Iowa Takes Significant Step Towards Animal Cruelty Crackdown

Posted on April 1, 2019 by alexb2448

This vintage typwriter is our featured image.

Happy Monday, everyone. In the interest of starting the workweek on a positive note, I wanted to share some good news. So here goes…

Founder/owner of In Brief Legal Writing Services, Alexandra Bogdanovic. Photo by N. Bogdanovic

Last week, Iowa legislators took an important step towards strengthening the state’s animal cruelty laws. Specifically, the House unanimously passed a bill calling for tougher sanctions for people convicted of abusing, neglecting, torturing or abandoning animals.

As it now stands the bill defines animal abuse as failure to provide an animal with access to food, clean water, clean shelter, veterinary care and adequate grooming.

The punishment for a first offense would be two years in prison. A second offense would be a felony carrying a maximum punishment of five years in prison.

Animal torture is defined as the intentional infliction of harm that results in prolonged suffering or death. The maximum sentence upon conviction would also be five years in prison.

Finally, the punishment upon conviction for animal abandonment would be 30 days in jail; a year in jail if the animal is hurt; or two years if it seriously hurt.

The bill, which excludes some wild animals and farm animals is now headed to the state Senate.

Why is this so important?

For years, critics have regarded Iowa as one of the worst puppy mill states. Today, Iowa reportedly has “thousands of dogs in more than 200 large-scale breeding operations.”

In fact, news about the passage of the bill came just two days after the Associated Press reported that he owner of a “northern Iowa dog breeding operation” had been charged with 17 counts of animal neglect.

The AP cites Worth County court records indicating that authorities allegedly found Samoyed dogs in “inhumane conditions” when officials on Nov. 12 and on other occasions.

The records also indicated 17 dogs had “fur matted by feces, skin conditions leading to fur loss, painful wounds, intestinal parasites and other maladies.” Furthermore, they detailed the conditions in the kennels, where the dogs allegedly went without food and their only source of water were containers packed with ice.

According to the AP, the accused owner has “denied any wrongdoing and told officials she didn’t think the dogs needed additional care.”

On top of which, Iowa ranked 48th in a 2018 Animal Protection Laws Ranking Report issued by the Animal Legal Defense Fund (ALDF). Only Mississippi and Kentucky fared worse in the report, which was based on 19 aspects of animal protection.

Something to aim for

In the same report, Illinois, Oregon, Maine, Colorado and Massachusetts ranked as the top five states for animal protection. Remarkably, Illinois claimed the number one ranking for the 11th consecutive year. Oregon, Maine and Colorado also kept their top rankings.

“Every year, we see more states enacting broader legal protections for animals,” ALDF’s Executive Director Stephen Wells said. “We have a long way to go until animals are fully protected under the legal system as they deserve, especially in the lowest-ranked states.…But as this year’s Ranking Report shows, step by step we as a nation are improving how the law treats animals.”

Montana May Implement Crackdown On Fake Service Animals

Posted on March 29, 2019 by alexb2448

Now it’s Montana’s turn.

According to a recent account, the Treasure State may soon join a growing list of states that have cracked down on the use of fake service animals.

With an 85-15 vote earlier this week, Montana’s House of Representatives endorsed a bill establishing punishments for people who pass their pets off as service animals. As it now stands, HB 439 would make the misrepresentation of service animals a misdemeanor offense. Anyone convicted would face:

A $50 fine for a first offense
A fine ranging from $75 to $200 for a second offense
A fine ranging from $100 to $1,000 for a third/subsequent offense

HB 439 also stipulates that anyone convicted of the offense may be required to perform community service for an organization that advocates on the behalf of persons with disabilities.

Eli, the In Brief Legal Writing Services mascot. — In Brief Legal Writing Services mascot Eli catching up on the latest news. Photo by Alexandra Bogdanovic

Within this context, it is important to note that these punishments could only be imposed if:

the offender had previously received a written warning regarding the misrepresentation of his or her pet as a service animal; and
continued to represent the pet as a service animal
in order to gain any rights or privileges afforded to a service animal.

