By John Yates

Executive Director

The American Sporting Dog Alliance

Oil City, PA

Here are The American Sporting Dog Alliance’s formal comments on draft kennel regulations that are proposed to accompany and implement new kennel legislation.

First, it is not accurate to say that non-commercial kennels will continue to follow existing regulations. There are many MAJOR changes in the kennel regulations proposed in the draft version that will apply to all private, boarding, training and hobby breeding kennels. Moreover, the draft regulations must be considered within the framework of the draft legislation.

Here are ASDA’s specific comments. They are not prioritized in importance, but instead follow the text of the draft regulations from top to bottom.

1. We understand the necessity to include a person’s home or residence in the regulations, but only to the degree that a kennel owner’s home or residence is used as part of the kennel business. A blanket inclusion simply is too invasive, violates a person’s right to privacy and compromises constitutional protections against unreasonable searches. By including a person’s home in the definition without further clarification means that a dog warden, either working alone or with other law enforcement or animal cruelty enforcement officers, is given unlimited access to search a person’s home, personal records and financial records. ASDA believes that a search of a person’s home should require a warrant issued by a court of law,  follow the standard of requiring probable cause to believe that there has been a violation of the law, and also limit the search to the subject of the alleged violation.
2. Definition of  “rest board.” A requirement for a waterproof rest board requires a platform made of lumber that is treated with highly toxic chemicals to waterproof it. Water sealing chemicals carry warning labels saying that they are toxic, and kennel owners should not be required to expose their dogs to toxins, which may be chewed and ingested. Using the term “resting surface” would give kennel owners the option to use heavy plastic, fiberglass or other materials. There also is no justification to require the resting surface to be waterproof in a facility designed to house healthy dogs, when extreme sanitation measures are not required.
3. Under 21.21 (b), regulations for interior building surfaces are excluded for dogs kept in private homes if the homes themselves are the primary enclosure, as long as the dogs are not kept in cages. The problem is that many people allow their dogs to have free access to their homes for much of the time, but also have cages for sleeping quarters for their dogs or to use as a tool for housebreaking. For example, many people confine their dogs to airline shipping crates for sleeping, housebreaking, protection when a dog is in heat, or for short periods when they are out of their homes (i.e. a trip to the store). This practice is almost universal among dog owners. However, under the draft regulations, it could be interpreted that a person’s entire home would have to meet kennel requirements.
4. The requirement for waterproof interior surfaces carries the same concerns as for waterproof resting boards. The state would be requiring kennel owners to expose their dogs to unsafe toxins on all wooden surfaces that are treated for waterproofing. Water sealing chemicals are poisonous, and many dogs will chew and ingest them. We understand that the reason for this requirement is to enable thorough sanitation and to prevent bacteria and other “germs” from seeping into wooden surfaces. However, we can see no compelling reason for this requirement for healthy dogs if it exposes them to dangerous toxic chemicals. The dangers far outweigh the alleged benefits.
5. In addition, the requirement for all inside surfaces to be waterproofed means that all surfaces that are not accessible to dogs would have to be waterproofed. This would include ceilings, storage areas, shelving, exposed structural posts and roof joists, and other areas that are not accessible to dogs. There is no evidence to suggest that extreme sanitary measures should be required for areas that are not accessible for dogs. This is unnecessarily burdensome to kennel owners and serves no legitimate purpose.
6. For outdoor or sheltered facilities, an absolute prohibition against pooled or standing water does not take into account the reality of winter in Pennsylvania. When outdoor kennel surfaces are frozen or covered with ice, a winter thaw will result in small pools of water on top of frozen surfaces. A winter rain on top of snow can make this happen in a matter of minutes, and there is no way to prevent it. In most cases, water pooling is of short duration and the kennel owner can take corrective measures to protect the dogs in a reasonable period of time, such as by manual drainage of the wet areas or by using straw or other absorbent material. The kennel regulations must take these temporary weather conditions into account, and should not penalize a kennel owner for this kind of situation.
7. All kennels are required to be equipped with smoke alarms and fire extinguishers. ASDA supports the requirement for fire extinguishers, but opposes requiring smoke detectors for outdoor kennels or the outdoor portion of sheltered kennels. A smoke detector simply won’t work in an outdoor area and makes no sense. Thus, this requirement accomplishes nothing to protect dogs, and is an unnecessary and costly burden to the kennel owner.
