[ SHOWGSD-L ] PA dog law meeting report
- From: Peggy <pmick12@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: Showgsd-l <Showgsd-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2006 00:22:17 -0500
Permission to crosspost was granted by the author
shared by Peggy...another post to follow (as this was quite long)
=20
*Report on the Dog Law Advisory Meeting, December 13, 2006*
Well over 200 people attended the meeting in the VIP Hall of the Agricult=
ural Building in Harrisburg. The vast majority was Amish and Mennonite pe=
ople, both men and women, some of whom told me that they were there to se=
nd a message to the Governor.
Governor Rendell opened the meeting with a 15 minute summary of his reaso=
ns for calling the meeting. He told the Board that he expects them to be =
advocates for the changes that are being presented and that he wants them=
to generate letter writing campaigns in favor of the proposals, both reg=
ulatory and legislative. All the Board members, except the person represe=
nting the hunters were present. He was off shooting clay pigeons. In addi=
tion, Senator Elect Mike Brubaker, R-Lancaster Co, was at the table. He w=
ill be the new Chair of the Senate Agriculture Committee. We do not know =
who will chair the House
Agriculture Committee since the final seat in the house is still undecide=
d.
The Governor stated that it is not his goal to put =E2=80=9Cpuppy breeder=
s out of business=E2=80=9D but he did remark that the Bureau of Dog Law E=
nforcement appears to be =E2=80=9Cundermanned and outgunned=E2=80=9D. He =
announced administrative changes that will add 9 new people to the Bureau=
of Dog Law Enforcement. He noted that the computer system upgrade, (whic=
h he did not acknowledge was initiated under the previous DLAB about 2 ye=
ars ago), is complete.
He summarized the proposed regulatory changes and outlined some Legislati=
ve initiatives which he plans to introduce. These include Civil Penalties=
for licensed and unlicensed kennels , stronger penalties for violations,=
provisions for seizure of dogs, requiring the accused violator to post a=
bond to pay for holding his/her dogs pending the court proceeding and a =
requirement of a surety bond in order to obtain a kennel license. He also=
plans to initiate regulatory changes to allow
additional =E2=80=98at large=E2=80=9D members to be appointed to the DLAB=
but for the moment he plans to appoint such people as a =E2=80=9CCitizen=
s Advisory Committee=E2=80=9D.
Jesse Smith, the newly appointed Special Deputy Secretary overseeing the =
Bureau of Dog Law Enforcement, then reviewed the agenda and said that the=
Bureau will work with regulations, legislation, enforcement and educatio=
n. She stated that there are 1500 licensed kennels in Pennsylvania. Later=
in the meeting she noted that the record keeping requirements in the reg=
ulations would probably =E2=80=9Cnot survive public comment=E2=80=9D.
Mary Bender, Director of the BDLE, reviewed the operations of the Bureau,=
noting that there is a shortfall of revenue over expenses of about $500,=
000. The money to cover this shortfall will come from the restricted acco=
unt. She also noted that the fund to cover damage claims by coyotes of $2=
0,000 was exhausted early in the summer of 2006 although the claims conti=
nue to be filed. Later in the meeting she mentioned that the new Kennel L=
icense renewal form will ask if the facility complies with local zoning l=
aws and the BDLE will notify the community that a kennel license has been=
granted. We should be prepared to point out that the kennel license (eve=
n as defined in the regulations) does not necessarily mean that there is =
a physical facility =E2=80=93 years ago it was determined that the licens=
e was simply a method of licensing dogs in groups rather than as individu=
als. We sought this determination because, while many communities will al=
low 26 or more dogs, they do not allow
businesses in residential areas.
Board members then asked questions about the coyote situation, licensing =
dogs in Philadelphia, the qualifications and responsibilities of the Dog =
Wardens, more efficient issuance of licenses, grants and reimbursements t=
o shelters (shelters presently get $20 per stray dog delivered to their f=
acility) and the fees paid to the county treasurers when they sell
licenses.