Misrepresentation of a service animal

HB 439 defines misrepresentation of a service animal as activity in which someone:

equips the animal with a leash, collar, cape, harness, backpack, or sign identifying it as a service animal; or
says or provides written material claiming that the animal is a service animal;
in order to access certain places with the animal; and
it is determined that the animal is not properly trained to perform a service animal’s functions.

Legally, a determination regarding lack of sufficient training necessary for a service animal could be based on: whether or not the dog is housebroken; whether it is under the handler’s control; and the handler’s ability or inability to bring the dog under control.

Additional provisions

If the bill becomes law, establishments that don’t provide access to pets would have to post signs indicating that:

They do allow service animals.
They are legally allowed to ask the owner if the animal is a service animal required because of a disability and what work or task the animal is trained to perform.

Furthermore, establishments may not be able to make complaints against suspected offenders unless they have posted a public notice indicating that they reserve the right to do so regarding the misrepresentation of service animals.

Finally, animals that are not under their handler’s control or are not housebroken may be asked to leave in accordance with the bill, which is similar to language in the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Pros and cons

People in favor of and opposed to the measure voiced their opinions at a House Judiciary Committee Meeting on March 11.

William Austin, a disabled veteran who has a service dog, spoke first. Because people misrepresent their pets as service animals in order to take them into certain establishments, people who have legitimate need of service dogs are challenged, he said. In large part this is because the “fake” service animals are disruptive and don’t behave well, he added.

But Austin said an even greater concern is the safety of real service dogs and their handlers. Specifically, he shared a story about a “fake” service dog that attacked a real service dog belonging to a friend.

“There needs to be something done to stop folks who deliberately falsify their animals as service animals,” Austin concluded.

Connecticut Cat Tax Proposed

Posted on March 15, 2019 by alexb2448

It’s official. I’m speechless. Completely. Utterly. Totally. Speechless. Seriously. I’ve got nothing.

And for the record, it takes a lot to put me in this state. I’m never at a loss for words. But I just can’t wrap my head around the Connecticut Cat Tax. l’m serious. Connecticut Democrats want to impose a “cat tax” on those of us who have felines and are still “lucky” enough to live here (sarcasm fully intended).

I read all about it on the Hartford Courant’s website earlier this week. At first I thought it had to be fake news. Unfortunately I checked the Connecticut General Assembly’s website, and it’s true.

What a catastrophe

At this time, raised S.B. 999 is officially known as An Act Concerning The Fee For Adopting a Dog, Cat or Other Domestic Animal From a Municipal Pound and Requiring the Licensing of Such Cats and Other Domestic Animals.

I kid you not. This is what they decided to call it. Why didn’t they just call it a cat tax? It would have been so much easier that way.

In Brief Legal Writing Services Mascot, Eli. — Eli The Cat. Photo By Alexandra Bogdanovic

At any rate, the stated purpose of this proposed “Act” is to “increase the fee paid by anyone adopting a dog from a municipal shelter and to require the payment of such fee for anyone adopting a cat or other domestic animal from a municipal shelter and to require the licensing of such cats and other domestic animals.”

You can find the link text of the proposed bill here. In the meantime, I’ll just hit the “high points.”

As currently proposed:

Any Connecticut resident that purchases a dog, cat or other domestic animal as a pet will have to pay a $15 fee to the municipal animal shelter or dog pound in order to get a license and tag for it from the town clerk.
Anyone that purchases a dog, cat or other domestic animal as a pet in Connecticut will also be required to cover the cost the municipality incurred, if any, to spay or neuter and vaccinate the dog [sic], provided such charge is not more than $150.
Any Connecticut resident that owns or keeps a dog that is at least six months old, except those kept under a kennel license as provided by law; and anyone that owns a cat or other domestic animal adopted from a municipal animal shelter or dog pound will be required to have the animal licensed in the town clerk’s office in the town where it is kept, on or before June 30th, each year after it turns six-months old.
The annual licensing fee for each qualifying neutered or spayed animal would be $10.
The annual licensing fee for each unaltered qualifying animal would be $15.
In addition to the licensing fee there would be a $2 fee for issuing a license and tag as allowed by law.
Anyone required to comply with the new law who failed to do so would be required to pay the appropriate license fee, the town clerk’s fee and a $1 penalty for each month or portion of a month that the animal remains unlicensed.

