Basset Hounds Forum banner

1 - 9 of 9 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,558 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
So, in Pa. we're passing a law that stipulates only licensed vets can perform surgery on dogs-necessary because in the past the puppymillers could legally perform barbaric surgeries on their dogs (no anestheisa for c-sections with dogs stitched back up with twine, de-barking by shoving a pipe down the dogs throat, etc).

Well this is what we get:


04-02-09 -- Veterinarian Cited for Cruelty
Accused of amputating puppy's tail without anesthesia.
By: Susan E. Lindt, Lancaster Intelligencer Journal


A veterinarian to some of the county's largest breeding kennels has been charged with animal cruelty for allegedly mutilating a puppy's tail.

Thomas F. Stevenson of Twin Valley Veterinary Clinic in Honey Brook was charged Friday with the first-degree misdemeanor for treatment he gave to a 9-week-old poodle mix on March 10 at Country Lane Kennels, a New Providence kennel owned by Samuel E. King.

A police affidavit states that an undercover humane police officer watched Stevenson treat the puppy's already-mutilated and bleeding tail by "soaking it in scalding water and cutting it with a pair of tin snips (shears) without sedation or prior numbing of the tail."

The affidavit stated that the officer "observed the puppy in immense pain as the tail was mutilated further. The puppy was screaming and trying to get away during the mutilation of the tail."

Reached Wednesday by telephone, Stevenson said he "remembered the case" of a poodle-mix puppy at King's kennel but declined further comment.

The police affidavit states that, acting on a tip, Pennsylvania Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals sent the undercover officer to King's kennel at 223 Refton Road, where King and Stevenson were attending to the puppy's infected, mutilated and bleeding tail. The affidavit states that King said he cut the puppy's tail while grooming it the day before. The officer noted she saw no evidence that the puppy had been groomed, as its hair was long, curly and matted with feces and the open wound was covered with feces and hair.

If convicted of animal cruelty, the state Board of Veterinary Medicine could revoke or suspend Stevenson's license to practice veterinary medicine.

A preliminary hearing for Stevenson has yet to be scheduled.

King also was charged with one count of mutilation after he sold the puppy to the undercover officer and a PSPCA vet later determined its tail was improperly amputated. Both men face up to 5 years in prison and a $10,000 fine.

King also faces a raft of other charges related to two separate incidents.

On March 10, an anonymous rescue group delivered to PSPCA 10 dogs allegedly from Country Lane Kennels. The affidavit states the dogs were examined by PSPCA vet Rachel Lee, who found they needed veterinary care and were kept in unsanitary conditions.

In relation to those dogs, King is charged with four summary counts of not providing adequate veterinary care and five summary counts of confining dogs in unsanitary conditions.

The state Bureau of Dog Law Enforcement also filed seven citations against King for alleged unsafe conditions and practices at his kennel during a March 6 inspection. King had 179 dogs at his kennel at that time, but is licensed by the state to house up to 500.

According to Warden Kristen Reed's inspection report, King refused to allow her access to his kennels and "threatened" her until she called state police to the scene. The report stated that King acquiesced to the inspection, but then attempted to correct infractions while Reed was conducting the inspection.

Reed cited King for refusing access. He also was charged for selling underage puppies and not keeping accurate rabies vaccination and sales records. Charges also addressed alleged unsanitary and unsafe kennel conditions, including sharp, uncoated wood and wire pieces in the kennels; rodent infestation; wire flooring through which dogs' feet can fall; feeders and food contaminated with feces, hair and debris; and allowing feces to accumulate in and under cages.

The March 6 inspection was a follow-up to a Feb. 5 inspection, during which Reed ordered King to get vet care and grooming for several dogs and cited him for multiple infractions.

In 2000, King pleaded guilty when the Bureau cited him for operating his kennel without a state-issued license. That infraction was followed by dozens of citations over the years for unsanitary kennel conditions and refusing wardens access to inspect, to which King mostly pleaded guilty and paid fines.

In January 2008, the Bureau and King's attorney came to an agreement that allowed King to continue his breeding business as long as he agreed to abide by all the rules, including allowing access for typically required Bureau inspections throughout the year or face losing his operating license.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,219 Posts
:angry: I feel absolutely sick reading this post. That poor puppy! How he/she must have suffered as well as all the other dogs in that kennel.
Personally I don't understand why the state allows a kennel to have that many dogs and to be able to have up to five hundred? Ridiculous! How the heck could anyone care for that many dogs?
Seems to me that the state was remiss in ever giving this person a kennel license and that he should have been shut down years ago.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,558 Posts
Discussion Starter #3
:angry: I feel absolutely sick reading this post. That poor puppy! How he/she must have suffered as well as all the other dogs in that kennel.
Personally I don't understand why the state allows a kennel to have that many dogs and to be able to have up to five hundred? Ridiculous! How the heck could anyone care for that many dogs?
Seems to me that the state was remiss in ever giving this person a kennel license and that he should have been shut down years ago.[/b]
Where to start??!!

If you go to the bottom right of this Basset Hound Politics forum, there's an option to view not just the past 30 days of posts: click on "All Topics" in the pull down menu- you can go back and look at what I've posted over the past year-

I've been posting to help people understand what we're up against in this state to try to drive the puppymills out of business- we now have the toughest Dog Law in the nation, passed last October, but face a culture of ignorance and corruption and a law suit arguing that the new laws are discriminatory-
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12,957 Posts
Where to start??!!


I've been posting to help people understand what we're up against in this state to try to drive the puppymills out of business- we now have the toughest Dog Law in the nation, passed last October, but face a culture of ignorance and corruption and a law suit arguing that the new laws are discriminatory-[/b]

1. It is impossible to drive puppy mills out of business in this country without adressing increasing the bumber of reputable breeders. It is simple supply and demand and currently puppymills are need to meet demand, however the laws meant to effect puppy mills have an equal or even more profound effect on good breeders as well.

2. Well the new law is discriminatory singling out single class of individuals with standard of care that a typical home could not meet. Howver the courts general have given broad leaway when it comes to regulating commerce so any challenge on this grounds is in serious doubt. One does not have to look very far to find such discrimination the Animal welfare act and it ammendments which is used by the USDA to requlate puppymills and dealers is just as disciminatory

3 As many have argued against the new law the proble never has been not haveing the tools to shut down and regulate inhuane condition but rather a simple lack of will by the state to do so. But instead an act the allows and calls for IMHO the violation of the 4 th admendment to the constituion in regard to lawful searches and siezures is instituted,

Michael Tefts
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,558 Posts
Discussion Starter #5
1. the laws meant to effect puppy mills have an equal or even more profound effect on good breeders as well.

2. Well the new law is discriminatory singling out single class of individuals with standard of care that a typical home could not meet.

3 As many have argued against the new law the proble never has been not haveing the tools to shut down and regulate inhuane condition but rather a simple lack of will by the state to do so. Michael Tefts[/b]
1. The new laws effect those selling 25 dogs or more per year

2. The new law requires cages large enough for the dogs to live in comfortably, requires that the dogs can exercise and are not confined 24/7, and requires that they get vet care, as well as temperature requirements so that they are not frozen and baked as the weather changes. These minimum standards of care were not mandated by law prior to last year. In my opinion, these laws were needed.

3. You're right, we've had a lot of corruption- see my post a few weeks ago on the kennels that were grandfathered in (OK Given To Three Breeding Kennels)-
that being said, I feel we did need higher standards for care of dogs in the puppymills, as stated above.

And as far as the state having the will to shut these places down:

Because of all the controversy over the situation here, and work by the anti puppymill groups to educate the public, there's been a huge increase in public awareness over the puppymill industry in Lancaster County, and pressure on politicians. The Lancaster Intelligencer runs the stories I've been posting as front page headlines- we have alot of media support. The culture that allowed the puppymill industry to exist in this county is slowly changing.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12,957 Posts
1. The new laws effect those selling 25 dogs or more per year

2. The new law requires cages large enough for the dogs to live in comfortably, requires that the dogs can exercise and are not confined 24/7, and requires that they get vet care, as well as temperature requirements so that they are not frozen and baked as the weather changes. These minimum standards of care were not mandated by law prior to last year. In my opinion, these laws were needed.[/b]
the law allows unlimited selling of dogs and not be regulated you just can't breed and sell. This law has no effect on pet stores and others on crate sizes, exercise etc, just another example of the patent unfareness of the law not to mention the diffrent treatment of instate and out of state dealers
that is an obvious an infigment of the interstate commerce clause of the constitution.

