Pet Legislation Tuesday For Those Living in Washington, DC - Page 1

If you live in Washington DC and you are currently over the four-pet limit, a bill being considered Tuesday will require SEIZURE of your pets over that limit. THIS IS VERY LIKELY TO BECOME LAW UNLESS WE HAVE A REAL PUBLIC OUTCRY If you live in DC or you have friends who do, you need to act immediately on this. The hearing and final vote on DC B17-089 is THIS Tuesday, July 15th. This bill applies to cat, dog, rabbit and ferret owners, rescuers and breeders in Washington, DC. The Animal Protection Amendment Act of 2008 (B17-089) will be voted on by the Committee of the Whole (all Councilmembers) Tuesday, July 15th. The first vote was unanimously in favor. Your contact MONDAY with all council members is our only hope to stop this bill. For the text of the law, go to http://www.dccouncil.washington.dc.us/lims/BillRecord.asp?billid=checked or http://tinyurl.com/6fnch9 and fill in B17-089 in the ENTER LEG # box. This bill requires animal control to seize dogs (or cats or rabbits or ferrets) over the four-pet limit. There is also a requirement for a commercial license for breeders who raise and sell 25 animals per year. WHAT TO DO: Send an email immediately to all 13 Council members by using one email address - mailto:membersonly@dccouncil.us CALL Council member offices, especially if you live in the District of Columbia. Hand deliver, if possible, short letters to the offices - Monday. Phone numbers and suite numbers are below. TELL YOUR FRIENDS IN DC TO ACT: Only an outraged public will prevent this bill from passing SUGGESTED POINTS: 1. Impoundment of pets over the existing limit of 4 - this includes cats, dogs, rabbits and ferrets or a combination. The Mayor "SHALL" impound people's pets even if that 5th animal is well cared for and happy in a good home. This is an extreme anti-pet ownership mandate. DC does have an "animal hobby permit" for those with 5 or more animals, but any animals over whatever number is approved shall also be impounded. Only 25 of these permits exist per last year's check. This would mean fewer animals rescued, fostered or taken off the streets and obviously would increase shelter numbers and possibly lead to abandonment - as many people feel a pet has a better chance on the streets than in animal control. 2. Commercial Animal Breeder License would be required for any breeder who raises and sells 25 animals per year. This would include a dog fancier with a moderate breeding program who has dogs that produce large litters. Thirteen to 15 puppies are not unheard of in large breeds, and two litters like that could put you over the limit. Home-based breeders provide excellent pets and they are NOT "commercial" and should not have to comply with inspections, rules, standards and management established for "facilities". Anyone involved with a "pet care facility" such as day or night boarding of animals, grooming or training should be concerned with the provision for "Commercial Pet Care Facilities - Rulemaking". We believe this would impact rescuers who would need a business license with an "Inspected Sales and Services license endorsement. ATTEND the meeting if you can - there will be no opportunity to speak but we hope some fanciers will monitor any discussion before the vote. Committee of the Whole 10AM - Tuesday July 15, 2008 Room 500 John A. Wilson Building 1350 Pennsylvania Avenue. NW Washington, DC 20004 Nine out of 13 councilmembers are sponsors: Introduced by: Cheh, Brown, Catania, Graham, Gray Co-sponsored by: Barry, Evans, Mendelson, Wells. Schwartz, Graham, Bowser, Thomas and Alexander may be the only ones willing to bring up our opposition points at Tuesday's hearing. ************************************ To contact ALL Councilmembers - mailto:membersonly@dccouncil.us Council of the District of Columbia 1350 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Was

 As much as we love our pets, we must also consider our neighbors who may not want to live next door to a home breeder who breeds more than 25 puppies a year, or the person who wants to house more than 4 animals at any given time. These rules are in effect for the protection of the majority who live in subdivisions not suitable due to lack of land for raising more than 25 animals.  The statutes used to read something to the effect of "no more than 4 dogs over the age of 6 month, or with full adult dentition."  In order to protect neighborhoods from living in the midst of breeders producing as many litters as they wanted every year, they needed to re-word the statute.  

I too breed one or two litters a year and live in a subdivision in the Northern Virginia area.  The lot my home sits on is 0.19 acres.  Yes, that is less than 2/10s of an acre.  Anyone who lives in a subdivision knows how close these homes are.  I keep my lawn clean and well landscaped.  We do not draw flies.  We have no dog odor emanating from our lawn.  We have 3 adult dogs and one, maybe two litters a year.  Usually just one.  Our subdivision has rules in effect for the protection of the majority of the residents which limit owning more than 4 adult animals at any time.  It would not be fair for me to move here knowing what the county regulations as well as the subdivision regulations are and expect to own more than 4 or breed more than 25 dogs.  It is like folks who move next to an airport and then complain about the noise.  In the event a home breeder actually had a couple of larger litters and produced between 26-30 puppies, I doubt anyone would come running to the door to seize the 3 or 4 extra animals.  Now if you produce more than that, I think you should consider moving to the country where you will not be jeopardizing your neighbors chance to sell their home, or just enjoy their property without puppies yelping all the time.  I suppose breeders of toy breeds do not eventually move their litters outside, but I know breeders of larger breeds must eventually move the pups outdoors, usually around 4 weeks of age.  

