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.
Thursday, April 17, 2008
Tuesday, April 15, 2008
OH- House Bill 223 says 9 breeding females is a "puppy mill"
If you are in Ohio, please ask your representative NOT to support House Bill 223 - also known as the "Puppy Mill Bill" which will license and regulate all kennels with 9 or more breeding females in the state. Currently the bill is sitting in committee with no hearings scheduled.
Since no hearings are scheduled, but this bill has a number- YOU NEED to contact your representative and let them know that 9 intact females is NOT a puppy mill!
Since no hearings are scheduled, but this bill has a number- YOU NEED to contact your representative and let them know that 9 intact females is NOT a puppy mill!
Friday, March 28, 2008
Overpopulation is not a dog and cat problem- adopt a child
While it is true, dogs and cats in shelters, waiting for adoption is sad- far more children are experiencing the same fate- yet the Animal Rights movement will attempt to convince us that people who have a litter of puppies are "bad" because they are contributing to "over population". Well- Overpopulation is NOT a dog and cat problem. It IS a human problem. Telling people they can not have children will never happen. Neither should telling people they can't have puppies or kittens. A look at the trends of children in Foster Care should open someone's eyes to the fact that PEOPLE need help- Adopt a child!
The data show that the estimated number of children in foster care on the last day (September 30) of each federal fiscal year has decreased steadily from 552,000 in FY 2000 to 514,000 in FY 2005. After remaining relatively stable from FY 2000 through FY 2003, the number of children entering care increased in both FY 2004 and FY 2005. The estimated number of children exiting foster care increased between FY 2000 and FY 2005 from 272,000 to 287,000.
Each year, the number of children entering care has exceeded the number of children exiting care. Concurrently, the number of children in care on the last day of each fiscal year has been declining. Based on extensive review of the data, the Children's Bureau is confident that the data depicted in the chart for entries into foster care and for children in care on the last day of the fiscal year accurately reflect national trends. However, the Children's Bureau continues to examine the data and explore programmatic issues to resolve the apparently conflicting trends.
The estimated number of children waiting to be adopted declined between FY 2000 and FY 2005 from 131,000 to 115,000. The estimated number of children whose parents have had their rights terminated shows no distinct pattern. Between FY 2000 and FY 2005 the number of children whose parental rights had been terminated ranged from 73,000 to 65,000. The estimated number of children adopted annually from FY 2000 through FY 2005 remained relatively constant in the low 50,000's. After having remained relatively stable from FY 2000 through FY 2002 at between 811,000 and 813,000, the number of children served declined in FY 2003 through FY 2005 to approximately 800,000. (source: http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/stats_research/afcars/trends.htm)
The data show that the estimated number of children in foster care on the last day (September 30) of each federal fiscal year has decreased steadily from 552,000 in FY 2000 to 514,000 in FY 2005. After remaining relatively stable from FY 2000 through FY 2003, the number of children entering care increased in both FY 2004 and FY 2005. The estimated number of children exiting foster care increased between FY 2000 and FY 2005 from 272,000 to 287,000.
Each year, the number of children entering care has exceeded the number of children exiting care. Concurrently, the number of children in care on the last day of each fiscal year has been declining. Based on extensive review of the data, the Children's Bureau is confident that the data depicted in the chart for entries into foster care and for children in care on the last day of the fiscal year accurately reflect national trends. However, the Children's Bureau continues to examine the data and explore programmatic issues to resolve the apparently conflicting trends.
The estimated number of children waiting to be adopted declined between FY 2000 and FY 2005 from 131,000 to 115,000. The estimated number of children whose parents have had their rights terminated shows no distinct pattern. Between FY 2000 and FY 2005 the number of children whose parental rights had been terminated ranged from 73,000 to 65,000. The estimated number of children adopted annually from FY 2000 through FY 2005 remained relatively constant in the low 50,000's. After having remained relatively stable from FY 2000 through FY 2002 at between 811,000 and 813,000, the number of children served declined in FY 2003 through FY 2005 to approximately 800,000. (source: http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/stats_research/afcars/trends.htm)
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
SC: Tethering Bill now includes Crates and Pens
*Personal Commentary*- Confining an animal in a "cruel manner" as outlined by a-f of (1) is not necessary consistant with what is written in paragraph (1)- an animal in a Cage, crate, pen or even tethered. If that animal is able to stand, turn, sit, lie down in a normal position, has access to sustenance, is properly ventilated, and can eliminate, then is it confined in a cruel manner? Pens? Cages? Even tethering would meet a-f. What do they mean? Are not most kennels pen situations? Is that now considered cruel?
COMMITTEE AMENDMENT AMENDED AND ADOPTED
March 19, 2008
*S. 833*
Introduced by Senator Knotts
S. Printed 3/19/08--S.
Read the first time June 7, 2007.
A BILL
TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING SECTION
47-1-45 SO AS TO PROHIBIT THE TETHERING, FASTENING, CHAINING, TYING, OR
RESTRAINING A DOG TO A STATIONARY OBJECT FOR MORE THAN THREE HOURS A DAY
OR FOR MORE THAN SIX HOURS A DAY ON A TROLLEY SYSTEM; TO PROVIDE CLASS I
MISDEMEANOR CRIMINAL PENALTIES; AND TO AUTHORIZE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BY
ORDINANCE TO VARY THESE REGULATIONS.
Amend Title To Conform
Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the State of South Carolina:
SECTION 1. Chapter 1, Title 47 of the 1976 Code is amended by adding:
"Section 47-1-45. (A) It is unlawful to knowingly or intentionally
confine or restrain an animal in a cruel manner or knowingly or
intentionally cause such cruel confinement or restraining of an animal.
(B) For purposes of this section:
(1) 'Confine an animal in a cruel manner' or cruel confinement of an
animal' means confining an animal by means of a cage, crate, pen, or
similar confinement under circumstances in which the person intends to
endanger the animal's health or safety, or the person reasonably should
have known would endanger the animal's health or safety. 'Confine an
animal in a cruel manner' or 'cruel confinement of an animal' includes,
but is not limited to, a confinement that:
(a) confines an animal for such an unreasonable period of time that
the animal's health or safety is endangered;
(b) does not permit an animal to stand, turn around, sit, and lie
down in a normal position;
(c) cause bodily injury to an animal;
(d) does not permit an animal access to sustenance;
(e) does not permit proper ventilation for an animal; or
(f) is not kept in a sanitary condition.
(2) 'Restrain an animal in a cruel manner' or 'cruel restraining of
an animal' means tethering, fastening, chaining, tying, attaching, or
otherwise restraining an animal to a tree, fence, post, or other
stationary object or a running line, pulley, cable trolley system, or
similar system by means of a chain, rope, tether, leash, cable, or
similar restraint under circumstances in which the person intends to
endanger the animal's health or safety, or the person reasonably should
have known would endanger the animal's health or safety. 'Restrain an
animal in a cruel manner' or 'cruel restraining of an animal' includes,
but is not limited to, a restraint that:
(a) restricts an animal's movement for such an unreasonable period of
time that the animal's health or safety is endangered;
(b) is of a weight that excessively burdens an animal;
(c) causes an animal to choke or causes bodily injury to an animal;
(d) is too short for an animal to move around or for an animal to
urinate or defecate in a separate area from the area where the animal
must eat, drink, or lie down;
(e) is situated such that an animal will likely become entangled;
(f) does not permit an animal access to sustenance and shelter;
(g) does not permit an animal to escape reasonably foreseeable harm;
(h) is attached to an animal by means of a collar, harness, or
similar device that is not properly fitted for the age and size of the
animal such that the collar, harness, or similar device causes trauma or
injury to the animal; or
(i) is attached to an unsupervised animal by means of a
choke-type or pronged collar.
