http://www.dogsdeservebetter.org/truthisfreedom.html
]]>
Oh yes and don't forget that HB 39 the bill to stop millers from doing surgery on their own dogs is being stalled in the senate by the "dog people". Yup that is what we want to see, the very people claiming to be for the dogs, saying that they should be allowed to perform surgery on their own dogs. yup that will help the public be on your side. Good going buds.
The public now "hates anyone labeled a puppy miller.". So as I have said before it you don't want to be considered by the public as Public Enemy number one". You might just want to distance yourself from the bad guys. Or isn't that possible, because you are the bad guys.
On an ending note, if you bother to talk to your breeding stock at all, please give them a message from us. Someone is coming, there are people out there that do care, we know their pain, the public wants to know what is behind those barn doors. As bust after bust happens, your dogs are going to prove that you have committed animal cruelty. Give us your dogs and get out of the business, or you just might find out that we will win, We all want to see you in jail, sharing a cell with an animal lover. That is what we go to sleep at night praying for. May you feel the pain and anguish that your dogs felt, may you take your last breath wishing someone would save you.
PS: We have been contacted by the whistle blower from Washington State who was able to get someone to listen to him and have over 600 dogs seized. I will interview him and get back to you. I would love to know how he was able to get the officals to listen to him in Washington State, but when someone turns in a Puppy Mill operation in PA it falls on deaf ears. More to come
]]>
The world saw and loved that little dog as did Bill Smith of Main Line Rescue. We will never forgot the sight of him and the idiots who told us that there was nothing wrong with him and that he was a Chinese Crested that we were trying to pass off as a suffering mill dog. If there is a god the people who did this to him and the monsters who continue to do this to their breeding stock will suffer as the mill dogs do.
REST IN PEACE LITTLE MAN.
02-10-09 -- Casorio Reacts to Breeders' Federal Lawsuit Over PA Dog Law
Press Release
By: Michael J. Herzing
Deputy Director, Democratic Legislative Communications Office
Pennsylvania House of Representatives
Phone: 717-787-7895 / E-Mail: mherzing@pahouse.net
HARRISBURG, Feb. 10 – State Rep. James E. Casorio Jr., D-Westmoreland, the prime sponsor of Pennsylvania's revamped dog law – Act 119 of 2008 – released the following statement today in response to a federal lawsuit filed Monday by the Professional Dog Breeders Advisory Council claiming that the law is unconstitutional:
"It is extremely disappointing, but not surprising, to see commercial dog breeders attempt to challenge this law. Instead of moving forward under the law, which gives many of them as much as three years to comply, to do the right thing for the dogs in their care, they have chosen instead to try and kill the law and the commonsense regulations it contains, and to allow thousands of breeder dogs in Pennsylvania to continue suffering and dying under horrible conditions.
"Commercial breeders in Pennsylvania were given every opportunity to participate during the many months that House Bill 2525 was being crafted and debated. Instead, they chose to focus their efforts on killing the legislation. It is clear that commercial breeders don't want responsible, equal regulation – they want absolutely no regulation, and have apparently turned to the federal courts to accomplish what they could not accomplish in the legislature.
"Act 119 is not, and never has been, about putting responsible commercial dog breeders out of business. The number of concessions they received in the law – and the amount of time they have been given to comply – is testament to that. This is a spurious argument by the breeders that has no basis in fact.
"The purpose of Act 119, and the aim of the provisions in Act 119, is not to put commercial breeders out of business, but to make sure their business is responsible and humane. The law is aimed at breeders that are selling dogs to Pennsylvania consumers. The state has a legitimate right to regulate this business just like any other for-profit business in the state. This is a consumer protection law as well as an animal welfare law, and as such, I believe its focus and scope are appropriate.
"The people of Pennsylvania have sent a clear message – a message that this lawsuit, regardless of its outcome, will have no bearing on. In Pennsylvania, the days of puppy mills, and of treating dogs as just another disposable cash crop, are over. The hundreds of thousands of Pennsylvanians – dog owners and non dog owners alike – who helped us pass Act 119 are committed to ensuring that."
I have read many articles, last one being from Jim Hughes of Southwest Auction, who is warning all of the breeders not to let the public get their hands on the breeding stock, because someone might misunderstand the shape they are in.
Well to bad because with all of the puppy mill busts going on daily, the breeding stock is getting into the hands of the public and they all want to know why the breeders aren't in jail.
We will keep fighting for all the dogs locked in their cages and for the ones who never really get out even if their bodies are released. Shame on the breeders who call themselves reputable who can't see that they are on the wrong side of this fight. Shame Shame on you.
]]>
Permission to crosspost anytime and anywhere or to circulate otherwise is granted.
Julian Prager
Pennsylvania Federation of Dog Clubs, Legislative Chair
Governor's Dog Law Advisory Board Member
NAIA Legislative Coordinator
Begin forwarded message:
From: Julian Prager <PennFedLaw@verizon.net>
Date: February 6, 2009 11:31:07 AM EST
To: "Jessie L. Smith" <jlsmith@state.pa.us>, Susan West <suewest@state.pa.us>
Cc: Julian Prager <pennfedlaw@verizon.net>
Subject: PFDC Comments on the Temporary Guidelines for Commercial Kennels
Attached please find the formal comments of the Pennsylvania Federation of Dog Clubs on the Temporary Guidelines for Commercial Kennels. Our major concern is that the law presently requires the Department to issue these Guidelines as proposed regulations, apparently without revision. Since we believe that these Guidelines have gone beyond the legislative authority granted to the Canine Health Board, our response has been written as if they were, in fact, proposed regulations to provide you with an advanced look at our comments to IRRC should the proposed regulations be taken directly from the Temporary Guidelines.
It is our position that final form regulations based on those Temporary Guidelines that are issued outside the legislatively granted authority to the Board are inappropriate. We recognize that the Department may have a legitimate interest in issuing further appropriate regulations in these areas based on the changes to the Dog Law enacted in the last session. We look forward to working with you to develop and implement new regulations based on the revised law.
Permission to crosspost anytime and anywhere or to circulate otherwise is granted.
Julian Prager
Pennsylvania Federation of Dog Clubs, Legislative Chair
National Animal Interest Alliance Legislative Coordinator
PA Federation of Dog Clubs
c/o Julian Prager
7552 Stein Road
Zionsville, PA 18092-2920
February 6, 2009
Department of Agriculture
Bureau of Dog Law Enforcement
2301 North Cameron Street
Room 102
Harrisburg, PA 17110
Re: Temporary Guidelines Standards for Commercial Kennels as published at the 39 Pa.B 310.
To Whom It May Concern:
We appreciate the work the Canine Health Board (Board) has done in reviewing health standards under Section 221 of the Dog Law (Act 119). Most of the requirements of the Temporary Guidelines (Guidelines) address areas affecting the health of dogs and are generally reasonable. However, we believe that there are areas where the Guidelines present problems because they are vague and do not provide sufficient guidance to the public, the potential fiscal impacts are misstated, there is internal conflict among the Guidelines, and the Guidelines established by the Board are ultra vires.
The notice published at 30 Pa.B 310 states that the Guidelines “will not impose significant additional fiscal impacts upon the Bureau of Dog Law Enforcement (Bureau). However, once the final regulations are in place additional fiscal impacts will be imposed” and “will not impose additional costs on the regulated community” and that there will be no fiscal impact on the purchasers of dogs. They state that there will be fiscal implications from the final regulations. Insofar as the law requires that the Department “shall promulgate the temporary guidelines as a regulation concurrently with publication in the Pennsylvania Bulletin,” the proposed regulations will mirror these Guidelines. Therefore, we will comment on the cost implications were the Guidelines to be enforced as regulations.
The document also states that the Guidelines “will not result in a substantial increase in paperwork.” Insofar as the proposed regulations are expected to mirror these Guidelines, we will comment on the paperwork implications of the Guidelines.
