Post by John Yates on Feb 13, 2009 17:50:29 GMT -5
Tail Docking Legislation Moving
Fast In Illinois And Pennsylvania
Dog Owners Must Take Immediate Action To Stop These Bills
by JOHN YATES
American Sporting Dog Alliance
www.americansportingdogalliance.org
asda@conline.net
This article is archived at:
Legislation about tail docking, dewclaw removal and ear cropping is moving very quickly in Illinois and Pennsylvania, and will come to a head within the next week. This legislation comes straight from the agenda of the radical Humane Society of the United States (HSUS).
In Pennsylvania, House Bill 39 was passed by the House of Representatives by a unanimous vote this week and has been sent to the Senate.
In Illinois, Senate Bill 139 has been scheduled for a hearing this coming Wednesday (February 18, 2009) before the Senate Agriculture and Conservation Committee.
If dog owners fail to act promptly, decisively and in large numbers, these bills will have a devastating impact on many breeds of dogs.
Developments in each state will be profiled separately below.
In both states, these laws would destroy dog shows, field trials and competitive events for many breeds of dogs that normally have their tails docked, ears cropped and/or dewclaws removed. These dogs could not safely enter Illinois or Pennsylvania. These bills also would subject out of state tourists and hunters to an arrest for animal cruelty for medical procedures that are completely legal in their home states.
American Kennel Club rules say that no dog with cropped ears can be shown in any state where this procedure is illegal, or in violation of the terms of any state law. An owner who violates this rule is subject to AKC sanctions. This would make it a violation of AKC rules for any nonresident to show or compete with dogs that have cropped ears in either Pennsylvania or Illinois, in the absence of required proofs.
The standards of most breeds of spaniels, Continental pointing dogs, terriers, herding dogs and protective dogs require having short tails, and many hunting and working dogs have their dewclaws removed to prevent serious injuries.
Pennsylvania
House Bill 39 passed out of the House Judicial Committee this week by a unanimous vote, and then was passed by the full House by a 192-0 vote. It now goes before the state Senate. If it passes the Senate, it will go to Governor Ed Rendell, who has said he will sign it into law.
Thus, the Senate will be dog owners’ only chance to stop this legislation.
Rep. Thomas R. Caltagirone (D-Berks County) is the prime sponsor of HB 39. It also had 33 co-sponsors in the House.
The American Sporting Dog Alliance sees HB 39 as very dangerous legislation because it is based on a series of ambiguities that do not clearly spell out a dog owner’s responsibilities or provide a clear definition of proof of guilt or innocence.
The heart of the measure is that the owner of a litter of puppies can legally clip dewclaws or dock tails until the puppies are five days old, after which time it becomes animal cruelty. The litter owner also can have a veterinarian perform the procedure.
The dangerous ambiguity comes because the bill provides no way for the owner of a litter to prove that tail docking or dewclaw removal was done legally, except if it is done by a veterinarian, who could certify it. Thus, no way is given to a litter owner who legally performs these procedures to prove her or his innocence if he or she is falsely or mistakenly charged with violating this law.
The legislation demands that a litter owner keep a record of the procedure, but does not specify what kind of record must be kept, or what kind of record will be sufficient legal evidence if the litter owner is confronted by an animal cruelty police officer or is taken to court on a charge of animal cruelty.
This alone makes it very dangerous and poorly conceived legislation.
HB 39 also says that the evidence of an unhealed wound from tail docking or dewclaw removal is “prima facie” evidence of a violation of the animal cruelty statutes. “Prima facie” means that an accused person is automatically guilty and has no defense against the charge.
This creates many gray areas. First, it may take several days for the wound to completely heal, which could be beyond the fifth day. Second, many people could not actually prove how old their puppies are in court, unless there was a witness to the whelping.
Thus, the American Sporting Dog Alliance believes that HB 39 is a backdoor attempt to require a veterinarian to perform all tail docking or dewclaw removal procedures, as there would be no other way for a litter owner to prove they were done legally in court.
HB 39 also creates a very real and very dangerous situation for anyone whose dog loses a tail accidentally. With hunting dogs that move with a merry and cracking tail, for example, broken tails are not uncommon. Sometimes the part of the tail that is above the break atrophies and falls off, leaving exposed flesh until healing is complete. This would subject the dog’s owner to a charge of animal cruelty for a purely accidental event of a dog’s tail whipping against a rock or tree.
