bill for stricter laws?Question:Some things got me thinking... Instead of focusing on breed bans and all this stuff, why aren't people trying to get stricter laws when it comes to owning and breeding instead? I guess they just want the easiest thing. I mean, the government could make millions of dollars off of fines if they created more laws when it comes to owning and breeding dogs. I know its not about the money, but I'm making a pro for them. Money is all they want in the end anyway. I would love to try to make a bill, and try to make a few things law, but I have NO idea how to do it. Any of you want to help? I'm in Canada btw, so that might make a difference when it comes to our legal system. I feel so embarassed because at one point I wanted to be a lawyer, hee hee. Answer: Unfortunatly our genuis prime minister and many mps find it much easier to blantantly point the finger at scapegoats like pittis,rotties, dobs and scary looking dogs ( yes you heard me if your dog LOOKS like a pitbull in Ontario you have to prove it is not but in the meantime your dog can be comfinscated and put down or given away to a medical research lab if it was not muzzled which is the law for pitties and pittie mixes). The dangerous dog act legislation which does not discriminate against breed but virtually exsists throughout Canada allows an animal control officer to again comfinscate your dog to be putdown or given away to a medical research lab if your dog displays "menacing" behaviour and a neighbor reports it. The problem is "menacing" isn't defined in the legislation so something as small as your dog barking at passerbyers while it is in it's fenced backyard to barking at someones dog ( even if body langauge is playful). Oh and forget if your dog actually attacks someone if they break into your house, you can be fined up to $10,000 and unless you get a very good lawyer your dog will be PTS. *sigh* so until the goverment wants to take a good look at the real problem of irresponsible owners and not just make blanket laws we and our dogs are all at risk. Kayla Answer: I guess if its not one thing, its another. Problem is, laws regulating breeding are frequently no better than BSL. The guvmint doesn't know a thing about responsible dog breeding, just numbers. If you've got X amount of numbers in your wallet, you can purchase a breeding license. I don't want those kinds of laws any more than I want laws regulating what breed you can own, how many, whether you can perform cosmetic surgery on them, and how you're not allowed to contain them. I live in a town that has breeding regs, and AC isn't funded well enough to enforce them. "Just one litter" people are still filling up the shelters, while reputable folks can't even get the county officers to answer questions about where/when/to whom this law applies because they all look at me like I'm crazy when I ask. ("We require a permit to breed dogs? Really?") Answer: This has always irked me ! The government sticks their nose into so many other regulations that suck and the RIGHT to own animals is ignored completely ! Too many HS put down so many dogs because of over breeding and not spaying/neutering . Rescues are wonderful , but too many dogs need to be rescued . There should be more control to license all dogs and pay higher fees if they are intact. A good breeder would not mind playing for each litter ( I'm talking say $100. ) , but would the BYB or these mills that crank out a litter a week ? These fees would help the HS/Animal control . What if each puppy whelped would be taxed ?? How to catch them ??? Through newspaper ads , the internet and pet stores . Cut the supply ... cut the demand and shut down the BYB and mills . Answer: See those are the things I'd like to change. Have stricter laws regarding breeding and ownership. I actually went on the goverment of canada site,and we don't even have an animal rights department. Human rights this,and human rights that, but nothingfor the animals. -If you want to breed, you have to be registered with CKC. -You have to have someone inspect your property and go through an interview process before you can get a permit. -You have to have a permit before breeding, and on that permit is listed the sires and dams you will use. And if anymore are added, or retired, you have to make that change on your permit. (which is recorded with the government, not just with yourself, and if the two don't match, you're in big trouble) -You have to do health and temperment testing where needed -all dogs retired from breeding must be spayed/neutered now for ownership -your yard must be fenced in, or you have a run, that is an appropriate in size compared to the size of your dog(s) -if your dog is just a pet, it must be spayed/neutered -if your dog is retired from show, it must be spayed/neutered -you dog must have all of its vaccinations up to date (not sure about this one because i know there's people out there who don't vaccinate because they think its not needed, so hm yea) -your dog must have a microchip and a licence -you can only own x number of dogs at a time (not sure about the number yet, I was thinking 3? 