As a concerned citizen of the state of Pennsylvania, I respectfully submit this comment on the proposed changes to the Dog Law regulations.

Bureau of Dog Law Enforcement Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture Attn: Ms. Mary Bender 2301 North Cameron Street Harrisburg, PA 17110-9408 February 2,2007 RE: Comments on proposed Dog Law regulations Dear Ms. Bender, As a concerned citizen of the state of Pennsylvania, I respectfully submit this comment on the proposed changes to the Dog Law regulations. First, I would like to commend the Department of Agriculture and the Bureau of Dog Law Enforcement for proposing amendments to the Dog Law Regulations to improve conditions for dogs housed and bred in commercial breeding operations in Pennsylvania. It should also be noted that the proposed changes to the regulations do not bring hobby breeders under the Act. The same people who were exempt from the former regulations (i.e. hobby breeders who raise, breed, move, sell, etc. fewer than 26 dogs per year), will continue to be exempt under the revised regulations. Furthermore, I fully support the comments submitted by the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (ASPCA) on behalf of its members, and incorporate them herein by reference. Specifically, I strongly support the following: 1. The penalties in 21.4(l)(iii) for "failure of an individual to comply with licensure provisions" should be increased from $25 to $300 per violation to $25 to $300 per day of violation. 2. The Secretary should be mandating to file suit to enjoin operation of unlicensed kennels where the kennel is not in compliance with the standards in the regulations and is unable to qualify for a license. 3. I commend the Department of Agriculture and the Bureau of Dog Law Enforcement for doubling the required cage size. This is perhaps the most important change that can be made to improve the quality of life for dogs in commercial breeding facilities in Pennsylvania. This provision should remain in the regulations regardless of opposition from breeders. This section should be further strengthened by adding a provision stating that where more than one dog is housed in a primary enclosure, the primary enclosure must provide adequate space for all dogs. For instance, if the enclosure houses two dogs, it must provide double the cage space that would be required for a single dog. If it houses three dogs, it must provide three times the cage space, etc. 4. I also commend the Department of Agriculture and Bureau of Dog Law Enforcement for including a provision that requires the dog wardens to visually observe the physical condition

of each dog. However, the provisions regarding orders of veterinary care should be strengthened to state that the owner must provide "proof of current and proper veterinary care for the dog." This provision should also be amended to include excessive matting and excessively long toenails as indications of lack of proper veterinary care. Inadequate grooming can lead to painful medical issues for dogs, including skin lesions from excessive matting and leg and joint injuries from failure to keep toenails appropriately trimmed. Moreover, the section should be amended to require dog wardens to order a veterinary check on dogs that exhibit signs of infection, contagious disease or parasite; or that appear to be in poor health where proof of current and proper veterinary care is not provided. 5. A new subsection should be added to 21.30 clarifying the required training for dog wardens. Training in the following areas should be added into the regulations to expand upon the requirements set forth in 3 P.S. 459-901: 1. State laws relating to dog licensing, control and owner responsibilities; 2. State and federal laws relating to animal care, cruelty and neglect; 3. State laws relating to dangerous dogs; 4. State and federal law relating to lack of arrest powers, proper use of search, seizure and warrants; 5. State and federal laws relating to pounds and shelters; 6. Basics of cruelty and neglect investigations for referral to appropriate authorities; 7. Report-writing and record-keeping; 8. Overview of the legal system, court structure and terminology; 9. Basics of interpreting animal behavior; 10. Identification of injury, disease, abuse and neglect in 11. Animal hoarders; and 12. Civil liability issues. 6. A new section should be added to the regulations mandating that the Department and dog wardens coordinate and work with law enforcement when applicable. It is imperative that the department work with law enforcement, and specifically Humane Society police officers, to ensure that both the cruelty laws and the Dog Law are adequately enforced. 7. A new section should be added to the regulations requiring that a licensee must have enough employees to carry out the level of husbandry practices and care required by the Act and its regulations. Additionally, the employees who provide for care and husbandry or handle animals should be supervised by an individual who has the knowledge, background, and experience in proper husbandry and care of dogs to supervise others. The licensee must be certain that the supervisor and other employees can perform to such standards. 8. Stacking primary enclosures on top of one another should be prohibited. Stacking cages creates an unnatural environment for the dogs. Additionally, it makes observation of the dogs more difficult and creates sanitation problems. Even with a tray or partition between

cages, it is likely that the partitions may overflow, causing feces, urine, food, water, and hair to fall onto the dogs located in the cages below. 9. The section on wire mesh flooring should be amended to make it at least as strict as the federal Animal Welfare Act, which requires that metal strand flooring be greater than oneeighth of an inch in diameter (9 gauge) or coated with a material such as plastic or fiberglass. Language should also be added requiring that all primary enclosures that have wire mesh flooring also have a resting board of sufficient size to allow each dog in the enclosure to lie in a full lateral recumbent position and be able to make normal postural adjustments. Resting boards are necessary to provide for the comfort of the dog and to allow the animal to have some time away from living on grated fencing. Providing resting boards will result in fewer foot lesions and other foot and leg injuries to the dogs. A solid resting surface that is impervious to moisture is also a more natural environment for the animal, provides a draftfree surface and enables the dog to retain its body heat. A dog feels most vulnerable when lying down, and forcing a dog to lie over an exposed area can contribute to anxiety. Humane standards and survival standards are separate, and creating an environment that merely allows for survival does not necessarily make such an environment humane. 10. Contrary to what the breeding industry states, the engineering standards specified in the proposed regulations do have a scientific foundation. The standards in the proposed regulations are more akin to acceptable husbandry practices. They will bring the engineering standards up to par with, if not above, those set forth in the Animal Welfare Act. Contrary to the hobby breeders' contention, the new regulations will not bring hobby breeders under the purview of the Dog Law. Only kennels that keep, harbor, board, shelter, sell, give away, or transfer a cumulative total of 26 or more dogs in one calendar year will be required to comply with the new regulations. As a result, true hobby breeders are still exempt from the law. Good husbandry practices dictate that anyone harboring a larger number of dogs (26 or more) should comply with certain engineering standards to ensure the health, safety, and well-being of the dogs. The Dog Law and its regulations are aimed at regulating larger and commercial breeding facilities. Therefore, the new regulations will not affect hobby breeders, contrary to what the breeding community suggests. Once again, I commend the Department of Agriculture and the Bureau of Dog Law Enforcement for proposing regulations that will improve the conditions for dogs housed and bred in Pennsylvania's commercial kennels. The changes I have noted above will further ensure that such dogs are protected. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, Caranne Abrams

