|
PAWS
Bill = PAUSE For Thought
There's a rule every tracker knows well: Watching the back trail means fewer surprises ahead. You have flooded us with inquiries wanting to know why TheDogPress has avoided a subject so important, so controversial, so "now." First, we had to look back and figure out how PAWS got so far out in front of us. Secondly, we had to decide whether we wanted to risk assessment of the mess. The answer required some soul searching. There could be repercussions, financial risk, disagreement. If we addressed it at all, it had to be objectively analyzed. We re-read our Mission Statement and that settled it. This is our painful assessment of PAWS.
The last big smoke signal was back in December, 2001 when this urgent bulletin was sent out by AKC: "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 and mobilizing the troops. We whupped it right? Wrong. Now we're told that Senator Santorum's PAWS act is a modified, breeder friendlier version of the PPA bill. We don't swallow the line much less the sinker.
Three years ago AKC said "The PPA will divert the government's compliance resources away from the real offenders." What about today? All branches of government are stretched to the max under threat of another terrorist attack. In particular, 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? 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! All enforcement agencies must protect us against far more serious threats than dog breeders!
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." This is no less true today so why does AKC tell us the PAWS legislation is better? Put aside for a moment, the rationale offered by AKC's lobbyist-legislation expert, the likable and capable Jim Holt. Instead, let's consider the stated position of all of the cat registries, NCA, and in particular, UKC's highly respected Legislative Specialist. Cindy Cooke says "Three organizations issued press releases recommending that this bill 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 they have joined in support of PAWS? Where is the logic in that! That was not a rhetorical question, it demands examination and answers.
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 virtually excluded show breeders but AKC led the charge to defeat it and we all felt gratified. In light of the PAWS bill one might ask if saving show breeders from PPA could that have been only an incidental reason? A quick re-read reveals the PPA would have been devastating to the Weapons Of Mass Production!
Like trained troops, we mobilize against regulation which invades our living room or kennel but the current Animal Welfare Act aka PPA, is much less of an intrusion to show breeders than is the current, catchily named "PAWS" act. It is not complicated when you unsnarl all the rhetoric.
Thankfully, not all AKC Board members are in favor of this bill. When the time comes to elect your club delegate, you would be wise to note who is pushing acceptance of PAWS. Remember 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
Other AKC board members opposed to PAWS are: Carmen Battaglia, Tom Davies, Patti Strand and Ken Marden, former AKC President. We should also mention that MOST dog and cat ASSOCIATIONS, including the prestigious and always 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. At this point, we are unaware of any pet-friendly association whose membership is clearly in favor of this legislation.
Look back again. 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." Okay, so show/hobby breeders are not exempt under the current law but USDA chose to classify us as retail pet stores. Mr. Holt tells us AKC's big fear and rationale for supporting PAWS is that USDA could change its mind any minute. Let's look over the horizon.
Is that really likely to happen? If it were to happen, could we not fight it then? Despite the pretty picture painted for us regarding PAWS, our position is infinitely better today than it could ever be under the obtusely worded PAWS act. Therefore, we must quit talking about PAWS and mobilize to defeat it and any bill like it which threatens our God-given right to own, breed and enjoy companion animals!
We defeated the PPA Bill with AKC's help. Are we now so defeatist that we won't even try to defeat the "new" stronger all-inclusive version? It should be easier today because for monetary reasons alone, PAWS should have a hard time passing!! What Senator wants to admit that 1.) he/she wasted time and tax payer money to support and pass a bill which couldn't be implemented due to lack of funding? or 2.) they 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? Perhaps, for enough money and promise of power or future cooperation on another issue. It's done every day on the hill. That's why big business has 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, left alone by a USDA too busy to bother with us, a USDA that chose to classify us as retail pet store. Under PAWS we lose that classification. PAWS excludes us as retail pet sellers. Period. AKC says not to worry, we're not considered as a dealer unless we sell 26 dogs per year or whelp 7 litters in a year. We're told that over and over and over and we repeat it and debate it. Any marketing firm would predict overwhelming support because what breeder wants to position himself as a retail producer? In fairness, Mr. Holt included the part that says we must sell only dogs bred or raised on our
own premises? What? No one noticed that? PAWS would be the end of co-ownerships and co-breeding a litter 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!!
