A little serious, a little satire, and all opinion on animal welfare.
Header image

Writers and directors employ cliché genres in their art for a reason.  They provide an instant framework for the expression of some other conflict.  For example, science fiction often frames some conflict within a “David vs. Goliath” structure.  Romantic comedies frame them around the “boy meets girl, boy loses girls, boy wins girl back” structure.  These basic thematic structures allow a gifted artist to embellish on a simple theme the way a great jazz musician can transform a cliché standard into a new work of art.  Think John Coltrane’s version of My Favorite Things.

When I saw the extended footage of the September 30, 2012 pigeon shoot at Wing Pointe which was posted for the press without the usual over the top- if generally accurate- railings by the group which took the video, the two and a half minutes of quiet video nagged at me.  Not just because of the clear, wanton cruelty shown on the video.  There was something else, something familiar, about what I was watching.

What Will the Sheriff Do?

Then it hit me.  I’ve seen this footage before.  I’ve seen it scores of times on TV and in movies.  I was watching a cliché genre playing out right in front of my eyes.  Chances are you’ve seen it, too.  It’s a particular version of the Western genre cliché.

There is a standard form of it in which the town is run by a rich rancher with a son and his buddies who are a little bit wild.  They tend to break the law in little ways.  They get drunk and beat up the locals.  They harass the local blacks or Native Americans.  They use foul language in front of upstanding women-folk.  And there is a town sheriff who, in the interests of keeping the peace, lets it slide and just tries to keep things from getting out of hand.  When he does send the rich boy home to poppa with his friends, the boy usually turns and tell the sheriff that his daddy put that badge on him and his daddy can take that badge away.  The sheriff inevitably says something like, “One day you boys will go too far and do something I can’t ignore,” and the boys ride away, laughing at him.

You know the boys will go one step too far.  They’ll kill an innocent man or rape a good woman.  This is the moment that a great story is made.  The shorthand cliché that got us to this point is now blown wide open to storytelling.  What will the sheriff do?

Will he put down that bottle of rye whiskey he’s been hiding his shame in or will he return to it?  Will he make the quiet maiden’s heart swell with pride as he marches into the street to deal with the trouble maker and his father or will she hang it in shame as he hides in his jailhouse?  Will he gather together the cowering townfolk into an outnumbered and outgunned posse? Will the mysterious stranger come in to town and help him rediscover his courage?  Will he prevail or die trying?  The story can go anywhere.  Maybe even to Cowboys and Aliens.

When I watched the laughing, taunting shoot boys stomping pigeons to death, swinging them headfirst into their shoes, kicking them in a shower of feathers while they lay wounded on the ground, I think I had a feeling like what the piano player in a saloon fight has when the rich boy challenges the sheriff to a gun fight.  Will he stand up to them or will he turn around to be taunted as he walks away through the swinging saloon doors?  What will he do?  I can’t stand the suspense!

The shoot boys did exactly that on September 30.  The local sheriff who protected their right to a little clean fun to blow off some steam by blowing away thousands of pigeons, also made a stand.  He said, for all the townfolk to hear, “Boys, you can have your fun, but don’t go too far.  Don’t go beyond the confines of what Judge Lash,” – yes, this story even has a hanging judge- “said you could do.  No stomping, no kicking, no swinging.”  He made his line in the sand.  The local press even reported it.  Extra!  Extra! Sheriff Puts Rancher’s Son on Notice!

Then the rancher’s son and his pals, in clear view of the cameras they knew were there filming them, video they knew would be shared with the world and the sheriff, stomped, kicked and swung those pigeons while laughing and taunting.  Laughing at the cameras.  Taunting the sheriff and his line in the sand.

In this case of life imitating art, I can’t stand the suspense.  It’s high noon.  What will the sheriff do?


I have wondered what more do they need to do at Pennsylvania pigeons shoots to be prosecuted.  Light them on fire?  Have sex with them? Catch the pigeons trying to vote without State issued photo ID?

The latest video to surface from a recent pigeon shoot shows just how far these “proud, traditional, sporting” events, as their supporters calls them, have degenerated.  The birds are shot at point blank range.  They are tossed by hand in front of shooters only a few feet away.  They are bashed from the air by hand.  They are shaken and stomped to death.  All by laughing, jovial “sportsmen” in the full view of the cameras filming them.  These proud, traditional sportsmen have lost all the concern and shame they once demonstrated by trying to hide these shoots from public view.  Why?  Because they have learned that they can do anything at these shoots with complete impunity.

The judges, DA’s, and police once pretended that there was an exemption in the law from these shoots.  When charges were filed they side stepped the core issue of legality by focusing on whether “reasonable efforts” were made to put the pigeons out of their misery, decisions usually wrapped in NRA talking points.  More recently, as multiple organizations, including HSBC, have dismantled and eviscerated the laughable claims that pigeon shots are permitted under the law by nailing every single false claim to the wall in excruciating detail, DA’s have turned to new tactics.  They ham string Humane Officers by not allowing them to bring attorneys to court to represent them.  They only allow the weakest of charges to be filed.  Or in Berks County’s case, the DA simply demands that the charges be withdrawn, as he did to HSBC, or withdraws them himself, as he did to another organization’s charges.

The fact that charges were withdrawn doesn’t mean the shoots are legal.  In fact, on appeal to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, the narrow decision to uphold the DA’s right to crush the charges didn’t stem from whether a crime had actually occurred at the shoots.  Instead the justices determined that PA law permits a DA to ignore any crime he wants to.  A proud day for law enforcement and jurisprudence in our great Commonwealth.  We can all only hope that the next time you or I are the victim of a crime the perpetrator is not a campaign contributor to our county District Attorney.

