COLUMBUS, OHIO — A bill that would remove the “vicious” label from pit bulls is likely headed for the governor’s desk.

The Ohio Senate approved House Bill 14 by a 27-5 vote on Tuesday, with some changes.

Those modifications will have to be approved by the Ohio House of Representatives before the bill can be signed into law.

PitbBulls reportedly are the only specific breed labeled as “vicious” in the Ohio Revised Code (ORC 955.11). That will change with the new law.

The law currently defines a “vicious dog” as an animal that “(i) Has killed or caused serious injury to any person; (ii) Has caused injury, other than killing or serious injury, to any person, or has killed another dog. (iii) Belongs to a breed that is commonly known as a pit bull dog.” The label does not apply to police dogs doing their jobs.

Tom Hayden is trying to give Jerry Brown a guilt trip.

The “Chicago Seven” activist who stormed the 1968 Democratic National Convention and later married Jane Fonda has asked the California governor to consider his own dog, Sutter, before repealing the state law that lengthened the amount of time animal shelters must hold stray and abandoned pets before euthanizing them.

In an online video posted on YouTube, Hayden explains that as a state senator he wrote the legislation in 1998 to make euthanization a last resort and give animal owners a chance to recover their pets. The mandate, which has been suspended since 2009, is one of roughly 30 that Brown wants to eliminate to save money in the next fiscal year.

“Governor, I see you’re a dog owner. I can tell from the publicity that you love that dog, your wife loves that dog,” Hayden says in the video. “So stop and think: Thousands of dogs and cats are put to death needlessly every year. It’s not a budget issue…. It is a humane issue. And I urge you to look at your dog before you allow this bill that protects animals to die.”

Since Brown’s inauguration last year, Sutter has been a bona fide celebrity — at least by Sacramento standards. After Sutter attracted front-page headlines and Capitol admirers, the governor’s office created an official website and Facebook page for the first dog. An unofficial Twitter account has thousands of followers.

Brown himself has used the canine as a political prop, taking him into budget negotiations with dog-loving Republicans and offering him to the state GOP as his surrogate to debate the anti-tax crusader Grover Norquist.

According to Brown’s Department of Finance, the governor wants to repeal the shelter mandate “because it is more appropriate to allow local governments to determine how long to care for certain animals.”

Asked for a response, Brown’s press office sent the following: “Sutter could not be reached for comment.”

Senator Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) speaks at a press conference on military dog legislation in Hartford Wednesday morning.

CONNECTICUT — Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) discussed legislation recently in Hartford that would benefit military working dogs after their service on the battlefield is over.

“Military working dogs routinely patrol ahead of the line — put in harm’s way to protect our troops,” Blumenthal said Thursday. “They show extraordinary strength and loyalty every day in saving the lives and limbs of our war fighters on the battlefield. These courageous comrades help detect and disarm roadside bombs and IEDs — some of the deadliest threats to our troops.”

The bipartisan legislation would improve the adoption process for retired military working dogs. They are currently classified as equipment in the military, which leaves “the dogs’ adopters or individual military units to bear the cost of transportation,” according to a press release from Blumenthal’s office.

In the new legislation, all dogs would be transferred to the 341st Training Squadron at Lackland Air Force Base in San Antonio. The retired military dogs would travel to “the base by commercial air by using donated travel benefits also used to facilitate the travel of our service members,” according to the release.

A Retired Military Working Dogs Veterinary Care Fund would be set up for donations that will provide care for the animals.

“Retired military working dogs often continue to serve at home in offering companionship and care to war fighters,” Blumenthal said. “For their service abroad, these dogs deserve their loyalty and dedication to be returned when they are home.”

The bill would also would allow the Department of Defense to honor military dogs for their service to this country, the release stated.

“The Connecticut National Guard is proud of the fact we are the only state where a unit of the reserve component owns and operates a military working dog unit,” said Maj. Gen. Thaddeus J. Martin, Adjutant General and Commander of the Connecticut National Guard. “This is just the right thing to do for both our soldier handlers and their hard-working battle buddy.”

Legislation banning puppy farms came into effect on New Year’s Day as the government looks to clean up the country’s act.

The move comes after Ireland became known as the Puppy Farm of Europe.

Campaigners have fought for years to protect puppies from unscrupulous breeders.

Now two laws – the Welfare of Greyhounds Act and the Dogs Breeding Establishments Act – have been introduced to control dog breeding and force breeders to look after their animals properly.

The new anti-puppy farming legislation makes it impossible to produce hundreds of puppies in grim conditions.

Retired Miami-Dade Narcotics Detector Dog, Franky.

MIAMI — Franky the drug dog’s supersensitive nose is at the heart of a question being put to the U.S. Supreme Court: Does a police dog’s sniff outside a house give officers the right to get a search warrant for illegal drugs, or is the sniff an unconstitutional search?

Florida’s highest state court has said Franky’s ability to detect marijuana growing inside a Miami-area house from outside a closed front door crossed the constitutional line. The state’s attorney general wants the Supreme Court to reverse that ruling.

