Both Sides Growling Over Dog Bill

Legislators Let Veto Of Dog Bill Stand
June 25, 2002
By SUSAN HAIGH, Associated Press Writer

State lawmakers Monday opted against trying to override Gov. John G. Rowland's veto of legislation regulating how long dogs can be chained.

Instead, senators honored two of their own at a special Senate session held at the Old State House: Senate Majority Leader George Jepsen, D-Stamford, and Stephen Somma, R-Waterbury, who are retiring from the Senate.

Jepsen, 47, who spent four years in the House and 12 in the Senate, is seeking the Democratic nomination for governor. Somma, 41, served 14 years in the Senate.

House members were told not to make the trip to Hartford for the veto session Monday.

The legislation on dogs would have prohibited owners from tethering, chaining or confining the animals in a pen, cage or other container - indoors or outdoors - for more than 15 continuous hours, or more than 22 hours in a 24-hour period. It also would have barred owners from keeping most dogs outside for more than 30 minutes when the temperature is below 40 degrees.

Owners also would have been required to keep female dogs in heat away from male dogs, except for breeding.

Jepsen said there was not enough support in the legislature to successfully override Rowland's veto.
****

Bold ours.

Lawmaker leaves animal rights group in dispute over dog bill
May 26, 2002 Associated Press

STAMFORD, Conn. -- A state lawmaker is stepping down as chairman of the board for an animal rights group following a dispute over legislation that would have regulated the chaining of dogs.

Rep. G. Kenneth Bernhard, R-Westport, a sponsor of the bill that Gov. John G. Rowland vetoed last week, broke with Friends of Animals, a Darien-based group that opposed the legislation, The Advocate of Stamford reported Sunday.

The legislation would have forbidden owners from tethering, chaining or confining a dog in a pen, cage or other container - indoors or outdoors - for more than 15 continuous hours, or more than 22 hours in a 24-hour period.

It also would have barred owners from keeping most dogs outside for more than 30 minutes when the temperature is below 40 degrees. It provided exceptions for cold-breed dogs, animals with a doghouse, and those being supervised.

The measure also would have required owners to keep female dogs in heat away from male dogs, except for breeding.

In vetoing the bill, Rowland said it would "legislate common sense."

Bernhard said Friends of Animals was not willing to accept compromises that were necessary to pass the legislation.

The group said that by allowing dogs to be chained for 22 of every 24 hours, the bill did not go far enough. They also were opposed to exemptions given to pet shops, greyhound tracks and animal shelters.

"I admire their aspirations for an animal utopia," Bernhard said. "But it isn't going to happen in our lifetime. Unfortunately, they've become a roadblock for improving the standard of care for animals."

Priscilla Feral, president of Friends of Animals, said Bernhard was not a good fit for the organization.

"It's been going on a while," she said. "It peaked over this particular bill. He used his position with the legislature to bully the organization. We want to abolish particular cruelties and exploitation and he wants to play it middle-of-the-road as a legislator."

Addition from the Stamford Advocate:

Darien-based Friends of Animals, an international animal rights group that claims 200,000 members, was among those opposed to the bill. The group's position was that the bill didn't go far enough, and in some cases could aid dog abusers.

Until last week, Bernhard was chairman of the board of the not-for-profit organization, but he resigned when Friends of Animals decided to oppose his legislation, and for other reasons, he said.

Bernhard said Friends of Animals had a hard time accepting the realities of the compromises needed to get legislation approved.

"I admire their aspirations for an animal utopia," Bernhard said. "But it isn't going to happen in our lifetime. Unfortunately, they've become a roadblock for improving the standard of care for animals."

Friends of Animals Outreach Coordinator Megan Metzelaar said the organization tried to make it clear to supporters that the bill did not offer the right protections.

"We did speak to Ken Bernhard," Metzelaar said. "We did try to contact Animal Advocacy of Connecticut [Julie Lewin] . We met a lot of hostility for speaking out against it because quite frankly people are looking in the short term and . . . they didn't want to hear anything negative, even if it's the truth."

Metzelaar said because the bill would have allowed owners to keep dogs outside for 22 of every 24 hours, as long as there was one two-hour break, it was not an improvement. Exemptions for businesses, including pet shops and greyhound tracks and animal shelters, also made the bill untenable, she said.

"Some of them are the most notorious for chaining dogs on an ongoing basis," Metzelaar said. "Essentially the only people this would apply to is an individual person chaining a dog in the back yard. But the bill was really unenforceable."

Bernhard said the bill was one of his pet projects this year, along with work on the state budget and other legislative matters. He said he wasn't sure whether he'd try next year to pass a bill that will get the governor's approval.

http://www.stamfordadvocate.com/news/local/scn-sa-leash7may26.story

	STATE OF CONNECTICUT EXECUTIVE CHAMBERS HARTFORD, CONNECTICUT 06106
John G. Rowland Governor

May 23, 2002

The Honorable Susan Bysiewicz

Secretary of the State

18-20 Trinity Street

Hartford, CT 06106

Dear Madam Secretary:

I am hereby returning without my signature Senate Bill 78, Public Act 02-62, An Act Concerning Animal Health Certificates and Cruelty to Animals. As a dog owner, I certainly understand and agree with the goals that the proponents of this act are trying to achieve. However, the act before me is unnecessary, vague, and unenforceable. The proponents of this act have admitted that it is flawed and have offered to work with me next year to fix its problems. However, it is irresponsible to sign a bill that is flawed in hopes that the legislature will vote to fix it in the future. If the legislature does not fix it, the executive branch will be in the position of enforcing an unenforceable law.

In part, this act specifies the type of shelter that dog owners must provide to their dogs; vaguely describes the types of dogs that are subject to time and temperature limits while outside; imposes time limits on dog owners who decide to keep their dogs chained or tethered; and specifies the length and weight of the chain or tether that they must use. It also allows dog owners to argue during their prosecution that any unlawful chaining, tethering, or sheltering is not their "customary conduct."

I think it is safe to say that most Americans oppose cruelty to animals, which is why we have laws to protect them. Our current law, § 53-247 (a), states that:

[a]ny person who overdrives, drives when overloaded, overworks,

tortures, deprives of necessary sustenance, mutilates or cruelly beats

or kills or unjustifiably injures any animal, or who, having impounded

or confined any animal, fails to give such animal proper care or neglects

to cage or restrain any such animal from doing injury to itself

or to another animal or fails to supply any such animal with

wholesome air, food and water, or unjustifiably administers

any poisonous or noxious drug or substance to any domestic

animal or unjustifiably exposes any such drug or substance,

with intent that the same shall be taken by an animal, or causes it

to be done, or, having charge or custody of any animal, inflicts

cruelty upon it or fails to provide it with proper food, drink or

protection from the weather or abandons it or carries it or

causes it to be carried in a cruel manner, or fights with or baits,

harasses or worries any animal for the purpose of making

it perform for amusement, diversion or exhibition, shall be fined

not more than one thousand dollars or imprisoned not more than

one year or both. (Emphasis added)

The act before me does not prohibit anything that is not already prohibited by current law. The law clearly requires dogs to be protected from weather. Further, it prohibits constraining an animal if the constraint interferes with the animal’s proper care. Law enforcement officials already have the authority to fine and imprison those who violate state laws prohibiting cruelty against animals. In fact, the Department of Agriculture recently exercised its authority to enforce the current law against someone who kept her dogs tethered to leashes that were too short while they were outside in the snow without shelter. The legislature’s attempt to codify the weight of a dog chain, an arbitrary temperature and length of time for which a dog can be kept outside, and the height of a cable or trolley, makes a mockery out of the legislative process by trying to legislate common sense behavior. While most of society’s problems could be remedied if the legislature could legislate common sense, regrettably it cannot. Therefore, I cannot support this act.

This act exempts a significant number of businesses and charitable organizations that have custody of multiple dogs at one time from this act. Pet shops, animal trainers and groomers, kennels, dog racing facilities and government control facilities are exempt from the tethering and confinement provisions of this act. Since it appears that all businesses and charitable organizations are exempt from the restrictive provisions of this act, one can only conclude that this bill is intended to apply to private citizens who own or otherwise have custody of a dog. In my opinion, there is no rational basis to treat individual citizens and business and charitable organizations differently. When legislating the protection of animals, the same rules should apply to everyone. If it is cruel for an individual to keep an animal confined for more than 15 hours in a 24-hour period, why is it not just as cruel for a charitable organization or business to do the same? Current law applies our laws prohibiting cruelty against animals uniformly. On the other hand, this act is a clear example of excessive government intrusion into the private lives of private citizens.

