PAWS

[TC]

You and I both know that if you and JC were anywhere and saw someone abusing an animal you would step in

Ya got that right. It is my backyard i am Worried About Because all this HSUS and PETA stuff keeps up I will have em camped in my backyard!!! As i ave said before there is a lot of things about this bill i like But until they can get it written with out all the If AND Or's you know more definitive set in stone and not open to 1/2 a dozen different interpretations i cannot and Will not support it. ANYTHING that HSUS and them PETA folk feel is good for us AINT!!!!
Maybe you can answer a Question for Me!!!
how is this bill Gonna help Me?????? Or US?????????

Take care partner and I'm sorry we couldn't get together for one last run before I head out. Just 6 more days. Please take care and thanks again for all of your hospitality.

I to am Sorry We could not get one more run in but it aint over yet Bud Look for me Come Spring We got lots more runnin to do together before we call it quits!!!! We need to get the trial Schedule down so we can show em how these show dogs run LOL.You and your Family Will always be welcome in our home ANYTIME.

PS Randy

Now get out and vote the next go around.......and make some changes.

Been Voting Since I was 18 and aint missed but a couple years so far, and I have never been asked to vote on How much we should be supporting illeagal immigrants HAVE YOU??? If given the Choice I dont think many of us Would... The only thing I can do is try and Watch who they put in Office and try to voice my opinion as Much as possible to those that will listen Write letters Call Your Rep That kinda Stuff...the only way we are gonna be able to make a difference is By SHOUTING LOUDER!!!!!
Just Wish the Constitutionalist had 1/2 the money Backin them that we spend on the illeagals!!!!!!

[steve3662]

I urge evryone to go to SAOVA's website and look at thier stance and facts on PAWS this is some good info on a big issue Here is the link to the PAWS page



http://saova.org/1139.html

[Honey Pot Hounds]

Under the current federal Animal Welfare Act (AWA) anyone who has
over three breeding female dogs *and* sells any dogs at wholesale, is
considered a dealer and must get a license from the USDA. Breeders
who sell *only* retail (that is, direct to the pet home) are *not* dealers
and are not required to be licensed. This 'retail exemption' is why
hobby breeders are not covered now.

If PAWS passes, you will be a dealer unless you sell 25 or fewer dogs
*and* cats together *or* you sell six or fewer litters of dogs and cats
bred or raised on your own premises and no dogs or cats not so
bred/raised. If you sell a 'puppy back' (stud fee puppy, etc) or you
take in and sell a rescue cat or dog, you must stay under the 25 total
dogs/cats limit or get a license.

To get a license you must pass an inspection. There are 90 pages of
regulations. These regulations are written for farm-type raising of
dogs. All surfaces touched by animals must be waterproof, you must
sterilize surfaces every two weeks (one allowed way is by spraying with
water at 180 degrees temp.); you must have a food preparation space
separate from your (human) kitchen; animal pens or cages must be
considerably larger than the standard sizes of crates used for dogs;
puppies, as well as bitches that will whelp within two weeks, must be kept
separate from other dogs; and much more. It is generally impractical to comply with the regulations in your home.
You might be able to do it with a walk-in basement set-up, but most will
have to build a kennel. Expect costs in the $100,000 ballpark. You may
need a zoning variance (you may not be able to get one) and in some
areas, being a USDA licensed dealer will automatically make you a
business required to collect sales tax and obey other laws for businesses.

Being USDA licensed is harder than 'you get it right and then keep it that
way.' The regulations change and each inspector has his own ideas about
what's important and what compliance means. You WILL have violations,
regardless of how hard you try.

The AKC tells us that the USDA will have to write new regulations
allowing in-home breeding. It won't happen because the large wholesale
breeders who are already licensed don't want any new competition
getting a low-cost set of rules. Those big dealers have a lot more clout
than we do.

WE MUST BEAT PAWS. The bill is currently waiting for hearings in the
agriculture committees of Congress. Sen. Santorum plans to hold a
Senate agriculture subcommittee hearing after the August recess.
PAWS could pass in September or October.

The most important thing to do to beat PAWS is to call, write, or visit
your Senators and your Representative. Tell them you OPPOSE S. 1139
(the Senate bill) or H.R. 2269 (the identical House bill). Ask friends,
family, and animal businesses to do the same thing. PAWS will be bad
for dogs, bad for cats, bad for pet rescuers, bad for pet owners (who
will have fewer choices), and bad for our country.

An easy way to write your Congressmen is to go to:

http://www.congress.org

Click 'ignore this ad' near the center of the screen and type in your zip
code where they ask for it. They'll show you your three congressmen;
click 'e-mail', 'compose your own letter' and follow the directions to
enter your message.

Please Help!

[Bev]

I've been swamped with the move, but I have read the threads on the PAWS issue. One quick thought:

Sorry, that is the bottom line. You can debate these things all day and all night but if PETA supports it, you can bet it ain't good.

This is the first thing a person should tell themselves whenever and issue involving PETA or HSUS comes up.

Here is a paragraph from the ADBA's website.
Extreme caution is required when endorsing any bill that the Animal Rights Activists support or sponsor. Their agenda to eliminate ALL breeding of domesticated animals must be foremost in our minds. The PAWS bill is a large step in the direction toward their ultimate goal and if passed, regardless of all the good intentions behind it today, will be the tool used to eliminate all breeding of domesticated animals tomorrow.

This is almost correct. PETA and other AR groups' ultimate goal is not to regulate how you keep or breed your domesticated animals. Their ultimate goal is to eliminate ALL pet ownership and do away with any with "domesticating", period. If AKC keeps an alliance with these people, they will be the cause of their own demise. These groups want all animals to run free, and they want to change us from omnivores to herbivores, period. This bill, this step, is just a rung toward that end goal.

I hate puppy mills and irresponsible breeders more than anyone on this board but I also believe we can start bringing them down without any help from terroist, which is exactly what PETA and HSUS is. I'd rather be dead than be in bed with those people, they are crazy.

Amen, AMEN, and AMEN!!! We don't need or want their "help" in ANYTHING.

I'm also moving this thread to the legislative forum. I expect we will be seeing to people to the board for this matter alone, and that's the forum they will look in first to find the info. Please keep this discussion going!

[steve3662]

Go to this site to fill out the online PAWS petition.

http://www.petitiononline.com/paws2005/petition.html

[Bev]

I'm cross-posting UKC's stance on PAWS here so we can try to get as much info in one place as possible.

UKC Legislative Alert for Beaglers

On July 3, our local newspaper ran an article regarding Senate Bill 1139 (S. 1139 and H.R. 2669), more commonly known as the Pet Animal Welfare Statute of 2005, or the PAWS Bill. When a federal dog law becomes a lead story in a local paper, you know it’s getting a lot of press, both pro and con. If you have read about it, done your homework, and made up your mind, I respect that either way. But as a registry, we feel it is very important that you understand why the UKC strongly opposes a bill that could subject breeders in our sport to strict federal regulation.

According to the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS), the reason for this new legislation is “to close a loophole” in the Animal Welfare Act, which regulates breeders who sell to pet shops.

“Closing the loophole” means federal regulation of breeders who do not sell to pet shops, which can mean breeders like you. If you sell enough pups, or breed enough litters, you will be regulated. The PAWS Bill includes anyone who breeds 7 litters a year or sells 25 dogs a year not whelped on their own premises. Any breeder meeting those numbers will be subject to USDA federal regulations on sales, records, and facilities requirements. You will also be subject to USDA inspections. If you don’t breed 7 litters a year, or sell 25 dogs a year you didn’t breed, should you still be worried? Absolutely.

Seven litters in one year sounds like a lot of dogs, and it is. Your four coonhound litters, the two Jack Russell litters, and your daughter’s Chihuahua litter in the same year do add up to seven pretty quickly. Then consider the regulations for selling 25 dogs not bred on your premises; how about if you sell pups from females you co-own with your brother who are born at his place? They count too.

For example, let’s say your brother breeds three litters of coonhounds over at his place in Ohio (two litters of 8, and one litter of 9). You take the 25 pups to your place in Indiana because his wife took ill, and you sell the pups for him from your place. You just transported 25 pups across state lines with the intent to sell them, and you are now subject to a slew of federal USDA regulations.

When all is said and done, it’s not just that threshold numbers that bother me; it’s what could be next. Do you really want the federal government in your whelping box? Once the federal government is in the business of regulating breeders outside the world of wholesale kennels, is it the numbers or what’s behind the numbers? And, once the federal foot is in your kennel door, when does 7 litters become 5? When does 5 become 3? How often does a detail in a long piece of legislation get changed right before it’s signed into law?

More often than we’d like to know.

Of course, the legislation could stay at 7 litters and 25 dogs forever. No one knows. We do know that when a bill is strongly supported by PETA and the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS), something else very well could be coming. When HSUS calls the PAWS Bill a “first step,” I’m guessing there’s more than one step.

Additionally, how on earth is the federal government going to determine who meets these number thresholds? Since our nation’s largest registry, the American Kennel Club, is curiously supporting this legislation, one can only wonder how the federal government will get the information to identify breeders? While the PAWS legislation does not provide for that kind of collection as now written, will all dog registries, including the hunting based dog registries, eventually be expected to report your activities to the federal government? Let’s hope not.

There are many very good elements of the PAWS Bill that, on the surface, seem to be all about the humane treatment of animals. The UKC stands strongly in favor of reasonable legislation for humane treatment of dogs and routinely bars people for life who are convicted of inhumane conditions and animal cruelty. Fortunately, there are already many strong laws regarding treatment of animals. If you are in violation of these laws, you already can, and should, be convicted, regardless of the number of dogs you breed or sell! The PAWS Bill reaches far beyond this premise however.

While UKC applauds reasonable efforts to advance humane treatment of dogs, it is firmly opposed to the PAWS legislation as it stands. While we respect the rights of other registries to do so, we simply have no plans to join HSUS or PETA’s support of this bill and are clearly opposed to the federal regulation of dedicated responsible coonhound breeders. We urge you to ask yourself the following questions and make up your own mind.
• Are you opposed to legislation that may lead to USDA inspections of your kennels?
• Are you opposed to legislation that may force you to rebuild your kennel to meet USDA requirements?
• Do you have the same goals and traditions as HSUS and PETA?
• Would you be comfortable with dog registries reporting your activities to the federal government?

This may be one of the most important pieces of federal legislation that we have seen in years. If you agree with UKC’s concerns, please contact your legislative officials now and tell them you are opposed to the PAWS Bill. The bill is now in the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry. CALL TODAY!

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.


Wayne Cavanaugh, UKC

This was originally posted on the UKC Message board at http://www.ukcdogs.com/forums/

[jkidd5]

I filled out the online form 2 weeks ago and sent it to alot of diff folks.. DID NOT matter to me if they was from GA or NY I sent it lol... I figuer if enuff of them get a copy of it they will figure out we pet owners don't want this. If not I can say I atleast tried.

One thing is for sure... If this does pass NONE of my dogs will ever be AKC again. Ill go UKC even though my dogs are not UKC style.

Jason

[Incognito]

[quote="Buckshot101"]Steve Fielder who is an AKC Department Head has been posting alot of info on PAWS and why we should support it why AKC supports it.

Mr. Fielder has also stated that any groups that oppose the PAWS Bill have done nothing to benefit dogs.

Even though nearly all AKC Parent Breed Groups oppose the Bill, he implies that they are doing nothing to benefit dogs. HMM.... I guess those AKC breed groups are worthless?? WRONG

Here is my questions to Mr. Fielder that he deleted and banned me from the board."

Steve Fielder is a yes man, he was a yes man when he worked for UKC, and nothing but a YES MAN when he worked for PKC. and now that he is making more money than ever from AKC he will be even more of a YES MAN. In his heart he knows that the PAWS bill is a bad thing. But he will not say anything against it because AKC supports it. For AKC to align itself with the major ANTI hunting groups like it has should tell us something about who we are dealing with, and who we are sending our money to.

[goes1]

One last chance for me to understand. For all of you those oppose this bill can you please post why? Please don't copy and paste someone elses thoughts or statements from their blogs. Your own reason(s). Without speculation or slipperly slope or the what if's.
Not that you hate this because everyone else does also.
But why do YOU not support it?

Thanks

Goes

[steve3662]

You know Goes everyone thatsupports this bill says they want peoples opinions and facts you give them to them then they ask again. Most of my posts are mie copied from another site I put them on. AKC's whole stance is based on opinion on the current AWA about hobby breeders nothing else It is not a fact that they could change it tommorrow. The US Court of Appeals decision will hold up in any court of law with exception of the supreme court. So AKC's whole stance is with speculation slippery slope and what ifs.

Don't look at AKC's stance on it don't look at UKC's stance on it look at someones stance on it that doesn't profit from this bill. Look at any associations website and get thier info on it. Because no matter what I say or anyone else that states the facts in here is not good enough for you. You want to know one reason why I oppose this bill Tennessee already has the 25 dogs 7 litter limit HSUS and DDAL are trying to push to reduce the litter number to one. The Tn agriculture committe keep putting it off and delaying it. This is what these people want and it is a fact. this right here proves where they want to go with this legislation if thatis not good enough for you nothing is.

[Honey Pot Hounds]

For all of you those oppose this bill can you please post why? Please don't copy and paste someone elses thoughts or statements from their blogs. Your own reason(s). Without speculation or slipperly slope or the what if's.
Not that you hate this because everyone else does also.
But why do YOU not support it?

I see no benefit of PAWS. No benefit for your dogs, my dogs, the puppymill dogs or any dog in the country. There is nothing they can do that will help me raise any better or healthier Beagles than I am right now and I certainly don't need them coming onto my property (which is pretty darn gorgeous and basically a "hound heaven") and telling me what "they" think I should do differently. I know for a FACT that I can breed a healthier, happier, better Beagle than all of "them" put together.

So Goes, give me one reason WHY I should be supporting PAWS.....and for starters why don't you tell me why you do?[/quote]

[goes1]

Steve, show me 1 fact that you have posted, ot 1/2 fact or scare tactic but 1 honest to goodness fact that you have posted, because everything you have posted have been halves or slippery slopes and filled with speculation.
Steve if you live in TN and the laws are already this way are you still breeding, has your breeding program fallen apart, what experiences has that law transpired into your life.
As for reading AKC's site, I don't even know how to get to the AKC forum to read about this or anything else. I ask folks on this site, I respect them and have had years worth of fun filled conversation, education and humor with them all along with many chats and have even had the chance to run with a few and have enjoyed most every minute of it. I ask and no one has given one specific portion of the bill they don't like. Read this thread, not one, including yours Steve, you are more interested in bashing the AKC than anything else.

Bob Kane, you sent me an email with a bunch a nonesense so I went to your site thinking finally, but that site was ridicules. I spent hours going over it and came up with many 1/2's a scare tacticsa, I fiured you took the time to send me an email so I did the same, why haven't you responded?

Many of you are opposing this, but can't say why specifically, yes I get the, too much uncle sam already. Well to be frank, that has nothing to do specifically with this. But many post false propoganda from other sites and once I have reposted with the rest of what you quoted you don't respond, so in all honesty I am trying to figure out what I am missing.

Cindy, I have stated MANY times that I am on the fence over this and I have NEVER stated that I support it but your response that it doesn't benefit breeding healthier happy puppies. It is not designed, it is to limit the number of pups/kittens/Dogs/Cats sold, if I am wrong this please help me, I beg you to help me see what you are seeing in the proposed bill itself specifically so I can learn. It also doesn't have anything to do with how you raise your pups unless you are selling that many pups.dogs a year and in my own personal opinion if you arer selling that many then you should be regulated.

To anyone else who I have offended with this quest to gain knowledge I sincerly apologize, i respect each and every one of you and your opinions on all subjects.
But with that being said please feel free to post your heart based feelings on this or any other subject but please do not direct them at me, if you can state specifics I would be honored to read and hear your point of view.

Goes

[timberdoodle]

just got done emailing my sen R Santorum and advised him he just lost my support at the voting boot5h and he had it before this. also my rep. Don sherwood however AT HIS SITE HR 2669 comes up as a school subsidy bill are we sure the housebill is HR2669.

Goes, i ask myself this question if PITA is for it what good is it to me and my hunting dogs. i will never fall into the 25 dog 7 litter category but some else who shares my views of hunting and running dogs just might . it is for them I oppose this legislation.

[steve3662]

Goes obviously you didn't read my post Her are some of them n the facts.

If I am partners on 3 coonhounds and keep 3 at my house one of my partners breeds 1 or two of the females I breed one or two of mine I am now supposed to get a liscense.

You figure rabbits at $10-$20 a piece that is atleast 50 of them. (this one was under the $500.00 of other animals)

Like I said if I help someone sell a dog even if it is not at my house it goes against me (this came from AKC also) Yet if I am a retail pet store I am exempt from it.

DDAL said they are trying to promote a bill to regulate hobby breeders. Because of the interpretation of the current law that hobby breeders fall into the same category as retail pet stores. They have been seeking regulation against hobby breeders and have sued USDA a couple of times because of thier interpretation of the current law. Tell me why HSUS DDAL PETA are for this bill. HSUS said they will try to regulate hunting with hounds a little at a time until it is completely wiped out.

How many puppy mills and sub par facilities does USDA or AKC know about even HSUS and DDAL I bet almost every one. Do nothing and the current law deals with these people yet nothing is done. They still exist and this bill won't stop them either.

If I sell my half of the dog not sure which half I got though lol it goes against me.

As far as inspections go on this bill Santorum and the other sponsors said they it could be contracted out. Who do you think will get the contracts maybe HSUS, DDAL or PETA.


Here is a part of the bill that will get alot of beaglers seeming Some good lines come from Canada
which sells any dogs imported from outside the United States'
So if you buy a dog from someone in Canada the dog doesn't suit your needs or doesn't turn out for you speed then you sell it The bill gets you Pay the liscensing fee and be on the list.


The basics of it is if you sell 1 dog that has been imported from other than the United States (canada, Mexico, England and so on) If you sell more than 25 dogs in one year or more than 6 litters of pups You will need to get a liscense. it also states if you make more than $500.00 profit off the sale of other animals (does not specifically say which AKC states that dogs, cats and livestock are not included in the other catigory but it doesn't specify i the bill). If you are required to have a liscense you will be inspected by USDA or they said they could contract it out With the sponsors of the bill who do you think will most likely get the contracts.

I will put it this way HSUS is now backing a bill in Mass. that is regulating anyone who even breeds 1 litter of pups if they breed 1 litter of pups then they have to get a liscense from the state and a health certificate for the kennel. This is where HSUS wants to take this bill. HSUS has stated they will start small and eventually get hunting with hounds banned one state at a time. PAWS is just the start for them. If this is what you want then support PAWS if it is not what you want then oppose it Because this is what the antis want to happen. Plain and simple


Goes here is what I posted right there on this bill and some of them are facts about the bill and some are most certain to happen. I will say this I will fight for everyones rights not just my own. You and everyone else supporting this bill and yes I said you are supporting this bill. Why do I say that it is obvious you are not sitting on the fence as it is obvious I am not either. My biggest problem of this bill is what the antis are now trying to do with the current legislation in TN. This is what they want. They even said this is a first step. I have done no bashing of AKC I have stated nothing but facts on them plain and simple. I did not falsify anything on AKC. I do not consider putting the truth on them out there bashing.

Also you saying you don't even know how to get on AKC's forum is a false statement because Why don't you look at my very first post on this subject. It gives you links to thier forum. This is my third post directed at you telling you about the links. Goes here are a few of my questions that I asked There are more you will have to click on the links above to see the entire threads and see for yourself.

Also those of you that support this bill have stated no fact why it is needed. I have seen no proof that it is needed. There are already federal laws in place to limit puppy mills and importation of dogs (which I still haven't seen in the bill). Then there are state laws that even strengthen these laws more.

Goes don't be offended by my post I am not trying to be rude It is just so hard to show emotion on these dag gum message boards. I just see a whole lot more cons to this bill than pros

[goes1]

Steve, first, never personal . Second, I honestly never payed atttention to them, I just bypassed it over somehow, as the kids say...My bad, my bad...

As for the importatation of the dog for your enjoyment. Are you reading that if don't enjoy it that if you sell it you have to be licensed? (honest question) I ask because I am not seeing it that way. I see that as if I order a dog from England and I get the dog and after a few months I find that I don't like or it doesn't suit me I can sell it and then that sale would fall under the 25 dog limit. I see that because I am not buying it to resell, I am buying it for my own enjoyment. But i can see this as needing to be more specific.

I understand that a person can co-own and could possibly reach the 7 litters, but 7 litters is still allot of litters!!

As for what the anti's support, yes, it does scare the crap out of me, but I think of myself as a person that votes on my facts not for what one group supports or doesn't support. I'm a Christian, we don't make good sheep

As for the $500 in regards to "other". I see this as a way to stop the folks who want to breed dogs, cats, hamsters, birds, pigs, cows, etc. etc. etc. and I do see this as a way to regulate those folks. I see that because it doesn't say or have a gross income it says and have a gross income.

As for the rescrue groups. In an independant investitagation in 2003 over 70% of the rescrue groups failed the basics of health and welfare of the animal. (20/20) So you can bet your bottom dollar I wan't them to be federally regulated. UNDER A MICROSCOPE AT ALL TIMES I SAY. jmho.

As for saying I am in favor of this bill is a bit pressumptious but I'll not argue that either way, if I am coming across that way, I can't blame you for thinking that, but to me, I'm still not sure.

I think I have to take a break for a few days from this, I'm already getting hate mail (and we think the anti's are crazy) so before the bomb threats start I'll just read about what others have as specifics.

Take care partner.

Goes (Mark Betts)