What The PUPS Bill Could Mean To You

This article was originally posted last year when PUPS was introduced. That version of PUPS died when Congress went home at the end of the year. However, PUPS, the Puppy Uniform Protection and Safety Act, is back again this year. It's the same as last year's bill so I am posting this article again. I have only updated the bill numbers and the sponsors. The information in the article remains the same to help you understand why this bill with the warm and fuzzy name is not in the best interests of dogs, the people who care for them on a daily basis, or pet owners.

Carlotta

What The PUPS Bill Could Mean To You

Carlotta Cooper

By now you may have heard that U.S. Representatives Jim Gerlach (R-PA), Sam Farr (D-CA), Lois Capps (D-CA) and C.W. Bill Young (R-FL) have introduced Senate H.R. 835, 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, and the year before that, 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 the co-sponsors. PUPS stands for Puppy Uniform Protection and Safety Act.

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.

Negative Consequences of PUPS

Negative Consequences of PUPS

Carlotta Cooper

Recently I was reading Steve Dale’s excellent online article “Why Are Puppy Mills Allowed To Operate?” at PetWorld. The article isn’t quite what it sounds like. The article is actually about the new PUPS legislation and why it may not be a good idea.

Steve explains that we all know there are some problems with bad breeders. That’s not new information. He discusses the report from the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) which found problems with the way that inspections of some commercial breeders were being carried out: repeat violations ignored, penalties waived, inadequate documentation, first-time violators given a pass sometimes; and in some states a lack of inspectors.

The report goes on to recommend that APHIS, which carries out the inspections for the USDA, be able to immediately confiscate animals that are dying or seriously suffering, and to better train their inspectors to document, report and penalize wrongdoing.

That seems to be an appropriate response to the findings in the report. But, as Steve Dale reports, Sen. Dick Durbin (D-ILL) and others have introduced legislation called PUPS (Puppy Uniform Protection and Safety Act) which they say would close a “loophole” which allows breeders to operate online.

As Steve Dale writes in his article, there are a number of problems with the PUPS bill. PUPS would “make life tough for responsible breeders.” These are people who generally operate from their homes. If you drive these breeders away then the prices of purebred dogs rise and some breeds could disappear. In fact, show breeders could be included among these people who breed from their homes.

Instead, Steve and many other people advocate enforcing the laws that we already have for commercial breeders instead of creating new laws. In fact, there are approximately 100 inspectors for about 5000 commercial breeders and the PUPS bill does not suggest any new funding or inspectors for APHIS. If many more home and hobby breeders would be inspected under this bill it’s hard to imagine how the inspectors would be able to do a good job with their inspections if they are stretched thin now.

Although the stated purpose of the bill is to close the so-called “Internet loophole” that allows the sale of dogs over the Internet, I’ve been very concerned about the “ownership interest” provision in the bill.

The bill defines a High Volume Retail Breeder as follows:

•S 3424

‘‘(B) HIGH VOLUME RETAIL BREEDER.

— The term ‘high volume retail breeder’ means a

person who, in commerce, for compensation or

profit—

‘‘(i) has an ownership interest in or

custody of 1 or more breeding female dogs;

and

‘‘(ii) sells or offers for sale, via any

means of conveyance (including the Inter-

net, telephone, or newspaper), more than

50 of the offspring of such breeding female

dogs for use as pets in any 1-year period.

(And in the bill a four-month-old female puppy is designated as a breeding female.)

Consider what this definition means to a show breeder who co-owns bitches with other people. You may have one or two bitches yourself. You may or may not have a litter. It doesn’t matter. If your friends who co-own bitches with you have litters, no matter where they live in the United States, and they sell those puppies, then those puppies will be counted toward a fifty puppy total for you because you have an “ownership interest” in the dams.

If your co-owners sell a total of fifty or more puppies then you would be considered a high volume retail breeder. This means that you would have to become USDA-licensed and inspected under the PUPS act. If you keep dogs in your home (and I’m sure all of us do), your home would have to be inspected by USDA-APHIS inspectors. I’m also sure that you would not pass inspection. Not because you don’t have a lovely home, but because it does not meet Animal Welfare Act guidelines: you cannot hose down the floor and walls of your home; the surfaces of your home are not impervious to moisture; you cannot disinfect your home at high temperatures; and so on.

