After days of conversations with people whom I respect, I am more certain than ever that this law is not about dog or cat welfare.  Most people think it is going to “help the dogs.”  I am a wordsmith, not a legal analyst but I find nothing in PAWS that makes me believe companion animals would be any better protected than they are now. 

 We hear it all the time, "it's all about the money."  Well I've lived long enough to believe this is 99% about election time and the money involved in the companion animal business.  There’s a significant fact that no one has addressed - I believe the motivating legislative factor is the millions of dollars per year that escape the IRS and local tax collector’s radar.  One credible, well-informed caller has a theory about AKC and IRS.  If it is true, anyone selling a dog and not reporting the income had better watch out!!!!  There’s even a rumor that AKC cooperated with IRS re judges not reporting such income, including travel reimbursement and other perks.

 Back to getting enforcement of any law that doesn’t actually profit someone….  Tam Cordingley (a former Animal Control officer) told me she tried some years ago to get local intervention in a large scale puppy mill abuse situation.  Failing that, she called USDA.  Same response.  Essentially, if the dogs had food, water, shelter; and if the individual sold direct to the public, there was nothing USDA could do.  Didn’t matter that the puppy mill proudly said she made over a $100,000 per year selling dogs.  Apparently, there was no “abuse” law or statute that covered the horrendous situation.  Translated, I read that as “nothing in it for me, it’s only a bunch of dogs.”

 A determined group failed to get anyone (yes, including AKC) to do anything about the blatantly fraudulent breeding and sales practices of a known puppy miller.  That person is alleged to have sold dogs sired by top winning, well known dogs when in fact, they were sired by unknown dogs of questionable parentage.  DNA evidence exists to prove these allegations.  There are many other well-documented cases on my hard drive.  AKC may have acted on similar reports but if so, we wouldn’t know because AKC fails to make that claim.  On this one, involving hundreds of thousands of dollars in false registrations, (imagine how many pedigrees!) even with repeated complaints filed by an AKC judge, after years of badgering, I’m told they did nothing.  A network of outraged fanciers finally got her in state court, on tax evasion.  Interesting story.

 I guess we’ve all watched too much “Animal Cops.”  We see them rush to save abused animals and frequently, the owners are charged with felonies.  Not under local law, not under USDA or HSUS violation.  Another example of “What’s in it for me?” Is it the tv coverage and good PR for those cities and people rushing to pay their taxes to support good service, as they should!  Conversely I’m told that in any large city in this country, hundreds more die from ABUSE than are rescued OR ultimately euthanized after being rescued!!!!   Want a Cause?  There’s one for you!

 How did the Texas con-man manage to get seizure warrants under the guise of being SPCA so he could grab and re-sell horses and dogs?  He charged the owners with cruelty and the judge signed the warrant and he swooped down with uniformed officers.  Nothing to do with USDA, no HSUS involved, just local law. 

 Like the worst Supreme Court decision, your property can be seized so someone’s (payoff?) buddy can develop it for personal gain.  Is that not exactly what the lady judge did for the SPCA?  Allowed seizure and sale of valuable animals on the basis that it was for their good or the public good or what?  See TDP’s coverage of the 20/20 Expose’ on illegal seizure.

 It’s hard to maintain indignation and a personal commitment to “do something” about PAWS.  There are wonderful idealists out there who believe in making the world a better place, one small act at a time.  I’ve subscribed to that for fifty of my adult years but frankly, it is discouraging in these times of in-your-face corruption.

 My daughter is ambivalent.  As part of her Undergraduate Research Project, she rides with Animal Control, photographs the horror, and strives to capture the tender moments, of which there are few.  She’s in a county that passed a law requiring a $100 (lifetime) license fee for each intact dog.  She is not exactly opposed to that, she only has one dog.  She has seen the awful side of irresponsible ownership, especially of too many dogs having too many litters.  She has always been a logical thinker, not given to hysterics.  Like most rational people, she sees the answer as education and follow-up so that the same dogs don't come in over and over, often with litters!

 Therefore, Sherry reluctantly agreed when I pointed out “they” can’t enforce PAWS or any other law to protect pet animals because DSS, Child Protective Services, etc can’t even protect our children.  She’s read the Project: PAWS information which has so far been published on TheDogPlace.  She agreed that USDA probably can’t do much and that the failures of law enforcement are more than notable.  When I asked her who stands to gain by pushing this warm and fuzzy legislation, she was silent, then said “oh…..”  She doesn’t show dogs, she doesn’t breed dogs, but she is a perceptive woman.

 So, step out of line and watch PAWS and the LAW used against you.  You are visible. You use AKC registry services.  PAWS puts teeth into a law which can be selectively enforced.  Maybe it will make importing dogs more difficult, we're told that is a large part of the reason right?  Friends of mine just imported working GSD from Czechoslovakia.  They were harassed by a Customs officer who kept harping on how much the dogs cost and demanding to know who she was selling them to.  That’s USDA right?  I told her it was probably because she had spent more on a dog that he makes in a month and he was just resentful.  Now I wonder if he was just doing his job to catch the “overwhelming” growth in dogs imported for resale.  Probably not because according to AKC’s latest comment, that huge flood of imports from Europe, China, and Russia seems to have dwindled to “hundreds.”  Perhaps that is why my friends were the only ones at the busy Atlanta hub picking up imported dogs. 

AKC’s full page NY Times ad proclaiming its support of the PAWS Law goes to newsstands all over the country.  A good public persuasion move, a wonderful piece.  Problem is, I don’t recall AKC ever taking a full page ad in the NY Times proclaiming the benefits of dog ownership.  Phone lines down in NYC as I write this so I can't verify many points with AKC.  No costly advert explaining the predictive benefits of selecting a PUREBRED dog to fill a certain lifestyle, space requirements, etc.   Or how dog shows help preserve breed type and character, which strangely enough, is the main reason the public still buys a purebred instead of adopting a shelter mutt. 

The HSUS website is a very interesting study in word craft by the way.  Lots on PAWS but no way to find the actual bill.  Just the HSUS take on it.  And of course a place to donate to help their effort to pass this bill and save all the dogs and cats.

 Maybe the fancy deserves what it gets because PETA and the HSUS take in millions from businesses and pet owners who believe both organizations are for animals.  It's a matter of PR and AKC has failed miserably.  People may continue to buy purebred dogs, AKC has indeed done some great spots on TV but if this passes, they'll be buying most of them from commercial, regulated, USDA licensed breeders who keep books open to AKC and federal agencies.  Which may be why people use those fake registries to stay under the radar?  Why doesn't AKC fight that fight?  Why PAWS?  Why worry about a dribble of expensive imports?  Why worry about internet sellers?  Are they more dangerous than the puppy mill outlets that place ads in local papers and pretend to just happen to have one "litter for the kids" over and over and over?  Will PAWS "catch" them?

Let's just say it depends on your perspective, which is dependent on what you've heard and where you heard it.

 It’s a matter of PAWS and the LAW .

Barbara J. Andrews

If you haven't check in at Project: PAWS Section for position statements, latest news and progress, go there now!