[ SHOWGSD-L ] PAWS II
- From: Fran Henry <fhenry1@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: showgsd <showgsd-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2006 12:48:00 -0700
I just pulled this off the Pet-Law list. I'm curious as to what fellow
listers think.
Fran
--
No one with good dogs is ever truly alone.
Jon Katz
From: akc-delegate-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:akc-delegate-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Steve Gladstone
Sent: Friday, January 27, 2006 7:49 AM
To: akc-delegate-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [akc-delegate-l] AKC and PAWS II - A View from the Board Room
PERMISSION TO CROSS POST GRANTED
There continues to be much speculation and misinformation about AKC's role
and involvement with the PAWS bill. My purpose here is to present the facts
as I understand them. Since I am a member of the AKC Board and have
participated with Ron Menaker and Jim Holt in the negotiations and
redrafting of the bill's language, I would hope that my knowledge of the
"inside story" might be of some use.
The first time I (and as far as I know the rest of the Board of Directors)
heard about the PAWS bill was at the May 2005 AKC Board meeting when Jim
Holt addressed the Board. My take on that situation was that Senator
Santorum was about to introduce new legislation designed to address
importers and internet sellers who were unregulated under the Animal Welfare
Act. Holt advised that the new bill was nothing like the previous Puppy
Protection Act, and that most of the provisions were originally presented as
alternatives to the Puppy Protection Act by its detractors, including AKC.
The choice presented was for AKC to either express its disapproval of any
legislation, thereby eliminating us from further involvement with crafting
the language of a new proposal or to have AKC express its support in
principle for the goals of the new Act. We were told that notwithstanding
the efforts of many, including the AKC's legislative department and Board
Legislative Committee members, no workable definition of a retail dealer
without the use of a numerical threshold was feasible. A bill aimed at
retail sellers of any kind would require a numerical definition of which
retail sellers would be determined to be 'Dealers" under the AWA and
therefore subject to regulation.
The AKC Board voted unanimously that day to support the principles of the
proposed legislation to regulate importers and internet sellers who sold at
retail. Notwithstanding the spin sailing across the internet, supporting
the principles of the legislation was not, and never was, endorsement of
specific language, especially since none of us, to my knowledge, had seen
the language. Rather we were asked "do you want to be under the tent
negotiating or out in the street picketing". Clearly, the AKC Board voted
to support the principles of the legislation, meaning that we agreed that
the AWA's simplistic retail/wholesale bright line between unregulated
sellers and regulated dealers was no longer practical or useful. (It is my
judgment that indeed the continued use of the wholesale/retail test is not
in the best interests of the dogs we are charged with protecting. Many may
disagree, but my fiduciary duty is to the AKC and by extension, to the dogs
AKC's Constitution and Bylaws charges me with protecting. That is the
territory that goes with being elected to the AKC Board).
We were told that day that the then current draft used the simple number of
25 sales to determine a retail dealer. That situation caused much
consternation due to the inequities of large and small breed litter sizes
and the inappropriateness of such a single dimension view. Jim Holt was
well aware of these concerns and suggested that the AKC's own numerical
definition for its inspection requirements of High Volume Breeder, 25
transactions and more then 6 litters would be more appropriate. Indeed,
Holt reported back shortly thereafter the simple 25 sale threshold had been
rejected by the Senator and he had immediately agreed to switch to the 25/6
definition. AKC presence "under the tent" stared paying off immediately,
even before introduction of the first language of the bill. Holt next
advised that even that definition would be raised at our request to add
another 25 not bred or raised on the premises of the seller.
When the PAWS language was released to the public and AKC's support for the
bill was announced the hue and cry began. "Numbers will be the death of us."
"This is a conspiracy between AKC, DDAL, HSUS and PETA." "There is no need
to regulate retailers." Email campaigns to boycott AKC began. Outsiders,
who had never had any interest in AKC before attacked by flaming emails
inciting hysteria. Notwithstanding the spin now being put forward, AKC was
condemned for its support and told to denounce the bill in its entirety. I
remain firmly convinced that had we followed that course the ultimate PAWS
bill would indeed have been disastrous for AKC's people and our sport.
AKC's Board rejected the abandonment of legislation we felt necessary to
protect the welfare of puppies being imported and sold at retail, as well as
puppies being bred here in the US and sold at retail over the internet.
Thus, at the June 2005 Special Meeting of the Board, AKC reaffirmed its
commitment to the principles of the PAWS bill. Every member of AKC's Board
has agreed with me that our vote that day did not mean that AKC was in
support of the bill regardless of the final language it contained. Rather,
our majority (8-4) support was for the principles of the bill, with the
clear understanding that we would seek amendments to the language of the
bill to address the many concerns we had with the then proposed language.
It was abundantly clear that if, at the end of the day, our presence at the
negotiating table had not yielded a legislative scheme we could support as
being in the best interests of AKC, its many constituents and the dogs we
all seek to protect, AKC could and would withdraw its support and go out to
the street to picket.
In August Ron Menaker and David Merriam asked me to become involved in the
negotiations to provide language changes that would accomplish the bills
objectives while protecting AKC constituents. They knew that I have had
considerable past experience with negotiating and drafting legislative
language. I agreed. First, I set out to identify and thoroughly understand
the objections many had expressed. I spent much time in "shuttle diplomacy"
between AKC Board members, Delegates and other AKC constituents, as well as
reading carefully the hundreds of emails I had received, trying to be
certain I understood the issues.
