 WAS PPA
A SMOKESCREEN? AKC, HSUS, AND PAWS
AKC opposed the Puppy Protection Act
ignoring hobby breeders but regulating puppy mills; then unites
with PETA and HSUS to vigorously support PAWS, a bill that lassos hobby
breeders!
Barbara J. Andrews
©
TheDogPress
07|05 - Let's
take a trip through some rough country. There's a rule every tracker knows well: Watching the back trail means fewer surprises ahead.
To readers who have challenged us for
"ducking the PAWS issue" I say
please
rest assured, reporting news as it happens is only part of what
we do. I like to get the lay of the land and in this case,
that means looking back to figure out how PAWS got so far out in front
of us. The footing is solid but the path is tricky so stay
with me. The Pet Animal Welfare Statute, PAWS was
introduced to Congress on May 26, 2005 by Senator Rick Santorum.
When I began to see a
parallel set of tracks, we had to decide whether to risk
involvement in the PAWS mess. Being the voice of the
people isn't the same as having $200 million bucks to play with.
We had to be right, even when speculating. The tracks
leading to and around PAWS had to be objectively analyzed. We re-read our
Mission Statement and that settled it.
You have had enough smokescreen and propaganda. We will
cover PAWS the only way I know how. I've got friends
watching my back.
We saw the first smoke signal in December, 2001 when
AKC sent out this "urgent" bulletin: "Puppy Protection Act May Be Added to Farm Bill This Week - Phone Calls to Senators Needed!" AKC did a great job getting the word out. We whupped it right? Wrong. Now we're told that Senator Santorum's PAWS
bill is a modified, breeder friendlier version of the PPA bill. We don't swallow the line much less the sinker.
In 2004 AKC said "The PPA will divert the government's compliance resources away from the real offenders." Won't
PAWS to the same thing? Of course, but more to the point,
all branches of government are stretched to the max under threat of another terrorist attack.
The CDC, FDA, and USDA have increased budgets to monitor our imports, water, and food supply. Yet we are supposed to believe that the Federal government will suddenly fund new legislation to regulate something as inconsequential as dog breeders?? Is that logical? NO.
In 2001 AKC said "remind your senator that a recent court decision which is now under appeal would require the federal government to apply the PPA to EVERY BREEDER, not just commercial breeders or "puppy mills."" Is PAWS different? Does it exclude hobby or show breeders?
NO. It does NOT!
Regarding PPA, AKC said it "believes the solution to the "puppy mill" problem is more vigorous enforcement of the existing Animal Welfare Act." Absolutely nothing has changed except today we are fighting terrorism
and government agencies are stretched to protect us against far more serious threats than dog breeders!
So does AKC's support for PAWS make sense?
NO.
Three and a half years ago AKC said "the so-called "Puppy Protection Act" is based on sensationalized conclusions rather than facts. It will involve the federal government in unworkable regulation of the breeding practices of individual breeders and unenforceable "engineering standards" for socialization of dogs."
Is this less true today when AKC tells us PAWS legislation is better?
NO.
Put aside for a moment, the rationale offered by AKC's lobbyist-legislation expert,
Jim Holt. Instead, let's consider the stated position of the cat registries
and all other dog registries as regards PAWS. UKC's highly respected Legislative Specialist
and attorney Cindy Cooke says "Three organizations issued press releases recommending that this bill
[PAWS] be passed: the Humane Society of the United States, the Doris Day Animal League, and
the American Kennel Club."
Ask yourself, do those three organizations fit together in your mind?
NO.
Then how can AKC have joined
HSUS and DDAL in support of PAWS? That was not a rhetorical question, it demands an answer.
PAWS is a frightening "bill of goods" no matter how you look at it but Cindy Cooke points out "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 monster under the bed just sneezed! Are you ready to look? The PPA bill
totally excluded show breeders but AKC led the charge to defeat it. PAWS
will apply to show breeders. The tracks are
becoming more defined as one wonders why AKC "saved" show breeders from
the PPA Act which did not and never would have applied to them
but PPA would have been devastating to the
Weapons Of Mass Production!
Let's see, PPA excluded pet
stores and in not even mentioning hobby breeders, could never
apply to us. It would have been rough on puppy mills,
AKC's major source of income. In limiting the number of
litters and/or pets (multiple species were included in that
total number) PAWS would apply to show and hobby breeders but
have no impact on already USDA licensed puppy mills.
Okay, we got it. The Animal Welfare Act
and/or Puppy Protection Act have little to no effect on show breeders.
The cutely named "PAWS" act would adversely impact
show and hobby breeders. Is that complicated?
NO.
Thankfully, not all AKC Board members are in favor of
PAWS. When the time comes to elect your club delegate,
remember who is pushing PAWS and who is not. Board member Patti Strand explains "Simply put, the companion bills S1139/H2669 propose an end run around the failed DDAL lawsuit against USDA, an attempt to force federal regulation of breeders who sell their puppies and kittens directly to the public. The potential impact of the bill on breeders who whelp litters in their homes is only too clear and NAIA Trust adamantly opposes the bill as it is written." Visit the NAIA website for more disturbing insight. http://www.naiatrust.org/NAIA_Trust_Opposes_PAWS_S1139.htm
AKC board members
currently opposed to PAWS are: Carmen Battaglia, Tom Davies, Patti Strand and Ken Marden, former AKC President.
The prestigious and forward-thinking CFA (to cat owners as AKC is to dog owners) is dead set against the PAWS act. TICA, The International Cat Association, second only to CFA in registry numbers and fans, is also adamantly opposed.
All of the other dog registries are opposed to PAWS except a
couple that primarily register for puppy mills and they don't
care. So with that exception, is any pet registry other
than AKC in favor of PAWS legislation.
NO.
Looking back is sometimes a
clearer view. The PPA bill was defeated, things quieted down. Suddenly we're confronted with AKC's unfathomable support of the PAWS bill! Dr. Holt, speaking for AKC, explains that under current law, "persons who sell dogs for research, teaching, exhibition, hunting, breeding, or security purposes, or as a pet are defined as "dealers" and are regulated, EXCEPT retail pet stores."
Legal analysts point out that under current law, USDA chose to classify us as retail pet stores.
Mr. Holt
stubbornly insists that AKC's rationale for supporting PAWS is that USDA could change its mind any minute.
Okay, let's look ahead.
USDA couldn't keep up with
inspections in normal times but if it did decide to add to its
work load, we would just fight it then. Despite the pretty picture AKC paints regarding PAWS, our position is infinitely better today than it could ever be under the obtusely worded PAWS act. Therefore, we must
take the high ground on PAWS and mobilize to defeat any bill that threatens our God-given right to breed and
own well bred companion animals!
We defeated the PPA Bill with AKC's help.
We can defeat PAWS, with or without AKC's help but we would rather do
it without having to oppose AKC!
Looked at logically, what Senator wants to admit that 1.) he/she supported a bill which couldn't be implemented due to lack of funding? or 2.) passed a bill, enforcement of which further drained the country's resources during a time of war? Would you risk your political career on that?
NO.
Well, maybe you would, for enough money and promise future cooperation on another issue. It's done every day on the hill. That's why
there are lobbyists.
Mr. Holt reassures us: "PAWS narrows the definition of 'retail pet store' to include only actual stores, but puts a specific exemption into the law for small retail sellers and hobby and show breeders."
STOP! We were safe,
totally left alone when USDA classified us as an exempt retail
pet store. Under PAWS we lose that classification! PAWS
specifically says we are retail pet sellers. AKC says not to worry, we're not considered a dealer unless we sell 26 dogs per year or whelp 7 litters in a year.
Note that is a combined total of 26 kittens, birds, and/or
dogs.
Does AKC think we can't read? In fairness to him, Mr. Holt
did include the part that says we can only sell dogs bred or raised on our
own premises, meaning: PAWS would be the end of co-ownerships and co-breeding because you would automatically become a dealer even if you only bred one litter or sold one puppy not whelped and reared on your premises!
PAWS would solve an annoying
legal problem for AKC; no more co-breeder disputes and lawsuits
involving AKC. If, as we are told, the bill is a compromise,
AKC input, dah dah dah, and if AKC takes credit for that, then how did
AKC allow the "premises" sentence?
Dr. Holt says "It also, for the first time, classifies as dealers persons who import puppies for resale." That should make us all feel better
because no fancier has ever imported a dog and sold it or taken
on a backer or co-owner to help campaign it. If any of us
were to do that, we automatically become dealers.
But it gets stranger than
fiction. Under PAWS, USDA must go after mass importers who have created "overwhelming … growth…. in this (importing) activity.." We are told this is true because "Parent clubs, breeders and fanciers from all over the country report significant numbers of imported puppies showing up at auctions, in pet stores, and offered for sale over the Internet." I did not make that up!
It is from Mr. Holt's May 2005 "Made In China" article featured in Dog News,
in which he alleged that "individuals and business entities in the U.S." are
importing and selling dogs in the retail market. But not to fear, "AKC is taking the matter of importation of puppies for resale very seriously." Holt emphasizes that AKC is "urging" the International Trade Commission and the USDA to
"do something" and
he assures us AKC is "working with" the CDC to implement better quarantine restrictions.
Somehow, that doesn't sound good for those who want to import
quality dogs for breeding purposes!
Noteworthy: It was
breeders, buyers, and multi-breed AKC judge Ms. Bruce
Lorenzen (Pedigree
Fraud expose in TheDogPress) who finally got Gina Price,
Rebel Ridge English and French Bulldogs convicted. It was
not AKC. In fact, a search of AKC's website shows no suspension
for Gina Price before or after State charges and the 2008
conviction in Federal court for importing, breeding, selling "AKC
registered" dogs.
