Austins New Laws attempt

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Austins New Laws attempt

Post  runarabbit on Wed Dec 15, 2010 5:29 pm

Austins New Laws attempt: Now this one is all about money...

Austin trying to pass another breeder law...this one is just about the city making money...everyone knows that you spaying/neutering a puppy before 6 months of age is very controversial among veterinarians.

Leaving the city to profit 50.00 off every pet sold. I'm not sure how I really feel about this one, but it's just another one of those stepping stones. How frustrating. Just another fee we will have to pass on to any potential buyers.

seeing how some already pay taxes on the sales, I'm wondering if the pet traders (don't really care for that label) will now be taxed on the 50.00 they have to pay the city and then taxed again on the chip fee? I hope these fees don't hit c...ounty. And what about the rescue groups that are not 501 (c) (3)? I guess they better start filing there paper work now. Funny how when these laws get passed they really only effect the honest, because the dishonest will just go selll @ the county Wal-mart parking lots, but still breed in the city. How in the world are they going to regulate that?

The Austin City Council will consider a proposal at their meeting tomorrow, Thursday, December 16th, that would define anyone who sells an intact dog or cat (including a puppy or kitten) as a “pet trader” and require that breeders pay a $50... fee to the city for each animal sold that is not sterilized.

Responsible owners and breeders are encouraged to attend this meeting and oppose this measure or send an email or fax to their councilmember asking him or her not to support this ordinance.

Other provisions include requiring that breeders microchip all animals and provide registration information to the new owner. The proposal would also require that breeders provide a statement from a veterinarian regarding the animal’s health. The city’s animal shelter and any 501(c)(3) rescue groups registered with the city are exempt from these requirements.

View the ordinance on the city’s website.

What You Can Do:

· Attend the city council meeting December 16th and respectfully ask the council not to support this measure. The meeting details are as follows:
Date: Thursday, December 16th
Time: 10am
Location: 301 W. Second Street,



Austin, TX 78701

· Contact Mayor Leffingwell and the members of the Austin City Council, and politely ask them to oppose this ordinance. You can e-mail the mayor and full council by filling out the form here, or contact them individually at the contact information listed below:

Mayor Lee Leffingwell
Online comment form
Phone: (512) 974-2250
Fax: (512) 974-2337

Chris Riley, Council Member Place 1
Online comment form
Phone: (512) 974-2260
Fax: (512) 974-3212

Mike Martinez, Mayor Pro Tem, Place 2
Online comment form
Phone: (512) 974-2264
Fax: (512) 974-1887

Randi Shade, Council Member Place 3
Online comment form
Phone: (512) 974-2255
Fax: (512) 974-1888

Laura Morrison, Council Member Place 4
Online comment form
Phone: (512) 974-2258
Fax: (512) 974-1886

Bill Spelman, Council Member Place 5
Online comment form
Phone: (512) 974-2256
Fax: (512) 974-7655

Sheryl Cole, Council Member Place 6
Online comment form
Phone: (512) 974-2266
Fax: (512) 974-1890

avatar
runarabbit

Posts : 384
Points : 742
Join date : 2010-11-17
Age : 49
Location : Austin

View user profile http://www.dream-a-dream.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Austins New Laws attempt

Post  runarabbit on Thu Dec 16, 2010 11:59 pm

TX-RPOA E-News
>From RPOA Texas Outreach and
Responsible Pet Owners Alliance
"Animal welfare, not animal 'rights'
and, yes, there is a difference."
Permission granted to crosspost.
December 16, 2010

video: http://www.myfoxaustin.com/dpp/news/local/council-regulates-breeders-and-approves-surveillance-cameras-12162010-ktbcw

Austin City Council voted unanimously to approve the Pet Trader Ordinance
this morning. No surprise there. However, as the main opposition to the
"animal rights" inspired ordinance proposal, we were contacted by numerous
media reporters.
So that was a pleasant surprise and a golden opportunity to educate the
media and their listeners on Texas animal issues. Just a warm up for the
upcoming Texas Legislative Session! Who has more animal expertise than our
members?

Martine Hueslig represented RPOA and spoke to City Council opposing the
ordinance. After stepping down from the podium, she immediately had four
reporters surrounding her and some seemed to be on our side. Supporters of
the ordinance deemed it to be a "public safety" issue. Go figure!
The only Petland store in Austin closed some time back when this was first
proposed by the Austin Animal Advisory Commission -- knowing that Austin
City Council would approve the proposal. How long before Petco and PetSmart
will be banned from selling all the other species of pets in Austin? How
long before there's no need for pet food and pet supplies at all in Austin?

So what does this ordinance (which has no enforcement date) mean to Austin
animal owners?

* Anyone who receives "consideration" for a dog, cat, puppy, kitten (any
age) is now a Pet Trader unless it is the City Pound or a 501 (C)(3)
Nonprofit Rescuer Group. (All rescuers are not nonprofits.)

* All sales are forbidden from a location other than where the cat or dog
was bred.

* Sale of agricultural livestock is exempt.

* A Pet Trader must pay a $50 Sales Fee unless the animal is sterilized.
(This will be interesting to watch the Pet Police enforce.)

* Microchip is mandatory.

* Veterinarian must give buyer a signed document (a guarantee!) that the
animal has no known disease or illness at the time or that is likely to
adversely affect their health in the future, or describe any known disease,
illness that is likely to affect their health in the future. In addition to
documentation of sterilization.

* Pet Trader must provide the usual paperwork for the dog and cat, all
medical records, etc.

Regarding the recent Austin alert:
"There'll be no Doggie in the Window," there was some confusion about the
last sentence
which was "meant" to imply that rescuers who aren't IRS 501 (C)(3)
Nonprofits - and there are many -- are supposed to pay sales tax per the
Comptroller's office although it's generally ignored.
avatar
runarabbit

Posts : 384
Points : 742
Join date : 2010-11-17
Age : 49
Location : Austin

View user profile http://www.dream-a-dream.com

Back to top Go down

View previous topic View next topic Back to top

- Similar topics

 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum