|
Get it all,
get it FREE
Indisputably!
The most current and comprehensive canine news source. Period.
Our Reporters don't overlook media
mentions, wayward things, or failure to mention items that have a
Profound or maybe just a small Side Effect.
Scraps like the court ruling on internet slander
or why your computer is so slow, it's nearly dead. Oil prices, the war,
....and things like our tax dollars
going to help build and grow puppy mills!
So these items are for you because
we promised you the news
and
A
Funny Thing
or two along the way.
Be sure to visit the ONLY PLACE
that bridges the gap
between Pet
Owners
the Showing Fancy,
and Private Breeders
You know ThePlace.
Tell your friends!
|
We have been
asked,
in no uncertain terms,
"Who ARE you??"
Quite Simply,
Dog People
Serving Dog People
TDP's Science and
Advisory Board
over
500 years
of Veterinary, Medical,
Breeder, Trainer, and
Judging experience
Editor's Choice
(quarterly) wins
$50 Certificate
good on this site
and becomes eligible
for $500 payoff!
Email NewsDesk
|
Copyright © 2008
TheDogPress.com - Reprint rights hereby
granted provided
a link to this page is included in the article and
the URL or a copy of the article is sent to Press
Publications P.O. Box 3037, Rutherfordton, NC 28139
or
contact@thedogpress.com upon publication.
Under penalty of law, no portions thereof may be
otherwise stored or reprinted in any form, without
prior express written consent. |
|
|
 Side
Effects 07
Dog Law and Breed Legislation
The Animal Council
Fights for dog owner’s rights!
THE ANIMAL COUNCIL’S
web is updated frequently supplementing advocacy information through
these Updates with new and expanded features. In 2007 we will again
track California bills in a table format with links. Last month, we
added a new page (linked from the Breed Specific Law page on the
navigation bar) “State Breed Specific Preemption Laws” with citations
for the existing state preemption laws. Misinformation about the impact
of the 2005 California SB 861 modifying but not eliminating California’s
preemption has risen to the level of
Snopes.
TAC’S continually expanding Current Legislative Material page has
additional details and materials on local and other significant matters,
a number of which have not been covered in these Updates but are still
pending, including:
KERN COUNTY CALIFORNIA new Animal Control Commission is dealing
with items referred by the Board of Supervisors including changes in the
animal facility law, now reaching a draft stage, and a mandatory
spay/neuter proposal from a citizen group still in the discussion stage.
County residents should closely monitor both the commission and BOS
meeting agendas and any linked materials.
LOS ANGELES COUNTY ordinance progression into its contract cities
has been slow and the County has changed its web materials over the
months.
RIVERSIDE COUNTY separate, proposed mandatory microchip and
mandatory spay/neuter ordinances have been under review by County
Counsel and are expected to return in 2007. Also expected to resurface
in 2007 are SACRAMENTO COUNTY and the CITY OF SAN JOSE.
CITY OF RANCHO CORDOVA, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA has a
totally amended animal ordinance currently before the City Council. This
places considerable, questionable authority in the Neighborhood Services
Supervisor. Considering that Michael Rodriquez, formerly Director in
Stanislaus County is now in Rancho Cordova, this is a modest proposal.
However, replacement director in Stanislaus County, Michael McFarland
(career local AC employee in California) is now asking for “mandatory
spay and neuter” in addition to the breeder licensing and high fee
unaltered dog license enacted in 2005.
GREAT FALLS, MONTANA also has a totally amended ordinance
currently before its City Commission (the lawmaking body) that has
troubling provisions including low limits tied to a multiple animal
permit that may not including breeding for “compensation” which is
restricted by zoning.
LOUISVILLE/JEFFERSON COUNTY, KENTUCKY ordinance passage last week
marks a new plateau (or perhaps low) in bizarre, detrimental provisions
although the final version is not yet available. It would seem to
surpass Albuquerque’s “HEART” ordinance enacted earlier this year as a
unique, locally developed ordinance containing provisions far outside
the range of tried and tested animal ordinances and ultimately excluding
animal fanciers from the community. Many ordinances we review contain
mindless cut and paste material copied from other jurisdictions, often
taken out of original context, by lazy bureaucrats and justified as
keeping current with law enforcement tools. These are typically locally
driven with little or no influence from the animal protection movement
but may be as exclusionary to dog, and especially cat fanciers as the
ideological ordinances.
a service of :
THE ANIMAL COUNCIL
P.O. BOX 168, MILLBRAE CA 94030
Email us at;
TheAnimalCouncil@aol.com
Incorporated 1991, tax exempt under IRC Section 501(c)(4) |
