November 2003

REPORT OF THE LEGISLATION COMMITTEE
By Joan Tabor

FEDERAL LEGISLATION

The Doris Day Animal League (DDAL) appeal was denied in Supreme Court.  Had their appeal been successful, all residential breeders of dogs and cats would have been subject to federal licensing and inspection.  An earlier ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit also supported the current exemption of residential breeders.  

However, this “victory” may be short lived.  It is believed that the re-introduction of the Puppy Protection Act is imminent.  Senator Rick Santorum (R- PA), the principal sponsor of the “Puppy Protection Act” (PPA) in the previous session of Congress has informed the AKC of his intention to introduce a modified version of the PPA.  The new version of the PPA will not require “socialization standards” for puppies that had been required in the original version, but will be identical to the original in all other aspects. 

The anticipated Senate co-sponsor of the legislation is Senator Richard Durbin (D-IL).  Legislation is expected to introduce to be introduced in the House of Representatives by Rep. Ed Whitfield (R-KY) and Rep. Sam Farr (D-CA). 

The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS), an animal rights organization that opposes the breeding of purebred dogs, is promoting the PPA.  The PPA would amend the Animal Welfare Act (AWA) by requiring the USDA to regulate the breeding practices of dog breeders, stipulating the age and frequency that a bitch may be used for breeding.  The Act would retain the punitive “three strikes and you’re out” policy, revoking the license of a breeder of dogs who commits three violations of the USDA regulations in an eight-year period. 

In the past, the AKC, the American Veterinary Medical Association, and most animal interest organizations opposed the PPA.  A past attempt to attach the PPA to the 2002 Farm Bill was soundly rejected by House-senate conferees. 

The PPA is a bad pubic policy that sets dangerous federal legislative precedents. If the purpose of the Animal Welfare Act were to assure compliance and not put breeders out of business, then the proposed PPA would undermine the USDA’s efforts to achieve compliance with its regulations. 

The AKC is closely monitoring developments with the PPA and is in communication with members of Congress and the Administration.  The New Jersey Federation of Dog Clubs will also be monitoring the progress of the PPA and will be formulating a plan for its members.  In the meantime, members are urged to go to the AKC website, www.akc.org, and to the N.J. Federation website,  www.njfederationofdogclubs.org for up to date information. 

USDA Proposes Regulations for Foreign Carriers

On October 10, 2003, the USDA published a notice in the Federal Register announcing its intention to apply the current air carrier provisions of the Animal Welfare Act (AWA) regulations to foreign carriers.  Public comment is invited until December 9^th.  Enforcement is expected to begin by April 7^th, 2004, unless the USDA receives substantial objections. 

The AKC believes that animals carried by foreign carriers deserve the same enforcement of regulations and standards for humane transport that have been enforced on domestic carriers. 

(Based on information on the AKC’s website)

NEW JERSEY STATE LEGISLATION

We are currently waiting to see if the 2003-2004 New Jersey Legislature will continue with some of the proposed bills from the previous Legislature.  In particular, we will be carefully watching to see if there is movement in Senate Bill 2381 (The Responsible Pit Bull Licensing Act- Senator Sharpe James).  We are hoping that Assembly Bill 3872 (sponsor Joseph Azzolina) will be among the bills considered for the 2003-2004 session.  This bill prohibits insurance companies from discriminating against homeowners based on breed of dog.  See material elsewhere on homeowners insurance.

NEW JERSEY MUNICIPAL LEGISLATION

Montclair Township Council was asked to consider initiating a township ordinance that would limit the amount of time a dog could be tethered, chained or left outdoors unattended.  I am happy to report that at this time the Town Council has come to the conclusion that such an ordinance is unnecessary.  I wrote a letter to members of the Town Council expressing my views.  I was called by a member of the Council who was in charge of matters pertaining to animals.  After a discussion of various points the Council member reached the conclusion that however well intended, the proposed ordinance was unnecessary.  It demonstrates the value of writing a letter to express your concern.

IS HOMEOWNERS INSURANCE GOING TO THE DOGS?

It probably is not news to some of you that insurance companies are refusing to write or renew policies for homeowners who own certain breeds of dogs. Many are referring to it as “canine profiling”. 

Dog owners argue that any breed of dog may become aggressive and bite.  Insurers are asking some dog owners to pay more or have their policies cancelled if they own dogs that have a history of biting.  It is argued that many dogs on the breed outlaw list are no more likely to bite than your average dogs.  

The dogs the insurance companies are most concerned about are large canines that are capable of inflicting a lot of damage.  According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, about 25 breeds of dogs were involved in 238 fatal dog bites.  According to the report, Pit Bulls and Rottweilers were involved in more than half of fatalities resulting from dog bites.  These two breeds have joined several others on the industry’s “bad dog” list.  Others on the list are: Akitas, Alaskan Malamutes, Chow Chows, Doberman Pinschers, German Shepherds, Presa Canarios, Siberian Huskies, Staffordshire Bull Terriers and Wolf Hybrids.  Other considerations that influence a company’s willingness to cover a breed include the frequency of dog bites for the breed, the breed’s reputation as well as research conducted by the CDC and individual insurance companies. 

The insurance companies offer two ways to solve the insurability problem.

One way is to simply refuse to cover certain breeds of dogs.  Nationwide Insurance Company’s criteria are typical.  The company has compiled a list of breeds to ban based on frequency of dog bites, the reputation of the breed, the insurance company’s own research and information from the CDC. In these cases a customer can get a Nationwide policy, but the insurer will not pay any claims related to the banned breeds. 

Dog owners have been fighting back.  Pennsylvania passed a statute barring “breed discrimination” by insurers.  Similar legislation is pending in Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York and New Jersey. 

If an owner is confident that his dog isn’t dangerous, he could opt for coverage from a company that blacklists dogs and take his chances.  This approach is not advocated.   

The second way insurers have found to limit dog-related losses is to individually consider policies.  These insurers say, “we haven’t done any specific review of our underwriting and we don’t discriminate by breed.”  These companies look at every home with a dog on a case-by-case basis.  

The best defense against increasing rates or outright termination is to have your dog properly trained.  Owners are urged to get documentation of their dog’s training.  In addition to receiving your dog’s training certificate, neutering or spaying your dog may help reduce costs.  Also, remember the adage that good fences make good neighbors.  In the case of dog ownership, securing your dog to your property reduces problem occurrences.  

If none of the above works for your insurer, it may be helpful to seek an independent insurance agent who represents several companies. 

If all else fails, you may be able to get main home insurance from one company and add dog liability coverage, at additional cost, from a company that specializes in that type of insurance.  

(Based on information from AOL Personal Finance)