Animal Welfare Task Force

Meeting Minutes
Thursday, October 18th 2012
2:00 pm
Buena Vista Conference Center
Buck Library
Task Force members present:
Sen. Patricia Blevins, Delaware State Senate
Sen. Karen Peterson, Delaware State Senate
Rep. Earl Jaques, Delaware House of Representatives
Rep. Lincoln Willis, Delaware House of Representatives
Secretary Ed Kee, Delaware Department of Agriculture
Andy Lippstone, Office of the Governor
Jennifer Ranji, Public Member
Hetti Brown, Public Member
Kathy Gallagher, Public Member
John Rago, City of Wilmington
Kristin Dwyer, New Castle County
Mike Petit de Mange, Kent County Levy Ct.
Hal Godwin, Sussex County
Patrick Carroll, Delaware Humane Association
Anne Gryczon, Safe Haven
Jane Pierantozzi, Faithful Friends Animal Society
Anne Cavanaugh, Delaware SPCA
Kevin Usilton, Kent County SPCA
Dr. Bob Thompson, DMVA (Dr. Morgan Dawkins, DVMA)
Dr. Michael Moyer, University of Pennsylvania
Verne R. Smith, Widener University School of Law
Staff present:
Carling Ryan, Delaware State Senate
Public attendees:
C.S. Kidner, DVMA
Catherine Samardza
Phyllis Frank
Carol Furr
Alexa Shatzmann, HSUS
Doug Beatty
Sherene Lindo
Donna Watson
The meeting was called to order at 2:15 p.m.

1. Welcome and Introductions

Sen. Blevins welcomed the Task Force and thanked them for taking the time to attend the meeting. She asked that
everyone reintroduce themselves by stating their name and organization that they are representing.
2. Meeting 2 minutes approval
Sen. Blevins noted that the minutes were directly behind the agenda in each Task Force members information packet,
and asked if anyone had noted any changes to the agenda that they would like to make. Mr. Rago mentioned that in the
consolidation and coordination of services section of the minutes he had recommended that services be consolidated
at the State level, and that he would like that noted in the minutes. Mr. Petit de Mange asked if the minutes had been
sent out in advance. Sen. Blevins stated that they had not been, and Mr. Petit de Mange asked that the Task Force have
some additional time to review the minutes before adopting them as the official minutes. Sen. Blevins stated that the
approval could be moved, but due to the numerous requests from members of the public to see the minutes, the
minutes would be posted to the state website in a draft form.
3. Dog Control
Sen. Blevins then segued into the next item on the agenda, which was a more in depth discussion of Dog Control. She
noted that the last sheet in the Task Force members packets listed dog control services that are currently mentioned
and offered in Delaware statutes. Ms. Ryan noted that she only pulled information from Title IX, as that is where the Dog
Control contractual information resides. Sen. Blevins suggested that the Task Force go through the services and discuss
how they are working and if they could be better.
What services do we currently provide under Title IX? And
What concerns do we have about how we are providing them?
What is lacking/should be provided?
Recommendations from the Task Force for report
What areas need further discussion?
a. Dog licensing
i. Individual dog owners
ii. Retail dog outlets
iii. Kennels
iv. Lost/stolen licenses or tags
v. License not required for seeing eye, lead or guide dogs/dogs which have served in the armed forces
A more in depth discussion of how citizens can obtain dog licenses was initiated.
Ms. Dwyer stated that New Castle County residents can obtain their licenses online through their license vendor,
Pet Data. She also stated that now, citizens who want to purchase a license need to simply check a box on an
affidavit as opposed to faxing/emailing/mailing their pets documentation required for the license. They can also
be purchased at the government center and 6 different locations throughout New Castle County, as well as via
postal mail.
Mr. Petit de Mange stated that, presently, Kent County was issuing dog licenses out of the County building, but
that Kent County was pursuing a relationship with Pet Data also, which would enable mail-in or online

