsay Reeves, a member of the local group Citizens Against Puppy Mills, which conducts pet store demonstrations and public outreach.

Reeves attended a council meeting with her dog Eliza, a Yorkshire terrier that spent 8 years as a breeding dog in a Missouri puppy mill before being rescued two years ago.

It’s not the outright ban some were hoping for, but the Forsyth County Commissioners last night approved limiting the practice of chaining or tethering dogs.

The board, by a 4-3 vote, approved an amendment to the North Carolina county’s animal-control ordinance that will make it illegal to tether a dog in such a way as to harm the animal.

The limits won’t go into effect for two years, to allow for a period of public education, the Winston-Salem Journal reported.  

The county’s animal-control advisory board had recommended a total ban on tethering.

For 35 years, dogs have been officially banned from downtown Santa Cruz.

(Which is why we didn’t stop there during our travels across America.)

Now, with conditions, the California coastal city may let them back, the Santa Cruz Sentinel reports.

The impetus? Not so much love for dogs as love for sales — specifically, those of downtown merchants who say they could use the boost, and that visitors who arrive with dogs often pull out once they learn their dogs aren’t welcome.

At the request of merchants, the Santa Cruz City Council on Tuesday will consider temporarily overturning the rule banning dogs on Pacific Avenue. The Sentinel says there appear to be more than enough votes to make it happen.

The council is expected to approve a three-month trial, during which licensed, leashed and vaccinated dogs would be allowed on Pacific Avenue and several feeder streets during daylight hours.

If passed, the revised ordinance would kick in within 30 days and be made permanent after Nov. 30, unless the council changed its collective mind.

“I think the economic benefits to our downtown merchants will be most welcome,” said Councilman Tony Madrigal, who owns a miniature dachshund named Shortie and is one of three council members proposing the rule change. “My hope is that by allowing dogs on a trial basis that more people will feel welcome to come downtown with their pets, many of whom they consider part of the family.”

The Santa Cruz Downtown Association board voted unanimously this spring to pursue a change.

The city banned dogs on the Pacific Garden Mall in 1976 and side streets several years later after numerous complaints about out-of-control dogs and unscooped poop. Merchants may allow dogs inside, but dogs are not permitted on the street, which, short of beaming your dog in, would seem to make it difficult to get them into a store.

The city council will hold a discussion on instituting the trial period Tuesday night.

During the trial period, the ban would be lifted for three-months in the area bounded by Water, Laurel, Cedar and Front streets, and including the Town Clock and Scope Park.

The rule change would not affect dog bans in effect on some beaches and at the Santa Cruz Municipal Wharf.

Folks in Dallas may become a little less likely to befriend a stray dog in need in light of an ordinance passed by the City Council this week.

The council approved an ordinance Wednesday requiring anyone who takes possession of a stray dog to make a reasonable effort to find the dog’s owner, the Dallas Morning News reports.

The rule comes largely as a result of one persistent dog owner, Brad Kirby, who has lobbied City Hall since two of his huskies disappeared two years ago. Kirby found the person he suspected stole them, but police said little could be done because the man told authorities he’d encountered the dogs running loose and gave them away.

The ordinance gives a person who picks up a stray dog 72 hours to:

• Call the phone number listed on the dog’s tags;

• Take the dog to a licensed veterinarian to screen for a microchip, tattoo or other identification and to call the owner if one is identified;

• Call 311 to request that animal services pick up the dog; or

• Deliver the dog to the city’s animal shelter.

A violation – meaning failure to do any of those things — will be punishable by a fine up to $500.

The lone vote against the measure came from council member Vonciel Hill, a former city judge, who said she worries that someone trying to help a stray could end up in trouble.

“I think that this ordinance places an inordinate burden on any person who is trying to have some kindness toward a stray,” she said.