# Stop the PUPS Act



## Vandal (Dec 22, 2000)

Easy to use tool to contact your representative. Takes about thirty seconds, depending on your typing speed. 
Written by The Humane Society of the United States, an extremist Animal Rights group, this bill has nothing to do with safety and protection for puppies, and everything to do with eliminating dog breeders.

This is Federal legislation, so, if you live in the US, it will effect you in more ways than you think.

STOP THE P.U.P.S. ACT S. 395/H.R. 847 | The Cavalry Group


----------



## Chris Wild (Dec 14, 2001)

This site has a good breakdown of what this act really seeks to achieve, and why it's a problem... it's about a whole lot more than an exercise area!

HR 847 Puppy Uniform Protection and Safety Act (PUPS) 2013


----------



## LifeofRiley (Oct 20, 2011)

@Vandal,

The HSUS is not an "extremist" group. Besides, I believe it was the USDA that initially called for closing the loophole on internet sales.


----------



## Gretchen (Jan 20, 2011)

I'm always for less govt intervention. I signed, I figure I'm already on the govt "watch" list for other comments I've made.


----------



## jmdjack (Oct 2, 2009)

I sent a letter. Super easy. Thanks for the heads up.


----------



## Wildtim (Dec 13, 2001)

LifeofRiley said:


> @Vandal,
> 
> The HSUS is not an "extremist" group..


Check your facts.

HumaneWatch | The Humane Society of the United States and Pet Shelter Giving

http://saova.org/articles/PDF/HSUS.pdf

Humane Society of the United States Background, Funding, Controversies

HSUS Agenda on Par with that of PETA

Do You Know The Real PETA & Human Society of the United States | American Shih Tzu Club


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

LifeofRiley said:


> @Vandal,
> 
> The HSUS is not an "extremist" group. Besides, I believe it was the USDA that initially called for closing the loophole on internet sales.


I think they are. And I think the IRS should be looking into their non-profit, not for profit status. But then, I could go on and on and on and on about HSUS.

HSUS -- they're not your local dog shelter.

Sent mine though, I have contacted them before in regards to this. Not sure how much good canned e-mails do. Maybe people should send real letters through snail mail.


----------



## LifeofRiley (Oct 20, 2011)

There sure are a lot of conspiracy theories out there concerning the HSUS. Most of them can be traced back to Richard Berman whose credibility is suspect at best.

About the HSUS | Stop HumaneWatch


----------



## Gwenhwyfair (Jul 27, 2010)

A friend on another forum has worked as an assistant to congress critters, she said the hand written snail mail letters do get more attention.

:thumbup:



selzer said:


> I think they are. And I think the IRS should be looking into their non-profit, not for profit status. But then, I could go on and on and on and on about HSUS.
> 
> HSUS -- they're not your local dog shelter.
> 
> Sent mine though, I have contacted them before in regards to this. Not sure how much good canned e-mails do. Maybe people should send real letters through snail mail.


----------



## Gwenhwyfair (Jul 27, 2010)

On the one hand I really don't like this sort of legislation....yet on the other hand there are two sides to every story. 

The sad truth is, if you look at the thread about dog auctions, those people fight really hard against legislation to put any kind of stop to puppy mills. 

So in fighting this we are partnering with those who create a lot of misery for dogs/animals....on the other hand I do agree with others that this can end up punishing responsible breeders.

(btw as an aside- why do these congress people even bother putting through unfunded mandates anyway? They can't even manage/monitor/enforce the animal welfare laws currently on the books... :crazy: )






LifeofRiley said:


> There sure are a lot of conspiracy theories out there concerning the HSUS. Most of them can be traced back to Richard Berman whose credibility is suspect at best.
> 
> About the HSUS | Stop HumaneWatch


----------



## LARHAGE (Jul 24, 2006)

LifeofRiley said:


> @Vandal,
> 
> The HSUS is not an "extremist" group. Besides, I believe it was the USDA that initially called for closing the loophole on internet sales.


