It
appears that AKC's PAWS FACT OF THE
DAY may develop into a complete collection.
As they keep sending, we'll keep adding.
The AKC PAWS Fact
Index:
- July 22, 2005
- Whose Bill is it anyway?
- July 25, 2005
- The denial of the impact on rescue.
- July 26, 2005
- Singling out "hunting dogs."
- July 27, 2005
- AKC can bail out, if they want to.
- July 28, 2005
- USDA v Veneman; it doesn't do windows.
- July 29, 2005
- Santorum speaks.
- August 1, 2005
- No USDA license? Freeze! - Put down
that pooper scooper!
- August 2, 2005
- AKC says, "Don't confuse us
with the facts!"
- August 3, 2005
- Is that gross or what?
- August 4,
2005 - Testimonials from the usual
suspects.
- August 5,
2005 - How PAWS will save us from
imports.
- August 8,
2005 - A little late, but AKC's
version of PAWS integrated with the
AWA
- August 9,
2005 - Not your Father's USDA?
Note: Aug 10 &
11, no "PAWS Facts" were
issued.
- August 12,
2005 - "We're from the Government/AKC,
and we're here to help.
Note: Aug 15 - no
"PAWS Facts" was issued.
- August 16,
2005 - How PAWS(AKC) will save
us from unscrupulous people.
Note: Aug 17 - no
"PAWS Facts" was issued.
- August 18,
2005 - USDA v Veneman, again,
and a few words about the AWA.
Note: Aug 19 - 26,
no "PAWS Facts" were issued.
- August 29,
2005 - AVMA is conned.
Note: Aug 30 - Sept
1, no "PAWS Facts" were
issued.
- Sept 2, 2005
- AKC calls John E. to the rescue.
FACTOID
1:
Thanks to
Susan
Wolf and Bob
Kane
From: "AKC Communications"
<COMMUNICATIONS@akc.org>
To: "AKC Communications"
<COMMUNICATIONS@smtp.akc.org>
Sent: Monday, July 22, 2005
2:47 PM
Subject: PAWS Fact
In an effort to keep our constituents
updated on PAWS we are providing the
following email.
PAWS FACT
PAWS is Senator Santorum's bill.
It is not AKC's bill.
AKC did not write
it, and we did not collaborate
with any other organization such as
HSUS, DDAL, or PETA in contributing
language. AKC supports it because
it's good for dogs. [Emphasis added]
Permission to cross-post granted.
Regards,
Lisa Peterson
Director of Club Communications
American Kennel Club
260 Madison Avenue
New York, NY 10016
p: 212-696-8360
f: 212-696-8345
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - -
Rebuttal:
June 10, 2005 Jim Holt writes (Dog
News interview)
Most of the provisions in the final
bill, not including the dealer provision,
were included in a bill proposed
by the AKC several years
ago as an alternative to Senator Santorum's
Puppy Protection Act (PPA), which
the AKC opposed. [Emphasis added]
We would have preferred a definition
of hobby and show breeder that was
not based on numbers, because we recognize
that we will likely have to defend
the number for the foreseeable future.
But in the end neither we
nor anyone else could come
up with another legally sufficient
definition that didn't create loopholes
that would allow the entities that
needed to be covered to escape coverage
without resorting to a numerical criterion.
[Emphasis added]
.. we certainly can't oppose provisions
we ourselves proposed,
just because they are now supported
by legislators with whom we've had
differences in the past. [Emphasis
added]
June 14, 2005 Chairman Menaker writes:
While it may appear that this bill
was introduced out of thin air, it
is the result of years of behind-the-scenes
legislative work. The majority
of the bill reflects provisions advocated
by the AKC since Sen. Santorum's original
proposal, and represents a victory
over animal rights extremists who
sought to have their views represented
to the exclusion of others. [Emphasis
added]
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
The above AKC statement and Susan
Wolf's response are reproduced with
permission.
I personally telephoned Dr. James
Holt, AKC's consultant, on June 3,
2005 to express my concerns with S1139
(PAWS). In a 30+ minute conversation,
Dr. Holt repeatedly indicated that
PAWS was AKC's bill, not HSUS's or
Sen Santorum's. He also told me that
the registry supported each and every
provision in the bill and that HSUS
and DDAL wanted lower hobby breeder
dog sale numerical limits and the
bill's figures were compromises. Lastly,
he acknowledged a face-to-face meeting
with HSUS and DDAL personnel where
the three of them agreed to support
the bill. I believe that this meeting
took place the day before PAWS's introduction.
PAWS isn't "good for dogs"
as the AKC indicates above. It's the
exact opposite, as more and more pet
owners are discovering. That growing
realization is reflected in the constantly
expanding list of groups formally
opposing PAWS. Please join the effort
to kill S1139/HR2669 (PAWS).
Forwarding and cross posting encouraged.
