By Kelly Crouch, CFA Legislative Information Liaison 

August 2019

Fort Smith, AR: $500 Breeder Licenses

By a vote of 6-1 on August 6, 2019, the Fort Smith Board of Directors approved multiple changes to its animal control ordinance (Talk Business & Politics, “Fort Smith Board approves new animal control measures, shelter contract.”  A major change is the $500 annual breeder license per animal for cats and dogs. Breeders must have a city business license, a state sales permit, and prove the animal has been microchipped to obtain a breeder license. There are other requirements as well. The breeder must license and microchip offspring over four months of age. They must display the license number on all advertising, receipts, or transfer documents, and the breeder must prominently display the license number to any person acquiring a cat or dog from them. A breeder may not sell, adopt, gift or otherwise transfer a cat or dog earlier than six weeks of age or that is not immunized against common diseases as directed by a licensed veterinarian. The breeder must provide the new owner information about city licensing and microchipping requirements. They must also supply the new owner’s information to the City Animal Control Department.

Furthermore, the ordinance mandates microchipping of cats and dogs and secondary identification, such as a collar with a tag. During the meeting, the ordinance was amended to include a lifetime $10 license for animals microchipped and sterilized per the article referenced above. The annual license fee for intact animals is $60. A zero dollar exemption to the licensing requirement is available to dogs actively trained and used by law enforcement and rescue activities, certified service dogs, and cats and dogs under four months of age, including those subject to a Breeder License. The ordinance also prohibits cat owners from allowing their cat to run at-large. The draft ordinance was attached to the August 6, 2019 Board agenda. There have been six related articles posted on the CFALegislativeNews Facebook page since September 21, 2018.

NOTE post publication news of possible amendments was published in the local news media as well as this informative action alert for the August 20, 2019 Board meeting from The American Kennel Club with links to additional information.

Tulsa, Oklahoma

As part of its eight-step Animal Welfare Reform Plan, Tulsa officials have proposed a 67-page animal ordinance, an addition of 30 pages to Title 2 which includes animal control, agricultural animals and other provisions often separated from animal control ordinances. Such an expansive ordinance invites inadvertent violations from residents as well as making it difficult for those enforcing the law to be experts, especially those not dedicated to animal control. Concerns include provisions about pet limits, due process provisions, fee appropriateness, at-large cats, and dangerous animals. The city is seeking input about the ordinance from residents via an online survey  through August 31, 2019.

The pet limits contained in new §101A.15 would prohibit the harboring, keeping, or possessing “in any one household more than a combined total of five (5) dogs and cats over the age of four (4) months”. Under current law, §101A.18 requires that dogs and cats be sterilized, other than police dogs or pets continuously licensed prior to January 1, 1998. There are three permitted exemptions to these restrictions in §117. The Animal Count Exemption Permit allows a person to own and keep up to a total of ten sterilized cats and dogs at a single-family dwelling per acre of land. For a cat fancier to obtain this permit, they cannot be a commercial breeder (undefined) and must be actively involved in a nationally recognized, organized sport or hobby for at least one year prior to the date of application. A cat or dog breeder would need an Intact Animal Exemption Permit, allowing a holder to own and keep up to a combined total of five intact cats and dogs at a single-family dwelling. The fees for both of these exemptions is $100 for the first animal and $50 for each subsequent animal. Fanciers involved in rescue need an Animal Rescue Permit for a fee of $25. A person violating §101A.15 or §101A.18 is subject to up to six months in jail, a fine of not more than $1200, or both. A person violating the permit requirements is subject to a fine up to $500. The exemptions are more complicated than discussed here. To fully understand them, fanciers are encouraged to study the ordinance (https://www.cityoftulsa.org/media/10481/animal-ordinancedraft06-26-19.pdf).

Another concern is in the completely new Chapter 9 where §902 authorizes the Director of Working in Neighborhoods Department or Chief of Police to enter premises to determine the health and well-being of, or to impound, an animal. Furthermore, it authorizes them to determine the terms and conditions under which the owner “may regain or maintain custody of the animal.” There is nothing in §902 indicating this authority is subject to the U.S. Constitution Fourth Amendment provisions of Chapter 1, §116. If it was intended that provisions in one chapter govern provisions in another chapter, it needs to be clarified. If this was not the intention, there is a Fourth Amendment issue in §902.

Also, looking at the penalties for violations of this ordinance leaves one wondering if they are appropriate. When assigning penalties, the severity of the violation should be considered in comparison to other violations with the same penalty throughout the entire municipal code. The maximum fine up to $500 applies to most violations including having an unlicensed or unvaccinated animal, abandoning an animal, unlawful number of dogs and cats, and the unlawful sale of a diseased animal. The table of pre-set fines, often $100, may be the minimum fine but this is unclear. Neither does the ordinance provide guidance on how the penalties escalate from minimum to maximum levels.

Two current dog only sections have also been expanded to include other animals. At-large now includes cats. While a dog may not be off-leash or not in the physical control of its owner, a cat must be in the physical control of the owner. Yet, cats are walked on leashes. Similarly, the dangerous dog section has been expanded to include cats and other animals necessitating a thorough review of whether the existing dangerous dog provisions should be applied to other animals.