# PA is adding C-sections to their Anti-Dog Law



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

Anyone hear about this. They already had the ear cropping. They have been trying to add tail docking to the law for a while now. They are adding surgical debarking and personally, I do not see a problem with eliminating that, but c-sections????

I know that some breeds practically have to be born with c-sections. 

So what happens to your dog if she requires one? Do you just let her die???

My recent c-section was done in PA. 

> by JOHN YATES
> American Sporting Dog Alliance
> http://www.americansportingdogalliance.org
> 
> HARRISBURG, PA – Animal cruelty legislation sponsored by Rep. Thomas Caltagirone (D – Bucks County) attaches bans or partial bans on tail docking, caesarian sections and surgical 'debarking' to an existing law about ear cropping. It also would empower dog wardens to enforce those provisions of the law in some places.
> 
> When viewed in context, there is nothing accidental about this combination. It is a thinly veiled, unprincipled and dishonest attempt to close down many Pennsylvania kennels and cite many law-abiding dog owners for purely technical 'violations' of the animal cruelty law.
> 
> It is political sleaze, pure and simple.
> 
> Ears traditionally are cropped on dogs of several popular breeds, including boxers, great Danes, doberman pinschers, miniature pinschers, schnauzers, bouviers des Flandres, and American Staffordshire terriers.
> 
> The issue of ear cropping is inherently controversial, as is all elective cosmetic surgery on animals or humans.
> 
> However, we categorically oppose the way the law is written to create a series of 'Catch 22' situations that would expose thousands of Pennsylvanians and visitors to our state to devastating animal cruelty charges even when they follow the law to the letter. Animal cruelty is a very serious criminal offense, and a conviction even for a purely technical violation results in a lifetime prohibition against holding a kennel license.
> 
> The way the law is written also is a de facto ban on adopting a dog with cropped ears from an animal shelter or rescue program, as veterinary proof usually cannot be obtained for dogs of unknown origin. Hundreds if not thousands of innocent dogs will face euthanasia if this law is enforced.
> 
> Thus, the American Sporting Dog Alliance is calling for the repeal of the section of the animal cruelty law dealing with ear cropping, and the scrapping of the Caltagirone amendments. 
> 
> Our problem with both the law and the legislation is that anyone who owns or is in possession of a dog with cropped ears has only two ways to be protected against being charged with animal cruelty. He or she must either have a certificate from a veterinarian, or have an official certificate from a county treasurer affirming that the work was done prior to the law's enactment. The ear cropping amendment was enacted in May, 2001, according to the Humane Society of Lebanon County website.
> 
> Thus, for any dog born after May, 2001, a veterinarian's certificate is the only acceptable defense against animal cruelty.
> 
> For many people who own a dog with cropped ears, those requirements represent a 'Catch 22' because they have no way to prove that they did not break the law. The burden of proof is on the dog's owner, and not on the state, which is constitutionally required.
> 
> In many cases, a dog's owner has no idea who cropped the animal's ears. The fact that the dog's owner did not do it or authorize someone else to do it is not a defense against animal cruelty in the law. The dog's owner is required to prove what he or she cannot prove.
> 
> This provision will directly affect anyone who acquires an older dog with cropped ears, buys a puppy from an out-of-state kennel, or who obtained a puppy in the past and no longer is able to contact the breeder to provide proof.
> 
> This provision also will affect almost every dog with cropped ears that finds an owner through an animal shelter or rescue program, as few if any of these dogs will come with a veterinarian's certificate or a county treasurer's affidavit. In fact, the way the law is written makes it illegal for a shelter or rescue group to even possess or take in a dog with cropped ears, in the absence of proof.
> 
> The law will make these dogs 'unadoptable,' which translates into a death sentence.
> 
> The current law actually would require the shelter or rescue group to be cited for animal cruelty for not having these acceptable proofs for dogs in their possession, as these groups are not exempted from the law.
> 
> If the law is enforced 'by the book,' we can see no alternative for a shelter or rescue group to escape prosecution except to immediately turn away or euthanize any dog with cropped ears, if proof is not available. Humane Society animal cruelty police officers could file animal cruelty charges if they do otherwise.
> 
> Even private citizens could file criminal or civil charges against a shelter or rescue group before a magistrate (this is permissible in Pennsylvania).
> 
> Also, if the Caltagirone legislation passes, dog wardens could file charges and revoke a shelter or rescue program's kennel license. Unlike Humane Society police officers, state dog wardens do not need a search warrant to inspect a kennel or a privately owned dog.
> 
> If enforcement is not done 'by the book,' or if the law is applied unequally to different parties, the result would be a mockery of justice and the destruction of the credibility of Pennsylvania animal cruelty laws.
> 
> The Caltagirone legislation would expose every licensed kennel owner - and also every dog owner – who raises, owns, breeds, trains or boards dogs that have cropped ears to prosecution by dog wardens during kennel inspections or routine spot checks to see if privately owned dogs are licensed and vaccinated against rabies. Wardens do thousands of these spot checks every year.
> 
> If the current law is enforced as it is written, it also would mean that people who move here from out of state, people who are passing through Pennsylvania with their dogs, and people who come to Pennsylvania to compete in dog shows or other events would be subject to animal cruelty prosecution.
> 
> These people cannot comply with the law, and many of them have no way to even know that the law exists if they are not Pennsylvania residents.
> 
> It would have an especially detrimental impact on dog shows, obedience events and other kinds of canine events, which annually draw thousands of nonresidents to Pennsylvania. No one who owns a dog with cropped ears would knowingly attend an event in Pennsylvania if there is a possibility that they would be cited for animal cruelty for something that is completely legal in their state of residence, or simply because they cannot provide proof of their innocence.
> 
> This has the potential to cause many economic losses to Pennsylvanians, as dog events are important to gas stations, restaurants, motels and other businesses in the state.
> 
> Please contact Rep. Caltagirone as soon as possible to express your opinion about this legislation. Here is a link for contact information: http://www.pahouse.com/caltagirone.
> 
> It is urgent to contact members of the Judiciary Committee, which can block this legislation. Here is a list of committee members and officers (click on their names to locate contact information): http://www.legis.state.pa.us/cfdocs/legis/home/member_information/representatives_sc.cfm#24.
> 
> Also, please contact the reported cosponsors of the legislation. They are Reps. Bennington, Biancucci, Buxton, Capelli, Carrol, Cassorio, Conklin, Dally, DiGirolamo, Fabrizio, Frankel, Goodman, Hanna, Harhai, Harkins, Josephs, Kortz, Leech, Lentz, Maher, Mahoney, Marshall, McIlvaine-Smith, Mench, Moyer, Mustio, Nailor, M. O'Brien, Pashinski, Payne, Preston, Rubley, Santoni, Scavello, Shimkus, M. Smith, Solobay, Swanger, True, Watson and Youngblood. This link provides email addresses for each of these legislators: http://www.legis.state.pa.us/cfdocs/legis/home/member_information/email_list.cfm?body=H.
> 
> The American Sporting Dog Alliance represents owners, hobby breeders and professionals who work with breeds of dogs that are used for hunting. We are a grassroots movement working to protect the rights of dog owners, and to assure that the traditional relationships between dogs and humans maintains its rightful place in American society and life. Please visit us on the web at http://www.americansportingdogalliance.org. Wealso need your help so that we can continue to work to protect the rights of dog owners. Your membership, participation and support are truly essential to the success of our mission. We are funded solely by the donations of our members, and maintain strict independence. 
> 
> PLEASE CROSS-POST THIS REPORT AND FORWARD IT TO YOUR FRIENDS 
> 
> 
> 
> Have You Joined Yet?
> The American Sporting Dog Alliance
> http://www.americansportingdogalliance.org


----------



## JeanKBBMMMAAN (May 11, 2005)

I googled, went on the PA state site and couldn't find it. Usually they list a bill number in these e-mails and I don't see that either. All I found was this concerning puppy mill regs? http://www.pahouse.com/pr/161042408.asp I may be missing it, but I did try to find it.


----------



## ninhar (Mar 22, 2003)

I googled too. Actually it appears that John Yates' issue with the bill is ear cropping. 

As for the c-sections -



> Quote: Caltagirone’s legislation amends the Title 18 animal cruelty act by limiting tail docking, *requiring veterinarians to perform caesarian sections and surgery to stop a dog from barking,* and expanding the duties of state dog wardens into enforcement of this part of the animal cruelty law in counties that are not served by Humane Society police officers.


So it appears that right now its perfectly ok for the breeder to perform c-sections and debarking.


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

breeders do their own c-sections? I asked the vet in PA if I could help. He refused to let me. 

I asked Dr. Hutch at the tour of his facility after the seminar and he said certainly. They have you in a little room where you watch the whole thing and they hand you the pups. 

I cannot imagine doing the whole thing myself though.


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

I wonder, is the next revision of this law going to require that all vaccinations or injections be adminstered by a veterinarian? All puppies to be checked by a veterinarian before sale? While I do these things, others vaccinate their own dogs and have been doing it for years.


----------



## ninhar (Mar 22, 2003)

Would it be so horrible if there was another revision that puppies where checked by a vet before sale? PA is sorely in need of laws to protect the dogs.


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

I think that it will be a hardship for some breeders to have injections given only by a vet. When you make something a requirement by law, vets can raise their prices indescriminantly. Some people will just pass the cost on to the new owners. Others no doubt will have to cut a different corner. 

I do not like the government getting involved in things that are unnecessary and benefit one group of people. 

Another issue with that is that MANY breeders are more up to date with why and for what we should vaccinate than vets are. The vet schools are all going to a new protocol about vaccinations because they are finding that repeating them is unnecessary and dangerous. Most veterinarians will be far behind, because they will LOSE MONEY. 

Sorry to be such a cynic. We all are happy to say that breeders do not vaccinate their older dogs or put poison on them because it costs them money and they are just in it for the money, but people are not so happy to think that vets will continue to do things simply because of the money. 

I have had two litters checked by vets so far. They checked their hearts and to see if the testicals are down. But I had to point out the umbilical hernea. So, I am not so sure it is all that necessary. I could learn to check for testicals and listen for heart abnormalities myself. But as I am not as experienced as a lot of others, I will continue to subject my pups to veterinarian. With my older dogs though, I have already discussed with my vet that I will not be giving them yearly vaccinations anymore. 

New laws proposed in Ohio are demanding vaccinations as recommended by veterinarians and heartworm prevention. I think it should be a choice.


----------



## ninhar (Mar 22, 2003)

No one has said that these additions to the law are adding any hardships to breeders. You are deciding that they will be added next.


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

You asked would it be so horrible if, and I said that it could be a hardship for breeders. 

The PA law will create a hardship to breeders because many breeders dock their own tails. Personally, I do not see that as a big deal. Most breeders take off dew claws as well. Next that will be added to the law. 

What if the vet doesn't have any openings on day two, then the dogs will have to have the dew claws removed after their nerves are better developed. 

I think it is a bad law, partly because you cannot even take your docked dog through PA unless you have proof about who docked your dog's tail.


----------



## ninhar (Mar 22, 2003)

For pity's sake. *You* keep making these revisions to the law that no one else is. My statement was 



> Quote:Would it be so horrible if there was another revision that puppies where checked by a vet before sale?


Now you are stressing about vaccinations and dew claws. I don't see it as a hardship to breeders to take their puppies to a vet prior to sale, or to have sugery performed on the puppies done by a vet.


----------



## Betty (Aug 11, 2002)

> Originally Posted By: ninharWould it be so horrible if there was another revision that puppies where checked by a vet before sale? PA is sorely in need of laws to protect the dogs.


Florida you need a health certificate issued by a vet.


----------



## MaggieRoseLee (Aug 17, 2001)

The laws in PA are currently SO poor, that's why there are so many puppy millers working from the state. I'm glad to see legislators at least trying to make some laws.

Are they the best written? Who knows? (the proposed law wasn't posted here, just a point of view on it) 

What I'm sure we ALL agree with is that this http://www.youtube.com/user/PetShopPuppies and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OdcNl5FqcKY needs to stop, and these breeders.

So why not 'yell and scream' to get a good law passed, and educating the legislators.


----------



## SunCzarina (Nov 24, 2000)

I think the c-section by vet only is a good idea. Repulses me to imagine a breeder doing it them selves! Docking ears, I dunno, but don't they just tie off the tail and it falls off? 

It's silly to penalize someone passing through the state with a dog who's ears and/or tails are docked. They also should change the grandfathered date to the date the law is enacted.


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

I have heard many gruesome stories about tails and ears and even neutering. I had a friend at my previous job who used to neuter the cats and dogs for the family. The job was done with rubber bands. There is no law against that, by the way. This woman was not a breeder, just a country girl. 

I do not think that this law is good. Partly because of how it is written, many dogs will have to be euthanized because they will no longer be adoptable, and they will not be legal. I also do not like the law because it will charge even people simply passing through their state with Cruelty. 

Cruelty is really a terrible thing to be charged with. Whether you oppose docking and cropping, culling a litter, or any number of things, I do not think we should be free with cruelty charges. 

And just like BSL, when you allow legislatures to create laws that inhibit your freedoms on one thing, you open the door for them to restrict even more. Today the law is that you must use a vet to crop, they are trying to change it to tails, c-sections and deparking (cropping and docking to be illegal), Where will they stop? 

This is a big deal to me because of the proposed laws in Ohio that ARE trying to force people to provide heartworm prevention and vaccinations. Sorry, but I do not think these things should be a law.


----------



## ninhar (Mar 22, 2003)

Have you actually read this law and the proposed changes or are you purely going on John Yate's version of the law?

This is very, very different than BSL. Yeah, you shouldn't have to legislate that people do the right thing and give their dogs HW preventative so they don't die a slow painful death from heartworms. You shouldn't have to legislate that owners and breeders provide minimal care for their dogs. You would think that out of common sense and compassion that the dogs would get the proper care. Unfortunately, that isn't always the case.


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

I know some breeders that believe that a lot of the problems we are seeing in dogs these days are due to the poisons that we are putting into our dogs. Food is one thing. The environment is another. And Vetting is yet another. The vaccine protocols are changing, but vets aren't changing their because they will lose money. So the ohio law is going to try to force only breeders to vaccinate their dogs according to their vet's protocols. Some of us do not have the luxury of a variety of vets. The Ohio law is also requiring heartworm preventative.

One of the breeders I know has all her dogs tested yearly for heartworm rather than giving them a preventative. So far she has had only one, they found it in February, (bitter cold winter month here), on a dog she purchased from someone. She treated it and it was not a big deal. Sometimes I think that maybe the vets are milking this heartworm stuff for all its worth. 

If I want to subject my dog to spay/neuter, vaccines, poisons, that should be my choice. 

I did read the proposed PA law. 

I think that there are groups of people out there looking for ways to improve the lot of companion animals. Some of these people are knowledgeable and make good suggestions. The rest of them haven't a clue. When they get this law passed, adds fuel to their fire, and they lobby for more restrictions and requirements. 

And one day when there are only little ratty packs of feral dogs running around, we will all say, gee, remember when we used to own dogs?


----------



## rusti_knight (Aug 2, 2002)

So where, exactly, do you suggest they *stop* legislating?

I can't say I'm crazy about some politician in his cushy job, giving himself a raise every year telling me what choices I have to make re: my dog's care. 

I love my dog to death, she sleeps back to back with me on the bed, for cryin' out loud, but she's still my dog and my property, I don't want to be forced into treating her like a glorified, furry little child, because she isn't. She's my pet. If, for some reason, I chose not to vaccinate her or put her on HW prevention (which wouldn't happen, but that's beside the point), that's none of your (collective) business. 

We're on a slippery slope with the laws here. I love animals as much as the next person, but this is stupid.


----------



## ninhar (Mar 22, 2003)

So which is it, first you call it a hardship for breeders, then you say they don't want to put poisons in their dogs. Or is it that they just don't want to spend a dime getting their dogs and puppies proper care. 

Lets see.... you don't think puppies should be vaccinated or seen by a vet. You don't think dogs should be vaccinated or on HW preventative. And its perfectly OK for a breeder to perform a c-section and debark their dogs? Yeah....right. Not any breeder I'd ever go to or recommend.


----------



## dogs_dolls (Apr 27, 2001)

Don't you think that a lot of these laws are aimed directly at the whole puppy mill industry? These are the guys who never take a dog to the vet. That would cut into profits! They would be the ones doing their own C-Sections...and as for debarking?? Ever hear of the metal rod down the throat? Used to debark a dog by some puppy millers. Soooo I guess what I am all for the laws. If it makes it harder for a puppy mill to stay in business...win/win.


----------



## ninhar (Mar 22, 2003)

Exactly. I hope these provisions get passed and that it is enforced.


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

The Ohio law will require breeders only to vaccinate their dogs according to veterinarian's vaccine schedule. The new protocols which vets are NOT adopting say that vaccinating dogs yearly is both unnecessary and unhealthy. 

I do not always give my dogs heartworm preventative. I start in march/april, continue through October. I see no point providing this from November through into March or April -- when the snow goes away. It is carried by mosquitos, which do not like the snow. 

I use Revolution to poison the fleas and provide heart worm protection. On some of the dogs I use Advantage Multi to provide poisons against heart worm, fleas, and demodex mange mites. If your dog does not have heart worms, what happens to the heartworm poison? 

Revolution says to use it monthly, but it says it prevents heartworm every six weeks. I choose to go with a six-week schedule. 

But other people say it is just as sensible to test for it yearly and treat it if it comes up. 

I do not think the law will be as understanding of my motives. I am trying NOT to over-expose my dogs to unnecessary poisons. I do not see this as something I should be admonished for. In fact, it is really EASY to listen to every word that comes from vets like it is Gospel and follow it to the letter. 

If we did that, most of us would be feeding our speutered animals Science Diet or Purena Dog Food. Beneful was developed by some vet -- at least that is what my friend at work who feeds it believes. And why should it not be. They are not necessarily nutritionists. And they are out for a buck just as much as BYBs and Puppy Mills are. 

I believe that adhering to a veterinarians advice should be a choice. I do not like laws that require it. 

Thirty years ago, nobody's dog was dying of cancer, I never heard of bloat or megasophagus, EPI was unheard of. Generally Fido was tied out in the back yard summer and winter, got a rabies shot if he was lucky, and lived to be 13 or 14 years old. 

Now we have our dogs to the vet multiple times in a year. We check stool samples regularly. We do titer testing and blood work. We check hips and elbows and spines for orthopaedic problems. We check their eyes. We load them up with antibiotics every time they get a scrape. We feed them premium dog foods, and let them sleep in our beds. And the dog gets cancer or bloat or diabetes or thyroid problems. The dog ends up with balooning intestines, spinal diseases, or any number of weird things. The dog dies at five, six, three 1/2, nine or ten. What is up with this??? I heard at our GSD club meeting that the average lifespan now for shepherds is nine years. NINE!!! I am sorry but just maybe our vets are not our best friends. 

The argument is really well thought out. The vaccinations do provide the dog with protection -- for life. Adding more vaccinations does nothing good. There are side-effects. And the immune system will eventually work against itself. Why else would we have so many auto-immune diseases in dogs these days. 

This should not be mandatory, it should be a choice. That is what I believe. After the first year, my dogs get distemper and parvo every three years. I am concidering refusing the yearly lepto as well. If you think I am a rotten breeder because of this, so be it.


----------



## JeanKBBMMMAAN (May 11, 2005)

You are making it sound like what you are doing is so revolutionary. 

My vet office does 3 year rabies. 
Following year is 3 year distemper/parvo. 
Lepto is optional the third year depending on the dog's living conditions and what they are exposed to, as we do have lepto cases around here, but clean and dry generally is safe. I opt out of lepto, but watch carefully for it as it is a zoonotic disease. 

Thirty years ago-do you have those numbers or is this from your childhood memory? Did people just notice their dawg getting thin and wasting away and then have them put down? Or did they try to get a diagnosis? Can you even tell what a dog is doing when you they are tied out in the back yard? Were there small animal vets (or a demand for them) to actually diagnose the dogs or were people taking them to the cow vet for shots and that was it? I believe that a lot more natural selection happened then, mystery illnesses like autoimmunes and mega-e were handled with just PTS. So the only dogs you saw were the ones who were hardy. Anectodal information and childhood memories are really insufficient proof of anything. 

I am amazed that the average lifespan could be nine years old and would like to see how that number was determined. Of course, when what is it? 40,000 GSDs are registered yearly by the AKC alone...I am guessing that the best of the best in health and temperament are not the only ones being bred. 

Education of people for what to look for in a breeder is something that all of us should be trying to do.


----------



## ninhar (Mar 22, 2003)

Selzer, I honestly don't know where you are going with this. You originally posted this as 'PA is adding C-sections to their Anti-Dog Law' then went on to say 



> Quote: Anyone hear about this. They already had the ear cropping. They have been trying to add tail docking to the law for a while now. They are adding surgical debarking and personally, I do not see a problem with eliminating that, but c-sections????
> 
> I know that some breeds practically have to be born with c-sections.
> 
> So what happens to your dog if she requires one? Do you just let her die???


 and proceeded to post a long article from a man who believes it is up to him to fight laws that make such things as c-sections and debarking by the hands of "breeders", illegal. 

As your defense of this, the veterinarians are now the bad guys and breeders should not be required by law to provide minimal care for their dogs and should be able to preform whatever surgeries they deem fit, themselves. 

Amazing.


----------



## kutzro357 (Jan 15, 2002)

http://www.legis.state.pa.us/cfdocs/billinfo/billinfo.cfm?syear=2007&sind=0&body=H&type=B&BN=2532

IMHO tail docking, ear cropping, debarking and C-sections should ALWAYS be done by a vet. Vaccinations can certainly be done by breeders.

There is the link to the bill. The only vaccination requirement in Pa is Rabies.


----------



## ninhar (Mar 22, 2003)

Thanks much for posting the bill. 

Hopefully it will have an impact on the dog fighters who butcher their dogs ears and the millers and BYBs who want to save a buck by doing their own surgerys at the expense of the dog.

For the quality breeders who breed for the betterment of their breeds, it won't have any impact on them. As it shouldn't.

PA has a bad rep when it comes to companion animal care. Its refreshing to see them making positive steps towards changing that. They may actually start getting some of my vacation $$ again.


----------



## BowWowMeow (May 7, 2007)

Ok, I read the bill. It says that tail docking, ear cropping, debarking and c-sections are all legal if performed by a veterinarian. Nothing about vaccinations at all. 

It's clearly designed to prevent dogs from being hacked up by idiots who think they can do these things themselves and end up causing horrible injuries to their dogs.


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

I am mixing the proposed Ohio law with the PA law, because when they start adding restrictions, they tend to get carried away. 

Lots of people dock their own tails and cut off dew claws themselves. They do this when the pup is a couple of days old. It is not as big of a deal as everyone makes out. Personally, I couldn't do either. I just do not see why it is necessary to require a vet. It should be a choice. A lot of breeders can manage a lot of stuff specific to their breed better than veterinarians. 

The other thing is that there is no provisions for people going through the state with their cropped/docked dog. They will be in a serious violation without even knowing about it. If you get your pup outside the state of PA, the breeder may not provide tail docking certificates. If you are getting a dog from a rescue, it better not be cropped or docked, becuase you will not have any certificates to present.


----------



## Betty (Aug 11, 2002)

Somehow I don't think they are going to have roadblocks at the state line looking for docked dogs................ But if someone wanted to protest this law that would certainly be something to ask to be addressed.

I have glanced over the law and don't see anything I really object to.

Did you read it or did you rely on someone elses assessment of it? I think by your first post you understood that c-sections would be totally illegal which is not the case.


----------



## Betty (Aug 11, 2002)

I had no idea that people debarked a dog the way it is described. How horrifying.


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

True, when I first read it I did think the C-sections and debarking would be illegal. 

The idea that anyone would perform a c-section on their own seemed preposterous.

Also, since some breeds almost require c-sections, I thought maybe they were trying to cut down on breeding specific breeds of dogs. 

Trying to pass laws against debarking, docking, and cropping is nothing new. 

The artical that I had read was really not that specific about the c-sections, it only mentioned them, and I was looking for more info. 

I really do not have a problem with having qualified veterinarians perform evasive surgeries. I do not know that ear cropping, tail docking, are that much more invasive than dew claw removal. 
As nutty as the animal rights movement is, I can see them convincing people that breeders of these types of dogs have c-sections out of convenience and cruelly do it to their dogs over an over again. 

Whether or not they will stop people at the border is not the point. If the AR groups go to a dog show and call in the police, they may ask people for the certificates for their docked tails or cropped ears. AR groups could also push for game wardens to be required to check for these certificates. 

For residents, it is their business to know their areas laws. For people traveling say through PA to NY, they may not think to look for dog law information before going. 

I do not like that the charge is cruelty. Docking tails and cropping ears have been the norm since forever. To suddenly consider it cruelty is a bit rediculous in my opinion. That the law does not have any exclusion for non-residants attending shows, hunting, or travelling through makes me concerned. That there are no exclusions for dogs having been rescued is also a concern.


----------



## ninhar (Mar 22, 2003)

There is a lot that goes on in the PA mills that is horrifying. This is from a group that rescues mill dogs in PA. They are the organization that convinced Oprah to do a show on puppy mills.

http://www.mainlinerescue.com/stories2

Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell has proposed sweeping legislation designed to improve conditions for dogs kept and sold in Pennsylvania's large scale commercial breeding facilities. In spite of exempting many groups (small hobbyist breeders, sporting dog clubs, etc.) from the legislation and focusing solely on large commercial breeders, Governor Rendell continues to receive stiff opposition from special interest groups. Lobbyists for commercial breeders are using scare tactics and misinformation to convince small hobbyist breeders and sportsmen that they will in some way be affected by the proposed legislation, which is not true. Many people wonder how any group of dog enthusiasts can claim to love their own dogs and care about their welfare and yet fight to block legislation that will help millions of dogs exploited by Pennsylvania's mass dog breeding industry?

MLAR urges you to contact your representatives and ask them how they feel about improving the lives of these animals. Legislators and State Representatives must understand that there are more people who love dogs in Pennsylvania than people who breed large quantities of puppies for sale. We must use our votes to help dogs imprisoned in our state's puppy mills. Call or write your representatives today and tell them that you will be following this matter closely and you expect them to support the proposed changes to the Pennsylvania's Dog Law. Urge them to do everything they can to stop their suffering. Find your local representative: http://www.legis.state.pa.us/index.cfm

Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell is currently introducing legislation that:

- Would provide dogs interned in Pennsylvania’s puppy mills with double the amount of cage space indoors, and access to outdoor runs. Presently, dogs in many of Pennsylvania’s largest factory farms are never taken out of their cages to exercise. Many of these dogs face a lifetime of pacing and spinning, never knowing what it is like to walk on grass. Many have never spent a minute in sunlight. 

- Would eliminate wire flooring in puppy mills and require the provision of solid flooring. The overwhelming majority of dogs in Pennsylvania’s breeding facilities stand and sleep on wire, twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week, 365 days a year. This is unbelievably painful and often their feet and legs fall through the wire and are injured. This practice would be prohibited. 

- Would prohibit the stacking of cages in commercial breeding kennels. Ten years ago, the Philadelphia Inquirer described dogs stacked in cages, high on top of each other, the feces and urine from the dogs on the top running down on the dogs below. Stacking hundreds of dogs in cages in dark barns makes it extremely difficult to see if the dogs on top are in distress. Thousands of dogs now spend their entire lives three, four or five feet above the ground. 

- Would prohibit keeping puppy mill dogs in excessive heat or severe cold. 

- Would deny kennel licenses to individuals convicted of animal cruelty. 

- Would greatly increase the penalties for operating a kennel without a proper license, and broaden the ability of wardens to determine whether license requirements are being violated. 

- Would limit to licensed veterinarians the ability to administer rabies vaccinations, perform Cesarean Sections, de-bark or euthanize dogs. Farmers who mass produce dogs in Pennsylvania often perform these procedures themselves, without skill or anesthesia. Rescue organizations routinely rescue breeding dogs with broken jaws and cracked teeth (from de-barking) and dogs who have endured caesarean deliveries by farmers. Unsold puppies and breeding females who can no longer produce puppies are often shot or left to die without food, water, or medical care.


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

I think that everywhere there are laws against cruelty to animals. Allowing an animal to starve to death is cruelty, and I am sure that PA has a law that disallows that already. 

Most puppy mills would have a problem if they were investigated. 

I am in two minds about the wire. If the wire is properly sized and spaced, it allows the dog to not have to lie in its own excrement. If you have a lot of dogs, making it easier to keep them clean makes sense. If the dog's leg or foot goes through the wire it is not the proper size. You can buy crates and puppy playpens with the wire for flooring. 

I have eight dogs and only two doggy doors. Actually, seven of my dogs cannot get in and out. Would that be a violation? When they are inside, the bitches are in 42" x 30" x 31" crates and the dogs are in 48"x32"x36" crates. When they are outside they are on concrete they all have shelters, cots, and dog houses. 

I let them run on grass once or twice a day, but if it is raining, wet and muddy -- all the time in Ohio, we stick to the concrete. Why? Because I am lazy and like clean doggies, not muddy dogs, and I do not particularly like bathing dogs. And dogs full of mud do not make good bedfellows. 

I think there can be basic cruelty laws that require that an animal be suffering physically with noteable evidence. Animal cruelty should be a felony. I agree that anyone charged with animal cruelty should not be permitted a dog license. Beyond that though, I think people should be able to choose what level of care they provide their animals. 

Then people can use a proper wire cage bottom, if they use one that will cause injuries, and they allowed those injuries to continue and fester, that would be cruelty and the owners could be punished to the limit of the law. People who allow an animal to starve to death could be punished to the limit of the law. They should be in jail. 

I really do not think shooting a dog for euthanasia is any worse than injecting them with poison, so I will not agree to that. People who know what they are doing with guns can kill a dog humanely with one. 

What exactly is excessive heat and extreme cold? All of my dogs are outside all day, winter and summer. They can handle 90 degree summer days, given some shade and fresh water. They can also manage below zero temperatures given a properly sized dog house with some insulation from the ground. Extreme cold and excessive heat is really breed-specific. 

Sometimes from the outside looking in, we think something is terribly cruel, like a prong collar or a crate. We think it is just awful and want everyone to stop using them because the poor dogs are suffering. Unfortunately it is possible that just because we have never seen it work proplerly and never experienced it for ourselves, we make judgements that are not fair. Although I have never used it, I think that wire bottom cages and pens fall into this category. I cannot see them selling these for crates and puppy pens if they are likely to cause injuries. 

I have heard people have the same issues with Lexit bottles for water. I find that puppies are incredibly messy. They track through their water dishes and spill or dump and certainly foul them all. However the lexit bottles DO provide fresh water at all times. Puppies figure it out right away and I feel comfortable knowing that the babies will have water when I am not there.


----------

