Hey I'll send you a couple of my fan mail I got from this if it will cheer you up lol Just remember if it ticks don't open
any dog imported from outside the United States, unless the dog is imported by the person for the use and enjoyment of the person, except that this term does not include--';
(B) in clause (i), by inserting `, or which sells any dogs imported from outside the United States' before the semicolon;
Yes from this I derive that any dog sold if imported. It says which sells any dogs imported from outside the U.S. Doesn't say when or anything It does say above that for use and enjoyment of the person butif you sell it it is no longer for your use.
This bill is to widely interpreted in my opinion they complain about the current AWA this is no better in my opinion.
I still interprete the 25 dogs or 7 litters as which one comes first nothing in there says whichever is greater in any form or fashion and 25 pups is not alot when it comes to coonhounds average is like 10 a litter. That doesn't include the beagles me and my uncle own. Out of14 dogs 3 of them reside here yet I am responsable for all of them under this law.
I am not voting on what one person sees or another I get the opinions and facts from several different places and derive mine from there and I try my hardest to go to sources thathave no gain from this. Like AKC breed associations or any state or breed association even hunting alliances. if we got all our info from a kennel club we would just go thier way.
As for the $500.00 thing I interprete it in a different way also. That goes (no pun intended) with the whole misinterpretation of the bill also. Which almost everyone I see sees it in a different light.
On the break thing uh this is not a union forum lol I am union so I know how breaks go.
PAWS
Moderators: Pike Ridge Beagles, Aaron Bartlett
If this legislation passes can all of you honestly say you can abide by all the regulations?
http://www.aphis.usda.gov/ac/cfr/9cfr3.html
The link above provides all the regulations you will be required to abide by. If you can not abide by these regulations can you afford the fine?
The following is the bill in it's entirety as introduced to the Senate
SB 1139
109th CONGRESS
1st Session
S. 1139
To amend the Animal Welfare Act to strengthen the ability of the
Secretary of Agriculture to regulate the pet industry.
_______________________________________________________________________
IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES
May 26, 2005
Mr. Santorum (for himself and Mr. Durbin) introduced the following
bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on
Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry
_______________________________________________________________________
A BILL
To amend the Animal Welfare Act to strengthen the ability of the
Secretary of Agriculture to regulate the pet industry.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Pet Animal Welfare Statute of
2005''.
SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.
Section 2 of the Animal Welfare Act (7 U.S.C. 2132) is amended--
(1) by redesignating subsections (a), (b), (c), (d), (e),
(f), (g), (h), (i), (j), (k), (l), (m), (n), and (o) as
subsections (k), (o), (c), (p), (m), (e), (a), (f), (j), (b),
(g), (h), (l), (d), and (i), respectively and moving the
subsections so as to appear in alphabetical order;
(2) in subsection (e) (as redesignated by paragraph (1))--
(A) by striking ``or (2) any'' and all that follows
through ``include--'' and inserting ``(2) any dog for
hunting, security, or breeding purposes, or (3) any dog
imported from outside the United States, unless the dog
is imported by the person for the use and enjoyment of
the person, except that this term does not
include--'';
(B) in clause (i), by inserting ``, or which sells
any dogs imported from outside the United States''
before the semicolon; and
(C) by striking clause (ii) and inserting the
following:
``(ii) any person who, during any calendar
year--
``(I)(aa) sells not more than 25
dogs or cats at wholesale or to the
public; or
``(bb) does not whelp more than 6
litters of dogs or cats and sells only
dogs or cats bred or raised on the
premises of the person directly at
retail to persons who purchase such
animals for their own use and enjoyment
and not for resale; and
``(II) derives not more than $500
gross income from the sale of other
animals;''; and
(3) by inserting after subsection (m) (as redesignated by
subsection (a)) the following:
``(n) Retail Pet Store.--
``(1) In general.--The term `retail pet store' means a
public retail establishment that sells animals commonly kept as
pets in households in the United States, including--
``(A) dogs;
``(B) cats;
``(C) guinea pigs;
``(D) rabbits; and
``(E) hamsters.
``(2) Exclusion.--The term `retail pet store' does not
include--
``(A) a person breeding animals to sell to the
public as pets;
``(B) a person selling hunting, security, or
breeding dogs; or
``(C) a person selling wild animals.''.
SEC. 3. ACCESS TO SOURCE RECORDS FOR DOGS AND CATS.
Section 10 of the Animal Welfare Act (7 U.S.C. 2140) is amended--
(1) in the first sentence, by inserting ``(a) In General.--
'' before ``Dealers''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(b) Access to Source Records for Dogs and Cats.--Notwithstanding
any other provision of this Act, all dealers and retail pet stores
shall prepare, retain, and make available at all reasonable times for
inspection and copying by the Secretary, for such reasonable period of
time as the Secretary may prescribe, a record of--
``(1) the name and address of the person from whom each dog
or cat was purchased or otherwise acquired; and
``(2) whether the person from whom each dog or cat was
acquired is required to be licensed or registered under this
Act.''.
SEC. 4. EXTENSION OF TEMPORARY SUSPENSION PERIOD.
Section 19(a) of the Animal Welfare Act (7 U.S.C. 2149) is
amended--
(1) by inserting ``(1)'' after ``(a)''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(2) Extension of temporary suspension period.--If the Secretary
has reason to believe that a violation that results in a temporary
suspension pursuant to paragraph (1) is continuing or will continue
after the expiration of the 21-day temporary suspension period
described in that paragraph, and the violation will place the health of
any animal in serious danger in violation of this Act, the Secretary
may extend the temporary suspension period for such additional period
as is necessary to ensure that the health of an animal is not in
serious danger, as determined by the Secretary, but not to exceed 60
days.''.
SEC. 5. AUTHORITY TO APPLY FOR INJUNCTIONS.
Section 29 of the Animal Welfare Act (7 U.S.C. 2159) is amended--
(1) in subsection (a), by inserting ``or that any person is
acting as a dealer or exhibitor without a valid license that
has not been suspended or revoked, as required by this Act,''
after ``promulgated thereunder,'';
(2) in subsection (b), by striking the last sentence; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(c) Injunctions; Representation.--
``(1) Injunctions.--The Secretary may apply directly to the
appropriate United States district court for a temporary
restraining order or injunction described in subsection (a).
``(2) Representation.--Attorneys of the Department of
Agriculture may represent the Secretary in United States
district court in any civil action brought under this
section.''.
SEC. 6. CONFORMING AMENDMENT.
Section 3 of the Animal Welfare Act (7 U.S.C. 2133) is amended by
striking ``: Provided however,'' and all that follows.
SEC. 7. EFFECT ON STATE LAW.
