How To Find Your Congressman

If you're not sure who your congressman is you can go to this site Write Your Representative and find out.

Just select "Tennessee" in the pull-down menu. Then enter your zip code. It asks for your four-digit extension. If you're like many people and you don't know it you can click on the link and type in your address to find your four-digit extension.

Then click "Contact My Representative."

That will take you straight to the web form for your congressman. You can fill it out with your contact information and then paste in your message asking him/her not to take any action on PUPS.

Please do contact your representative. We really need to stop PUPS now by asking our representatives not to become co-sponsors. Don't forget to write to your U.S. senators, too.

Contact Info for Tennessee's Congressmen and Senators

According to the latest update today, there are now 94 co-sponsors for the House version of PUPS. We really need you to contact your congressman and both senators about PUPS and ask them not to take any action on these bills.

You can see the co-sponsors on this site:

http://www.thomas.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d111:HR05434:@@@P

So far there is only one Tennessee congressman on the list. We need to keep it that way! Write your congressman and make sure he doesn't become a co-sponsor!

Here are the e-mail addresses for our U.S. congressmen and senators from Tennessee. Please send the PUPS messages to your specific congressman and to BOTH senators.

http://www.house.gov/house/MemberWWW_by_State.shtml#tn

Tennessee

• Blackburn, Marsha, Tennessee 7th
• Cohen, Steve, Tennessee, 9th
• Cooper, Jim, Tennessee, 5th
• Davis, Lincoln, Tennessee, 4th
• Duncan Jr., John J., Tennessee, 2nd
• Gordon, Bart, Tennessee, 6th
• Roe, Phil, Tennessee, 1st
• Tanner, John, Tennessee, 8th
• Wamp, Zach, Tennessee, 3rd

You'll have to go to the web site for your congressman and click on the contact link. Then paste your message.

Here are the contact links for the two senators:

Alexander, Lamar - (R - TN)
455 DIRKSEN SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-4944
Web Form: alexander.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?p=Email
Corker, Bob - (R - TN)
185 DIRKSEN SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-3344
Web Form: corker.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?p=ContactMe

Carlotta

Write Your U.S. Senator about PUPS

Here is the letter to our U.S. senators from Tennessee about PUPS. Please send this message to BOTH of the Tennessee senators.

Carlotta

Dear Senator [Blank]:

Subject: Request to SUSPEND JUDGMENT on the PUPS Bill [S. 3424]

As your constituent, I respectfully ask that you suspend judgment and action on the PUPS Bill (S. 3424) until the following questions are fully vetted in a Committee Hearing:

1. Is the "perceived problem" and "need" for the PUPS Bill caused by the so-called internet sales "loophole," or by simply an inability of APHIS to enforce existing laws and regulations? In short, would the "perceived problem" and "need" be best addressed by more strictly enforcing the existing laws and regulations, rather than adding new laws and regulations onto the existing laws and regulations that may not have been strictly enforced?

2. Is it the intent of Congress to mandate that if someone has as few as one intact female dog that is capable of being used for breeding, then that person may be subject to the expanded coverage of the PUPS Bill?

3. Is it appropriate for Congress to define a four-month-old puppy to be an adult dog?

4. Would the existing language in the PUPS Bill have the unintended consequence of dramatically reducing the number of available dogs that are specifically bred and trained for use by special needs organizations that support the handicapped and the blind?

5. Would the existing language in the PUPS Bill have the unintended consequence of dramatically reducing the number of available dogs that that are specifically bred and trained for use by law enforcement throughout the U.S., the Department of Homeland Security, and the Department of Defense, such as bomb sniffing dogs?

6. Why has the Humane Society of the U.S., for the last three years, repeatedly refused to tell the American Public and the U.S. Congress that major Pet Breeder Organizations in 10 States have publicly condemned substandard kennels? Significantly, over 85% of all Federally licensed and inspected kennels are located in those 10 States.

Sincerely,

Write Your Congressman about PUPS

As you know, PUPS is in Congress now, gathering co-sponsors every day. Now is the time to contact your congressman and senator to ask them to suspend judgment on this bill. Ask them not to sign on as a co-sponsor.