DLAB members comments came from Tom Hickey (regions covered by Wardens), =
Ms. Newbold (coyote damage should not be from dog law funds), Deborah Lef=
ko (Philadelphia dog licenses), Janet Mulwenny(coyote sheep predation is =
the greatest cause of loss), Dr. Reiser (dog warden duties and qualificat=
ions), Cindy Stark (financial shortfall), Dr. Newton (source of funds for=
new hires), Larry Breech(electronic license renewals), Ms. Bednaric (add=
itional money collected at time of license sales), Ms.
Watson (damage reimbursements are market value less 10%), Ms West (shelte=
r payments), Mr. Hickey (how are increased sales of licenses generated), =
Linda Lowney (Boarding kennels sell licenses), John Gibbel (where does th=
e DLAC fit into the process?). Cindy Miller read a prepared statement whi=
ch has been sent to the PFDC elist and will be posted on its website. Lin=
da Lowney remarked that it might be more useful to have a Standard Operat=
ing Procedure required for each kennel. She also noted that most kennel =
owners no longer keep paper records but enter all data on computers. She =
suggested that requirements relate
form to function, since each type of kennel has different needs. Mary Rem=
er commented on the need for protections for small breeders. Mr. Gibbel a=
sked for evidence that there really is a =E2=80=9Cpuppy mill problem=E2=80=
=9D and asked that the problems cited be verified. Ms. Newbold asked if s=
tacked crates required pans separating each one form the one below =E2=80=
=93they do.
Senator-elect Brubaker asked how much money is in the restricted fund and=
it was reported to be $15,000,000. Jesse Smith stated that fee increases=
are not contemplated.
David Kennedy summarized the process which will be followed for these pro=
posed regulatory revisions. A rather daunting analysis of this process is=
available at http://www.irrc.state.pa.us/soon.pdf
=2E We will try to keep everyone informed about where we are in this proc=
ess as we go along. Please remember that personally I do not think that p=
rocess is necessarily progress.
Speakers from the floor included Shih Tzu breeder Laura Gidesko (sp), Amy=
Wimmisberger (sp), Bob Yarnell (noting that the estimated fiscal impact =
in the document is totally unrealistic), Ann Irwin (source of funds for s=
helter grants), Jim Holt/AKC (asked if public comments be posted during t=
he comment period), Jonna Seaton, Larry Martz (a Beagle breeder), Sonya D=
eeter (Pet dog trainer), Helen Ebersole (United Against puppy Mills was c=
oncerned about unlicensed kennels), Shirley McClaren (kennels should be j=
udged by a Performance Standard),
The public Comment period will last 60 days, starting when the proposed r=
egulations are posted in the PA Bulletin on December 16. All comments mus=
t be in writing (Ms. Smith reminded the DLAB that they must put all their=
comments in writing also =E2=80=93 I wonder what happened to keeping min=
utes of the meeting?), and sent to the BDLE, 2301 N. Cameron Street,
Harrisburg, PA 17110-9408, to the attention of Mary Bender. Emails will b=
e accepted but should be followed by a fax or letter.
When asked about the source of the information which was used to back up =
the new regulations Jesse Smith and others stated that kennel operators h=
ad been consulted (much laughter from the audience followed this remark),=
that the regulations were consistent with AWA standards, that the Milita=
ry Dog Training Manual was consulted and regulations in other states were=
reviewed. A list of the licensed kennels is available on the BDLE websit=
e.
It was noted that there is no definition of =E2=80=9Cestablishment=E2=80=9D=
in the Dog Law. There was also concern about the =E2=80=9Ctemporary hous=
ing=E2=80=9D definition, especially as it relates to dogs which a kennel =
owner might co-own with another breeder in the state. We see a serious pr=
oblem with this.
The general response from the members of the DLAB and the public was eith=
er suspicion or negative. I did not hear one single positive comment on t=
he proposed changes to the regulations. There was significant polite appl=
ause for the comments made by most of the speakers.
Please forgive the many misspellings of the names and send me corrections=
=2E You may crosspost this.
Nina Schaefer
*
*
============================================================================
POST is Copyrighted 2006. 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 ] PA dog law meeting report