Finally, the provisions of this act make it impossible for law enforcement officials to

enforce it properly and fairly as it leaves too many questions unanswered. For example, what types of dogs are those that "belong to a breed of dog generally known to be tolerant of cold weather" and who makes this determination? Does this mean that dogs "known to be tolerant of cold weather" do not need shelter at all? Does this include mixed-breed dogs or only purebreds? Who is responsible for enforcing the 15-hour and 24-hour rules as stated in section three? What type of insulation is appropriate for a doghouse and who makes this determination? In addition, this bill only addresses cold weather. Why can a dog owner be punished for keeping his dog outside for too long in the cold weather while allowing the same dog owner to keep his dog outside for extended periods of time in excessively hot and humid weather? Why does this bill only protect dogs and not cats, rabbits, or other domesticated animals? Finally, under what circumstances, if any, can law enforcement officers be required to inspect the conditions of a doghouse, chain or tether without the owners consent? For the good of the law-abiding public these questions deserve to be answered before this bill becomes law as its enforcement could lead to the unnecessary harassment of many dog owners.

While this act is clearly well intentioned, it is also unnecessary, unenforceable, and an excessive intrusion into the lives of private citizens. For these reasons, I cannot sign this Public Act 02-62, An Act Concerning Animal Health Certificates and Cruelty to Animals.

Sincerely,

JOHN G. ROWLAND

Governor

****

Go to the URL http://www.ctnow.com/news/local/hc-dogs0523.artmay23.story?coll=hc%2Dheadlines%2Dlocal for the POLL "Should Gov. John G. Rowland sign the animal cruelty bill which limits the amount of time owners can chain their dogs, and requires that certain breeds be provided with shelter?" For those who communicated with the Gov. opposing this bill - send a note of thanks for listening and his decision. E-Mail: Governor.Rowland@po.state.ct.us Mailing Address: Governor's Office State Capitol 210 Capitol Avenue Hartford, CT 06106 Telephone: (860) 566-4840

May 23, 2002
By CARRIE BUDOFF, Courant Staff Writer

Animal advocates say it will come back to bite him in this election year, but Gov. John G. Rowland said Wednesday he will veto a bill [Senate Bill 78, AAC Companion Animal Health Certificates and Cruelty to Animals ("Dog Bill")] intended to reduce cruelty to dogs.

Rowland believes the bill lacks merit, specifically because it would duplicate cruelty laws already on the books and attempt to legislate common sense, said his spokesman Chris Cooper.

Two weeks ago, Rowland said he would sign the bill, which limits the amount of time owners can chain or otherwise confine their dogs, and requires that certain breeds be provided with adequate shelter if left outside in cold weather.

But the more Rowland learned about the bill, Cooper said, the more problems he had with it.

"He recognizes the bill is well intentioned," Cooper said. "But he doesn't think it will do anything beyond what current law already provides for and it is excessive intrusion into people's lives."

Julie Lewin, an animal rights' lobbyist and founder of Animal Advocacy Connecticut, said Rowland's decision is tragic and shocking. She urged the governor to let the bill become law this year, then work with her during next year's session to change it to his liking.

"This is unacceptable, that in 2002 a governor of Connecticut will deny dogs this minimal protection," said Lewin. "This is an election year for God's sakes. People care about dogs."

Lewin disputed Rowland's contention that state law already provides adequate protection. She said the cruelty laws lack the teeth necessary for animal control officers to protect dogs.

Under the bill, pet owners would be barred from chaining, tethering or caging a dog - indoors or outdoors - for more than 15 continuous hours, or for more than 22 hours in a 24-hour period. Violators would face a warning for a first offense and a $100 fine for a subsequent violation.

Another provision of the bill would require that pet owners provide dry, insulated doghouses for dogs that are left outside alone for more than 30 minutes when the temperature falls below 40 degrees, unless the dog is a "hearty" breed. Violators would be subject to a fine of up to $1,000, imprisonment for a year, or both.

The legislation also would have required owners to keep female dogs in heat away from male dogs, except for breeding.

The governor's office received about 700 e-mails on the proposal - a larger response than most bills, Cooper said.

"The general tenor of the e-mails was, `I can't believe you are going to tell me how to take care of my dog,'" Cooper said.

The veto, which could come as early as today, may not be the end of the issue.

