Case Details


Case Snapshot
Case ID: 6459
Classification: Neglect / Abandonment
Animal: dog (non pit-bull)
More cases in Lancaster County, PA
More cases in PA
Login to Watch this Case

New features are coming soon. Login with Facebook to get an early start and help us test them out!



For more information about the Interactive Animal Cruelty Maps, see the map notes.



BDLE cites puppy miller with neglect
Ronks, PA (US)

Incident Date: Friday, Jan 16, 2004
County: Lancaster

Disposition: State Citation

Person of Interest: Daniel P Esh

Daniel P. Esh, an Amish puppy miller from Lancaster County, Pennsylvania, has been issued a cease and desist order from the Dog Law Enforcement for the Bureau.

After requesting the most recent USDA inspection reports on Clearview Kennel, we were surprised to learn that Esh, on July 29, 2003, voluntarily cancelled his Class B dealer's license. As of this date, Esh is not licensed by the USDA. Esh said he didn't "need" the license as he "no longer wholesales, only retails" his dogs.

PA Bureau of Dog Law Enforcement officials inspected the kennel on January 16, 2004. Rick Burd, head of Dog Law Enforcement for the Bureau, filed numerous citations for violations in areas of bedding, shelter & flooring, lighting, ventilation and food & water receptacles. Due to the NCI's
discovered during the visit on January 16th, 2004, the Bureau refused to renew Esh's kennel license for 2004. The Bureau also issued a cease and desist order which is under appeal.

Esh was in court on March 30, 2004 to answer the summons. Testifying for the state was Rick Burd; Mary Bender, Director of Pa Bureau of Dog Law, waited outside the courtroom as a possible witness. Esh appeared with his longtime attorney, Patrick Zimmerman. Four courtroom observers included a local reporter, John Esh (Daniel's father), and two animal advocates. After a three-hour trial, Gap District Judge Isaac Stoltzfus found Esh guilty of two charges while dismissing the others. Prior to sentencing, Judge Stoltzfus asked that his personal comments to Esh not be made public. Esh was fined $600 plus court costs.

* On the day of the state inspection, January 16, 2004, the temperature was 12 degrees F. with a wind chill factor of minus 20 degrees. No bedding was present in any of the dog's cages or boxes. Patrick Zimmerman, Esh's attorney argued that the "insulated dog boxes" constituted
proper shelter and were a means of protection from the weather and that no bedding was required.

* Burd stated there was a strong odor of ammonia in the barn; that no windows were open because of the cold temperatures; no ventilation fans were in operation, and that a Boxer or Pug had difficulty breathing. At this point, Esh laid his head on the defense table, appeared to be nodding off or bored with the proceedings.

* Wire flooring in several of the cages had broken wire, causing a potential danger to the dogs. Wire flooring was sagging in some of the cages.

* There was no lighting in the barn, making it difficult or impossible to observe the dogs in cages in the middle rows. The law states that there shall be "natural or artificial light to allow observation of the animals." Gas lanterns were hanging from the ceiling but were not lit, according to Rick Burd.

* Several cages were found to have shredded pieces of Styrofoam in them. Esh stated that his daughter used Styrofoam bowls for feeding soft food to puppies, making cleanup easier. Burd, who said that the mess left behind compounded cleanup, refuted this point! (Esh was later admonished on the dangers of the ingestion of Styrofoam by dogs.)

* Esh, on cross-examination, stated he was never told by anyone from the state to provide bedding in the dogs' boxes.

* When asked how long he had been in business selling dogs, Esh paused for a few moments and said, "I don't really know, maybe 15-20 years."

* When asked how many pens Esh had (to house dogs), he replied, "I don't know. 150 pens?"

* When asked how many puppies he sold per month, Esh replied "20 to 30."

* When asked if he ever sold sick puppies or had any complaints from customers, Esh replied "no." After another pause, Esh said "well maybe a few minor things, like a cough."

* When asked about previous inspection reports and the deteriorating condition of rooms in the barn, Esh replied that he was "trying to make them pass until I can get a new permit. I want a new kennel."

* When asked if the USDA had informed him of previous violations, Esh replied "no" and Zimmerman objected; Judge Stoltzfus sustained and would not allow any previous USDA inspection reports to be introduced as evidence. Zimmerman was allowed, however, to spend about 10 minutes looking over the most recent inspection reports. They were inflammatory, so it's no wonder he objected to their introduction.

* When asked by Burd if he (Esh) recalled reading the state regulations that pertained to dog kennels, Esh replied "Not lately..."

These are just a few of the lies Esh told during his trial. He was previously informed about these very exact violations on several occasions by the USDA inspector. See reports dated 1/99; 12/99; 3/2000; 12/2000; 2/02; 1/03; and 5/03.

Esh was found guilty of not providing proper bedding for the dogs, and for not repairing wire flooring in some of the cages. The other charges were dismissed, not because the court felt Esh was not guilty, but that the state didn't prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt.

According to the Bureau, Esh was denied his 2004 license application based on the January 2004 inspection report and subsequent citations. Esh appealed that decision and an administrative appeal hearing is pending. He then applied for another license, stating he has made the necessary improvements to bring his kennel into compliance. If his kennel passes the next inspection, Esh could be re-licensed, making the administrative hearing a moot point. The Bureau also told us that it issues licenses based on the number of dogs a kennel has. It's up to the local municipalities to enforce their own ordinances; in this case, Leacock Township is responsible for enforcing its own ordinance of a maximum number of 250 dogs in township kennels. At last count, Esh stated he had "about 450 dogs."

References

  • Last Chance for Animals - April 24, 2004

  • « PA State Animal Cruelty Map
    « More cases in Lancaster County, PA

    Note: Classifications and other fields should not be used to determine what specific charges the suspect is facing or was convicted of - they are for research and statistical purposes only. The case report and subsequent updates outline the specific charges. Charges referenced in the original case report may be modified throughout the course of the investigation or trial, so case updates, when available, should always be considered the most accurate reflection of charges.

    For more information regarding classifications and usage of this database, please visit the database notes and disclaimer.



    Send this page to a friend
© Copyright 2001-2013 Pet-Abuse.Com. All rights reserved. Site Map ¤ Disclaimer ¤ Privacy Policy