The justices could decide this month whether to take the case, the latest dispute about whether the use of dogs to find drugs, explosives and other illegal or dangerous substances violates the Fourth Amendment protection against illegal search and seizure.

Many court watchers expect the justices will take up the case.

“The Florida Supreme Court adopted a very broad reading of the Fourth Amendment that is different from that applied by other courts. It’s an interpretation that a majority of the U.S. Supreme Court will question,” said Tom Goldstein, who publishes the widely read SCOTUSblog website and teaches at the Harvard and Stanford law schools.

The case, Florida v. Jardines, is being closely monitored by law enforcement agencies nationwide, which depend on dogs for a wide range of law enforcement duties.

“Dogs can be a police officer’s best friend because they detect everything from marijuana or meth labs to explosives,” said Kendall Coffey, a former U.S. attorney in Miami now in private practice.

The 8-year-old Franky retired in June after a seven-year career with the Miami-Dade Police Department. He’s responsible for the seizure of more than 2.5 tons of marijuana and $4.9 million in drug-contaminated money. And because he’s an amiable chocolate Labrador, he was used extensively in airports, sports arenas and other places where people congregate.

“He’s a friendly, happy dog,” said his former handler, Detective Douglas Bartelt, who kept Franky after he retired. “People don’t have fear because of his appearance.”

The U.S. Supreme Court has approved drug dog sniffs in several other major cases. Two of those involved dogs that detected drugs during routine traffic stops. In another, a dog found drugs in airport luggage. A fourth involved a drug-laden package in transit.

The Florida case is different because it involves a private residence. The high court has repeatedly emphasized that a home is entitled to greater privacy than cars on the road or a suitcase in an airport. In another major ruling, the justices decided in 2001 that police could not use thermal imaging technology to detect heat from marijuana grow operations from outside a home because the equipment could also detect lawful activity.

“We have said that the Fourth Amendment draws a firm line at the entrance to the house,” the court ruled in that case, known as Kyllo v. United States. The justices added that the thermal devices could detect such intimate details as “at what hour each night the lady of the house takes her daily sauna and bath.”

It’s well-settled that law enforcement officials can walk up to a home and knock on the front door, in hopes that someone will open up and talk. But if a person inside refuses, the officers must get a search warrant — and for that they need evidence of a crime.

On the morning of Dec. 5, 2006, Miami-Dade police detectives and U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration agents set up surveillance outside a house south of the city after getting an anonymous tip that it might contain a marijuana grow operation. Bartelt arrived with Franky. The dog quickly detected the odor of pot at the base of the front door and sat down as he was trained to do.

That sniff was used to get a search warrant from a judge. The house was searched and its lone occupant, Joelis Jardines, was arrested trying to escape out the back door. Officers pulled 179 live marijuana plants from the house, with an estimated street value of more than $700,000.

Jardines, now 39, was charged with marijuana trafficking and grand theft for stealing electricity needed to run the highly sophisticated operation. He pleaded not guilty and his attorney challenged the search, claiming Franky’s sniff outside the front door was an unconstitutional law enforcement intrusion into the home.

The trial judge agreed and threw out the evidence seized in the search, but that was reversed by an intermediate appeals court. In April a divided Florida Supreme Court sided with the original judge.

In its petition to the U.S. Supreme Court, state lawyers argue that the Florida Supreme Court’s decision conflicts with numerous previous rulings that a dog sniff is not a search.

“A dog sniff of a house reveals only that the house contains drugs, not any other private information about the house or the persons in it,” wrote Carolyn Snurkowski, Florida associate deputy attorney general. “A person has no reasonable expectation of privacy in illegal drugs.”

The criminal case against Jardines is on hold until the question involving Franky’s nose is settled. Meanwhile, Jardines is out on bail following a 2010 arrest for alleged armed robbery and aggravated assault. He pleaded not guilty in that one, as well, and trial is set for Feb. 21.

Daniel’s law would stop the gassing of dogs and cats as a form of euthanasia in Pennsylvania. It is still legal in over 30 states. State Senator Andy Dinniman is leading the charge.

The law is named after a Beagle Mix that survived being gassed at a Alabama Shelter earlier this Fall. The shelter staff couldn’t bear gassing him again and reached out for an adopter. That’s when Eleventh Hour Rescue in Morris County, New Jersey stepped in.

Pilot’s ‘n’ Paws flew Daniel up to New Jersey and Eleventh Hour Rescue found a great home for him with dog lover, Joe Dwyer and his family.

“Today’s important first step to pass Daniel’s law in Pennsylvania brought great joy to so many, including Daniel himself who howled in celebration when I told him the news.” said Joe Dwyer, “We must continue on to finalize the Law in Pennsylvania and then take on the rest of our country!”

As Senator Dinniman said this morning, “On to the Senate!”

When asked about the special homecoming with his companion, the Marine offered that “It doesn’t matter… how much you’ve screwed up in your life, you know, your dog is always your best friend.”

