German Shepherds Forum banner

1 - 20 of 32 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
31,877 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Anyone hear about this. They already had the ear cropping. They have been trying to add tail docking to the law for a while now. They are adding surgical debarking and personally, I do not see a problem with eliminating that, but c-sections????

I know that some breeds practically have to be born with c-sections.

So what happens to your dog if she requires one? Do you just let her die???

My recent c-section was done in PA.

> by JOHN YATES
> American Sporting Dog Alliance
> http://www.americansportingdogalliance.org
>
> HARRISBURG, PA – Animal cruelty legislation sponsored by Rep. Thomas Caltagirone (D – Bucks County) attaches bans or partial bans on tail docking, caesarian sections and surgical 'debarking' to an existing law about ear cropping. It also would empower dog wardens to enforce those provisions of the law in some places.
>
> When viewed in context, there is nothing accidental about this combination. It is a thinly veiled, unprincipled and dishonest attempt to close down many Pennsylvania kennels and cite many law-abiding dog owners for purely technical 'violations' of the animal cruelty law.
>
> It is political sleaze, pure and simple.
>
> Ears traditionally are cropped on dogs of several popular breeds, including boxers, great Danes, doberman pinschers, miniature pinschers, schnauzers, bouviers des Flandres, and American Staffordshire terriers.
>
> The issue of ear cropping is inherently controversial, as is all elective cosmetic surgery on animals or humans.
>
> However, we categorically oppose the way the law is written to create a series of 'Catch 22' situations that would expose thousands of Pennsylvanians and visitors to our state to devastating animal cruelty charges even when they follow the law to the letter. Animal cruelty is a very serious criminal offense, and a conviction even for a purely technical violation results in a lifetime prohibition against holding a kennel license.
>
> The way the law is written also is a de facto ban on adopting a dog with cropped ears from an animal shelter or rescue program, as veterinary proof usually cannot be obtained for dogs of unknown origin. Hundreds if not thousands of innocent dogs will face euthanasia if this law is enforced.
>
> Thus, the American Sporting Dog Alliance is calling for the repeal of the section of the animal cruelty law dealing with ear cropping, and the scrapping of the Caltagirone amendments.
>
> Our problem with both the law and the legislation is that anyone who owns or is in possession of a dog with cropped ears has only two ways to be protected against being charged with animal cruelty. He or she must either have a certificate from a veterinarian, or have an official certificate from a county treasurer affirming that the work was done prior to the law's enactment. The ear cropping amendment was enacted in May, 2001, according to the Humane Society of Lebanon County website.
>
> Thus, for any dog born after May, 2001, a veterinarian's certificate is the only acceptable defense against animal cruelty.
>
> For many people who own a dog with cropped ears, those requirements represent a 'Catch 22' because they have no way to prove that they did not break the law. The burden of proof is on the dog's owner, and not on the state, which is constitutionally required.
>
> In many cases, a dog's owner has no idea who cropped the animal's ears. The fact that the dog's owner did not do it or authorize someone else to do it is not a defense against animal cruelty in the law. The dog's owner is required to prove what he or she cannot prove.
>
> This provision will directly affect anyone who acquires an older dog with cropped ears, buys a puppy from an out-of-state kennel, or who obtained a puppy in the past and no longer is able to contact the breeder to provide proof.
>
> This provision also will affect almost every dog with cropped ears that finds an owner through an animal shelter or rescue program, as few if any of these dogs will come with a veterinarian's certificate or a county treasurer's affidavit. In fact, the way the law is written makes it illegal for a shelter or rescue group to even possess or take in a dog with cropped ears, in the absence of proof.
>
> The law will make these dogs 'unadoptable,' which translates into a death sentence.
>
