Support PAWS: Pet Animal Welfare Statute

[Eileen Stein]

Bill, I can't find anything in your post that I agree with. There are so many points I disagree with (nearly every sentence, in fact), and so many arguments I would have to lay out to explain why IMO what you say is wrong, that in the face of your blanket opposition to licensure or inspection of any kind it just doesn't seem worth the time and effort. No matter what I said it wouldn't change your mind; it would only turn up the heat and lead to more of the same. So I'm going to bow out of this particular dialogue at this point.

[Bill Fosher]

Handy.

[JMack]

"JMack: I know one thing. If there were no licenses or inspections, there would be a lot fewer crooked license-issuers and inspectors."

 

Clever, but not an answer to my question. You don't seem very interested in having a discussion here.

[Eileen Stein]

Handy?? Oh, for pete's sake.

 

Bill, I'm perfectly happy to go round with you again if there's any point. Am I misreading the scope of your disapproval? Is there any federal regulation that you think has resulted in an improvement -- that has, on balance, made things better than they would otherwise have been? If you've lived as long as you have without seeing any net benefits to any regulation, inspection or licensure in the world around you, then nothing I say here is going to convince you that PAWS would be the sole exception. And there's no point in my arguing for the benefit of other readers, because I don't think there are many others who share this view of yours.

 

But okay -- one more round.

 

Your proposal that breeders set up LLCs and distribute their breeding among them is not feasible for the puppy millers I have in mind. They don't have lawyers, accountants or bookkeepers. They are unlikely to be willing to incur the setup costs, the additional taxation, the annual corporate fees, and other maintenance costs, even if they could afford them. They're just not in your league, Bill. They're pretty small potatoes, but they cause a lot of misery all the same. And if shell corporations were set up to evade the law in any numbers, the law would simply be amended at the behest of these ruthless, powerful, stop-at-nothing animal rights fanatics to deal with that.

 

You say it doesn't make sense to regulate the breeding and distribution of puppies

 

>

 

But that's just another way of saying, with no supporting evidence, that "regulation never works." If it's so easy to circumvent the law, why couldn't good breeders do it too? If government regulation is so oppressive, why wouldn't the puppy millers (who are more likely to be producing 10 to 50 litters a year -- the bigger guys have been selling wholesale and are already regulated) be crushed and discouraged? You can't have it both ways.

 

And it's totally false to say "the ones who want to produce one well-bred litter a year will be discouraged from doing so by the intrustion of regulations," because PAWS doesn't cover the ones who produce one well-bred litter a year. That's the whole point of exempting breeders below a certain level of production. To me, getting the numbers right is all-important. Below a certain level I couldn't support the bill, precisely because it would encumber good breeders. I want to see the numbers set above the point where good breeders would be affected. And it wouldn't be hard to determine where they should be set, because we pretty much know who our highest-volume good breeders are (and they're not very high-volume). Even if a few squalid breeders would be exempted too, the bill could still do a lot of good.

 

>

 

Not necessarily, and definitely not if the support for doing so is weak, and the opposition to doing so is strong. See my post of 12-06-2005 at 07:34 PM (see, we are going round and round). I wouldn't oppose a bill I thought could do a significant amount of good and no harm just because someday it might be amended in a way that could make it harmful. But that's just me.

[Bill Fosher]

Folks,

 

I never said that I thought all licensure and regulation was a waste of time. Rather, I was trying to point out that licensure, regulation, and inspection are only as good as the intentions behind the laws and the resources given to people who enforce them and conduct the inspections. Relying on new regulations to change the lives of dogs in puppy mills is a fool's errand, given that there are 70 inspectors in the entire US to enforce the existing regulations.

 

The squalid conditions that we all deplore are illegal now in most states. No new laws would be needed if the existing laws on the books were enforced.

 

Eileen has great faith in the power of public opinion to keep regulations at levels that she considers reasonable. I don't share that faith. Once a federal law is on the books, it can take on a life of its own.

 

Essentially if PAWS passes, and even if it's not ever changed and even if Eileen gets to personally set the caps so that they are perfectly designed to get only puppy millers and no responsible breeders, one of two things will happen. It will not be enforced because the USDA lacks the resources and the AKC is willing to look the other way as long as its inspections fees are paid. Or, it will be enforced by the USDA, meaning that resources will be diverted away from its other programs, which include food stamps, reduced-price lunches at schools, nutrition programs for women, infants, and children, food safety enforcement, educational and outreach programs through the cooperative extension service -- the list goes on.

 

Don't get me wrong. I'm no great fan of the USDA, and I'm not a supporter of puppy mills. But if I had to choose between resources going to reduce hunger in poor children and annoying puppy mill owners -- who would still stay in business and simply pass along additional costs down the chain -- I'm going to opt for reducing hunger in poor children.

 

If I thought PAWS would actually make a difference, I could get over the fact that PETA and HSUS support it. But it won't. It will simply provide a platform on which these groups can stand and beat their chests when they feel like attacking the USDA's lack of enforcement when their next fundraising drive comes around.

[Eileen Stein]

>

 

Well, I agree with that. I must have misunderstood your reference to licensure of doctors, lawyers, etc.

 

>

 

I've heard that figure used by opponents of the bill, and I'm in no position to challenge it. One of my problems with the bill is that there would likely be inadequate enforcement, given the "starve the beast" mentality that prevails today. But setting the standards is worth something, and some enforcement is better than none. There is a deterrent effect that's worth something too.

 

>

 

That, too, is routinely said by opponents of the bill, and I AM in a position to know that's not true. There are many jurisdictions where the only legal requirement for keeping dogs -- in any quantity, for any purpose -- is that they must have water available, and food from time to time. The latter requirement is satisfied by showing bags of food in a shed. There is usually a shelter requirement, but it's very minimal. Keeping the dog (with pups) in a rabbit hutch or outside under a torn and blowing tarp is fine. That's it.

 

>

 

Well, who can justify spending money on anything while poor children are starving? That's a permanent argument against any legislative initiative. But you're wrong that they would still stay in business and simply pass along additional costs down the chain. The ones I'm talking about could not possibly come into compliance. Do you think they can just get a whopping bank loan to renovate their pig sty into a complying facility? These are not people who would have a lot of appeal for a loan officer.

 

The most likely scenario in these times is that the enforcement budget will stay the same or increase slightly, and enforcement efforts will be complaint-generated. IOW, they won't enforce vigorously and proactively, but they'll inspect and take action -- perhaps slowly -- in response to complaints. That's not ideal, but it's modestly beneficial, and has been enough to bring about improvement in other regulated areas.

 

>

 

I think otherwise, but I envy you your certainty.

[JMack]

Eileen,

I appreciate your thoughtful posts on this topic.