New PA Tail Docking Legislation
Lost In Fog Of Legal Ambiguity
By JOHN YATES
American Sporting Dog Alliance
http://www.americansportingdogalliance.org
HARRISBURG, PA – New legislation placing limits on dog tail docking appears at first glance to be less stringent than a previous draft version from this past December. However, a closer examination of the bill’s ambiguous language shows it to ask more questions than it answers about how the law will be applied.
The bill’s sponsor, Rep. Thomas Caltagirone, D-Bucks County, is expected to introduce the legislation into the House Judiciary Committee, which he chairs. The House reconvenes May 5. The legislation also will be presented to the Dog Law Advisory Board on May 14. While Caltagirone is the sponsor, the Bureau of Dog Law Enforcement and Gov. Ed Rendell reportedly crafted this legislation.
Caltagirone’s legislation amends the Title 18 animal cruelty act by limiting tail docking, requiring veterinarians to perform caesarian sections and surgery to stop a dog from barking, and expanding the duties of state dog wardens into enforcement of this part of the animal cruelty law in counties that are not served by Humane Society police officers.
The December draft was a ban on all tail docking, unless a veterinarian does the work. The new Caltagirone legislation permits the owner of a litter to dock the tails of puppies up to three days of age, but would leave the owner to face an ambiguous standard of proof under enforcement procedures.
The American Sporting Dog Alliance supports the provisions of this legislation that require veterinarians to perform caesarian sections and “debarking” surgery, as these are invasive procedures that require anesthesia.
However, we cannot support the section about tail docking because the foggy language could become a quagmire for dog owners and breeders, and places a breeder in the position of having to prove her or his innocence to a very serious criminal animal cruelty charge. The legislation does not provide a standard of proof, and also does not protect a dog owner from common “real life” situations of dogs that lose a part of their tails through an injury later in life, or when a tail is broken accidentally and part of it becomes detached.
These situations take on much greater meaning because of prohibitions against holding a kennel license for anyone who has been convicted of an animal cruelty charge. Someone who follows the law to the letter would have no way of proving that fact, and could be subject to kennel license revocation and seizure of dogs under the state’s Dog Law.
The legislation says: “A person commits a summary offense if the person docks, cuts off, causes or procures the docking or cutting off of the tail of a dog over three days old,” except by a veterinarian.
Many breeders might support this part of the legislation, until they think about how they can prove that a tail was docked when a puppy was three days old or less.
The legislation underscores this concern: “The possession by a person of a dog with a tail cut off or docked and with the wound resulting therefrom unhealed shall be prima facie evidence of a violation….”
Simply put, this section means that a breeder is automatically guilty if he or she cannot prove that a puppy was not more than three days old when its tail was docked. It would be a matter of a dog warden or animal cruelty officer taking the word of the puppy’s owner. It also would require convincing a magistrate or judge when there is no way to obtain proof.
We are aware of no way to accurately prove a young puppy’s age, or the age of a healing wound from tail docking (short of an autopsy, which means killing the puppy). Any attempt of proof by an officer or court thus would be purely subjective.
We have no idea of the purpose behind this ambiguous wording. It might be simply a cosmetic attempt to appease animal rights groups that oppose tail docking. Or it might be a way to ensnare law-abiding dog breeders in hopeless legal entanglements.
In either case, there is no excuse for ambiguity in a law.
Aside from the prima facie evidence of an unhealed tail docking wound, the legislation also is ambiguous about how it might be applied to an older dog when the wound has healed.
An investigating officer or judge is left with the possible interpretation of this vague language to require all owners of a dog with a docked tail to prove that the work was done at three days of age or younger (an impossibility) or that it was done by a veterinarian.
Thus, the ambiguity gives rise to the strong possibility that the real purpose of this legislation is to require a dog owner to take every puppy to a veterinarian, simply to be able to provide proof because of the legal liabilities of an animal cruelty conviction. Thus, the legislation may boil down to a backdoor or de facto ban on tail docking by a breeder.
Another ambiguity would leave the owner of a law-abiding dog owner vulnerable to animal cruelty prosecution in the common event that they own a dog whose tail was cut off in an accident or fell off after being broken.
Many dogs lose their tails every year through accidents such as slamming car or house doors, or from highway injuries. Other dogs break their tails by hitting them on hard objects, such as trees or rocks. Sometimes the broken tail does not heal. It can atrophy and fall off.
In both cases, a “wound” might be visible, and this would be considered prima facie evidence of animal cruelty under the wording of the legislation.
Large “gray areas” also exist in the language for people who buy a puppy with a docked tail from out of state or move here from other states, or for a nonresident who comes to Pennsylvania for a dog show, field trial, hunting or a vacation. This legislation has the potential to expose all of these people to an animal cruelty charge.
This sort of ambiguous language is wholly unacceptable in legislation or law.
The only solution is to scrap all sections of the legislation that refer to tail docking.
The American Sporting Dog Alliance strongly supports the right of breeders to dock the tails of young puppies. This is standard practice for people who breed dogs that normally have docked tails, and no evidence has been shown that this has resulted in any problems for the puppies. This is generally seen as a completely safe and painless procedure.
We also question the final section of the legislation, which empowers dog wardens to enforce animal cruelty laws related only to tail docking, ear cropping, caesarian sections and debarking surgery in counties that do not have an assigned Humane Society police officer.
Dog wardens now cannot enforce animal cruelty laws. Draft legislation last December would have given this power to dog wardens, but this provision has been removed from current versions.
We question the purpose of such a limited provision in the new Caltagirone legislation. Since almost every county already is covered by a Humane Society police officer, it would seem to serve little if any legitimate purpose.
Please contact Rep. Caltagirone as soon as possible to express your opinion about this legislation. Here is a link for contact information: http://www.pahouse.com/caltagirone .
The American Sporting Dog Alliance represents owners, hobby breeders and professionals who work with breeds of dogs that are used for hunting. We are a grassroots movement working to protect the rights of dog owners, and to assure that the traditional relationships between dogs and humans maintains its rightful place in American society and life. Please visit us on the web at http://www.americansportingdogalliance.org. We also need your help so that we can continue to work to protect the rights of dog owners. Your membership, participation and support are truly essential to the success of our mission. We are funded solely by the donations of our members, and maintain strict independence.
PLEASE CROSS-POST THIS REPORT AND FORWARD IT TO YOUR FRIENDS