A TN Pet-Law member has very kindly written a great letter for people to e-mail to their congressmmen. You can simply paste the message below on your congressman's web form and send it. We also have a letter for Tennessee's senators.

Please send this message to your congressman. PUPS is a lousy bill that will harm hobby breeders and anyone who breeds dogs at home. Let your congressman know that he needs to take a closer look at this bill before taking any action.

Carlotta

Dear Representative ______:

Subject: Request to SUSPEND JUDGMENT on the PUPS Bill [H.R. 5434]

As your constituent, I respectfully ask that you suspend judgment and action on the PUPS Bill (H.R. 5434) until the following questions are fully vetted in a Committee Hearing:

1. Is the "perceived problem" and “need” for the PUPS Bill caused by the so-called internet sales "loophole," or by simply an inability of APHIS to enforce existing laws and regulations? In short, would the "perceived problem" and "need" be best addressed by more strictly enforcing the existing laws and regulations, rather than adding new laws and regulations onto the existing laws and regulations that may not have been strictly enforced?

2. Is it the intent of Congress to mandate that if someone has as few as one intact female dog that is capable of being used for breeding, then that person may be subject to the expanded coverage of the PUPS Bill?

3. Is it appropriate for Congress to define a four-month-old puppy to be an adult dog?

4. Would the existing language in the PUPS Bill have the unintended consequence of dramatically reducing the number of available dogs that are specifically bred and trained for use by special needs organizations that support the handicapped and the blind?

5. Would the existing language in the PUPS Bill have the unintended consequence of dramatically reducing the number of available dogs that that are specifically bred and trained for use by law enforcement throughout the U.S., the Department of Homeland Security, and the Department of Defense, such as bomb sniffing dogs?

6. Why has the Humane Society of the United States, for the last three years, repeatedly refused to tell the American Public and the U.S. Congress that major Pet Breeder Organizations in 10 States have publicly condemned substandard kennels? Significantly, over 85% of all Federally licensed and inspected kennels are located in those 10 States.

Sincerely,

A Quick Look at the AVMA's "Model Law"

The following article originally appeared in GILBERTS' K-9 SEMINARS NEWS & REVIEW, and it is reprinted here by permission.

A Quick Look at the AVMA's "Model Law"

By Laurie Telfair

It is too late to hope that the American Veterinary Medical Association will confine its expertise to health care and stay out of law-making. Their Model Bill and Regulations to Assure Appropriate Care for Dogs Intended for Use as Pets has already hit the internet and will likely be coming to a state or city governing body near you.*

As an aspirational document designed to educate operators of large commercial puppy raising facilities, it isn’t all bad. It combines engineering standards for sizing enclosures, whelping areas and exercise areas and performance standards for describing the care that should be given. However, this model law would not apply to USDA-licensed persons or facilities and would attach an official, stigmatizing label of “high volume dog breeder” to those hobby breeders who breed six or more litters per year, regardless of how many puppies are whelped or sold.

I would quibble with some of the requirements and question others. For example, it mandates “dogs shall be provided with full-body physical contact with other compatible dogs daily, except as necessary for reasons such as veterinary treatment…” Dog aggressive dogs can be kept separated but “separation of dogs due to aggression should be accompanied by a program to resolve the underlying causes of this disorder.” Many breeds, including mine, German Shepherds, are not expected to play nice with others and most people don’t make a practice of keeping them in groups. This varies by individual dogs of course, but I would not consider a dog that doesn’t get along with other dogs to be suffering from a disorder. There seems to be an implication here that we all should aspire to produce dogs with a generic, “dumbed down” temperament.

The veterinarian authors of this model law reveal a certain amount of self-interest. Family farmers, the most prominent other group with small scale animal care operations, have the right to carry out “accepted animal husbandry practices” without any veterinary involvement. Licensed breeders, however, will be required to perform all of their routine preventive care as part of a veterinarian-client-patient relationship. The model law also requires that “veterinary care” must be provided as part of a veterinarian-client-patient relationship. This seems like a harmless no-brainer until you consider that the laws of some states include artificial insemination and some other breeding-related activities under their definition of veterinary practice.