4? tell me what you think) i had thought of more, but can't remember them. discuss, add more if you want, take some away, etc. tell me what you think,lol. Answer: A good breeder would not mind playing for each litter ( I'm talking say $100. ) , but would the BYB or these mills that crank out a litter a week ? Let me ask you, though... Do you think a good breeder that is already losing money breeding exceptional litters should really be burdened with the additional fee? Some of these breeders are giving away good dogs to stellar homes because they want to see them placed well, and aren't concerned with recouping the money spent on their hobby. On the other hand, the average BYB could easily just raise the price of his puppies to cover it. They've already saved a bundle by not showing, not competing at all, not health testing, probably doing nothing more than buying an extra bag of kibble for the dam and her puppies. If you have $100 to spare, I can see why it wouldn't be an issue. But again, it comes back to regulating people based on their pocketbook, not the ethics of what they're doing. That's what is being done. If you have $100 for the permit, $400 for a kennel, however much for insurance and things like that, you can weather any regulations, anywhere. But if you don't, lose your dog, lose your rights. Unfortunately, I'd fall on the latter side. That's why I'm against laws which are only interested in the financial aspect of things. Answer: Alexa's Mom, I think your intentions are good, but I just can't agree to the regulations you've listed. -If you want to breed, you have to be registered with CKC. Are you talking about the breeder being registered, or the dog? (I guess in Canada, there's only the one main registry.) What about young breeds that don't have recognition but through their respective parent clubs? What about breeds that the CKC doesn't recognize? -You have to do health and temperment testing where needed My problem here is who determines what health tests are required for each breed? If I'm breeding, say, Dogos, am I okay with just the BAER test and an OFA on hips, or would I be required to get cardiac, thyroid, elbows, etc? Who does the temperament testing? I know where I'm at, it took me quite a while to find an ATTS test within a reasonable driving distance. -all dogs retired from breeding must be spayed/neutered No offense, but why? What if the breeder wants to show veterans classes? Or brood bitch/stud dog classes? What about the dog they don't think is right for their program, but are keeping intact for, say, their junior handler to have fun showing? I've got a dog staying with my mom that will be 8 next year, still intact. What about the risks of putting a senior dog under the knife? Can't proper containment prevent accidental breedings, as it does for every reputable breeder I've known? -your yard must be fenced in, or you have a run, that is an appropriate in size compared to the size of your dog(s) $$$$$$$$$$$ Translates to: If you can only afford $50 for a chain setup, or if you walk your dog on a leash, forget it. -your dog must have a microchip and a licence My dog's tattoo wouldn't be an acceptable means of permanent ID? There haven't been any meaningful studies done about the link between microchips and cancer, and some think that it is a valid concern. I can see that opening the city that passes such a requirement up to a class-action lawsuit, honestly. -you can only own x number of dogs at a time (not sure about the number yet, I was thinking 3? 4? tell me what you think) I think I can probably own a half dozen someday, but my neighbors 2 are too many. (I'd rather live next door to my dog's breeder, who has 7-8 dogs most of the time.) I think if a person wants to own 20 dogs, and there are no valid complaints against them for noise, waste issues, escapees, etc., who should stand in their way? What about folks who foster for rescue, but don't necessarily have the paperwork in order to get one of those tax-exempt special dealies? Okay. I'm not trying to tear you down at all. Here are the laws I feel like all communities would benefit from: 1. Leash laws. Exemptions can be made for off-leash dog areas, grounds belonging to training clubs, etc. Possibly off-lead permits issued to individuals who can produce documentation showing a valid obedience title. 2. Laws which regulate dogs who are a nuisance or threat. Barking, routinely escaping the owner's property, behaving in an aggressive manner towards passersby. There should be something on the books to allow for both fines and restitution to the victims. 3. Laws against animal cruelty and neglect: Failing to provide reasonable veterinary care, food, water, shelter. Staging animal fights. Abuse. Abandonment. Etc. 4. If there needs to be laws against breeding, let them be against public advertising of litters. Reputable breeders already have their names known and their waiting lists established. They have no need to advertise, so they wouldn't be adversely affected. Make it illegal for anybody but rescues, animal shelters, and veterinary clinics to advertise puppies or kittens for sale or adoption. Have it apply to the newspapers, posting of flyers, and those yahoos who stand on the side of the road with signs. I honestly don't see where we need more laws than that. Most of these proposals nowadays seem to be trying to fit dog owners into one small box and exclude everybody who does things just a bit differently. Just because someone is -- what do they call it? persona non grata? -- doesn't mean they are doing something harmful. JMO. :) Answer: Thanks for your input, what I had was just very very very rough, I want everyone's opinions on ways to make it better. :) Answer: Are you talking about the breeder being registered, or the dog? (I guess in Canada, there's only the one main registry.) What about young breeds that don't have recognition but through their