Why a cat tax simply won’t work…

The public got a chance to have its say at an Environment Committee hearing held March 11.

In a letter to the committee, Ellington resident Diana Bump voiced numerous reasons for her opposition.

“Requiring cats to be licensed will deter adoption and/or barn cat owners from taking in cats and also lead to more euthanizing of shelter cats. Licensing cats will cost more to the state implement than it will actually receive in cat licensing fees, no doubt,” Bump wrote. “Licensing cats will not incentivize spaying/ neutering either as the main reason people do not spay/neuter is because of costs and adding licensing fees will make it even more unaffordable.”

Bump also pointed out that most indoor/outdoor cats wear so-called “break away” collars, which are designed to come off if the cat gets it caught on something, so tags could be lost easily. The use of non-break away collars is unsafe, she added. Finally Bump also noted that any noise made by the tags could alert predators to a cat’s location, putting it at risk.

Hamden resident David Malicki put it even more succinctly.

“As most shelters are often overflowing with animals for adoption, I find this proposed House Bill 999 absolutely sub-human,” he wrote. “This bill should not be even considered for a motion. This bill should have never been proposed. Shame on all of you for this shortsighted proposal.”

Animal advocates also oppose the measure as proposed.

So now it’s your turn. What do you think? Is this a good idea, or not? Let’s talk about it. Leave your thoughts in the comments section below.

Connecticut Considers Crackdown On Fake Service Animals

Posted on February 22, 2019 by alexb2448

As the national debate about the classification and use of service animals continues, Connecticut lawmakers are confronting the issue head-on.

According to recent media accounts, state legislators have proposed a bill that would make it illegal to claim any animal, including a pet, is a service animal unless it is trained as such.

In its current iteration, Section 1(a) of Raised Bill No. 7106, or An Act Concerning Service Animals, specifically states: “No individual may knowingly represent, whether expressly or impliedly, that a dog is a service animal or being trained as a service animal, for the purpose of obtaining any rights or privileges afforded to an individual with a disability, unless such dog is a service animal or is being trained to be a service animal.”

The bill also calls for the imposition of a maximum fine of $150 for each violation.

If the bill becomes law, it will take effect October 1, 2019.

Fidelco Picture — Fidelco Guide Dog demonstration. Puttin’ On The Dog, 2018

Public comments

So far, the bill has garnered plenty of support in the court of public opinion. At a public hearing held February 15, several people, including a representative of the American Kennel Club (AKC) spoke in favor of the measure.

“Service dogs are trained to behave submissively when they encounter another service dog,” Stacey Ober, a legislative analyst for the AKC told the Joint Committee on the Judiciary. “They are trained not to react to noises and disturbances that upset other dogs. Bringing untrained dogs into situations for which they are ill-equipped, however puts everyone at risk.”

Because “untrained animals fraudulently presented as service dogs in public places” have created so much chaos, people with legitimate service dogs are now wrongly denied access to places where they have every right to be, Ober added.

Elizabeth Rival of Kensington, who is blind and counts on her guide dog to keep her safe while maintaining her independence, also supports the bill.

“A pet with, quote fake quote service animals with credentials, exhibiting unacceptable behavior, should be dealt with , by businesses or restaurants or other public locations on a case by case basis,” Rival said. “This problem should not be put on persons with disabilities who rely on their highly trained, well-behaved, service animals, who are only seeking to be independent people.”

The support is not universal, however.

Kathleen Flaherty of the Connecticut Legal Rights Project, Inc., said the measure is unnecessary “because it purports to solve a problem that does not exist,” and dangerous “in that it will become a vehicle for discrimination based on disability.”

Flaherty also argued that people who “fraudulently obtain paperwork on the internet (paperwork that is not required under either the ADA or Fair Housing Act) to call their animals ‘service dogs’ so they can take them into restaurants and on airplanes and threaten to sue if their animals are denied access, will not be deterred by this bill.”

Only time will tell…

Only time will tell whether this bill will become law and how effective the new law would be. Personally I agree with Flaherty’s assertion that a $150 fine doesn’t seem like an effective deterrent for those bent on abusing the system by passing pets off as service animals.

