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.
Posted by jwoestendiek October 26th, 2012 under Muttsblog, videos.
Tags: animals, ban, breeders, city council, commercial breeders, dog, dogs, law, los angeles, ordinance, pet, pets, prohibits, puppies, puppy mills, rescue, sales, shelter, shops, store
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.
Posted by jwoestendiek September 18th, 2012 under Muttsblog.
Tags: animal care, animals, arizona, avoided, crackdown, dogs, fee, fees, greyhound, greyhounds, licenses, municipal, ordinance, park, pets, pima county, racing, registration, south tucson, tucson, tucson greyhound park
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)
Posted by jwoestendiek December 15th, 2011 under Muttsblog.
Tags: animals, banned, bans, breed bans, breed-specific, breeds, bsl, carl junction, dave dewolfe, displaced, dogs, home, joplin, kain, kita, law, missouri, new, ordinance, pets, pit bulls, rottweilers, survivors, tornado
A state appeals court in Washington has declared Pierce County’s dangerous-dog ordinance unconstitutional — specifically, the part of it that requires $250, or more, to get a hearing.
“You shouldn’t have to purchase justice,” said Bellingham attorney Adam Karp, who represented a Pierce County woman who challenged the law.
The case stems from an April 2009 incident in which a 7-pound Pomeranian named Kayla was allegedly attacked by a Great Pyrenees mix named Blizzard. The Pomeranian was so badly hurt it had to be put down.
A Pierce County animal control officer declared Blizzard dangerous, which meant her owner, Heidi Downey, had to meet a number of stringent requirements if she wanted to keep the dog.
Under county law, animal control officers can deem a dog dangerous without holding a hearing. To get one, dog owners were required to pay $125 for an initial hearing, and another $250 to get a hearing with a member of the Auditor’s Office.
Downey paid for an initial hearing and lost. She paid more for a formal hearing with testimony from witnesses. She lost that one too. Downey appealed to Superior Court, lost again, and then took her case to the Court of Appeals.
In arguments earlier this summer, her attorney, in addition to presenting his client’s side of the story — that Blizzard had been wrongly identified as the perpetrator — argued the fees were unfair.
Last week, a Court of Appeals panel ruled the fees unconstitutional because they deprive people who can’t afford them of the right to challenge the county’s declaration of their dogs as dangerous.
The panel also ruled the county does not have a rigorous enough process for deeming an animal dangerous.
County Auditor Julie Anderson said, pending a planned appeal, she has suspended the practice of collecting fees from people seeking a hearing. The county will also will refund fees to those people who have paid but not yet had their hearing.
“This is a temporary measure until we can settle the law,” she told The News Tribune in Tacoma in an email.
Karp said the ruling could have repercussions for other governments that charge fees for dangerous dog hearings, including Tacoma, Lakewood, Puyallup and Bonney Lake.
Attorneys for the county argued that the policy allows dog owners a choice: They can get a $250 permit and take out a $250,000 insurance policy that allows them to keep a dangerous dog, or they can pay the fees to challenge the designation.
As one justice noted, though, the policy makes dogs guilty until proven innocent — and unable to have their innocence proven without paying up front.
And what about Blizzard? The appeals court ruled there had not been enough evidence presented to declare the dog dangerous. They ordered the designation reversed.
Posted by jwoestendiek December 6th, 2011 under Muttsblog.
Tags: adam karp, appeals court, attack, auditor, blizzard, charges, court of appeals, dangerous, declaration, dog, due process, examiner, fees, for sale, great pyrenees, guilt, hearing fees, hearings, heidi downey, innocence, insurance, justice, kayla, ordinance, permits, pierce county, pomeranian, pyrenees, refund, restrictions, unconstitutional, washington
Pity the poor dogs of El Cerrito — at least those who go for walks.
It has long been illegal for dogs in the northern California city to have a bowel movement, unless they — and by that we mean both dog and bowel movement — were in their own yard.
At least it was until yesterday.
The city council was expected to approve last night a proposal to change the old law, amending it to allow dogs to “excrete” off the dog owner’s property — as long as the person in possession of the dog cleans it up.
The old law was never enforced, but city staff apparently thought it needed to be revamped to better fit modern times, according to Patch.com.
