Support PAWS: Pet Animal Welfare Statute

[Rebecca, Irena Farm]

All right, now I have a problem.

 

I make about $1000 a year selling sheep and this year it will be more with the sale of ducks added to that.

 

If I then sell dogs not of my own breeding and someday breed a litter - am I going to be affected?

[ccnnc]

I found this quote here -- http://www.pet-law.com/paws/ppa3.html

 

1)

 

"Following are parts of the federal Animal Welfare Act with amendments as proposed by Senator Santorum's bill, called the "Pet Animal Welfare Statute" of 2005 (PAWS). This page contains only the sections of Chapter 54 which are affected by the bill. "

 

2)

 

"The term "animal" means any live or dead dog, cat, monkey (nonhuman primate mammal), guinea pig, hamster, rabbit, or such other warm-blooded animal, as the Secretary may determine is being used, or is intended for use, for research, testing, experimentation, or exhibition purposes, or as a pet; but such term excludes (1) birds, rats of the genus Rattus, and mice of the genus Mus, bred for use in research,[effective 2003] (2) horses not used for research purposes, and (3)horses not used for research purposes and other farm animals, such as, but not limited to livestock or poultry, used or intended for use as food or fiber, or livestock or poultry used or intended for use for improving animal nutrition, breeding, management, or production efficiency, or for improving the quality of food or fiber. With respect to a dog, the term means all dogs including those used for hunting, security, or breeding purposes."

 

This would seem to exclude the sale of livestock as applying to the $500 gross figure.

 

Been looking around this weekend, found a couple of interesting interpretations. One was (rough quote)...

 

If the act of breeding takes place at the stud dog owner's location, then the litter would count toward the six litter limit for the stud dog's owner.

 

Maybe, maybe not.... who knows??

 

Colin

[MaggieDog]

I interned w/ USDA Animal Care - the unit that oversees the AWA and employs the inspectors that ensure compliance w/ AWA - I am almost positive that livestock are not included in the 'other animals' definition as Colin mentioned above. I seem to remember asking that exact question actually and the answer was 'no only other animals covered under AWA regs are included in the $500 limit' and AWA doesn't regulate livestock.

 

I bet the PAWS regs would end up being unenforcable at the current time due to lack of funding and inspectors to enforce it. AC has its hands full already w/ all the inspections it has to do each year; there are about 100 inspectors for the whole US, up from about 70 or 80 a year an a half ago!

[Rebecca, Irena Farm]

With bird flu, dog flu, the rising outcry over commercial pet breeding, and the prion diseases, I would not be a bit surprised at some attmept in the near future to rasie the level of oversight with regard to US domsestic animals.

 

I was actually mostly worried about small time poultry breeders like me falling under this. Having ducks puts in weird positions sometimes - I get calls from the agricultural statistics asking for info on my "pultry operation" on one hand and on the other hand I mostly cater to a pet market.

[MaggieDog]

Something to keep in mind - livestock not used for agricultural purposes may be in a grey area when regs are concerned; at least in research facilities they are regulated when not being used in ag related research.

 

**since ducks are birds, this prob exempts them - reserch at least exempts rats, mice, and birds**

[JMack]

JMack wrote:

 

<< I do believe that anyone breeding six litters a year should be regulated. >>

 

& Eileen asked:

Why are you still talking about six litters a year? Do you believe that anyone who breeds 25 puppies a year and sells one bought dog should be regulated? If so, do you believe that anyone who breeds at all should be regulated? Federally regulated?

 

Because Bill asked me this in his post.

[Eileen Stein]

>

 

Hmm. Fair enough.

 

Colin is right about livestock not counting as "animals" under the act. I should have mentioned that, since it would be an obvious concern for a lot of us.

[Pipedream Farm]

From "A Legal Analysis of PAWS" by Jeffrey P. Helsdon, Esq

The 6 Litter Exemption

 

If a breeder whelps more than 6 litters a year, he does not get the breeder exemption. If he whelps fewer than 6 litters a year, but sells even a single dog or cat that was not bred or raised on his premises, he does not get the breeder exemption.

If this is correct, this is a BIG PROBLEM.

 

Mark

[Eileen Stein]

Mark, he's talking only about (bb), what he calls the "breeder exemption." He's not talking at all in that quote about (aa) -- what he calls the "sales exemption." He's correct about (bb).

 

I see that he says on a previous page that an animal rights sympathetic trial judge might rule that breeders are not entitled to qualify under the (aa) route, but could only qualify under (bb). I can't really disagree with that -- judges have done truly boneheaded things from time to time. That's why we have appeals. But I can say that under the basic rules of statutory construction, they are alternate routes, either one of which could be used by anyone to qualify for exemption. And to give the guy credit, he doesn't claim otherwise.

