[ SHOWGSD-L ] PLEASE READ

  • From: Stormy Hope <Stormy435@xxxxxxx>
  • To: showgsd-l List <showgsd-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Fri, 9 Jul 2010 11:17:21 -0700

For everybody talking about co-owning, and how it's a way to have more  
pups bred from your lines without having them "on property,"  PLEASE  
note this one paragraph from this alert... Read the whole alert but  
read this first.

"PUPS creates the new definition ?high volume retail breeder?. A  
breeder only has to have ?interest or custody? of one breeding female  
dog to fall under the first test of this criteria. The second criteria  
includes anyone who ?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."



THE AR's are OUT to get you and you co-owners.  They are out to get  
any intact bitch over 4 months old. Actually they are out to get  
breeders, NOT just commercial breeders.  This bill is NO about  
commercial breeders and this is NOT a state bill.  If this should  
pass, it would be for all the U.S., no selling from your website, or  
from over the telephone.


Check it out.


As the guy with the phone says  "Can you hear me now????"


Storm




http://www.saova.org/PUPS.html




HR 5434/S 3424 Puppy Uniform Protection and Safety Act (PUPS)


Bill text and cosponsors

H.R.5434 Sponsors: Representatives Sam Farr [CA-17]; James Gerlach  
[PA-6]; Lois Capps [CA-23]; Bill Young [FL-10] (introduced 5/27/2010)

S.3424 Sponsors: Senators Richard Durbin [IL]; David Vitter [LA]

SAOVA POSITION: OPPOSE

July 5, 2010
The Sportsmen?s & Animal Owners? Voting Alliance (SAOVA) is OPPOSED to  
HR 5434/S 3424 Puppy Uniform Protection and Safety Act (PUPS) in its  
entirety.

BACKGROUND
For over a decade the Humane Society of The United States (HSUS) and  
other anti-animal use groups have introduced federal legislation to  
restrict breeding of dogs and/or cats at the retail level. Their  
proposed legislation would amend the Animal Welfare Act (AWA) with  
strict regulations on retail breeders.

A precursor of PUPS would have required the federal government to set  
standards for when to breed and how frequently to breed dogs.  
Currently the Animal Welfare Act (AWA) does not regulate breeding  
practices for any species regulated under the Act, and this would have  
set a dangerous precedent giving the federal government control over  
the breeding of domestic animals. No other species has a pre-breeding  
regulation in place.

Subsequent versions relied on establishing a numerical threshold of  
numbers sold and litters bred as criteria for adding retailers into  
the AWA commercial dealer regulations. All versions of proposed  
regulation reverse a long-standing, court tested basis for commercial  
pet business licensing and regulation. Bill proponents continue to  
state their legislation ?closes a loophole? in federal law although  
the AWA was never intended to apply to retail, in-home breeders.

PUPS 2010 adds regulation with a newly created ?high volume breeders?  
classification based on sales, and proposes regulation of breeders who  
sell primarily via the internet. Stated purpose is to regulate  
breeders currently escaping inspection and oversight.

CURRENT AWA REGULATION AND INSPECTION
The Animal Welfare Act (AWA) requires that minimum standards of care  
and treatment be provided for certain animals bred for commercial  
sale, used in research, transported commercially, or exhibited to the  
public. The AWA is enforced by the Animal Care (AC) program and  
Marketing and Regulatory Programs Business Services, Investigative and  
Enforcement Services (IES) within USDA?s Animal and Plant Health  
Inspection Service (APHIS).

In May, 2010, USDA?s Office of Inspector General (OIG) conducted a  
review of APHIS? regulation of problematic dog dealers. The report  
documented and detailed known licensed breeders and brokers, many of  
whom had been previously cited for violations of the AWA.

The report concluded the enforcement process of APHIS Animal Care Unit  
(AC) was ineffective against problematic dealers. AC?s enforcement  
process was ineffective in achieving dealer compliance with AWA and  
regulations, which are intended to ensure the humane care and  
treatment of animals. The agency believed that compliance achieved  
through education and cooperation would result in long-term dealer  
compliance and, accordingly, it chose to take little or no enforcement  
action against most violators.

The report found further that many inspectors did not adequately  
describe violations in their inspection reports, support violations  
with photos, or correctly report all repeat or direct violations  
(those that are generally more serious and affect the animals?  
health). Consequently, some problematic dealers were inspected less  
frequently.

Additionally, inspectors miscalculated and misused guidelines thereby  
incorrectly assessing minimal fines that did not deter violators.