We contacted Senator Santorum's offices and sought their input on process
for amendments. When I met with Senator Santorum he assured me that he had
no preconceived agenda other than to protect imported and internet marketed
puppies. To that end, the Senator told me that he would favorably review
any suggested changes to the introduced PAWS bill that we might put forward
along with other supporters of the bill. It was clear to me the Senator
would support different methods of identifying those that needed to be
regulated without impacting AKC constituents as long as the details could be
worked out to the satisfaction of other supporters of the bill.
I attempted to redraft a dealer definition which included the retailers we
agreed needed to be regulated (internet sellers and importers), without the
use of a numerical threshold. I was unsuccessful. Without the use of a
numerical threshold loopholes sufficient to destroy the intent of the bill
are unavoidable. My challenge then, was to continue to use a numerical
threshold while exempting even those who met the threshold but were not
intended to be regulated as dealers.
Ron Menaker, Jim Holt and I corresponded and met with Wayne Pacelle,
President of HSUS, and his executive staff to discuss alternatives to the
numerical definitions of the bill and other concerns we had so as to arrive
at language that would further our goal of protecting the dogs and AKC
constituents. (I know to many just attending that meeting is heresy, but I
am always willing to meet and talk with even my adversaries in an attempt to
negotiate satisfactory resolutions). We had several very fruitful meetings
in which we all agreed in concept to proposed changes to the bill.
Notwithstanding the misinformation being flung around the internet, HSUS and
Senator Santorum fully support the inspection exemption we created and
negotiated. (DDAL does not. No one asked PETA).
HSUS is delighted to allow an AKC inspection to exempt an otherwise large
enough retailer from regulation because that will permit USDA resources to
be expended in a more meaningful manner. Their attitude is that with
limited resources, USDA should not be re-inspecting breeders who AKC has
already inspected. Thus, the PAWS II bill includes an exemption from the
Dealer definition of anyone inspected by a non-profit private third party
who the Secretary of Agriculture determines "to have standards and
inspection protocols that are no less effective" then USDA's inspections.
AKC's standards and inspection protocols will instantly qualify.
The numerical definition will have NO BEARING WHATSOEVER on an AKC
registrant who is successfully inspected by AKC under AKC's inspection
standards. No one will be FORCED to be inspected by anyone they do not wish
to allow on their premises. No "Engineering" standards will be forced on
any AKC registrant. The inspection exemption is completely voluntary.
Under our proposed Inspection Exemption not one AKC registrant will become a
Dealer because of PAWS, regardless of the number of dogs bred, co-bred or
sold. (Should the CFA choose to qualify, the cat fanciers will also be
exempt).
Similarly, HSUS and Senator Santorum have agreed with our proposed third
party Dealer Inspection, for the same reasons. Those sellers who are
classified as Dealers who are AKC registrants are now subject to both USDA
and AKC inspections. This is viewed as a duplicative waste of resources.
Under our proposal when a Dealer is inspected by AKC that Dealer may choose
to use that successful inspection as evidence of compliance with the AWA
mandated inspection standards, so as to avoid the need for two inspections.
Once AKC's inspection protocol is confirmed by the Secretary of Agriculture
under PAWS II, Dealers who are AKC registrants may adhere to AKC's
inspection standards rather then USDA's standards and still be in compliance
with the AWA Again, this program is entirely voluntary. Not withstanding
the spin on the internet, the numerous commercial breeders and their
industry representatives I have spoken with (again personally) are thrilled
with the prospect of having a successful AKC inspection count as a USDA
inspection,
The numerical definition of a Dealer will clearly indicate that any retailer
can sell 25 dogs not bred or raised on their premises. In addition to those
25, a retailer for personal use to a pet buyer can sell whatever number of
puppies are produced in six litters or 25, whichever is greater. That's 25
stud fee puppies and another minimum of 25 and maximum of the number from 6
litters that we can sell without meeting the dealer definition. Even then,
the Inspection Exemption will exclude those who meet that threshold of 50-75
sales of pups and are inspected by AKC. To me this is a completely
appropriate result.
Other changes we have been able to negotiate include clarification of no
change for hunting dog breeders, exemptions for rescue and shelters and
definitional changes to narrow and clarify pet store exemptions. None of
this would have been possible had we, the AKC, heeded the advice of the
likes of SAVOA, UKC or the hundreds of people and clubs demanding we abandon
the dogs that need our protection by denouncing PAWS from the beginning.
The bill that I have helped draft will not draw in one single AKC registrant
who is not now a Dealer under the AWA. No AKC breeder or club need fear the
inclusion of a numerical threshold to define large retailers. AKC has
participated in redrafting the PAWS bill for the benefit of the dogs that
need protecting and every one of our constituents. The spin doctors can
spin away, but AKC has served its constituents and the dogs it is obligated
to protect by following the course we have been on. My obligations are to
AKC, its registrants and the dogs, not to the myriad of nay-sayers who have
other agendas.
Most important of all, if what I am reporting to you today does not come to
pass in the final language of the PAWS bill, I, and I believe the rest of
the AKC Board, will not support it.
Steven D. Gladstone, Esq.
AKC Board of Directors, Class 2009
============================================================================
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:
