The Pennsylvania Supreme Court says the SPCA is Not a State Agency and is not entitled to the defense of sovereign or governmental immunity.
The court upheld a Philadelphia jury's verdict that awarded a women $155,000 from the Pennsylvania Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (PSPCA) after about a dozen dogs taken from her home were euthanized. The dog owner, Laila Snead of Reading, says she's pleased with the decision but nothing will bring her dogs back.
Thank goodness for this ruling. Although Ms.Snead's dogs are gone, it has implications for others whose animals are stolen and disposed of by over-zealous non-profit organizations.
Showing posts with label Pennsylvania. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Pennsylvania. Show all posts
Thursday, December 31, 2009
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
PA: Harrisburg Human Society warned by Pennsylvania inspectors on cage sizes
Harrisburg Humane Society warned by Pennsylvania inspectors on cage sizesBy John Luciew
October 14, 2009, 3:44PM
UPDATE: A Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture inspector warned the Harrisburg Humane Society last month that a number of its cages were too small for the dogs being housed, according to department press secretary Justin Fleming.
Fleming sought to correct a earlier statement made by his staff that the animal agency was warned by the state that its Swatara Township, Dauphin County, kennel was overcrowded following a Sept. 22 inspection. That was not the case, Fleming said.
As a nonprofit shelter, the Humane Society is allowed to have an unlimited number of dogs provided there is ample space so as to not endanger the welfare of the dogs, Fleming said. At the time of the Sept. 22 inspection, the Humane Society housed 178 dogs, including 20 puppies, he said.
The state does require that dogs have at least six inches of head room in their cages. The state inspector found that a number of dogs at the Humane Society of Harrisburg Area were in cages that were too small for them, Fleming said.
October 14, 2009, 3:44PM
UPDATE: A Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture inspector warned the Harrisburg Humane Society last month that a number of its cages were too small for the dogs being housed, according to department press secretary Justin Fleming.
Fleming sought to correct a earlier statement made by his staff that the animal agency was warned by the state that its Swatara Township, Dauphin County, kennel was overcrowded following a Sept. 22 inspection. That was not the case, Fleming said.
As a nonprofit shelter, the Humane Society is allowed to have an unlimited number of dogs provided there is ample space so as to not endanger the welfare of the dogs, Fleming said. At the time of the Sept. 22 inspection, the Humane Society housed 178 dogs, including 20 puppies, he said.
The state does require that dogs have at least six inches of head room in their cages. The state inspector found that a number of dogs at the Humane Society of Harrisburg Area were in cages that were too small for them, Fleming said.
PA: Humane Society takes a dog from a homeless man- and won't return him even after a court order to do so
Good Grief! Give the man his dog back! This man lost his home, his job, his wife and family, and now the HS takes his DOG!!! You have got to be kidding!
What are the buzz words the Human Society always uses to make the public think they were doing a "service"?- words like "cruelty", but more and more they are just STEALING people's pets! Is Baron REALLY better off in an over crowded shelter? I think not. Every day that dog is experiencing stress of being in in what amounts to JAIL- Give Thomas his dog back!!
At a federal hearing last week over the custody of on of its dogs,
by John Luciew
Humane Society of Harrisburg Area executive director Amy Kaunas testified that the shelter routinely houses an average of 200 dogs at any given time.
Miles Thomas, the formerly homeless owner of Baron the collie, has been battling the Humane Society for the return of his dog since July 26 when the agency's canine officer seized Baron from Thomas’ ventilated car as he lunched in Middletown. The animal agency said it took the dog as part of a cruelty investigation after receiving a call from Middletown police. Thomas, who was battling bouts of homelessness, was never charged and went to the Humane Society to recover Baron the next day, but was denied.
Last week, U.S. District Judge John E. Jones III halted a hearing on the custody of the dog and outlined a plan for co-adoption of the dog by Thomas and Steve Conklin with monitoring by the Humane Society for six months. After that, Thomas stood to regain full ownership of the 7-year-old collie.
However, Andrew Ostrowski, attorney for Thomas, said Wednesday that the Humane Society is balking over what Ostrowski called "slight modifications" in the adoption form requested by Conklin, who is housing the formerly-homeless Thomas and would be co-adopter of the dog. Baron remains at the shelter.
What are the buzz words the Human Society always uses to make the public think they were doing a "service"?- words like "cruelty", but more and more they are just STEALING people's pets! Is Baron REALLY better off in an over crowded shelter? I think not. Every day that dog is experiencing stress of being in in what amounts to JAIL- Give Thomas his dog back!!
At a federal hearing last week over the custody of on of its dogs,
by John Luciew
Humane Society of Harrisburg Area executive director Amy Kaunas testified that the shelter routinely houses an average of 200 dogs at any given time.
Miles Thomas, the formerly homeless owner of Baron the collie, has been battling the Humane Society for the return of his dog since July 26 when the agency's canine officer seized Baron from Thomas’ ventilated car as he lunched in Middletown. The animal agency said it took the dog as part of a cruelty investigation after receiving a call from Middletown police. Thomas, who was battling bouts of homelessness, was never charged and went to the Humane Society to recover Baron the next day, but was denied.
Last week, U.S. District Judge John E. Jones III halted a hearing on the custody of the dog and outlined a plan for co-adoption of the dog by Thomas and Steve Conklin with monitoring by the Humane Society for six months. After that, Thomas stood to regain full ownership of the 7-year-old collie.
However, Andrew Ostrowski, attorney for Thomas, said Wednesday that the Humane Society is balking over what Ostrowski called "slight modifications" in the adoption form requested by Conklin, who is housing the formerly-homeless Thomas and would be co-adopter of the dog. Baron remains at the shelter.
Wednesday, August 26, 2009
PA: Animal Welfare Debate Takes Center Stage
Animal Welfare Debate Takes Center Stage
From: Lancaster Farming. Follow this link to the article
Submitted by Editor on Fri, 08/21/2009 - 11:25am.
Charlene M. Shupp
Espenshade
Special Sections Editor
HERSHEY, Pa. — The take-home message from last week’s Animal Welfare Forum was simple. Chad Gregory of the United Egg Producers and Paul Shapiro of the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) agreed to disagree.
During the two-hour discussion, farmers, veterinarians and industry professionals heard Gregory and Shapiro discuss the impact of California’s Proposition 2 ballot initiative from 2009. This was the first time both have addressed a group jointly on animal agriculture production. The event was sponsored by PennAg Industries Association and the Pennsylvania Veterinary Medical Association.
Last year, both sides spent millions of dollars to argue their viewpoints on the ballot initiative that would essentially eliminate gestation crates for swine, battery cages for chickens and crates for veal calves.
The question voters had to answer was this: “Should farm animals have the ability to stand up, sit down, turn around, and extend their limbs without touching anything?” Both sides built coalitions before the election to make their case. For Californians, the answer was a resounding “yes,” winning 63 to 37 percent.
Shapiro noted that the ballot garnered more “yes” votes than any other citizen initiative in California history and that it won majorities of all major demographics.
Gregory said the electorate did not understand what they were voting for, and Shapiro countered that the overwhelming support for the measure showed that, for the most part, it was an obvious choice.
The battle over animal welfare has gained momentum in several states in addition to California. In states where the issue was taken through the state legislature, Gregory said his organization has won because they have been able to use science to explain their side of the issue to legislators.
On the other hand, in states where the issue can be decided by a ballot initiative, HSUS has been successful.
Gregory asked this rhetorical question: If all the HSUS wanted to do was ban battery cages, why did they not simplify the language to reflect that? He believes it is so HSUS can expand the meaning of the law as it is implemented.
“We cannot feed these (additional) people without concentrated, commercial-sized farms,” said Gregory. “It’s impossible.” He noted that 95 percent of all egg production is in caged egg production facilities.
In trying to separate the differences between the two groups, Gregory said organizations like his represent “farmers who get dirt under their fingernails.”
Shapiro said that the strength of the HSUS comes from its membership, and that in a recent survey HSUS placed in the top 10 in brand recognition — the only group that did not represent a human welfare topic with that distinction. He also said 1 in 28 Americans support HSUS.
Consumers, Gregory believes, should be allowed to decide how their eggs are produced — caged, cage-free, or organic — at the grocery checkout line.
The egg industry saw welfare-driven production changes happening in Europe and decided to take a proactive approach to the issue. United Egg Producers (UEP) developed an animal welfare committee to craft a scientifically-based set of guidelines for the industry.
“We did not want the guidelines to be driven by government mandates and activist organizations,” said Gregory. “We wanted guidelines to prevent disruption in the industry.”
The program has requirements for space per bird, and also addresses molting, beak trimming and lighting. Participating farms must have 100 percent of their farm audited and file compliance reports.
“This program has incredible teeth, it has been very credible,” Gregory said, noting that 80 percent of farms are participating. Additionally, cage-free programs certified by UEP are also accredited by the American Humane Association.
Gregory challenged Shapiro, saying if HSUS and PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) were “really interested in improving the welfare of chickens, they would go after the remaining 20 percent to get them into the program.”
Proposition 2, according to Shapiro, was grassroots driven with countless volunteers reaching out to their neighbors to share their concerns with the welfare of farm animals. Most states do not have laws on the books regarding animal welfare for livestock.
Both Gregory and Shapiro used science and research for their sides of the argument, in some cases using the same study to make their points.
According to Gregory, if cages were banned, the ramifications would include an increase of 15 million hens to produce the same number of eggs, a doubling of chicken mortality, and greater feed needs — to the tune of an additional one million acres of cropland for grain.
Both pointed to the economic study that says it costs one cent more per egg to move from caged to cage free production. Shapiro said that the costs to producers and consumers would not be much. Gregory said the study does not include the upfront investments that will be needed by farmers. He also noted the differences in store costs of more than a $1 dollar per dozen for eggs from cage-free hens and nearly $3 for organic compared to eggs from caged hens.
Both argued food safety points. Gregory used studies demonstrating that eggs produced in a cages system were safer. Shapiro pointed to studies showing the food safety benefits of cage-free.
Shapiro said that the egg industry only has to look to the broiler industry.
Broilers are raised on floors. He said the object of HSUS’s work is not to take farmers out of business.
“We’re not talking about making ideal living conditions for animals,” he said. “We are talking about raising the bar for animal welfare.”
Gregory concluded that Americans need to be careful in their choices because of the long-term effects. Looking to Europe, he said that consumers need to move forward with caution. Since many changes have come to regulations in the European Union, animal food production has been unable to keep pace with demand and those countries are on the verge of an egg shortage. To make up the difference, they will have to import eggs from countries that do not follow animal welfare standards.
Charlene Shupp Espenshade can be reached at cshupp.eph@lnpnews.com.
From: Lancaster Farming. Follow this link to the article
Submitted by Editor on Fri, 08/21/2009 - 11:25am.
Charlene M. Shupp
Espenshade
Special Sections Editor
HERSHEY, Pa. — The take-home message from last week’s Animal Welfare Forum was simple. Chad Gregory of the United Egg Producers and Paul Shapiro of the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) agreed to disagree.
During the two-hour discussion, farmers, veterinarians and industry professionals heard Gregory and Shapiro discuss the impact of California’s Proposition 2 ballot initiative from 2009. This was the first time both have addressed a group jointly on animal agriculture production. The event was sponsored by PennAg Industries Association and the Pennsylvania Veterinary Medical Association.
Last year, both sides spent millions of dollars to argue their viewpoints on the ballot initiative that would essentially eliminate gestation crates for swine, battery cages for chickens and crates for veal calves.
The question voters had to answer was this: “Should farm animals have the ability to stand up, sit down, turn around, and extend their limbs without touching anything?” Both sides built coalitions before the election to make their case. For Californians, the answer was a resounding “yes,” winning 63 to 37 percent.
Shapiro noted that the ballot garnered more “yes” votes than any other citizen initiative in California history and that it won majorities of all major demographics.
Gregory said the electorate did not understand what they were voting for, and Shapiro countered that the overwhelming support for the measure showed that, for the most part, it was an obvious choice.
The battle over animal welfare has gained momentum in several states in addition to California. In states where the issue was taken through the state legislature, Gregory said his organization has won because they have been able to use science to explain their side of the issue to legislators.
On the other hand, in states where the issue can be decided by a ballot initiative, HSUS has been successful.
Gregory asked this rhetorical question: If all the HSUS wanted to do was ban battery cages, why did they not simplify the language to reflect that? He believes it is so HSUS can expand the meaning of the law as it is implemented.
“We cannot feed these (additional) people without concentrated, commercial-sized farms,” said Gregory. “It’s impossible.” He noted that 95 percent of all egg production is in caged egg production facilities.
In trying to separate the differences between the two groups, Gregory said organizations like his represent “farmers who get dirt under their fingernails.”
Shapiro said that the strength of the HSUS comes from its membership, and that in a recent survey HSUS placed in the top 10 in brand recognition — the only group that did not represent a human welfare topic with that distinction. He also said 1 in 28 Americans support HSUS.
Consumers, Gregory believes, should be allowed to decide how their eggs are produced — caged, cage-free, or organic — at the grocery checkout line.
The egg industry saw welfare-driven production changes happening in Europe and decided to take a proactive approach to the issue. United Egg Producers (UEP) developed an animal welfare committee to craft a scientifically-based set of guidelines for the industry.
“We did not want the guidelines to be driven by government mandates and activist organizations,” said Gregory. “We wanted guidelines to prevent disruption in the industry.”
The program has requirements for space per bird, and also addresses molting, beak trimming and lighting. Participating farms must have 100 percent of their farm audited and file compliance reports.
“This program has incredible teeth, it has been very credible,” Gregory said, noting that 80 percent of farms are participating. Additionally, cage-free programs certified by UEP are also accredited by the American Humane Association.
Gregory challenged Shapiro, saying if HSUS and PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) were “really interested in improving the welfare of chickens, they would go after the remaining 20 percent to get them into the program.”
Proposition 2, according to Shapiro, was grassroots driven with countless volunteers reaching out to their neighbors to share their concerns with the welfare of farm animals. Most states do not have laws on the books regarding animal welfare for livestock.
Both Gregory and Shapiro used science and research for their sides of the argument, in some cases using the same study to make their points.
According to Gregory, if cages were banned, the ramifications would include an increase of 15 million hens to produce the same number of eggs, a doubling of chicken mortality, and greater feed needs — to the tune of an additional one million acres of cropland for grain.
Both pointed to the economic study that says it costs one cent more per egg to move from caged to cage free production. Shapiro said that the costs to producers and consumers would not be much. Gregory said the study does not include the upfront investments that will be needed by farmers. He also noted the differences in store costs of more than a $1 dollar per dozen for eggs from cage-free hens and nearly $3 for organic compared to eggs from caged hens.
Both argued food safety points. Gregory used studies demonstrating that eggs produced in a cages system were safer. Shapiro pointed to studies showing the food safety benefits of cage-free.
Shapiro said that the egg industry only has to look to the broiler industry.
Broilers are raised on floors. He said the object of HSUS’s work is not to take farmers out of business.
“We’re not talking about making ideal living conditions for animals,” he said. “We are talking about raising the bar for animal welfare.”
Gregory concluded that Americans need to be careful in their choices because of the long-term effects. Looking to Europe, he said that consumers need to move forward with caution. Since many changes have come to regulations in the European Union, animal food production has been unable to keep pace with demand and those countries are on the verge of an egg shortage. To make up the difference, they will have to import eggs from countries that do not follow animal welfare standards.
Charlene Shupp Espenshade can be reached at cshupp.eph@lnpnews.com.
Sunday, August 16, 2009
Sophie's (ur.... Wendy's) Choice- a modern day, dilemna of powerful forces enforcing personal agendas
Sophie's Choice in Philadelphia
(author unknow at the moment- it will appear in the Chronical of the Horse on Friday)
Wendy Willard, a retired school teacher and MBH of the Murder Hollow Bassets, kennels her hounds in a barn near her house located inside a 340-acre nature preserve, the largest single privately-owned parcel of land within the city limits of Philadelphia.
On Monday, July 27, seven officers from the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania's Bureau of Dog Law Enforcement, the Philadelphia Police, and the Pennsylvania Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (PSPCA), in as many vehicles, staged a full-scale raid on Murder Hollow's kennels apparently in an unsuccessful search for an illegal dog breeding operation.
Murder Hollow had, at the time, ten and 1/2 couple of hounds, and Ms. Willard was additionally keeping two aged and retired bassets in her house. The Commonwealth Dog Law Enforcement officers found no illegal kennels under state law, and took their leave, but PSPCA "Humane Law Officers" accused Wendy Willard of being in violation of Philadelphia's Animal Control Code, which requires a waiver from the Department of Public Health for the keeping of more than 12 dogs or cats in "a residential dwelling unit."
Wendy Willard had found on her front door a card from PSPCA containing no message a few days prior to the raid. On Monday, the authorities arrived again and requested entry, then returned promptly equipped with a warrant after being initially turned away.
In subsequent reports by PSPCA, no mention of a search for a dog kennel violating state law, which according to Jessie Smith, Deputy Director of the Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture, was the Bureau of Dog Law Enforcement's basis for obtaining the search warrant used to gain entry to the Murder Hollow property, was ever made. The raid, featuring seven officers from three official organizations with five trucks and two police cars, according to PSPCA's later statements, was simply occasioned by a (never identified) neighbor complaining of dogs barking.
PSPCA Humane Officer Tara Loller proceeded to present Wendy Willard with the kind of cruel dilemma depicted in William Styron's 1979 novel Sophie's Choice. In the novel (made into a 1982 film starring Meryl Streep), a young Polish mother sent to Auschwitz is forced by a sadistic Nazi doctor to choose which of her two children she will be allowed to keep and which will be immediately gassed.
"They are my family," a distraught Willard said of her dogs,†reported the Philadelphia Daily News on August 7th.
Loller demanded that Wendy Willard immediately surrender eleven hounds, reducing the number on her property to twelve (and agree to have all but four of those remaining neutered), or Willard was warned, PSPCA would take all her hounds. "We can give you enough citations to take your house," the PSPCA officers boasted to Willard.
According to a one former PSPCA humane officer, quoted in a story in the Pocono Record last December, this kind of tactic is a standard part of PSPCA humane officer training statewide. "We were taught to intimidate people into giving their animals up. We were told to tell them "in lieu of charges, surrender your animals." Some former officers told the Record that they were given a quota of surrendered animals to fill, and that humane officers' annual bonus payments were dependent on meeting their quotas. In order to persuade animal owners to sign surrender documents, PSPCA Humane Officers are evidently not above lying.
Three of the hounds on Wendy Willard's property had come from the Sandanona Hare Hounds of Millbrook, New York. Sandanona's Master Betsy Park , specifically in order to avoid any of her hounds ever falling into the hands of an animal shelter, makes a policy of retaining title to any hounds drafted, given as stud fees, or retired from her pack. With any hound originating from Sandanona comes a contract requiring its return to Mrs. Park in the event that it can no longer be cared for at its new home. The PSPC A officers assured Wendy Willard that Betsy Park would be able to reclaim her hounds after their surrender. She would, naturally, have "first claim" to their new adoption. There was, of course, no truth whatsoever in those assurances, but they led Wendy Willard to believe that unlucky Sappho, Anxious, and Harlem would have a better chance of being recovered.
PSPCA, in the case of pedigreed dogs like the Murder Hollow Bassets, channels them into a breed-oriented rescue system, which houses them in private foster homes, and then distributes the basset hounds to new owners in exchange for a $200 adoption fee. Less desirable animals, "rescued" by PSPCA after a 72 hour hold time are simply euthanized.
PSPCA in its press releases has repeatedly claimed the eleven bassets taken had been transferred to foster care by a partner rescue organization. Apparently, however, this is not the case. I personally contacted basset rescue organizations last weekend, trying to identify the location of the seized hounds. The director of adoptions at the regional rescue organization told me he had been scheduled to receive 10 of the bassets taken from Murder Hollow, but that the transfer had been cancelled, and the hounds "frozen" and "locked down" in the PSPCA holding facility as "evidence" is a case now considered under dispute.
Evidently, either efforts by Sandanona to recover their three hounds, or discussion and criticism of the Murder Hollow raid on a variety of dog-breed-oriented bulletin boards on the Internet beginning about the same time early last week was deemed sufficient by PSPCA to cause the animal welfare organization to move to the defensive. As a news report on a similar PSPCA case observes, whenever there is a legal challenge to PSPCA, the confiscated animals become live evidence, and will be kept in storage cages for months, and sometimes years, while court cases drag on. Animals whose ownership is under dispute will not be transferred for adoption.
It may not be completely coincidental that the PSPCA additionally stopped applauding Wendy Willard for "working to clean and improve the kennels" or being "encouraged by her efforts," but instead was disappointed to find on upon its Friday, August 7th follow-up inspection that "overall living conditions remained poor" resulting in 11 citations for unsanitary conditions, 11 citations for lack of veterinary care and two tickets for barking.
The raid on the Murder Hollow kennels and PSPCA's policies, operations, and behavior in the present case have been widely criticized on the Internet and by field sports organizations rallying to Wendy Willard's defense.
William E. Bobbitt, Jr., president of the registry and organizational authority for hunting basset packs, wrote:
"Wendy Willard hasmaintained a pack of Basset Hounds recognized by the National Beagle Club of America since 1989. She frequently brings her hounds to the Institute Farm to compete in the Basset Pack Trials held there and her hounds are always fit and well cared for. In fact, she treats her hounds like family members. We want to support Wendy in her efforts to maintain the 6 couple of hounds that remain with her, but we also have great concern for the welfare of the hounds which were seized and taken.
There are Basset packs that are willing and anxious to take those hounds in and provide them with good hunting homes, which is what they are used to, and we hope that the PSPCA will cooperate in making these placements possible, instead of keeping the hounds confined in cages at a holding facility."
Lt. Col. Dennis Foster (USA, ret.), Executive Director of the Master of Foxhounds Association of America, the senior scenthound organization in the United States, called the PSPCA's actions "a travesty." He described the confiscation of Murder Hollow's hounds as "a classic example of a government agency going out of bounds." Foster dismissed the PSPCA's charges against Ms. Willard and described their subsequent handling of the Murder Hollow bassets as recognizable as the "behavior of people who do not understand hounds."
(This article will appear in the Chronical of the Horse on Friday)
(author unknow at the moment- it will appear in the Chronical of the Horse on Friday)
Wendy Willard, a retired school teacher and MBH of the Murder Hollow Bassets, kennels her hounds in a barn near her house located inside a 340-acre nature preserve, the largest single privately-owned parcel of land within the city limits of Philadelphia.
On Monday, July 27, seven officers from the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania's Bureau of Dog Law Enforcement, the Philadelphia Police, and the Pennsylvania Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (PSPCA), in as many vehicles, staged a full-scale raid on Murder Hollow's kennels apparently in an unsuccessful search for an illegal dog breeding operation.
Murder Hollow had, at the time, ten and 1/2 couple of hounds, and Ms. Willard was additionally keeping two aged and retired bassets in her house. The Commonwealth Dog Law Enforcement officers found no illegal kennels under state law, and took their leave, but PSPCA "Humane Law Officers" accused Wendy Willard of being in violation of Philadelphia's Animal Control Code, which requires a waiver from the Department of Public Health for the keeping of more than 12 dogs or cats in "a residential dwelling unit."
Wendy Willard had found on her front door a card from PSPCA containing no message a few days prior to the raid. On Monday, the authorities arrived again and requested entry, then returned promptly equipped with a warrant after being initially turned away.
In subsequent reports by PSPCA, no mention of a search for a dog kennel violating state law, which according to Jessie Smith, Deputy Director of the Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture, was the Bureau of Dog Law Enforcement's basis for obtaining the search warrant used to gain entry to the Murder Hollow property, was ever made. The raid, featuring seven officers from three official organizations with five trucks and two police cars, according to PSPCA's later statements, was simply occasioned by a (never identified) neighbor complaining of dogs barking.
PSPCA Humane Officer Tara Loller proceeded to present Wendy Willard with the kind of cruel dilemma depicted in William Styron's 1979 novel Sophie's Choice. In the novel (made into a 1982 film starring Meryl Streep), a young Polish mother sent to Auschwitz is forced by a sadistic Nazi doctor to choose which of her two children she will be allowed to keep and which will be immediately gassed.
"They are my family," a distraught Willard said of her dogs,†reported the Philadelphia Daily News on August 7th.
Loller demanded that Wendy Willard immediately surrender eleven hounds, reducing the number on her property to twelve (and agree to have all but four of those remaining neutered), or Willard was warned, PSPCA would take all her hounds. "We can give you enough citations to take your house," the PSPCA officers boasted to Willard.
According to a one former PSPCA humane officer, quoted in a story in the Pocono Record last December, this kind of tactic is a standard part of PSPCA humane officer training statewide. "We were taught to intimidate people into giving their animals up. We were told to tell them "in lieu of charges, surrender your animals." Some former officers told the Record that they were given a quota of surrendered animals to fill, and that humane officers' annual bonus payments were dependent on meeting their quotas. In order to persuade animal owners to sign surrender documents, PSPCA Humane Officers are evidently not above lying.
Three of the hounds on Wendy Willard's property had come from the Sandanona Hare Hounds of Millbrook, New York. Sandanona's Master Betsy Park , specifically in order to avoid any of her hounds ever falling into the hands of an animal shelter, makes a policy of retaining title to any hounds drafted, given as stud fees, or retired from her pack. With any hound originating from Sandanona comes a contract requiring its return to Mrs. Park in the event that it can no longer be cared for at its new home. The PSPC A officers assured Wendy Willard that Betsy Park would be able to reclaim her hounds after their surrender. She would, naturally, have "first claim" to their new adoption. There was, of course, no truth whatsoever in those assurances, but they led Wendy Willard to believe that unlucky Sappho, Anxious, and Harlem would have a better chance of being recovered.
PSPCA, in the case of pedigreed dogs like the Murder Hollow Bassets, channels them into a breed-oriented rescue system, which houses them in private foster homes, and then distributes the basset hounds to new owners in exchange for a $200 adoption fee. Less desirable animals, "rescued" by PSPCA after a 72 hour hold time are simply euthanized.
PSPCA in its press releases has repeatedly claimed the eleven bassets taken had been transferred to foster care by a partner rescue organization. Apparently, however, this is not the case. I personally contacted basset rescue organizations last weekend, trying to identify the location of the seized hounds. The director of adoptions at the regional rescue organization told me he had been scheduled to receive 10 of the bassets taken from Murder Hollow, but that the transfer had been cancelled, and the hounds "frozen" and "locked down" in the PSPCA holding facility as "evidence" is a case now considered under dispute.
Evidently, either efforts by Sandanona to recover their three hounds, or discussion and criticism of the Murder Hollow raid on a variety of dog-breed-oriented bulletin boards on the Internet beginning about the same time early last week was deemed sufficient by PSPCA to cause the animal welfare organization to move to the defensive. As a news report on a similar PSPCA case observes, whenever there is a legal challenge to PSPCA, the confiscated animals become live evidence, and will be kept in storage cages for months, and sometimes years, while court cases drag on. Animals whose ownership is under dispute will not be transferred for adoption.
It may not be completely coincidental that the PSPCA additionally stopped applauding Wendy Willard for "working to clean and improve the kennels" or being "encouraged by her efforts," but instead was disappointed to find on upon its Friday, August 7th follow-up inspection that "overall living conditions remained poor" resulting in 11 citations for unsanitary conditions, 11 citations for lack of veterinary care and two tickets for barking.
The raid on the Murder Hollow kennels and PSPCA's policies, operations, and behavior in the present case have been widely criticized on the Internet and by field sports organizations rallying to Wendy Willard's defense.
William E. Bobbitt, Jr., president of the registry and organizational authority for hunting basset packs, wrote:
"Wendy Willard hasmaintained a pack of Basset Hounds recognized by the National Beagle Club of America since 1989. She frequently brings her hounds to the Institute Farm to compete in the Basset Pack Trials held there and her hounds are always fit and well cared for. In fact, she treats her hounds like family members. We want to support Wendy in her efforts to maintain the 6 couple of hounds that remain with her, but we also have great concern for the welfare of the hounds which were seized and taken.
There are Basset packs that are willing and anxious to take those hounds in and provide them with good hunting homes, which is what they are used to, and we hope that the PSPCA will cooperate in making these placements possible, instead of keeping the hounds confined in cages at a holding facility."
Lt. Col. Dennis Foster (USA, ret.), Executive Director of the Master of Foxhounds Association of America, the senior scenthound organization in the United States, called the PSPCA's actions "a travesty." He described the confiscation of Murder Hollow's hounds as "a classic example of a government agency going out of bounds." Foster dismissed the PSPCA's charges against Ms. Willard and described their subsequent handling of the Murder Hollow bassets as recognizable as the "behavior of people who do not understand hounds."
(This article will appear in the Chronical of the Horse on Friday)
Tuesday, August 4, 2009
PA- Wilkes-Barre mayor wants BSL
Wilkes-Barre mayor wants BSL
A very determined young woman, Samantha Blum of Wilkes-Barre is working to try and prevent Wilkes-Barre's mayor, Thomas M. Leighton form gaining permission from Pennsylvania state legislators to ignore the statewide law disallowing municipalities in the state to enact BSL (Breed Specific Legislation). Leighton wants to create a law disallowing "vicious dogs" from roaming free in public parks.
The impetus behind Leighton's desire is because of two recent yet unrelated incidents at the county owned park known as River Common. On June 29 a man's small, leashed dog was attacked in the park by two loose dogs. The little one was injured to the point of needing euthanization.
On July 4, responding to a call of a dog running wild in River Common Park, police shot and killed a pit bull dog. With no owner in sight and the dog acting aggressively, a police officer shot the dog when it lunged at him.
This isn't the first time Leighton has attempted enacting BSL in Wilkes-Barre. In 2001, when Leighton was a member of city council, he pushed to ban pit bulls, Rottweilers, German shepherds and Doberman Pinschers from city parks after authorities shot a pit bull during a raid at a Woodward Street home.
Again, in 2005, Leighton pushed new legislation to ban pit bulls from the entire city. At that time local police officials backed him, saying dogs were often kept by criminals, and were a danger to police officers. Both times it was Pennsylvania's law that prevented his efforts.
Blum is leading a campaign to oppose banning dog breeds from public parks stating “Breed-specific legislation is not the solution to a problem, but rather a means of punishing responsible pet owners and good dogs for the actions of a few dogs that were brought up in an inappropriate or abusive environment or improperly trained.â€
She is circulating petitions asking people to support the cause. She is asking all area residents to sign her petition which states BSL is wrong and asks for alternative changes in legislation like higher accountability of dog owners, public education and stricter enforcement of leash laws.
Copies of Blum’s petition are available for the public to sign at the following area pet stores and grooming facilities:
Pet Supplies Plus, Scott Street
Tropic Pet Center, South Main Street
K9 Korner, Route 309;
Animal Buddies, East Walnut Street
Pet Wonderland, Blackman Street;
Pets-n-You, Kidder Street
Auntie Liz’s Diamond in the Ruff, North Mountain Boulevard, Mountain Top
The entire petition is quoted below.
A Petition to Oppose Breed Ban in Wilkes-Barre
We, the undersigned, respectfully urge the city of Wilkes-Barre to seek alternate changes in legislation in regard to the proposed breed ban. We feel that the breed ban is drastic and unnecessary. We believe that there are other options available to consider that would be more effective in addressing this issue of the public’s safety brought about by the recent incidents of unleashed dogs and dog attacks.
This petition is to oppose the ban of any breed of dog. The recent incidents, however, were believed to have involved Pit Bulls, a breed that is often misidentified and because of such has received a negative connotation. The label of “Pit Bull†is often used incorrectly to generalize a large group of dogs/breeds that have similar physical characteristics of “Pit Bulls†but aren’t in fact true Pit Bulls (e.g. American Bulldog, Boxer, Cane Corso, Tosa Inu etc.). The only breeds of dog to be true Pit Bulls are the American Pit Bull Terrier (APBT), American Staffordshire Terrier, and Staffordshire Bull Terrier. The APBT are a breed which is historically known to be extremely loyal, obedient, and friendly. How can breed specific legislation be implemented when the line between what is a Pit Bull and what looks like a Pit Bull is blurred to so many?
Although “Pit Bulls†are infamous for being involved in dog fights and for being very violent, these dogs are not innately driven to be vicious animals. Due to their large stature and strength these dogs, among with other dogs of various breeds and similar attributes, are being victimized and exploited for the sake of greed and a sort of twisted form of entertainment by those who are supposed to protect and care for these animals. These cases have not only hurt the animal’s unfortunate enough to have been involved but have also given an unnecessarily bad reputation to the breed as a whole. Any breed of any animal can become violent if they are in an environment where they’re being mistreated or improperly trained.
As alternatives to the possible breed ban in the city of Wilkes-Barre, we propose higher accountability for not only pet owners but those interacting with these animals, as well as stricter enforcement of leash laws. It is important for the public to be educated about different breeds of dogs and to be informed and cautious if they encounter a stray, unleashed, or otherwise unaccompanied dog. People need not blindly fear any specific breed but rather have a rational understanding of possible dangers that could accompany any stray or wild animal. Better funding for local shelters can help educate the public and to control and care for the animal population. Animal shelters and rescue groups across the country are overcrowded and under funded and if this plan is put into effect it will create more problems than it solves by leaving more dogs without homes, especially those who are innocent and have been given the false label of “a bad dog†or even “killer†based solely on their breed. All dogs are unique and we believe it’s inhumane to hold such prejudice against an entire breed of dog as a basis for a proposed ban of the breed.
We live in an area (like many others) where we have had floods, drugs, murders, animal attacks, crimes against children, etc. and the public deserves to be and needs to be exposed to any threat or danger of any kind that may affect them in a way that informs not terrifies or causes panic. By affixing my signature, I would respectfully ask the city of Wilkes-Barre to review this petition, the support it shows, and consider favorably our proposal for alternative legislation.
So, any and all Wilkes-Barre residents who agree with Blum on the BSL issue please sign the petition and pass it to others. A copy of a printable form of the petition can be obtained from Blum by emailing her at Samantha.blum87@yahoo.com.
For any citizen who disagrees with BSL please contact Mayor Thomas M. Leighton at 570-208-4158 or email him at: cityhall@wilkes-barre.pa.us, letters can be addressed to him at: Wilkes-Barre City Hall, 40 East Market Street, Wilkes-Barre, PA 18711
Please be respectful when contacting the mayor as anything less would negate the seriousness of your message. It is imparative the mayor hears from the public so kindly let him know if you are against BSL.
If you like what you've read from the Philadelphia Dog Advocate Examiner, consider subscribing; it's FREE and you will receive an email with every newly published article. Your privacy is fully respected and your email address and information is kept private.
Follow Philadelphia Dog Advocate Examiner on Twitter
Sources: Woman wants dogs to remain in parks
Wilkes-Barre police shoot, kill pit bull running loose on River Common
Reaction after pit bull shooting
Wilkes-Barre, PA: City to ask legislature for ability to pass BSL
Woman in favor of dog breed ban in park
Other info: Pit Bulls in America
A very determined young woman, Samantha Blum of Wilkes-Barre is working to try and prevent Wilkes-Barre's mayor, Thomas M. Leighton form gaining permission from Pennsylvania state legislators to ignore the statewide law disallowing municipalities in the state to enact BSL (Breed Specific Legislation). Leighton wants to create a law disallowing "vicious dogs" from roaming free in public parks.
The impetus behind Leighton's desire is because of two recent yet unrelated incidents at the county owned park known as River Common. On June 29 a man's small, leashed dog was attacked in the park by two loose dogs. The little one was injured to the point of needing euthanization.
On July 4, responding to a call of a dog running wild in River Common Park, police shot and killed a pit bull dog. With no owner in sight and the dog acting aggressively, a police officer shot the dog when it lunged at him.
This isn't the first time Leighton has attempted enacting BSL in Wilkes-Barre. In 2001, when Leighton was a member of city council, he pushed to ban pit bulls, Rottweilers, German shepherds and Doberman Pinschers from city parks after authorities shot a pit bull during a raid at a Woodward Street home.
Again, in 2005, Leighton pushed new legislation to ban pit bulls from the entire city. At that time local police officials backed him, saying dogs were often kept by criminals, and were a danger to police officers. Both times it was Pennsylvania's law that prevented his efforts.
Blum is leading a campaign to oppose banning dog breeds from public parks stating “Breed-specific legislation is not the solution to a problem, but rather a means of punishing responsible pet owners and good dogs for the actions of a few dogs that were brought up in an inappropriate or abusive environment or improperly trained.â€
She is circulating petitions asking people to support the cause. She is asking all area residents to sign her petition which states BSL is wrong and asks for alternative changes in legislation like higher accountability of dog owners, public education and stricter enforcement of leash laws.
Copies of Blum’s petition are available for the public to sign at the following area pet stores and grooming facilities:
Pet Supplies Plus, Scott Street
Tropic Pet Center, South Main Street
K9 Korner, Route 309;
Animal Buddies, East Walnut Street
Pet Wonderland, Blackman Street;
Pets-n-You, Kidder Street
Auntie Liz’s Diamond in the Ruff, North Mountain Boulevard, Mountain Top
The entire petition is quoted below.
A Petition to Oppose Breed Ban in Wilkes-Barre
We, the undersigned, respectfully urge the city of Wilkes-Barre to seek alternate changes in legislation in regard to the proposed breed ban. We feel that the breed ban is drastic and unnecessary. We believe that there are other options available to consider that would be more effective in addressing this issue of the public’s safety brought about by the recent incidents of unleashed dogs and dog attacks.
This petition is to oppose the ban of any breed of dog. The recent incidents, however, were believed to have involved Pit Bulls, a breed that is often misidentified and because of such has received a negative connotation. The label of “Pit Bull†is often used incorrectly to generalize a large group of dogs/breeds that have similar physical characteristics of “Pit Bulls†but aren’t in fact true Pit Bulls (e.g. American Bulldog, Boxer, Cane Corso, Tosa Inu etc.). The only breeds of dog to be true Pit Bulls are the American Pit Bull Terrier (APBT), American Staffordshire Terrier, and Staffordshire Bull Terrier. The APBT are a breed which is historically known to be extremely loyal, obedient, and friendly. How can breed specific legislation be implemented when the line between what is a Pit Bull and what looks like a Pit Bull is blurred to so many?
Although “Pit Bulls†are infamous for being involved in dog fights and for being very violent, these dogs are not innately driven to be vicious animals. Due to their large stature and strength these dogs, among with other dogs of various breeds and similar attributes, are being victimized and exploited for the sake of greed and a sort of twisted form of entertainment by those who are supposed to protect and care for these animals. These cases have not only hurt the animal’s unfortunate enough to have been involved but have also given an unnecessarily bad reputation to the breed as a whole. Any breed of any animal can become violent if they are in an environment where they’re being mistreated or improperly trained.
As alternatives to the possible breed ban in the city of Wilkes-Barre, we propose higher accountability for not only pet owners but those interacting with these animals, as well as stricter enforcement of leash laws. It is important for the public to be educated about different breeds of dogs and to be informed and cautious if they encounter a stray, unleashed, or otherwise unaccompanied dog. People need not blindly fear any specific breed but rather have a rational understanding of possible dangers that could accompany any stray or wild animal. Better funding for local shelters can help educate the public and to control and care for the animal population. Animal shelters and rescue groups across the country are overcrowded and under funded and if this plan is put into effect it will create more problems than it solves by leaving more dogs without homes, especially those who are innocent and have been given the false label of “a bad dog†or even “killer†based solely on their breed. All dogs are unique and we believe it’s inhumane to hold such prejudice against an entire breed of dog as a basis for a proposed ban of the breed.
We live in an area (like many others) where we have had floods, drugs, murders, animal attacks, crimes against children, etc. and the public deserves to be and needs to be exposed to any threat or danger of any kind that may affect them in a way that informs not terrifies or causes panic. By affixing my signature, I would respectfully ask the city of Wilkes-Barre to review this petition, the support it shows, and consider favorably our proposal for alternative legislation.
So, any and all Wilkes-Barre residents who agree with Blum on the BSL issue please sign the petition and pass it to others. A copy of a printable form of the petition can be obtained from Blum by emailing her at Samantha.blum87@yahoo.com.
For any citizen who disagrees with BSL please contact Mayor Thomas M. Leighton at 570-208-4158 or email him at: cityhall@wilkes-barre.pa.us, letters can be addressed to him at: Wilkes-Barre City Hall, 40 East Market Street, Wilkes-Barre, PA 18711
Please be respectful when contacting the mayor as anything less would negate the seriousness of your message. It is imparative the mayor hears from the public so kindly let him know if you are against BSL.
If you like what you've read from the Philadelphia Dog Advocate Examiner, consider subscribing; it's FREE and you will receive an email with every newly published article. Your privacy is fully respected and your email address and information is kept private.
Follow Philadelphia Dog Advocate Examiner on Twitter
Sources: Woman wants dogs to remain in parks
Wilkes-Barre police shoot, kill pit bull running loose on River Common
Reaction after pit bull shooting
Wilkes-Barre, PA: City to ask legislature for ability to pass BSL
Woman in favor of dog breed ban in park
Other info: Pit Bulls in America
Wednesday, July 29, 2009
PA: Shelters claim "too many dogs"- but import dogs from West Virginia
Coming forth to carry them home
Thanks to the Internet and an "underground rail-road" of drivers, dogs from high-kill shelters several states away are spared, delivered to loving families in the Northeast.
By Amy Worden
Inquirer Staff Writer
Buster spent the early spring on death row here, stuck in an outdoor kennel at the overcrowded county shelter.
The beagle-mix puppy was the last of a litter found starving and neglected under a barn. The next stop for him was the euthanasia room.
These days, Buster - now a lively 1-year-old - frolics in the quarter-acre backyard of his Hatboro, Pa., home.
Buster owes his sweet suburban life to what has been called the "canine underground railroad." This network of animal lovers plucks unwanted dogs from high-kill shelters in depressed areas of Appalachia and the South, and brings them to the Northeast, where there are more adoptive homes.
In Buster's case, five volunteer drivers, each taking a 75-mile leg of the trip, whisked him away from almost certain death in northwestern West Virginia last month and delivered him to his loving home in Montgomery County.
It's a story played out every day across the country as rescue groups comb animal-shelter lists on the Internet and then put together a string of drivers to save endangered dogs - and, when there's room, a crate full of hitchhiking cats.
"If we had to put down all the dogs that we would if we didn't send them out, no one would work here," said Theresa Bruner, vice president of the Federation of Humane Organizations of West Virginia. "It would be too depressing."
*
Too many unwanted cats and dogs, not enough homes. It's a familiar situation everywhere. In Philadelphia, shelters destroyed 8,369 dogs last year, about 60 percent of the dogs they took in, most because of age, injuries or temperament, according to the city's two shelters.
But a combination of factors conspire to make the crisis in West Virginia and elsewhere in Appalachia and the South particularly acute: widespread poverty, the absence of spay/neuter education programs, and a staggering number of stray animals.
Shelters in West Virginia took in 103,000 dogs and cats last year, and about 75 percent were destroyed, according to the Federation of Humane Organizations.
A decade ago, the state's numbers were even grimmer. But in recent years, animal shelters there and around the country have been using the Internet to find homes for dogs. The Net frees shelters from relying solely on the local population for adoptive homes - especially helpful to a poor state like West Virginia.
"The Internet is a godsend," said Rosy Cosart, director of the Wetzel County Animal Shelter, where volunteers work hard to place Buster and many others like him.
Libby Marquardt, a volunteer coordinator for Trucknpaws, which has 2,000 members and says it is the largest transportation network, estimates that thousands of dogs are being moved every week all over the country.
Marquardt, of Mount Airy, Md., spends hours each week combing shelter Web sites for adoptable dogs, screening rescue groups and drivers, and mapping out routes throughout the mid-Atlantic and Midwest.
There is a high demand for certain breeds and puppies in urban areas that rural shelters can fill, Marquardt said.
Still, there are plenty of unwanted dogs in the Philadelphia area that are needlessly destroyed, animal-care officials say. Of the 7,300 dogs euthanized last year by Philadelphia Animal Care and Control Association, the city's shelter, about half were unadoptable because of age, temperament or health, but the others were destroyed because of lack of space, said Jeff Moran, a spokesman for the agency.
Erik Hendricks, executive director of the Pennsylvania Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, said there was a shortage of puppies in urban areas because many more people in those areas spayed and neutered their pets. To meet the demand in the group's Philadelphia shelter, he said, the SPCA ships in puppies from shelters in northern Pennsylvania.
Urban shelters also have large numbers of overly aggressive dogs that are not suitable for families, he said.
"There is the pit-bull factor," Hendricks said. "But there are a lot of dogs perfectly healthy and young, just not puppies anymore, who won't be adopted even though they may have 10 or 12 years of good life and love ahead."
*
Buster and his five littermates spent their first 10 months huddled under a barn in this hardscrabble area along the Ohio River in northwestern West Virginia on the Pennsylvania border.
"The person who called animal control said they'd been dumped on her property," said Cosart.
An animal control officer deposited them at the Wetzel County Animal Shelter in late March. "They were almost comatose," she said. "They were scared and hungry."
Three of Buster's littermates were adopted and saved, two by the group that helped Buster. One was destroyed because he fought with his kennelmate over food.
The shelter is in a small cinder-block building in a patch of lowland at the edge of the county fairgrounds. The shelter staff has brightened the place up with lavender paint and stenciled paw prints. Volunteers built a shed roof over the kennels, but it is so crowded lately that some dogs are tethered to stakes with doghouses nearby.
A Web-savvy volunteer maintains a list of the shelter's available cats and dogs, posting their pictures on the national pet adoption site, petfinder.com.
Buster's journey to Pennsylvania began when 17-year-old Pete Walton of Hatboro stumbled on the tricolored puppy with the floppy ears while surfing the Net in May.
The Walton family was looking for a younger companion for their 7-year-old poodle, Comet. They decided to explore adoption when they discovered the average puppy at the local pet store cost $1,000.
"Why buy a dog when you could save one?" Pete Walton said.
The Waltons contacted Animal Rescue and Referral, an all-breed rescue group based in Richboro, Pa., which arranged to transport Buster to the Waltons' home.
*
Just before dawn on June 5, Joe and Lou Rabel rolled up to the shelter in an SUV with their own ex-shelter dog, Buttons, a Saint Bernard/Great Dane mix.
The Rabels, a retired West Virginia couple, make regular 200-mile round-trip runs to Maryland with dogs from the Wetzel County shelter.
"It's the least we can do," said Lou Rabel, 62. "We see so many animals that are dumped."
Buster and his traveling companion, a spitz named Teddi who was heading for a home in Wilton, Conn., were spruced up for the road trip.
After a bath, a dose of Dramamine, and a round of goodbye kisses, Buster was packed up for the 400-mile ride ahead.
On the Saturday of Buster's journey, the rain was coming down in sheets in Hagerstown, Md., a hub of mid-Atlantic canine transport activity. The city sits at the junction of Interstate 70, a major east-west route, and I-81, a major north-south route through Pennsylvania that links the Northeast with the South.
It was a busy morning in Hagerstown. At one meeting point, volunteers put 23 dogs, mostly puppies of various stripes, into a van heading to a rescue group in Lancaster.
After a drink and a bathroom break, Buster was loaded up again for the next 75-mile leg to Harrisburg. By the time he reached his permanent home in Hatboro, Buster had traveled in five different vehicles and had spent a night at the Levittown home of rescue volunteer Anne Maghee.
*
On a recent summer evening in Hatboro the Walton family - Dave, Chris and Pete and his sister, Elizabeth, 10 - watched Buster gambol with his canine pal, Comet, in their fenced-in yard.
It took Buster a few days to figure out how to navigate the staircase, but now he sprawls out on the couch like he owns the place, says Chris Walton.
Carsickness may be Buster's only shortcoming.
"He doesn't travel very well," said Chris. "But that's OK, he's home now."
Contact staff writer Amy Worden at 717-783-2584 or aworden@phillynews.com.
Thanks to the Internet and an "underground rail-road" of drivers, dogs from high-kill shelters several states away are spared, delivered to loving families in the Northeast.
By Amy Worden
Inquirer Staff Writer
Buster spent the early spring on death row here, stuck in an outdoor kennel at the overcrowded county shelter.
The beagle-mix puppy was the last of a litter found starving and neglected under a barn. The next stop for him was the euthanasia room.
These days, Buster - now a lively 1-year-old - frolics in the quarter-acre backyard of his Hatboro, Pa., home.
Buster owes his sweet suburban life to what has been called the "canine underground railroad." This network of animal lovers plucks unwanted dogs from high-kill shelters in depressed areas of Appalachia and the South, and brings them to the Northeast, where there are more adoptive homes.
In Buster's case, five volunteer drivers, each taking a 75-mile leg of the trip, whisked him away from almost certain death in northwestern West Virginia last month and delivered him to his loving home in Montgomery County.
It's a story played out every day across the country as rescue groups comb animal-shelter lists on the Internet and then put together a string of drivers to save endangered dogs - and, when there's room, a crate full of hitchhiking cats.
"If we had to put down all the dogs that we would if we didn't send them out, no one would work here," said Theresa Bruner, vice president of the Federation of Humane Organizations of West Virginia. "It would be too depressing."
*
Too many unwanted cats and dogs, not enough homes. It's a familiar situation everywhere. In Philadelphia, shelters destroyed 8,369 dogs last year, about 60 percent of the dogs they took in, most because of age, injuries or temperament, according to the city's two shelters.
But a combination of factors conspire to make the crisis in West Virginia and elsewhere in Appalachia and the South particularly acute: widespread poverty, the absence of spay/neuter education programs, and a staggering number of stray animals.
Shelters in West Virginia took in 103,000 dogs and cats last year, and about 75 percent were destroyed, according to the Federation of Humane Organizations.
A decade ago, the state's numbers were even grimmer. But in recent years, animal shelters there and around the country have been using the Internet to find homes for dogs. The Net frees shelters from relying solely on the local population for adoptive homes - especially helpful to a poor state like West Virginia.
"The Internet is a godsend," said Rosy Cosart, director of the Wetzel County Animal Shelter, where volunteers work hard to place Buster and many others like him.
Libby Marquardt, a volunteer coordinator for Trucknpaws, which has 2,000 members and says it is the largest transportation network, estimates that thousands of dogs are being moved every week all over the country.
Marquardt, of Mount Airy, Md., spends hours each week combing shelter Web sites for adoptable dogs, screening rescue groups and drivers, and mapping out routes throughout the mid-Atlantic and Midwest.
There is a high demand for certain breeds and puppies in urban areas that rural shelters can fill, Marquardt said.
Still, there are plenty of unwanted dogs in the Philadelphia area that are needlessly destroyed, animal-care officials say. Of the 7,300 dogs euthanized last year by Philadelphia Animal Care and Control Association, the city's shelter, about half were unadoptable because of age, temperament or health, but the others were destroyed because of lack of space, said Jeff Moran, a spokesman for the agency.
Erik Hendricks, executive director of the Pennsylvania Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, said there was a shortage of puppies in urban areas because many more people in those areas spayed and neutered their pets. To meet the demand in the group's Philadelphia shelter, he said, the SPCA ships in puppies from shelters in northern Pennsylvania.
Urban shelters also have large numbers of overly aggressive dogs that are not suitable for families, he said.
"There is the pit-bull factor," Hendricks said. "But there are a lot of dogs perfectly healthy and young, just not puppies anymore, who won't be adopted even though they may have 10 or 12 years of good life and love ahead."
*
Buster and his five littermates spent their first 10 months huddled under a barn in this hardscrabble area along the Ohio River in northwestern West Virginia on the Pennsylvania border.
"The person who called animal control said they'd been dumped on her property," said Cosart.
An animal control officer deposited them at the Wetzel County Animal Shelter in late March. "They were almost comatose," she said. "They were scared and hungry."
Three of Buster's littermates were adopted and saved, two by the group that helped Buster. One was destroyed because he fought with his kennelmate over food.
The shelter is in a small cinder-block building in a patch of lowland at the edge of the county fairgrounds. The shelter staff has brightened the place up with lavender paint and stenciled paw prints. Volunteers built a shed roof over the kennels, but it is so crowded lately that some dogs are tethered to stakes with doghouses nearby.
A Web-savvy volunteer maintains a list of the shelter's available cats and dogs, posting their pictures on the national pet adoption site, petfinder.com.
Buster's journey to Pennsylvania began when 17-year-old Pete Walton of Hatboro stumbled on the tricolored puppy with the floppy ears while surfing the Net in May.
The Walton family was looking for a younger companion for their 7-year-old poodle, Comet. They decided to explore adoption when they discovered the average puppy at the local pet store cost $1,000.
"Why buy a dog when you could save one?" Pete Walton said.
The Waltons contacted Animal Rescue and Referral, an all-breed rescue group based in Richboro, Pa., which arranged to transport Buster to the Waltons' home.
*
Just before dawn on June 5, Joe and Lou Rabel rolled up to the shelter in an SUV with their own ex-shelter dog, Buttons, a Saint Bernard/Great Dane mix.
The Rabels, a retired West Virginia couple, make regular 200-mile round-trip runs to Maryland with dogs from the Wetzel County shelter.
"It's the least we can do," said Lou Rabel, 62. "We see so many animals that are dumped."
Buster and his traveling companion, a spitz named Teddi who was heading for a home in Wilton, Conn., were spruced up for the road trip.
After a bath, a dose of Dramamine, and a round of goodbye kisses, Buster was packed up for the 400-mile ride ahead.
On the Saturday of Buster's journey, the rain was coming down in sheets in Hagerstown, Md., a hub of mid-Atlantic canine transport activity. The city sits at the junction of Interstate 70, a major east-west route, and I-81, a major north-south route through Pennsylvania that links the Northeast with the South.
It was a busy morning in Hagerstown. At one meeting point, volunteers put 23 dogs, mostly puppies of various stripes, into a van heading to a rescue group in Lancaster.
After a drink and a bathroom break, Buster was loaded up again for the next 75-mile leg to Harrisburg. By the time he reached his permanent home in Hatboro, Buster had traveled in five different vehicles and had spent a night at the Levittown home of rescue volunteer Anne Maghee.
*
On a recent summer evening in Hatboro the Walton family - Dave, Chris and Pete and his sister, Elizabeth, 10 - watched Buster gambol with his canine pal, Comet, in their fenced-in yard.
It took Buster a few days to figure out how to navigate the staircase, but now he sprawls out on the couch like he owns the place, says Chris Walton.
Carsickness may be Buster's only shortcoming.
"He doesn't travel very well," said Chris. "But that's OK, he's home now."
Contact staff writer Amy Worden at 717-783-2584 or aworden@phillynews.com.
Tuesday, July 21, 2009
PA- Wilkes-Barre Mayor Leighton is seeking a more stringent dog ordinance- while not enforcing regulations already in place
OUR OPINION: CITY DOG PROBLEM
July 10
Rein in owners as well as pets
IF WILKES-BARRE outlaws what society considers bully dogs, then only outlaws will own them.
The play on the gun-control cliche� applies here. Consider this: Is it realistic, practical and fair to enact and enforce an all-out ban on pets like pit bulls, Rottweilers, German shepherds and Dobermans from the city?
Of course not. Most dogs of size do not pose a danger, and the city doesn’t have the resources to police what dogs should be banned.
The issue, raised by Mayor Thomas Leighton, was prompted by last week’s mauling of a pet dog by vicious, off-the-leash pit bulls at the newly christened River Common park off River Street. Five days later a city police officer fatally shot a pit bull near the park when the dog charged at him.
For the third time in eight years, Leighton is seeking a more stringent dog ordinance, this time calling for a change in state law that would give municipalities power to enact measures aimed at certain breeds.
One immediate and realistic remedy is for the city to increase animal enforcement patrols. Picking up loose dogs has a twofold advantage: It targets violating owners while reducing the roaming dog population.
What happened last week to the small pet was horrible and sad, but the grim reality is another ordinance would not have protected it. The free-running dogs were already in violation of city and county regulations because they weren’t leashed. The violation carries a fine of up to $1,000 set by a district judge, according to the mayor’s office.
Banning breeds is problematic. For starters, “pit bull” is a term commonly used to describe several breeds of dogs, including breeds that are rarely listed by name in legislation. And how will police make the distinction when a mutt takes on the broad and muscular appearance of a purebred that’s part of its lineage?
Compelling pet owners to act responsibly is certainly a good, pro-active measure. Owners must control their pets, keeping them clear of people and other animals.
The mayor said he will review dog fines and consider increasing the cost of breaking the law. Making irresponsibility expensive is a step in the right direction.
We applaud the mayor’s passion. We hope he will parlay it into creative enforcement and upgraded fines.
Outlawing breeds, on the other hand, is likely to breed more outlaws.
Compelling pet owners to act responsibly is certainly a good, pro-active measure. Owners must control their pets, keeping them clear of people and other animals.
The mayor said he will review dog fines and consider increasing the cost of breaking the law. Making irresponsibility expensive is a step in the right direction.
http://www.timeslea der.com/opinion/ Rein_in_owners_ as_well_as_ pets_07-10- 2009.html
July 10
Rein in owners as well as pets
IF WILKES-BARRE outlaws what society considers bully dogs, then only outlaws will own them.
The play on the gun-control cliche� applies here. Consider this: Is it realistic, practical and fair to enact and enforce an all-out ban on pets like pit bulls, Rottweilers, German shepherds and Dobermans from the city?
Of course not. Most dogs of size do not pose a danger, and the city doesn’t have the resources to police what dogs should be banned.
The issue, raised by Mayor Thomas Leighton, was prompted by last week’s mauling of a pet dog by vicious, off-the-leash pit bulls at the newly christened River Common park off River Street. Five days later a city police officer fatally shot a pit bull near the park when the dog charged at him.
For the third time in eight years, Leighton is seeking a more stringent dog ordinance, this time calling for a change in state law that would give municipalities power to enact measures aimed at certain breeds.
One immediate and realistic remedy is for the city to increase animal enforcement patrols. Picking up loose dogs has a twofold advantage: It targets violating owners while reducing the roaming dog population.
What happened last week to the small pet was horrible and sad, but the grim reality is another ordinance would not have protected it. The free-running dogs were already in violation of city and county regulations because they weren’t leashed. The violation carries a fine of up to $1,000 set by a district judge, according to the mayor’s office.
Banning breeds is problematic. For starters, “pit bull” is a term commonly used to describe several breeds of dogs, including breeds that are rarely listed by name in legislation. And how will police make the distinction when a mutt takes on the broad and muscular appearance of a purebred that’s part of its lineage?
Compelling pet owners to act responsibly is certainly a good, pro-active measure. Owners must control their pets, keeping them clear of people and other animals.
The mayor said he will review dog fines and consider increasing the cost of breaking the law. Making irresponsibility expensive is a step in the right direction.
We applaud the mayor’s passion. We hope he will parlay it into creative enforcement and upgraded fines.
Outlawing breeds, on the other hand, is likely to breed more outlaws.
Compelling pet owners to act responsibly is certainly a good, pro-active measure. Owners must control their pets, keeping them clear of people and other animals.
The mayor said he will review dog fines and consider increasing the cost of breaking the law. Making irresponsibility expensive is a step in the right direction.
http://www.timeslea der.com/opinion/ Rein_in_owners_ as_well_as_ pets_07-10- 2009.html
Wednesday, July 8, 2009
PA- Proposed limiting pets in Reading advances
Last Update: 7/7/2009 12:22:00 AM
Proposal limiting pets in Reading advances
By Don Spatz
Reading Eagle
A City Council committee on Monday agreed to a proposal that would limit city residents to no more than six pets - not counting fish - unless they apply for a $50 city permit.
To get that permit, the residents would have to let the city inspect their homes to see if they're appropriate for housing more than six animals.
"It's so we don't have six Great Danes in a town house," Barrie Pease told council's Public Safety Committee.
Pease is chairman of the city Animal Control Board that's recommending the change.
The permits would have to be renewed annually. Renewals would cost $25.
The proposal also calls for a $75 fee for a permit for exotic animals like large snakes or other non-native animals.
The Animal Rescue League of Berks County enforces the city animal ordinances. A few weeks ago it took 22 dogs from a home on South 181/2 Street, leaving four dogs there, Executive Director Harry D. Brown III told the committee.
The pet permit proposal is taken from similar measures in Allentown, Harrisburg, Lancaster and Bethlehem.
Wyomissing, Sinking Spring and Shillington have similar limits on the number of pets.
The committee agreed to make some changes and forward the proposal to the entire council.
If the proposal passes, residents would have three months to comply, but Pease said residents with more than six pets would not necessarily have to get rid of any.
If they apply for a permit, they can have more than six pets - if the city believes they can handle them, Pease said.
But the proposal will be rewritten to allow the city to confiscate pets if it determines that someone temporarily relocated pets to skirt the ordinance rather than bring them back.
The proposal also would give police authority to seek a search warrant to enter a home to investigate.
The same proposal also would place tight restrictions on any dog that bites or attacks anyone without provocation, or has a history of it.
The city's former dangerous dog ordinance focused on breeds deemed dangerous, but Commonwealth Court last year threw it out.
Contact Don Spatz: 610-371-5027 or dspatz@readingeagle.com.
Proposal limiting pets in Reading advances
By Don Spatz
Reading Eagle
A City Council committee on Monday agreed to a proposal that would limit city residents to no more than six pets - not counting fish - unless they apply for a $50 city permit.
To get that permit, the residents would have to let the city inspect their homes to see if they're appropriate for housing more than six animals.
"It's so we don't have six Great Danes in a town house," Barrie Pease told council's Public Safety Committee.
Pease is chairman of the city Animal Control Board that's recommending the change.
The permits would have to be renewed annually. Renewals would cost $25.
The proposal also calls for a $75 fee for a permit for exotic animals like large snakes or other non-native animals.
The Animal Rescue League of Berks County enforces the city animal ordinances. A few weeks ago it took 22 dogs from a home on South 181/2 Street, leaving four dogs there, Executive Director Harry D. Brown III told the committee.
The pet permit proposal is taken from similar measures in Allentown, Harrisburg, Lancaster and Bethlehem.
Wyomissing, Sinking Spring and Shillington have similar limits on the number of pets.
The committee agreed to make some changes and forward the proposal to the entire council.
If the proposal passes, residents would have three months to comply, but Pease said residents with more than six pets would not necessarily have to get rid of any.
If they apply for a permit, they can have more than six pets - if the city believes they can handle them, Pease said.
But the proposal will be rewritten to allow the city to confiscate pets if it determines that someone temporarily relocated pets to skirt the ordinance rather than bring them back.
The proposal also would give police authority to seek a search warrant to enter a home to investigate.
The same proposal also would place tight restrictions on any dog that bites or attacks anyone without provocation, or has a history of it.
The city's former dangerous dog ordinance focused on breeds deemed dangerous, but Commonwealth Court last year threw it out.
Contact Don Spatz: 610-371-5027 or dspatz@readingeagle.com.
Monday, May 25, 2009
PA- Lehigh County Humane Society hard to wake up
Lehigh County Humane Society hard to wake up
May 16, 2009
Bill White
bill.white@mcall.com
Until it has leaders who acknowledge all the problems, it never will move forward.
When the Lehigh County commissioners Wednesday night rejected funding for the Lehigh County Humane Society's animal control work, they were sending a couple of messages.
One, as articulated by Commissioners Dean Browning and Glenn Eckhart, was that the county shouldn't be sending money to such a well-heeled organization at a time when the county's fiscal situation is dire. They pointed out that the Humane Society's investment portfolio has grown to almost $1.8 million.
The other was that they're not crazy about the shelter's operations. ''I don't want tax dollars going to this facility,'' Eckhart said. He and others complained about the humane society's unwillingness to explore a no-kill approach, its lack of transparency and its euthanization methods.
Even the people who voted to give LCHS the budgeted $22,500 for its services went out of their way to make it clear they don't like what's happening there. Commissioners Percy Dougherty and Bill Leiner both said they hope this will be a ''wake-up call'' for the Humane Society's leaders.
My own feeling is that an atom bomb wouldn't wake those people up. I've been writing about their antiquated approach for years, to no effect, and there have been much more vociferous critics. If the commissioners are just figuring out that LCHS needs an overhaul, they haven't been paying attention.
The Kill vs. No Kill philosophical argument gets most of the attention, but that's never been my main focus. My complaint has been that the Humane Society won't take even the most basic steps toward reducing the need for euthanization of unwanted dogs and cats.
They would include: A comprehensive adoption program that includes convenient hours and an aggressive schedule of off-site adoptions. A comprehensive foster care program. A feral cat trap-neuter- return program. A high-volume, low-cost spay/neuter program. Cooperation with local rescue groups.
Outreach to the community to improve pet retention. In-house medical and behavior rehabilitation. A strong volunteer program. Aggressive public relations efforts.
LCHS has improved a bit in a few of these areas, but for the most part, it seems to run the same way it did years ago. Until it has leaders who acknowledge all the problems, it never will move forward.
My chiding has been too even-handed to suit some of the Humane Society's more rabid critics. But the group's leadership hasn't seen it that way. One of the oddities of the Pennsylvania SPCA's raid on Almost Heaven dog kennel in Upper Milford Township last Oct. 1 was that when LCHS Executive Director Bruce Fritch recognized me there, he went on a wild tirade. I had to lure him to a far corner so his ranting wouldn't turn up as background for the ''Animal Cops'' taping of the raid.
Beyond his complaints that my criticism has been unfair, Fritch was angry because people had posted insulting, even somewhat threatening, comments on the online version of my most recent column about LCHS. I let him scream himself out and tried to explain that I don't moderate -- or even read, in many cases -- the online comments. He wasn't buying it.
I was surprised to see Fritch there at all. It turns out that he wanted raiders to know the Humane Society was prepared to take in any dogs that were confiscated from Almost Heaven. Although he stayed there all day, the rescued dogs were driven to the PSPCA's shelter in Philadelphia.
In light of the Humane Society's history with Almost Heaven owner Derbe ''Skip'' Eckhart, it would have been an unlikely landing place in any event. Thanks to the connection between former LCHS cruelty investigator Orlando Aguirre and Eckhart, the Humane Society at one point was supplying dogs for Eckhart's controversial ''rescue'' operation. What's more, in his later capacity as a state dog warden, Aguirre helped keep Almost Heaven semi-respectable by issuing satisfactory inspection reports, particularly embarrassing in light of the horrible conditions found during the raid. Just six weeks before, a team of four dog law inspectors -- including Aguirre and new director Sue West -- gave the place a clean bill of health once again.
The discrepancy between the awful conditions and dog law's reports, including the role of Aguirre and other inspectors, has been the subject of a months-long investigation by the state Inspector General's Office.
There was a nice crowd of animal welfare people at Wednesday night's meeting, and many of the commissioners said encouraging things. Nevertheless, if any of this served as a real wake-up call for Bruce Fritch and company, I'll be surprised.
They're very sound sleepers.
bill.white@mcall.com 610-559-2146
May 16, 2009
Bill White
bill.white@mcall.com
Until it has leaders who acknowledge all the problems, it never will move forward.
When the Lehigh County commissioners Wednesday night rejected funding for the Lehigh County Humane Society's animal control work, they were sending a couple of messages.
One, as articulated by Commissioners Dean Browning and Glenn Eckhart, was that the county shouldn't be sending money to such a well-heeled organization at a time when the county's fiscal situation is dire. They pointed out that the Humane Society's investment portfolio has grown to almost $1.8 million.
The other was that they're not crazy about the shelter's operations. ''I don't want tax dollars going to this facility,'' Eckhart said. He and others complained about the humane society's unwillingness to explore a no-kill approach, its lack of transparency and its euthanization methods.
Even the people who voted to give LCHS the budgeted $22,500 for its services went out of their way to make it clear they don't like what's happening there. Commissioners Percy Dougherty and Bill Leiner both said they hope this will be a ''wake-up call'' for the Humane Society's leaders.
My own feeling is that an atom bomb wouldn't wake those people up. I've been writing about their antiquated approach for years, to no effect, and there have been much more vociferous critics. If the commissioners are just figuring out that LCHS needs an overhaul, they haven't been paying attention.
The Kill vs. No Kill philosophical argument gets most of the attention, but that's never been my main focus. My complaint has been that the Humane Society won't take even the most basic steps toward reducing the need for euthanization of unwanted dogs and cats.
They would include: A comprehensive adoption program that includes convenient hours and an aggressive schedule of off-site adoptions. A comprehensive foster care program. A feral cat trap-neuter- return program. A high-volume, low-cost spay/neuter program. Cooperation with local rescue groups.
Outreach to the community to improve pet retention. In-house medical and behavior rehabilitation. A strong volunteer program. Aggressive public relations efforts.
LCHS has improved a bit in a few of these areas, but for the most part, it seems to run the same way it did years ago. Until it has leaders who acknowledge all the problems, it never will move forward.
My chiding has been too even-handed to suit some of the Humane Society's more rabid critics. But the group's leadership hasn't seen it that way. One of the oddities of the Pennsylvania SPCA's raid on Almost Heaven dog kennel in Upper Milford Township last Oct. 1 was that when LCHS Executive Director Bruce Fritch recognized me there, he went on a wild tirade. I had to lure him to a far corner so his ranting wouldn't turn up as background for the ''Animal Cops'' taping of the raid.
Beyond his complaints that my criticism has been unfair, Fritch was angry because people had posted insulting, even somewhat threatening, comments on the online version of my most recent column about LCHS. I let him scream himself out and tried to explain that I don't moderate -- or even read, in many cases -- the online comments. He wasn't buying it.
I was surprised to see Fritch there at all. It turns out that he wanted raiders to know the Humane Society was prepared to take in any dogs that were confiscated from Almost Heaven. Although he stayed there all day, the rescued dogs were driven to the PSPCA's shelter in Philadelphia.
In light of the Humane Society's history with Almost Heaven owner Derbe ''Skip'' Eckhart, it would have been an unlikely landing place in any event. Thanks to the connection between former LCHS cruelty investigator Orlando Aguirre and Eckhart, the Humane Society at one point was supplying dogs for Eckhart's controversial ''rescue'' operation. What's more, in his later capacity as a state dog warden, Aguirre helped keep Almost Heaven semi-respectable by issuing satisfactory inspection reports, particularly embarrassing in light of the horrible conditions found during the raid. Just six weeks before, a team of four dog law inspectors -- including Aguirre and new director Sue West -- gave the place a clean bill of health once again.
The discrepancy between the awful conditions and dog law's reports, including the role of Aguirre and other inspectors, has been the subject of a months-long investigation by the state Inspector General's Office.
There was a nice crowd of animal welfare people at Wednesday night's meeting, and many of the commissioners said encouraging things. Nevertheless, if any of this served as a real wake-up call for Bruce Fritch and company, I'll be surprised.
They're very sound sleepers.
bill.white@mcall.com 610-559-2146
Sunday, March 1, 2009
Puppy Mill Bills Across The Nation
Puppy Mill Bills Across the Nation
Contributed by Tammy Miller - Posted: February 27, 2009 4:58:24 PM
Thanks to Columbus Top Dogs.com out of Ohio, I'm getting regular legislative updates from its home state and from across the country.
There is a surprising level of activity on the issue of puppy mills. Here's the latest roundup on legislation that might affect mass breeders ...
Colorado - Bill introduced January 21 to limit the number of dogs breeders could maintain has been tabled.
If it comes back up, it could also mandate regular veterinary exams and prohibit those convicted of animal cruelty from gaining a breeder license.
Connecticut - The state could pass new regulations that allow double-the-money-back from stores that sell pets found to have chronic diseases or disabilities.
Illinois - Bill introduced January 19 know as Chloe's Bill. If passed it would create a Dog Breeder License Act, which would limit the number of breeding dogs to 20 for each breeder.
And -
- Prevent those convicted of felony animal abuse from obtaining a breeding license.
- Require dog breeders to house dogs in areas heated, cooled and vented - without wire flooring.
- Require stores and breeders to provide buyers with full medical histories and spay/neuter information.
Indiana - House Bill 1468 defines a commercial breeder those whelping more than 10 litters in any 12-month period. It might also ...
- Limit breeding dogs to 30 per location.
- Require registration with the state.
- Exercise once per day.
- Maintenance of sanitary conditions and proper ventilation and natural light.
- Require commercial breeder to offer a guarantee.
- Set veterinary care standards and limits on litters a breeding female can whelp each year.
This bill passed easily in the Indiana House and is set to go a Senate committee.
Montana - Columbus Top Dogs reports 189 dogs were seized from a mill in December, which prompted the introduction of an anti-hoarding bill.
Breeders with 20 or more adult dogs could be required to register with the state and submit to annual, surprise inspections.
Nebraska - Bill introduced on February 2 could by April, 2010 limit commercial breeders to 75 dogs over the age of four months. It could also set standards for breeding ages and establish standards for living conditions.
Ohio - A new bill is in the works similar to the one introduced in Indiana.
Folks in the animal welfare movement are hoping to introduce a ballot initiative in 2009 to ban dog auctions.
Oklahoma - The Oklahoma Pet Quality Assurance and Protection Act (HB 1332) has made it out of a committee vote and next goes to the full House.
This act mandates USDA standards for kennels sending out over 25 dogs, cats, kittens or puppies each year. Cage minimum standards are included.
Pennsylvania - A house bill has pass with a 192-0 vote. This one impose criminal penalties for medical procedures not performed by a licensed vet - including c-sections, tail docking and surgeries to stop barking.
It now goes to the Senate.
Tennessee - HB 386 would require any breeder with more than 20 animals to pay a $500 licensing fee to the state. More than 40 animals increases the fee to $1,000. A mandatory inspection program is also established with minimum standards for care and housing.
Another bill might prohibit public animal sales such as those in parking lots and along the roadside. It would also prohibit the use of live animals as prizes for contests, raffles or promotion and restrict sales at flea markets.
Washington - Bills are being considered to regulate large breeders and to set humane standards such as limits to the number of dogs and standards for care and housing.
Tom Grad
Contributed by Tammy Miller - Posted: February 27, 2009 4:58:24 PM
Thanks to Columbus Top Dogs.com out of Ohio, I'm getting regular legislative updates from its home state and from across the country.
There is a surprising level of activity on the issue of puppy mills. Here's the latest roundup on legislation that might affect mass breeders ...
Colorado - Bill introduced January 21 to limit the number of dogs breeders could maintain has been tabled.
If it comes back up, it could also mandate regular veterinary exams and prohibit those convicted of animal cruelty from gaining a breeder license.
Connecticut - The state could pass new regulations that allow double-the-money-back from stores that sell pets found to have chronic diseases or disabilities.
Illinois - Bill introduced January 19 know as Chloe's Bill. If passed it would create a Dog Breeder License Act, which would limit the number of breeding dogs to 20 for each breeder.
And -
- Prevent those convicted of felony animal abuse from obtaining a breeding license.
- Require dog breeders to house dogs in areas heated, cooled and vented - without wire flooring.
- Require stores and breeders to provide buyers with full medical histories and spay/neuter information.
Indiana - House Bill 1468 defines a commercial breeder those whelping more than 10 litters in any 12-month period. It might also ...
- Limit breeding dogs to 30 per location.
- Require registration with the state.
- Exercise once per day.
- Maintenance of sanitary conditions and proper ventilation and natural light.
- Require commercial breeder to offer a guarantee.
- Set veterinary care standards and limits on litters a breeding female can whelp each year.
This bill passed easily in the Indiana House and is set to go a Senate committee.
Montana - Columbus Top Dogs reports 189 dogs were seized from a mill in December, which prompted the introduction of an anti-hoarding bill.
Breeders with 20 or more adult dogs could be required to register with the state and submit to annual, surprise inspections.
Nebraska - Bill introduced on February 2 could by April, 2010 limit commercial breeders to 75 dogs over the age of four months. It could also set standards for breeding ages and establish standards for living conditions.
Ohio - A new bill is in the works similar to the one introduced in Indiana.
Folks in the animal welfare movement are hoping to introduce a ballot initiative in 2009 to ban dog auctions.
Oklahoma - The Oklahoma Pet Quality Assurance and Protection Act (HB 1332) has made it out of a committee vote and next goes to the full House.
This act mandates USDA standards for kennels sending out over 25 dogs, cats, kittens or puppies each year. Cage minimum standards are included.
Pennsylvania - A house bill has pass with a 192-0 vote. This one impose criminal penalties for medical procedures not performed by a licensed vet - including c-sections, tail docking and surgeries to stop barking.
It now goes to the Senate.
Tennessee - HB 386 would require any breeder with more than 20 animals to pay a $500 licensing fee to the state. More than 40 animals increases the fee to $1,000. A mandatory inspection program is also established with minimum standards for care and housing.
Another bill might prohibit public animal sales such as those in parking lots and along the roadside. It would also prohibit the use of live animals as prizes for contests, raffles or promotion and restrict sales at flea markets.
Washington - Bills are being considered to regulate large breeders and to set humane standards such as limits to the number of dogs and standards for care and housing.
Tom Grad
PA- dangerous dog law revisions
HB 671 was introduced on 2/27/09. This House Bill provides revisions to the current "dangerous dog law"
Thursday, January 29, 2009
PA- HB 39 Makes ear cropping, debarking, tail docking & dewclaw removal "cruelty"
HB 39
These proceedures may be done by a licensed Veterinarian, but a certificate must accompany the dog stating the procedure was done by a licensed Veterinarian. I sure hope you don't find a nice dog at a shelter with cropped ears, or a docked tail- those papers will most likely not have been surrendered with the dog, and the shelter will forage them to make the dog "legal"
These proceedures may be done by a licensed Veterinarian, but a certificate must accompany the dog stating the procedure was done by a licensed Veterinarian. I sure hope you don't find a nice dog at a shelter with cropped ears, or a docked tail- those papers will most likely not have been surrendered with the dog, and the shelter will forage them to make the dog "legal"
Friday, July 18, 2008
Letter to Sen. Bob Casey- D (PA)
Senator Bob Casey March 1, 2007
Dear Senator Casey,
Re. Changes to Dog Laws
I am writing to you to address my concern over the recent trend in changes to dog laws across the country, and Pennsylvania specifically. Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendel has proposed changes to the dog laws in Pennsylvania that would affect far more than just the “puppy mills” that he vocally opposes. These proposed changes are currently in the comment period and I, along with countless other dog fanciers, are working to fight the changes that have been proposed.
At a time in history where the “threat of terrorism” is behind every door, it is painfully obvious that Americans can still terrorize each other as “special interest groups”- in this case the “Animal Rights” groups. Vice President Chaney stated, “Our way of life is not negotiable”- did he mean oil only? Or is my way of life, raising quality dogs in my home, protected too? I urge you to help stop domestic terrorism that threatens American’s ability to live freely without injury to others. My dogs are not a threat to anyone, but this type of legislation is a threat to my quality of life and the quality of life that my dogs currently enjoy.
Your predecessor, Senator Rick Santorum, had proposed similar legislation, SB 1139 called the Pet Animal Welfare Statute (PAWS) and before that he proposed the “The Puppy Protection Act”, both of which received nationwide opposition. Organized kennel clubs around the state (and around the country) worked to support you and vote out Senator Santorum over his proposal and support of this legislation. It has become obvious that this issue is by-partisan. I am a registered Democrat, however I can not support any Democrat that supports this type of social over regulation that has no bearing on public health and safety.
As a dog breeder and life long dog enthusiast, I do think that dogs produced in “commercial” dog kennels, i.e. kennels producing dogs for profit and the purpose of resale only, often have deplorable conditions. Our country prides itself on the “market economy”. If the public continues to support such conditions by purchasing these animals, then these “commercial” kennels will continue to exist. The buying public should demand better. Current proposed legislation intends to improve the living conditions of these poor dogs, however, they miss the mark and will not in fact accomplish that goal, but will instead, support only the commercial kennel that can jump through the hoops and will eliminate the hobby breeder who genuinely cares about the dogs. This will reduce the choices of the buying public and impede the “market economy”.
I have included a copy of the Pennsylvania proposed changes along with my concerns (found in red on the document) and letters that I have written to my local Senator, Representative, and the Dog Czar. I met with PA Senator Jake Corman and PA Representative Adam Harris in person to discuss my concerns about this issue.
Thank you for your attention to this matter,
Sincerely, Cadie Pruss
Dear Senator Casey,
Re. Changes to Dog Laws
I am writing to you to address my concern over the recent trend in changes to dog laws across the country, and Pennsylvania specifically. Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendel has proposed changes to the dog laws in Pennsylvania that would affect far more than just the “puppy mills” that he vocally opposes. These proposed changes are currently in the comment period and I, along with countless other dog fanciers, are working to fight the changes that have been proposed.
At a time in history where the “threat of terrorism” is behind every door, it is painfully obvious that Americans can still terrorize each other as “special interest groups”- in this case the “Animal Rights” groups. Vice President Chaney stated, “Our way of life is not negotiable”- did he mean oil only? Or is my way of life, raising quality dogs in my home, protected too? I urge you to help stop domestic terrorism that threatens American’s ability to live freely without injury to others. My dogs are not a threat to anyone, but this type of legislation is a threat to my quality of life and the quality of life that my dogs currently enjoy.
Your predecessor, Senator Rick Santorum, had proposed similar legislation, SB 1139 called the Pet Animal Welfare Statute (PAWS) and before that he proposed the “The Puppy Protection Act”, both of which received nationwide opposition. Organized kennel clubs around the state (and around the country) worked to support you and vote out Senator Santorum over his proposal and support of this legislation. It has become obvious that this issue is by-partisan. I am a registered Democrat, however I can not support any Democrat that supports this type of social over regulation that has no bearing on public health and safety.
As a dog breeder and life long dog enthusiast, I do think that dogs produced in “commercial” dog kennels, i.e. kennels producing dogs for profit and the purpose of resale only, often have deplorable conditions. Our country prides itself on the “market economy”. If the public continues to support such conditions by purchasing these animals, then these “commercial” kennels will continue to exist. The buying public should demand better. Current proposed legislation intends to improve the living conditions of these poor dogs, however, they miss the mark and will not in fact accomplish that goal, but will instead, support only the commercial kennel that can jump through the hoops and will eliminate the hobby breeder who genuinely cares about the dogs. This will reduce the choices of the buying public and impede the “market economy”.
I have included a copy of the Pennsylvania proposed changes along with my concerns (found in red on the document) and letters that I have written to my local Senator, Representative, and the Dog Czar. I met with PA Senator Jake Corman and PA Representative Adam Harris in person to discuss my concerns about this issue.
Thank you for your attention to this matter,
Sincerely, Cadie Pruss
Friday, May 30, 2008
PA- Dog Legistation Raises Red Flags
Pennsylvania Dog Legislation Raises Red Flags
Legislators Must Hear from Responsible Owners and Breeders
May 28, 2008
Legislation designed to crack down on so-called "puppy mills" has been introduced in Pennsylvania that would have broad, sweeping implications for all dog owners and breeders. Governor Rendell's strong support for HB 2525 has given the bill significant momentum and a hearing is expected to be scheduled quite soon in the House Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee.
NAIA strongly supports the goal of improving substandard kennels and breeding operations, and we stand behind the spirit and intent of HB 2525 to eliminate poor and irresponsible practices, but upon closer review, we feel compelled to point out some areas where the bill could lead to misinterpretations, enforcement problems, and rights violations.
HB 2525, sponsored by Representative James E. Casorio Jr., D-Westmoreland, sets up stringent licensing and standards of care for commercial kennels. Although high volume breeding operations are the primary focus of the bill, it also establishes new rules for non-commercial kennels and individual dog owners.
A "commercial kennel" is defined as any kennel that breeds or whelps dogs and sells or transfers any dog to a dealer OR sells or transfers more than 60 dogs per year.
A "kennel" is defined as an establishment in or through which at least 26 dogs are kept or transferred in a calendar year.
A "dealer" is a person who publicly or privately sells or offers for sale any dog belonging to another person for consideration, a fee or a commission or percentage of the sale price or transfers dogs at wholesale.
A "private kennel" is a kennel not meeting the definition of commercial kennel at in or adjoining a residence where dogs are kept or bred for the purpose of hunting, tracking and exhibiting in dog shows, or field and obedience trials.
HB 2525 is improved over last year’s proposed regulations and it clearly reflects the input of many stakeholder groups that met with the department before they finalized the legislation. However, it still subjects all dog owners, all hobby breeders, all show kennels, all sporting dog kennels and all boarding kennels to overbearing and unnecessary laws.
Our primary concern is that this bill contains the scope and authority necessary to eliminate substandard kennels, without causing any undue, collateral harm to the law abiding, responsible breeders and kennel operators.
The following provisions in HB 2525 raise concerns:
It allows searches on private residences not associated with the actual operation of a kennel, which strikes us as unnecessarily invasive.
It gives the Department of Agriculture the ability to gain a search warrant simply for even a small violation of their written policies or procedures.
The bill permits the department to levy fines up to $1,000 and imprison violators on criminal charges for the first offense under the law or regulations, no matter how minor the transgression. As written, such severe penalties could be applied at the department's sole discretion for failure to keep a collar on your dog while traveling in your car or making an innocent error in your license application or in your records. The department needs discretion in enforcing the law, but it also needs better guidelines to shape its discretion. First offenses should have the option of a warning.
Under this bill a small breeder could have a single litter or purchase a single dog that brings it under the licensing requirements. However, in the case of the birth of a litter, they will not know if they exceed the limit until the litter is born. Delays by the department for the required inspection and the administrative actions to issue the license means that these small breeders would either be required to get a license unnecessarily or would have to operate without a license for a short period through no fault of their own.
It permits the department to require the divestiture of dogs below the kennel threshold without providing any reason for reducing the number below 25 dogs. At that number, the establishment is not a kennel (unless it thereafter goes over the 25 dog limit) and should not be subject to the department’s authority over kennels absent a clear and well-defined danger.
You can read the entire bill by clicking here .
The time is now to take action to secure the future of the dog fancy in Pennsylvania. Legislators are being overwhelmed with pressure from the media and others to pass a bill quickly. Unless they hear from us, legislators will pass a bill that hurts all of us, even if it is unintentional.
Please use the talking points below or CLICK HERE TO TAKE ACTION NOW and write members of the House Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee encouraging them to amend this bill.
We need you to weigh in today in favor of reasonable dog laws!
For more information, we invite you to read our letter to the House Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee.
If you are receiving this alert through another source besides NAIA, and aren't yet on our alert list, please sign up now.
THANK YOU FOR TAKING ACTION!
Legislators Must Hear from Responsible Owners and Breeders
May 28, 2008
Legislation designed to crack down on so-called "puppy mills" has been introduced in Pennsylvania that would have broad, sweeping implications for all dog owners and breeders. Governor Rendell's strong support for HB 2525 has given the bill significant momentum and a hearing is expected to be scheduled quite soon in the House Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee.
NAIA strongly supports the goal of improving substandard kennels and breeding operations, and we stand behind the spirit and intent of HB 2525 to eliminate poor and irresponsible practices, but upon closer review, we feel compelled to point out some areas where the bill could lead to misinterpretations, enforcement problems, and rights violations.
HB 2525, sponsored by Representative James E. Casorio Jr., D-Westmoreland, sets up stringent licensing and standards of care for commercial kennels. Although high volume breeding operations are the primary focus of the bill, it also establishes new rules for non-commercial kennels and individual dog owners.
A "commercial kennel" is defined as any kennel that breeds or whelps dogs and sells or transfers any dog to a dealer OR sells or transfers more than 60 dogs per year.
A "kennel" is defined as an establishment in or through which at least 26 dogs are kept or transferred in a calendar year.
A "dealer" is a person who publicly or privately sells or offers for sale any dog belonging to another person for consideration, a fee or a commission or percentage of the sale price or transfers dogs at wholesale.
A "private kennel" is a kennel not meeting the definition of commercial kennel at in or adjoining a residence where dogs are kept or bred for the purpose of hunting, tracking and exhibiting in dog shows, or field and obedience trials.
HB 2525 is improved over last year’s proposed regulations and it clearly reflects the input of many stakeholder groups that met with the department before they finalized the legislation. However, it still subjects all dog owners, all hobby breeders, all show kennels, all sporting dog kennels and all boarding kennels to overbearing and unnecessary laws.
Our primary concern is that this bill contains the scope and authority necessary to eliminate substandard kennels, without causing any undue, collateral harm to the law abiding, responsible breeders and kennel operators.
The following provisions in HB 2525 raise concerns:
It allows searches on private residences not associated with the actual operation of a kennel, which strikes us as unnecessarily invasive.
It gives the Department of Agriculture the ability to gain a search warrant simply for even a small violation of their written policies or procedures.
The bill permits the department to levy fines up to $1,000 and imprison violators on criminal charges for the first offense under the law or regulations, no matter how minor the transgression. As written, such severe penalties could be applied at the department's sole discretion for failure to keep a collar on your dog while traveling in your car or making an innocent error in your license application or in your records. The department needs discretion in enforcing the law, but it also needs better guidelines to shape its discretion. First offenses should have the option of a warning.
