Some of you may have read the article [“Are You Kidding Me?”] on the Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture, Department of Dog Law Enforcement. The article pertained to this agency stating that an internet advertiser, who does not own nor kennel any dogs whatsoever, must obtain a kennel/dealer license. We updated you when this state agency withdrew the citations issued. Well, it seems that a personal vendetta is going on with someone in this agency, as they have come back with a different law and are again issuing citations to internet advertisers of dogs for sale.

Some of you may have read the article "Are You Kidding Me?" on the Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture, Department of Dog Law Enforcement. the article pertained to this agency stating that an internet advertiser, who does not own nor kennel any dogs whatsoever, must obtain a kennel/dealer license. We update you when this state agency withdrew the ciataions issues. Well, it seems that a personal vendetta is going on with someone in this agency, as they have come back with a different law and are again issuing citations to internet advertisers of dogs for sale.

Let’s look at the description of the this agency, as posted on their website-

“Keeping Pennsylvania Growing means managing the millions of dogs living in the state. The Bureau of Dog Law Enforcement is responsible for ensuring the welfare of breeding dogs and puppies in commercial breeding kennels. The Bureau also regulates activities pertaining to dogs that are classified as dangerous, and oversees annual licensure and rabies vaccinations for dogs.”

Now, I don’t see anywhere in this description that their job is to regulate the advertisement of the sale of dogs nor the regulation of internet advertisements. Nor do I see it listed in the “Responsibilities of the Bureau of Dog Law Enforcement” in the State Dog Law Act 225 of 1983, which Act 119 amended in 2008. 

What seems to be at issue here is who is collecting the fee on the sale of the dog. It seems the Pennsylvania Dog Law Enforcement agency does not understand that the internet advertisers are collecting a fee for the Advertisement, not the dog. The person or persons who own or have possession/control of the dog are the ones collecting the fee for the dog-not the advertiser-just as printed newspapers across this country do not collect a fee for the sale of the dog, but for the printed ad (which by the way, they put online, making them an online internet advertiser as well). Advertisers, be it internet advertisers or printed newspaper/magazine advertisers never see nor own nor control nor kennel nor transfer ownership-retail or wholesale. They collect an advertisement fee for an advertisement!  Is there no oversight on this agency?  

One problem here is when you put the fox in the hen house, you are going to have some serious issues. Jessie L. Smith, who serves as the Special Deputy Secretary for Pennsylvania Dog Law Enforcement, is the former Board President for the Humane Society of Harrisburg Area, Inc., and served in this position from 2003 until her appointment to the Dog Law Enforcement. She is the former Deputy Attorney General and is a current member of the Pennsylvania Bar Association Agricultural Law Section as well as the Pennsylvania Bar Association Animal Law and Government Lawyers Committee. 

Let’s consider one more thing here-in its March 1, 2010 Report to the Pennsylvania General Assembly, this agency states as its Vision “To be a law enforcement bureau known as a resource that exemplifies excellence in public service and canine protection.” It goes further to state as its #1 Goal “1. Increase revenue and maintain a healthy restricted account balance.” Later in the report, it states “The goal was to maintain a surplus in the Fund that would generate interest income, ensure continued availability of grants to shelters for stray dog care, and maintain the health of the Fund. Although it is not yet reflected in the Fund balance, $4 million is slated to be removed from the Fund as a result of Senate Bill 850, the bridge budget bill passed on August 5, 2009 so that salaries could be paid to Commonwealth workers pending final budget passage. This involuntary depletion of the Fund will decrease the solvency of the Bureau by three years, causing the Fund to be in distress by Fiscal Year 2011-2012 and in deficit by Fiscal Year 2012-13. Increased dog license canvassing and online license sales will occur in 2010, and will drive dog license sales up, but not enough to solve this problem.” Kind of makes you wonder now doesn’t it? 

You also have to wonder when the Dog Law Prosecutor trains the Magisterial District Judges, according to the August 2007 section of this report. Hmmm… I thought District Judges knew the law. Is this agency training them in the desired interpretation of the regulations? Another interesting fact- in June of 2008, this agency started its own website to publish Dog Law Action. Would this be considered an advertisement of their actions? Are they not advertising their regulations on their own website? What about the online applications for a kennel license and the online payment of the fees? These licenses brought in $5,810,404 in revenue for this agency for 2009 for individual licenses, up over $230,000 from the previous year. In the aforementioned report, this agency clearly states that “The Bureau focused on increased online license sales during 2009…By the end of 2009, 21 counties were selling licenses online. During 2009, the Bureau provided materials to counties on different online options and features, presented a seminar at the County Treasurers Association convention in June, worked with that group’s Dog Law Committee Chair to pilot a new online sales program, and fielded varied questions from interested treasurers. This effort increased sales, and is expected to increase sales more significantly in 2010, the first full year of online license availability for many counties.” 

Now if I am understanding this all correctly, are they saying that the agency can use the internet for its own “selling” for revenue, but a company that is strictly an advertiser, does not own nor kennel nor, well you get the picture, for breeders and owners to sell their dogs cannot use the internet? Or is it merely that with the heavy handed and overbearing of the regulations many breeders opted to get out of the business and they need a new source of revenue considering they have already predicted their “future financial woes”? It would seem that in Pennsylvania, when it comes to Dog Law, what is good for the goose is not good for the gander!

By: Debi R***