The American Kennel Club and the Pet Animal Welfare Statute of 2005:
Whence Comes the Reversal of Course?

~ ~ ~

The Internet Sales Rationale

Dr. Holt advanced the argument that PAWS is necessary to prevent the proliferation of internet sales of dogs and cats. Therefore, he concludes, "the law must change. . ."

Perhaps if AKC wishes to make an impact in reducing the proliferation of internet sales - which it finds to be a problem, although there is no explanation as to why that is, a priori, wrong - perhaps it should look at cleaning its own house first.

One Doberman fancier learned that the AKC actually allows advertising of internet sales of.puppies on the AKC website. She sent to me the following e-mail about her discovery from her search:

Well, my curiosity got the best of me so I looked up Doberman litters. 42 Doberman litters are listed throughout the country at $30.00 a listing for 60 days. In the ENTIRE COUNTRY not ONE litter had either a Ch. Sire or Dam or one that had any title on the other end! 2 breeders are listed as DPCA [Doberman Pinscher Club of America - ed.] members. A third is listed as a member of an all-breed club, but he does not say which one. 39 have no affiliation and do not participate in any type of AKC events according to their own reporting. Most of them will ONLY provide AKC papers - no bill of sale, health testing, taking the pup back, etc. Now I am wondering if the AKC is contributing to the problem they claim needs to be resolved!!! Just my observation.³²

There is nothing that PAWS can do to prevent internet sales. In fact, internet sales are not even mentioned in the bill. It is rather curious that this rationale is advanced by Dr. Holt when the bill does not address the concern at all.

Any attempt to regulate internet sales is doomed to failure. The strength of the internet is that it allows commerce to be conducted globally. If PAWS is adopted and a large, commercial facility selling at retail - the targets of the bill according to AKC (although not to HSUS) - were to choose between regulation under the act and moving across the U.S. border, does anyone think that they would not simply move outside of the jurisdiction of the United States? They could then take internet orders with impunity fiom any U.S. sanction or inspection of their facilities.

~ ~ ~

³² E-mail of Elaine Werner to the author, July 8, 2005.