Are You Kidding Me?
Now consider that someone from the “Dog Law Enforcement” tells you that you need to obtain a Kennel License, because you “sell or offer for sale any dog belonging to another person for consideration.” Does this sound preposterous to you? This is what is happening to Matt Snader of Lancaster Puppies in Pennsylvania, an internet Classified Advertising business. The Pennsylvania Department of Dog Law believes that he should be a Kennel License holder, and have issued a citation for “illegally operating a kennel without a license.” (Can they show an actual kennel for this gentleman? What will they inspect?)
If this is the case, why have they not issued a citation to all of the local newspapers throughout Pennsylvania that sell advertising for Dogs for Sale? Not only do these newspapers have hardcopy subscribers, but many of them post their newspapers, including the classifieds, on the internet, making them an internet advertisement. Mr. Snader is only selling advertising space, not the dogs themselves, just like these other newspapers. Could it be that this is a case of discrimination? Come on, Pennsylvania Department of Dog Law-are you doggone kidding me?
In looking at Mr. Snader’s internet classified website, it includes a disclaimer that clearly states: “LancasterPuppies.com is an Internet Classified site-we do not raise or sell puppies. Remember that you are buying directly from the breeder/seller and not from LancasterPuppies.com”. In browsing on the internet, I found several online internet classified companies for the sale of pets. I also found a huge list of pets and/or dogs for sale in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette as well as the Philadelphia Inquirer and the Philadelphia Weekly. How about the Harrisburg Patriot News and all of the other local papers across Pennsylvania? Is Mr. Snader being discriminated against, or will they be going after each of these newspapers that post online, including the classifieds that contain dogs and/or pets for sale? After all, they are advertising the sale of someone else's pet "for which compensation is intended to be charged", just as Mr. Snader does.
The Federal Trade Commission, under its Bureau of Consumer Protection, Business Center, states “the same rules that apply to other forms of advertising apply to electronic marketing.” It also states that the terms “writing” or “printed” apply to Internet activities. In other words, this would appear to mean that an online classified advertisement is virtually the same as a printed advertisement. Need more clarification? How about Pennsylvania’s own statute definition of Classified Advertising: “Definitions (45 Pa. C.S.A. § 101) Classified advertising: Intelligence or notices, published and printed in small or inconspicuous type, as advertising, classed with similar notices of advertising, and for which compensation is intended to be charged.”
In the definition of the duties of the Pennsylvania Dog Law Enforcement is included this definition:
Ҥ 459-219. Additional duties of the department
- Enforcement of licensure requirement; development of plan.--By no later than June 30, 1997, the department shall develop and begin to implement a written plan to increase the number of dog licenses issued in this Commonwealth. Such plan shall be developed in consultation with the several counties and municipalities which enforce the provisions of this act and in consultation with the Dog Law Advisory Board and shall at least include methodology for increasing the number of dog licenses issued and assuring the annual renewal of such licenses. The methodology may include the periodic use of public service advertisements, newspaper advertisements, …”
This would mean that this department can advertise; so will they advertise on the internet, or merely a newspaper that will post their issues on the internet? After all, they will be advertising to enforce licensing requirements and collect these licensing fees (in other words, increase their budget or “compensation”). Kind of a quandary, don’t you think?
In Pennsylvania HB815 of the 2005 Session, which was the State Budget Bill, under the definition of “Expenses” states: "Expenses" and "maintenance" includes all printing, binding and stationery, food and forage, materials and supplies, traveling expenses, training, motor vehicle supplies and repairs, freight, express and cartage, postage, telephones and telegraph rentals and toll charges, newspaper advertising and notices, public advertising by or through any medium,…” So, the government and their officials can advertise by and through any medium! Hmmm…
Is the intent of the Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture, Dog Law Enforcement, to shut down any internet classified advertising of dogs for sale, but still allow classified advertising of dogs for sale in “traditional” media newspapers, even while ignoring the fact that many of these very newspapers post their issues on the internet? Do they think this a fair governmental business practice?
It would seem that newspapers are physical locations with a “physical” product-one that generates tax revenue for the state in a “visible” manner. Does it seem that since they can’t “actually touch” the internet ad, there is an apparent intent to shut them down? Ah, but they must have forgotten that these ads generate revenue for the citizens who are selling these puppies and paying their sales tax and income tax. Why else would they be going to such an extreme measure in their enforcement of the dog law? Right!
When you have a state agency that has no oversight, the result will be excessive rules and regulations that far overreach the intentions of that state's Legislature. Combine this with animal rights activists on this agency's Board and it becomes far more heavy handed than was the intent.
Update: The citations issued to internet classified advertising companies, according to Pennsylvania Act #119, have been withdrawn, as of May 2, 2011.