Act 119 limits the reach of the Board to distinct, limited areas. Section 211 establishes the Board, its process and the scope of its powers. Under Subsection (f), the purpose of the Board is stated: “to determine the standards based on animal husbandry practices to provide for the welfare of dogs under Section 207(h)(7) and (8) and (i)(3).” In addition, under Section 207 (i)(5) the Board may, upon a commercial kennel owner’s request, consider “on a case-by-case basis for an alternative means of allowing clearance from a primary enclosure to the exercise area or exercise that is required in paragraphs (4) and (6)(i) if the kennel owner presents the board with a plan that the board determines is verifiable, enforceable and provides for exercise equal to or greater than that which the dogs would receive under paragraphs (4) and (6)(i).” Insofar as the proposed regulations issued by the Department are required by law to be issued based on
the Guidelines, we must evaluate the authority of the Board to establish these Guidelines. Despite the requirement of the law that the Guidelines serve as the basis for the regulations published in the Pennsylvania Bulletin, any Guidelines issued which are not within the authority of the Board should not be the basis for the acceptance of final form regulations derived from them. It is inappropriate to bootstrap Guidelines that are ultra vires into final form regulations when the Guidelines were invalid ab initio.
Section 28.1 Ventilation.
Regarding the ventilation standards, Section 207(h)(7) states that “Housing facilities for dogs must be sufficiently ventilated at all times when dogs are present to provide for their health and well-being and to minimize odors, drafts, ammonia levels and to prevent moisture condensation.” Furthermore, it provides that the ”relative humidity must be at a level that ensures the health and well-being of the dogs housed therein.” It authorizes the Canine Health Board (the Board) to “determine auxiliary ventilation to be provided if the ambient air temperature is 85 degrees F or higher “ and authorizes it to determine the “appropriate ventilation, humidity and ammonia ranges . . .” and to determine the “appropriate ventilation . . . ranges.”
The Section 207(h)(7) does not authorize the Board to prescribe the methods of achieving the standards it determines are appropriate. It is authorized only to determine the relevant standards related to the health and well-being of dogs housed in the kennels, based on animal husbandry practices.
From that interpretation, it is our position based on the statute that the Board erred in requiring mechanical ventilation systems for use in commercial kennels in a number of subsections. Furthermore, it is well documented in literature related to animal husbandry that building design and non-mechanical means may be used to provide adequate levels of ventilation. Since animal husbandry standards are established as the foundation upon which Guidelines are to be based, the Guideline requiring the use of mechanical means for ventilation is inappropriate. This comment does not express an opinion on whether it is appropriate for the Department to write regulations covering this area, only that the Board may not prescribe the use of mechanical ventilation.
To implement this Guideline would require retrofitting mechanical systems in commercial kennels at a significant cost to the regulated community and would result in cost increases to the general public. There is also the likelihood of a fiscal impact on the government, since the operation of the Bureau is funded solely by revenue from the restricted fund. If kennels were to close due to the fiscal impact on them, it would reduce funding for Bureau operations.
Similarly, the requirement to keep the temperature below 86 degrees in Subsection 2 is beyond the scope of the Board’s authority defined in the statute quoted above. If the legislature had intended to provide a maximum temperature setting, it could have done so in the statute. We believe that the legislative history of the act makes it clear that the intent of the language in the statute was to have the Board do exactly what the statute states, i.e. determine additional ventilation requirements in commercial kennels at temperatures above 85 degrees to reduce the impact of higher temperatures on dogs in the kennels in accordance with animal husbandry practices.
An ancillary problem with the air-conditioning requirement is that it will have a disparate impact on a protected class – those whose religious beliefs prohibit or severely restrict the use of electricity. Any regulation that would require violation of their religious beliefs must be subject to significant scrutiny. In cases like this, where it is apparently beyond the authority granted the Board, it cannot be supported.
Implementing the temperature restrictions in the Guideline would require retrofitting air-conditioning systems in commercial kennels at a significant cost to the regulated community and would result in cost increases to the general public. There is also the likelihood of a fiscal impact on the government, since the operation of the Bureau is funded solely by revenue from the restricted fund. If kennels were to close due to the fiscal impact on them, it would reduce funding for Bureau operations.
In Subsections (3) and (4), the Guidelines are confusing. It is unclear where the temperature is to be measured. One possibility is that the temperature will be measured at the standing shoulder height, in their enclosures, for a randomly chosen 10 percent of the dogs. This appears to be what is meant in Subsection (6) where there is a specific reference to the measurement being done in each primary enclosure of the 10% of the dogs. Another interpretation is that the average standing shoulder height of a randomly selected 10 percent of the dogs will be used to measure the temperature, but in unspecified locations. The former interpretation will significantly increase the workload of the dog wardens; in the latter case, more specificity is required.
If this Guideline were implemented in a final form regulation, it would require 10 independent measurements in a 100-dog kennel, increasing the time required to perform each inspection and to record and maintain related data. In addition, it would be necessary to purchase digital thermometers for wardens to permit accurate temperature measurement. The result would be increased costs for staff and supplies. Since the funds to cover this come from a restricted account, there will be no impact on the general fund, but costs to the regulated community and all dogs owners might have to increase to cover the additional costs to the Department.
The requirements of Subsection (5) are clear and specific. If this standard was implemented in final regulations, it would require significantly increasing the time for each inspection since the ammonia detector would have to be reset after each measurement and calibrated periodically. In a 100-dog kennel, the Guideline would require 18 separate measurements. This would result in the need for more staff by the Department to perform its duties, for recording significantly more data, and the purchase of multiple ammonia detectors. The purchase and use of passive ammonia detector, which runs a few dollars per test, would result in a significant fiscal impact on the Department from the restricted account. Since the funds to cover this come from a restricted account, there will be no impact on the general fund, but costs to the regulated community and all dogs owners might have to increase to cover the additional costs to the Department.
The standard in Subsection 6 is internally inconsistent and appears arbitrary, capricious and an abuse of authority. It requires that CO be kept below detectable levels in all areas of the kennel and requires detectors able to monitor the level throughout the entire facility. These detectors must meet the standards set in UL 2034 or IAS 6-96. However, according to the U.S. EPA, the air quality standard for outdoor air is 9 parts per million (40,000 micrograms per meter cubed) for 8 hours, and 35 parts per million for 1 hour. While the EPA states that there are no standards agreed upon for indoor air quality, they recognize that the CO level near a properly adjusted gas stove is 15 parts per million. Therefore, it is improper to establish a standard for acceptable levels of CO as being undetectable, both because there are no recognizable standards for indoor CO levels in either human or animal husbandry practices and because the mandated level
is below the levels the EPA determines exist in both outdoor and indoor air in general.
The reference to the UL Standard 2034 is inappropriate since the standard states in 1.1 that it covers detectors “in ordinary indoor locations of dwelling units, including recreational vehicles, mobile homes and recreational boats with enclosed accommodation spaces and cockpit areas.” These are clearly not animal husbandry uses. If this standard were applicable, it permits a carbon monoxide concentration of 70 parts per million with an alarm response time of between 60 and 240 minutes as an acceptable operating level. The acceptable response time decreases to between 4 and 15 minutes at 400 parts per million. If CO alarms are mandated, the acceptable levels should be within the functional parameters of the alarms.
We do not comment on the standards regarding IAS 6-96 since we have been unable to obtain a copy to determine what it requires. However, we expect that our comments would parallel those regarding UL 2034.
In Subsection (7), we note again our objection to the requirement for mechanical systems. Furthermore, we believe the requirement in the subsection, as worded, would create delays taking corrective action. Not only is the Bureau unstaffed on evenings and weekends, but also it may not be possible or necessary to obtain this information from the Bureau. We believe better language to protect the health of the animals would be: “In the event of a ventilation system malfunction, the kennel owner or manager shall take immediate steps to correct the malfunction and shall notify the Bureau of Dog Law Enforcement of the malfunction during the Bureau’s next regular business hours.” This would permit follow-up by the Bureau without requiring it to be expert in all types of ventilation system repair.
