Irresponsible Pet Ownership

Legislation – What’s Hot . . . . . . New Hampshire: Pet Vendor Update Eureka, CA: Limits, Cattery Licensing, and Irresponsible Pet Owner

 

Legislation – What’s Hot . . . . . . .
Kelly S. Crouch, CFA Legislative Information Liaison

New Hampshire: Pet Vendor Update
Eureka (Humboldt County,) California: Limits, Cattery Licensing, and Irresponsible Pet Owner

New Hampshire

Legislators determined to regulate more cat breeders as pet vendors without final passage of an individual bill by the Legislature succeeded when Governor Sununu signed the proposed budget bill, House Bill 4, on September 26, 2019. As with H. B. 2, the unsuccessful budget bill before it (see the July 2019 What’s Hot), lawmakers included provisions expanding the definition of Pet Vendor, deleting the definition of commercial kennel that is superseded by the Pet Vendor revision, expanding the health certificate requirements for Dogs, Cats, and Ferrets, and creating a cost of care reimbursement fund for local governments prosecuting animal cruelty cases. Previously New Hampshire hobby cat breeders were not subject to licensing; now, they are included by threshold in the newly revised Pet Vendor definition and will need to evaluate their breeding program practices accordingly. Section 297 of H.B. 4 redefines Pet Vendor as anyone who “transfers 25 or more dogs, 25 or more cats, 30 or more ferrets, or 50 or more birds customarily used as household pets, with or without a fee or donation required, and whether or not a physical facility is owned by the licensee in New Hampshire, between July 1 and June 30 of each year.” Pet Vendor also includes transferors of other live animals as described in the rules promulgated by the Department of Agriculture, Markets, and Food.

Eureka (Humboldt County,) California

The City Council for this rural port city in northern California, of approximately 27,000 people, is considering replacing their decades-old animal ordinance with one far more complex. The proposed ordinance includes new pet limits, new cattery licenses, and a new concept in animal ordinances – the irresponsible owner designation.

Currently there is a limit of three dogs to any lot, building, structure, or premises absent a kennel license. The draft ordinance would add a limit of three cats to any premises with the fourth cat triggering the requirement to obtain a cattery license. Both catteries and kennels would be subject to inspections. The Animal Control Officer, in this case a single person, is authorized to revoke the license if the premises are not maintained in a sanitary and proper manner. To the extent that violations are in the eye of the officer, applicable standards may vary with changes in personnel. The cattery threshold could also cause problems for community cat caregivers as any cat over four months of age that are kept, harbored or maintained on the premises would be included in the count. At least cats are exempted from the at-large provision for domestic animals, which would further compound the problem.

In addition, there are limits on pot-bellied pigs, miniature goats, chickens, ducks, rabbits, and small mammals, including a combined limit of six dogs, cats, pigs, and goats, as well as license requirements to own a potbelly pig or miniature goat.

Also proposed is a new irresponsible owner provision. This is a separate offense predicated on a conglomeration of specific offenses already designed to penalize irresponsible owners. A single dog attack may trigger the application of this section, or it may take several violations of minor offenses (i.e. animal at-large) to invoke it. Violations of any offense in the animal ordinance could result in a violation of this provision. The irresponsible owner penalty is unrelated to the other offenses and adds a new, harsher penalty to ordinance. This provision appears to be a watered-down version of the irresponsible owner law enacted in San Marcos, California, in 2018. Although the irresponsible pet owner section may initially seem like a good idea to deal with some scofflaws as a preventive tool, it penalizes infractions of varying severity equally. In the proposed Eureka ordinance the first two violations would be subject to fines. In addition to a fine, third time violators would be unable to obtain any City license or permit to own, harbor, or maintain any animal within the City for a period of five years.

The first reading of the ordinance was held on October 1, 2019. After receiving complaints from residents, including the lack of any grandfathering, the City Council decided to hold a study session to review the complaints before proceeding to a second reading. The study session will likely be held in November .

Recent CFA Legislative Group Blog Posts:  September, 2019 Legislation – What’s Hot . . . . . City of Los Angeles Feral Cat Program Delayed Years by Bureaucracy, Now in Comment Period

 

“IRRESPONSIBLE OWNER” LEGAL DESIGNATION AND CONSEQUENCES: A SLIPPERY SLOPE FOR ANIMAL OWNERS’ RIGHTS

 

San Marcos, California City Council is Poised to Vote on an Ordinance Amendment that Could Punish “Irresponsible Pet Owners” Disproportionately to the Offense

Most people can recount times when they have dealt with the effects of another’s irresponsible pet ownership.  Some may have even thought “there ought to be a law.” Most of the time there are already laws on the books against the irresponsible acts of pet owners. Nevertheless, on October 23, San Marcos City Council is poised to approve the second reading of an ordinance amendment that would punish irresponsible pet owners with the seizure and forfeiture of all the person’s animals down to the last guppy.

A careful look at the proposed amendment reveals why this legislation allows for disproportionate punishment. It starts with the definition of an irresponsible owner as a person who has had three or more citations issued against them by the Animal Control Authority within the previous two years. The citations may be issued for violations of the following sections of the municipal code: animals at large, wild animals, public protection from animals, possession of guard dog, public nuisance animal or dangerous animal, public nuisance, declaration of dangerous animal, or any other provision under Title 6 as determined by the Animal Control Authority. As any violation of any provision of Title 6 is either an infraction for which citations are issued or a misdemeanor; trivial offenses could result in the seizure and forfeiture of all of the person’s animals. Amended Section 6.04.030 (e) authorizes that a convicted person be prohibited from owning, possessing, caring for, or having any contact with animals of any kind for up to three years or longer if ordered by a court. This section allows one to infer that the amendment does not require court involvement if the punishment does not exceed three years. Many animal owners may not have the legal sophistication or the means to challenge an administrative procedure or understand the legislative overreach of this amendment.

There is another devilish detail of the amendment. The punitive measures go far beyond prohibiting ownership. The prohibition on the care of animals can have employment consequences for those who work in an animal related field. Veterinarians, animal control officers, shelter workers, groomers are just a few people at risk for losing their livelihood simply because they acquired a particularly inventive puppy that should have been named Houdini. It would be a travesty of justice if a pet owner lost their job and a puppy lost his home simply because it kept coming up with ingenious ways to escape the backyard. The innocent goldfish sharing his home would also be forfeit. This is especially egregious if the owners were diligent about cutting off each method of escape as it was discovered.

There is great potential for abuse of the proposed amendment and disproportionate punishment for mere infractions or irresponsibility. California law already provides for forfeiture and time-limited prohibitions on care, custody, and ownership of animals for serious crimes involving animals.  These state laws allow for court discretion and mitigation. This amended ordinance would allow for the city to remove court involvement for punishments of the same severity for up to three years for actions much less serious in nature and for which convictions are not expressly required. San Marcos should remove the irresponsible pet ownership provisions.

*****

Editor’s Note, November 10, 2018:

At its October 23, 2018 meeting, the San Marcos City Council unanimously approved (AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: JABARA, JONES, JENKINS, ORLANDO, DESMOND) the Consent Calendar including Item 4, ORDINANCE NO. 2018‐1467 ‐ AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN MARCOS, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING SAN MARCOS MUNICIPAL CODE CHAPTERS 6.04, 6.08, 6.12, 6.16, 6.20, 6.28 AND 6.32 AND REPEALING AND REPLACING CHAPTER 6.24 RELATING TO ANIMAL CONTROL. Approved the second reading of an ordinance amending San Marcos Municipal Code Chapters 6.04, 6.08, 6.12, 6.16, 6.20, 6.28 and 6.32, and repealing and replacing Chapter 6.24 relating to animal control.

Scroll to Top