The model law also states that a dog can only be bred if a veterinarian determines the dog to be fit for breeding purposes. Valid justifications to classify a dog as unfit “may include concerns about physical and/or behavioral health, the perpetuation of genetic defects, and frequency.” It seems to me that the usage of the word “may” here means that additional, unspecified justification may also be allowed. It should be noted that some veterinarians consider achondroplastic legs, brachycephalic head conformation, C section requirement, and any number of the physical traits that distinguish one breed from another to be “genetic defects.” This combined with what appears to be a poor understanding of the salient temperament differences among breeds, makes me very uncomfortable with a law that makes veterinarians into de facto breed wardens.

I have questions on the scope of the proposal. High volume breeder is defined as any person who whelps more than six litters a year, and high volume retailer is defined as any person who transfers ownership of more than 50 dogs a year. A “person” is defined as any individual, corporation, company, partnership, shelter, pound, rescue, firm, estate, trust or other legal entity. The law states that this would include “partnerships,” but what about co-breeders and co-owners? Small breeders who co-own with other breeders could easily exceed the six litters. A hobby breeder with planned litters that all happened to come about in close proximity could hit the limit one year. What happens the next year, when there are few or no litters born? Is a kennel license still required? Rescues and shelters could easily fall into the definition of high volume retailer. Lawmakers enacting this model law would certainly exempt publicly funded animal shelters and could alter the definition to exempt rescues and nonprofit human societies, as well, but there is no certainty that this would be done. Adding licensing fees and requirements could easily sink many of these operations.

Of course, from the standpoint of a state or municipality, the prospect of revenue is a powerful lure. All these purported thousands of so-called “puppy mills” will have to pay, thereby funding the entire cost of the program and maybe even providing additional revenue. We all know how that will end but, like Charlie Brown ever hopeful that this time Lucy will hold the football for him to kick, law makers seem to fall for this one every time.

I think my primary objection is triggered right in the title “Care for Dogs Intended for Use as Pets.” It is one of the consequences of the animal rights movement that hobby breeders are quitting in droves, tired of fending off the increasing restrictions on breeding animals. As we age out, the changed social attitudes toward breeding dogs has decreased the numbers of newcomers into our sport. In the future, more and more of our pet dogs will probably be born and raised in commercial facilities.

The hobby breeder, who knew the grandmother and great-grandmother of the puppies born in her family room or back bedroom, will no longer be the main supplier of pets. This breeder didn’t need to develop a written protocol to ensure that the social needs of her puppies were met. This is what breeders did by instinct and experience. Snaring hobby breeders into a model suited for institutions will hasten the end of the family raised puppies and accelerate the move to commercially produced family pets.

If a group really wanted to improve the health and welfare of family dogs, they would figure out a way to support, or at least not punish, the hobby breeder.

* The complete text of the model law can be read here: http://tinyurl.com/25pp96x [http://www.avma.org/advocacy/state/issues/Care_for_Dogs_Model_Act_and_Regulations.pdf ].

Remember, if this gets passed in your state or town, the threshold could be lower. Are you meeting all of these requirements? Imagine living with your dogs in this manner, including carrying out all of the necessary daily documentation.

Courtesy of Ed & Pat Gilberts’ K-9 Seminars. Copyright 2010. Web site: www.gilbertk9.com To subscribe to free News & Review send E-mail to: Gilbertk9@sbcglobal.net

What The PUPS Bill Could Mean To You

What The PUPS Bill Could Mean To You

Carlotta Cooper

By now you may have heard that Sen. Dick Durbin (D. IL) has introduced Senate S. 3424, a bill to amend the Animal Welfare Act. The bill is supposedly a response to a report from the Office of the Inspector General into the the work of the USDA and their animal control department as they have inspected commercial breeders between 2006-2008. It should be noted, however, that a similar PUPS bill was also introduced last year, before there was a report from the Office of the Inspector General. In both cases the bills have been strongly supported by the Humane Society of the United States.