(C) A person who knowingly or intentionally violates this section is
guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon conviction, must be punished by
imprisonment not exceeding sixty days or by a fine not less than one
hundred dollars nor more than five hundred dollars, or both, for a first
offense; by imprisonment not exceeding ninety days or by a fine not
exceeding eight hundred dollars, or both, for a second offense; or by
imprisonment not exceeding two years or by a fine not exceeding two
thousand dollars, or both, for a third or subsequent offense. A person
may be issued a correction warning in lieu of an infraction requiring
the person to correct the cruel confinement or restraining of an animal
within seventy-two hours unless the violation endangers the health or
safety of the animal, the animal has been wounded as a result of the
violation, or a correction warning has previously been issued to the
person.
(D) Nothing in this section prohibits local governments from adopting
more stringent local ordinances governing the confinement or restraining
of an animal; however, a local government may assess only civil
penalties for such ordinances."
SECTION 2. This act becomes effective July 1, 2008.
COMMITTEE AMENDMENT AMENDED AND ADOPTED
March 19, 2008
*S. 833*
Introduced by Senator Knotts
S. Printed 3/19/08--S.
Read the first time June 7, 2007.
A BILL
TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING SECTION
47-1-45 SO AS TO PROHIBIT THE TETHERING, FASTENING, CHAINING, TYING, OR
RESTRAINING A DOG TO A STATIONARY OBJECT FOR MORE THAN THREE HOURS A DAY
OR FOR MORE THAN SIX HOURS A DAY ON A TROLLEY SYSTEM; TO PROVIDE CLASS I
MISDEMEANOR CRIMINAL PENALTIES; AND TO AUTHORIZE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BY
ORDINANCE TO VARY THESE REGULATIONS.
Amend Title To Conform
Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the State of South Carolina:
SECTION 1. Chapter 1, Title 47 of the 1976 Code is amended by adding:
"Section 47-1-45. (A) It is unlawful to knowingly or intentionally
confine or restrain an animal in a cruel manner or knowingly or
intentionally cause such cruel confinement or restraining of an animal.
(B) For purposes of this section:
(1) 'Confine an animal in a cruel manner' or cruel confinement of an
animal' means confining an animal by means of a cage, crate, pen, or
similar confinement under circumstances in which the person intends to
endanger the animal's health or safety, or the person reasonably should
have known would endanger the animal's health or safety. 'Confine an
animal in a cruel manner' or 'cruel confinement of an animal' includes,
but is not limited to, a confinement that:
(a) confines an animal for such an unreasonable period of time that
the animal's health or safety is endangered;
(b) does not permit an animal to stand, turn around, sit, and lie
down in a normal position;
(c) cause bodily injury to an animal;
(d) does not permit an animal access to sustenance;
(e) does not permit proper ventilation for an animal; or
(f) is not kept in a sanitary condition.
(2) 'Restrain an animal in a cruel manner' or 'cruel restraining of
an animal' means tethering, fastening, chaining, tying, attaching, or
otherwise restraining an animal to a tree, fence, post, or other
stationary object or a running line, pulley, cable trolley system, or
similar system by means of a chain, rope, tether, leash, cable, or
similar restraint under circumstances in which the person intends to
endanger the animal's health or safety, or the person reasonably should
have known would endanger the animal's health or safety. 'Restrain an
animal in a cruel manner' or 'cruel restraining of an animal' includes,
but is not limited to, a restraint that:
(a) restricts an animal's movement for such an unreasonable period of
time that the animal's health or safety is endangered;
(b) is of a weight that excessively burdens an animal;
(c) causes an animal to choke or causes bodily injury to an animal;
(d) is too short for an animal to move around or for an animal to
urinate or defecate in a separate area from the area where the animal
must eat, drink, or lie down;
(e) is situated such that an animal will likely become entangled;
(f) does not permit an animal access to sustenance and shelter;
(g) does not permit an animal to escape reasonably foreseeable harm;
(h) is attached to an animal by means of a collar, harness, or
similar device that is not properly fitted for the age and size of the
animal such that the collar, harness, or similar device causes trauma or
injury to the animal; or
(i) is attached to an unsupervised animal by means of a
choke-type or pronged collar.
(C) A person who knowingly or intentionally violates this section is
guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon conviction, must be punished by
imprisonment not exceeding sixty days or by a fine not less than one
hundred dollars nor more than five hundred dollars, or both, for a first
offense; by imprisonment not exceeding ninety days or by a fine not
exceeding eight hundred dollars, or both, for a second offense; or by
imprisonment not exceeding two years or by a fine not exceeding two
thousand dollars, or both, for a third or subsequent offense. A person
may be issued a correction warning in lieu of an infraction requiring
the person to correct the cruel confinement or restraining of an animal
within seventy-two hours unless the violation endangers the health or
safety of the animal, the animal has been wounded as a result of the
violation, or a correction warning has previously been issued to the
person.
(D) Nothing in this section prohibits local governments from adopting
more stringent local ordinances governing the confinement or restraining
of an animal; however, a local government may assess only civil
penalties for such ordinances."
SECTION 2. This act becomes effective July 1, 2008.
Animal Rights and the Showing Fancier
ANIMAL RIGHTS AND THE SHOWING FANCIER
by Tam Cordingley
The Animal Rights/ Animal Control/ Humane Society people have lined
up against the dog people to create what they view as a solution to
the dog/cat overpopulation problem. In fact the group I represent
don't wish to be lumped in with the backyard breeders and commercial
market breeders. We are a group of dedicated, responsible
hobbyists, much akin to the hunting dog people. We wish to be a
part of the solution, not a part of the problem.
The solution to the Animal Control and overpopulation problem lies
not in legislating responsible hobbyists out of their hobby, but in
making a distinction between the careless indiscriminate puppy
producer, and the responsible Show or Field exhibitor. Most
legislation specifically excludes the hunting dog people. This
exclusion is because the dogs are used recreationally, kept fenced
when not under the owner's direct control, vaccinated, and too
valuable to end up a ward of Animal Control. All of these same
conditions apply to the showing fancier who typically spends money
and time on and with their dogs. They contribute significantly to
the revenue of their respective states.
Look at a typical dog show exhibitor. They either have a motor home
or stay numerous weekends a year in local motels, they eat at
restaurants, buy gasoline, enter events and buy products at dog
shows in their state. Most are property owners, all vaccinate their
pets, most keep older retired dogs until they die, they breed seldom
and place puppies carefully. They all keep their dogs fenced for
security. These are not the people creating the animal control
nightmare, they are the law abiding citizens who will be harmed by
restrictive and all inclusive legislation.
I see this not as dog people against Animal Control but rather as a
triangular issue. One side being Animal rights and Animal Control,
a second being the hunting or exhibiting breed fancier, and the
third being the backyard breeder and the mass producers. In many
communities the Animal Control people and the fanciers are strongly
aligned and are of significant help to each other. For example,
every breed has a rescue committee that will take dogs of their
breeds from shelters, spay or neuter, and place them in homes. In
well over 40 years as a dog show and obedience trial exhibitor I
have never met a fellow dog show exhibitor that didn't fence their
dogs, or otherwise confine them. I have also never met one who
didn't vaccinate for rabies.
As dog people it is our responsibility to educate the legislators
about Issues WE know. The AR people work mightily to push thru
legislation in many states and it sounds fine if you don't truly
understand the situation. To this end, and hopefully to improve the
situation of the showing fancier, I would ask you to cut and paste
the 3 paragraphs above to any and all discussion groups to which you
belong and to as many dog people as you know.
Showing Fanciers of America is a group dedicated to helping in a
positive way to educate the legislators without being viewed as
breeders. The simple word Breeder, to us as hobbyists a proud
title, is viewed by AR and AC people as the bad guy. The only way
to differentiate ourselves and be seen as different from the
backyard breeder or puppy miller is to label ourselves differently.
Tam Cordingley, Foxridge Fox Terriers www.trainthedog.com
http://www.thedogplace.org/Articles/Cordingley/AR.vs.Fancier.05.htm
by Tam Cordingley
The Animal Rights/ Animal Control/ Humane Society people have lined
up against the dog people to create what they view as a solution to
the dog/cat overpopulation problem. In fact the group I represent
don't wish to be lumped in with the backyard breeders and commercial
market breeders. We are a group of dedicated, responsible
hobbyists, much akin to the hunting dog people. We wish to be a
part of the solution, not a part of the problem.
The solution to the Animal Control and overpopulation problem lies
not in legislating responsible hobbyists out of their hobby, but in
making a distinction between the careless indiscriminate puppy
producer, and the responsible Show or Field exhibitor. Most
legislation specifically excludes the hunting dog people. This
exclusion is because the dogs are used recreationally, kept fenced
when not under the owner's direct control, vaccinated, and too
valuable to end up a ward of Animal Control. All of these same
conditions apply to the showing fancier who typically spends money
and time on and with their dogs. They contribute significantly to
the revenue of their respective states.
Look at a typical dog show exhibitor. They either have a motor home
or stay numerous weekends a year in local motels, they eat at
restaurants, buy gasoline, enter events and buy products at dog
shows in their state. Most are property owners, all vaccinate their
pets, most keep older retired dogs until they die, they breed seldom
and place puppies carefully. They all keep their dogs fenced for
security. These are not the people creating the animal control
nightmare, they are the law abiding citizens who will be harmed by
restrictive and all inclusive legislation.
I see this not as dog people against Animal Control but rather as a
triangular issue. One side being Animal rights and Animal Control,
a second being the hunting or exhibiting breed fancier, and the
third being the backyard breeder and the mass producers. In many
communities the Animal Control people and the fanciers are strongly
aligned and are of significant help to each other. For example,
every breed has a rescue committee that will take dogs of their
breeds from shelters, spay or neuter, and place them in homes. In
well over 40 years as a dog show and obedience trial exhibitor I
have never met a fellow dog show exhibitor that didn't fence their
dogs, or otherwise confine them. I have also never met one who
didn't vaccinate for rabies.
As dog people it is our responsibility to educate the legislators
about Issues WE know. The AR people work mightily to push thru
legislation in many states and it sounds fine if you don't truly
understand the situation. To this end, and hopefully to improve the
situation of the showing fancier, I would ask you to cut and paste
the 3 paragraphs above to any and all discussion groups to which you
belong and to as many dog people as you know.
Showing Fanciers of America is a group dedicated to helping in a
positive way to educate the legislators without being viewed as
breeders. The simple word Breeder, to us as hobbyists a proud
title, is viewed by AR and AC people as the bad guy. The only way
to differentiate ourselves and be seen as different from the
backyard breeder or puppy miller is to label ourselves differently.
Tam Cordingley, Foxridge Fox Terriers www.trainthedog.com
http://www.thedogplace.org/Articles/Cordingley/AR.vs.Fancier.05.htm
Wednesday, March 5, 2008
VA: HB 538 passes senate....first bill of it's kind to limit # of bitches
http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?081+sum+HB538
HB-538 (PAWS-Plus for Virgina) has passed the Senate by a vote of
34:5. This bill would create a first-in-the-nation limit of 50 dogs
on
any breeding operation, with expensive new provisions for breeders
who
maintain over 29 bitches (cumulative for the year) for breeding
purposes.
Other new provisions would apply to all species: There are new rules
about access to places where animals are kept, some of which may
apply to other species and there's this new all-species provision:
> § 3.1-796.122:1. Sale of animals after cruelty or neglect
> conviction; penalty.
>
> Any person who has been convicted of a violation of any law
> concerning abuse, neglect, or cruelty to animals that sells, offers
> for sale, or trades any companion animal is guilty of a Class 1
> misdemeanor. However, a person may dispose of animals under the
> provisions of a court order.
