[ SHOWGSD-L ] Paws/ Monetary motive???
- From: Pinehillgsds@xxxxxxx
- To: pruett@xxxxxxxxx, showgsd-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sat, 23 Jul 2005 08:42:01 EDT
In a message dated 7/23/2005 7:05:11 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,
pruett@xxxxxxxxx writes:
I read the minutes of the AKC delgates meeting in the last Gazette and was
quite
interested to read that AKC thinks they may actually conduct kennel
inspections
of hobby breeders who fall under the PAWS umbrella on behalf of the USDA.
Seems to me that AKC wouldn't do that for free - I sense that AKC sees an
opportunity to subsidize their own inspection program with federal dollars.
Could that be the underlying motive behind AKC's support of this bill? And,
if
AKC goes down that road, will AKC's registration records be open to the
government? I know that the state of Maine has tried to access AKC's records
to track down breeders in this state and AKC said no. But, if AKC becomes
part
of the enforcement of PAWS, will record confidentiality continue?
Just food for thought....
Laurie Pruett
I read them too Laurie; beginning to end. I'm convinced the nexus of this
bill is to stop large scale importation of dogs. China is specifically
mentioned. Large commercial breeders in the US are already
regulated/licensed/inspected. Importers are not. There are no safeguards for
the dogs or the people
who purchase them.
There's going to be legislation IMO whether the AKC is involved or not. The
question then, as I see it, becomes DEFINING the dividing line between
"hobby" breeders/importers and "large scale"/"commercial" operations; defining
WHO
will be impacted by the limits contained in the legislation.
(Now, how many people on this VERY list have complained that importers
through glossy web sites and wild promises are getting BIG BUCKS for their dogs
while they struggle to get a modest price for a home raised, socialized, health
guaranteed puppy?????)
It's of particular interest to me that the "trigger" of 7 litters found in
the bill is exactly what "triggers" an AKC inspection. It appears to me, from
the minutes, that there is the POSSIBILITY that once one is inspected by
either the UDSA or the AKC, one party's inspection would suffice for the other;
in other words, "here's my paperwork USDA, I've been inspected by the AKC
this year and there were no violations, leave me alone" <G> and visa versa. I
didn't read that as a negative. Who knows who is going to pay for it? I'm
thinking the licensing fees that the USDA collects from kennel licenses will
fund a portion. We already pay the AKC little bits here and there ($1.50 per
entry, litter regs, etc.) for their services.
I'm already on the record saying this bill is pretty much a non issue as far
as I can tell. I don't know anyone who would meet the threshold defined in
the pending federal legislation who isn't ALREADY regulated at the state/local
level. I can't speak to rabbits and ferret breeders, but just off the top
of my head, I'd rather IF they were large scale, they be on agricultural
<zoned> land. There are ways around rescues getting tangled up in the
legislation.
(Charge actual expenses or a portion of to individuals who adopt and not an
"adoption fee", or since most are non-profits, call monies collected at the
time of an adoption a "donation".)
Let me just pose another question to those who don't like the 25/ 7 trigger
proposed in the legislation; At WHAT point does a person's operation become
large scale and not "hobby"? 10 litters? 15? How many dogs not bred by them
SHOULD they be able to sell without regulation and oversight? Is 30 OK?
Should it be 50? Or should there be no regulation whatsoever?
I've heard the argument that this is a "State's right" issue and should not
be addressed on a Federal level. Maybe. I can buy that argument. But just
this morning, I open Sally's e-mail and read what just happened in IL with
that horrible piece of scum getting off w/ under $1000 in fines/costs and no
jail time. Seems some states aren't up to the task. Then again, if the main
objective is to regulate large scale importers, why WOULDN'T the legislation
be
Federal? (I'd rather err on the side of the safety and well being of the
dogs.)
In closing, I think there are thoughtful arguments to be made against the
bill as it is currently written. Obviously, it's a work in progress and like
any legislation, unless and until it is implemented, we won't know what kinks
still need workin' out. The question re record sharing is a legitimate one.
On the other hand...who cares? My records are current and correct if anyone
wants to look, so maybe it's only a minor question, and maybe a potential
point of compromise. I'd rather keep the dialog open and have input re
legislation that is eventually going to pass. It looks to me like the AKC is
doing
that.
As always, JMHO.
Kathy
three generations of Dual Titled Champions live here!
visit _Pine Hill German Shepherd Dogs_
(http://www.geocities.com/pinehillgsds/)
============================================================================
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:
