Keeping up to date on animal rights issues in Tennessee at the local, state, and national levels.
UPDATE ON MEMPHIS (August 21,2010)
I just returned from the Memphis KC Dog Show where I represented the ARC Legislative Committee. Donna Malone with the TN AKC Federation, Responsible Animal Owners of TN, shared the legislation table with me.
We had preprinted opposition letters at the ready, plus we had exhibitors
turn in armbands stating they were against the proposal, how much money
they spent in the Memphis area, etc...Just for today, I think we collected
somewhere in the neighborhood of 125 LETTERS/BANDS!
Donna will be at the table tomorrow collecting more, so be sure to stop by!
I made a tri-fold display (the kind kids use for science projects) with
the header reading "MANDATORY SPAY/NEUTER KILLS ANIMALS"...People were really coming over and listening and taking the handouts.
The first of three readings will be this Tuesday @ 4pm. The "big vote"
will take place (as of now) On Sept 21.
It is vital that all Memphis residents, dog owners, breeders, clubs, civic
groups, etc...write and OPPOSE this misguided ordinance.
As of now, the following clubs have pledged their opposition:
American Kennel Club
American Rottweiler Club
American Whippet Club
Feline Friends Internationale
CAVA
Golden State Rottweiler Club
Cumberland Valley Dachshund Club
Mid-South Toy Fox Terrier Club of Memphis
TN Federation of Dog Clubs
We The People Pets
German Shepherd Dog Club of West Ky
Maury County Kennel Club of TN
Nashville TN Kennel Club
Tullahoma KC of TN
SAOVA--Sportsmen and Animal Owners Voting Alliance
My apologies if I have left anyone out...I'm soo tired!
Make no mistake; this ordinance is "backdoor bsl". It calls for the
mandatory spay/neuter of ALL DOGS WEIGHING 30 POUNDS or more.
Permission to cross-post.
Robin Cannon
Member-American Rottweiler Club Legislative Committee
AKC Legislative Liaison, German Shepherd Dog Club of WEst KY, Paducah KY
Kennel Club
Please contact the council members below! The provisions of this ordinance will affect everyone in Memphis and they could affect you if you are in the area at all.
Carlotta
Memphis,TN Targets Dachshunds, Whippets, Goldens, Plus More breeds in "Backdoor BSL" Ordinance
by Robin McCall Cannon
August 17, 2010
Re: Proposed Memphis Ordinance: "Backdoor Breed-Specific Legislation", "Fertile Animal Permits", Mandatory Spay/Neuter
To All Clubs, Dog Owners, Breeders & Fellow Exhibitors:
I am writing to you today as a concerned dog owner, breeder, exhibitor and as a member of the American Rottweiler Club's Legislative Committee. The Committee has written the councilmen and voiced our opposition and we are proud to be working with The Responsible Animal Owner's of TN (AKC TN Federation) to defeat this measure.
As you may be aware, the city of Memphis, TN, is considering additions to its animal control ordinance. Earlier this year (March), Councilman Shea Flinn proposed breed-specific MSN for "pit bull" type dogs, which was dropped. The precipitating event for the current proposal arose after a elderly man was attacked & later died due to 2 dogs running at large. Animal control had been alerted the day before this tragedy that the dogs were loose, but they took NO ACTION. This man would still be alive had animal control done its job & enforced the existing law.
Earlier this week, the Public Services and Neighborhood Committee voted unanimously to send the proposed ordinance (crafted by Councilman Shea Flinn) to the full city council. Before it can become law, it must go through three readings.
The current proposal would "Require dogs over 29 pounds to be SPAYED/NEUTERED", unless the owner purchases a one-time "fertile animal permit", and meets other "agency approved criteria", which is outlined below. The proposal also seeks to impose a cap of "one litter per year" per household.
Instead of naming breeds (specifically) this time around, the current proposal names them BY WEIGHT. This is nothing less than breed-specific legislation, except we call it "going thru the backdoor". The usually targeted breeds such as Rottweilers, Dobermans, German Shepherds, Am Staffs (what is referred to in the slang as "pit bulls) will be caught under this proposed ordinance.
However, for those of you that own breeds that you thought would "never be targeted by BSL", here is a sample listing of breeds that WILL be caught in the "Backdoor BSL" trap: Brittanys, Dachshunds, Golden Retrievers, Labrador Retrievers, Afghan Hounds, Skye Terriers, Bluetick Coonhounds, Whippets...the list goes on.