In some ways PUPS is similar to the PAWS legislation that created such a furor several years ago, with a few important differences.

First, it should be said that the report from the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) was highly critical of the inspectors and the inspection process carried out by the USDA inspectors and their agency. The OIG cited the following main problems with the Animal Care program at USDA:

*AC’s enforcement process was ineffective against problematic dealers. According to OIG, the agency relied too much on trying to use educational efforts to improve breeder/dealer compliance. During fiscal years 2006-2008, 4,250 violators were re-inspected because of violations. Of those violators, there were 2,416 Animal Welfare Act violations. However, the report does not address the fact that many violations may have been minor in nature. All violations were lumped together for the purposes of the report. (It should also be noted that if a breeder/dealer was not home when the inspector called, that was also counted as a violation. So, not all violations were horror stories.)

*AC inspectors did not cite or document violations properly to support enforcement actions. The report indicates that many inspectors were doing a good job. However, they found that 6 of the 19 inspectors that they studied for their report did not correctly report all repeat “direct” (serious) violations. This led to some problematic dealers not being re-inspected frequently. The report also questioned the description of some of the violations that were reported. They believed that better documentation could have led to better cases against dealers when they were brought to court.

*The report cited problems with the new worksheet being used by the department which calculated minimal penalties for violators in some cases.

*The report claimed that the agency misused the current inspection guidelines to lower penalties for violators. In many cases inspectors may use discretionary powers to assess penalties for violations. They may even assess no penalty if they believe that will encourage a dealer to improve the situation, or lower a penalty to encourage a violator to pay a stipulated amount instead of calling a hearing. The report found fault with this system.

*Finally, one of the primary failings the report found was that “some” large breeders circumvented the Animal Welfare Act by selling animals over the Internet. Breeders who sell animals over the Internet are currently exempt from inspection and licensing requirements, thanks to the court ruling in Doris Day Animal League vs. USDA (Veneman, Anne) which ruled that hobby breeders and others who sell dogs on a retail basis do not have to be inspected by USDA.

(It is somewhat disturbing to see that this provision in the law is referred to by the OIG as a “loophole” – the same wording that HSUS uses, when, in fact, this was a hard-won legal point to protect retail breeders.)

These are the main criticisms issued by the Office of the Inspector General regarding the USDA’s inspection process for commercial dog breeding. However, it should be pointed out again that this report focuses on the worst of the worst offenders. As indicated in the 2007 annual report from the USDA Animal Control agency, 97 percent of commercial breeders were classified as being “substantially compliant” with the provisions of the Animal Welfare Act. In most businesses a 97 percent compliance rate is pretty good but that’s probably not a figure that you will hear quoted very often by the agency’s critics.

It should be noted that USDA/Animal Care has already acted on many of the criticisms found in the report. They began writing new guidelines and instituting new training for inspectors as far back as August 2009. So it’s to be hoped that most of the problems found in the report have already been addressed.

There is no denying that some of the problems cited by the OIG report are real and do exist. Not every commercial breeder is a shining example of the profession. On the other hand, the same can be said for show breeders or people in any other area of life. Truly substandard kennel operations should absolutely be addressed and if the owners cannot or will not clean up their act, they should meet the full penalties available to the agency.

As soon as the OIG’s report was released the PUPS bill was ready to be introduced in Congress by Sen. Durbin and his co-sponsor, Sen. David Vitter (R. - LA). A House version was introduced soon after by Representatives Sam Farr (D-CA), Jim Gerlach (R-PA), Lois Capps (D-CA), and Bill Young (R-FL). PUPS stands for Puppy Uniform Protection Statute, S. 3424 and H.R. 5434.

Actually, as far as legislation goes, the bill looks fairly innocuous upon first reading. It’s not a lengthy bill at all. The bill states that is is to amend the Animal Welfare Act to provide further protection for puppies. Sounds good so far, right? Then the bill makes some references to the current Animal Welfare act and adds some wording and punctuation to show how it would read if this bill is adopted.

