Pet Sterilization Raise Health Concerns

Pet sterilization laws raise health concerns
Spayed or neutered dogs more at risk for cancers, other ills, research shows

By Kim Campbell Thornton
MSNBC contributor
updated 8:56 a.m. ET, Mon., May. 19, 2008

As legislators push for more mandatory spay and neuter laws for pets as young as 4 and 6 months in hopes of reducing the number of unwanted animals, critics are crying foul over research showing that such surgeries may raise certain health risks in dogs and therefore shouldn't be required.

Studies have shown that dogs that undergo spaying (removal of the ovaries and uterus) or neutering (removal of the testicles) are at increased risks for certain cancers, thyroid disorder, incontinence and some of the same behavior issues, such as aggression, that the surgeries are said to prevent.

Most of these problems aren't common to begin with, and the increased risks can depend on the type of dog and the age the surgery is performed. Still, the findings are leading some experts to say that, contrary to conventional wisdom, later spay/neuter surgery for dogs, and even vasectomies for male canines, may be better options for some animals, depending on such factors as breed and lifestyle.

The American Veterinary Medical Association has not taken a stand on spay/neuter legislation, but the American College of Theriogenologists, a group of veterinary reproduction specialists that advises the AVMA, is considering a position paper opposing the legislation at its meeting in St. Louis in August, says veterinarian John Hamil of Laguna Beach, Calif., a member of the group's task force that looked at the issue.

“What they’re saying is that because there have been problems associated with spay/neuter surgery, they think it’s improper for it to be mandated, much less at an early age," says Hamil. "They feel the decision should be made after discussion between the owner and veterinarian.”

Proponents of spay/neuter legislation say it's a way to reduce the numbers of animals in shelters and cut down on euthanasia rates. They also cite the health and behavior benefits of the procedures, such as prevention of mammary cancer, spraying and marking territory, and roaming.

Patty Khuly, a veterinarian in Miami, says a better solution to control the animal population than mandatory spay/neutering by a certain age is to offer the surgeries at lower costs so more pet owners can afford them and get them done according to a veterinarian's recommendations.

“I don’t believe that the fourth month is a reasonable window,” she says. “Most veterinarians would agree on that. I think low-cost spay/neuter, making it more available, is the solution, as opposed to mandating a time frame, especially when we don’t know the real impact of early spay/neuter.”

For more than a decade, the cities of San Mateo and Belmont in California have required sterilization of most cats and dogs more than 6 months old. But more attention is being paid to the pros and cons of pet sterilization now because of a recent spate of legislation that has been passed or introduced. Los Angeles, for instance, passed an ordinance requiring cats and dogs more than 4 months old to be neutered or spayed by October or risk fines up to $500. Palm Beach, Fla., and North Las Vegas also have approved such measures, and dozens more cities and counties, including Chicago and Dallas, are considering them. Rhode Island is the only state to have passed a mandatory spay/neuter law, and it applies just to cats.

No one-size-fits-all answer
The idea that pets should be spayed or neutered at approximately 6 months of age or earlier dates to studies in the 1960s and 1970s showing that spaying a female before her first estrus cycle almost eliminated mammary cancer — which is common in dogs — and that spayed and neutered dogs showed a decrease in behavior problems that can be fueled by sex hormones.

Spay/neuter surgery also has other benefits, including prevention of unwanted litters, no messy twice-yearly estrus cycles in females and a reduced rate of uterine infections later in life. Spayed and neutered dogs and cats also have longer lifespans.

Since the early studies were conducted, however, research has also shown downsides to the surgeries beyond acute side effects such as bleeding and inflammation.

Margaret V. Root Kustritz, a veterinary reproduction specialist at the University of Minnesota, reviewed 200 studies and found that while spay/neuter surgery has benefits, it is also linked to increases in the incidence of certain diseases and conditions such as bone cancer, heart tumors, hypothyroidism and canine cruciate ligament (CCL) injuries, as well as prostate cancer in male dogs and urinary incontinence in females. The extent of the risk can depend on the problem, as well as the size and sex of the dog, and the age the surgery is performed.

The risk of a type of cardiac tumor called hemangiosarcoma is five times higher in spayed female dogs than unspayed females, noted Kustritz. And neutered males have 2.4 times the risk of unneutered males. The risk was also higher for osteosarcoma (bone cancer): Dogs spayed or neutered before age 1 were up to two times as likely to develop the disease than those that hadn’t been altered.