Imagine you are attending a dog event and your dog breaks its leash and ends up in the hands of animal control. Do you have friends that live in Memphis and will be directly targeted by this proposed ordinance? Memphis is on the animal rightists radar screen and its citizens and dogs need our help!
It is imperative that each club, parent club, training organization, breeders and exhibitors, write a letter of opposition to the Memphis City Council Members by no later than this coming Monday, August 23rd, as the first of three readings will take place (we believe) on Tuesday. We are asking for everyone's help in defeating this terrible proposed ordinance, especially those in Memphis, Shelby County and the surrounding municipalities.
For your convenience, the names and email addresses of all of the city councilmen are provided at the bottom of this email.
A table will be set up at the Memphis Kennel Club show this Saturday, August 21, with information on the proposed ordinance with the goal of getting people involved in the fight to defeat it. I am proud to say that I will be there, representing the ARC Legislative Committee, assisting Donna Malone (raotinc@aol.com) and The RAOT, INC.
It is imperative that we flood the council members with letters of opposition and stand together in this fight against this AR-inspired proposal.
If anyone has any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Permission to cross-post this message in its entirety is highly encouraged.
Robin Cannon,
American Rottweiler Club Legislative Committee Member
**************************************************************
Provisions of the Ordinance
* Require dogs over 29 pounds to be spayed/neutered Exemptions + Dogs trained and used as law enforcement dogs. + Dogs trained and used as a guide dog, hearing dog, assistance dog, therapy dog, seizure alert dog or designated as breeding stock by an agency approved by the director. + Dogs trained and used as search and rescue dogs or designated as breeding stock by an agency approved by the director. + Dogs trained and used as herding or livestock guardian dogs, or designated as breeding stock by an agency approved by the director. + Dogs unable to be sterilized for a medical reason. + Dogs boarded in a licensed kennel. + Dogs registered with AKC or other recognized registry or trained and kept for the purpose of show, field or agility trials. However, these owners must comply with the following: Must apply for a Fertile Animal Permit Must purchase a one-time $200 intact animal permit (It is not truly an exemption if you have to buy an expensive license). Owners are allowed only one litter per residence per 12-months.
* Defines dogs that have "bitten once and been at-large twice" as dangerous dogs, but does not define "bitten." Does this mean bitten a person and inflicted injury? Bitten another domestic animal? What if the bite does not cause injury or is provoked?
* Requires a dog that has bitten or attacked to be sterilized. (Again, it is not clear what would happen if the bite was provoked or if there was no injury resulting from the bite. If the intent is to require sterilization of dogs that have been adjudicated to be dangerous or vicious, then that should be specified. )
* Sets the license fee for intact dogs weighing 29 pounds or less at $35 annually and removes the license fee and requirement for sterilized dogs. ( It is unreasonable for intact animal owners to be solely responsible for funding animal control operations. Licensing was originally established to ensure that dogs were vaccinated for rabies – this will significantly undermine that goal if the majority of dogs no longer need to be licensed. If this ordinance is adopted, it becomes solely a tax on owners of intact dogs.)
* Requires that dogs restrained by tie-outs or overhead cable runs also be restrained by a traditional or invisible fence. This will mean that many owners will have to construct a traditional fence or install an invisible fence; likely costing thousands of dollars. * Requires that dogs restrained by tie-outs or overhead cable runs for more than 2 hours be sterilized.
Write a letter, email, or call the city council members and ask them to oppose the ordinance.
Mailing Address 125 N. Main, Room 514 Memphis, TN 38103
Public Services & Neighborhood Committee Members:
District 7 - Barbara Swearengen Ware (Chair) (901) 458-9406 Swearengen.Ware@memphistn.gov
District 2 - William C. Boyd (Vice-Chair) (901) 576-6786 Bill.Boyd@memphistn.gov
Super District 8 - Myron Lowery (901) 576-7012 Myron.Lowery@memphistn.gov
Super District 9 - Kemp Conrad Office (901) 576-6786 Kemp.Conrad@memphistn.gov
Super District 9 - Shea Flinn (901) 576-6786 Shea.Flinn@memphistn.gov
Super District 9 - Reid Hedgepeth (901) 576-6786 Reid.Hedgepeth@memphistn.gov
City Council Members
District 1- Bill Morrison (901) 576-6786 Bill.Morrison@memphistn.gov
District 3 - Harold Collins (901) 576-6786 Harold.Collins@memphistn.gov
District 4 - Wanda Halbert (901) 576-6786 Wanda.Halbert@memphistn.gov
District 5 - Jim Strickland (901) 576-6786 Jim.Strickland@memphistn.gov
District 6 - Edmund Ford Jr. (901) 576-6786 Edmund.Fordjr@memphistn.gov
Super District 8 - Joe Brown (901) 274-4724 Joe.Brown@memphistn.gov
Super District 8 - Janis Fullilove (901) 576-6786 Janis.Fullilove@memphistn.gov
From an animal perspective, Chattanooga has been a hot spot this summer. Things started to erupt in June when the animal control folks at the McKamey Center say they got a tip from an employee at The Pet Company, located in swanky Hamilton Place Mall. The employee, acting as a whistleblower, claimed that conditions at the store were not good. This had to be a dream come true for McKamey. There were many people in Chattanooga who had been petitioning against the pet store for years, simply on the grounds that they sold live animals, regardless of the care they received.
So, the McKamey people rounded up an inspector from the Tennessee Department of Agriculture and some police and conducted an inspection/raid on The Pet Company early one morning in mid-June. They took away with them over 80 animals when they left — puppies, hamsters — everything but the fish — and were confident that the store would be closed permanently.
But, not so fast.
The Pet Company was not some local Tennessee resident with no money who could be intimidated by animal control. Instead, they are a large chain of pet stores located throughout the United States, headquartered in New Jersey. They appear to be quite a profitable company, or they appeared to be when you could find their company web site online. It seems to be missing now, no doubt because of hate mail. At any rate, The Pet Company was prepared to fight back against McKamey and the charges being made. They wanted their animals back and they had no intention of losing their license to operate.
What followed in Chattanooga was nothing short of a circus over the next several weeks. Several news outlets followed the story, with varying degrees of impartiality. The Chattanooga Times Free Press generally gives the most straightforward accounts. You can read The Chattanoogan for more florid details.
Instead of accepting the loss of their animals and license, The Pet Company went to trial to fight the charges against them. They wanted the charges tossed out. Judge Sherry Paty presided over a very difficult case. I thought she did a superb job in a hard situation. After hearing several days of testimony from The Pet Company and from McKamey — during which the inspector for the State of Tennessee admitted he didn’t know what some of the items he was supposed to cover on his report meant; the whistleblower seemed to be caught lying about seeing a live hamster being put in a trash compactor; and other exaggerations were revealed — Judge Paty rendered her decision. The Pet Company would get their animals back. All but some of the puppies which were being treated for giardia at McKamey (giardia is a parasite that is easily passed among dogs, especially puppies, and can be simply treated). As far as the store’s license to operate was concerned, Judge Paty said she would abide by the decision reached by the Tennessee Department of Agriculture in a few days.
Chattanooga boiled over. There were practically demands for Judge Paty’s head on a platter. People couldn’t understand why this PET STORE which sold puppies wasn’t being punished.
To make matters even worse, the Tennessee Department of Agriculture in Nashville said that The Pet Company could continue to operate if they would do a better job of following animal care guidelines. There would be frequent inspections but they could keep their license.
By this time the good people of Chattanooga, especially the people in charge of the city, had all they could stomach of The Pet Company. These rascals from New Jersey (and the city elite were reminding people that The Pet Company was from out of town at every opportunity in the press) were sticking it to the locals! They were being slick with their “legal maneuvering,” i.e., having a good attorney.
But this wasn’t the end of the story. At this point McKamey was left holding the bag for what they claimed was $40,000 in costs for caring for puppies and hamsters for a few weeks. (I wish somebody would pay ME that much for taking care of animals.) They were demanding that The Pet Company reimburse them and refusing to return the animals to them.
Just when you thought this story couldn’t get any more convoluted came the news that Judge Paty was recusing herself from the case. It seems that Mayor Ron Littlefield of Chattanooga had improperly contacted the judge earlier in the case, trying to influence her against The Pet Company. Not only that, but Mayor Littlefield admitted it and said that he often contacted judges during their cases! It seems like standard operating procedure in Chattanooga. Whatever the case, Judge Paty was recusing herself which meant that the entire case had to be thrown out. It would have to start at the beginning again and re-tried.
So, that’s where we are right now. Getting ready for Round Two.