Bob Kane
Sportsmen's and Animal Owners' Voting
Alliance -
Working to identify and elect supportive
legislators
** Defeat S1139/HR2669 (PAWS) **
http://saova.org/1139.html
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
FACTOID
2:
From: "AKC Communications"
<COMMUNICATIONS@akc.org>
To: "AKC Communications"
<COMMUNICATIONS@smtp.akc.org>
Sent: Monday, July 25, 2005
4:34 PM
Subject: PAWS FACT
In an effort to keep our constituents
updated on PAWS we are providing the
following e-mail.
Rescue groups have nothing to fear
from PAWS. PAWS does not require regulation
of not-for-profit rescue groups.
To read more about why rescue groups
will not be negatively impacted by
PAWS visit: http://www.akc.org/canine_legislation/paws_QA.cfm?page=2#rescue
Regards,
Lisa Peterson
Director of Club Communications
American Kennel Club
260 Madison Avenue
New York, NY 10016
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - -
Rebuttal:
From Sharon A Coleman, of The
Animal Council:
PAWS AND "RESCUE" ISSUES
have inspired claims by proponents
that AWA only covers "commerce"
in a business sense and would exclude
non-profit rescue organizations. Rather,
the word "commerce" in federal
law relates to the federal power to
regulate commerce under the United
States Constitution Commerce Clause
Article I, §8, of the Constitution
"[t]o make all Laws which shall
be necessary and proper for carrying
into Execution" its authority
to "regulate Commerce with foreign
Nations, and among the several States."
The term "commerce" was
included in AWA in the 1970 amendments
to provide jurisdiction within states
as long as an activity had some impact
on interstate commerce so that there
would be no requirement that animals
cross state lines. Historically the
Commerce Clause has been broadly interpreted
by the Supreme Court as to what has
impact on interstate commerce, because
this concept enables use of the federal
government's police power. The recent
Supreme Court decision in the medical
marijuana case, Gonzales, Attorney
General, Et Al. V. Raich Et Al. available
at http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/04slipopinion.html
provides a current reference on the
broad judicial interpretation of "commerce"
for federal purposes. The Court noted
that even "Congress' power to
regulate purely local activities that
are part of an economic "class
of activities" that have a substantial
effect on interstate commerce is firmly
established." Such activities
need not be conducted as a profit-making
business.
COMMERCE INCLUDES RESCUE since animals
transferred in rescue transactions
are a significant portion of the total
market for animals. Rescue animals
are particularly involved with the
alleged reasons for PAWS, i.e. use
of the internet and imports as well
as frequent interstate transport and
sales of animals from undocumented
sources and unregulated standards
of care – often involving large
numbers of animals. There are no convincing
policy reasons to exclude the rescue
sector from inclusion in the PAWS
dealer definition except as to those
shelters operated under the PAWS pet
store definition and thus excluded
as dealers. The additional wording
in the dealer definition, i.e. "dealer"
means any person who, in commerce,
for COMPENSATION OR PROFIT, …
would only exclude operators who received
nothing of tangible value in exchange
for placing animals. It is possible
to structure rescue placements with
no compensation, but many rescue organizations
derive significant funding from these
charges. Rescue transactions are legally
treated as sales unless expressly
excluded or treated differently for
specific purposes by law, e.g. sales
tax, warranties, etc. Note that the
"consideration" required
for a legally enforceable contract
can be only a promise to do or not
do something and not money or anything
else of monetary value. The purposes
of the AWA are to ensure the welfare
of animals in commerce, which includes
rescue animals, so excluding private
rescue from proposed regulation of
retail sellers defeats the statutory
purpose to protect animals.
From Bob Kane of SAOVA:
July 15, 2005 AKC DogLaw writes:
In regards to rescue, AKC believes
this is a very important issue and
we are committed to making sure
their exempt status is clear. The
sponsors believe the current language,
which refers to persons selling
dogs "in commerce, for compensation
or profit" excludes such organizations.
However, if competent legal analysis
concludes otherwise, the bill will
be amended during the legislative
process to clarify this intention.
The AKC can't decide what to say
about PAWS's impact on rescuers. For
seven weeks it claimed that there
was no rescuer impact whatever. It
wavered on July 15th and a week later
returned to its "Rescue groups
have nothing to fear from PAWS"
stonewall. The AKC knows differently,
but now appears to hope that HSUS’s
newly purchased opinion from a Washington
associate will give it credible deniability.
On July 10, 2005, Sharon Coleman,
Esq. of the Animal Council published
a legal analysis and concluded "this
bill is extremely detrimental to the
breeders and sellers of pedigreed
cats/purebred dogs as well as to those
who rescue and place homeless pets."
That conclusion was independently
affirmed by an Animal Welfare Act
knowledgeable U.S. Attorney, who herself
rescues. On July 27, 2005, Jeffrey
Helsdon, Esq. released a 51
page memorandum prepared for the
Doberman Pinscher Club of America.
That memorandum also states that rescuers
placing over 25 animal per year will
be licensed dealers under PAWS.
