murraysmom

And so it begins:

Philly Dawg article dated Feb 26, 2011

Quote:

"When it was signed by Gov. Rendell in Oct. 2008, the new Pennsylvania dog law was praised nationally for establishing the highest standards of humane care for commercial breeding kennels in the nation.
Now a group of Republican House lawmakers led byGordon Denlinger of Lancaster Co. and joined by Jim Cox of Berks Co. Jerry Stern of Blair Co, Mark Keller of Perry Co. Brad Roae of Crawford Co. and Bryan Cutler of Lancaster Co.) and backed by the American Kennel Club wants to gut the law.

"They have introduced a resolution (HR 89) to direct the Joint State Government Commission to "study and review the economic impacts on the regulated community and on the Commonwealth of implementation of the 2008 amendments to the Dog Law and the regulatory standards which were adopted to implement the legislation."
Clearly this group is taking a cue from Missouri - puppy mill capital of the U.S. - where rural lawmakers have introduced legislation to kill an act established by a voter referendum in November that raises the level of care in commercial kennels.
The resolution notes the number of commercial kennels has declined by 75 percent. True, the numbers dropped dramatically (from about 300 to roughly 110) since the law took effect in 2009. Why? Because breeders were unwilling to make the investment in their kennels to afford dogs enough space to sit and stand comfortably, a solid floor to stand on, exercise and veterinary care.
Are these state Representatives and the prestigious American Kennel Club against providing breeding animals who must spend their lives - we repeat their whole lives - in cages a modicum of humane care?

To the assertion that hundreds of jobs have been lost, we note the vast majority of commercial kennels were - and still are - located in Lancaster County. Most are run by Amish and Mennonite breeders whose family members constituted the staff. We would eagerly await the assessment by both economic development experts and revenue department on tax and employment statistics in commercial kennels."

Mikey T

When you have enviromental standard that exceed those of OSHA and which the average home owner could not meet the standards stoping being about humane conditions and all about creating a regulatory climate that prohibits the breeding of dogs.

The standard promoted as minimium for being human set a very dangerious president for all. Especial when those standards define "humane" practice, it is very likely to start trickling down to all segments of down to all segments of dog ownership. It is going to be a rare home owner in deed that can meat the heating and cooling standard required while maintianing a fresh air turn over rate of 3 TO 6 times an hour. IT takes expesive and soffesticated equipment that is also expensive to run.

Commercial Kennel Ventilation Requirements for Areas where Puppies are Housed in Primary Enclosures with Their Dam or Foster Dam

STATEMENTS OF POLICY
and it is statements like this that preclude reasonal debate when the pg law mandates unfetter acess by dogs to an outside exercise yard with very limited exceptions. But hey why let a facts get in the way of a good story.


Which goes to a nother large protion of the problem with the law the appears to be a severe bias against an particular relegious denomination at its heart as well ,, at least for some of the sponsors.

Kirska

I disagree that everything will "trickle down" to all aspects of pet ownership. This is an assumption, not fact. Puppy mills are not homes; they are commercial businesses, and just like all other commercial businesses the standards of practice are higher than that of a home. The law specifically calls out "commercial kennels" and does not apply to homes, so to shoot it down because something can't be met in a home is completely irrelevant.

From the link you gave PA Bulletin, Doc. No. 11-77
Here is that definition:
Pennsylvania Dog Laws

If a law arises in the future that does affect homes or the average reputable breeder whelping a litter or two per year, that would be the law to fight. Not this one.

A law affecting all pet ownership will statistically affect more than half of the citizens and as such will be met with much higher scrutiny. It would be an astronomical change and really not comparable to this law.

__________________
Mom to Anabelle and Lila, rescued ladies and Harley, Corgi/Beagle/Basset/?? mutt

"Saving just one dog won't change the world, but it surely will change the world for that one dog." - Richard C. Call

murraysmom

Mike,With all due respect:

Your comments on prejudice against the Amish are seriously off-base- you're commenting on something of which you have no real knowledge. I'm a long time resident of Lancaster County.The Amish community is part of our everyday life here, and they are respected.
This law has nothing to do with prejudice against a religous community; it has to do with trying to make practices harmful to dogs in commercial kennels, illegal.

I've stated the following before, but after reading your comment I feel a need to say it again:
We needed the laws, because before the 2008 law went in to effect it was perfectly legal to do all kinds of things to kennel dogs in Pennsylvania; For example:

* Dogs could be legally housed in a cage in which they could barely stand or turn around for 24/7, for their entire lives. Never out of the cage,no excersize. Ever.

*It was also legal to perform sugeries on your own dogs: if the dogs were barking too much, just go ahead and 'debark them' yourself by shoving a pipe down their throats- same with c-sections: use your imagination.

*And vet care? nonexistant- these dogs are an expendable commodity- the sick ones were shot or left in a shed to die:again, legal until the 2008 law was passed.

The puppymillers who are unwilling to cut into their profits by making the improvements necessary to make their dogs' lives tolerable have been leaving the state: almost 200 have shut down since the law went in to effect. Where are the pet owners who have been effected? I don't see any. The fear mongering which was used by folks opposing the law has been shown to be baseless.

Maybe the 200 or so puppymills that have gone out of business here will decide to move to Warwick Rhode Island- after you live with the problem for a few years, you'll have a better understanding of what we're trying to do here.

murraysmom

edit

Mikey T

Practices that were harmful to dogs have always been illegal The state had the means to enforce and in most cases chose to ignore. it did not need new standards to do so.

'that is not true as well and can you name even one incident where regulation of a commercial establisment did not trickle down to similar private ones.


No smoking requirements um nope requirements apply to many strickly private clubs as well.

hazzardous waste regulations, nope no longer are electronings, batteries, flouresent light bulbs , paint ect allowed in personal trash as well.


Fire codes, mandorory smoke and carbon moxide detectors for home etc. Such standards always trickle down. Ands give the nature of humane laws it will be very easy to substitute very broad language of such to specific standards as especially minimium standard for an industry so despised as puppymills. It will be assumed such standard are the very minimium for humane treatmeant when in fact there is virtual no evidence that such is the case. In many cases the standard make condition worse not better.

It is going to happen that the standards are going to be used as evidence of abuse in non-comercial kennel settings. To expect the PASPCA not to move in this direction given their history is just putting you head in the sand, and they do not need any additional laws to do it.


Ie the see a dog tied up out side when the temperature /heat index above 85 panting. The will use the temp. and have experts testify panting is a sign of heat distress, and have the dog surender/sieze or threaten and win prosecution for abuse.

One only has to look at

PENNSYLVANIA DOG LAW: TAKING A BITE OUT OF PUPPY MILL CRIME

Quote:

Another flaw that should be pointed out comes from the public’s misperception that puppy mill type operations only happen on farm-like settings. The reality is that puppy mill operations do not just occur in kennels, but they also exist in the basements and backyards of America’s homes.170 The laws need to find better ways to regulate these smaller operations too as the dogs living in these settings also need protection.

to see where proponents are going.


Do you realize that Commercial kennel definition includes most shelters and rescue. If the rescue takes in a pregnate female and whelps a litter and transfers more than sixty dogs a year it meets the defination of a commercial kennel and shall be regualated as such. These two occurances are common in the shelter and rescue environment

Commercial Kennel Canine Health Regulations [#2-170 (#2785)]

Pennsylvania Federation of Dog Clubs Comments



Go ahead with the misconception that Commercial Kennel definition only applies to puppymill and will only ever apply to puppymills.


There is legitimate concern that the costs which are suppose to be accurately estimate for the regulation is severely and puposefuly low and a large part of the reason for the standard as written is to Make it economical impossible to exist and have nothing to do with legitimate health standards.

AMERICAN CANINE ASSOC ATTACHMENT J

which includes documentation from one of the so called experts relied on for the regulations that the requirement called for actual can have a serious detrimental effect on the health of the animals.

Concerning the Canine Health Board and the matter of Ventilation in commercial kennels:

Marlene Lippert

Member Pensylvanina Dog Law Advisory Board