But I disagree with her assertion that the bill seeks to address a “problem that doesn’t exist.” There’s a problem, alright. The only question is what to do about it.

CT law would protect daily fantasy sports players

Posted on March 16, 2016March 17, 2016 by alexb2448

Not too long ago, it seemed sports fans in the Tri-State Area couldn’t watch a game or tune in to their favorite radio talk shows without being barraged by ads urging them to participate in daily fantasy sports contests.

But, as so often happens when any activity attracts an immense following, government officials began to take notice. Much debate ensued about the legitimacy of the contests — and whether winning them requires luck or skill. A whole bunch of proverbial poop really hit the fan back in November, when New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman said participation in the contests is tantamount to illegal gambling in the state.

While Schneiderman’s stance — aimed at preventing the companies that run the contests from doing business with state residents — set the stage for a legal showdown, lawmakers in a neighboring state are considering a different approach. Specifically, a bill currently making its way through Connecticut’s legislative process would “protect consumers who play daily fantasy sports contests from unfair or deceptive acts or practices.”

Not a chance

Among other things, the bill includes definitions of a “daily fantasy sports contest,” and a “contest of chance.” It also charges the Commissioner of Consumer Protection with adopting rules that:

Stipulate that daily fantasy sports contests are not “contests of chance”
Set the minimum age for participants at 21
Include measures to protect consumer deposits
Ensure “truthful advertising” regarding the activity
Guarantee “the integrity of all daily fantasy sports contests offered in this state”
Include safeguards for “problem gamblers”

Listen up

At a public hearing of the General Law Committee held earlier this month, several speakers voiced concerns and suggested changes to the initial language.

One of them, Chris Grimm, testified on behalf of two well-known fantasy sports companies and the Fantasy Sports Trade Association. He began by pointing out that more than 50 million Americans have played fantasy sports for more than three decades, making the activity “our new national past time [sic].”

Whether they play in the traditional season-long format or the newer daily or weekly format, participants put their skills to the test, Grimm stressed.

“It is not enough to know the most popular teams and their most recognizable stars,” Grimm said. “Fantasy players need to understand scoring systems, the particular strengths of different players, the type of offensive schemes that they play in and the quality of their matchups [sic].”

Sarah Koch, the assistant director of government affairs at Draft Kings, also spoke in favor of the bill, but suggested some changes including:

Writing certain protections into the law itself
Insertion of language that “ensures fantasy sports competitions are based solely on statistics and not on outcome or finishing position” to avoid inadvertently “opening the door to sports betting”
Removing the word “daily” from the definition of fantasy sports in the bill to “provide legal clarity for all fantasy sports encompassed by the definition”
Clarification of the legal status of fantasy contests by inserting language indicating it does not “constitute gambling under the applicable penal code”
Dropping the age restriction from 21 to 18

Tamara Petro, the executive director of the Connecticut Council on Problem Gambling, also addressed the committee.

“This bill largely represents preparedness for a substantial expansion if CT [sic] legalizes daily fantasy sports, which is a very lucrative, multi-billion dollar business,” she said. “We propose that the new era of gambling in CT [sic] necessitates a sustainable framework for Responsible Gambling [sic] and consumer protections, and that the State [sic] has a responsibility to provide this while looking to expanded gambling for revenue.”

Move over, damn it! Bicyclists state their case

Posted on March 11, 2016March 9, 2016 by alexb2448

Springing forward

With temperatures soaring into the 70s in the New York metropolitan area this week, it’s beginning to feel a lot like springtime around here. And you know what that means.

We’re going to lose an hour of sleep but gain an hour of daylight (allegedly). The flowers will bloom, the grass will grow and some of us will get wicked allergies. As if all of that isn’t annoying enough, we’ll be forced to share the roads with bicyclists, joggers, people on roller blades and maybe even people on hover boards. Oh, joy!

But let’s focus on the bicyclists for now. Yes, those weekend warriors who ride in packs and hog the roads, effectively turning them into treacherous slalom courses for motorists. Honestly, is there anything more aggravating than getting stuck behind a bunch of bicyclists on a Saturday afternoon?