8. For sheltered facilities, a requirement for protection against cold and heat for the sheltered portion of the facility is problematic. The legislation defines protection from heat as requiring auxiliary ventilation when the temperature rises above 85. This is clear. However, there is no such clarity for protection from the cold, except for bedding requirements. This section could be interpreted as requiring auxiliary heat in cold weather.
9. For outdoor facilities, the space requirements for primary enclosures makes no sense. A typical outdoor kennel consists of an open kennel run that contains an enclosed sleeping area or “dog house.” If the term “primary enclosure” applies to a kennel run, then the requirements of the legislation do not give the dog enough room for exercise. A typical beagle, for example, could have a kennel of only two feet by three feet, or a typical English setter could have a kennel only three feet by four feet. That is far too small for a kennel run for these dogs. However, if the term “primary enclosure” refers to a sleeping area or “dog house,” those examples are far too large to allow retention of body heat in the winter. To retain body heat in the winter in outdoor facilities, the sleeping area or “dog house” should be as small as possible (consistent with the comfort of the dog) in order to hold in heat. A more appropriate size for a beagle would be 20” by 30”, or 24” by 36” for an English setter. These sizes allow a dog to lie comfortably, stand and turn around, but are small enough to conserve body heat.
10. ASDA supports the requirement to provide shade for dogs that are housed in an outdoor facility, but opposes the section that would prohibit the use of tarps for this purpose. If the purpose of the regulation is to provide shade and protection from rain, snow and wind, the use of a tarp would accomplish this as effectively as a solid surface. The definition of a tarp also would include awnings and commercially manufactured plastic shading and roofing material. A properly installed tarp, awning or flexible roof covering would accomplish the purposes of the draft regulations, while providing more flexibility and cost control for the kennel owner. ASDA has a particular concern that requiring kennels to construct “permanent fixtures” would have the effect of putting many kennels out of business because necessary zoning approvals could not be obtained. Many kennels were approved or grandfathered under local zoning ordinances at the time they were built, and thus are in full compliance now, but may not be able to comply with revisions or changes in zoning ordinances that have occurred subsequently, if new construction is required.  A roofing cover made from a tarp or awning may protect kennel owners from being forced into this “Catch 22” situation by the proposed kennel regulations.
11. In outdoor facilities, or for the outdoor portion of sheltered facilities, there is no way that a roof to provide shade can protect dogs from wind, or from blowing rain or snow. You are demanding the impossible, as wind would enter the kennel through its sides, and not through its roof. In windy conditions, snow and rain also could be blown into the kennel from its sides. The only way to prevent the effect of wind would be to enclose all four sides of a kennel in solid walls, which would defeat the purpose of outdoor kennels and eliminate the beneficial effects of exposure to sunlight. Thus, this is a totally irrational requirement.
12. A requirement that urine and feces from one kennel would not be allowed to enter an adjacent kennel during cleaning operations is not workable, and even minimal compliance would require major reconstruction of most kennels. A typical kennel consists of a row of adjoining kennel runs on a concrete (or other) base. It is impossible to hose down one kennel without some of the water (and thus urine and fecal material) entering adjoining kennels, and it also is impossible to clean the chain link fencing or weldwire fencing that divides the kennels without some of the water getting into adjoining kennels. Again, you are asking for the impossible. There is no valid reason to justify why this restriction is necessary, and the vast majority of kennels in Pennsylvania would not be able to comply with it.
13. For outdoor facilities, the shelter structure (that is, the sleeping area or “dog house”) would have to provide for a wind and rain break at the entrance. In essence, the regulations are calling for doors or flaps covering the doorways of all sleeping areas or “dog houses.” This requirement makes some sense in the winter, to help conserve body heat, although even then it is rarely necessary for dogs that have become acclimatized. However, it is dangerous in warm or hot weather, as it does not allow adequate ventilation to remove excess heat. A fully enclosed sleeping area or “dog house” would become dangerously overheated and remain dangerously overheated even after the surrounding outside air begins to cool.
14. The requirement for outdoor facilities to be fenced is ambiguous and also not workable. It is unclear whether the fencing requirement applies to the kennel runs themselves (which usually are constructed of chainlink or weldwire fencing), or whether it applies to a requirement for a fence around the entire kennel structure, in addition to the kennels themselves. If the requirement is meant to be for fencing around the kennels, this may not be workable because of terrain, neighboring property lines, zoning requirements for fences, adjacent buildings, driveway locations and a variety of other limiting factors. In terms of the stated purposes of this requirement, the kennel runs themselves are designed to prevent escape. For the stated purpose of preventing ingress by “vermin, animals and other vectors of disease,” you also are asking the impossible. In all standard commercial kennel fencing, the holes in the fencing (typically at least two inches in diameter) would be large enough to allow small rodents to pass through, and would do nothing to prevent access from “vectors of disease” such as fleas, ticks and mosquitoes. You would seem to be requiring that the area around a kennel must be fenced with small-diameter window screening on all four sides, and roofed with the same material. This is both impossible to do and totally unnecessary.
15. ASDA completely opposes the prohibition against tethering in the draft regulations. We do understand the potential danger of incorrectly tethering a dog, such as when a tethered dog can get entangled in surrounding objects or climb over a fence and strangle. However, tethering can be done with complete safety for the dog, and current regulations thoroughly address safety concerns. ASDA believes that most objections to tethering really boil down to an emotional response that a chain appears to be more restrictive than a kennel run. In truth, a dog given the length of chain required under existing regulations has far more available space and freedom of movement than a dog confined in a kennel that meets the minimum space requirements of the draft regulations. A typical 45-pound English setter could be confined in a four-foot by six-foot kennel run, but the same dog would be given a circle with a 10-foot diameter on a chain, under current regulations. The tethered dog thus would have about four times more space for movement than the kenneled dog would have under the minimum requirements of the draft regulations. Moreover, the prohibition against tethering would eliminate kenneling methods that give a dog great freedom of movement, such as when a chain is attached to a long cable with a “slider” device that allows it to move for the entire length of the cable. Even if a kennel does not tether dogs routinely, there are many situations when tethering might be used. In working with very shy or aggressive dogs, for example, a tether allows more control over the animal and thus much more frequent human contact. Tethering also is a practical and cost-effective method to isolate dogs from the rest of the kennel, for example when it is being treated for parasites or a disease.
16. The current prohibition against using drums for primary enclosures is maintained in the draft regulations. The definition of a drum is based on its shape, regardless of its construction. This eliminates one of the highest quality commercial dog housing systems on the market, because the units are shaped like a drum. These units are insulated for Arctic conditions, provide a flat surface for the dog to lay on, and are virtually weatherproof. They are among the most expensive units available, because of their exceptionally high quality. The definition of a drum should be based on how it is constructed, rather than on shape.
17. The requirement that potable water be available “at all times” simply isn’t workable and shows great ignorance of the actual reality of keeping dogs in a kennel. Dogs routinely soil, foul or upset their water, and water can freeze very quickly in cold winter weather. For instance, the presence of a stranger in a kennel, such as a dog warden, will cause a great deal of excitement among the dogs. This will cause many of them to step in or upset their water bowls. Simply taking a dog out of a kennel, or bringing in a new dog, will cause similar excitement levels and cause water to be spilled or dirtied. Many dogs also paw at their water bowls, or are inclined to deliberately urinate in them, or carry them around their kennels as a form of play. In cold winter conditions, a layer of ice can form over water in an hour, and water can be frozen almost solid in two hours (how long does it take you to make an ice cube in your refrigerator’s freezer?). ASDA believes that any regulation must take reality into account. ASDA’s position, based on practical kennel management experience, is that fresh water must be available to dogs in all weather at least twice a day, and for several hours, and that more frequent watering is required during exceptionally hot weather. Thus, ASDA would maintain existing regulations when air temperatures are less than 85 degrees, and require that water must be available at all times when air temperatures exceed 85. Proof that water is available at all times should not be based on every run in the kennel, as the excitement of a dog warden’s presence (or normal behavior of dogs) can cause water to be spilled or fouled in seconds. Instead, it should be based on an observation that clean water is available to the majority of the dogs in the kennel. This should be considered acceptable evidence of compliance. In addition, dog wardens should be trained (it takes less than five minutes to do this) to recognize dehydration as a sign that a dog is not receiving adequate water. A single dog that shows signs of dehydration may reflect a medical condition that is being treated, but several dogs showing signs of dehydration would be sufficient proof to show that watering is inadequate. If dehydration is observed in a single animal, the dog warden would have cause to ask the kennel owner for proof that a medical condition is being treated, or be subject to being cited for not providing adequate water for a particular animal. Dehydration is a factor in the winter, too, as some dogs will not drink cold water in very cold weather. In this case, dehydration would lead to hypothermia and possible death. Thus, for a single dog, the availability of water in the winter does not determine adequate watering. To get them to drink, some dogs must be given warm or flavored water in very cold weather. A dog warden’s enforcement tool should be the observation of signs of dehydration, and not the availability of water.
18. There is no reason to require food and water bowls to be protected from rain and snow at all times. Rain and melted snow does not contaminate water, and empty food bowls can get filled with snow or rain water in a matter of seconds without harming the dogs in any way. It also is impossible to assure that water and food receptacles are protected  from “pests” at all times, as small rodents can get through all standard forms of kennel fencing, and insects are not deterred at all. The important thing is to require basic cleanliness, and to make sure that supplies of food are protected.
19. Storage of bedding material in a building should not be required. Many (if not most) kennels use straw for bedding. Straw typically is stored in a barn or open shed, and then moved into the kennel as needed. To require storage of straw in a building would serve no purpose and be very costly for the kennel owner. Moreover, it is completely irrational to require a kennel owner to store straw in a building, as the source of the straw (farmers and feed stores, typically) would not be required to store it in a protected building. In essence, this requirement would not provide significant protection for the straw, which may have been stored for many months in an open loft by the supplier, while penalizing the kennel owner, who would use it quickly after purchasing it.
20. While indoor storage of feed often is desirable, the requirement for containerized storage of opened bags of feed defeats the purpose of the regulation. Containerized storage exposes feed to higher temperatures and greater humidity levels, thus hastening spoilage. In actual practice, most opened bags of feed would be used the day after they are opened. In contrast, containerized storage would tend to leave feed at the bottom of the container for longer periods of time before it is used. This would further increase the chances of spoilage and contamination. Vermin infestations are best prevented through routine procedures, such as trapping and baits. There is no evidence that would indicate that more strict controls are required.
21. It also makes no sense to prohibit the storage of potentially toxic materials in the same building or room as feed, as long as there is no possibility of contact between the two. Many substances commonly used in kennels are potentially toxic to dogs, including flea control products, worming medicines, antibiotics, dishwashing products, bleaches, germicides, and chemicals to sanitize runs, primary enclosures and bowls. Most of these potential toxins are purchased in safe containers, and there is no realistic possibility of airborne contamination of feed. All that is required is physical separation and storage in an area that cannot be accessed by dogs.
22. When sanitation of primary enclosures is done with water and steam, it is irrational to demand that they be completely dry before they can be accessed by dogs. Pennsylvania typically has a very humid climate, and it might take several hours for surfaces to dry completely. This proposed regulation, in essence, would require a kennel owner to provide two primary enclosures for every dog. No evidence has been shown to justify this requirement.
23. The requirement for maintenance of surrounding grounds is vague and ambiguous, and might be interpreted as all of the land owned by the kennel operator. For example, a kennel on a farm might be on the same property as barnyards, corrals, machinery storage areas, barns, gardens, pastures and agricultural fields that would not meet this requirement. The regulations should specify an exact area surrounding the kennel to define the maintenance requirements (for example, all areas within 50 feet of the kennel). Also, land that is not owned by the kennel owner should be specifically excluded from this requirement. It is irrational responsibility for the maintenance of a neighbor’s property if it is located close to the kennel structure.
24. Overall, it must be emphasized that even technical violations of the regulations have great importance that is magnified by the extreme penalties, provisions for license revocation, and possibilities for confiscation and seizure of dogs that are contained under the draft legislation.