They most DEFINATELY are, they are PETA with suits, nothing more, nothing less.


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

Gwenhwyfair said:


> On the one hand I really don't like this sort of legislation....yet on the other hand there are two sides to every story.
> 
> The sad truth is, if you look at the thread about dog auctions, those people fight really hard against legislation to put any kind of stop to puppy mills.
> 
> ...


I guess I do not want to stop puppy mills, but I would rather punish individuals who treat animals cruelly, who do not provide them with adequate space, food, veterinary care, water, shade, etc., and do so across the board, whether they are breeders, or pet owners, or rescues, or hoarders, or strangers attacking someone else's dog.

The thing that gets in my craw about legislation like this is that it starts with the people who have already taken a step in the responsible dog ownership path. It begins with people who actually license their dogs. So many people never bother -- those people will be more likely not to bother to contain their intact pets, and more likely to dump them or dump the puppies. 

This legislation targets people who are already complying with the law, and will likely comply with more disgusting laws because they are law-abiding people. Law-abiding people have a sense of responsibility about them, and are less likely to cost the government a bundle. Closing the loop hole for Rally and Agility, and the whole nine yards is again targeting the section of population that works with their dogs, trains their dogs, do not let their dogs run loose to create tons of puppies. If these people do breed their dogs, they follow through and provide for them until they can find decent homes for them. 

It does nothing about the many, many people who don't train, don't care about licenses, papers, health screenings, whether the dogs are purebred, have faults, are the same breed, don't bother to contain them, and on and on and on. 

I would almost support a law that says that if your dog is picked up, you get a $50 fine. If it is picked up twice, the fine is $500 and the dog will be spayed or neutered before you get it back. That at least targets individuals who are not being responsible with their dogs. 

I don't like punishing/crimping down on everyone because some people are bad. It is like saying that everyone must spend 3 years in prison, this will reduce the number of people who commit violent crime because then everyone will know what prison is like and avoid going there. Uhm, nobody's going to say ok to that. But why should we crunch down on everyone with an intact animal, or every breeder for that matter. I think people should be guilty of a crime before they are given penalties. And not being allowed to make your own choice about your animal's body is a penalty.


----------



## LifeofRiley (Oct 20, 2011)

selzer said:


> HSUS -- they're not your local dog shelter.


Of course they aren't. They don't claim to be either. Shelters, however, do seem to appreciate the services they provide.

See below link:
http://www.humanesociety.org/assets/pdfs/about/national_federation_of_humane.pdf

Text from the letter I linked to:
Dear Mr. Berman,
May 25,2010

The National Federation of Humane Societies is the nation's first trade advocacy federation representing the animal welfare industry. We are comprised of local, state and national animal welfare organizations with a focus on animal sheltering and companion animal issues.

We understand that the Center for Consumer Freedom is an industry lobby and paid representative for the restaurant, tobacco, agricultural producers and alcoholic beverage industries with a well documented history of opposing public health and animal welfare reforms. That being said, we find your statements regarding the Humane Society of the United States to be inaccurate based on our collective experiences. 

In a March article published by the Chronicle of Philanthropy the "charitable purpose" of the Center for Consumer Freedom was questioned as "the pattern of payments to one individual and company might constitute a private benefit because the charity appears to be benefiting Mr. Berman and his lobbying firm rather than the public."

*While the HSUS does not provide direct community service through local sheltering of animals, its charitable purpose has never been questioned*. It has a long history of supporting the local animal welfare community through programs like Animal Care Expo, the Animal Services Consultation program, publishing Animal Sheltering magazine and the many training and educational programs offered to shelter employees through Humane Society University, *in addition to its puppy mill and hoarding investigations and disaster response efforts that few local sheltering organizations could possibly underwrite individually.*

The HSUS mission has always included a focus on large-scale animal cruelty and eliminating animal suffering. HSUS has always been transparent about that mission. While HSUS takes on many large issues, local humane organizations generally focus on companion animal issues but many share an interest in ending animal cruelty or neglect.

For anyone to begin to take CCF seriously you will need to disclose those companies which fund your lobby activities so informed consumers can draw their own conclusions as to credibility and the agenda you promote.


----------



## LifeofRiley (Oct 20, 2011)

Gwenhwyfair said:


> So in fighting this we are partnering with those who create a lot of misery for dogs/animals....*on the other hand I do agree with others that this can end up punishing responsible breeders*.


See, the bolded part is what I am having a hard time understanding having actually read the proposed legislation.

The primary purpose of this legislation is to amend the Animal Welfare Act so that high volume breeders who sell puppies directly to the public (vs. through a pet store) become subject to the minimum standards of care and inspections as set forth in the Animal Welfare Act. There currently is no oversight on operations that sell exclusively via the Internet. It is a huge problem that many puppy millers are exploiting.

Excerpted from H.R.847 - Puppy Uniform Protection and Safety Act
(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 Internet, telephone, or newspaper), more than 50 of the offspring of such breeding female dogs for use as pets in any 1-year period.

Keyword in this definition is AND... So, by my reading, if you do not sell 50 puppies in one year for use as pets you are not subject to this regulation. You can own as many intact females as you want without applying for a license or otherwise being subject to the regulation. 

And, anyone who is selling 50 puppies for pets is operating a business that should be subject to oversight. Particularly since the business involves living beings.


----------



## LifeofRiley (Oct 20, 2011)

Gwenhwyfair said:


> (btw as an aside- why do these congress people even bother putting through unfunded mandates anyway? They can't even manage/monitor/enforce the animal welfare laws currently on the books... :crazy: )


I do agree with this! LOL


----------



## Gwenhwyfair (Jul 27, 2010)

Thank you for clarifying that.

While this sort of legislation worries me, I do appreciate seeing both sides of an issue!

I guess the two big questions are:

1) if they aren't going to fund enforcement why bother
2) bad breeders will get around this the way corporations do, establish separate kennels under different names and keep on pumping out puppies.

I think the best way to tackle inhumane breeding practices is to keep pushing information out to the public, try to decrease demand as much as possible through education. Usually public awareness is what changes the tide on problems such as this. It takes time and diligence though because ultimately it's about having a savvy and consistent marketing campaign.



LifeofRiley said:


> See, the bolded part is what I am having a hard time understanding having actually read the proposed legislation.
> 
> The primary purpose of this legislation is to amend the Animal Welfare Act so that high volume breeders who sell puppies directly to the public (vs. through a pet store) become subject to the minimum standards of care and inspections as set forth in the Animal Welfare Act. There currently is no oversight on operations that sell exclusively via the Internet. It is a huge problem that many puppy millers are exploiting.
> 
> ...


----------



## LifeofRiley (Oct 20, 2011)

Gwenhwyfair said:


> Thank you for clarifying that.
> 
> While this sort of legislation worries me, I do appreciate seeing both sides of an issue!
> 
> ...


Re: the parts I bolded in your post -

Yes, the enforcement is lax and should be improved. But, the law still does serve a purpose. 

By mandating inspections, at least there is access to observe and document conditions. Indeed, before the AWA, it was much more difficult for States to enforce their own animal cruelty laws because puppy mill operations often occur behind closed doors on private property – they could not gather any evidence. 

There is a long way to go in terms of enforcement, but, a 2010 USDA Audit (see link at bottom of post)* has started to effect positive change that touches on the above point as well as on the issue of “Awareness”. 

Below excerpts from document titled, *APHIS’ Enhanced Animal Welfare Act Enforcement Plan*(USDA - APHIS - Missing Page - Error 404

Action: “*AC will develop formal procedures for referring alleged violations to State or local officials that have felony laws for animal cruelty.”*

Status: *Completed *
Comments: Standard Operating Procedures are in place as of July 2010.”


Action: *Publicize violations of the AWA. This action will provide a greater deterrent to violating the AWA.*

APHIS will begin issuing monthly press releases announcing enforcement actions taken to address violations of the Animal Welfare and Horse Protection Acts.