4. I also commend the Department of Agriculture and Bureau of Dog Law Enforcement for including a provision that requires the dog wardens to visually observe the physical condition of each dog. However, the provisions regarding orders of veterinary care should be strengthened to state that the owner must provide "proofof current andproper veterinary care for the dog." This provision should also be amended to include excessive matting and excessively long toenails as indications of lack of proper veterinary care. Inadequate grooming can lead to painful medical issues for dogs, including skin lesions from excessive matting and leg and joint injuries from failure to keep toenails appropriately trimmed. Moreover, the section should be amended to require dog wardens to order a veterinary check on dogs that exhibit signs of infection, contagious disease or parasite; or that appear to be in poor health where proof of current and proper veterinary care is not provided. 5. A new subsection should be added to 21.30 clarifying the required training for dog wardens. Training in the following areas should be added into the regulations to expand upon the requirements set forth in 3 P.S. 459-901: 1. State laws relating to dog licensing, control and owner responsibilities; 2. State and federal laws relating to animal care, cruelty and neglect; 3. State laws relating to dangerous dogs; 4. State and federal law relating to lack of arrest powers, proper use of search, seizure and warrants; 5. State and federal laws relating to pounds and shelters; 6. Basics of cruelty and neglect investigations for referral to appropriate authorities; 7. Report-writing and record-keeping; 8. Overview of the legal system, court structure and terminology; 9. Basics of interpreting animal behavior; 10. Identification of injury, disease, abuse and neglect in 11. Animal hoarders; and 12. Civil liability issues. 6. A new section should be added to the regulations mandating that the Department and dog wardens coordinate and work with law enforcement when applicable. It is imperative that the department work with law enforcement, and specifically Humane Society police officers, to ensure that both the cruelty laws and the Dog Law are adequately enforced. 7. A new section should be added to the regulations requiring that a licensee must have enough employees to carry out the level of husbandry practices and care required by the Act and its regulations. Additionally, the employees who provide for care and husbandry or handle animals should be supervised by an individual who has the knowledge, background, and experience in proper husbandry and care of dogs to supervise others. The licensee must be certain that the supervisor and other employees can perform to such standards.

8. Stacking primary enclosures on top of one another should be prohibited. Stacking cages creates an unnatural environment for the dogs. Additionally, it makes observation of the dogs more difficult and creates sanitation problems. Even with a tray or partition between cages, it is likely that the partitions may overflow, causing feces, urine, food, water, and hair to fall onto the dogs located in the cages below. 9. The section on wire mesh flooring should be amended to make it at least as strict as the federal Animal Welfare Act, which requires that metal strand flooring be greater than oneeighth of an inch in diameter (9 gauge) or coated with a material such as plastic or fiberglass. Language should also be added requiring that all primary enclosures that have wire mesh flooring also have a resting board of sufficient size to allow each dog in the enclosure to lie in a full lateral recumbent position and be able to make normal postural adjustments. Resting boards are necessary to provide for the comfort of the dog and to allow the animal to have some time away from living on grated fencing. Providing resting boards will result in fewer foot lesions and other foot and leg injuries to the dogs. A solid resting surface that is impervious to moisture is also a more natural environment for the animal, provides a draftfree surface and enables the dog to retain its body heat. A dog feels most vulnerable when lying down, and forcing a dog to lie over an exposed area can contribute to anxiety. Humane standards and survival standards are separate, and creating an environment that merely allows for survival does not necessarily make such an environment humane. 10. Contrary to what the breeding industry states, the engineering standards specified in the proposed regulations do have a scientific foundation. The standards in the proposed regulations are more akin to acceptable husbandry practices. They will bring the engineering standards up to par with, if not above, those set forth in the Animal Welfare Act. Contrary to the hobby breeders' contention, the new regulations will not bring hobby breeders under the purview of the Dog Law. Only kennels that keep, harbor, board, shelter, sell, give away, or transfer a cumulative total of 26 or more dogs in one calendar year will be required to comply with the new regulations. As a result, true hobby breeders are still exempt from the law. Good husbandry practices dictate that anyone harboring a larger number of dogs (26 or more) should comply with certain engineering standards to ensure the health, safety, and well-being of the dogs. The Dog Law and its regulations are aimed at regulating larger and commercial breeding facilities. Therefore, the new regulations will not affect hobby breeders, contrary to what the breeding community suggests. Once again, I commend the Department of Agriculture and the Bureau of Dog Law Enforcement for proposing regulations that will improve the conditions for dogs housed and bred in Pennsylvania's commercial kennels. The changes I have noted above will further ensure that such dogs are protected. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, Susie Hammond P.O. Box 231 Chesapeake,Md 21915