> The current law actually would require the shelter or rescue group to be cited for animal cruelty for not having these acceptable proofs for dogs in their possession, as these groups are not exempted from the law.
>
> If the law is enforced 'by the book,' we can see no alternative for a shelter or rescue group to escape prosecution except to immediately turn away or euthanize any dog with cropped ears, if proof is not available. Humane Society animal cruelty police officers could file animal cruelty charges if they do otherwise.
>
> Even private citizens could file criminal or civil charges against a shelter or rescue group before a magistrate (this is permissible in Pennsylvania).
>
> Also, if the Caltagirone legislation passes, dog wardens could file charges and revoke a shelter or rescue program's kennel license. Unlike Humane Society police officers, state dog wardens do not need a search warrant to inspect a kennel or a privately owned dog.
>
> If enforcement is not done 'by the book,' or if the law is applied unequally to different parties, the result would be a mockery of justice and the destruction of the credibility of Pennsylvania animal cruelty laws.
>
> The Caltagirone legislation would expose every licensed kennel owner - and also every dog owner – who raises, owns, breeds, trains or boards dogs that have cropped ears to prosecution by dog wardens during kennel inspections or routine spot checks to see if privately owned dogs are licensed and vaccinated against rabies. Wardens do thousands of these spot checks every year.
>
> If the current law is enforced as it is written, it also would mean that people who move here from out of state, people who are passing through Pennsylvania with their dogs, and people who come to Pennsylvania to compete in dog shows or other events would be subject to animal cruelty prosecution.
>
> These people cannot comply with the law, and many of them have no way to even know that the law exists if they are not Pennsylvania residents.
>
> It would have an especially detrimental impact on dog shows, obedience events and other kinds of canine events, which annually draw thousands of nonresidents to Pennsylvania. No one who owns a dog with cropped ears would knowingly attend an event in Pennsylvania if there is a possibility that they would be cited for animal cruelty for something that is completely legal in their state of residence, or simply because they cannot provide proof of their innocence.
>
> This has the potential to cause many economic losses to Pennsylvanians, as dog events are important to gas stations, restaurants, motels and other businesses in the state.
>
> Please contact Rep. Caltagirone as soon as possible to express your opinion about this legislation. Here is a link for contact information: http://www.pahouse.com/caltagirone.
>
> It is urgent to contact members of the Judiciary Committee, which can block this legislation. Here is a list of committee members and officers (click on their names to locate contact information): http://www.legis.state.pa.us/cfdocs/legis/home/member_information/representatives_sc.cfm#24.
>
> Also, please contact the reported cosponsors of the legislation. They are Reps. Bennington, Biancucci, Buxton, Capelli, Carrol, Cassorio, Conklin, Dally, DiGirolamo, Fabrizio, Frankel, Goodman, Hanna, Harhai, Harkins, Josephs, Kortz, Leech, Lentz, Maher, Mahoney, Marshall, McIlvaine-Smith, Mench, Moyer, Mustio, Nailor, M. O'Brien, Pashinski, Payne, Preston, Rubley, Santoni, Scavello, Shimkus, M. Smith, Solobay, Swanger, True, Watson and Youngblood. This link provides email addresses for each of these legislators: http://www.legis.state.pa.us/cfdocs/legis/home/member_information/email_list.cfm?body=H.
>
> The American Sporting Dog Alliance represents owners, hobby breeders and professionals who work with breeds of dogs that are used for hunting. 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. Please visit us on the web at http://www.americansportingdogalliance.org. Wealso need 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 the donations of our members, and maintain strict independence.
>
> PLEASE CROSS-POST THIS REPORT AND FORWARD IT TO YOUR FRIENDS
>
>
>
> Have You Joined Yet?
> The American Sporting Dog Alliance
> http://www.americansportingdogalliance.org
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,165 Posts
I googled too. Actually it appears that John Yates' issue with the bill is ear cropping.

