Trends in Animal Legislation:
The Year 2001 in Review
Cat owners, like their favored pets, tend to have "live and let live" attitudes. They avoid conflict where possible. Also like their cats, a cat owner backed into a corner either figuratively or in reality, can be a mighty scrapper. Moving into the Millennium, and with the aid of the Cat Fanciers' Association, Inc., cat owners have responded across the United States when their rights have been threatened by legislation.
Social issues involving animals in the last decade have increasingly been addressed locally by mandates of registration, regulation and limitation. This approach is manifested in restrictive animal ordinances, usually with dismal results. Contrary to the principle that "bad law never dies; it just smells that way," a few cities are beginning to remove unenforceable, unpopular and inhumane laws from their books. For instance, Camden, NJ, Montgomery County, MD and Ft Worth, TX are communities that have abolished the so-called "spay or pay" laws - those that require a substantially higher license fee for pets not neutered or spayed. It is becoming more apparent to local governments that these laws do not stop indiscriminant matings yet they unfairly tax responsible hobby breeders of pedigreed cats/purebred dogs. Positive incentive-offering programs, which assist the public to alter their pets, show more successful results.
Laws mandating neutering or spaying of all pets in the community were at one time commonly presented; however they remained a rarity in 2001. Local cat and dog fanciers defeated such an ordinance in Baltimore, MD, which would require mandatory spay/neuter of all cats and dogs with an exemption for breeders if they obtained a $150 license as well as individual licensing and microchip identification of all animals. Cat fanciers considered this punitive and unfair taxation without any chance of affecting the real problems of this city.
Local ordinances limiting the number of pets a family can own are slower to be abolished. These are generally enforced on complaint only, leading to spotty and unfair application of the law. Because enforcement is inconsistent, "limit laws" are not as visible to the general public.
Pet limit laws were proposed and defeated in large and small cities throughout the U.S. in 2001, including Fort Thomas, KY, Richmond, VA, Cherry Hill, NJ, Gwinett Co., GA, and Springfield, IL. This success can be attributed to the efforts of concerned cat/dog owners and breeders, rescue groups and feral cat caretakers who spoke out strongly to their lawmakers.
On the negative side, Richmond, VA passed a copycat ordinance to the previously enacted Los Angeles, CA ordinance, which requires a $100 breeding permit per dog or cat each year, in addition to other punitive provisions and fees. Cat and dog fanciers provided the City Council with credible evidence that this nuclear-weapon type of an ordinance would fail to address the city's genuine problem with dog fighting. They predicted it would be counter-productive to animal welfare and responsible animal ownership, as well as disastrous to licensing revenue. Facts and logic did not prevail over the proponents' emotional pleas to "do something".
A growing campaign, heavily promoted by a national animal activist organization, which would substitute, add or recognize the term animal "guardian" instead of or in addition to animal "owner", made some headway this past year. The word shift seems innocuous to some lawmakers but brought warnings from lawyers and academics alike that this movement could ultimately create a legal quagmire of enormous proportions, and with no demonstrable benefit to animals. The concept is a step toward removing animal ownership rights. Nevertheless, "guardian" word-change laws of some type have now passed in Boulder, CO (2000), West Hollywood, CA, Berkeley, CA, Sherwood, AR, and the state of Rhode Island in 2001.
Continuing the trend from the year previous, many state legislatures considered bills dealing with animal cruelty, often increasing penalties from misdemeanor to felony. Among the states passing some sort of increased penalty for animal cruelty are: Colorado, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, and Texas. While CFA generally agrees in principle that animal cruelty should be treated as a serious crime, some of these and other bills that failed to pass were opposed because of poor wording or possible unintended consequences.
In addition to animal cruelty amendments, states passed other laws dealing with animal ownership and breeding.
California legislature passed AB 161, which amended the state's consumer protection law applying to dog breeders, to regulate those who transfer all or part of 3 or more litters or 20 or more dogs during the preceding 12 months. Previously only larger scale breeders (those who sell 50 dogs per year) were subject to the law's provisions. Breeders of pedigreed cats joined dog fanciers and rejected the bill based on general principle. When complicated and punitive laws unnecessarily burden hobby breeders, who raise animals in an optimum home environment, this desirable activity will be discouraged to the disadvantage of the general public.
Colorado created a "pet animal overpopulation authority" with passage of HB 1337, and redefined in SB 131 the "feline hobby breeder" exemption from the state animal facility inspection law. Now everyone is subject to home inspection, regulation and substantial yearly fees unless they breed or sell no more than 24 cats or 3 litters per year. Since conscientious breeders of pedigreed cats do keep more than 3 females to maintain genetic diversity they will now fall under an impractical intrusive law. Cat fanciers strongly opposed this bill but were unsuccessful at the very end.
Maine passed LD 139, which exempts cats from the provisions of animal trespass laws. LD 1283 was also passed, which contained several provisions, including providing immunity for veterinarians reporting alleged animal cruelty.
New Jersey, through passage of A 1152, now allows a trust to be designated in a will for the care of a pet when its owner dies.
Wisconsin. Though SB 55, the pet breeder licensing/inspection bill, passed the Wisconsin legislature as a last minute addendum to the State Budget Bill, fanciers applauded Wisconsin Governor Scott McCallum's veto of this section of the bill. He stated that the provisions would have been "burdensome to pet owners and businesses."
At the federal level, administration of the Animal Welfare Act continues to be under legal challenge. The Doris Day Animal League (DDAL), which is attempting to force the United States Department of Agriculture to license and regulate all hobby breeders of dogs and cats in addition to commercial breeders/dealers, prevailed in one court decision in July of 2001. A U.S. District Court Judge ruled that the USDA's definition of "retail pet store" is overly broad and "thus violates the plain language of the Animal Welfare Act." Hobby breeders selling directly at retail to pet owners have been exempted from AWA regulation for 30 years because of this USDA interpretation. The USDA has filed to appeal this decision.
At the close of 2001, the United States Senate was poised to consider S 1478, the so-called "Puppy Protection Act." CFA and cat lovers added their voices to the American Kennel Club, the Pet Industry Joint Advisory Council, and other organizations in opposition to this bill. It is seen as an unwarranted expansion of regulations that would siphon the USDA budget dollars away from pursuing the truly sub-standard breeders. The bill broadens the Animal Welfare Act to introduce other confusing and undefined layers of regulation of commercial breeders already required to be in compliance with the Act's standards of care. With the pending DDAL/USDA lawsuit it is uncertain who will eventually fall under the Animal Welfare Act and proposed "Puppy Protection Act" regulation. Watch for CFA Legislative Alerts concerning this legislation following resumption of the US Senate sessions in late January.
To correspond with the CFA Legislative Committee, please send email to legislation@cfa.org
|