: Bureau of Dog Law Enforcement Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture Aitn: Ms. MaryBender 2301 North Cameron Street Harrisburg, PA 17110-9408 January 31,2007 Dear Ms. Bender, Asa kennel owner fora good number of years, I appreciate the fact that the bureau has helped to improve the dog laws. With regard to the proposed dog law changes Act 225 issued on December 16,2006; I have a few serious concerns. The proposed changes would requiife the kennel owner to record every time a water bowl or foodjpah is Washed, everyj^me;fhe primary:gnd secondary pen enclosures are cleaned, the fejktinga^ These excessive and burdensome requirement wilt with many hours dedicated iofilling^ business owner's time away from caring for their animals. Kennels have been custom built to comply with the Department of Agricultures Dog Law Enforcement stw#s##w^ The proposed changes of thissection will^requirevthedemolition of licensed and inspected kennels and the rebuilding average cost per kennel will be between $&,W0:00 and$^^.... '. '.. v.... :.. ' The proposed changes make no sense for all kennel owners' dogs to be seized by the Dog Law Bureaxi'based on the Governor's proposed new requirements for pen sized or quarantine regulations: Dog Law places the same clog into a humane society not requitedtohavelhe proposeainew standards. Itisvii^^h^fairand-unWorm kennel[rmuiremenfs. In addition, small business owners are affected greatly and their du process rights in court are limited if the proposed changes adopted. I sincerely urge that this proposal be rescinded. Yours Sincerely, gw^ Andrew Hoover G471ParkRd. OrrstQWhrPA 17244

Bureau of Dog Law Enforcement Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture Attn: Ms. Mary Bender 2301 North Cameron Street Harrisburg, PA 17110-9408 January 23, 2007 Dear Ms. Bender, As a kennel owner for a good number of years, I appreciate the fact that the bureau has helped to improve the dog laws. With regard to the proposed dog law changes Act 225 issued on December 16, 2006,1 have a few serious concerns. The proposed changes would require the kennel owner to record"every time a water bowl or food pan is washed, every time the' primary cind secondary pen enclosures are cleaned, the feeding and watering dates and times, etc. These excessive and burdensome requirements will require a substantial increase in manpower with many hours dedicated to filling out written bureaucratic reports and divert the small business owner's time away from caring for theirjhimals. Kennels have been custom built to comply with the Department of Agricultures Dog Law Enforcement standards that were based on USDAstandjards. The proposed changes of this, section will require the demolition of licensed and inspected kennels and the rebuilding<tfentirelynewdimensioned kennels. The average costperkennel will be between $30,000.00 and $500^000.06 each. The proposed changes make no sense for all kennel owners'dogs to be seized by the Dog Law Bureau based on the Governor's proposed new requirements lor pen sized or quarantine regulations. Dog Law places the same dog into a humane society not required to have the proposed new Standards? His vital to have fair and uniform kennel requirements. In addition, small business owners are affected greatly and their due process rights in court are limited if the proposed changes adopted. I sincerely urge that this proposal be rescinded. Yours Sincerely, J ' ' ^Qw\iWuLcu %& W^W^Cb. Goliath's Paw Doggie Daycare 4 BainbridgeSt. Marietta, PA 17547

Bureau of Dog Law Enforcement Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture Attn: Ms. Mary Bender 2301 #rth(]ameroii Street Harrisburg, PA 1711&9408 January 22, 2007 Dear Ms. Bender, I am writing to comment on the proposed amendments to the Dog Law Regulations Act 225 issued on December 16, 2006.1 personally think that many of the changes are impractical and burdensome, and will not improve the quality of life for dogs in kennels. The proposed regulations will require a substantial increase in manpower with many hours dedicated to filling out bureaucratic reports or recordkeeping which the department already has. Kennels have been custom built to comply with Pennsylvania Department of Agricultures Dog Law Enforcement standards that were based on USDA Standards. The proposed changes of this section will require the demolition of Pennsylvania's licensed and inspected kennels and the rebuilding of entirely new dimensioned kennels. There is no scientific basis for the change; the average cost per kennel will be between $30,000.00 and $500,000.00 each., The current proposed appears to be over idealistic in term of improving the welfare of dogs. I urge that this proposal be rescinded and an approach similar to the USDA standards be developed. Yours truly, Pequea Kennel 196 Blank Rd Narvon, PA 17555

./ Bureau of Dog Law Enforcement Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture Attn: Ms. Mary Bender 2301 North Cameron Street Harrisburg, PA 17110-9408 February 1, 2007 Dear Ms. Bender, I am writing in response to the proposed amendments to the Dog Law Act 225 which was issued on December 16, 2006. The current proposed regulation changes have appeared to be burdensome and beyond rulemaking. The proposals add completely new categories and definition to the existing laws. These changes must be addressed through the legislative process. The proposals referencing housing and social interaction of dogs of different sizes are contrary to good husbandry, socializing and training practices. Furthermore, there is no scientific or accepted husbandry basis for the amended space and exercise requirements. In addition, the proposed regulations call for the temperature of the kennel floor to be 5 0F in the warm weather. Many kennels are air conditioned to a comfortable 70F. A dog sleeping on a 50F floor can develop hypothermia and become ill or die. For temperature, lighting, cleaning, exercise, housing, and veterinary care, the attending veterinarian should set forth and approve procedures specific for the kennel buildings and breeds of dogs. The proposed changes above will require Pennsylvania's licensed and inspected kennels to be demolished and rebuilt. The average cost will be between $30,000.00 and $500,000.00 per kennel, if the proposed laws are adopted. The current proposed appears to be over idealistic in term of improving the welfare of dogs. I urge that this proposal be rescinded and an approach similar to the USD A standards be developed. Yours sincerely, LisaMZychal (^ZOC-' fa N^Sto^JPA 17073 tf <\CW Pft^S. ~XiX.

Bureau of Dog flaw Enforcement Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture Attn; jps«mary Sender 2301 North Cameron Street Harrisburg, PA 17110-9408 February 1, 2007 Dear Ms, Bender, I am writing in response to the proposed amendments to the Dog Law Act 225 which was issued on December 16, 2006. The current proposed regulation changes have appeared to be burdensome and beyond rulema^ completely new categories and definition to the existing laws. These changes must be addressed through the legislative process. The proposals referencing housing and social interaction of dogs of different sizes are contrary to good husbandry, socializing and training practices. Furthermore, there is no scientific or accepted husbandry basis for the amended space-and exercise requirements. In addition, the proposed regulations call for the temperature of the kennel floor to be 5 0F in the warm weather. Many kennels are air conditioned to a comfortable 7QF. A dog sleeping on a 50F floor can develop hypothermia and become ill or die. For temperature, lighting, cleaning, exercise, housing, and veterinary care, the attending veterinarian should set forth and approve procedures specific for the kennel buildings and breeds of dogs. The proposed changes above will require Pennsylvania's licensed and inspected kennels to be demolished and rebuilt. The average cost will be between $30,000.00 and $500,000.00 per kennel, if the proposed laws are adopted. The current proposed appears to be over idealistic in term of improving the welfare of dogs. I urge that mis prbpt)sa#)e rescinded #d an approach similar to the USDA standards be developed. rs sincerely, A Leroy Zook 97 Green Burr Gap rd Rebersburg, PA 16872

Attn: Ms. Mary Bender Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture 2301 North Cameron Street Harrisburg, PA 17110-9408 Dear Ms. Bender: As a dog owning voter, I want to go on record as opposing the NEW Pennsylvania Kennel Regulations. My name is William E Weasner, Jr. and I live with my wife in the Kunkletown, PA area: William and Jania Weasner P.O Box 328 Kunkletown, PA 18058-0328 My wife and I work as teacher assistants for "special needs students" (not a highly paid position, but with certain non-monetary rewards). We leave our well-mannered dog at Trifecta Kennels every school day to avoid the psychological trauma (for the dog) of separation anxiety and to socialize the dog. He is eager to go to the kennel in the morning and eager to return to his/our home in the evening. The care and attention he gets at our local kennel (Trifecta Kennels) is excellent! He is taken out and allowed to run in a fenced "Dog Park" with his peers (his "Pack") under supervision everyday. As a result he returns home at ease and with a positive, friendly attitude toward other dogs and people. At some time in the future we may want to breed him as a non-commercial venture to form our own two or three dog "Pack" of very special dogs and companions. Moose is a loved member of our family. ' I am writing to comment on the proposed amendments to the Pennsylvania dog law regulations issued on December 16, 2006. I believe that inhumane and substandard kennel conditions should not be tolerated, but I do not agree that most of the proposed regulatory changes are needed, or would necessarily have a beneficial outcome if adopted. Many are impractical, excessively burdensome and costly, unenforceable, and/or will not improve the quality of life for the dogs in these kennels. Correct enforcement of the existing laws would virtually eliminate all problem areas. If enforcement is under-financed, then increase the budget. It would be less expensive than the proposed changes. Examples of problems with the proposal are the following: * The proposals pertaining to housing and social interaction, of dogs of different sizes are contrary to good husbandry, socialization and training practices. (The staff at Trifecta considers our dog to be one of the happiest most well-adjusted and mannerly dogs for whose care they are responsible. Because of the mixed size/breed socialization he receives, he gets along well with virtually all dogs.) * Smaller breeders and dog owners who maintain their dogs in their own residential premises but are covered by the Pennsylvania dog law, who provide care and conditions far superior to those required by the proposed new standards, would be unable to comply with the rigid commercial kennel standards. (I cannot afford to recreate a "mini" commercial standard kennel, but the care I provide far outstrips what a kennel could provide.) * The definition of "temporary housing" would require thousands of small residential hobby and show-breeding households to become licensed which could not possibly comply with the regulations, and which there is no reason to regulate.

* There is no scientific or accepted husbandry basis for the amended space and exercise requirements. (Here, proof should be the motivating reason, not "emotion".) * The regulations will require wholesale renovation, if not rebuilding, of many kennels already built in compliance with current federal and/or state standards. There is no scientific foundation for the arbitrary, rigid engineering standards specified. * The record keeping requirements with respect to exercise, cleaning, and other aspects of kennel management are excessively burdensome and serve no useful purpose, as it would be impossible to verify their accuracy in all but the most egregious circumstances. Such egregious circumstances already violate existing regulations. (Records can be, and are faked. Increasing the volume of records maintained does not improve their accuracy or effectiveness. The proposal would increase documentation costs without providing benefit.) The above is far from a complete list of the deficiencies with the proposed regulations. I also associate myself with the more detailed comments on this proposal by the Pennsylvania Federation of Dog Clubs.., The Bureau has tacitly conceded that its current regulations have not been adequately enforced. If, after implementing its recently announced enhanced enforcement program, the Bureau finds it is still unable to prevent inhumane treatment of dogs because of specific deficiencies in the existing regulations, it should cite these specific deficiencies and propose changes based on them. Correct enforcement of the existing laws is what is needed not additional poorly conceived laws. The current proposal appears to be merely a laundry list of ideas for improving the environment for dogs, that has no connection to specific instances in which the welfare of dogs could not be secured, and with no basis in science or accepted canine husbandry practices. I urge that this proposal be withdrawn. Sincerely, William E Weasner, Jr. P.O. Box 328 Kunkletown, PA 18058-0328 Cc: Senator Patrick M. Browne, Michael K. Hanna-Chairman Agriculture Affairs, Ms. Mary Bender-Bureau of Dog Law Enforcement, Mr. Mike Carroll-Legislator, Governor Edward G. Rendell

Bureau of PogL^Eiifbrcement Pennsylvania Depaftmeht of Agriculture Attn: Ms. Mary Bender 2301 North Cameron- Street : ::: Harrisburg, PA 17110-9408 : :-:(, - ; ;... # : ; ;, /. ' } :.-.. ',.. i ' /. '. January 26, 2007 ; / / ' - - '...' :... DearMs. Ben&r, ' I am writing in response to the Dog Law Act 225 that was issued on December 16, 2006, of which I have several disagreements. The regulatory proposals in general are very difficult and costly to enforce, extremely onerous, and not feasible when put in to practice. The new proposal only.permits a licensed kennel to buy from another licensed kennel. This is fraud for the following reasons: 1. Unless the kennel has purchased, sold, or transferred more than 26 dogs in a calendar year to the individual, it is impossible for the kennel to know if the individual is required to have a Pennsylvania kennel license. 2. It is unlawful for the department to regulate and inspect kennels outside of Pennsylvania. 3. The Penfeyrvania Department of AgricuJxure Dog Law EnfbrcemW name, address, acquisition date, disposition date, type of sale, breed, sex, color, whelping date, and identification nuftibet'be recorded.for each and every dog sold, transferred, adopted, or given away. If the Department wishes to enforce the law, they already have all information needed. \ The proposals referencing to housing and social interaction of dogs of different sizes are contrary to good husbandry, socializing and training practices. Moreover, there is no scientific or accepted husbandry basis for the amended space and exercise requirements. The current proposal claims to be a general list of ideas to improve the breeding environment for dogs, which are neither substantiated by science nor attributed as accepted canine husbandry practices. A better idea would be for Pennsylvania to adopt USDA type standards. I sincerely request that this proposal be withdrawn. Yours Sincerely, AdamDaub: :.:,:%:. v :% 1380 Pine Grove Road Fred#^st,urg,#A 17026

Bureau of Dog Law Enforcement Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture Attn: Ms. Mary Bender 2301 North Cameron Street Harr.isburg, PA 17110-9408 January 31, 2007 Dear Ms. Bender, I am writing in response to the Dog Law Act 225 that was issued on December 16, 2006, of which I have several disagreements. The regulatory proposals in general are very difficult and costly to enforce, extremely onerous, and not feasible when put in to practice. The new proposal only permits a licensed kennel to buy from another licensed kennel. This is fraud for the following reasons: 1. Unless the kennel has purchased, sold, or transferred more than 26 dogs in a calendar year to the individual, it is impossible for the kennel to know if the individual is required to have a Pennsylvania kennel license. 2. It is unlawful for the department to regulate and inspect kennels outside of Pennsylvania. 3. The Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture Dog Law Enforcement Bureau already requires the name, address, acquisition date, disposition date, type of sale, breed, sex, color, whelping date, and identification number be recorded for each and every dog sold, transferred, adopted, or given away. If the Department wishes to enforce the law, they already have-all information needed. The proposals referencing to housing and social interaction of dogs of different sizes are contrary to good husbandry, socializing and training practices. Moreover, there is no scientific or accepted husbandry basis for the amended space and exercise requirements. The current proposal claims to be a general list of ideas to improve the breeding environment for dogs, which are neither substantiated by science nor attributed as accepted canine husbandry practices. A better idea would be for Pennsylvania to adopt USDA type standards. I sincerely request that this proposal be withdrawn. Yours Sincerely, Doggie World Daycare Inc 858-62 N. 3rd St Philadelphia, PA 19123

Bureau of Dog Law Enforcement Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture Attn: Ms. Mary Bender 2301 North Cameron Street Harrisburg, PA 17110-9408 January 30, 2007 Dear Ms. Bender, I am writing to express a few concerns that I have with regard to the proposed Dog Law Act 225, which was issued on December 16, 2006. I appreciate that fact that the bureau has helped to improve the dog laws in the past several years. However, the current proposed regulation changes have appeared to be intentionally burdensome and go far beyond mere rulemaking. The proposals add completely new categories and definition. These changes must be addressed through the legislative process. The proposed changes require the kennel owner to record every time a water bowl or food pan is washed, every time the primary and secondary pen enclosures are cleaned, and the feeding and watering dates and times, etc. All these burdensome and excessive requirements will require a substantial increase in manpower with many hours dedicated to filling out written bureaucratic reports and divert the small business owner's time away from caring for their animals. The Departments direction and intentions are neither attributed as accepted canine husbandry practices nor substantiated by science. The Department should base their changes on education to improve the industry. I request that this proposal be withdrawn. Yours sincerely, Kevin Stroup PO Box 326 Kreamer, PA 17833

Bureau of Dog Law Enforcement Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture Attn: Ms. Mary Bender 2301 North Cameron Street Harrisburg, PA 17110-9408 January 26, 2007 Dear Ms. Bender, I am writing to express a few concerns that I have with regard to the proposed Dog Law Act 225, which was issued on December 16, 2006. I appreciate that fact that the bureau has helped to improve the dog laws in the past several years. However, the current proposed regulation changes have appeared to be intentionallyburdensome and go far beyond mere rulemaking. The proposals add completely new categories and definition. These changes must be addressed through the legislative process. The proposed changes require the kennel owner to record every time a water bowl or food pan is washed, every time the primary and secondary pen enclosures are cleaned, and the feeding and watering dates and times, etc. All these burdensome and excessive requirements will require a substantial increase in manpower with many hours dedicated to filling out written bureaucratic reports and divert the small business owner's time away from caring for their animals. The Departments direction and intentions are neither attributed as accepted canine husbandry practices nor substantiated by science. The Department should base their changes on education to improve the industry. I request that this proposal be withdrawn. Yours sincerely, Benuel S. Stoltzfus 140 N.Birdell Road Honey Brook, PA 19344

Bureau of Dog Law Enforcement Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture Attn: Ms. Mary Bender 2301 North Cameron Street Harrisburg, PA 17110-9408 January 31,2007 Dear Ms. Bender, I am writing to express a few concerns that I have with regard to the proposed Dog Law Act 225, which was issued on December 16,2006. I appreciate that fact that the bureau has helped to improve the dog laws in the past several years. However, the current proposed regulation changes have appeared to be intentionally burdensome and go far beyond mere rulemaking. The proposals add completely new categories and definition. These changes must be addressed through the legislative process. The proposed changes require the kennel owner to record every time a water bowl or food pan is washed, every time the primary and secondary pen enclosures are cleaned, and the feeding and watering dates and times, etc. All these burdensome and excessive requirements will require a substantial increase in manpower with many hours dedicated to filling out written bureaucratic reports and divert the small business owner's time away from caring for their animals. The Departments direction and intentions are neither attributed as accepted canine husbandry practices nor substantiated by science. The Department should base their changes on education to improve the industry. I request that this proposal be withdrawn. Yours sincerely, The Kennel 1301 Red Mud Hollow Rd Sewickley, PA 15143

Bureau of Dog Law Enforcement Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture Attn: Ms. Mary Bender 2301 North Cameron Street Harrisburg, PA 17110-9408 January 31,2007 Dear Ms. Bender, I am writing to express a few concerns that I have with regard to the proposed Dog Law Act 225, which was issued on December 16,2006. I appreciate that fact that the bureau has helped to improve the dog laws in the past several years. However, the current proposed regulation changes have appeared to be intentionally burdensome and go far beyond mere rulemaking. The proposals add completely new categories and definition. These changes must be addressed through the legislative process. The proposed changes require the kennel owner to record every time a water bowl or food pan is washed, every time the primary and secondary pen enclosures are cleaned, and the feeding and watering dates and times, etc. All these burdensome and excessive requirements will require a substantial increase in manpower with many hours dedicated to filling out written bureaucratic reports and divert the small business owner's time away from caring for their animals. The Departments direction and intentions are neither attributed as accepted canine husbandry practices nor substantiated by science; The Department should base their changes on education to improve the industry. I request that this proposal be withdrawn. Yours sincerely, T. L. C. Pet Resort 1372 Pittsburgh Rd Franklin, PA 16323

4. I also commend the Department of Agriculture and Bureau of Dog Law Enforcement for including a provision that requires the dog wardens to visually observe the physical condition of each dog. However, the provisions regarding orders of veterinary care should be strengthened to state that the owner must provide "proofofcurrent andproper veterinary care for the dog." This provision should also be amended to include excessive matting and excessively long toenails as indications of lack of proper veterinary care. Inadequate grooming can lead to painful medical issues for dogs, including skin lesions from excessive matting and leg and joint injuries from failure to keep toenails appropriately trimmed. Moreover, the section should be amended to require dog wardens to order a veterinary check on dogs that exhibit signs of infection, contagious disease or parasite; or that appear to be in poor health where proof of current and proper veterinary care is not provided. 5. A new subsection should be added to 21.30 clarifying the required training for dog wardens. Training in the following areas should be added into the regulations to expand upon the requirements set forth in 3 P.S. 459-901 : 1. State laws relating to dog licensing, control and owner responsibilities; 2. State and federal laws relating to animal care, cruelty and neglect; 3. State laws relating to dangerous dogs; 4. State and federal law relating to lack of arrest powers, proper use of search, seizure and warrants; 5. State and federal laws relating to pounds and shelters; 6. Basics of cruelty and neglect investigations for referral to appropriate authorities; 7. Report-writing and record-keeping; 8. Overview of the legal system, court structure and terminology; 9. Basics of interpreting animal behavior; 10. Identification of injury, disease, abuse and neglect in 11. Animal hoarders; and 12. Civil liability issues. 6. A new section should be added to the regulations mandating that the Department and dog wardens coordinate and work with law enforcement when applicable. It is imperative that the department work with law enforcement, and specifically Humane Society police officers, to ensure that both the cruelty laws and the Dog Law are adequately enforced. 7. A new section should be added to the regulations requiring that a licensee must have enough employees to carry out the level of husbandry practices and care required by the Act and its regulations. Additionally, the employees who provide for care and husbandry or handle animals should be supervised by an individual who has the knowledge, background, and experience in proper husbandry and care of dogs to supervise others. The licensee must be certain that the supervisor and other employees can perform to such standards.

8. Stacking primary enclosures on top of one another should be prohibited. Stacking cages creates an unnatural environment for the dogs. Additionally, it makes observation of the dogs more difficult and creates sanitation problems. Even with a tray or partition between cages, it is likely that the partitions may overflow, causing feces, urine, food, water, and hair to fall onto the dogs located in the cages below. 9. The section on wire mesh flooring should be amended to make it at least as strict as the federal Animal Welfare Act, which requires that metal strand flooring be greater than oneeighth of an inch in diameter (9 gauge) or coated with a material such as plastic or fiberglass. Language should also be added requiring that all primary enclosures that have wire mesh flooring also have a resting board of sufficient size to allow each dog in the enclosure to lie in a full lateral recumbent position and be able to make normal postural adjustments. Resting boards are necessary to provide for the comfort of the dog and to allow the animal to have some time away from living on grated fencing. Providing resting boards will result in fewer foot lesions and other foot and leg injuries to the dogs. A solid resting surface that is impervious to moisture is also a more natural environment for the animal, provides a draftfree surface and enables the dog to retain its body heat. A dog feels most vulnerable when lying down, and forcing a dog to lie over an exposed area can contribute to anxiety. Humane standards and survival standards are separate, and creating an environment that merely allows for survival does not necessarily make such an environment humane. 10. Contrary to what the breeding industry states, the engineering standards specified in the proposed regulations do have ^ scientific foundation. The standards in the proposed regulations are more akin to acceptable husbandry practices. They will bring the engineering standards up to par v,^th, if not above, those set forth in the Animal Welfare Act. Contrary to the hobby breeders' contention, the new regulations will not bring hobby breeders under the purview of the Dog Law. Only kennels that keep, harbor, board, shelter, sell, give away, or transfer a cumulative total of 26 or more dogs in one calendar year will be required to comply with the new regulations. As a result, true hobby breeders are still exempt from the law. Good husbandry practices dictate that anyone harboring a larger number of dogs (26 or more) should comply with certain engineering standards to ensure the health, safety, and well-being of the dogs. The Dog Law and its regulations are aimed at regulating larger and commercial breeding facilities. Therefore, the new regulations will not affect hobby breeders, contrary to what the breeding community suggests. Once again, I commend the Department of Agriculture and the Bureau of Dog Law Enforcement for proposing regulations that will improve the conditions for dogs housed and bred in Pennsylvania's commercial kennels. The changes I have noted above will further ensure that such dogs are protected. Thank you for your time and consideration. Leslie B.Mitchell 9 Alsop Road Pittsburgh, PA 15215