The Berks County District Attorney is quoted saying, “”I should mention that there is certain requirements that the shoots must comply with to stay within the confines of the law.”  Again I ask, what more do these shoots need to do to be in violation of the “confines of the law”?  How can anyone- NRA member, hunter, person on the street- watch this video and say that this behavior is sportsmanlike, is hunting, is a protected activity?  What more do they need to do to lose the protection of the law enforcement officials who are shielding them?

This is not about animal rights or out of state activists.  It’s not about tradition or national political agendas.  It’s about the letter of the Pennsylvania law.  To watch this video and say it is not a violation of the law is willful blindness.  This video shows a violation of the law that makes me change my question.  It’s no longer what more can these pigeons shooters do before they are prosecuted.  It’s can these people do anything that will get them prosecuted?  Anything at all?


“Freedom of speech, that’s some @#$%^& *&^%$#’ $%^&&*&^%!”

Before Ice T was an ironic regular as a police detective on Law and Order and a cuddly reality TV star, he had a few run ins with freedom of speech.  Even before he faced security boycotts by police at his concerts for his song, Cop Killer, in the early 90’s, his analysis of the state of freedom of speech in late 1980’s is essentially unprintable.  The alternate, less profanity ridden verse sums up the right as freedom of speech- just watch what you say.

If pressed, I would offer the First Amendment of the US Constitution the greatest 45 words written by humans.  Ever. “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”  This sentence separates us from every other nation on earth, as no other nation provides such a bold and unequivocal affirmation of both our right to our beliefs and to share those beliefs without government intervention or censorship.

There is plenty of permissible censorship, including self-censorship, as I demonstrated above.  The government may not be able to tell me I can’t say it, but common sense does.  But common sense seems not to be an impediment for legislatures across the United States, including right here in Pennsylvania.  Yesterday I received an email from Senator Mike Brubaker which seemed a virtual celebration of a void of common sense.

He announced, “I recently introduced legislation that would protect Pennsylvania agricultural operations by prohibiting photos and video recordings without the owner’s consent.”  His goal seems to be to “protect” farmers- why just farmers, by the way? – from people taking pictures of their operations without permission.  He says he introduced the bill to protect farmers from “the damage that unauthorized taping and photos can cause.”  Fair enough.

But I will admit I get a little uncomfortable when someone in the government starts protecting me from the damage that information can cause.  So I went to the Senate website to find the bill, to no avail.  It isn’t listed (as of 9:30 AM, 9/28/12). So I will follow Senator Brubaker’s lead, since he announced how awesome it is that he introduced legislation we can’t yet read that protects farmers by explicitly violating the First Amendment of the US Constitution, by telling you why this is a terrible idea for consumers, animals, and even farmers.

First, there is no need for this law.  We have freedom of speech, but we also have laws allowing for prosecution of trespass and for libel or slander.  Brubaker mentioned a case, “not the first such incident in our area”, where unauthorized video of a farm was taken.  He claims that the video showed no illegal activity yet it took a “heavy toll” on the business.  Aside from the lack of facts to back up his claim, if nothing was shown which was not “at or above industry-best practices”, what exactly was the problem?

Why don’t we have the right to see the quality of operations at places which are at the acceptable standards?  And if these “industry-best” standards are stomach churning, why shouldn’t we be able to make a decision on what we will purchase or if we will seek a higher or different level of standards and purchase, let’s say, free range eggs rather than battery raised eggs?

Yes, that might have a negative impact on the “industry-best” battery egg producer.  But why should any business be protected from the will of the consumer and our right to buy what we are comfortable buying?  If these farms are so wonderfully high standard, what are they ashamed of and why do they need Senator Brubaker to trample on our Bill of Rights to offer that protection?  Are we to live as they do throughout the Middle East, protected from knowledge in order to preserve the status quo?

Second, although I can’t read the Senators bill, many similar bills did not provide exemptions for even police officers investigating crimes or the Press.  A quick skim of the Constitution left me unable to find the part which allows a business to obtain protection against factual reporting of news or criminal investigation.  Yet it sounds like this bill would.  Bills like this would make reporting on actual conditions within a farm a crime and make award winning investigative journalists like Brian Ross a criminal.  They would make investigations of reported crimes on these farms- and please remember that Puppy Mills are “farms” in Pennsylvania- a crime.

We all know that eating animals comes with some unpleasant aspects.  I eat meat, dairy and eggs.  But I try to ensure that I at least choose food from producers and production techniques which keep those unpleasant aspects to a minimum.  I and my family have a right to know what the conditions are at the places providing us- selling us- our food.

Any business which is so terrified of have its operations photographed for fear that the consumer seeing them would make the consumer choose another business doesn’t need civil rights violating protections, it needs to ask itself why it can’t stand by what it does in the public spot light.  There are many, many farms and farmers who operate proudly and openly- heck, some put their own pictures up for all to see!-, and don’t need to hide behind weasel words like “meeting industry-best practices” and “legitimate operations”.  They just run great farms.  We should buy from great farmers and they shouldn’t be at a disadvantage because the good enough farmers are permitted to hide their operations from the consumers.  All farms are not created equal.

These bills are actually about protecting giant corporations and factory farms.  They are about limiting our access to information and prohibiting us from exercising our First Amendment right to free speech.  Pictures and video are speech.  Sharing those pictures is speech.  Sharing our opinion about those pictures or exercising our right not to patronize a business as a result of those pictures is speech.  And the government may not abridge our right to speech, Senator Brubaker.  Doing so makes our rights a joke and makes us a lot more like Syria or Iran, which “protect” their people from information, too.

Ice ended his song a little less profanely.  I think it’s a fair observation for the Pennsylvania legislature: “Freedom of Speech, let ‘em take it from me, next they’ll take it from you, then what you gonna do?…We only got one right left in the world today, let me have it or throw The Constitution away.”



Ill-treat (transitive verb): to treat unkindly, or unfairly; to harm; abuse; maltreat. (Webster’s New Twentieth Century Dictionary, 1904)

Whether you loved or hated Bill Clinton, it’s unlikely you didn’t cringe when he tried to deny he had made a false statement when he said he had not “had sex in any way, shape or form” with Monica Lewinski by arguing that it depended on “what the definition of ‘is’ is.”  Even those how love the subtlety of the English language know that when you have to walk down that path, your trying pretty hard to lie without actually lying.

It is somehow appropriate then that Buck’s County DA David Heckler opted for the tortured definition approach when he dismissed cruelty charges filed by a lawfully sworn Humane Society Police Officer against the Philadelphia Gun Club.  He even one upped Clinton. Heckler, to paraphrase, chose to say, “It all depends on what the definition of ill-treatment was in 1891.”  One would think that he might simply do what you or I might do and simply look the word up to see that ill-treatment means to treat cruelly or improperly or to abuse.

Because that is the clear meaning of Pennsylvania’s cruelty law under which the Philadelphia Gun Club was charged.  It’s a simple word, a simple law, and a simple concept.  It is a crime to ill-treat an animal without cause.  The law even recognizes that there are many circumstances in which society has decided that ill-treatment is not a crime.  In normal agriculture and food production.  In pest control.  In self-defense. In lawful hunting practice.  Our culture recognizes that some actions are ill-treatment and we have chosen to exempt them from the law.

Bucks County DA, David Heckler

Heckler did not choose to exempt the Gun Club from prosecution based on any of these lawful exemptions.  In fact, he couldn’t since none apply.  The most likely allowable exemption would be a Game Code exemption and the Pennsylvania Game Commission has recently gone very much on record with members of the public to say that there is no Game Law protection for pigeon shoots since they are neither fair chase hunting, nor regulated hunting grounds game release activities, and the Game Code explicitly says no animals but those listed for hunting may be hunted.  Pigeons are not listed.

No, he had no choice but to try to argue that stuffing one pigeon (or hundreds, one at a time) in a box with a mechanical device which, when a string is pulled, flings the bird (or hundreds, one at a time) into the air in the line of sight of a shotgun welding shooter so it can be shot is not “ill-treatment”.  If it’s lucky, it is killed outright.  Most are not and either fall to the ground to, if they are lucky, have their necks rung (sometimes by children, charmingly referred to as “wringers”), and if they are not, dumped in a pile or barrel to suffocate.  Others fly away to slowly die of their wounds or drown in the nearby Delaware River.

So the simple question is similar to the one fielded by Clinton: How is this action not in some, or every, way, shape and form, ill-treatment?  The described activity is very obviously cruel treatment, improper treatment, and abuse.  It is by definition a violation of the letter of the law and certainly warrants allowing a judge to hear the State sworn Humane Society Police Officer’s case.  If Heckler can’t point to one of the clear and specific exemptions to the cruelty law, how can he dismiss the charges?  He can do it by arguing the definition of what “is” is and going out and finding a different, tortured definition of what “ill-treat” means.  And he had to really crank back the dial on his Way Back Machine because the “legal” definition he found was from a case in 1891.

In this case a man was first found guilty by a jury of his peers of cruelty for a pigeon shoot in Bucks County.  On appeal, the appeals court found that he was not guilty of cruelty and ill-treatment, he was merely guilty of being a poor shot, and that was no crime.  I couldn’t make this up.  There is also the slight matter of the appeal court referring to the then existing Game Law which is no longer in effect, making the verdict built on a foundation which no longer exists, castrating DA Heckler’s attempt at comparison.

Those old timey folks were really quite clever back then and they were deft at finding all kinds of ways to explain away the obvious and to deny the clear meaning of a word.  Heckler is following in a long line of such tortured definitions and bizarre justifications for violence and cruelty.  One wonders, though, why he chooses to hang his hat on this approach since the courts very notoriously employed this reaching back in time and mangling of meaning to defend many actions which would seem to be pretty straight forward crimes.

I’ll offer one parallel for Mr. Heckler.  Rape.  We all know what rape is.  A quick check of the current Meriam-Webster definition confirms that it forced sexual intercourse.  The 1904 Webster’s definition is slightly daintier, avoids the word intercourse and specifies that it is the rape of a woman or girl.  That is about as clear cut as can be.  If you force intercourse on a person against his or her (I guess in 1904 just her) will, you are guilty of rape.  Did you know that until very recently it was considered impossible to rape your wife?  Seriously, it was not until 1975 that South Dakota became the first U.S. state to make raping your wife specifically illegal and it wasn’t until 1993 that North Carolina became the final state to do so (way to bring up the rear, N.C.).

You might wonder why there would need to be an explicit law to outlaw raping your wife.  If any man forces his wife to have sex against her will, isn’t that the very definition of rape?  The only way to find otherwise would be to find an alternative definition.  Not one found in any dictionary or in our common lexicon, but one based on a legal opinion.  And a pretty tortured one at that.  Sound familiar?  It should, because until 1933- and still regularly thereafter- U.S. prosecutors and judges used a contorted legal opinions stemming from a 1736 legal treatise by English Judge Sir Matthew Hale, to justify either not prosecuting or acquitting husbands of the charge of raping their wives.  The treatise cited said that there couldn’t be rape in marriage because wives had already “submitted” to their husbands.  You know, they weren’t guilty of ill-treatment, just of being a bad shot.

It was not until 1933 that the first husband was found guilty of rape in the United States and it was not until 1993 that the last State finally stated the obvious and made it explicit law that rape is rape.  Period.  Or sort of.  It’s still a lesser crime to rape your wife in some states than to rape a stranger.  There too lies a parallel because in Pennsylvania it is a lesser crime to torture a pigeon as opposed to a pet dog.  But it is still a crime.  And it should be remembered when people ask why we need an explicitly stated law to ban pigeon shoots if they are already illegal that we needed similar seemingly obvious laws to say that a man can’t rape his wife and that a black man had the same right to vote as a white man.  Or that women have the right to vote at all.  Sometimes the obvious just needs to be stated for the benefit of the definitionally challenged, like DA Heckler.