As for the c-sections -

Quote: Caltagirone’s legislation amends the Title 18 animal cruelty act by limiting tail docking, requiring veterinarians to perform caesarian sections and surgery to stop a dog from barking, and expanding the duties of state dog wardens into enforcement of this part of the animal cruelty law in counties that are not served by Humane Society police officers.
So it appears that right now its perfectly ok for the breeder to perform c-sections and debarking.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
31,877 Posts
Discussion Starter #4
breeders do their own c-sections? I asked the vet in PA if I could help. He refused to let me.

I asked Dr. Hutch at the tour of his facility after the seminar and he said certainly. They have you in a little room where you watch the whole thing and they hand you the pups.

I cannot imagine doing the whole thing myself though.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
31,877 Posts
Discussion Starter #5
I wonder, is the next revision of this law going to require that all vaccinations or injections be adminstered by a veterinarian? All puppies to be checked by a veterinarian before sale? While I do these things, others vaccinate their own dogs and have been doing it for years.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,165 Posts
Would it be so horrible if there was another revision that puppies where checked by a vet before sale? PA is sorely in need of laws to protect the dogs.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
31,877 Posts
Discussion Starter #7
I think that it will be a hardship for some breeders to have injections given only by a vet. When you make something a requirement by law, vets can raise their prices indescriminantly. Some people will just pass the cost on to the new owners. Others no doubt will have to cut a different corner.

I do not like the government getting involved in things that are unnecessary and benefit one group of people.

Another issue with that is that MANY breeders are more up to date with why and for what we should vaccinate than vets are. The vet schools are all going to a new protocol about vaccinations because they are finding that repeating them is unnecessary and dangerous. Most veterinarians will be far behind, because they will LOSE MONEY.

Sorry to be such a cynic. We all are happy to say that breeders do not vaccinate their older dogs or put poison on them because it costs them money and they are just in it for the money, but people are not so happy to think that vets will continue to do things simply because of the money.

I have had two litters checked by vets so far. They checked their hearts and to see if the testicals are down. But I had to point out the umbilical hernea. So, I am not so sure it is all that necessary. I could learn to check for testicals and listen for heart abnormalities myself. But as I am not as experienced as a lot of others, I will continue to subject my pups to veterinarian. With my older dogs though, I have already discussed with my vet that I will not be giving them yearly vaccinations anymore.

New laws proposed in Ohio are demanding vaccinations as recommended by veterinarians and heartworm prevention. I think it should be a choice.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,165 Posts
No one has said that these additions to the law are adding any hardships to breeders. You are deciding that they will be added next.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
31,877 Posts
Discussion Starter #9
You asked would it be so horrible if, and I said that it could be a hardship for breeders.

The PA law will create a hardship to breeders because many breeders dock their own tails. Personally, I do not see that as a big deal. Most breeders take off dew claws as well. Next that will be added to the law.

What if the vet doesn't have any openings on day two, then the dogs will have to have the dew claws removed after their nerves are better developed.

I think it is a bad law, partly because you cannot even take your docked dog through PA unless you have proof about who docked your dog's tail.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,165 Posts
For pity's sake. You keep making these revisions to the law that no one else is. My statement was

Quote:Would it be so horrible if there was another revision that puppies where checked by a vet before sale?
Now you are stressing about vaccinations and dew claws. I don't see it as a hardship to breeders to take their puppies to a vet prior to sale, or to have sugery performed on the puppies done by a vet.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
27,461 Posts
The laws in PA are currently SO poor, that's why there are so many puppy millers working from the state. I'm glad to see legislators at least trying to make some laws.

Are they the best written? Who knows? (the proposed law wasn't posted here, just a point of view on it)

What I'm sure we ALL agree with is that this http://www.youtube.com/user/PetShopPuppies and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OdcNl5FqcKY needs to stop, and these breeders.

So why not 'yell and scream' to get a good law passed, and educating the legislators.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12,829 Posts
I think the c-section by vet only is a good idea. Repulses me to imagine a breeder doing it them selves! Docking ears, I dunno, but don't they just tie off the tail and it falls off?

It's silly to penalize someone passing through the state with a dog who's ears and/or tails are docked. They also should change the grandfathered date to the date the law is enacted.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
31,877 Posts
Discussion Starter #14
I have heard many gruesome stories about tails and ears and even neutering. I had a friend at my previous job who used to neuter the cats and dogs for the family. The job was done with rubber bands. There is no law against that, by the way. This woman was not a breeder, just a country girl.

