Public Workshop for Proposed Animal Care Standards
Dogs Workshop Agenda
February 23, 2012, 3:30 – 5 PM
Scope of Workshop:
The purpose of the workshop is to discuss specific animal care standards for dogs, including household pets and sled dogs. The goal of today’s meeting is to gather public comments on newer revised wording for shelter and environment, including sanitation. Red font indicates explanatory comments or specific questions the DEC has for participants.
Agenda (allotted times are approximate):
1. Introductions, ground rules, and scope of workshop. 5 min
2. Open items from last month
· Shelter (10 min): various aspects of shelter requirements were discussed last month. See the discussion below. There are two possible directions to take with shelter:
1. General verbiage that leaves the decision strictly up to the veterinarian as to whether the animal has adequate living conditions. The problem with this approach is that vets may have differing opinions on the matter or may be unsure. The complexity of the discussion on shelter and confinement shows the challenge of defining what is adequate but also points out the difficulties in applying verbiage that is specific enough yet flexible enough to minimize confusion. Most other states and localities tend to have such general descriptions of an adequate environment; however, they do not necessarily have the veterinarian’s opinion clause as is required by Alaska statute.
2. More specific verbiage that defines objective criteria to assist in decision making. The challenge with this approach is to make it fit as many situations as possible, yet still be understandable and clear for the investigators. It is simply inhumane to keep an animal in too small of an area for the majority of its life. Sanitation is necessarily linked to living space. In general, we believe that a minimum living area requirement is needed to establish a threshold, so that people know what the limit is, rather than have that be decided by the subjective determination of any one veterinarian. Without any specific rule, a citizen could be in trouble and not even have any way to know it. Dimensions of a pen or length of a tether can easily be measured for enforcement. A larger area of confinement provides the animal a better opportunity to get out of its own excrement. Defining adequate shelter is a more complex issue, and may lend itself to a more “end point measured” approach, such as evidence of hypothermia. Unfortunately, this approach might not be as effective at preventing animals from abuse, because they would have to be suffering, or worse, dead for the owner to be in violation.
DEC Comment: The DEC has reviewed other state rules. Some specifically state that natural shelter can be utilized. None were found that expressly prohibited natural shelter. Generally, they require “adequate” protection from the elements without further definition. The rules regarding cage confinement situations tend to get into more specific detail about shelter, but they are focused on indoor cage rearing operations. Some states prescribe exercise allowances for dogs kept in close confinement.
Further comments on shelter are welcomed at this time.
· Sanitation (15 min): Sanitation was discussed at length last month. Pros and cons of various possible approaches were explored. If we adopt a rule that is general, as has been drafted already or something like one of the other proposed wordings, then the burden of the decision of what is “too much excrement” rests strictly on the veterinarian’s subjective judgment, without any further guidance. The complexity of the discussion points out the distinct possibility of an accused individual using another vet’s opinion to argue successfully in court that they in fact were not failing to maintain the good health and safety of the animal. The high burden of proof of “beyond a reasonable doubt” makes it seem less likely that a prosecutor might actually take on such a case. A more objective measurement might help define for a vet and a court what is the limit. It might even be difficult to prove in court that excrement caused the skin disease, as was proposed initially.
- The State Attorney General’s office was consulted on this issue. Their recommendation on “how much could be too much?” is that the DEC should consult other federal and state rules for possible approaches to wording. Regardless of the wording of the regulation, this issue is going to be a judgment call by the DEC or other veterinarian.
- Other states’ rules were reviewed. Most have general statements about healthy environments, “excessive” buildup, not causing disease, clean and sanitary, etc. Some require daily cleaning. These are typically for dogs confined to cages. Two slightly more specific approaches are listed below for participants to comment on:
#1. “Hard surfaces with which the dogs or cats come in contact must be spot-cleaned daily and sanitized to prevent accumulation of excreta and reduce disease hazards. Floors made of dirt, absorbent bedding, sand, gravel, grass, or other similar material must be raked or spot-cleaned with sufficient frequency to ensure all animals the freedom to avoid contact with excreta. Contaminated material must be replaced whenever this raking and spot-cleaning is not sufficient to prevent or eliminate odors, insects, pests, or vermin infestation.”