respective parent clubs? What about breeds that the CKC doesn't recognize? The breeder being registered. And about young breeds and breeds not recognized, I'm not really sure, lol. My problem here is who determines what health tests are required for each breed? If I'm breeding, say, Dogos, am I okay with just the BAER test and an OFA on hips, or would I be required to get cardiac, thyroid, elbows, etc? Who does the temperament testing? I know where I'm at, it took me quite a while to find an ATTS test within a reasonable driving distance. Let me get back to you on this one. No offense, but why? What if the breeder wants to show veterans classes? Or brood bitch/stud dog classes? What about the dog they don't think is right for their program, but are keeping intact for, say, their junior handler to have fun showing? I've got a dog staying with my mom that will be 8 next year, still intact. What about the risks of putting a senior dog under the knife? Can't proper containment prevent accidental breedings, as it does for every reputable breeder I've known? If you're still showing then dog, then that's fine. It's just if your dog is just being a pet, then it should be fixed. $$$$$$$$$$$ Translates to: If you can only afford $50 for a chain setup, or if you walk your dog on a leash, forget it. I've always said, if you can't afford everything, you shouldn't have the dog. My dog's tattoo wouldn't be an acceptable means of permanent ID? There haven't been any meaningful studies done about the link between microchips and cancer, and some think that it is a valid concern. I can see that opening the city that passes such a requirement up to a class-action lawsuit, honestly. I forgot all about tattoos!! thank-you! lol. I've never heard of the studies between microchips and cancer. I'll look into that. :) I think I can probably own a half dozen someday, but my neighbors 2 are too many. (I'd rather live next door to my dog's breeder, who has 7-8 dogs most of the time.) I think if a person wants to own 20 dogs, and there are no valid complaints against them for noise, waste issues, escapees, etc., who should stand in their way? What about folks who foster for rescue, but don't necessarily have the paperwork in order to get one of those tax-exempt special dealies? See, thats the thing, if you're fostering or something like that, you'll get special priveledges. Like I said, I wasn't so sure about this one, lol. Okay. I'm not trying to tear you down at all. Here are the laws I feel like all communities would benefit from: 1. Leash laws. Exemptions can be made for off-leash dog areas, grounds belonging to training clubs, etc. Possibly off-lead permits issued to individuals who can produce documentation showing a valid obedience title. 2. Laws which regulate dogs who are a nuisance or threat. Barking, routinely escaping the owner's property, behaving in an aggressive manner towards passersby. There should be something on the books to allow for both fines and restitution to the victims. 3. Laws against animal cruelty and neglect: Failing to provide reasonable veterinary care, food, water, shelter. Staging animal fights. Abuse. Abandonment. Etc. 4. If there needs to be laws against breeding, let them be against public advertising of litters. Reputable breeders already have their names known and their waiting lists established. They have no need to advertise, so they wouldn't be adversely affected. Make it illegal for anybody but rescues, animal shelters, and veterinary clinics to advertise puppies or kittens for sale or adoption. Have it apply to the newspapers, posting of flyers, and those yahoos who stand on the side of the road with signs. I honestly don't see where we need more laws than that. Most of these proposals nowadays seem to be trying to fit dog owners into one small box and exclude everybody who does things just a bit differently. Just because someone is -- what do they call it? persona non grata? -- doesn't mean they are doing something harmful. JMO. :) I know you're not tearing me down, don't worry. Thing is, in my city, we already have all those laws. And we still have the same problems. We need more laws that cut down on byb and accidental breeding. Also, make it stricter to get a dog so that not any tom dick and harry can get one, and then just throw it away later. Answer: tell me what you think,lol. You dont want to know what I think Answer: I think there's a new rule of breeding for AKC ....Will check . Answer: See those are the things I'd like to change. Have stricter laws regarding breeding and ownership. I actually went on the goverment of canada site,and we don't even have an animal rights department. Human rights this,and human rights that, but nothingfor the animals. -If you want to breed, you have to be registered with CKC. -You have to have someone inspect your property and go through an interview process before you can get a permit. -You have to have a permit before breeding, and on that permit is listed the sires and dams you will use. And if anymore are added, or retired, you have to make that change on your permit. (which is recorded with the government, not just with yourself, and if the two don't match, you're in big trouble) -You have to do health and temperment testing where needed -all dogs retired from breeding must be spayed/neutered now for ownership -your yard must be fenced in, or you have a run, that is an appropriate in size compared to the size of your dog(s) -if your dog is just a pet, it must be spayed/neutered -if your dog is retired from show, it must be spayed/neutered -you dog must have all of its vaccinations up to date (not sure about this one because i know there's people out there who don't vaccinate because they think its not needed, so hm yea) -your dog must have a microchip and a licence -you can only own x number of dogs at a time (not sure about the number yet, I was thinking 3? 4? tell me what you think) i had thought of more, but can't remember them. discuss, add more if you want, take some away, etc. tell me what you think,lol. Perfect. The animal rightists would love this, they could eliminate breeding of any purebred dogs much faster with these types of restrictive laws. I have 3 dogs right now. I'm planning a litter, from which I would like to keep 2 puppies for the interim. By the end of 08 I will likely have 5 dogs in residence here. Who has the right to tell me I can't have 5 dogs???? Who has the right to tell me I must permanently ID my dog? (even tho I do anyway) More government control over my personal private property. Nope. NO ONE, but NO ONE will tell me I have to pump poisons into my dog on a yearly basis. How I vaccinate is no one's business but my own, with the exception of Rabies. Define retired from show? Penny is pretty much retired from show since she is finished. She is 2.5 years old, and has not been bred yet. It might be another year before I breed her. This law would prohibit my right to enjoy my chosen hobby. What about dogs who cannot or are not shown for any number of reasons who might be important to a breeding program? What about stud dogs who are often used well into senior ages when they have long been done with the show ring? Define "just a pet"? NO ONE has any right telling me what I can or cannot do with my own personal property. Animal rights is a dirty topic. Animal Rightists want to eliminate my (and your, and anyone else's) right to own, show, and breed purebred animals. Laws restricting breeding are a double edged sword, easily used to eliminate all breeding of certain breeds. Look at SB861 in California. ANY community is allowed to pass a law requiring the spay/neuter of certain breeds. All of them. No exceptions. While I'm sure your heart is in the right place on this topic, there are many MANY serious reasons why legislating breeding is NOT a good idea. Answer: Perfect. The animal rightists would love this, they could eliminate breeding of any purebred dogs much faster with these types of restrictive laws. I have 3 dogs right now. I'm planning a litter, from which I would like to keep 2 puppies for the interim. By the end of 08 I will likely have 5 dogs in residence here. Who has the right to tell me I can't have 5 dogs???? Who has the right to tell me I must permanently ID my dog? (even tho I do anyway) More government control over my personal private property. Nope. NO ONE, but NO ONE will tell me I have to pump poisons into my dog on a yearly basis. How I vaccinate is no one's business but my own, with the exception of Rabies. Define retired from show? Penny is pretty much retired from show since she is finished. She is 2.5 years old, and has not been bred yet. It might be another year before I breed her. This law would prohibit my right to enjoy my chosen hobby. What about dogs who cannot or are not shown for any number of reasons who might be important to a breeding program? What about stud dogs who are often used well into senior ages when they have long been done with the show ring? Define "just a pet"? NO ONE has any right telling me what I can or cannot do with my own personal property. Animal rights is a dirty topic. Animal Rightists want to eliminate my (and your, and anyone else's) right to own, show, and breed purebred animals. Laws restricting breeding are a double edged sword, easily used to eliminate all breeding of certain breeds. Look at SB861 in California. ANY community is allowed to pass a law requiring the spay/neuter of certain breeds. All of them. No exceptions. While I'm sure your heart is in the right place on this topic, there are many MANY serious reasons why legislating breeding is NOT a good idea. Wow! :yikes: Answer: Wow! :yikes: What does that mean? You strongly disagree or you strongly agree? Answer: Legislating breeding is as effective as legislating morality . . . Answer: Perfect. The animal rightists would love this, they could eliminate breeding of any purebred dogs much faster with these types of restrictive laws. I have 3 dogs right now. I'm planning a litter, from which I would like to keep 2 puppies for the interim. By the end of 08 I will likely have 5 dogs in residence here. Who has the right to tell me I can't have 5 dogs???? Who has the right to tell me I must permanently ID my dog? (even tho I do anyway) More government control over my personal private property. Nope. NO ONE, but NO ONE will tell me I have to pump poisons into my dog on a yearly basis. How I vaccinate is no one's business but my own, with the exception of Rabies. Define retired from show? Penny is pretty much retired from show since she is finished. She is 2.5 years old, and has not been bred yet. It might be another year before I breed her. This law would prohibit my right to enjoy my chosen hobby. What about dogs who cannot or are not shown for any number of reasons who might be important to a breeding program? What about stud dogs who are often used well into senior ages when they have long been done with the show ring? Define "just a pet"? NO ONE has any right telling me what I can or cannot do with my own personal