Frankie The Law Dog

The North Carolina Senate has passed a bill that targets the kind of abusive practices by some commercial dog breeders that have earned them the name “puppy mill” and that have caused misery to countless animals in their custody.  The measure follows the shutdown of two large puppy mills in that state in February and its passage has been controversial, with the American Kennel Club claiming the bill would burden dog “owners,” and not just breeders.

Law will Regulate Commercial Dog Breeders to Prevent Puppy Mills

New S.C. Law Seeks to End Animal Cruelty by Puppy Mills

Senate Bill 460 clearly defines a “commercial breeder” as any person who owns or maintains 15 or more intact female dogs of breeding age and 30 or more puppies primarily for the purpose of sale.  The measure provides for the establishment of minimum humane standards for the care of animals at commercial dog breeding operations, including the provision of adequate housing, exercise, food, water and veterinary care.

Commercial Dog Breeders must Register with the State and be Subject to Inspection

The measure provides that no commercial breeder will be permitted to operate in North Carolina without first registering with the state.  In order to register, the breeder must be in compliance with all established standards for the care of the dogs.  Failure to register constitutes a Class 2 misdemeanor and may subject the breeder to an injunction.  Commercial dog breeding operations are subject to inspection by authorities upon reports of inhumane conditions.

Penalties for Failing to Provide Adequate Minimum Humane Treatment

Under the new law, the failure of a commercial breeder to adequately house, exercise, feed, water and provide veterinary care for the animals in its custody is a Class 3 misdemeanor and will result in a fine of not less than $50 per day per animal.  Any commercial animal breeder convicted of a violation will lose its registration, meaning that it can no longer operate in the state.

Abusive Puppy Mills in North Carolina

The legislation comes partly as a response to an incident in February in which local authorities, along with the Humane Society, raided and shut down two abusive puppy mills in Wayne County, North Carolina.  According to a Humane Society press release congratulating lawmakers on passing the legislation:

[More than 300] dogs were housed in filthy, cold, cramped cages without access to exercise, adequate veterinary care, or human contact.  Many of the dogs were covered with fecal encrusted dreadlocks and suffered from severe skin and eye infections.  Some had chain collars embedded in their necks.

American Kennel Club Opposed the Measure

The American Kennel Club opposed the measure, arguing, among other things, that it would add a “duplicative layer of regulation on responsible dog owners and breeders in North Carolina.”  The measure, however, does not apply to mere dog “owners.”  It applies only to clearly defined commercial dog breeders.  Moreover, it appears that at least some commercial dog breeders have proven incapable of self-regulation to the detriment of the health and wellbeing of hundreds of dogs in their care.

The law becomes effective May 1, 2010, and applies to the commercial breeding of dogs on or after that date.

More States on Board with Puppy Mill Legislation

According to the Humane Society, Louisiana, Pennsylvania and Virginia passed laws in 2008 targeting puppy mills.  Arizona, Indiana, Oregon, Tennessee and Washington state passed laws in 2009 to cracking down on puppy mills.  Several other states are now considering puppy mill legislation.

Stephen Bottila claims his German shepherd mix dog is a service animal and that Madison, Wisconsin police unlawfully ejected him from a restaurant and a city park with his dog in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Bottila contends the dog has the ability to alert him to oncoming epileptic seizures.

But a former Madison police officer testified in a deposition that the dog lacked a harness or any other item identifying it as a service dog at the time of the incident at the park.  In the lawsuit, the City of Madison denies that the dog is, in fact, a service dog and challenges whether Bottila has a legitimate need to be accompanied by the dog.

Legal Definition of a Service Animal

According to the U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division:

The ADA defines a service animal as any guide dog, signal dog, or other animal individually trained to provide assistance to an individual with a disability. If they meet this definition, animals are considered service animals under the ADA regardless of whether they have been licensed or certified by a state or local government.

It is not required that service animals wear special harnesses or collars, and proof of a person’s medical condition or the dog’s certification as a service dog may not be demanded as a condition of allowing the dog to accompany the person.

A Service Dog is Any Animal Individually Trained to Provide Assistance to a Person with a Disability

Bottila’s Civil Rights Lawsuit may Test the Definition of Service Dog

Bottila’s civil rights lawsuit is scheduled to begin Monday in federal district court, and a pending motion by the city asks the judge to exclude the dog from the courtroom.  The city argues that its presence in court would suggest to the jury that the judge believes the dog is a service animal.

The City argues that whether the dog is a bona fide service animal “or merely a pet” is a disputed fact in the case.

Since the incidents that gave rise to the lawsuit, Bottila was subdued with pepper spray and a Taser after he refused to leave a restaurant where the manager sought to eject him because of the dog.  Madison Police Captain Victor Wahl maintains the officers acted appropriately because Bottila had finished eating and had no more business in the restaurant and he resisted officers’ attempts to remove him.

Update:  The Dog will be Permitted in Court

From the Wisconsin State Journal:

U.S. District Judge Barbara Crabb said she will allow Stephen Bottila to bring Justice, a German shepherd mix Bottila says is a seizure-alert dog, into the courtroom during the trial that begins Monday.

Legislators in Massachusetts are considering a bill that would amend the state’s animal cruelty statute to include a ban on devocalization surgery on dogs.  The procedure, intended to eliminate or “soften” a dog’s bark,  severs the animal’s vocal chords.

Devocalization or Debarking Eliminates a Dog's Ability to Bark Normally

In recent weeks, the state Judiciary committee heard testimony on both sides of the issue.  Proponents of the bill argued that devocalization surgery presents serious health risks such as aspiration pheumonia, chronic coughing or gagging and breathing problems.  Opponents contended that more dogs would end up in shelters and would then be difficult to place if debarking surgery is outlawed.

Some opponents of legislation outlawing debarking procedures argue that if all training efforts fail, a dog that constantly barks will end up being euthanized.  They argue that debarking or devocalization should be permitted as a last resort.  At the other end of the spectrum are those who oppose such legislation because it would infringe on their choice for a quick solution to an annoyance.

Other U.S. states, including California, New Jersey and Ohio, have attempted, without success, to broadly ban devocalization procedures.  The United Kingdom prohibits devocalization, tail docking and ear cropping on dogs, as well as declawing on cats.

Banfield, The Pet Hospital, has announced that it will no longer perform the “unnecessary cosmetic procedures” of tail docking and ear cropping on dogs.

Quoted in USA Today, Banfield, the nation’s largest network of veterinary hospitals, stated:

After thoughtful consideration and reviewing medical research, we have determined it is in the best interest of the pets we treat, as well as the overall practice, to discontinue performing these unnecessary cosmetic procedures.

Tail docking and ear cropping are both common procedures that have become more controversial in recent years.  Tail docking involves cutting off most of the dog’s tail within a few days of the dog’s birth.  Tail docking is performed on many terrier and hunting breeds.

Doberman Pinscher With Cropped Ears

Ear cropping consists of cutting a notch off of a dog’s floppy ear and bandaging it to force it into an upright “alert” looking position.  Ear cropping has been a popular procedure for many breeds, including Doberman pinschers, terriers, boxers and Great Danes.  Ear cropping is done when the puppy is between 12 and 14 weeks old.

The American Veterinary Medical Association passed a resolution last year opposing tail docking and ear cropping on dogs when performed solely for cosmetic purposes, and encouraging the elimination of docked tails and cropped ears as breed standards.

The AVMA’s efforts at eliminating these surgically created characteristics as breed standards, and the efforts of some state lawmakers around the country to outlaw tail docking and ear cropping, have been met with resistance by the American Kennel Club.  The AKC insists that the procedures “are acceptable practices integral to defining and preserving breed character.”

Although the article in USA Today reports that Banfield has also discontinued performing devocalization procedures, Banfield’s own July 27 press release fails to mention that procedure.

So-called devocalization, a far less common procedure, involves the full or partial removal of a dog’s vocal chords.  Devocalization surgery is performed solely to prevent the dog from having the ability to bark or to “soften” the dog’s bark.  The procedure is almost always performed for the convenience of the owner.  Massachusetts lawmakers recently began considering a bill that would outlaw devocalization on dogs unless medically necessary.

Banfield, founded in 1955, has more than 700 veterinary clinics and over 2,000 veterinarians nationwide.   They can be contacted at internet.inquiries@banfield.net or by phone at 1-800-838-6738.