|
March 13, 2009
View legislative update (PDF)
The California legislature approved a new budget that does not contain the governor's proposed tax increase on veterinary services. The California Veterinary Medical Association spearheaded an effort to defeat the proposal, which included veterinarians, clients, the animal health industry and breeders. The tax would have added approximately 10 percent to the cost of veterinary care. For more information, see the JAVMA news story.
With legislative sessions proceeding, we are beginning to see legislation enacted. Arkansas Gov. Mike Beebe signed into law HB 1274, a bill that changes how often dogs and cats need to be vaccinated for rabies. The new law gives the state's Department of Health the authority to decide how often the vaccinations should occur. Previously, pet owners were required to vaccinate their cats and dogs annually.
In Wyoming, SB 32 was signed into law requiring the adoption of a health and emergency disease response program for livestock, while HJR 8 was enacted, urging Congress to oppose federal legislation that interferes with a state's ability to direct the transport or processing of horses.
Meanwhile, bills are still being introduced around the country. A sampling includes:
- California SB 250 would require most adult dogs and cats to be spayed or neutered, while SB 416 would severely restrict the use of antibiotics in animals raised for food production.
- Illinois SB 1337 would ban from tethering or confining certain farm animals in a manner that prevents the animal from lying down, standing up, and fully extending its limbs, or turning around freely.
- Oregon SB 517 would regulate dispensing of drugs by online pharmacies.
- New York A 5957 and S 2824 would establish a loan forgiveness program for large animal veterinarians who agree to practice in shortage areas in the state. Texas HB 1684 would create a similar program for veterinarians who practice on livestock or deer in rural areas.
- West Virginia SB 71 would clarify that services rendered by veterinarians are exempt from payment of sales tax, while SB 6 would regulate the care and management of feral cats.
The 2009 legislative sessions have seen a dramatic increase in bills that would allow for the inclusion of companion animals in domestic orders of protection. So far this year, Arizona (SB 1278), Georgia (HB 429), Hawaii (SB 1086/HB 1512), Iowa (SB 70, SB 119, HB 32), Maryland (HB 901), Minnesota (SB 838, HB 1396), Nebraska (LB 83), New Mexico (HB 434), Ohio (HB 55), Texas (HB 853), Virginia (HB 2381), Washington (HB 1148), and Wyoming (HB 206) have all introduced legislation that would allow a court to enter a domestic abuse order of protection, which directs the care, custody and control of any animal owned or kept by either party or a minor child residing in the household. The Nebraska bill died on the floor but has not been indefinitely postponed. The bill's sponsor is still conducting research on the issue and could potentially revive it during this legislative session.
Local government watch
On Feb. 18 the Ukiah, Cal. city council dropped a controversial proposal to change the term pet "owner" to "owner/guardian" in its animal control ordinance. The council, on a 4-1 vote, instead adopted a non-binding resolution that encourages residents to use the term "caretaker" when referring to pet owners, an effort to promote kindness to animals. The California Veterinary Medical Association actively opposed the guardianship language, while AVMA also sent letters of opposition to the mayor and city council members.
Court watch
A New Jersey appeals court ruled that when couples break up, judges can decide who gets possession of pets based on their unique sentimental value. The case, Houseman v. Dare, A-2415-07, reverses a trial court's finding that the remedy of specific performance is not available in cases involving pets. This remedy is generally recognized when an agreement concerns possession of "unique" property such as heirlooms, family treasures and works of art, that induce a strong sentimental attachment. The case arose out of the broken engagement when one person refused to surrender the dog to the other, and a lawsuit was filed to resolve issues related to the break-up. The lawyers involved in the case said that this is the first family law decision in New Jersey to recognize a special value in animals and one of only a handful of cases across the country to grapple with specific performance involving a pet. However, the three judge panel refused to adopt a best-interest-of-the-pet standard, as urged by the Animal Legal Defense Fund. According to the opinion, the court is "less confident that there are judicially discoverable and manageable standards for resolving questions of possession from the perspective of a pet, at least apart from cases involving abuse or neglect contrary to public policies expressed in laws designed to protect animals."
The Professional Dog Breeders Advisory Council filed a federal civil suit alleging recent changes to Pennsylvania's Dog Law violate the U.S. Constitution. The group alleges that HB 2525, passed last year to improve kennel conditions, violates the interstate commerce clause and the Federal Privacy Act. The lawsuit also claims that the Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture lacks the authority to make searches without probable cause, and the law provides grossly inconsistent standards for breeders and hobbyists. State Rep. Bryan Lentz, a strong supporter of the bill, said lawmakers considered and addressed constitutional issues such as freedom from illegal search and seizure in the statute.
A California state law is also being challenged in court. The state enacted legislation making it illegal for anyone to butcher and sell animals too sick to stand. In a preliminary ruling on Feb. 19, U.S. District Judge Lawrence O'Neill ruled that the 1907 Federal Meat Inspection Act preempts the state law, thereby stopping the state from enforcing the law against swine slaughterhouses. The state legislation was approved last summer after a large beef recall, which followed alleged animal abuse at a southern California slaughterhouse. The slaughter of sick or "downed" cattle is already prohibited by federal law and was not part of the challenge. The state could appeal the decision.
The Northwest Animal Rights Network filed a lawsuit to attempt to control the manner in which meat and dairy producers treat their livestock in Washington State. The state's animal cruelty law exempts livestock producers and handlers from prosecution for activities that are considered "customary animal husbandry practices." The activist group claims that many practices considered "customary" by producers are unduly and unnecessarily cruel, and the standard gives the industry too much authority in determining what constitutes humane treatment. The suit calls on the state legislature to specify what animal husbandry practices qualify as customary.
AVMA launches new online tracking service
In February, the Department of State Legislative and Regulatory Affairs launched a new feature on the state advocacy section of the AVMA website. In addition to the daily legislative alerts and monthly state legislative updates, the department now provides online access to a select group of bills and regulations it is tracking in each state. By visiting the "Resources by State" section, a user is able to choose a state of interest and navigate to the Legislative and Regulatory Tracking link in order to view the bills and regulations in that state. The document provided at that link contains the status and a brief summary of each listed bill or regulation. In addition, each document includes embedded links to the state legislature's website and the state veterinary medical association's website, allowing users to gather additional information on a given bill or regulation. These documents will be updated on a biweekly basis.
The link at the top or bottom of the page will take you to the latest chart of significant pending bills and regulations from around the country.
View legislative update (PDF)
|