Under this bill a small breeder could have a single litter or purchase a single dog that brings it under the licensing requirements. However, in the case of the birth of a litter, they will not know if they exceed the limit until the litter is born. Delays by the department for the required inspection and the administrative actions to issue the license means that these small breeders would either be required to get a license unnecessarily or would have to operate without a license for a short period through no fault of their own.
It permits the department to require the divestiture of dogs below the kennel threshold without providing any reason for reducing the number below 25 dogs. At that number, the establishment is not a kennel (unless it thereafter goes over the 25 dog limit) and should not be subject to the department’s authority over kennels absent a clear and well-defined danger.
You can read the entire bill by clicking here .
The time is now to take action to secure the future of the dog fancy in Pennsylvania. Legislators are being overwhelmed with pressure from the media and others to pass a bill quickly. Unless they hear from us, legislators will pass a bill that hurts all of us, even if it is unintentional.
Please use the talking points below or CLICK HERE TO TAKE ACTION NOW and write members of the House Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee encouraging them to amend this bill.
We need you to weigh in today in favor of reasonable dog laws!
For more information, we invite you to read our letter to the House Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee.
If you are receiving this alert through another source besides NAIA, and aren't yet on our alert list, please sign up now.
THANK YOU FOR TAKING ACTION!
PA- Bill to allow Local Breed Specific Legislation
PA Bill to Allow Local BSL
Print This Article
[Thursday, May 22, 2008]
Pennsylvania House Bill 2553 will remove the state's prohibition on breed specific local ordinances, thereby allowing municipalities to adopt any type of law applicable to dangerous dogs, including breed-specific ordinances. It is imperative that concerned dog owners in Pennsylvania contact their legislators and express their strong opposition to this bill.
The American Kennel Club supports reasonable, enforceable, non-discriminatory laws to govern the ownership of dogs. The AKC believes that dog owners should be responsible for their dogs. We support laws that: establish a fair process by which specific dogs are identified as "dangerous" based on stated, measurable actions; impose appropriate penalties on irresponsible owners; and establish a well-defined method for dealing with dogs proven to be dangerous. The American Kennel Club strongly opposes any legislation that determines a dog to be "dangerous" based on specific breeds or phenotypic classes of dogs.
By allowing municipalities to impose breed-specific dangerous dog ordinances, HB 2553, if passed, will permit communities to unfairly target well-behaved dogs of specific breeds, thereby raising the possibility of harsh care and condition requirements or the possibility of penalties for owning certain breeds while not focusing on whether or not an individual dog has previously exhibited dangerous behavior. Additionally, the breed-specific ordinances allowed under this bill will create an unenforceable patchwork of dangerous dog rules across the Commonwealth.
WHAT YOU CAN DO:
Concerned Pennsylvania dog owners should contact the members of the House Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee. Respectfully let them know that HB 2553 is an unacceptable means to address dog control issues.
Majority:
Hon. Michael K. Hanna, Majority Chairman
302 Main Capitol Building
PO Box 202076
Harrisburg, PA 17120-2076
(717) 772-2283
Fax: (717) 787-4137
To e-mail Rep. Hanna, click here.
Hon. Gary Haluska, Majority Vice Chairman
114 Irvis Office Building
PO Box 202073
Harrisburg, PA 17120-2073
(717) 787-3532
Fax: (717) 783-7548
To e-mail Rep. Haluska, click here.
Hon. David R. Kessler, Majority Secretary
115A East Wing
PO Box 202130
Harrisburg, PA 17120-2130
(717) 787-2769
Fax: (717) 780-4768
To e-mail Rep. Kessler, click here.
Hon. Mike Carroll
28A East Wing
PO Box 202118
Harrisburg, PA 17120-2118
(717) 787-3589
Fax: (717) 780-4763
To e-mail Rep. Carroll, click here.
Hon. Mark B. Cohen
128 Main Capitol Building
PO Box 202202
Harrisburg, PA 17120-2202
(717) 787-4117
Fax: (717) 787-6650
To e-mail Rep. Cohen, click here.
Hon. H. Scott Conklin
101B East Wing
PO Box 202077
Harrisburg, PA 17120-2077
(717) 787-9473
Fax: (717) 780-4764
To e-mail Rep. Conklin, click here.
Hon. Peter J. Daley
214 Irvis Office Building
PO Box 202049
Harrisburg, PA 17120-2049
(717) 783-9333
Fax: (717) 783-7558
To e-mail Rep. Daley, click here.
Hon. Richard T. Grucela
G-01 Irvis Office Building
PO Box 202137
Harrisburg, PA 17120-2137
(717) 705-1878
Fax: (717) 783-3180
To e-mail Rep. Grucela, click here.
Hon. Harold James
317 Irvis Office Building
PO Box 202186
Harrisburg, PA 17120-2186
(717) 787-9477
Fax: (717) 787-7517
To e-mail Rep. James, click here.
Hon. Babette Josephs
300 Main Capitol Building
PO Box 202182
Harrisburg, PA 17120-2182
(717) 787-8529
Fax: (717) 787-5066
To e-mail Rep. Josephs, click here.
Hon. Tim Mahoney
104B East Wing
PO Box 202051
Harrisburg, PA 17120-2051
(717) 772-2174
Fax: (717) 780-4786
To e-mail Rep. Mahoney, click here.
Hon. John Myers
305 Irvis Office Building
PO Box 202201
Harrisburg, PA 17120-2201
(717) 787-3181
Fax: (717) 772-4038
To e-mail Rep. Myers, click here.
Hon. Frank Louis Oliver
34E East Wing
PO Box 202195
Harrisburg, PA 17120-2195
(717) 787-3480
Fax: (717) 783-0684
To e-mail Rep. Oliver, click here.
Hon. Timothy J. Solobay
G-14 Irvis Office Building
PO Box 202048
Harrisburg, PA 17120-2048
(717) 787-1188
Fax: (717) 705-1887
To e-mail Rep. Solobay, click here.
Hon. Tom Yewcic
300 Irvis Office Building
PO Box 202072
Harrisburg, PA 17120-2072
(717) 783-0248
Fax: (717) 787-4922
To e-mail Rep. Yewcic, click here.
Hon. Rosita C. Youngblood
121A East Wing
PO Box 202198
Harrisburg, PA 17120-2198
(717) 787-7727
Fax: (717) 772-1313
To e-mail Rep. Youngblood, click here.
Minority:
Hon. Art Hershey, Minority Chairman
202 Ryan Office Building
PO Box 202013
Harrisburg, PA 17120-2013
(717) 783-6435
Fax: (717) 705-1868
To e-mail Rep. Hershey, click here.
Hon. Bob Bastian, Minority Vice Chairman
402A Irvis Office Building
PO Box 202069
Harrisburg, PA 17120-2069
(717) 783-8756
Fax: (717) 783-3899
To e-mail Rep. Bastian, click here.
Hon. Mike Fleck, Minority Secretary
159A East Wing
PO Box 202081
Harrisburg, PA 17120-2081
(717) 787-3335
Fax: (717) 260-6504
E-mail:mfleck@pahousegop.com
Hon. Karen Boback
141B East Wing
PO Box 202117
Harrisburg, PA 17120-2117
(717) 787-1117
Fax: (717) 705-1889
E-Mail: kboback@pahousegop.com
Hon. Michele Brooks
153B East Wing
PO Box 202017
Harrisburg, PA 17120-2017
(717) 783-5008
Fax: (717) 705-1948
E-mail:mbrooks@pahousegop.com
Hon. Jim Cox
412 Irvis Office Building
PO Box 202129
Harrisburg, PA 17120-2129
(717) 772-2435
Fax: (717) 260-6516
E-mail:jcox@pahousegop.com
Hon. Gordon Denlinger
163A East Wing
PO Box 202099
Harrisburg, PA 17120-2099
(717) 787-3531
Fax: (717) 705-1951
E-mail:gdenling@pahousegop.com
Hon. David S. Hickernell
143B East Wing
PO Box 202098
Harrisburg, PA 17120-2098
(717) 783-2076
Fax: (717) 705-1946
To e-mail Rep. Hickernell, click here.
Hon. Rob W. Kauffman
163A East Wing
PO Box 202089
Harrisburg, PA 17120-2089
(717) 705-2004
Fax: (717) 705-1951
E-mail: rkauffma@pahousegop.com
Hon. Mark K. Keller
5 East Wing
PO Box 202086
Harrisburg, PA 17120-2086
(717) 783-1593
Fax: (717) 705-7012
E-mail: mkeller@pahousegop.com
Hon. David R. Millard
402B Irvis Office Building
PO Box 202109
Harrisburg, PA 17120-2109
(717) 783-1102
Fax: (717) 772-0094
E-mail:dmillard@pahousegop.com
Hon. Dan Moul
G-32 Irvis Office Building
PO Box 202091
Harrisburg, PA 17120-2091
(717) 783-5217
E-Mail: dmoul@pahousegop.com
Hon. Tina Pickett
155A East Wing
PO Box 202110
Harrisburg, PA 17120-2110
(717) 783-8238
Fax: (717) 705-1949
E-mail: tpickett@pahousegop.com
Print This Article
[Thursday, May 22, 2008]
Pennsylvania House Bill 2553 will remove the state's prohibition on breed specific local ordinances, thereby allowing municipalities to adopt any type of law applicable to dangerous dogs, including breed-specific ordinances. It is imperative that concerned dog owners in Pennsylvania contact their legislators and express their strong opposition to this bill.
The American Kennel Club supports reasonable, enforceable, non-discriminatory laws to govern the ownership of dogs. The AKC believes that dog owners should be responsible for their dogs. We support laws that: establish a fair process by which specific dogs are identified as "dangerous" based on stated, measurable actions; impose appropriate penalties on irresponsible owners; and establish a well-defined method for dealing with dogs proven to be dangerous. The American Kennel Club strongly opposes any legislation that determines a dog to be "dangerous" based on specific breeds or phenotypic classes of dogs.
By allowing municipalities to impose breed-specific dangerous dog ordinances, HB 2553, if passed, will permit communities to unfairly target well-behaved dogs of specific breeds, thereby raising the possibility of harsh care and condition requirements or the possibility of penalties for owning certain breeds while not focusing on whether or not an individual dog has previously exhibited dangerous behavior. Additionally, the breed-specific ordinances allowed under this bill will create an unenforceable patchwork of dangerous dog rules across the Commonwealth.
WHAT YOU CAN DO:
Concerned Pennsylvania dog owners should contact the members of the House Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee. Respectfully let them know that HB 2553 is an unacceptable means to address dog control issues.
Majority:
Hon. Michael K. Hanna, Majority Chairman
302 Main Capitol Building
PO Box 202076
Harrisburg, PA 17120-2076
(717) 772-2283
Fax: (717) 787-4137
To e-mail Rep. Hanna, click here.
Hon. Gary Haluska, Majority Vice Chairman
114 Irvis Office Building
PO Box 202073
Harrisburg, PA 17120-2073
(717) 787-3532
Fax: (717) 783-7548
To e-mail Rep. Haluska, click here.
Hon. David R. Kessler, Majority Secretary
115A East Wing
PO Box 202130
Harrisburg, PA 17120-2130
(717) 787-2769
Fax: (717) 780-4768
To e-mail Rep. Kessler, click here.
Hon. Mike Carroll
28A East Wing
PO Box 202118
Harrisburg, PA 17120-2118
(717) 787-3589
Fax: (717) 780-4763
To e-mail Rep. Carroll, click here.
Hon. Mark B. Cohen
128 Main Capitol Building
PO Box 202202
Harrisburg, PA 17120-2202
(717) 787-4117
Fax: (717) 787-6650
To e-mail Rep. Cohen, click here.
Hon. H. Scott Conklin
101B East Wing
PO Box 202077
Harrisburg, PA 17120-2077
(717) 787-9473
Fax: (717) 780-4764
To e-mail Rep. Conklin, click here.
Hon. Peter J. Daley
214 Irvis Office Building
PO Box 202049
Harrisburg, PA 17120-2049
(717) 783-9333
Fax: (717) 783-7558
To e-mail Rep. Daley, click here.
Hon. Richard T. Grucela
G-01 Irvis Office Building
PO Box 202137
Harrisburg, PA 17120-2137
(717) 705-1878
Fax: (717) 783-3180
To e-mail Rep. Grucela, click here.
Hon. Harold James
317 Irvis Office Building
PO Box 202186
Harrisburg, PA 17120-2186
(717) 787-9477
Fax: (717) 787-7517
To e-mail Rep. James, click here.
Hon. Babette Josephs
300 Main Capitol Building
PO Box 202182
Harrisburg, PA 17120-2182
(717) 787-8529
Fax: (717) 787-5066
To e-mail Rep. Josephs, click here.
Hon. Tim Mahoney
104B East Wing
PO Box 202051
Harrisburg, PA 17120-2051
(717) 772-2174
Fax: (717) 780-4786
To e-mail Rep. Mahoney, click here.
Hon. John Myers
305 Irvis Office Building
PO Box 202201
Harrisburg, PA 17120-2201
(717) 787-3181
Fax: (717) 772-4038
To e-mail Rep. Myers, click here.
Hon. Frank Louis Oliver
34E East Wing
PO Box 202195
Harrisburg, PA 17120-2195
(717) 787-3480
Fax: (717) 783-0684
To e-mail Rep. Oliver, click here.
Hon. Timothy J. Solobay
G-14 Irvis Office Building
PO Box 202048
Harrisburg, PA 17120-2048
(717) 787-1188
Fax: (717) 705-1887
To e-mail Rep. Solobay, click here.
Hon. Tom Yewcic
300 Irvis Office Building
PO Box 202072
Harrisburg, PA 17120-2072
(717) 783-0248
Fax: (717) 787-4922
To e-mail Rep. Yewcic, click here.
Hon. Rosita C. Youngblood
121A East Wing
PO Box 202198
Harrisburg, PA 17120-2198
(717) 787-7727
Fax: (717) 772-1313
To e-mail Rep. Youngblood, click here.
Minority:
Hon. Art Hershey, Minority Chairman
202 Ryan Office Building
PO Box 202013
Harrisburg, PA 17120-2013
(717) 783-6435
Fax: (717) 705-1868
To e-mail Rep. Hershey, click here.
Hon. Bob Bastian, Minority Vice Chairman
402A Irvis Office Building
PO Box 202069
Harrisburg, PA 17120-2069
(717) 783-8756
Fax: (717) 783-3899
To e-mail Rep. Bastian, click here.
Hon. Mike Fleck, Minority Secretary
159A East Wing
PO Box 202081
Harrisburg, PA 17120-2081
(717) 787-3335
Fax: (717) 260-6504
E-mail:mfleck@pahousegop.com
Hon. Karen Boback
141B East Wing
PO Box 202117
Harrisburg, PA 17120-2117
(717) 787-1117
Fax: (717) 705-1889
E-Mail: kboback@pahousegop.com
Hon. Michele Brooks
153B East Wing
PO Box 202017
Harrisburg, PA 17120-2017
(717) 783-5008
Fax: (717) 705-1948
E-mail:mbrooks@pahousegop.com
Hon. Jim Cox
412 Irvis Office Building
PO Box 202129
Harrisburg, PA 17120-2129
(717) 772-2435
Fax: (717) 260-6516
E-mail:jcox@pahousegop.com
Hon. Gordon Denlinger
163A East Wing
PO Box 202099
Harrisburg, PA 17120-2099
(717) 787-3531
Fax: (717) 705-1951
E-mail:gdenling@pahousegop.com
Hon. David S. Hickernell
143B East Wing
PO Box 202098
Harrisburg, PA 17120-2098
(717) 783-2076
Fax: (717) 705-1946
To e-mail Rep. Hickernell, click here.
Hon. Rob W. Kauffman
163A East Wing
PO Box 202089
Harrisburg, PA 17120-2089
(717) 705-2004
Fax: (717) 705-1951
E-mail: rkauffma@pahousegop.com
Hon. Mark K. Keller
5 East Wing
PO Box 202086
Harrisburg, PA 17120-2086
(717) 783-1593
Fax: (717) 705-7012
E-mail: mkeller@pahousegop.com
Hon. David R. Millard
402B Irvis Office Building
PO Box 202109
Harrisburg, PA 17120-2109
(717) 783-1102
Fax: (717) 772-0094
E-mail:dmillard@pahousegop.com
Hon. Dan Moul
G-32 Irvis Office Building
PO Box 202091
Harrisburg, PA 17120-2091
(717) 783-5217
E-Mail: dmoul@pahousegop.com
Hon. Tina Pickett
155A East Wing
PO Box 202110
Harrisburg, PA 17120-2110
(717) 783-8238
Fax: (717) 705-1949
E-mail: tpickett@pahousegop.com
Friday, May 16, 2008
PA- Proposed Dog law affects ALL dog owners- not just "puppy mills"
by JOHN YATES
American Sporting Dog Alliance
http://www.americansportingdogalliance.org
(This is the first in a series of reports on newly introduced Pennsylvania
legislation that will affect every dog and kennel owner.)
HARRISBURG, PA “ Although the pomp and hoopla didn't quite come off as
advertised, three pieces of legislation were introduced Wednesday that will
affect every Pennsylvania dog and kennel owner:
H.B. 2525, sponsored by Rep. James Casorio (D-Westmoreland County) is the
centerpiece of Gov. Ed Rendell's plan to improve conditions in large commercial
breeding kennels. However, it also gives the Bureau of Dog Law Enforcement
sweeping powers, cancels out public participation in developing regulations
for all kennels, and sets severe fines, penalties, illegal searches and
confiscation policies that will affect all kennels.
H.B. 2532, sponsored by Rep. Thomas Caltagirone (D- Berks County) amends the
ear cropping section of animal cruelty legislation to prohibit anyone except
a veterinarian from performing surgical procedures, but also sets ambiguous
restrictions on tail docking and subjects innocent dog owners to prosecution
for a serious criminal offense. This legislation would curtail rescue program
efforts for many dogs and make out of state residents guilty of a serious
crime for things that are legal in their home states if they pass through or
visit Pennsylvania for travel, dog shows and field trials.
H.B. 449, which was introduced more than a year ago, is being resurrected.
This legislation would make owners of dog seized for unproven animal cruelty
allegations pay for the cost of the care at animal shelters.
The American Sporting Dog Alliance published detailed analyses of all three
pieces of legislation over the past two weeks, and will continue to do so as
the legislative process unfolds. Copies of these prior reports are available
by request at asda@csonline.net.
Wednesday's unveiling culminated more than a year of planning following the
derailment of "top-down" legislation last year. During this time, Bureau of
Dog Law Enforcement Deputy Director Jessie Smith met with many concerned
parties to gather input stemming from more than 16,000 written comments received
last year reportedly an all-time record for public comment on any kind of
legislation in Pennsylvania.
Ceremonies, press conferences, pro-legislation demonstrations, and debate
and testimony at a special meeting of the Dog Law Advisory Board were scheduled
for Wednesday. There was a modest amount of smoke at these events, but
little if any flame.
The pro-legislation rally on the Capitol steps was expected to draw hundreds
of people to protest conditions in "puppy mills", but only between 60 and
80 people attended to voice support. The number of actual participants could
not be determined, but the actual participants were outnumbered by
politicians, Bureau officials, reporters and television news crews. Even three owners of large commercial breeding kennels were observed on the fringes of the group.
There was little discussion at the Dog Law Advisory Board meeting, and most
members did not comment. Only about a dozen people testified at the meeting,
with comments running about three-to-one in opposition to the legislation.
Several opponents of the legislation pointed to failed new regulations as
reflecting either left-wing or extreme animal rights agendas.
The Casorio legislation has received strong support in the House of Representatives, with a reported 90 legislators signing on as co-sponsor; it takes 102 votes to assure passage in the House. He said he expects the legislation to be passed before the end of June.
"We're coming after you," Casorio warned commercial kennel owners in an
interview with an Allentown newspaper. "Today is the beginning of the end of
commercial kennels in Pennsylvania." The legislation also will come all of
Pennsylvania's 2,700 licensed kennels.
The American Sporting Dog Alliance supports many of the changes to improve
conditions in large commercial breeding kennels, but opposes the Casorio
legislation as a whole because it trashes constitutional protections, gives
virtually unlimited power to the Bureau, cuts out legislative approval for license
fee increases and eliminates necessary public review protections for future
regulations.
The legislation provides truly frightening fines, penalties and confiscation
of dogs for even minor technical violations of regulations, and the planned
regulations are being kept hidden from public scrutiny. In addition, the
Casorio bill provides for unrestricted searches of homes, property and records,
and calls for kennel license revocations if working people are not available
for inspection at the Bureau's convenience.
Caltagirone's Animal Cruelty Act amendments would have a devastating impact
on shelter and rescue programs, because most animals come to these facilities
from unknown sources or without veterinary records. It would be illegal to
possess a dog with cropped ears, scars from a Caesarian section or indications
of surgical debarking in the absence of proof that the work was done by a
veterinarian. It also would be illegal to possess a dog with a docked tail, if
proof could not be provided that the work was done before a puppy was four
days old, or by a veterinarian.
In addition, many Pennsylvanians may have lost veterinary records, or move
here or buy a puppy from other states that do not have these laws. They would
be automatically guilty of a serious criminal offense simply by being in
possession of their dog, and would have no defense in court. Nonresidents of
Pennsylvania would not be able to legally bring a dog with cropped ears or a
docked tail to this state while traveling, to hunt, or to attend a field trial or
dog show without veterinary proof.
The American Sporting Dog Alliance has been working through our members to
show legislators the hidden problems with this legislation. Thus far, our
members report that two legislators have withdrawn their co-sponsorship from the
Caltagirone bill. We hope to be able to convince many more legislators to
withdraw their support from both bills.
We plan to record every vote taken on this legislation and make this
information available to the voters for the November general election. We have been
working hard to develop a database of Pennsylvania dog and kennel owners, and
now can reach more than 50,000 voters in this state.
American Sporting Dog Alliance
http://www.americansportingdogalliance.org
(This is the first in a series of reports on newly introduced Pennsylvania
legislation that will affect every dog and kennel owner.)
HARRISBURG, PA “ Although the pomp and hoopla didn't quite come off as
advertised, three pieces of legislation were introduced Wednesday that will
affect every Pennsylvania dog and kennel owner:
H.B. 2525, sponsored by Rep. James Casorio (D-Westmoreland County) is the
centerpiece of Gov. Ed Rendell's plan to improve conditions in large commercial
breeding kennels. However, it also gives the Bureau of Dog Law Enforcement
sweeping powers, cancels out public participation in developing regulations
for all kennels, and sets severe fines, penalties, illegal searches and
confiscation policies that will affect all kennels.
H.B. 2532, sponsored by Rep. Thomas Caltagirone (D- Berks County) amends the
ear cropping section of animal cruelty legislation to prohibit anyone except
a veterinarian from performing surgical procedures, but also sets ambiguous
restrictions on tail docking and subjects innocent dog owners to prosecution
for a serious criminal offense. This legislation would curtail rescue program
efforts for many dogs and make out of state residents guilty of a serious
crime for things that are legal in their home states if they pass through or
visit Pennsylvania for travel, dog shows and field trials.
H.B. 449, which was introduced more than a year ago, is being resurrected.
This legislation would make owners of dog seized for unproven animal cruelty
allegations pay for the cost of the care at animal shelters.
The American Sporting Dog Alliance published detailed analyses of all three
pieces of legislation over the past two weeks, and will continue to do so as
the legislative process unfolds. Copies of these prior reports are available
by request at asda@csonline.net.
Wednesday's unveiling culminated more than a year of planning following the
derailment of "top-down" legislation last year. During this time, Bureau of
Dog Law Enforcement Deputy Director Jessie Smith met with many concerned
parties to gather input stemming from more than 16,000 written comments received
last year reportedly an all-time record for public comment on any kind of
legislation in Pennsylvania.
Ceremonies, press conferences, pro-legislation demonstrations, and debate
and testimony at a special meeting of the Dog Law Advisory Board were scheduled
for Wednesday. There was a modest amount of smoke at these events, but
little if any flame.
The pro-legislation rally on the Capitol steps was expected to draw hundreds
of people to protest conditions in "puppy mills", but only between 60 and
80 people attended to voice support. The number of actual participants could
not be determined, but the actual participants were outnumbered by
politicians, Bureau officials, reporters and television news crews. Even three owners of large commercial breeding kennels were observed on the fringes of the group.
There was little discussion at the Dog Law Advisory Board meeting, and most
members did not comment. Only about a dozen people testified at the meeting,
with comments running about three-to-one in opposition to the legislation.
Several opponents of the legislation pointed to failed new regulations as
reflecting either left-wing or extreme animal rights agendas.
The Casorio legislation has received strong support in the House of Representatives, with a reported 90 legislators signing on as co-sponsor; it takes 102 votes to assure passage in the House. He said he expects the legislation to be passed before the end of June.
"We're coming after you," Casorio warned commercial kennel owners in an
interview with an Allentown newspaper. "Today is the beginning of the end of
commercial kennels in Pennsylvania." The legislation also will come all of
Pennsylvania's 2,700 licensed kennels.
The American Sporting Dog Alliance supports many of the changes to improve
conditions in large commercial breeding kennels, but opposes the Casorio
legislation as a whole because it trashes constitutional protections, gives
virtually unlimited power to the Bureau, cuts out legislative approval for license
fee increases and eliminates necessary public review protections for future
regulations.
The legislation provides truly frightening fines, penalties and confiscation
of dogs for even minor technical violations of regulations, and the planned
regulations are being kept hidden from public scrutiny. In addition, the
Casorio bill provides for unrestricted searches of homes, property and records,
and calls for kennel license revocations if working people are not available
for inspection at the Bureau's convenience.
Caltagirone's Animal Cruelty Act amendments would have a devastating impact
on shelter and rescue programs, because most animals come to these facilities
from unknown sources or without veterinary records. It would be illegal to
possess a dog with cropped ears, scars from a Caesarian section or indications
of surgical debarking in the absence of proof that the work was done by a
veterinarian. It also would be illegal to possess a dog with a docked tail, if
proof could not be provided that the work was done before a puppy was four
days old, or by a veterinarian.
In addition, many Pennsylvanians may have lost veterinary records, or move
here or buy a puppy from other states that do not have these laws. They would
be automatically guilty of a serious criminal offense simply by being in
possession of their dog, and would have no defense in court. Nonresidents of
Pennsylvania would not be able to legally bring a dog with cropped ears or a
docked tail to this state while traveling, to hunt, or to attend a field trial or
dog show without veterinary proof.
The American Sporting Dog Alliance has been working through our members to
show legislators the hidden problems with this legislation. Thus far, our
members report that two legislators have withdrawn their co-sponsorship from the
Caltagirone bill. We hope to be able to convince many more legislators to
withdraw their support from both bills.
We plan to record every vote taken on this legislation and make this
information available to the voters for the November general election. We have been
working hard to develop a database of Pennsylvania dog and kennel owners, and
now can reach more than 50,000 voters in this state.
Wednesday, May 14, 2008
PA- Proposed "puppy mill" regulations hits hobby breeders hard
Revised PA Bill Will Take Bite Out of Sporting Dog Breeders
(Columbus, OH) - A revised bill for proposed “puppy mill” regulations in Pennsylvania threatens to put sporting dog kennel owners and hobby breeders out of business if it is passed as currently written.
The new legislation, House Bill 2525, introduced today by Representative James E. Casorio Jr., D-Westmoreland, was crafted to address the issue of so-called “puppy mills,” abusive large-scale commercial dog breeding operations. In addition to regulating puppy mills, the measure sets up the non-elected officials of the state Agriculture Department as the unchecked, sole authority that controls puppy operations and all dog breeders, including smaller hunting dog kennels.
“We are concerned that future holders of these offices will not be accountable to the public or the legislature,” said Rob Sexton, vice president of government affairs for the U.S. Sportsmen’s Alliance (USSA).
House Bill 2525 permits the Agriculture Department, not the elected members of the legislature to:
Set kennel license fees;
Decide how kennels are to be operated;
Determine those acts that constitute a violation;
Set penalties for violations, which may include forfeiture of dogs without compensation and even jail time.
“The bill enables the career staff of a state agency to be lawmaker, judge, jury and executioner,” said Sexton. “The legislature has spelled out strict guidelines for other agencies, such as the Pennsylvania Game Commission. The Agriculture Department, when enforcing the dog law, should have the same guidance.”
Other concerns with the bill include:
Decreasing the amount of public input on changes to the dog law;
Allowing searches on residences not associated with the actual operation of a kennel;
Subjecting license holders to state penalties as a result of local ordinances.
In 2006, a coalition was formed by the U.S. Sportsmen’s Alliance (USSA), and its Sporting Dog Defense Coalition (SDDC), along with the Masters of Foxhounds Association, Pennsylvania Federation of Sportsmen’s Clubs, and representatives of national, state, and local sporting dog kennels and associations. From the beginning, the coalition has wanted to be helpful in the effort to crack down on abusive “puppy mills” without impacting private kennels, including sporting kennels.
The USSA coalition contends that legislation can be written to effectively eliminate abuses without endangering the existence of legitimate sporting dog kennels.
What is needed, are clear standards and criteria so there can be an objective assessment as to whether the punishment handed down in a case is reasonably related to the severity of the crime. Anyone charged by the department could also incur the costs of the government housing their dogs during the resolution of the offenses and legal fees. These concerns should not be difficult to fix and still give the department the authority over abusive “puppy mills.”
“We’ve compromised with the department in the negotiations from the start,” said Sexton. “We’ve been clear all along that any legislation that enables the department to further regulate abusive puppy mills must not damage law abiding hobby breeders.”
The USSA coalition opposes the bill as written, but there are many aspects that might be amended to address its concerns without compromising the objectives of the legislation.
For a complete listing of issues and concerns with the bill and a listing of sportsmen’s opponents, go to MailScanner has detected a possible fraud attempt from "blast.sparklist.com" claiming to be www.ussportsmen.org and click on Pennsylvania Dog Law Alert!
The U.S. Sportsmen’s Alliance is a national association of sportsmen and sportsmen’s organizations that protects the rights of hunters, anglers and trappers in the courts, legislatures, at the ballot, in Congress and through public education programs. For more information about the U.S. Sportsmen’s Alliance and its work, call (614) 888-4868 or visit its website
(Columbus, OH) - A revised bill for proposed “puppy mill” regulations in Pennsylvania threatens to put sporting dog kennel owners and hobby breeders out of business if it is passed as currently written.
The new legislation, House Bill 2525, introduced today by Representative James E. Casorio Jr., D-Westmoreland, was crafted to address the issue of so-called “puppy mills,” abusive large-scale commercial dog breeding operations. In addition to regulating puppy mills, the measure sets up the non-elected officials of the state Agriculture Department as the unchecked, sole authority that controls puppy operations and all dog breeders, including smaller hunting dog kennels.
“We are concerned that future holders of these offices will not be accountable to the public or the legislature,” said Rob Sexton, vice president of government affairs for the U.S. Sportsmen’s Alliance (USSA).
House Bill 2525 permits the Agriculture Department, not the elected members of the legislature to:
Set kennel license fees;
Decide how kennels are to be operated;
Determine those acts that constitute a violation;
Set penalties for violations, which may include forfeiture of dogs without compensation and even jail time.
“The bill enables the career staff of a state agency to be lawmaker, judge, jury and executioner,” said Sexton. “The legislature has spelled out strict guidelines for other agencies, such as the Pennsylvania Game Commission. The Agriculture Department, when enforcing the dog law, should have the same guidance.”
Other concerns with the bill include:
Decreasing the amount of public input on changes to the dog law;
Allowing searches on residences not associated with the actual operation of a kennel;
Subjecting license holders to state penalties as a result of local ordinances.
In 2006, a coalition was formed by the U.S. Sportsmen’s Alliance (USSA), and its Sporting Dog Defense Coalition (SDDC), along with the Masters of Foxhounds Association, Pennsylvania Federation of Sportsmen’s Clubs, and representatives of national, state, and local sporting dog kennels and associations. From the beginning, the coalition has wanted to be helpful in the effort to crack down on abusive “puppy mills” without impacting private kennels, including sporting kennels.
The USSA coalition contends that legislation can be written to effectively eliminate abuses without endangering the existence of legitimate sporting dog kennels.
What is needed, are clear standards and criteria so there can be an objective assessment as to whether the punishment handed down in a case is reasonably related to the severity of the crime. Anyone charged by the department could also incur the costs of the government housing their dogs during the resolution of the offenses and legal fees. These concerns should not be difficult to fix and still give the department the authority over abusive “puppy mills.”
“We’ve compromised with the department in the negotiations from the start,” said Sexton. “We’ve been clear all along that any legislation that enables the department to further regulate abusive puppy mills must not damage law abiding hobby breeders.”
The USSA coalition opposes the bill as written, but there are many aspects that might be amended to address its concerns without compromising the objectives of the legislation.
For a complete listing of issues and concerns with the bill and a listing of sportsmen’s opponents, go to MailScanner has detected a possible fraud attempt from "blast.sparklist.com" claiming to be www.ussportsmen.org and click on Pennsylvania Dog Law Alert!
The U.S. Sportsmen’s Alliance is a national association of sportsmen and sportsmen’s organizations that protects the rights of hunters, anglers and trappers in the courts, legislatures, at the ballot, in Congress and through public education programs. For more information about the U.S. Sportsmen’s Alliance and its work, call (614) 888-4868 or visit its website
Thursday, April 17, 2008
PA- Dog Law Bureau sits on $15 Million Slush Fund
Pennsylvania Dog Law Bureau
Sits on $15 Million Slush Fund
Legality Of Some Grant Awards Questionable
by JOHN YATES
The American Sporting Dog Alliance
http://www.americansportingdogalliance.org
(This is the fourth in a series of special reports that will be
released in the days prior to the publication of proposed kennel
legislation and revised kennel regulations in Pennsylvania. This
issue is of vital concern to everyone who has a kennel or owns a
dog. The American Sporting Dog Alliance works at the grassroots
level to protect the rights of people who own or work with dogs of
the sporting breeds. Our focus is on informing people about the
issues, providing a way to take direct personal action, tracking
votes in the Legislature, taking legal action, and convincing
elected officials to do what's right. Please visit us on the web at
http://www.americansportingdogalliance.org. Your participation and
membership are very important. We maintain strict independence, and
are supported solely by the donations of our members.)
HARRISBURG, Pa. – What on Earth does the Pennsylvania Bureau of Dog
Law Enforcement plan to do with a cool $15 million that it has
socked away in the bank?
This slush fund is not allocated for budgeted expenditures, an
investigation by The American Sporting Dog Alliance (ASDA) reveals.
It's just sitting in the bank and waiting…for something.
How big is this unallocated chunk of money? It is big enough to pay
for the budgeted activities of the entire Bureau for the next two
and a half years. It also is big enough to pay for a lot of other
possibilities that we can only speculate about.
State officials have not been cooperative with the ASDA
investigation. We have made repeated requests for documents from key
administrators in the Bureau, in the Department of Agriculture and
the Governor's Office. These requests have been ignored.
However, we were able to obtain the information ourselves from
archived financial reports in the Office of Budget.
Budget documents break down the finances of the Dog Law Restricted
Account, which pays for the Bureau's activities. The fund collects
money from the sale of county dog licenses, state kennel licenses,
state dealer licenses, fines, penalties and a variety of other
sources. It spends the money to pay for the costs of the Bureau's
activities, and to provide grants and reimbursements.
For the current fiscal year, which began July 1, 2007, the documents
show:
· $15.9 million was carried over as unspent money from the
previous fiscal year, which ended June 30, 2007. This is money the
Bureau had in its piggybank but did not spend.
· The current year's budget projects $6.9 million in revenues
received for the 2007-2008 fiscal year. This is the money that the
Bureau hauls in from license fees, fines, penalties and other
sources.