What this means is that you could not keep and raise dogs in your home if you had to be USDA-licensed under the PUPS act.

That is why PUPS is harmful to people who breed and raise dogs in their home.

For decades we have been co-owning dogs with each other in order to protect them and supervise their breeding. Now co-ownership can mean that we would be labeled high volume retail breeders and have to be USDA-licensed. It could mean that we would not be able to breed and raise dogs in our homes.

I don’t have statistics on how many breeders co-own bitches. Only the AKC could provide that kind of data. However, I think it’s estimated that the Fancy makes up about 20 percent of the core constituency for the AKC and perhaps 20 percent of their registrations. I think it would be reasonable to guess that a large number of that core constituency engages in co-ownership. (Three of my four adult dogs are co-owned and I co-own several dogs that I’ve sold to others.) No, they wouldn’t all be at risk of becoming high volume retail breeders but many certainly would be.

When replying to comments following Steve Dale’s article one person suggested several times that those of us who are show breeders should be willing to give up our hobby and reduce our breeding for the sake of passing PUPS. I don’t think he ever quite grasped the concept of “hobby” as opposed to breeding as a business.

I think what many people fail to realize is that those of us who breed dogs for show and as a hobby are the very people who are producing dogs of the highest quality in this country. It’s all very well to say that we should be willing to breed less, embrace PUPS, get rid of those awful bad kennel operators. But every time Congress tries to pass a law to get rid of bad breeders they include provisions that would hurt show and hobby breeders — the people who are breeding quality dogs, donating to canine health research, keeping breeds alive. If show and hobby breeders are driven out of breeding or forced to cut back, it hurts all purebred dogs in this country. It hurts dog owners and the consumer who wants to buy a dog. If there are fewer show and hobby breeders producing dogs, the quality of dogs in the U.S. will inevitably decline as a result of PUPS.

Instead of creating new laws like PUPS, which will hurt dedicated breeders, the USDA should be encouraged to better enforce the laws that are already on the books. There are simply too many negative consequences to PUPS which are not being considered by the people supporting it.

PUPS Discussion

The Steve Dale blog currently has a good discussion about PUPS if you're looking for more information about the bill. Steve discusses the bill and brings up some of the problems with it. For instance, he talks about things that the OIG report found when they did a review of the USDA inspection process for commercial breeders. Problems were definitely found. However, those issues are already being addressed by the agency.

Of course, what needs to happen at the USDA is better enforcement of existing laws, not the creation of a new law which would add thousands more breeders — hobby and home breeders! — for inspectors to inspect. The inspectors are already stretched thin (approximately 100 inspectors for 5000 commercial breeders). How on earth would they be able to improve their performance if they had to add thousands of new breeders to those they already inspect? It makes no sense whatsoever. PUPS makes no provision for additional funding or inspectors either. It would set the USDA up to fail even more spectacularly.

Check out the Steve Dale blog for a good discussion. Be sure to read the comments. There seems to be an HSUS shill commenting and pushing for the bill.

More Information about PUPS

There is more and better information about PUPS online now than when the bill was first introduced. The German Shepherd Dog Club of America has a good section on the bill: http://www.gsdca.org/german-shepherd-dogs/dog-legislation/pups-bill They provide many background materials about similar bills that have been introduced in the past along with supporting documents.

Of particular interest are the PUPS bill itself Read THE BILL (S-3424), the SAOVA position paper Here is the SAOVA PUPS Position Paper - Background and Analysis, and the Illinois Federation of Dog Clubs & Owners position paper Here is Position Paper of the Illinois Federation of Dog Club and Owners.

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

HSUS Gets It Wrong

This article first appeared in the May 7, 2010 issue of Dog News magazine and is reprinted here by permission of the author.

HSUS Gets It Wrong

Carlotta Cooper

The following piece was written for individuals, kennel clubs and state dog/animal federations to use when contacting legislators, especially following Humane Society of the United States Lobby Day visits. These visits can leave your legislators with the impression that HSUS speaks for all animal lovers and that they are experts on animal care. Nothing could be farther from the truth! A look at the HSUS web site reveals many ways in which their hands-on knowledge of animals is very lacking.

Here are some ways that the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) “gets it wrong” about animals:

Dog/pet breeding. For anyone who knows the slightest thing about breeding animals, it’s almost laughable to visit the HSUS web site.

Dogs do not have “breeding partners.” They’re dogs not people.

Dogs do not need to be “forced” to breed, as HSUS claims on their site when they write about “puppy mills” or commercial dog breeders. In fact, most dogs have to be restrained from breeding whenever a female is in season. Female dogs are ready and willing to breed whenever their hormones tell them they’re ready.

Every single time HSUS “assists” with an animal seizure, it’s the “worst case” they’ve ever seen. The animals are ALWAYS living in deplorable conditions. And, every state where they try to pass a bill is the “worst state” for animal cruelty, “puppy mills,” or whatever else they are trying to pass. Every state is a "puppy mill" capital! HSUS used this phrase at least a dozen times in 2009 to refer to different states.

HSUS even told the Tennessee Senate about a breeder’s dog with a dissolving jaw, blaming it on being over-bred — yet such a condition had nothing to do with breeding. Instead, loss of teeth and the loss of jaw is a condition that can occur in many Toy breeds of dogs, as well as other breeds that are prone to teeth problems.

And, contrary to those population figures HSUS is so fond of quoting (“one cat can produce a gazillion kittens; one dog can produce a trillion puppies”), the fact of the matter is that, according to research, relatively few of the kittens and puppies produced by stray animals actually live to maturity to reproduce. http://www.ncraoa.com/myths.html

Oh, and Wayne Pacelle, president and CEO of HSUS, the man who stars in those sad commercials on TV with the pitiful animals asking you for your money? He had this to say about his feelings for animals:

“I don’t have a hands-on fondness for animals…To this day I don’t feel bonded to any non-human animal. I like them and I pet them and I’m kind to them, but there’s no special bond between me and other animals.” Wayne Pacelle quoted in Bloodties: Nature, Culture and the Hunt, by Ted Kerasote.

Spaying and neutering. Spaying and neutering pets is a veterinary medical decision that should not be made by the government. Instead, this decision should always be made by an owner who is fully informed of the pros and cons. Dogs who are spayed or neutered are more likely to suffer from many kinds of cancer and they are more likely to develop orthopedic problems such as hip dysplasia and cruciate ruptures, especially when they are spayed or neutered at a very young age. Spaying and neutering is most often done for the convenience of the owner. It does NOT cause pets to be more affectionate or less aggressive. In fact, according to research, spayed female dogs are more likely to become aggressive. Removing a female dog's ovaries can lead to them having shortened lives. An ovario-hysterectomy is a serious operation for a dog, just as it is for a human woman, and it should not be chosen lightly.

Even HSUS admits that some 75 percent of dogs in the U.S. are already spayed and neutered and 87 percent of owned cats are spayed and neutered. There is no reason or need to spay and neuter any animals that are needed to be used for intentional breeding. In fact, we need intentionally bred dogs to act as seeing eye dogs, hunting dogs, service and assistance dogs, show dogs, herding dogs and to fill many other special roles with their humans.

Spaying and neutering animals is a personal choice and it should remain so. Spaying and neutering all animals will not stop animals from ending up in animal shelters. Better enforcement of existing leash laws are necessary, as well as offering low-cost spay/neuter services to people who want to alter their pets. Education is the key. Mandatory spay/neuter laws (MSN), such as those backed by HSUS, do not work.

HSUS is one of the few organizations that still promotes mandatory spay/neuter laws. These laws have failed everywhere they have been tried in the United States. The American Veterinary Medical Association and even the ASPCA now oppose mandatory spay/neuter laws (MSN), as do practically every other animal organization. Yet HSUS has not disavowed this failed approach which punishes responsible animal owners. They still believe that the way to reduce shelter populations is to spay and neuter the cats and dogs of responsible pet owners who are kept safely at home instead of offering low cost spay/neuter to people who would like to have their pets altered. Instead of focusing on containment issues, they want to use surgery to force people to spay and neuter their pets. Instead of trying to increase adoptions, they want to use strong-arm tactics. And, instead of looking at the reasons why people surrender their pets, they want to charge people with intact pets higher fees. HSUS’s approach on mandatory spay/neutering is archaic, at best, and totally out of step with leaders in this area.