applications for licenses. They plan to continue to offer walk-ins at their building and possibly a few other
locations.
Mr. Godwin stated that Sussex County was under contract with KCSPCA and licenses were sold at their
administrative building in Georgetown, and that Sussex County was considering many different options as they
come to the end of their contract in December.
Mr. Rago stated that the City of Wilmington currently utilizes the Delaware Humane Association as a licensing
agent and on December 1st, the City would begin a contract with Pet Data for licensing services. It was also
noted that they would be sold at DESPCA.
Sen. Blevins asked each County and the City representative if they had a good number for the amount of dogs
licensed each year, noting that the information would be helpful as a report begins to be compiled. Mr.
Lippstone added that revenue information would also be helpful, as a restriction limiting the amount a County
could charge for a license expired in 2011.
Rep. Jaques mentioned that he had proposed legislation that would permit anyone who administered rabies
shots to sell dog licenses, which he felt would be more user-friendly, and that a fee could be assessed by
whoever administered the license. Sen. Blevins acknowledged that some states to have the veterinarians issue
the dog licenses and they collect that revenue at the time of the rabies shot, and she asked the DVMA
representative to speak on the issue.
Dr. Thompson, who was representing Dr. Dawkins, stated that the veterinarians are against requiring them to
issue the license due to the lack of incentive for the veterinarians as well additional paperwork they would be
required to manage on top of the amount of paperwork already required for rabies and spay/neuter. Dr.
Thompson stated that there was no real compensation for the amount of time staff would be handling the
paperwork.
Rep. Jaques suggested using the rabies database to minimize the amount of paperwork by adding the license
information to the database as well. Sen. Blevins asked if compensation could be administered, would the
veterinarians be willing to issue licenses; Dr. Thompson said it was possible, but that the compensation had to
be there. He cited some veterinarians discontent with a spay/neuter $50 tax credit that took away from their
compensation.
Mr. Rago said that the City of Wilmington had draft legislation that would permit licensing agents to keep the
revenue.
Dr. Thompson mentioned that up until 2011, his veterinary hospital at Lums Pond was one of two veterinarians
that sold dog licenses, but if there was a mistake on the paperwork, the veterinary hospital would have to pay
the 3 year un-neutered fee, and the license sales werent compensating those fees.
Ms. Dwyer acknowledged that issuing dog licenses for vendors was a very cumbersome process due to
paperwork. She also shared that New Castle County does a press push for license renewal in January, which
subsequently resulted in an increase in dog licenses issued. She said that licenses were the only revenue being
created from Dog Control, but that there was an idea in other parts of the State to just eliminate dog licenses
and use rabies certificates as the sole identifier.

Mr. Petit de Mange stated that he had some concerns with the current deadline for dog license renewal. The
current deadline is March 1st, but he believes that the deadline should float with the expiration of the license,
which was something proposed by Rep. Jaques. That way, the consumer paid for an entire years worth of
licensing, not just for a few months until the set expiration date.
Ms. Dwyer stated that she and Secretary Kee explored the option of utilizing the spay/neuter database for
licensing. Secretary Kee stated that he had since compiled information regarding rabies vaccines, there had been
98,000 rabies shots given a year for dogs and cats. He stated that he wouldnt begin to make a correlation
between rabies shots and licensing because he was unsure of the breakdown between cats and dogs.
Ms. Dwyer suggested adjusting the requirements for what information needed to be recorded after a rabies
vaccine to include information to fits the needs of the County to try to ensure licensing compliance.
Ms. Brown asked if the rabies database linked back to any personal information of the owner, so if a dog with a
rabies tag was lost, some number on the tag could be used to identify the owner and reunite them.
Secretary Kee stated that what was sent in to the Department of Agriculture was a periodic listing from the
veterinarians that doesnt necessarily have that information. The purpose of the database is so that, if there is
an instance with rabies, there is a database in which the status of a dogs rabies shot can be quickly identified
from a certain veterinarians office.
Mr. Usilton stated that there was no requirement to give a physical rabies tag when a vaccination is given in
Delaware, but a certificate will always be issued. There is an extra cost for the tag, and when a tag is given for
cats, it is usually a waste of money since most dont wear a collar.
Ms. Ranji noted that between licensing, rabies certification, and microchipping, there were many different
identifying features for different animals, though none of them are cross linked in a way that is user friendly
because there isnt a good system of incorporating all of this information.
Rep. Jaques stated that if there was a better database of information, the process could be more simplified. He
referenced the ability to get other types of licenses more easily.
Ms. Brown asked if having a vendor reduced the amount of paperwork. Ms. Dwyer stated that there was a paper
trail and a triplicate form that was used to issue the license, so the amount of paperwork is still the same. Ms.
Dwyer then said that Pet Data also sends a reminder letter to the owner when their dogs license renewal date is
approaching.
Sen. Blevins asked the group if they felt that there was any good reason to continue to license dogs. Sen.
Peterson asked what the pros were for licensing, other than the ability to easily return the dog to its owner,
aside from the revenue issue.
Dr. Moyer said that if licensure was looked at as an identification system, and it was uncoupled from rabies,
thats when licenses as a utility were used best. He acknowledged that it was often coupled with rabies
vaccinations and spay/neuter. He suggested making it a low price and not making licensing a barrier, because an
identified pet would not be a burden to a shelter, and also suggested a cat identification package as well. In
addition, Dr. Moyer said that the message should be about pet unification, and stress the message about rabies
being linked with licenses a little less.

Mr. Usilton added that Pennsylvania also has a lifetime license.

Sen. Peterson asked why the identifier couldnt be the rabies tag, if a rabies tag was required to be issued.
It was determined that many more people get their pet vaccinated from rabies and do not get a license. There
was a question as to why a central integrated system couldnt be established which simultaneously gave a rabies
tag and dog license. An idea that emerged from the overall discussion was creating a system in which the state
provided veterinarians with tags which would be issued to each pet to prove inoculation as well as to serve as a
license tag/identifier.
Ms. Brown offered an example as to why licensing is so important by sharing Calgary, Canadas dog licensing
model. Calgary decoupled licensing from rabies vaccines and sells the licenses at many vendors. No proof of
inoculation is required to obtain a dog license. They heavily market dog licenses as your pets ticket home.
They also offer cat licenses, but not as a stray management program. They have a 98% dog licensing compliance
rate, 87% of dogs picked up by animal control are returned directly to the owner, reducing burdens on shelters.
Mr. Rago asked how Calgarys public health side of dog control was working, in terms of rabies inoculation. Ms.
Brown stated that it was a requirement to have the pet vaccinated, but did not have the figures for the
compliance rate. Dr. Moyer later added that Calgary gives a customer centric nature to licensure by including
discount incentives at local pet-related stores for purchasing the license. He also noted that all of Calgarys
animal control was run off of license revenue, and they usually have a surplus to give back to the City. Calgary
also makes licenses market sensitive and free for anyone on public assistance, and it pushes microchipping.
Sen. Blevins stated that a few good options for licensing had been suggested, and something needed to change
from the current model in Delaware, as the licensing compliance rate can be as low as 10%. Ms. Dwyer felt that
increased advertising would help make pet owners more aware of licensing requirements.
Mr. Godwin shared Sussex Countys licensing numbers (5798), but noted that they didnt know what
percentages of dogs in the county were licensed. Anne Cavanaugh noted that there was a formula by which you
could estimate the number of cats and dogs in a state based on the population.
Mr. Petit de Mange shared that he felt that the reason for licensing is for public health against rabies, and
wanted to know how Calgary had rabies vaccination compliance.
b. Kennel and Retail Dog Outlet inspection, performed by dog control agents
i. Inspection of facilities which are seeking/have obtained license
KCSPCA performs kennel inspections for New Castle County. When asked who performed kennel inspections for
the City of Wilmington, Mr. Rago and Ms. Cavanaugh stated that the City did not have any licensed kennels.
Kennel licensing is optional, so kennels or areas that house over 4 dogs have the option to apply for a kennel
license, but then they would be subject to inspection by the agency contracted in the county or municipality
within which the kennel resides. So, licensing could be done per individual dog.
Ms. Ranji asked if the Counties codes added any additional regulations or requirements to kennel and retail dog
outlet licensing. Mr. Petit de Mange stated that he believed that Sussex County had some additional
requirements, stating that the person who applies for the license must be inspected prior to receiving the
license. Mr. Godwin affirmed that was right. Ms. Dwyer said the same policy existed in New Castle County.

Ms. Cavanaugh explained that the original intent of the kennel license was so that, if an owner had several dogs,
they could purchase 1 kennel license as opposed to numerous individual dog licenses.
It is mostly a self-reporting system, since Delaware does not require kennel licenses, there is no authority over
inspecting any facilities housing multiple dogs.
Ms. Dwyer also noted that certain interest groups, like hunting and farm organizations, would fight for
exemptions from certain inspection requirements. Sen. Peterson clarified with Ms. Dywer that a kennel license
was in no way tied to any kind of business license. Sen. Blevins asked for clarification as to whether it was tied to
property maintenance code.
Mr. Petit de Mange stated that Kent County had a limit of 4 domesticated animals per household, and when
there are complaints of more than 4 dogs occur, those owners may already have Kennel licenses.
Sen. Blevins stated that though we may not have a recommendation for puppy mills, the Task Force may want to
note it as a concern in the report.
Ms. Gryzcon suggested making a larger discrepancy in fees for neutered dogs vs. un-neutered dogs. Sen. Blevins
asked if that was a deterrent for dog owners to get licenses in the Calgary model which was earlier suggested,
and Ms. Brown said there was a difference between large scale breeders and individual dog owners seeking a
license. Ms. Brown did clarify that Calgary charged a different rate for spay/neuter vs. not spay/neuter,
however, Calgary does not require proof.
Mr. Usilton stated that many urban areas require an additional permit to sell animals, such as a business license;
he referenced Baltimore, which requires a commercial license for every animal shelter or pet store which sells
animals. These licenses have minimal regulations and animal control inspects those locations.
Sen. Blevins stated that commercial licensing might be something the Task Force would want to consider, so
there was some minimum standard of care. Those who are already regulated, such as animal shelters, would be
exempted from different inspection requirements as they are already subject to requirements under the Shelter
Standards Law. With some exceptions, anyone who wishes to maintain a retail dog outlet must apply for a
license to the county in which the outlet resides.
c. Enforcing Humane Handling/Care specifications, carried out by dog control agents
i. Detailed list of requirements for indoor housing, outdoor housing, etc. can be found in Title 9,
Subchapter 1, Section 4
Ms. Ranji clarified that this section of the code was for anyone who owns an animal. Sen. Blevins asked where
the animal control agents played into this section. Mr. Usilton stated that cleaning up definitions and
discrepancies over who has responsibility over what would be beneficial in determined the difference between
Dog Control and Animal Cruelty.
Mr. Petit de Mange added that this was enabling law, in that it gives them the authority but doesnt require that
they inspect to ensure the standards are being upheld. He further expressed concerns about the confusion
between the code in Title 9 and Title 3.
Mr. Rago stated that, usually, the authority to inspect means that inspection will happen if there is money to do
it.
6

Ms. Ranji added that normal citizens would be confused about who to call due to the numerous different
organizations carrying out dog control and animal cruelty investigations in the separate counties and
municipalities.
Mr. Rago felt that the Task Force needed to figure out what animals would be encompassed in these laws and
where the line would be drawn.
Ms. Cavanaugh stated that, according to their contract, if its a dog issue, KCSPCA should be contacted, and if its
another animal issue, DESCPA should be contacted.
Dr. Moyer suggested having a consolidated animal information hotline center through which calls from citizens
can be redistributed to the appropriate agency to handle the question or complaint.
d. Dogs and theft of personal property
i. Any police officer, constable, or dog warden may execute arrest warrant for theft of a dog
e. Impounding dogs running at large

f.

Dangerous Dog Panel

i. County oversees animal control constables and/or dog wardens which seize and impound dogs
suspected of being dangerous or potentially dangerous; owner of impounded dog then may choose
to request hearing before panel; Panel convenes upon receipt of personal request for hearing

Sen. Blevins stated that the panel likely needed to be updated, and Ms. Dwyer said that the current
appointment process seems cumbersome.
Mr. Usilton stated that it used to be a very active Panel, but in the 10 months he had been the director at
KCSPCA, it had not convened. Mr. Lippstone asked if dangerous dogs were then being handled in other ways.
Mr. Ustilton stated that New Castle County had their own dangerous dog ordinance and KCSPCA uses that,
which the owners usually comply with, and that resolves the issue; many times, the owners hand the dogs over
for euthanasia, because the owner believe this is releasing him/her from liability, though it doesnt. Mr. Usilton
noted that most aggressive dog attacks happen on the owners property, which is excluded from Delaware law
as being a reason to deem a dog dangerous.
Mr. Petit de Mange stated that there was never any clear transfer of the Dog Panel to the Counties.
Mr. Rago stated that there was proposed legislation in Wilmington on animal control, which is fighting an anitpitbull sentiment, and the legislation highlights the Dangerous Dog panel as a safeguard, so it needed to be
functioning properly.

