OK I was asked to bring up some of the issues on PAWS and I will add some links for you to look at to decide. First of all Me and another hunter have been asking AKC alot of questions on this issue. Only to recieve a bunch of smokescreens. We have asked lagitimate questions like asking who all is for this bill with exception of AKC, HSUS, and DDAL. No response to that question.
AKC has thrown slurs to people that are against this bill saying that respectable breeders are for this bill. Pretty much that those of us opposing this bill are not respectable or breeding to better the breed.
I also asked why hunting dogs are specifically named in the bill. Seems to be a real good question to me since 2 anti groups are sponsoring this bill too. Of course no answer.
I asked why were hobby breeders being targeted but AKC allows puppy mills to register thier dogs with AKC and retail stores also but these people are exempt. All I got was an email that was sent to them about a man who had a puppy mill down the road and they classified this as a hobby breeder. 30 litters of pups and 20 litters of cats is far from a hobby breeder in my book.
There are a bunch more questions we have asked and no answer they even banned the other guy and all he did was ask questions about this and stated the facts. facts like all AKC state and parent breed associations that have made a comment are against this legislation and there is a long list of them that are. Also the other KC's are not supporting this legislation and are speaking out against it.
It makes me wonder how far under the covers AKC and the antis are since they are already in bed with one another on this.
I do keep getting the response that the current law is broad and can be changed at anytime and does not specifically state the true meaning of hobby breeders but the interpretation was used in the supreme court therefore will stand in any court. But this bill is not the answer even if that is so. You figure the PAWS legislation wording if passed can be changed with 1 word and noone will notice till it is done say 25 dogs change to 10.
AKC was also asked why if this bill was so great why 4 of thier board members voted against the sponsering of the legislation and still actively speak against it and noone can find anyone with exeption to these three organizations that are for this legislation.
Here are some links to threads of this issue
http://forum.akccoonhounds.org/viewtopic.php?t=1366
http://forum.akccoonhounds.org/viewtopic.php?t=1350
http://forum.akccoonhounds.org/viewtopic.php?t=1373
http://www.coondawgs.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=5015
THIS ONE BELOW IS FROM AN AKC BOARD MEMBER THAT OPPOSES THE BILL
http://www.coondawgs.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=5354
Lits of organizations that oppose PAWS
CHA - The Christian Houndsman Association
CFA - Cat Fanciers' Association
TICA - The International Cat Association
The Animal Council
SAOVA - Sportsmen and Animal Owners' Voting Alliance
UKC - United Kennel Club
NAIA - National Animal Interest Alliance
MOFed - Missouri Federation of Animal Owners
NCRAOA - North Carolina Responsible Animal Owners' Alliance
DFOW - Dog Federation of Wisconsin
RPOA - Responsible Pet Owners Alliance (Texas)
ARPONEF - Alliance of Responsible Pet Owners of North East Florida
CFODC - California Federation of Dog Clubs
PIJAC – Pet Industry Joint Advisory Council
Carolina Kennel Club, Inc (NC)
ASSA - American Shetland Sheepdog Association
JNCKC - Jacksonville NC Kennel Club
Master of Fox Hounds Association
American Brittany Club
VHDOA - Virginia Hunting Dog Owners' Association
CCDC - Central Carolina Dachshund Club (NC)
TICBS - The International Bengal Cat Society
NCCHA - North Carolina Coon Hunters Association
NCBHA - North Carolina Bear Hunters Association
NCSDA - North Carolina Sporting Dogs Association
Schooley's Mountain Kennel Club (NJ)
Greater Clark County Kennel Club (WA)
Ladies' Dog Club, Inc (MA)
Turkish Van Breed Rescue
American Chesapeake Club
Gtr Orange Park Dog Club (FL)
U.S. Sportsmen's Alliance
Great Dane Rescue of Northeast Florida
PKC - Piedmont Kennel Club (NC)
Dalmatian Club of the Piedmont (NC)
Jacksonville Sheltie Rescue (FL)
GSPCA - German Shorthaired Pointer Club of America
Federation of Maine Dog Clubs
Springfield Kennel Club (MA)
RAOT - Responsible Animal Owners of Tennessee
Virginia Bear Hunters Association
American Pomeranian Club
NASPR - North American Shar-Pei Rescue
Burlington Cat Fanciers (NC)
Tropical Cats Inc. (All Breed Club)
Western Clinton Sportsmen's Association (PA)
New Brunswick Kennel Club (NJ)
Papillon Club of America
North Shore Kennel Club (MA)
Professional Pet Association of Missouri
Sporting Dog Association of Missouri
Dachshund Club of America
Wachusett Kennel Club (MA)
Thunderkatz, Inc (OK)
Pug Rescue of North Carolina, Inc
St. Croix Valley Brittany Club (MN)
Fanciers Cocker Spaniel Club of Southern WI
Kalamazoo KC (MI)
WI Cocker Rescue
Lhasa Apso Southern Rescue, Inc
National Birman Fanciers
Birman Breed Rescue
Susquehanna Brittany Club (PA)
New England Sheltie Rescue
The Devon Rex Rescue League, Inc
Animal Safe Haven Foundation (CA)
LNC Pet Supply (CA)
Salisbury NC Kennel Club
Clermont County Kennel Club (OH)
Memphis International Cat Enthusiasts
North Carolina Field Trial Association
CT Dogs
PUFF - Pfanciers United For Fun, Inc (CFA - Midwest)
MPBA - Missouri Pet Breeders Association
MA Federation of Dog Clubs and Responsible Dog Owners
Bay Area Boxer Rescue (CA)
East of Eden Cat Fanciers (CA)
Dalmatian Rescue of Southwest Virginia
Colonial Shetland Sheepdog Club (MA)
White Shetland Sheepdog Association
CFA Purebred Rescue, Inc DBA Purebred Cat Breed Rescue
Western Massachusetts Shetland Sheepdog Club
Greater Fort Myers Dog Club
Capital City Cocker Club (DC)
KitnHevn Rescue, Inc (FL & OH)
Sunshine Dachshund Club of Jacksonville (FL)
Pug Dog Club of America
Sawnee Mountain Kennel Club (GA)
Absolutely Abyssinians Cat Club
Ocicats International
Eugene Kennel Club (OR)
Golden Retriever Rescue of Mid-Florida
Louisiana Brittany Rescue
Rabbit Education Society
Salt Lake Doberman Pinscher Club
The Devon Rex Breed Club
Cochise Bird Dog Club (AZ)
Shorewood Cocker Rescue (WI)
Bulldog Club of America Rescue Network
Amateur Field Trial Clubs of America - Region 12 (AZ & NM)
Amateur Field Trial Clubs of America - Region 7 (TX)
Halfpint Haven Borzoi and Greyhound Rescue, Inc (FL)
Animal Wellness Center (Alpharetta GA)
Lancaster Area Poodle Rescue (PA)
Shenandoah Valley Kennel Club (VA)
Hoosier State Chinese Shar-Pei Club (IN)
Blue Ridge P.E.T.S. (Pets in Education and Therapy Service) (VA)
German Shorthaired Pointer Club of Central Virginia
Nebraska Brittany Club
ESSFTA - English Springer Spaniel Field Trial Association
Prairie State Cat Club (IL)
Field Trial Clubs of Illinois
FORM - Friends of Rescued Mastiffs, Inc (Nat'l Mastiff Rescue)
SBDC - Sacramento Bird Dog Club
Sussex Hills Kennel Club (NJ)
Pug Dog Club of Maryland
Triangle Shetland Sheepdog Club of North Carolina
Yorkshire Terrier Club of America
Wisconsin Kennel Club
Garden State Siberian Husky Club (NJ)
Harmony Bay Chinese Shar-Pei Club (WA)
Ohio Valley Dog Owners, Inc (OH)
Hudson Valley Brittany Club of New York
Miss Kitty's Cat House (Rescue - AZ)
On-Line Feline Fanciers (Nat'l Cat Club)
Helping Persian Cats, Inc. (CA - Rescue)
Burlington Obedience Training Club, Inc (VT)
National Pet Alliance
Raritan River Akita Club (NJ)
Kittyhawk Felines, Inc (OH)
Centennial Chinese Shar-Pei Club (CO)
Walkfar Coonhunter’s Club (NC)
American Brittany Rescue (NJ)
Chinese Shar-Pei Club of America
Rocky Mountain Mastiff Fanciers (CO)
ILLOWA Chinese Shar-Pei Club (IL & IA)
Selkirk Rex Breed Rescue (CA)
Montana State Houndsmen Association
Shasta Kennel Club (OR)
Oregon Basset Hound Rescue
Golden Retriever Club of Western New York, Inc
Shetland Sheepdog Club of Greater Detroit
Organizations that SUPPORT PAWS:
AKC - American Kennel Club
HSUS - The Humane Society of the United States
PETA - People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals
PAWS
Moderators: Pike Ridge Beagles, Aaron Bartlett
Here is a link to the bill that a friend of mine sent me they must have just put it on this site because I research this site on alot of issues
http://www.congress.org/congressorg/web ... 109:S.1139:
http://www.congress.org/congressorg/web ... 109:S.1139:
Goes here are a few of my questions that I asked There are more you will have to click on the links above to see the entire threads and see for yourself. I was asked to list my questions So I listed a few to get the ball rolling no answer besides the link to the body of the bill.
1 a list of associations that endorse the paws bill besides AKC and the antis. 2. Why this bill specifically lists hunting dogs. 3 how is the USDA going to afford the money and time to do these inspections when they are so backed up with cattle alone. 4. How am I an irresposible breeder for not going along with this bill. 5. Why is the AKC and the antis targeting hobby breeders and doing nothing for the puppy mills and the importation of dogs (which I haven't seen a big issue with except a few incidences). 6. Why this bill is so great although so many state and breed associations appose it. 7. Where can we find the full body of the bill instead of just reading what AKC puts on thier site. 8. Why should the US government be inside my welping box and charging me a fee to breed my dogs or even sell what does not suit me. 9. Where will the USDA get my information that I have sold x amount of dogs or pups. These are just a few of my questions right now. I do have more but this is a good start.
He got banned from an AKC message board you will notice that one of the threads he started on this subject has that a guest started it. He was not a guest when the post was started and his message was deleted. He simply listed the organizations that opposed it and the three well four now PETA is now backing the bill that are for it he asked what other organizations supported the bill.
1 a list of associations that endorse the paws bill besides AKC and the antis. 2. Why this bill specifically lists hunting dogs. 3 how is the USDA going to afford the money and time to do these inspections when they are so backed up with cattle alone. 4. How am I an irresposible breeder for not going along with this bill. 5. Why is the AKC and the antis targeting hobby breeders and doing nothing for the puppy mills and the importation of dogs (which I haven't seen a big issue with except a few incidences). 6. Why this bill is so great although so many state and breed associations appose it. 7. Where can we find the full body of the bill instead of just reading what AKC puts on thier site. 8. Why should the US government be inside my welping box and charging me a fee to breed my dogs or even sell what does not suit me. 9. Where will the USDA get my information that I have sold x amount of dogs or pups. These are just a few of my questions right now. I do have more but this is a good start.
He got banned from an AKC message board you will notice that one of the threads he started on this subject has that a guest started it. He was not a guest when the post was started and his message was deleted. He simply listed the organizations that opposed it and the three well four now PETA is now backing the bill that are for it he asked what other organizations supported the bill.
Organizations that SUPPORT PAWS:
AKC - American Kennel Club
HSUS - The Humane Society of the United States
PETA - People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals
DDAL - Doris Day Animal League
Organizations that OPPOSE PAWS:
AKC Breed Parent Clubs are in red text.
CHA - The Christian Houndsman Association
CFA - Cat Fanciers' Association
TICA - The International Cat Association
The Animal Council
SAOVA - Sportsmen and Animal Owners' Voting Alliance
UKC - United Kennel Club
NAIA - National Animal Interest Alliance
MOFed - Missouri Federation of Animal Owners
NCRAOA - North Carolina Responsible Animal Owners' Alliance
DFOW - Dog Federation of Wisconsin
RPOA - Responsible Pet Owners Alliance (Texas)
ARPONEF - Alliance of Responsible Pet Owners of North East Florida
CFODC - California Federation of Dog Clubs
PIJAC – Pet Industry Joint Advisory Council
Carolina Kennel Club, Inc (NC)
ASSA - American Shetland Sheepdog Association
JNCKC - Jacksonville NC Kennel Club
Master of Fox Hounds Association
American Brittany Club
VHDOA - Virginia Hunting Dog Owners' Association
CCDC - Central Carolina Dachshund Club (NC)
TICBS - The International Bengal Cat Society
NCCHA - North Carolina Coon Hunters Association
NCBHA - North Carolina Bear Hunters Association
NCSDA - North Carolina Sporting Dogs Association
Schooley's Mountain Kennel Club (NJ)
Greater Clark County Kennel Club (WA)
Ladies' Dog Club, Inc (MA)
Turkish Van Breed Rescue
American Chesapeake Club
Gtr Orange Park Dog Club (FL)
U.S. Sportsmen's Alliance
Great Dane Rescue of Northeast Florida
PKC - Piedmont Kennel Club (NC)
Dalmatian Club of the Piedmont (NC)
Jacksonville Sheltie Rescue (FL)
GSPCA - German Shorthaired Pointer Club of America
Federation of Maine Dog Clubs
Springfield Kennel Club (MA)
RAOT - Responsible Animal Owners of Tennessee
Virginia Bear Hunters Association
American Pomeranian Club
NASPR - North American Shar-Pei Rescue
Burlington Cat Fanciers (NC)
Tropical Cats Inc. (All Breed Club)
Western Clinton Sportsmen's Association (PA)
New Brunswick Kennel Club (NJ)
Papillon Club of America
North Shore Kennel Club (MA)
Professional Pet Association of Missouri
Sporting Dog Association of Missouri
Dachshund Club of America
Wachusett Kennel Club (MA)
Thunderkatz, Inc (OK)
Pug Rescue of North Carolina, Inc
St. Croix Valley Brittany Club (MN)
Fanciers Cocker Spaniel Club of Southern WI
Kalamazoo KC (MI)
WI Cocker Rescue
Lhasa Apso Southern Rescue, Inc
National Birman Fanciers
Birman Breed Rescue
Susquehanna Brittany Club (PA)
New England Sheltie Rescue
The Devon Rex Rescue League, Inc
Animal Safe Haven Foundation (CA)
LNC Pet Supply (CA)
Salisbury NC Kennel Club
Clermont County Kennel Club (OH)
Memphis International Cat Enthusiasts
North Carolina Field Trial Association
CT Dogs
PUFF - Pfanciers United For Fun, Inc (CFA - Midwest)
MPBA - Missouri Pet Breeders Association
MA Federation of Dog Clubs and Responsible Dog Owners
Bay Area Boxer Rescue (CA)
East of Eden Cat Fanciers (CA)
Dalmatian Rescue of Southwest Virginia
Colonial Shetland Sheepdog Club (MA)
White Shetland Sheepdog Association
CFA Purebred Rescue, Inc DBA Purebred Cat Breed Rescue
Western Massachusetts Shetland Sheepdog Club
Greater Fort Myers Dog Club
Capital City Cocker Club (DC)
KitnHevn Rescue, Inc (FL & OH)
Sunshine Dachshund Club of Jacksonville (FL)
Pug Dog Club of America
Sawnee Mountain Kennel Club (GA)
Absolutely Abyssinians Cat Club
Ocicats International
Eugene Kennel Club (OR)
Golden Retriever Rescue of Mid-Florida
Louisiana Brittany Rescue
Rabbit Education Society
Salt Lake Doberman Pinscher Club
The Devon Rex Breed Club
Cochise Bird Dog Club (AZ)
Shorewood Cocker Rescue (WI)
Bulldog Club of America Rescue Network
Amateur Field Trial Clubs of America - Region 12 (AZ & NM)
Amateur Field Trial Clubs of America - Region 7 (TX)
Halfpint Haven Borzoi and Greyhound Rescue, Inc (FL)
Animal Wellness Center (Alpharetta GA)
Lancaster Area Poodle Rescue (PA)
Shenandoah Valley Kennel Club (VA)
Hoosier State Chinese Shar-Pei Club (IN)
Blue Ridge P.E.T.S. (Pets in Education and Therapy Service) (VA)
German Shorthaired Pointer Club of Central Virginia
Nebraska Brittany Club
ESSFTA - English Springer Spaniel Field Trial Association
Prairie State Cat Club (IL)
Field Trial Clubs of Illinois
FORM - Friends of Rescued Mastiffs, Inc (Nat'l Mastiff Rescue)
SBDC - Sacramento Bird Dog Club
Sussex Hills Kennel Club (NJ)
Pug Dog Club of Maryland
Triangle Shetland Sheepdog Club of North Carolina
Yorkshire Terrier Club of America
Wisconsin Kennel Club
Garden State Siberian Husky Club (NJ)
Harmony Bay Chinese Shar-Pei Club (WA)
Ohio Valley Dog Owners, Inc (OH)
Hudson Valley Brittany Club of New York
Miss Kitty's Cat House (Rescue - AZ)
On-Line Feline Fanciers (Nat'l Cat Club)
Helping Persian Cats, Inc. (CA - Rescue)
Burlington Obedience Training Club, Inc (VT)
National Pet Alliance
Raritan River Akita Club (NJ)
Kittyhawk Felines, Inc (OH)
Centennial Chinese Shar-Pei Club (CO)
Walkfar Coonhunter’s Club (NC)
American Brittany Rescue (NJ)
Chinese Shar-Pei Club of America
Rocky Mountain Mastiff Fanciers (CO)
ILLOWA Chinese Shar-Pei Club (IL & IA)
Selkirk Rex Breed Rescue (CA)
Montana State Houndsmen Association
Shasta Kennel Club (OR)
Oregon Basset Hound Rescue
Golden Retriever Club of Western New York, Inc
Shetland Sheepdog Club of Greater Detroit
AKC - American Kennel Club
HSUS - The Humane Society of the United States
PETA - People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals
DDAL - Doris Day Animal League
Organizations that OPPOSE PAWS:
AKC Breed Parent Clubs are in red text.
CHA - The Christian Houndsman Association
CFA - Cat Fanciers' Association
TICA - The International Cat Association
The Animal Council
SAOVA - Sportsmen and Animal Owners' Voting Alliance
UKC - United Kennel Club
NAIA - National Animal Interest Alliance
MOFed - Missouri Federation of Animal Owners
NCRAOA - North Carolina Responsible Animal Owners' Alliance
DFOW - Dog Federation of Wisconsin
RPOA - Responsible Pet Owners Alliance (Texas)
ARPONEF - Alliance of Responsible Pet Owners of North East Florida
CFODC - California Federation of Dog Clubs
PIJAC – Pet Industry Joint Advisory Council
Carolina Kennel Club, Inc (NC)
ASSA - American Shetland Sheepdog Association
JNCKC - Jacksonville NC Kennel Club
Master of Fox Hounds Association
American Brittany Club
VHDOA - Virginia Hunting Dog Owners' Association
CCDC - Central Carolina Dachshund Club (NC)
TICBS - The International Bengal Cat Society
NCCHA - North Carolina Coon Hunters Association
NCBHA - North Carolina Bear Hunters Association
NCSDA - North Carolina Sporting Dogs Association
Schooley's Mountain Kennel Club (NJ)
Greater Clark County Kennel Club (WA)
Ladies' Dog Club, Inc (MA)
Turkish Van Breed Rescue
American Chesapeake Club
Gtr Orange Park Dog Club (FL)
U.S. Sportsmen's Alliance
Great Dane Rescue of Northeast Florida
PKC - Piedmont Kennel Club (NC)
Dalmatian Club of the Piedmont (NC)
Jacksonville Sheltie Rescue (FL)
GSPCA - German Shorthaired Pointer Club of America
Federation of Maine Dog Clubs
Springfield Kennel Club (MA)
RAOT - Responsible Animal Owners of Tennessee
Virginia Bear Hunters Association
American Pomeranian Club
NASPR - North American Shar-Pei Rescue
Burlington Cat Fanciers (NC)
Tropical Cats Inc. (All Breed Club)
Western Clinton Sportsmen's Association (PA)
New Brunswick Kennel Club (NJ)
Papillon Club of America
North Shore Kennel Club (MA)
Professional Pet Association of Missouri
Sporting Dog Association of Missouri
Dachshund Club of America
Wachusett Kennel Club (MA)
Thunderkatz, Inc (OK)
Pug Rescue of North Carolina, Inc
St. Croix Valley Brittany Club (MN)
Fanciers Cocker Spaniel Club of Southern WI
Kalamazoo KC (MI)
WI Cocker Rescue
Lhasa Apso Southern Rescue, Inc
National Birman Fanciers
Birman Breed Rescue
Susquehanna Brittany Club (PA)
New England Sheltie Rescue
The Devon Rex Rescue League, Inc
Animal Safe Haven Foundation (CA)
LNC Pet Supply (CA)
Salisbury NC Kennel Club
Clermont County Kennel Club (OH)
Memphis International Cat Enthusiasts
North Carolina Field Trial Association
CT Dogs
PUFF - Pfanciers United For Fun, Inc (CFA - Midwest)
MPBA - Missouri Pet Breeders Association
MA Federation of Dog Clubs and Responsible Dog Owners
Bay Area Boxer Rescue (CA)
East of Eden Cat Fanciers (CA)
Dalmatian Rescue of Southwest Virginia
Colonial Shetland Sheepdog Club (MA)
White Shetland Sheepdog Association
CFA Purebred Rescue, Inc DBA Purebred Cat Breed Rescue
Western Massachusetts Shetland Sheepdog Club
Greater Fort Myers Dog Club
Capital City Cocker Club (DC)
KitnHevn Rescue, Inc (FL & OH)
Sunshine Dachshund Club of Jacksonville (FL)
Pug Dog Club of America
Sawnee Mountain Kennel Club (GA)
Absolutely Abyssinians Cat Club
Ocicats International
Eugene Kennel Club (OR)
Golden Retriever Rescue of Mid-Florida
Louisiana Brittany Rescue
Rabbit Education Society
Salt Lake Doberman Pinscher Club
The Devon Rex Breed Club
Cochise Bird Dog Club (AZ)
Shorewood Cocker Rescue (WI)
Bulldog Club of America Rescue Network
Amateur Field Trial Clubs of America - Region 12 (AZ & NM)
Amateur Field Trial Clubs of America - Region 7 (TX)
Halfpint Haven Borzoi and Greyhound Rescue, Inc (FL)
Animal Wellness Center (Alpharetta GA)
Lancaster Area Poodle Rescue (PA)
Shenandoah Valley Kennel Club (VA)
Hoosier State Chinese Shar-Pei Club (IN)
Blue Ridge P.E.T.S. (Pets in Education and Therapy Service) (VA)
German Shorthaired Pointer Club of Central Virginia
Nebraska Brittany Club
ESSFTA - English Springer Spaniel Field Trial Association
Prairie State Cat Club (IL)
Field Trial Clubs of Illinois
FORM - Friends of Rescued Mastiffs, Inc (Nat'l Mastiff Rescue)
SBDC - Sacramento Bird Dog Club
Sussex Hills Kennel Club (NJ)
Pug Dog Club of Maryland
Triangle Shetland Sheepdog Club of North Carolina
Yorkshire Terrier Club of America
Wisconsin Kennel Club
Garden State Siberian Husky Club (NJ)
Harmony Bay Chinese Shar-Pei Club (WA)
Ohio Valley Dog Owners, Inc (OH)
Hudson Valley Brittany Club of New York
Miss Kitty's Cat House (Rescue - AZ)
On-Line Feline Fanciers (Nat'l Cat Club)
Helping Persian Cats, Inc. (CA - Rescue)
Burlington Obedience Training Club, Inc (VT)
National Pet Alliance
Raritan River Akita Club (NJ)
Kittyhawk Felines, Inc (OH)
Centennial Chinese Shar-Pei Club (CO)
Walkfar Coonhunter’s Club (NC)
American Brittany Rescue (NJ)
Chinese Shar-Pei Club of America
Rocky Mountain Mastiff Fanciers (CO)
ILLOWA Chinese Shar-Pei Club (IL & IA)
Selkirk Rex Breed Rescue (CA)
Montana State Houndsmen Association
Shasta Kennel Club (OR)
Oregon Basset Hound Rescue
Golden Retriever Club of Western New York, Inc
Shetland Sheepdog Club of Greater Detroit
Steve, so you are directing your questions to message board moderators, whether it be the KAC board or the Coonhound Board, is that correct?
If you have all these questions then why not write the congressmen and senators backing this bill. Go straight to the point instead of looking at message board folks for answers.
1 a list of associations that endorse the paws bill besides AKC and the antis.
Why is this important to you on who supports it or who doesn't? Are you trying to make the point that more are oppossed to it than for it?
2. Why this bill specifically lists hunting dogs.
In the bill doesn't it show the hunting dogs as an exclusion?
`(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.'.
3 how is the USDA going to afford the money and time to do these inspections when they are so backed up with cattle alone
Wouldn't these funds be recovered from the fees collected by organizations and breeders who become licensed in accordance with the bill?
4. How am I an irresposible breeder for not going along with this bill.
This is question you derived from the coonhound thread where by the monitor made a statement that responsible breeders are in favor of this bill. Are you taking that as a slam against you not just a overall statement made by HIS OWN KNOWLEDGE. I'm curious how his statement means anything to you?
5. Why is the AKC and the antis targeting hobby breeders and doing nothing for the puppy mills and the importation of dogs (which I haven't seen a big issue with except a few incidences).
Isn't this bill partly designed to address the importation of pets into the US along with the internet sales of pets?
Where in this bill is it stated in any form that could be interpretted as going after "Hobby Breeders"?
6. Why this bill is so great although so many state and breed associations appose it.
I don't have an answer to this but why do you think so many groups are oppossing it?
7. Where can we find the full body of the bill instead of just reading what AKC puts on thier site.
http://www.congress.org/congressorg/web ... 09:S.1139:
I guess I ask this question to you, you have asked so many questions aboutthis bill to message board moderaters without even reading the bill itself, just what you could find on message boards?
8. Why should the US government be inside my welping box and charging me a fee to breed my dogs or even sell what does not suit me.
Easy answer - Because it is the law. If you want to sell dogs that don't suit you than why is this such a big deal for you get a tax i.d. #, register your kennel and hire an accountant. All which are tax deductable.
Answer #2. Do you think it is just possible, just maybe, that there are so many pets being sold and such a high number of them ending up in the pounds or breeding facilities that it SHOULD begin to be monitored. Wouldn't it be nice if we ALL had to put up with this for a few years but during that time have the puppy mills and retail pet supply warehouses to get in check. Find the real backyard breeders verses they backyard bankers.
9. Where will the USDA get my information that I have sold x amount of dogs or pups.
If you register, then you will give them that information. If you have nothing to hide, then why wouldn't you?
As for the rest of your questions. if I were you, I would direct them to the bill supporters or oppossers in congress and the senate. Email them all and find out why the do or don't, then ask them your questions.
Steve, none of this is against you personally, it's just that you posted it so I am responding with my questions back to you, the source.
With all these folks against it, have they raised funds to higher their own lobbyists to fight for them and if so, who are the lobbyist and what are they doing? If they haven't, then what is the oppossition doing other than oppossing? What are you doing other than getting on the message boards and asking questions?
Last question for you. How will this bill impact your life?
Thanks for the open dialogue. I look forward to reading your response. But so far, every person who has giving me their objective reasons has been a gross misinterpretation of the bill or something they read from another site. If this bill is bad, then I want you to tell me why you think so. So far I cannot find 1 thing negative about it to replace the wording of the orginal Animal Control Act.
Goes
If you have all these questions then why not write the congressmen and senators backing this bill. Go straight to the point instead of looking at message board folks for answers.
1 a list of associations that endorse the paws bill besides AKC and the antis.
Why is this important to you on who supports it or who doesn't? Are you trying to make the point that more are oppossed to it than for it?
2. Why this bill specifically lists hunting dogs.
In the bill doesn't it show the hunting dogs as an exclusion?
`(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.'.
3 how is the USDA going to afford the money and time to do these inspections when they are so backed up with cattle alone
Wouldn't these funds be recovered from the fees collected by organizations and breeders who become licensed in accordance with the bill?
4. How am I an irresposible breeder for not going along with this bill.
This is question you derived from the coonhound thread where by the monitor made a statement that responsible breeders are in favor of this bill. Are you taking that as a slam against you not just a overall statement made by HIS OWN KNOWLEDGE. I'm curious how his statement means anything to you?
5. Why is the AKC and the antis targeting hobby breeders and doing nothing for the puppy mills and the importation of dogs (which I haven't seen a big issue with except a few incidences).
Isn't this bill partly designed to address the importation of pets into the US along with the internet sales of pets?
Where in this bill is it stated in any form that could be interpretted as going after "Hobby Breeders"?
6. Why this bill is so great although so many state and breed associations appose it.
I don't have an answer to this but why do you think so many groups are oppossing it?
7. Where can we find the full body of the bill instead of just reading what AKC puts on thier site.
http://www.congress.org/congressorg/web ... 09:S.1139:
I guess I ask this question to you, you have asked so many questions aboutthis bill to message board moderaters without even reading the bill itself, just what you could find on message boards?
8. Why should the US government be inside my welping box and charging me a fee to breed my dogs or even sell what does not suit me.
Easy answer - Because it is the law. If you want to sell dogs that don't suit you than why is this such a big deal for you get a tax i.d. #, register your kennel and hire an accountant. All which are tax deductable.
Answer #2. Do you think it is just possible, just maybe, that there are so many pets being sold and such a high number of them ending up in the pounds or breeding facilities that it SHOULD begin to be monitored. Wouldn't it be nice if we ALL had to put up with this for a few years but during that time have the puppy mills and retail pet supply warehouses to get in check. Find the real backyard breeders verses they backyard bankers.
9. Where will the USDA get my information that I have sold x amount of dogs or pups.
If you register, then you will give them that information. If you have nothing to hide, then why wouldn't you?
As for the rest of your questions. if I were you, I would direct them to the bill supporters or oppossers in congress and the senate. Email them all and find out why the do or don't, then ask them your questions.
Steve, none of this is against you personally, it's just that you posted it so I am responding with my questions back to you, the source.
With all these folks against it, have they raised funds to higher their own lobbyists to fight for them and if so, who are the lobbyist and what are they doing? If they haven't, then what is the oppossition doing other than oppossing? What are you doing other than getting on the message boards and asking questions?
Last question for you. How will this bill impact your life?
Thanks for the open dialogue. I look forward to reading your response. But so far, every person who has giving me their objective reasons has been a gross misinterpretation of the bill or something they read from another site. If this bill is bad, then I want you to tell me why you think so. So far I cannot find 1 thing negative about it to replace the wording of the orginal Animal Control Act.
Goes
I did read the bill finally and the information I have recieved was from AKC's site not other message boards. The bill and thier site for information was what I have already read from thier site. The Questions on the message boards were directed to the Person over coonhound legislation and he stated he would get someone from legislation to answer them or answer them himself. In which he is the site admin and is a voice for AKC. So it was not directed toward some no name ,oderator of a board it was directed to the director of AKC coonhounds.
I am making a list of associations that support and oppose the bill to help the law makers know how the public and everyone else supports or opposes the bill. I and some other hunters and pet owners are working on a letter to send the lawmakers and want the facts.
I am posting on the message board so everyone can see the facts not just hear say.
On the fees the fees would not be great enough to cover the expenses of inspections You figure paying the inspectors paying the people to keep the paperwork paying a director and management for that department and all the other little things also. (lawyer fees, office supplies, court costs, and many other things) It will not cover that. Then where will the money come from budget cuts in other areas and also higher taxes. AKC already has an inspection process I guess it does not work to well since these places they speak against are still up and running. Also these places are still registering with AKC.
I take his statement about responsable breeders the same as every other breeder would that is opposed to this bill. He has stated that if you are against this bill you are not a responsable breeder. Read it how it is there is no lines in between it. This is what was said by one of the directors of the department. So that I oppose the bill I am an irrisponsable breeder or anyone else. It says what it says. I keep on seeing people who are for this bill keep saying how does this effect you or someone close to you. So I am not a bear hunter or a hog hunter I should not support thier rights. Give me a break. the bill does state if you make over $500.00 profit on a dog. That there effects almost every dog owner. You figure that is 1 good running beagle or 1 started coonhound. or even 2-3 pups. The wording in the bill can be changed with a couple of words say 25 dogs to 10 with little notice.
As far as hobby breeders the only people that are excluded from this bill are retail pet stores. Which is anyone in the wording that does not own a retail pet store with a store front. I will reference these to like pass pets or petco. So hobby breeders are included in this bill.
AKC states that this bill is not to control puppy mills but the importation of animals HSUS states on thier site this bill is made to stop puppy mills. Both are sponsering this bill but both state it is for two different reasons.
There are so many animals in the pounds Then why are the retail pet store exemt from this bill they supply probably more animals than most anyone.
As far as my information being given by the registries which everyone I have seen with exception of AKC opposes the bill. I guess AKC is so use to selling your info to everyone else it won't be nothing new to them. Since if I register a dog with AKC then I recieve 5 million credit card offers and junk mail. What do you think these departments added to the KC's will do with the fees they will rise because of the added work to keep up with this. Also the stud fees will rise because stud owners will be effected by this bill Puppy costs will rise because of this bill to pay for the liscenses.
I own beagles and coonhounds if you know anything about coonhounds alot of coonhounds are co owned along with alot of other trialed breeds. If you are a co owner of a dog or a few dogs those dogs go against you in this bill. If you sell or help sell a dog even if it does not live at your kennel it goes against you. If I am partners on 3 coonhounds and keep 3 at my house one of my partners breeds 1 or two of the females I breed one or two of mine I am now supposed to get a liscense. It will not come to 25 pups or over 6 litters the $500.00 will get everyone That sells a litter of pups or even one grown dog.
If the bill is so great then why do so many top standing association oppose it. Now I recon they should put into law how many kids you should have too because so many go into foster homes and end up on welfare right. Alot of people look at these animals as members of thier families.
Another thing that bothers me is who is supporting this legislation 3 antis and AKC.
I do believe that puppy mills and illegal importation of animals need to be delt with but this does not stop this. If AKC is so adiment on trying to stop these types of people why do they let them continually register thier dogs with them. Why does AKC let them go on thier already inspection process. In which I already stated obviously doesn't work already
The info I have recieved is not from the boards it is from AKC, HSUS, and DDAl websites they are the ones sponsering the bill. Santorum has very little on this subject and most law makers have not seen the bill yet. I have written the sponsers of this bill and no answer on my questions besides the automated email response. So I guess I am wrong for asking the people that are putting forth the funds why the bill is so great and none of them give the same answer then they contradict each other. I go straight to the horses mouth so to speak. I am not going to beat around the bush on anything I will ask a question and expect a direct answer. You have answered more of my questions than anyone who is sponsering the bill or fitting the bill to sponsor it. I still do not like it. I will not support this bill. The interpretation of this bill is worse than the interpretations of the current law. This bill will put a stop to alot of line breeds that are highly saught after. As far as hunters what might be my junk could be your treasure and vise versa and when you are starting to line breed you have to find what suits you therefore you may go through quite a few hounds. So this would mean less registration of pets waiting on what you find to suit you. Or the total destruction of line breeding itself which usually develops alot of top quality hounds that are less likely to be sold .
I appreciate you debate on this I will be awaiting you response on this.
I am making a list of associations that support and oppose the bill to help the law makers know how the public and everyone else supports or opposes the bill. I and some other hunters and pet owners are working on a letter to send the lawmakers and want the facts.
I am posting on the message board so everyone can see the facts not just hear say.
On the fees the fees would not be great enough to cover the expenses of inspections You figure paying the inspectors paying the people to keep the paperwork paying a director and management for that department and all the other little things also. (lawyer fees, office supplies, court costs, and many other things) It will not cover that. Then where will the money come from budget cuts in other areas and also higher taxes. AKC already has an inspection process I guess it does not work to well since these places they speak against are still up and running. Also these places are still registering with AKC.
I take his statement about responsable breeders the same as every other breeder would that is opposed to this bill. He has stated that if you are against this bill you are not a responsable breeder. Read it how it is there is no lines in between it. This is what was said by one of the directors of the department. So that I oppose the bill I am an irrisponsable breeder or anyone else. It says what it says. I keep on seeing people who are for this bill keep saying how does this effect you or someone close to you. So I am not a bear hunter or a hog hunter I should not support thier rights. Give me a break. the bill does state if you make over $500.00 profit on a dog. That there effects almost every dog owner. You figure that is 1 good running beagle or 1 started coonhound. or even 2-3 pups. The wording in the bill can be changed with a couple of words say 25 dogs to 10 with little notice.
As far as hobby breeders the only people that are excluded from this bill are retail pet stores. Which is anyone in the wording that does not own a retail pet store with a store front. I will reference these to like pass pets or petco. So hobby breeders are included in this bill.
AKC states that this bill is not to control puppy mills but the importation of animals HSUS states on thier site this bill is made to stop puppy mills. Both are sponsering this bill but both state it is for two different reasons.
There are so many animals in the pounds Then why are the retail pet store exemt from this bill they supply probably more animals than most anyone.
As far as my information being given by the registries which everyone I have seen with exception of AKC opposes the bill. I guess AKC is so use to selling your info to everyone else it won't be nothing new to them. Since if I register a dog with AKC then I recieve 5 million credit card offers and junk mail. What do you think these departments added to the KC's will do with the fees they will rise because of the added work to keep up with this. Also the stud fees will rise because stud owners will be effected by this bill Puppy costs will rise because of this bill to pay for the liscenses.
I own beagles and coonhounds if you know anything about coonhounds alot of coonhounds are co owned along with alot of other trialed breeds. If you are a co owner of a dog or a few dogs those dogs go against you in this bill. If you sell or help sell a dog even if it does not live at your kennel it goes against you. If I am partners on 3 coonhounds and keep 3 at my house one of my partners breeds 1 or two of the females I breed one or two of mine I am now supposed to get a liscense. It will not come to 25 pups or over 6 litters the $500.00 will get everyone That sells a litter of pups or even one grown dog.
If the bill is so great then why do so many top standing association oppose it. Now I recon they should put into law how many kids you should have too because so many go into foster homes and end up on welfare right. Alot of people look at these animals as members of thier families.
Another thing that bothers me is who is supporting this legislation 3 antis and AKC.
I do believe that puppy mills and illegal importation of animals need to be delt with but this does not stop this. If AKC is so adiment on trying to stop these types of people why do they let them continually register thier dogs with them. Why does AKC let them go on thier already inspection process. In which I already stated obviously doesn't work already
The info I have recieved is not from the boards it is from AKC, HSUS, and DDAl websites they are the ones sponsering the bill. Santorum has very little on this subject and most law makers have not seen the bill yet. I have written the sponsers of this bill and no answer on my questions besides the automated email response. So I guess I am wrong for asking the people that are putting forth the funds why the bill is so great and none of them give the same answer then they contradict each other. I go straight to the horses mouth so to speak. I am not going to beat around the bush on anything I will ask a question and expect a direct answer. You have answered more of my questions than anyone who is sponsering the bill or fitting the bill to sponsor it. I still do not like it. I will not support this bill. The interpretation of this bill is worse than the interpretations of the current law. This bill will put a stop to alot of line breeds that are highly saught after. As far as hunters what might be my junk could be your treasure and vise versa and when you are starting to line breed you have to find what suits you therefore you may go through quite a few hounds. So this would mean less registration of pets waiting on what you find to suit you. Or the total destruction of line breeding itself which usually develops alot of top quality hounds that are less likely to be sold .
I appreciate you debate on this I will be awaiting you response on this.
Here is the bill on the government site
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.
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.
Nice reply Steve, I did enjoy reading it. Let me see if I can help clear a few things up for you. (I don't mean than in a negative manner either)
I think a letter requesting details is a great start and I hope you get what you are looking for, an answer!
Fees: I'm not quite sure you can state for a fact that the fees collected from licensing will not cover the upstart cost of the inspectors and their department personel. Unless we all were able to see the slotted budget for that, none of us could state as fact either.
As far as the AKC, I am by no means their biggest fan. Btu I can attest to kennel inspections. I know folks who have passed and those who have failed, then been given the corrections needed to pass and then reinspected and pass, and also some whom have failed continuously and have been banned form registering with the AKC. So to be honest, I don't like to compare what the AKC has done verses what needs to be done. In my eyes, I believe the part of the reason the AKC in sponsoring this bill is because they see a direct need for help in this area. Just my opinion though.
The $500 within the bill. I need you to relook at this. The $500 is noted under "OTHER ANIMALS" `(II) derives not more than $500 gross income from the sale of other animals;'; so to think if you sell 1 dog you have earned more than $500 you can no longer sell is not correct. there is no interpretation to misread on this. This is a scare tactic, nothing more, by the opposition.
WHy are they not addressing the Pet Stores. because the pet stores do not breed the animals they sell. They only sell. But they are required to keep on file for inspectors all names and addresses from the people or agencies the purchase from. This way, the inspectors can go straight to the breeder. You see Steve, if you take away the Breeder, the pet stores have nothing to sell. So if you regulate the breeders it is therefor regulating the pet stores.
`(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.'.
As far as co-ownership. I do not have an answer to this. But I can see both sides. But bottom line COULD be, is why not just become a legimate business. Then you are covered and have no worries. Maybe the same rugulating that forms the pet store is the same thought process that covers the coownership. If they regulate the breeders they are forcing you to either breed by the book or not at all or taking a chnace of getting caught. I don't see the down side of registering your kennel in your state, getting your tax ID #. You have absolutely nothing to loose by doing that. (when I say you, I mean anyone not you personally)
As far as why the supporters are supporting it for different reasons. Should that make a difference on there support. If you opposse it because of fees and your buddy opposses it because of the co ownership issue. Isn't it still the two of you joining together to opposse it. I see that as nothing more than joining forces to accomplish what they believe is the best.
Importation: If sold in pet stores- this goes back to the regulation of the breeders will regulate the breeders. If an oversees group is all set up to sell pets to the US but are not abiding by the regulations, they will not be able to import into this country. But for whatever that is worth, there are dummy corporations set up every day that reapply for importation autherization, so this will be harder to manage. So ecommerce laws would need to be administered as part of the new directors department.
Very tough to do, but I do believe it can be done.
Because of the amount of pets that are in the pounds is exactly why the Breeders need to be regulated, hence the pet stores will then also.
As far as selling my info by the AKC. I think you are straying off the point, you are now directing derogatory remarks at only the AKC not the bill. If you wish to discuss that we can, but for know let;s stay on track.
As far as the linebreeding statement. If you are legitamate no one will stop you from breeding, in breeding or line breeding as long as you follow the laws. WHy is this a problem?
As far as the wording being changed...with little notice. C'mon partner. It will be impoossible for any changes to be made to any law with out it first going through congress. And that is when you and I and everyone else will hear about it. That is a fact.
As why are so many "TOP" state groups oppossing it. I think for a few reasons.
1- Scare tactics- WE MUST KEEP UNCLE SAM OUT OF OUR BUSINESS
2.- Mis Interpretation by the eladers of these groups who then pass there version of their interpratation down through their organization so everyone within that organization will then agree. I (meaning the Youth Beagle Camp) have been asked to take a stance on this. This is the perfect example. I called up the Youth Beagle Camp board of directors and their first question to me was "What to you think Goes?" I say I support it and guess what they say" then so do we" What do you think they would say if I said I don't support it? You betcha, neither would they.
3. People within their organizations are making LOTS of money of their breeding program and no not want to see it regulated. They are the people that need to be regulated.
4. And the BIGGEST - the SLIPPERY SLOPE THINKERS. You know the ones, the chicken littles of the world. The sky is falling the sky is falling. No one can make change to anything because only the worst will come of it.
Personal statement. Steve, I ask you this question and ask it to be answered honestly. Wouldn't all this be worth it if even only 1 litter was saved from being bred in deployarable conditions, raised with medical problems and never being seen by a vet, all this to keep one coonhound or beagle out of the pound so it wouldn't be put to sleep? Please Steve, would all this be worth if just 1 major puppy mill is shut down and prosecuted? Wouldn't it be worth it?
Take care
Goes
I think a letter requesting details is a great start and I hope you get what you are looking for, an answer!
Fees: I'm not quite sure you can state for a fact that the fees collected from licensing will not cover the upstart cost of the inspectors and their department personel. Unless we all were able to see the slotted budget for that, none of us could state as fact either.
As far as the AKC, I am by no means their biggest fan. Btu I can attest to kennel inspections. I know folks who have passed and those who have failed, then been given the corrections needed to pass and then reinspected and pass, and also some whom have failed continuously and have been banned form registering with the AKC. So to be honest, I don't like to compare what the AKC has done verses what needs to be done. In my eyes, I believe the part of the reason the AKC in sponsoring this bill is because they see a direct need for help in this area. Just my opinion though.
The $500 within the bill. I need you to relook at this. The $500 is noted under "OTHER ANIMALS" `(II) derives not more than $500 gross income from the sale of other animals;'; so to think if you sell 1 dog you have earned more than $500 you can no longer sell is not correct. there is no interpretation to misread on this. This is a scare tactic, nothing more, by the opposition.
WHy are they not addressing the Pet Stores. because the pet stores do not breed the animals they sell. They only sell. But they are required to keep on file for inspectors all names and addresses from the people or agencies the purchase from. This way, the inspectors can go straight to the breeder. You see Steve, if you take away the Breeder, the pet stores have nothing to sell. So if you regulate the breeders it is therefor regulating the pet stores.
`(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.'.
As far as co-ownership. I do not have an answer to this. But I can see both sides. But bottom line COULD be, is why not just become a legimate business. Then you are covered and have no worries. Maybe the same rugulating that forms the pet store is the same thought process that covers the coownership. If they regulate the breeders they are forcing you to either breed by the book or not at all or taking a chnace of getting caught. I don't see the down side of registering your kennel in your state, getting your tax ID #. You have absolutely nothing to loose by doing that. (when I say you, I mean anyone not you personally)
As far as why the supporters are supporting it for different reasons. Should that make a difference on there support. If you opposse it because of fees and your buddy opposses it because of the co ownership issue. Isn't it still the two of you joining together to opposse it. I see that as nothing more than joining forces to accomplish what they believe is the best.
Importation: If sold in pet stores- this goes back to the regulation of the breeders will regulate the breeders. If an oversees group is all set up to sell pets to the US but are not abiding by the regulations, they will not be able to import into this country. But for whatever that is worth, there are dummy corporations set up every day that reapply for importation autherization, so this will be harder to manage. So ecommerce laws would need to be administered as part of the new directors department.
Very tough to do, but I do believe it can be done.
Because of the amount of pets that are in the pounds is exactly why the Breeders need to be regulated, hence the pet stores will then also.
As far as selling my info by the AKC. I think you are straying off the point, you are now directing derogatory remarks at only the AKC not the bill. If you wish to discuss that we can, but for know let;s stay on track.
As far as the linebreeding statement. If you are legitamate no one will stop you from breeding, in breeding or line breeding as long as you follow the laws. WHy is this a problem?
As far as the wording being changed...with little notice. C'mon partner. It will be impoossible for any changes to be made to any law with out it first going through congress. And that is when you and I and everyone else will hear about it. That is a fact.
As why are so many "TOP" state groups oppossing it. I think for a few reasons.
1- Scare tactics- WE MUST KEEP UNCLE SAM OUT OF OUR BUSINESS
2.- Mis Interpretation by the eladers of these groups who then pass there version of their interpratation down through their organization so everyone within that organization will then agree. I (meaning the Youth Beagle Camp) have been asked to take a stance on this. This is the perfect example. I called up the Youth Beagle Camp board of directors and their first question to me was "What to you think Goes?" I say I support it and guess what they say" then so do we" What do you think they would say if I said I don't support it? You betcha, neither would they.
3. People within their organizations are making LOTS of money of their breeding program and no not want to see it regulated. They are the people that need to be regulated.
4. And the BIGGEST - the SLIPPERY SLOPE THINKERS. You know the ones, the chicken littles of the world. The sky is falling the sky is falling. No one can make change to anything because only the worst will come of it.
Personal statement. Steve, I ask you this question and ask it to be answered honestly. Wouldn't all this be worth it if even only 1 litter was saved from being bred in deployarable conditions, raised with medical problems and never being seen by a vet, all this to keep one coonhound or beagle out of the pound so it wouldn't be put to sleep? Please Steve, would all this be worth if just 1 major puppy mill is shut down and prosecuted? Wouldn't it be worth it?
Take care
Goes
Goes I will first post this email from an AKC board member that opposes this bill then I will answer another question in the next post
Subject: THE PAWS ACT (SB 1139/HR26690)
From: Carmen Battaglia
Thank you for taking the time to contact me regarding AKC's support for the legislation that is being proposed by the Republican Senator, Rick Santorum from Pennsylvania. As you may know, four AKC directors voted against the motion to support the proposed legislation. Those dissenting were: Carmen Battaglia, Tom Davies, Patti Strand and Ken Marden. I am with this memo answering your inquiry and I am speaking only for my self. Since you took the time to contact me with your questions, you deserve a response.
Let me begin by saying that when people in a family disagree, we dont divorce. We continue to support each other even though we differ on strategy. The right to dissent should not be confused with disloyalty. I think you will better understand my point after you finish reading my response to your email.
To begin, it is unlikely that the goals of the PAWS statue can be reached by expanding Federal oversight to the small-scale breeder who produces puppies and kittens as a hobby. In simple terms, AKC has always argued against the use of numbers to define hobby breeders. The reason was and is that numbers can always be changed along with the definitions. A small change here and there overtime could easily change things and eventually it could be difficult to be defined as a hobby breeder. The history of the Animal Rights extremists on this point is clear. They have always worked to first get their foot in the door, and then they begin to work on their target by changing definitions, which widens their influence. The fundamental argument that is being used regarding the need for this legislation in my judgment is flawed. There is no documented record that we are being "bombarded with horror stories from fanciers about commercial importers and the "puppy mills" who are evading federal regulation". If there is such a report it still would not justify having the federal government coming into our residence, telling hobby breeders how to breed and raise their litters. Senator Santorum has a long history of wanting to regulate hobby breeders. In 2000, he proposed legislation focused on dog breeding practices, socialization standards, and the idea of 3 strikes and your out (you lose your license to breed). In November of 2003, this Senator along with representative Whitfield made another attempt to regulate hobby breeders. They reintroduced the Puppy Protection Act. This time the emphasis was placed on setting a breeding limit on all bitches. AKC's lobbyist Jim Holt, said that these efforts were " the brain child of the HSUS", "a radical animal rights advocate" group. He went on to say that "we can look forward to the socialization standard returning in some form".
One of the most dangerous parts of PAWS is that for the first time it will inject the federal government into regulations about whether, when and how animals (dogs) can be bred". Once the government is able to establish this principle, others can work on the details of making changes later. The first step in their strategy is to get the hobby breeders "to admit that a problem exists". AKC has always believed that "the answer is not in expanding the scope of the law but in more effective enforcement." That has not changed. Over regulation always leads to unintended consequences. The argument that the importers and those who sell on the Internet need to be regulated by the federal government should not be linked to the hobby breeder. Using numbers like 25 puppies sold a year and breeding less than 7 litters on your premises should not be the way to exclude hobby breeders by law. We should not forget that there still remains several other important issues that have not been developed and the negotiations are not over. What this means is that the numbers 25 and 7 can be changed with a simple word or two. For example, 25 pups can become 10, and 7 litters can become 3 litters. What the Senator still has not addressed involves his intentions about several other areas. He has yet to explain what he intends to do about: - The scope of the minimum "humane care standards" and the penalties for breeders. - The provisions covering breeders who raise puppies in their homes - The language that authorizes the USDA to certify inspection programs of non-governmental organizations. This area includes private inspections by contractors which is of particular concern due to a frequent pattern of incompetence, abuse and corruption where organizations have already been employed by state and local jurisdictions. - The non-profit entitles such as the shelters and whether they will be excluded.
Given all of these uncertainties, there is good reason for concern about PAWS which is a poorly written statute.
What to do was a question many of you ask. To date, my email box has over 600 emails from dog owners. It is impossible to read all of them. But if I received 600 letters, that would be a different matter. The last time this Senator attempted to regulate hobby breeders we suggested that you and each of your members and clubs write your US Senator and Representative. Ask them to not co-sponsor or support PAWS. That approached worked and the statue died. In this case, we need to be realistic; this Senator is a ranking Republican. He can probably get support in the Senate. However, the PAWS statue must still be voted on by the House of Representatives.
So your second letter should be sent to your Congressmen. Remember that this is a time sensitive problem. If you plan to let your US Senators and Congressmen know about your feelings and how you want them to vote, act now. Send letters, emails will not pay off.
Your friends, neighbors, clubs and organizations can defeat this bill or remove from it all reference to hobby breeders by the numbers.
Thanks for your concern. I hope these answers have addressed your questions.
1
Subject: THE PAWS ACT (SB 1139/HR26690)
From: Carmen Battaglia
Thank you for taking the time to contact me regarding AKC's support for the legislation that is being proposed by the Republican Senator, Rick Santorum from Pennsylvania. As you may know, four AKC directors voted against the motion to support the proposed legislation. Those dissenting were: Carmen Battaglia, Tom Davies, Patti Strand and Ken Marden. I am with this memo answering your inquiry and I am speaking only for my self. Since you took the time to contact me with your questions, you deserve a response.
Let me begin by saying that when people in a family disagree, we dont divorce. We continue to support each other even though we differ on strategy. The right to dissent should not be confused with disloyalty. I think you will better understand my point after you finish reading my response to your email.
To begin, it is unlikely that the goals of the PAWS statue can be reached by expanding Federal oversight to the small-scale breeder who produces puppies and kittens as a hobby. In simple terms, AKC has always argued against the use of numbers to define hobby breeders. The reason was and is that numbers can always be changed along with the definitions. A small change here and there overtime could easily change things and eventually it could be difficult to be defined as a hobby breeder. The history of the Animal Rights extremists on this point is clear. They have always worked to first get their foot in the door, and then they begin to work on their target by changing definitions, which widens their influence. The fundamental argument that is being used regarding the need for this legislation in my judgment is flawed. There is no documented record that we are being "bombarded with horror stories from fanciers about commercial importers and the "puppy mills" who are evading federal regulation". If there is such a report it still would not justify having the federal government coming into our residence, telling hobby breeders how to breed and raise their litters. Senator Santorum has a long history of wanting to regulate hobby breeders. In 2000, he proposed legislation focused on dog breeding practices, socialization standards, and the idea of 3 strikes and your out (you lose your license to breed). In November of 2003, this Senator along with representative Whitfield made another attempt to regulate hobby breeders. They reintroduced the Puppy Protection Act. This time the emphasis was placed on setting a breeding limit on all bitches. AKC's lobbyist Jim Holt, said that these efforts were " the brain child of the HSUS", "a radical animal rights advocate" group. He went on to say that "we can look forward to the socialization standard returning in some form".
One of the most dangerous parts of PAWS is that for the first time it will inject the federal government into regulations about whether, when and how animals (dogs) can be bred". Once the government is able to establish this principle, others can work on the details of making changes later. The first step in their strategy is to get the hobby breeders "to admit that a problem exists". AKC has always believed that "the answer is not in expanding the scope of the law but in more effective enforcement." That has not changed. Over regulation always leads to unintended consequences. The argument that the importers and those who sell on the Internet need to be regulated by the federal government should not be linked to the hobby breeder. Using numbers like 25 puppies sold a year and breeding less than 7 litters on your premises should not be the way to exclude hobby breeders by law. We should not forget that there still remains several other important issues that have not been developed and the negotiations are not over. What this means is that the numbers 25 and 7 can be changed with a simple word or two. For example, 25 pups can become 10, and 7 litters can become 3 litters. What the Senator still has not addressed involves his intentions about several other areas. He has yet to explain what he intends to do about: - The scope of the minimum "humane care standards" and the penalties for breeders. - The provisions covering breeders who raise puppies in their homes - The language that authorizes the USDA to certify inspection programs of non-governmental organizations. This area includes private inspections by contractors which is of particular concern due to a frequent pattern of incompetence, abuse and corruption where organizations have already been employed by state and local jurisdictions. - The non-profit entitles such as the shelters and whether they will be excluded.
Given all of these uncertainties, there is good reason for concern about PAWS which is a poorly written statute.
What to do was a question many of you ask. To date, my email box has over 600 emails from dog owners. It is impossible to read all of them. But if I received 600 letters, that would be a different matter. The last time this Senator attempted to regulate hobby breeders we suggested that you and each of your members and clubs write your US Senator and Representative. Ask them to not co-sponsor or support PAWS. That approached worked and the statue died. In this case, we need to be realistic; this Senator is a ranking Republican. He can probably get support in the Senate. However, the PAWS statue must still be voted on by the House of Representatives.
So your second letter should be sent to your Congressmen. Remember that this is a time sensitive problem. If you plan to let your US Senators and Congressmen know about your feelings and how you want them to vote, act now. Send letters, emails will not pay off.
Your friends, neighbors, clubs and organizations can defeat this bill or remove from it all reference to hobby breeders by the numbers.
Thanks for your concern. I hope these answers have addressed your questions.
1
Yes Steve, I have read this also, it posted on oppostions web site. It's verbage, nothing more, nothing less. It's playing nothing more than the what if game. What if they do this then they can do that.
Not having any personal dealing with Dr. Battaglia, but if I was a novelist and my main support for sales of my books were the hobbiest breeder and show dog organizations I sure enough wouldn't do anything to upset them which in turn would upset the book sales.
Do you see how easy it is to dismay. This still boils down to the slippery slope. If it passes with the current numbers, over TIME it COULD change. Well so does the weather, I'm sorry but I don't play the what if synopsis.
I've done a little more research on this which I post tomorrow. My kids have football practice tonight or I would do it know. But I do look forward to reading anything you have to say in regards to the slippery slope effect.
But I'll leave you with this until then.
This from Senator Rick Santorum
Setting the Record Straight on the Pet Animal Welfare Statute
July 27, 2005 - Mr. President, on May 26, 2005 I introduced with my colleague Senator Durbin the “Pet Animal Welfare Statute” of 2005, or “PAWS.” PAWS amends the Animal Welfare Act to strengthen the Secretary of Agriculture’s authority to deal with the problems of substandard animal dealers.
I want to make clear to our colleagues and the public that we believe the vast majority of animal dealers are conscientious persons who make every effort to treat their animals humanely and to comply with the law. But, unfortunately, there are some animal dealers who do not care properly for their animals and who seek to profit at the expense of the animals and the public. They exploit the weaknesses and loopholes in the current law to evade or ignore basic standards for the care and condition of animals. These substandard dealers give the entire pet industry a black eye, all the while preying upon the public. It is these unscrupulous animal dealers at which PAWS is targeted.
PAWS strengthens the Secretary of Agriculture’s authority to deal with substandard animal dealers by making four important improvements to the Animal Welfare Act. First, it will bring under coverage of the Animal Welfare Act high volume dealers who are in every respect like those dealers currently regulated, but are evading regulation because they sell animals exclusively at retail. PAWS will continue to exempt real retail pet stores, and will add a new exemption for small dealers and hobby and show breeders. Second, PAWS will help the Secretary of Agriculture identify persons not complying with the law by requiring those who acquire animals for resale to keep records of the source from whom the animals are acquired and make these records available to the Secretary upon request. Third, PAWS will create an incentive for dealers to quickly correct serious problems by giving the Secretary authority to temporarily suspend dealers’ licenses for up to 60 days if a violation is placing the health of an animal in imminent danger. Finally, PAWS will strengthen the authority of the Secretary to obtain injunctions to shut down dealers who fail to comply with the law.
The marketplace for animals has changed dramatically since the 1970s when the current animal dealer provisions of the Act were written. At that time only retail pet stores and small hobby and show breeders sold pet animals, so regulating wholesale sellers and exempting persons who sold animals at retail and were regulated by the market made some sense. With the advent of the internet, mass national marketing channels, and mass importation of puppies for resale, there are a large number of unregulated dealers who are in every respect identical to the dealers regulated by the Act, except that they evade regulation by selling exclusively at retail. By regulating these high volume retail sellers, we will assure that they meet the same standards for the humane care and treatment of animals that breeders and brokers selling at wholesale have been meeting for 30 years.
PAWS defines the term “retail pet store” so that only real retail pet stores are exempt, where customers can see the animals and the conditions where they are kept. PAWS also adds a specific exemption for small dealers and hobby and show breeders. Only persons who sell more than 25 dogs per year would be regulated. In addition, breeders who sell dogs and cats from fewer than 7 litters a year bred or raised on their own premises, or fewer than 25 dogs and cats per year bred or raised on their own premises, which ever is greater, would be exempt. For example, if an Irish Setter breeder has 6 litters that average 6 puppies each for a total of 36 puppies, they can sell them without being regulated. If a toy breeder has 10 litters that average only 2 puppies each for a total of 20 puppies, they can sell them without being regulated. These breeders could also sell 25 or fewer other dogs a year not bred or raised on their own premises such as stud puppies or puppies from co-ownerships, without being regulated. I firmly believe that the sport and hobby of breeding and raising dogs and cats should not be a federally regulated activity. PAWS will, for the first time, put an explicit exemption into the Animal Welfare Act to protect small hobby and show breeders from regulation.
Some persons who sell dogs for hunting purposes have expressed a concern that PAWS will bring them under regulation. The current Animal Welfare Act already covers persons who sell hunting dogs, and has for almost 30 years. They are regulated on the same basis as those who sell dogs for pets. PAWS will continue to regulate sellers of hunting dogs on the same basis as those who sell dogs as pets. Only high volume sellers who exceed the exemptions set forth in PAWS will be subject to regulation.
Some rescue and shelter organizations have expressed concern that because they often charge an adoption fee to those who adopt the dogs they place, these organizations will fall within the definition of “dealers” in PAWS and be regulated. True rescue and shelter organizations who do not sell dogs or cats in commerce, for profit, will not be brought under regulation by PAWS, whether or not they are formally incorporated as not for profit organizations.
Some high volume dealers in cats and dogs who will be brought under coverage of the Animal Welfare Act by PAWS, but who are still small enough that they breed and raise dogs or cats in essentially a residential environment, have expressed concern that they will be forced to build kennels and catteries and will no longer be able to raise animals in a residential environment. There is nothing in PAWS, or in the current Animal Welfare Act, that precludes persons from breeding and raising animals in a residential setting, provided the animals are properly housed and cared for. In implementing PAWS, the Secretary of Agriculture will have to assure that the animal care regulations take into account breeders and dealers who conduct their operations in a residential setting.
I want to make clear that PAWS is a very different piece of legislation than the bills that Senator Durbin and I have introduced in previous Congresses. PAWS does not require or justify creating any new animal care standards, like our previous legislation did. It focuses only on bringing under regulation high volume commercial dealers currently evading regulation and on strengthening the Secretary of Agriculture’s ability to identify and bring into compliance high volume dealers who are not in compliance with existing law or, as a last resort, shut them down.
Senator Durbin and I in the Senate, along with our colleagues Representatives Gerlach and Farr who have introduced PAWS in the House of Representatives, consulted with a broad array of animal interest and animal welfare groups in creating PAWS. We believe that the enactment of PAWS will be a major milestone in the history of animal protection in the United States. We are delighted that it has brought together animal interest groups and animal welfare groups that in the past have often been on opposite sides of animal legislation, including our own past bills. Having said that, no legislation is perfect when introduced. 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 is not intended to restrict breeding or impose a hardship on rescue and shelter organizations. PAWS specifically recognizes the importance of protecting small breeders and the non-commercial purebred dog and cat fancy from federal regulation. My family and I purchased our beloved German Shepherd dog Schatzie from a small breeder. We and Schatzie raised a litter of puppies in our own home last year, and fully understand the hard work and commitment that it requires. I also know that most commercial breeders are dedicated to their profession and to their animals. I believe that PAWS will protect small hobby and show breeders and the vast majority of compliant commercial breeders as well as the public from those breeders and brokers who evade or fail to comply with the law. And, most importantly, it will protect the animals themselves. I urge my colleagues and all those in the animal welfare community to join us in this effort.
Take care
Goes
Not having any personal dealing with Dr. Battaglia, but if I was a novelist and my main support for sales of my books were the hobbiest breeder and show dog organizations I sure enough wouldn't do anything to upset them which in turn would upset the book sales.
Do you see how easy it is to dismay. This still boils down to the slippery slope. If it passes with the current numbers, over TIME it COULD change. Well so does the weather, I'm sorry but I don't play the what if synopsis.
I've done a little more research on this which I post tomorrow. My kids have football practice tonight or I would do it know. But I do look forward to reading anything you have to say in regards to the slippery slope effect.
But I'll leave you with this until then.
This from Senator Rick Santorum
Setting the Record Straight on the Pet Animal Welfare Statute
July 27, 2005 - Mr. President, on May 26, 2005 I introduced with my colleague Senator Durbin the “Pet Animal Welfare Statute” of 2005, or “PAWS.” PAWS amends the Animal Welfare Act to strengthen the Secretary of Agriculture’s authority to deal with the problems of substandard animal dealers.
I want to make clear to our colleagues and the public that we believe the vast majority of animal dealers are conscientious persons who make every effort to treat their animals humanely and to comply with the law. But, unfortunately, there are some animal dealers who do not care properly for their animals and who seek to profit at the expense of the animals and the public. They exploit the weaknesses and loopholes in the current law to evade or ignore basic standards for the care and condition of animals. These substandard dealers give the entire pet industry a black eye, all the while preying upon the public. It is these unscrupulous animal dealers at which PAWS is targeted.
PAWS strengthens the Secretary of Agriculture’s authority to deal with substandard animal dealers by making four important improvements to the Animal Welfare Act. First, it will bring under coverage of the Animal Welfare Act high volume dealers who are in every respect like those dealers currently regulated, but are evading regulation because they sell animals exclusively at retail. PAWS will continue to exempt real retail pet stores, and will add a new exemption for small dealers and hobby and show breeders. Second, PAWS will help the Secretary of Agriculture identify persons not complying with the law by requiring those who acquire animals for resale to keep records of the source from whom the animals are acquired and make these records available to the Secretary upon request. Third, PAWS will create an incentive for dealers to quickly correct serious problems by giving the Secretary authority to temporarily suspend dealers’ licenses for up to 60 days if a violation is placing the health of an animal in imminent danger. Finally, PAWS will strengthen the authority of the Secretary to obtain injunctions to shut down dealers who fail to comply with the law.
The marketplace for animals has changed dramatically since the 1970s when the current animal dealer provisions of the Act were written. At that time only retail pet stores and small hobby and show breeders sold pet animals, so regulating wholesale sellers and exempting persons who sold animals at retail and were regulated by the market made some sense. With the advent of the internet, mass national marketing channels, and mass importation of puppies for resale, there are a large number of unregulated dealers who are in every respect identical to the dealers regulated by the Act, except that they evade regulation by selling exclusively at retail. By regulating these high volume retail sellers, we will assure that they meet the same standards for the humane care and treatment of animals that breeders and brokers selling at wholesale have been meeting for 30 years.
PAWS defines the term “retail pet store” so that only real retail pet stores are exempt, where customers can see the animals and the conditions where they are kept. PAWS also adds a specific exemption for small dealers and hobby and show breeders. Only persons who sell more than 25 dogs per year would be regulated. In addition, breeders who sell dogs and cats from fewer than 7 litters a year bred or raised on their own premises, or fewer than 25 dogs and cats per year bred or raised on their own premises, which ever is greater, would be exempt. For example, if an Irish Setter breeder has 6 litters that average 6 puppies each for a total of 36 puppies, they can sell them without being regulated. If a toy breeder has 10 litters that average only 2 puppies each for a total of 20 puppies, they can sell them without being regulated. These breeders could also sell 25 or fewer other dogs a year not bred or raised on their own premises such as stud puppies or puppies from co-ownerships, without being regulated. I firmly believe that the sport and hobby of breeding and raising dogs and cats should not be a federally regulated activity. PAWS will, for the first time, put an explicit exemption into the Animal Welfare Act to protect small hobby and show breeders from regulation.
Some persons who sell dogs for hunting purposes have expressed a concern that PAWS will bring them under regulation. The current Animal Welfare Act already covers persons who sell hunting dogs, and has for almost 30 years. They are regulated on the same basis as those who sell dogs for pets. PAWS will continue to regulate sellers of hunting dogs on the same basis as those who sell dogs as pets. Only high volume sellers who exceed the exemptions set forth in PAWS will be subject to regulation.
Some rescue and shelter organizations have expressed concern that because they often charge an adoption fee to those who adopt the dogs they place, these organizations will fall within the definition of “dealers” in PAWS and be regulated. True rescue and shelter organizations who do not sell dogs or cats in commerce, for profit, will not be brought under regulation by PAWS, whether or not they are formally incorporated as not for profit organizations.
Some high volume dealers in cats and dogs who will be brought under coverage of the Animal Welfare Act by PAWS, but who are still small enough that they breed and raise dogs or cats in essentially a residential environment, have expressed concern that they will be forced to build kennels and catteries and will no longer be able to raise animals in a residential environment. There is nothing in PAWS, or in the current Animal Welfare Act, that precludes persons from breeding and raising animals in a residential setting, provided the animals are properly housed and cared for. In implementing PAWS, the Secretary of Agriculture will have to assure that the animal care regulations take into account breeders and dealers who conduct their operations in a residential setting.
I want to make clear that PAWS is a very different piece of legislation than the bills that Senator Durbin and I have introduced in previous Congresses. PAWS does not require or justify creating any new animal care standards, like our previous legislation did. It focuses only on bringing under regulation high volume commercial dealers currently evading regulation and on strengthening the Secretary of Agriculture’s ability to identify and bring into compliance high volume dealers who are not in compliance with existing law or, as a last resort, shut them down.
Senator Durbin and I in the Senate, along with our colleagues Representatives Gerlach and Farr who have introduced PAWS in the House of Representatives, consulted with a broad array of animal interest and animal welfare groups in creating PAWS. We believe that the enactment of PAWS will be a major milestone in the history of animal protection in the United States. We are delighted that it has brought together animal interest groups and animal welfare groups that in the past have often been on opposite sides of animal legislation, including our own past bills. Having said that, no legislation is perfect when introduced. 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 is not intended to restrict breeding or impose a hardship on rescue and shelter organizations. PAWS specifically recognizes the importance of protecting small breeders and the non-commercial purebred dog and cat fancy from federal regulation. My family and I purchased our beloved German Shepherd dog Schatzie from a small breeder. We and Schatzie raised a litter of puppies in our own home last year, and fully understand the hard work and commitment that it requires. I also know that most commercial breeders are dedicated to their profession and to their animals. I believe that PAWS will protect small hobby and show breeders and the vast majority of compliant commercial breeders as well as the public from those breeders and brokers who evade or fail to comply with the law. And, most importantly, it will protect the animals themselves. I urge my colleagues and all those in the animal welfare community to join us in this effort.
Take care
Goes
Goes you are right I cannot state for a fact that the fees will not cover it but if you look at everything that will have to be paid for it will not. You figure right now with the millions of dollars of funding the USDA cannot even keep up with the cattle industry. What makes anyone think with the liscensing fees of breeders this will cover all of the added expenses of inspections file keeping court costs court filing costs lawyer fees office supplies in which a whole new department will have to be added and new agents also. If you notice in the above email from a board member of AKC it states that they could contract the inspections out too. That will cost more money alot more.
As with AKC and inspections it is fact that if AKC wanted to stop puppy mills they could with thier current policies. Yet AKC still lets puppy mills run and register thier dogs with them.
As far as the $500.00 part of the bill it does not specifically say what those other animals are. It says other animals but not which animals. Specifics in the bill it can be interpreted other animals includes dogs. Think about it other animals and is not specific. It can be interpreted in the fact that humans are animals but yet if they sell any other animals it includes them. they state the problem with the current law is it is so widely interpreted. Also why single out cats and dogs if that is the interpretation shelters are filled with rabbits and ferrets and every other animal out there. You figure rabbits at $10-$20 a piece that is atleast 50 of them. Point being the interpretation is to wide on this part of the bill.
As far as theselling your info that is not a derogatory remark it is the truth and everyone knows it is.
As far as line breeding goes there is no problem with going by the laws but why should I have to pay the government to be able to breed my own dogs. That is crap and we all know it is. I have a big problem with the government controling my hobbies. It is straight in line with communism and we all know it. It is my right to breed my dogs how I see fit as long as I am not endagering the health of my dogs it should not be a problem with any of it. I should not have to have a fee set to pay because I want to breed my hounds. It costs enough money to raise train and hunt these dogs in the first place.
As far as the supporters you have twisted what I said AKC said that this bill was not to stop puppy mills (this was specifically said) and HSUS said it was. There is no two different reasons there. It is plain english on the way it was answered.
The importation of the animals is not asn issue with pet stores AKC specifically gave instances about that and pet stores are not combined.
As far as the whole breeders pet stores thing that is a load of malarky. Like I said if I help someone sell a dog even if it is not at my house it goes against me (this came from AKC also) Yet if I am a retail pet store I am exempt from it. Hog wash if you ask me. The pet stores will always find breeders to sell to them and can afford to do so. They can open thier own mills if need be and do thier own thing.
As far as wording to be changed you and I might not know about it. Look at alot of gun laws that have been snuck into other bills. there are ways to do it that no one will notice. HSUS said they were experts on this. This bill is said to be added to another one and won't go into the senate or house in this form it will be put into another bill. You figure a 60 page bill with one line in the middle of it will go unnoticed alot easier than it by itself. there has been plenty of amendment go through like this and we all know it.
On your top associations against it that is a bunch of milarky too. So you are saying that because I am the president of the CHA everyone believes what I do because I say so. That is a poor excuse if you ask me. The whole government in my business thing is milarky too these are top standing breed and state associations that stand for animal rights against this issue. Also out of all the KC's that are out there 1 supports it. I guess these KC's don't want the breeds to be better or anything else right.
This bill is flawed and it is plain to see. This bill regulates the little people. Does nothing about the real problem. This bill is targeted at hobby breeders and DDAL said they are trying to promote a bill to regulate hobby breeders. Because of the interpretation of the current law that hobby breeders fall into the same category as retail pet stores. They have been seeking regulation against hobby breeders and have sued USDA a couple of times because of thier interpretation of the current law. Tell me why HSUS DDAL PETA are for this bill. HSUS said they will try to regulate hunting with hounds a little at a time until it is completely wiped out. Could this be a start. I have a real problem with 3 of the biggest anti groups out there being behind this bill.
As far as your question on stopping one litter or what ever No it is not worth it because this can ruin alot of stand up breeding programs alot of hunters have. I did state that something needs to be done about these places but this is not it this does not target these facilities it targets small hobby breeders. How many puppy mills and sub par facilities does USDA or AKC know about even HSUS and DDAL I bet almost every one. Do nothing and the current law deals with these people yet nothing is done. They still exist and this bill won't stop them either. They do not put the money or the care into thier hounds the rest of us do. Many of us do not make a dime on our hounds we sell by the time everything is paid for. Yet puppy mills are millions of dollars a year industry. I should not be in that class. I personally screen people I sell dogs to. Why should I have anyone over my shoulder while I do what I am supposed to do questioning every move I make. I let people come to my house to pick up pups or dogs they see thier living conditions and know they are well taken care of. If you don't do that you need to look into your breeding practices or anyone else. If anyone that buys a dog does not do research on the dog or pups do not deserve to have one in my opinion. I sell most of my hounds to friends and people I know. I keep track of the dogs on my own. If I was to do all of the tax id stuff and registering and accountant just for a daggum hobby it is not a job I do not profit off of me hounds I do it for a living I see this bill destroying our sport little by little. You figure this bill passes then alot of kennels shut down supply of hunting hounds goes down. They become harder to get prices go up. younger people can't afford to get them. There goes the sport. Look at other breeds that are not easy to come by a pup will cost over $1000 Most people don't have this to spend on a pup.
As with AKC and inspections it is fact that if AKC wanted to stop puppy mills they could with thier current policies. Yet AKC still lets puppy mills run and register thier dogs with them.
As far as the $500.00 part of the bill it does not specifically say what those other animals are. It says other animals but not which animals. Specifics in the bill it can be interpreted other animals includes dogs. Think about it other animals and is not specific. It can be interpreted in the fact that humans are animals but yet if they sell any other animals it includes them. they state the problem with the current law is it is so widely interpreted. Also why single out cats and dogs if that is the interpretation shelters are filled with rabbits and ferrets and every other animal out there. You figure rabbits at $10-$20 a piece that is atleast 50 of them. Point being the interpretation is to wide on this part of the bill.
As far as theselling your info that is not a derogatory remark it is the truth and everyone knows it is.
As far as line breeding goes there is no problem with going by the laws but why should I have to pay the government to be able to breed my own dogs. That is crap and we all know it is. I have a big problem with the government controling my hobbies. It is straight in line with communism and we all know it. It is my right to breed my dogs how I see fit as long as I am not endagering the health of my dogs it should not be a problem with any of it. I should not have to have a fee set to pay because I want to breed my hounds. It costs enough money to raise train and hunt these dogs in the first place.
As far as the supporters you have twisted what I said AKC said that this bill was not to stop puppy mills (this was specifically said) and HSUS said it was. There is no two different reasons there. It is plain english on the way it was answered.
The importation of the animals is not asn issue with pet stores AKC specifically gave instances about that and pet stores are not combined.
As far as the whole breeders pet stores thing that is a load of malarky. Like I said if I help someone sell a dog even if it is not at my house it goes against me (this came from AKC also) Yet if I am a retail pet store I am exempt from it. Hog wash if you ask me. The pet stores will always find breeders to sell to them and can afford to do so. They can open thier own mills if need be and do thier own thing.
As far as wording to be changed you and I might not know about it. Look at alot of gun laws that have been snuck into other bills. there are ways to do it that no one will notice. HSUS said they were experts on this. This bill is said to be added to another one and won't go into the senate or house in this form it will be put into another bill. You figure a 60 page bill with one line in the middle of it will go unnoticed alot easier than it by itself. there has been plenty of amendment go through like this and we all know it.
On your top associations against it that is a bunch of milarky too. So you are saying that because I am the president of the CHA everyone believes what I do because I say so. That is a poor excuse if you ask me. The whole government in my business thing is milarky too these are top standing breed and state associations that stand for animal rights against this issue. Also out of all the KC's that are out there 1 supports it. I guess these KC's don't want the breeds to be better or anything else right.
This bill is flawed and it is plain to see. This bill regulates the little people. Does nothing about the real problem. This bill is targeted at hobby breeders and DDAL said they are trying to promote a bill to regulate hobby breeders. Because of the interpretation of the current law that hobby breeders fall into the same category as retail pet stores. They have been seeking regulation against hobby breeders and have sued USDA a couple of times because of thier interpretation of the current law. Tell me why HSUS DDAL PETA are for this bill. HSUS said they will try to regulate hunting with hounds a little at a time until it is completely wiped out. Could this be a start. I have a real problem with 3 of the biggest anti groups out there being behind this bill.
As far as your question on stopping one litter or what ever No it is not worth it because this can ruin alot of stand up breeding programs alot of hunters have. I did state that something needs to be done about these places but this is not it this does not target these facilities it targets small hobby breeders. How many puppy mills and sub par facilities does USDA or AKC know about even HSUS and DDAL I bet almost every one. Do nothing and the current law deals with these people yet nothing is done. They still exist and this bill won't stop them either. They do not put the money or the care into thier hounds the rest of us do. Many of us do not make a dime on our hounds we sell by the time everything is paid for. Yet puppy mills are millions of dollars a year industry. I should not be in that class. I personally screen people I sell dogs to. Why should I have anyone over my shoulder while I do what I am supposed to do questioning every move I make. I let people come to my house to pick up pups or dogs they see thier living conditions and know they are well taken care of. If you don't do that you need to look into your breeding practices or anyone else. If anyone that buys a dog does not do research on the dog or pups do not deserve to have one in my opinion. I sell most of my hounds to friends and people I know. I keep track of the dogs on my own. If I was to do all of the tax id stuff and registering and accountant just for a daggum hobby it is not a job I do not profit off of me hounds I do it for a living I see this bill destroying our sport little by little. You figure this bill passes then alot of kennels shut down supply of hunting hounds goes down. They become harder to get prices go up. younger people can't afford to get them. There goes the sport. Look at other breeds that are not easy to come by a pup will cost over $1000 Most people don't have this to spend on a pup.
Goes I will say that Santorum is in a term like a sales man his job is to sell you his bill. First of all he says about the 25 dogs or 6 litters. notice the body of the bill says or there is no statement in which ever is greater It says or in plain english. You said my email was nothing but verbage but I guess your is straight in line fact right. Santorum is the main sponsor on this bill he will say anything to sell you on this bill. As most politicians will. I will ask you this and I want an honest answer why do you back this bill in all honesty I have told you why I do not and would like to know why you do. Since ther is nothing but a bunch of sheep against this bill and "irresponsable breeders" (not your quote but AKC's)
PAWS and PAUSE For Thought
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.
Thankfully, not all AKC Board members are in favor of this bill. When the time comes to elect your club delegate, you would be wise to note who is pushing acceptance of PAWS. Remember who is not. Board member Patti Strand explains "Simply put, the companion bills S1139/H2669 propose an end run around the failed DDAL lawsuit against USDA, an attempt to force federal regulation of breeders who sell their puppies and kittens directly to the public. The potential impact of the bill on breeders who whelp litters in their homes is only too clear and NAIA Trust adamantly opposes the bill as it is written." Visit the NAIA website for more disturbing insight. http://www.naiatrust.org/NAIA_Trust_Opp ... _S1139.htm
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 clearly 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."
Be sure to TAKE THE PAWS TEST to see where you stand. It will anger and surprise you. This Engineer dissects the legal jumble of regulations and it is frightening. Truth Of The Matter re PAWS excerpts re the most explosive Legislation to ever affect companion animal breeders! Watch for TDP Headlines Special Edition NEXT WEEK. Other than AKC, not one dog or cat organization supports this legislation. Except AKC. Interviews and Position Statements coming in from all organizations, attorneys, and researchers.
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.
Thankfully, not all AKC Board members are in favor of this bill. When the time comes to elect your club delegate, you would be wise to note who is pushing acceptance of PAWS. Remember who is not. Board member Patti Strand explains "Simply put, the companion bills S1139/H2669 propose an end run around the failed DDAL lawsuit against USDA, an attempt to force federal regulation of breeders who sell their puppies and kittens directly to the public. The potential impact of the bill on breeders who whelp litters in their homes is only too clear and NAIA Trust adamantly opposes the bill as it is written." Visit the NAIA website for more disturbing insight. http://www.naiatrust.org/NAIA_Trust_Opp ... _S1139.htm
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 clearly 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."
Be sure to TAKE THE PAWS TEST to see where you stand. It will anger and surprise you. This Engineer dissects the legal jumble of regulations and it is frightening. Truth Of The Matter re PAWS excerpts re the most explosive Legislation to ever affect companion animal breeders! Watch for TDP Headlines Special Edition NEXT WEEK. Other than AKC, not one dog or cat organization supports this legislation. Except AKC. Interviews and Position Statements coming in from all organizations, attorneys, and researchers.
-
Buckshot101
- Posts: 345
- Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2005 8:50 pm
- Location: North Alabama
- Contact:
Steve Fielder who is an AKC Department Head has been posting alot of info on PAWS and why we should support it why AKC supports it.
Mr. Fielder has also stated that any groups that oppose the PAWS Bill have done nothing to benefit dogs.
Even though nearly all AKC Parent Breed Groups oppose the Bill, he implies that they are doing nothing to benefit dogs. HMM.... I guess those AKC breed groups are worthless?? WRONG
Here is my questions to Mr. Fielder that he deleted and banned me from the board.
Was it the fact that the link he provided me for the groups that support it instead showed that the AKC Parent Breed groups oppose it?
As an AKC department head, Mr. Fielder has constantly brought up AKC's involvement in this Bill as well as AKC working with the Senator on this Bill.
Since AKC has major involvement in this Bill as with the involvement with the senator, you would think that an AKC department head that talks so much about it, could answer the above quoted question.
I think its quite obvious as to why the question was deleted. How do you answer that question to the hunting forum, that the only major supporters of this bill is:
AKC - American Kennel Club
HSUS - The Humane Society of the United States
PETA - People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals
DDAL - Doris Day Animal League
He sure doesn't want to answer the above supporters when HSUS has made statements like this:
"We also are expert at drafting, organizing and passing statewide ballot initiatives attacking hound hunting, trapping and many other forms of animal abuse."
Or the fact of how would it look like if he answered it this way:
"Drew here is a list of the PAWS Bill supporters and the ones that oppose it:
Organizations that SUPPORT PAWS:
AKC - American Kennel Club
HSUS - The Humane Society of the United States
PETA - People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals
DDAL - Doris Day Animal League
Organizations that OPPOSE PAWS:
AKC Breed Parent Clubs are in red text.
CHA - The Christian Houndsman Association
CFA - Cat Fanciers' Association
TICA - The International Cat Association
The Animal Council
SAOVA - Sportsmen and Animal Owners' Voting Alliance
UKC - United Kennel Club
NAIA - National Animal Interest Alliance
MOFed - Missouri Federation of Animal Owners
NCRAOA - North Carolina Responsible Animal Owners' Alliance
DFOW - Dog Federation of Wisconsin
RPOA - Responsible Pet Owners Alliance (Texas)
ARPONEF - Alliance of Responsible Pet Owners of North East Florida
CFODC - California Federation of Dog Clubs
PIJAC – Pet Industry Joint Advisory Council
Carolina Kennel Club, Inc (NC)
ASSA - American Shetland Sheepdog Association
JNCKC - Jacksonville NC Kennel Club
Master of Fox Hounds Association
American Brittany Club
VHDOA - Virginia Hunting Dog Owners' Association
CCDC - Central Carolina Dachshund Club (NC)
TICBS - The International Bengal Cat Society
NCCHA - North Carolina Coon Hunters Association
NCBHA - North Carolina Bear Hunters Association
NCSDA - North Carolina Sporting Dogs Association
Schooley's Mountain Kennel Club (NJ)
Greater Clark County Kennel Club (WA)
Ladies' Dog Club, Inc (MA)
Turkish Van Breed Rescue
American Chesapeake Club
Gtr Orange Park Dog Club (FL)
U.S. Sportsmen's Alliance
Great Dane Rescue of Northeast Florida
PKC - Piedmont Kennel Club (NC)
Dalmatian Club of the Piedmont (NC)
Jacksonville Sheltie Rescue (FL)
GSPCA - German Shorthaired Pointer Club of America
Federation of Maine Dog Clubs
Springfield Kennel Club (MA)
RAOT - Responsible Animal Owners of Tennessee
Virginia Bear Hunters Association
American Pomeranian Club
NASPR - North American Shar-Pei Rescue
Burlington Cat Fanciers (NC)
Tropical Cats Inc. (All Breed Club)
Western Clinton Sportsmen's Association (PA)
New Brunswick Kennel Club (NJ)
Papillon Club of America
North Shore Kennel Club (MA)
Professional Pet Association of Missouri
Sporting Dog Association of Missouri
Dachshund Club of America
Wachusett Kennel Club (MA)
Thunderkatz, Inc (OK)
Pug Rescue of North Carolina, Inc
St. Croix Valley Brittany Club (MN)
Fanciers Cocker Spaniel Club of Southern WI
Kalamazoo KC (MI)
WI Cocker Rescue
Lhasa Apso Southern Rescue, Inc
National Birman Fanciers
Birman Breed Rescue
Susquehanna Brittany Club (PA)
New England Sheltie Rescue
The Devon Rex Rescue League, Inc
Animal Safe Haven Foundation (CA)
LNC Pet Supply (CA)
Salisbury NC Kennel Club
Clermont County Kennel Club (OH)
Memphis International Cat Enthusiasts
North Carolina Field Trial Association
CT Dogs
PUFF - Pfanciers United For Fun, Inc (CFA - Midwest)
MPBA - Missouri Pet Breeders Association
MA Federation of Dog Clubs and Responsible Dog Owners
Bay Area Boxer Rescue (CA)
East of Eden Cat Fanciers (CA)
Dalmatian Rescue of Southwest Virginia
Colonial Shetland Sheepdog Club (MA)
White Shetland Sheepdog Association
CFA Purebred Rescue, Inc DBA Purebred Cat Breed Rescue
Western Massachusetts Shetland Sheepdog Club
Greater Fort Myers Dog Club
Capital City Cocker Club (DC)
KitnHevn Rescue, Inc (FL & OH)
Sunshine Dachshund Club of Jacksonville (FL)
Pug Dog Club of America
Sawnee Mountain Kennel Club (GA)
Absolutely Abyssinians Cat Club
Ocicats International
Eugene Kennel Club (OR)
Golden Retriever Rescue of Mid-Florida
Louisiana Brittany Rescue
Rabbit Education Society
Salt Lake Doberman Pinscher Club
The Devon Rex Breed Club
Cochise Bird Dog Club (AZ)
Shorewood Cocker Rescue (WI)
Bulldog Club of America Rescue Network
Amateur Field Trial Clubs of America - Region 12 (AZ & NM)
Amateur Field Trial Clubs of America - Region 7 (TX)
Halfpint Haven Borzoi and Greyhound Rescue, Inc (FL)
Animal Wellness Center (Alpharetta GA)
Lancaster Area Poodle Rescue (PA)
Shenandoah Valley Kennel Club (VA)
Hoosier State Chinese Shar-Pei Club (IN)
Blue Ridge P.E.T.S. (Pets in Education and Therapy Service) (VA)
German Shorthaired Pointer Club of Central Virginia
Nebraska Brittany Club
ESSFTA - English Springer Spaniel Field Trial Association
Prairie State Cat Club (IL)
Field Trial Clubs of Illinois
FORM - Friends of Rescued Mastiffs, Inc (Nat'l Mastiff Rescue)
SBDC - Sacramento Bird Dog Club
Sussex Hills Kennel Club (NJ)
Pug Dog Club of Maryland
Triangle Shetland Sheepdog Club of North Carolina
Yorkshire Terrier Club of America
Wisconsin Kennel Club
Garden State Siberian Husky Club (NJ)
Harmony Bay Chinese Shar-Pei Club (WA)
Ohio Valley Dog Owners, Inc (OH)
Hudson Valley Brittany Club of New York
Miss Kitty's Cat House (Rescue - AZ)
On-Line Feline Fanciers (Nat'l Cat Club)
Helping Persian Cats, Inc. (CA - Rescue)
Burlington Obedience Training Club, Inc (VT)
National Pet Alliance
Raritan River Akita Club (NJ)
Kittyhawk Felines, Inc (OH)
Centennial Chinese Shar-Pei Club (CO)
Walkfar Coonhunter’s Club (NC)
American Brittany Rescue (NJ)
Chinese Shar-Pei Club of America
Rocky Mountain Mastiff Fanciers (CO)
ILLOWA Chinese Shar-Pei Club (IL & IA)
Selkirk Rex Breed Rescue (CA)
Montana State Houndsmen Association
Shasta Kennel Club (OR)
Oregon Basset Hound Rescue
Golden Retriever Club of Western New York, Inc
Shetland Sheepdog Club of Greater Detroit
Mr. Fielder has also stated that any groups that oppose the PAWS Bill have done nothing to benefit dogs.
