AKC answers to FAQ on new (PAWS) Bill - ur thoughts?

[Bev]

This came as an e-mail forwarded to me. The writer expressed her thoughts as follows:

"Here is AKC's FAQ's concerning this legislation. On a personal note, there are too many problems with this bill. Although the numbers would exempt a lot of hobby breeders, this is the first time we would be regulated and numbers are always subject to change. 26 puppies in a large breed would certainly be easy to reach in two litters instead of seven. Secondly, another big problem is that this applies to RESCUES!
Rescuers cannot 'just get a license' because if they are licensed they must keep all animals in a kennel. Increased number of animals in shelters (due to decreased rescue) leads to more local/state breeder restrictions, which include people with intact animals who do not even breed in most cases. There is still the loophole regarding co-ownerships. That won't affect the commercial breeders but will certainly affect us. The USDA is going to be in quite a quandry trying to enforce this. Will the next law be to require registries to turn over their records to assure compliance?
Although I support AKC generally, and I endorse several things in this, I feel this is a bad bill.

From the AKC website.
Pet Animal Welfare Statute (PAWS)--FAQs [Tuesday, May 31, 2005]
On May 26, 2005 Senator Rick Santorum (R-PA)
introduced legislation which will bring under federal regulation persons who import large numbers of dogs for resale, individuals who sell dogs at retail through the internet or the mass media, and high volume breeders who sell dogs at retail. The legislation also strengthens the U.S. Department of Agriculture's ability to enforce compliance with the Animal Welfare Act and to identify persons who are evading the Act. The legislation is co-sponsored by Senator Richard Durbin (D-IL). An identical bill was introduced in the House of Representatives by Rep. Jim Gerlach (R-PA) and Rep. Sam Farr (D-CA).
Answers to Frequently Asked Questions

What is the intent of the legislation?

