Anti-Pet Bill Defeated in D.C.
Numerous anti-pet provisions are removed from a D.C. ordinance.
City Council members in July stripped several anti-pet provisions from a District of Columbia ordinance challenged by the Pet Industry Joint Advisory Council (Washington).
Proposed last year, the Animal Protection Amendment Act was an “animal rights wish list” that would have imposed “unprecedented liability on those who sell pets and pet products, deprived pet owners of fundamental rights under the law, and extended expansive powers to animal activists to invade private property and confiscate pets,” said PIJAC, which testified against the provisions.
Guardianship language, non-economic damages and mandatory spay/neuter were among the failed amendments to existing law encompassed by Bill 17-89.
Added to the final bill, however, was a restriction on the number of dogs, cats, rabbits or ferrets owners are allowed. New law permits impoundment of animals over the four-pet limit, unless an animal hobby permit has been issued for the animals.
Other provisions of the unanimously approved bill include:
- Permits for commercial dog breeders who raise and sell more than 25 animals per year.
- Increased licensing fees for unaltered animals.
- Stiffer penalties for spectators at dog fights, making it a felony instead of a misdemeanor.
- Court-ordered counseling for those found guilty of animal cruelty.
The bill was an undertaking by the George Washington University Law School’s Animal Welfare Project. [October 2008 PET AGE]
STRICKEN FROM D.C. ORDINANCE
PROVISION |
EXPLANATION |
PIJAC OBJECTION |
Guardianship |
All references to “animal owners” would have been changed to “animal guardian.” |
The term “guardian” is incompatible with ownership, as legal guardians cannot “own” their wards. It is designed not to enhance animal welfare, but to establish a basis to give animals individual rights under law. |
Non-economic damages |
Veterinarians would have been subject to new liability standards that could include damages for loss of companionship. |
The availability of non-economic damages for pet loss would increase the cost of pets and care for pets for all pet owners. |
Private right of action against animal owners |
Any “nonprofit” claiming to be “concerned with humane treatment of animals” would have been allowed to legally enter private property and confiscate another person’s animals. |
This provision would have given police powers to private animal activists. |
Mandatory spay/neuter |
All owners would have been require to sterilize cats or dogs 6 months or older, with certain exceptions.
|
The exception for persons possessing an animal breeding permit entailed extensive disclosure of information and the right of government to inspect private property. Any pet owner with an intact dog or cat would have been treated as a commercial kennel. |
 |
