somerville dog: a weblog

The House of Representatives of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts is considering the House Bill (HB 4600) making appropriations for the fiscal year 2005 and has adopted an amendment (1053) to section 45 of the bill that would amend the Massachusetts General Law Chapter 129 section 39A Pet shops; licensing operation; animal health inspections.

From the Massachusetts House Budget Journal for Tuesday, April 27 (the uncorrected proof of the official House record of debate):

The House Bill making appropriations for the fiscal year 2005 for the maintenance of the departments, boards, commissions, institutions and certain activities of the Commonwealth, for interest, sinking fund and serial bond requirements and for certain permanent improvements (House, No. 4600, amended) was considered.

Pending the question on passing the bill, as amended, to be engrossed . . .
.
.
.
Mr. Kujawski of Webster then moved that the bill be amended by inserting after section 45 and other members of the House [sic] the following section:

SECTION 45A. "Massachusetts General Law Chapter 129 section 39A is hereby amended by striking the word "selling" in the second paragraph and adding the following paragraphs at the end:

Any breeder or breeder's organization who breeds more than one litter per year of any breed of dog or cat and places any of those animals for sale, must register with the department of agriculture resources and report the sale of any such animals to the department. Included in this reporting shall be the name and address of the party or parties to whom such sale was made and the date of such sale.

Failure to register and report in compliance with this section and any promulgated regulations shall subject the offending party to a fine of five hundred ($500.00) dollars for each failure to report a birth of an animal and five hundred ($500.00) dollars for each sale of an animal.

The department shall promulgate rules and regulations at the earliest possible convenience to insure compliance with this section by such breeders...

Pending the question on adoption of the amendment, the same member moved that it be amended, in line 2, by striking out the word "one" and inserting in place thereof the word "three".

The further amendment was adopted, and the pending amendment, as amended, then also was adopted.

As far as I understand, the House Bill making appropriations for the fiscal year 2005 (HB 4600), has yet to be "engrossed," "typed on special parchment by the Legislative Engrossing Division and certified by the clerk." It would then have to be approved and enacted by both the House and the Senate, prior to being sent "to the governor, who may sign the bill into law, allow it to become law without signing it (if the governor holds the bill for ten days without taking any action while the legislature is in session, it becomes law without his or her signature), veto it, or return it to the legislature with recommended changes." (See Law Making in Massachusetts).

Joan Miller, of The Cat Fanciers' Association, has argued, in an e-mail discussing the pending legislation, that

requiring breeders to report . . . the names and addresses of . . . buyers [of individual anamals] to a state agency is an invasion of privacy. Some breeders sell to families out of state or to other breeders throughout the USA, Japan, Europe and elsewhere.

Under the proposed legislation "any breeder or breeder's organization who breeds more than three litters per year of any breed of dog or cat and places any of those animals for sale, must register with the department of agriculture resources [MDAR] and report the sale of any such animals to the department." The American Kennel Club, which opposes any restrictions on the rights of breeders and owners who take their responsibilities seriously, opposes the breeder regulation provisions of the budget bill and argues that the MDAR does not have the resources to register every breeder or breeder's organization who breeds more than three litters per year. It seems to me, however, that the demands that the proposed legislation puts on the MDAR are mitigated by the fact that the proposed legislation would encourage breeders to limit their annual number of litters produced to three or fewer in order to avoid having to register with MDAR.

Please contact your senator and tell her or him that the breeder regulation section of the budget bill (Section 45A of the House Committee on Ways and Means Fiscal Year 2005 Budget Recommendations) is good legislation for the Commonwealth because it provides strong disincentives for breeding practices that not only contribute to the problem of dog overpopulation but also produce dogs that are not adapted to live with humans in our communities. (For somerville dog's opinion on breeding practices that produce dogs that are well adapted to live with humans in our communities, see "MA legislation and your next dog.")

Somerville Senators (from the listing of state legislators by city/town on the Commonwealth of Massachusetts website):

Senator Jarrett T. Barrios: ward one (precinct one) and ward two (precinct one)
Senator Charles E. Shannon: ward one (precincts two and three), ward two (precincts two and three), ward three (all precincts), ward four (all precincts), ward five (all precincts), ward six (all precincts) and ward seven (all precincts)

Senator Shannon is a member of the Senate Ways and Means Committee, his constituents' phone calls, letters and e-mails are especially important.

