PAWS Bill = PAUSE
For Thought
Barbara "BJ" Andrews, Journalist, AKC Master Breeder - July 2005
There's a rule every tracker knows well: Watching the back trail
means fewer surprises ahead.
 You have flooded us with inquiries wanting to know why
TheDogPress has avoided a subject so important, so
controversial, so "now." First, we had to look back and figure
out how PAWS got so far out in front of us. Secondly, we had to
decide whether we wanted to risk assessment of the mess. The
answer required some soul searching. There could be
repercussions, financial risk, disagreement. If we addressed it
at all, it had to be objectively analyzed. We re-read our
Mission Statement and that settled it. This is our painful
assessment of PAWS.
The last big smoke signal was back in December, 2001 when this
urgent bulletin was sent out by AKC: "Puppy Protection Act May
Be Added to Farm Bill This Week - Phone Calls to Senators
Needed!" AKC did a great job getting the word out and mobilizing
the troops. We whupped it right? Wrong. Now we're told that
Senator Santorum's PAWS act is a modified, breeder friendlier
version of the PPA bill. We don't swallow the line much less the
sinker.
Three years ago AKC said "The PPA will divert the government's
compliance resources away from the real offenders." What about
today? All branches of government are stretched to the max under
threat of another terrorist attack. In particular, the CDC, FDA,
and USDA have increased budgets to monitor our imports, water,
and food supply. Yet we are supposed to believe that the Federal
government will suddenly fund new legislation to regulate
something as inconsequential as dog breeders?? Is that logical?
In 2001 AKC said "remind your senator that a recent court
decision which is now under appeal would require the federal
government to apply the PPA to EVERY BREEDER, not just
commercial breeders or "puppy mills."" Is PAWS different? Does
it exclude hobby or show breeders? NO. It does NOT!
Regarding PPA, AKC said it "believes the solution to the "puppy
mill" problem is more vigorous enforcement of the existing
Animal Welfare Act." Absolutely nothing has changed except today
we are fighting terrorism! All enforcement agencies must protect
us against far more serious threats than dog breeders!
Three and a half years ago AKC said "the so-called "Puppy
Protection Act" is based on sensationalized conclusions rather
than facts. It will involve the federal government in unworkable
regulation of the breeding practices of individual breeders and
unenforceable "engineering standards" for socialization of
dogs." This is no less true today so why does AKC tell us the
PAWS legislation is better? Put aside for a moment, the
rationale offered by AKC's lobbyist-legislation expert, the
likable and capable Jim Holt. Instead, let's consider the stated
position of all of the cat registries, NCA, and in particular,
UKC's highly respected Legislative Specialist. Cindy Cooke says
"Three organizations issued press releases recommending that
this bill be passed: the Humane Society of the United States,
the Doris Day Animal League, and the American Kennel Club." Ask
yourself, do those three organizations fit together in your
mind? NO. Then how can they have joined in support of PAWS?
Where is the logic in that! That was not a rhetorical question,
it demands examination and answers.
PAWS is a frightening "bill of goods" no matter how you look at
it but Cindy Cooke points out "The original AWA was an attempt
to regulate commercial breeders who sold their dogs to brokers,
pet stores, research facilities, etc. The bill specifically
exempted retail pet stores but made no mention of hobby breeders
at all." The monster under the bed just sneezed! Are you ready
to look? The PPA bill virtually excluded show breeders but AKC
led the charge to defeat it and we all felt gratified. In light
of the PAWS bill one might ask if saving show breeders from PPA
could that have been only an incidental reason? A quick re-read
reveals the PPA would have been devastating to the Weapons Of
Mass Production!
***********
Like trained troops, we mobilize against regulation which
invades our living room or kennel but the current Animal Welfare
Act aka PPA, is much less of an intrusion to show breeders than
is the current, catchily named "PAWS" act. It is not complicated
when you unsnarl all the rhetoric.
Other AKC board members opposed to PAWS are: Carmen Battaglia,
Tom Davies, Patti Strand and Ken Marden, former AKC President.
We should also mention that MOST dog and cat ASSOCIATIONS,
including the prestigious and always forward-thinking CFA (to
cat owners as AKC is to dog owners) is dead set against the PAWS
act. TICA, The International Cat Association, second only to CFA
in registry numbers and fans, is also adamantly opposed. At this
point, we are unaware of any pet-friendly association whose
membership is in favor of this legislation.
Look back again. The PPA bill was defeated, things quieted down.
Suddenly we're confronted with AKC's unfathomable support of the
PAWS bill! Dr. Holt, speaking for AKC, explains that under
current law, "persons who sell dogs for research, teaching,
exhibition, hunting, breeding, or security purposes, or as a pet
are defined as "dealers" and are regulated, EXCEPT retail pet
stores." Okay, so show/hobby breeders are not exempt under the
current law but USDA chose to classify us as retail pet stores.
Mr. Holt tells us AKC's big fear and rationale for supporting
PAWS is that USDA could change its mind any minute. Let's look
over the horizon.
Is that really likely to happen? If it were to happen, could we
not fight it then? Despite the pretty picture painted for us
regarding PAWS, our position is infinitely better today than it
could ever be under the obtusely worded PAWS act. Therefore, we
must quit talking about PAWS and mobilize to defeat it and any
bill like it which threatens our God-given right to own, breed
and enjoy companion animals!
We defeated the PPA Bill with AKC's help. Are we now so
defeatist that we won't even try to defeat the "new" stronger
all-inclusive version? It should be easier today because for
monetary reasons alone, PAWS should have a hard time passing!!
What Senator wants to admit that 1.) he/she wasted time and tax
payer money to support and pass a bill which couldn't be
implemented due to lack of funding? or 2.) they passed a bill,
enforcement of which, further drained the country's resources
during a time of war? Would you risk your political career on
that? Perhaps, for enough money and promise of power or future
cooperation on another issue. It's done every day on the hill.
That's why big business has lobbyists.
Mr. Holt reassures us: "PAWS narrows the definition of 'retail
pet store' to include only actual stores, but puts a specific
exemption into the law for small retail sellers and hobby and
show breeders." STOP! We were safe, left alone by a USDA too
busy to bother with us, a USDA that chose to classify us as
retail pet store. Under PAWS we lose that classification. PAWS
excludes us as retail pet sellers. Period. AKC says not to
worry, we're not considered as a dealer unless we sell 26 dogs
per year or whelp 7 litters in a year. We're told that over and
over and over and we repeat it and debate it. Any marketing firm
would predict overwhelming support because what breeder wants to
position himself as a retail producer? In fairness, Mr. Holt
included the part that says we must sell only dogs bred or
raised on our own premises? What? No one noticed that? PAWS
would be the end of co-ownerships and co-breeding a litter
because you would automatically become a dealer even if you only
bred one litter or sold one puppy not whelped and reared on your
premises!!
That would solve an increasingly litigious problem for AKC
though. No more co-breeder disputes resulting in lawsuits
against AKC. If, as we are told, the bill is a compromise on the
numbers of puppies or litters whelped, and if AKC takes credit
for that, then how did this most important sentence get in? More
to the point, why did AKC fail to protect the tradition that
sustains small hobby breeders??
Dr. Holt says "It also, for the first time, classifies as
dealers persons who import puppies for resale." That should make
us all feel better. Now USDA must go after those mass importers
who have created "overwhelming … growth…. in this (importing)
activity.." We are told this is true because "Parent clubs,
breeders and fanciers from all over the country report
significant numbers of imported puppies showing up at auctions,
in pet stores, and offered for sale over the Internet." I did
not make that up! The above is from Mr. Holt's May 2005 "Made In
China" article featured in Dog News. In that curious article, he
alleged that "individuals and business entities in the U.S." are
importing and selling dogs in the retail market. But not to
fear, "AKC is taking the matter of importation of puppies for
resale very seriously." He emphasizes that AKC is "urging" the
International Trade Commission and the USDA to do something and
he assures us AKC is "working with" the CDC to implement better
quarantine restrictions. Somehow, that doesn't sound good for
those who want to import quality dogs for breeding purposes!
Here's how it works. Marketing agencies and political
strategists invent a threatening situation in order to unite
dissenters into a common cause. Here you go: "The change was
proposed because there are a large and growing number of
operations, including breeders and importers, who are breeding
and/or selling large numbers of dogs exclusively at retail, over
the internet, or through mass media channels (huh?) or other
means and therefore evading regulation." That is pretty scary!
Except. Where are all those mass importers that no one can
produce? I asked others to help track them down on the pretext
of buying an imported puppy. Went online. Called a few pet
shops. None of us knew which "mass media channels" to contact
but we could not find imported purebred or known-breed puppies,
not from "western Europe" not from "Russia" and most definitely
not from China!!! One of our Science and Advisory Board members
is president of the China Kennel Club. She says there are not
enough purebreds for the Chinese fancier. Fred Lanting just
judged in China and he saw no crates lined up for export. It
appears that someone is pulling AKC's leg and they fell for it.
Hook, line, and sinker.
We were just told that the "China article" has been removed from
the AKC website so credit to AKC, when challenged by
TheDogPress, it has apparently checked and decided maybe there
is not such a huge influx of "imported" puppies for the retail
market. Certainly not from China where there is such a scarcity
of purebred dogs that dog breeders take orders from a catalog
for future sales.
Is there truth in the rumor that AKC recently visited China?
Might have been an attempt to verify the Chinese dog exporters.
If so, AKC should have the good grace to say it was duped by a
marketing firm acting on behalf of the WMP (Weapons Of Mass
Production) who are the only ones that could be worried about an
influx of foreign puppies!
Pushing aside the foot-high stack of quotes, there are still
some "dots" on the table. Like the above, examples of astounding
comments are floated out to dog people. Look back again. I
believe this to be perfect timing when the May 27th Dog News
Editorial said we should listen to the HSUS!! Setting the stage
for hoped acceptance of the unacceptable, it brushes off "past
grievances" by saying it's about time to listen to what the HSUS
has to say and then observes "Better for an alliance with HSUS
with dog people than with PETA, wouldn't you think?" NO! What a
ridiculous statement. According to Google results, HSUS is
already in alliance with PETA and has been for years! Surely
Matt and Gene know that, they have written about it!! So was
that statement a slip of the pen or just another perfectly timed
(and contrived) press release?
It actually is okay for AKC to sit at the same table with HSUS.
"Know Thine Enemy" and all. We should exchange ideas, listen,
learn, influence if we can. That has worked well for the NAIA
which until dog people finally "got it" was severely criticized
for having questionable people on its board. That does not
however mean AKC, representing thousands of dog owners whose
past and futures are at stake, must agree with DDAL, HSUS, PETA,
or any other group! How can that happen? What common ground can
there be on a proposed bill that would essentially do little to
thwart the mass production of dogs and cats but which would
seriously impact hobby breeders? We don't have to "work with"
HSUS, PETA, the DDAL, we have to OPPOSE them if we are to
protect the rights of hobby breeders. Is AKC not infinitely more
powerful? Of course it is, it has US behind it! Could the real
enemy have created a diversion, taken a short cut, and
positioned themselves in the canyon ahead?
We're told that PAWS is good because at any time, USDA could
decide not to exempt us along with pet shops. AKC is correct, it
could. The war could end tomorrow and USDA could quit checking
all those trailer containers and boxes and crates and airline
passenger's bags for hidden bombs or contaminated foodstuffs,
and come after US! USDA doesn't even check puppy mills without
prior notice and admits to being too understaffed to stay on top
of fraud and outright cruelty. But we are supposed to believe
USDA is coming after show breeders and the PAWS act will prevent
that from happening????? As our hero Mr. Stossel says "Gimme a
break!"
But there's more. In order to be exempt from this bill ….. ask
yourself - Who keeps track of how many dogs you sell? To whom do
you report a sale? Who checks your records, bank accounts, looks
for cash secreted under your mattress??? Well???? It is a
legitimate question which so far, NO ONE HAS ADDRESSED. Who
counts our litters. Who keeps track of whether every dog we sell
was "bred or raised on our own premises"?? PAWS rules exempt
hobby breeders, allowing us to breed without regulation? Without
Regulation??? Who are we kidding?
Make no mistake, I support the AKC, over half my life is
invested in AKC shows and friends. If anything I said is in
error, I apologize up front. If anything editorially is
incorrect, we sincerely hope AKC or Mr. Holt or ANYONE can send
facts that disprove or explain it away. I pray that happens.
There will be a Special Edition next week because even before
this editorial was published, additional information was
flooding in to our offices. We invite anyone who can provide
factual legal interpretations, good or bad, to send an article.
You now have the collective opinions, concerns, and questions of
informed users, some of whom at this time, wish to remain in the
background. They also reflect my personal opinion and concerns
and no one could be more relieved than this editor if they were
all WRONG!
We have been sorting through a flood of articles, statistics,
and letters on this subject. It has taken an inordinate amount
of time to thoroughly research a subject that is "all over the
internet." Some of those comments and information have been
excerpted in a separate section one of the staff nicknamed Truth
Of The Matter. It's just for PAWS, which as one caller said is
really one of those trick names because when you turn it around,
it is SWAP and she said it means AKC swapped sides in
mid-stream, and "thank God for TheDogPress" said she! She said,
and we quote, "making the public believe that what is absolutely
the worst legislation against show breeders has suddenly become
as soft as a puppy's paws is a good trick but we don't think it
will work."
https://www.thedogplace.org/PAWS/0507-PAWS-Thought.asp
#1110
|
PAWS INFORMATION