Spaying and neutering may also heighten behavior problems such as aggression in some breeds and noise phobias in dogs altered at less than 5 months of age, she found.

While it's long been believed that spaying and neutering can improve a dog's behavior, one large study done at the University of Pennsylvania School of Veterinary Medicine found that, with a few exceptions, spaying and neutering was associated with worse behavior, although those effects were often specific to certain breeds and depended on the age at which the dog was altered.

Cats seem to fare better, though. The main risk they face from sterilization is that they can become sedentary and obese, according to Kustritz's review of studies. As a result, vets say sterilizing cats before 6 months of age is appropriate.

Reproductive choice
Still, some oppose the mandatory spay/neuter surgery for both cats and dogs based on the grounds that pet owners may not be able to afford the surgery if reduced-cost programs aren't available. Plus, they argue, people should have a choice.

In San Mateo, Calif., Peninsula Humane Society president Ken White says such legislation provides a one-approach answer to a problem that is different from community to community.

White believes low-cost or free spay/neuter programs are a better way to reduce the number of unwanted animals, based on what’s worked in San Mateo. The numbers of animals requiring euthanasia dropped dramatically — a 93 percent reduction since 1970 — as the humane society added ways for people to take advantage of low-cost and no-cost spay/neuter programs.

Stephanie Shain, director of outreach for the Humane Society of the United States, says that in general the organization is in favor of spay/neuter laws but "we look at every piece of legislation individually. We generally recommend that those decisions are made with a veterinarian. If an individual pet owner feels they want to wait longer or their veterinarian feels they should wait longer, that's their choice."

Veterinarians should consider the age for spay/neuter surgery based on the individual animal rather than rely on the traditional 6-month standard, says Khuly.

For instance, giant dog breeds are more at risk for some types of cancer, and akitas, German shepherds, golden and Labrador retrievers, Newfoundlands, poodles and Saint Bernards are among the breeds at higher risk for CCL ruptures.

“It seems that the bigger the dog, the less desirable it is to spay them early,” says Hamil. In his practice, he recommends spaying or neutering large or giant-breed dogs later than small or medium-size dogs.

Some veterinarians suggest spaying females at 12 to 14 months of age, after the growth plates have closed and between estrus cycles. Hamil says that’s not unreasonable.

A kinder cut?
Vasectomy is an option, although a rather uncommon one, for dogs that participate in sports with their owners. The main advantage is better musculature, which can help with arthritis later in life, says Khuly. A vasectomy prevents procreation but keeps testosterone production.

“I think it makes a lot more sense to consider a vasectomy,” says Khuly. “Males with their testosterone really do have some advantages over those that don’t have their testosterone.”

While experts debate the timing of spay/neuter surgery, they generally agree that the benefits outweigh the risks.

“The disadvantages, although real, are not stark,” Hamil says. “It’s not like if you neuter them they’re going to get [bone cancer]. You would have a very slight increase in incidence, and it’s going to be breed-related ... [Whatever the increase is] that’s not a very big reason not to spay or neuter your dog.”

Kim Campbell Thornton is an award-winning author who has written many articles and more than a dozen books about dogs and cats. She belongs to the Dog Writers Association of America and is past president of the Cat Writers Association. She shares her home in California with three Cavalier King Charles spaniels and one African ringneck parakeet.

© 2008 MSNBC Interactive

Il- Chicago considers mandatory Spay/Neuter and Crimimal Backgroud Checks for Dog Breeders

Chicago Considers Mandatory Spay/Neuter and Criminal Background Checks for Dog Breeders

[Thursday, May 15, 2008]

Two Chicago Aldermen are sponsoring a new ordinance that would require all dogs to be spayed/neutered by the age of six months unless they qualify for an unneutered animal license. Chicago residents are asked to contact their representative on the Board of Aldermen to oppose this measure.

To qualify for an unneutered animal license the animal must meet one of the following qualifications:

*Certified by a veterinarian as having a valid medical reason for not being sterilized.
*Owners with a valid breeding permit.
*Dogs and cats of breeds approved by and registered with a registry or association recognized by the commission whose programs and practices are consistent with the humane treatment of animals, and the dogs or cats are kept for the purposes of showing or competing in legitimate shows or competitions hosted by or under the approval of recognized registry or association.
*Dogs that have earned or are actively being trained and are in the process of earning an agility, carting, herding, protection, rally, hunting, working or other title from a registry or association recognized by the commission whose programs and practices are consistent with the humane treatment of animals.
*Service dogs as defined by Illinois state law.
*Dogs owned by a guard dog service.
*Law enforcement and military dogs.

