BSL State legislative updates

The last of the 2007-08 legislative sessions has adjourned, but not before Massachusetts enacted HB 1527, increasing the penalty for aiding or watching an animal fight. The bill was signed into law on Jan. 5, 2009. The following is a link to the AVMA report wrapping up the 2008 state legislative and regulatory activities, covering topics of interest to veterinary medicine. http://www.avma.org/advocacy/state/legislative_updates/yearend_summary_2008.asp
Twenty-six states and the District of Columbia are scheduled to reconvene this month. The AVMA looks forward to a new year of partnering with state and allied veterinary medical associations to represent veterinary medicine on public policy issues. Already in 2009, a number of bills have been introduced or prefiled that drew our attention. These include:
Florida HB 189 – would eliminate the prohibition of breed-specific local government regulation of dangerous dogs.
DC LR 74 and Montana HB 191 – would prohibit the ownership of pit bulls with limited exceptions, including grandfathering current owners.
Maine HP 4 – would prohibit force-feeding birds in order to produce foie gras.
Montana LD 1832 – would provide that in order to qualify as Montana-certified natural beef cattle, the beef cattle must be raised without any antibiotics.
Nebraska LB 71 – would require veterinarians and veterinary technicians to report cases of animal abandonment, cruel neglect, or cruel mistreatment.
Nevada SB 57 – would make several changes to the veterinary practice act, including rules regarding vaccine administration, consulting with out-of-state non-veterinarians and veterinarians, veterinary license reciprocity and renewal period for licenses and certificates.
New Jersey A 3270, A 3290, S 2190 – would require the suspension or revocation of a health care professional’s license for willful, illegal or improper medical waste disposal.
New York A 255 – would require microchipping of all dogs by the age of four months; creates a state registry.
Texas HB 378 – would exempt floating a horse's teeth from the practice of veterinary medicine.
Vermont HB 6 – would require antifreeze sold in the state to contain a bittering agent to make it unpalatable.
NCSL issues horse welfare resolution
At their annual Fall Forum in Atlanta, Georgia on Dec. 11-13, 2008, the National Council of State Legislatures (NCSL) approved a resolution urging the U.S. Congress to oppose legislation that would restrict marketing, transport, processing, or export of horses, to recognize the need for humane horse processing facilities in the United States, and not to interfere with state efforts to establish facilities. NCSL is a bipartisan organization that serves the legislators and staffs of the nation’s 50 states, its commonwealths and territories, and also lobbies Congress on behalf of state legislatures. The resolution was co-sponsored by State Rep. Sue Wallis of Wyoming and State Rep. Dave Sigdestad of South Dakota. Rep. Wallis is a Vice Chair of the Agriculture and Energy Standing Committee at NCSL. "I am especially pleased," said Wallis, "that the strong support of this resolution will allow our NCSL staff the ability to lobby on Capitol Hill with factual, accurate, and compassionate information about the horrific unintended consequences of certain proposed federal actions that would deprive livestock owners of private property rights and thwart state efforts."
Court watch
The National Meat Association and the American Meat Institute have challenged a new California law which bans the sale or distribution of food produced from livestock too ill or weak to stand. The state law was a response to a nationwide beef recall in 2008 stemming from the discovery of an undercover videotape which showed workers at a Chino slaughterhouse abusing cows. Supporters of the law said that existing federal rules were inadequate. They hoped that the law, which clarifies that local authorities have the power to file criminal charges, would discourage the processing of potentially diseased cows and other animals. The law passed almost unanimously in the summer of 2008. Opponents challenging the law, however, contend it illegally preempts federal meat inspection rules and that only federal veterinarians have the authority to decide if an animal's injury affects food safety.
The U.S. Department of Justice has asked the U.S. Supreme Court to take up an animal cruelty case, arguing that an appeals court erred in declaring unconstitutional a federal law that bans selling depictions of animals being tortured. In the first case to go to trial under the 1999 law, a Virginia man, who sold videos of pit bulls fighting and killing pigs, was convicted in 2005 of selling depictions of animal cruelty. However, the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals vacated his sentence and struck down the federal law as an impermissible infringement on free speech. The Solicitor General filed a petition asking the Supreme Court to review the case and claimed that the 3rd Circuit was wrong in its findings and that this type of speech should not be protected by the First Amendment. There are only a few categories of speech wholly outside the protection of the First Amendment, including fighting words, some kinds of incitement, obscenity, and pornography involving children. The Supreme Court rejects most requests for review. This case, however, has a better chance of being accepted because the federal government is making the request, a federal law was found to be unconstitutional, and three of the circuit judges dissented.