Pennsylvania Legislative Alerts

Pennsylvania Legislative Alerts

Kennel Regulations	Julian Prager Proposals	Consensus Revised DLR 6-20 document.
Dog Law Revisions	House Bill 2525	H2525 was voted out of committee in the Senate today with amendments. It is being sent to the floor for a second reading and to the Appropriations Committee (which had nothing to do since the Bureau is not funded out of budget appropriations). There were two omnibus amendments - both passed 11-0 and the bill was voted out of committee 10-1. The highlights of the amendments are as follows: Adds the definition of veterinarian-client-patient relationship to the law and requires commercial kennels to establish such a relationship in addition to a written program of veterinary care. Increases veterinary examinations to once every six months for commercial kennels. Rabies vaccination in commercial kennels may be given under the supervision of a veterinarian; this removes the requirement that a veterinarian give the vaccinations. Changed the requirement that "dogs displaying a vicious or aggressive disposition must be housed separately" to "dogs displaying vicious or aggressive behavior towards other dogs must be housed separately." Removes the requirement for a card on each enclosure in a commercial kennel with specified information on the dogs and changes it to a requirement to keep a record of that information. Requires floors in enclosures in commercial kennels to not sag between supports, not be destroyable by digging or chewing, shall not be made of metal strands (whether coated or not) and shall not be sloped more than 1/4 inch per foot. In addition, the floor must be slatted (at least 3 1/2 inches wide with spaces not larger then 1/2 between slats) and flat and level within the enclosure. Establishes a Canine Health Board composed of 7 veterinarians to make recommendations regarding ventilation when the temperature in the kennel is over 85 degrees, lighting, and additional alternate acceptable flooring in commercial kennels. Exercise areas must be outdoors in commercial kennels. Kennels in existence on the effective date do not have to have outdoor exercise areas if expansion would be prohibited by local zoning. They could apply to the Department for permission to have indoor exercise areas. Forced exercise methods or devices (swimming, treadmills, wheels, etc.) do not meet the exercise requirements in commercial kennels. The Secretary may waive the provisions applying to commercial kennels upon application by the kennel if either: No citations were issued to the kennel within 3 years of the effective date of the law and substantial structural were made to the kennel within 3 years before the effective date, or No citations were issued to the kennel within 3 years of the effective date of the law, the kennel is making good faith efforts to comply but is not in compliance due to circumstances beyond their control and there is a reasonable expectation that compliance can be achieved through granting an extension. In cases where any license is revoked or refused, the procedure and requirements are clarified and does not require divestiture of dogs until final appeals have been exhausted. When dogs are seized, the surety bond must be obtained or an amount equal to 10% of the amount of the bond must be deposited with the department. With respect to the 36-hour rule, the warden and kennel owner may agree within the 36-hour limit to extend the inspection to a time both agree upon. I still interpret the section to read that you have to permit an examination with 36 hours if there is no agreement. This means that if you have a notice posted at 9 AM and get home at 6 PM you can notify the warden to come sometime between 6 and 9 PM the next day and be in compliance. They would have been granted access with 36 hours; if they choose not to come within that time, it's their call. The reach of an administrative search warrant is limited to inspecting or searching a kennel or removing any dog under sections 207 and 211. Probable cause for administrative search warrants for other than a private kennel (this is not applicable at all to private kennels) is established only where the person has been denied entry for an inspection or examination of the kennel. The language with respect to criminal probable cause remains unchanged. It was the opinion of their counsel that the terms used have long standing and use in other agencies and that change was not warranted for criminal investigations. I confirmed this personally with Senator Folmer. Julian Prager Legislative Chair, PFDC Member, DLAB Julian Prager's Dog Law proposal Revised 6-20.
Cruelty Law Changes	HB 2532 and HB 449	We are in general agreement with the provisions of H 2532 as amended. However there are still problems with the language related to ear cropping. While we appreciate the change made, the language of subsection (h)(1)(i) needs to be revised in that the version reported out of committee still criminalizes the activities of anyone showing a dog with cropped ears unless they have a vet certificate or can prove the cropping was done before the date of the act. This means that anyone buying the dog from another state with its ears already cropped, coming into the state to show from out of state, or having ears cropped by a vet commits a criminal act if they don't have proof with them when the dog is shown. This is neither warranted nor appropriate and may be an improper restraint on interstate commerce. Although we recognize that the department has not enforced the existing language at dog shows, and probably will not, the language of (h)(1)(i) criminalizes the showing of dogs with cropped ears if a certificate does not exist or if the requisite filing has not been done. This is contrary to the standards set for some breeds by their national bred groups and by the AKC, including that of our state dog, the Great Dane. Our other point is that it makes little sense to keep in effect a provision of law criminalizing behavior that is not being and will not be enforced in the circumstances described. The provisions of (h)(1)(iii) are parallel to the new sections of the statute in part, but the subparagraph also establishes a prima facie case for "any [such] dog being found in the charge or custody of any person or confined upon the premises owned or under the control of any person." This phraseology is absent from the other paragraphs and shifts the burden of proof to the person with the dog. Many animal rescue groups have expressed concern that this criminalizes keeping dogs they attempt to rehome since there is usually no veterinary certificate establishing that the cropping was properly done. Owners getting dogs from shelters that already have their ears cropped or those purchasing dogs from out of state may face similar problems if they did not receive a veterinary certificate from the seller. We do not anticipate this passing out of the PA Senate this session.
