In 2017, Pennsylvania animal advocates celebrated the passage of Libre's Law, an omnibus statute that grouped together several bills that previously had been introduced as separate animal protection measures. It was touted as so comprehensive that it was referred to collectively as the “Animal Abuse Statute Overhaul” bill. Libre's Law accomplished many things including creating a new offense of aggravated cruelty to animals, raising offense levels for many other cruelty offenses, granting limited immunity to humane society police officers and veterinarians and delineating restrictions on tethering dogs outside. One significant weakness in the current law that remains to be addressed is the specification of what type of housing is required for dogs left outdoors. While tethering for longer than nine hours creates a rebuttable presumption of neglect, the law does little to increase protections for dogs left outdoors that are not tethered or tied up.

Tethered dogs are of great concern. They are unable to protect themselves from the weather. They are sometimes unable to access food or water. They can be in danger because of the size and type of tether or chain used to restrain them. They can become dangerous from the mental frustration of hours of being chained up. So, dealing with tethering was important. Although certainly not the strongest provision possible, Libre's Law strengthened the statute to provide that tethering for more than nine hours, or more than 30 minutes if the temperature is below 32 degrees or above 90 degrees Fahrenheit, may constitute neglect under the cruelty statute. But many outdoor dogs are not tethered so the tethering provisions do not help them. The only protection from the elements afforded to them is the requirement to provide clean and sanitary shelter. But the description of the shelter required is insufficiently specific to provide adequate protection and truly humane treatment to dogs left outdoors in extreme weather.

Agencies that enforce the animal cruelty laws get nonstop calls in the winter months from concerned citizens troubled by dogs left outdoors as temperatures drop and snow threatens. Most state animal cruelty laws prohibit neglect of animals for which a duty of care is owed and failure to provide adequate shelter is usually considered neglect. Prior to the passage of Libre's Law this year, Pennsylvania law formerly provided as follows:

Cruelty to animals.

“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.”

Libre's law recodified the entire cruelty law and made neglect a separate offense but the definition of adequate shelter remained the same. 18 Pa. C.S. 5532 (requiring “access to clean and sanitary shelter and protection from the weather. The shelter must be sufficient to permit the animal to retain body heat and keep the animal dry.“). This general language fails to provide adequate protection to dogs left outdoors for hours on end in subfreezing temperatures and when wind and precipitation may be an issue.

When the city of Philadelphia enacted a local ordinance providing greater protections for dogs left outdoors in extreme weather, it specified with great detail the type of shelter that would be necessary in order to leave a dog outdoors in a Code Blue or Code Red situation. In order to avoid a fine (the ordinance does not provide for seizure of animals), the shelter must comply with the following requirements:

• It shall be of a suitable size to accommodate the dog in both standing and lying positions;

• It shall be moisture-proof, windproof, ventilated, and in cold temperatures shall promote the retention of body heat;

• It shall be made of durable material with a solid, moisture- proof floor raised at least two inches from the ground;

• It shall have a sufficient quantity of suitable clean bedding material consisting of hay, straw, cedar shavings or the equivalent to provide insulation and protection against cold and dampness;

• Drinking water is available in a clean, liquid state. Snow or ice is not an acceptable water source;

• The doghouse or similar structure and the surrounding area shall be free from excessive dirt, trash and waste;

• In Code Blue and Code Grey situations (relating to extreme cold temperatures), in addition to the requirements set forth in subsections (3)(a) (.1) through (.6), the doghouse or similar structure shall have a windbreak at the entrance; and

• In Code Red situations (relating to extreme heat), in addition to the requirements set forth in subsections (3)(a) (.1) through (.6), all dogs must be afforded one or more separate areas of shade large enough to accommodate the entire body of the dog at one time and protect it from the direct rays of the sun.

Many people elect to bring their dogs inside rather than invest in compliant housing. But the inability to seize a dog under the ordinance limits its utility and, of course, it applies only to dogs living in the city, so an improved state law is still necessary.

Other states offer much better protection for dogs left outdoors. For example, in Maine, the outdoor shelter requirements apply to all animals, not just dogs, and require “an artificial shelter, with a minimum of three sides and a waterproof roof, appropriate to the local climatic conditions and for the species and breed of the animal.” The Maine law also specifies minimum space requirements for both indoor and outdoor enclosures mandating that they provide sufficient space to allow each animal adequate freedom of movement and be structurally sound and maintained in good repair to protect the animals from injury and contain the animal. For dogs, even greater protections are required:

“A shelter must be provided that is fully enclosed except for a portal. The portal must be of a sufficient size to allow the dog unimpeded passage into and out of the structure. For dogs other than arctic breeds, the portal must be constructed with a baffle or other means of keeping wind and precipitation out of the interior. The shelter must be constructed of materials with a thermal resistance factor of 0.9 or greater and must contain clean bedding material sufficient to retain the dog's normal body heat.”

This responds to the argument often made, accurately, that every breed of dog does not have the same needs in terms of protection from the elements. An arctic breed might be comfortable outdoors when a dog with a thinner coat would not be. It also puts meat on the bones of the requirement that body heat must be maintained, the same standard set forth in the Pennsylvania statute but without any description to guide humane law-enforcement officers and police investigating dogs in danger.

Similarly, in Minnesota, another state where winter weather conditions can be life-threatening for animals kept outdoors, the law specifies that shelters for dogs must include “a moisture-proof and wind-proof structure of suitable size to accommodate the dog and allow retention of body heat.” Again, that provision is similar to the Pennsylvania law but the Minnesota statute further provides that the structure “shall be made of durable material with a solid, moisture proof floor or a floor raised at least two inches from the ground.” It specifically provides that “between Nov. 1 and March 31, the structure must have a windbreak at the entrance,” Minn. Stat. 343.40(2) (2008). It also requires a sufficient quantity of suitable bedding material to provide insulation and protect against cold and dampness.

Libre's Law was a significant step forward in moving Pennsylvania from the bottom rung of the ladder in protecting animals.The next step, and it should be an easy one, should be to specify the type of shelter required that will actually provide humane housing for dogs kept outdoors. While many of us would prefer a requirement that dogs be brought indoors, this is literally the least we can do for our best friends.

Penny Conly Ellison is an adjunct professor at the University of Pennsylvania Law School, teaching animal law and ethics, and a member of the board of directors of the Pennsylvania SPCA.