Jump to content
BC Boards

Pet Animal Welfare Statute, PAWS


LeAnn
 Share

Recommended Posts

I don't know if you're aware of a new piece of Federal legislation which has been introduced. PAWS, or the "Pet Animal Welfare Statute" is going to require federal licensing and registration of all pet breeders (even hobbyists) raising/selling more than 6 litters a year. You'll be regulated just like the commercial kennels/catteries.

 

Now before you say, "that doesn't concern me," remember - when Congress is in session, nothing is safe. This bill could easily get amended to bring that number down at the last minute. Or, that's a compromise that could happen in a conference committee.

 

While that may seem like a lot of litters to some of you, as a former cat breeder, depending on the breed, you'd want more than one litter a year. It's hard on a cat to keep going through heat cycles. And, sometimes, you'd end up with the litters such that one year you'd have a lot more than then next. Or you wouldn't have any sales one year and they'd get mixed in with the next years.

 

Why should YOU be concerned? First, this legislation was initially promoted by the Doris Day Animal League several years ago. The animal rights groups grabbed it and pushed full throttle. We pushed back and the bill was defeated. However, the basis of many of these organizations is to eliminate all pet ownership. Pets should be able to run free and be "natural" according to those groups. But they're smart enough to know that Americans won't stand for someone taking their pets. So they'll go after the big breeders, then the small ones, and finally, you won't be able to get a pet. See why you should be concerned?

 

Pet rescuers may also fall under this regulation. I know most of you don't take in large numbers at a time, but again, it does happen.

 

Perhaps even scarier, the AKC has decided to approve this legislation. You can read the press release posted by AKC 5/26/05 at www.akc.org/news/index.cfm?article_id=2513

 

If you'd like to read a reasoned commentary on this issue, try the National Animal Interest Association at: http://www.naiaonline.org/ NAIA actively works to promote animal welfare, but also to promote the use of animals in traditional roles - such as herding.

 

I've heard the AKC Board of Directors is meeting on June 13th to discuss this issue and meet with delegates. Many of you belong to local clubs and might be able to influence the process. PLEASE get involved. While the legislation has a long road to travel, it doesn't help when the industry is fighting each other. The AKC wields a lot of clout with people who don't understand breed registries. Getting them back on our side is important.

 

I'm no longer breeding cats and my BC is a rescue from the local shelter. At some point, I may want to look for a BC with a whole lot more herding instinct. I would hate to look around and discover the small breeders had been put out of "business" - like producing dogs is such a great money-maker - because of federal regs.

 

I'll hope you'll voice your opinion to the AKC and to your US Senators. Go to: http://www.senate.gov/ and click on your state in order to contact your Senators.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am on a Yahoo digest, West Virginia Pet Law (about laws that affect pet animals, pet ownership, and pet breeding in West Virginia, but often relevant to the entire country). There has been some very good information on this topic recently.

 

I agree that this legislation may very well impact those who are not aware of it or who don't think it will affect them. I believe, and I'm not positive, but the production or sale of 25 puppies/dogs a year will bring a person's breeding business/rescue, etc., under this bill's control.

 

Some pet law groups have been quite amazed that this bill has the support of the AKC. I am not sure it is the way to make the "production" and sale of pets (including dogs and cats) more decent, humane, and responsible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry, I don't think I understand, and I need to obviously do more research. I got Zoey (7 months) from a "breeder" who produces tons of puppies from several bitches per year. Basically his dogs are poorly bred and the pups have tons of health issues. Zoey's list is fairly long. He is in other words a puppy mill. Would this bill stop people/get control of situations like this?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

>

 

Yes, it does seem like a lot of litters to me. And I know nothing about cats, but it's easier for a dog to go through a heat cycle than a pregnancy, delivery and lactation.

 

>

 

Not really. Doris Day and animal rights groups probably want to outlaw dogfighting too. Does that mean I have to oppose outlawing dogfighting? Why don't I just judge the bills they promote on their merits, supporting those I think are good and opposing those I think are bad?

 

As I understand it, current law permits USDA regulation only of those who sell dogs wholesale, and exempts all those who sell only at retail. But with the expansion of internet sale of dogs, puppy millers can now sell a heck of a lot of dogs at retail, stop selling wholesale, and avoid regulation. That's not a good thing. In general, I'd rather see large-scale breeders (those who sell 26 or more dogs per year or whelp 7 or more litters per year) subject to regulation.

 

However, I'm giving some thought to whether this would affect any good breeders of border collies. I can see where it might. I doubt there are many (if any) good border collie breeders who breed more than 6 litters per year. But as I understand the bill, if they sell even one dog that they didn't breed themselves (and many will import a dog or two and sell them, or sell a dog they've bought from someone else), then they're subject to regulation if they sell more than 25 dogs (adults AND pups) in a single year. That works out, as a practical matter, to limiting them to well under 6 litters a year if they want to avoid being subject to regulation.

 

Maybe I'll ask a representative sample how many litters they breed per year and how many dogs they sell per year. If the bill would apply to very few good breeders of border collies (and presumably those few could modify their sales/breeding downward a tiny bit), then I don't really see any reason to oppose the bill. If it would apply more widely to our good breeders, however, then I think an effort to amend would be appropriate. It's ironic (but not surprising) that the Puppy Protection Act, which the AKC opposed last year, was a bill I would have thought anyone would approve of, whereas this bill, which the AKC supports, might actually cause problems for some of our good breeders.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have not read this bill. One of my first questions about this bill would be about enforcement. How will the USDA use their too few staff to enforce this new bill and how much will it cost? Cost in terms of taxes and lost enforcement in other areas I feel are more important to this nation such as food safety.

 

Mark

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You know, there will always be bad breeders out there. Sadly, trying to regulate everyone means that the good breeders are treated like criminals, not matter what they've done. The poor breeders usually just go blithely on their way and may or may not get shut down because of regulation. There are usually - but not always - local statutes which could handle a situation like you describe.

 

As far as enforcement - yup, the bill adds a ton of enforcement needs. To me, that translates into selective enforcement because they just can't do everything.

 

I suspect this would have the same type of enforcement that many local ordinances about the number of animals you can have do - nothing is done unless someone complains and then the government just comes in to shut you down - sometimes without warning. I'll admit that I detest ordinances that say you can have only three animals. - Some people can handle a lot more and some shouldn't have any!

 

I'm not defending bad breeders. Registries, clubs, etc. need to police their own. In the cat fancy, we've developed cattery inspection programs. They don't prevent all problems, because anyone who breeds understands just how quickly things can go downhill when the babies don't get sold or a virus comes through or a breeder loses their day job and cuts back on other things, etc. That's not an excuse, but reality. As a registry, or a club, when you see that a friend is having trouble, you try to help the situation.

 

As buyers, we have a choice between buying from a reputable breeder, who guarantees health and one that just sells puppies. We as consumers can make a big difference.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

>

 

Suppose I said, "You know, there will always be thieves out there. Sadly, trying to regulate everyone means that honest people are treated like criminals, no matter what they've done. The thieves just go blithely on their way and may or may not get arrested and prosecuted." Would you agree? If not, what's the difference here?

 

>

 

For example?

 

 

I suspect this would have the same type of enforcement that many local ordinances about the number of animals you can have do - nothing is done unless someone complains and then the government just comes in to shut you down - sometimes without warning. I'll admit that I detest ordinances that say you can have only three animals. - Some people can handle a lot more and some shouldn't have any! >>

 

I don't like "number of animals" ordinances either, so let's not talk about them. Let's talk about an ordinance whose purpose we can agree on -- dogfighting, perhaps? Okay, the government can't do everything. They can't stop every illegal dogfight because they don't have the resources for undercover work, etc. But what's so terrible about them outlawing dogfights and just responding to complaints and stopping the ones they find out about? Better than nothing, isn't it? Or do you think they shouldn't have ordinances criminalizing dogfighting because "they can't do everything"?

 

>

 

Suppose registries, clubs, etc. do police their own. They can't put the bad breeder out of business even if they expel him from membership. Are the animals he breeds any less wretched because they are now being registered by some puppy mill registry, or not registered at all?

 

>

 

Yes, but when there are plenty of consumers who buy from disreputable and inhumane breeders, we as government may have to step in to do what we as individual consumers are not able to do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree strongly with Eileen. After reading all the posts, I don't think I could put my thoughts into words that would not cause this post to go on forever. So thanks Eileen, for stating your position so eloquently.

Very thought provoking.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This came from a Florida list that has been keeping an eye on this bill. I think it may be to everyone's benefit to read the bill and then decide. It's esy to take excerpts and misconstrue meanings or intentions or implications.

 

Karen

 

"In brief, the bill would require anyone (includes a company of any sort, there's no 'out' for non-profit) who sells at least one dog/cat not bred or raised on the premises and sells over 25 total dogs/cats in a calendar year, to get a USDA license. To get a USDA license, you need a kennel -- you cannot keep the dogs you

sell in your home.

 

Of course rescuers who keep their dogs in a kennel are called 'animal shelters.' That's not what rescue is about -- we're about getting dogs *out* of animal shelters, into a home, where they can be evaluated and if necessary trained to live in a home in the future."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have read about the concerns of rescuers on numerous lists. A few posts seemed to indicate that the USDA does not regulate not-for-profit organizations, but the majority are concerned. Initially I thought that because rescue dogs aren't "sold", but rather an "adoption donation" is collected, that there was little need for concern. Lots of folks are indicating that there is no distinction, that if money is exchanged, the statute applies. So from a rescue standpoint, I'm not sure what to think of it.

 

Michele

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Suppose I said, "You know, there will always be thieves out there. Sadly, trying to regulate everyone means that honest people are treated like criminals, no matter what they've done. The thieves just go blithely on their way and may or may not get arrested and prosecuted." Would you agree? If not, what's the difference here?

 

Thieves are breaking the laws, set by the people. Bad breeders "possibly" hurt animals and probably break local statutes as far as care goes.

 

The big picture is what could be scary for all. I've seen some big litters, 10 to 12 pups. Two of these a year and selling a few dogs you may buy and not want to keep would require you get a USDA kennel liscense. If this is the beginning where does it end?

 

Karen

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Karen:

 

>

 

Well, actually, thieves are engaging in behavior which the people have determined is bad, and have enacted laws against. Bad breeders are engaging in behavior which people may determine is bad, and enact laws against. So before laws against theft were enacted, the same arguments LeAnn made here could be made against those proposed laws, right? Would you consider them good arguments then?

 

>

 

How about if this isn't the beginning? How about if this is the end -- would you be in favor of it then?

 

Michele:

 

I think you raise a legitimate concern. The bill says "for compensation or profit." The sponsors of the bill say that it's not intended to apply to legitimate rescue organizations, and that USDA regulations implementing it would establish that. There are difficulties in drafting here -- you can't write it in such a way that puppy mills could just call themselves a rescue organization and go on as before -- but it seems to me that the problem ought to be tackled in the bill itself, perhaps with a section defining the meaning of "for compensation or profit" and specifically exempting genuine rescues.

 

I'm not saying this is a good bill that should be supported. I'm not really sure, but I'm tending to think that unless it can be improved so as to target it more precisely at the problems it's aimed at, it shouldn't be passed. I just think some of the arguments against it are more valid than others.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In brief, the bill would require anyone (includes a company of any sort, there's no 'out' for non-profit) who sells at least one dog/cat not bred or raised on the premises and sells over 25 total dogs/cats in a calendar year, to get a USDA license. To get a USDA license, you need a kennel -- you cannot keep the dogs you sell in your home.
I wonder how this will affect or play into local zoning ordinances where "kennel" may be defined in other ways. For example in some areas you are not required to be zoned for a "kennel" if you ar under a certain number of dogs (puppies often do not count). In comes this new bill which forces these people to get a USDA "kennel" license and how will this affect how the property is zoned? This could actually make breeders choose between moving and now breeding/selling if they live in an area where "kennels" are not allowed by the zoning.

 

you cannot keep the dogs you sell in your home.
So does this mean any "started" dog I buy and may sell later because we are not as good a match as I had hoped must be kept in a kennel and not in my house?

 

BTW:

...who sells at least one dog/cat not bred or raised on the premises..
this part would require most handlers to obtain a USDA License and therefore have a kennel.

 

Mark

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Journey:

In brief, the bill would require anyone... who sells at least one dog/cat not bred or raised on the premises and sells over 25 total dogs/cats in a calendar year, to get a USDA license...

Mark - This is an excerpt from the brief summary that was posted above, and the bold-face is my addition, but it sounds to me like a person must have both a resale and a sale of over 25 total. However, the "and" just doesn't make sense to me.

 

At the AKC website concerning this bill (http://www.akc.org/news/index.cfm?article_id=2513), you find the following summary:

 

"The new legislation continues the current regulation of breeders who sell puppies at wholesale. However, it extends regulation to breeders who sell at retail and whelp 7 or more litters a year and persons who acquire and resell at retail more than 25 dogs a year which they did not breed."

 

This seems to indicate that a person who either produces or purchases and resells a particular number of litters or pups/dogs per year, would be regulated. I would assume that someone who did some "combination" of the above practices would also come under regulation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Eileen,

 

How about if this isn't the beginning? How about if this is the end -- would you be in favor of it then?

 

Yes, I may possibly go along with this. I would have to think about it more though. The way this bill is written tends to make me think this is just the beginning. From here, maybe they don't like someone's kennel, what then - regulations about size & type of kennel? What people are allowed to feed?

 

Local ordinance is out there. Why not enforce what is already on the books? Education is key not more government. We may not like how some people care for their animals but I sure would like it less if it was mandated. BYB and PM's are out there and it should be up to the public to deal with it on a local level not the federal government.

 

Karen

Link to comment
Share on other sites

>

 

It could well be that right now, when the law applies only to wholesalers, that to be licensed the wholesaler must keep dogs in a separate kennel and not in his home. (I'd like to see a citation for that, though, since I haven't found it in my quick skimming of the statute and regulations.) However, if this bill passes and the law is extended to cover breeders who sell directly to the public, I would expect the implementing regulations would permit dogs to be kept in the home. I don't think the AKC would support the bill otherwise. But the downside of that is that you would probably still be required to permit inspection of the premises where the dogs are kept, and that would mean inspection of your home. However, I also think that rescue operations are not going to be covered under this bill, and dealers other than rescuers who sell this many dogs are likely to have separate kennels.

 

>

 

That's right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I understand your comment about the heat, Mark. If body fat were to melt at warm temps, I could be a very skinny person soon. However, sadly, it just doesn't work that way!

 

During our lesson yesterday, I was not sure if Celt's brain or mine was frying faster, and Megan just didn't handle the heat well at all after some work. She was trying to work the sheep from a cool place in the shade! I think she was on to something.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Karen, there's nothing about the way the bill is written that could make one think it's just the beginning. What could make you think it's just the beginning is all the hysteria about how the animal rights people will stop at nothing til they've taken our pets away, etc. There simply is not the kind of support for "taking our pets away" -- or for regulating what individuals feed their dogs -- in this country that would allow that to happen.

 

>

 

How familiar are you with local ordinances in the many local jurisdictions in the US? Are you satisfied with all of them? Are you satisfied with how "education" has dealt with puppy mills so far? How do you envision that changing to the point where governmental mandates would not be needed?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Eileen,

 

Gosh, I need more hours in a day!

 

Karen, there's nothing about the way the bill is written that could make one think it's just the beginning. What could make you think it's just the beginning is all the hysteria about how the animal rights people will stop at nothing til they've taken our pets away, etc. There simply is not the kind of support for "taking our pets away" -- or for regulating what individuals feed their dogs -- in this country that would allow that to happen.

 

We have had a few very rough years down here (Florida) with the AR's and local government. I, with others, have been through "number" ordinance attempts, county AC's running amuck, AR's trying to come in and change our current leash laws (yes, they needed to be updated). So, what happened gave many of us a huge wake up call. We had a local situation, man lost 45+/- of his dogs due to the fact the AC and AR's didn't like what he was "feeding". Now, we didn't either, but he had vet records, shelter, food for all. It was minimal care, he wasn't selling anything (catch dogs). What got us involved was the news proclaiming the horrid conditions the dogs were in and that AC needed help. A few of us went to help. Imagine our suprise when the very next day we went to help and were told the dogs were beyond help and they had PTD already. From the pictures, videos, records, etc... it was very obvious the dogs were not malnourished. This is of course a digest version. Being personally involved woke me up to the "it can't happen" attitude. It can and did here. Now, he has since settled with the city from what I understand. Is/was this a isolated incident. I don't think so. We were just fortunate with the huge dog sport population we have here that everyone got involved. It came down to the community getting involved. Education not legislation. We have laws here that could very easily be enforced - no advertising or selling prior to 8 weeks. Read the paper on any given day and find blatant violations yet no one is talking to these people and educating them or fining them.

 

I will have to bow out of this conversation it appears. I just don't have the proper time to devote to it.

 

Karen

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...