This new ordinance would also remove an existing exemption for residents who occasionally sell animals they bred and raised, meaning that anyone who breeds a litter would be deemed an "animal care facility" and must purchase a $330.00 license. In addition, to qualify for a breeding license a resident would need to submit to both a criminal background check and an inspection of their home. This is an unreasonable violation of the privacy and rights of responsible owners who are respected members of the Chicago community.


This unreasonable and unenforceable ordinance will have a profound negative impact not only upon responsible dog breeders in Chicago, but also upon all current and prospective dog owners.

The American Kennel Club opposes the concept of breeding permits, breeding bans, and the mandatory spay/neuter of purebred dogs. Instead, we support reasonable and enforceable laws that protect the welfare and health of purebred dogs and do not restrict the rights of responsible breeders and owners. Additionally, we strongly support and actively promote a wide range of programs to educate the public about responsible breeding practices and the responsible dog ownership.

The proposed ordinance will now be referred to a subcommittee of the Board of Aldermen. The AKC Government Relations staff will continue to provide updates as the legislation progresses.

PA- Proposed Dog law affects ALL dog owners- not just "puppy mills"

by JOHN YATES
American Sporting Dog Alliance
http://www.americansportingdogalliance.org

(This is the first in a series of reports on newly introduced Pennsylvania
legislation that will affect every dog and kennel owner.)

HARRISBURG, PA “ Although the pomp and hoopla didn't quite come off as
advertised, three pieces of legislation were introduced Wednesday that will
affect every Pennsylvania dog and kennel owner:

H.B. 2525, sponsored by Rep. James Casorio (D-Westmoreland County) is the
centerpiece of Gov. Ed Rendell's plan to improve conditions in large commercial
breeding kennels. However, it also gives the Bureau of Dog Law Enforcement
sweeping powers, cancels out public participation in developing regulations
for all kennels, and sets severe fines, penalties, illegal searches and
confiscation policies that will affect all kennels.

H.B. 2532, sponsored by Rep. Thomas Caltagirone (D- Berks County) amends the
ear cropping section of animal cruelty legislation to prohibit anyone except
a veterinarian from performing surgical procedures, but also sets ambiguous
restrictions on tail docking and subjects innocent dog owners to prosecution
for a serious criminal offense. This legislation would curtail rescue program
efforts for many dogs and make out of state residents guilty of a serious
crime for things that are legal in their home states if they pass through or
visit Pennsylvania for travel, dog shows and field trials.

H.B. 449, which was introduced more than a year ago, is being resurrected.
This legislation would make owners of dog seized for unproven animal cruelty
allegations pay for the cost of the care at animal shelters.

The American Sporting Dog Alliance published detailed analyses of all three
pieces of legislation over the past two weeks, and will continue to do so as
the legislative process unfolds. Copies of these prior reports are available
by request at asda@csonline.net.

Wednesday's unveiling culminated more than a year of planning following the
derailment of "top-down" legislation last year. During this time, Bureau of
Dog Law Enforcement Deputy Director Jessie Smith met with many concerned
parties to gather input stemming from more than 16,000 written comments received
last year reportedly an all-time record for public comment on any kind of
legislation in Pennsylvania.

Ceremonies, press conferences, pro-legislation demonstrations, and debate
and testimony at a special meeting of the Dog Law Advisory Board were scheduled
for Wednesday. There was a modest amount of smoke at these events, but
little if any flame.

The pro-legislation rally on the Capitol steps was expected to draw hundreds
of people to protest conditions in "puppy mills", but only between 60 and
80 people attended to voice support. The number of actual participants could
not be determined, but the actual participants were outnumbered by
politicians, Bureau officials, reporters and television news crews. Even three owners of large commercial breeding kennels were observed on the fringes of the group.

There was little discussion at the Dog Law Advisory Board meeting, and most
members did not comment. Only about a dozen people testified at the meeting,
with comments running about three-to-one in opposition to the legislation.
Several opponents of the legislation pointed to failed new regulations as
reflecting either left-wing or extreme animal rights agendas.

The Casorio legislation has received strong support in the House of Representatives, with a reported 90 legislators signing on as co-sponsor; it takes 102 votes to assure passage in the House. He said he expects the legislation to be passed before the end of June.

"We're coming after you," Casorio warned commercial kennel owners in an
interview with an Allentown newspaper. "Today is the beginning of the end of
commercial kennels in Pennsylvania." The legislation also will come all of
Pennsylvania's 2,700 licensed kennels.

The American Sporting Dog Alliance supports many of the changes to improve
conditions in large commercial breeding kennels, but opposes the Casorio
legislation as a whole because it trashes constitutional protections, gives
virtually unlimited power to the Bureau, cuts out legislative approval for license
fee increases and eliminates necessary public review protections for future
regulations.

The legislation provides truly frightening fines, penalties and confiscation
of dogs for even minor technical violations of regulations, and the planned
regulations are being kept hidden from public scrutiny. In addition, the
Casorio bill provides for unrestricted searches of homes, property and records,
and calls for kennel license revocations if working people are not available
for inspection at the Bureau's convenience.

Caltagirone's Animal Cruelty Act amendments would have a devastating impact
on shelter and rescue programs, because most animals come to these facilities
from unknown sources or without veterinary records. It would be illegal to
possess a dog with cropped ears, scars from a Caesarian section or indications
of surgical debarking in the absence of proof that the work was done by a
veterinarian. It also would be illegal to possess a dog with a docked tail, if
proof could not be provided that the work was done before a puppy was four
days old, or by a veterinarian.

In addition, many Pennsylvanians may have lost veterinary records, or move
here or buy a puppy from other states that do not have these laws. They would
be automatically guilty of a serious criminal offense simply by being in
possession of their dog, and would have no defense in court. Nonresidents of
Pennsylvania would not be able to legally bring a dog with cropped ears or a
docked tail to this state while traveling, to hunt, or to attend a field trial or
dog show without veterinary proof.

The American Sporting Dog Alliance has been working through our members to
show legislators the hidden problems with this legislation. Thus far, our
members report that two legislators have withdrawn their co-sponsorship from the
Caltagirone bill. We hope to be able to convince many more legislators to
withdraw their support from both bills.

We plan to record every vote taken on this legislation and make this
information available to the voters for the November general election. We have been
working hard to develop a database of Pennsylvania dog and kennel owners, and
now can reach more than 50,000 voters in this state.

Congress Curtails Flow of Foreign Dogs into US

From Patti Strand

May 14, 2008


Congress Curtails Flow of Foreign Dogs into US


Conferees from the US House and Senate have finally reached agreement on the current Farm Bill. One amendment that was accepted is of special importance to dog enthusiasts and professionals because it would put more stringent health and screening requirements in place for dogs and puppies imported into the US for resale, an issue NAIA has monitored and lobbied for many years. Although the bill may need further clarification down the road to achieve its purpose, this is a critically important first step in ensuring public health, the health of our pets and the vitality of the pet industry in America.

The bill is expected to pass both houses of Congress, and if President Bush vetoes it, as he has indicated he will due to provisions which he considers wasteful, the Senate and House are expected to attempt an override.

This provision has become necessary due to a disturbing dynamic at work that NAIA has been working to inform American pet consumers about. Ironically, campaigns to end pet overpopulation have been so successful that demand for puppies actually outstrips supply in the United States today. The result is that US pet suppliers, both commercial distributors and animal shelters alike, have turned to foreign sources to fill it. A staggering 300,000 dogs were brought into the US in 2006 alone, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), and that total may not include the significant number of puppies smuggled in through the black market.

Imported dogs, legal or illegal, typically come from countries without the high level of veterinary medicine found in the US and they displace higher quality American-bred dogs and existing shelter dogs struggling to find homes. Without the new Farm Bill provision, or without enforcement, imported dogs will continue to be a public health threat, exposing Americans to zoonotic (animal-to-human) diseases such as rabies, and exposing the U.S. pet, livestock and wildlife populations to diseases and parasites that they would not contract otherwise.

NAIA favors the language recommended by the National Association of State Public Health Veterinarians in their Animal Rabies Compendium, namely that: "The movement of dogs for purpose of adoption or sale from areas with dog-to-dog rabies transmission should be prohibited." We think the Farm Bill with its 6 month requirement for puppy imports is a major step in the right direction.

