~
~ ~
1. The $500
Sales Exemption
To be exempt under PAWS,
a hobby breeder must not, within a calendar
year, either sell more than 25 dogs,
or not whelp more than 6 litters and
sell only dogs bred or raised on the
premises to persons who do not resell
the dog, and must not derive
more than $500 gross income from the
sale of "other" animals.
There is a real question
about what is meant by "other"
animals. In its Petition for Rule-Making
Change, DDAL took the position that
hobby breeders are already exempt pursuant
to the de minimus $500 gross income
exemption, which already had the "other
animals" language:
these breeders are
excluded from coverage under the Act
by the specific exclusion of individuals
who derive no more that $500 gross
income from the sale of animals
each year. (Emphasis added).24
If the DDAL's interpretation is correct,
the maximum total sales that could be
made - irrespective of whether fewer
than 26 dogs or cats are sold or fewer
than 7 litters are whelped - would be
$500.00. The word "other"
would be rendered meaningless.
The alternative interpretation is
that the "other animal" exception
applies to any animals "other"
than dogs or cats. According to this
interpretation, if a person breeds dogs
or cats as well as birds, and sells
birds worth $501.00 during any calendar
year, he is a dealer no matter whether
he did not sell more than 25 dogs or
cats, nor whelp more than 6 litters
and sold only dogs or cats raised on
his premises.
There is real reason to fear that
animal extremists will advance their
interpretation of the $500.00 "other
animal" sales exemption. They advanced
it before. They are not likely to refuse
to do so again - particularly when so
much is at stake. If USDA does not promulgate
a regulation defining what "other"
means, then it will be up to a court
to determine the reasonableness of this
interpretation. Like we saw in DDAL
v. Veneman,
an animal extremist organization can
find a U.S. District Court judge sympathetic
to their position. We should bear in
mind that the USDA won at the Court
of Appeals level only after DDAL won
at the trial court level.
Even with an interpretation of the $500.00
"other animal" sales exemption
that excludes, for dog and cat breeders,
the sales of animals in those species
from the monetary limit, those people
who sell a single exotic bird - whether
or not they breed dogs and cats - are
dealers under PAWS.
As we have seen, the AWA has been
amended four times since 1966. PAWS
erases the distinction between retail
and wholesale - a "fundamental
shift" in the words of the AKC.
With such a "fundamental shift"
occurring, how much easier will it be
for a member of Congress, who may be
sympathetic to animal extremists, to
insert an amendment into the 350+ page
Agriculture Appropriations Act of 2008
that would remove the word "other"
from the $500 "other animal"
sales exemption? What members of Congress
- much less what Presidential administration
- would be willing to jeopardize to
their constituents the passage of USDA
Appropriations with all of the farm
subsidies and perquisites, by voting
against the passage of the bill simply
because it removes the simple word "other"
from a minor section of the bill?
The camel has moved his whole head
inside the tent.
~ ~ ~
24 DDAL petition for Rule-Making
Change, 62 FR 14044-01, March 25, 1997.
|