Subsection (8) is beyond the scope of the authority of the Board. Standards for particulate matter are not covered by the statutory authorization granted to the Board under Section 207(h)(7). This area, although affecting the health and welfare of the animals in the kennel, is not within the authorized scope of the Board. Furthermore, as suggested by the article in IRRC’s February 2009 Newsletter, a regulation based on this Guideline may be deficient where it conflicts with or duplicates a statute. The statute contains cleanliness standards for commercial kennels in section 207(h)(14). This is the controlling authority and regulations based on the Board’s Guidelines are not appropriate.
The approach in Subsection (9) is interesting. Clearly air change may be set at a required level. In fact, this is the appropriate method of ensuring that noxious air contaminants remain at satisfactory levels. If air circulation and exchange levels are properly determined, ammonia levels, Co levels and other contaminants will be properly controlled. However, the steps in Subparagraph (A) do not measure air changes. At best, they measure potential air changes using some unspecified formula. Without the formula, the regulated party has no way of determining independently if the kennel is in compliance before an inspection occurs. The only way to enforce this requirement is to actually measure air changes at the site as required in (ii) and the only way to determine compliance is to apply the formula to the actual airflow.
In addition, the relationship between this Subsection and Subsection 12 is unclear. This subsection states that air changes must occur with fresh air; subsection 12 refers to the use of recirculated air. If there is sufficient fresh air being circulated, it is not clear how recirculated air in addition to the fresh air requires any treatment. If filtered, recirculated air is permitted, why is it not included in the calculation of air changes?
Subsection 10 attempts to expand the authority of the Board to areas of animal stress by bootstrapping it to the authority to set ventilation standards. However, correlation is not causation. The authority of the Board extends only to setting appropriate levels specified in the statute. Although this is a valid health concern and stress reduction does affect animal health, it is not covered by the scope of the statutory authority of the Board. This comment does not express an opinion on whether it is appropriate for the Department to write regulations covering this area, only that the Board may not develop Guidelines concerning control of stress.
Subsection 11 is unnecessary in that it restates the provision of the statute or other regulations in all respects.
Subsection 12 has been addressed in the comments on Subsection (9).
Subsection (13) is unclear as to its meaning. Most codes establish standards for new construction. Existing buildings are permitted to continue operating under the codes in place when they were constructed until there is a major renovation. At that time, upgrading systems to the new code is required. We have no objection if the intent of this subsection is to follow the standard building code and zoning practice as it applies to buildings used for animal husbandry purposes. We believe that a requirement to upgrade existing buildings to current standards is contrary to standard industry and governmental practices and would cause significant fiscal harm to the regulated community.
To be enforceable, subsection (14) should provide more specific information on acceptable level. It is too vague to provide a basis for meaningful enforcement or to inform the regulated community of exactly what standard they must meet. Furthermore, as noted above, the Board is not authorized to establish Guidelines for temperature levels. This comment does not express an opinion on whether it is appropriate for the Department to write regulations covering temperatures for housing young puppies, only that the Board may not develop Guidelines concerning control of temperature levels.
Section 28.2 Lighting.
Section 207(h)(8) states: “Housing facilities for dogs must be lighted well enough to permit routine inspection and cleaning of the facility and observation of the dogs. Animal areas must be provided a regular diurnal lighting cycle of either natural or artificial light. Lighting must be uniformly diffused throughout housing facilities and provide sufficient illumination to aid in maintaining good housekeeping practices, adequate cleaning and observation of animals at any time and for the well-being of the animals. Primary enclosures must be placed so as to protect the dogs from excessive light. The appropriate lighting ranges shall be determined by the Canine Health Board.”