Lewin said she will ask leaders in the House and Senate to try to override the veto. [CCS will be lobbying during the Veto Session to uphold the Veto. Contact your State Representative/Senator]
****

The Governor of Connecticut has heard the voices of sportsmen and said he will veto a pet-related bill that would make criminals of law-abiding dog owners. Since the legislature passed the bill by a large margin, sportsmen must contact their state legislators to ensure that they do not override the governor’s veto.

Senate Bill 78 would over-regulate how dog owners should treat, house and transport their dogs. Governor John Rowland announced on Wednesday that he will veto the bill. His decision comes after receiving nearly 700 e-mails from sportsmen and other dog owners.

Sportsmen responded to urgent alerts sent out by the U. S. Sportsmen’s Alliance over the past few days. The Masters of Foxhounds and American Kennel Club (AKC) also helped generate opposition to the bill.

If legislators override this bill, it will be the most restrictive law against hunting dog owners in the United States. It requires that shelter be available if a dog is outside for more than 30 minutes when the temperature is below 40 degrees, unless it is a breed of dog that is generally known to be tolerant of cold weather without obvious stress or discomfort. Dogs generally known to be tolerant of the cold would likely include Huskies and St. Bernards. What about retrievers who dive in cold rivers after ducks, a pointer that chases pheasants on snowy days or hounds that chase raccoons on cold fall nights?

It also defines proper shelter as being insulated and "impervious to moisture." This means that the shelter must not only be leak-proof, but it cannot allow any moisture, such as dew.

Also, any person that keeps a dog tethered or caged in a pen would be required to set the dog free for at least two hours every 24 hours. No consideration is given for pen size or area where the animal resides.

TAKE ACTION! Sportsmen should thank Governor Rowland for his veto, but still must contact their legislators to make sure that they know the facts about the bill and do not override it. Tell them the bill is vague and not enforceable. Let them know that the bill over-restricts dog ownership and could severely impact hunting. To learn the name of your legislator and for contact information, call (860) 240-0100 or use the Legislative Action Center on the U.S. Sportsmen’s Alliance homepage, www.ussportsmen.org.

Be sure to leave your name and address so the legislator knows that you are a constituent.

Doggone Republicans!

Saturday, May 04, 2002 http://www.rep-am.com/ [Bold ours]

The prize for sheer legislative looniness and pusillanimous pandering to a noisy [Animal Rights] special-interest group is a lock this year for Rep. Kenneth Bernhard, R-Westport. As his fellow lawmakers were wrestling with the toughest budget challenge in 11 years, he was digging holes under the backyard fence — not to let the dogs out, but to let the government in.

Incredibly, Raised Bill 5570, "An Act Concerning Cruelty to Animals," has a chance to become law. The House and Senate approved it by veto-proof margins.

This is a classic example of a law that need not exist because the problem — neglectful treatment of domestic animals — is already well covered in statutes and municipal laws. Owners who leave their pets outside without food, water and shelter for hours or even days at a time are subject to prosecution under animal-cruelty statutes.

Rep. Bernhard's principal targets appear to be owners who leave their dogs tethered outdoors day and night. "Dogs are social animals and require some interaction," he explained, adding that neglectful owners cannot be prosecuted if they leave "a cardboard box, water and food" within the animal's reach.

Many residents might agree, especially those who live near a dog that barks incessantly while it's tethered. (Of course, there are laws on the books covering that, too.) But Rep. Bernhard and his colleagues didn't stop there. They placed limits on how long a dog might be kept outside during cold weather. Here's how an Associated Press reporter described this aspect of the bill, apparently with a straight face:

"It also prohibits dogs from being kept outside for more than half an hour when the temperature is below 40 degrees Fahrenheit, unless the dog is a cold-weather breed generally known to be tolerant of low temperatures."

This is lunacy. Who decides which dogs are comfortable in the cold? It might be an easy call if the dog in question is a Siberian husky or a Mexican hairless, but what of the countless breeds in between? And what of the many mongrels picked up by kind-hearted folks from shelters and dog pounds? We sure wouldn't want the job of explaining to judges why they have to become conversant with the winter-readiness of every mutt that lands in their courtrooms.

