[accmemberdiscussion] Re: PUPS letter to Rep. Robert Aderholt
- From: Baba Monk <babamonk@xxxxxxx>
- To: accmemberdiscussion@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2010 23:07:23 -0500
Great letter Donna. Thanks! Baba
On Sep 30, 2010, at 4:08 PM, temujinjk@xxxxxxx wrote:
> Well done, Donna! Judith
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Djsdosido@xxxxxxx
> To: accmemberdiscussion@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Sent: Thu, Sep 30, 2010 3:57 pm
> Subject: [accmemberdiscussion] PUPS letter to Rep. Robert Aderholt
>
> This is the letter that I just sent via email to Robert Aderholt regarding
> his sponsorship of the PUPS legislation. I am sharing it with you so if you
> want to use it as a guideline to send one of your own or to get friends and
> family living in the 4th District to send one. It is VERY important that
> Congressman Aderholt understand that there are MANY of his constituents
> opposed to his position on PUPS. Please take the time to write yourself and
> to encourage others to do the same. Baba has already sent talking points to
> use earlier today. There are many to choose from......you don't have to
> include all of them. Please feel free to crosspost to those who can help. I
> will be sending it to some terrier folks I know in North Alabama.
>
>
>
> September 30, 2010
>
> Representative Robert B. Aderholt
> 1433 Longworth House Office Building
> Washington, DC 20515
>
> RE: The Puppy Uniform Protection and Safety Act (PUPS)
> HR 5434 and S 3424
>
> Dear Representative Aderholt:
>
> As an active voter in your Congressional district, I am writing to you
> regarding my concern for your support of the abovementioned bill. Please
> remove your sponsorship from this bill. Although I voted for you in the past
> election, I will be unable to support you further if you continue your
> sponsorship. Furthermore, I will urge friends, relatives and professional
> contacts to refrain from supporting you as well.
>
> I have been active in, with and for dogs for over fifteen years. I have
> shown and trained my own dogs and helped others with theirs. I know many
> very responsible, very ethical hobby breeders of several different breeds of
> dogs. All of the dog people I know will be negatively affected by this piece
> of legislation should it pass. There are almost 75 million dogs owned in the
> United States. Many of those have come from the very segment of the dog
> breeding population this bill would injure, as it would affect all breeders
> who sell directly to the public, including show, hobby and working dog
> breeders.
>
> There are so many spurious, ill-advised and ambiguous elements to the bill
> that I hardly know where to begin to point them out. So, I will give only
> these few as examples:
>
> 1. PUPS creates a new category of breeder: the “High Volume Retail
> Breeder” who would be required to be licensed by the USDA under the Animal
> Welfare Act/AWA. This breeder is defined as anyone who, “in commerce, for
> compensation or profit –
>
> (i)has an ownership interest in or custody of ONE (1) or more breeding female
> dogs; and (ii) sells or offers for sale, via ANY MEANS OF CONVEYANCE
> (including the Internet, telephone, or newspaper), more than 50 of the
> offspring of such breeding female dogs for use as pets in any 1-year period.
> In addition, “breeding female dog” is defined as “an intact female dog aged 4
> months or older”.
>
> Obviously, a 4 month-old female dog isn’t physiologically mature enough to be
> bred. Nor can one female dog produce 50 puppies in one year. But the PUPS’
> definition of “HVR breeder” designates 4 month-old puppies as being intact
> and breedable. Intact, yes; breedable, no.
>
> Furthermore, the “50 offspring” aren’t defined by age, or as being from
> litters owned by the breeder, or even as being personally owned by the
> breeder. This very vague term includes everything from puppies, young
> adults, spayed dogs, older retired dogs, previously placed dogs returned to
> the breeder and then rehomed, etc. And if the breeder should have telephone
> discussions with possible prospective dog buyers regarding any planned
> litters, this would be counted towards the sale of “50 offspring” required
> for licensing whether or not there was actual consummation of any sale.
>
> 2. If PUPS should pass, it would increase the need for many more Animal
> Plant and Health Inspection Service/APHIS inspectors, yet there is no
> increase of inspectors reflected in the bill’s text. Additionally, there is
> nothing in this bill that changes the status of already known substandard
> kennel violators. New sources of funding would be needed to administer the
> currently unfunded bill’s mandate. Without funding, expanded enforcement and
> inspections couldn’t be done and those facilities requiring extra inspections
> would slip under the radar. Considering the sorry state of the nation’s
> economy and the huge budget deficits under the Obama administration, funding
> would be improbable, if not impossible, to get. And what good is any piece
> of legislation if it can’t be carried out?
>
> Congressman, again, I urge you to reconsider your sponsorship of this bill.
> The unintended consequences would be punitive and far-reaching in the world
> of purebred dogs bred by hobbyists.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Donna P. Noland, Member
>
> The Birmingham Kennel Club (www.birminghamkc.org)
> The Airedale Club of America (www.airedale.org)
> The Scottish Terrier Club of America (www.stca.org)
> The Atlanta Terrier Club (www.atlantaterrierclub.org)
> The Alabama Canine Coalition, Inc. (www.alabamacaninecoalition.org)
> The American Dog Owners Association (www.adoa.org)
>
>
> Donna & the Dosido Gang
> Remlap, Alabama
> Visit me at www.doublenickellife.blogspot.com and help support the Alabama
> Canine Coalition by shopping/searching through http://www.goodsearch.com and
> http://www.igive.com
> Every year of dog love is worth seven years of the human stuff. (Michael
> Rosen)
Other related posts:
