Bad Move by USDA

[Roxane]

Cross posting from NC4AWL (North Carolina For Animal Welfare Legislation), a small group I belong to.
************
The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) announced on December 1, 2000, its plans to
amend regulations under the Animal Welfare Act to require only wholesale dealers of breeding, hunting, and security dogs to be licensed and inspected.

This change would formally and permanently exempt dealers who sell breeding, hunting, or security dogs at the retail level from complying with the standards for humane care and handling established by the Act.

The Animal Welfare Act was passed in 1966 to ensure humane care and treatment for animals, including adequate housing, food, and water. Currently, dealers who sell breeding, hunting, and security dogs are not required to register with or be inspected by the USDA provided they are only selling directly to the public (and not to other dealers), no matter how many animals they have.

But The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) believes that, given the intent of the Animal Welfare Act, these dealers should be registered and regularly inspected.

What the USDA wants to do is formally exempt all retail sellers of breeding, security, and hunting dogs from any future regulations under the Act.

This would mean that certain puppy mills and other breeding facilities that sell direct to the public would continue to operate in deplorable conditions, causing obvious and significant suffering to the dogs and puppies they keep.

Such facilities often advertise via the Internet and newspaper advertisements as well as selling animals at open-air markets and roadside "stores."

The Internet in particular has opened up entirely new retail markets for these breeding facilities.

With the proposed change, any unsuspecting consumer who purchases a dog or puppy from these dealers would not have any federal recourse should the animal become sick or die.

And this proposed change would remove any hope of our federal government ever helping dogs and puppies languishing in breeding facilities that sell direct to the public.

Please help us stop this proposed change! What You Can Do :
Please contact the United States Department of Agriculture TODAY. Let them know that you object to
the proposed amendment and that you want stronger, not weaker, enforcement of those who deal in the retail sale of dogs for breeding, hunting, or security purposes.

(Note: there is a link to a sample letter on the hsus.org website) adapted from the Doris Day Animal League as a guide.

You must include FOUR copies of your letter (an original and three copies) and must note that your
comments are regarding Docket No. 99-087-1. Your letter and the three copies must be RECEIVED by
April 3, 2001.

Note the original comment period, which was scheduled to close on February 2, has been
extended.

Send your comments to:
Docket No. 99-087-1
Regulatory Analysis and Development
PPD, APHIS, Suite 3CO3
4700 River Road, Unit 118
Riverdale, MD 20737-1238

You can access the entire proposed rule in the Federal Register.
**************
Roxane crew

[Oscar's Mom]

I was glad to see they extended the date so more people can write.
Here are some likes for additional information.
http://www.aphis.usda.gov/ac/ See Docket No. 99-087-1
http://www.ddal.org/currentcampaignpuppy.html

<FONT COLOR="#00FFFF" SIZE="1" FACE="Verdana, Arial">This message has been edited by Oscar's Mom on January 25, 2001 at 10:52 AM</font>

[Roxane]

Thanks so much for posting the links.
The second one (Doris Day site) would be a good place for our people who have suffered through bad experiences with puppy mill puppies to go.
It just take a short time to report, as they ask, your story. The more material gathered, the better the chance these big organizations, with a lot of clout, have in attaining their (our) goals.
Thanks,
Roxane and crew

[georgette]

Yes thanks from me too. Changing our laws is probably the very best way we can make a difference. Let's all decide not to be intimidated by the red tape. Think of how much time we all waste (Oy vey) If we devoted half an hour now and then (yes, I know weall do), just think of the difference we could make. Let's be an example to our kids.
Rah, Rah, Rah, Sis, Boom, Bah - SuperBowl peptalk<IMG SRC="http://dachsie.org/ubb/cwmsmilies/cwm8.gif" border=0>

[Roxane]

Boy, oh boy, our dinner and the Super Bowl are about to collide. Must get to the kitchen but I am so glad to see you posting, Georgette. Haven't heard word one from you, as to whether you are prepared for the dance under Misc. Party, Party. http://dachsie.org/ubb/smilies/lol.gif
Roxane and crew

[wireweiners]

There is another side to this story. The AKC as well as numerous hobby breeders have been opposed to this USDA regulation for several reasons. The proposed reg would make all breeders come under USDA inspection, regardless of the number of litters. This would pose an undue hardship on small hobby breeders such as myself and would be impossible to enforce. The USDA doesn't do that great a job enforcing the regs they already have in place. I can't imagine having a USDA inspector inspecting my "dog room" where I raise my once every 10 years litter. I am not saying that large commercial breeders shouldn't be inspected, even those that sell retail but this reg, as drafted, was a poor piece of legislation.

[Roxane]

Maybe, just maybe there are really three sides to the story.
First, the chance of the USDA fully implimenting on-site inspections of all breeders is unrealistic.
Second, I suspect that those who seldom breed would not be at the top of the inspection list. For every legitimate breeder, as you know, we are overwhelmed by the numbers of mills and others involved in the commercialization of the dog as a product.
3. What agency, legislation, group, is going to be able to quash the ever growing problem, if there are no regulations in place?
Is this the entire answer, heck no. But now that the USDA is able to place confiscated dogs with legitimate rescue organizations, it just might motivate them to close down more of the places that make money at the expense of the animals.
I agree it can be a sticky wicket, I guess it just depends on who has the mallet and is hitting the ball.
Life is not simple,
Roxane and crew


<FONT COLOR="#00FFFF" SIZE="1" FACE="Verdana, Arial">This message has been edited by Roxane on January 29, 2001 at 02:55 PM</font>

[wireweiners]

I agree with you that there should be some regulations but I think that it should be tied to the number of dogs or cats sold annually. That way small hobby breeders could be exempted while large commercial operations would be regulated. I agree this isn't a simple issue. There are a lot of animal rights groups and other "humane" groups that would like to see all breeding of purebred dogs and cats stopped. That goes for the puppy mills as well as small hobby breeders. They don't differentiate between the puppy mills that breed huge numbers under horrible conditions and folks like me that breed an occasional litter and put all our heart and soul into doing what's best for our dogs. I'm not saying there shouldn't be regs but I repeat, this bill was poorly drafted and would not solve the problem.

Because this reg was drafted so broadly it stands little chance for passage. A better drafted reg with a narrower scope would stand a better chance of passing and would help the dogs in the mills.

<FONT COLOR="#00FFFF" SIZE="1" FACE="Verdana, Arial">This message has been edited by wireweiners on January 29, 2001 at 04:48 PM</font>

[Roxane]

Oh, ish you are really making me do my homework, aren't you. http://dachsie.org/ubb/smilies/smile.gif
We may be talking about 2 different pieces of legislation.
The one that is referenced here is not new, it is part of the Animal Wefare Act of 1966 (?).

USDA wants to eliminate a section they say they have never enforced.
In my humble opinion by doing so they are obfuscating the intent of the AWA, as originally written.

If we stopped enforcing laws against drunk driving, would that be reason enough, to take them off the books?

At the moment the AWA is the only thing standing in the way of even worse conditions and an increase of wholesalers.

I would agree that there could be improvement in the Animal Welfare Act, as it is written. Basing more of the law on numbers of dogs bred and a better definition of wholesaler and retailer.

Right now, the crux of the problem is not so much the legislation but the USDA, the agency empowered to enforce it.

They may suffer from understaffing and lack of sufficient funding. I don't know. What I am aware of is, that were they doing their job, we wouldn't have puppy mills operating under the conditions we all find horrifing.

I do not buy into the issues which seem to drive more radical groups like Peta.

Some of my best friends are dog breeders. http://dachsie.org/ubb/smilies/lol.gif

I have dogs registered with AKC and I eat beef.

As I see it, by eliminating even a small part of the AWA, we are creating a loophole that large truckloads of dogs being taken to market can drive through.

That frightens me a great deal more than thinking one of my friends might have a USDA official drop by to inspect his/her kennel. Heck, the AKC does it, what's the difference?

Time to leave the floor to someone else,
Roxane and crew

[Penny's Aunt]

Roxane, does your group know what organizations lobbied for this law, who was behind it? Always follow the money!

[Roxane]

Sue, I can try to find out. Might take a while. Good point, my dear.
Roxane and crew

[Roxane]

Have spent almost the entire morning read the dull and complicated USDA Docket 99 087-2, the most recent of the reports put out on the issue of licensing of wholesale breeding, hunting and security dogs.

Then I went on to read the advice given by organizations who either are supposed to back or oppose the proposal.

Kim Townsend of Nopuppymills.com has said those who disapprove of the recommendation are:
USDA, AKC, Commercial Breeders,
NAIA (National Animal Interest Alliance)

Those who favor the recommendation:
Humane Society of the United States, Doris Day Animal League and Peta.

I went to AKC, NAIA, HSUS, DDAL and PETA websites to read their pro and con arguments.

To begin with, if this _is_ a PETA interest, after 45 minutes on their pages, I could find absolutely nothing expressed either way.

The AKC seems to be of the opinion that this will hurt and effect the dog fancy in general and their members by forcing them to license and be inspected by the USDA.

However, the language used by the USDA is very specific when defining "retail sales" as being non residental, commerical stores
which, to me, seems to eliminate breeders selling from their home kennels.

Doris Day Animal League started this ball rolling back in 1997 with their initial proposal which seems to advocate that all cats and dogs used for breeding be licensed under the
USDA.

The USDA from that time to the present has refused to adopt those requirements and thus there is a legal action pending of DDAL vs USDA.

The most moderate stance and the two agencies which on the surface _seem_ to be on different sides of the fence are the Humane Society and the National Animal Interest Alliance. Yet if you bother to read what each has to say, I think they are much closer in philosophy than it would first appear.

So there you are. I always like to look at those involved from what each may or may not have to gain, financially, philosophically or by enhancing their public image.

If anyone else wants to take a closer look (keep eyedrops handy): www.aphis.usda.gov/ppd/rad/webrepor.html (http://www.aphis.usda.gov/ppd/rad/webrepor.html)
And then you are on your own to find the organizations I mentioned here.

I have expressed my opinion as has Wireweiners, previously. Just trying to answer Penny's Aunt's question.

And so you owe me big time, Sue. Or at least pay for my next eye doctor's appointment. http://dachsie.org/ubb/smilies/lol.gif
Roxane and crew