Also, on occasion, a puppy’s tail can be broken in the womb or shortly after birth by its mother. These kinds of broken tails almost always atrophy and fall off when the puppy is several weeks or months old.
Many other dogs lose their tails accidentally by having them caught in car or house doors, stepped on, or struck by a hard and heavy object such as a falling tree limb. A legitimate accident should not be the basis for a possible animal cruelty charge.
Moreover, the entire concept of a dog owner being forced to prove her or his innocence runs against the most basic American principle of justice: That a person is presumed to be innocent unless guilt can be proven in court. It is unconstitutional and un-American to force people into a legal situation of having to prove their own innocence.
Like most animal rights-inspired legislation, HB 39 attempts to use a sensationalized issue to garner support. In the case of HB 39, the issue is “debarking.” Animal rights activists claim that some commercial kennels “debark” dogs by breaking their vocal chords with a pipe or other object.
Simply put, we have never seen or even heard of anyone doing this. Nor have we seen the slightest shred of proof to indicate that this is being done in commercial kennels or anywhere else as anything more than an isolated and rare incident.
We abhor the animal rights group tactic of using an emotionally charged but almost nonexistent problem to try to push through legislation to take away dog owners’ rights to perform common, safe and painless procedures like docking the tails of young puppies.
Comparing tail docking to “debarking” is even more far-fetched than comparing apples to oranges. It’s more like comparing apples to chainsaws.
HB 39 amends current law, which already contains similar provisions for ear cropping. Ear cropping must be done only by a veterinarian, under existing law.
We believe this section of the law should be repealed, as many people buy or are given a dog that has had its ears cropped, but have no way of proving that the work was done legally. In addition, many people bring dogs with cropped ears into Pennsylvania from other states where the laws are different. It is wrong to place law-abiding people in the cruel situation of having to part with or euthanize a beloved family pet because of a poorly conceived law.
Also, the ear cropping law would do tremendous harm to rescue work and animal shelter adoptions, because few if any dogs that would come into such a program would have the required proof that ear cropping was done legally. Most of these dogs are strays or pets that have been abandoned, or dogs that have been confiscated from illegal kennels. The absence of a veterinarian’s certificate would offer only one choice under the law: Euthanize the dog or face possible animal cruelty charges.
That is not fair to the dogs that enter rescue or sheltering programs. These dogs have a tough enough time finding loving homes.
HB 39 also would give state dog wardens the legal authority to enforce animal cruelty laws in counties that have not appointed a humane society police officer. Under current law, dog wardens cannot enforce animal cruelty laws.
Many areas of Pennsylvania do not have an officially designated animal cruelty officer. Sometimes, this is because a trained officer is not available.
However, over the past year there has been much dissention within the ranks of animal cruelty police officers and the Pennsylvania Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, which administers the law enforcement program. Many humane police officers have been fired or have quit over the past year, and state dog wardens have reported that many counties do not have anyone to handle cruelty cases.
We question whether the state Bureau of Dog Law Enforcement has the manpower to do this job, especially in light of last year’s complicated new kennel and dog law, which has severely strained the Bureau’s resources. It also may cause all of the conflicts and problems associated with the expression, “too many cooks in the kitchen.”
Please read this legislation for yourself: www.legis.state.pa.us/cfdocs/legis/PN/Public/btCheck.cfm?txtType=HTM&sessYr=2009&sessInd=0&billBody=H&billTyp=B&billNbr=0039&pn=0031 .
It is not known if the bill will be assigned to the Senate Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee or the Judiciary Committee. The committee assignment has not been announced.
However, we don’t think dog owners have the luxury of patience, as HB 39 was moved completely through the House in a single day.
Thus, the American Sporting Dog Alliance is urging all Pennsylvania dog owners to immediately contact the members of both Senate committees to voice strong opposition.
This page provides links for each member’s contact information for the Senate Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee: www.legis.state.pa.us/cfdocs/cteeInfo/cteeInfo.cfm?cde=3&body=S .
This page provides contact links for members of the Senate Judiciary Committee: www.legis.state.pa.us/cfdocs/cteeInfo/cteeInfo.cfm?cde=19&body=S .
In addition, we are asking every Pennsylvanian to contact his or her own state senator. Here is a list of all the senators, with links for contact information: www.legis.state.pa.us/cfdocs/legis/home/member_information/senators_alpha.cfm .
