The American Beagler Forum

I want to start by addressing something that Goes wrote:

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.[/b]

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.

Goes, we are gonna just have to disagree on this. The darn government has their nose up my butt to much already. What I do with my dogs SHOULD be my own business and nothing more. I don't understand how anyone could side with PETA and their la la land thinking. Sorry Goes if I have offended you but you need to rethink which side you are on with this.

There are better ways of putting puppy mills out of business. Chris Miller is doing one thing with his website but there is so much more than can be done. First off, when someone thinks they know where one is, let us know! I guarantee if I knew where one was close to me, I would write every newspaper and television station within 100 miles so many times that sooner or later, they would do a story on the A#$HOLE who owns it.

I've read a lot on this issue and it makes me SICK! Anything that those sissyfied, panty wearing (no offense women), ignorant, s#$t for brains (PETA) support HAS to be BAD.

I'm not 100% educated on this issue yet but I'll be darn if some idiot from PETA is going to come to my house and tell me what to do, which is basically what it will turn into. There is more than 1 way to show self defense if need be!

I have a few questions of my own to clear up.

1: When I read "hunting" breeds does that mean that if I sell ONE dog that I will have to be licensed?

That is what I thought I read and I also read about 7 litters or 25 dogs. Well, I don't have a problem with a law on so many litters and 7 is a good number. Just how many stinking puppies does one man plan on keeping? Anything over that or something close to that is for money making purposes, plain and simple.

2: I want to know that the UKC, CKC and NKC's stance is on this subject.

3: I want to know why that Steve Fielder guy is supporting the thing or atleast that is what it sounded like. If I am wrong, Mr. Fielder, I am sorry and please correct me.

I'll have more questions later but for now, I'm as hot and fired up as Bucky was when I proved him wrong the other day on the ESPO board.

LEt me also say that ANYONE and I mean ANYONE that sides with Dickh$%d Durbin has a major issue with his own priorities.

Swamper.
1. You now me, I'd never be offended over this.
2. Why in the world did you start a new thread about the same subject and then address me in it. Why didn't you just post it to the current thread. SHAMELESS...lol
3. the whole Uncle Sam is to far up my but argument is mute because it doesn't benefit the conversation or the outcome of the bill.
4. Verbally spewing reduntant verbage over PETA is going to help understand the bill either. If you are making a desicion based off of that, then it really doesn't matter what I think about it.
5. Another Slippery sloper. PETA will come to my house and tell me what to do. PLEASE ARE YOU SERIOUS!
6. Answer to your 1 dog question. No.
7. If you want to know what their stances are, ask them, but if you have been reading allot about this subject you would already now that.
8. Steve is NOT a supporter of the bill. Read the thread and he clearly explains this.
9. Ask away but this isn't a matter of who is right and who is wrong, they are our own opinions in regards to how to make a change to the current Animal Welfare Act law.
In conclusion, if you truly want to understand the entire scenario, take the PAWS proposal and place the proposed changes into the current Animal Welfare Act and you will get exactly what you will opposing.

Take care partner and if you would like to start another thread to respond I'll keep my eyes open for it....lol SHAMELESS

Goes He is talking about Steve Fielder he is the director of AKC coonhounds and used to work for UKC and PKC

Alabama UKC is against this bill haven't seen any stance on PKC or NKC and I have addressed them with the question.

Also it all goes into the senator has stated that it could be private contracts for the inspections PETA HSUS and DDAL have forked out alot of money on the support of this bill and who would you think would get the contracts. I will give you three guesses and the first two don't count.

Any chance of consolidating the various PAWS discussions into one thread at http://americanbeagler.huntingboards.co ... light=paws We need to get to work and do some serious networking to get NBCA involved.

Bob you can go to http://www.coondawgs.com or http://www.ukcdogs.com/coonhounds/index.shtml
There are extensive threads on this issue and UKC's official stances

Bob Kane wrote:Any chance of consolidating the various PAWS discussions into one thread at http://americanbeagler.huntingboards.co ... light=paws We need to get to work and do some serious networking to get NBCA involved.

Mr. Kane,
The only problem I have with consolidating all of the PAWS posts on the hunting and gun laws forum is that a lot of people might miss seeing it to begin with. I think this forum gets the most views.

Goes,
There is NO WAY any of us small home breeders can comply with the ridiculous demands that the USDA would put on us. They say you must have all dog housing surfaces washable with 180 degree water...you must have a seperate kitchen for the storage and preparation of dog food...I could go on!!! There is NO WAY. They will not take out the large commercial breeders or the puppy mills. They will take out US.

Cindy
(3) Hard surfaces of primary enclosures and food and water

receptacles must be sanitized using one of the following methods:

(i) Live steam under pressure;

(ii) Washing with hot water (at least 180 deg. F (82.2 deg. C)) and soap or detergent, as with a mechanical cage washer; or

(iii) Washing all soiled surfaces with appropriate detergent solutions and disinfectants, or by using a combination detergent/disinfectant product that accomplishes the same purpose, with a thorough cleaning of the surfaces to remove organic material, so as to remove all organic material and mineral buildup, and to provide sanitization followed by a clean water rinse.

(4) Pens, runs, and outdoor housing areas using material that cannot be sanitized using the methods provided in paragraph (b)(3) of this section, such as gravel, sand, grass, earth, or absorbent bedding, must be sanitized by removing the contaminated material as necessary to prevent odors, diseases, pests, insects, and vermin infestation.

I've read all 60 pages and I do not see where it says about a seperate kitchen. I do see where it says about bathroom, sink, basin, shower for employees but nothing about a seperate kitchen.

This is the USDA regulation. This what I mean when I say that WE ALL accept only parts we don't agree with and make it a bigger deal than it is. Your example of the 180 degree water temp is perfect. If the reg stopped there I would have to agree with you but it doesn't, it goes on with the "OR".

Cindy, I swear I am still not saying I am in favor of this bill but I still don't see how this would be a problem for hobby breeders. I mean you can sell 24 dogs and 6 litters of puppies and still not have to be regulated. If folks are selling this many dogs every year, it is more than a hobby and should have regulation. Again, that is just my humble opinion.

I keep asking people for their true opposition tot his but all I keep getting is partials of the wording not the entire text. So if it is only wording that is bothering them, are they saying if it said 50 dogs and 12 litters, would that be better. if so would you support it then?

You see so many folks are against this and I keep saying I don't get it and really truly am trying to. I honestly am not trying to be the voice opposition, just looking for education of what others see so I can review that with what I see.

As for this not stopping the commercial breeders (ie hunte etc..) I agree, but so far I do see this as stopping the no name puppy mills with the help of the registries plus I don't see how this will stop the hobby breeder.

As a hobby breeder, do you feel that getting a USDA license for $760 a year will stop you from your own breeding program?
If you had 7 litters next year and kept 2 out of each litter and sold the rest for $100 each, you could cover the meds, food, advertising, and the license. Just for the sake of argument we can say that each litter has 5 pups and with you keeping 2 out of each, that would leave 3 to sell. 3 x 7 $2100. Then subtract the license of $760. That leaves $1,340 to cover the costs. That's nearly $200 per litter to cover costs associated with each litter. Don't most of us sell their pups for more than a $100?
So now you have kept 14 pups and you started with say, 14 dogs. You then would have 28 adult dogs next year. But you do the same thing next year. You would end up having 36 dogs if you didn't sell any of them. It's starting to get out of control and should be regulated. I don't know if that makes sense or not but all one would have to do is drop their litters by 1 a year and they fall into the guidlines of not having to buy the license.

This is what I am reading and understanding, maybe you can help me see how this is a problem.

Thanks Cindy, always a pleasure.

Take care

Goes

Honey Pot Hounds wrote:

Bob Kane wrote:Any chance of consolidating the various PAWS discussions into one thread at http://americanbeagler.huntingboards.co ... light=paws We need to get to work and do some serious networking to get NBCA involved.

Mr. Kane,
The only problem I have with consolidating all of the PAWS posts on the hunting and gun laws forum is that a lot of people might miss seeing it to begin with. I think this forum gets the most views.

Goes,
There is NO WAY any of us small home breeders can comply with the ridiculous demands that the USDA would put on us. They say you must have all dog housing surfaces washable with 180 degree water...you must have a seperate kitchen for the storage and preparation of dog food...I could go on!!! There is NO WAY. They will not take out the large commercial breeders or the puppy mills. They will take out US.

You are exactly right. I can't belive anyone supports this P.A.W.S. junk. goes1 What will be the next step they say maybe 2 litters and so forth. This is crazy being regulated in any way. I olny raise 1 litter a year and this scares me.

A lot of confusing stuff has been written about PAWS. This is an easy-
to-read explanation.

'PAWS' is the Pet Animal Welfare Statute of 2005, a bill in the U.S.
Senate (S. 1139) and House of Representatives (H.R. 2669). The bill is
sponsored by Senator Rick Santorum (R-PA) who previously sponsored
the two 'Puppy Protection Acts.'

PAWS is being backed by HSUS (the Humane Society of the U.S.) and
DDAL (the Doris Day Animal League), who also backed the two PPA's.
Surprisingly it is also strongly backed by the American Kennel Club.
More recently PETA has announced that it supports PAWS.

Under the current federal Animal Welfare Act (AWA) anyone who has
over three breeding female dogs *and* sells any dogs at wholesale, is
considered a dealer and must get a license from the USDA. Breeders
who sell *only* retail (that is, direct to the pet home) are *not* dealers
and are not required to be licensed. This 'retail exemption' is why
hobby breeders are not covered now.

If PAWS passes, you will be a dealer unless you sell 25 or fewer dogs
*and* cats together *or* you sell six or fewer litters of dogs and cats
bred or raised on your own premises and no dogs or cats not so
bred/raised. If you sell a 'puppy back' (stud fee puppy, etc) or you
take in and sell a rescue cat or dog, you must stay under the 25 total
dogs/cats limit or get a license.

To get a license you must pass an inspection. There are 90 pages of
regulations. These regulations are written for farm-type raising of
dogs. All surfaces touched by animals must be waterproof, you must
sterilize surfaces every two weeks (one allowed way is by spraying with
water at 180 degrees temp.); you must have a food preparation space
separate from your (human) kitchen; animal pens or cages must be
considerably larger than the standard sizes of crates used for dogs;
puppies, as well as bitches that will whelp within two weeks, must be kept
separate from other dogs; and much more.

It is generally impractical to comply with the regulations in your home.
You might be able to do it with a walk-in basement set-up, but most will
have to build a kennel. Expect costs in the $100,000 ballpark. You may
need a zoning variance (you may not be able to get one) and in some
areas, being a USDA licensed dealer will automatically make you a
business required to collect sales tax and obey other laws for businesses.

Being USDA licensed is harder than 'you get it right and then keep it that
way.' The regulations change and each inspector has his own ideas about
what's important and what compliance means. You WILL have violations,
regardless of how hard you try.

The AKC tells us that the USDA will have to write new regulations
allowing in-home breeding. It won't happen because the large wholesale
breeders who are already licensed don't want any new competition
getting a low-cost set of rules. Those big dealers have a lot more clout
than we do.

The AKC seems to be supporting PAWS for two reasons: First, they
believe that by making many small breeders subject to licensing, they'll
get more who can meet AKC requirements for registering their dogs, so
they'll get more registrations.

Second, PAWS would double or triple the number of dealers to be
inspected and there's no chance that the USDA will get a big budget
increase. The AKC hopes it will be allowed to do inspections for them.
Of course it would charge a fee for doing so. However if the AKC is
allowed to do inspections, very likely HSUS would be too.

The numbers allowed without licensing -- 25 animals or six litters sold
(whichever is more) are much more restrictive for cats because of their
different reproductive patterns. Some experts believe that PAWS will
end the breeding of purebred cats by fanciers.

Many dog and cat rescue groups take in and adopt out hundreds of
animals per year. These animals are kept in ordinary (foster) homes
during rehabilitation. In law, 'adopting' for any compensation is selling.

PAWS will force rescuers to choose between building a shelter and
limiting themselves to selling a total of 25 per year.

Nonprofit status does not matter and there is no way to write an
exception for rescue. What will actually happen is that incorporated
rescues will dissolve, leaving the various foster homes and rescuers to do
the best they can on their own. Unfortunately many shelters will allow
only incorporated groups to take animals.

Most home dog breeders will not be affected at first. However, PAWS
will make many breeders afraid to fight new bad laws. More of the
state and local breeder licensing laws that are proposed now will pass.
Many of these have one or two litter and 6 to 12 animal limits without
licensing; some require everyone selling a dog or cat to be licensed.

HSUS has said that they consider PAWS a first step. They've also said
that they believe all breeding of pets should be federally licensed. If
PAWS passes, steps two, three, (and so on) will be even worse.PAWS is said to be needed because of large and growing importing of
dogs and cats; this seems to be a complete untruth. It is also claimed
that growing use of the internet allows direct retail selling without
people being able to see how pets are bred and raised. This is true but
nobody is required to buy this way and the net allows asking many
questions and comparing sellers' answers. The *AKC* allows puppy
advertising on its web site; if they think it's bad, why are they doing it?

There is almost no commercial selling of purebred cats. The real
purpose of the bill is to make it harder to breed cats and dogs at home.

WE MUST BEAT PAWS. The bill is currently waiting for hearings in the
agriculture committees of Congress. Sen. Santorum plans to hold a
Senate agriculture subcommittee hearing after the August recess.
PAWS could pass in September or October.

The most important thing to do to beat PAWS is to call, write, or visit
your Senators and your Representative. Tell them you OPPOSE S. 1139
(the Senate bill) or H.R. 2269 (the identical House bill). Ask friends,
family, and animal businesses to do the same thing. PAWS will be bad
for dogs, bad for cats, bad for pet rescuers, bad for pet owners (who
will have fewer choices), and bad for our country.

An easy way to write your Congressmen is to go to:

http://www.congress.org

Click 'ignore this ad' near the center of the screen and type in your zip
code where they ask for it. They'll show you your three congressmen;
click 'e-mail', 'compose your own letter' and follow the directions to
enter your message.

Please Help!


THIS MAY BE FORWARDED, COPIED, OR ADAPTED AS NECESSARY!

I'm moving the Paws discussions to the legislation forum. Newcomers to the board seeking info and/or wishing to contribute will be looking there first.