Even though nearly all AKC Parent Breed Groups oppose the Bill, he implies that they are doing nothing to benefit dogs. HMM.... I guess those AKC breed groups are worthless?? WRONG
Here is my questions to Mr. Fielder that he deleted and banned me from the board.
After I posted that questions, he deleted the question as well as my membership.Steve what organizations beside AKC and the animal rights groups are supporting this PAWS Bill?
I have been finding alot of groups and organizations like parent breed clubs to AKC that oppose this Bill.
I can't find any that support it?
The link you posted on the right side of that page has links to the AKC-Affiliated Federations of Dog Clubs. I went to each groups website and each one was OPPOSED to this bill.
Here is a list of a few organizations and groups opposed, To many to list all
* CFA - Cat Fanciers' Association
* TICA - The International Cat Association
* The Animal Council
* SAOVA - Sportsmen and Animal Owners' Voting Alliance
* UKC - United Kennel Club
* ADOA - American Dog Owners' Association
* NAIA - National Animal Interest Alliance
* MOFed - Missouri Federation of Animal Owners
* NCRAOA - North Carolina Responsible Animal Owners' Alliance
* DFOW - Dog Federation of Wisconsin
* RPOA - Responsible Pet Owners Alliance (Texas)
* ARPONEF - Alliance of Responsible Pet Owners of North East Florida
* CFODC - California Federation of Dog Clubs
* NC Federation of Dog Clubs
* PIJAC - Pet Industry Joint Advisory
* Council Carolina Kennel Club, Inc.
* ASSA - American Shetland Sheepdog Association
* JNCKC - Jacksonville NC Kennel Club
* Master of Fox Hounds Association
* American Brittany Club
* Virginia Hunting Dog Owners' Association
* CCDC - Central Carolina Dachshund Club
* TICBS - The International Bengal Cat Society
* North Carolina Coon Hunters Association
* North Carolina Bear Hunters Association
* NCSDA - North Carolina Sporting Dogs Association
.................and more.
I am not trying to be negative, but trying to find aswers since AKC parent breed groups are also opposing this Bill.
Was it the fact that the link he provided me for the groups that support it instead showed that the AKC Parent Breed groups oppose it?
As an AKC department head, Mr. Fielder has constantly brought up AKC's involvement in this Bill as well as AKC working with the Senator on this Bill.
Since AKC has major involvement in this Bill as with the involvement with the senator, you would think that an AKC department head that talks so much about it, could answer the above quoted question.
I think its quite obvious as to why the question was deleted. How do you answer that question to the hunting forum, that the only major supporters of this bill is:
AKC - American Kennel Club
HSUS - The Humane Society of the United States
PETA - People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals
DDAL - Doris Day Animal League
He sure doesn't want to answer the above supporters when HSUS has made statements like this:
"We also are expert at drafting, organizing and passing statewide ballot initiatives attacking hound hunting, trapping and many other forms of animal abuse."
Or the fact of how would it look like if he answered it this way:
"Drew here is a list of the PAWS Bill supporters and the ones that oppose it:
Organizations that SUPPORT PAWS:
AKC - American Kennel Club
HSUS - The Humane Society of the United States
PETA - People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals
DDAL - Doris Day Animal League
Organizations that OPPOSE PAWS:
AKC Breed Parent Clubs are in red text.
CHA - The Christian Houndsman Association
CFA - Cat Fanciers' Association
TICA - The International Cat Association
The Animal Council
SAOVA - Sportsmen and Animal Owners' Voting Alliance
UKC - United Kennel Club
NAIA - National Animal Interest Alliance
MOFed - Missouri Federation of Animal Owners
NCRAOA - North Carolina Responsible Animal Owners' Alliance
DFOW - Dog Federation of Wisconsin
RPOA - Responsible Pet Owners Alliance (Texas)
ARPONEF - Alliance of Responsible Pet Owners of North East Florida
CFODC - California Federation of Dog Clubs
PIJAC – Pet Industry Joint Advisory Council
Carolina Kennel Club, Inc (NC)
ASSA - American Shetland Sheepdog Association
JNCKC - Jacksonville NC Kennel Club
Master of Fox Hounds Association
American Brittany Club
VHDOA - Virginia Hunting Dog Owners' Association
CCDC - Central Carolina Dachshund Club (NC)
TICBS - The International Bengal Cat Society
NCCHA - North Carolina Coon Hunters Association
NCBHA - North Carolina Bear Hunters Association
NCSDA - North Carolina Sporting Dogs Association
Schooley's Mountain Kennel Club (NJ)
Greater Clark County Kennel Club (WA)
Ladies' Dog Club, Inc (MA)
Turkish Van Breed Rescue
American Chesapeake Club
Gtr Orange Park Dog Club (FL)
U.S. Sportsmen's Alliance
Great Dane Rescue of Northeast Florida
PKC - Piedmont Kennel Club (NC)
Dalmatian Club of the Piedmont (NC)
Jacksonville Sheltie Rescue (FL)
GSPCA - German Shorthaired Pointer Club of America
Federation of Maine Dog Clubs
Springfield Kennel Club (MA)
RAOT - Responsible Animal Owners of Tennessee
Virginia Bear Hunters Association
American Pomeranian Club
NASPR - North American Shar-Pei Rescue
Burlington Cat Fanciers (NC)
Tropical Cats Inc. (All Breed Club)
Western Clinton Sportsmen's Association (PA)
New Brunswick Kennel Club (NJ)
Papillon Club of America
North Shore Kennel Club (MA)
Professional Pet Association of Missouri
Sporting Dog Association of Missouri
Dachshund Club of America
Wachusett Kennel Club (MA)
Thunderkatz, Inc (OK)
Pug Rescue of North Carolina, Inc
St. Croix Valley Brittany Club (MN)
Fanciers Cocker Spaniel Club of Southern WI
Kalamazoo KC (MI)
WI Cocker Rescue
Lhasa Apso Southern Rescue, Inc
National Birman Fanciers
Birman Breed Rescue
Susquehanna Brittany Club (PA)
New England Sheltie Rescue
The Devon Rex Rescue League, Inc
Animal Safe Haven Foundation (CA)
LNC Pet Supply (CA)
Salisbury NC Kennel Club
Clermont County Kennel Club (OH)
Memphis International Cat Enthusiasts
North Carolina Field Trial Association
CT Dogs
PUFF - Pfanciers United For Fun, Inc (CFA - Midwest)
MPBA - Missouri Pet Breeders Association
MA Federation of Dog Clubs and Responsible Dog Owners
Bay Area Boxer Rescue (CA)
East of Eden Cat Fanciers (CA)
Dalmatian Rescue of Southwest Virginia
Colonial Shetland Sheepdog Club (MA)
White Shetland Sheepdog Association
CFA Purebred Rescue, Inc DBA Purebred Cat Breed Rescue
Western Massachusetts Shetland Sheepdog Club
Greater Fort Myers Dog Club
Capital City Cocker Club (DC)
KitnHevn Rescue, Inc (FL & OH)
Sunshine Dachshund Club of Jacksonville (FL)
Pug Dog Club of America
Sawnee Mountain Kennel Club (GA)
Absolutely Abyssinians Cat Club
Ocicats International
Eugene Kennel Club (OR)
Golden Retriever Rescue of Mid-Florida
Louisiana Brittany Rescue
Rabbit Education Society
Salt Lake Doberman Pinscher Club
The Devon Rex Breed Club
Cochise Bird Dog Club (AZ)
Shorewood Cocker Rescue (WI)
Bulldog Club of America Rescue Network
Amateur Field Trial Clubs of America - Region 12 (AZ & NM)
Amateur Field Trial Clubs of America - Region 7 (TX)
Halfpint Haven Borzoi and Greyhound Rescue, Inc (FL)
Animal Wellness Center (Alpharetta GA)
Lancaster Area Poodle Rescue (PA)
Shenandoah Valley Kennel Club (VA)
Hoosier State Chinese Shar-Pei Club (IN)
Blue Ridge P.E.T.S. (Pets in Education and Therapy Service) (VA)
German Shorthaired Pointer Club of Central Virginia
Nebraska Brittany Club
ESSFTA - English Springer Spaniel Field Trial Association
Prairie State Cat Club (IL)
Field Trial Clubs of Illinois
FORM - Friends of Rescued Mastiffs, Inc (Nat'l Mastiff Rescue)
SBDC - Sacramento Bird Dog Club
Sussex Hills Kennel Club (NJ)
Pug Dog Club of Maryland
Triangle Shetland Sheepdog Club of North Carolina
Yorkshire Terrier Club of America
Wisconsin Kennel Club
Garden State Siberian Husky Club (NJ)
Harmony Bay Chinese Shar-Pei Club (WA)
Ohio Valley Dog Owners, Inc (OH)
Hudson Valley Brittany Club of New York
Miss Kitty's Cat House (Rescue - AZ)
On-Line Feline Fanciers (Nat'l Cat Club)
Helping Persian Cats, Inc. (CA - Rescue)
Burlington Obedience Training Club, Inc (VT)
National Pet Alliance
Raritan River Akita Club (NJ)
Kittyhawk Felines, Inc (OH)
Centennial Chinese Shar-Pei Club (CO)
Walkfar Coonhunter’s Club (NC)
American Brittany Rescue (NJ)
Chinese Shar-Pei Club of America
Rocky Mountain Mastiff Fanciers (CO)
ILLOWA Chinese Shar-Pei Club (IL & IA)
Selkirk Rex Breed Rescue (CA)
Montana State Houndsmen Association
Shasta Kennel Club (OR)
Oregon Basset Hound Rescue
Golden Retriever Club of Western New York, Inc
Shetland Sheepdog Club of Greater Detroit
Visit us on the web at:
http://www.CoonDawgs.com
http://www.AmericanHoundsmen.com
http://www.CoonDogCemetery.com
http://www.HuntingBassets.com
Phone [615] 216-5650
http://www.CoonDawgs.com
http://www.AmericanHoundsmen.com
http://www.CoonDogCemetery.com
http://www.HuntingBassets.com
Phone [615] 216-5650