IMPACT OF PROPOSED PUPS BILL
PUPS adds new problematic definitions to the existing AWA. Under the  
new definitions a breeding female dog means an intact female dog aged  
4 months or older. It is virtually impossible for a 4 month old female  
dog to be capable of reproduction and therefore should not be part of  
this definition. This definition would compel breeders to spay at 4  
months in order to keep a dog of this age on the premises without  
having it count toward the numeric criteria for licensing. Federal  
government would be well advised to avoid such standard-setting  
specifics as current research supports findings that early spay/neuter  
can be deleterious.

PUPS creates the new definition ?high volume retail breeder?. A  
breeder only has to have ?interest or custody? of one breeding female  
dog to fall under the first test of this criteria. The second criteria  
includes anyone who ?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.

The ?50 offspring? are not defined by age or as being from litters  
owned by the breeder or as being personally owned by the breeder. This  
definition will include puppies, young adults, spayed dogs; older dogs  
being retired from the breeding program; previously sold dogs returned  
and resold. The definition will encompass rescue organizations,  
including those that sell from their homes and shelters, on Petfinder  
(internet), and similar venues. The 50 sales definition could be  
interpreted to include public animal control facilities, veterinarian  
clinics with adoption centers, and any nonprofit groups organized  
specifically for rescue and re-homing/adoption of unwanted dogs.

As with all previous versions of HSUS introduced bills to break the  
commercial / retail barrier, PUPS subjects home breeders and rescuers  
of dogs to USDA licensure and its 60+ pages of regulations. PUPS  
misleads legislators and the public into thinking this legislation  
will put an end to puppy mills when in fact PUPS will serve to  
eliminate many fine sources of home-bred puppies and close down rescue  
efforts.

SUMMARY
The inadequacy within APHIS inspection units and lack of proper  
enforcement cannot be tolerated. The OIG report focused on the  
agency?s lack of enforcement even against facilities that continually  
ignored minimum care standards. OIG faulted animal care inspection  
units for their delay in confiscating dogs from repeat offenders where  
facility conditions had escalated to grave conditions. The report  
documented an undeniable need for APHIS/Animal Care to perform its  
duties as charged under the AWA to ensure humane care and treatment of  
animals.

APHIS announced a plan to improve consistency in Animal Care  
inspectors? approach for inspections, and to provide more complete  
guidance to its employees. The corrective plan of action includes  
increased training to all inspectors on citing and documenting  
violations; improving the quality of inspections; addition of trained  
personnel; removal of ?no action? as an enforcement option; and a  
revised table of increased penalties.

The OIG report?s main focus is correction of APHIS/AC methods of  
enforcing existing law. Fourteen recommendations were offered and the  
report only included one recommendation to expand the scope of APHIS  
enforcement responsibility. Recommendation 12 proposed that the  
Secretary seek legislative change to exclude internet breeders from  
the definition of ?retail pet store,? and require that all applicable  
breeders that sell through the internet be regulated under AWA.

As written in PUPS, total exclusion of internet breeder/sellers from  
the existing AWA exemption is reactive and overly aggressive. While  
the OIG report cites examples gleaned from media of disreputable  
sellers and consumer complaints, much further study and analysis is  
needed regarding these claims before any legislation is enacted.  
Additionally, PUPS goes beyond this OIG recommendation by adding  
sellers who utilize newspapers and telephone or any means of  
conveyance. Expanding federal regulation to this level of detail is  
unrealistic, excessive, and unenforceable.

As written, PUPS will negatively impact many in-home breeders who  
cannot comply with commercial standards or who refuse to have their  
rights to privacy invaded by federal inspectors. PUPS will drive many  
midsize producers of pets and working dogs away from their hobbies and  
livelihoods. PUPS poor language and arbitrary use of numbers for  
licensing criteria will negatively impact even the rescue community.

There is no substantive evidence to prove that expansion of the  
existing AWA will improve animal welfare to a higher level than  
properly enforcing current regulations and licensing those kennels  
operating commercially without USDA licensure.

Considering the substantial overhaul shown to be needed within the  
Agency?s inspection units and looming budget cuts for FY2011, major  
expansion of current regulatory responsibilities would not seem to  
prudent.

The Puppy Uniform Protection and Safety Act (PUPS) should be opposed  
in its entirety.

RELATED DOCUMENTS

Illinois Federation of Dog Clubs and Owners (IFDCO) Position Statement  
on PUPS

Office of Inspector General. Animal and Plant Health Inspection  
Service Animal Care Program Inspections of Problematic Dealers

APHIS? Enhanced Animal Welfare Act Enforcement Plan. June 2010

House Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration and  
Related Agencies Appropriations Subcommittee FY2011 Bill

See SAOVA archived documents of previous bills to remove the  
commercial/retail sales barrier.




============================================================================
POST is Copyrighted 2010.  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@xxxxxxxxxxx

VISIT OUR WEBSITE - http://showgsd.org
NATIONAL BLOG - http://gsdnational.blogspot.com/
============================================================================

Other related posts: