The Puppy Protection Act passed the Senate as a portion of the Farm Bill. This is a bad law that would place federal restricition on the breeding of dogs by even non-comercial kennels. This bill is headed for conference and could still be dropped as a portion of the bill that comes out of conference. I disagree with the AKC in most of what they do, but I gotta go with them on this one. They have put together a page on the bill and recomendations for letters to be written to conferees and will have a list of those appointed to the conference comittee. Letters may help. The link to thier page is http://www.akc.org/love/dip/legislat/ppa_0221.cfm . We need to get on this, and pay attention to who votes for this bill so we can vote for people with views closer to ours in this election year.

Richard,

Could you re-check that web address. I get a "Not Found" message when I click on it. Thanks.

Ellen,

The origional link caught the period at the end of the sentance. I edited it. It should work now (It did for me). If not here it is again.

http://www.akc.org/love/dip/legislat/ppa_0221.cfm

That should work also.

Yes -- that worked. Thank you. I suppose if I had half a brain I would have noticed what happened. Oh well...some days are like that <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/frown.gif" alt="" />

If Ellen's got only half a brain, she has a leg up on me. This is where the political banter needs to stop and common ground fought for,earnestly. PETA is, in my opinion, another venue for those with too much time on their hands and too many opinions about what other people should and should not be doing. FYI, PETA is listed as an organization subversive to the Federal Government and in some circles (LE), PETA is considered a terrorist group with plenty of criminal activity to its credit.

The thing that is particularly bad about this is that beyond regulating breeding, it sets as yet to be determined regulations on socialization for puppies and adults. How is it in any way remotely possible to enforce that? Who will set the standards? Professionals and Vets can't agree on what is proper for socialization, so now a bureaucrat is going to decide for us? Maybe I miss the point.

I've read a lot of stories from people that, with good intentions, asked PETA for help. Time and time again, they've shown to be nothing but a money-making venture with little interest helping animals (unless it gets them headlines).

I only read the AKC summary, not the fulltext, but it doesn't seem so bad to me. Clearly it is poorly written and often would be unenforceable. I don't like laws like that and would usually rather not see them pass. But no law is perfect and you gotta look at them pragmatically sometimes, right? I don't think that a bunch of good upstanding breeders would be inconvenienced, much less prosecuted, under this law. Maybe though, it would give animal control officers some additional power to shut down puppy mills.

I don't know anything about the origin of the bill but on my first reading it looked to me like it was mainly aimed at two (common) practices: breeding a bitch in her first heat and selling puppies at 5 or 6 weeks. A law saying that you have to wait to breed until the dogs are old enough and that you have to keep the puppies with mom until 8 weeks is not going to inconvenience ANY reputable breeder. And just the existence of such a law might convince some unethical breeders to shape up.

I understand that breeders don't want vague laws being passed that will affect their livelihoods. But I don't understand why they would have a tremendous fear of the government crafting bizarre regulations about socialization and such. If I am ignorant of some kind of revelant precedent here I would love to hear about it.

I don't think it says much for an industry that they would WANT to be totally unregulated. Any reputable industry would want to know that other members of their industry have some kind of minimum standards with which they must comply, in order to ensure that the public keeps a positive image of the industry as a whole. For instance, maybe a meatpacker finds govt. inspections a hassle, but they wouldn’t want the whole industry to never be inspected, because less reputable meatpackers might get people sick and people might start perceiving the whole meatpacking industry as too shady and quit buying meat. Self-regulation is much preferable when it is an option but with dog breeding it sure doesn’t seem to be.

Whew sorry this is kind of a long post.

I also don’t see what PETA has to do with this law except supporting it, and that doesn’t mean anything. If PETA supported helping old ladies cross the street would you automatically be opposed?

Cneilson,

You raise some questions that deserve discussion. So lets look at them:

CN: I only read the AKC summary, not the full text, but it doesn't seem so bad to me. Clearly it is poorly written and often would be unenforceable.

RDC: Poorly written law leaves a wide lattitude for interpretation. The problems with this are multiple. First: How do you comply with a law that no one, including the makers of the law, understand what it means? Second: With this much lattitude enforcement can, and will, become selective. Since it is impossible to enforce this law the way it is written with out conducting regular house to house searches for litters, investigation would have to be based on complaints. If your neighbor or a person you compete against knows you have a litter and complains guess who will show up? In addition, if the law is vague then it will have to be interpreted in the courts. Even if you are in compliance with the intent of the law the court may not see it that way, and even if they do you will be faced with the expense of going to court. How often can you afford that?