Nothing in this Act or the amendments made by this Act preempts any
State law (including a regulation) that provides stricter requirements
than the requirements provided in the amendments made by this Act.
<all>
http://www.aphis.usda.gov/ac/cfr/9cfr3.html
The link above provides all the regulations you will be required to abide by. If you can not abide by these regulations can you afford the fine?
The following is the bill in it's entirety as introduced to the Senate
SB 1139
109th CONGRESS
1st Session
S. 1139
To amend the Animal Welfare Act to strengthen the ability of the
Secretary of Agriculture to regulate the pet industry.
_______________________________________________________________________
IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES
May 26, 2005
Mr. Santorum (for himself and Mr. Durbin) introduced the following
bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on
Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry
_______________________________________________________________________
A BILL
To amend the Animal Welfare Act to strengthen the ability of the
Secretary of Agriculture to regulate the pet industry.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Pet Animal Welfare Statute of
2005''.
SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.
Section 2 of the Animal Welfare Act (7 U.S.C. 2132) is amended--
(1) by redesignating subsections (a), (b), (c), (d), (e),
(f), (g), (h), (i), (j), (k), (l), (m), (n), and (o) as
subsections (k), (o), (c), (p), (m), (e), (a), (f), (j), (b),
(g), (h), (l), (d), and (i), respectively and moving the
subsections so as to appear in alphabetical order;
(2) in subsection (e) (as redesignated by paragraph (1))--
(A) by striking ``or (2) any'' and all that follows
through ``include--'' and inserting ``(2) any dog for
hunting, security, or breeding purposes, or (3) any dog
imported from outside the United States, unless the dog
is imported by the person for the use and enjoyment of
the person, except that this term does not
include--'';
(B) in clause (i), by inserting ``, or which sells
any dogs imported from outside the United States''
before the semicolon; and
(C) by striking clause (ii) and inserting the
following:
``(ii) any person who, during any calendar
year--
``(I)(aa) sells not more than 25
dogs or cats at wholesale or to the
public; or
``(bb) does not whelp more than 6
litters of dogs or cats and sells only
dogs or cats bred or raised on the
premises of the person directly at
retail to persons who purchase such
animals for their own use and enjoyment
and not for resale; and
``(II) derives not more than $500
gross income from the sale of other
animals;''; and
(3) by inserting after subsection (m) (as redesignated by
subsection (a)) the following:
``(n) Retail Pet Store.--
``(1) In general.--The term `retail pet store' means a
public retail establishment that sells animals commonly kept as
pets in households in the United States, including--
``(A) dogs;
``(B) cats;
``(C) guinea pigs;
``(D) rabbits; and
``(E) hamsters.
``(2) Exclusion.--The term `retail pet store' does not
include--
``(A) a person breeding animals to sell to the
public as pets;
``(B) a person selling hunting, security, or
breeding dogs; or
``(C) a person selling wild animals.''.
SEC. 3. ACCESS TO SOURCE RECORDS FOR DOGS AND CATS.
Section 10 of the Animal Welfare Act (7 U.S.C. 2140) is amended--
(1) in the first sentence, by inserting ``(a) In General.--
'' before ``Dealers''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(b) Access to Source Records for Dogs and Cats.--Notwithstanding
any other provision of this Act, all dealers and retail pet stores
shall prepare, retain, and make available at all reasonable times for
inspection and copying by the Secretary, for such reasonable period of
time as the Secretary may prescribe, a record of--
``(1) the name and address of the person from whom each dog
or cat was purchased or otherwise acquired; and
``(2) whether the person from whom each dog or cat was
acquired is required to be licensed or registered under this
Act.''.
SEC. 4. EXTENSION OF TEMPORARY SUSPENSION PERIOD.
Section 19(a) of the Animal Welfare Act (7 U.S.C. 2149) is
amended--
(1) by inserting ``(1)'' after ``(a)''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(2) Extension of temporary suspension period.--If the Secretary
has reason to believe that a violation that results in a temporary
suspension pursuant to paragraph (1) is continuing or will continue
after the expiration of the 21-day temporary suspension period
described in that paragraph, and the violation will place the health of
any animal in serious danger in violation of this Act, the Secretary
may extend the temporary suspension period for such additional period
as is necessary to ensure that the health of an animal is not in
serious danger, as determined by the Secretary, but not to exceed 60
days.''.
SEC. 5. AUTHORITY TO APPLY FOR INJUNCTIONS.
Section 29 of the Animal Welfare Act (7 U.S.C. 2159) is amended--
(1) in subsection (a), by inserting ``or that any person is
acting as a dealer or exhibitor without a valid license that
has not been suspended or revoked, as required by this Act,''
after ``promulgated thereunder,'';
(2) in subsection (b), by striking the last sentence; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(c) Injunctions; Representation.--
``(1) Injunctions.--The Secretary may apply directly to the
appropriate United States district court for a temporary
restraining order or injunction described in subsection (a).
``(2) Representation.--Attorneys of the Department of
Agriculture may represent the Secretary in United States
district court in any civil action brought under this
section.''.
SEC. 6. CONFORMING AMENDMENT.
Section 3 of the Animal Welfare Act (7 U.S.C. 2133) is amended by
striking ``: Provided however,'' and all that follows.
SEC. 7. EFFECT ON STATE LAW.
Nothing in this Act or the amendments made by this Act preempts any
State law (including a regulation) that provides stricter requirements
than the requirements provided in the amendments made by this Act.
<all>
From Field to Show and Show to Field the way it should be
And here is another piece to SB 1139 it is another bill being slipped through with out attention due to all the attention SB 1139 is getting
This is HB 2669
[DOCID: f:h2669ih.txt]
109th CONGRESS
1st Session
H. R. 2669
To amend the Animal Welfare Act to strengthen the ability of the
Secretary of Agriculture to regulate the pet industry.
_______________________________________________________________________
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
May 26, 2005
Mr. Gerlach (for himself and Mr. Farr) introduced the following bill;
which was referred to the Committee on Agriculture
_______________________________________________________________________
A BILL
To amend the Animal Welfare Act to strengthen the ability of the
Secretary of Agriculture to regulate the pet industry.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Pet Animal Welfare Statute of
2005''.
SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.
