| |
 |
|
|
Hobby Forum Index » Hunting » PA Zoning Embraces Animal Rights...
Page 1 of 1
|
| Author |
Message |
| John Yates... |
 Posted: Wed May 28, 2008 4:05 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
PA Animal Rights Activists Manipulate
Zoning Ordinances To Stop Kennels
Lebanon County Judge Sets Sobering Precedent
by JOHN YATES
American Sporting Dog Alliance
http://www.americansportingdogalliance.org
asda at (no spam) csonline.net
NEWMANSTOWN, PA – Animal rights groups in Pennsylvania have taken their
extremist agenda to the local level by infiltrating zoning boards and by
bringing in outsiders to lobby for unrealistic and unworkable zoning
requirements that can result in a de facto ban on kennels in agricultural
areas, an American Sporting Dog Alliance investigation shows.
Lebanon County rural landowner Scott Good learned this lesson the hard way.
Good, who lives on the land he grew up on in an agriculturally zoned area,
applied for a zoning permit to build a small kennel to raise English
bulldogs. He now owns three dogs of this breed as pets, but wants to
expand and make it a small part-time business venture that would house
about 30 dogs. He plans to sell puppies only on a retail level, directly
to customers who come to his kennel, and does not want to sell to dealers
or pet stores.
Kennels are permitted in agriculturally zoned areas of the county by
special exception. Good proposed building an ultra-modern kennel structure
that significantly exceeds all state requirements, and his kennel would
have offered both heated and air-conditioned comfort for the dogs. His
kennel would have been hidden from all neighbors by hills and trees, and
would have been a minimum of 400 feet from the nearest property line.
Moreover, Good had contacted all of his neighbors and received their
support. Good also has a completely clean record of compliance with local
laws, and all laws relating to animals.
What he didn’t count on was animal rights activists reading the legal
notice for the hearing and packing the room with 12-to-15 outsiders who
voiced theoretical and fabricated concerns to the Heidelberg Township
Zoning Hearing Board. Good said none of these activists know him or live
nearby.
Good also didn’t count on his local rural zoning board proving itself to
be, in effect, an animal rights group.
The zoning board had no choice but to approve the special exception, as
Good exceeded all legal requirements by a wide margin. However, an 11-page
finding signed by Board Chairman Henry Noll set a series of conditions
that made it impossible for Good to continue with his planned project.
The decision clearly granted dogs the same legal protections as people
under the zoning code, and specifically alleged that zoning laws are meant
to protect the health and welfare of dogs.
Under state law, zoning laws are meant to protect the health and welfare
of people. Dogs are not mentioned in the law.
Using “dogs are little people” logic to justify their actions, the zoning
board imposed 28 conditions on Good’s permit that totally destroyed the
feasibility of the project. They include stipulations that:
· Breeding is permitted only by artificial insemination. Natural
breeding is prohibited.
· Temperatures in the kennel must be maintained at between 68-
degrees and 75-degrees at all times. The homes of people with children do
not have to meet these kinds of exact temperature requirements. Good
planned to raise all puppies in his home, and move them to the kennel only
when they are old enough.
· Zoning officers will conduct unannounced inspections of the kennel
at least twice a year. This is in addition to state kennel license
inspections, which also are twice a year.
· Dogs cannot be exercised or allowed to use their outdoor runs
between the hours of 9 p.m. and 7 a.m. Good had planned a facility that
included indoor enclosures that met the minimum state requirements, with
attached outdoor runs that tripled state requirements. In addition, he had
planned to have two attached 20-foot by 30-foot exercise areas.
· The ruling cut the allowable number of dogs in half, to 16, and
the size of the exercise areas would be reduced by a third.
· Only one dog would be permitted to live in each enclosure. Good
said he believes it is essential to provide dogs with companionship, as
they are social animals and he considers isolation cruel.
· All water from the kennel must be piped into holding tanks, which
must be pumped periodically and hauled away. Good had planned to allow
this water to flow onto his farmland, which is both standard agricultural
practice and is specifically approved on his farm’s nutrient management
plan.
· Any dogs that die cannot be buried on the farm, including beloved
pets. Instead, they have to be hauled away as refuse by a pre-approved
carcass removal company, with written notice to the township.
· All dog stools must be hauled off of the property as garbage, and
written proof must be submitted to the township. Good had planned to
spread the manure on his property, which also is a standard agricultural
practice and is approved in his farm’s nutrient management plan.
· And other care requirements were mandated, such as hand feeding
only, daily exercise for the dogs and sanitation rules. These kinds of
requirements normally are considered to be the role of state regulations,
and Good planned to apply for a state kennel license.
“What they are telling you is that if you are breeding a dog, nothing you
do is good enough,” Good said.
Good appealed the decision to Lebanon County Court and lost. Judge Samuel
Kline ruled in favor of the zoning board in late March (Judge Kline did
throw out two of the 28 stipulations, but allowed all of the animal rights
stipulations to remain in effect. The ruling allowed the kennel permit to
be transferred to a new owner if the land is sold, and allowed Good to
spread manure.)
Judge Kline’s ruling is bad news for dog owners all across Pennsylvania..
It sets a legal precedent that can and will be used in all of
Pennsylvania’s counties, towns, cities and townships. Kline essentially
ruled that a zoning board has the power to regulate animal rights issues.
Good has appealed Judge Kline’s ruling to the state Superior Court, and
the American Sporting Dog Alliance urges Pennsylvania dog owners to assist
Good with this appeal. We hope that dog owners will lend Good their full
support and assist him with the costs of an expensive appeal. We also hope
several attorneys will volunteer their services to Good’s legal defense
efforts.
Good can be reached at smgood at (no spam) paonline.com.
What happened to Good is not an isolated incident. We have had dozens of
confirmed and unconfirmed reports of similar zoning actions in
Pennsylvania over the past two years, especially in the southeastern and
south central parts of the state.
Good’s situation has far-ranging importance for all dog and kennel owners
in Pennsylvania.
This year, the state Bureau of Dog Law Enforcement began to require kennel
license holders to affirm that they are in compliance with all local
ordinances and zoning codes. There have been reports that the Bureau plans
to contact local zoning boards to see if licensed kennels are in
compliance.
Moreover, recent draft regulatory and legislative proposals have required
kennel owners to comply with local zoning rules, and the current proposed
state kennel legislation gives the Bureau almost unlimited power to create
new regulations with minimal public notification and participation.
We urge Pennsylvania dog owners to contact their legislators and ask them
to oppose this highly flawed legislation in general, and to specifically
oppose the provision for new regulations. We also urge special vigilance
to make sure that no zoning requirements are included in kennel
legislation or amended onto it. The draft legislation, H.B. 2525, which is
sponsored by Rep. James Casorio (D-Westmoreland County) and supported by
Gov. Ed Rendell, is now before the House Agriculture and Rural Affairs
Committee.
The Heidelberg Township Zoning Hearing Board clearly overstepped its
bounds and legal mandate on the Good situation, and we also urge our
readers to contact the township supervisors to voice disapproval of this
action and of the influence of radical animal rights activists on township
zoning issues. The township’s email is HTAC at (no spam) comcast.net.
In it’s brief to Judge Kline, the township defined it’s belief that animal
welfare issues are “a valid zoning purpose to protect the health, safety
and welfare…of the community.”
None of the stipulations protect the people of the township from anything..
Almost all of them regulate only the dogs and the way they are raised.
The ban on natural breeding is an example of this kind of twisted logic. A
rare sexually transmitted disease in dogs is brucellosis. It can result in
sterility and miscarriages in female animals.
This issue was raised by animal rights activists at the hearing, and then
was used by the zoning board to ban natural breeding.
However, normal veterinary practice in preventing the spread of this rare
disease in dogs is quite different. Instead, a simple blood test can tell
if a dog is a carrier of this disease. Many dog owners routinely test all
of their breeding animals, and the issue has no impact on public health
for humans.
Good wants the option to either breed naturally or artificially, as
sometimes bulldogs are difficult to breed naturally because of their
anatomy. However, he emphasizes that no public or veterinary health risks
are involved, and this has nothing to do with zoning issues.
Animal rights activists frequently use “scare tactics” such as the
brucellosis issue to hide their real agenda, which is to eliminate the
private breeding of dogs, and ultimately the private ownership of dogs.
The American Sporting Dog Alliance is the unified voice of sporting dog
owners and professionals in America. We work at the grassroots level to
defeat unfair legislation and policies that are harmful to dogs and the
people who own and work with them. Our work to protect your rights is
supported solely by the donations of our members. Your participation and
donations are vital to our success. Please visit us on the web at
http://www.americansportingdogalliance.org. Our email is
asda at (no spam) csonline.net.
PLEASE FORWARD AND CROSS-POST THIS REPORT |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Chris Barnes... |
| Posted: Thu May 29, 2008 8:46 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
John Yates wrote:
Quote: NEWMANSTOWN, PA – Animal rights groups in Pennsylvania have taken their
extremist agenda to the local level by infiltrating zoning boards and by
bringing in outsiders to lobby for unrealistic and unworkable zoning
requirements that can result in a de facto ban on kennels in agricultural
areas, an American Sporting Dog Alliance investigation shows.