Under the city’s muncipal code, it was illegal for anyone in possession of a dog to allow it to engage in “excreting on property other than that of its owner.” Under the revised ordinance, scheduled for a vote last night, it would only be illegal if a dog’s owner failed to clean it up
We are assuming, by excretion, they mean what is more scientifically called No. 2. If not, and owners are now expected to clean up No. 1, or urine — and it too is excreted, at least according to my dictionary — that could be even more problematic than the old law.
Here’s how the old law read:
It is unlawful and shall constitute a nuisance per se for any person having possession of any dog to permit the same to disturb the public peace and welfare by barking, teasing other pets or animals, jumping fences, spilling garbage cans, excreting on property other than that of its owner, giving birth on the street, lying on the sidewalk so as to block it, burying objects of any sort on property other than that of its owner, or running loose on school property.
The new law still uses the term “excrete,” which, for clarity’s sake probably should have been updated as well. Perhaps an excess of discretion led to using “excretion.”
Posted by jwoestendiek November 8th, 2011 under Muttsblog.
Tags: animals, city council, dogs, el cerrito, excrement, excrete, excreting, excretion, fecal matter, illegal, laws, ordinance, pee, pets, poop, property, revised, waste
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)
Posted by jwoestendiek November 4th, 2011 under Muttsblog.
Tags: animals, bark, barking, city council, dogs, excessive, fines, licensed, los angeles, neighbors, nuisance, ordinance, pets, tickets, unlicensed
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.
“Eliza was one of the ‘lucky’ ones that was rescued — although if you had seen the condition she was in at the time, I don’t think lucky is a word you’d use,” Reeves said. “Having spent her whole life suffering in a cage in extreme weather conditions, breeding litter after litter with no vet care, no exercise, no human touch — it’s a wonder she survived this long.”
Reeves said Eliza was left with a permanent hernia from being over bred, and her were so teeth so rotten they had to be removed. “She was completely unsocialized and shied away from human contact. She literally had to learn how to be a dog, and is still learning every day,” Reeves said.
The Glendale ban does not apply to individuals whose pets have had litters. They can still sell them, as long as they don’t sell them through a pet store, Best Friends reported.
Besides Pet Rush, the owner of a second store, Pets R Us, has approached Best Friends for assistance in transitioning to a humane model pet store.
“He asked if we could help them,” says Elizabeth Oreck, national manager of Best Friends puppy mill initiatives. “So, I met with him and we’re talking about how to make that happen. He’s not going to be supporting puppy mills anymore.”
Glendale is the third city in Los Angeles County to pass this kind of ordinance, joining West Hollywood and Hermosa Beach. Other cities banning pet store sales include South Lake Tahoe, Calif., Albuquerque, NM and Austin, Texas.
Photo by Melissa Maroff / Examiner.com
Posted by jwoestendiek September 6th, 2011 under Muttsblog.
Tags: animals, best friends, bred, breeders, breeding, california, cats, christy schilling, citizens against puppy mills, city council, commercial, commercially, dogs, eliza, elizabeth oreck, glendale, lindsay reeves, ordinance, pet rush, pets, puppy mills, retail, sales, store, yorkshire terrier
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.
Once the two-year grace period is over, it will be illegal to tether dogs in such a way that puts them at risk of choking or other injury, or if it causes the dog to behave neurotically or aggressively.
Posted by jwoestendiek August 30th, 2011 under Muttsblog.
Tags: amendment, animal control, animals, anti-tethering, ban, behavior, chaining, choking, commissioners, dogs, forsyth county, harmful, injury, limits, north carolina, ordinance, pets, risk, tethering, tying, winston-salem
(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.
Posted by jwoestendiek July 11th, 2011 under Muttsblog.
Tags: animals, ban, beaches, business, california, city council, dogs, downtown, leashed, lifted, merchants, ordinance, pacific, pacific avenue, pets, revised, revision, santa cruz, tony madrigal, tourism, trial period, 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.
Posted by jwoestendiek May 27th, 2010 under Muttsblog.
Tags: $500, animal congtrol, animals, dallas, deliver, dog, dogs, fine, identification, microchip, news, ohmidog!, ordinance, pets, requirements, shelter, steps, stray, strays, tattoo, texas, veterinarian