The first substantial point you come to in the bill is a new term and definition: High Volume Retail Breeder. Currently there is no such person under the Animal Welfare Act. There are only commercial breeders (those who own more than three breeding females and sell dogs to brokers, research labs, or pet stores) and retail pet stores/those who make direct retail sales to the public, such as hobby breeders. So, this new category of breeder is an important issue.

A High Volume Retail Breeder is defined as anyone who has 1) a breeding female dog who is intact and four (4) months or older; and 2) who, in commerce, for compensation or profit, has an ownership interest in or custody of one (1) or more breeding female dogs; and sells or offers for sale, via ANY means of conveyance (including the Internet, telephone, or newspaper) more than fifty (50) of the offspring of such breeding female dogs for use as pets in any 1-year period.

For the purposes of this Act, a High Volume Retail Breeder shall be considered a dealer and subject to all of the provisions of this Act applicable to a dealer. (So the terms “High Volume Retail Breeder” and dealer are used interchangeably here.)

A High Volume Retail Breeder would have to be licensed and inspected in the same way as any other commercial breeder.

Now, why is this important to someone reading DOG NEWS? Afterall, you’re probably thinking that you don’t produce 50 puppies a year so it has nothing to do with you, right? Wrong.

First of all, there are show and hobby breeders who do produce 50 puppies in a year. If you have a large scale show and breeding operation this is not an impossible number to produce. If, for example, you have four or five Labrador Retrievers, they could easily produce litters with 10-12 puppies in them. You would be up to 50 puppies if all of your girls had litters in one year.

However, this bill is much more inclusive than this. It would not just affect people with breeds who had large litters. If you read the wording carefully, it includes any bitch in which you have an ownership interest. That would include bitches that you co-own, whether they reside with you or not. So, if you have been staying on as co-owner of your nice bitches, or perhaps many of your dogs, you would now be liable for all of the puppies produced by those bitches. You may only breed a litter every 2-3 years yourself but if the bitches co-owned by you have litters in a year then those puppies would be counted toward your 50-puppy total. Many, many people in the fancy could quickly find themselves labeled as High Volume Retail Breeders under this bill. They would have to be licensed and inspected by the USDA, not to mention spending the money and making changes to their property to become compliant with USDA kennel regulations — even if they only keep a few dogs in their home.

Is this a mistake? Perhaps you’re thinking that this part of the bill was surely not intended to be aimed at hobby breeders. Well, what better way to limit the breeding of dogs in the U.S. than to make it as difficult as possibly for show and hobby breeders to breed dogs in their home than requiring them to become USDA-licensed?

But there is more in this section. You will notice that it covers any kind of sales — by Internet, telephone, newspaper. If you can think of other kinds of sales, they will probably be written into the bill as well. This is much more than covering what critics of commercial breeding have claimed to be the Internet “loophole.” This is all retail sales of dogs if you produce 50 puppies. This is nothing less than using a number to define what makes a commercial breeder in the United States. It has all the hallmarks of HSUS legislation that has been trotted out in dozens of states in the last two years. And we know from these state battles that the aim of HSUS is to start with a number and then to whittle it down lower and lower.

You should also consider how this law might be enforced. How will USDA locate possible High Volume Retail Breeders? When HSUS has gone state by state to try to enact commercial breeder laws they have started by searching online to count people with web sites offering puppies for sale. However, many times they have included breeders who simply had sites giving breed information for educational purposes. If you have a dog web site, whether or not you breed very often, the USDA could be knocking at your door to find out how many puppies you produce or how many bitches you co-own.

In towns and cities with breeder licensing permits local animal control officers frequently check newspapers to find puppies for sale. Some people who advertise on their breed club sites have also been contacted by state officials asking for back taxes for puppy sales. People have also been contacted through their information in show catalogues. So, there are many ways that USDA could try to track down possible High Volume Retail Breeders. Unfortunately, they may be contacting all of us if this bill passes, as they try to determine how many puppies we produce and how many bitches we have.

