[ SHOWGSD-L ] Re: Fwd: New PA Dog Legislation
- From: Pinehillgsds@xxxxxxx
- To: cleary1414@xxxxxxxxxxx, showgsd-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sun, 4 May 2008 11:52:48 EDT
see below, answers in "<>"
Kathy, member GSDCA, DVGSDC
Celebrating generations of Dual Titled TC'd Champions
visit www.geocities.com/pinehillgsds
In a message dated 5/4/2008 10:41:56 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
cleary1414@xxxxxxxxxxx writes:
I still have serious issues with it....
The legislation gives the Bureau of Dog Law Enforcement the power to revoke
licenses, confiscate dogs and levy penalties of up to $1,000 a day, even for
someone who is later found not guilty in a court of law. The Bureau also
would be given the power to levy those penalties and confiscate dogs without
even filing charges against a person who is accused of a violation.
This is flat out wrong, and totally unconstitutional.
<Kathy here. I don't have as much trouble as you do with it, but agree
there may be some constitutional issues. As far as confiscation before filing
charges, the same can be done by children's services. (I'm not equating
children w/ dogs.!) I don't know what the answer is, and I'm quite sure there
isn't
a perfect answer, but I know when living things are in jeopardy, some
provision must be made for immediate removal.>
An accused personâ??s fate rests entirely in the hands of the dog warden, the
Bureau that employs the dog warden, and an administrative panel or law
judges who are employed by the Bureau. An accused person is required to
prove her or his innocence â?? in fact, he or she must convince his accusers
in order to have the charges and penalties dropped or reduced.
This legislation thus attempts to transform the Dog Law Bureau into the
judge, jury and hangman.
Which is the exact opposite of how the constitution works... it is supposed
to be up to the state to prove guilt, not the other way around.
<Well, not quite. Information is gathered, where appropriate, charges are
filed and then the accused has an opportunity to defend. Judges are not
"employed" by the bureau. The above paragraph seems to be taken entirely from
Mr.
Yates writings and is misleading. As far as "convincing" his accusers of
innocence once charges are brought in order to have charges and/or penalties
reduced or dropped, well, as far as I know, that's the way our legal system
works. It's called "putting on a defense".)
There is no reason in this day and age that a vet has to administer rabies
vaccine. When the rabies laws were first passed the vaccine of choice was
"modified live" vaccine.. it made sense that a professional that new what
they were doing administer the vaccine as there was a danger from the
vaccine. Today a "killed" vaccine is used, and it is not at all dangerous,
and there is no reason a "lay person" should not be allowed to administer
the vaccine.
<Sure there is. We allow kennel owners to administer rabies vaccines NOW w/
a waiver, and great many don't. IF we want rabies vaccines at all, IF we
believe it's important, there needs to be some system of checks and balances.
Or else, don't bother mandating a rabies vaccine.
Interestingly, this doesn't apply to puppies produced by millers, since the
age for rabies vaccines is 12 weeks, well after puppies have left a mill.
Currently, those who have a kennel and obtain a waiver from Harrisburg to do
their own shots only have to show on their <paper> records that a particular
dog has been vaccinated. Their proof of vaccination IS NOT GOOD once the dogs
leaves their hands OR travels. If a dog is sold, transferred etc., it must be
re vaccinated. But lets say you are a handler w/ kennels. You only need to
show the right number of certificates at time of inspection. Have 40 dogs?
Come up w/ 40 certificates. Or, if you have received a waiver to do your own
shots, come up with records that you have vaccinated 15 dogs that never
leave and the balance of certificates from vets. None of the dogs have ID
listed
on any of the certificates, so no matter if the vaccinations were done by
the kennel owner OR a vet now, there's really no proof that a particular dog
was vaccinated. Are you beginning to see the contradiction in the regulations
currently on the books? If you aren't blurry eyed yet, you should be! Like i
expressed previously, I'd go further requiring some sort of ID on a rabies
cert.>
I also have issues requiring OUT OF STATE rescues to get a PA dealer's
license if they send any dogs to PA rescues. Requiring that dogs sent to PA
have current health certificates is one thing... but requiring a dealers
license is absurd. I would just stop sending any rescued animals to PA. In
fact I have.
<This is a sticky one and I don't have any suggestions but let me try to
clarify the dilemna. The problem is defining "rescue". Many, many, many
Ginger
aren't really not for profits and my guess is you would view those as "not
quite rescues". There are all sorts of fees, (and I'm not talking about
donations), charged a prospective new home and if you expect me to believe
some of
these aren't big, BIG profit centers...well...I don't. I won't bore
everyone with what I recently experienced trying to find a Golden rescue for
one of
my mother's friends who wanted to "do good". Believe me it would have been
easier (and less money!) to just go and buy a puppy from a reputable Golden
breeder.
The new legislation defines "dealer" as someone who earns a commission.
Actually, that's the short definition. PA has a shortage of dogs in many
location available for adoptions and dogs are being imported from other
locations.
How do you suggest separating those who see a need and are filling it for
financial gain from legitimate rescues? And why WOULD'T you license and
regulate the first group? How do you exempt the second?
See, more questions on my part than useful suggestions, but the gist is,
many rescues are profit centers and those probably should be regulated.>
In addition... All vehicles being used to transport dogs are subject to
inspection and must meet requirements for such transportation through
regulations as promulgated by the secretary.
I read that part above as...... Any police officer, dog warden etc can stop
my car and inspect it because I am transporting a dog. Talk about 4th
Amendment violation! Having a dog in the car is not "probable cause", or
certainly shouldn't be.
<I think that's a stretch. Remember how we all felt when a tractor trailer
carrying puppies burned up?>
And I have a real issue with parts of Section 206 Kennels
This section describes the different kennels that need licensed
....A separate license shall be required for each type of kennel and every
location at which a kennel is kept or operated.
Would this mean that every Rescue Network Kennel Home would need a separate
license at each separate location?
<If they hit 26 dogs in any one calendar year, inclusive of their own dogs,
yes, that's the way I read it.>
Would a Private Kennel that also does some small rescue work need to apply
for both types of kennel licenses? We have this issue in GA... and IMHO it
is nothing more than a money grab. If you have licensed kennel, it
shouldn't also be required to pay another several hundred dollars for a
rescue license, or vice versa, as you have to here in GA. Additionally one
license should include ALL locations.
<I agree.>
As a "draft" goes... it falls miserably short, IMHO.
Ginger Cleary
**************Wondering what's for Dinner Tonight? Get new twists on family
favorites at AOL Food.
(http://food.aol.com/dinner-tonight?NCID=aolfod00030000000001)
============================================================================
POST is Copyrighted 2007. All material remains the property of the original
author and of GSD Communication, Inc. NO REPRODUCTIONS or FORWARDS of any kind
are permitted without prior permission of the original author AND of the
Showgsd-l Management. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
ALL PERSONS ARE ON NOTICE THAT THE FORWARDING, REPRODUCTION OR USE IN ANY
MANNER OF ANY MATERIAL WHICH APPEARS ON SHOWGSD-L WITHOUT THE EXPRESS
PERMISSION OF ALL PARTIES TO THE POST AND THE LIST MANAGEMENT IS EXPRESSLY
FORBIDDEN, AND IS A VIOLATION OF LAW. VIOLATORS OF THIS PROHIBITION WILL BE
PROSECUTED.
For assistance, please contact the List Management at admin@xxxxxxxxxxxx
VISIT OUR WEBSITE - www.showgsd.org
============================================================================
Other related posts:
