Senate,
House Pass New Pennsylvania
Dog
Law, Governor Expected To Sign
Dog
Owners Gain More Positive Changes Through Amendments
by
JOHN YATES
American Sporting Dog Alliance
HARRISBURG,
PA – The Pennsylvania state Senate and House voted yesterday (October
8, 2008) to approve the final version of a new law affecting all
Pennsylvania kennels and dog owners. Gov. Ed Rendell is expected to
sign the measure into law in the near future.
Part
of the revised law will regulate commercial kennels, but most of House
Bill 2525 sets enforcement procedures and penalties that affect all
kennel and dog owners.
Since
summer, the American Sporting Dog Alliance has stood virtually alone in
continuing to seek additional amendments that would protect dog and
kennel owners from heavy-handed law enforcement and constitutional
infringements. We have consistently opposed legislation that signs away
the fundamental rights of dog owners or treats them like second-class
citizens.
Other
dog owners’ organizations took positions of varying degrees of
“non-opposition” to the legislation and found themselves in a strange
alliance with the radical animal rights group, the Humane Society of
the United States (HSUS), which did the same.
The
American Sporting Dog Alliance refuses to support legislation that
compromises the freedom of Americans, and we have continued to urge dog
owners to vigorously oppose parts of House Bill 2525 through personal
contacts with legislators and senators.
While
we still are concerned with many parts of the new law, our efforts have
played an important role in convincing many senators to support several
amendments to protect dog owners from overly zealous enforcement and
from infringements on civil liberties. Two of the amendments we
supported were approved yesterday, and several others were approved
last week. Other amendments we supported were approved last month in
the House.
The
most important thing, however, is that hundreds of dog owners contacted
their senators and legislators to express their concerns, and that our
representatives were willing to listen to their constituents. We
especially commend the Senate for being willing to listen to dog
owners, and also several members of the House who held firm in their
commitment to defend and protect the Constitution and the people from
abuses of the law.
Now,
we are asking dog owners to make a point of thanking their senators and
supportive legislators for listening to our concerns.
Here
are some of the most significant positive changes the Senate made to HB
2525 that were advocated by the American Sporting Dog Alliance after
other dog owners’ organizations stopped fighting:
• The
definition of probable cause for search and seizure warrants was
strengthened to conform to the Bill of Rights. We fought against the
legislation that was approved initially by the House because it trashed
search and seizure protections. An amendment approved by the Senate and
House yesterday removed language saying that a dog warden’s opinion is
adequate grounds to obtain a warrant to search or seize private
property. Now, a dog warden will be required to prove that he or she
has “reasonable grounds” to believe a violation of the law has occurred.
• We
fought against an unfair provision saying that a kennel owner would
have faced the loss of his or her license for not being able to be
available for an inspection within 36 hours notice, at a dog warden’s
convenience. This was unfair to kennel owners who work or travel. An
amendment excluded owners of private kennels from this requirement
altogether, by saying that not being available does not constitute
denying or refusing an inspection. For owners of boarding, commercial
and nonprofit kennels, an improved option was provided to allow the
owner and the dog warden 36 hours to set up a mutually agreeable time
for an inspection.
• The
legislation denied dog and kennel owners the right to appeal so-called
civil penalties that could be as high as $1,000 a day for each dog.
Civil penalties are not fines imposed by a court. They are a penalty
imposed administratively by the Department of Agriculture. We opposed
this provision because the right to appeal to a court of law is
fundamental to the American concept of justice. The Senate amended the
legislation to give kennel owners the right to appeal a civil penalty
within 20 days, including the right to review by a court of law instead
of merely an administrative appeal to the Department of Agriculture.
• The
original legislation would have taken effect immediately, which is
unfair because many commercial kennels would be required to make major
structural changes and could not have complied. This language would
have closed down almost every commercial kennel in Pennsylvania
immediately by denying them the opportunity to comply with the law. An
amendment added last week delays implementation of parts of the law to
allow kennel owners a chance to come into compliance, and also allows
for up to a three-year extension for commercial kennels that have not
been found guilty of violating the dog law and are making a sincere
effort to upgrade to come into compliance.
• Another
amendment added last week creates a Canine Health Board of
veterinarians that is empowered to work with commercial kennels on a
case-by-case basis to assure compliance with housing and exercise
requirements. The Board was given the authority to modify requirements,
as long as the modifications meet or exceed the standards set in the
law.
• The
original House bill took away the right of commercial kennel owners to
give rabies vaccinations to their dogs, and would have required
veterinarians to do it. We saw this provision as needlessly punitive to
kennel owners and also unworkable because there aren’t enough
veterinarians to handle the job in rural areas. A senate amendment
requires only that rabies vaccinations be done under the supervision of
a veterinarian.