#2. An animal owner or custodian shall maintain all areas, where an animal is kept and to which it has access, in a clean and sanitary condition and free from objectionable odor.
· Body Condition Scoring: Informational. (5 min). The Purina Dog Body Condition Scoring System was discussed last month as a method for determination of starvation or malnutrition. The DEC has not found any alternative illustrations for dog body condition scoring, or any other similar systems. The Purina Company has been contacted to see if their chart may be utilized as a reference. In general, we like the idea of the chart. It gives dog owners, law enforcement, and veterinarians an idea of what is acceptable. We and the other vets who have participated do not feel that it would score any type of healthy dog as unacceptable. The chart itself would be utilized by the veterinarian, so they would still be able to utilize their professional judgment in any questionable situation.
· Temporary Shelters: Informational. (5 min): Possible differences in living space minimums or specific sanitation requirements might be appropriate for temporary shelters. Temporary shelters are not defined. This item will be addressed in a future meeting.
· Tethering in open bed pick-up trucks (15 min): The State Attorney General opinion is that the state law against loose objects does not include animals. So, if we want to prohibit dogs from riding loose in the back of trucks, it must be done through these regulations.
Public Comments are welcomed
3. Tethering (20 min): Proposals regarding tethering were presented by participants at the last meeting. They included:
i. “No person may cause an animal to be hitched, tied or fastened by any rope, chain or cord that is directly tied around the animal’s neck or to a choke collar. “
ii. “tethers used to confine dogs must incorporate a separate, non-constrictive, flat collar of durable, ¾ inch or wider material.” DEC Note: We aren’t sure if this is bigger than a Chihuahua needs, but a flat, non-metal collar makes sense.
iii. “The actual restraint around an animal’s neck should not be metal chain. (It causes nasty skin infections, especially in the summer time. It should be leather or fabric construction.)”
iv. “Regarding dogs kept on chains, I would HIGHLY recommend either adopting the same square footage requirement as for dogs kept in pens, or specifying that tethers for dogs must consist of a central tether point offering a full circle (360 degrees) of motion. Otherwise, people WILL attach chains to the sides of buildings, barns, junked cars, fences or other structure that cuts the space available to the dog by 50%.”
DEC: Participants are welcomed to comment on these ideas. We need to hear more about what types of systems people are using and why and how they work.
4. Open Forum/New Topics: 10 min
5. Closing questions and remarks by DEC. 5 min
Ground Rules:
· Stay on topic.
· The moderator will select participants to have the floor to speak. Please do not interrupt a person speaking.
· State your comments as concisely as possible. There is a time limit of 3 minutes per speaker, although the moderator may allow longer comments when deemed necessary. After you have spoken, DEC representatives may ask questions that can be answered immediately or may request further information be sent to them later.
· Be respectful of other participants’ opinions. It is permissible to voice support for something that another speaker has said; however, in general, the moderator will ask that people giving public comment try not to repeat what may have already been stated by other participants, particularly when stating reasoning behind a position on an issue.
· Silence cell phones. Take all phone conversations outside.
Workshop Location/Call Information:
All interested Alaska residents are invited to attend workshops by telephone at 1-800-315-6338 (use pass code 8213 when prompted) or in person at the State Environmental Health Laboratory at 5251 Dr. MLK, Jr. Ave, Anchorage, AK, 99507. If you are unable to attend meetings, feel free to submit your comments to us in writing via mail or email jay.fuller@alaska.gov.
See our website at: http://dec.alaska.gov/eh/vet/AnimalCareWorkshop.html for previous workshop minutes and the most recent working draft of the proposed regulations.