Support PAWS: Pet Animal Welfare Statute

[Katelynn & Gang]

I think its a awesome idea.

 

Hope you all feel the same.

 

Katelynn

 

https://community.hsus.org/campaign/2005_PAWS2/explanation

[juliepoudrier]

Kate,

Here's at least one previous thread in which PAWS was discussed:

 

http://bordercollie.heatherweb.com/cgi-bin...t=000425#000000

 

And another:

http://bordercollie.heatherweb.com/cgi-bin...t=008780#000000

 

At least you'll get some other opinions on the topic by reading these threads.

 

J.

[kelpiegirl]

Katelynn:

 

I don't feel the same This is a new law proposed because the laws already ON THE BOOKS visa vis the Animal Welfare Act, are NOT BEING ENFORCED. To enact this new law, is rather like not allowing anyone to park on streets, because too many people don't pay their tickets. ENFORCE the laws you have before enacting more!!!!!

 

In case you weren't aware, the HSUS is a self proclaimed animal RIGHTS organization. There is loads of stuff on the internet discussing the true ideology behind groups like this, but suffice to say, you would NOT be doing agility, herding, or any thing else with your dogs, should animal rights organizations have their say.

 

I just want you know the background behind the orgnanization proposing this very flawed law.

 

Julie

[Eileen Stein]

As you can see from the links Julie provided, I've thought seriously about this bill. Even though I'm tremendously concerned about puppy mills, I can't support it. It would do some good, though I don't think it's targeted very well to accomplish its proclaimed goal. It would also do some harm. As I pointed out in another thread, although there is a provision that you can breed up to six litters a year without being regulated (and that's plenty!), nevertheless any breeder who sells more than 25 dogs per year would come under regulation if one or more of the dogs they sold was not bred by them. I can imagine very good working border collie breeders who might have three or four litters in a year. If they sell those pups, and also a couple of dogs that they've imported, or trained to sell as started dogs, or bought and not liked enough to keep, they would become subject to regulation. That would be too bad, IMO. Our very best breeders have rare skills when it comes to breeding and recognizing good dogs. They are the ones who SHOULD be breeding. When you come right down to it, quality of dogs and quality of care are much more significant than numbers, at this relatively low level anyway.

 

People have expressed surprise that the AKC is supporting this bill, when it has opposed all previously proposed anti-puppy mill legislation (some of which was much better than this bill, IMO). The AKC has been pretty up-front that they're doing it so they can have "a seat at the table" and thereby nudge the legislation to their own benefit. An example of how they've done this can be seen at http://www.puliclub.org/PCAnews-paws.htm , where an AKC director tells how they've obtained an amendment to the bill which will exempt any breeder or retailer who is inspected by the AKC. Thus, they assure those who register with them, "ALL of our hobby breeders, regardless of size or numbers of sales or litters, will be exempt without any change in their current status whatsoever. . . . PAWS is first and foremost good for dogs. Now, it is also good for the AKC and for all of AKC's constituents. Not one AKC registrant who is not now a dealer will be determined to be a dealer [i.e., come under regulation] because of PAWS." Regardless of what the inspection finds, evidently.

 

So it's only non-AKC registering breeders who have to worry about the size and number of sales limitations.

[kelpiegirl]

eileen:

THat is just disgusting, what AKC is doing. How on EARTH are they going to police all these breeders?

Julie

[CleoDog]

What the AKC is doing is lying down with a dog (Santorum). I hope they're scratching from all the fleas....yuck!

 

http://www.dumpsantorum.com/

http://www.santorumexposed.com (this one was down when I checked, but it's great!)

 

Michele

[JMack]

Kate,

 

I support PAWS & have contacted my congressional representatives to say so.

[JMack]

I noticed in the linked discussions how often people have not themselves read the legislation but seem to be depending on rumors about it to make up their own minds.

 

I would encourage everyone with this and other bills to read it for yourself. There are some pretty absurd claims in the previous discussion (that the legislation's real intention is to free all dogs and make dog ownership illegal, for instance).

 

Surely it's possible to build alliances with other groups--even groups with whom we largely disagree--in order to ensure the wellbeing of animal companions in this country. I don't believe in throwing red paint on people wearing fur coats but I do believe in shutting down all puppy mills, now, immediately, and prosecuting people who run them. If allying with groups like PETA can make that happen, so be it. It doesn't mean that I have to share their views on every issue.

[JMack]

And I agree that Santorum is a low-down human (no, not a dog!), but does that mean that one should vote against legislation he's introduced, even if one agrees with the legislation?

[Eileen Stein]

JMack, I agree with you that some of the reasons one hears for opposing this proposed legislation are not valid, just as some of the arguments offered in support of it are not valid. The fact that PETA supports it is irrelevant as far as I'm concerned; the fact that PETA's support is used as an argument against supporting it is also irrelevant. My opposition is based on a reading of the bill and the AWA. In no way would it bring about "shutting down all puppy mills, now, immediately, and prosecuting people who run them." The issue is more complicated than that.

[Pipedream Farm]

If PAWS is enacted then all of us that will be required to get a breeding license will be required to keep our dogs on surfaces impervious to moisture (check it out, it's in the AWA Section 3.1). That means no carpeting in your house for those with house dogs.

 

We will likely be required to get a kennel permit from our county/city; can you imagine having to get a kennel permit for your house from the city?

 

This is not well thought out. Besides; why would anyone think the USDA would be capable of inspecting even more facilities that they have to right now?

 

Eileen, if I purchased a puppy from someone else then sold it as a started dog for more than $500 and then bred a litter would I now meet the PAWS requirement for needing a license?

 

Mark

[JMack]

Eileen,

I didn't mean to suggest that PAWS would cure the puppy mill problem--only that I'm committed to it & it seems as if PAWS is a step in the right direction.

 

Mark,

I read the section you posted & it doesn't say that at all. It says that the surfaces where dogs are housed must be made of materials that can be cleaned regularly.

I don't know about you, but I have no argument with that.

[Pipedream Farm]

JMack,

 

I don't know about your house, but in mine I don't think bleaching the carpets would be acceptable.

 

Mark

[kelpiegirl]

I HAVE read the PAWS bill. There are ALREADY animal welfare laws (FEDERAL) on the books, that are NOT being followed, as there are NOT ENOUGH inspectors to go out to each and every premise in this country. This seems to be the wave of the future- wrap up a law in some pretty wrapping paper (saving animals), and inside is the real meat of the issue- the restriction on dog ownership and $$$$$$$ into other's coiffers. Anyone who does anything with their dogs, ie; agility, herding, demos at country fairs-ANYTHING, are deemed "exhibitors" and will fall under this act. It may seem like no big deal to agree that one can have all their paperwork in order, BUT, you are also subject to INSPECTION. Now, I have no problem with people stopping by my house unexepectdly, but I DO have a problem with BIG BROTHER coming in and demanding goodness knows WHAT records regarding my dogs, and ME. If you all believe that this is nothing but an attempt to protect animals, you are greatly mistaken. Since the secretary can decide if you have put your animals in danger, that is a WIDE OPEN DOOR for herding trials to cease (especially with cattle), and WIDE open door for SAR dogs work to be greatly affected, and heck, even agility can be deemed dangerous. I refuse to have something like this PANDORA'S box opened with my okay.

 

Go ahead a look at the original AWA, and see what laws are already on the books. See that the laws are being broken because the FEDS don't have enough staff to handle all the inspections. What real GOOD is any law if it can't be backed up.

 

Julie

[JMack]

Julie & Mark,

If you aren't breeding more than 6 litters per year, I don't understand how this legislation applies to you.

Just asking--

[Eileen Stein]

>

 

Mark, I don't read it that way. I believe you'd be saved by the exemption for those who don't sell more than 25 dogs in a single year. (Unless you DID sell more than 25 dogs in one year, and in that case you WOULD need a license under PAWS.) For you to lose that exemption, you'd have to derive more than $500 in income from the sale of animals other than dogs or cats (e.g., guinea pigs, hamsters, rabbits, etc).

 

>

 

JMack, the 6 litters per year exemption applies only if you don't sell any dogs/pups you haven't bred yourself. If you sell even one dog you haven't bred yourself, then you must be licensed, regulated and inspected if you sell more than 25 dogs total in a year. This is more like 3 or 4 litters than 6 litters.

 

Show dog breeders rarely if ever sell dogs they haven't bred themselves. Same for puppy millers. But working dog breeders often sell a dog or two a year that they haven't bred. For example, they might go over to the UK for the International and import a dog to sell to a friend or a student. Or they might buy an adult trained dog with the intent of trialing it, but find they couldn't get together with it and decide to sell it. Or they might buy a young dog or two to train and sell as started dogs. Sometimes, too, they will import a bitch in whelp who was bred in the UK (this is a way of bringing a bloodline to the US when you can't buy the stud dog), and would be selling her pups in addition to their own. This can push them up over the 25-dog total pretty fast.

 

I don't know if Julie sells this many dogs in a year, and I'm sure Mark doesn't, but I suspect they are concerned about the impact on our really good breeders who do sell this many dogs, and whose breeding is so beneficial to the breed. As I am. It is the skills of a relatively few good working breeders which keep top-quality working ability in our breed.

[Pipedream Farm]

Thanks for the clarification Eileen.

Thanks for keeping up on these legal issues; it is definitely outside my area of understanding (knowing how what?s drafted can be interpreted). And like Eileen stated I am concerned about potential the impact of PAWS on the breed.

 

Mark

[Bill Fosher]

JMack --

 

Do you think that anyone who breeds six litters in a year is ipso facto a puppy miller?

 

While I generally agree with Eileen that the fact that PETA and HSUS support this legistlation is irrelevant, I do see their support as a red flag. If these organizations, which have a stated objective of ending animal ownership, think this is a good law, what does that tell us about the effect that they're expecting it to have?

 

And the facts that the AKC has taken the time to ensure that they have a.) a way to offer their breeders a loophole and b.) collect more inspection fees is another red flag.

 

Essentially, it seems to me that this would push more puppy millers toward AKC registration, because their inspections might be less cumbersome than those required under the law, and an AKC-inspected kennel would be exempted from the law. So it doesn't really do anything to shut down puppy mills, just pushes them toward AKC registration, and more money for the AKC.

 

Now here's another idea for getting around this law that might be used for good or for evil: suppose one were to set up a couple of LLCs to own one's bitches. Then each LLC would be a separate entity, and have its own breeding cap. I know that LLC fees vary widely from state to state (New Hampshire is $75 per year, Mass is $500), and there is always paperwork involved, but it could be a way around PAWS if it does get enacted.

 

Another idea that might pass scrutiny better would be an LLC that takes in outside dogs or imports them and another that covers breeding.

[JMack]

Bill,

By definition, no. But that sort of large-scale breeding does send up some red flags for me & I do believe that anyone breeding six litters a year should be regulated.

 

The best laws exist to protect those with no power. Minimum wage laws, for instance, exist to protect employees who would be exploited by unethical employers. Does that mean that all employers would act in unethical ways? Of course not. Surely many--if not most--would treat their employees fairly.

 

But if the law doesn't exist, there is no protection from the unethical. For me, PAWS isn't about people who love Border Collies and are responsible breeders (and I have no doubt that those are the people who show up here). I agree that it's unfair that people who behave responsibly must be inconvenienced by legislation designated for the irresponsible (or worse), but that's the price we all pay to live in a society.

[Pipedream Farm]

I found a link to a good site listing what this bill says; not the interpretation of the bill by some group.

 

AWA - Sections of Chapter 54 Affected by Sen. Santorum's Amendments

 

There are two places where "low volume" breeders could get caught by this bill.

 

1)selling one of their pups to a dealer who purchased it for resale

2)importing and reselling a dog

 

 

On the "Pet-Law website they list groups that do not support the bill. There are the ones I find interesting.

 

National - AKC Parent Breed Clubs

American Brittany Club

American Shetland Sheepdog Association

American Chesapeake Club

German Shorthaired Pointer Club of America

American Pomeranian Club

Papillon Club of America

Dachshund Club of America

Pug Dog Club of America

English Springer Spaniel Field Trial Association

Yorkshire Terrier Club of America

Chinese Shar-Pei Club of America

American Spaniel Club

American Boxer Club

Saluki Club of America

Saint Bernard Club of America

Scottish Terrier Club of America

American Cavalier King Charles Spaniel Club

Labrador Retriever Club of America

American Brussels Griffon Association

Golden Retriever Club of America

German Shepherd Dog Club of America

American Miniature Schnauzer Club

Spinone Club of America

Great Pyrenees Club of America

Weimaraner Club of America

Nova Scotia Duck Tolling Retriever Club

American Lhasa Apso Club

American Pointer Club

Collie Club of America

Field Spaniel Society of America

Miniature Pinscher Club of America

American Belgian Tervuren Club

Doberman Pinscher Club of America

American Chinese Crested Club

American Eskimo Dog Club of America

Sussex Spaniel Club of America

Newfoundland Club of America

Silky Terrier Club of America

National Beagle Club of America

-

The clubs shown above represent 65.9% of AKC's registrations.

 

Mark

[Pipedream Farm]

Eileen,

 

I have read the bill the same way that the Pet-Law website reads the bill:

 

If PAWS passes, you will be a dealer unless you sell 25 or fewer dogsand 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.

Here are the sections in question:

 

(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.

This is where I need help from someone versed in reading and understanding how laws are interpreted.

 

Mark

[Eileen Stein]

Bill wrote:

 

>

 

Try as I may, I just can't see why this is a red flag, any more that I would view PETA's support for a law against the sport of dogfighting as a red flag. Pure animal liberation theory may hold that people shouldn't own animals, but nobody in PETA is actually trying to prevent people from owning pets, either as a long-term or a short-term goal, and if they were, they would have zero chance of success.

 

Puppy millers oppose this bill. I don't like puppy millers. Should I support the bill for that reason? What should people who don't like PETA and don't like puppy millers do?

 

JMack wrote:

 

>

 

Why are you still talking about six litters a year? Do you believe that anyone who breeds 25 puppies a year and sells one bought dog should be regulated? If so, do you believe that anyone who breeds at all should be regulated? Federally regulated?

 

>

 

The degree of inconvenience is an important consideration. For a large-scale puppy miller, complying with the AWA and its implementing regulations is no big deal compared to the profits they make. For the kind of working breeders I care about, who don't have an assembly-line operation and net very little from breeding, whose pups are often born and raised in their home, complying with the AWA and its implementing regulations would be very onerous -- enough so that it may well make it not worth while for them to continue. That's one negative about the bill. The diversion of scarce enforcement resources from the bigger operations to the smaller is another negative about the bill. Between the two, I reluctantly conclude that the harm it would likely do to our breed as it stands outweighs the good it would likely do.

 

Mark wrote:

 

>

 

That is a great site! It doesn't include the amendments that apparently came out of the committee hearing on November 8, but it's got the basics in a very easy to read way.

 

>

 

Yes, a whole lot of the AKC's constituent clubs have opposed the bill and condemned the AKC for supporting it. It is in order to quell that mutiny that AKC assured them that the fix is in -- that new amendments to the bill will exempt anyone who is inspected by the AKC from being classified as a dealer, and thus that "Not one AKC registrant who is not now a dealer will be determined to be a dealer."

 

 

Quote: 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. End Quote. >>

 

Yes, that's the way I read it too. Not sure whether you understood what I wrote to be the same as this or not?

[Pipedream Farm]

Eileen,

 

the way I take this is if I fall in both catagories (breed less than 6 litters and sell less than 25 dogs) I would be considered a dealer. The "or" between catagories suggests to me that I would need to be one (low volume breeder) or the other (low volume dog seller) to be exempt.

 

Mark

[Eileen Stein]

No, although I can see why you took it that way. The way it's worded is very awkward and confusing.

 

Dealers are regulated. But the section in question says that the term "dealer" does NOT include "any person who, in 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."

 

So you want to show that you don't meet the definition of a dealer because you fall under one of these exemptions.

 

Okay, so getting rid of the last bit first, if you gross more than $500 a year from selling animals other than dogs and cats, you're not eligible for this exemption, period. You're a dealer, you'll be regulated. But if you don't gross more than $500 a year from selling animals other than dogs and cats, you're still in the game. You still might qualify for the exemption.

 

Now let's look at the first two categories, (aa) and (bb). (Let's leave cats out of it, because who the hell sells cats.) If they were linked by the word "and," it would mean that you had to meet the terms of both to qualify for the exemption. Because they're linked by "or," it means you only have to meet the terms of one OR the other to qualify for the exemption (of course, you might meet both, but you don't have to). If you don't sell more than 25 dogs a year, you qualify for the exemption under (aa), but of course that's usually a lot less than 6 litters a year. If you DO sell more than 25 dogs a year, you could still qualify under (bb) if you don't whelp more than 6 litters a year, AND don't sell any dog you didn't breed yourself, AND don't sell at wholesale or for resale. But if you do sell any dog you didn't breed yourself, then the (bb) route to the exemption is lost to you. You are thrown back on the (aa) route, with its cap of 25 dogs a year. If you sell more dogs than that, you're a dealer.

 

I hope this makes it a little clearer, but I'm not confident. It's really a badly drafted bill.

[Pipedream Farm]

Originally posted by JMack:

Mark,

I read the section you posted & it doesn't say that at all. It says that the surfaces where dogs are housed must be made of materials that can be cleaned regularly.

I don't know about you, but I have no argument with that.

From Section 3.2 Indoor housing facilities

(d) Interior surfaces.

The floors and walls of indoor housing facilities, and any other surfaces in contact with the animals, must be impervious to moisture. The ceilings of indoor housing facilities must be impervious to moisture or be replaceable (e.g., a suspended ceiling with replaceable panels).

From Section 3.11 Cleaning, sanitization, housekeeping, and pest control.

(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? F (82.2? 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 detergentldisinfectant 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 ((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.

Mark