Lebanon County rural landowner Scott Good learned this lesson the hard way.
Good, who lives on the land he grew up on in an agriculturally zoned area,
applied for a zoning permit to build a small kennel to raise English
bulldogs. He now owns three dogs of this breed as pets, but wants to
expand and make it a small part-time business venture that would house
about 30 dogs. He plans to sell puppies only on a retail level, directly
to customers who come to his kennel, and does not want to sell to dealers
or pet stores.
Those who know me, know that I am about as far from an animal rights
activist as a person can be. I have trained, raised, and bred Labrador
Retrievers for well over 20 years.
I take exception with protecting what Mr. Good in this example is trying
to do. Having 30 dogs for the sole purpose of operating a business is
nothing short of a puppy mill. The fact that he intends to sell them to
people rather than pet stores does not change the fact that he is a
puppy mill.
We, the non-activist pet owners, need to be advocating RESPONSIBLE pet
ownership. Part of being responsible is taking a stand against puppy
mill operations. Because if we don't do it, then the AR activist WILL
be able to push their agenda.
--
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
Chris Barnes AOL IM: CNBarnes
chris at (no spam) txbarnes.com Yahoo IM: chrisnbarnes
"Usenet really is all about standing around and hitting the ground
with clubs, on a spot where many years earlier a dead horse lay." |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| James Beck... |
| Posted: Thu May 29, 2008 10:01 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
In article <483EB3B6.3040400 at (no spam) txbarnes.com>, chris at (no spam) txbarnes.com says...
Quote: John Yates wrote:
NEWMANSTOWN, PA =3F Animal rights groups in Pennsylvania have taken their
extremist agenda to the local level by infiltrating zoning boards and by
bringing in outsiders to lobby for unrealistic and unworkable zoning
requirements that can result in a de facto ban on kennels in agricultural
areas, an American Sporting Dog Alliance investigation shows.
Lebanon County rural landowner Scott Good learned this lesson the hard way.
Good, who lives on the land he grew up on in an agriculturally zoned area,
applied for a zoning permit to build a small kennel to raise English
bulldogs. He now owns three dogs of this breed as pets, but wants to
expand and make it a small part-time business venture that would house
about 30 dogs. He plans to sell puppies only on a retail level, directly
to customers who come to his kennel, and does not want to sell to dealers
or pet stores.
Those who know me, know that I am about as far from an animal rights
activist as a person can be. I have trained, raised, and bred Labrador
Retrievers for well over 20 years.
I take exception with protecting what Mr. Good in this example is trying
to do. Having 30 dogs for the sole purpose of operating a business is
nothing short of a puppy mill. The fact that he intends to sell them to
people rather than pet stores does not change the fact that he is a
puppy mill.
We, the non-activist pet owners, need to be advocating RESPONSIBLE pet
ownership. Part of being responsible is taking a stand against puppy
mill operations. Because if we don't do it, then the AR activist WILL
be able to push their agenda.
I think you are confused with what a "Puppy Mill" is.
There is absolutely no reason why a person can not humanely raise
puppies in large quantities. Is there any difference if you have 30
people with dogs or one person with 30 dogs? Is a rancher a calf mill,
a rabbit breeder a rabbit mill? Once you blanket an action with a
negative connotation, it is easy to press that agenda to other areas. I
have seen a breeder that has 25+ dogs in house, and if you told her she
was running a "Puppy Mill" she'd likely pop you one.
Jim |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Marty Carts... |
| Posted: Thu May 29, 2008 10:20 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Chris Barnes wrote:
Quote: John Yates wrote:
NEWMANSTOWN, PA – Animal rights groups in Pennsylvania have taken
their extremist agenda to the local level by infiltrating zoning
boards and by bringing in outsiders to lobby for unrealistic and
unworkable zoning requirements that can result in a de facto ban on
kennels in agricultural areas, an American Sporting Dog Alliance
investigation shows.
Lebanon County rural landowner Scott Good learned this lesson the hard
way.
Good, who lives on the land he grew up on in an agriculturally zoned
area, applied for a zoning permit to build a small kennel to raise
English bulldogs. He now owns three dogs of this breed as pets, but
wants to expand and make it a small part-time business venture that
would house about 30 dogs. He plans to sell puppies only on a retail
level, directly to customers who come to his kennel, and does not want
to sell to dealers or pet stores.