Despite the statement made in the preface to Subsection (1), the subsection goes beyond the authority of the Board, which is authorized only to establish lighting ranges. The statute explicitly permits either artificial or natural light and the Board has no authority to require natural light. Even if it had the authority to prescribe natural lighting, it would lack the authority to require transparent windows in Paragraph (ii), as contrasted with translucent windows, since it is only the level of light that may be regulated. The same argument is made with respect to the amount of glazed area in Paragraph (iii). Furthermore, we note that the approach taken by the Board has completely eliminated one source of acceptable natural light frequently found in the animal husbandry practices of kennels. That is the use of translucent or transparent door inserts in doors used for providing unfettered access to outdoor runs. These doors are widely used
and provide significant natural light in each primary enclosure during the hours of natural daylight.
Paragraph (iv) duplicates the statutory language and is unnecessary.
Paragraph (v) is beyond the scope of authority of the Board in that it does not cover lighting ranges in housing areas or primary enclosures. Shade is an important health requirement for dogs outside in the heat and this comment does not express an opinion on whether it is appropriate for the Department to write regulations covering this area, only that the Board may not develop Guidelines concerning shade requirements.
Paragraph (vi) faces the same objections raised with respect to Paragraph (ii). The reach of the Board’s authority under section 207(i)(5) extends to determining that a plan is verifiable, enforceable and provides for exercise equal to or greater than that which the dogs would be provided should the Department grant an exemption from outdoor exercise under Section 207(i)(6)(x)(B). There is nothing in the statute to suggest that the Board has the authority to proscribe different lighting requirements for kennels where waivers are granted. Furthermore, transparent windows set at a height to permit each dog to have an unobstructed view of the outdoor environment could prove dangerous since they would have to be set at or slightly above the dog’s eye level. This might result in dogs trying to exit through a closed or partially opened window, resulting in injury to the dog. We refer again to our comments, above, regarding transparent or
translucent inserts in kennel doors. This comment does not express an opinion on whether it is appropriate for the Department to write regulations covering this area, only that the Board may not develop standards that must be met in kennels where the Department has granted a waiver from outdoor exercise.
Paragraph (vii) also exceeds the authority of the Board in that lighting type is not something the Board is authorized to specify. Exposure to full spectrum lighting is desirable for dogs not having access to outdoor exposure to natural lighting. This comment does not express an opinion on whether it is appropriate for the Department to write regulations covering this area, only that the Board may not develop Guidelines that must be met in kennels where the Department has granted a waiver from outdoor exercise.
With respect to Paragraph (i) of Subsection (2), we raise the same issue regarding the requirement for full spectrum lighting as we did in Section (1).
We do not challenge Paragraph (ii), but wonder at the need for any level of light at night. If lighting is needed to inspect or perform duties, lights may be turned on to provide sufficient lighting. We also believe the phrasing of the paragraph is unclear as worded.
Paragraph (iii) is superfluous in that it duplicates the statute.
Paragraphs (iv), (v) and (vi) are beyond the scope of authority of the Board under the law. This comment does not express an opinion on whether it is appropriate for the Department to write regulations covering these areas, only that the Board may not develop Guidelines in the areas proposed.
Our comments on Subsection (3) are the same as those made with respect to Subsection (13) of section 28.1.
Section 28.3 Flooring
Section 207(i)(3)(i) specifies that flooring “shall be strong enough so that the floor does not sag or bend between the structural supports, shall not be able to be destroyed through digging or chewing by the dogs housed in the primary enclosure, shall not permit the feet of any dog housed in the primary enclosure to pass through any opening, shall not be metal strand whether or not it is coated, shall allow for moderate drainage of fluids and shall not be sloped more than 0.25 inches per foot.” It further authorizes permissible slatted flooring for commercial kennels in section 207(i)(3)(ii) and authorizes the Board in subparagraph (iii) to approve additional flooring options that meet the provisions of Section 207(i)(3)(i).
Subsections (1), (2), (3), (4), (6) and (8) properly follow the Board’s scope of authority. However, it would be preferable to list the specific sections within the dog law relevant to the flooring standards, rather than refer to the entire dog law since this provides little guidance to the regulated community regarding where the other standards can be found.
