[ SHOWGSD-L ] PAWS Hearing Testimony from November 8th -- Not good news
- From: RihadinK9@xxxxxxx
- To: showgsd-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 9 Nov 2005 12:52:50 EST
Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA) is the sponsor of 'PAWS' -- the 'Pet Animal
Welfare Statute,' or S. 1139. He also happens to be the chairman of the
subcommittee that has responsibility for the first look at his own bill.
Yesterday he
held what was basically a show hearing for the purpose of promoting his
bill.
In current federal law, hobby breeders are exempted from federal
(USDA) licensing because USDA regulations say you don't have to be licensed
if you sell at retail only, that is, as all hobby breeders
do, without the intent that the dog be again resold. There's
another exemption for anyone with three or fewer breeding females that takes
out the smallest 'pin money' breeders.
The retail only exemption reflects what USDA wants (they do NOT want to be
inspecting us!) and it has been defended in court. HSUS, the AKC, PETA,
DDAL, and others claim that 'retail only' is basically a loophole and because
some genuine commercial breeders sell retail-only and thus get away without
being licensed, the law should be changed to replace 'retail only' with
numbers
sold. In the PAWS bill, the numbers would be 25 total animals sold OR (if no
non-self bred/raised animals are sold) six litters, whichever is greater.
The problem with such a change is that once numbers are in the law they're
easy to change, indeed the bill would allow states to write their own stricter
laws and we know of three states that already plan to do so, should PAWS
pass. Many experienced fanciers think that the real purpose of PAWS is to
set
things up so hobbyists can be regulated in the future and that if the bill
passes we're over the edge of a slippery slope and will lose our hobby within
a
few years.
There's much more about PAWS at:
_http://www.pet-law.com_ (http://www.pet-law.com)
Try 'PAWS has claws out ...' and 'PAWS made easy' for a quick tour of the
basics.
Yesterday's hearing was strictly 'for show' -- so much so that I've
heard that Sen. Santorum was the only senator present.
The six original speakers -- from HSUS, the DDAL, the AKC, the AVMA, the
Director of the Animal Welfare Program of the Maine Department of Agriculture,
and one John Hoffman, billed as a "dog fancier" were all strong supporters of
the bill. At the last minute, the Pet Industry Joint Advisory Council
(PIJAC) was added; they objected to some minor provisions that would affect
pet
shops but carefully took no position on the idea of numbers instead of 'retail
only.'
All of the prepared committee testimony is available at:
_http://agriculture.senate.gov/Hearings/hearings.cfm?hearingId=1649_
(http://agriculture.senate.gov/Hearings/hearings.cfm?hearingId=1649)
The testimony discusses abusive breeding exclusively, but only via
anecdotes -- there are no statistics given to indicate the frequency of
problems. Nor is there any mention of the fact that abusive
keeping of animals is ALREADY covered by state and local laws that carry
jail terms and fines but USDA's powers are limited to ordering a breeder to get
a license or shut down.
Following are some highlights -- if you can call them that -- from
the testimony. These are very short selections from much more
material. If you have a strong stomach, I recommend reading the
whole mess at the address above. DOG BREEDERS SHOULD READ ALL OF CHAIRMAN
MENAKER'S TESTIMONY. That's OUR AKC, folks ...
AKC Chairman Menaker:
"We also know from the AKCâ??s own experience that the time has come to bring
under regulation high volume breeders and brokers who sell at retail or who
import puppies in volume for resale. However, it is also essential that we
maintain the sport and hobby of purebred dog breeding and exhibiting as it is
today, an activity regulated by our own rigorous compliance requirements. PAWS
should focus the federal governmentâ??s regulatory resources on realistic
targets and goals. We appreciate the dealer provisions of PAWS, as you have
clarified them. We especially appreciate the addition of the provision that
will
exempt retailers based on kennel inspection standards of not-for-profit
organizations certified by the Secretary of Agriculture. This will focus
enforcement
on the high volume retail breeders and
importers whom it is appropriate to regulate without imposing federal
regulation on hobby and show breeders."
(Quite a surprise, isn't it, that the AKC favors a law that will send
them additional registrations? And isn't it interesting that the
standard-setting organization needs to be 'not for profit'? Guess
who that leaves out, my fellow UKC registrants ...)
AVMA President Childers:
"Despite its support for the PAWS, the AVMA acknowledges that this piece of
legislation is not perfect. There are some unanswered questions and some
unintended consequences of its current language that should be addressed.
These
include:
â?¢ Ambiguities in the definition of â??retail pet storeâ?? and â??dealerâ??
â?¢ The effect of the PAWS on hobby and show breeders
â?¢ The effect of the PAWS on rescue organizations and shelters
â?¢ Source record requirements for pet stores that would otherwise not fall
under USDAâ??s jurisdiction.
(And further on)
"The AKC has advised the AVMA that the revised definition of â??dealerâ?? will
affect less than 4% of breeders in their registry, including some who are
already required to be licensed. The impact, therefore, of the PAWS on
hobby/show breeders is expected to be minimal. The exception, however, might
be
co-ownership situations. In the past, USDA-APHIS-Animal Care has regulated the
person on whose premises the puppies are raised and sold; however, concern has
been expressed about how co-ownership will be handled in the context of a
definition
that identifies â??dealerâ?? on the basis of the number of animals sold
or whelped (i.e., what is the impact of the phrase â??and sell only
dogs or cats bred or raised on their own premisesâ???). The AVMA agrees this
is a question that should be addressed before the PAWS is passed."
(Dr. Childers also mentioned the possibility of an impact on rescue. He was
the only speaker to address concerns about hobby breeding and rescue.)
John Hoffman, Esq. "Dog Fancier"
(Mr. Hoffman's testimony discussed at length his investigation of
abuses by one couple named Slack who imported over 300 dogs in the 2003-04
calendar year and the relevant federal law. His
concluding paragraphs are:)
"Enactment of PAWS, combined with realistic enforcement, including prompt
and effective response to complaints by consumers and humane officers is
sorely
needed to combat the evils of the commercial puppy import trade. Those evils
include (a) a high death rate of young puppies during and shortly after
transport to the United States, and (b) defrauding of buyers and causing them
needless heartache and expense when a newly purchased puppy requires expensive
treatment to save its life, and often dies even with such treatment, or when a
fairly young pet develops serious genetic problems requiring the buyer to
choose between very expensive ongoing treatment or euthanasia.
"Many opposing PAWS have posited that, if it passes, the USDA would
unnecessarily harass quality breeders whose sales are just above the
regulatory
limits, prohibit their keeping dogs in their homes, and other silly hypotheses
spread around the Internet rumor mill. Others are likely opposing PAWS
because
they do not report sales and do not pay sales tax on the sales or income tax
on the profits from those sales.
"I have heard no sensible, legitimate arguments against the passage of PAWS.
On the other hand, abuses among unregulated sellers of puppies, including
both domestic puppymills and importers, is real, widespread and serious,
resulting in substantial harm to the puppies, to the buyers, and to shelters
and
rescue organizations, such as the FBRN, who are asked to take unhealthy dogs
for whom the owners cannot or will not pay for expensive ongoing veterinary
care. "
Wayne Pacelle, President of HSUS:
"A small sample of [abusive breeding cases] reveals a disturbing
pattern of neglect and abuse directly traceable to the retail pet
store exemption:
â?¢ In 1997, 260 dogs were discovered without food or water at the home of an
Internet breeder in Newport, Wash.
â?¢ In 2000, a Lyles, Tenn. investigation uncovered 164 dogs kept with no food
or water and in squalid conditions at the home of a retail dealer exempt
under the pet store provision.
â?¢ In Shelby, Mont., a 2002 raid by local officials resulted in the
seizure of 171 dogs and 10 cats from an Internet dealer when they
were discovered living in four inches of feces, emaciated,
dehydrated, and suffering from severe ear infections, intestinal
parasites, and malnutrition.
â?¢ In 2003, another 250 dogs were discovered in knee-deep feces and crammed
together in rabbit hutches at the home of an Internet dog dealer in Union
County, N.C.
â?¢ In 2004, investigations revealed a retail Internet dealer in Berry,
Ky., where 108 dogs were literally covered in feces, had frozen water bowls,
and one dog was discovered frozen solid.
â?¢ In a 2004 Macomb, Mo. case involving an Internet dealer, 147 live dogs and
four dead dogs, all with severely matted fur, were found in dilapidated wire
cages, covered in feces, many with eye ailments, hair loss, deafness,
blindness, and tumors.
â?¢ Just last week, on October 28, 151 dachshunds and springer spaniels and
one cat were found, many described as â??skin and bonesâ?? at the home of a
retail
dealer in Vero Beach, Fl.
"None of these operations were deemed covered under the Animal Welfare Act
because they all sold their dogs and cats directly to the public, evading
coverage through the â??retail pet storeâ?? exemption.
This list will continue to grow until we take action to close this
loophole in the Animal Welfare Act. We are deeply disturbed by this new kind
of dog breeder â?? those who breed large numbers of animals and sell them over
the Internet.
"... It is nearly impossible for states to plug the loophole in
federal law, given the use of interstate commerce instrumentalities by these
businesses. Animals are bred in one state, sold over the
Internet, and shipped by air to the pet purchaser several states
away. This interstate commerce also makes it nearly impossible for breeders
to be held accountable if a puppy becomes ill or dies.
Without any inspecting agency to report problems to, these animals and the
families who purchase them are left completely unprotected.
"The existence of this loophole is a crisis for consumers, as well as
for the animals unfortunate enough to be commercially sold through a breeder
using the Internet. The HSUS has seen, over the last several years, a
substantial increase in the number of cases reported to us from puppy buyers
who
have purchased a dog over the Internet only to have their puppy become ill or
die within weeks of purchase. We receive hundreds of calls from consumers
annually, and have been able to document the harm this growing, unregulated
business has inflicted
on consumers, as well as the animals ..."
Sara Amundson of DDAL:
"Just as consumers purchase hundreds of thousands of televisions over the
Internet each year, so too do they purchase living, breathing puppies. In a
recent article in The New York Times, The American Pet Product Manufacturers
Association stated that 200,000 American households bought puppies online last
year. These puppies, advertised on the Internet, may be sold for between $500
and $5,000. For high-volume, commercial breeders, Internet sales are a
convenient, inexpensive way to mass market puppies across state lines."
(Dear Ms. Amundson: Where is the evidence that in a marketplace of about
seven MILLION new dogs per year, 200,000 sales SOME of which were actually
'order on the net and ship direct,' and a fraction of those unsatisfactory to
the buyer, is a problem large enough to require a federal law?)
Testimony by PIJAC Legislative Director Michael Maddox was limited to PIJAC
concerns -- chiefly the possible effects of the bill on retail pet shops.
There's much more of this stuff, but that's enough to give you the
flavor - - perhaps an infelicitous choice of words.
Ginger Cleary, Rome, GA
"Those who desire to give up freedom in order to gain security, will not
have, nor do they deserve, either one." Benjamin Franklin.
_http://www.rihadin.com_ (http://www.rihadin.com/)
============================================================================
POST is Copyrighted 2005. All material remains the property of the original
author and of GSD Communication, Inc. NO REPRODUCTIONS or FORWARDS of any kind
are permitted without prior permission of the original author AND of the
Showgsd-l Management. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
ALL PERSONS ARE ON NOTICE THAT THE FORWARDING, REPRODUCTION OR USE IN ANY
MANNER OF ANY MATERIAL WHICH APPEARS ON SHOWGSD-L WITHOUT THE EXPRESS
PERMISSION OF ALL PARTIES TO THE POST AND THE LIST MANAGEMENT IS EXPRESSLY
FORBIDDEN, AND IS A VIOLATION OF LAW. VIOLATORS OF THIS PROHIBITION WILL BE
PROSECUTED.
For assistance, please contact the List Management at admin@xxxxxxxxxxxx
VISIT OUR WEBSITE - http://www.showgsd.org
============================================================================
Other related posts:
- » [ SHOWGSD-L ] PAWS Hearing Testimony from November 8th -- Not good news