In the meantime, NAIA continues to support the Center for Disease Control's ongoing efforts to develop tougher import regulations, urging their adoption of standards that will protect Americans from sick foreign dogs. You may read NAIA's comment letter here. Enhanced CDC rules, combined with passage of the new Farm Bill, would finally bring our decade-long campaign to address puppy imports to fruition.

We urge you to go to our Farm Bill Action Alert and write your US Senator and Representative today asking them to support the Farm Bill when it comes to the floor.

Please also Make a Donation Today to help NAIA shut down puppy imports and protect healthy pets in America.

For more background and press coverage of this issue, see the following articles:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-10-21-dog-imports_N.htm?csp=34
http://www.abcnews.go.com/Health/story?id=3765973&page=1
http://www.cbp.gov/xp/CustomsToday/2006/jun_jul/other/puppies.xml


Thank you for your support!

PA- Proposed "puppy mill" regulations hits hobby breeders hard

Revised PA Bill Will Take Bite Out of Sporting Dog Breeders


(Columbus, OH) - A revised bill for proposed “puppy mill” regulations in Pennsylvania threatens to put sporting dog kennel owners and hobby breeders out of business if it is passed as currently written.

The new legislation, House Bill 2525, introduced today by Representative James E. Casorio Jr., D-Westmoreland, was crafted to address the issue of so-called “puppy mills,” abusive large-scale commercial dog breeding operations. In addition to regulating puppy mills, the measure sets up the non-elected officials of the state Agriculture Department as the unchecked, sole authority that controls puppy operations and all dog breeders, including smaller hunting dog kennels.

“We are concerned that future holders of these offices will not be accountable to the public or the legislature,” said Rob Sexton, vice president of government affairs for the U.S. Sportsmen’s Alliance (USSA).

House Bill 2525 permits the Agriculture Department, not the elected members of the legislature to:

Set kennel license fees;
Decide how kennels are to be operated;
Determine those acts that constitute a violation;
Set penalties for violations, which may include forfeiture of dogs without compensation and even jail time.

“The bill enables the career staff of a state agency to be lawmaker, judge, jury and executioner,” said Sexton. “The legislature has spelled out strict guidelines for other agencies, such as the Pennsylvania Game Commission. The Agriculture Department, when enforcing the dog law, should have the same guidance.”

Other concerns with the bill include:

Decreasing the amount of public input on changes to the dog law;
Allowing searches on residences not associated with the actual operation of a kennel;
Subjecting license holders to state penalties as a result of local ordinances.

In 2006, a coalition was formed by the U.S. Sportsmen’s Alliance (USSA), and its Sporting Dog Defense Coalition (SDDC), along with the Masters of Foxhounds Association, Pennsylvania Federation of Sportsmen’s Clubs, and representatives of national, state, and local sporting dog kennels and associations. From the beginning, the coalition has wanted to be helpful in the effort to crack down on abusive “puppy mills” without impacting private kennels, including sporting kennels.

The USSA coalition contends that legislation can be written to effectively eliminate abuses without endangering the existence of legitimate sporting dog kennels.

What is needed, are clear standards and criteria so there can be an objective assessment as to whether the punishment handed down in a case is reasonably related to the severity of the crime. Anyone charged by the department could also incur the costs of the government housing their dogs during the resolution of the offenses and legal fees. These concerns should not be difficult to fix and still give the department the authority over abusive “puppy mills.”

“We’ve compromised with the department in the negotiations from the start,” said Sexton. “We’ve been clear all along that any legislation that enables the department to further regulate abusive puppy mills must not damage law abiding hobby breeders.”

The USSA coalition opposes the bill as written, but there are many aspects that might be amended to address its concerns without compromising the objectives of the legislation.

For a complete listing of issues and concerns with the bill and a listing of sportsmen’s opponents, go to MailScanner has detected a possible fraud attempt from "blast.sparklist.com" claiming to be www.ussportsmen.org and click on Pennsylvania Dog Law Alert!