James Holt isn't a lawyer. Based
on the facts presented here, no competent
attorney examined PAWS before Sen
Santorum introduced it. The "in-commerce,
profit, non-profit" chatter is
a smoke screen, uninformed at best,
intentionally misleading at worst.
The growing realization that PAWS
is especially injurious to rescuers
is reflected in the constantly expanding
list of rescue groups that formally
oppose PAWS. Please join the broad-based
and wildfire grass roots effort to
kill S1139/HR2669 (PAWS).
Forwarding and cross posting encouraged.
Bob Kane
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
FACTOID
3:
From: "AKC Communications"
<COMMUNICATIONS@akc.org>
To: "AKC Communications"
<COMMUNICATIONS@smtp.akc.org>
Sent: Tuesday, July 26, 2005
2:02 PM
Subject: PAWS FACT
In an effort to keep our constituents
updated on PAWS we are providing the
following e-mail. You are receiving
this email because you are an American
Kennel Club Delegate or club officer.
PAWS FACT: PAWS does not single
out persons who sell or breed hunting
or sporting dogs. Such persons are
currently covered under the Animal
Welfare Act, and have been for 30
years. Those who sell exclusively
at retail are currently excluded from
regulation only because of the USDA's
willingness to consider them "retail
pet stores." Both PAWS and existing
law treat persons who breed and/or
sell hunting dogs exactly as they
do persons who breed and/or sell dogs
as pets.
It is important to keep in mind
that a breeder is exempt from PAWS
unless he/she breeds more than 6 six
litters on their own premises and
ALSO sells more than 25 puppies at
retail from these litters. IN ADDITION,
a breeder can sell up to 25 other
dogs per year at retail which were
not bred or raised by the seller,
such as dogs acquired for training,
dogs that don't work out as field
trial performers, etc.
To read more about why persons who
sell and breed hunting dogs will not
be negatively impacted by PAWS visit:
http://www.akc.org/canine_legislation/paws_QA.cfm?page=2&class=showall#27
Permission to cross post granted.
Regards,
Lisa Peterson
Director of Club Communications
American Kennel Club
260 Madison Avenue
New York, NY 10016
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - -
Rebuttal:
In October 2004, the USDA concluded
an AWA current law rulemaking that
determined retail sellers of dogs
for hunting purposes are exempt
from federal licensing, while sellers
to wholesalers are
licensed "dealers." PAWS,
because it eliminates the longstanding
wholesale-retail sales distinction
in defining dealers, is PRECISELY
the reason that owners of hunting
and security dogs are subjected to
additional potential regulation. The
PAWS-USDA implementing regulations
could require that any
hunting dog seller have a federal
license. This extra provision applies
to hunting and security dog sellers,
but not to owners of herding, working
or toy breeds. By no stretch of the
wildest imagination is this rational,
or "exactly as they do
… who breed and/or sell dogs
as pets."
PAWS’s non-hunting, non-security
dog, other breeders' and dog sellers'
licensing exemption is awkwardly worded,
but it’s reasonably straightforward
for governmenteese, if you read it
carefully. The AKC’s consultant,
management and public relations department
can’t seem to decide what it
means. The registry’s official
position has changed at least three,
if not four times. The key word in
two critical lines is "OR,"
as in either or.
AND, ALSO, IN ADDITION don’t
appear in that PAWS text. It makes
one wonder how much more of PAWS is
still a mystery at 260 Madison Avenue.
That growing realization that PAWS
is a terrible bill for animal owners
and can’t be justified on any
basis is reflected in the constantly
expanding list of AKC member and licensed
clubs opposing PAWS. Two more parent
breed clubs, the American Spaniel
Club and the American Boxer Club,
joined the list today and numerous
other clubs will be added this week,
once they document their opposition.
Please join the effort to kill S1139/HR2669
(PAWS).
Forwarding and cross posting encouraged.
Bob Kane
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
FACTOID
4:
From: "AKC Communications"
<COMMUNICATIONS@akc.org>
To: "AKC Communications"
<COMMUNICATIONS@smtp.akc.org>
Sent: Wednesday, July 27,
2005 4:03 PM
Subject: PAWS FACT
In an effort to keep our constituents
updated on PAWS we are providing the
following e-mail. You are receiving
this e-mail because you are listed
with the American Kennel Club as a
club officer, delegate, or contact
person.
PAWS FACT: PAWS was introduced by
Senator Rick Santorum in May and referred
to the Senate Agriculture, Nutrition
and Forestry Committee. This bill
is in the first stages of the legislative
process. Like all legislation, if
legitimate concerns are raised, clarifications
can be made though the entire process.
AKC is working to ensure that this
legislation protects dogs but also
our constituents as well.
Creating legislation is a fluid
process. If at anytime during this
journey the original intent of PAWS
changes, the AKC will not hesitate
to withdraw its support.
To learn how a bill becomes a law
visit: http://thomas.loc.gov/home/enactment/enactlawtoc.html
Permission to cross-post granted.
If you do not want to receive the
PAWS FACT please reply to this e-mail.
Regards,
Lisa Peterson
Director of Club Communications
American Kennel Club
260 Madison Avenue
New York, NY 10016
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - -
Rebuttal:
Legitimate concerns have
been raised,
but are still being ignored. The obvious
intent of the bill is to federally
regulate all dog and cat sales.
In the July 25th version of the
PAWS Questions and Answers posted
on AKC's website:
PAWS will bring under coverage
of the AWA persons who import large
numbers of dogs for resale and breeders
and brokers who sell large numbers
of dogs at retail but do not maintain
"retail pet stores." .
. .
PAWS has been proposed to address
this evolution in the large scale
retail selling of dogs by ensuring
that the AWA provides appropriate
regulation of these large scale
retailers.
Of course, this doesn't explain why
cats are included in PAWS, nor AKC's
complete reversal since 2003 when
they advocated a qualitative approach
to regulation, and not quantitive.
[Editor note: I don't expect that
link to stay valid long; please print
a copy for yourself as soon as you
can.]
Nevertheless, it is reassuring to
know that AKC can reverse its position
on PAWS at any time.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
FACTOID
5:
From: COMMUNICATIONS@akc.org(AKC Communications)
Date: Thu, Jul 28, 2005,
4:34pm
To: COMMUNICATIONS@smtp.akc.org (AKC
Communications)
Subject: PAWS FACT
In an effort to keep our constituents
updated on PAWS we are providing the
following e-mail. You are receiving
this e-mail because you are listed
with the American Kennel Club as a
club officer, delegate, or contact
person.
PAWS FACT: The United States Court
of Appeals decision in Doris Day Animal
League (DDAL) vs. Venamen [sic] does
not protect hunting, security and
show or hobby breeders from federal
regulation under the Animal Welfare
Act (AWA). PAWS will.
To learn more about the history of
the DDAL litigation and how it affects
all breeders visit: http://www.akc.org/canine_legislation/paws_holt.cfm
Permission to cross-post granted.
If you do not want to receive the
PAWS FACT please reply to this e-mail.
Regards,
Lisa Peterson
Director of Club Communications
American Kennel Club
260 Madison Avenue
New York, NY 10016
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - -
Rebuttal:
Doris Day Animal League v. Veneman
wasn't about "protecting hunting,
security and show or hobby breeders
from federal regulation under the
Animal Welfare Act (AWA)."
Quoting the Helsdon
Position Paper:
As the USDA stated
in their denial of DDAL's Petition
for Rule-Making Change:
If we were to amend
the definition of "retail
pet store," it is conceivable
that a significant portion of
our annual personnel and financial
resources would be used to regulate
a very small fraction of the animals
covered under our regulations.
This disproportionate expenditure
of funds would not be in the best
interest of animal welfare.17
DDAL
V Veneman was all about Congressional
intent to regulate in-home breeders.
PAWS negates this U.S. Court of Appeals
ruling.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
FACTOID
6:
From: "AKC Communications"
<COMMUNICATIONS@akc.org>
To: "AKC Communications"
<COMMUNICATIONS@smtp.akc.org>
Sent: Friday, July 29, 2005
2:25 PM
Subject: PAWS FACT
In an effort to keep our constituents
updated on PAWS we are providing the
following e-mail. You are receiving
this e-mail because you are listed
with the American Kennel Club as a
club officer, delegate, or contact
person.
PAWS FACT: In a statement on the
Senate floor earlier this week, Senator
Rick Santorum addressed many of the
purebred dog fancy's questions and
concerns about PAWS.
To read the Senator's statement
visit: http://santorum.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressOffice.View&Cont
entRecord_id=1311&CFID=14660789&CFTOKEN=20035598
Permission to cross-post granted.
If you do not want to receive the
PAWS FACT of the day please reply
to this e-mail.
Regards,
Lisa Peterson
Director of Club Communications
American Kennel Club
260 Madison Avenue
New York, NY 10016
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - -
Rebuttal:
The Senator is likely to make a number
of speeches, and a number of public
appearances at which PAWS will be
mentioned. It is not the text of the
Senator's speech that becomes law.
It is the text of S1139/HR2669 that
we have to worry about.
Let's take a closer look at what
Senator Santorum said in his statement
to the Senate floor:
July 27, 2005 - Mr. President,
on May 26, 2005 I introduced with
my colleague Senator Durbin the
“Pet Animal Welfare Statute”
of 2005, or “PAWS.”
PAWS amends the Animal Welfare Act
to strengthen the Secretary of Agriculture’s
authority to deal with the problems
of substandard animal dealers.
Our response: Local
and state laws are already in place
to deal with animal cruelty, sanitation
and nuisance violations. Additional
federal regulations providing an additional
layer of coverage are unwarranted.
PAWS strengthens the Secretary
of Agriculture’s authority
to deal with substandard animal
dealers by making four important
improvements to the Animal Welfare
Act. First, it will bring under
coverage of the Animal Welfare Act
high volume dealers who are in every
respect like those dealers currently
regulated, but are evading regulation
because they sell animals exclusively
at retail. PAWS will continue to
exempt real retail pet stores, and
will add a new exemption for small
dealers and hobby and show breeders.
. .
Our response: First,
there is a connotation by using the
term “evade” that breeders/sellers
are engaging in illegal activity by
pursuing the hobby or small business
of selling pets, show animals, service
dogs and assistance dogs to the public
at retail. Second, to say that PAWS
“strengthens” authority
is an innocuous statement for a measure
that will reverse a federal court
ruling (DDAL vs Venemen, Anne 2003)
upholding USDA’s position that
retail sellers were not to be regulated.
Reversing this decision by enacting
PAWS will result in filing of lawsuits
to restore the original decision.
Third, the exemption for small dealers,
hobby and show breeders is based on
numbers. Numbers should not be used
as they are subject to change. No
proof has been provided that the numbers
being used as a threshold in PAWS
has any relevance to quality of care
or need for regulation. The numbers
are not and never will be written
in stone; they will be subject to
change.
. . . . Third, PAWS will create
an incentive for dealers to quickly
correct serious problems by giving
the Secretary authority to temporarily
suspend dealers’ licenses
for up to 60 days if a violation
is placing the health of an animal
in imminent danger.
Finally, PAWS will strengthen
the authority of the Secretary to
obtain injunctions to shut down
dealers who fail to comply with
the law.
Our response: This
eliminates due process to which every
citizen is entitled and contradicts
the 4th amendment.
Bypassing local authorities adds
unthinkable amount of work to USDA
staff attorneys. The existing Animal
Welfare Act specifically requires
that injunctions be sought in the
federal district in which an alleged
violator resides or conducts business.
USDA attorneys, mostly based in Washington,
will be traveling all over the entire
country attending violation cases
in lieu of these being handled by
local attorneys.
To realize the impact PAWS has on
AWA enforcement, one must go beyond
the mindset that violations only occur
in situations that are life threatening
to animals. Violations could be improper
food containers, a clogged sanitation
drain that left standing water, animals
of the wrong age or sex kenneled together,
or dog houses that do not meet the
inspectors approval, etc. The violation
could be written as one violation
for the condition OR a separate violation
for each animal. Interpretation is
at the discretion of the investigator.
In addition the current AWA reads:
“each violation and each day
during which a violation continues
shall be a separate offense.”
The small breeder/hobbyist or small
business owner may be so afraid of
unreasonable high fines and threat
of unwarranted federal litigation
that they find it easier to just give
up their rights and abandon their
pursuit. This would certainly be a
plus for HSUS/DDAL/PETA who seek to
end all animal breeding.
The marketplace for animals has
changed dramatically since the 1970s
when the current animal dealer provisions
of the Act were written. At that
time only retail pet stores and
small hobby and show breeders sold
pet animals, so regulating wholesale
sellers and exempting persons who
sold animals at retail and were
regulated by the market made some
sense. With the advent of the internet,
mass national marketing channels,
and mass importation of puppies
for resale, there are a large number
of unregulated dealers who are in
every respect identical to the dealers
regulated by the Act, except that
they evade regulation by selling
exclusively at retail. By regulating
these high volume retail sellers,
we will assure that they meet the
same standards for the humane care
and treatment of animals that breeders
and brokers selling at wholesale
have been meeting for 30 years.
Our response: Internet
sales account for one-tenth of a percent
of dogs sold in the U.S. This is no
reason to license thousands upon thousands
of hobby breeders of dogs, cats, rabbits,
guinea pigs, and birds for this reason..
Purchasing via the internet sight
unseen is no different than purchasing
through a magazine or farm journal
long distance. It is not the duty
of the federal government to monitor
and regulate the purchasing habits
or prerogatives of the public. Although
a few unscrupulous people may sell
dogs via the internet that are housed
in poor conditions, these people can
be dealt with by local cruelty and/or
consumer protection laws. The internet
is a valuable tool for connecting
both quality breeders and rescue organizations
with potential buyers and should not
be compromised by regulating the users.
Strengthening importation regulations
to ensure safety and health of animals
in transit is a separate issue and
should be handled as such. It does
not require the licensing of thousands
of small retail sellers who are not
involved in the importation of pets.
PAWS defines the term “retail
pet store” so that only real
retail pet stores are exempt, where
customers can see the animals and
the conditions where they are kept.
PAWS also adds a specific exemption
for small dealers and hobby and
show breeders. Only persons who
sell more than 25 dogs per year
would be regulated. In addition,
breeders who sell dogs and cats
from fewer than 7 litters a year
bred or raised on their own premises,
or fewer than 25 dogs and cats per
year bred or raised on their own
premises, which ever is greater,
would be exempt. For example, if
an Irish Setter breeder has 6 litters
that average 6 puppies each for
a total of 36 puppies, they can
sell them without being regulated.
If a toy breeder has 10 litters
that average only 2 puppies each
for a total of 20 puppies, they
can sell them without being regulated.
These breeders could also sell 25
or fewer other dogs a year not bred
or raised on their own premises
such as stud puppies or puppies
from co-ownerships, without being
regulated. I firmly believe that
the sport and hobby of breeding
and raising dogs and cats should
not be a federally regulated activity.
PAWS will, for the first time, put
an explicit exemption into the Animal
Welfare Act to protect small hobby
and show breeders from regulation.
Our response: Again,
setting a threshold with numbers and
expanding into small retail sellers
only extends the USDA’s job
to a level that is not enforceable
– weakening the effectiveness
of overall inspections and regulations
and using up financial resources that
would be better spent elsewhere.
Some persons who sell dogs for
hunting purposes have expressed
a concern that PAWS will bring them
under regulation. The current Animal
Welfare Act already covers persons
who sell hunting dogs, and has for
almost 30 years. They are regulated
on the same basis as those who sell
dogs for pets. PAWS will continue
to regulate sellers of hunting dogs
on the same basis as those who sell
dogs as pets. Only high volume sellers
who exceed the exemptions set forth
in PAWS will be subject to regulation.
Our response: See
Factoid 3
Some rescue and shelter organizations
have expressed concern that because
they often charge an adoption fee
to those who adopt the dogs they
place, these organizations will
fall within the definition of “dealers”
in PAWS and be regulated. True rescue
and shelter organizations who do
not sell dogs or cats in commerce,
for profit, will not be brought
under regulation by PAWS, whether
or not they are formally incorporated
as not for profit organizations.
Our response: See
Factoid 2
Some high volume dealers in cats
and dogs who will be brought under
coverage of the Animal Welfare Act
by PAWS, but who are still small
enough that they breed and raise
dogs or cats in essentially a residential
environment, have expressed concern
that they will be forced to build
kennels and catteries and will no
longer be able to raise animals
in a residential environment. There
is nothing in PAWS, or in the current
Animal Welfare Act, that precludes
persons from breeding and raising
animals in a residential setting,
provided the animals are properly
housed and cared for. In implementing
PAWS, the Secretary of Agriculture
will have to assure that the animal
care regulations take into account
breeders and dealers who conduct
their operations in a residential
setting.
Our response: The
burden of writing standards to allow
breeders to raise dogs and cats in
residential settings will fall on
the USDA. The current standards are
written for commercial facilities.
The USDA will be faced with the overwhelmingly
difficult task of promulgating regulations
that apply to small dealers and breeders
in a variety of settings as varied
as there are homes and different for
both dogs and cats and small animals
which are also covered in PAWS. In
addition, USDA must decide whether
to follow performance standards or
engineering standards in developing
these new regulations. Either way
is a no win situation. Performance
standards are being challenged by
animal rights groups in favor of engineering
standards. Newly developed regulations
allowing breeding inside the home
will be challenged by commercial breeders
who must comply with current more
costly regulations. Lawsuits will
be inevitable as all sides attempt
have their version of requirements
enacted into law.
I want to make clear that PAWS
is a very different piece of legislation
than the bills that Senator Durbin
and I have introduced in previous
Congresses. PAWS does not require
or justify creating any new animal
care standards, like our previous
legislation did. . . .
Our response: See
paragraph above and Senator Santorum’s
comment that new regulations need
to be written (which in turn will
require USDA to promulgate new standards
of care).
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
FACTOID
7:
From: "AKC Communications"
<COMMUNICATIONS@akc.org>
To: "AKC Communications"
<COMMUNICATIONS@smtp.akc.org>
Sent: Monday, August 01, 2005
2:50 PM
Subject: PAWS FACT
In an effort to keep our constituents
updated on PAWS we are providing following
e-mail. You are receiving this e-mail
because you are listed with the American
Kennel Club as a club officer, delegate,
or contact person.
PAWS FACT: There are important provisions
in PAWS that protect the welfare of
purebred dogs. The bill authorizes
the USDA to go to court directly to
obtain injunctions against persons
violating the law or operating without
a license, rather than relying on
overworked U.S. attorneys. This is
good news for dogs especially if their
lives are at risk.
To read more about this and other
PAWS provisions visit: http://www.akc.org/canine_legislation/paws_QA.cfm?page=2&class=showall#6
Permission to cross-post granted.
If you do not want to receive the
PAWS FACT of the day please reply
to this e-mail.
Regards,
Lisa Peterson
Director of Club Communications
American Kennel Club
260 Madison Avenue
New York, NY 10016
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - -
Rebuttal:
Overworked or not, U.S. attorneys
have a job to do that is a critical
part of our justice system in the
United States. What PAWS does is completely
undermine the 4th Amendment to the
U.S. Constitution. By allowing the
USDA (or agent thereof; remember that
Jim Holt would like to see certain
Non-Governmental Organizations be
granted contracts to act as USDA Inspectors)
to legally bypass due process rights
- places us at the mercy of a cranky
neighbor filing a complaint, a jealous
competitor, an Animal Control officer
with a grudge, and the list goes on.
