[ SHOWGSD-L ] Report on PAWS meeting
- From: "Anja Heibloem-Stroud" <Anja_Heibloem-Stroud@xxxxxxx>
- To: "showgsdlistnew" <Showgsd-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 13 Aug 2005 12:41:10 -0700
from my BSL list. permission granted to cross post.
Date: Mon, 8 Aug 2005 08:37:56 -0700
From: "Cherie Graves" <paragon@xxxxxxxx>
Subject: REPORT ON PAWS MEETING
READ THIS VERY CAREFULLY PLEASE
CROSSPOSTED
Well, we did a bit better than WA. It wasn't helped by the fact that Holt was
late and that the AKC hadn't bothered to consult with the show people and
scheduled him when there were other events still in progress at the show.
(hmmmmm.......) We sat around for awhile in the shade of trees to escape the
heat with Holt being gracious while we waited. People drifted in and there
were maybe 40 eventually. There was, maybe, one supporter (but she could have
been just being just polite) and a few on the fence but the rest were totally
opposed to PAWS. And our Linda was a gem! She was totally prepared. She had
a sheet with the 4 supporters of PAWS in big type and then unfurled a LOOOONG
list of organizations in tiny type that are opposed. Holt tried to dismiss it
with a crack against Bob Kane (but I know of at least two officially anti-PAWS
organizations that haven't yet made it to that list....)
Holt did his dog and pony show spiel giving the background that got us here.
But his big emphasis was on the looming threat of hordes of
antibiotic-resistant, exotic-disease infected, Chinese dogs that will be
visited upon our shores if PAWS doesn't pass. (He wouldn't respond to
suggestions that, maybe, the law should be focused on regulating importations
rather than on domestic breeding.)
I think that this "evil foreign menace" will be the thrust of the new arguments
for PAWS. Fits right in with the post 9/11 mentality that is being used to
expand control by the federal government exponentially. Holt's argument
basically boiled down to "this is going to happen; this is the best we can
expect; live with it."
Holt insists that the only reason that we all are considered "retail pet shops"
and are exempt under the AWA is due to the beneficience of interpretation by
the USDA and we could lose it at any time. He totally ignores the opinion of
the courts in DDAL v. Veneman that found that Congress, under the AWA, had had
no intent to regulate hobby breeders and that PAWS will establish that intent.
He declared that he is right and I (and all my sources) are wrong - no further
discussion necessary, thank you. Damn!, it was the only time in my life that
I've wished I was a lawyer.
The first question was, of course, about rescue. He first claimed that rescue
would not be covered because there was no "profit". (My God, do ANY of you
profit from breeding your dogs?!!! I just cross my fingers and hope to cover a
portion of the vet bills!) It was pointed out to him that the bill defines a
"dealer" as someone who receives "compensation OR profit" not "AND profit" and
Holt claimed that this was just legalese that we were too stupid to understand
and that Santorum had assured him that rescues would be exempt. (Yeah, and
I've got this bridge to sell....)
Toward the end, Linda brought up the change in the AKC mission statement and he
refused to comment at all. I guess we're supposed to be stupid enough to
believe that he has no contact with the larger aims of his organization.
I don't think that any minds were changed at all. Toy breeders expressed their
indignation at the numbers game and Holt admitted that they might have a point
but that the numbers were based on the AKC's definition of "high volume
breeders". (Cats and other animals were never mentioned.)
There was a sign-up list passed around so the AKC would know who was there. I
gave my correct info; it will be interesting to see if I get any communication
from the AKC about it. I regret that I didn't state that I was considering
registering my dogs with the UKC which would have been totally unthinkable to
me a few months ago.
The topic was brought up that, in California, it is next to impossible to get a
kennel licence that we will have to have if we have if we have to get a USDA
licence. Holt's response was basically "tough luck!" State laws are not his
concern. But later, informally, he made a reference that someone in VA also
violated the maximum number of dogs mandated by local laws. I think he was
referring to himself.
We made him sweat and lose his comfortable lobbyist veneer. (He actually got
quite testy at times.) It's going to be a long battle.
Anja Heibloem-Stroud
www.pet-net.net/hausmekon/
============================================================================
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 ] Report on PAWS meeting