The legislation is intended to bring under coverage
of the federal Animal Welfare Act (AWA) commercial dog dealers who are currently exempt from regulation, including importers, mass marketers, and high volume breeders. It is also intended to strengthen the USDA's
ability to identify persons who are covered by the Act and to shut down serious violators.
What are the significant provisions of the legislation?
a.. The bill brings under federal regulation
entities which import more than 25 dogs per year for resale and/or which sell more than 25 dogs per year at retail which they did not breed or raise (i.e. internet and mass media retailers) and are not retail pet stores.
b.. The legislation specifically exempts breeders who whelp fewer than 7 litters a year and raise the puppies on their own premises and do not sell puppies for resale. Hobby and show breeders will no longer be dependent on being classified as "retail pet stores" to be exempt from the Act.
c.. The bill also brings under federal regulation breeders who sell exclusively at retail if they whelp 7 or more litters per year. (The law already covers breeders who sell puppies at
wholesale.)
d.. The bill continues the existing exemption for retail pet stores, but narrows the definition of this term to exclude breeding establishments.
e.. The bill significantly strengthens the USDA's ability to identify breeders who sell puppies for resale but who evade licensing and regulation, by requiring retail pet stores and others who acquire dogs for resale to maintain records of the source of the dogs they acquire for resale and to provide these records to the USDA upon request.
f.. The bill extends the period of time that the
USDA can suspend the license of a dealer when the health of animals is in imminent danger from the current 21 days to 60 days.
g.. Finally, the bill authorizes the USDA's own lawyers to go to court directly to obtain injunctions against persons operating without a license or with a suspended or revoked license, rather than having to convince busy U.S. attorneys to take up such cases.
Why is AKC supporting this legislation after many
years of opposing similar measures?
a.. The Internet and other marketing techniques
have now made it feasible for high volume breeders to breed and sell substantial numbers of puppies directly at retail. The volume of such breeding for direct retail sales is substantial and increasing. When breeders were brought under the Act in the 1970's this was not feasible, so persons who sold exclusively at retail were, of necessity, small operations and were mainly hobby and show breeders.
b.. We have also become aware of a growing number of persons who are importing foreign-bred puppies for direct retail sales. There have been many reports of health and other problems with these imports.
c.. Breeders and importers who sell all of their puppies directly at retail currently fall outside any federal regulation, regardless of the volume of activity. The AWA currently covers only breeders who sell puppies for resale, and exempts persons who sell at retail(i.e. the retail pet store exemption), regardless of their breeding activity.
d.. Historically the AKC has supported the
exemption of retail sellers because this largely protected hobby and show breeders from regulation. However, changing pet market realities, and interest
from legislators intent upon addressing the problems posed by large breeding operations which sell at retail (as evidenced by the 2002 Puppy Protection Act and others), dictates that we reconsider this stance.
> >>
Why is this bill considered a good solution?
> >>
While the AKC has traditionally opposed federal regulation of persons who sell dogs only at retail to protect hobby and show breeders who breed and raise puppies in a residential environment, the rapid rise in imports of puppies for retail resale, and the use of the internet and mass media channels to sell large numbers of puppies at retail have made wholesale versus retail sellers increasingly less synonymous with commercial dealers versus amateur fanciers.
> >>
Furthermore, we have long advocated for stronger enforcement of the existing AWA and for giving USDA the resources it needs to address those not in compliance. PAWS includes several enhancements to the AWA that will make existing regulations more enforceable, such as the authorization of USDA lawyers to directly seek injunctions against
persons operating without a license or with a suspended or revoked license, rather than depending on U.S. attorneys.
> >>
What percentage of our registry will be affected by
the new legislation?
> >>
This legislation could double or triple the number of dog dealers regulated by the USDA by bringing under coverage large retailers and by licensing many operations already covered by the Act but evading compliance. However, 96 percent of breeders who register their litters with AKC will continue to be exempt from the Act, and many of those who will be covered under the new legislation are already covered under existing law.
> >>
Why are we working with a legislator who has been
more aligned with the AR agenda in the past?
> >>
In preparing the current legislation, Senator
Santorum has received input from a wide variety of concerned groups, including AKC, in order to understand the full scope of the issue. He and his staff have been more receptive to our concerns than in the past, and in fact made sweeping changes to the Senator's initial bill in 2001 based on input
from AKC and the purebred dog fancy. We feel PAWS addresses many of our most pressing concerns.
> >>
It is imperative that we work along side legislators to develop compromises that can lead to effective legislation. The alternative is to be left out of the process entirely, which is likely to make hobby breeders more vulnerable to restrictive legislation.
> >>
How will the USDA determine who is breeding more than the exempted number of litters or dogs?
> >>
Enforcement currently relies heavily on voluntary compliance and will continue to do so. Currently the USDA is required to license breeders who sell any dogs at wholesale and maintain more than 3 breeding females (whether or not they are actually bred). If the USDA suspects that someone is evading this requirement they develop evidence through an investigation and take action accordingly. The new legislation will help in that regard by giving the USDA access to source records from persons who acquire dogs for resale. The USDA will have to enforce the new legislation in the same manner, by investigating cases of suspected violation and gathering evidence. There is no authority in the current law or in the new bill for the USDA to request or subpoena records from third parties (such as the AKC) who are not persons who acquire dogs for resale.
> >>
How will USDA find the resources to conduct all these additional inspections?
> >>
Should this legislation pass, finding strategies and resources to carry it out will need to be addressed by the USDA and the Congress. The AKC is open to working with the USDA and the Congress to devise and support effective ways to enhance existing resources and increase resources.
> >>
How will the residential breeders covered by this
bill meet the USDA's standards?
> >>
The USDA will have to write new regulations to implement the provisions of this legislation. These will likely include appropriate standards applicable to newly covered breeders who breed and raise puppies in a residential environment. The AKC intends to work closely with the USDA and with members of Congress to assure appropriate implementing regulations.
> >>
What is the potential effect on commercial breeders?
> >>
Many high volume breeders are already covered by the law, and most are in compliance. This bill will cover high volume retailers who sell dogs they have not bred themselves, as well as some additional breeders. It will also help bring into compliance commercial breeders already covered by the law who are evading it. Most commercial breeders support measures to insure that all breeders who are covered by the law are licensed and in compliance. All commercial breeders get a black eye whenever a bad operation which is out of compliance with the law is
exposed.
> >
Likewise, most retail pet stores acquire dogs only from licensed breeders, and support measures to bring all breeders covered by the law into compliance. Finally, it is in the interest of commercial breeders as well as hobby and show breeders to make sure that persons importing puppies for resale abide by the law and import only healthy puppies raised, handled and transported under humane conditions. This bill is a win-win situation for commercial breeders, hobby and show breeders, and purebred dog fanciers generally."

[Bev]

Wow, 75 views and no thoughts? okthanxbye, lol.

[Alabama John]

Si'yo Bev

I think there are too many laws already.

The more regulators involved, the more likely we the little people will be hurt someway. You can't legislate good morals or good sense.

Defeat the bill.

We've too many rules looking over our shoulder waiting for us to make a mistake as it is. With every government involvment we must ask each other how will this be expanded as we all know it always is!!!

[Tim H]

Bev, it took me 5 views just to read all of it.

It is obvious that if this bill is passed, the next bill to come along will be for the government to get access to the registries of the AKC,UKC,NKC and any others so they can enforce these laws. This bill will be expanded in a direction I don't think any dog owner will want it to go.