Section 2 of the Animal Welfare Act (7 U.S.C. 2132) is amended--
(1) by redesignating subsections (a), (b), (c), (d), (e),
(f), (g), (h), (i), (j), (k), (l), (m), (n), and (o) as
subsections (k), (o), (c), (p), (m), (e), (a), (f), (j), (b),
(g), (h), (l), (d), and (i), respectively and moving the
subsections so as to appear in alphabetical order;
(2) in subsection (e) (as redesignated by paragraph (1))--
(A) by striking ``or (2) any'' and all that follows
through ``include--'' and inserting ``(2) any dog for
hunting, security, or breeding purposes, or (3) any dog
imported from outside the United States, unless the dog
is imported by the person for the use and enjoyment of
the person, except that this term does not include--'';
(B) in clause (i), by inserting ``, or which sells
any dogs imported from outside the United States''
before the semicolon; and
(C) by striking clause (ii) and inserting the
following:
``(ii) any person who, during any calendar
year--
``(I)(aa) sells not more than 25
dogs or cats at wholesale or to the
public; or
``(bb) does not whelp more than 6
litters of dogs or cats and sells only
dogs or cats bred or raised on the
premises of the person directly at
retail to persons who purchase such
animals for their own use and enjoyment
and not for resale; and
``(II) derives not more than $500
gross income from the sale of other
animals;''; and
(3) by inserting after subsection (m) (as redesignated by
subsection (a)) the following:
``(n) Retail Pet Store.--
``(1) In general.--The term `retail pet store' means a
public retail establishment that sells animals commonly kept as
pets in households in the United States, including--
``(A) dogs;
``(B) cats;
``(C) guinea pigs;
``(D) rabbits; and
``(E) hamsters.
``(2) Exclusion.--The term `retail pet store' does not
include--
``(A) a person breeding animals to sell to the
public as pets;
``(B) a person selling hunting, security, or
breeding dogs; or
``(C) a person selling wild animals.''.
SEC. 3. ACCESS TO SOURCE RECORDS FOR DOGS AND CATS.
Section 10 of the Animal Welfare Act (7 U.S.C. 2140) is amended--
(1) in the first sentence, by inserting ``(a) In General.--
'' before ``Dealers''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(b) Access to Source Records for Dogs and Cats.--Notwithstanding
any other provision of this Act, all dealers and retail pet stores
shall prepare, retain, and make available at all reasonable times for
inspection and copying by the Secretary, for such reasonable period of
time as the Secretary may prescribe, a record of--
``(1) the name and address of the person from whom each dog
or cat was purchased or otherwise acquired; and
``(2) whether the person from whom each dog or cat was
acquired is required to be licensed or registered under this
Act.''.
SEC. 4. EXTENSION OF TEMPORARY SUSPENSION PERIOD.
Section 19(a) of the Animal Welfare Act (7 U.S.C. 2149) is
amended--
(1) by inserting ``(1)'' after ``(a)''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(2) Extension of Temporary Suspension Period.--If the Secretary
has reason to believe that a violation that results in a temporary
suspension pursuant to paragraph (1) is continuing or will continue
after the expiration of the 21-day temporary suspension period
described in that paragraph, and the violation will place the health of
any animal in serious danger in violation of this Act, the Secretary
may extend the temporary suspension period for such additional period
as is necessary to ensure that the health of an animal is not in
serious danger, as determined by the Secretary, but not to exceed 60
days.''.
SEC. 5. AUTHORITY TO APPLY FOR INJUNCTIONS.
Section 29 of the Animal Welfare Act (7 U.S.C. 2159) is amended--
(1) in subsection (a), by inserting ``or that any person is
acting as a dealer or exhibitor without a valid license that
has not been suspended or revoked, as required by this Act,''
after ``promulgated thereunder,'';
(2) in subsection (b), by striking the last sentence; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(c) Injunctions; Representation.--
``(1) Injunctions.--The Secretary may apply directly to the
appropriate United States district court for a temporary
restraining order or injunction described in subsection (a).
``(2) Representation.--Attorneys of the Department of
Agriculture may represent the Secretary in United States
district court in any civil action brought under this
section.''.
SEC. 6. CONFORMING AMENDMENT.
Section 3 of the Animal Welfare Act (7 U.S.C. 2133) is amended by
striking ``: Provided however,'' and all that follows.
SEC. 7. EFFECT ON STATE LAW.
Nothing in this Act or the amendments made by this Act preempts any
State law (including a regulation) that provides stricter requirements
than the requirements provided in the amendments made by this Act.
<all>
This is HB 2669
[DOCID: f:h2669ih.txt]
109th CONGRESS
1st Session
H. R. 2669
To amend the Animal Welfare Act to strengthen the ability of the
Secretary of Agriculture to regulate the pet industry.
_______________________________________________________________________
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
May 26, 2005
Mr. Gerlach (for himself and Mr. Farr) introduced the following bill;
which was referred to the Committee on Agriculture
_______________________________________________________________________
A BILL
To amend the Animal Welfare Act to strengthen the ability of the
Secretary of Agriculture to regulate the pet industry.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Pet Animal Welfare Statute of
2005''.
SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.
Section 2 of the Animal Welfare Act (7 U.S.C. 2132) is amended--
(1) by redesignating subsections (a), (b), (c), (d), (e),
(f), (g), (h), (i), (j), (k), (l), (m), (n), and (o) as
subsections (k), (o), (c), (p), (m), (e), (a), (f), (j), (b),
(g), (h), (l), (d), and (i), respectively and moving the
subsections so as to appear in alphabetical order;
(2) in subsection (e) (as redesignated by paragraph (1))--
(A) by striking ``or (2) any'' and all that follows
through ``include--'' and inserting ``(2) any dog for
hunting, security, or breeding purposes, or (3) any dog
imported from outside the United States, unless the dog
is imported by the person for the use and enjoyment of
the person, except that this term does not include--'';
(B) in clause (i), by inserting ``, or which sells
any dogs imported from outside the United States''
before the semicolon; and
(C) by striking clause (ii) and inserting the
following:
``(ii) any person who, during any calendar
year--
``(I)(aa) sells not more than 25
dogs or cats at wholesale or to the
public; or
``(bb) does not whelp more than 6
litters of dogs or cats and sells only
dogs or cats bred or raised on the
premises of the person directly at
retail to persons who purchase such
animals for their own use and enjoyment
and not for resale; and
``(II) derives not more than $500
gross income from the sale of other
animals;''; and
(3) by inserting after subsection (m) (as redesignated by
subsection (a)) the following:
``(n) Retail Pet Store.--
``(1) In general.--The term `retail pet store' means a
public retail establishment that sells animals commonly kept as
pets in households in the United States, including--
``(A) dogs;
``(B) cats;
``(C) guinea pigs;
``(D) rabbits; and
``(E) hamsters.
``(2) Exclusion.--The term `retail pet store' does not
include--
``(A) a person breeding animals to sell to the
public as pets;
``(B) a person selling hunting, security, or
breeding dogs; or
``(C) a person selling wild animals.''.
SEC. 3. ACCESS TO SOURCE RECORDS FOR DOGS AND CATS.
Section 10 of the Animal Welfare Act (7 U.S.C. 2140) is amended--
(1) in the first sentence, by inserting ``(a) In General.--
'' before ``Dealers''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(b) Access to Source Records for Dogs and Cats.--Notwithstanding
any other provision of this Act, all dealers and retail pet stores
shall prepare, retain, and make available at all reasonable times for
inspection and copying by the Secretary, for such reasonable period of
time as the Secretary may prescribe, a record of--
``(1) the name and address of the person from whom each dog
or cat was purchased or otherwise acquired; and
``(2) whether the person from whom each dog or cat was
acquired is required to be licensed or registered under this
Act.''.
SEC. 4. EXTENSION OF TEMPORARY SUSPENSION PERIOD.
Section 19(a) of the Animal Welfare Act (7 U.S.C. 2149) is
amended--
(1) by inserting ``(1)'' after ``(a)''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(2) Extension of Temporary Suspension Period.--If the Secretary
has reason to believe that a violation that results in a temporary
suspension pursuant to paragraph (1) is continuing or will continue
after the expiration of the 21-day temporary suspension period
described in that paragraph, and the violation will place the health of
any animal in serious danger in violation of this Act, the Secretary
may extend the temporary suspension period for such additional period
as is necessary to ensure that the health of an animal is not in
serious danger, as determined by the Secretary, but not to exceed 60
days.''.
SEC. 5. AUTHORITY TO APPLY FOR INJUNCTIONS.
Section 29 of the Animal Welfare Act (7 U.S.C. 2159) is amended--
(1) in subsection (a), by inserting ``or that any person is
acting as a dealer or exhibitor without a valid license that
has not been suspended or revoked, as required by this Act,''
after ``promulgated thereunder,'';
(2) in subsection (b), by striking the last sentence; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(c) Injunctions; Representation.--
``(1) Injunctions.--The Secretary may apply directly to the
appropriate United States district court for a temporary
restraining order or injunction described in subsection (a).
``(2) Representation.--Attorneys of the Department of
Agriculture may represent the Secretary in United States
district court in any civil action brought under this
section.''.
SEC. 6. CONFORMING AMENDMENT.
Section 3 of the Animal Welfare Act (7 U.S.C. 2133) is amended by
striking ``: Provided however,'' and all that follows.
SEC. 7. EFFECT ON STATE LAW.
Nothing in this Act or the amendments made by this Act preempts any
State law (including a regulation) that provides stricter requirements
than the requirements provided in the amendments made by this Act.
<all>
From Field to Show and Show to Field the way it should be
Isn't it strange that the AKC is claiming that 4% of their breeders will be checked and they are sure that they'll pass inspection!!!!! Sounds too me like the AKC wants a piece of this action for sure. I'll bet they've got a lot of clought up there in DC in helping to pass this bill,, thats the scarrrry part of all this!!! The average Joe Smuck off the street ain't got a clue about any of this stuff but I'll bet he knows the name AKC and iffen they're for it,, its got too be a good thing!!!!!
Crew Chief
PS Here we are in the middle of a war,, ain't those knuckleheads up in DC got anything better toooo DOOO!!!!! This is starting to pee ME OFF!!!!
Crew Chief
PS Here we are in the middle of a war,, ain't those knuckleheads up in DC got anything better toooo DOOO!!!!! This is starting to pee ME OFF!!!!
The Ultimate Challenge - Free dog food for anyone who can meet the challenge, lol:
http://www.ukcdogs.com/forums/showthrea ... adid=61294
http://www.ukcdogs.com/forums/showthrea ... adid=61294
-
Bunny Runner
- Posts: 479
- Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2005 6:14 pm
- Location: NC
Goes,
The enlightenment you bring to this subject is refreshing! You seem to look at both sides with equal validity.
I have taken animal law classes and studied AWA and state laws regarding animals in commerce. What many don't understand is that in most states, there are currently regulations in effect that limit the numbers of dogs that can be sold with out being registered with the state you live in. I have no fear of this legislation, as I don't breed for profit. I feel that anyone that breeding large numbers of animals for profit, should also be paying their share of taxes as well. That is what is comes down to anyway. We should all be concerned about the conditions animals are being kept in. If, as concerned beaglers, we allow animals to be breed and kept in such deplorable conditions, we are doing NOTHING to improve the breed, as we all state is so important to US!
I wonder how many of these people that are opposed to this legislation have read the Animal Welfare Act? This text of this legislation is ammendments to AWA and those regulations can be found at http://WWW.aphis.usda.gov
It means alot of reading and cross-referencing, but it makes things alot more clear.
I commend you on your efforts to enlighten, educate, and inform those who have been "scared stiff" about this PAWS legislation.
When all is said and done, should we not be concerned in the welfare of the animals?????
Renee'
The enlightenment you bring to this subject is refreshing! You seem to look at both sides with equal validity.
I have taken animal law classes and studied AWA and state laws regarding animals in commerce. What many don't understand is that in most states, there are currently regulations in effect that limit the numbers of dogs that can be sold with out being registered with the state you live in. I have no fear of this legislation, as I don't breed for profit. I feel that anyone that breeding large numbers of animals for profit, should also be paying their share of taxes as well. That is what is comes down to anyway. We should all be concerned about the conditions animals are being kept in. If, as concerned beaglers, we allow animals to be breed and kept in such deplorable conditions, we are doing NOTHING to improve the breed, as we all state is so important to US!
I wonder how many of these people that are opposed to this legislation have read the Animal Welfare Act? This text of this legislation is ammendments to AWA and those regulations can be found at http://WWW.aphis.usda.gov
It means alot of reading and cross-referencing, but it makes things alot more clear.
I commend you on your efforts to enlighten, educate, and inform those who have been "scared stiff" about this PAWS legislation.
When all is said and done, should we not be concerned in the welfare of the animals?????
Renee'
Education, Preservation, and Conservation ensures a "WILD" future for our children!
-
timberdoodle
- Posts: 226
- Joined: Sat Feb 28, 2004 5:58 am
- Location: gillett pa
bunnyrunner,,i have read your posts about this topic and the many others which you have shared your experiences with dogs and have always considered you a knowlegeable person when it comes to dogs.
i oppose this legislation based only upon those who lend their support to it, namely PITA and HSUS.
I have whelped 2 litters in 14 years i don't think for one minute i would fall into anyones definition as a puppy mill. there is really no benefit or liability to me concerning this legislation. HOWEVER, i smell a rat with PITA and HSUS endorsing this piece. I also smell a rat when it specifically names hunting dogs in the legislation why not all dogs? How many wholesale distributers of hunting dogs do you know of? i couldn't name one
where do they advertise and how many hunters buy dogs from them.
I do respect your opinion. best runnin to ya!!
i oppose this legislation based only upon those who lend their support to it, namely PITA and HSUS.
I have whelped 2 litters in 14 years i don't think for one minute i would fall into anyones definition as a puppy mill. there is really no benefit or liability to me concerning this legislation. HOWEVER, i smell a rat with PITA and HSUS endorsing this piece. I also smell a rat when it specifically names hunting dogs in the legislation why not all dogs? How many wholesale distributers of hunting dogs do you know of? i couldn't name one
where do they advertise and how many hunters buy dogs from them.
I do respect your opinion. best runnin to ya!!
-
Bunny Runner
- Posts: 479
- Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2005 6:14 pm
- Location: NC
Timber,
Thank you for your kind words!!!
We all should be concerned when government steps in to try and regulate another part of our life.
Personally, I oppose PETA and the platform they preach. I am also not for extra government of my personal freedoms.
Although at this time, I would have a hard time making a firm decision on this bill, either in support of or opposed to because I have not been able to put it all completely in perspective with the AWA. I have however, reviewed it and pluged the amendments into the AWA where the belong (the first half anyway) and in regards to the "hunting dogs" it EXCLUDES those for hunting, security, or for breeding purposes the best I can see.
I know that 99% of Beaglers and other serious breeders are devoted to their dogs and put alot of work into their care and BREEDING. They don't breed indiscriminantly and most don't breed for profit. I respect all of you for that!!!! I also know, and have personally seen, the disregard for the life of an animal via "puppy mills" and they should be STOPPED! There will have to be some type of regulation by USDA/APHIS in order to stop this horrible practice.
As I stated in my previous post, I (personally) don't have any concerns about PAWS, as I am not an active breeder for profit, but I do understand that this could effect many, many others who do in our sport.
It is of benefit to all of us to make decisions on any legislation proposed based on knowledge of it and the only way you can do this is through your own personal research. You cannot get all the facts by listening to the right or left!!! You have to LOOK AT THE FACTS!
The AWA does have some strict regulations, but most of us already provide most of those things for our dogs anyway!!!
Example: How many of you knew that there are USDA regulations regarding transporting animals for profit???? Does this affect how you get dogs to trials? It certainly does!!!! If you are transporting a dog to a trial "for hire" (getting paid to do it) you are REQUIRED to be licensed and follow standards of care as outlined by USDA/APHIS and the AWA!!!!
Another point I would like to make is we should be checking with our state and county regulations on selling dogs. AWA is a standard of care, but states and counties can go further in regulating animals in commerce. I would recommend that any one concerned, should check with your state and county Department of Agriculture on their regulations and requirements when it comes to animals, as they can be much stricter and more in depth.
Renee'
Thank you for your kind words!!!
We all should be concerned when government steps in to try and regulate another part of our life.
Personally, I oppose PETA and the platform they preach. I am also not for extra government of my personal freedoms.
Although at this time, I would have a hard time making a firm decision on this bill, either in support of or opposed to because I have not been able to put it all completely in perspective with the AWA. I have however, reviewed it and pluged the amendments into the AWA where the belong (the first half anyway) and in regards to the "hunting dogs" it EXCLUDES those for hunting, security, or for breeding purposes the best I can see.
I know that 99% of Beaglers and other serious breeders are devoted to their dogs and put alot of work into their care and BREEDING. They don't breed indiscriminantly and most don't breed for profit. I respect all of you for that!!!! I also know, and have personally seen, the disregard for the life of an animal via "puppy mills" and they should be STOPPED! There will have to be some type of regulation by USDA/APHIS in order to stop this horrible practice.
As I stated in my previous post, I (personally) don't have any concerns about PAWS, as I am not an active breeder for profit, but I do understand that this could effect many, many others who do in our sport.
It is of benefit to all of us to make decisions on any legislation proposed based on knowledge of it and the only way you can do this is through your own personal research. You cannot get all the facts by listening to the right or left!!! You have to LOOK AT THE FACTS!
The AWA does have some strict regulations, but most of us already provide most of those things for our dogs anyway!!!
Example: How many of you knew that there are USDA regulations regarding transporting animals for profit???? Does this affect how you get dogs to trials? It certainly does!!!! If you are transporting a dog to a trial "for hire" (getting paid to do it) you are REQUIRED to be licensed and follow standards of care as outlined by USDA/APHIS and the AWA!!!!
Another point I would like to make is we should be checking with our state and county regulations on selling dogs. AWA is a standard of care, but states and counties can go further in regulating animals in commerce. I would recommend that any one concerned, should check with your state and county Department of Agriculture on their regulations and requirements when it comes to animals, as they can be much stricter and more in depth.
Renee'
Education, Preservation, and Conservation ensures a "WILD" future for our children!
-
Honey Pot Hounds
- Posts: 1353
- Joined: Fri Dec 17, 2004 10:21 am
- Location: New Hampshire
- Contact:
The USDA already licenses many of the big puppy mills like Hunte Corp., which can afford to comply with their inspection demands. That license does not make the lives of the dogs they breed or the quality of the dogs they breed any better.Bunny Runner wrote:
When all is said and done, should we not be concerned in the welfare of the animals?????
Renee'
I breed my Beagles in my home and they are whelped and raised here with alot of love and the best care I can give them. I do extensive research of pedigrees and I have APPROVED homes for all of my puppies before they are even born.
My dogs do not live their lives in USDA approved stainless steel crates and runs...they live their lives in my cozy home and nicely manicured yard. USDA would prefer they live in more "sanitary" conditions and USDA cares more about lids on dog food cans and the temperature of my hot water than the pedigree of my dogs or the socialization they recieve.
The AKC and the USDA just want a piece of the pie and there is not much pie leftover, if any, if you are an ethical breeder and do all your health testing, pay for the best studdog for your bitch, and buy the best dogfoods.
What some of you people do not seem to understand is that the USDA will license all the big commercial breeders who can afford to comply with their ridiculous "housing" demands (or hire lawyers) and the TRUE BREEDERS....breeders who really care about breeding wonderful dogs...will slowly be elbowed out of the picture. You can go buy your Beagle from a USDA approved puppymill in ten years when all the hobby breeders and BYB's have been forced out of business, but that dog ain't gonna hunt.
Cindy
Join the fight to keep your guns & Beagles
http://capwiz.com/naiatrust/home/
Created to fight bad legislation and defend the victims of animal and environmental extremism.
WE NEED YOU!
Join the fight to keep your guns & Beagles
http://capwiz.com/naiatrust/home/
Created to fight bad legislation and defend the victims of animal and environmental extremism.
WE NEED YOU!
PAWS Facts
Dear Renne,Bunny Runner wrote:
I have however, reviewed it and pluged the amendments into the AWA where the belong (the first half anyway) and in regards to the "hunting dogs" it EXCLUDES those for hunting, security, or for breeding purposes the best I can see.
As I stated in my previous post, I (personally) don't have any concerns about PAWS, as I am not an active breeder for profit, but I do understand that this could effect many, many others who do in our sport.
It is of benefit to all of us to make decisions on any legislation proposed based on knowledge of it and the only way you can do this is through your own personal research. You cannot get all the facts by listening to the right or left!!! You have to LOOK AT THE FACTS!
The AWA does have some strict regulations, but most of us already provide most of those things for our dogs anyway!!!
Renee'
Unfortunately, your reading of PAWS and the AWA is 100% backwards. Not only are persons buying and selling hunting dogs covered under its federal licensing provisions, they are double covered, unlike other breed groups.
If Sen. Santorum had treated hunting dog owners the same as any other dog owner groups, SAOVA would have few concerns with S1139 (PAWS). See http://saova.org/1139.html for a fuller explanation of PAWS's true impacts.
Bob Kane, President
Virginia Hunting Dog Owners' Association
http://vhdoa.uplandbirddog.com/
Sportsmen's and Animal Owners' Voting Alliance -
Working to identify and elect supportive legislators
** Oppose S1139/HR2669 (PAWS) **
http://saova.org/1139.html
-
Honey Pot Hounds
- Posts: 1353
- Joined: Fri Dec 17, 2004 10:21 am
- Location: New Hampshire
- Contact:
This from a Collie person who works on the Hill in Washington, DC. It might
pay us all if we did what she suggests...
(and feel free to crosspost this)
I have been listening and reading about the PAWS debate since the bill was
reintroduced in this Congress. I agree with most of the advice floating
around on the Internet but I can tell you that the level of opposition
communicated to Senators on the Agriculture Committee is paltry at best.
I work for a Senator serving on the Agriculture Committee and we have had
very few people contact our offices in opposition to the bill. We have had
hundreds of contacts from supporters. (Mostly from people who don't
understand the
PETA agenda but care deeply about animal welfare.) If it were just a
numbers
game--we would be losing. Thankfully, that is not the primary way most
legislators determine their position but it is a factor.
I would like to make a couple of suggestions:
1. Don't get too hung up on national organizations supporting or opposing
the bill--they don't vote.
2. Don't think you have to write a long treatise on why the bill is a bad
idea--all you need to say is "I'm your constituent and I oppose this bill."
3. Most legislators have numerous offices within a state or congressional
district--call them all. If you're shy, call after business hours and
leave a
message on voice mail.
4. The easiest way to contact your Senator is to go to _www.senate.gov_
(http://www.senate.gov) and look for your Senator's website. Visit it and
leave
an electronic message. Be specific--refer to the bill by name and number
and register your opposition. (S. 1139; Pet Animal Welfare Act)
5. Pass around a letter at your local kennel club meeting or at a dog show
and get folks to sign it with their addresses and mail it to the Washington
office. Thirty original signatures on a letter means a lot more than a
letter
from the club saying they have a hundred members.
6. Be mindful of the timing. This month things are pretty slow because
the
Senate is in recess. Twenty contacts this week would be noticed. Once the
Senate takes up the Supreme Court nomination in September, a thousand
messages will be overshadowed by the tens of thousands of contacts they
will receive
on that issue.
7. Contact your Congressman and the Representatives from other districts
in
your state. That bill number is H.R. 2669.
8. Neither bill has received much attention in Congress. However, Senator
Santorum (the prime sponsor) is up for reelection and it is very common for
the Senate Leadership to suddenly consider a bill to give the Senator
bragging
rights back home.
9. Call your local congressional offices and invite the local staffer to
see your kennel setup. He or she probably won't have time but at least
they
will know you have nothing to hide--which dispels the supporters statements
that all puppies are reared in appalling conditions.
10. Most legislators are traveling their districts and holding town
meetings. Attend and make a VERY brief statement that you oppose this bill
and
think he or she will too once they understand the impact on his/her
constituents.
pay us all if we did what she suggests...
(and feel free to crosspost this)
I have been listening and reading about the PAWS debate since the bill was
reintroduced in this Congress. I agree with most of the advice floating
around on the Internet but I can tell you that the level of opposition
communicated to Senators on the Agriculture Committee is paltry at best.
I work for a Senator serving on the Agriculture Committee and we have had
very few people contact our offices in opposition to the bill. We have had
hundreds of contacts from supporters. (Mostly from people who don't
understand the
PETA agenda but care deeply about animal welfare.) If it were just a
numbers
game--we would be losing. Thankfully, that is not the primary way most
legislators determine their position but it is a factor.
I would like to make a couple of suggestions:
1. Don't get too hung up on national organizations supporting or opposing
the bill--they don't vote.
2. Don't think you have to write a long treatise on why the bill is a bad
idea--all you need to say is "I'm your constituent and I oppose this bill."
3. Most legislators have numerous offices within a state or congressional
district--call them all. If you're shy, call after business hours and
leave a
message on voice mail.
4. The easiest way to contact your Senator is to go to _www.senate.gov_
(http://www.senate.gov) and look for your Senator's website. Visit it and
leave
an electronic message. Be specific--refer to the bill by name and number
and register your opposition. (S. 1139; Pet Animal Welfare Act)
5. Pass around a letter at your local kennel club meeting or at a dog show
and get folks to sign it with their addresses and mail it to the Washington
office. Thirty original signatures on a letter means a lot more than a
letter
from the club saying they have a hundred members.
6. Be mindful of the timing. This month things are pretty slow because
the
Senate is in recess. Twenty contacts this week would be noticed. Once the
Senate takes up the Supreme Court nomination in September, a thousand
messages will be overshadowed by the tens of thousands of contacts they
will receive
on that issue.
7. Contact your Congressman and the Representatives from other districts
in
your state. That bill number is H.R. 2669.
8. Neither bill has received much attention in Congress. However, Senator
Santorum (the prime sponsor) is up for reelection and it is very common for
the Senate Leadership to suddenly consider a bill to give the Senator
bragging
rights back home.
9. Call your local congressional offices and invite the local staffer to
see your kennel setup. He or she probably won't have time but at least
they
will know you have nothing to hide--which dispels the supporters statements
that all puppies are reared in appalling conditions.
10. Most legislators are traveling their districts and holding town
meetings. Attend and make a VERY brief statement that you oppose this bill
and
think he or she will too once they understand the impact on his/her
constituents.
Cindy
Join the fight to keep your guns & Beagles
http://capwiz.com/naiatrust/home/
Created to fight bad legislation and defend the victims of animal and environmental extremism.
WE NEED YOU!
Join the fight to keep your guns & Beagles
http://capwiz.com/naiatrust/home/
Created to fight bad legislation and defend the victims of animal and environmental extremism.
WE NEED YOU!
-
Honey Pot Hounds
- Posts: 1353
- Joined: Fri Dec 17, 2004 10:21 am
- Location: New Hampshire
- Contact:
Hi CrewChief,
Actually the people with the big money in dogs aren't usually us owner/breeder/handlers. Especially in Beagles!!!
The dogs you see on TV 99% of the time are living with a professional handler temporarily and are "backed" by some rich person(s) who buys a co-own on the dog temporarily and supports the high point of it's career for some kind of bragging rights satisfaction.
The handlers are just that. Professional handlers. They usually aren't breeders...as you all know breeding done right requires your presence at home and you miss a lot of dogshows (and field trials?).....So IF I breed a top ten caliber Beagle I won't travel the USA with it myself. I will kiss it good-bye for a year or two and watch it on TV from my home where I am busy caring for my other Beagles, whelping puppies (maybe) and cleaning up poop (definitly).
Most of the show dog breeders I know are like myself....they drive old vehicles (mostly minivans), do much of their own veterinary care (vaccinations & worming), and skip fancy vacations and dinners out to feed their dogs the best food & supplements money can buy.
Most of us are seriously concerned about the future of our breeding programs because we absolutley do not have the resources to build extravagent kennels (puppy wharehouses
) should the law dictate thats how we "raise" our babies.
We are also afraid of the empowered little dweeb hired by the USDA to come into our homes and make our lives miserable over some peed on blanket in a crate (okay, two of my bitches tend to think they have to "mark" their beds right away).....or some fresh puppy poop just stepped in and tracked around the floor by two spastic puppies that decided to go right when Mr. Inspector knocked on the door.....etc.,etc.,etc.,
I don't know about you all but I find having multiple dogs a full time job of cleaning up, feeding, watering, grooming, vaccinating (puppies) & caring for the occasional injury or illness. It is rarely a perfect world here at my house but it works just fine usually, my dogs have a great life always, and I don't need some twerp on a power trip that doesn't even KNOW DOGS telling me what to do! All the show breeders I know feel the same way and live very humble lives.
Actually the people with the big money in dogs aren't usually us owner/breeder/handlers. Especially in Beagles!!!
The dogs you see on TV 99% of the time are living with a professional handler temporarily and are "backed" by some rich person(s) who buys a co-own on the dog temporarily and supports the high point of it's career for some kind of bragging rights satisfaction. The handlers are just that. Professional handlers. They usually aren't breeders...as you all know breeding done right requires your presence at home and you miss a lot of dogshows (and field trials?).....So IF I breed a top ten caliber Beagle I won't travel the USA with it myself. I will kiss it good-bye for a year or two and watch it on TV from my home where I am busy caring for my other Beagles, whelping puppies (maybe) and cleaning up poop (definitly).
Most of the show dog breeders I know are like myself....they drive old vehicles (mostly minivans), do much of their own veterinary care (vaccinations & worming), and skip fancy vacations and dinners out to feed their dogs the best food & supplements money can buy.
Most of us are seriously concerned about the future of our breeding programs because we absolutley do not have the resources to build extravagent kennels (puppy wharehouses
) should the law dictate thats how we "raise" our babies. We are also afraid of the empowered little dweeb hired by the USDA to come into our homes and make our lives miserable over some peed on blanket in a crate (okay, two of my bitches tend to think they have to "mark" their beds right away).....or some fresh puppy poop just stepped in and tracked around the floor by two spastic puppies that decided to go right when Mr. Inspector knocked on the door.....etc.,etc.,etc.,
I don't know about you all but I find having multiple dogs a full time job of cleaning up, feeding, watering, grooming, vaccinating (puppies) & caring for the occasional injury or illness. It is rarely a perfect world here at my house but it works just fine usually, my dogs have a great life always, and I don't need some twerp on a power trip that doesn't even KNOW DOGS telling me what to do! All the show breeders I know feel the same way and live very humble lives.
Cindy
Join the fight to keep your guns & Beagles
http://capwiz.com/naiatrust/home/
Created to fight bad legislation and defend the victims of animal and environmental extremism.
WE NEED YOU!
Join the fight to keep your guns & Beagles
http://capwiz.com/naiatrust/home/
Created to fight bad legislation and defend the victims of animal and environmental extremism.
WE NEED YOU!
A SAOVA message to sportsmen, farmers and pet owners concerned about protecting their traditions, avocations and livelihoods from anti-hunting, anti-breeding, animal guardianship advocates. Forwarding and cross posting, with attribution, encouraged.
Dear Friends,
It’s time for a short PAWS celebration! Senator Santorum, S1139’s author, the bill’s cosponsors and its supporters, the AKC, HSUS, DDAL, PETA and other animal rights groups have suffered a very significant setback. On July 27, 2005 Sen. Santorum made the following statement on the Senate floor.
As chairman of the Senate Agriculture Committee's Subcommittee on Research, Nutrition and General Legislation, which has jurisdiction over PAWS, I intend to convene a hearing and mark-up of PAWS shortly after the August recess to make technical corrections, and to clarify some of the bill's language to better reflect our intentions as set forth in this statement.
PAWS opponents were excluded from the "technical corrections" deliberations of the Senator and also denied the opportunity to deliver testimony at PAWS subcommittee hearings planned for September and October. Both of these hearings were subsequently canceled and it’s extremely unlikely that any PAWS hearing will be held in 2005.
Our analysis of the current situation is that the Senate Agriculture Committee members have heard and read so many substantive objections to S1139 (PAWS) that Sen. Santorum isn’t confident that he can pass the original bill or an AKC-HSUS approved, amended bill in his subcommittee, let alone have the full committee act favorably on it. The fact that his 2006 reelection polling has plummeted since he introduced PAWS may also be a factor in his delay decision.
Formal opposition by tens of thousand of individuals and over three hundred clubs contributed to the current congressional standoff. Some dog owners almost immediately recognized PAWS for the disaster it is, contacted legislators to oppose the bill, urged owner networks to do likewise and created anti-PAWS webpages. Anyone and everyone that took the time to learn about PAWS’s dangers and contacted a legislator should be proud that the American political system responded the way that it should when citizens become aroused.
PAWS isn’t dead by any means, but it’s sorely wounded. A largely unorganized and publicly disparaged group of amateur animal owner advocates taught the sophisticated, high-priced lobbyists and public relations flacks a thing or two.
DON’T MESS WITH OUR SPORT AND ANIMALS!
Some of you may have noticed that SAOVA formed an ad hoc partnership to pursue the PAWS fight. Let me introduce Kelly Wichman of the Dog Federation of Wisconsin and Susan Wolf of the North Carolina Responsible Animal Owners Alliance. Kelly and Susan both have state legislative lobbying experience on dog issues and were among the very first PAWS critics. Kelly owns Pugs and a Rhodesian ridgeback, while Susan has Shetland Sheepdogs. Both know infinitely more than I do about conformation, show people, related topics and politics. My chief expertise is in hunting dog owner advocacy and general legislative lobbying.
This is an instance where synergies make the whole infinitely greater than the sum of its individual parts. The three of us have been smoothly cooperating and coordinating our anti-PAWS efforts since early July and filed an extensive, joint opposition statement with Senate Agriculture Committee in late August. That opposition package was well received and also shared with selected Washington D.C. lobbyists. Additionally, many individuals and clubs have recently contributed funds to permit us to more effectively respond to the well-financed pro-PAWS faction and to pursue our NO PAWS program this year and next. We’re sincerely grateful for your generosity and faith in our legislative knowledge, resolve and lobbying abilities.
The carefully crafted opposition statements and telephone calls of everyone involved contributed to our current positive position. No single group of volunteers can accomplish anything by itself in Washington. Lobbying is a team sport. In recognition of that fact, the three groups have developed a website dedicated solely to this legislative fight. As we move forward, please visit the NO PAWS resource frequently for the latest pertinent news, suggested lobbying strategies and new contact information. This site will soon suggest a significant redirection of your PAWS opposition efforts.
I opined on June 21st, "There is virtually no chance that PAWS can pass, without very much broader support. Its defeat is assured if organizations and individuals vigorously oppose it."
The last four and one-half months have been hard, grueling ones, as we attempted to counter the AKC’s PAWS misinformation and slander campaigns, while informing animal owners of PAWS’s extreme dangers and how to oppose this bill. Numerous other interest groups also oppose PAWS. It’s crucial that we not permit the AKC, HSUS, et. al. to divide and weaken us, as it’s now clear they must do to move S1139 or HR2669. PAWS can’t be amended to make it acceptable. Its entire basis is fatally flawed, as outlined at NO PAWS FAQ. Thank you for your support and efforts to protect our sport and animals.
Please forward and cross post widely.
Sincerely,
Bob Kane
Sportsmen's and Animal Owners' Voting Alliance -
Working to identify and elect supportive legislators
** NO PAWS **
Dear Friends,
It’s time for a short PAWS celebration! Senator Santorum, S1139’s author, the bill’s cosponsors and its supporters, the AKC, HSUS, DDAL, PETA and other animal rights groups have suffered a very significant setback. On July 27, 2005 Sen. Santorum made the following statement on the Senate floor.
As chairman of the Senate Agriculture Committee's Subcommittee on Research, Nutrition and General Legislation, which has jurisdiction over PAWS, I intend to convene a hearing and mark-up of PAWS shortly after the August recess to make technical corrections, and to clarify some of the bill's language to better reflect our intentions as set forth in this statement.
PAWS opponents were excluded from the "technical corrections" deliberations of the Senator and also denied the opportunity to deliver testimony at PAWS subcommittee hearings planned for September and October. Both of these hearings were subsequently canceled and it’s extremely unlikely that any PAWS hearing will be held in 2005.
Our analysis of the current situation is that the Senate Agriculture Committee members have heard and read so many substantive objections to S1139 (PAWS) that Sen. Santorum isn’t confident that he can pass the original bill or an AKC-HSUS approved, amended bill in his subcommittee, let alone have the full committee act favorably on it. The fact that his 2006 reelection polling has plummeted since he introduced PAWS may also be a factor in his delay decision.
Formal opposition by tens of thousand of individuals and over three hundred clubs contributed to the current congressional standoff. Some dog owners almost immediately recognized PAWS for the disaster it is, contacted legislators to oppose the bill, urged owner networks to do likewise and created anti-PAWS webpages. Anyone and everyone that took the time to learn about PAWS’s dangers and contacted a legislator should be proud that the American political system responded the way that it should when citizens become aroused.
PAWS isn’t dead by any means, but it’s sorely wounded. A largely unorganized and publicly disparaged group of amateur animal owner advocates taught the sophisticated, high-priced lobbyists and public relations flacks a thing or two.
DON’T MESS WITH OUR SPORT AND ANIMALS!
Some of you may have noticed that SAOVA formed an ad hoc partnership to pursue the PAWS fight. Let me introduce Kelly Wichman of the Dog Federation of Wisconsin and Susan Wolf of the North Carolina Responsible Animal Owners Alliance. Kelly and Susan both have state legislative lobbying experience on dog issues and were among the very first PAWS critics. Kelly owns Pugs and a Rhodesian ridgeback, while Susan has Shetland Sheepdogs. Both know infinitely more than I do about conformation, show people, related topics and politics. My chief expertise is in hunting dog owner advocacy and general legislative lobbying.
This is an instance where synergies make the whole infinitely greater than the sum of its individual parts. The three of us have been smoothly cooperating and coordinating our anti-PAWS efforts since early July and filed an extensive, joint opposition statement with Senate Agriculture Committee in late August. That opposition package was well received and also shared with selected Washington D.C. lobbyists. Additionally, many individuals and clubs have recently contributed funds to permit us to more effectively respond to the well-financed pro-PAWS faction and to pursue our NO PAWS program this year and next. We’re sincerely grateful for your generosity and faith in our legislative knowledge, resolve and lobbying abilities.
The carefully crafted opposition statements and telephone calls of everyone involved contributed to our current positive position. No single group of volunteers can accomplish anything by itself in Washington. Lobbying is a team sport. In recognition of that fact, the three groups have developed a website dedicated solely to this legislative fight. As we move forward, please visit the NO PAWS resource frequently for the latest pertinent news, suggested lobbying strategies and new contact information. This site will soon suggest a significant redirection of your PAWS opposition efforts.
I opined on June 21st, "There is virtually no chance that PAWS can pass, without very much broader support. Its defeat is assured if organizations and individuals vigorously oppose it."
The last four and one-half months have been hard, grueling ones, as we attempted to counter the AKC’s PAWS misinformation and slander campaigns, while informing animal owners of PAWS’s extreme dangers and how to oppose this bill. Numerous other interest groups also oppose PAWS. It’s crucial that we not permit the AKC, HSUS, et. al. to divide and weaken us, as it’s now clear they must do to move S1139 or HR2669. PAWS can’t be amended to make it acceptable. Its entire basis is fatally flawed, as outlined at NO PAWS FAQ. Thank you for your support and efforts to protect our sport and animals.
Please forward and cross post widely.
Sincerely,
Bob Kane
Sportsmen's and Animal Owners' Voting Alliance -
Working to identify and elect supportive legislators
** NO PAWS **
From Field to Show and Show to Field the way it should be