Hi, List,
In my own desire to explain much of this proposed legislation, I know
that I have confused a few of you. Although I've been asked for both a
sample letter and clearer explanation, I think that this FAQ will
explain a good deal of it in clearer language. I have looked for clearer
explanation for you all, and this is about as good as it gets. I really
prefer to let the attorneys who are doing this full time explain it;
even *they* are confused as the language in this bill is almost
intentionally confusing and the fact that it is so vague makes it hard
to determine how it will be administered. So, in short, it is a murky
bit of legislation which is hard to understand but "sounds good" as it
is titled the Puppy Protection Act" which is underwritten by political
factions including the Animal Rightist groups and will be administered,
if passed, by a confused and extremely overtaxed system of inspection.
This one is a real potential disaster in the making especially following
the DDAL case.
Also see the AKC website for further explanation.
I hope that this is helpful. I am going to call Senators today and then
back to my regularly scheduled wrapping/packing/mailing/cooking. <G>
Suze
**************************************************************
ACTION ALERT: PPA NEEDS CALLS
December 17 , 2001 (Last publication date 12/9/01) Appropriate
forwarding
encouraged.
IN THIS ISSUE:
� CALLS TO SENATORS TO URGE NO PUPPY PROTECTION ACT IN FARM BILL
� OHIO UPDATES ON CLEVELAND LIMIT ORD. & DOG FIGHTING TASK FORCE
NOTE: FOR FEDERAL LEGISLATOR CONTACT INFO <http://www.congressol.com>
PUPPY PROTECTION ACT OF 2001: Our November 15 publication, "What You
Need
To Know About The Puppy Protection Act Of 2001, H.R.3058/S 1478 In A
Frequently Asked Questions Format" provided a detailed explanation of
this
federal legislation.
Today, The American Kennel Club used its subscription email notification
system for an urgent alert posted to its web site <http://www.akc.org>
indicating that "Senators Rick Santorum (R-PA), Dick Durbin (D-IL) and
Russ
Feingold (D-WI) have submitted the Puppy Protection Act (PPA) as an
amendment to the Senate version of the farm bill. The Senate could
debate
and vote on this amendment this week. AKC ASKS ALL FANCIERS TO PHONE
(THERE
IS NO TIME TO WRITE) YOUR SENATOR'S OFFICE AND STRONGLY OBJECT TO THE
ADDITION OF THE PPA TO THE FARM BILL OR ANY OTHER PIECE OF LEGISLATION
BEING CONSIDERED BY THE SENATE WE NEED TO GET AS MANY PHONE CALLS AS
POSSIBLE IN TO SENATE OFFICES VERY QUICKLY. PLEASE CALL IMMEDIATELY. TRY
TO
GET AS MANY OF YOUR CLUB MEMBERS AND OTHER FANCIERS AS POSSIBLE TO CALL
ALSO. NUMBERS COUNT!"
AKC suggests that if you do not know your senator's Washington office
phone
number, call the U.S. Capitol switchboard at 202-224-3121 and ask to be
connected to your senator's office.
UNDERSTANDING THE PUPPY PROTECTION ACT
November 15 , 2001 (Last publication date 10/10/01)
IN THIS ISSUE: WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW ABOUT THE PUPPY PROTECTION ACT OF
2001, H.R.3058/S 1478 IN A FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS FORMAT.
WHAT ARE THESE BILLS? Identical versions of these bills have been
introduced in both the Senate and the House and are called the "Puppy
Protection Act of 2001." These bills can be moving at the same time
through both houses, or either might even be amended onto another bill
to
make speedier progress. The House bill is H.R.3058 and the Senate bill
is
S 1478.
WHAT DOES IS THE PUPPY PROTECTION ACT REALLY ABOUT?
This year's Puppy Protection Act uses the latest legislative diversion
tactic of "socialization" for puppies by focusing legislators' attention
on
the carefully cultivated contemptibility of the illusive "puppy mill" to
bog down both USDA and licensed dog breeders with increased
uncertainties,
costs and burdens, but more importantly increase the risk of permanent
license revocation - not just for dog breeders who are unlikely to still
be
operating after repeated violations, but for the licensees that are much
higher on the activist "hit list" - the research facilities, zoos and
circuses.
WHAT ARE THE ONLINE SITES FOR FEDERAL LEGISLATION: Thomas Legislative
Service at http://thomas.loc.gov/ The official sites at
<http://www.senate.gov/>
<http://www.house.gov/> And Findlaw resources
<http://guide.lp.findlaw.com/10fedgov/legislative/house/index.html>
<http://guide.lp.findlaw.com/10fedgov/legislative/senate/index.html>
WHAT NEEDS TO BE DONE RIGHT NOW? Contact your own Senators and
Congressional member at their state and district offices to avoid the
delays related to the anthrax situation in Washington D.C. Or telephone
the Capitol switchboard at (202) 224-3121 and ask for the Senate or
House
office you wish to contact.
� Oppose H.R.3058/S 1478, The Puppy Protection Act of 2001, because it
is
based on unsubstantiated facts, unfounded assumptions, badly conceived
and
the revocation provisions snaring a all licensees, not merely
repeat-offender dog breeders.
� If your legislator is not a sponsor/co-sponsor, ask them to not do so,
and if they have done so, ask them to consider withdrawing sponsorship.
� The bills are assigned to the House or Senate Committees on
Agriculture,
so if any of these members represent you, be sure to ask these
legislators
to stop these bills from moving forward.
� The American Kennel Club alerts <www.akc.org> have a convenient list
of
the Ag. committee members and their contact information. You can also
subscribe to AKC's new email notification service for when new
legislative
alerts are posted to their web site. This should be useful if there are
developments requiring rapid, grassroots responses.
THINGS TO REMEMBER WHEN WRITING (BY ANY METHODS):
� One page is enough. These days, if mailing, consider an individually
written post card.
� Cite the bill name and number and "OPPOSE" with reason. Stick to the
bill.
� Be sure to include your legible name and address.
� Address "The Honorable name. Unites States Senate OR United States
House of Representatives. Washington D.C. 20515. Dear Senator OR
Representative name:
WHAT DOES THE PUPPY PROTECTION ACT OF 2001 DO? It amends the Animal
Welfare Act (7 U.S.C. �� 2131 et. seq.) The AWA sets minimum standards
of
care and treatment for most warm-blooded animals bred for commercial
sale,
used in research, transported commercially, or exhibited to the public.
AWA authorizes the U. S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) to enforce the
statute which it does through the Animal and Plant Health Inspection
Service (APHIS.) This operates as a federal agency subject to the
various
laws governing federal administrative law in the development and
enforcement of agency rules and policies pursuant to specific federal
statutes. The AWA was enacted in 1966, and amended in 1970, 1976, 1986
and
1990. The PPA of 2001would amend only two sections of AWA - Section 13
pertaining to care of animals and Section 19 covering licensing
discipline.
HAS THERE BEEN OTHER FEDERAL LEGISLATION CALLED THE "PUPPY PROTECTION
ACT?"
Yes, in 1991 the Humane Society of the United States developed another
"Puppy Protection Act" introduced as HR 3718, Sponsored by Rep. Benjamin
Cardin (D-3-MD) - now a co-sponsor of the 2001 Act -- aimed at including
a
broad spectrum of breeders as "puppy mills" and imposing complex
consumer
protection provisions enforceable in federal or state court. This bill
failed for its complexity, and the 2001 bill is downright cunning in its
simplicity.
WHAT ARE THE DETAILS OF THE PPA OF 2001?
� Section 1 merely states the name of the Act.
� Section 2 sets out a long list of undefined, irrelevant,
unsubstantiated
findings. This is the same tactic used in spay/neuter/breeding laws
that
recite lists of allegations that are never documented yet take on a life
of
their own in the legislative history.