Our comments to Subsection (5) are the same as those made with respect to Subsection (13) of Section 28.1 and Subsection (3) of Section 28,2.
The provisions of subsection (7) are superfluous in that they are duplicative of the law.
Despite the short time frame within which the Board had to issue these Guidelines, we had hoped that the Board would be able to consider and approve additional flooring options that were in conformance with Section 207(i)(3)(i). Absent any other approved flooring, the provision of this section will have a significant fiscal impact on the regulated community and will result in a fiscal impact on the public through increased cost for dogs sold.
Sincerely,
Julian Prager
PFDC Legislative Chair
As I watch my google alerts and see puppy mill bust after bust around the country, I am happy for the dogs who are being saved. Just today 300 in North Carolina, recently 400 in Washington State. I keep waiting for the news to say "Hundred of dogs saved in Pennsylvania".
I keep missing that news story, what about you, did you see it? The dogs and puppies are freezing but no busts in PA. Very sad.
]]>
In response to that alert, Jessie Smith posted a statement (actually two) on Best Friends PA Community. UPDATE: Statement from Jessie Smith pertaining to the veterinarian situation. Jessie what were you thinking?
We learned there is a vet who will eventually get to the job and there is some per diem work going on. Did anyone notice how cold it was last night? Well the dogs did.
Many months ago while most people were celebrating the success of passing a bill that would help the dogs, most of us in the animal community took a wait and see approach. As expected the dogs are no better off now then they were. Actually many individual dogs are much worse off, they are older, colder and probably won't make it through the winter.
PENNSYLVANIA WAS AND CONTINUES TO BE "THE PUPPY MILL CAPITAL OF THE EAST".
Hug your dogs today, especially the ones who are mill survivors. Tell them that we won't stop fighting for their brothers and sisters, until they can sleep in a warm place on a solid surface and not live their lives in fear and pain.
On another note Skippy has been denied a 2009 Kennel license. All he has to do now is appeal and he can go on selling dogs from Almost Heaven (or whatever else it is called). We will wait and see how fast they act on closing him down. PMAD knows from personal experience what the dogs and puppies coming out of Almost Heaven are like.
HAVE A GREAT RESCUE WEEK
]]>
From Bill Smith, Main Line Animal Rescue
Six months ago, Governor Rendell announced that the Bureau of Dog Law Enforcement planned to hire fourteen more people, including a state vet who would work exclusively with our state's kennel inspectors (dog wardens).
In spite of the Governor's good intentions, the Bureau of Dog Law has dropped the ball. A state vet has not been hired/named. There are sick and injured dogs in commercial breeding facilities across Pennsylvania and this position should have been filled a week after the Governor's press conference.
A hiring freeze should not apply to the Bureau of Dog Law Enforcement. The Bureau is sustained by the public purchasing dog licenses. They have over $15,000,000 in a reserved account (replenished every year - licenses are mandatory in the Commonwealth) so there is no excuse not to hire a vet or additional kennel inspectors. They are not affected by the economy.
We are urging the Bureau of Dog Law Enforcement to do the right thing and hire the promised vet as soon as possible. They have had six months to do the right thing.
What you can do:
Please contact Secretary of Agriculture Dennis Wolff (dwolff@state.pa.us)and ask him (politely but firmly) to hire a state vet as soon as possible. Please email the Governor's office (erendell@state.pa.us) and ask him to look into the matter as well. If they tell you a vet was hired - ask them for his or her name and when they were hired. A lot of suffering has occurred in the past six months, there is/was no excuse for the delaying of this appointment.
Jessie Smith's email address is jlsmith@state.pa.us. Ask why the Governor's instructions regarding the mill dogs of Pennsylvania are not being followed!
]]>We must commit to tell their story and fight their battle. The ones behind the barn doors have no voice. We challenge each and everyone of you to be their voice. Help us save them... This is our call to service.
]]>