Why AKC opposed PPA, the Puppy Protection Act which excluded hobby breeders but regulated puppy mills; then AKC unites with PETA and HSUS to vigorously support PAWS, a bill that hobbles hobby breeders! 

Barbara J. Andrews © TheDogPress 07|05 - If you can follow, I will lead you through some rough country. There's a rule every tracker knows well: Watching the back trail means fewer surprises ahead.  Some readers have challenged us for "ducking the PAWS issue" but 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. 

When the Pet Animal Welfare Statute, PAWS was introduced to Congress on May 26, 2005 by Senator Rick Santorum, we see a parallel set of tracks.  The Dog Press 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.  The tracks leading to and around PAWS had to be objectively analyzed.  We re-read our Mission Statement and that settled it.  We are about to dissipate the smokescreen and shoot holes in AKC propaganda.  We will cover PAWS. 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.  It never affected hobby breeders.  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."  Read the bill (below) and decide if AKC told the truth. 

Clever.  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.  Regarding PPA, AKC said it "believes the solution to the "puppy mill" problem is more vigorous enforcement of the existing Animal Welfare Act."   

AKC loudly and proudly fought the PPA which did not regulate hobby breeders.  So does AKC's support for PAWS make sense?  Only when you ask "Does PAWS regulate hobby and show breeders?" and realize the answer is YES. 

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."  AKC tells us PAWS legislation is better but the stated position of the cat registries and all other dog registries as regards PAWS contradicts AKC's position.  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 yet AKC led the charge to defeat it.  PPA excluded pet stores and hobby breeders but it would have been devastating to puppy mills; the Weapons Of Mass Production - AKC's major source of income! 

PAWS will apply to show breeders and AKC supports it. Tracks don't lie.  AKC "saved" show breeders from the PPA Act which did not and never would have applied to them.  If passed, the PAWS Bill will destroy show breeders but have no impact whatsoever on USDA licensed puppy mills. I hate to point this out but AKC has said that show and hobby breeders are less than 10% of its breeding income.  Conversely, we are a rock in AKC's shoe, constantly demanding attention.

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, is also adamantly opposed.  UKC, second only to AKC, is opposed to PAWS.  So is any dog or cat registry other than AKC in favor of PAWS legislation.  NO. 

Remember now, looking back is usually a clear 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 classifies show/hobby breeders as retail pet stores.  Mr. Holt stubbornly insists that AKC's rationale for supporting PAWS is that USDA could change its mind any minute.  How does that idea play?  Let's see. 

USDA couldn't keep up with inspections in normal times but if it did decide to add inspection and enforcement of show/hobby breeders 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 oppose PAWS and anyone that supports it.

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 of future cooperation on another issue.  It's done every day on the hill.  That's why there are lobbyists.

And Mr. Holt is a lobbyist.  He says "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!  That simply is not true.  PAWS specifically says we show breeders are retail pet sellers.  AKC admits that but says not to worry, we're not considered a dealer unless we sell 26 dogs per year or whelp 7 litters in a year.  That isn't exactly true either though because the bill specifies 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 with AKC taking 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 really makes us feel better!  Of course no fancier has ever imported a dog and sold it or taken on a backer or co-owner to help campaign it.  Heavens no.  And we never would because if we 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 us "dog dealers" who want to import quality dogs for breeding purposes!  But what the heck, that kind of regulation sure will please the puppy mills...

Noteworthy: It was breeders, buyers, and multi-breed AKC judge Ms. Bruce Lorenzen (Pedigree Fraud expose in TheDogPress) who finally got mass importer Gina Price, Rebel Ridge English and French Bulldogs convicted and sent to Federal prison!  It was not AKC. In fact, a search of AKC's website shows no suspension for Gina Price before or after the 2008 conviction in Federal court for importing, breeding, and selling "AKC registered" dogs.  With that in mind, read the next paragraph.

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!!!   They may someday exist but if so, they would only threaten the profits of puppy mills.

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 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 has gladly registered dogs despite dozens of complaints of which we have documentation.  Hmmm.  Methinks someone lay false trail.

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 and 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?

AKC told us that PAWS is good because at any time, USDA could come after us.  AKC is correct, it could.  The war could end tomorrow and USDA could quit checking all our food and all our imports for hidden bombs or contaminated foodstuffs, and instead come after US!  USDA doesn't even check puppy mills without prior notice and admits to being too understaffed to stay on top of puppy mill cruelties.  As our John Stossel says "Gimme a break!"

But there's more.  How would we prove we are exempt under the PAWS LAW?  Let's see now.  Who keeps track of how many dogs you sell and to whom?  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 will send a factual correction so we can publicly acknowledge my mistake.  We invite anyone who can provide other viewpoints or legal interpretations to send an article.  No one would rather be wrong than this editor!

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. I can see that the AKC has swapped sides in mid-stream.  Thank God for TheDogPress."   Another reader observed "AKC is making the public believe that what is absolutely the worst legislation against breeders has suddenly become as soft as puppy paws but 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

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.