� Section 3 requires the USDA , responsible for enforcing the Animal
Welfare Act through its authority to develop rules (within one year) to
more fully explain the law, to develop rules in 2 additional areas
besides
the existing humane care and exercise requirements. These are; "for the
development of an engineering standard, including a written plan of
activities, based on the recommendations of animal welfare and behavior
experts, for the socialization of dogs to facilitate contact with other
dogs and people; and for addressing the initiation and frequency of
breeding female dogs so that a female dog is not bred-- (i) before the
female dog has reached at least 1 year of age; and (ii) more frequently
than 3 times in any 24-month period."
� Section 4 includes a 3-strikes revocation provision that IS NOT
LIMITED
TO DOG BREEDERS but includes all designated licensees. For example,
"exhibitors" include circuses and zoos and research facilities includes
major universities. Also, dealers may handle an assortment of species
other than dogs. The criminal justice experience with 3-strikes
provisions, intended to incarcerate predatory recidivists, has produced
much additional litigation in determining what is a strike and some very
disproportionate results making the conviction vulnerable on appeal. In
an
administrative setting, imposing the 3-strikes concept on licensed
participation in a lawful, regulated industry of any kind presumes that
the
agency is incapable of or derelict in using its existing enforcement
authority properly. This measure would greatly raise the adversarial
stakes in enforcement actions and divert agency resources to this end.
The
bills state:
"MANDATORY REVOCATION- If any person licensed as a dealer, exhibitor, or
operator of an auction sale subject to section 12*, is found, after
notice
and opportunity for hearing, to have violated any of the rules,
regulations, or standards governing the humane handling, transportation,
veterinary care, housing, breeding, socialization, feeding, watering, or
other humane treatment of animals under section 12 or 13 on 3 or more
separate occasions within any 8-year period, the Secretary, on finding a
third violation, shall revoke the license of the person unless the
Secretary makes a written finding that the violations were minor and
inadvertent, that the violations did not pose a threat to the animals,
or
that revocation is inappropriate for other good cause."
For your reference, Section 12 states, "Section 12. The Secretary is
authorized to promulgate humane standards and recordkeeping requirements
governing the purchase, handling, or sale of animals, in commerce, by
dealers, research facilities, and exhibitors at auction sales and by the
operators of such auction sales. The Secretary is also authorized to
require the licensing of operators of auction sales where any dogs or
cats
are sold, in commerce, trader such conditions as he may prescribe, and
upon
payment of such fee as prescribed by the Secretary under section 23 of
this
Act. (7 U.S.C. � 2142) (P.L. 89-544, � 12, Aug. 24, 1966, 80 Stat. 351;
P.L. 91-579, � 13, Dec. 24, 1970, 84 Stat. 1562; P.L. 94-279, � 5, Apr.
22,
1976, 90 Stat. 418.)
Also, for your reference, Section 13 (to which the socialization and
breeding age provisions would be added as (C) and (D) reads, "Section
13.
(a)(1) The Secretary shall promulgate standards to govern the humane
handling, care, treatment, and transportation of animals by dealers,
research facilities, and exhibitors.
(2) The standards described in paragraph (1) shall include minimum
requirements--
(A) for handling, housing, feeding, watering, sanitation, ventilation,
shelter from extremes of weather and temperatures, adequate veterinary
care, and separation by species where the Secretary finds necessary for
humane handling, care, or treatment of animals; and
(B) for exercise of dogs, as determined by an attending veterinarian in
accordance with the general standards promulgated by the Secretary, and
for
a physical environment adequate to promote the psychological well-being
of
primates."
WHAT DOG BREEDERS ARE COVERED BY THE PPA ACT AND AWA?
Here is the trick question that makes the timing of this legislation so
transparent. Historically, USDA has only licensed dog breeders who sell
wholesale, i.e. pups bound for pet stores. Using this qualitative
measure
instead of continually variable quantitative measures, i.e. number of
animals sold or breeding animals maintained, has been a very workable
administrative standard. However, whether this is a legal
interpretation
of the Animal Welfare Act has been disputed for years by the Doris Day
Animal League, with the latest court decision against USDA and currently
under appeal in Federal court. Thus, there is uncertainty about which
dog
breeders will be regulated in the future. If the USDA must discontinue
its
wholesale-only standard, it will have to once again go through the
time-consuming rulemaking process to develop new criteria. USDA's
experience has been entirely with the wholesale sector where puppies are
shipped to market at a young age so that there is minimal time for
socialization. However, direct sale breeders often must keep puppies
for
extended periods during which socialization activities are more
appropriate
but still vary greatly with breeds, weather, health concerns, location,
intended purpose, etc. USDA has had no experience with this type of
operator, so that developing within one year any new rules pertaining to
dog breeders would present many uncertainties. Remember, that USDA
regulations have been developed for operations that are structured to
produce a profit and justify the capital investment in free-standing
facilities for continuous operation. Owner-interest groups have opposed
inclusion of non-commercial scale breeding, because it would discourage
the
most desirable, small breeders and diminish the supply of high quality
dogs. "Happiness is a warm puppy." has never been more true as pet
stores
are reporting increased demand for puppies in these difficult times. It
is
public demand that drives the regulated, commercial sector of dog
breeders.
WHAT IS WRONG WITH THE "FINDINGS?" These recitals reflect the views of
those who are promoting legislation rather than truly documented facts
backed up by analysis or evidence. When findings are misleading, the
need
for and context of the legislation is distorted making opposition
particularly difficult. These findings raise some very troublesome
concerns. Since the existing law is being amended, the implication is
that
the existing licensees and the USDA itself are deficient. The reference
to
"3,000 commercial dog breeding operations" refers to the number of
existing
licensees. But the findings begin with, "puppies in the United States
are
mass-produced at breeding facilities known as `puppy mills.'" HSUS's
alert
(see their web site) on the PPA actually defines "puppy mill" as, "Puppy
mills are breeding facilities that produce purebred puppies in large
numbers. The puppies are sold either directly to the public via the
Internet, newspaper ads, or at the mill itself, or are sold to brokers
and
pet shops across the country." Now, this definition includes both the
existing regulated wholesale breeders (i.e. 3,000 or so) and the
unregulated retail breeders. What are "large numbers of puppies?"
Purebreds only? The findings then list an array of horrors such as
overcrowding, vermin infested food and lack of vet care that are already
prohibited for licensees. Then, the subjects shift to breeding issues -
"inbreeding," "overbreeding" (apparently they mean frequency though this
term is always vague,) latent genetic diseases and defects, behavioral
deficits and "killing unwanted animals." What are the legislators to
think?? Cure all these ills with more federal laws and bureaucracy?
WHY NOT REQUIRE SOCIALIZATION FOR DOGS? So far, we are unaware of any
other attempts to legislate specific requirements for socialization. In
this year's California AB 161 covering only dog breeders subject to the
consumer protection statute, an unspecific socialization requirement was
slipped into the bill, "Provide dogs with adequate socialization and
exercise. For the purpose of this article, "socialization" means
physical
contact with other dogs and with human beings." In the final committee
hearing, legislators ignored the confusing last minute-change in the
qualifying threshold and talked only of socialization, so it was very
clear
that the "warm and fuzzy" but vague term socialization obscures
attention
to the truly operative effects. This same tactic is being used here,
but
with a new twist calling for an "engineering standard" which requires
specific things rather than the preferred (when appropriate)
"performance
standard" geared to an end result. Instead of leaving development of
the
standard to the agency's usual discretion, the Act mandates "based on
recommendations of animal welfare and behavior experts" totally ignoring
breeders themselves, sometimes the most knowledgeable. Note also that
the
socialization is not limited to puppies, so that the licensee's older
dogs
may be included.
Licensees would have to find ways to document socialization since most
aspects are transitory.
WHY NOT REGULATE AGE OR FREQUENCY OF BREEDING FEMALE DOGS? The first
glaring problem is that the legislative wording only says "bred" with no
reference to whether there is a pregnancy, let alone delivery of
puppies.
Infertility problems are not exclusive to humans! Female dogs may be
"bred" several times in one estrus to maximize the chance of pregnancy
or
may be bred a number of times in a lifetime with never a pregnancy or
live
delivery. Even as to breeding before the age of one year, accidents
happen
and would be more likely among licensees if different types of breeders
will be eventually included. In this scheme, an accidental breeding
might
be a "strike" against the license!
WHY NOT 3-STRIKES LICENSE REVOCATION? HSUS states, "Create a "three
strikes and you're out" rule that would permanently revoke the licenses
of
chronic violators of the standards set forth by the AWA." This is a
mindless concept that does not belong in a regulatory setting where
agency
experience justifies considerable discretion in enforcement. Of
concern,
also, is that it applies to a very broad class of licensees including
institutions and businesses that are charged based on conduct of
employees.
WHAT KIND OF PARTISAN POLITICS ARE INVOLVED IN THESE BILLS? The first
named Sponsor of S 1478 is Republican, Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania
with
13 others now listed as Co-sponsors. The co-sponsor list has been
growing,
so the specifics discussed here are subject to change. Of these there
are
3 Republicans and 11 Democrats. The Sponsor of H.R. 3058 is Republican
Congress Member Ed Whitfield of Kentucky. There are 64 listed
Co-sponsors
of whom 14 are Republicans and 50 are Democrats. With Republican
Sponsors
and largely Democrat Co-sponsors, there has been a deliberate and
coordinated effort to make these bills appear to be bi-partisan while
the
main support is from Democrats. Fund for Animals successfully used this
strategy in California where both houses are dominated by Democrats.
FFA's
successful California bill AB 161 was authored by a Republican
previously
receptive to animal activist legislation, with the result dividing the
Republican legislators and building support among liberal Democrats.
The
same strategy is being tried here.
WHAT ARE THE VOTING RECORDS OF THE PPA'S AUTHORS AND SPONSORS? The HSUS
and The Fund for Animals publish "The Humane Scorecard" reviewing the
work
of each Congress and scoring each legislator based on votes on selected
legislation. This can be downloaded as a pdf file from the HSUS web
site
<http://www.hsus.org> click on legislation. We are now in the 107th
Congress so new legislators are not included in the latest Scorecard
which
reviewed the 106th Congress. No companion animal bills were considered,
but the legislators' scores on the selected bills are a good indicator
of
individual receptiveness to the activist agenda, so we ranked the
Sponsors
and Co-sponsors in the order of their respective "scores."
S1478 Sponsor/Co-sponsor list, HSUS/FFA "Score), Republicans followed by
Democrats
100 Sen. Robert SMITH R-NH
**80 Sen. SANTORUM R- PA (Sponsor)
40 Sen. WARNER, R-VA
100 Sen. DURBIN, D-IL
100 Sen. LEVIN, D-MI,
100 Sen. Reid, Harry M. (D-NV)
100 Sen. Schumer, Charles E. - (D-NY
100 Sen. Torricelli, Robert G. (D-NJ)
80 Sen. LIEBERMAN D-CT,
80 Sen. KENNEDY - D-MA
60 Sen. Harkin, Tom - (D-IA)
20, Sen. BREAUX, D-LA,.
N/A Sen. MILLER, D-GA filled the seat of deceased Rep. Cloverdell and is
not yet rated.
N/a Sen Stabenow, Debbie - (D-MI) lst term
H 3058 Sponsor/Co-sponsor list, HSUS/FFA "Score), Republicans followed
by
Democrats
100 Rep Horn, Stephen - R-38-CA,
100 Rep Shays, Christopher - R-4-CT
87.5 Rep Gilman, Benjamin A. R-20-NY,
87.5 Rep Johnson, Nancy L. - R-6-CT
75 Rep LaTourette, Steve C. R-19-OH)
87.5 Rep Leach, James A. R-1-IA,
87.5 Rep Morella, Constance A. - R-8-MD
75 Rep Roukema, Marge - R-5-NJ
75 Rep Tancredo, Thomas G. - R-6-CO
75 Rep Jones, Walter B., Jr. R-3-NC,
**75 Rep Whitfield, Ed. (R-1-KY) (Sponsor)
62.5 Rep LoBiondo, Frank A. - R-2-NJ
50 Rep Kolbe, Jim - R-5-AZ
25 Rep Bono, Mary R-44-CA,
n/a Rep Simmons, Rob - R-2-CT 1st term
100 Rep Blumenauer, Earl -D-3-OR,
100 Rep Bonior, David E., D-10-MI,
100 Rep Brown, Sherrod -(D-13_OH)
100 Rep Costello, Jerry F. - D-12-IL,
100 Rep DeFazio, Peter A. -D-4-OR,
100 Rep Deutsch, Peter -D-20-FL,
100 Rep Doyle, Michael F. - D-18-PA,
100 Rep Evans, Lane - D-17-IL,
100 Rep Filner, Bob - D-51-CA,
100 Rep Gonzalez, Charles A. - D-20-TX
100 Rep Kildee, Dale E. - D-9-MI,
100 Rep Lipinski, William O. - D-3-IL
100 Rep Maloney, James H. - D-5-CT
100 Rep Miller, George -D-7-CA
100 Rep Moran, James P. - D-8-VA,
100 Rep Pallone, Frank, Jr. - D-6-NJ
100 Rep Pelosi, Nancy D-8-CA)
100 Rep Roybal-Allard, Lucille - D-33-CA (
100 Rep Sabo, Martin Olav - D-5-MN
100 Rep Schakowsky, Janice D. - D-9-IL
100 Rep Stark, Fortney Pete - D-13-CA
100 Rep Udall, Mark - D-2-CO
100 Rep Waxman, Henry A. - D-29-CA
100 Rep Woolsey, Lynn C. D-6-CA
87.5 Rep Baldwin, Tammy , D-2-WI,
75 Rep Brown, Corrine, D-3-FL,
87.5 Rep Cardin, Benjamin L. D-3-MD,
87.5 Rep Clyburn, James E. D-6-SC,
87.5 Rep Farr, Sam D-17-CA,
87.5 Rep Frank, Barney - D-4-MA,
87.5 Rep Green, Gene D-29-TX
87.5 Rep Hinchey, Maurice D. - D-26-NY
87.5 Rep Inslee, Jay - D-1-WA,
87.5 Rep Kucinich, Dennis J. - D-10-OH
87.5 Rep Lowey, Nita M. - D-18-NY
87.5 Rep Rivers, Lynn N. - D-13-MI
75 Rep Dicks, Norman D. - D-6-WA,
75 Rep Gallegly, Elton - R-23-CA,
75 Rep Jackson-Lee, Sheila - D-18-TX
75 Rep Kilpatrick, Carolyn C. - D-15-MI
62.5 Rep McDermott, Jim - D-7-WA
62.5 Rep Napolitano, Grace F. - D-34-CA
62.5 Rep Taylor, G. D-5-MS
62.5 Rep Velazquez, Nydia M.(D-12-NY)
50 Rep Baldacci, John Elias D-2-ME,
50 Rep Traficant, James A., Jr. - D-17-OH
37.5 Rep Gordon, Bart - D6-TN
n/a Rep Davis, Susan A. -D-49-CA (1st term,)
n/a Rep Langevin, James R. (D-2-RI) 1st term
n/a Rep Solis, Hilda L. - D-31-CA. 1st term
********
Additionally, there is a post that follow this one from the same group
stating that " In
our zeal to explain that the provision for "3-strikes"mandatory license
revocation applied to all licensees and not just dog breeders, we did
not
clearly explain that "research facilities" are not actually licensed
under
the federal Animal Welfare Act although they are required to comply with
the humane standards and recordkeeping requirements in Section 12 of the
AWA. Thus, research facilities would not be subject to license
revocation,
although other licensees such as circuses and zoos would be subject to
the
3-strikes revocation. "
*****
*a service of THE ANIMAL COUNCIL, P.O. BOX 168, MILLBRAE CA 94030
Published sporadically since 1997. Appropriate forwarding is
encouraged.
To be removed from the original distribution list only or change
address,
reply to the message. Legislative tracking is subject to continual
change.
--
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.
