Shelter "cost of care" bill slated for final House vote, AKC seeks to derail it
Four years ago the American Kennel Club fought down to the wire- unsuccessfully -to block the anti-puppy mill bill now celebrated as landmark legislation.
Shelter "cost of care" bill slated for final House vote, AKC seeks to derail it
Amy Worden, Inquirer Staff Writer
Four years ago the American Kennel Club fought down to the wire- unsuccessfully -to block the anti-puppy mill bill now celebrated as landmark legislation.
Today the nation's oldest and largest dog breed registry has mounted an 11th hour fight to derail a bill designed to help shelters cover the costs of caring for dogs seized in cruelty cases.
The so-called "cost of care" bill (HB 2409) won unanimous passage in the House agriculture committee and had no opposition in its first vote in the House. Here's how the law - similar to those in two dozen other states - would work: if an individual is charged with animal cruelty they must pay for the care of the animal or animals, or relinquish them to shelters.
An amendment to the bill would cap the per day boarding fee at $15 and require shelters to document medical expenses.
Under current law, cash-strapped shelters have to foot the bill through what can be years of court battles and hope for restitution at the end. Not only does that place enormous burdens on non-profit shelters - many of which lost state shelter funding this year with budget cuts -it also means the animals spend months or years locked in a cage or kennel.
And, unless money is deducted from government checks, shelter operators say they virtually never see repayment of bills that can total thousands, if not tens of thousands.
A case in point: the Cumberland Valley Animal Shelter, west of Harrisburg, has spent $48,000 to house four huskies owned by a couple twice convicted of animal abuse for two and half years. The couple has refused to turn over the dogs despite losses at every level in the court process. The Pennsylvania Superior Court recently upheld the lower court's cruelty conviction yet the dogs remain in the shelter at least until Oct. 17, the deadline for an appeal to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court.
For some shelters, like the Pennsylvania SPCA, which have responded to cases of mass animal cruelty such as those found in large puppy mills or the horrific Tiger Ranch cat "rescue," the medical and food bills can soar into the hundreds of thousands. Not to mention, these seized animals take up valuable space in shelters.
Now, with a final House vote scheduled today, the AKC has jumped in, saying it opposed the bill because it "violates the due process rights of dog owners."
Animal law expert Bruce Wagman said the bill has "clear and extensive due process protections built in" and requires the court to find there was sufficient basis to seize the animals.
In a letter Wagman wrote, "The law only requires owners of animals to meet their statutory obligation to care for their animals...and is a matter of undisputed Pennsylvania law. That is, if a defendant cannot pay for the care of the animal they would be engaging in neglect and therefore animal cruelty, so that costs required do not demand anything more than that defendants comply with their legal obligations.
In addition, he said, the language was reviewed and approved by the Pennsylvania District Attorneys Association, and many other legal experts.
Really? $48,000 for 4 dogs for 2 years? I'd like to get in on that action.
— elvbend- Never mind that this kind of "bond" has been found to be unconstitutional in several instances. We still have innocent until proven guilty in this country as far as I know. Making someone pay thousands of dollars for the care of animals prior to a finding of guilty is unconstitutional. You list one example that went bad for a rescue (which I also have to question the $48,000 figure-riduculous and unrealistic) but I have heard of several horror stories where once found innocent, the rescues refuse to give the animal back or they are already spay, neutered, sold or dead so there is no way for the owner to get them back. To pass this law only provides more incentive for rescues to seize animals on bogus, trumped up, malicious reasons.— CMP
- The "owners" have the choice of paying for the care or relinquishing the animal, at which time they will not be responsible and the animal can be adopted. I'm sure there have been instances where people have cleared their names and reclaimed the animals but I believe that this bill, for once, is looking out for the animal, the vast majority of which do need to be taken from abusive, neglectful situations. (And having the animal spayed or neutered is a good thing.) The AKC's core values state "we protect the health and well being of all dogs" and yet time and time again they fight against laws that would actually do that. It makes me very suspect of the whole organization.— jtf
- That's because these laws *won't* do that. JTF you're assuming that every animal seized is truly a victim of cruelty. I once believed that too. But after seeing so many pictures of "starving animals in filth" who were overweight and clean, and having worked in a shelter and having seen and heard firsthand the prejudice against breeding and breeders, I no longer trust anything in these seizure cases. The mentality is "oh no, breeder!" then look for anything that can be distorted to "cruelty." And in the mean time pass laws so you don't have to even prove that. — Ajayes
- A Humane Nation
- Animal Law Coalition
- Animal Legal Defense Fund
- Animals & Politics
- Best Friends Animal Society
- Catster
- Dogster
- ohmidog!
- Paw Print Post
- Pennsylvania Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals
- Pet Watch New Jersey
- Pet-Abuse.com
- PetMD
- Terrierman
- The Bark
- Vetstreet
- WebMed/Pets
- zootoo
