Massachusetts HB 5092 replacing HB 1948!! Bad news!!

[Chewbecca]

Massachusetts HB 5092 Bad News For All Dog Owners
Print This Article
[Thursday, September 11, 2008]
In a stunning procedural move, Massachusetts House Bill 1948, which was a reasonable and non-discriminatory dangerous dog bill supported by both the AKC and the Massachusetts Federation of Dog Clubs, has been replaced by House Bill 5092, a conglomeration of many anti-dog, anti-responsible breeder, and anti-responsible owner proposals. The American Kennel Club is not only deeply concerned with the many unacceptable provisions of the bill, but is also disturbed by the procedural maneuver used to deny the concerned dog-owning citizens of Massachusetts an opportunity to state their objections to the egregious bill in a committee hearing format.

Representative Brad Hill sponsored HB 1948, the pragmatic dangerous dog bill, this legislative session. That bill was assigned to the Joint Municipalities Committee, which subsequently sent to it to "study". That action usually indicates that the bill will not be considered for the remainder of the session. However, on July 28th, part of the bill was recommitted to the Joint Municipalities Committee, which then produced HB 5092. Among the many problematic provisions to HB 5092, the most egregious include:

Imposing mandatory spay/neuter of all dogs over 12 months of age; or in the alternative, owners will have to qualify for and annually purchase an intact animal permit at a cost of up to $500 per dog.

Limiting the number of reproductive events per female dog to one litter per year, with few exceptions.

Requiring the reporting of all sales of puppies to local jurisdictions.

Eliminating the practice of humane tethering, without allowances for hunting or sled dogs.

Allowing towns and cities to impose breed-specific ordinances.

Instituting state-mandated vaccination schedules, instead of allowing vaccination schedules to be provided by, and in consultation with, a veterinarian.

Establishing unreasonable nuisance laws that can result in the forced sterilization, banishment, or euthanization of dogs.
For a copy of HB 5092, click here.

Legislative staff in Massachusetts has confirmed with the Massachusetts Federation that the House Steering, Policy, and Scheduling Committee currently has cognizance of the bill. This committee does not consider the policy of pending legislation. Instead, it acts as a manager of legislation, determining which bills will be sent to the full House for its consideration, and the timing thereof. Effectively, this means that at any time the House Steering, Policy, and Scheduling Committee will send HB 5092 to the full House for its consideration and vote, effectively denying Massachusetts citizens the opportunity to participate in the legislative process by stating their objections to the bill in a policy committee hearing!



WHAT YOU CAN DO:

It is imperative that Massachusetts residents contact the members of the Steering, Policy, and Scheduling Committee, and implore them to not send HB 5092 to the floor for a vote. Instead, encourage them to return the bill to study, or in the alternative back to the Joint Municipalities Committee for consideration and public comment on the policies contained in HB 5092.

Members of Massachusetts House Steering, Policy, and Scheduling Committee

Representative Paul J. Donato
RM. 185
State House
Boston, MA 02133
PHONE: 617-722-2960
FAX: 617-722-2713
[email protected]

Representative Joyce A. Spiliotis
RM. 236
State House
Boston, MA 02133
PHONE: 617-722-2430
[email protected]

Representative Paul C. Casey
RM. 238
State House
Boston, MA 02133
PHONE: 617-722-2380
[email protected]

Representative James B. Eldridge
RM. 33
State House
Boston, MA 02133
PHONE: 617-722-2060
[email protected]

Representative Alice Hanlon Peisch
RM. 167
State House
Boston, MA 02133
PHONE: 617-722-2230
[email protected]

Representative Denis E. Guyer
RM. 443
State House
Boston, MA 02133
PHONE: 617-722-2460
[email protected]

Representative Tom Sannicandro
RM. 473F
State House
Boston, MA 02133
PHONE: 617-722-2210
FAX: 508-626-0692
[email protected]

Representative James T. Welch
RM. 43
State House
Boston, MA 02133
PHONE: 617-722-2030
[email protected]

Representative Lori A. Ehrlich
RM. 540
State House
Boston, MA 02133
PHONE: 617-722-2090
[email protected]

Representative Bradford Hill
RM. 542
State House
Boston, MA 02133
PHONE: 617-722-2489
[email protected]

Representative Elizabeth A. Poirier
RM. 542
State House
Boston, MA 02133
PHONE: 617-722-2976
FAX: 617-626-0108
[email protected]

Massachusetts residents are also encouraged to contact their own state representative and express their vehement opposition to egregious provisions of HB 5092, and urge them to do the same. (Massachusetts residents can find out who their state representative is by clicking here.)

For more information, contact AKC's Government Relations Department at (919) 816-3720, or e-mail [email protected].

 

[Bahamutt99]

Becca beat me to it. I was on my way over here to post that exact thing.