Status: Completed 
Comments: First press release issued in June 2010. Subsequent releases are issued monthly.

*If you want a hair-raising read, you should check out the USDA Audit of its puppy mill inspections
www.usda.gov/oig/webdocs/33002-4-SF.pdf
WARNING: Graphic images


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

LifeofRiley, there is nothing you can post or say that will change my impression of HSUS. HSUS continued to send out flyers depicting starving dogs and the dog of Katrina, long after they stopped spending any money on the Katrina dogs, and they target elderly people with propaganda suggesting the money sent will go to dogs in need, when in fact the money sent goes to their salaries, and all the lawyers and lobbyists they employ, and the advertising through mass mailing and television ads. 

It is scandelous, and yes their charitable mission HAS BEEN questioned. In fact there is more purpose in them allowing puppy mills to exist than to stop them. Without the horrific stories of starving dogs, no one would give them money, and a multi-million dollar venture, where literally a percentage or two actually goes to animals, will go kaput.

And that is why this legislation WILL NOT stop puppy mills or BYBs. It won't. It won't stop dogs from landing in shelters because if that happened, HSUS would go defunct and they do not want that. 

When you realise that shelters are importing puppies from Puerto Rico and Mexico because we have a puppy-shortage in locations here, you will see that no one is really trying to stop the pet over-population problem here.

HSUS is a huge business that uses celebrities like Michael Vick and others to encourage people to give, give, give, give, give to them. They take that money and distribute it to themselves and various political causes, lawyers and lobbyists. 

They call themselves not for profit, and get away with an awful lot, and nobody who matters is challenging that status. Why? They are huge, and they are slimey. They smell worse than the puppy millers -- at least you know who they are, you know they are trying to make a buck for themselves, like the vast majority of the population, only they make it using animals, and often times the animals suffer from it. They (the ones that cut all the corners and leave animals in horrible conditions) are scumballs, but so are the people associated with HSUS.


----------



## LifeofRiley (Oct 20, 2011)

So, let me see if I understand this, the HSUS is either an “extremist animal rights” group intent on taking everyone’s dogs from them, OR money grubbing evildoers in cahoots with puppy millers to profit off of animal suffering. 

Why don’t you guys huddle and get back to me with which one it is.

But, in all seriousness, if you really want to check out how HSUS spends its money, go to this link:
Humane Society of the United States - Charity Reports - Give.org

If you actually read the HSUS mission, you will find that the way the budget is allocated is in alignment with that mission. Advocacy is a huge part of any national charity. So, I really don’t understand the problem people seem to have with that. If you don’t like it, don’t give them money. Simple.

You know, everyone on this board talks about the importance of education and awareness. Yet, when organizations like the HSUS and ASPCA seek to do just that – and become targets of industry-backed smear campaigns – you buy into the conspiracy theorist pov. I don’t get it.


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

LifeofRiley said:


> So, let me see if I understand this, the HSUS is either an “extremist animal rights” group intent on taking everyone’s dogs from them, OR money grubbing evildoers in cahoots with puppy millers to profit off of animal suffering.
> 
> Why don’t you guys huddle and get back to me with which one it is.
> 
> ...


They are kind of both. They are a group that wants to legislate how you can own your dog. They want to drive hobbyists out of business and the higher kennels, to increase their prices so much that average people will not be able to own such a dog. 

But they depend on puppy mills. If they wanted to stop puppy mills, they would write laws to stop the selling of puppies in pet stores, and to stop internet sales of puppies. If people had to visit the kennel to pick up a puppy, then the people would make complaints and not buy if the conditions are terrible. Easy.

But that is NOT what they want. They are making a living off of the suffering of dogs. Pure and simple. If the suffering stops, then they are out of business and hit the unemployment lines. Good riddance. But they are not attempting to stop puppy mills. Oh, they are adding this and that to the bills to make the puppy millers turn around a couple times and figure out ways to get around the laws. 

