Doberman Forum : Doberman Breed Dog Forums banner

1 - 11 of 11 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,169 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Here are two sites, one of them the DPCA, that speak out against this new "PAWS" bill. A bill, that on the surface appears to only attack puppy millers and those who are importing very poorly bred pups from Eastern Europe in mass quantities but is much more. Evidently this bill will have adverse ramifications on all breeders. It can open the door to even more BSL and the extinction of certain breeds.
The AKC President spoke in favor of this bill yesterday. He did this without consent of the entire AKC board and without the support of many of the parent clubs.
The DPCA has written letters (from what I understand they were not read at the hearing yesterday) opposing this legislation as have many other parent clubs...

http://www.dpca.org/LegislativeCom.html

http://www.pet-law.com/
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
421 Posts
I'm to the point were I almost think we need to try something. I am so sick of the mills but its not going to stop the well operated mills so I still don;t know. There are pros and cons but eitheir way I cna deal with it. I am glad the akc took a stand on something and are attempting to help,granted there are much better things they can do.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
323 Posts
The only adverse affect on all breeders would be that it would cost them more money to breed and they would have to keep good records and track every single animal they breed. From what I have read on forums the ethical breeders all ready do the last two so it would only cost them some money. As everyone is in it for the breed and not the money that should not be a problem. I think this will drive out the bybers who breed constantly and the mills, or it will just increase the cost of all the dogs by a hundred dollars and nothing will change. I did not see anything in the bill that would affect rescue.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,169 Posts
Discussion Starter #4
Molari and Joce,
I shared your views but upon reading a bit more, I've got some new concerns.
Breeders or rescues that "sell" (adopting is considered selling in this bill) more than 25 dogs a year must adhere to the strict guidelines mandated by this bill. This includes proper kennels, feeding facilities, outhouses, vet care and the such. Which means these rescue organizations that house their dogs with fosters would have to either build kennels (and most have no money) or shelters that adhere to the rules OR have their fosters build them on their property. They would also have to agree to inspections - more than likely to be done by the AKC or HSUS representatives. I see that as a potentially huge problem for rescues. One of the links I posted will show you a list of everyone who opposes this, there are countless rescue organizations on that list. In fact the parent clubs whose breeds make up over 60% of AKC registrations oppose it.
Responsible hobby breeders who produce more than 25 dogs a year will also have to adhere to these guidelines. This bill could very possibly do away with your dog having her litter in your bedroom or living room.
Also, it doesn't stop with just dogs. Cats, birds and small mammals are also included in this bill. From what I understand the CFA opposes it.

Additionally this bill opens the door to federal legislation on other breeding practices. It is not irrational to consider the possibility that the complete erradication of the "aggressive" breeds can come next. In Germany there is proposed legislation that -if passed- will give the Gov't the right to decide which color dogs will be bred and their sizes. Last I read, this proposed legislation prohibits all imported dogs that are cropped/docked or had their dew claws removed will not be allowed to compete in German Kennel Club sanctioned events.
I agree that something must be done. Puppy-mills and brokers who import poor quality and unhealthy puppies from overseas need to be stopped. I just don't think this particular bill is the answer...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
323 Posts
Tracy,

I tend to be very literal and the text of the bill at one of the links you provided did not mention rescue. Rescues do not breed nor do they sell so unless the final text of the bill is reworded they should not be affected. IMO people that produce more than 25 animals a year are puppy mills. How can you breed to better a breed if you do not wait to evaluate what you have before you produce another litter? Breeding animals of any kind should be a slow process to ensure the best results unless the only result you want is to sell puppies.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,169 Posts
Discussion Starter #6
Molari,
You made a very good point about taking the text literally :) Here is what is written in the actual proposed bill. (obviously I'm only going to copy over excerpts 'cause it's really long)

"(f) The term "dealer" means any person who, in commerce, for compensation or profit, delivers for transportation, or transports, except as a carrier, buys, or sells, or negotiates the purchase or sale of, (1) any dog or other animal whether alive or dead for research, teaching, exhibition, or use as a pet, or (2) any dog for hunting, security, or breeding purposes, except that this term does not include--"

The translate the word "compensation" to "adoption-fee". Although rescues do not profit, they do generally seek some sort of compensation for the amount of money they've put into the particular animal or to help care for others.

Here's another glitch that concerns me...
"All animals delivered for transportation, transported, purchased, or sold, in commerce, by a dealer or exhibitor shall be marked or identified at such time and in such manner as the Secretary may prescribe: Provided, That only live dogs and cats need be so marked or identified by a research facility."

The federal gov't is going to enforce us to chip or tattoo our animals? Is it a good idea to do so? Yes. Should it be our choice? Yes.

Of course to receive a license to be a "dealer" you're going to have to pay. The $ amount is not listed. Again, rescues are sadly broke and can barely afford to care for the animals, how are they going to come up with new licensing fees too?

You can read the bill in completely here: http://www.aphis.usda.gov/ac/awa.html#2147

Again, I can't say that I am completely opposed to this bill. I definitely think that something must be done. However, I'm not sure I completely support this bill either. I do enjoy discussing it though :)

Also, I see that I was mistaken, Birds are evidentally not included in this bill....
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
323 Posts
I agree about the chips. I think that if rescues asked for donations instead of adoption fees they will have found a loophole in the bill.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,327 Posts
I am on the fence on this one. I am not really sure which way I would go. BYBing needs to stop and if this bill will help I am all for it. But if this bill will also hurt good breeders and shelters and rescues I can't be all for it. I would really have to think about this one.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
421 Posts
I only skimmed a responce letter but what I got from it was that a non profit rescue would not even be looked at. Any rescue that isn't on the books would shock me to see mroe than tenty five in and out in a year. I'd be shocked to have mroe than five in and out in a year.

And even then it is one of those bils that will only affect those they want to go after. There goal wasn't rescues so however it is worded thats not who they are trying to go after. Did that make any sence? Its one of those not going to go after you,unless you make trouble laws.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
45 Posts
The one thing you have to remember is that 1. Legislators write laws and 2. Courts interpret laws. So...alot of times a legislator will write a bill for a specific purpose and intend a certain result, say to exclude rescues, but a court interprets that in fact it includes them. That happens all the time. Thus, next thing you know compensation does include adoption fee and the legislators never intended that and the original intent is destroyed. So I think Tracey has a point. You have to be real careful with the language.
 
1 - 11 of 11 Posts
Top