DA Heckler walked the same path of presidents and prosecutors before him to torture a definition to obtain the outcome he desired.  It’s the same method which has allowed us to legally define “person” or “citizen” to exclude blacks or “voter” to exclude women or “torture” to exclude waterboarding, even when no dictionary cold be found to do so.  It is a well-worn path.   He had to do it because the clear meaning of the words in the law being prosecuted wouldn’t support his position.  So he had to fall back on some long ago judge’s twisting into an unnatural form (one definition of tortured) of the word “ill-treatment”.

There are a couple more interesting similarities between this week’s aborted prosecution and the one from 1891.  Both involved pigeons, both were in Bucks County, and both involved the Philadelphia Gun Club.  In 1891 the defendant, A. Nelson Lewis, was represented by Hugh B. Eastburn.  Hugh B. Eastburn is the great grandfather of D. Rodman Eastburn of , wait for it, Eastburn and Gray, the law firm representing the 2012 defendant, the Philadelphia Gun Club.  It’s also interesting to note that this law firm is reported to have associates who have been involved with the pigeon shoots held there now.  One of those associates is reported to have pled guilty to physically assaulting a shoot protestor.  That law firm’s associates are also reported to have donated half of the campaign contributions received during one campaign cycle by DA Heckler when he ran for judge in 2007.  In other words, DA Heckler appears to have dismissed charges against the client of major political donors, a firm with associates who reportedly participate in the shoots themselves.

Maybe in our search to determine why DA Heckler needed to go back 121 years to an obscure and bizarre legal decision to find a definition of ill-treatment he could have used the Google to obtain, we should instead look up another definition and try it on for size.

Corrupt (adjective): dishonest

Synonyms: bent, bribable, crooked, double-dealing, on the take, tainted, unethical.

I believe another lawyer once said, “If the glove don’t fit, you must acquit”.  Some definitions just fit better than others.  And some fit like a glove.



Tomorrow – June 9th – is my thirty-second birthday. This is only important to a small number of people, and rightly so. It is also the seventh anniversary of my association with the Humane Society (that’s right, I went to a job interview on my birthday.)

When my wife Laura and I talked about having a party on Saturday, I was adamant that guests not bring gifts. I’ve already got everything I could want: I have a great home, a wonderful family, and an ever-widening circle of friends, along with all the piles of things you accumulate in thirty two years.

I also have a great job doing what I love for people and animals – and it’s that part that really got me thinking. I’ve got a great life, so great that I can’t think of a single material thing I really need. But that places me in a small minority, and I learned that firsthand working here at the Humane Society.

When I started here as an animal control officer in 2005, I had never worked in animal welfare before, never experienced the cruel realities of poverty here in our own community. Add in the peculiarities of my personality and the effects of six years of military service, and I was completely out of touch with the problems people were facing every day here in Reading and Berks. And because I lacked understanding, I also lacked compassion. Luckily, I learned
that compassion here at the Humane Society.

I’ll never forget the homeless woman I met on Spring Garden whose scruffy Chihuahua rode in a dilapidated baby stroller while she collected cans to recycle. She and the dog slept in an abandoned house at night because she couldn’t take him into a homeless shelter.

I’ll always remember the gratitude and dignity of a retired Navy man in Jacksonwald to whom we regularly delivered dog food as part of our Ani-Meals on Wheels program. Prior to that, he’d shared his food with his old German Shepherd – and I bet the dog still got some choice bits afterward.

And maybe most of all of these, I can still see the faces of families reunited with pets we offered temporary housing after disasters. They had weeks or months of cleanup ahead and plenty of headaches to come, but they were together.

We couldn’t solve all of their problems, but I have watched the Humane Society help these people and thousands like them over the past seven years. And it may be selfish to consider this just as important, but they helped me too. I am not the person I was seven years ago, and while much of that is due to the superhuman patience and love of my wife Laura, I owe an incalculable debt to the Humane Society and to the people and animals we help everyday.

While I said at the beginning that I didn’t want gifts, I’ll ask you for one now if any of what I said made sense to you. Please make a donation to the Humane Society, whether it’s a monetary gift or a bag of dog food, or reserve a pass for the upcoming Pints for Pups. You’ll help us to continue the vital work that makes life just a little bit better for the people and animals we serve – and for me, too.

Thank you!




Did you get a chill? That might have been from the YouTube video posted with my cooperation and approval by Steve Hindi and SHARK explaining my view of why Pennsylvania’s pigeon shoots are, in fact, already illegal.

Arcane animal welfare policy fetishists may have followed the occasional tete-a-tete between the two of us over messaging in the past. Not on the message, but on the messaging. I’m not sure if older age has made me fierier or Steve cuddlier (in his emails he actually started asking people to be polite when they make calls now) but, either way, we are starting to find ourselves on the same side of the messaging and the message.

And that should terrify pigeon shooters, their political and law enforcement protectors, and the apologists of archaic displays of cruelty. When Mr. Moderate (me) and Mr. Not-So-Moderate (Steve) shake hands on something, watch out.

What we shook hands on this time was to make a concerted joint effort, with anyone who will work with us, to press the case of the illegality of pigeon shoots under current Pennsylvania law. The time for claiming that they are legal based on a lack of prosecution is over. They are being prosecuted, to the extent local DA’s will allow it and local Magisterial Justices will apply the letter of the law. Not bringing charges has never been evidence of the legality of an action. Especially when those with the power to allow it prevent or hamstring the attempts.

Such as local DA’s. One county DA forced animal cruelty charges to be withdrawn, not once but twice! This DA also happened to accept campaign donations from the pigeon shooters association. Fiery Steve would call this corrupt. Moderate me would only call this seriously suspect and grounds for recusal in the decision to prosecute. Another county DA has allowed charges to go forward but refused to allow the Humane Society Police Officer to retain an attorney, permitted under the law and common practice in cruelty cases, for the trial.

And where a local DA allows a case to go forward unimpeded, we have justices who make decisions based not on the law but on politics. A recent not guilty decision included- I do not lie- talking points that were word for word from the NRA’s talking points to supporters about pigeon shoots. Not a reference to the actual law, but NRA talking points. This hardly makes a case for legality. It makes a case for, at best, ignorance and, at worst, collusion and, yes, Steve, “corruption” might be a word that is in play.

Since my organization, Humane Society of Berks County, was one of the organizations which brought cruelty charges against a local pigeon shoot- recently abandoned as a fundraiser by the local sportsmen’s club and good on them- only to have them forcibly withdrawn by the local DA, I never had a chance to make our case for the illegality of pigeon shoots in open court. So, I’ll make it here, again. At length, again. Because despite NRA bulleted short lists, some things are complicated and take time and thought.

The Charge: Violation of PA 5511(C)(1): A person commits an offense if he wantonly or cruelly ill-treats, overloads, beats, otherwise abuses any animal, or neglects any animal as to which he has a duty of care, whether belonging to himself or otherwise, or abandons any animal, or deprives any animal of necessary sustenance, drink, shelter or veterinary care, or access to clean and sanitary shelter which will protect the animal against inclement weather and preserve the animal’s body heat and keep it dry.

Some officers have gone for the second section above and made a case for the shelter and sustenance. We were going to make a case flatly on the bolded first portion. Launching hundreds of birds (or just one) from a trap and shooting them/it to flop around full of bird shot in agony to die slowly is the definition of wonton and cruel ill treatment. The action is wanton and cruel. J ’accuse!

The first immediate defense would be to ask the judge to find that this action is not wanton and cruel. That would be a stretch because one only needs to substitute another animal, let’s say a dog or a deer, for the pigeon. It would clearly be wanton and cruel in those cases. In fact, this situational cruelty is why the Cruelty Law actually specifies the circumstances in which it does not apply to clearly cruel actions. One can’t always simply say, “What if it was a dog?” We don’t hunt dogs. We don’t slaughter dogs for food. But those things are not cruelty under the law when we do it with deer or cows.

Therefore, to make the case that this isn’t an action in which we can simply swap out the animal being shot to determine the wonton cruelty of the action, the shooter must take a different approach and say, “Yes, the action would be cruel if a dog or a deer, but the law still allows me to do this cruel thing.” And the first point goes to me: Launching and shooting an animal is cruelty. Unless the judge wants to say it isn’t. Did I mention that Magisterial Justices in Pennsylvania are elected locally, don’t have to have a law degree (or any legal background), and are free to simply ignore the law and reality? So, I still might have lost right here, but I don’t think so.

Moving on. Having established that launching and shooting an animal is wanton cruelty; the defendant must present an affirmative defense or face conviction. In other words, why is this cruelty permitted under the law? And many cruelties are permitted under the law. I’ll run through them quickly, as we would have in court.

There are several defenses under PA 5511. It shall not apply to “the killing of any animal taken or found in the act of actually destroying any domestic animal or domestic fowl.” Unless these are killer pigeons, that one doesn’t work. “Reasonable activity as may be undertaken in connection with vermin control or pest control,” is another defense. I’ve never seen rats rounded up, transported across state lines, and used in trap shots by Orkin. I think that one is a loser, too. Self-defense is another clear legal defense. Except I’m unaware of the need to defend oneself against anything but pigeon poop. Loser. How about “activity undertaken in normal agricultural operation.” This is an old favorite of puppy millers but it hardly applies to pigeon shoots. None to these exclusions apply and none are a valid defense against the charge of wanton cruelty.

There is one more defense laid out in the law and this is the one which receives a glancing argument by pigeon shooters. It’s the one which apologists fall back on. But it does not hold up any better than the others if you actually read the law. PA 5511 does not apply to “the killing of any animal or fowl pursuant to the act of June 3, 1937 (P.L. 1225, No. 316), [FN2] known as The Game Law…” In other words, if it’s legal hunting under the law, it’s legal. Even if it’s cruelty.

This is the argument which worked on me when I first came to Berks County. Someone told me pigeon shoots were protected under game code and I took that at face value. I had never looked up to see first-hand that deer hunting was legal, so why would I bother with pigeon shoots? Except I don’t get cruelty calls about deer hunting the way I do pigeon shoots and finally, after a friend in the business told me that they weren’t covered by game code or regulation, I read the game code. It’s long. I read the game regulations, rules, seasons, and bag limits. My friend was right, it wasn’t covered. But my friend wasn’t a cruelty officer and I was. And that made me realize that this wasn’t a matter of ambiguity. These shoots, if not protected by game code, were completely illegal.

The Game Code says “The commission shall promulgate such regulations as it deems necessary and appropriate concerning game or wildlife and hunting or furtaking in this Commonwealth.” So, even the words “it’s OK to have pigeon shoots” isn’t in the law- and it isn’t- the Game Commission has the authority to make it legal through regulation. That means we only need to go to the PA Game Commission’s Hunting Seasons and Bag Limits to see what the rules are for what animals may be hunted, how many, when, and in what way. It’s a comprehensive list including deer, muskrats, crow, groundhogs, bear, you name it. Pigeons are not on the list but a very important sentence is included: “No open season on other wild birds or mammals.” That means that if it’s not on the list, it can’t be hunted. Period.

