Comments on: PA Legislators Kick Dogs. The Dogs Kick Back.

By: Lisa Roemer

Lisa Roemer — Mon, 14 Mar 2011 17:30:50 +0000

I emailed all of the suggested representatives when news of HR 89 hit cyberspace. Surprisingly, I received a response from “my” representative, Stan Saylor (I did not vote for him).

His letter stated that they were not “gutting” the pm bill; rather that they “merely…want straight-forward factual answers” about the “economic impact of the new law and the status of implementation”.

It went on to further state that “Supporters of the dog law should not be afraid of analyzing economic impact and should welcome an independent look at the status of implementation”.

He then went on to pat me on the head and tell me I was a good girl. No, just kidding, but the tone is typical of politicians who consider their constituents morons.

Okay, great, do the study – I’m not afraid of that. However, I am afraid of their intent based on the results (or not – remember the WMDs all over Iraq??). If the study is simply to ensure that the law is being adhered to, I’m all for it, but frankly I could care less what the miller’s may have to pay to update their facilities, get proper vet care, etc. I have seen too many victims of the mills in my rescue work, and my opinion of those millers is not fit for print.

Come on Mr. Saylor, don’t consider me a stupid person incapable of reading between the lines. What would the results of this study have been? Why do a costly study at all, especially in a time of huge budget slashes from your pal Gov. Corbett. The only reason I can think of is to remove or lessen the restrictions on puppy mills and make a certain squeaky wheel of voters happy…voters who make a profit on the misery of breeding stock at the mills.

And by the way, do the majority of puppy mill owners really vote?? Just curious..

You make a spectacular point about the waste of money on this report while school districts get millions cut from their state budgets and lay off thousands of workers as a result. Wasn’t one of the claims of HR 89 that it was an unaffordable loss of jobs? Since this proposal for a study came from the “starve the government beast” wing of their party, I wonder how they square up that waste of funds? I also agree there are studies and there are studies. Pretty sure the tobacco industry armed themselves to the gills that smoking cigarettes wasn’t bad for you. Karel

By: Tom

Tom — Sat, 12 Mar 2011 08:28:21 +0000

Pennsylvania passed a very bad law that cost good breeders a lot of money and gave even more power to the dog wardens to mistreat people. You either don't have your facts straight or you don't care about the facts. I concede you are right on both counts. I just don’t think it matters. First, don’t get me started on the BDLE. A quick read of my stuff will show that I have more than my share of concerns about how it operates. However, the problems at the BDLE don’t mean that there shouldn’t be proper enforcement. I also agree that there are good breeders (and many would disagree with me that there is such a thing) facing financial burdons to ensure the improvement of the majority of kennels run by less than good breeders. However, I believe that is the price of a safe consumer society. I have to get my brand new car inspected every year, despite the fact that I get it serviced like clock work and would never drive my kids in an unsafe car. Yet I pay for inspection because others are not so conscientious and I am safer on the roads as a result. Good breeders should be happy to have their industry viewed with less disgust. It drives up the vaue of their product…I mean cute little puppies. If you want to get up in arms, ask why the rules changes didn’t apply to non-profit kenels like mine? Maybe because we’d have all have closed our doors and the BDLE would have been forced to actually address the problems hundreds of thousands of stray dogs, let alone the cats, entering PA shelters every year. Karel

By: Sherry Moon

Sherry Moon — Sat, 12 Mar 2011 01:53:50 +0000

Personally i feel this should be FEDERAL LAWS. Not state by state. We need stringent laws enacted on every single breeder in the USA. If we had this, then our state wide reps couldn’t bullshit us into believing they are trying to do right by the animals. I also believe breeders should have to provide larger runs, daily walks and socialization for every single animal they have. They should NOT be permitted to breed more than a certain number of animals a year. Our shelters are so critically overloaded, and we wonder why. I feel very strongly about No More Homeless Pets.
We as humans tamed the canine and it is every single persons duty to help our dogs live a long, happy and pain free life. We also need to make it easier on pet adopters/owners in the spay/neuter area. If you have a dog registered with your state (ie:dog license) that dog should HAVE to be spayed/neutered. We do NOT need to keep breeding our animals to the point where we are now. Give the person an incentive for doing so. Like a lifetime license free if your animal is altered. Discounts on animal care, etc.
Our reps, whether they own animals or not, are in this for themselves. there are so few who actually care about “Joe/Jane Public” and what they really need or want. They claim to serve us and we pay their salary. Then when you do NOT serve us…your salary should be withheld. If i did my job in such a manner as they do, i’d be fired or suspended. Why do we continue to pay these idiots if they are following big business agendas and lining their pockets with our money. I work hard. I expect them to do so as well.

Since HR 89 originated in the House, we have a chance to fire them every two years. Whether you are Democrat or Republican, you should get actively involved in your party structure at the primary level to ensure that every candidate, regardless of party, is pro-animal welfare and pro-cruelty candidates get defeated. In Berks we just had a special Senate election and Humane PA PAC could not make a recomendation becuase BOTH candidates, Republican and Democrat, offered equally great repsonses on an issues questionaire. THAT is were we need to ge in every district in PA.

On the Federal front, I believe the PUPS act is getting brought up again in the US House and Senate. It’s a step forward. HSBC sends out props to PA 6th District Representative Jim Gerlach for sticking with his sponsorship of PUPS. Karel

By: Donald Martin

Donald Martin — Fri, 11 Mar 2011 03:44:22 +0000

There should be no wire floors for dog kennels. The animals need room to move. The dogs should have semi-annual veterinarian checkups and clean living conditions and have room to move around. The laws for dog breeding need to be strengthen and enforced. Here it is 2011 and the animals really have no quality of life. I have rescued two dogs from a breeder that he was giving away just because they got to old and could’nt use them to have more litters. When taken to a veterinarian all of their teeth were abcessed and had to be pulled. The dogs had to have suffered for years. Breeders need laws to make them accountable for how their animals are taken care of and if they have to shutdown then they evidently were not a reputable Breeder. Did our State Representatives ever think about Spay/Neuter Laws for the State of Pennsylvania.