Any bill that is not clear on where the funding will come from is a hidden tax that will be coming. Guess where they will look to add those taxes.

[NorWester]

Ya gotta think there are more important issues to regulate than folks peddling dogs..........with the politically correct wave going full speed, you'd get the impression this was more important than homelessness and unemployment Basically as I read it .....the government wants to make sure it gets its cut of the pie,(more fees thru licensing/permits etc) and the animal rights screwballs want more control, ie search/seizure. Speaking of which anyone watch 20/20 last nite?

[Hilltop Kennels]

I viewed once and it makes me sick. That is why I am and will continue to be polictally involved as much as I can, in these subjects..l

[Bev]

The thing that bothers me worst is a registry backing this in any way, shape or form. They KNOW they are sleeping with the enemy on this issue, yet they will make an exception in this case because it means they can shut down the importing of dogs (in other words, dogs they wouldn't accept and collect a registry fee for).

Now maybe I'm reading too much into this, but that's the angle that threw up a red flag for me. They admitted the laws wouldn't affect 96% of the AKC breeders, but to hell with everyone else? WTH kind of logic is that? Sell certain dog owners up the river to preserve their own? Please tell me I'm seeing this all wrong, and that surely they know if they give the AR people a toe-hold in ANY regulatory issue, they will certainly be the next to fall.

[Lefgren-Lane]

I agree with you Bev. This stuff is not needed at the state, local and especially Federal level. While this legislation might appear to be fairly harmless to most at the present time, far too often teh devil ends up being in the details. Congress passes some laws or enabling legislation and then the real rules end being written, enforced etc. by a regulatory agency. What the regs, thier nature end up being is more dependent on who can get input, who is doing the writing etc. (too often people that actually know nothing about what they are regulating) and are far more restrictive than the law itself first appeared. Regardless of registry or no registry how are they going to know who is breeding or selling what or how many to whom unless there was some kind of law making every breeder report every litter and every sale to the feds. This stuff is nuts. A whole bunch of paper and BS that will not solve any problems either real or imagined. Animal rights trying to chip away in an area where no government input or interference is needed. AKC and the congressmen, etc. sponsoring this bill need to hear from all of us. it has been a pretty "do nothing" group in congress since the elections, there are far more important issues for them to be working on than this BS kind of legislation.

[TomMN]

I think AKC is leaning more and more towards the AR's all the time. It's time we started letting them know we don't agree with them. The best way to do that is to stop sending them money and give our bussiness to one of their competitors that is more friendly to hunters.

[WrongsideRandy]

I think AKC is leaning more and more towards the AR's all the time. It's time we started letting them know we don't agree with them. The best way to do that is to stop sending them money and give our bussiness to one of their competitors that is more friendly to hunters.

Or better yet just save your money......your dogs will not know the difference.



Randy

[NorWester]

I think AKC is leaning more and more towards the AR's all the time. It's time we started letting them know we don't agree with them. The best way to do that is to stop sending them money and give our bussiness to one of their competitors that is more friendly to hunters.

Or better yet just save your money......your dogs will not know the difference.



Randy

..........and the running won't be any worse either as rabbits can't read..

[pine top]

this is exactly why my litter of five will not be akc reg even thou there paerents are thay will be nkc/arha only and it will not effect there abilatie are there worth but akc will not have that little bit of money to spend
jerry carter

[TomMN]

UKC Legislative Specialist Cindy Cooke posted her position on this bill on UKC's web site:
http://www.ukcdogs.com/forums/showthrea ... adid=55813

[Bev]

Thanks, Tom. I'm gonna cross-post her reply here, and highlight what she says to the AKC reply in quotes.

PAWS bill
Sorry it has taken me so long to post on this bill. After a week of cable outage, I experienced my first hard drive crash after owning computers for 20 years. As you read this, please note the quotation marks around my exerpts from the AKC analysis of this bill--I don't want anyone thinking those are MY words.

The PAWS bill is another attempt to amend the already badly drafted Animal Welfare Act (AWA). The original AWA was an attempt to regulate commercial breeders who sold their dogs to brokers, pet stores, research facilities, etc. The bill specifically exmpted "rertail pet stores" but made no mention of hobby breeders at all. The Secretary of Agriculture determined that hobby breeders fell within the meaning of "retail pet stores" and ruled that breeders who sold directly to buyers fell within the meaning of the term "retail pet store." Accordingly, the USDA has not regulated hobby breeders.

Three years ago, the Doris Day Animal League sued the USDA to require them to include hobby breeders. The UKC and other dog organizations opposed this and our side ultimately prevailed when the Supreme Court ruled that:

"Thus, nothing in the plain meaning of the term 'retail pet store' precluded the Secretary from construing that term to include 'any outlet' where certain animals, including dogs, 'are sold or offered for sale, at retail, for use as pets.' 9 CFR 1.1. To the contrary, the Secretary's regulation conforms to the accepted definition of the term 'retail store.'"

The court went on to say that the Secretary's interpretation had been in effect since 1971 and "Congress has not seen fit to alter that interpretation despite its willingness during that period to amend the AWA in other respects to achieve its policy goals."

Here we come to the heart of the matter. The AR activists at DDAL and HSUS realized that the Court wasn't going to give them what they want (federal regulation of ALL dog breeding) without a bill that establised that very principle. PAWS is that bill.

AKC's analysis of the PAWS bill points out, correctly I might add, that the Secretary of Agriculture could changehis interpretation of "retail pet store" at any time:

"While the USDA has interpreted the term retail pet store broadly in regulation for the more than 30 years since the enactment of this exemption, it is just a regulatory interpretation, and it could be changed simply by the USDA writing and justifying a new regulation."

However, there is no logical reason why the USDA, already overburdened with verifying the identities of individual cows in order to prove that they DON'T have mad cow disease and with preventing terrorist attacks on US agriculture, would suddenly be seized with the urge to add thousands of hobby breeders to its "to do" list.

AKC's lobbyist justifies the need for this bill by blaming the internet. According to him, in the days before the internet, breeders couldn't sell large numbers of puppies without wholesaling at least some of them.

"However, with the advent of the internet and mass media outlets, this is no longer true. The USDA, our own inspectors and fancy, and the animal welfare community are all now aware of large breeders who, by any reasonable definition of the term are commercial breeders, but who sell all of their animals at retail over the internet and/or through mass media. These breeders raise dozens, or even hundreds, of litters a year. Yet because all of the puppies are sold at retail, they evade any federal regulation."

This argument ignores a couple of important points. First, pet stores also sell hundreds of puppies each year and yet they will still go unregulated. Secondly, there are state and local laws regulating animal cruelty/neglect as well as consumer protection. Third, where is the evidence that these internet sellers exist in large numbers or that they NEED regulation?

The AKC analysis claims that:

"In the last few years, persons have begun importing increasing numbers of puppies for resale, also largely over the internet and/or through the mass media, although some auction houses and retail pet stores are also importing puppies directly for resale."

Again, Mr. Holt quotes no source for this claim. Stories of animal shelters importing mixed-bred dogs from Puerto Rico, Taiwan and elsewhere have been documented, but I have seen no evidence that: 1. Large numbers of dogs are being imported for resale; and 2. That these imported dogs are creating a problem. I know, for example, that many German Shepherds are imported from Eastern Europe because some believe that those dogs are superior service dogs, but I have seen nothing to indicate that these dogs are causing a problem requiring federal intervention. In any event, this bill will do nothing to improve the conditions in which dogs are raised outside of the United States.

Like all AR-backed bills, this bill contains some good things. For example, USDA lawyers could obtain injunctions against breeders who violate the AWA without requiring the intervention of the Department of Justice. But make no mistake about it, this bill is intended to do just what the Supreme Court talked about in DDAL v. USDA--it is creating a law that will demonstrate Congressional intent to regulate hobby breeders. Once that principal is established, then it is just a matter of time before the bill is amended to cover fewer litters and puppy sales.

The AKC has apparently decided that if they oppose this bill, no one in Washington will listen to them again. Sadly, what will happen is that no one outside of Washington will listen to them again. They are a big organization with the power to help us here, but they have chosen not to do so. So, we must help ourselves.

The bill is now in the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry. Here is how to voice your opposition to this bill:

Committee phone number: 202-224-2035

Mailing address:
Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition & Forestry
Room SR-328A
Russell Senate Office Building
Washington, DC. 20510-6000

Individual committee members names and e-mail addresses may be found at: http://agriculture.senate.gov/sen.htm

I always cringe when people use WWII analogies in fighting anti-dog legislation, but I'm going to do it now. When Neville Chamberlain returned to England after negotiating "peace in our time" with the Germans, Winston Churchhill said:

"You were given the choice between war and dishonor. You chose dishonor and you will have war."

UKC proudly opposes this bill.

Cindy Cooke
UKC Legislative Specialist

Permission to cross-post

[bootlegger]

against this also. I raise maybe 1 litter of pups every 4 years so it really doesnt hit me directly. However I do believe that once something is passed into effect that it takes less to modify it when they get the hankering too do so. I wont be registering anymore dogs with AKC or buying AKC dogs unless they reverse their decision to support this Bill.