[Ed.
note: This was a post sent to pet-law
list 7/19/05]
by Bill Fawcett
Why would I oppose any regulation that
is supposedly aimed at improving conditions
for animals raised in squalor?
It is precisely because this bill will
have an adverse affect on many hobby
breeders like myself who raise their
animals in far better conditions, and
with far more care than any USDA regulated
facility could ever provide.
The legislation is seriously flawed.
Most obvious is the use of capricious
and arbitrary numerical limitations.
For instance, at what point is 6 litters
healthy and 7 litters unhealthy? How
can selling 25 Saint Bernards from a
non-USDA facility be acceptable while
selling 26 peek-a-poos would require
USDA inspection. There is a certain
amount of manure that should be considered
here and I'm not talking about what
emanates from the dogs.
Less obvious is the division of sellers
into certain classes. And the restrictions
placed on those classes are inequitable.
For the purpose of making this clear,
lets call these classes "pets stores,"
"(Sellers of) furry animals (other
than dogs and cats)," "(sellers
of) 6 litters," "sellers of
25," and "transporter/brokers."
Please bear with me - this is complicated
- but I didn't write this legislation.
The "pet store" cannot sell
a single imported dog, whereas the "seller
of 25" can sell 25 and not be required
to be USDA inspected. How does
this benefit the dogs?
The "pet store" cannot sell
a single "hunting dog" such
as a beagle or cocker spaniel, but the
"sellers of 25" can, again
without USDA oversight. How
does this benefit the dogs?
The sellers of "6 litters"
or "25" can easily gross $20,000
without USDA oversight, but the 4H rabbit
breeder cannot sell 13 pet purebred
rabbits at $40 each with crossing the
$500 gross income threshold placed on
sellers of "furry animals."
What health and welfare benefits
do those rabbits lovingly raised by
a young child learning responsibility
and animal husbandry gain?
The "pet store" cannot sell
any dogs for "breeding purposes"
(intact) whereas all other sellers,
above or below the thresholds, have
no such restrictions. How does
that benefit the dogs?
The "transporter or broker"
can escape USDA regulation simply by
selling 1 dog a year, qualifying as
one who sells no more than 25. And yet
a broker or transporter who sells no
dogs would be regulated. How
does this benefit the dogs?
The restrictions on pet stores make
no sense at all. Why is it acceptable
for a pet store in upstate New York
to import 500 dogs from Kansas but not
5 from 20 miles away in Canada? Why
is it OK for a small scale seller in
the same town to sell 25 dogs imported
from China? Both would be unregulated
under PAWS. How does this benefit
the dogs?
Why are hunting dogs, such as Cockers
and Beagles, which make wonderful pets,
singled out? How does this benefit
the dogs?
Why the forced sterilization of pet
store dogs at a young age? Early spay/neutering
can have profound developmental effects
(think boys choir eunuch) on growing
puppies. How does this benefit
the dogs?
My cat friends tell me that practices
for hobby breeders of cats are profoundly
different than with dogs and that the
isolation required by USDA facilities
will cause serious problems with requisite
early socialization. How does
this benefit the cats?
The limitation of 25 will also be imposed
on rescue organizations who take in
placement fees to help with expenses.
Many of those "shelter" the
dogs and cats in individual homes. As
an association, if they exceed 25, they
will be required to keep those dogs
in USDA puppy factory type settings
- while what the dogs MOST need is a
loving caring home situation where they
can be socialized and trained. How
does that benefit the dogs?
While there may be legitimate concerns
about abuse to animals, "puppy
mills" being the one most often
cited, those concerns can already be
addressed through existing laws, and
are best addressed at the state and
local level. One of the most critical
problems in animal welfare involves
"hoarding," a mental illness.
PAWS does not address this problem at
all (no sales are involved), but again
these cases have been successfully handled
on a state basis, with no federalization
of the crime or sickness.
I could go on and on, but I hope that
you are seeing that this legislation
is seriously flawed and completely inadvisable.
There is a web-based questionnaire that
will walk you through the various and
sundry exemptions to PAWS that reveals
once and for all how absurd this regulation
is.
See http://smythwicks.org/paws
I can only assume that the division
into these different categories is an
attempt to divide and conquer.
The Animal Rights agenda is well known
- they wish to eliminate all hunting,
all breeding, and eventually all ownership
of dogs and other animals. If you support
this bill then you are supporting their
agenda.
How does this benefit the dogs?
-Bill Fawcett
Harrisonburg, VA
<-- Back to the No
PAWS Action Center
|