UPDATE 4 May 2004: Changed paragraph beginning "Joan Miller, of The Cat Fanciers' Association..." to include discussion of privacy concerns.

Posted by Michèle at 10:58 AM
Categories: Canine Good Citizenship, Massachusetts
Permalink | Comments (3)

I took Strummer to Pet Spa (669 Somerville Ave), yesterday, for her first "bath and tidy" since I brought her home three weeks ago. The experience seemed to energize my generally sedate six-year-old girl, but then she's always more lively when I return after leaving her alone for a short period.

Strummer, a standard poodle, doesn't shed, which is good for my aversion to vacuuming and for my husband's allergies. The Humane Society of the United States suggests that poodles are "hypo-allergenic," because their coats demand more brushing and bathing than other dogs, and allergy-provoking dander is controlled by the additional attention and care that the poodle's coat receives. The implication is that, if all dogs' coats got the care and attention that poodles' coats get, they, too, would be less irritating to allergy sufferers. I don't know if this is true, but I do know that I prefer to run my fingers through a clean and well-groomed coat than over a dirty, matted coat!

Pet Spa was featured in a Somerville Journal article by Auditi Guha last month.

Posted by Michèle at 10:20 AM
Categories: Somerville, Strummer
Permalink | Comments (1)

Somerville dog fanciers and film buffs can get together at the Central Library, Wednesday, April 28, 2004, for a screening of Alice Bouvrie's "Iditarod ... A Far Distant Place," narrated by Susan Sarandon.

Additional information about the film and its Boston University educated director are included under Library Notes in this week's Somerville Journal.

Posted by Michèle at 9:32 AM
Categories: Dogs and Culture
Permalink | Comments (0)

The process of adopting a poodle seemed endless, but, in the end, it only took three months from the day I submitted my application to Poodle Rescue of New England to the day I finalized the adoption of Strummer. A PRNE volunteer put me in touch with the breeder who had decided to adopt her out so that she could have the undivided attention of being an only dog.

Here she is the weekend before Patriot's Day enjoying an off-leash walk in the Vermont woods.

It's my weblog and I'll cheat with the date stamp if I want to.

Posted by Michèle at 12:26 PM
Categories: Strummer
Permalink | Comments (0)

Good luck to the runners in the 2004 Boston Marathon! And Go Sox!

The forecast for today is for high temperatures in the 80's. Even if your not going to run (or watch) the Marathon or watch Red Sox game this morning, it's a good day to play hookie...

The Boston Phoenix featured dog-friendly outings in the Outdoors 2004 Supplement (April 2). Genevieve Rajewski's article, Dog Days, is a good reference for some twenty day-trips. Somervudlians may not even have to get in their cars to visit Fresh Pond Park, in Cambridge, or Sheepfold, a field in the Middlesex Fells Reservation in Medford. But the article includes plenty of destinations for pups whose favorite words are, "Wanna go for a ride?!" Take 'em for a hike in Harold Parker State Forest on Route 119 in Ashby, or take em for a swim at the dog-friendly (the park has "poop-bag dispensers"!) Stodder's Neck on Route 3A in Hingham.

Happy Patriots' Day!

Posted by Michèle at 8:46 AM
Categories: Destinations, Massachusetts, Off-Leash Recreational Areas—i.e. "Dog Parks"
Permalink | Comments (0)

Strummer is a six-year-old standard poodle. She came to Somerville on April 2, 2004 from rural New Hampshire, where she lived with a houseful of poodles. When her adoption is finalized, she will be spayed and licenced in the City of Somerville.

She is getting used to being an only-dog in the city, though she still spends most of her time lounging in her crate, mostly coming out only to be petted. She will carry a toy around briefly first thing in the morning or after a long nap, and, sometimes, she'll even play a few rounds of fetch!

On a leisurely stroll, Sturmmer would like to make the acquaintance of everyone she meets, though she doesn't pull on a leash or jump up on strangers. She's learning that, in the city, humans have things to do and places to go and don't have time to make friends with everyone they meet.

She's a little stand-offish around other dogs, but, in all likelyhood, that's just because, for the time being, she wants to make sure that she gets her fair share of attention from humans.

In the future, Strummer can look forward to obedience training and agility training.