I do not think that this law is good. Partly because of how it is written, many dogs will have to be euthanized because they will no longer be adoptable, and they will not be legal. I also do not like the law because it will charge even people simply passing through their state with Cruelty.

Cruelty is really a terrible thing to be charged with. Whether you oppose docking and cropping, culling a litter, or any number of things, I do not think we should be free with cruelty charges.

And just like BSL, when you allow legislatures to create laws that inhibit your freedoms on one thing, you open the door for them to restrict even more. Today the law is that you must use a vet to crop, they are trying to change it to tails, c-sections and deparking (cropping and docking to be illegal), Where will they stop?

This is a big deal to me because of the proposed laws in Ohio that ARE trying to force people to provide heartworm prevention and vaccinations. Sorry, but I do not think these things should be a law.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,165 Posts
Have you actually read this law and the proposed changes or are you purely going on John Yate's version of the law?

This is very, very different than BSL. Yeah, you shouldn't have to legislate that people do the right thing and give their dogs HW preventative so they don't die a slow painful death from heartworms. You shouldn't have to legislate that owners and breeders provide minimal care for their dogs. You would think that out of common sense and compassion that the dogs would get the proper care. Unfortunately, that isn't always the case.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
31,877 Posts
Discussion Starter #16
I know some breeders that believe that a lot of the problems we are seeing in dogs these days are due to the poisons that we are putting into our dogs. Food is one thing. The environment is another. And Vetting is yet another. The vaccine protocols are changing, but vets aren't changing their because they will lose money. So the ohio law is going to try to force only breeders to vaccinate their dogs according to their vet's protocols. Some of us do not have the luxury of a variety of vets. The Ohio law is also requiring heartworm preventative.

One of the breeders I know has all her dogs tested yearly for heartworm rather than giving them a preventative. So far she has had only one, they found it in February, (bitter cold winter month here), on a dog she purchased from someone. She treated it and it was not a big deal. Sometimes I think that maybe the vets are milking this heartworm stuff for all its worth.

If I want to subject my dog to spay/neuter, vaccines, poisons, that should be my choice.

I did read the proposed PA law.

I think that there are groups of people out there looking for ways to improve the lot of companion animals. Some of these people are knowledgeable and make good suggestions. The rest of them haven't a clue. When they get this law passed, adds fuel to their fire, and they lobby for more restrictions and requirements.

And one day when there are only little ratty packs of feral dogs running around, we will all say, gee, remember when we used to own dogs?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
34 Posts
So where, exactly, do you suggest they *stop* legislating?

I can't say I'm crazy about some politician in his cushy job, giving himself a raise every year telling me what choices I have to make re: my dog's care.

I love my dog to death, she sleeps back to back with me on the bed, for cryin' out loud, but she's still my dog and my property, I don't want to be forced into treating her like a glorified, furry little child, because she isn't. She's my pet. If, for some reason, I chose not to vaccinate her or put her on HW prevention (which wouldn't happen, but that's beside the point), that's none of your (collective) business.

We're on a slippery slope with the laws here. I love animals as much as the next person, but this is stupid.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,165 Posts
So which is it, first you call it a hardship for breeders, then you say they don't want to put poisons in their dogs. Or is it that they just don't want to spend a dime getting their dogs and puppies proper care.

Lets see.... you don't think puppies should be vaccinated or seen by a vet. You don't think dogs should be vaccinated or on HW preventative. And its perfectly OK for a breeder to perform a c-section and debark their dogs? Yeah....right. Not any breeder I'd ever go to or recommend.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
671 Posts
Don't you think that a lot of these laws are aimed directly at the whole puppy mill industry? These are the guys who never take a dog to the vet. That would cut into profits! They would be the ones doing their own C-Sections...and as for debarking?? Ever hear of the metal rod down the throat? Used to debark a dog by some puppy millers. Soooo I guess what I am all for the laws. If it makes it harder for a puppy mill to stay in business...win/win.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,165 Posts
Exactly. I hope these provisions get passed and that it is enforced.
 
1 - 20 of 32 Posts
Top