M tefts
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12,957 Posts
It requires foster homes to post the name of the rescue they work for etc in a consipious place and must allow entry by inspectors without a search warant in their home even if the dogs are housed else where. Again there are many, many bad parts in the legislation that was unessary if the intent was truely to elliminate cruelity. It is more of a significant part of public relation campaign to minimize PA image as a puppymill haven. This desipet the fact there is nothing illegal abut puppy mills and even some have recieve federal farm subsidies.

add adtional regulation and requirement on other kennels as well whether or not they sell dogs, exercise plan etc.

Note Puppymill is defined as commercial dog breeding



M tefts
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,558 Posts
Discussion Starter #8
It is more of a significant part of public relation campaign to minimize PA image as a puppymill haven. M tefts[/b]
That's a pretty cynical statement; needless to say I don't agree with it.

As far as your clarification of who is affected, when I said "The law affects those selling 25 or more dogs per year", I was talking about kennels. You're right, the law is aimed at shutting down the big puppymill breeders. Not pet stores. Not rescues. Not sporting kennels.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12,957 Posts
That's a pretty cynical statement; needless to say I don't agree with it.[/b]
Hmmm one has to wonder about the number of high profile and high publicity arrests and prosecution after the bill past but before it was put into effect.


If the true interest of the bill is the welfare of dogs then why does it not apply in all situations are not dogs in pet stores or owned by individual deserving of the same expectation of not being subjected o cruel treatment. Or is it just a back door attempt to unconstitutional regulate A legitamate commercial concern.?


Given the number of seizures tha HSUS has been involved in in regards to dogfighting that result in siezure of dog and euthanizing them with enventual aquital or dropping of charges for lack of evidence on has to serious wonder what the end result of the search provision of the PA will be.

It is a bad and poorly crafted law that in the end also limits and harms responsible owners rescues and kennels.

You're right, the law is aimed at shutting down the big puppymill breeders. Not pet stores. Not rescues. Not sporting kennels.[/b]
in their lies the problem and the inherient inequity of the law. Crulity standard should not be different basis the type of establishment the dog is house but rather the actual conditions it must endure.

Now if instead one were to say commercial breeding should not exist because in general it produces inferior dog then that is an issue for the market place to decide.


If one believes the the pet overpopulation problem is the result of commercial breeder then they should examine the facts. Commercial breeders are not sending dogs to shelters. Dogs end up in shelter because they are relinquished by owner. Owners who early in a commercial enviroment create a demand for the dog a mill produced. The problem of owner relinquishment is one best solved education not legislation.

The problem with the PA and other like laws is the are just one step in the continual push of animal right advocates to end all breeding and thus all pet ownership. Once in place it is much easier over time to reduce the number of dogs to be consider a "commercial kennel" Especial since the legistation will do nothing to accomplish the goal of reducing the fabled pet overpoplation myth. So only more drastic and Draconian measures will do.


Dogfighting Charges Dropped

"Dog Fighting Don" Not A Dog Fighter After All?

Pima County seeks property of woman acquitted on dog-fighting charges

Pair acquitted in dog fighting case

13 Pit Bulls Seized; Dog Owner Wants Them Back
Joe Woodall took home video as deputies and the Humane Society raided his property Tuesday as part of an investigation that netted two arrests.

Woodall and his wife's 13 pit bulls were seized, but the couple was never charged.

SLIDESHOW: Pit Bulls Seized

"They came out there and said, 'We think you're fighting your dogs. We're going to take your dogs because we think you're fighting them.' But they didn't charge us with it," said Tracy Woodall.[/b]
<a href="http://www.news-press.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071109/NEWS0123/71109001/1075" target="_blank">
Alva man not guilty of cruelty to animals</a>
Pew testified he tried to get the dogs back from Animal Services, but they refused, saying they were evidence against him. But they levied $3,500 in fines because they needed tags and vaccinations, so Pew worked 400 hours of community service to pay off the debt. By end of the service, the dogs had been euthanized or adopted to owners.[/url]


thats what happen when HSUS writes legislation


Mike Tefts
 
1 - 9 of 9 Posts
Top