__________________________________________________________________________________________________
Sen. Blevins rounded out the discussion by stating that the Task Force had raised significant concerns regarding
dog control, and that the Task Force needed the statistics requested during the meeting to develop proposed
solutions to those issues.
7

Ms. Ranji discussed the need for statistics that would likely fall into the coordination and consolidation of
services meeting, such as the volume of the amount of animals falling under the contracts. She asked that the
shelters provide this data, as well as each shelters animal-holding capacity, so the State can have a better
understanding of the overall capacity. She added that best practice information should also be incorporated into
that discussion, and asked that individuals could bring that information to the Task Force as well.
Mr. Usilton suggested that available Task Force members visit the shelters to get a visual impact of the capacity
and volume issues, respective to each shelter, so that the Task Force would have a better understanding of
shelter needs.
Sen. Blevins and others approved of that idea, and suggested that the individual shelters propose possible dates
and times for a visit, but asked that the shelters still send the capacity and volume information in the meantime.

4. Choose discussion topic for next meeting

a. Animal Control Officers
b. Shelter Standards
c. Consolidation/Coordination of Services
d. Cats
Sen. Blevins suggested discussing Consolidation and Coordination of Services last, and asked which topic the
Task Force would like to discuss at the next meeting. Mr. Usilton suggested Shelter Standards, there was no
objection, so Shelter Standards was adopted as the next meeting topic.
5. Public Hearing date
The Task Force decided to schedule the public hearing on Thursday, November 29th from 7:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m.
in the Senate Chamber at Legislative Hall.
6. Public Comment
Debra Bresch, ASCPA: Ms. Bresch stated that, since the Shelter Standards law was scheduled to be the next topic of
discussion, she wanted to inform the Task Force that the law repealed language that banned gassing as a form of
euthanasia. She asked that the Task Force re-examine this issue and consider reinstating that language.
Catherine Samardza: Ms. Samardza stated that her activism has resulted in her running for State Senate. She noted
that small town leadership is looking at the issues of cat colonies and dog control. She suggested that the Task Force
look at what animal ordinances the small towns had developed. She also stated that many small rescues are afraid
that they will be visited by Kent County in violation of the 4 domestic animal ordinance. She said much is being done
by small rescues that were not represented at the meeting. She suggested building on what the small rescues and
communities are already doing when making recommendations. Ms. Samardza stated that cats do receive vet care
when they need it, and do receive their rabies vaccines, but sometimes it is through a clinic. Ms. Samardza also
noted that she believed the reason why owners did not choose to request a Dangerous Dog panel was because most
owners were not made aware of that option.
Doug Beatty: Mr. Beatty stated that he was running for office against Rep. Blakey. He referenced a situation earlier
discussed by Mr. Petit de Mange where two dogs were left outside during a heat wave, and the discrepancy
8

between dog control/County responsibility and animal cruelty responsibility. He believed that KCSPCA had crossed
the line from policy advocacy to lobbying. He said that violates their 5013C status.
Carol Furr: Ms. Furr noted her concern with the electronic complaints and attack being posted on the internet
amongst shelters. She said that she and a group of people have been calling for inspection and enforcement of
humane conditions for animals in all shelters, as well as an unbiased panel to handle violation complaints. She
believes that if there is a complaint against any shelter, it should be documented in a thorough manner and referred
to the appropriate agency, along with all elected officials and the Task Force.
Donna Watson: Ms. Watson thanked the group for continuing to work on these issues, and stated that the current
system was a nightmare for a lost pet owner. She feels there should be one registry for the entire state for lost
animals as well as surrendered animals.
7. Adjournment
There being no further business of the Task Force, a motion was made to adjourn. There being no objection, the
motion was adopted, and the meeting was adjourned at 4:00 p.m.