Bureau of Dog Law Enforcement Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture Attn: Ms. Mary Bender 2301 North Cameron Street Harrisburg, PA 17110-9408 February 2,2007 RE: Comments on proposed Dog Law regulations Dear Ms. Bender, As a concerned citizen of the state of Pennsylvania, I respectfully submit this comment on the proposed changes to the Dog Law regulations. First, I would like to commend the Department of Agriculture and the Bureau of Dog Law Enforcement for proposing amendments to the Dog Law Regulations to improve conditions for dogs housed and bred in commercial breeding operations in Pennsylvania. It should also be noted that the proposed changes to the regulations do not bring hobby breeders under the Act The same people who were exempt from the former regulations (i.e. hobby breeders who raise, breed, move, sell, etc. fewer than 26 dogs per year), will continue to be exempt under the revised regulations. Furthermore, I fully support the comments submitted by the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (ASPCA) on behalf of its members, and incorporate them herein by reference. Specifically, I strongly support the following: 1. The penalties in 21.4(l)(iii) for "failure of an individual to comply with licensure provisions" should be increased from $25 to $300 per violation to $25 to $300 per day of violation. 2. The Secretary should be mandating to file suit to enjoin operation of unlicensed kennels where the kennel is not in compliance with the standards in the regulations and is unable to qualify for a license. 3. I commend the Department of Agriculture and the Bureau of Dog Law Enforcement for doubling the required cage size. This is perhaps the most important change that can be made to improve the quality of life for dogs in commercial breeding facilities in Pennsylvania. This provision should remain in the regulations regardless of opposition from breeders. This section should be further strengthened by adding a provision stating that where more than one dog is housed in a primary enclosure, the primary enclosure must provide adequate space for all dogs. For instance, if the enclosure houses two dogs, it must provide double the cage space that would be required for a single dog. If it houses three dogs, it must provide three times the cage space, etc.

4. I also commend the Department of Agriculture and Bureau of Dog Law Enforcement for including a provision that requires the dog wardens to visually observe the physical condition of each dog. However, the provisions regarding orders of veterinary care should be strengthened to state that the owner must provide "proofofcurrent andproper veterinary care for the dog." This provision should also be amended to include excessive matting and excessively long toenails as indications of lack of proper veterinary care. Inadequate grooming can lead to painful medical issues for dogs, including skin lesions from excessive matting and leg and joint injuries from failure to keep toenails appropriately trimmed. Moreover, the section should be amended to require dog wardens to order a veterinary check on dogs that exhibit signs of infection, contagious disease or parasite; or that appear to be in poor health where proof of current and proper veterinary care is not provided. 5. A new subsection should be added to 21.30 clarifying the required training for dog wardens. Training in the following areas should be added into the regulations to expand upon the requirements set forth in 3 P.S. 459-901: 1. State laws relating to dog licensing, control and owner responsibilities; 2. State and federal laws relating to animal care, cruelty and neglect; 3. State laws relating to dangerous dogs; 4. State and federal law relating to lack of arrest powers, proper use of search, seizure and warrants; 5. State and federal laws relating to pounds and shelters; 6. Basics of cruelty and neglect investigations for referral to appropriate authorities; 7. Report-writing and record-keeping; 8. Overview of the legal system, court structure and terminology; 9. Basics of interpreting animal behavior; 10. Identification of injury, disease, abuse and neglect in 11. Animal hoarders; and 12. Civil liability issues. 6. A new section should be added to the regulations mandating that the Department and dog wardens coordinate and work with law enforcement when applicable. It is imperative that the department work with law enforcement, and specifically Humane Society police officers, to ensure that both the cruelty laws and the Dog Law are adequately enforced. 7. A new section should be added to the regulations requiring that a licensee must have enough employees to carry out the level of husbandry practices and care required by the Act and its regulations. Additionally, the employees who provide for care and husbandry or handle animals should be supervised by an individual who has the knowledge, background, and experience in proper husbandry and care of dogs to supervise others. The licensee must be certain that the supervisor and other employees can perform to such standards.