property. Animal rights is a dirty topic. Animal Rightists want to eliminate my (and your, and anyone else's) right to own, show, and breed purebred animals. Laws restricting breeding are a double edged sword, easily used to eliminate all breeding of certain breeds. Look at SB861 in California. ANY community is allowed to pass a law requiring the spay/neuter of certain breeds. All of them. No exceptions. While I'm sure your heart is in the right place on this topic, there are many MANY serious reasons why legislating breeding is NOT a good idea. Yeah, I completely understand where you're coming from. I'm just trying to think of ways to stop problems like back yard breeding, before they start. And to me, having to have a liscence or permit in order to breed, makes sense to me. Around here, its everywhere, not in the city, because we do have strict laws. But all the farmers around here will easily just breed to dogs just to make an easy buck. Answer: You dont want to know what I think Because it will be offensive? Don't make it offensive then? I'm open to any ideas anyone's willing to give. Answer: The fenced in yard or run wouldn't work if you ask me. What about people who live in apartments? They wouldn't be allowed to own a dog because they have no fenced in yard? Answer: The fenced in yard or run wouldn't work if you ask me. What about people who live in apartments? They wouldn't be allowed to own a dog because they have no fenced in yard? no, its meant for people who have a yard. if you have a yard, and have a dog, put up a fence or run. Answer: Renters? Its hard enough to rent a house with a dog, and then to ask that the owner put a fence up, or even let you put a run in? Not going to happen very often. People need to actually go buy a LEASH. Some dogs wont require more exercise than that, or they may know someone with a fenced in yard, perhaps they have a very strong runner where a fenced yard would be useless, they need to go find something the size of a ball field to run on. (Preferably a privately owned field of course) Answer: Because it will be offensive? Don't make it offensive then? I'm open to any ideas anyone's willing to give. I think instead of trying to bring all of the "bad" people to justice, fine them or put them in cages it would be much easier to put all the "good" people who want the government to control every move we make in cages. Progovernment people want to be in a little box with cameras all around to monitor everything. I would rather they put all of the prisoners out and put progovernment people in. Thats about as nice as I can be about people who want to allow the government to come into my home and search and sieze. That crap about if you do nothing wrong you have nothing to fear is pure bullshit. I understand what you are asking but its an individuals responsibility. I know that you mean well but so did the people who raised the balloon on the drug war or the war on terror. All they did was errode our freedoms, they did nothing to lessen drug abuse or terror they made the situation worse. I think your solution would have the same effect. It would send more people underground with their activity. Answer: I think instead of trying to bring all of the "bad" people to justice, fine them or put them in cages it would be much easier to put all the "good" people who want the government to control every move we make in cages. Progovernment people want to be in a little box with cameras all around to monitor everything. I would rather they put all of the prisoners out and put progovernment people in. Thats about as nice as I can be about people who want to allow the government to come into my home and search and sieze. That crap about if you do nothing wrong you have nothing to fear is pure bullshit. I understand what you are asking but its an individuals responsibility. I know that you mean well but so did the people who raised the balloon on the drug war or the war on terror. All they did was errode our freedoms, they did nothing to lessen drug abuse or terror they made the situation worse. I think your solution would have the same effect. It would send more people underground with their activity. Exactly. Answer: Here are the pertinent portions of our city's breeding ordinance. I think its as well-worded as one of these can be. It is, however, unenforced. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Hobbyist shall mean any person so registered with the Director of Finance as having met the requirements for the hobbyist exemption in Section 117 of this title. SECTION 101. OFFENSES A. It shall be an offense under the terms of this chapter for any owner within the corporate limits of the City of Tulsa to: 9. Fail or refuse to keep every female dog or cat "in heat" confined in a building or secure enclosure or in a veterinary hospital or boarding kennel in such a manner that another dog or cat cannot come into contact with it except for controlled breeding purposes. Every person violating this subparagraph 101.A.9 shall be guilty of an offense and, upon conviction, shall be punished by a fine not exceeding TWO HUNDRED DOLLARS ($200.00), excluding costs, fees and assessments; 14. Harbor, keep or possess in any one household more than a combined total of five (5) dogs and cats over the age of four (4) months; provided that no more than three (3) of such animals shall be dogs over the age of four (4) months. It is specifically provided a household may keep or possess more dogs and/or cats than permitted by this paragraph so long as: d. The household or an individual in the household has secured a hobbyist exemption as required by this chapter. 