Moreover: Does this mean the jogger or senior citizen who takes long walks in the company of a pooch, winter and summer, is subject to prosecution? The bill makes vague reference to allowing — allowing! — owners to keep their dogs outside "for a limited period of time for purposes of exercise," but the septuagenarian who takes a 5-mile hike with his or her canine companion in January clearly is outside the period envisioned by Rep. Bernhard.

But this is only the beginning. The bill makes no special provisions for guide dogs, hunting dogs, police dogs, bomb- and drug-sniffing dogs, or dogs that like to slip through the "doggie door" and patrol the yard on chilly days while their human families are at work or school. Some might even argue the measure doesn't go far enough. If it's cruel to subject a Chihuahua to biting cold, what of the St. Bernard or Newfoundland that has to pant his days away in the summer?

What about cats? Who is standing up for their rights to life, liberty and central heating? And we won't belabor the most obvious question of all: What about children? Does Connecticut need a law dictating how long parents can let their kids stay outside in the winter?

Gov. John G. Rowland should veto this bill on the grounds that it's irresponsible, intrusive, redundant and unenforceable. And in so doing, he needs to send a clear message to his Republican Party, the party of smaller government and individual responsibility, that legislation of this sort is unacceptable.

Gov. Veto Asked - Dog Bill SB 78

Mailing Address: Governor's Office State Capitol, 210 Capitol Avenue, Hartford, CT 06106, Telephone: (860) 566-4840 E-Mail: Governor.Rowland@po.state.ct.us

Press Release 05/02/02

The Connecticut Dog Federation (CDF), a state-wide organization with over Two Thousand (2000) members is calling upon Governor Rowland to veto Substitute Senate Bill 78 (AAC Companion Animal Health Certificates and Cruelty to Animals) SB00078 that recently passed the House and Senate.

The CDF is the umbrella organization for the all-breed and specialty breed clubs in Connecticut. The dogs that are owned by CDF members participate in many different activities, including dog shows, obedience and agility trials. Some of these dogs participate in all sorts of assistance and therapy programs throughout Connecticut. When someone wishes to adopt or add a purebred dog to their family they turn to members of the CDF. CDF breeders do not sell to pet shops nor are they "puppy mills" that are often seen in stores and on television. CDF members believe in responsible dog breeding, ownership and strongly oppose cruelty and neglect of dogs.

Although well intended, Senate.Bill 78 contains provisions that will adversely affect the purebred dog community as well as responsible pet owners throughout Connecticut. This proposal attempts to legislate"common sense". The language and classification of what constitutes cruelty to dogs is ambiguous and misguided. The original bill was amended in the house and added in provisions that could unknowingly place thousands of dog owners in violation of the law.

Of particular concern to the members of CDF is Section 3, which states that ... any person who keeps a dog chained or tethered or keeps a dog confined in a pen, cage, container or other indoor or outdoor housing facility for more than fifteen continuous hours or fails to provide a minimum of two hours during any twenty-four-hour period during which a dog is not tethered and not confined in such a pen, cage, container or other housing facility, shall be given a warning for first violation and be fined one hundred dollars for any subsequent violation." If a dog or dogs live in a kennel that is adequate in size to offer proper shelter, food, drink, shade and room for exercise, the owner could still be the subject of a complaint and/or cited for being in violation of the fifteen hour provision. Shouldn't the overall health of the animal be the primary area of concern? There are many common dog owners and "hobby breeders" that have elaborate setups in their yards to accommodate their dogs and ensure that their dogs are safe, secure and well-fed while they are absent for more than half a day.

Many kennels have adjacent exercise areas, which under the provisions of this bill could be considered "confinement" and the subject of violations. Many of these dogs live in multi-dog households, so the socialization they receive is both from humans and other animals. Under this legislation, this type of arrangement will be compromised.

Requiring that facilities be... "impervious to moisture" and only applying to “ a breed of dog generally known to be tolerant of cold weather …” are an example of terminology that is ambiguous and could be arbitrarily applied so as to impose a severe hardship to dog owners who are taking proper care of their dogs.

The restrictions and ambiguous provisions in this legislation will impose severe hardship on persons who are taking proper care of their dogs

CDF recognizes that the problem of chained and neglected dogs is a complex one. This legislation creates more problems than it solves.

The Connecticut Dog Federation will continue to work toward the goal of fair and equitable legislation that penalizes the irresponsible not responsible dog owners in Connecticut.

Marc Cohen

Contact: Marc Cohen

203 - 494-7429 President

Connecticut Dog Federation