Re: [PyrNet-L] Legislation/Ohio H.B. #108

[Kshoffman@aol.com]

In a message dated 03/20/2000 8:02:57 AM Eastern Standard Time, 
conmara@oaktree.net writes:

> My quick read on this bill is that they are referring to animals in some
>  kind of 'IMPOUNDMENT or confinement'.  Kind of like staking Fido out in
>  the backyard without any shelter.  If that's the real intent of the bill
>  - then I'd be fot it.

Except, Ken, they've revised the bill again, and what's up on the website is 
not the most recent revision.  I'm trying to get my hands on the new version. 
The most recent revisions are what was being discussed on the TV program.

They've apparently totally deleted the reference to natural barrier or 
vegetation type shelters that would be acceptable (because they want dogs 
that live outside and can take shelter under trees to be included as a 
violation), and they've toughened up other wording including that regarding 
ventilation to make it more akin to ventilation that would be required for a 
suitable human home dwelling (because they want outside dogs that have access 
to dog houses, barns, sheds, garages, as shelter to also be included as a 
violation).

I'm sure if I send off for a copy of the most recent wording, it will have 
changed again by the time I get what I requested. *G*

Kelley