Lehigh County Commissioner Bill Leiner is upset. Here's why. "The State of Pennsylvania holds a disgraceful circumstance that must end. It will only end with your support. We are one of the states with the largest number of 'puppy mills'. These are disgraceful business enterprises where dogs - mostly female - are grossly, inhumanely treated for profit. The principle purpose is to crank out as many puppies as possible for sale to Pet Stores. These female dogs are made to have successive litters without regard to their health. They are not allowed out of cages, not walked, receive no veterinary care, and are forced to live in the midst of their own waste. It is unspeakable cruelty."PaCashCrop backs up Bill completely. Some of the practices mentioned, from denying food and water to puppies too old for sale, to killing mothers who can no longer bear litters, make Michael Vick look humane. Some of the mothers are "de-barked" with steel pipes, their back teeth cracked, their jaws broken. Other dogs have scars from undergoing more than a dozen Cesarean sections, all performed without anesthesia by commercial dog breeders, who are generally farmers unqualified to perform such surgeries.
Dead bodies are used as fertilizer. So is dog feces, even though it often contains parasitic worms and dangerous bacteria.
Mmm' mmm' good. At least it's organic.
When you promenade at the mall's pet stores after eating some nice corn on the cob, fertilized by dead dogs and their shit, you get to see those cute little puppies. There's a 99% chance that those pups come from one of those puppy mills.
Bill points to five bills currently pending in Harrisburg that will end all this inhumanity and make the world right as rain. Maybe one of them will even pass in the next thousand years or so. I have links to them at the end of this post. If you actually look at who is sponsoring these bills, they appear to enjoy bipartisan support from our local delegation. It's hard to believe anyone could oppose this.
But legislation is only part of the answer. This problem will persist unless we stop creating a demand. The best way to do that is to use local shelters and rescue organizations.
Pending Legislation:
HB 2525, amending The Dog Law, BEYER, DALLY, FREEMAN, GRUCELA, MANN, MANTZ, SAMUELSON, BRENNAN, REICHLEY - referred to Agriculture and Rural Affairs, 5/13/08.
HB 499, criminal penalties for animal cruelty, FREEMAN, REICHLEY, MANN, BRENNAN, DALLY, GRUCELA, BEYER - Referred to JUDICIARY, Feb. 26, 2007.
HB 2532, criminal animal cruelty, BEYER, BRENNAN, GRUCELA, SAMUELSON, DALLY, MANN - Referred to JUDICIARY, May 14, 2008.
HB 1065, defining criminal animal cruelty, BRENNAN, REICHLEY, FREEMAN, GRUCELA, HARHART, BEYER - Re-committed to APPROPRIATIONS, Oct. 15, 2007.
HB 1926, defining criminal animal cruelty, BEYER, BRENNAN, DALLY, FREEMAN, GRUCELA, MANN, REICHLEY - Re-referred to JUDICIARY, Jan. 14, 2008.
I've met Bill a couple of times and think that he's a darling.
ReplyDeleteDon't buy from pet stores.
ReplyDeleteDon't buy online.
I understand there are more needy places to rescue animals from other than pet stores, but the animals in both do need homes. Not buying pets from a pet store is not like boycotting products made in China. By not buying animals in pet stores, you're not just costing businesses money; you're denying an animal a home.
ReplyDeleteSome animals in pet stores are treated horribly and need to be rescued.
"Puppy mills" must be shut down. Instead, pet stores should be selling rescued and abondoned pets to take some pressure off of animal organizations like the ASPCA.
Edit: When I wrote "both," I was referring to shelters also.
ReplyDeleteI'd support a boycott on purchases from pet stores for the simple reason that 99% of the puppies sold there come from the mills. Purchasing the puppies sold there simply creates the demand for more. Until pet stores can offer clear proof that their puppies come from reputable breeders, it's a mistake to buy there, at least in my opinion.
ReplyDeleteI like the ideas of pet stores selling some of the overload at our shelters.
Bernie,
ReplyDeleteI understand how a boycott of this would probably work, but I just think of the pet stores that I've seen that abuse their animals and the others that mistreat them to the point where it's just barely "legal," no pun intended.
I don't like seeing animals left in those situations.
Pet stores get their dogs from puppy mills. The only way to remedy this is to boycott pet store animals completely. The animals in the pet stores and the businesses themselves need to be sacrificed for the larger goal, unfortunately. The dogs in shelters and rescues need homes just as much as the dogs in pet stores so there should be no moral dilemma.
ReplyDeleteSo your solution to stopping "puppy mills" is animal sacrifice? That's ridiculous!
ReplyDeleteI would support writing to the local store managers as well as their corporate offices. Pet stores are simply a distributor/agent for said puppy mills. Just as we must be made known as to the origin of products we buy in stores, so to it should be for animals. I would call for a legitimate certificate of original. It would need to contain the name of the 'kennel' and honestly, any investigations or findings that were founded against the kennel, as well as accreditations. I could see the Census Bureau getting in on this. The regulate many other retail services.
ReplyDelete**certificate of ORIGIN**
ReplyDeleteBernie, Thank you for posting this important issue. All your readers need to contact all these state reps whether or not they are their Reps. Some of these folks have PA Senate aspirations and will hear our voices. I am appalled at what I have learned about "puppy mills". Please understand there are responsible breeders. There is an issue in Lancaster County and other counties where it is reported Amish folks operate "puppy mills". Their culture indicates that man has divine dominion over animals. Clearly, if people from whatever ethnic or religious tradition want to operate a business they need to be held responsible. We need to strengthen our PA Dog Law, anti cruelty laws, and regulate dog breeders with the expectation we also will inspect these operations. If you are religiously called to do the wrong thing by the animals we must remember, "Render to Caesar that which is Caesar's and the God that which is God's." Follow the law (ask for penance) and treat the animals humanely.
ReplyDelete
ReplyDeleteSo your solution to stopping "puppy mills" is animal sacrifice? That's ridiculous!
Some animal somewhere is getting sacrificed. If you buy a puppy through a pet store/puppy mill, you are not getting a dog in a shelter or rescue. Every day perfectly fine dogs are euthanized at shelters because they have no room.
That's no excuse to kill more animals.
ReplyDeleteA.J.C.
ReplyDeleteSorry, but I have to disagree. This has gone beyond costing business's money. These business's bank on the fact that people would rather have a purebred from a pet store, than a castoff from a shelter. They may be treated fine at the pet store, but that does not mean that they were by the mills that supplied them. These mills care about the money, not the animals. I could care less if someones family business prospers, if the animals don't. But I agree that the pet stores should be promoting shelter pets as well. That's just common sense.
This bill is far more than an attack on Puppy Mills. It will have an impact on many obove-board and respectable kennels and small businesses in the Lehigh Valley as well as the far-reaching consequences and the potential to increase fees for inividual dog owners. Please see the below assessment from the Sporting Dog Alliance.
ReplyDeleteHARRISBURG, PA – Legislation targeting kennels and more than a million individual dog owners in Pennsylvania faces a public hearing this coming Thursday before the state House Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee. The June 12 hearing is scheduled for 10 a.m. in Room 140 at the Main Capitol Building.
Today’s report will focus on how the legislation affects all dog owners in Pennsylvania, even people who own only one dog. The legislation also paves the way for defacto spay and neuter mandates and tethering bans without legislative oversight and accountability, and casts a wide ranging electronic net over every dog owner to enforce proposed and current laws about tail docking, ear cropping, rabies vaccinations and other issues.
A follow-up report will discuss the legislation’s impact on the state’s 2,700 licensed kennels.
The American Sporting Dog Alliance urges all Pennsylvania dog owners to contact members of the committee to ask for changes in this broad-reaching legislation. If several significant changes are not made, the legislation should be rejected in its entirety.
Rep. James Casorio (D- Westmoreland County) is the prime sponsor of the legislation (H.B. 2525) , which actually comes from Gov. Ed Rendell as the centerpiece of his vowed crackdown on alleged “puppy mills” in Pennsylvania. But the legislation is a classic shell game: With public attention focused on kennels, people have failed to notice the legislation’s impact on individual dog owners. An analysis of the legislation by The American Sporting Dog Alliance reveals a profound impact on all dog owners.
Regulations for commercial kennels (“puppy mills”) actually are only a small part of the legislation. The rest of the legislation will affect individual dog owners and private kennel owners with much more stringent and invasive provisions, and grant the Bureau of Dog Law Enforcement virtually unlimited power to write new regulations with little or no public oversight.
The American Sporting Dog Alliance strongly supports the parts of the legislation dealing with improving standards for commercial kennels. If anything, we would suggest even more stringent standards than are called for in the legislation.
However, much of the legislation goes far beyond its promise to improve life for dogs in “puppy mills,” and has the strong potential to expose every dog owner in the state to unfair and devastating rules designed and implemented unilaterally by the Bureau of Dog Law Enforcement.
We cannot allow ourselves to forget that several recent draft versions of proposed regulations were a nightmare for dog owners that would have forced many people to give up their pets and driven most of the state’s kennels out of business. While these proposed regulations have been scrapped for the political expediency of passing this legislation with minimal controversy in an election year, we frankly do not trust the Bureau with a blank check to write regulations at a future date without public and legislative oversight. The Casorio bill gives this power to the Bureau.
Here is what this power means to dog owners.
The relationship between legislation and regulations is confusing to many people. Legislation becomes the law, and the law authorizes the state bureaucracy to develop regulations (which are rules) to actually implement the law. Dog regulations now are subject to publication in The Pennsylvania Bulletin, a formal period to seek public comments, approval by the Legislature’s Independent Regulatory Review Committee, and review by the House and Senate Agriculture committees.