The U.S. Sportsmen’s Alliance is a national association of sportsmen and sportsmen’s organizations that protects the rights of hunters, anglers and trappers in the courts, legislatures, at the ballot, in Congress and through public education programs. For more information about the U.S. Sportsmen’s Alliance and its work, call (614) 888-4868 or visit its website

PA- Dog Law Bureau sits on $15 Million Slush Fund

Pennsylvania Dog Law Bureau
Sits on $15 Million Slush Fund

Legality Of Some Grant Awards Questionable

by JOHN YATES
The American Sporting Dog Alliance
http://www.americansportingdogalliance.org

(This is the fourth in a series of special reports that will be
released in the days prior to the publication of proposed kennel
legislation and revised kennel regulations in Pennsylvania. This
issue is of vital concern to everyone who has a kennel or owns a
dog. The American Sporting Dog Alliance works at the grassroots
level to protect the rights of people who own or work with dogs of
the sporting breeds. Our focus is on informing people about the
issues, providing a way to take direct personal action, tracking
votes in the Legislature, taking legal action, and convincing
elected officials to do what's right. Please visit us on the web at
http://www.americansportingdogalliance.org. Your participation and
membership are very important. We maintain strict independence, and
are supported solely by the donations of our members.)

HARRISBURG, Pa. – What on Earth does the Pennsylvania Bureau of Dog
Law Enforcement plan to do with a cool $15 million that it has
socked away in the bank?

This slush fund is not allocated for budgeted expenditures, an
investigation by The American Sporting Dog Alliance (ASDA) reveals.
It's just sitting in the bank and waiting…for something.

How big is this unallocated chunk of money? It is big enough to pay
for the budgeted activities of the entire Bureau for the next two
and a half years. It also is big enough to pay for a lot of other
possibilities that we can only speculate about.

State officials have not been cooperative with the ASDA
investigation. We have made repeated requests for documents from key
administrators in the Bureau, in the Department of Agriculture and
the Governor's Office. These requests have been ignored.

However, we were able to obtain the information ourselves from
archived financial reports in the Office of Budget.

Budget documents break down the finances of the Dog Law Restricted
Account, which pays for the Bureau's activities. The fund collects
money from the sale of county dog licenses, state kennel licenses,
state dealer licenses, fines, penalties and a variety of other
sources. It spends the money to pay for the costs of the Bureau's
activities, and to provide grants and reimbursements.

For the current fiscal year, which began July 1, 2007, the documents
show:

· $15.9 million was carried over as unspent money from the
previous fiscal year, which ended June 30, 2007. This is money the
Bureau had in its piggybank but did not spend.

· The current year's budget projects $6.9 million in revenues
received for the 2007-2008 fiscal year. This is the money that the
Bureau hauls in from license fees, fines, penalties and other
sources.

· $6.9 million has been budgeted to pay for the actual cost of
running the Bureau, and an additional $565,403 is budgeted to cover
unspecified "commitments."

· This leaves a balance of $15.4 million in the projected
slush fund for the end of the fiscal year on June 30, 2008.

· However, February 29, 2008, budget documents show that the
Bureau already has overspent this budget by about $700,000 (the
amount the slush fund was reduced below projected amounts to cover
unbudgeted expenditures), with four months remaining in the fiscal
year. We don't know where this money went, although our sources tell
us that some of it may have been spent to cover the costs of
drafting new legislation and regulations.

· $14.7 million still remained in the slush fund on February
29, 2008

That's a lot of money!

What will it be used for?

We don't know.

We do know what the law says it can be used for. We do know what
some of it has been used for. We can make some educated guesses. But
we don't know what Bureau officials and Gov. Ed Rendell actually
plan to do with this huge pile of money, and they aren't saying.

We also know that draft versions of a proposed revision to the state
dog laws and kennel regulations call for the probable stepped-up
seizure of dogs from non-compliant kennels, payments to shelters and
rescue groups to take care of those dogs, payments to veterinarians
to treat those dogs, and large increases in license fees, fines and
penalties that would cause this slush fund to grow rapidly.

Let's start with the law itself.

The Dog Law says that the Restricted Account was created as a
repository for revenues, to cover Bureau operating expenses, and to
reimburse counties and animal shelters for caring for dogs that are
seized or impounded by dog wardens. Article X details the program.

Shelters are reimbursed at $5 per day for every dog they take in
from a warden, if the owner of the dog or dogs won't pay.

Section B of Article X details some possibilities for how the slush
fund could be spent. We quote:

"(B) SURPLUS FUNDS.-- The secretary may declare that there is a
surplus of money in the Dog Law Restricted Account. The secretary
may authorize additional payments to the counties, except (emphasis
on this word is ours) to counties of the first class, municipalities
and to humane societies or associations for the prevention of
cruelty to animals from any amount declared to be surplus. Such
payments shall be based on the (Agriculture) secretary's evaluation
pursuant to rules and regulations promulgated under this act."