That would solve an increasingly litigious problem for AKC though. No more co-breeder disputes resulting in lawsuits against AKC. If, as we are told, the bill is a compromise on the numbers of puppies or litters whelped, and if AKC takes credit for that, then how did this
most important sentence get in? More to the point, why did AKC fail to protect the tradition that sustains small hobby breeders??
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. Now USDA must go after those 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! The above is from Mr. Holt's May 2005 "Made In China" article featured in Dog News. In that curious article, 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." He 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!
Here's how it works. Marketing agencies and political strategists invent a threatening situation in order to unite dissenters into a common cause. Here you go: "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 is pretty scary! Except. Where are all those mass importers that no one can produce? I asked others to help track them down on the pretext of buying an imported puppy. Went online. Called a few pet shops. None of us knew which "mass media channels" to contact but we could not find imported purebred or known-breed puppies, not from "western
Europe" not from "Russia" and most definitely not from China!!! One of our Science and Advisory Board members is president of the China Kennel Club. She says there are not enough purebreds for the Chinese fancier. Fred Lanting just judged in China and he saw no crates lined up for export. It appears that someone is pulling AKC's leg and they fell for it. Hook, line, and sinker.
We were just told that the "China article"
has been removed from the AKC website so credit to AKC,
when challenged by TheDogPress, it has apparently checked and
decided maybe there is not such a huge influx of "imported"
puppies for the retail market. Certainly not from China
where there is such a scarcity of purebred dogs that dog
breeders take orders from a catalog for future sales.
Is there truth in the rumor that AKC recently visited China? Might have been an attempt to verify the Chinese dog exporters. If so, AKC should have the good grace to say it was duped by a marketing firm acting on behalf of the WMP (Weapons Of Mass Production) who are the only ones that could be worried about an influx of foreign puppies!
Pushing aside the foot-high stack of quotes, there are still some "dots" on the table. Like the above, examples of astounding comments are floated out to dog people. Look back again. I believe this to be perfect timing when the May 27th Dog News Editorial 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! What a ridiculous statement. According to Google results, HSUS is already in alliance with PETA and has been 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 timed
(and
contrived) press release?
It actually is okay for AKC to sit at the same table with HSUS. "Know Thine Enemy" and all. We should exchange ideas, listen, learn, influence if we can.
That has worked well for the NAIA which until dog people finally
"got it" was severely criticized for having questionable people
on its board. That does not however mean AKC, representing thousands of dog owners whose past and futures are at stake, must agree with DDAL, HSUS, PETA, or any other group! How can that happen? What common ground can there be on a proposed bill that would essentially do little to thwart the mass production of dogs and cats but which would seriously impact hobby breeders? We don't have to "work with" HSUS, PETA, the DDAL, we have to OPPOSE them if we are to protect the rights of hobby breeders. Is AKC not infinitely more powerful?
Of course it is, it has US behind it! 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 counts our litters. Who keeps track of whether every dog we sell was "bred or raised on our own premises"?? PAWS rules exempt hobby breeders, allowing us to breed without regulation? Without Regulation??? Who are we kidding?
Make no mistake, I support the AKC, over half my life is invested in AKC shows and friends. If anything I said is in error, I apologize up front. If anything editorially is incorrect, we sincerely hope AKC or Mr. Holt or ANYONE can send facts that disprove or explain it away. I pray that happens.
There will be a Special Edition next week because even before
this editorial was published, additional information was
flooding in to our offices. We invite anyone who can provide factual legal interpretations, good or bad,
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. They also reflect my personal opinion and concerns and no one could be more relieved than this editor if they were all WRONG!
We have been sorting through a flood of articles, statistics, and letters on this subject. It has taken
an inordinate amount of time to thoroughly research a subject that is "all over the internet."
Some of those comments and information have been excerpted in a separate section one of the staff nicknamed Truth Of The Matter. It's just for PAWS, which as one caller said is really one of those trick names because when you turn it around, it is SWAP and she said it means AKC swapped sides in mid-stream, and "thank God for TheDogPress" said she! She said, and we quote, "making the public believe that what is absolutely the worst legislation against show breeders has suddenly become as soft as a puppy'’s paws is a good trick but we don't think it will work."
Barbara J.
Andrews
Note: We removed links previously provided here due to a flood of responses
and information, the best of which are being assembled daily at
PAWS PROJECT
Links, reliable data, and position statements continue to be gathered
together for your convenience.
Go There!
 We
make sharing information easy! Just copy and paste the
TDP
Quick-Mail Link
provided below into the body of an email:
PAWS & Pause For Thought
|
