by Anna Cooke, Editor, The New Barker dog magazine.
Michele Lazarow, Vice Mayor of Hallandale Beach, has played a big role in the movement to ban the sale of puppies and kittens in Florida retail stores. It is a movement that has taken hold in cities across the country.
“Michele has been a huge part of this movement in Florida,” said Amy Jesse, Puppy Mills Policy Director at The Humane Society of the United States. “Passing these ordinances shuts off a huge supply chain for the puppy mill industry. We don’t like to draw generalizations that every single pet store is getting their puppies from mills. But, the vast majority do.”
Lazarow purchased a puppy from a Hollywood pet store about 14 years ago. Alfie had been marked down to $900, and he was chronically ill until he died at the age of 10 in May 2014. Lazarow’s heartbreaking experience both angered and inspired her. In 2011 she began a crusade to ban retail puppy sales in Hallandale Beach by first sending packets of information to City Commissioners. It wasn’t easy, but after a year, she was finally able to get a law on the books.
Lazarow’s aim is to protect the consumer who might not be aware of their rights under the state’s puppy “lemon” law. The statute provides legal recourse for consumers who buy cats or dogs that become ill or die shortly after purchase.
Early on, Lazarow was the face of this movement in Florida. “But now officials are doing this on their own,” she said. Having led protests outside pet stores, educated officials and counseled people who needed advice after coming home with a sick puppy, Lazarow’s dedication to the cause has won her both friend and foe.
Keith London, a City of Hallandale Beach Commissioner, said of Lazarow, “She’s speaking for those who can’t speak for themselves. And, she’s effective. She went from being a total neophyte to getting ordinances passed in more than 40 Florida communities.”
Lazarow has helped lead the fight for most of those bans by talking behind the scenes with city officials, rallying local animal advocates to become involved, and speaking out at public meetings. She makes no apologies to her naysayers. “I have advocated and educated colleagues in communities across Florida and helped pass legislation in over 50 cities and counties, saving residents heartache over sick and ill puppies while at the same time helping to stop massive animal cruelty,” she said. “I do this work all day, every day. I have devoted most of my time and energy to continuing this work.”
The next big issue in the upcoming 2019 Florida Legislative Session will be pet store lobbyists attempting, once again, to preempt local municipalities from puppy mill ordinances. “We’ll be ready,” said Lazarow.
By Anna Cooke, Editor of The New Barker dog magazine.
What is Humane Lobby Day? It’s the biggest day of the year for animals and animal advocates. The annual national event is sponsored by the Humane Society of the United States. Citizen animal advocates gather, at the state level, to learn and practice lobbying protection laws in each state. The full-day event includes a lobbying workshop and an overview of relevant bills in your state legislature. Appointments are made for you with the legislatures who represent you. You will be given specific talking points for visiting with the legislators and/or their staff, face to face, and ask them for their animal-friendly votes.
When and where is Florida’s Humane Lobby Day? March 12, Florida State Capital; Challenger Learning Center, 200 South Duval Street, Tallahassee. 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. (9a-Noon/workshop and lunch; 1p-4p appointments with legislatures).
What legislation will we be discussing? Two bills of particular interest to The New Barker dog magazine: Strengthening the penalty for killing a K9 Officer: SB 96, HB 67. And, puppy mills – specifically stopping the importation of puppies from puppy mills. Florida is one of the leading states importing puppies and kittens that are used to stock retail stores. There are about 65 ordinances in Florida currently banning the retail sales of cats/ dogs and this number is growing. However, the preemption bills that have been considered in the legislature would remove those 65 ordinances and prevent any future ordinances form being passed. So we are fighting the efforts to preempt pet retail sales bans and educate our legislators about this issue. There has not been a preemption bill introduced yet this year, but the opposition (Petland) will likely try to amend it to a bill that’s moving, just as they did late in the session, last year. We have defeated them for three years now and will continue to fight it. But many of our legislators are not aware of this important aspect of preemption. This is why we need your vote and your voice.
What should I do to prepare? No prior experience is required to get involved. The goal of the workshop is to educate you on the bills and provide the support you’ll need to make the largest impact. It is helpful to know who your legislatures are before going into a meeting with them. Most elected officials have a website. Also check out these two nonpartisan political organizations, each one encouraging informed and active participation in government: League of Humane Voters – Florida Chapter and League of Women Voters – Florida Chapter.
This is an amazing opportunity to meet with like-minded people from across Florida; to learn about the issues and how you can make a difference. And then, to go out and visit with your representatives in their offices. We hope to see you there.
In June 2015, Padi, a black Lab mix, bit a four-year-old child. Despite the circumstances surrounding the incident, Manatee County Animal Services said they were required by state law to euthanize Padi, no exceptions. Manatee County citizens questioned whether or not Manatee County officials were correctly interpreting the law on how aggressive animals were handled. State Representative Greg Steube, R-Sarasota, filed legislation in August to change the state law, which currently says any dog causing severe injury to a person, which includes injuries resulting in stitches, reconstructive surgery or death has to be euthanized; no exceptions. Steube’s bill, which has been filed for the 2016 session, allows for exceptions. We asked Florida attorney Dionne Blaessing to interpret the wording of the proposed bill, as compared to the originally-written Dangerous Dog statute.