Despite the above prohibition against using this money to help
humane societies, the Bureau does just that. An announcement on the
Bureau's 2008 grant program was published in The Pennsylvania
Bulletin. It says:

"Dog Control Facility Bill Reimbursement Grant
Program
The Department of Agriculture (Department) gives notice
of the guidelines and conditions under which it will
award up to $750,000 in grants under the Year 2008 Dog
Control Facility Bill Reimbursement Program (Program).
The Program will award bill reimbursement grants of up
to $15,000 per recipient to humane societies or associations
for the prevention of cruelty to animals that meet
the guidelines and conditions of this Program. The Program
will be funded from the Dog Law Restricted Account
from funds which are declared to be ``surplus'' funds for
the limited purposes set forth in section 1002(b) of the
Dog Law (3 P. S. § 459-1002(b))."

This program appears to be a violation of the dog law that was
quoted above, which prohibits using surplus funds for humane
societies and similar programs.

The publication also details another apparent violation of the Dog
Law. The grant program announcement says that funds will be
available to pay for "veterinarian services with respect to which
the invoice identifies the dog treated and the reason for the
treatment…."

Article X of the law says: "No funds credited to the restricted
account created by this section shall be used for government
subsidized veterinary services."

We cannot explain these apparent discrepancies between the law and
the Bureau's grant program.

Our research has shown that these legally questionable grant
payments have been made to humane societies, animal shelters and
veterinarians back through and including the 2005 fiscal year. We
did not look further back in time than 2005.

We can only speculate about the planned uses of the Bureau's roughly
$15 million slush fund in the future.

We do know that all drafts of the proposed new kennel laws and
regulations impose much more strict standards, and provide the
almost certain probability that more dogs will be seized and
impounded, and that more shelter facilities likely will be needed to
care for these dogs and kill the ones that are not returned to their
owners or adopted. The grant fund also provides euthanasia funding
for impounded dogs.

Impounding dogs already is big business for the Bureau. The Bureau's
most recent required annual report to the Legislature shows that
more than $1 million was handed out to animal shelters and counties
in grants in 2006.

An additional $356,000 was given to counties and shelters for
reimbursements for housing 17,796 dogs that were seized or impounded
by state wardens, the 2006 report shows.

Under the Dog Law, the Bureau must make its 2007 report to the
Legislature by March 1, 2008. This date has passed, and the report
still is not available on Bureau or Legislature websites. Our
requests for this report have been ignored.

Draft versions of proposed new legislation also would add
enforcement of animal cruelty statutes to state dog wardens' duties,
and we believe this would place a serious strain on existing
manpower. This program also would require additional work to
prosecute alleged violations, as animal cruelty is a criminal
offense. We doubt that dog wardens would be able to handle the
prosecution in a court of law, as many of the defendants would have
attorneys in criminal trials. Thus we would expect that the Bureau
would have to hire more special prosecutors to handle this increased
workload. New regulations also would make kennel inspections far
more time-consuming and this, too, would strain manpower. These
would be logical uses for the budget surplus, but we cannot confirm
that this is the plan.

At present, documents show, the Bureau has dog wardens assigned to
each of the state's 67 counties, plus a team of special statewide
dog wardens nicknamed the "SWAT Team," 124 additional Humane
Society police officers, and has a full-time prosecutor.

The expanded duties and more complex regulations thus would seem to
require a large increase in personnel costs for the Bureau.

Those speculations, however, would not fully explain the planned
uses for the $15 million slush fund.

Any speculation beyond this point would be just a wild guess. We
will leave that to our readers' imaginations, in the absence of
candor from the Bureau and Gov. Rendell.

Please visit us on the web at
http://www.americansportingdogalliance.org.

OH- House Bill 223 says 9 breeding females is a "puppy mill"

If you are in Ohio, please ask your representative NOT to support House Bill 223 - also known as the "Puppy Mill Bill" which will license and regulate all kennels with 9 or more breeding females in the state. Currently the bill is sitting in committee with no hearings scheduled.

Since no hearings are scheduled, but this bill has a number- YOU NEED to contact your representative and let them know that 9 intact females is NOT a puppy mill!