More thought. Political strategists
always invent a threatening situation in order to unite dissenters into a common cause.
Regarding "importers" and PAWS, AKC says "The change was proposed because there are a large and growing number of operations, including breeders and importers, who are breeding and/or selling large numbers of dogs exclusively at retail, over the internet, or through mass media channels (huh?) or other means and therefore evading regulation."
That's pretty scary! Except. Where are all those
mass importers? I asked others to help track them down on
the pretext of buying an imported puppy. We went online;
called a some pet shops. Zilch. None of us knew which
"mass media channels" to contact but we could not find imported
purebred puppies except for cases such as cited above.
None from "Russia" and most definitely not from China!!!
Science and Advisory Board
member, Lana Tsan is president of the China Kennel Club.
She says there are not enough purebreds for Chinese fanciers and
they do not export. Another of our writers, Fred Lanting,
just returned from judging in China and he saw no crates lined
up at markets, shows, or airports. It appears that someone
is pulling AKC's leg and they fell for it. The "China article"
has since been removed from the AKC website. Credit to AKC,
when challenged by The Dog Press, it apparently decided maybe
there really isn't such a huge influx of "imported"
puppies for the retail market. And
it would surely be inconvenient to notice people
like Gina Price, for whom AKC gladly registers dogs.
Leaving the import debacle
aside, there's a plethora of astounding comments floated out to dog people.
The May 27th Dog News Editorial actually said we should listen to the HSUS!! Setting the stage for hoped acceptance of the unacceptable, it brushes off "past grievances" by saying it's about time to listen to what the HSUS has to say and then observes "Better for an alliance with HSUS with dog people than with PETA, wouldn't you think?"
NO!
That is the problem, not the solution to PAWS. According to Google
returns, Wikipedia, etc., HSUS has been in alliance with PETA for years! Surely Matt and Gene know that, they have written about it!! So was that statement a slip of the pen or just another perfectly
planted AKC press release?
It is good to "Know Thine Enemy"
if you don't get confused about who the enemy is. AKC
could learn from HSUS and PETA but it should not agree or
conspire with such groups. What common ground can there be on a proposed bill that would essentially do little to thwart the mass production of dogs but which would seriously impact hobby breeders? We don't have to "work with" HSUS
and PETA, we must OPPOSE them if we are to protect the rights of
hobby breeders. Could the real enemy have created a diversion, taken a short cut, and positioned themselves in the canyon ahead?
We're told that PAWS is good because at any time, USDA could decide not to exempt us along with pet shops. AKC is correct, it could. The war could end tomorrow and USDA could quit checking all those trailer containers and boxes and crates and airline passenger's bags for hidden bombs or contaminated foodstuffs, and come after US! USDA doesn't even check puppy mills without prior notice and admits to being too understaffed to stay on top of fraud and outright cruelty. But we are supposed to believe USDA is coming after show breeders and the PAWS act will prevent that from happening??? As our hero Mr. Stossel says "Gimme a break!"
But there's more. In order to be exempt from this bill ….. ask yourself -
Who keeps track of how many dogs you sell? To whom do you report a sale? Who checks your records, bank accounts, looks for cash secreted under your mattress??? Well? It is a legitimate question which so far, NO ONE HAS ADDRESSED. Who
other than AKC counts our litters? Without frequent
inspections, even AKC couldn't keep track of whether every dog
we sell was "bred or raised on our own premises"? AKC says PAWS exempts hobby breeders, allowing us to breed without regulation? Without Regulation? Who are we kidding?
Make no mistake, over half my life is invested in AKC shows,
dogs, and friends. If anything I said is in error, I apologize up front
and we trust AKC or Mr. Holt or ANYONE will send a factual
correction so we can publicly acknowledge our mistake.
We want to be right. We invite anyone who can provide
other viewpoints or legal interpretations
to send an article. You now have the collective opinions, concerns, and questions of informed users,
some of whom at this time, wish to remain in the background.
No one could be more relieved than this editor if they were all WRONG!
It has taken an inordinate
amount of time to research a subject that is "all over the
internet." One reader wrote "PAWS is a trick name because when you turn it around, it is SWAP."
She went on to say "I can see that the AKC has swapped sides in mid-stream.
Thank God for TheDogPress." She went on to say "making the public believe that what is absolutely the worst legislation against
breeders has suddenly become as soft as puppy paws has not
convinced my club... Keep up the good work."
That was all the motivation
we needed
Barbara J. Andrews, Editor
http://www.thedogpress.com/Columns/Editorials/0507-PAWS.PPA.AKC.HSUS.asp
Handy links:______________________
 copy
and paste the
TDP
Quick-Mail Link
provided below
into the body of an email:
PAWS, PPA, AKC, HSUS and if you have
News too hot to handle, send it to
Editor@thedogpress.com
If published
you win a
$50.00
certificate good on any NetPlaces site,
plus you qualify for the
$100.00 CASH
Journalists Award
in November of this Year.
|