 

Actually, I have to say this is by far the best analysis I've seen by partisans for either side. As far as accuracy and advocacy, it just blows out of the water the letter from Milbank, Tweed that the HSUS has been flourishing around.

[Pipedream Farm]

Sorry Eileen,

 

I'm still being thick headed about this. Let me give an example and see if you think it would be exempt.

 

Example:

 

I breed, raise, and sell a litter of pups. During the same year I buy a started dog and then decide it's not the right dog for me. I then sell the started dog.

 

The way I'm reading the analysis I would not be exempt (I would be considered a dealer and would require a license), based upon the quote in my last message.

-------------------------------------------------------

I just got it by reading the author's example. I would be exempt (as long as I did not sell a dog to someone who turned around and resold it).

 

I wonder how long you would have to keep a dog before reselling to not not loose the exemption.

 

Mark

[ccnnc]

Eileen said...

 

"Actually, I have to say this is by far the best analysis I've seen by partisans for either side."

 

This is Dog Federation of Wisconsin.

 

I was writing a post about this site when the dawgs announced the arrival of my wife last night. I agree that it is the best I've seen to date.

 

Another good site is North Carolina's own North Carolina Responsible Animal Owners Alliance.

 

Hope these help.

 

Colin

[Eileen Stein]

Mark, if you sold only one litter of pups, plus one started dog you bought from someone else, you would be exempt even if one of those dogs was resold. You would be exempt under (aa), because you are a person who sold not more than 25 dogs or cats at wholesale or to the public during that calendar year. (As long as you didn't make $500+ selling guinea pigs and parakeets. ) The resale restriction only applies if you're claiming exemption under (bb).

[juliepoudrier]

Originally posted by ccnnc:

I was writing a post about this site when the dawgs announced the arrival of my wife last night.

Colin

Sorry for this OT post....

 

I hate to say it Colin, but this part of your post had me envisioning that commercial where the guy is supposed to be running the leaf blower but instead he's watching rodeo on his laptop. His wife calls and he thinks he has her fooled into believing he's working around the house, but she's on the phone right outside the patio doors and sees what he's really doing. Poor man, he didn't have any dogs to warn him of his wife's arrival home!

 

J.

[Pipedream Farm]

Also from this website

 

HSUS has said that they consider PAWS a first step. They've also said that they believe all breeding of pets should be federally licensed. If PAWS passes, steps two, three, (and so on) will be even worse. The AKC's lobbyist admits that the numbers 25 and 6 probably would be lowered in the future.

 

Easy Paws

Mark

[Eileen Stein]

Well, you already know I'm deficient when it comes to getting all riled up because HSUS is supporting something. I have no trouble believing that HSUS would like this to be only a first step. But what they would like and what they can achieve are two different things. They are right at the point now (25 dogs/6 litters) where they will encounter stiff resistance. I think the list of opponents you cited earlier illustrates that. With ceilings much higher than this, resistance would be much less, because few people are going to go to bat for puppymillers. But with ceilings lower than this, resistance would be overwhelming, because then you're getting into reputable, responsible, appealing, lovable dog breeders, the kind dog lovers respect and get their dogs from. I can't imagine where support for lower ceilings would come from -- except HSUS, PETA and Doris Day, of course -- and that's just not enough to pull it off.

 

I'd like to see a citation to where AKC's lobbyist says the numbers probably would be lowered in the future. It's pretty hard to believe that he would say that, even aside from it being hard to believe it's true. All in all, I have to say this page (Easy Paws) seems to be a much less reliable and accurate statement of the case than the earlier one you cited. Many of the predictions it makes as sure things range from speculative to very unlikely.

 

But then, I DO consider internet selling of puppies by inhumane puppymillers to be a pernicious problem that it would be appropriate for Congress to address.

[Pipedream Farm]

Originally posted by Eileen Stein:

All in all, I have to say this page (Easy Paws) seems to be a much less reliable and accurate statement of the case than the earlier one you cited. Many of the predictions it makes as sure things range from speculative to very unlikely.

I agree.

 

I see AKC's support of this bill as a means to their goal: a monopoly of dog registrations. I can see them saying, "you can join us and face our inspectors or face the USDA inspection/cert. process". I can also see them behind the sceens working to raise the bar to becoming an accepted replacement for the USDA inspectors.

 

It will be interesting to see how this plays out.

 

Mark

[Bill Fosher]

Eileen asked JMack:Why are you still talking about six litters a year? Do you believe that anyone who breeds 25 puppies a year and sells one bought dog should be regulated? If so, do you believe that anyone who breeds at all should be regulated? Federally regulated?

 

And JMack replied: Because Bill asked me this in his post.

 

What I actually asked was whether JMack considered someone who breeds six litters per year a puppy miller, ipso facto. That question remains unanswered. The only answer was that someone who breeds six litters in a year should be subject to federal regulation.

 

Here's another fairly common scenario, one that anyone who has bred more than one or two litters will have run into: you sell a pup to someone who raises it up and trains it and then sells it along. Are you selling dogs for resale?

 

Eileen: PETA does in fact have the end of animal ownership as a long term goal. I am not sure where HSUS stands on the issue of animal ownership, but it wouldn't surprise me to learn that it also wants to end animal ownership. I know that HSUS is opposed to animal agriculture.

 

One of PETA's members here in Amherst has proposed a local ordinance that would make it illegal to leave a dog outside for more than five hours. Part of the logic here --and this is coming from PETA members themselves -- is that if they make it more difficult to breed and own pet animals, there will be fewer pet animals bred and owned. Laws like PAWS and local ordinances like the one proposed here are tactical efforts in the strategy of making a legal activity (animal ownership) so highly regulated that people no longer take part in it. So PAWS is a step toward the end of animal ownership. You may not see it that way, and you may think that the caps won't be lowered, but I also remember people saying that the USA PATRIOT act would never be reauthorized and would never be used to check someone's library activity.

 

PETA knows it can't go at its long-term goal of ending animal ownerhsip overtly or it would be shot down. So they go at it the way a cat eats a grindstone -- a little bit at a time. My feeling is that it's wise to keep the cat away from the grindstone. We should at least acknowledge that the cat intends to eat it -- whether it can or not is another question.

[kelpiegirl]

Thanks Bill for posting that. Those who believe PETA are on the pet owner's side for anything, need to read the mission statement. PETA's mission is to STOP the use of animals for ANY reason. Did you all see the recent news story of PETA members being charged with killing animals that they took in for "rescue"

 

http://www.petakillsanimals.com/petaKillsAnimals.cfm

 

Oh, and be sure to read the "skeptical? click here" icon.

 

Julie

[PennyT]

I remember the exact moment someone first told me that PETA and some other animal rights groups want to end the production and ownership of animals by humans. I did not believe it. I thought the person telling me was the one who the nut. Really.

 

It took me several years to get my head around the actual meaning of slogans like "Adopt One Until There Are No More."

 

I do not support anything HSUS does because they are in bed with PETA.

 

I feel about this issue just the way NRA members feel about their guns. The only way the state will take my animals is out of my cold, dead hands.

 

Sorry, I digressed. My point was that it is likely that a fair number of the pet owning people reading this thread don't really believe that PETA has an agenda to end all animal ownership, breeding, and possession or that the HSUS is part of implementing that agenda.

It is a hard thing to believe.

 

However; believing that all legislation labeled humane is a good thing is an easy thing.

 

Penny

[Eileen Stein]

>

 

I don't think it remains unanswered. JMack's answer was a clear no.

 

>

 

No, I don't think it would be interpreted that way. You're not selling it "for resale" unless you have reason to believe at the time you sell it that it will (not might) be resold.

 

I'm not going to debate the PETA issue, particularly on the petakillsanimals.com level, because I recognize that it's futile. People are just too emotional about it. "Cold, dead hands" and all. Plus the fact that PETA really IS a threat to the livestock raiser, if only because it is actively trying to persuade people not to eat meat, so there's an incentive to portray it as more terrible and more threatening than it really is. Shift the debate to "Don't you know who these people really ARE? They're trying to take your pets away!" and there's no need to deal with the unpleasant facts about factory farming.

 

Why not just focus on the "can" instead of the "want to"? Who is PETA? A few animal liberation theorists and a whole bunch of people who love animals and hate the thought of them suffering (i.e., the ones you're calling dupes). They will support anti-suffering goals, but will not support any proposal that would threaten their ownership of their pets. Neither will non-PETA members. End of story.

 

I don't believe that all legislation labeled humane is a good thing (obviously, since I'm opposing PAWS), but neither do I believe that all legislation which PETA or HSUS supports should be fought because "they want to take away our pets." The fact is that some of the legislation PETA and HSUS supports IS humane legislation. If the ceilings here were even a little higher -- high enough so that I was sure none of our good breeders would be affected -- I would support PAWS. It wouldn't matter to me in the slightest whether PETA and HSUS supported it. It wouldn't even matter to me that AKC supports it.

[Bill Fosher]

Eileen,

 

Not trying to debate PETA with you, just pointing out that something you either said or implied earlier -- that PETA is not anti-animal ownership -- is not true. I was also trying to explain why I felt PETA's support for PAWs was a red flag: because it furthers a strategy that I oppose.

 

If you would support PAWS with higher limits, I can understand why you think PETA's support for it is irrellevant. It sounds to me as if you are more concerned about how many angels can dance on the head of the pin than what the pin is getting stuck into.

 

Personally, I think PAWS and similar regulations will do absolutely nothing to discourage puppy mills, and probably won't even subject any of them to new inspections if the government decides to outsource inspection to the AKC. The only way to put puppy mills out of business is to cut the market for the puppies they produce -- so either pass laws to ban pet stores, or educate the public about the need to buy pups from reputable dealers. Any new regulations aimed at puppy breeders are just another cost of doing business to the puppy mills, and will be passed down the supply chain like any other cost.

 

I have never seen one industry or business where licensure and inspection have gotten rid of crooks -- there are crooked lawyers, crooked doctors, crooked accountants, crooked firearms dealers, crooked motor vehicle inspection stations, and if PAWS passes there will be crooked dog dealers and breeders.

[Eileen Stein]

>

 

In theory, PETA's official position would be that there should be no animal ownership. They are not trying to eliminate pet ownership, however, because (a) there is so much cruel, inhumane and marginal conduct toward animals for them to address that they have no time for benign violations of animal liberation theory, and ( b ) there is insufficient support even within their membership for the elimination of pet ownership.

 

Why does PAWS further a strategy you oppose? It has no effect at all on people's ability to acquire or own animals. If PAWS were to go into effect as it stands, it would not begin to reduce the supply of dogs and cats down to the level of the demand, if indeed it reduced the supply at all.

 

If you're suggesting that any legislative victory for PETA strengthens the organization, I disagree there too. Civil rights organizations were strongest when they were fighting for legislation to combat conditions generally recognized as bad. Once those victories were won, and they were left to try to achieve goals for which there was less consensus, they gradually weakened to the impotent state in which they languish today.

 

>

 

I don't really understand this comment. I always thought preoccupation with how many angels can dance on the head of a pin was ridiculed because it had no practical application, or wasn't verifiable, or both.

 

>

 

Well, that's an easy way to dismiss serious consideration of the merits of the bill, but it's pretty clearly not true. I know of specific puppy mills which would come under regulation/inspection if PAWS were passed, and which could NEVER be brought into compliance with USDA or AKC standards. There are a lot of them.

 

>

 

No, that's not true. You can pass a law to ban puppy mills as easily as you can pass a law to ban pet stores. (And you wouldn't support a law to ban pet stores either, because PETA would support it.) And while education is good, and a lot of people knock themselves out doing it, it alone will never put puppy mills out of business.

 

>

 

It's gotten rid of some crooks. It's kept the level of crooks down. It's made it harder to be a crook. Improvement is good even if perfection can't be achieved.

[JMack]

Bill,

I'm sorry you think I didn't answer your question. I said I don't think that "by definition" six litters a year makes someone a puppy-miller.

[JMack]

"I have never seen one industry or business where licensure and inspection have gotten rid of crooks -- there are crooked lawyers, crooked doctors, crooked accountants, crooked firearms dealers, crooked motor vehicle inspection stations,"

 

Do you think that if existing licensure and inspection of these industries were taken away, crookedness would maintain its present level or increase?

[Bill Fosher]

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

 

Okay, Eileen. Let's define puppy mills by an objective, infallible standard. It seems that the central issue, if we strip away whether or not you think PETA's stated objective is relevant, is what constitutes a puppy mill versus what constitutes an active breeder of and dealer in working dogs.

 

If six/25 is too low, where are the right numbers? Eight/50? Ten/100? Or is it something other than numbers that make a puppy mill?

 

Seems to me that puppy milling is like pornography. We all know it when we see it, but it's pretty hard to define.

 

You're correct that I don't think the numbers that PAWS would set would make any difference at all -- hence the angels on the head of the pin analogy. I don't have a particularly sharp legal mind, and in three minutes I came up with what I believe would be a perfectly viable way around PAWS -- setting up several entities that trade below whatever levels are set. The only difference that the caps set by law makes is how many entities you need to set up in order to avoid scrutiny from the USDA or whoever is put in charge of such things.

 

So look at the underlying concept behind PAWS and examine it. Does it make sense for the government (or some private entity mandated by law) to be enforcing laws regulating the breeding and distribution of puppies in the USA? Whether the breeder produces one litter a year or 1,000, I think the answer is the same: no.

 

Why? because the ones who want to produce 1,000 litters a year in deplorable conditions will find a way to continue to do so, and will sell their ill-bred dogs through the existing channels to the existing markets, and the ones who want to produce one well-bred litter a year will be discouraged from doing so by the intrustion of regulations. So everybody loses. No fewer puppy mill pups enter the world, but fewer well-bred dogs do. I think that on this point we agree.

 

So it all comes down to this: if you think that there's some way to tweak PAWS to make it sensible and workable, I'd be interested to hear it. But it seems to me that if you ignore the political environment, you're ignoring a big piece of reality. What was the income tax like when it was first introduced? Do you think that over time PAWS might be "refined" and "modified?" What makes you think that PETA, etc., wouldn't eventually be able to slip something through the process that would set lower caps; it's a lot easier to change numbers once a law is on the books that has numbers in it already.