CN: I don't like laws like that and would usually rather not see them pass. But no law is perfect and you gotta look at them pragmatically sometimes, right?

RDC: See above.

CN: I don't think that a bunch of good upstanding breeders would be inconvenienced, much less prosecuted, under this law. Maybe though, it would give animal control officers some additional power to shut down puppy mills.

RDC: This law does not deal with Animal Control, enforcement would be by the USDA. It isn't like they are streched thin already is it? The USDA already has the authority to shut down the Puppy Mills, they don't need more. THIS GIVES THEM THE AUTHORITY TO SHUT DOWN YOU.

CN: I don't know anything about the origin of the bill but on my first reading it looked to me like it was mainly aimed at two (common) practices: breeding a bitch in her first heat and selling puppies at 5 or 6 weeks.

RDC: And how will this stop an unethical breeder from doing anything? IN addition how do you intend to "prove" that this is your dogs second season? Is the second season always the best choice for every breed? What about sending puppies home at 6 or 7 weeks? There is some research to indicate that that may be a better time than 8 weeks. There is also some research that indicates that 12-16 weeks is better? Want to hang on to your puppies that long?

CN: A law saying that you have to wait to breed until the dogs are old enough and that you have to keep the puppies with mom until 8 weeks is not going to inconvenience ANY reputable breeder. And just the existence of such a law might convince some unethical breeders to shape up.

RDC: Nothing is going to convince an unethical breeder to do any thing. All papers on dogs are based on the honor system. Why not just back date the papers a bit? Who do you want to decide what is ethical, some Animal Rights activist making a lot of noise in a bureaucrate's ear?

CN: I understand that breeders don't want vague laws being passed that will affect their livelihoods. But I don't understand why they would have a tremendous fear of the government crafting bizarre regulations about socialization and such. If I am ignorant of some kind of revelant precedent here I would love to hear about it.

RDC: Let me get this straight, you don't see any problem with some one making rules that has never raised a litter? How about breed specific problems? Who should make those rules?

CN: I don't think it says much for an industry that they would WANT to be totally unregulated. Any reputable industry would want to know that other members of their industry have some kind of minimum standards with which they must comply, in order to ensure that the public keeps a positive image of the industry as a whole. For instance, maybe a meatpacker finds govt. inspections a hassle, but they wouldn’t want the whole industry to never be inspected, because less reputable meatpackers might get people sick and people might start perceiving the whole meatpacking industry as too shady and quit buying meat. Self-regulation is much preferable when it is an option but with dog breeding it sure doesn’t seem to be.

RDC: This industry isn't unregulated. Commercial breeders are required to have an USDA liscence and be inspected by the USDA. What people are concerned about is inviting the Government in to our homes for inspections based on rules that aren't articulated. What other "industry" is regulated in that manner. In addition, Pet Shops selling puppies will continue to be un-liscenced and un-regulated. Do you think you are less ethical than your local Doctors Pet's?

CN:I also don’t see what PETA has to do with this law except supporting it, and that doesn’t mean anything.

RDC: Here is a quote from the AKC web site:

"Although the proponents of the PPA say that it is intended to apply only to the approximately 3000 dog dealers licensed under current USDA regulations, the same groups are supporting litigation that would bring all persons who buy or sell dogs for hunting, breeding or security purposes, or for use as a pet, under licensing except actual retail pet stores. This would require USDA to go into hundreds of thousands of individual homes to inspect and regulate the conditions under which hobby and show breeders and ordinary pet owners maintain their pets, including how and when they breed and how they socialize their dogs and puppies."

Just who do you think the "proponents" of this bill are?

CN: If PETA supported helping old ladies cross the street would you automatically be opposed?

RDC: Probably. PETA has repeatedly demonstrated that they never do anything to benifit pets, pet owners, or any other animal. They are only interested in making money and forwarding their agenda. Which is to make sure that there is no interaction between people and animals (excluding people). An organization that sees a chicken as worth being defended at all costs, but is in favor of euthanizing a handicapped child is not going to garner any support from me. Lets face it their great idea is to turn all the dogs loose in the streets and let them starve, unless they don't like the breed (those they will have euthanized).

Sorry this is kind of long, but the point needs to be made....Loud and Long.

These people are only interested in their own twisted agenda. They have often duped well meaning people into supporting their grand plans, but keep an eye on their real agenda.

Slam Dunk Richard.