If you care about my opinion, I think that The Pet Company certainly needed to clean up its act. From the testimony it sounds like they needed to improve their standards for cleanliness and many of their operating procedures. And there was no dispute that the compressor for their air conditioner was not functioning for 2-3 weeks. That should have been repaired quickly.
On the other hand, I think that McKamey certainly comes off looking very bad here. They seem to be completely unfamiliar with the operating procedures for pet stores. It is ridiculous to try to hold a pet store to the same standards that you would apply to animal care in someone’s home. I’m sure if I visited the McKamey Center I would find many things that I don’t approve of but that doesn’t necessarily mean that they should cease to operate.
I think it’s very clear that McKamey was acting on a vendetta against The Pet Company because they are a pet store which sells puppies and other live animals. I think that’s inexcusable. Whether McKamey or any other animal control authority likes it or not, as long as it is legal to sell animals in pet stores (and it is legal), they should stick to carrying out their duties without trying to close legitimate businesses. There was no animal abuse at this pet store. There wasn’t any neglect. There were some conditions that needed to be improved. They could have given the store some written warnings and returned in a few days to see that the conditions were improved. This would most likely have taken care of the problems and saved the city of Chattanooga thousands of dollars in court costs and legal fees, not to mention the $40,000 (plus) which McKamey is now trying to get back from the store. It would also have saved McKamey from (once again) looking foolish, not to mention so many city leaders from having little conniption fits in public.
As it is currently under Tennessee law, animal control authorities can seize animals and require that a bond be posted within 15 days. After that time, if no bond has been posted, they can do what they like with the animals. If you can’t come up with the security bond to pay for the care of the animals then you’re out of luck. Fortunately for The Pet Company, they have deep pockets, and a good attorney, so they can get their animals back. For most average citizens, they would never be able to come up with the kind of money it takes to post security for multiple animals. If you’re a breeder or if you operate a rescue, or if you’re a pet owner with several animals, and animal control executes a raid on you without just cause, if you can’t come up with that money, your animals are gone. The animal control authority can sell them, adopt them out or euthanize them as they wish.
I think what we need is a better system. If an animal control authority conducts a raid and it is shown to be improper then the victim should not have to bear any costs or expenses associated with the care of the animals, and any bond or security should be refunded. I think this would cut down on a lot of bogus raids. Animal control does need to be able to do its job when there is genuine animal abuse but in these cases where they are making up charges against law-abiding breeders, rescues and pet owners or carrying out vendettas, they need to be curtailed. They should not be free to operate and persecute people and force people to pay thousands of dollars and lose their animals without any consequences.
If an animal control authority actually has to stop and think, “Are we going to be stuck paying for the care of these animals ourselves? Is there real evidence of abuse here?” I think it would dramatically reduce the number of false raids on innocent people — and businesses. There is no excuse for raiding a pet store just because you don’t like the fact that they sell puppies. There needs to be some real evidence of abuse and neglect, not these made up charges as in the case of McKamey and The Pet Company.
It had to happen. With animal rights groups spending the last few months crying “Hoarder!” every time someone had a problem with animal control, and Animal Planet exploiting (or perhaps staging) people in their series about hoarding, it was only a matter of time before some not very bright people decided their town needed to pass a law to restrict the number of animals people could own in order to “prevent animal hoarding.” Who knew that unfortunate town would be Nashville, TN?
According to WSMV-TV, a proposal by Nashville Animal Control and the city Health Department would limit the number of pets a resident can own in an effort to prevent hoarding cases. Insiders say that a number of rescue groups unofficially banded together and have been attending meetings with these organizations for the last few months so it’s a good bet that this idea came from them.
WSMV reports that residents would be limited to the following:
The proposal would limit the number of cats and dogs a person can have based on the size of a resident’s property.
* There could be no more than five cats or dogs on an acre of land, according to the proposal.
* There could be no more than 10 cats and dogs on 1.5 to 2.5 acres of land.
* No more than 20 dogs and cats would be allowed to live on five acres.
* Land more than 5 acres would be allowed to have up to 21 dogs and cats.
“Vets, kennels, boarding facilities and licensed pet breeders and dealers would be exempt from the proposed ordinance.
“Metro officials said Animal Control officers would have discretion and could give an exemption to animal owners who have well-cared, vaccinated animals.”
(Gee, that’s not very fair for the large majority of the population, is it? Somebody has a buddy who's with Animal Control so he can give an exemption to his friends?)
Now let’s think about some of the things that are so obviously WRONG with this idea. First of all, what do you do if you live in an apartment or condo? I guess you just can’t own a pet.