If you produce more than 25 puppies in a year and live in such close proximity to your neighbors as most of us do in the Washington DC, Northern Virginia area, I would support the proposed legislation.  I think Dog1's objection is mainly due to the mandatory commercial license for those selling more than 25 animals per year as I know he has the property to do so and not infringe on his neighbors in the enjoyment of their property.  If you are producing more than 25 puppies a year, you are a business and should be regulated as such for the protection of the puppies.  Your facility should be inspected and, yes, taxed as well as pay a business license fee.  Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's (meaning pay what you owe).

What about people who live in townhouses which are so prevalent in our area.  Should they be allowed to house more than 4 animals and produce as many offspring as they choose.  Would you want to live next to them?  

 Bravo.  First let me assure you, I support responsible dog ownership, and I understand that nobody wants to live in a close subdivision with packs of irresponsibly owned dogs for neighbors.  That said, please look again at this law.  

If you have 3 shepherds, what happens when your wife/husband gets a cat, then your child gets a pet ferret.  In theory, under this law, the authorities can come, and choose your favorite shepherd, confiscate it and you have no recourse.  Sounds like the free country our Founding Fathers invisioned to me!  Yes, I realize you probably wouldn't allow extra pets, but think about how this law can limit otherwise responsible people who are capable of owning a couple of housecats, a bunny and 2 Yorkies without causing the District of Columbia to dissolve into anarchy.

You say you don't think the authorities "won't take pets".  How do you know this will continue into the near future?  Are you aware that PETA, a couple of hours down the road in Norfolk, VA, has a stated goal of NO domestic pets as their vision of utopia?  We're supposed to enjoy animals from a distance, heaven forbid they share our bed!

Bravo, please don't think about this from a "profit" or commercial standpoint.  These pet limit laws are incremental, and anyone who values their rights to a relationship with pets had better be careful to which regulations they give their wholehearted approval.

 I have read the proposed legislation and understand it encompasses all pets, not just dogs.  I think you must agree that we are living in a society that must operate under rules to protect the majority of its citizens.  Is the letter of the law enforced in all circumstances?  Will we have people informing on their neighbor who has 3 dogs, 2 cats and a bunny?  I doubt it.  It would protect us from the people who, lacking this or similar legislation, would decry their right to own as many domesticated animals as they choose, including the nice little old lady living with 60 cats.  Without legislation, they would be correct.  

We have the right to own animals, just with some stipulations.  We have the right to own guns, but we also have gun control laws.  We have the right to drive cars, just with some laws concerning speed, right-of-way, etc.  If I sell one or two cars a year, I am a private citizen conducting a transaction.  If I sell 50 cars a year, it is a business.  

As with most legislation, there is more than one agenda.  You have to look at the whole package.  They have included the licensing of facilities producing more than 25 animals per year for sale.  I know the big breeders in this area, and I won't name names, cannot survive financially if they do not produce more than 25 dogs for sale a year.  Some have gotten by with not paying licensing fees, sales and income taxes, etc., for quite some time.  And not just in this area.  Every one knows that the pet industry is enjoying rapid financial gains while many other areas of the economy are faltering.  In states where there is a sales tax, they want a way to track individuals who are making large sums of money by selling pets.  If a breeder is producing a litter a month, which is not unusual for the larger breeders (just look at some of their websites at the upcoming litters page, other breeders are too financially savvy to list their upcoming litters as this is another way the IRS and state authorities can track what they are reporting versus what they say they are producing), you can surmise they are producing on average 75 puppies (lets go with this as the pet of choice here) per year.  Top kennels here can get $2500 per puppy.  That is $187,500 per year in puppy sales.  Many of the pups sell for more.  Not even addressing all the sundry items they sell along with these pups, that is a big chunk of change.

So is this legislation aimed at the average pet owner, or the person trying to make a living selling pets but lives in a community where they have no business owning an unlimited number of pets, or the big breeders who want to go unlicensed and not accurately report their income?  I think a little of each.         

DC,

City of Dictator's above the USA a kindom all to it's own.    A tightly packed sardine can that I would move away from it I was a resident there.

Maybe this one will end up at the Supreme Court as did the gun law's of DC, ya never know. 

