PA set to ban pet gas chambers, AKC fights bill to aid shelters
Dog breeders are putting 11th-hour pressure on the Pennsylvania Senate to kill two animal welfare bills sought by shelters and their supporters.
PA set to ban pet gas chambers, AKC fights bill to aid shelters
Amy Worden, Inquirer Staff Writer
Dog breeders are putting 11th-hour pressure on the Pennsylvania Senate to kill two animal welfare bills sought by shelters and their supporters.
The American Kennel Club and its affiliate Pennsylvania Federation of Dog Clubs Legislation are seeking to block a bill that would end the gassing unwanted pets in shelters, a practice widely considered inhumane.
That bill, HB 2630, however, appears poised to become law with Gov. Corbett saying he will sign the bill and Senate leaders giving signs it will win final approval next week.
But opposition by the AKC breeder groups threatens a second bill aimed at making those charged with animal abuse to relinquish their pet or cover the cost of their animal's care until the case is adjudicated.
Senate leadership says HB 2630, which would ban carbon monoxide to euthanize stray and unwanted cats and dogs, is on the fast track for passage during the final few days of the 2011-2012 legislative session next week.
Only three shelters, all in western Pennsylvania, still use this practice banned in 19 other states and many municipalities. When the bill becomes law all shelters would be required to destroy animals by lethal injection as virtually all other shelters and veterinarians do.
Teetering on the edge is a bill to make animal abusers - for the first time - pay for the cost of care of the animals they have mistreated.
Pennsylvania shelters are being crushed from all sides: the state's grant program has been decimated and may well be dissolved entirely and local government support is miniscule or non existent, leaving shelters to struggle to make up the difference with private fundraising.
That bill, HB 2409, sponsored by Rep. Brian Ellis (R., Butler) sailed through the state House on a 192-5 vote. It would mandate that individuals pay a daily fee, capped at $15 a day, and require shelters to document veterinary expenses for the weeks, months or even years the animal is in a shelter.
If someone were to add up the total costs to all shelters in Pennsylvania who feed and provide medical care to animals in abuse cases, it would easily stretch into the millions.
Now shelters can only hope for court-ordered restitution. Shelter operators I talked to said with a handful of exceptions - usually deductions from government-issued checks - they never see any reimbursement for the costs of care for the abuse victims they care for.
In one case in Franklin County alone, the cost of care for four huskies, whose owners were twice convicted of cruelty but are continuing to appeal, is nearing $50,000. At the same time the dogs have been confined in a kennel at Cumberland Valley Animal Shelter for two years.
Enter the American Kennel Club, the world's oldest dog registry, which sent a letter opposing the bill to House leaders last month, arguing it violates the "due process rights" of dog owners.
Now its affiliate Pennsylvania Federation of Dog Clubs - which fought the landmark 2008 dog law bill to clean up the state's puppy mills - is turning up the heat on the Senate which is in session for only three more days next week.
In a nine-page letter the federation says the bill "deprives persons of property rights without a conviction on the underlying offense," among other issues.
Bruce Wagman, a San Francisco-based animal law expert, 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 his response to the challenge 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."
The bill received clearance from the Pennsylvania District Attorneys Association and has been reviewed by a number of lawyers, its supporters say.
"If the cost of care bill does not pass, I think many small non-profit shelters are going to re-think the work they do with cruelty investigations," said Nancy Gardner, president of the board of the Cumberland Valley Animal Shelter. " The expenses just aren't sustainable."
Gardner adds: "Actually, if people are breaking state law, this should be a function of law enforcement, not local animal shelters who receive no funding for it. The question then is, how good a job will the state and local municipalities do in enforcing laws that protect animals?"
If the cost of care bill dies in the Senate, the process would start from square one in 2013.
I've had a few dogs eligible for registration with the AKC and never bothered.Doesn't make sense unless you plan to breed and too many fly by nights do that now.The AKC is wrong— wayne michael- The AKC is a disgrace. A bunch of snoby, know-it-alls who breed while amazing dogs die at the shelter. People who have AKC dogs represent pure greed and scum to me.— savealife
- There is a serious mistake in this report. The AKC opposes a law that requires owners to pay for care BEFORE they are CONVICTED of anything. This is a constitutional issue and no one should support any law that takes away your rights to be innocent until proven guilty. I have no information on the AKC supporting Gas Chambers and I suspect this is another error.— DCatcher
- This factually incorrect in a number of areas. As the Federation's Legislative Chair and a member of the Dog Law Advisory Board that fought to get the 2008 Dog Law Revision passed, you are wrong to say we opposed it. We opposed certain provision of the bill as drafted, but supported its passage. In fact, we were the first to ay that the proposal to amend the regulations did not go far enough and to suggest that the law needed to be amended instead.
If you read and reported the comments of the Federation and the AKC, an objective reporting would say that the Federation supported the aim of the bill (compensation for the care of abused animals held as evidence pending adjudication of the charges), but not the unconstitutional way in which it tried to address the problem. The Federation's response provided alternatives to the legislative approach in H2409 and the legislature can pass a statute that meets constitutional muster. As our comments show, the provisions of H2409 requiring confiscation of animals prior to conviction, if the accused does not pay for their care prior to conviction, can irreparably deprive those who are innocent of their property without due process. The wording is almost exactly the same as that held to be unconstitutional by a federal district court in The Louisville Kennel Club, Inc., et al v. Louisville/Jefferson County Metro Government.
All animals must be protected from abuse and the abuser should pay for the cost of their care after conviction. However, those not found guilty should not be penalized for the costs an investigation and seizure that was either not properly done or did not provide evidence sufficient for conviction. Tje rights enshrined in the Constitution are paramount.— Julian Prager - Both you and Mr. Wagman need to do a little research concerning property seizure. The proposed PA bill is virtually a duplicate of the Louisville ordinance that was ruled unconstitutional about 3 years ago. If it is passed, it is unlikely to withstand a court challenge. How will this be better than now?
To put it simply.... Suppose that you are cited for some crime. Suppose that before the court hearing, your family is assessed $1,000 for room and board in the jail. Then, suppose that you are found not guilty. Should your family get the money back? Of course they should. However, under this bill, they would not. In other words, the State can make money just by arresting people and charging them for room and board.— ejstruan - @Dcatcher and ejstruan: dog is a noun, but I resent that it is a thing subject to property laws, but that's a fight for another day. whether or not the animal owners have been convicted of anything has nothing to do with the reasonable care they should be required to provide their animals while they are seized, during the investigation and court proceedings. their dogs will be taken and cared for pending the outcome of the investigation and paying for something during this time has nothing to do with guilt or innocence. if the dogs were not seized they would still, we hope, feed/water/vet their animals. they should be willing and eager to continue to support their animals care. those owners who would argue not to have to pay toward this, in my opinion, are the ones with something to hide.— tmscgirlscout
- There is a big monetary difference in caring for your animal in your own home and being charged outrageous fees for a shelter who has taken over your animals and decides who can live and who can die. Also performing sterilization without your permission or having that hang over your head while trying to disprove false charges. This was the same tactic used by Nazi against people they didn't like in Germany before WWII. RIGHTS are rights and this law tries to take away your rights.— Realdoglover
- 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