Posted by Michèle at 10:28 AM
Categories: Strummer
Permalink | Comments (1)

Strummer and I were in Nunziato Field late this morning. I was trying to coax the six-year-old standard poodle I'm in the process of adopting to chase a tennis ball. She wasn't interested. All she wants (for the moment anyway) is love. As I was petting her, I noticed a gentleman with a clipboard walking down Putnam on the sidewalk outside the field toward the gate that I had meticulously latched shut. "Uh oh," I said to Strummer, "are we going to get a ticket?" The man with the clipboard entered the field. He left the gate wide open, so I attached Strummer's leash (which was easy, since she was in my arms). He walked about one third of the way toward me, made a call on his cell phone, and then called to me: "No dogs in the park, Miss."

I asked him if he was the Dog Officer. I've spoken with David Renna, Head of Animal Control, on the phone (a very nice man who owns two German Shepherd dogs and is fostering a third) and I thought I might be getting the (albeit inauspicious) opportunity to meet him. But the man said that he works for the city and that he is the one who hung the [very visible] "No Dogs" signs by the gates to the field. I introduced myself: I was breaking the law, but I'm not an unsociable person. He told me his name, which I didn't catch (okay, my social skills are not going to win me any bids for public office), and that he works for the Office of Housing and Community Development. We left the park together and went our separate ways.

And that was it: the end of my visit to my local park. Before I adopted Strummer (less than a week ago), I have never had any reason to visit a Somerville city park. Since I have adopted Strummer, I have visited Nunziato Field three times.

Somerville residents who like to toss a football can enjoy their pastime in Somerville city parks. Somerville residents who play basketball can shoot hoops with their friends in Somerville city parks, and in our parks they can meet other Somervudlians who also enjoy basketball. Somerville residents who have children can take their children to Somerville city parks where their children can play with other children and where they can meet other parents who live in Somerville. But Somerville residents who have dogs have no place in the city where they can play with their dogs and socialize with other Somervudlians with their dogs.

Everyone will agree that a park that has people in it is a better park than a park that is deserted. When there are people in a park, it is a safer park: Generally crimes are not committed when there are people around. Also, when there are people in a park, dog owners are more likely to clean up after their dogs: a dog owner who is all alone, surreptitiously breaking the law by having his dog in the park, may not clean up after his dog for any number of reasons including:

1) He may feel spiteful toward the city for making him break the law in order to exercise his dog off leash.
2) He may subscribe to the albeit flawed tree-falling-in-the-forest principle: if no body saw it, do I have to clean it up?
3) He may be a jerk (okay, if a dog poops in a public place (or in someone else's yard) and his owner doesn't pick it up for whatever reason, he is a jerk).

More often than not, however, even a jerk will pick up after his dog if someone else sees his dog pooping. So if the city allowed dogs in parks, law-abiding dog owners would be that many more people who might see a dog pooping, effectively pressuring the owner to clean up after his dog!

Dog owners, like football players and parents and everyone else who lives in the city, do not like to step in dog poop. We don't like our dogs to step in, roll in or eat dog poop. If we are exercising our dogs and we find dog poop, we will very likely pick up and dispose of the offending poop, even if our dog didn't do it. Dog owners are, I think, the only residents of the city who carry with them plastic bags for picking up dog poop. And these are the people the city does not want in its parks?!

I don't want to break the law. But I do want to be able to exercise my dog regularly off-leash and let her play with other dogs. Dogs that do not get enough exercise and that do not get to play with other dogs develop what humans justifiably consider behavior problems: for example excessive barking and uncontrollable excitement around other dogs. Strummer has lived in rural New Hampshire with six or seven other dogs and had a big fenced in yard in which to play. Since I brought her home, she has not barked once, and she is pretty blasée around other dogs. But I know that once she gets used to her new home, she'll be playful and energetic. Opportunities for exercise and access to other dogs are different in the city than in the country: the City of Somerville needs places where dog-owners can legally and safely exercise and play with their dogs off-leash.

Posted by Michèle at 1:17 PM
Categories: Somerville
Permalink | Comments (0)

Whether or not you presently have a dog or dogs in your family, you may in the future wish to adopt a dog into your family. Whether you adopt your next dog from a shelter or rescue organization or a breeder, you will want to adopt a healthy dog that does not have a genetic propensity to diseases and other expensive health problems. You will want to adopt a dog that is well socialized. The socialization period in developing puppies is between four weeks and twelve weeks in age, give or take.¹ This does not necessarily mean that you have to socialize your dog before she is twelve weeks old: you can adopt a well socialized adolescent or adult dog. What this does mean is that the human caretaker of the four-to-twelve-week-old puppy--whoever that may be--has many responsibilities. Among these many responsibilities are the responsibility to socialize the puppy to other dogs (her mother and littermates are the obvious candidates, but there are, of course, situations in which a puppy can be raised in the company of other dogs) and the responsibility to socialize the puppy to humans. A puppy who is raised in a human home as a member of the family, such that the puppy is adequately socialized through sufficient individual attention from humans in their own sanitary and safe home, grows into a dog that is well-adapted to living with humans in our communities.

¹ Fogel, Bruce, The Dog's Mind: Understanding Your Dog's Behavior (New York: Macmillan [Howell], 1990), 69-70, see also pp. 79-95.

An act relative to breeder licensing has been presented to the Massachusetts House of Representatives (H 4537). The American Kennel Club reports (from the Massachusetts Federation of Dog Clubs and Responsible Dog Owners) that "on March 24, 2004, H4537 was voted out of the Steering Committee and sent to the House floor listed with low priority, not requiring a vote for approval. Rep. James Eldridge (D - Acton, [Boxborough and Shirley]) blocked it so the next time it is presented a vote will be required."

Eldridge has graciously supplied (in a personal e-mail) the text of H 4537:

H 4537, AN ACT RELATIVE TO BREEDER LICENSING

Section 1: Chapter 129, section 39A of the General Laws, as appearing in the 2002 Official Edition, is hereby amended in line 2 by inserting after the words "pet shop" the following:-

'or engaged in the incidental breeding and subsequent sale, barter or exchange of litters of more than three breeding females'

The statement from the Massachusetts Federation of Dog Clubs and Responsible Dog Owners (included on the AKC Legislation page) opposes the bill because its wording is seen to be ambivalent in failing to distinguish between females that are kept intact in order to be eligible for AKC titles and females that are kept intact in order to be bred. It is my understanding that a person who shows as a hobby but does not want to ever breed a litter would not be "engaged in the incidental breeding and subsequent sale, barter or exchange of litters of more than three breeding females:" neither the current law nor the proposed amendment to it appear to apply to such a person. The point of AKC dog shows, however, is, at least in small part, to determine which individuals are the best breeding stock: In the AKC's words "conformation (overall appearance and structure)" is "an indication of the dog's ability to produce quality puppies."

An inquiry to the AKC Canine Legislation Department regarding their position on the proposed legislation and how it impacts owners of dogs competing for AKC titles remains unanswered. The AKC's Canine Legislation web pages include their position statement on breeding restrictions:

The American Kennel Club strongly supports and actively promotes a wide range of programs to educate the public about responsible breeding practices and the responsibilities of dog ownership.

The American Kennel Club opposes the concept of breeding permits, breeding bans or mandatory spay/neuter of purebred dogs. Instead, we support reasonable and enforceable laws that protect the welfare and health of purebred dogs and do not restrict the rights of breeders and owners who take their responsibilities seriously.

One fancier has explained by e-mail:

Hobby breeders oppose [MA 4537] and similar laws because they make no clear distinction between the commercial breeder, AKA puppy mills, and the person who keeps intact purebred dogs to show and breed as a hobby as opposed to a money making venture. Most hobby breeders keep only a few dogs, who live in the house and are personal pets as well as show and breeding dogs. Limiting them to three does not take into account that such breeders need to keep young dogs to see how they develop, and who keep older retired dogs. Then there is the fact that many toy breeds have very small litters, often only one, so if such breeders are limited to only three bitches, and one is a retired show/breeding dog, and two are youngsters too young to breed, who can they breed? Then there are the breeds, including standard poodles, who cannot get final clearance on much of their needed genetic health testing before the age of two.......These must be held back from breeding until then, so can't be bred yet. Most breeders need more than three bitches, at least some of the time to support a viable breeding effort.

Responsible hobby breeders acknowledge that these statements are true only of most hobby breeders and that there are some hobby breeders, who--perhaps because they have failed to adequately educate themselves on responsible breeding practices, or perhaps because they are unethical--engage in irresponsible breeding practices resulting in sickly dogs that are not adapted to live with humans in our communities.

The ambiguity that I find in the proposed amendment to MGL Chapter 129, section 39A is that it would extend the licensing and inspection requirements of the law to persons "engaged in the incidental breeding and subsequent sale, barter or exchange of litters of more than three breeding females," but the current version of the law specifies that it does not apply to "persons selling, exchanging or otherwise transferring the offspring of their personally owned animals." The ambiguity that the proposed amendment introduces into the current law appears to enable both the legal defense and the prosecution of hobby breeders. A lawyer defending an unlicensed hobby breeder would emphasize that the defendant sold, exchanged or otherwise transferred the offspring of her or his personally owned animals. A lawyer prosecuting the unlicensed breeder, on the other hand, would emphasize that the defendant engaged in the incidental breeding and subsequent sale, barter or exchange of litters of more than three breeding females.

It is the considered opinion of somervilledog.com that MA H 4537 falls short of the goal of insuring that the litters bred in Massachusetts produce dogs that are well adapted to live with humans in our communities in that the bill fails to address whether or not "every person engaged in the business of operating a pet shop or engaged in the incidental breeding and subsequent sale, barter or exchange of litters of more than three breeding females" can meet their responsibility to adequately socialize each puppy he or she produces. Furthermore, the ambiguity that MA H 4537 introduces MGL Chapter 129, section 39A would allow irresponsible and unethical breeders to continue to evade state licensing and inspection on the grounds that they personally own the animals whose litters they are selling.

Please contact your representative and tell her or him that MA H 4537 is bad legislation for the Commonwealth because it introduces ambiguity into the current law and would allow irresponsible and unethical breeders to continue evade state licensing and inspection on the grounds that they personally own the animals whose litters they are selling. The Commonwealth has a responsibility to its citizens to insure that the dogs we adopt as pets have been bred responsibly and have been socialized to other dogs and humans when they are puppies between four and twelve weeks old. MA 4537 does not advance responsible breeding practices.

Somerville Representatives (from the listing of state legislators by city/town on the Commonwealth of Massachusetts website):

Vincent P. Ciampa: ward four (precincts one and two) and ward seven (all precincts)

Patricia D. Jehlen: ward two (precinct three), ward three (all precincts), ward four (precinct three), ward five (all precincts) and ward six (all precincts)

Timothy J. Toomey, Jr.: ward one (all precincts), ward two (precincts one and two)

UPDATE 1 May 2004: For another opinion on this issue, see Bonnie Chandler's op-ed pieceon April 16, 2004 in The Harvard (MA) Post, "Thinking Aloud: Proposed legislation endangers the right to own animals."

Posted by Michèle at 4:11 PM
Categories: Massachusetts
Permalink | Comments (0)

The Massachusetts Department of Agricultural Resources (MDAR) Bureau of Animal Health regulates the licencing and operation of pet shops in the Commonwealth and provides information for residents who are interested in Buying a Dog in Massachusetts.

Posted by Michèle at 9:03 PM
Categories: Massachusetts
Permalink | Comments (0)

The Massachusetts Department of Agricultural Resources (MDAR) is proposing to revise the regulations for the licensing and operation of pet shops in Massachusetts. Both the current regulations, Regulations: 330 CMR 12.00[PDF], and the NEW Proposed Regulations & Public Hearing Notice [PDF] are available online from the Bureau of Animal Health Pet Shop Program.

The Department will conduct two public hearings on Wednesday, April 7, 2004 to consider the proposed regulations as follows:

• 9 a.m. ? 11 a.m. Waltham 4-H Center (also known as Waltham Field Station), 240 Beaver Street, Waltham, MA in the Auditorium
  
• 2 p.m. ? 4 p.m. Natural Resources Conservation Service, 451 West St., Amherst, MA in the Conference Room

MDAR is also accepting written comments at the hearings and thereafter until close of business on April 14, 2004. Comments may be addressed to Mr. Kent Lage, Department of Agricultural Resources, 251 Causeway Street, Suite 500, Boston, MA 02114 by regular mail or by email Kent.Lage@state.ma.us, or fax 617-626-1850.

Posted by Michèle at 8:05 PM
Categories: Massachusetts
Permalink | Comments (0)