Dear Suze: It appears that we differ on the interpretation of Judge Kollar-Kotelly's decision. My point is that the judge has ruled on the ability of the USDA to correctly interpret its existing regulations in the manner in which it has. This is not the same as the court creating its own interpretation of the Animal Welfare Act. It may be confusing but the court has ruled only on the procedural actions of the USDA's interpretation, NOT on the substance of or of meaning of the law.
Also, since the court's decision has been appealed, the USDA is not required to change its current interpretations of the AWA. Should the USDA be required by higher court to change its procedures, then and only then would the USDA be required to propose changes to its regulations either by deleting current regs or by promogulating new ones. Any such changes will be subject to future publication and a seeking of public comment. Given your comments on this subject, do you feel the substance of our discussion is really about the Puppy Protection Act as the header above would indicate, or is it the District Courts findings on the AWA? If the former, have I somehow missed your reasoning as to why the PPA is bad for us hobby breeders? If the latter, will you provide the list with a copy of the Court's decision showing the correct interpretation of this area of administrative law? Sincerely, Steve Wallis ========================================================= "Magic Commands": to stop receiving mail for awhile, click here and send the email: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?body=SET%20CKCS-L%20NOMAIL to start it up gain click here: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?body=SET%20CKCS-L%20MAIL E-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] for assistance. Search the Archives... http://apple.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ckcs-l.html All e-mail sent through CKCS-L is Copyright 1999 by its original author.