That’s a rhetorical question — but that’s not to say there isn’t another side to the story.

Going to bat for the bicyclists

Urban bicycles. Photo by In Brief Legal Services Founder Alexandra Bogdanovic — New York City bikes. Photo by Alexandra Bogdanovic

According to a recent Hartford Courant report, Connecticut groups that support cyclists want stiffer fines for drivers who don’t play by the rules. Specifically, they have asked state lawmakers to approve a new measure that would level harsher penalties against drivers who don’t “yield to pedestrians or bicycles that are legally using the road.”

Advocates say the measure would improve overall safety. But critics say the wording in the proposed bill is too vague. Critics also claim that the proposal fails to address careless behavior by pedestrians and bicyclists.

Reaching a compromise

Personally I think there are better solutions, some of which have already been implemented elsewhere. Designated bike lanes are fine — as long as the roads are wide enough to accommodate them. I also know of a few places where officials close the roads to regular traffic and let bicyclists take over for a set amount of time on certain days, weather permitting.

I’m not sure if there are already laws on the books prohibiting bicyclists from riding in groups or at least preventing them from riding two abreast. If not, I think there should be.

But of course, that’s just my humble opinion. What do you think?

Something old, or something new?

Posted on March 2, 2016February 24, 2016 by alexb2448

A Connecticut lawmaker’s efforts to strengthen existing animal cruelty laws raises an interesting question — and one that may not be unique to his state. Should there be tougher penalties for offenses committed under the current laws, or should the state’s animal cruelty statute be completely rewritten?

In a recent New Britain Herald article, State Rep. Gary Bryan explained why he’s backing legislation that failed to gain enough support to make it to the governor’s desk last year. If it is enacted, anyone convicted of deliberately “maiming, torturing or mutilating animals” will face harsher punishments than they do now.

But one skeptic quoted in the story says more can — and should be done. In fact, the man in charge of New Britain’s animal control claims that the current rules are outdated and confusing. That makes successful prosecution of animal cruelty cases more difficult, Sgt. Paul Keller tells the New Britain Herald.

The solution? Keller suggests scrapping everything and rewriting the state’s animal cruelty statute with an emphasis on clarity and simplicity.

The thought of doing that might make some legislators run screaming from the room. I mean, why make things easier? Why make things better?

But all joking aside, I think they should do whatever it takes to ensure that anyone who intentionally injures an animal in any way is successfully prosecuted and punished to the fullest extent of the law.

If that means working their butts off to make sure the bill Byron’s backing makes it to the governor’s desk this year, so be it. If that means making partial revisions to the existing statute, then so be it. And if that means rewriting the entire statute, well, so be it.

What do you think? Leave a comment and let me know.

Skunks as pets? What cute little stinkers

Posted on February 29, 2016March 4, 2016 by alexb2448

This has got to be my favorite topic to date. I mean, I’ve heard about people keeping all sorts of interesting pets — pigs, snakes, ferrets, birds, gerbils, rabbits and even rats. But skunks? I’ve never met anyone who has a pet skunk. Or even anyone who wants one for that matter.

Apparently it isn’t all that unusual though. The website skunk-info.org lists seventeen states where ownership of “captive-bred pet skunks is allowed.” If a change reportedly being considered by Tennessee lawmakers actually occurs, the Volunteer State could soon join that list.

According to one news account, the proposed legislation calls for relaxation of existing rules that currently forbid “importation, possession, or transfer of live skunks so that skunk ownership and propagation may be regulated by the wildlife resources commission under its rules for Class II wildlife.”

So far the idea has garnered a mixed reaction and that’s understandable. There are pros and cons to all pet ownership, even for those of us that only have dogs or cats.

In Brief Legal Writing Services owner Alexandra Bogdanovic's cat, Eli. — In Brief Legal Writing Services mascot Eli under the Christmas Tree. Photo by Alexandra Bogdanovic

The bottom line is that if you’re thinking of getting something more unusual than the average house cat or dog, you’d better know what you’re in for. If you’re serious about getting a skunk, you can find plenty of information on the Internet. At exoticpets.about.com, you can find advice about skunk behavior, health, and more. Among other things, there is information about whether or not pet skunks should be spayed or neutered, finding a vet who can treat them, and the proper vaccinations for pet skunks and how to make sure the new addition to your family isn’t a real little stinker.

