[ SHOWGSD-L ] PIJAC Alert<>PUPS Bill Introduced Yet Again In U.S. House of Representatives
- From: Stormy Hope <Stormy435@xxxxxxx>
- To: showgsd-l List <showgsd-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2011 16:23:50 -0800
PUPS Bill Introduced Yet Again In U.S. House of Representatives
More Info
** Animal Welfare Act To Be Amended **
The Issue.
Legislation that has appeared in similar form over the last two terms
of Congress was introduced yet again in the House of Representatives,
this time with RepresentativeJim Gerlach (R-PA) as the lead sponsor.
The Puppy Uniform Protection and Safety Act (PUPS) - H.R. 835 - would
amend the Animal Welfare Act (AWA) to limit the existing exemption for
retailers and add substantive requirements to existing care standards
under the law. As with past sponsors of this legislation, Rep.
Gerlach touted the need to close the “Internet loophole” because, he
claims, “large breeders have evaded federal animal welfare laws by
selling dogs on the Internet.”
The Impact.
The “retail pet store” exemption under the AWA was inserted when that
statute was first amended to regulate pet dealers 40 years ago, and it
has withstood both court challenges and legislative efforts to curtail
the exemption. Subject to limited exceptions, persons who breed and
sell warm-blooded animals as pets at wholesale are required to be
licensed with the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS),
while those selling such animals directly to the public (as retailers)
are not. Amendments to the law proposed in the PUPS bill seek to limit
the exemption as it pertains to “high volume” breeders. Although
proponents argue that the amendment is needed to regulate the sale of
puppies over the Internet, this bill would apply to breeders meeting
the “high volume retail breeder” definition no matter how they sell
those dogs.
Under PUPS, a high volume retail breeder is defined as any person
“who, in commerce, for compensation or profit,
(i) has an ownership interest in or custody of 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.”
A “breeding female dog” for purposes of the Act is defined as “an
intact female dog aged 4 months or older.” The bill provides that
anyone qualifying as a high volume retail breeder is a dealer under
the AWA and explicitly states that the retail pet store exemption
under the Act does not apply to these people.
In essence, this legislation is eliminating the retail pet store
exemption for anyone who breeds dogs and sells more than 50 of the
offspring. None of the bill’s provisions specifically address the
“Internet loophole” per se. Persons who qualify as “high volume retail
breeders” will be required to become licensed with USDA, irrespective
of whether they sell even a single dog on the Internet, while those
who don’t meet the threshold will not be required to obtain a license
even if they sell all their dogs via the Internet. Proponents of the
legislation argue that it is necessary because means of selling dogs
today did not even exist when the AWA was first enacted, and the
rationale for the retail pet store exemption does not apply to
Internet sales at all. That exemption was placed into the Act because
the focus was on regulation of breeders who are not subject to public
exposure. Those who buy pets, as well as members of the public
generally, routinely frequent retail stores and readily observe the
conditions under which the animals are kept. Furthermore, pet stores
are often regulated under state law. Since persons selling
exclusively through the internet don’t have facilities frequented by
the public and state laws regulating pet stores do not necessarily
apply to them, these individuals escape oversight altogether.
This bill also amends requirements for exercise of dogs by anyone
licensed under the Act. Dealers would be required to report on their
original license or renewal application the number of dogs exempted
from exercise pursuant to a veterinarian’s determination and USDA
would have to adopt new exercise standards that include the
requirement for all dogs at least 12 weeks of age (except female dogs
with unweaned puppies) to have daily exercise that allows the dog:
(i) to move sufficiently to develop or maintain normal muscle tone and
mass as appropriate for the age, breed, sex, and reproductive status
of the dog; and
(ii) the ability to achieve a running stride; and
(iii) is not a forced activity (other than a forced activity used for
veterinary treatment) or other physical activity that is repetitive,
restrictive of other activities, solitary, and goal-oriented.
The exercise area must:
(i) be separate from the primary enclosure if the primary enclosure
does not provide sufficient space to achieve a running stride;
(ii) have flooring that is sufficient to allow for the type of
activity described above and is either solid flooring or, if nonsolid,
then it must be nonwire flooring that is safe for the breed, size, and
age of the dog, is free from protruding sharp edges; and is designed
so that the paw of the dog is unable to extend through or become
caught in the flooring;
(iii) be cleaned at least once each day;
(iv) be free of infestation by pests or vermin; and
(v) must designed in a manner to prevent escape of the dogs.
These exercise requirements would not be applicable to any particular
dog if a licensed veterinarian has determined that such exercise is
inappropriate due to the health, condition or wellbeing of the dog.
Unless the condition is permanent, it would have to be reviewed by the
veterinarian at least once every 30 days.
When introduced in the last Congress, this legislation had companion
bills in both houses of Congress. At this time, no Senate version of
the bill has yet been introduced.
PIJAC Position.
PIJAC has for many years condemned substandard facilities and has
worked with USDA to ensure effective enforcement of the AWA. In fact,
PIJAC has supported legislation to strengthen the authority of USDA to
enforce the Act against unlicensed breeders who are required to be
licensed under the Act. However, the AWA was never intended to apply
to non-commercial breeders and PIJAC has not supported expansion of
the Act to apply to such breeders. Nor was the Act ever intended to
apply to traditional retail pet stores and PIJAC would oppose
expansion of the AWA to apply to such stores.
Recommended Action.
H.R. 835 was assigned to the House Committee on Agriculture in the
House of Representatives and a list of that committee membership may
be obtained by clicking here. Individuals may also easily contact
their Congressional representatives directly through PIJAC’s
Legislative Action Center on the Government Affairs page of the PIJAC
website.
This bill has not yet been scheduled for a hearing. PIJAC will be
posting revised PetAlerts on the Breaking News page of its website to
advise members of any change in status and to recommend appropriate
action. PIJAC will also issue a new PetAlert if and when a companion
to this bill is introduced in the Senate. You are encouraged to check
the PIJAC website regularly for additional information. Those having
questions or concerns about this legislation should contact PIJAC’s
Michael Maddox via email at michael@xxxxxxxxx by phone at 202-452-1525.
If you no longer wish to receive e-mail from us, please click here.
============================================================================
POST is Copyrighted 2011. 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.
Each Author is responsible for the content of his/her post. This group and its
administrators are not responsible for the comments or opinions expressed in
any post.
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@xxxxxxxxxxx
VISIT OUR WEBSITE - http://showgsd.org
SUBSCRIPTION:http://showgsd.org/mail.html
NATIONAL BLOG - http://gsdnational.blogspot.com/
============================================================================
Other related posts:
- » [ SHOWGSD-L ] PIJAC Alert<>PUPS Bill Introduced Yet Again In U.S. House of Representatives - Stormy Hope