Those who know me, know that I am about as far from an animal rights
activist as a person can be.
Yup. I do attest to that.
Quote: I have trained, raised, and bred Labrador Retrievers for well over 20 years.
(On the note of truth in advertising, I don't
own dogs, don't hardly (as most of y'all know
it) hunt and am not up on this issue. But I
do have a reaction to the Newmanstown article.)
Quote: I take exception with protecting what Mr. Good in this example is trying
to do.
Seems to me the issue is not really what he's
trying to do, start a kennel, but is primarily
one of opposing the use of the hammer that was
used against Mr. Good. (If the article is to be
believed; that's not for sure but I will, until/
unless otherwise enlightened) it was a pretty
odious, inappropriately activist zoning board
action and if I were local I might be well be
moved to join in the fray just for that reason.
I am strongly suspicious of local zoning boards;
around here they have a nasty reputation of
following all the public comment processes,
perhaps even agreeing with citizens' comments, and
writing decisions accordingly, but then quietly
writing "text amendments" entirely bypassing even
obvious and overwhelming public concerns in order
to allow well connected developers to flaunt all
existing zoning law. <grr> I'm not even an anti-
development zealot and I'm outraged with these
zoning board abuses.
Quote: Having 30 dogs for the sole purpose of operating a business is
nothing short of a puppy mill. The fact that he intends to sell them to
people rather than pet stores does not change the fact that he is a
puppy mill.
Another poster brought up the question, why is the
fact that a guy is an animal 'mill' a problem? To
answer the guy, yes, a rancher is a cow mill, a
rabbit breeder a bunny mill, etc., but what of it?
Quote: We, the non-activist pet owners, need to be advocating RESPONSIBLE pet
ownership. Part of being responsible is taking a stand against puppy
mill operations. Because if we don't do it, then the AR activist WILL
be able to push their agenda.
Agreed, if being a puppy mill operation is synonymous
with being irresponsible. If, on the other hand,
running a puppy mill can be a legitimate activity
then it seems to me you ought to defend it on the
basis of preventing the divide and conquer attack;
when they come after *your* pet there might not be
anyone left to stand by you. _______________Marty |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| ... |
| Posted: Fri May 30, 2008 6:34 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Fri, 30 May 2008 03:20:39 GMT, Marty Carts
<p.addamiano-carts at (no spam) att.net> wrote:
Quote:
Agreed, if being a puppy mill operation is synonymous
with being irresponsible. If, on the other hand,
running a puppy mill can be a legitimate activity
then it seems to me you ought to defend it on the
basis of preventing the divide and conquer attack;
when they come after *your* pet there might not be
anyone left to stand by you. _______________Marty
Agreed! The issue, as I see it, is infringement on our civil rights by
those who believe they have the right to tell others how to live. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Chris Barnes... |
| Posted: Fri May 30, 2008 9:48 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
James Beck wrote:
Quote: I think you are confused with what a "Puppy Mill" is.
There is absolutely no reason why a person can not humanely raise
puppies in large quantities. Is there any difference if you have 30
people with dogs or one person with 30 dogs?
It would appear that you are the one that doesn't know a puppy mill when
you see one.
What makes a puppy mill is the PURPOSE for which the puppies are being
bred. If they are simply producing puppies due to market demand, they
are a mill. If on the other hand, they are being responsible with their
puppies (see definition of "responsible breeder"), then they are not a mill.
Quote: Is a rancher a calf mill, a rabbit breeder a rabbit mill?
Last I checked, we weren't raising dogs for food.
And yes, it makes a difference.
Quote: Once you blanket an action with a
negative connotation, it is easy to press that agenda to other areas. I
have seen a breeder that has 25+ dogs in house, and if you told her she
was running a "Puppy Mill" she'd likely pop you one.
I have told people to their face they run a puppy mill - one of them my
(at the time) best friend. I am never shy about calling someone out on
this topic.
Responsible breeders (*ALL* of the following, not just some):
* only breed quality sires to quality dams. "Quality" being:
- appropriate health CERTIFICATIONS (ie proof, not just "I've never
seen problems") for the breed
- adherence to the standard for the breed. They don't have to
be perfect CH (conformation titled), but they should be recognizable
and without the major faults common in the breed.
- adherence to performance expectations of the breed. Again, they
don't have to be FC, but they should be able to do a respectable
job at the function for which they were bred (eg. a lab shouldn't
be afraid of the water or afraid to pick up a duck).
* be selective in the homes in which the puppies are placed. At a
minimum this means getting references from potential buyers - and
turning away those people who don't pass muster.
