[ SHOWGSD-L ] Julian Prager, PFDC on the PA H2532
- From: Stormy435@xxxxxxx
- To: showgsd-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2008 18:44:03 EDT
H 2532 needs changes in the Senate to be enforceable. It is seriously
vague. The AKC is taking our position and I have asked for assistance form
the sportsmen.
It requires anyone who procures debarking, tail docking, surgical
births, or dewclaw removal to record the procedure and requires for
those surgeries except debarking that the record be kept. It does not
define what information the record should contain. I could
technically record a video of a masked veterinarian who is
unidentified doing the procedure and keep it and I would meet the
standard. I could sign a statement that says on this date my dog had
a c-section and say nothing else and it would meet the standard. The
requirement is, in my opinion, unconstitutionally vague. Furthermore,
with respect to debarking, I could make the record and throw it away
and still be in compliance.
If someone raises a litter for another person, they would possess the
bitch with the wound unhealed and would therefore have prima facie
case for violation made against them. However, they are not required
to keep whatever record of the birth is required. The person required
to keep that record is the person who procured the c-section, against
who a case cannot be made because he is not in possession of the bitch with
the unhealed wound.
The paragraph on c-sections also is at the least ambiguous in that it
does not clearly restrict properly trained workers in federal research
facilities to performing those surgeries in federal research facilities.
The law also provides no standard of proof that must be met for
surgery on dewclaws or tails done by owners within the permitted time period.
Surgeries done within that time period will necessarily be
unhealed after five days and then become prima facie proof of a
violation under the law. Since there is no standard provided to prove
compliance, the presumption cannot be rebutted to a legal certainty.
The law also authorizes dog wardens to enforce cruelty laws in
counties where there are no humane society police officers. There are
some restrictions on this.
They can only enforce summary offenses with respect to dogs in
establishments that are licensed or required to be licensed under the
dog law. However, although their authority under the dog law extends
to inspection of all dogs, they are restricted from enforcing laws in
the case of abuse of a single dog should they observe it on public
property. We also still question the constitutional propriety of
requiring a warden to be admitted to enter property without a warrant
pursuant to civil law and then having him magically turn into a police
officer who is on the property without a warrant with powers to arrest
for things he could not have seen had the state not required his
entrance onto the property as a requirement of licensure.
They also can't seize any dogs for cruelty dog except pursuant to a
lawfully issued search warrant. However, since their authority under
the dog law is not changed, they can seize dogs under the provisions
of the dog law and subsequently prefer charges under the cruelty law
once the do has been examined by a vet.
Regarding H499, at the dog law meeting yesterday, one of the members, an
attorney and former prosecutor who works for the courts, took exception to our
position on H499. We want restitution for the cost of housing dogs seized for
cruelty if the person is not found
guilty. She went into a long discussion of how little money shelters
have, implied that the humane societies and shelter weren't
responsible for the seizures (no one else except the police have the
authority to seize dogs) and several other issues irrelevant to the
fact that the humane officer seized the dog, the shelter held it and
the person was found not guilty.
I can't understand anyone, even a former prosecutor, who believes that a
person who has not been convicted should pay for the cost of someone else's
mistake. The law may not be perfect, but it is our system and a very good one.
It is
a basic principle of American Law and, even if it weren't, would be required
by a basic sense of fairness and equity that someone who is found not guilty
should not have to cover the cost of the seizure of property that the court
found shouldn't have been seized.
Julian Prager
Legislative Chair, PFDC
Member, DLAB
**************
Looking for simple solutions to your real-life financial
challenges? Check out WalletPop for the latest news and information, tips and
calculators.
(http://www.walletpop.com/?NCID=emlcntuswall00000001)
============================================================================
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:
- » [ SHOWGSD-L ] Julian Prager, PFDC on the PA H2532