Pigeon shoots are not hunting under Pennsylvania’s Game Code or promulgated regulations. But wait! I hear you lurking shooters reading this getting indignant and thinking, “We never said this was hunting, it’s a trap shoot at private clubs! We don’t need no stinkin’ regulations or permits!” Au contraire, mon frere, you very much do. The Game Code, 34 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 2928(a), allows that releases and shoots at “Regulated hunting grounds require a minimum of 100 acres of land, or land and water combined, on which the permittee must release one of the following species of domestically produced game birds: namely, ringneck pheasants, bobwhite quail or mallard ducks. Any of the listed species and chukar partridges may be released only if they are listed on the permit application and propagated by the permittee or received from a legal source.” Not pigeons. There is no game code protection.

The case is simple: Shooters are charged with the wanton cruelty of shooting pigeons and piling them up to die a slow death. The defense must show that this cruelty is exempt from prosecution because it is protected under a provision or PA law. Self-defense, normal agricultural practice, pest control, animal control, protecting other wildlife, and game code and game regulations do not provide any defense against the charge. In an absence of a defense and in light of both the specific letter and totality of the law addressing the dispatch of animals in Pennsylvania, a judge has no choice but to convict. That’s assuming the judge actually follows the law when this case in made before the court. Guilty, guilty, guilty!

There are a couple extremely easy ways for shooters to make these shoots legal. Get the Game Commission to change the regulations to allow for hunting pigeons without a season or bag limit. My guess is that the change would have to be overturned by legislation. HSBC would cease our yammering about pigeons because the activity, while loathsome, would be legal. Or they could go the route of direct legislation and make shoots expressly legal, as the anti-shoot folks are similarly seeking a legislative remedy by making them expressly illegal. I’ve already suggested two bills which would go head to head. One allows, one bans. Let’s see who votes for what and which would win.

But until then, HSBC will stick with our legal position that pigeon shoots are already illegal under the law and that there is no legal defense under the law. The only defense is from the shooters’ cronies who block the rightful application of Pennsylvania law in our courts.

On that, Steve and I agree 100%.


The recently proposed White Amendment, which would have given Pennsylvania’s taxpayers a small, capped, one-time tax credit for adopting a shelter pet, fell short of passage by one vote. In a House with a sizable Republican majority, this is actually remarkable since the amendment, proposed by a Democrat, would need not only his party’s vote, but Republican support, too.

The White Amendment managed to get that cross-aisle support, which included the support of John Maher, Republican candidate for Auditor General and hardly an economic liberal. Among others, it also got the support of Mike Tobash, unapologetic supporter of pigeon shoots and hardly a bleeding heart animal activist. Apparently these two diverse Republicans recognized something that the majority of their colleagues did not: The White Amendment wasn’t just about dogs and cats. It was also about the economy!

If dogs wanted a tax credit they should have timed the stock market better!

Tax credits are created for a reason. They are intended to incentivize something which is good for the community. In this case the shallowest of views might have been that this was just about the 25,000 adopters who would have been eligible to receive this tax credit if they adopted a shelter pet. As an animal welfare advocate, that’s a good enough reason for me. But I can see how some might not think that’s enough of a reason to modify tax policy.

But I’m also the CEO of a non-profit corporation which employs over 30 Pennsylvania tax payers. That part of me is mad as hell this didn’t pass because a less shallow view would have seen that the White Amendment was really about jobs and economic development. It was about the economy, stupid! While some of our elected officials run around pandering to us about the need for a tax policy which supports business and how we need to support manufacturing, gas drilling, millionaire job creators, and the like, they seem to have forgotten that the single biggest employment sector in Pennsylvania is the one animal shelters belong to: the non-profit sector.

One in eight Pennsylvania jobs is provided by the non-profit sector, the largest of any other sector of the employment market. It’s one in eight when you take away the second largest employer, government. That’s more employees with quality jobs than any of the other sectors which our officials want to tout as being so “vital” to our economy. That’s more tax payers who support our government and economy. And the money spent in these non-profit businesses stays right here in Pennsylvania rather than being funneled to parent corporations in other states or even other nations.

I’m not saying these officials shouldn’t support other industries, too; in fact we all need to be successful if any of us are to be truly successful. However, many of the Representatives who voted against the White Amendment seems to have forgotten, if they ever knew, that it is organizations like ours which are the true job creators in Pennsylvania. We deserve the economic boost this amendment would have delivered and it would have made a very real difference to our employees and their families and to the overall economy.

The majority of the Representatives who voted against this Amendment don’t seem to have a problem with voting for tax credits for millionaires in the name of “job creation”. Nearly all supported the years’ long tax holiday given to natural gas drillers and the eventual passage of one of the lowest severance taxes in the nation, all in the name of economic development. I don’t fault them for doing that if they really thought it was the right thing to do. I do fault their inconsistency, however, when they choose to reward millionaires and Texas energy companies but vote against a tiny tax credit which would have benefited pets, Pennsylvania tax payers, and employers like HSBC.

So, if they don’t have a problem with tax credits, I can’t help but wonder why they seem to have a problem with Pennsylvania’s real job creators, its average tax payers, and our dogs? Maybe they should consider taking another bite out of this apple and passing the White Amendment.


Yesterday I had a nice meeting with someone I had not seen in a while.  To be honest, we didn’t part of the chummiest of terms.  This person was around when I first came to HSBC nearly eight (really, eight?!) years ago and we went our separate ways in part over some of the major changes here which I brought about.  And maybe a little because I was slightly less lovable eight years ago than I am now.  Now I just giggle like the Snuggle Bear when you poke my belly.

This person reminded me of a question which had been asked at one of my job interviews.  I was asked, “If you become executive director, are you going to make a lot of changes?”  My answer was, “Yes.”  Actually, I think I said I expected that if I was still here in a few years- and before I even had the job I figured my tenure would either be six months or six years and I wouldn’t have given good odds on six years- the Humane Society of Berks County would be unrecognizable.

You can say a lot of things about me but you can’t say I didn’t tell the God’s honest truth.  Eight years later we are nearly unrecognizable from the organization I joined.  From the foundation created by Lindy Scholar and her board, we have actually made the leaps which the people who hired me said they wanted to make.  We have created services and programs which help more animals than ever.  We are a recognized leader in program and service innovation.  We have miraculously dragged ourselves out of the ever looming hole of fiscal collapse and bankruptcy.  We are a model of what animal welfare and animal sheltering should be, not just in 2012, but a model for the decades to come.

Of course, making wishes sometimes gets you results you didn’t foresee.  There’s a reason that the lesson of the genie in the bottle story is to throw it back in the water.  There were more than a few who didn’t like the transformation that began to occur eight years ago, despite wishing for it.  In some ways we gave birth to a whole new organization and, being father of three daughters, I know how hard a process that can be, even when you aren’t the person doing the hard labor.  Like kids, you don’t know what you’re going to get when you recreate an organization.

After eight years we have become what we sought to be: bigger, better, and stronger.  Like the person I met with yesterday in an attempt to mend fences (or at least straighten a couple fence posts), I hope those who didn’t like the direction their genie’s wish took them will at least be able to see that we are now, in fact, bigger, better, and stronger.  With any luck, in a very short while we will be even biggerer, betterer, and strongerer.  And even less recognizable.  Keep tuned to this Bat Station for more on that soon.

Fred Eaglesmith says that a man doesn’t grow up ‘till he’s forty odd years old.  I don’t know if it’s that or if we have simply gotten as far at HSBC as fighting will take us (or was required).  Either way, I’m taking some pleasure in the fence mending I’ve been able to do with others who are of a like mind to do so, especially since its good for our work at HSBC.  I hope they’ll be joined by a few others who might have parted ways with slightly bigger grudges.

C’mon, back, y’all.  You know you want to poke my tummy and hear me giggle.


(Guest blog by Jenny Stephens, North Penn Puppy Mill Watch)

At long last, the Pennsylvania Bureau of Dog Law Enforcement’s Advisory Board will meet on April 25, 2012 from 1 to 4PM in room 309 at the PA Department of Agriculture building located at 2301 Cameron Street in Harrisburg, PA.

More than a year has passed since the Board last convened; a breach of the Bureau’s own regulations that requires “regular” meetings.  In 2009 – and in years previous – the Board met four times a year; in 2010, there were two Board meetings however in 2011 not one meeting was held.

In stark contrast, both a lot and nothing have transpired since the last meeting in 2010 and, applicable to both, nothing positive for the dogs has been accomplished.  The Bureau is on the verge of bankruptcy; the new Dog Law enacted in 2008 is not being enforced; commercial breeding kennels are not being inspected and some have not been visited in over a year; an assortment of open positions exists within the Bureau… a Bureau that’s not even called a “bureau” anymore but is now referred to as an “office” and the list goes on.

In case you’re wondering, the Dog Law Advisory Board consists of 25 members:

(1) The secretary or his designee, who shall act as chairman.
(2) A representative of animal research establishments.
(3) A representative of a statewide veterinary medical association.
(4) Two representatives of animal welfare organizations*
(5) Three representatives of farm organizations, with one from each statewide general farm organization
(6) A representative of dog clubs.
(7) A representative of commercial kennels.
(8) A representative of pet store kennels.
(9) A representative of sportsmen.
(10) A representative of a national purebred canine pedigree registry.
(11) A representative of lamb and wool growers.
(12) A county treasurer.
(13) A representative of hunting-sporting dog organizations.
(14) A representative of the police.
(15) A representative of boarding kennels.
(16) Seven members representing the general public who are recommended by the Governor

*In this instance, “animal welfare organizations” refers to open access shelters – shelters that employ a humane society police officer and accepts all surrendered animals as well as animals running at large versus private rescues.

As you can plainly see, the deck is stacked against those who advocate for canines.  With only two members out of 25 representing the advocacy community, it’s not hard to understand why little headway is ever made to address issues that would benefit the puppy mill dogs, the homeless dogs, the neglected, abused, tethered and stray dogs.  In fact, when you look at the other seats on the Board, it’s obvious they are pro-breeding in an era when Pennsylvania is facing a dog overpopulation predicament.

Sadly, PA advocates recently lost its strongest voice on the DLAB:  Nancy Gardner, President of the Cumberland Valley Animal Shelter in Chambersburg, PA.   Ms. Gardner was advised, via correspondence, that her term on the Board had ended and was thanked for her services; sadly, she was never asked if she wished to retain her seat or bring her years of expertise to a largely new Board formed under the Corbett administration.  Nancy’s absence from the Board represents a tremendous loss to advocates and she will be sorely missed.

In fact, many replacements have supposedly been made and several of these individuals – while having experience in their particular field – have little to no experience with Pennsylvania’s Dog Law or the statewide problems that plague the canine advocacy community..

If you’ve never attended a Dog Law Advisory Board meeting, and they are open to the public, it tends to be… and please pardon the pun, a dog and pony show.  Members of the public may observe and, if time allows, short commentary is permitted but only after the Board has concluded its business.

Wednesday’s meeting should prove quite interesting as new members to the Board will be introduced and tremendous discussion pursuant to the Bureau’s current financial state is anticipated.

Another FYI in case you weren’t aware, the Bureau is funded by three streams of revenue:  the licensing of dogs by private dogs owners, the sale of kennel licenses, and the receipt of up to $69,000 pursuant to the issuance of fines for infractions of the Dog Law.

According to Bureau of Dog Law’s Michael Pechart, close to $500,000 in fines was generated in 2009 however only $69,000 ended up in the Dog Law Restricted Account with the balance going to the Commonwealth.  The $69,000 figure is the maximum the Bureau is permitted to retain.  Additionally, the account’s not really “restricted,” is it, considering the Commonwealth helped itself to several million during the Rendell administration to “balance the budget” and those funds were never replaced… funds that were supposed to be used to enforce the law and protect dogs.

