too many committees too much time legislative update 2008
Here some info on where we are at right now today
HB 101 â€“ Relating to Dangerous Dogs – Eliminates prohibition of breed-specific local government regulation of dangerous dogs
âˆ‘ Breed specific legislation has not been shown to reduce the incidence of dog bites
in any part of the world despite a twenty-year history. By its nature it is unjust.
âˆ‘ Breed specific legislation removes responsibility for dog biting incidents from
dog owners and places the blame on dogs. This is a dangerously simplistic
solution to a complex problem.
âˆ‘ Breed specific legislation engenders a false and dangerous perception that breeds
not included will not show aggression.
âˆ‘ Enforcing and administering any law comes at some monetary cost. This would
be better used implementing non-discriminatory laws which have an ability to
enhance public safety.
âˆ‘ Aggression is a normal canine behavior and can be shown by any dog of any
breed or type.
âˆ‘ To reduce the incidence of dog aggression, all dogs should be socialized,
obedience trained, understood and managed competently by their owners.
âˆ‘ People determine whether dogs will be useful inhabitants of a community or
Nuisances. It is the people who either intentionally or unintentionally foster
viciousness in dogs whom legislators must endeavor to control.
âˆ‘ As the dog bite statistics demonstrate, every breed of dog will bite. The likelihood
of an unwarranted bite is determined by the circumstances and level of
control/restraint. The dogâ€™s breed is not relevant. It is more about owner
competence than anything else.
April 8: no senate bill. People keep saying its dead but not yet. It won’t be dead until the fat lady sings. Needs to be attached to a senate bill. So far no ones going for it and lets hope it stays that way.
Solution: Enforce leash laws
HB 1227/S 1994 â€“ Relating to Gertrude Maxwell Save A Pet Act
(NOTE: Want wording changed on SB 1994 to the same wording that is in HB 1227 â€“ veterinarians are opposed to wording in SB 1994).
âˆ‘ Why is animal cruelty being included in this bill when there are already animal cruelty laws in the state?
âˆ‘ Overpopulation – the statistics given to the legislators on this bill are totally incorrect. The statistics are from more than 18 years ago and if they were factual, you wouldn’t be able to step out of your front door without tripping on a kitten.
âˆ‘ If there is so much overpopulation in Florida, then why are shelters throughout the state importing dogs from foreign and off-shore countries or other states? (See attached documentation of Florida shelters importing dogs as well as attached article on Pet Underpopulation: A Pet Shortage in the U.S.)
âˆ‘ We are in full support of any voluntary spay/neuter endeavors, but not mandatory.
âˆ‘ The committee should be an all species board. There should be definitions and an outline of the Board and its purpose.
âˆ‘ No money should be used for lobbying.
âˆ‘ Outline for Committee:
1 member of the Florida Veterinarian Medical Association
1 member of the Cat Fancier Association
1 member of the Florida Association of Kennel Clubs
1 member of a humane organization
1 member of the Florida Animal Control Association
1 member of the National Rifle Association
1 member not associated with any of the aforementioned organizations and the
Commissioner of Agriculture or his designee.
The Board of Directors of the Direct Support Organization may appoint up to 3
non- voting honorary members. Nominees should be individuals, companies, or
organizations which have exemplified themselves or have made significant
contributions to the health, safety or well being of animals. Honorary Board
Members shall serve annually for a maximum of 2 consecutive terms.
April 8: In favor of house bill 219 Oppose Senate Version 1994.
Only issue is the funding and once that gets dealt with expect it to zip thru. Gertrude Maxwell is most deserving of a bill with her name.
S 444 â€“ Relating to the Sale of Dogs and Cats
As currently written, we are in support of this bill. The bill authorizes enforcement of the statutory provisions related to the sale of dogs and cats to the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services and redefines the term “pet dealer” as 20 or more dogs and cats for purposes of provisions authorizing a purchaser to return an animal to the pet dealer and receive a refund, exchange the animal, or receive a reimbursement of expenses.
We are in full support of health certificates and vaccinations and anthelmentics prior to the sale of a puppy or kitten. We are opposed however, to make it more difficult for dog and cat breeders to defend themselves against specious or unprovable claims; and removes the option for pet buyers to waive certain provisions of the law.
Section 829.29 (1)(a) et seq: Administration of vaccinations and worming medicines are matters for breeders and their veterinarians to discuss and implement.
Section 829.29 (8): Some diseases have a variable incubation period and some buyers fail to follow instructions for puppy care, feeding, and wellness protocols. S 470 unfairly places all of the burden on the breeder/seller if illness or hereditary conditions occur regardless of the steps they have taken to prevent such problems and regardless of whether the buyer has followed instructions for pet care.
Section 829.29 (6): Deleting this section tells buyers that they are not competent to decide for themselves whether to buy a particular pet or to go elsewhere
April 8: No companion bill. As long as the wording stays the same
HB 1227/SB 744 â€“ Sexual Activities Involving Animals
This is my favorite bill. This is HSUS’s number one priority this year. HSUS! DUDES! Read REDEMPTION By Nathan Winograd and get a life. If there are people doing this they need T-H-E-R-A-P-Y.
Senate Bill 1496; HS 917
Make the definition of disability and service dogs to mirror the federal law-the exemption is limited only to puppies. Good thing or else everyone’s dog would be a service dog.
if you have questions, concerns, compliments or nasty remarks email cyndi at [email protected]