REGISTRY, BREED & KENNEL CLUB NEWS
PROTECT US AGAINST THE PUPPY PROTECTION ACT!
We stopped the PPA
- Puppy Protection Act, right? Wrong. Even in 2002,
Santorum seemed to be working for AKC - American Kennel Club.
But like a monster chameleon, this bill keeps coming back!
Read this now, knowing that AKC
tried to buy PAWS legislation (ref #1) in 2006 after
Pet Industry Joint Advisory Council
T(US S 1731) SENATE ADOPTS SANTORUM AMENDMENT - CONFERENCE COMMITTEE
IS LAST CHANCE TO STOP PUPPY PROTECTION ACT
After loading up the Farm Bill (S. 1731) with over 100 amendments,
the Senate has adopted its version of this contentious legislation.
Among the many amendments the Senate accepted was Senator
Santorum’s end-run amendment of the “Puppy
Protection Act” provisions.
Circumventing the committee process, the sponsors avoided any debate
on the bill, but inserted a number of inflammatory and inaccurate
statements into the Congressional Record with introduction of their
amendment. (because PAWS was better? ref
While the provisions amending the
Animal Welfare Act that were included in the Senate version of the
Farm Bill were not identical to the “Puppy Protection Act” as
introduced, they are largely the same in substance. If these
provisions survive the conference committee, persons subject to the
Animal Welfare Act (AWA) will need to comply with new breeding
restrictions and suffer great risk of mandatory revocations of their
A conference committee is being appointed to facilitate a consensus
between members of the Senate and the House of Representatives on a
final Farm Bill (a list of probable members is attached to this
PetAlert). Senator Santorum’s AWA amendment was not in the version
passed by the House. However, members of the conference committee
will be compelled to make compromises in order to send a final bill
to President Bush.
Unfortunately, there is a great deal of misinformation surrounding
the Santorum initiative. Speaking in favor of it before Congress,
co-sponsor Senator Durbin
stated that “the current guidelines within the Animal Welfare
Act…merely provide for water and food, and that is questionable.”
Those familiar with the AWA may be mystified how a legislator
proposing to amend the act could proffer such a completely
erroneous comment. (kick
that hindsight in again at this point) Unfortunately, the
sponsors’ characterization of the amendment was equally
Republican sponsor Santorum claims that the mandatory revocation
provision “will help USDA take action against the genuinely bad
actors while allowing for the rights of all individuals in the
breeding business.” In fact, that provision doesn’t give USDA any
greater authority to revoke licenses; it only takes away their
discretion in enforcing the AWA.
Senator Santorum claims that commercial breeders (which he calls
“puppy mills”) supply unsuspecting consumers with puppies that have
“latent physical and behavioral problems because of the poor care
they received” and that these dogs often “end up taken to shelters
where they must be euthanized because they’re too aggressive or
sickly to be adopted.” In fact, studies show that there is no
healthier source for dogs than pet stores (who buy their puppies
from commercial breeders) and that the dogs turned into shelters are
overwhelmingly NOT from pet stores.
Claiming broad support from shelters and animal control associations
for his legislation, Senator Santorum entered into the Congressional
Record a list of 861 organizations he claims endorsed his bill.
However, there are now reports being widely circulated that numerous
names Senator Santorum included in his list had not endorsed
at all, leading many people to question whether the list has any
validity. i.e. "he lied."
Senator Santorum calls his proposal “a very modest amendment.” If it
is so modest, why does he claim it is so critically needed? In fact,
the Santorum amendment would have a profound effect on AWA
enforcement, greatly limiting USDA’s enforcement ability.
It is imperative that members of the conference committee understand
that statements by supporters about what the Santorum amendment does
are inaccurate, that the amendment will actually severely compromise
AWA enforcement, and that constituents are opposed to these
Attached below is a list of probable members of the conference
committee both from the House and Senate (although members have not
all formally been appointed or named). As soon as a final list is
available, PIJAC will forward a copy. Many legislators will be home
during the week of February 18-23 for Presidents’ Day recess. This
is the perfect opportunity to attempt to meet with in their home
office. If this is not possible, make certain to contact both their
Washington DC and district offices. If your elected representatives
are on the committee, let them know that the Santorum Amendment to
amend the AWA should be stripped out of the Farm Bill altogether. It
has several problems and does not belong in this legislation. Even
if your senators and congressman are not on the list, contact them
and let them know they should persuade their colleagues to reject
this amendment in conference. Encourage your employees, neighbors,
friends and customers to contact to join this grassroots response.
In your own words, emphasize the following points:
The mandatory license revocation provision lacks due process.
Although it appears to be a three-strikes and out provision, it
is really a one strike and out provision! Because of the way
USDA prepares inspection reports and prosecutes cases, this
provision would mandate that many honest businesspeople lose
their license the first time they ever get a hearing for
Senator Santorum himself emphasized the need for greater
enforcement resources, but the revocation provision would result
in a greater waste of USDA resources, and less effective
enforcement. The agency would be mired in litigation.
USDA knows that its greatest enforcement problem is not with
licensees who aren’t complying with the law, but with people who
ought to be licensed and are ignoring the laws altogether. Those
are by far the most egregious violators. The Santorum Amendment
doesn’t address the real enforcement problem at all!
Senator Santorum’s efforts to establish breeding and
socialization provisions may be well intentioned, but they are
misguided. The way these are written will deprive breeders of
the ability to consult with and rely on the best advice of their
veterinarians to care for dogs. These standards are not in the
best interest of the dogs and, like the revocation part of the
Santorum Amendment, should be struck entirely from the Farm
No congressional hearings have been held to determine if any
credible evidence exists to support any of the claims by
Remember – HSUS and ASPCA are actively firing up their grass roots
machinery to flood Congress with support letters; letters that will
undoubtedly contain lots of the misinformation already presented to
If you have any questions about this issue, or need additional
information or assistance in responding, contact PIJAC’s Marshall
Meyers or Michael Maddox at 202-452-1525 (800-553-7383 for PIJAC
AKC OPPOSED PPA??
was it a PR diversion for support of PAWS?
AKC BUYS PAWS?
After actually fighting
PPA, AKC backs PAWS!
Puppy Uniform Protection and
our fees - for pet shop puppy inventory
Got a Nose For News? Send your report -
if published you win a $100.00 certificate
good on TheDogPress or TheDogPlace and you are automatically qualified for the 2012 Journalists Award
$200.00 CASH to the winner of the November
2012 Dog Press Journalists Award
Click to Submit Your Report