With many ideas sure to be brought to the table to increase revenue at Wednesday’s meeting, hopefully discussion will include the introduction of legislation to address why the Bureau is not permitted to retain the funds it generates by enforcing the law and collecting fines from those who break it.

Unfortunately, it’s predicted that plans to boost revenue will fall squarely on the public via increased license fees.  For decades private dog owners have funded Dog Law and instead of utilizing these funds appropriately, the money, for all intents and purposes, has been misappropriated and stolen.  To ask the public to come to the rescue of this Bureau and remain the primary source of revenue when the Bureau isn’t doing its job is simply ridiculous.  If individual dog license prices are to be increased, so too should kennel license fees, especially when you consider the many problems created by those who exploit dogs for profit.

Pennsylvania regulations mandate the existence of the Bureau of Dog Law Enforcement and, despite many recent changes that fall far short of complying with actual regulations, it would appear that the sky’s the limit insofar as how far and long the Corbett administration will allow this agency to make up the rules as it goes along.

Without a fully functioning Bureau of Dog Law, Pennsylvania faces a serious canine crisis and cracks in the foundation are already apparent.  State representatives and senators need to understand and contemplate the impact the demise of Dog Law will have upon their constituents and local regions and move toward enacting a more equitable distribution of the funds generated by the collection of fines by those who disregard the law.

As advocates, prepare to brace yourselves.  The storm clouds on the horizon are quickly approaching and it’s likely to be raining cats and dogs in the very near future.


We’ve had a week or two of simmering down from the hyperbolic extremes of learning that SB 1329, the gas chamber ban bill, passed unanimously in the Senate only to find that, after years of hard work and horse trading by everyone with even a peripheral interest in the matter to construct a strong, useful bill, virtually everything was stripped from it.

On seeing the, and with apologies to Andy, as much as I’d like to say “streamlined” the only appropriate word is, gutting of the bill, my reaction was like most who had been working to get it passed, and with double apologies for using a vulgar text-world colloquialism, “WTF?!”  Rants were had all around.  In the end, we have what we have, and it is a rarity in some ways.  We have the purest of bills which does precisely one thing and one thing only: it bans the use of gas chambers for euthanasia in shelters, animal control facilities and vet offices in Pennsylvania.

We can bemoan it some more- and believe me, I did my share of moaning- or we can make the most of a bad situation.  And while we’re at it, we can put to the test the supposed “small government” convictions which have reportedly brought us to this version of the bill.

Surprise, surprise, surprise!

The situation would seem pretty cut and dry.  Reportedly, the Governor’s office will not sign anything which requires additional fees or regulation, even when the industry being regulated is literally begging for it like the animal welfare community is.  That explains the stripping of all the well-crafted measures to allow for direct licensing of animal shelters so that shelters can directly purchase the correct euthanasia drugs, without needing to bow and scrape to a local vet if they don’t have one on staff, just like 17 other states allow.

I’m yet to see anyone go on the record supporting gas chambers.  That would explain the unanimous Senate passage of the “streamlined” bill.  Who in their right political mind wants to vote for gas chambers?   By voting it out of their chamber, the Senators have handed the hot potato to their House peers.

This is where it gets interesting.  We now have a bill which has nothing in it which the Governor or anyone else, except maybe the gas chamber manufacturing lobby, can object to.  No new fees.  No new regulations.  No DEA issues (even if the ones raised were utterly bogus).  Farmers can still do whatever they want.  The NRA can crow that they have protected the time honored tradition of being able to shoot your own dog (somebody cue the end of Old Yeller and raise the flag).  The only thing in this bill is a ban on gas chambers to euthanize pets in the remaining three or four places which use them in the entire state.  Who could possibly object to this?

For starters, I think a few people assumed people like me in the animal welfare community would.  As Gomer Pyle would say, “Surprise, surprise, surprise!”  You will find no opposition from us.  For years there was concern by the sheltering community that a lack of access to the right euthanasia drugs might result in shelters with gas chambers simply closing their doors following a ban, causing a worse situation for animals.  Guess what? While we’d like to see a direct licensing option, the vast majority, if not all, in our community have been saying what I’ve been saying: We would like direct licensing but we demand a ban no matter what and no strings attached if it’s the best we can get.  No one can make the claim that we are stopping them from voting for a ban and getting it signed into law.  It is simply not true.

Better yet, there are several of us on the record saying we will personally and organizationally provide the resources and oversight to any shelter using a gas chamber and which has no alternative to allow them to switch to the right euthanasia techniques.  It will cost us money as a charity- and that’s the dirty little secret of all these cuts and “no new fees or taxes” rules, they just shift the cost to local government and charities- but we’ll get the money to do it.  Better yet, there are a few very clever ideas out there, and I know Senator Dinniman has them, which would not only address these concerns without spending a dime of public money, but might even be to the government’s benefit.

There is nothing in this bill which will violate agriculture rights or gun rights or any Grover Norquist anti-tax pledges. There is no reason not to pass this bill in the House.  None.  Unless the leadership in the House supports gas chambers.  If it passes in the House there is no reason for the Governor not to sign it.  Unless he supports gas chambers.

A couple weeks ago I questioned the courage of our elected officials in my anger and frustration.  Perhaps that was harsh.  They can demonstrate that courage right now by scheduling a vote in the House, passing the bill, and getting it signed into law.  They can show that they don’t stand behind an artifice of high minded governmental ethics which serves only to allow more pets to die in gas chambers.

Leaders of the House and Governor Corbett, Senator Dinniman did his part, along with the rest of the Senate who voted for this bill unanimously.  Schedule SB 1329 for a vote in the House now.  Pass SB 1329 now.  Sign SB 1329 into law now.

Please do it now.


Want your State Representative to vote for SB 3129 now?  Tell them so.  Click here to find your Representative’s contact information.