They are not in with the millers. The millers hate them and they hate the millers, but at least the millers look like the slimeballs they are. HSUS is just as much of slimeballs but they wear suits, and they live off of the suffering of animals.

Look at it closely, the CEO makes a quarter of a million dollars each year. Not for profit. Baloney. And the program costs, incorporates paying lobbyists and lawyers. Where would the 121 million dollars come from if there were no puppy mill pictures to shower people with, and to put on the TV. They need the puppy mills, so they are not trying to get rid of them. Not really.

http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=3848


----------



## LifeofRiley (Oct 20, 2011)

selzer said:


> They are kind of both. They are a group that wants to legislate how you can own your dog. They want to drive hobbyists out of business and the higher kennels, to increase their prices so much that average people will not be able to own such a dog.
> 
> But they depend on puppy mills. If they wanted to stop puppy mills, they would write laws to stop the selling of puppies in pet stores, and to stop internet sales of puppies. If people had to visit the kennel to pick up a puppy, then the people would make complaints and not buy if the conditions are terrible. Easy.
> 
> ...


This post is so ridiculous, I don't even know where to start in responding to it.


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

Follow the money, it is rediculous:
So how did HSUS fare in 2010? Veteran readers won’t be surprised. Here are some low-lights:


 *HSUS CEO Wayne Pacelle’s total compensation package was $287,786*, up roughly 7 percent from the previous year.
 *HSUS stuffed $2.6 million into its pension plan*, bringing the total since Pacelle took over to about $14 million.
 *HSUS spent $3.6 million on lobbying*. (If you see an HSUS ad showing an abused and malnourished lobbyist, let us know.)
 *HSUS had 636 employees, *including 29 who earned more than $100,000.
 *HSUS’s contribution/grant revenue increased by $34 million*. This was boosted by a $12-million increase in noncash contributions (e.g. free ads) and a $11.7 million grant from a single donor.
 *HSUS’s “All Animals” magazine had a circulation of about 450,000*. That’s a good estimate of HSUS’s true membership size (versus the 11 million they like to bandy about when they are on Capitol Hill), since the magazine is included with a $25 membership.
 *HSUS’s “Kind News” magazine reached 644,000 kindergarten to 6th grade students. *(Targeting kids seems right out of PETA’s playbook.)
 *HSUS spent a whopping $47 million on fundraising-related costs*, or about 37 percent of HSUS budget.
 *HSUS’s pet-shelter grants totaled just $528,676*, or 0.418 percent of HSUS’s budget.
 Read those last two bullet points again: *The “Humane Society” of the United States* *spends almost* _*90 *_*times more on fundraising than it spends on pet-shelter grants.* If that doesn’t show you the real priorities of this “factory fundraising” operation, nothing will.
In 2009, four-fifths of one percent of HSUS’s budget went to pet-shelter grants; this year is about half of that. It’s even worse than 2008. It may even be the lowest percentage ever.
Has HSUS no shame?
For the sake of openness, we’ve posted a copy of our accounting of HSUS’s grants. Feel free to quibble with us, but we’re confident of our accuracy.

Helpfully, HSUS’s accountants listed the purpose of each grant. We counted grants that were labeled as “animal shelter aid” (or something similar). We included grants that HSUS made to shelters caring for rescued animals. And we also counted grants to care for horses, since there’s a huge horse welfare problem that HSUS helped create.
But despite the $528,676 of good that HSUS did, there’s a long way to go for HSUS to earn the “humane society” in its name. Memo to Wayne Pacelle: It’s time to stop feeding lobbyists and factory fundraising machines at the expense of needy pets.
Posted on 10/11/2011 at 1:13 am by The HumaneWatch.org Team.

*HumaneWatch | Unpacking the HSUS Gravy Train (2011 Edition)*


----------



## LifeofRiley (Oct 20, 2011)

Citing HumaneWatch, really? I have already addressed their credibility issues in other posts. :rofl:

Again, where in the HSUS mission statement does the fact that they advocate on behalf of animal welfare issues on the legislative level come as a surprise?


----------



## onyx'girl (May 18, 2007)

So LifeOfRiley...you are for all this BS legislation?


----------



## gsdsar (May 21, 2002)

Can a hobby breeder please Elian to me what us bad about this legislation? 

I am not a fan of laws for laws sake, but I don't see anything inherently wrong with this legislation. 

What I got was if you bred and sold more than 50 puppies in a year you had to provide adequate care and an excersise yard. If you have enough intact bitches to have 50 puppies in a year, you don't have the time to work and train the all. So what's wrong with an excersise yard??

Not trying to be difficult, just trying to understand the objections. Is it the law itself? The fact that the government should not legislate what I do with MY dogs? What? I don't breed, and if I did, I can't imagine 50 puppies a year. That's a bit more than hobby breeding. 

And, I agree. HSUS is extremist disguised as dogooders. Not a fan. 


Sent from Petguide.com Free App


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

LifeofRiley said:


> Citing HumaneWatch, really? I have already addressed their credibility issues in other posts. :rofl:
> 
> Again, where in the HSUS mission statement does the fact that they advocate on behalf of animal welfare issues on the legislative level come as a surprise?


If their fundraising said point blank that the money spent would be for lobbying congress to make laws, and exactly what kind of laws, instead of suggesting the money is helping the starving, homeless critters, then maybe I wouldn't be so irritated with them. 

I see the commercials, and I see the ads. They suggest the money is going to shelter dogs, for their care. 

I see what they do as fraudulant or false advertising. 

If you like HSUS, you like Michael Vick. Not sure if he is on the payroll, but they love each other.


----------



## LifeofRiley (Oct 20, 2011)

gsdsar said:


> Can a hobby breeder please Elian to me what us bad about this legislation?
> 
> I am not a fan of laws for laws sake, but I don't see anything inherently wrong with this legislation.
> 
> ...


Thank you for bringing us back on topic! As you have probably discerned from some of my earlier posts, I, too, have a hard time understanding how this proposed amendment to the AWA would be problematic to reputable breeders. I am actually really curious about why they seem to oppose it.


----------



## Betty (Aug 11, 2002)

LifeofRiley said:


> Thank you for bringing us back on topic! As you have probably discerned from some of my earlier posts, I, too, have a hard time understanding how this proposed amendment to the AWA would be problematic to reputable breeders. I am actually really curious about why they seem to oppose it.


I think most people's objection is that is opens a door and that once the law is passed it can be easily modified. Today's 50 dogs can easily become tomorrows 10 dogs.


----------



## Betty (Aug 11, 2002)

selzer said:


> If you like HSUS, you like Michael Vick. Not sure if he is on the payroll, but they love each other.


I think someone can support an organization without supporting every single thing they do.

I support my church although they have stances or positions on issues that I may not agree with.


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

Betty said:


> I think someone can support an organization without supporting every single thing they do.
> 
> I support my church although they have stances or positions on issues that I may not agree with.


I used to support my church, but when they refused to consider a black female minister because some of the people might leave, I stopped. My church is all about being inclusive and socially active, against opression, and all that crap, but when push comes to shove, it is about the bottom line. 

The same is true with Michael Vick. Somethings you just cannot accept lying down. Having a convicted dog-fighter, one that owned the rings, and had money -- not just a player, as your poster child, then you have to say, these people are not about helping animals, they are about making money, and they do. They make tons of money. And I really cannot understand how people can look at MV and send money to HSUS. It makes zero sense to me at all. The only thing I can come up with is that overall, people WANT to believe that they are doing right, and HSUS is doing right, and it is really easy to ease your conscious by sending in $16 or $20 or $25 to some huge entity. Then you've done your part. Nobody cares to find out about the huge entity and where the money is actually going, and whether they really agree with what HSUS is really doing. They see the pictures of the sad and starving animals, and they want to do something about that. And they send their money.