This is the new trend in many cities across the country, the latest target.   You wanna talk target's try being a smoker, now there's a target.   Sure it's bad for you, but has anyone told you lately whats in the air your breathing?  Noooooo.  That would change the target and cost the country trillions.

Everytime you turn around someone's trying to get a new law passed, do this don't do that, can't you read the sign! 

People break law's aready on the books and no one enforce's them as it is.  Let's just add somemore.   After all election's are coming.

SSDD.

It's the damned PETA-philes and humaniacs in action again with a goal of zero pet population/ownership.

Before the California State Senate, we have currently pending legislation that (1) will require mandatory spay/neutering of all cats/dogs without exemptions and (2) will permit unsubstantiated complaints (by anyone--grumpy neighbors--anyone who doesn't like you or your pets) that will result in impoundment /MSN of pets without giving the owners due process.

SSDD and worse!

  All I cay say Bravo is wake up and smell the coffee.  Spend some time on the HSUS site specifically their pages on their legislative agenda and learn the direction they are going and how coordinated and well funded they are. They are intimately linked with PETA and it's no birth nation program ( which has been renamed the kinder gentler ABC program to con people about what the real agenda is) Wayne Purcelle the CEO of HSUS is a long time PETA organizer. They use just enough good sounding info while hiding their real agenda that the sucker good meaning folks like you into supporting their agenda.

Bravo quote " Will we have people informing on their neighbor who has 3 dogs, 2 cats and a bunny?  I doubt it"  Guess what it's already here and coming to a neighborhood near you soon.  You need to check out the Los Angeles DAW program which they are promoting INTERNATIONALLY. DAW stands for Directors of Animal Welfare.  The pitch is sign up to be your local neighborhood DAW and work with the local councils. If you see SUSPECTED violations of ANY animal related issues - report it immediately.

Bravo quote "  In the event a home breeder actually had a couple of larger litters and produced between 26-30 puppies, I doubt anyone would come running to the door to seize the 3 or 4 extra animals.  "   Again sorry but already here. In several communities in California that have passed MSN laws pushed by AR groups. The ptich when promoting the law is it will only come into play if there is contact with AC so most dog/cat people say well that's ok I never have contact with AC so they don't oppose the law. But AHH - here's the catch or actually two.  The first is the use of a DAW type program which encourages your neighbors to report SUSPECTED violations. God forbid you have one of the classic neighbor crazies who are constantly in conflict with their neighbors and constantly calling the city on them like I have. Based on a bogus call from this crazy AC arrived at my home w/o my knowledge. When they could NOT detect any disturbance they came ON my property and stood at the fence and blew dog whistles in an attempt to get my dogs to bark so they could cite me. The problem becomes any ruse is an excuse for AC to show up at your door. And yes they WILL seize those extra puppies - it's been done. And yes they will enforce the MSN law and require that your animal be fixed. In Sacramento CA it is a CRIMINAL Violation to own an intact animal! So yes you might be going to jail too. In some of these communities they are enforcing these laws by going DOOR TO DOOR  with deputy sheriffs or AC officers thus ensuring that you will have contact with AC.

But wait you say they can't seize my property w/o due process. True but do you have the $50,000 to $500,000 to take that battle to court? Doubt it but I will tell you this - HSUS has a 100 times that amount to fight you if you did. THIS IS WHY IT NEEDS TO BE STOPPED BEFORE IT BECOMES A LAW OR ORDINANCE. Please if nothing else go here and read this site particularly the brochure called the Future of Dogs and since you live in VA make sure you read the supplment about the author's journey on these issues and the local issues playing out in VA. http://www.pet-law.com/future/future1.html .

When analyzing any legislation the important thing is NOT what the stated or intended consequence is the important thing is to analyze it from the perspective of what are the likely unintended OR undisclosed (see above) consequences.

It is also important NOT to make assumptions about how it will be enforced. If it is on the books it can be enforced. A good analogy is the broken car tail light. As my retired LEO friend says - do you know how many felony arrests are made based on a broken tail light? ( Answer for those who do not get  it - boatloads - it is used as an excuse/raison to initiate contact)

Also do not assume that matters are as they are being presented to you.  Two small examples. California's backers of AB1634 the MSN dog extinction act neglect to mention that in the last thirty years DESPITE an increasing pet population the state has reduced dogs coming into shelters by 76% while increasing the percentage of those re-homed and those adopted - ie is significant progress is being made w/o the need for draconian measures designed to eliminate pets from the face of the earth. (CA requires stats to be kept under the rabies law)