17. Harbor, keep or possess a dog or cat over the age of six (6) months, other than a dog owned and used by the Police Department of the City as a police dog, which has not been spayed or neutered, unless the owner has secured a hobbyist exemption permit as required in this chapter ... SECTION 117. HOBBYIST EXEMPTION PERMIT A. Hobby Exemption Permit. The Director of Finance shall maintain a register of qualified hobbyist exemption permit holders. Application shall be submitted in writing to the Director of Finance, who shall notify the applicant of the acceptance or denial within thirty (30) days of the application date. If the exemption permit is denied, the applicant shall be notified of the reason for the denial. A fee of Twenty-five Dollars ($25.00) will be charged for the initial permit. Each subsequent renewal shall be Ten Dollars ($10.00). A holder of a hobbyist exemption permit will be permitted to own and keep, at a single family dwelling, a number of dogs and cats that would otherwise constitute an offense under paragraph 101.A.14. of this chapter; provided, however, that a permit holder other than an owner of hunting dogs shall allow outside the residence at any one time no more than the number of cats and dogs permitted by paragraph 101.A.14. A holder of a hobbyist exemption permit shall not be required to comply with paragraph 101.A.17. of this chapter; provided, however, that an individual rescuer must comply with paragraph 101.A.17. as to those dogs and cats owned by the rescuer on a permanent basis. B. Permit Qualifications. Any individual or organization, not a commercial breeder, that 1. Is actively involved in any nationally recognized, organized animal sport or hobby for a period of at least one (1) year prior to making application for a hobbyist exemption; or 2. Participates in field trials, owns nationally recognized breeds used specifically as hunting dogs, participates in hunting activities, and has held and continues to hold a current, valid state of Oklahoma hunting license for a period of at least one (1) year prior to making application for a hobbyist exemption; or 3. Qualifies as a rescuer according to the provisions of this chapter; and 4. Has not been convicted in the past ten (10) years of any offense related to: illegal commercial breeding, brokering, dog fighting, a nuisance offense under this chapter, a cruelty offense under this chapter, a neglect offense under this chapter, a violation of the Oklahoma Wildlife Conservation Code or regulations, or two (2) or more violations of paragraph 101A.2. of this chapter prohibiting at-large dogs and cats shall qualify for a hobbyist exemption permit. C. Application Documents. An applicant for a hobbyist exemption permit shall submit to the Director of Finance one of the following: 1. Certificates of completion of at least two training classes, dated within the twelve (12) months immediately preceding the date of application; or 2. A show catalog including the applicant’s name as an exhibitor, and not less than two (2) superintendents’ conformation receipts, dated within the twelve (12) months immediately preceding the date of application; or 3. A certificate of title(s) from a national registry for a dog or cat owned by the applicant; or 4. For a rescuer organization, proof that the organization is approved by the Chief of Police pursuant to the requirements of paragraph 109.E.7. of this chapter. The organization shall submit a list of individual households that are authorized to serve as rescuers under the organization’s permit; or 5. For an owner of hunting dogs, proof that the owner holds or is exempt from holding a current and valid state of Oklahoma hunting license. Any activity involving the fighting or physical contact between animals or any activity otherwise illegal or dangerous to animals shall not be considered an organized sport or hobby for purposes of this section. D. Renewal. A permit holder must reapply for the exemption permit every year. To make application, the permit holder must furnish to the Director of Finance one or more of the items listed in Subsection 117.C. that are dated within the previous year. E. Records. If applicable, the permit holder shall keep accurate records in accordance with the requirements of his associated national registry on each dog or cat owned, and on each dog or cat where ownership has been transferred. These records shall be open to the registry with which the hobbyist is affiliated. F. Requirements of a Rescuer. A rescuer may harbor dogs and cats in accordance with Subsection 117.A; provided, however, that such cats and dogs are harbored for no longer than ninety (90) days each while the rescuer attempts to locate the animal’s home or a new home. If a rescuer must harbor an animal for longer than ninety (90) days due to its medical condition, the rescuer shall so notify the Director of Finance. G. Revocation. A permit holder shall have his hobbyist exemption permit or the right to serve as a rescuer under an organization’s permit revoked if he has been convicted of an offense of: illegal commercial breeding; brokering; dog fighting; a nuisance under this chapter; cruelty under this chapter; neglect under this chapter; violation of the Oklahoma Wildlife Conservation Code or regulations; or two (2) or more violations of paragraph 101A.2. of this chapter prohibiting at-large dogs and cats. Ord. Nos. 19038, 19143 |
|