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

~ ~ ~

On May 26, 2005, Sen. Rick Santorum introduced S.1139, the Pet Animal Welfare Statute of 2005 (hereinafter PAWS). The bill seeks to amend certain provisions of the Animal Welfare Act (hereinafter AWA), codified in 7 United States Code § 2131 et. seq.

In its essence, PAWS amends the AWA to include within federal regulation - for the first time - hobby breeders who breed and sell dogs and cats at retail from their own homes.

Without any consultation with traditional allies like the Cat Fanciers Association (CFA), the Pet Industry Joint Advisory Committee (PIJAC), the National Animal Interest Alliance (NAIA), or the Animal Council, the Board of Directors of the American Kennel Club (AKC) unilaterally endorsed PAWS. The AKC's position shift can be described politely as monumental. It was taken without any input from what it had described in official communication with the Department of Agriculture as its "principal constituency. . .the purebred dog fancy."¹

Alarmed by this sea-change, the AKC's "principal constituency" has called upon the AKC² to explain how it can reconcile support for PAWS with its previous position:

The AKC believes the solution to the problem of random, large scale breeding for commercial purposes is scrupulous enforcement of the federal Animal Welfare Act, and state and local regulations governing the humane care of animals. We further recommend and support programs that teach the public to purchase puppies from responsible breeders and to avoid impulse buying of dogs.³

In an article written for Dog News, Dr. James Holt, lobbyist for the American Kennel Club, responded to these critical comments. In a Question and Answer format, Dr. Holt argued that PAWS actually benefits the dog fancy and by implication, advances the AKC's stated mission to:

Take whatever actions necessary to protect and assure the continuation of the sport of purebred dogs.⁴ [sic]

Dr. Holt's arguments are roughly stated as follows:

1. Hobby breeders have no current protection from federal regulation because we are not exempted in the statute, but rather because the USDA has "chosen" to exempt us.
2. The internet and "mass media channels" have resulted in people selling "large numbers" of dogs at retail, thus "evading" the Animal Welfare Act. Therefore, "the law must change. . ."
3. The AKC "would have preferred" a definition of hobby breeder exempted from the Animal Welfare Act "not based on numbers" but they could not think of one that would not allow those who "needed" to be regulated to "escape." After all, Senator Santorum said that "he was going to limit" the numbers of dogs sold by large-scale Pennsylvania breeders.
4. Most of PAWS consists of what the AKC had previously proposed as an alternative to the Puppy Protection Act - except the regulation of hobby breeders.
5. The AKC did not "write" the bill - although the AKC should get credit for having its own provisions included in it.
6. The AKC did not "collaborate or even discuss" PAWS with animal extremists - until a few days before it was introduced (at which point, by necessary implication, the AKC did have such collaboration or discussion).
7. PAWS is different from the Puppy Protection Act because there is nothing in the text of PAWS that "resembles the PPA in any way." It "doesn't tell breeders how to breed and raise puppies. The bill will not require persons to "build kennels. . ." - although Dr. Holt next says that "the USDA will have to write implementing regulations, including regulations covering breeders who raise puppies in their own homes."
8. Despite the fear expressed by Dr. Holt that the AKC could not prevent the USDA from defining hobby breeders out of the exemption from the AWA, the "AKC will certainly be involved" in the adoption of the new "regulations covering breeders who raise puppies in their own homes" and "it is likely that our own standards will be a model the USDA will look to in crafting the regulations." (Emphasis added).
9. Rescue organizations do not have to worry about being subject to regulation unless they are "selling" dogs for "compensation or profit." Like hobby kennels, the USDA "does not now" regulate non-profit rescue organizations. However, unlike his assertion about hobby kennels, Dr. Holt summarily concludes, without support, that "there is no reason to believe" the USDA would change their regulation to cover rescuers.

Dog News, June -, 2005, pp. - - - (Reprinted from forwarded e-mails - ed).

In this paper, I will explain the provisions of the AWA, and discuss the amendments that Congress has made to it. I will set forth the key provisions of the AWA and the regulations that were promulgated by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) to implement the AWA. I will explain the efforts by the Doris Day Animal League (DDAL) to effect changes to the regulations that endangered hobby breeders and the litigation that DDAL filed. I will explain PAWS and describe the historic shift in the AKC's recently announced position about PAWS. I will argue that the AKC's position, as espoused by Dr. Holt, constitutes a capitulation that will result in severe economic effects on hobby breeders in the United States. Finally, I will propose an alternative position that protects hobby breeders.

~ ~ ~

¹ Letter from Noreen Baxter, AKC Vice President for Public Education and Legislation, dated September 23, 1998 to the U.S. Department of Agriculture in opposition to the Petition of the Doris Day Animal League for rule-making, pg.2.
² At the time of this writing, PAWS has been officially opposed by 17 National pet animal groups including the United Kennel Club, the American Dog Breeders Association [Ed. note: Opposition unconfirmed], The Cat Fanciers Association, and the U.S. Sportsmen's Alliance, 12 AKC Parent Clubs including the German Shorthaired Pointer Club of America, the Papillon Club of America, the American Brittany Club, the Yorkshire Terrier Club of America, and the American Boxer Club, 46 local clubs including the following AKC Member Clubs: the Greater Clark County Kennel Club, the Ladies Dog Club, Inc., the Asheville Kennel Club [Ed. note: "Official" Opposition denied], the Kalamazoo Kennel Club, the North Shore Kennel Club, and the New Brunswick Kennel Club, as well as 26 statewide organizations.
³ Letter from Noreen Baxter, ibid.
⁴ Ibid.