There exists potential for abuse,
which is the reason our forefathers
saw a need for due process in the
first place - as a system with checks
and balances.
Does the AKC really want HSUS - or
any other Animal Rights organization
- to have the ability to irrevocably
damage breeding or rescue programs
without ever having a U.S. Attorney
ensure that there is valid cause?
Wouldn't that make it the Un-American
Kennel Club?
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
FACTOID
8:
From: "AKC Communications"
<COMMUNICATIONS@akc.org>
To: "AKC Communications"
<COMMUNICATIONS@smtp.akc.org>
Sent: Tuesday, August 02, 2005 2:56
PM
Subject: PAWS FACT
In an effort to keep our constituents
updated on PAWS we are providing the
following e-mail. You are receiving
this e-mail because you are listed
with the American Kennel Club as a
club officer, delegate, or contact
person.
PAWS FACT: We are supporting PAWS
because we believe it is good for
dogs and the puppy-buying public.
To suggest that the AKC is allied
with animal rights organizations is
beyond all reason.
Are fanciers who publicly oppose
PAWS allied with other PAWS opponents,
such as unscrupulous, unlicensed breeders
who keep dogs in substandard conditions?
No and we would never suggest that.
Making sweeping generalizations
about AKC's support of PAWS rather
than focusing on the merits of the
bill is doing a disservice to the
dogs who PAWS intends to protect.
Permission to cross-post granted.
If you do not want to receive the
PAWS FACT of the day please reply
to this e-mail.
Regards,
Lisa Peterson
Director of Club Communications
American Kennel Club
260 Madison Avenue
New York, NY 10016
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - -
Rebuttal:
Quoting Lisa:
To suggest that the AKC is allied
with animal rights organizations
is beyond all reason.
See Factoid
1. Jim Holt acknowledged a face-to-face
meeting with HSUS and DDAL personnel
where the three of them agreed to
support the bill.
Quoting Lisa:
Are fanciers who publicly oppose
PAWS allied with other PAWS opponents,
such as unscrupulous, unlicensed
breeders who keep dogs in substandard
conditions? No and we would never
suggest that.
You just did.
Quoting Lisa:
Making sweeping generalizations
about AKC's support of PAWS rather
than focusing on the merits of the
bill is doing a disservice to the
dogs who PAWS intends to protect.
PAWS will do nothing to protect dogs;
be they purebred or of mixed-parentage.
That's the whole point.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
FACTOID
9:
From: "AKC Communications"
<COMMUNICATIONS@akc.org>
To: "AKC Communications"
<COMMUNICATIONS@smtp.akc.org>
Sent: Wednesday, August 03, 2005 3:56
PM
Subject: PAWS FACT
In an effort to keep our constituents
updated on PAWS we are providing the
following e-mail. You are receiving
this e-mail because you are listed
with the American Kennel Club as a
club officer, delegate, or contact
person.
PAWS FACT: A breeder can make more
than $500 profit
from the sale of dogs and still be
exempt from PAWS because the provision
regarding the "$500 profit"
rule refers to the sale of animals
other than cats and dogs (for instance
hamsters, rabbits, etc.). [Emphasis
added.]
The Animal Welfare Act also excludes
livestock (which includes horses and
cattle), poultry, and other birds
from the definition of "animal"
so sales of these would not be considered
either. Therefore, a breeder remains
exempt if they do not meet the numerical
threshold and do not derive "more
than $500 gross income from the sale
of other animals," beside
dogs, cats and others noted above.
[Emphasis added.]
Permission to cross-post granted.
If you do not want to receive the
PAWS FACT of the day please reply
to this e-mail.
Regards,
Lisa Peterson
Director of Club Communications
American Kennel Club
260 Madison Avenue
New York, NY 10016
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - -
Rebuttal:
Is that $500 profit, or $500 gross
income? We would really like to see
the AKC understand all the provisions
of their own
work product.
June 14, 2005 Chairman Menaker
writes:
While it may appear that this bill
was introduced out of thin air,
it is the result of years
of behind-the-scenes legislative
work. The majority of the
bill reflects provisions advocated
by the AKC since Sen. Santorum's
original proposal, and represents
a victory over animal rights extremists
who sought to have their views represented
to the exclusion of others. [Emphasis
added]
Meanwhile, we would recommend Mr.
Helsdon's assessment of the $500
Sales Exemption rather than relying
on the validity this AKC PAWS Fact.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
FACTOID
10:
From: "AKC Communications"
<COMMUNICATIONS@akc.org>
To: "AKC Communications"
<COMMUNICATIONS@smtp.akc.org>
Sent: Thursday, August 04, 2005 2:57
PM
Subject: PAWS FACT
In an effort to keep our constituents
updated on PAWS we are providing the
following e-mail. You are receiving
this e-mail because you are listed
with the American Kennel Club as a
club officer, delegate, or contact
person.
PAWS FACT: Many fanciers have expressed
support for PAWS, both in the media
and by contacting us. We invite you
to read some of their comments at
http://www.akc.org/canine_legislation/paws_positive.cfm
Permission to cross-post granted.
If you do not want to receive the
PAWS FACT of the day please reply
to this e-mail.
Regards,
Lisa Peterson
Director of Club Communications
American Kennel Club
260 Madison Avenue
New York, NY 10016
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - -
Rebuttal:
"This is not animal rights
fanaticism. It is the middle ground."
- Chairman Menaker in June's Chairman
Report
We can't argue with that, but we
can correct it: "PAWS is animal
rights incrementalism. It is giving
up half our ground - they'll be back
for the rest later."
On with the show. Many fanciers have
expressed opposition to PAWS and disappointment
that the AKC endorses it:
Integrity is core to your product
and all your ensuing endeavors.
It is, fundamentally, the cornerstone
of your foundation. Without integrity,
there is no value to the AKC logo
– be it stamped on a pedigree,
co-branded merchandise, or on your
legislative department letterhead.
- Kelly Wichman, President &
AKC Legislative Liaison, Dog Federation
of Wisconsin
~ ~ ~
Whence comes the reversal
of course? Can the AKC's abandonment
of its long-held position against
any "fundamental shift"
in emphasis on qualitative criteria
for regulation under the AWA be
explained by the public statements
of the AKC and its public relations
machine?
I submit that it
cannot. Sadly, we are left to speculate
and conjecture about the reasoning
behind the reversal of course. We
are now sailing without the benefit
of that large flagship under whose
protective guns we have steamed
alongside until now. Yet, we are
not alone. The dog and cat fancies
are still afloat. We have the capability
and firepower to show the flag where
we must now go.
- Jeffrey P. Helsdon, Attorney,
DPCA Legislative Chair, "The
American Kennel Club and the Pet
Animal Welfare Statute of 2005:
Whence Comes the Reversal of Course?"
(see full
analysis)
~ ~ ~
WHAT'S GOING ON HERE?
It's easy enough to see why anti-hunter,
anti-animal owner HSUS is pushing
this bill, but what's AKC thinking,
supporting such an infringement
of its customer's rights and interests?
AKC personnel actually negotiated
this language with HSUS, through
Sen. Santorum's mediator. AKC's
leaders decry increasing dog imports
and high volume direct retail sellers
that use the Internet, but there's
no credible evidence that these
chosen targets sell animals that
are inordinately unhealthy or less
satisfactory pets than the norm.
To the degree there's any minimal
change in animal welfare due to
this bill, it will be coincidental
and unrelated to its intended impact.
S1139 is about improving AKC's
bottom line and competitive position.
Other registries weren't consulted.
Companies frequently attempt to
use the government to level a business
playing field, or gain a competitive
advantage. This bill is designed
to hurt users of other registries,
at minimal cost to the AKC. However,
perhaps with the encouragement of
HSUS, AKC again ignored hunting
dog owners' interests. The result
is a very bad bill with lots of
ancillary damage. S1139 amounts
to the AKC throwing the baby out
with the bath water.
- Bob Kane, Retired Federal Lobbyist,
SAOVA
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
FACTOID
11:
From: "AKC Communications"
<COMMUNICATIONS@akc.org>
To: "AKC Communications"
<COMMUNICATIONS@smtp.akc.org>
Sent: Friday, August 05, 2005 3:26
PM
Subject: PAWS FACT
In an effort to keep our constituents
updated on PAWS we are providing the
following e-mail. You are receiving
this e-mail because you are listed
with the American Kennel Club as a
club officer, delegate, or contact
person.
PAWS FACT: PAWS will help protect
dogs by requiring individuals who
import large numbers of dogs for resale
to be licensed and inspected by the
USDA. Those who import dogs for their
own use and enjoyment will not be
affected by PAWS.
To read how puppies, many of which
are sick, underage, and unvaccinated,
are being imported and sold to the
pet-buying public each year visit:
http://www.akc.org/canine_legislation/paws_QA.cfm?page=2&class=showall#35
Permission to cross-post granted.
If you do not want to receive the
PAWS FACT of the day please reply
to this e-mail.
Regards,
Lisa Peterson
Director of Club Communications
American Kennel Club
260 Madison Avenue
New York, NY 10016
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - -
Rebuttal:
Try as we did, we couldn't find "how
puppies, many of which are sick, underage,
and unvaccinated, are being imported
and sold to the pet-buying public
each year." AKC's webpage url
in this Factoid directs us to these
questions on their website:
- How Has The Proliferation Of Large
Breeding Operations Selling At Retail
Necessitated This New Bill?
- How Can Commercial Breeders Benefit
From The Passage Of PAWS?
Perhaps we could all learn something
if AKC would share their data about
these "puppies, many of which
are sick..." - including all
of the facts and figures that leads
them to draw this conclusion. Perhaps
then, after reading the impact statement
that they surely would have drafted
before the Board of Directors voted
to support PAWS on June 12, 2005,
we could understand how AKC justifies
their support of the bill.
Were you left wondering how PAWS
will save us from imports? We were.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
| 