• We
also supported other positive amendments that were made in the House
last month, such as restoring license fees to the legislation and
guaranteeing complete legislative oversight of new regulations for all
dog and kennel owners that are expected to be proposed next year. For
example, the original language about license fees would have permitted
a de
facto
spay and neuter mandate by increasing the license fees for unsterilized
dogs to prohibitive levels, as has been done in other states.
• And
the final legislation modifies the definition of a dangerous dog to
exclude minor squabbles between dogs and isolated instances where no
animal is hurt (such as if a dog chases a cat but doesn’t hurt it). In
the original legislation, those minor occurrences would have imposed a
very harsh “dangerous dog” classification.
In
making those changes, we believe that the Senate and House have taken
steps to protect dog and kennel owners from the most onerous parts of
the original legislation.
While
the new law now appears to be a “done deal,” some problems remain that
we hope can be solved by amendments or regulations next year. Some of
the problems are substantial, and some are mere snafus.
One
snafu is that the legislation apparently excludes dog trainers and show
or competition handlers’ kennels from any form of state licensure or
inspection. We believe that this was an accidental flaw in the wording
that was unintentional.
Current
law defines a boarding facility as a kennel where dogs are “housed or
trained for compensation.” The new law removes the words “or trained.”
Training and handling kennels do not charge their customers for housing
or caring for dogs. They are compensated only for training or handling
services, and the cost of caring for the dogs is considered as simply a
business expense. Thus, the new law appears to exclude professional
trainers and handlers from licensure and inspection, regardless of how
many dogs they have in their kennel.
We
believe four problems of major significance remain in the new law.
First,
the legislation still gives too much power to the Bureau of Dog Law
Enforcement to revoke or deny licenses, or impose costly civil
penalties, for minor infractions or things that have nothing to do with
the care given to the dogs.
For
example, licenses can be revoked or denied for any violation of
regulations, including deficient paperwork. Depending on how
regulations are enforced, things like day-old cobwebs or overturned
water bowls could be interpreted as violations. Licenses also can be
revoked or denied if a kennel owner has been convicted of any kind of
felony, even if it has nothing to do with dogs (such as tax evasion,
possession or marijuana 30 years ago when it was a felony, gambling or
liquor law violations).
Second,
dog daycare services are severely penalized and we believe many will be
unfairly driven out of business by the wording of the final
legislation. These businesses essentially provide “babysitting”
services for dogs, much like childcare centers for human children. This
service is important to many working people who do not want to leave
their dogs at home alone.
The
final legislation continues to count every dog in daycare as a separate
dog for every day it receives services. Thus, if a person sends one dog
to a daycare service for the days he or she is at work, it will count
on paper as if it was 200 or more different dogs. A small daycare
service with 10 dogs thus could be licensed and regulated as if it was
a huge kennel with 2,000 or more dogs.
This
problem could be easily remedied by defining a daycare service under
boarding kennel rules. Boarding kennels are licensed and regulated
according to their capacity of dogs at any given time, and not by their
cumulative total for an entire year.
Third,
for kennels that are shutdown, the legislation gives complete control
to the Bureau of Dog Law Enforcement on how dogs are taken from the
kennel. Kennel owners are denied the right to close down their kennel
by selling their dogs. Even though we agree that poor kennels should be
shut down, we oppose this provision that takes away private property
rights to dogs.
Fourth,
the legislation is a de
facto
ban on outdoor housing in commercial kennels. It requires all dogs to
be housed in kennels that maintain temperatures between 50 and 85
degrees, which is impossible in an outdoor facility. The veterinary
board can modify requirements for hot weather, but not for cold
conditions.
We
believe that outdoor housing is a safe environment for most dogs, and
is the preferred physical environment for hunting dogs, herding dogs
and sled dogs that must be able to do their jobs during bad weather.
Acclimatization is vital for these dogs’ health and safety.
The
American Sporting Dog Alliance hopes that these problems can be
corrected next year.
The
American Sporting Dog Alliance represents owners, breeders and
professionals who work with breeds of dogs that are used for hunting.
We welcome people who work with other breeds, too, as legislative
issues affect all of us. We are a grassroots movement working to
protect the rights of dog owners, and to assure that the traditional
relationships between dogs and humans maintains its rightful place in
American society and life.
The
American Sporting Dog Alliance also needs your help so that we can
continue to work to protect the rights of dog owners. Your membership,
participation and support are truly essential to the success of our
mission. We are funded solely by the donations of our members, and
maintain strict independence.
PLEASE
CROSS-POST AND FORWARD THIS REPORT TO YOUR FRIENDS
Have
You Joined Yet?
The
American Sporting Dog Alliance