 

[CharlieDog]

So... if you don't live in Mass. can you still send them a letter?

 

[Barb04]

Passing it on. Thanks

 

[Maxy24]

This is absolutely ridiculous, especially 1, 4 and ESPECIALLY 6 i mean 6 is ludicrous you can't make someone vaccinate their dogs, and what vaccinations are they going to make you give? Once I'm old enough to own a dog I'm leaving here so long as there is still someplace left to go. If I knew how to write a decent letter I'd do that too, but unfortunately when i write I sound like a 16 year old because I am.

 

[Sweet72947]

$500 a year for an intact dog? That's ludicrous.

Writin' a letter....

 

[Bahamutt99]

So... if you don't live in Mass. can you still send them a letter?

Do it. The worst they can do is ignore you.

 

[2nd2none]

yes, any and all can (and PLEASE do) write letters
and a HUGE "thank You" for posting AND replying to this. as a rottweiler/ "pit bull" owner, this is devasting!!!!!!
i pray to GOD this will never happen. (might as well move to Russia!!!)

thanks again!

 

[2nd2none]

this was another version i also received:



Subject: Massachusetts Dog Legislation


Dog Owners in Massachusetts
Face Legislative Sucker Punch



by JOHN YATES

American Sporting Dog Alliance

http://www.americansportingdogalliance.org

[email protected]



SPRINGFIELD, MA – Animal rights advocates in Massachusetts reached into their bag of political dirty tricks last week to pave the way for legislation that would be devastating to dog owners and circumvent public participation in the process.



The legislation, which will be unveiled as House Bill 5092, would:



Mandate spaying and neutering of all dogs at age 12 months.


Create $500 annual “intact permits†for each dog that is not sterilized, if they can meet almost impossible requirements to obtain a permit.


Essentially eliminate the breeding or keeping of intact dogs that are registered with several major registries, including the Field Dog Stud Book, the American Dog Breeders Association and numerous rare breed organizations. A registry also would have to be specifically approved by each municipality in the state.


Limit intact permits only to dogs that have the physical appearance of the show dog standard set by the American Kennel Club or the United Kennel Club. Few purebred performance dogs of the sporting or herding breeds physically resemble their show dog counterparts.


Grant intact permits to dogs used in competition only if the local municipality approves the dog’s registry. To get a permit, a dog owner would have to be a “member†of a registry. Registries do not offer memberships. Registries also would have to have a “code of ethics†that prohibits breeding dogs with “genetic defects.†This is not defined and thus is open to interpretation without clear guidelines. Genetic tests are not available for most hereditary problems. No registry can meet this standard, because of potential liability for matings over which they have no control.


Establish unreasonable nuisance definitions that will give complete discretion to animal control officers to order the seizure, destruction or banishment of a dog for even a single leash law violation, noise complaint or trespass on another person’s property. There are no guidelines in the bill. The legislation strictly limits the right of appeal by requiring a dog owner to show that a citation was unreasonable or in bad faith. A magistrate “may†grant a hearing on those grounds only, but is not required to do so. In addition, unlike with other laws, a dog owner cannot appeal the magistrate’s ruling to a higher court.


Ban the tethering of all dogs, except for brief periods.


Give broad powers to every municipality to ban or restrict specific breeds of dogs, and to seize, ban or kill any dog that can be deemed dangerous simply by briefly chasing another animal (chasing could be construed as an “attackâ€). There is an appeal to a three-person board of political appointees, including the animal control officer and an “expert†in the field of animals.


Require anyone who applies for an intact permit to attend training classes on “responsible pet ownership.â€


Require anyone who sells a dog or puppy to turn in the names, addresses and phone numbers of each buyer.


And, impose fines and penalties, including possible imprisonment, for violations.




The American Sporting Dog Alliance urges Massachusetts dog owners to be aware that this is not simply another piece of legislation. Allies of animal rights groups in the Legislature used a legal trick to rush this bill through without the usual requirements for talking testimony from the public or holding public hearings.



Here’s how it was done.



HB 1948, which was a reasonable bill aimed at regulating dangerous dogs sponsored by Rep. Brad Hill, had been sent to the Joint Municipalities Committee and sent to a file for “study.†That usually means the legislation is dead for the current session. But the committee brought back the bill, gutted it and replaced it with HB 5092. This new bill contains the requirements described above. In turn, on Sept. 8, this completely rewritten bill was sent to the House Steering, Policy, and Scheduling Committee, which schedules legislation for a vote of the full House.



The House Steering, Policy, and Scheduling Committee can send HB 5092 to the House floor for a vote at anytime, with no advance notice required. This procedural move eliminates requirements for a committee vote on the bill or for a public hearing.



This process was confirmed on the committee website, under the status of HB 5092. However, the veil of secrecy was intensified because the actual text of the legislation was not provided on the House website. A search yields only the original bill that was sponsored by Rep. Hill.



It is not known if Rep. Hill supports or opposes the gutted and completely revised legislation, or if he played any role in the political chicanery in making the switch. Hill did not respond to inquiries from the American Sporting Dog Alliance.



The American Sporting Dog Alliance is urging all Massachusetts dog owners to immediately take steps to fight against this dangerous and burdensome legislation.



Please read this legislation for yourself. You can see it at http://www.akc.org/pdfs/canine_legislation/MA_ht05092_3_.pdf.



The first step to fight this legislation is to ask the members of the House Steering, Policy, and Scheduling Committee to refuse to send HB 5092 to the House floor for a vote. Please emphasize that the text of the legislation has been completely changed, and that no opportunity has been given for public participation on the new legislation.

i work for a vet, and we have 5 hospitals, so today i gave a copy to our medical director and asked him to pass it around to all the other hospitals/doctors(vets) as well, to make them aware how this will affect all of them and their potential inability to vaccinate animals as they see fit. hopefully it was spark some outrage.... (fingers crossed)

 

[ma-vie-en-vert]

Wow. That's ridiculous. This is why I like living where I do. Sure its in the boonies but everyone here is against BSL and related things.

But seriously, $500 bucks??? This bill will really hurt breeders me thinks. It'll maybe help get rid of some BYBs but it'll hurt the responsible people.

"Eliminating the practice of humane tethering, without allowances for hunting or sled dogs."

What are they talking about here? I is confused.

 

[Bahamutt99]

Basically, you can't tie your dog up except for brief periods of time. What "brief" is, I don't know. A lot of people with working dogs keep them tethered. There was even a Cornell study that examined (I believe) sled dogs that were tied and compared it to dogs that were kenneled.

 

[mwood322]

It won't get rid of backyard breeders. The truly horrible ones aren't bothering to license their dogs anyway. It will only hurt those who are already following current laws... I can only assume it's targeted at Back Yard Breeders...

The "short time" for tethering is 3 hours per 24 hours.

As for mandatory spay neuter. How is that going to help anyone who can afford vaccinations, and standard care, but can't afford to neuter their dog? Are they going to be neutering dogs for free, or just impounding them when someone can't afford the $250 for a neuter, or the $500 ANNUAL FEE for an intact dog. Meaning, MORE dogs without homes, when being intact is not a DEATH SENTENCE. A dog is not automatically going to drop dead because we didn't remove parts of its body. It's is absolute lunacy.

I am kind of annoyed though I've only found links to this on AKC, sporting dog alliance, and other forums, no massachusetts official websites at all.

--Mia

 

[2nd2none]

and you won't, as they're trying to slide this one in.... even AC officers (one of whom whose wife emailed me today saying her husband and his fellow employees had heard NOTHING regarding this) are unaware of it, which is why it's imperrative to pass it around quickly....

 

[BostonBanker]

For those of us who have never been involved in something like this - can someone post a "sample letter"? Mass is way too close to Vermont for comfort, and I certainly don't want those laws passing and then spreading.

 

[Bahamutt99]

I don't have a sample letter, but I can offer some tips.

First, make the title of your letter/email "oppose HB 5092." The reason for this is that sometimes they just go along tallying up who opposes and who supports. That gets your message across irrespective of what you put in the body of the letter.

Second, I always make sure to thank them for their time, and offer alternatives if available. I couldn't come up with any alternatives to the junk they're proposing right now, but I still made sure to thank those who made it to the end of my letter.

Third, sometimes its a good idea to offer a brief summary of who you are, who you're affiliated with, and why this bothers you. In my case, I mentioned that I have a small hobby kennel, and that I already expend a great deal of money showing my dogs and NOT selling puppies, so I felt the additional financial burden would make things difficult for someone like me, where it would only encourage casual breeders to increase their output to get their money back.

Fourth, be as succint as possible. I always go through after I've written my thoughts and condense them down a bit.

Fifth, if you're writing from out-of-area like most of us probably are, make sure you mention why you're doing so. It's not because you're a nosy busybody, but because you're concerned at the ripple effect of laws like this.

Other than that, for something like this, I do a point-by-point addressing each bad part of this bill and telling them just why I think it's bad.

 

[idreamdou]

Money!

Wow. That's ridiculous. This is why I like living where I do. Sure its in the boonies but everyone here is against BSL and related things.

But seriously, $500 bucks??? This bill will really hurt breeders me thinks. It'll maybe help get rid of some BYBs but it'll hurt the responsible people.

"Eliminating the practice of humane tethering, without allowances for hunting or sled dogs."

What are they talking about here? I is confused.

Like everything else in life, this is about money. Where will those $500 fees go? Certinley not back to responsible owners. Fight, fight, fight!

 

[2nd2none]

Apparently, there is a "tentative scheduling of a hearing" of the Joint Committee on Municipalities and Regional Government on THURSDAY, OCTOBER 23, 10AM, ROOM A2 at the State House. Only one bill will be heard at this hearing , yup, you guessed it~ H5092.
fingers crossed this gets shotdown......

 

[2nd2none]

welp, between 150-200 dog fanciers turned out for the hearing on the draconian HB 5092 bill that called for mandatory spay/neuter, breed specific bans, intact dog permits, draconian nuisance provisions, and inappropriately mandated vaccinations. Those speaking against the bill included members of the National Animal Interest Alliance, the Mass. Federation of Dog Clubs, many different AKC dog clubs and dog training clubs around the state, pet owners, the Mass. Veterinary Medical Association, the Animal Rescue League, the MSPCA, the Waterfowlers Club, a speaker representing Americans with Disabilities and his guide dog and numerous pet owners. Revere City Councilman Anthony Zambuto also spoke in opposition. The hearing was hours long and not everyone was able to speak but the message was loud and clear. At the conclusion of the hearing, Chairman Pedone, author of the bill, entertained a motion to send the bill to study. This was seconded and quickly passed. This vote means the bill is dead for this session. God only knows what'll happen AFTER the election, sigh.... but atleast it's halted, thus far. (YAY!!!!) Hopefully our strong showing will make clear that Massachusetts fanciers will not support these kinds of bills.
Thanks goes to the hundreds of Massachusetts residents, and to ALL who sent letters, called, emailed, or faxed. We heard from members of the committee that they got your message. In fact they got hundreds of your messages! One Representative joked that he was sure he had heard from all 300 members of one club. To NAIA and the AKC Legislative Department goes our thanks for their considerable help. Special thanks to Phil Guidry for his efforts on our behalf. Thanks to Dr. Tom Davies, AKC Director, for participating in a meeting with the sponsor. Thanks to those who ,missed worked to be there and to all of the people who came from every part of the state. When dog fanciers work together, we can educate our elected officials that WE are indeed the experts.....
til the next session...
and, in the paper today:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

BOSTON —

Local officials are unhappy with a bill before the Legislature that would require spaying and neutering of all dogs and change regulation regarding dangerous dogs.

Ann Campobasso, an animal control officer in Waltham, said the proposal is unnecessary.
"Waltham has a lot of dog owners, and 99 percent are really good with leash laws and things like neutering," she said yesterday in a phone interview. "I don't think we need vicious-dog laws."

The Joint Committee on Municipalities and Regional Government heard testimony yesterday from purebred and show dog owners who argued that the proposal does not properly address dangerous dogs.

The bill mandates that dogs over a year old would have to be spayed or neutered. Owners who are members of a purebred dog club, approved by the city or town, could obtain a permit to avoid this, but would pay a $500 annual fee per dog.

Sen. Susan Fargo, D-Lincoln, a member of the committee, said the mandate would hurt breeders.

"Most pet owners do neuter or spay," she said in an interview after the hearing. "But this decision could cause financial hardships for many responsible dog owners who do not."

She said that dog laws should be determined based on input from cities and towns, rather than a broad state law. She said state guidelines can be helpful, but would like to maintain municipal control.

"The way it stands right now if it does go to the committee, I would vote against it," she said.

The bill began as a proposal by Rep. Brad Hill, R-Ipswich, which breeders said was well-designed to address dangerous dogs. Rep. Vincent Pedone, D-Worcester, said that bill was a step in the right direction, but did not accomplish the goals he had in mind.

"Dog laws that exist today ... need to be updated - they need to be reformed. I think that the guidelines that exist are not adequate," he said. "I think Brad Hill's bill falls miles short of where it should be."

Dog owners also favored an animal bill by Sen. Pat Jehlen, D-Somerville, which is being presented to the Senate. Speakers said Jehlen's bill would better deal with dangerous dogs and not force the same fee regarding spaying and neutering.

John Seeley, president of the Wachusett Kennel Club, said responsible breeders would feel the effects of the new bill more than the owners of potentially dangerous dogs.

"Mandatory spaying and neutering has nothing to do with dangerous dogs," he said. "It has totally changed the intent of the original bill."

Campobasso said she liked the part of the bill that would give animal control officers the authority to seize an animal they believe to be an immediate threat.

"The idea of being able to control the situation is the most important thing on the bill," she said. "As of now I need a court order."

Anthony Zambuto, a Revere city councilor, said the bill had noble intent, but would punish responsible dog owners.

"This is a sledgehammer trying to kill a fly. This is a solution in search of a problem," he said. "This will kill the purebred dog and show dog industry in Massachusetts."
http://www.dailynewstribune.com/news/x1795263847/Locals-bite-back-at-proposed-dog-bill

MANY thnaks, again, to all of you who helped us here in Mass. :hail:
-