The Casorio legislation would scrap those protections by removing requirements for public notice and a hearing that are contained in the current law. We cannot accept this kind of blank check for the Bureau to do whatever it wishes in the future.
From the point of view of anyone who owns even one dog, there are several other major problems with the Casorio/Rendell legislation, including:
* The homes, property and businesses of everyone who owns even one dog are defined as an “establishment,” as are every person in the household. The legislation gives state dog wardens unlimited power to enter any dog owner’s property and home to search, examine any dog for any reason, and examine personal or business records without a search warrant. Thus provision violates the privacy of more than one million Pennsylvania dog owners, as well as trashes constitutional protections.
* While counties will continue to issue individual dog licenses, the legislation requires them to send an electronic database to the Bureau listing everyone who buys a dog license, as well as complete information about the licensed dog. The Bureau also would be notified if anyone bounces a check for a dog license. This provision invades the privacy of everyone who owns a dog and subjects dog owners to targeted enforcement and home searches. Pending legislation would target people who own dogs that have docked tails or cropped ears, and this database would allow the Bureau to locate and file animal cruelty charges (a serious crime) for anyone who is unable to provide proof that the work was done by a veterinarian. Few owners of dogs are able to provide written proof, even though a veterinarian probably docked their dog’s tail or cropped its ears.
* The legislation also gives the Bureau the authority to impose a defacto spay and neuter mandate. Current law sets license fees for intact dogs at $5, with lesser fees permissible for dogs that are spayed or neutered. The Casorio legislation removes the $5 fee and gives the Bureau a blank check to set whatever new fees it chooses by regulation, with no public or legislative oversight. In many states, license fees for dogs that are not spayed or neutered at set at $200 to $300 per year per dog. This is seen as a way to use annual license fees as a weapon to force dog owners to sterilize their pets, and the Casorio bill paves the way for this to happen here by Bureau edict, with no legislative accountability or oversight. The Casorio legislation requires counties to turn over spay and neuter information to the Bureau, along with verification of veterinary proof. We strongly oppose giving this kind of power to the Bureau.
* The current fine for failing to license a dog is $25. The legislation would increase this to a fine ranging from $50 to $300. These fines also would be imposed for people who fail to report a change of address, or who put down incorrect information on a dog license application.
* Dog “day care” providers are defined as boarding kennels, which is not a bad thing at face value. However, the legislation counts every day that a dog is in day care as a separate dog. If a dog is in day care for five days, it becomes five different dogs on paper. If one dog is in day care when its owner is at work, it suddenly becomes 260 different dogs over the course of a year! This means that anyone who provides day care or dog sitting services will have to pay very high license fees, as if they own a very large kennel. A teen-ager who gets paid $5 a day to watch a dog when its owner is at work, suddenly could face a $1,000 kennel license fee! A small commercial business that provides day care to 10 dogs a day, would be licensed as a 3,000-dog kennel when the year’s total of “paper” dogs are tallied! Dog sitting and day care are rapidly growing home businesses in modern America that greatly enhance the welfare of companion animals. People who do this valuable work would be driven out of business, and dog owners who need these services would be harmed.
* The unlimited power to create regulations without oversight also will affect individual dog owners’ decisions about how to care for their animals. The Bureau would be granted the power to create regulations that specify how anyone who owns a dog must house or care for it. For example, the Bureau would have the power to ban tethering of dogs with no action required by the Legislature. This both denies dog owners their basic rights as citizens, and also allows elected officials to escape accountability to the voters.
* The legislation also imposes unnecessary restrictions on rescue groups that rely on foster care provided by private individuals who care for a dog until a new owner can be found. The American Sporting Dog Alliance believes that animal shelters and rescue shelters should be regulated intensely as commercial kennels, because of the large numbers of dogs involved and because the high turnover of dogs from unknown sources increases the risk of disease and other problems. However, we do not believe that people who provide foster care to small numbers of rescued dogs should be subjected to this kind of intensive regulation. The law should not discourage these dedicated and caring people who do much good work to save the lives of many dogs. We propose a lesser standard of licensure for these small rescue and fostering homes, such as a token license fee and inspections only if a complaint has been filed. Care standards in foster homes should be simply defined as the normal standard of care for household pets. In plain English, these good people deserve to be given a break, as do the dogs they help.
* In all cases, the legislation says that the burden of proof rests with the owner of the dog. This is a perversion of the American system of justice, which holds that the burden of proof rests with the state. What the wording of the legislation means is that any dog owner is automatically guilty of a violation if he or she is unable to prove his or her innocence.
The American Sporting Dog Alliance urges every Pennsylvania dog owner to immediately contact every member of the House Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee, well before Thursday’s hearing. Please refer to House Bill 2525, and tell the legislators why you are opposed to this bill.