Hearing Oct. 23 On MA Dog Legislation

This is a forum to discuss legislation and legal matters pertaining to the rights and welfare of dogs. Please remember to counter ideas and opinions with which you don't agree with friendly and helpful advice and responses.


Member Since
Barked: Sat Oct 11, '08 10:02am PST 
Hearing October 23 On Proposed
Massachusetts Spay/Neuter Mandate

Would Devastate Purebred Dog Breeding Statewide

American Sporting Dog Alliance
asda@csonline. net

BOSTON – The Massachusetts legislature’s Joint Commission on Municipalities and Regional Government has set an October 23 hearing on House Bill 5092, which would destroy purebred dog breeding and ownership rights statewide.

The American Sporting Dog Alliance is urging all Massachusetts dog owners to immediately contact members of the committee to voice strong opposition to this legislation, and also to attend the hearing if possible.

The hearing is set for Thursday, October 23, at 10 a.m. in Room A2 of the State House Building in Boston.

We cannot emphasize strongly enough that this legislation represents the animal rights agenda at its most extreme. HB 5092 was literally hijacked and complex political procedures were used to circumvent the normal legislative process.

Here are the main components of HB 5092. It would:

· Mandate spaying and neutering of all dogs at age 12 months.

· Create $500 annual “intact permits” for each dog that is not sterilized, if they can meet almost impossible requirements to obtain a permit.

· Essentially eliminate the breeding or keeping of intact dogs that are registered with several major registries, including the Field Dog Stud Book, the American Dog Breeders Association and numerous rare breed organizations. A registry also would have to be specifically approved by each municipality in the state.

· Limit intact permits only to dogs that have the physical appearance of the show dog standard set by the American Kennel Club or the United Kennel Club. Few purebred performance dogs of the sporting or herding breeds closely resemble their show dog counterparts.

· Grant intact permits to dogs used in competition only if the local municipality approves the dog’s registry. To get a permit, a dog owner would have to be a “member” of a registry. Registries do not offer memberships. Registries also would have to have a “code of ethics” that prohibits breeding dogs with “genetic defects.” This is not defined and thus is open to interpretation without clear guidelines. Genetic tests are not available for most hereditary problems. No registry can meet this standard, because of potential liability for matings over which they have no control.

· Establish unreasonable nuisance definitions that will give complete discretion to animal control officers to order the seizure, destruction or banishment of a dog for even a single leash law violation, noise complaint or trespass on another person’s property. There are no guidelines in the bill. The legislation strictly limits the right of appeal by requiring a dog owner to show that a citation was unreasonable or in bad faith. A magistrate “may” grant a hearing on those grounds only, but is not required to do so. In addition, unlike with other laws, a dog owner cannot appeal the magistrate’s ruling to a higher court.

· Ban the tethering of all dogs, except for brief periods.

· Give broad powers to every municipality to ban or restrict specific breeds of dogs, and to seize, ban or kill any dog that can be deemed dangerous simply by briefly chasing another animal (chasing could be construed as an “attack”). There is an appeal to a three-person board of political appointees, including the animal control officer and an “expert” in the field of animals.

· Require anyone who applies for an intact permit to attend training classes on “responsible pet ownership.”

· Require anyone who sells a dog or puppy to turn in the names, addresses and phone numbers of each buyer.

· And, impose fines and penalties, including possible imprisonment, for violations.

Please read this legislation for yourself. Here is a link to the actual text of the legislation: http://www.mass.gov/legis/bills/house/185/ht05pdf/ht05092.pdf.

Al so, please immediately contact members of this joint House/Senate committee to express your strong opposition. Letters delivered by parcel post or faxes are the most effective means of communication, followed by phone calls. Emails are the least effective, but are far better than doing nothing.

Here is contact information for each committee member:

Room 413-B, State House
Boston, MA 02133
Telephone: 617-722-1634
E-Mail: Anthony.Petruccelli@state.ma.us
Room 513, State House
Boston, MA 02133
Telephone: 617-722-1578
Fax: 617-722-1117
E-Mail: Patricia.Jehlen@state.ma.us
Room 208, State House
Boston, MA 02133
Telephone: (617) 722-1604
E-Mail: Steven.Baddour@state.ma.us
Room 504, State House
Boston, MA 02133
Telephone: (617) 722-1572
E-Mail: Susan.Fargo@state.ma.us
Room 308, State House
Boston, MA 02133
Telephone: (617) 722-1206
Fax: (617) 722-1063
E-Mail: Richard.Tisei@state.ma.us
Room 540, State House
Boston, MA 02133
Telephone: 617-722-2090
Fax: 617-626-0551
E-Mail: Rep.VincentPedone@hou.state.ma.us
Room 540, State House
Boston, MA 02133
Telephone: 617-722-2090
E-Mail: Rep.MartinWalsh@hou.state.ma.us
Room 540, State House
Boston, MA 02133
Telephone: 617-722-2090
Fax: 617-722-2848
E-Mail: Rep.MatthewPatrick@hou.state.ma.us
E-Mail: repmattp@cape.com
Room 443, State House
Boston, MA 02133
Telephone: 617-722-2460
Fax: 617-626-0839
E-Mail: Rep.StephenCanessa@Hou.State.MA.US
State House, Room 443
Boston, MA 02133
Telephone: 617-722-2460
E-Mail: Rep.DenisGuyer@Hou.State.MA.US
Room 473F, State House
Boston, MA 02133
Telephone: 617-722-2210
Fax: 617-626-0551
E-Mail: Rep.SarahPeake@Hou.State.MA.US
Room 39, State House
Boston, MA 02133
Telephone: 617-722-2014
Fax: 617-626-0884
E-Mail: Rep.JamesO'Day@Hou.State.MA.US
Room 443, State House
Boston, MA 02133
Telephone: 617-722-2460
Fax: 617-722-2353
E-Mail: Rep.PaulMcMurtry@hou.state.ma.us
Room 134, State House
Boston, MA 02133
Telephone: (617) 722-2400
Fax: 617-722-2850
E-Mail: Rep.SeanGarballey@Hou.State.MA.US
Room 542, State House
Boston, MA 02133
Telephone: 617-722-2488
Fax: 617-722-2390
E-Mail: Rep.FJayBarrows@Hou.State.MA.US
Room 156, State House
Boston, MA 02133
Telephone: 617-722-2240
E-Mail: Rep.ToddSmola@Hou.State.MA.US
We also are asking Massachusetts residents to contact their own state representatives and senators, as it appears that this bill will be moved quickly.

Here is a link for the representatives: http://www.mass.gov/legis/memmenuh.htm.

Here is a link for the senators: http://www.mass.gov/legis/memmenus.htm.

We also believe it is essential for every dog owner to join and participate fully in one or more organizations that are working to defeat this legislation. Several dedicated statewide and national organizations have voiced strong opposition to HB 5092.

The American Sporting Dog Alliance represents owners, breeders and professionals who work with breeds of dogs that are used for hunting. We welcome people who work with other breeds, too, as legislative issues affect all of us. We are a grassroots movement working to protect the rights of dog owners, and to assure that the traditional relationships between dogs and humans maintains its rightful place in American society and life.

The American Sporting Dog Alliance also needs your help so that we can continue to work to protect the rights of dog owners. Your membership, participation and support are truly essential to the success of our mission. We are funded solely by the donations of our members, and maintain strict independence.

Please visit us on the web at http://www.americansportingdogalliance.org. Our email is ASDA@csonline.net. Complete directions to join by mail or online are found at the bottom left of each page.


Changing one- mind at a time - APBT style
Barked: Mon Oct 13, '08 3:18pm PST 
This bill wouldn't be so bad if they stopped lumping every single individual who owns an "intact" dog together, while I can't speak for anywhere else, in my own county we have just as big of a problem with people who have altered dogs than with people who have intact dogs being irresponsible (and the excuses range from "well neutered dogs don't need as much training" when they fail to obedeince train their dog to "it's ok he's neutered" when someone's desexed male dog is running the neighborhood, I've heard both of those used by various negligent dog owners). Why shouldn't ANYONE who's adopting a dog be required to take responsible dog ownership classes? It would sure help reduce "impulse buys/adoptions" and dogs winding up in shelters because the fact that dogs NEED training wasn't stressed enough to the new owners; a study published by the National Council on Pet Population Study & Policy showed that in the city shelters where data was recorded, 95% of ALL the dogs that were surrendered to the shelter had NO previous obedience training.
Rilie D.- Maverick- *12/26/07*

Keep it clean or- keep it out of- here!
Barked: Thu Oct 16, '08 6:03am PST 
this is a terrible proposal, its not going to stop the idots who let their dogs run loose, or the ones who refuse to spay or neuter for reasons other than show/bettering the breed.. all its going to do is COST the state money (hiring people to enforce/collect fees/fines is going to cost more than what they would actually collect)

This will only hurt the HONEST people.

Heidi CGC

Play Play Play
Barked: Thu Oct 16, '08 7:54am PST 
I don't think MA needs this law! They don't really have a dog problem and in the small towns they are importing dogs from other countries or the south because they don't get enough dogs from strays and surrenders. New England is known for their amazing work in s/n and how they did it without making it mandatory. It just seems silly to try to fix something that isn't broken.
Peppered- Jelly Belly- Bean, NPC

Bean Alert!
Barked: Sun Oct 26, '08 6:33am PST 
I read on the AKC website news section that this bill got sent to "study" which means it has been shelved... cheer horray to the 200+ responsible dog owners who showed up to the hearing, sorry I couldn't be there due to work obligation. I did send emails to the members of the commitee!! Lets hope it dies on the shelf! blue dog

Changing one- mind at a time - APBT style
Barked: Sun Oct 26, '08 5:26pm PST 
If they just turned it into a law that would require breeders to do necessary genetic health tests before breeding, that required ANYONE adopting a dog from a shelter/breeder/rescue to take responsible dog ownership classes and dog training, and an anti-long-term-chaining law I'd support it. But as it stands, the proposed law still leaves a loophole for puppymills and would be very hard to enforce.

Edited by author Sun Oct 26, '08 5:27pm PST