Hello, Steve,
Steve Wallis wrote: > > 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. You can read the text of the decision at: http://www.naiatrust.org/issues.htm I believe that the USDA was given ninety days before implementation was required. You are correct that the court ruled on the procedural actions of the USDA's interpretation, but that means that the USDA can no longer "interpret" the AWA to exclude the hobby breeders. > > 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. I do believe that the court gave ninety days leave to implement this. I don't know if that period has been extended or whether the implementation was waived pending appeal. I do know that the law, as it now stands, is that the USDA must implement the AWA as written to include hobby breeders. > > 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? If the DDAL decision stands on appeal, then the PPA will apply to all of us. If it doesn't stand on appeal and only is applicable to the so called commercial breeders it will still not benefit the puppies; the USDA already HAS the power to revoke licenses. If the PPA is implemented, then the commmerical establishments will have grace periods ("three times and you're out rule), and a lot of loopholes through which they can jump to AVOID such revokation of license. We just don't need more confusing legislation; what we do need is a clear understand of the existing legislation and aid to the USDA (already on overload) to properly implement it. Suze > > 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. -- Suze at Llawen Cavaliers "...I have seen that in any great undertaking it is not enough for a man to depend simply upon himself." -Isna Ia-wica "Thought comes before speech" Luther Standing Bear ========================================================= "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.
