[ SHOWGSD-L ] UKC opposes PAWS
- From: Peggy <pmick@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: showgsd-l <showgsd-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2005 12:30:16 -0400
Permission to crosspost is given and encouraged!
From Cindy Cooke, J.D. and UKC Legislative Specialist
The PAWS bill is another attempt to amend the already badly drafted Animal
Welfare Act (AWA). The original AWA was an attempt to regulate commercial
breeders who sold their dogs to brokers, pet stores, research facilities,
etc. The bill specifically exempted "retail pet stores" but made no mention
of hobby breeders at all. The Secretary of Agriculture determined that hobby
breeders fell within the meaning of "retail pet stores" and ruled that
breeders who sold directly to buyers fell within the meaning of the term
"retail pet store." Accordingly, the USDA has not regulated hobby breeders.
Three years ago, the Doris Day Animal League sued the USDA to require them
to include hobby breeders. The UKC and other dog organizations opposed this
and our side ultimately prevailed when the Supreme Court ruled that:
"Thus, nothing in the plain meaning of the term 'retail pet store' precluded
the Secretary from construing that term to include 'any outlet' where
certain animals, including dogs, 'are sold or offered for sale, at retail,
for use as pets.' 9 CFR 1.1. To the contrary, the Secretary's regulation
conforms to the accepted definition of the term 'retail store.'"
The court went on to say that the Secretary's interpretation had been in
effect since 1971 and "Congress has not seen fit to alter that
interpretation despite its willingness during that period to amend the AWA
in other respects to achieve its policy goals."
Here we come to the heart of the matter. The AR activists at DDAL and HSUS
realized that the Court wasn't going to give them what they want (federal
regulation of ALL dog breeding) without a bill that established that very
principle. PAWS is that bill.
AKC's analysis of the PAWS bill points out, correctly I might add, that the
Secretary of Agriculture could change his interpretation of "retail pet
store" at any time:
"While the USDA has interpreted the term retail pet store broadly in
regulation for the more than 30 years since the enactment of this exemption,
it is just a regulatory interpretation, and it could be changed simply by
the USDA writing and justifying a new regulation."
However, there is no logical reason why the USDA, already overburdened with
verifying the identities of individual cows in order to prove that they
DON'T have mad cow disease and with preventing terrorist attacks on US
agriculture, would suddenly be seized with the urge to add thousands of
hobby breeders to its "to do" list.
AKC's lobbyist justifies the need for this bill by blaming the internet.
According to him, in the days before the internet, breeders couldn't sell
large numbers of puppies without wholesaling at least some of them.
"However, with the advent of the internet and mass media outlets, this is no
longer true. The USDA, our own inspectors and fancy, and the animal welfare
community are all now aware of large breeders who, by any reasonable
definition of the term are commercial breeders, but who sell all of their
animals at retail over the internet and/or through mass media. These
breeders raise dozens, or even hundreds, of litters a year. Yet because all
of the puppies are sold at retail, they evade any federal regulation."
This argument ignores a couple of important points. First, pet stores also
sell hundreds of puppies each year and yet they will still go unregulated.
Secondly, there are state and local laws regulating animal cruelty/neglect
as well as consumer protection. Third, where is the evidence that these
internet sellers exist in large numbers or that they NEED regulation?
The AKC analysis claims that:
"In the last few years, persons have begun importing increasing numbers of
puppies for resale, also largely over the internet and/or through the mass
media, although some auction houses and retail pet stores are also importing
puppies directly for resale."
Again, Mr. Holt quotes no source for this claim. Stories of animal shelters
importing mixed-bred dogs from Puerto Rico, Taiwan and elsewhere have been
documented, but I have seen no evidence that: 1. Large numbers of dogs are
being imported for resale; and 2. That these imported dogs are creating a
problem. I know, for example, that many German Shepherds are imported from
Eastern Europe because some believe that those dogs are superior service
dogs, but I have seen nothing to indicate that these dogs are causing a
problem requiring federal intervention. In any event, this bill will do
nothing to improve the conditions in which dogs are raised outside of the
United States.
Like all AR-backed bills, this bill contains some good things. For example,
USDA lawyers could obtain injunctions against breeders who violate the AWA
without requiring the intervention of the Department of Justice. But make no
mistake about it, this bill is intended to do just what the Supreme Court
talked about in DDAL v. USDA--it is creating a law that will demonstrate
Congressional intent to regulate hobby breeders. Once that principal is
established, then it is just a matter of time before the bill is amended to
cover fewer litters and puppy sales.
The AKC has apparently decided that if they oppose this bill, no one in
Washington will listen to them again. Sadly, what will happen is that no one
outside of Washington will listen to them again. They are a big organization
with the power to help us here, but they have chosen not to do so. So, we
must help ourselves.
The bill is now in the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and
Forestry. Here is how to voice your opposition to this bill:
Committee phone number: 202-224-2035
Mailing address:
Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition & Forestry Room SR-328A Russell
Senate Office Building Washington, DC. 20510-6000
Individual committee members names and e-mail addresses may be found at:
http://agriculture.senate.gov/sen.htm
I always cringe when people use WWII analogies in fighting anti-dog
legislation, but I'm going to do it now. When Neville Chamberlain returned
to England after negotiating "peace in our time" with the Germans, Winston
Churchhill said:
"You were given the choice between war and dishonor. You chose dishonor and
you will have war."
UKC proudly opposes this bill.
Cindy Cooke
UKC Legislative Specialist
Permission to cross-post
============================================================================
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 ] UKC opposes PAWS