Data Quality Bill	Senate Bill 752	This bill amends the Regulatory Review Act by requiring that data used be "Acceptable data" defined as "empirical, replicable and testable data as evidenced in supporting documentation, statistics, reports, studies or research." Please see the PA Builders Association letter campaign to press for passage of this common sense legislation.
PA HB 445	Rewrite of the Dog Law	We flatly oppose this Bill. Until the pending kennel regulations are resolved, no changes to Act 225 should be considered. Many citizens have expressed thoughtful opposition to those regulations, so moving ahead with any legislation at this time would be an insult to them.
PA House Bill 1065	Tethering Bill	Commentary on the proposed Anti-Tethering Legislation The PA Federation of Dog Clubs opposes the anti-tethering bill as proposed because it has significant flaws both in its scope and effectiveness in that it criminalizes certain activities which ought not be illegal and makes illegal certain activities which do not meet any reasonable definition of animal abuse. While we appreciate the sentiment that no dog should be restrained by a tether on a continuous basis, tethering in and of itself is not abuse of an animal and should not be defined as such. It is already abuse to deprive "any animal of necessary sustenance, potable drink, shelter or veterinary care, or access to clean and sanitary shelter which will protect the animal against inclement weather and preserve the animal's body heat and keep it dry." Whether the animal is tethered, in a chain link run or housed otherwise, if those conditions are found it meets the definition of abuse under the current law. Similarly, the proposed law fails to distinguish among activities permitted for dogs in general and those that are tethered. A dog that is tethered must have access to food and water containers under the proposal. No such requirement exists or is needed for dogs in fenced off outdoor areas, so why is it required for tethered dogs? Except in extremely hot weather and depending on the breed of dog, only reasonable access to food and water is necessary for the health of the dog, not "convenient and unfettered access." Furthermore, the legislation in imprecise in that it requires access to food and water containers, not to actual food and water. The proposal requires the tether to be the longer of 6 feet long or five times the length of the dog from the tip of its nose to the base of its tail. As worded, the proposal criminalizes people who stop off to get a paper or a cup of coffee and tie their dog outside the store since they will not have food or water containers nor will they have sufficient shade. It also creates a potentially dangerous situation for the dog and the public since the required length of the tether will mean that the dog could block the sidewalk or wander out into traffic while tethered. The law also criminalizes perfectly legal training and trial activities for dogs. The legislation does exempt the use of tethers "while actively engaged in or actively training for an activity that is conducted pursuant to a valid license issued by the Commonwealth if the activity for which the license is issued is associated with the use or presence of a dog." The problem with this is that dog shows and trials held under the auspices of the AKC or other groups may be held within the Commonwealth without a license from it. In fact, there is no requirement or procedure to obtain one. Therefore, any dog training using a tether that an individual undertakes to train a dog for sledding, tracking, conformation or obedience events that is not five times the length of the dog would be illegal as would all dog show and trials in the Commonwealth since dog leads are usually less than six feet for the safety of the dogs and exhibitors. Finally, there has been an argument that drug dealers use tethered dogs as guard dogs for their operations, therefore, tethering should be prohibited. The United States has a long legal tradition of not permitting the guilt or criminality of an individual to be determined by an association with others or their actions. Just because criminals use tethers does not make all users of tethers criminals nor all acts of tethering abuse. Until the law is significantly revised to address these issues, the PA Federation of Dog Clubs has no option other than to oppose the proposal, however well intentioned its goal may be.
PA House Bill 365	Revoking Kennel Licenses	Currently the Dog Law allows the Secretary of Agriculture to suspend the kennel licenses of anyone who lies on their application, lies to an inspector, has been convicted of a violation of the Dog Law or its associated regulations, or violation of Humane laws. This Bill would change the language to require the Secretary of Ag to suspend the license in these instances. The Dept. of Ag. opposes this change as it would tie the Secretary's hands and not allow him to use revocation as leverage to get changes in a non-compliant kennel. The PFDC believes the Department of Ag. has used this leverage appropriately to date, and supports the flexibility currently built into the Law. Therefore, we oppose H.B. 365.
SB 536	The Puppy Lemon Law amendments	The Dog Purchaser Protection Act amendments (SB 536), sponsored by PA Senator Stewart Greenleaf. We support these changes and appreciate Senator Greenleaf's consideration of our positions.
PA Act 27of 1997	The Puppy Lemon Law	The Dog Purchaser Protection Act (SB 182), sponsored by PA Senator Stewart Greenleaf has been passed in the 1997 session. S.182 passed the full Senate unanimously on Tuesday, May 13 and the full House on June 11, 1996. The legislation was signed by Governor Ridge on June 25, 1997. The PFDC awarded its 1997 Legislative Action Awards to (in the picture on the right) Representative Pat Carone (left), Dotsie Keith (center), and PA Legislative Animal Network President Johnna Seaton (right). Here is the text of Act 27 as signed by the Governor. A summary of Lemon Laws in other states across the US is available from here. Senator Greenleaf can be contacted at 717-787-6599.
PA Legislature Electronic Bill Room		Search on dogs or kennel or similar topics.
Thomas Jefferson site for Legislative Research		To see Federal legislation or to read its text.