Second example. Sacramento the city mentioned above where it is now a crime to own an intact animal enacted radical new restrictive laws AND decided to build a $25 million dollar new shelter with greater capacity despite the fact a. their shelter population is declining and b. they currently have empty dog runs and c. they go to other counties and cities and "cherry pick" adoptable animals from them because their shelter population can not supply their demand. Oh and by the way they have set aside $500,000 for "shelter art" for the new shelter wh/ was designed at a cost of several million dollars by and HSUS endorsed Architect.  He has taken numerous local jurisdictions for millions of dollars in design and construction management fees and designs glass palaces with hanging gardens, video game rooms and YES museums! Think what that money could do if it was put into education program or offering free training classes or educating shelter personnel on better ways to evaluate dogs and adopters. Plus we do not need to be creating palaces so people can feel good when they go to the shelter.  That just encourages them to think that it is acceptable place and acceptable behavior to abandon a dog to a shelter - 'cause after all it's such a nice place and I'm sure they will make sure he gets a good home.

Finally remember that it is by far easier to amend a law that is already on the books than to create a new one. So in many cases the opposition will take just about anything to get a law on the books because they know that they can come back in a year and tack an amendment on an obscure unrelated bill at the last minute and it likely will pass with no one even noticing. So please Bravo think long and hard before you support legislation that restricts our rights and can give them a foot in the door to future easy amendments.

OK I don't get it . Someone please someone ( tho I doubt anyone is reading this) please explain it to me.  These are issues which will affect our right to own and breed dogs yet at the point I am bumping this up it has had a big whole  187 views and  7 replies in 6 days.  The Beauceron (not even our breed) has had 427 views and 28 replies in a couple of hours.  The poorly constructed skunk dog has had 1081 views and  54 comments in one day. Even the Furminators get more attention than this thread.

Talk about fiddling while Rome burns!

Hi Beth,

people usually comme here to read the newest insults, unfortunately.

But in all fairness, there is not much anybody can do about these issues, as they are regulated by local governments and muncipalities. The feds have absolutely no jurisdiction. Therefore, it only affects pet owners living directly within the city limits of Washington DC. My husband and I both work in DC and live outside. It would have never occured to us to have a house in the district when you breed or keep a larger amount of dogs. While I have sold quite a few puppies to DC residents over the years, it is a big difference to just have one or two dogs vs. being a breeder or dog fancier (sport and/or show). When I go for walks during lunch breaks, I see a lot of dog owners. All of them here in Northwest Palisades neighborhood carry bags with them and you won't find any droppings anywhere. People here take that very serious. DC is not a place for anything but pets, period. I can imagine that New York City is very similar. Bravo definitely has a valid point. We do have to respect other people and their preferences. Not everybody is happy about kennel odors or barking dogs. It is so easy to blame all these legislative attempts on PETA (yes, I see them lurking through in a lot of these matters as well, I have read the book "The hijacking of the humane movement"), but mostly the problem lies with irresponsible ownerships. Then, people get frustrated because they feel helpless and violated in their own homes. Nowadays, the home is the only place to relax, but nobody can live in peace if the "bad" neighbors do not want them too. That goes both ways. Example: My coworker in Loudoun County, VA is close to a nervous breakdown. She and her family live on 8 acres in an older home. Their community is zoned A-3 (agricultural, over 3 acres). Her neighbor just rented the house out to a couple who supplement their income with livestock. They have countless sheep and goats on their 5 acres, in addition to several cats, large dogs (which are left outside and bark all night) and poultry. The grass in the frontyard has not been mowed for a long time and the stench is unbearable. My coworker's family is not even using their little pool in the backyard anymore because of the increased fly population. The county cannot do anything since it is zoned agricultural. The neighborhood got together and tried to plead with the homeowner, who is not cooperative. She just wants the rental income and plans to tear down that existing house in a few years to build a better one. The only recourse the neighborhood has is to call animal control for every little nuisance and noise problem, or if a dog gets out. When you hear that (and cases like that are common everywhere), are you surprised that people will vote for legislature like that? Or that more and more restrictive covenants are set up? I am not.

My husband and I have been looking for property in Loudoun County, VA for almost two years now. We just can't find anything. If it is not the price, it is usually the protective covenants or HOA set in place. We would have liked to buy a beautiful 23 acre lot in Bluemont on the Eastern slopes of the Blue Ridge, but they did not allow any kennels, breedings other than livestock (you would have been in violation if your barn cat had a litter of kittens) and ownership of more than 3 dogs. That is crazy: on 23 acres in the middle of nowhere! We encountered a lot of similar protective covenants in most places and have long since given up on the idea of buying land and building our own house. All lots now have these restrictions set in place. Our only chance is to find a suitable existing home. We will keep looking.

In Germany, they have even tougher regulations regarding dog ownership and breeding. In the U.S., people are used to their freedom, which is wonderful. But a lot of people abuse that priviledge and as a result, everybody suffe