Breed-Specific Legislation. The Humane Society of the United States has one of the worst records imaginable when it comes to breed specific legislation — legislation that targets specific breeds of dogs. They have repeatedly shown themselves to be intent on killing “pit bulls,” even as young as newborn puppies (North Carolina). In the Michael Vick case they raised money to care for the dogs taken from Mr. Vick’s premises while telling The New York Times that the dogs should be killed on the grounds that they could not be rehabilitated. Of course, as we soon discovered, the dogs were never actually in the care of the HSUS, so they were raising money under false pretenses. Plus, virtually all of the dogs were rehabilitated by others and are now leading happy lives. Shame on HSUS!

HSUS seeks to encourage breed specific legislation in every city and state where they have the chance, often using higher licensing fees for Bully breed dogs and other so-called “dangerous dogs” for no good reason. Or, trying to pass mandatory spay and neuter laws for these breeds as a way to reduce their population. This is a form of discrimination.

Horse welfare. For people who cannot keep their horses in the current economy HSUS recommends that they donate them to riding schools and police departments — places which have to be extremely selective about the horses they accept. Just how many riding schools and police departments with horse units does HSUS think this country has?

If that doesn’t work, HSUS tells people to donate their horses to “sanctuaries.” Unfortunately, these refuges for unwanted horses are already filled to overflowing. So, as a last resort, HSUS tells people to consider euthanizing their unwanted horses. But, they don’t tell you what to do with your dead horse. Because it’s rather expensive to euthanize a horse and it’s even more expensive to dispose of the body. Most people don’t have a place to bury a horse, especially if they board their horse at a stable.

The wrong focus in dogfighting. Most people can agree that dogfighting is a bloody and disagreeable sport. Yet HSUS has managed to stigmatize people who love these dogs, including people who rescue them. They talk about recognizing the “signs” of dogfighting as though simply having a pit bull and a treadmill in your home makes you a dogfighter! Many people exercise their dogs using treadmills. They’re very popular with dog show people to keep their dogs in good physical condition. Many people with dogs use springpoles so their dogs can get more exercise by leaping after a toy or something fun on the end of the pole set just out of reach. It’s very entertaining for a dog. But, according to HSUS, this is another sign that you’re a dogfighter. Breaking sticks, used to stop a dog fight, are considered another sign that you’re a dogfighter. The truth is that if you keep more than one dog, especially a large breed of dog, it’s possible that your dogs may fight or squabble on their own. Some people may choose to break up a fight with a breaking stick. It doesn’t mean that they are operating a dogfighting ring.

This is another instance where HSUS shows that it does not understand (or deliberately misunderstands) animal husbandry.

And, then there is the infamous “rape stand” used by so-called dogfighters. Ordinary (non-HSUS) people call these breeding stands. According to HSUS these stands are used so female dogs can be “raped” by male dogs for breeding. But, as already mentioned, breeding does not happen between dogs until the female says so. It’s a matter of hormones and timing. A breeding stand holds the female steady and in a good position to make it easy for the male since they will stay together for some time after the act. It makes things more comfortable and keeps the dogs from accidentally injuring each other by turning or getting twisted while they’re still connected. That’s all it does. There is no “rape.” And these stands are used by people who are not dogfighters. Even people with the gentlest dogs may use a breeding stand to help their dogs reach each other at a good angle.

Attacks on so-called "factory farming. HSUS relentlessly attacks what they call “factory farming.” Yet most farms in the U.S. are family-owned. What HSUS characterizes as “factory farms” are simply farms that use modern methods of farming. Besides raising the cost of production (and the cost of animal products at the grocery store), the "humane" methods that HSUS advocates often result in increased mortality, increased injuries, and decreased overall health of the animals themselves. Many people wouldn't be able to afford to buy these products at the grocery store. Most people don’t realize that HSUS promotes a vegan lifestyle and would actually like to see an end to animal agriculture. That is one of the real reasons behind these attacks on modern agriculture. They don’t actually care if people can afford to buy bacon or beef products. Please keep this in mind the next time you hear HSUS attack “factory farming.”

These are just a few of the ways that HSUS “gets it wrong.” If you look at their web site there are many other ways. They may seem like an organization that’s friendly to animals but they’re not. In many cases they don’t actually know anything about the animals they talk about. They really don’t know about animals and yet they are in our legislature, talking to lawmakers, trying to tell you how to pass laws.

Please think twice before listening to HSUS.

Thank you.