Secondly, what happens if you move to a smaller piece of property? Are you just supposed to dump your pets? Get rid of them? You can’t have all of your beloved animals anymore because you moved from a place that was 1.1 acres to a place that was .9 acres?
Obviously, someone who has five chihuahuas is not using their land in the same way as someone who has five Newfoundland dogs. How is any of this ordinance fair to a pet owner?
And cats often don’t even live outside! Many cat owners keep their pets indoors so the size of their owner’s acreage is irrelevant.
Besides all of these points, nothing in this plan would “prevent” hoarding. There are already very good laws against animal abuse and neglect. The number of animals a person has is really no one’s business as long as those animals are cared for properly. There are plenty of people who keep large numbers of animals and do a superb job. And there are some people with just one pet who are bad pet owners. Numbers have absolutely NOTHING to do with how well animals are treated.
This is a misguided and, yes, ignorant attempt to prevent a problem that is, in fact, very rare. Real animal hoarders make up just a tiny fraction of a percent of the population. They barely register on the radar. It’s a shame that animal rights groups and television series trying to grab ratings have exploited them and sensationalized them to the point that people now imagine them to exist in every neighborhood.
If you doubt what I’m saying, check out Steve Dale’s blog on this subject. He sends a plea to Nashville not to follow through on this horrible idea.
Nashville Suggesting Pet Limit Laws Based on Size of the Yard
According to printed reports, around Nashville - in Davidson County,
pet owners will have to do a head count.
Other communities have set "pet limit laws" with totally random
numbers, 3 dogs and 4 cats, or whatever it is. Police don't go door
to door counting pets, this is complaint driven...complaints about
barking or inhumane conditions. My point is that there are already
laws and ordinances about disturbing the peace or treating animals
(or people) living in poor conditions.
Community members in Davidson County have apparently suggested Metro
Animal Control to set a limit on the number of dogs and/or cats a
person can have depending how big their yard is. This is NOT in any
pets' best interest and makes no sense. The animals shouldn't be in
the yard all day in the first place, and therefore yard space is
irrelevant. What about people with no yards (condo owners or renters
in apartments), are they to have no pets?
Dale also brings out the point that pet limits prevent many people from fostering pets and helping with rescue — something which you would think that the rescue groups which may be behind this idea for an ordinance would realize. If people can't foster pets and help with rescue, more pets die in shelters.
There’s one more interesting thing about this push for a new “anti-hoarding” law in Nashville. Seems it may have been prompted by a) neighbors with a grudge; and b) people who have a problem with bully breed dogs.
From the August 8, 2010 Jenny Upchurch Action Line column in The Tennessean:
Metro Considers Pet Limit
QUESTION: A neighboring property owner and the Highland Heights Neighborhood Association are frustrated by a Meridian Avenue property where the resident keeps several pit bull dogs.
Neighbors say they hear dogs barking, sometimes all night long. Waste from the kennels sometimes flows into yards when they are hosed out. And there is frequently a bad smell.
Neighbors ask why the problems aren't being addressed.
ANSWER: Metro's Animal Care and Control has visited the home on more than a half dozen occasions, the latest last Tuesday. There have been as many as 12 dogs there, says Billy Biggs, head of the animal control officers. There were five on the most recent visit.
But the owner is not violating any ordinances, because all the dogs have the required shots and licenses, Biggs said.
Metro Codes also has inspected the property and reinspected it Friday. The inspector and her supervisor determined that the dogs are pets and well cared for and that it is not a business.
Upchurch goes on to write that Nashville’s current ordinance doesn’t limit the number of animals a resident can keep...but the Metro Health Department is drafting changes in their ordinance. Doesn’t that strike you as a little suspicious? There is nothing at all wrong with the way these dogs are being kept but the ordinance needs to be re-written? Kind of makes you wonder if the neighbors would be complaining if there were five Poodles living next door, doesn't it? Or if the ordinance would need to be re-written if the neighbors had five Lhasa Apsos.
Upchurch confidently writes:
"The board of health probably will get the proposal and vote on it early in 2011. It will require Metro Council approval."
We’ll see. A local television station in Nashville conducted a poll recently asking if the number of pets a resident can own should be limited. 1162 people voted. 73 percent (854 votes) said No, the number of pets a resident can own should not be limited. Only 25 percent (287 votes) said that the number should be limited. 2 percent (21 votes) said “I don’t know.”