As far as I know, you can’t have a pet skunk in Connecticut. But that’s fine with me. I’ve got my hands full with Eli.

Make it stop! A plea for tougher telemarketing laws

Posted on February 15, 2016February 5, 2016 by alexb2448

After hearing her voice at least once a day every day for God only knows how long, I have come to the conclusion that a day without hearing from “Carmen” is like a day without sunshine.

Apparently, “Carmen” is really concerned about me. For some reason my financial well-being means a great deal to her. “She” really wants to help me improve my credit and get lower interest rates. I know because she calls to tell me so. At least once per day. Every day.

Sometimes she calls in the morning. Sometimes she calls in the afternoon. Sometimes she calls when I’m in the middle of dinner. If I don’t answer, she leaves a message. She doesn’t care if I hang up. She just calls back. You’d think she could take a hint. Or not.

I have no idea how she got my cell phone number… but sometimes she even calls on that.

To be honest, I’ve had it. I can’t take it anymore. I’m sick of hearing her funky, computer-generated voice. At this point, I just want “her” to quit bugging me. Are you out there “Carmen?” Can you hear me? If so, just leave me alone already! Please!

On a serious note, I guess I should take matters into my own hands. But here in Connecticut, the only way to keep from getting harassed by telemarketers is to sign up with the National Do Not Call Registry. There’s information on the state’s Department Of Consumer Protection website about how to how to join.

The DCP says it also enforces the “Do Not Call” law, so if worst comes to worst, I guess I can always file a complaint with the agency. The only catch is I’d have to put it in writing.

In the meantime, I’m taking this opportunity to appeal to state and federal lawmakers. I am asking nicely… no, I’m begging you. Enact stricter telemarketing laws. Please!

“Carmen” is driving me crazy!

Utter nonsense or common sense?

Posted on February 12, 2016February 8, 2016 by alexb2448

“I have never met an animal I didn’t like. On the other hand, there are plenty of people I hate.” – Me.

Anyone who has read these posts should know a few things about me by now. First, I love animals. Second, I have definite opinions about the law and related issues. Third, I am not shy about sharing them.

I mean come on, in the last couple of weeks, I’ve expressed my displeasure with the United States Supreme Court and the New York City police commissioner (among others).

So it may come as a surprise that I’m blogging about something that I actually agree with. Specifically, I am applauding Alaskan lawmakers who are trying to break with legal tradition by viewing pets as something other than personal property.

According to a recent KTUU report, state legislators are pondering a proposed rule that allows for the “protection” of pets when their caretakers are getting divorced or are embroiled in domestic violence. If enacted, the law would:

Change the existing regulations so owners of animals confiscated due to neglect or cruelty would have to pay their cost of care through “bond or other security.”
Revise current domestic violence measures to let courts include animals, and their temporary care, when issuing protective orders.
Tweak the divorce and marriage dissolution statutes now on the books so animals’ “well-being” is taken into account in court decisions regarding ownership or joint ownership.

“Pets are often considered part of a family and the courts should be able to consider their well-being,” said Rep. Liz Vazquez, who co-sponsored the bill. “This legislation will make it more difficult for a pet to be used by an abuser to keep a victim from reporting that abuse.”

Now from what I’ve read, some Alaskans — who are understandably more pragmatic about animals than those of us who live elsewhere — question the wisdom of this legislation. Apparently they believe other issues deserve a higher priority.

While I fully endorse the proposal, I also understand why some might question it. In particular, I understand why some might mock the idea that courts should be allowed to consider an animal’s “well-being.” Those most likely to do so are the types of people who question the extent of animal intelligence, scoff at the suggestion that the average dog or cat has any self-awareness and shudder at the application of human emotions to our pets.

Personally, I don’t know what goes on in the space between my cat’s ears. But here’s what I know for sure: Eli is smart, sensitive and loyal, among other things. To me he is much more than personal property. He is my best friend. And if anything, I “belong” to him.