* be selective in which pup is placed in which home. A good
breeder will know each pup and be able to match the pup with the
goals of the buyer.
* offer guarantees - at LEAST a health guarantee.
* breed their bitches no more than 3 times in their lifetime.
It used to be a bad thing to breed them on back-to-back cycles,
but many vets suggest that this is actually easier on the bitch
than spacing out breedings. Still, the total number of litters
a bitch produces needs to be limited.
Note that this is just an off-the-top-of-my-head list as a MINIMUM
standard. I would argue that it is IMPOSSIBLE to meet these criteria
with 30 dogs.
--
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
Chris Barnes AOL IM: CNBarnes
chris at (no spam) txbarnes.com Yahoo IM: chrisnbarnes
"Usenet really is all about standing around and hitting the ground
with clubs, on a spot where many years earlier a dead horse lay." |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Susan (CobbersMom)... |
| Posted: Fri May 30, 2008 5:11 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Chris Barnes" <> wrote in message > Note that this is just an
off-the-top-of-my-head list as a MINIMUM > standard. I would argue that it
is IMPOSSIBLE to meet these criteria > with 30 dogs.
It's a good list! I'd like to add that the dogs should be a part of the
family. Not that they necessarily have to be in the house (I think it's
better though) and socialized with their owners. Thirty dogs cannot be
given individual attention and love. Feeding, watering, a pat on the head
and cleaning out a cage is not positive interaction, it's just the beginning
of care.
By the way, I work in zoning and I've heard just about all the BS that
people come up with. Just because the guy testified to things at the
hearing, doesn't mean it's true. It's not a court and false testimony can
be common. In my experience, the petitioner will say things they think the
board wants to hear just to get their permit. Everything else be damned
once they have it in their hand.
I think this guy is looking to make a fast buck, or at least thinking he can
by warehousing the English Bulldogs. Last I heard, (since I used to also be
a veterinary technician) this breed cannot normally give birth by a vaginal
delivery. A c-section is scheduled, the bitch is sedated with an easily
reversed medication, puppies are popped out, bitch is woken up and back home
within 3-4 hours or less. With a mill like he planned, the sale of one
puppy will cover the cost of the surgery and the rest profit minus the usual
daily costs. Claiming this would be part time is also ridiculous. If he
was to give individual care and affection to each and every dog, this would
take all day, every day!
Sorry Chris, only the first sentence is directed to you. I get so angry at
breeders like this and have seen both sides from a zoning perspective and a
vets office.
Sue
Minocqua, WI
Yamaha '00 VStar 650
'04 TW200 (mud = fun)
Kawasaki '95 Vulcan 1500 V#15937
A crow has seven pinion feathers at the ends of his wings and a raven has
eight. Therefore the difference between a crow and a raven is a matter of a
pinion. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| James Beck... |
| Posted: Mon Jun 09, 2008 9:59 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
In article <g1p44s$9hq$1 at (no spam) news.tamu.edu>, chris at (no spam) txbarnes.com says...
Quote: James Beck wrote:
I think you are confused with what a "Puppy Mill" is.
There is absolutely no reason why a person can not humanely raise
puppies in large quantities. Is there any difference if you have 30
people with dogs or one person with 30 dogs?
It would appear that you are the one that doesn't know a puppy mill when
you see one.
That's probably true, since the only ones I have seen are on the 6
O'Clock news.
Quote:
What makes a puppy mill is the PURPOSE for which the puppies are being
bred. If they are simply producing puppies due to market demand, they
are a mill. If on the other hand, they are being responsible with their
puppies (see definition of "responsible breeder"), then they are not a mill.
So, you have breeders that just pop out puppies without a market for
them? Too much of a DUH factor in this paragraph.
EVERY breeder out there is producing a product to meet a market.
Quote:
Is a rancher a calf mill, a rabbit breeder a rabbit mill?
Last I checked, we weren't raising dogs for food.
And yes, it makes a difference.
Oh, since they are cute and fuzzy and we make them part of the family
instead of part of a meal, it makes a difference?
Quote:
Once you blanket an action with a
negative connotation, it is easy to press that agenda to other areas. I
have seen a breeder that has 25+ dogs in house, and if you told her she
was running a "Puppy Mill" she'd likely pop you one.
I have told people to their face they run a puppy mill - one of them my
(at the time) best friend. I am never shy about calling someone out on
this topic.
It doesn't change the fact that you can raise a large number of just
about any animal humanly. You have just singled out puppies as some
special case and that thinking is just biased.
Jim |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
|
Page 1 of 1
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Tue Oct 07, 2008 1:18 pm
|
|