Since it had already passed the House but in a slightly
different form the next step will be a 'committee of conference' to
resolve the differences between the two versions. Committees of
conference are limited to splitting differences; they cannot add new
provisions or remove something that is in both versions.
The conference committee usually happens quickly, the (slightly)
revised bill then goes in the same form to both houses and is usually
passed promptly and sent on to the Governor for signature.
There was an amendment; it was called 'technical' which would
ordinarily mean no more than punctuation or perhaps a minor internal
inconsistency. We do not have the text of that amendment yet.
Links to the various forms of the bill may be found at:
http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?081+sum+HB538
Anyone reading this who is thinking, "well 29 bitches sounds like a lot. And 50 dogs is a Lot." You just don't understand how dog breeding for show dogs. Not every dog is kept for breeding. Some dogs are kept, because the have "show potential" but during a developmental stage- they no longer have "show potential". An example of this would be the issue of teeth. Show dogs must have a full count of teeth and they can not be misaligned in any way. Dogs do not get all of their adult teeth until they are around 6 months. This means that until that dog is 6 months, it is unknown if it will be a "show dog" or not. Another example is size. For many breeds, there is a hight requirement. Dogs often do not reach their full hight until 10-11 months of age. For breeds with hight restrictions, it is unknown if they are "show dogs" until they have grown.
In one year a breeder may "grow out" a number of puppies and only end up keeping one to breeding age- many of those puppies never overlapping in time and place at the kennel, but in a "cumulative" total- they count.
Many, many people buy young adult dogs that "didn't make it" as show dogs.
HB-538 (PAWS-Plus for Virgina) has passed the Senate by a vote of
34:5. This bill would create a first-in-the-nation limit of 50 dogs
on
any breeding operation, with expensive new provisions for breeders
who
maintain over 29 bitches (cumulative for the year) for breeding
purposes.
Other new provisions would apply to all species: There are new rules
about access to places where animals are kept, some of which may
apply to other species and there's this new all-species provision:
> § 3.1-796.122:1. Sale of animals after cruelty or neglect
> conviction; penalty.
>
> Any person who has been convicted of a violation of any law
> concerning abuse, neglect, or cruelty to animals that sells, offers
> for sale, or trades any companion animal is guilty of a Class 1
> misdemeanor. However, a person may dispose of animals under the
> provisions of a court order.
Since it had already passed the House but in a slightly
different form the next step will be a 'committee of conference' to
resolve the differences between the two versions. Committees of
conference are limited to splitting differences; they cannot add new
provisions or remove something that is in both versions.
The conference committee usually happens quickly, the (slightly)
revised bill then goes in the same form to both houses and is usually
passed promptly and sent on to the Governor for signature.
There was an amendment; it was called 'technical' which would
ordinarily mean no more than punctuation or perhaps a minor internal
inconsistency. We do not have the text of that amendment yet.
Links to the various forms of the bill may be found at:
http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?081+sum+HB538
Anyone reading this who is thinking, "well 29 bitches sounds like a lot. And 50 dogs is a Lot." You just don't understand how dog breeding for show dogs. Not every dog is kept for breeding. Some dogs are kept, because the have "show potential" but during a developmental stage- they no longer have "show potential". An example of this would be the issue of teeth. Show dogs must have a full count of teeth and they can not be misaligned in any way. Dogs do not get all of their adult teeth until they are around 6 months. This means that until that dog is 6 months, it is unknown if it will be a "show dog" or not. Another example is size. For many breeds, there is a hight requirement. Dogs often do not reach their full hight until 10-11 months of age. For breeds with hight restrictions, it is unknown if they are "show dogs" until they have grown.
In one year a breeder may "grow out" a number of puppies and only end up keeping one to breeding age- many of those puppies never overlapping in time and place at the kennel, but in a "cumulative" total- they count.
Many, many people buy young adult dogs that "didn't make it" as show dogs.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)