The revision of sections Fl. St.767.12, 767.135 and 767.136 essentially represents a reorganization of the concepts and a rewording of the language of the original Dangerous Dog Statute that has been in effect for decades. The new version clarifies the role of Animal Control, spells out the different options under the law and elucidates the availability of constitutional protections imbedded in the process of hearings and appeals. There are some actual changes to the law which will be expounded upon here.
Fl. St. 767.12 grants county Animal Control services the authority to investigate reports and/or incidents involving any dog that may be deemed dangerous. This section now clarifies that Animal Control has sole discretion in determining whether they, or the dog owner, will confine the dog during the investigation; during a hearing if requested by the owner; and through the appeal process if elected by the losing party. It now makes clear that during a hearing and an appeal, the dog cannot be destroyed, but must be impounded at the owner’s expense.
Fl. St. 767.12 improves the explanation of possible defenses available for the dog. It expands requirements of the formal notice to owner, to include not only the final determination of the investigation, but also the penalty sought by Animal Control. It defines the timetable for owners requesting an initial hearing and requesting an appeal of the outcome of the hearing. The appeal is no longer to be heard in county court but must be filed and heard in circuit court.
Fl. St. 767.12 (5) outlines the responsibilities of the owner who elects to keep a dog deemed dangerous, once the hearing and appeal process has ended. This section remains the same in concept but is better organized and easier to understand.
Fl. St. 767.12 (6) has been added to clarify that if a dog determined to be dangerous in the investigation, hearing and appeal, caused severe injury to a human being, Animal Control may impose a penalty of humane euthanization. That proposed penalty must be clearly stated in the notice to the owner. Both the classification as dangerous dog and the penalty prescribed may be reviewed in the hearing, which will review all the evidence of the investigation and any defense. That may include revisiting testimony of all witnesses, affidavits and medical records used in determining the dangerous dog classification and the opted penalty.
Fl. St. 767.12 (7) exempts from this section, hunting dogs, show dogs and herding dogs when they are involved in legal activities, such as shows, trials, hunts, herding, et al, while engaged in the activity. However, a hunting dog previously classified as dangerous cannot hunt. Any dog exempted under (7), when not engaged in their sport or activity, are subject to Fl. St. 767.12 and all local laws.
Fl. St. 767.12 (8) explains the fine for violation of the provisions of Fl. St. 767.12.
Fl. St. 135 and 136 do a good job of rewording the former confusing statutory language. The new Fl. St. 767.135 addresses an attack or bite by a dog that has not been previously declared dangerous. Now, if the dog causes the death of a human, the dog will be immediately confiscated by Animal Control and held for a period outlined in the section to allow the owner to request a hearing and an appeal. The owner must act within the times prescribed by the section. And the owner will be liable for all costs of the confinement of the dog during the process.
Fl. St. 767.136 imposes a criminal penalty on an owner who is aware of the dangerous propensity of a dog, when the dog causes severe injury or death of a person, unless the dog attacks a person engaged in a criminal activity.
Fl. St. 767.16 fully exempts police dogs from this section. The section exempts a service dog used by a blind, deaf or disabled person, which bites a human or another dog, from a quarantine period if the dog’s rabies vaccine is veterinarian administered and current. Quarantine is not the same as confinement for the infliction of severe injury or death of a human.
Note to readers: The following is a rule of statutory construction: Whenever you are reading a statute which includes a word or phrase that may have many interpretations, do not assume that your interpretation is correct. Instead, each act or chapter of law has a Definition section with the definition of words used in the section. See Fl. St. 767.11 (partially displayed below) for the definition of the term “dangerous dog” and the phrase “severe injury” et al.
Definition of a dangerous dog as defined in the current Florida Dangerous Dog statute: (1) “Dangerous dog” means any dog that according to the records of the appropriate authority: (a) Has aggressively bitten, attacked, or endangered or has inflicted severe injury on a human being on public or private property; (b) Has more than once severely injured or killed a domestic animal while off the owner’s property; or (c) Has, when unprovoked, chased or approached a person upon the streets, sidewalks, or any public grounds in a menacing fashion or apparent attitude of attack, provided that such actions are attested to in a sworn statement by one or more persons and dutifully investigated by the appropriate authority. (2) “Unprovoked” means that the victim who has been conducting himself or herself peacefully and lawfully has been bitten or chased in a menacing fashion or attacked by a dog. (3) “Severe injury” means any physical injury that results in broken bones, multiple bites, or disfiguring lacerations requiring sutures or reconstructive surgery.
If your dog is involved in an incident, please see a well-versed animal law attorney to understand your rights and responsibilities with regard to the administrative Animal Control process. That process will be separate and apart from civil liability for the victim’s injuries and your attorney should explain both issues to you.
Dionne Blaessing is a regular contributor to THE NEW BARKER dog magazine’s Paw Law column. She obtained her Juris Doctor with Honors from the University of Florida in 1994. Prior to becoming an attorney, Dionne’s 20 year background in veterinary science included serving as an emergency technician at the SPCA Angell Memorial Animal Hospital in Boston; Chief of Nursing for Boston Zoological Society; managing a local veterinary hospital in Pasco County. She has also served on the board of the Suncoast SPCA in New Port Richey for 10 years, including as the board president. Her practice is in New Port Richey, and she may be reached by calling 727.992.9114.
You must be logged in to post a comment.