· $6.9 million has been budgeted to pay for the actual cost of
running the Bureau, and an additional $565,403 is budgeted to cover
unspecified "commitments."
· This leaves a balance of $15.4 million in the projected
slush fund for the end of the fiscal year on June 30, 2008.
· However, February 29, 2008, budget documents show that the
Bureau already has overspent this budget by about $700,000 (the
amount the slush fund was reduced below projected amounts to cover
unbudgeted expenditures), with four months remaining in the fiscal
year. We don't know where this money went, although our sources tell
us that some of it may have been spent to cover the costs of
drafting new legislation and regulations.
· $14.7 million still remained in the slush fund on February
29, 2008
That's a lot of money!
What will it be used for?
We don't know.
We do know what the law says it can be used for. We do know what
some of it has been used for. We can make some educated guesses. But
we don't know what Bureau officials and Gov. Ed Rendell actually
plan to do with this huge pile of money, and they aren't saying.
We also know that draft versions of a proposed revision to the state
dog laws and kennel regulations call for the probable stepped-up
seizure of dogs from non-compliant kennels, payments to shelters and
rescue groups to take care of those dogs, payments to veterinarians
to treat those dogs, and large increases in license fees, fines and
penalties that would cause this slush fund to grow rapidly.
Let's start with the law itself.
The Dog Law says that the Restricted Account was created as a
repository for revenues, to cover Bureau operating expenses, and to
reimburse counties and animal shelters for caring for dogs that are
seized or impounded by dog wardens. Article X details the program.
Shelters are reimbursed at $5 per day for every dog they take in
from a warden, if the owner of the dog or dogs won't pay.
Section B of Article X details some possibilities for how the slush
fund could be spent. We quote:
"(B) SURPLUS FUNDS.-- The secretary may declare that there is a
surplus of money in the Dog Law Restricted Account. The secretary
may authorize additional payments to the counties, except (emphasis
on this word is ours) to counties of the first class, municipalities
and to humane societies or associations for the prevention of
cruelty to animals from any amount declared to be surplus. Such
payments shall be based on the (Agriculture) secretary's evaluation
pursuant to rules and regulations promulgated under this act."
Despite the above prohibition against using this money to help
humane societies, the Bureau does just that. An announcement on the
Bureau's 2008 grant program was published in The Pennsylvania
Bulletin. It says:
"Dog Control Facility Bill Reimbursement Grant
Program
The Department of Agriculture (Department) gives notice
of the guidelines and conditions under which it will
award up to $750,000 in grants under the Year 2008 Dog
Control Facility Bill Reimbursement Program (Program).
The Program will award bill reimbursement grants of up
to $15,000 per recipient to humane societies or associations
for the prevention of cruelty to animals that meet
the guidelines and conditions of this Program. The Program
will be funded from the Dog Law Restricted Account
from funds which are declared to be ``surplus'' funds for
the limited purposes set forth in section 1002(b) of the
Dog Law (3 P. S. § 459-1002(b))."
This program appears to be a violation of the dog law that was
quoted above, which prohibits using surplus funds for humane
societies and similar programs.
The publication also details another apparent violation of the Dog
Law. The grant program announcement says that funds will be
available to pay for "veterinarian services with respect to which
the invoice identifies the dog treated and the reason for the
treatment…."
Article X of the law says: "No funds credited to the restricted
account created by this section shall be used for government
subsidized veterinary services."
We cannot explain these apparent discrepancies between the law and
the Bureau's grant program.
Our research has shown that these legally questionable grant
payments have been made to humane societies, animal shelters and
veterinarians back through and including the 2005 fiscal year. We
did not look further back in time than 2005.
We can only speculate about the planned uses of the Bureau's roughly
$15 million slush fund in the future.
We do know that all drafts of the proposed new kennel laws and
regulations impose much more strict standards, and provide the
almost certain probability that more dogs will be seized and
impounded, and that more shelter facilities likely will be needed to
care for these dogs and kill the ones that are not returned to their
owners or adopted. The grant fund also provides euthanasia funding
for impounded dogs.
Impounding dogs already is big business for the Bureau. The Bureau's
most recent required annual report to the Legislature shows that
more than $1 million was handed out to animal shelters and counties
in grants in 2006.
An additional $356,000 was given to counties and shelters for
reimbursements for housing 17,796 dogs that were seized or impounded
by state wardens, the 2006 report shows.
Under the Dog Law, the Bureau must make its 2007 report to the
Legislature by March 1, 2008. This date has passed, and the report
still is not available on Bureau or Legislature websites. Our
requests for this report have been ignored.
Draft versions of proposed new legislation also would add
enforcement of animal cruelty statutes to state dog wardens' duties,
and we believe this would place a serious strain on existing
manpower. This program also would require additional work to
prosecute alleged violations, as animal cruelty is a criminal
offense. We doubt that dog wardens would be able to handle the
prosecution in a court of law, as many of the defendants would have
attorneys in criminal trials. Thus we would expect that the Bureau
would have to hire more special prosecutors to handle this increased
workload. New regulations also would make kennel inspections far
more time-consuming and this, too, would strain manpower. These
would be logical uses for the budget surplus, but we cannot confirm
that this is the plan.
At present, documents show, the Bureau has dog wardens assigned to
each of the state's 67 counties, plus a team of special statewide
dog wardens nicknamed the "SWAT Team," 124 additional Humane
Society police officers, and has a full-time prosecutor.
The expanded duties and more complex regulations thus would seem to
require a large increase in personnel costs for the Bureau.
Those speculations, however, would not fully explain the planned
uses for the $15 million slush fund.
Any speculation beyond this point would be just a wild guess. We
will leave that to our readers' imaginations, in the absence of
candor from the Bureau and Gov. Rendell.
Please visit us on the web at
http://www.americansportingdogalliance.org.
Sits on $15 Million Slush Fund
Legality Of Some Grant Awards Questionable
by JOHN YATES
The American Sporting Dog Alliance
http://www.americansportingdogalliance.org
(This is the fourth in a series of special reports that will be
released in the days prior to the publication of proposed kennel
legislation and revised kennel regulations in Pennsylvania. This
issue is of vital concern to everyone who has a kennel or owns a
dog. The American Sporting Dog Alliance works at the grassroots
level to protect the rights of people who own or work with dogs of
the sporting breeds. Our focus is on informing people about the
issues, providing a way to take direct personal action, tracking
votes in the Legislature, taking legal action, and convincing
elected officials to do what's right. Please visit us on the web at
http://www.americansportingdogalliance.org. Your participation and
membership are very important. We maintain strict independence, and
are supported solely by the donations of our members.)
HARRISBURG, Pa. – What on Earth does the Pennsylvania Bureau of Dog
Law Enforcement plan to do with a cool $15 million that it has
socked away in the bank?
This slush fund is not allocated for budgeted expenditures, an
investigation by The American Sporting Dog Alliance (ASDA) reveals.
It's just sitting in the bank and waiting…for something.
How big is this unallocated chunk of money? It is big enough to pay
for the budgeted activities of the entire Bureau for the next two
and a half years. It also is big enough to pay for a lot of other
possibilities that we can only speculate about.
State officials have not been cooperative with the ASDA
investigation. We have made repeated requests for documents from key
administrators in the Bureau, in the Department of Agriculture and
the Governor's Office. These requests have been ignored.
However, we were able to obtain the information ourselves from
archived financial reports in the Office of Budget.
Budget documents break down the finances of the Dog Law Restricted
Account, which pays for the Bureau's activities. The fund collects
money from the sale of county dog licenses, state kennel licenses,
state dealer licenses, fines, penalties and a variety of other
sources. It spends the money to pay for the costs of the Bureau's
activities, and to provide grants and reimbursements.
For the current fiscal year, which began July 1, 2007, the documents
show:
· $15.9 million was carried over as unspent money from the
previous fiscal year, which ended June 30, 2007. This is money the
Bureau had in its piggybank but did not spend.
· The current year's budget projects $6.9 million in revenues
received for the 2007-2008 fiscal year. This is the money that the
Bureau hauls in from license fees, fines, penalties and other
sources.
· $6.9 million has been budgeted to pay for the actual cost of
running the Bureau, and an additional $565,403 is budgeted to cover
unspecified "commitments."
· This leaves a balance of $15.4 million in the projected
slush fund for the end of the fiscal year on June 30, 2008.
· However, February 29, 2008, budget documents show that the
Bureau already has overspent this budget by about $700,000 (the
amount the slush fund was reduced below projected amounts to cover
unbudgeted expenditures), with four months remaining in the fiscal
year. We don't know where this money went, although our sources tell
us that some of it may have been spent to cover the costs of
drafting new legislation and regulations.
· $14.7 million still remained in the slush fund on February
29, 2008
That's a lot of money!
What will it be used for?
We don't know.
We do know what the law says it can be used for. We do know what
some of it has been used for. We can make some educated guesses. But
we don't know what Bureau officials and Gov. Ed Rendell actually
plan to do with this huge pile of money, and they aren't saying.
We also know that draft versions of a proposed revision to the state
dog laws and kennel regulations call for the probable stepped-up
seizure of dogs from non-compliant kennels, payments to shelters and
rescue groups to take care of those dogs, payments to veterinarians
to treat those dogs, and large increases in license fees, fines and
penalties that would cause this slush fund to grow rapidly.
Let's start with the law itself.
The Dog Law says that the Restricted Account was created as a
repository for revenues, to cover Bureau operating expenses, and to
reimburse counties and animal shelters for caring for dogs that are
seized or impounded by dog wardens. Article X details the program.
Shelters are reimbursed at $5 per day for every dog they take in
from a warden, if the owner of the dog or dogs won't pay.
Section B of Article X details some possibilities for how the slush
fund could be spent. We quote:
"(B) SURPLUS FUNDS.-- The secretary may declare that there is a
surplus of money in the Dog Law Restricted Account. The secretary
may authorize additional payments to the counties, except (emphasis
on this word is ours) to counties of the first class, municipalities
and to humane societies or associations for the prevention of
cruelty to animals from any amount declared to be surplus. Such
payments shall be based on the (Agriculture) secretary's evaluation
pursuant to rules and regulations promulgated under this act."
Despite the above prohibition against using this money to help
humane societies, the Bureau does just that. An announcement on the
Bureau's 2008 grant program was published in The Pennsylvania
Bulletin. It says:
"Dog Control Facility Bill Reimbursement Grant
Program
The Department of Agriculture (Department) gives notice
of the guidelines and conditions under which it will
award up to $750,000 in grants under the Year 2008 Dog
Control Facility Bill Reimbursement Program (Program).
The Program will award bill reimbursement grants of up
to $15,000 per recipient to humane societies or associations
for the prevention of cruelty to animals that meet
the guidelines and conditions of this Program. The Program
will be funded from the Dog Law Restricted Account
from funds which are declared to be ``surplus'' funds for
the limited purposes set forth in section 1002(b) of the
Dog Law (3 P. S. § 459-1002(b))."
This program appears to be a violation of the dog law that was
quoted above, which prohibits using surplus funds for humane
societies and similar programs.
The publication also details another apparent violation of the Dog
Law. The grant program announcement says that funds will be
available to pay for "veterinarian services with respect to which
the invoice identifies the dog treated and the reason for the
treatment…."
Article X of the law says: "No funds credited to the restricted
account created by this section shall be used for government
subsidized veterinary services."
We cannot explain these apparent discrepancies between the law and
the Bureau's grant program.
Our research has shown that these legally questionable grant
payments have been made to humane societies, animal shelters and
veterinarians back through and including the 2005 fiscal year. We
did not look further back in time than 2005.
We can only speculate about the planned uses of the Bureau's roughly
$15 million slush fund in the future.
We do know that all drafts of the proposed new kennel laws and
regulations impose much more strict standards, and provide the
almost certain probability that more dogs will be seized and
impounded, and that more shelter facilities likely will be needed to
care for these dogs and kill the ones that are not returned to their
owners or adopted. The grant fund also provides euthanasia funding
for impounded dogs.
Impounding dogs already is big business for the Bureau. The Bureau's
most recent required annual report to the Legislature shows that
more than $1 million was handed out to animal shelters and counties
in grants in 2006.
An additional $356,000 was given to counties and shelters for
reimbursements for housing 17,796 dogs that were seized or impounded
by state wardens, the 2006 report shows.
Under the Dog Law, the Bureau must make its 2007 report to the
Legislature by March 1, 2008. This date has passed, and the report
still is not available on Bureau or Legislature websites. Our
requests for this report have been ignored.
Draft versions of proposed new legislation also would add
enforcement of animal cruelty statutes to state dog wardens' duties,
and we believe this would place a serious strain on existing
manpower. This program also would require additional work to
prosecute alleged violations, as animal cruelty is a criminal
offense. We doubt that dog wardens would be able to handle the
prosecution in a court of law, as many of the defendants would have
attorneys in criminal trials. Thus we would expect that the Bureau
would have to hire more special prosecutors to handle this increased
workload. New regulations also would make kennel inspections far
more time-consuming and this, too, would strain manpower. These
would be logical uses for the budget surplus, but we cannot confirm
that this is the plan.
At present, documents show, the Bureau has dog wardens assigned to
each of the state's 67 counties, plus a team of special statewide
dog wardens nicknamed the "SWAT Team," 124 additional Humane
Society police officers, and has a full-time prosecutor.
The expanded duties and more complex regulations thus would seem to
require a large increase in personnel costs for the Bureau.
Those speculations, however, would not fully explain the planned
uses for the $15 million slush fund.
Any speculation beyond this point would be just a wild guess. We
will leave that to our readers' imaginations, in the absence of
candor from the Bureau and Gov. Rendell.
Please visit us on the web at
http://www.americansportingdogalliance.org.
Tuesday, March 25, 2008
PA- Can't run loose, can't tether (in SC can't even pen them up)
PENNSYLVANIA Home Page: http://www.legis.state.pa.us/
HB1065 - A tethering bill that delivers consequences to dog owners who abuse their pets. The bill calls for owners to take their dogs inside between 10 pm and 6 am. It restricts how long you can restrain your dog during the day. If you're caught breaking the law he fine is $300, and your dog could be taken away. State Representative Mario Scavello (R-Monroe) has decided to sponsor the bill, after hearing about some horrific stories of dogs abused across the Commonwealth. The tethering bill is in committee right now, it still has to go to the House for approval.
http://www.legis.state.pa.us/CFDOCS/Legis/PN/Public/btCheck.cfm?txtType=HTM&sessYr=2007&sessInd=0&billBody=H&billTyp=B&billNbr=1065&pn=1302
Bristol - The borough council will pursue a zero tolerance approach to loose dogs running around town for fear of an attack on a child playing outdoors."It's a time bomb waiting to happen," council President Ralph DiGuiseppe said at Monday's council meeting. The borough has asked state Rep. John Galloway, D-140, to push for a stricter state law against attacking dogs. The current law gives attacking dogs a second chance."Our hands are tied because its state legislation," DiGuiseppe said. "We need to muzzle dogs and protect the people of Bristol. We need to go on the offense and pass legislation in Harrisburg. Something must be done." "The state has to change," said Councilwoman Betty Rodriguez. DiGuiseppe is considering adopting a local ordinance even though dog regulations are under the state's jurisdiction. Borough solicitor William Salerno warned the council that Bristol can't create a law stricter than the state's, but DiGuiseppe said he's ready to fight the state in court if it challenges a local dog ordinance.
http://www.phillyburbs.com/pb-dyn/news/111-03152008-1503954.html
Harrisburg - State Rep. Bill Kortz (D-38) wants to give pet owners a little more time to find their lost pooch. The state official proposed adjusting Pennsylvania's dog laws. The first bill adjusts the minimum holding period before animals are given up for adoption or euthanized. The second deals with euthanization methods. Kortz said several constituents came to him, explaining their issues with dog catchers.
http://www.yoursouthhills.com/southhillsrecord/article/kortz-hopes-curb-state-dog-laws
HB1065 - A tethering bill that delivers consequences to dog owners who abuse their pets. The bill calls for owners to take their dogs inside between 10 pm and 6 am. It restricts how long you can restrain your dog during the day. If you're caught breaking the law he fine is $300, and your dog could be taken away. State Representative Mario Scavello (R-Monroe) has decided to sponsor the bill, after hearing about some horrific stories of dogs abused across the Commonwealth. The tethering bill is in committee right now, it still has to go to the House for approval.
http://www.legis.state.pa.us/CFDOCS/Legis/PN/Public/btCheck.cfm?txtType=HTM&sessYr=2007&sessInd=0&billBody=H&billTyp=B&billNbr=1065&pn=1302
Bristol - The borough council will pursue a zero tolerance approach to loose dogs running around town for fear of an attack on a child playing outdoors."It's a time bomb waiting to happen," council President Ralph DiGuiseppe said at Monday's council meeting. The borough has asked state Rep. John Galloway, D-140, to push for a stricter state law against attacking dogs. The current law gives attacking dogs a second chance."Our hands are tied because its state legislation," DiGuiseppe said. "We need to muzzle dogs and protect the people of Bristol. We need to go on the offense and pass legislation in Harrisburg. Something must be done." "The state has to change," said Councilwoman Betty Rodriguez. DiGuiseppe is considering adopting a local ordinance even though dog regulations are under the state's jurisdiction. Borough solicitor William Salerno warned the council that Bristol can't create a law stricter than the state's, but DiGuiseppe said he's ready to fight the state in court if it challenges a local dog ordinance.
http://www.phillyburbs.com/pb-dyn/news/111-03152008-1503954.html
Harrisburg - State Rep. Bill Kortz (D-38) wants to give pet owners a little more time to find their lost pooch. The state official proposed adjusting Pennsylvania's dog laws. The first bill adjusts the minimum holding period before animals are given up for adoption or euthanized. The second deals with euthanization methods. Kortz said several constituents came to him, explaining their issues with dog catchers.
http://www.yoursouthhills.com/southhillsrecord/article/kortz-hopes-curb-state-dog-laws
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)