Heart-warming video of the marine‘s reunion with man’s best friend can be see below, courtesy of Fox and Friends:

In an email to a Senate committee, Mr. Nelson, an ambassador for the Best Friends Animal Society, urged passage of House Bill 14. The bill would do away with the breed-specific language and make other changes to dog enforcement law.

“Ohio is the only state that discriminates against dogs who share a cluster of physical characteristics by classifying this group as ‘vicious’ without any regard to individual dog behavior,” the email reads. “These dogs are considered ‘vicious’ at birth, even though there are countless dogs of unknown heritage who are deemed ‘pit bulls’ who are wonderful family pets.

“In addition to being beloved pets, many ‘pit bulls’ are show dogs, search and rescue dogs, and service dogs,” Mr. Nelson wrote.

“The current law infringes on responsible dog owners’ rights to own any dog they choose, no matter what the dog’s appearance. Dogs, like people, are individuals and should each be judged on his/her own merits.”

The bill, sponsored by Rep. Barbara Sears (R., Monclova Township), passed the House 69-29 last spring. The Senate Judiciary Committee began its consideration of the measure Wednesday. Opposition has come primarily from lawmakers from urban areas where “pit bulls” have become a dog of choice for dog-fighting and to guard drug houses.

Current law defines a “vicious dog” as one that, without provocation, has killed or seriously injured a person, has killed another dog, or is of the general breed known as “pit bull.” House Bill 14 would replace that language with revised definitions of “vicious” and “dangerous” dogs and create a new classification of “nuisance” dog. None would include any breed-specific language.

“Recently, Toledo, the largest city in [Lucas County], had an extremely restrictive dog ordinance that is focused on pit bulls,” Ms. Sears told the Senate Judiciary Committee. “Toledo also has the highest dog license fees in the state and spent a large amount each year euthanizing innocent dogs that resemble pit bulls.

“Despite Toledo’s extremely restrictive ordinance that focuses on pit bulls, the number of dog bites actually rose in 2008,” she said. “Toledo’s ordinance did not address the irresponsible owners. It killed dogs.”

Toledo has since eliminated its breed-specific law. House Bill 14 would not overwrite local ordinances enacted in home-rule communities.

The state issue has attracted attention from across the nation as well.

More than 11,000 people have signed an online petition at Change.org calling on Ohio senators to remove “pit bull” from the state’s definition of vicious dogs.

Jean Keating, president of the Ohio Coalition of Dog Advocates, is leading the campaign, which has gained the support of actor Ian Somerhalder of television shows Lost and The Vampire Diaries.

In Ohio, this marks the second time that the House has passed a bill to eliminate Ohio’s distinction as the only state with a breed-specific law. Such a measure died in the Senate last session, but Ms. Sears said she’s confident that additions to the bill providing additional tools and fees to dog wardens will make the difference this time.

Under the bill, the most severe classification of a “vicious” dog would be one that, without provocation, has killed or seriously injured a person. A “dangerous” dog would be one that has killed another dog or been a three-time offender as a “nuisance” dog.

These two most serious classifications would trigger registration, liability insurance, signage, housing, microchip, and other requirements.

A “nuisance” dog would be one that while, off its owner’s property, menacingly chased, approached, or attempted to bite a person. The first offense would start a record with the dog warden. Critics have complained that the bill would essentially allow the dog a free first bite before restrictions are imposed on owners.

The group staged a protest in front of San Francisco’s South Korean consulate this week, where they delivered a petition with over 15,000 signatures urging the South Korean government to do more to stop the consumption of dogs and cats inside of its borders.

This week’s event is part of the “International Day of Action for South Korean Dogs and Cats” the organization is simultaneously holding in dozens of cities all over the world.

“While it’s now technically illegal to eat dogs and cats in South Korea, the government has not been good about enforcing the laws, thus allowing the tradition to continue in parts of the country,” In Defense of Animals Campaign Manager Robin Dorman says. “So killing dogs and cats is illegal, but the processing and sale of the animals is not”, she added.

“The law is deliberately obscure”.

Consumption of cats and dogs in South Korea has decreased in recent years as more people in the Land of the Morning Calm take these animals as pets, which has led to the formation of a burgeoning animal rights movement in the nation.

Earlier this year, the South Korean government bowed to domestic and international pressure and closed Moran Market, the infamous outdoor market near Seoul where a majority of the country’s dog meat was sold.

South Korea has come under scrutiny for the practice of eating dogs before, particularly during international sporting events hosted there, such as the 1998 Seoul Olympics and the 2002 FIFA World Cup, co-hosted with Japan.

Some reports following the 2002 World Cup said the practice of torturing dogs before slaughter had ended, and that dogs killed for meat were killed instantly by electric shock.

In the late 1990s, there were efforts in Korea to classify dogs as livestock similar to cows or chickens and move them out of the black market, where their pre-slaughter treatment was particularly inhumane. Those efforts were stymied by anti-dog meat activists who pushed legislators away from moving the practice into an arena where it could be monitored and regulated.

Story by Elaine Furst for Dog Files