(HNNY & LEE BEYER 10 Paddock Drive, New Hope, Pennsylvania 18938 February 8,2007 Bureau of Dog Law Enforcement Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture Attn: Ms. Mary Bender 2301 North Cameron Street Harrisburg, PA 17110-9408 RE: Comments on proposed Dog Law regulations Dear Ms. Bender, As a concerned citizen of the state of Pennsylvania, I respectfully submit this comment on the proposed changes to the Dog Law regulations. First, I would like to commend the Department of Agriculture and the Bureau of Dog Law Enforcement for proposing amendments to the Dog Law Regulations to improve conditions for dogs housed and bred in commercial breeding operations in Pennsylvania. It should also be noted that the proposed changes to the regulations do not bring hobby breeders under the Act The same people who were exempt from the former regulations (Le. hobby breeders who raise, breed, move, sell, etc fewer than 26 dogs per year), will continue to be exempt under the revised regulations. Furthermore, I fully support the comments submitted by the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (ASPCA) on behalf of its members, and incorporate them herein by reference. Specifically, I strongly support the following: 1. The penalties in 21.40Xiii) for "failure of an individual to comply with licensure provisions" should be increased from $25 to $300 per violation to $25 to $300 per day of violation. 2. The Secretary should be mandating to file suit to enjoin operation of unlicensed kennels where the kennel is not in compliance with the standards in the regulations and is unable to qualify for a license. 3. I commend the Department of Agriculture and the Bureau of Dog Law Enforcement for doubling the required cage size. This is perhaps the most important change that can be made

to improve the quality of life for dogs in commercial breeding facilities in Pennsylvania. This provision should remain in the regulations regardless of opposition from breeders. This section should be further strengthened by adding a provision stating that where more than one dog is housed in a primary enclosure, the primary enclosure must provide adequate space for all dogs. For instance, if the enclosure houses two dogs, it must provide double the cage space that would be required for a single dog. If it houses three dogs, it must provide three times the cage space, etc. 4. I also commend the Department of Agriculture and Bureau of Dog Law Enforcement for including a provision that requires the dog wardens to visually observe the physical condition of each dog. However, the provisions regarding orders of veterinary care should be strengthened to state that the owner must provide "proof of current and proper veterinary care for the dog." This provision should also be amended to include excessive matting and excessively long toenails as indications of lack of proper veterinary care. Inadequate grooming can lead to painful medical issues for dogs, including skin lesions from excessive matting and leg and joint injuries from failure to keep toenails appropriately trimmed, Moreover, the section should be amended to require dog wardens to order a veterinary check on dogs that exhibit signs of infection, contagious disease or parasite; or that appear to be in poor health where proof of current and proper veterinary care is not provided. 5. A new subsection should be added to 21.30 clarifying the.required training for dog wardens. Training in the following areas should be added into the regulations to expand upon therequirementsset forth in 3 P.S. 459-901: 1. State laws relating to dog licensing, control and owner responsibilities; 2. State and federal laws relating to animal care, cruelty and neglect; 3. State laws relating to dangerous dogs; 4. State and federal law relating to lack of arrest powers, proper use of search, seizure and warrants; 5. State and federal laws relating to pounds and shelters; 6. Basics of cruelty and neglect investigations for referral to appropriate authorities; 7. Report-writing and record-keeping; 8. Overview of the legal system, court structure and terminology; 9. Basics of interpreting animal behavior; 10. Identification of injury, disease, abuse and neglect in 11. Animal hoarders; and 12. Civil liability issues. 6. A new section should be added to the regulations mandating that the Department and dog wardens coordinate and work with law enforcement when applicable. It is imperative that the department work with law enforcement, and specifically Humane Society police officers, to ensure that both the cruelty laws and the Dog Law are adequately enforced.

7. A new section should be added to the regulations requiring that a licensee must have enough employees to cany out the level of husbandry practices and care required by the Act and its regulations. Additionally, the employees who provide for care and husbandry or handle animals should be supervised by an individual who has the knowledge, background, and experience in proper husbandry and care of dogs to supervise others. The licensee must be certain that the supervisor and other employees can perform to such standards. S. Stacking primary enclosures on top of one another should be prohibited. Stacking cages creates an unnatural environment for the dogs. Additionally, it makes observation of the dogs more difficult and creates sanitation problems. Even with a tray or partition between cages, it is likely that the partitions may overflow, causing feces, urine, food, water, and hair to fell onto the dogs located in the cages below. 9. The section on wire mesh flooring should be amended to make it at least as strict as the federal Animal Welfare Act, which requires that metal strand flooring be greater man oneeighth of an inch in diameter (9 gauge) or coated with a material such as plastic or fiberglass. Language should also be added requiring that all primary enclosures that have wire mesh flooring also have a resting board of sufficient size to allow each dog in the enclosure to lie in a full lateral recumbent position and be able to make normal postural adjustments. Resting boards are necessary to provide for the comfort of the dog and to. allow the animal to have some time away from living on grated fencing. Providing resting boards will result in fewer foot lesions and other foot and leg injuries to the dogs. A solid resting surface that is impervious to moisture is also a more natural environment for the animal, provides a draftfree surface and enables the dog to retain its body heat. A dog feels most vulnerable when lying down, and forcing a dog to lie over an exposed area can contribute to anxiety. Humane standards and survival standards are separate, and creating an environment that merely allows for survival does not necessarily make such an environment humane. 10. Contrary to what the breeding industry states, the engineering standards specified in the proposed regulations do have a scientific foundation. The standards in the proposed regulations are more akin to acceptable husbandry practices. They will bring the engineering standards up to par with, if not above, those set form in the Animal Welfare Act. Contrary to the hobby breeders' contention, the new regulations will not bring hobby breeders under the purview of the Dog Law. Only kennels that keep, harbor, board, shelter, sell, give away, or transfer a cumulative total of 26 or more dogs in one calendar year will be required to comply with the new regulations. As a result, true hobby breeders are still exempt from the law. Good husbandry practices dictate that anyone harboring a larger number of dogs (26 or more) should comply with certain engineering standards to ensure the health, safety, and well-being of the dogs. The Dog Law and its regulations are aimed at regulating larger and commercial breeding facilities. Therefore, the new regulations will not affect hobby breeders, contrary to what the breeding community suggests. Once again, I commend the Department of Agriculture and the Bureau of Dog Law Enforcement for proposing regulations that will improve the conditions for dogs housed and