There are also provisions in the bill that would affect all commercial breeders (or the High Volume Retail Breeders in the future). It specifies that dogs would have to have access to daily exercise to move sufficiently to develop or maintain normal muscle tone and mass as appropriate for the age, breed, sex and reproductive status of the dog. (Doesn’t sound so bad.) And, the dog has to have the ability to achieve a “running stride”; and is not “forced activity" or other physical activity that is repetitive, restrictive of other activities, solitary, and goal-oriented. So, treadmills are out.

The only exceptions must be approved by a veterinarian or are puppies less than 12 weeks old, or dams with pups.

Just to make sure you get the picture, if you kennel your dogs you must now make sure they have sufficient room to allow them to exercise with room for a “running stride.” We all know how much room the running stride for some breeds takes. It’s hard to imagine how commercial breeders can meet this requirement in any kind of practical way.

The bill also discusses the kind of flooring that is required to be used in kennels, stating that it can’t be too sharp or too small, and so on. If you think this is an easy issue you should ask people in Pennsylvania who have been fighting about what kind of kennel flooring is acceptable for dog kennels for months.

If the bill is adopted then the Secretary of Agriculture has a year to promulgate the specific rules necessary to put the bill into effect. These are the actual nuts and bolts of carrying out the law.

That is a basic description of the PUPS bills. There is much to be concerned about if you breed dogs, whether you breed an occasional litter for the show ring or you’re a commercial breeder. HSUS is currently urging its members to contact their congressmen to ask them to co-sponsor the bill and to create support for the bill.

Of course, there are other, long-term problems with PUPS. Not only would it seriously cut back on the number of small breeders who breed dogs in their homes (because, afterall, who really wants to turn their home into a kennel with a drain in the floor and get a USDA license so they can breed a few litters?), but PUPS would also add lots of new breeders to the number of breeders that the USDA has to inspect. USDA currently inspects around 5000 commercial breeders per year. If the High Volume Retail Breeder definition is adopted and everyone who sells dogs over the Internet has to be inspected by the USDA, the number of breeders that would have to be inspected could triple. If the inspectors are criticized for their performance now, how on earth could they properly inspect that many kennels? They couldn’t. Not without massively increasing the size of the agency and its funding.

There is an easy solution to the problem though. Some people have speculated that the government would outsource the inspections to a national animal organization such as, oh, for instance, the Humane Society of the United States. Afterall, they’ve been training people in quasi-animal control techniques and criticizing inspections for years. Why not let them do the actual inspections? Nevermind their anti-animal, anti-breeder stances. And nevermind the increased costs that typically go along when you hire outside contractors (think KBR and Halliburton).

Naturally HSUS cares about animals...but it’s so convenient when they could also make money from a government contract as an inspection agency for the USDA.

The only way to defeat a bill such as this, which would make so many hobby and show breeders into High Volume Retail Breeders and force them to become USDA-licensed and inspected is by working together with all parts of the dog community. There are NO exemptions in the bill for hunters, service dog or guide dog breeders, police dog organizations or anyone else who breeds. All of these people may breed 50 puppies or more per year with some puppies being sold as pets and become classified as High Volume Retail Breeders under this Act. Not to mention, we should also find ways to work with commercial breeders to fight the bill. This is a case where “the enemy of my enemy is my friend.” And this bill will hurt all of us who breed dogs. Only by working together can we defeat it.

PUPS is a very dangerous piece of legislation. It currently has a short list of co-sponsors but, with HSUS supporters contacting their congressmen, that list may grow longer. People in the dog world need to start contacting their representatives and senators NOW to ask them to oppose PUPS. To find your U.S. representative and senators you can simply go to http://www.congress.org/ and type in your zip code. That process will take you to a page with your officials. Click on their names to see their bios and to contact them by web form. You can also go to their web sites to send an e-mail. Or you can phone them. Ask them to oppose the PUPS legislation. Tell them that the only way the United States can continue to have quality dogs available is if people can breed them in their homes. This is not a job for government oversight.

Make no mistake: this bill is aimed right at home breeders. That’s us. We’re the target of this bill and we need to stop it.