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

~ ~ ~

The Doris Day Animal League Lawsuit - Conclusion

After eight years of contentiousness from the DDAL, the USDA had prevailed in upholding its regulation - in place since 1970 - that excluded residential hobby breeders from regulation under the AWA. The DDAL had failed to persuade the USDA to change its regulation. The DDAL had then sued the USDA in a U.S. District Court. The case made its way to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Following their defeat in the Court of Appeals, DDAL tried to persuade the U.S. Supreme Court to accept review. The Supreme Court denied its petition.¹⁶

The USDA and all hobby breeders were freed from the danger that they had faced in the DDAL's attempt to force the USDA to regulate residential hobby breeders. 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

As we shall see, the AKC, in a classic maneuver of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory, would soon present USDA, AKC's constituency, and its former allies in numerous struggles against animal extremism, with a shocking reversal of course.

~ ~ ~

¹⁶ Doris Day Animal League v. Veneman, 540 U.S. 822,124 S.Ct 151,157 L.Ed.2d 42, (Oct 06, 2003).
¹⁷ 64 Fed. Reg. 38,546 (July 19, 1999)