Why AKC opposed PPA, the Puppy Protection Act
which excluded hobby breeders but regulated puppy mills; then united
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.
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 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?
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
pet stores and hobby breeders
yet AKC led the charge to defeat it. Was that because the
PPA
would have been devastating to
puppy mills,
the Weapons Of
Mass Production -
AKC's major source of income?
Now look at PAWS. It
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 every dog
and cat registry other
than AKC is opposed to PAWS legislation.
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 decided to add more
inspectors so it could add 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 also 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.
Mr. Holt is the AKC 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 because the bill specifies 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 Dr. Holt's May 2005 "Made In China" article featured in
AKC's propaganda publication Dog News. Dr. Holt 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 exposed 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. Repeat. 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 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!!!
Our 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 scrubbed 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 with 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-In-Chief
|
