Pet Limits

Legislation – What’s Hot…Perry, MI Seeks to Tighten Up Restrictive Limit Law

 

August 2023

Kelly Crouch, CFA Legislative Information Liaison

The Perry, Michigan City Council fielded overwhelmingly negative feedback for a proposed amendment to the 2016 limit law. This largely unenforced zoning law limited residences to 2 or 4 pets (domesticated animals including cats, dogs, potbellied pigs, ducks, miniature bantam chickens, guinea hens, and rabbits), banned breeding, and required that the offspring of any accidental litters be placed within two months. The last requirement is detrimental to the puppies and kittens and contrary to the laws of many communities that prohibit placing cats and dogs younger than eight weeks. The 2016 ordinance also allows a permit to exceed the limits. The proposed amendment would change the over-limit permit to a temporary permit with a 90-day maximum period. Rescues and fosters would require a foster cat home permit, allowing the residence up to two foster cats. Like other residences, fosters would have two months to place any offspring of pregnant foster cats. No similar foster requirements for other species or plans to increase enforcement exist.

Sixty people showed up to the council meeting on August 3, 2023. Many were not even aware of the existing limit law. No one supported the proposed zoning amendments though one person suggested mandatory microchipping of all pets. According to Mayor Sue Hammond, another 25 emails were received in opposition. Ultimately, the council unanimously decided to postpone the possible adoption of the proposed ordinance for 120 days and issue a moratorium on enforcement of the current section 3.30 as it pertains to dogs and cats for 120 days.

Speaking up does make a difference. But if bad laws or recorded covenants, conditions, and restrictions on property you may purchase are already in place, advance knowledge is critical. The August 2023 issue of Cat Talk has an article provided by the CFA Legislative Group called “How to Research Pet Limit Laws” to help you determine if such restrictions exist.

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

 

Legislation – What’s Hot . . . . . . . August 2019: Fort Smith, AR: $500 Breeder Licenses; Tulsa, OK: Pet Limits and Exemption Permits

 

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.

 

Scroll to Top