Illinois
Senate Bill 139, which defines tail docking and ear cropping as torture and a felony offense, is scheduled for a hearing before the Senate Agriculture and Conservation Committee on February 18, 2009. The 1 p.m. hearing will be held in Room 409 at the Capitol in Springfield, IL.
Current Illinois law specifically excludes tail docking and ear cropping from the crime of animal torture.
However, Senate Bill 139, introduced by Sen. Terry Link (D-Lake County), removes those exclusions and adds tail docking and ear cropping to the list of acts that would constitute animal torture, which is a third class felony offense.
Tail docking and ear cropping would become a felony under SB 139 in almost all cases, even if it is performed by a veterinarian. A veterinarian would be allowed to dock a tail or crop an ear, but only “for a medical reason.” Tail docking or ear cropping done for any other reason, such as to assist the dog in hunting or herding or to conform to the official standard for a particular breed, would be a felony under SB 139.
Please read this legislation for yourself: www.ilga.gov/legislation/fulltext.asp?DocName=&SessionId=76&GA=96&DocTypeId=SB&DocNum=139&GAID=10&LegID=40561&SpecSess=&Session= .
The American Sporting Dog Alliance is urging Illinois dog owners to immediately contact members of the Senate Agriculture and Conservation Committee to express your strong opposition to SB 139. Here is a link to contact information for members of the committee: www.ilga.gov/senate/committees/members.asp?committeeID=607 .
If you would like to testify at the hearing, please contact the office of the Chairman, Sen. Michael W. Frerichs: www.ilga.gov/senate/Senator.asp?MemberID=1522 .
Also, please contact your own state senator and ask her or him to oppose this legislation. Here is a list of contact information for every state senator: www.ilga.gov/reports/rptMemberList.asp?gaid=10&ChamberId=S .
The American Sporting Dog Alliance represents owners, breeders and professionals who work with breeds of dogs that are used for hunting. We also welcome people who work with other breeds, as legislative issues affect all of us. 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.
The American Sporting Dog Alliance also needs 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 your donations in order to maintain strict independence.
Please visit us on the web at www.americansportingdogalliance.org . Our email is asda@csonline.net .
PLEASE CROSS-POST AND FORWARD THIS REPORT TO YOUR FRIENDS
Fast In Illinois And Pennsylvania
Dog Owners Must Take Immediate Action To Stop These Bills
by JOHN YATES
American Sporting Dog Alliance
www.americansportingdogalliance.org
asda@conline.net
This article is archived at:
Legislation about tail docking, dewclaw removal and ear cropping is moving very quickly in Illinois and Pennsylvania, and will come to a head within the next week. This legislation comes straight from the agenda of the radical Humane Society of the United States (HSUS).
In Pennsylvania, House Bill 39 was passed by the House of Representatives by a unanimous vote this week and has been sent to the Senate.
In Illinois, Senate Bill 139 has been scheduled for a hearing this coming Wednesday (February 18, 2009) before the Senate Agriculture and Conservation Committee.
If dog owners fail to act promptly, decisively and in large numbers, these bills will have a devastating impact on many breeds of dogs.
Developments in each state will be profiled separately below.
In both states, these laws would destroy dog shows, field trials and competitive events for many breeds of dogs that normally have their tails docked, ears cropped and/or dewclaws removed. These dogs could not safely enter Illinois or Pennsylvania. These bills also would subject out of state tourists and hunters to an arrest for animal cruelty for medical procedures that are completely legal in their home states.
American Kennel Club rules say that no dog with cropped ears can be shown in any state where this procedure is illegal, or in violation of the terms of any state law. An owner who violates this rule is subject to AKC sanctions. This would make it a violation of AKC rules for any nonresident to show or compete with dogs that have cropped ears in either Pennsylvania or Illinois, in the absence of required proofs.
The standards of most breeds of spaniels, Continental pointing dogs, terriers, herding dogs and protective dogs require having short tails, and many hunting and working dogs have their dewclaws removed to prevent serious injuries.
Pennsylvania
House Bill 39 passed out of the House Judicial Committee this week by a unanimous vote, and then was passed by the full House by a 192-0 vote. It now goes before the state Senate. If it passes the Senate, it will go to Governor Ed Rendell, who has said he will sign it into law.
Thus, the Senate will be dog owners’ only chance to stop this legislation.
Rep. Thomas R. Caltagirone (D-Berks County) is the prime sponsor of HB 39. It also had 33 co-sponsors in the House.
The American Sporting Dog Alliance sees HB 39 as very dangerous legislation because it is based on a series of ambiguities that do not clearly spell out a dog owner’s responsibilities or provide a clear definition of proof of guilt or innocence.
The heart of the measure is that the owner of a litter of puppies can legally clip dewclaws or dock tails until the puppies are five days old, after which time it becomes animal cruelty. The litter owner also can have a veterinarian perform the procedure.
The dangerous ambiguity comes because the bill provides no way for the owner of a litter to prove that tail docking or dewclaw removal was done legally, except if it is done by a veterinarian, who could certify it. Thus, no way is given to a litter owner who legally performs these procedures to prove her or his innocence if he or she is falsely or mistakenly charged with violating this law.
The legislation demands that a litter owner keep a record of the procedure, but does not specify what kind of record must be kept, or what kind of record will be sufficient legal evidence if the litter owner is confronted by an animal cruelty police officer or is taken to court on a charge of animal cruelty.
This alone makes it very dangerous and poorly conceived legislation.
HB 39 also says that the evidence of an unhealed wound from tail docking or dewclaw removal is “prima facie” evidence of a violation of the animal cruelty statutes. “Prima facie” means that an accused person is automatically guilty and has no defense against the charge.
This creates many gray areas. First, it may take several days for the wound to completely heal, which could be beyond the fifth day. Second, many people could not actually prove how old their puppies are in court, unless there was a witness to the whelping.
Thus, the American Sporting Dog Alliance believes that HB 39 is a backdoor attempt to require a veterinarian to perform all tail docking or dewclaw removal procedures, as there would be no other way for a litter owner to prove they were done legally in court.
HB 39 also creates a very real and very dangerous situation for anyone whose dog loses a tail accidentally. With hunting dogs that move with a merry and cracking tail, for example, broken tails are not uncommon. Sometimes the part of the tail that is above the break atrophies and falls off, leaving exposed flesh until healing is complete. This would subject the dog’s owner to a charge of animal cruelty for a purely accidental event of a dog’s tail whipping against a rock or tree.
Also, on occasion, a puppy’s tail can be broken in the womb or shortly after birth by its mother. These kinds of broken tails almost always atrophy and fall off when the puppy is several weeks or months old.
Many other dogs lose their tails accidentally by having them caught in car or house doors, stepped on, or struck by a hard and heavy object such as a falling tree limb. A legitimate accident should not be the basis for a possible animal cruelty charge.
Moreover, the entire concept of a dog owner being forced to prove her or his innocence runs against the most basic American principle of justice: That a person is presumed to be innocent unless guilt can be proven in court. It is unconstitutional and un-American to force people into a legal situation of having to prove their own innocence.
Like most animal rights-inspired legislation, HB 39 attempts to use a sensationalized issue to garner support. In the case of HB 39, the issue is “debarking.” Animal rights activists claim that some commercial kennels “debark” dogs by breaking their vocal chords with a pipe or other object.
Simply put, we have never seen or even heard of anyone doing this. Nor have we seen the slightest shred of proof to indicate that this is being done in commercial kennels or anywhere else as anything more than an isolated and rare incident.
We abhor the animal rights group tactic of using an emotionally charged but almost nonexistent problem to try to push through legislation to take away dog owners’ rights to perform common, safe and painless procedures like docking the tails of young puppies.
Comparing tail docking to “debarking” is even more far-fetched than comparing apples to oranges. It’s more like comparing apples to chainsaws.
HB 39 amends current law, which already contains similar provisions for ear cropping. Ear cropping must be done only by a veterinarian, under existing law.
We believe this section of the law should be repealed, as many people buy or are given a dog that has had its ears cropped, but have no way of proving that the work was done legally. In addition, many people bring dogs with cropped ears into Pennsylvania from other states where the laws are different. It is wrong to place law-abiding people in the cruel situation of having to part with or euthanize a beloved family pet because of a poorly conceived law.
Also, the ear cropping law would do tremendous harm to rescue work and animal shelter adoptions, because few if any dogs that would come into such a program would have the required proof that ear cropping was done legally. Most of these dogs are strays or pets that have been abandoned, or dogs that have been confiscated from illegal kennels. The absence of a veterinarian’s certificate would offer only one choice under the law: Euthanize the dog or face possible animal cruelty charges.
That is not fair to the dogs that enter rescue or sheltering programs. These dogs have a tough enough time finding loving homes.
HB 39 also would give state dog wardens the legal authority to enforce animal cruelty laws in counties that have not appointed a humane society police officer. Under current law, dog wardens cannot enforce animal cruelty laws.
Many areas of Pennsylvania do not have an officially designated animal cruelty officer. Sometimes, this is because a trained officer is not available.
However, over the past year there has been much dissention within the ranks of animal cruelty police officers and the Pennsylvania Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, which administers the law enforcement program. Many humane police officers have been fired or have quit over the past year, and state dog wardens have reported that many counties do not have anyone to handle cruelty cases.
We question whether the state Bureau of Dog Law Enforcement has the manpower to do this job, especially in light of last year’s complicated new kennel and dog law, which has severely strained the Bureau’s resources. It also may cause all of the conflicts and problems associated with the expression, “too many cooks in the kitchen.”
Please read this legislation for yourself: www.legis.state.pa.us/cfdocs/legis/PN/Public/btCheck.cfm?txtType=HTM&sessYr=2009&sessInd=0&billBody=H&billTyp=B&billNbr=0039&pn=0031 .
It is not known if the bill will be assigned to the Senate Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee or the Judiciary Committee. The committee assignment has not been announced.
However, we don’t think dog owners have the luxury of patience, as HB 39 was moved completely through the House in a single day.
Thus, the American Sporting Dog Alliance is urging all Pennsylvania dog owners to immediately contact the members of both Senate committees to voice strong opposition.
This page provides links for each member’s contact information for the Senate Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee: www.legis.state.pa.us/cfdocs/cteeInfo/cteeInfo.cfm?cde=3&body=S .
This page provides contact links for members of the Senate Judiciary Committee: www.legis.state.pa.us/cfdocs/cteeInfo/cteeInfo.cfm?cde=19&body=S .
In addition, we are asking every Pennsylvanian to contact his or her own state senator. Here is a list of all the senators, with links for contact information: www.legis.state.pa.us/cfdocs/legis/home/member_information/senators_alpha.cfm .
Illinois
Senate Bill 139, which defines tail docking and ear cropping as torture and a felony offense, is scheduled for a hearing before the Senate Agriculture and Conservation Committee on February 18, 2009. The 1 p.m. hearing will be held in Room 409 at the Capitol in Springfield, IL.
Current Illinois law specifically excludes tail docking and ear cropping from the crime of animal torture.
However, Senate Bill 139, introduced by Sen. Terry Link (D-Lake County), removes those exclusions and adds tail docking and ear cropping to the list of acts that would constitute animal torture, which is a third class felony offense.
Tail docking and ear cropping would become a felony under SB 139 in almost all cases, even if it is performed by a veterinarian. A veterinarian would be allowed to dock a tail or crop an ear, but only “for a medical reason.” Tail docking or ear cropping done for any other reason, such as to assist the dog in hunting or herding or to conform to the official standard for a particular breed, would be a felony under SB 139.
Please read this legislation for yourself: www.ilga.gov/legislation/fulltext.asp?DocName=&SessionId=76&GA=96&DocTypeId=SB&DocNum=139&GAID=10&LegID=40561&SpecSess=&Session= .
The American Sporting Dog Alliance is urging Illinois dog owners to immediately contact members of the Senate Agriculture and Conservation Committee to express your strong opposition to SB 139. Here is a link to contact information for members of the committee: www.ilga.gov/senate/committees/members.asp?committeeID=607 .
If you would like to testify at the hearing, please contact the office of the Chairman, Sen. Michael W. Frerichs: www.ilga.gov/senate/Senator.asp?MemberID=1522 .
Also, please contact your own state senator and ask her or him to oppose this legislation. Here is a list of contact information for every state senator: www.ilga.gov/reports/rptMemberList.asp?gaid=10&ChamberId=S .
The American Sporting Dog Alliance represents owners, breeders and professionals who work with breeds of dogs that are used for hunting. We also welcome people who work with other breeds, as legislative issues affect all of us. 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.
The American Sporting Dog Alliance also needs 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 your donations in order to maintain strict independence.
Please visit us on the web at www.americansportingdogalliance.org . Our email is asda@csonline.net .
PLEASE CROSS-POST AND FORWARD THIS REPORT TO YOUR FRIENDS