----------



## Betty (Aug 11, 2002)

For the record I have never supported the HSUS and really can't imagine ever doing so. My personal preference is that my charitable or donations are spent much closer to home. 

I abhor Michael Vick.

<shrug> My personal belief is that one can be generally supportive of an organization and not agree with everything. Others may feel differently.


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

Betty said:


> For the record I have never supported the HSUS and really can't imagine ever doing so. My personal preference is that my charitable or donations are spent much closer to home.
> 
> I abhor Michael Vick.
> 
> <shrug> My personal belief is that one can be generally supportive of an organization and not agree with everything. Others may feel differently.


Everything, sure. But you have to have limits. MV is a limit when it comes to a humane organization. I actually am ok with him playing football because football doesn't have anything to do with animals. I can like him or dislike him as a football player. I can enjoy watching him lose, or watching him get creamed. But I wouldn't be able to put my mind around him doing ANYTHING for or with any organization that claims to benefit animals. 

C'mon, if MV showed up at your doorstep and said that because he was an idiot with his own animals, he wants to give you $1 million dollars because you are good with your animals. Would you take his filthy money? Taking the money is selling out, is offering forgiveness and acceptance because of greenbacks. The filthy lucre. No way! 

HSUS is taking his money, or using him to make money. That is filth. I don't want to see him up on the TV saying he was wrong to fight dogs. HSUS just doesn't see a problem with this. And that is because they are on such a different page when it comes to how we feel about animals, and especially dogs and other companion animals.


----------



## Betty (Aug 11, 2002)

I just do not agree with your statement that if someone supports HSUS they are supporting Michael Vick. 

That's all.


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

Betty said:


> I just do not agree with your statement that if someone supports HSUS they are supporting Michael Vick.
> 
> That's all.


That's how I see it. We see it differently, we do not have to agree on this.


----------



## LifeofRiley (Oct 20, 2011)

Betty said:


> I think most people's objection is that is opens a door and that once the law is passed it can be easily modified. Today's 50 dogs can easily become tomorrows 10 dogs.


Hi Betty,
Thank you for answering the question. I personally believe that people should judge this proposed legislation for what it is and not on what it could be/might become in some imaginary future state.


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

I think that if the federal government has to put its hands in anything, they should be more concerned in having federal standards for the education of children, and leave companion animals to be under the jurisdiction of the state governments. Considering the federal government was not created to manage things that it makes sense for states to do. The feds are for international trade, inter-state commerce, national defense. Governing dog breeders just does not seem to fall under anything remotely covered by the feds. USDA is for agriculture and farm animals and can make sense to have federal standards as these will be sold and ingested by humans throughout the country. But even though puppies can be sold to other states, or out of the country, it simply doesn't make sense that federal enforcement and funding ought to be used for companion animals.

The feds are always so broke and always shutting down, and the USDA -- a LOT of the kennels raided are USDA kennels. Why? Why do they think they can do a better job with MORE breeders falling under their jurisdiction when the job they are currently doing is insufficient. And it is not the lack of law -- every single time you see an animal siezed a law has been broken, and has probably been broken for a long time. 

Actually, if the breeder has USDA-inspected kennels, then more like than not she IS a puppy mill. The USDA only deals with very high volume, and their requirments are on line with what makes sense for chickens or beef cattle that will be raised for the table. 

The standards of care are going to be different in Texas than in NE Ohio, than in Florida than in Montana than in Alaska. It just makes a lot more sense that everything to do with the raising of companion animals be under the jurisdiction of the state in which they are raised.


----------



## LifeofRiley (Oct 20, 2011)

onyx'girl said:


> So LifeOfRiley...you are for all this BS legislation?


As I can think of a couple of different ways to interpret this question, I really can't provide you with an answer. It would be a great help if you could specify the legislation you would like my opinion on.


----------



## LifeofRiley (Oct 20, 2011)

selzer said:


> I think that if the federal government has to put its hands in anything, they should be more concerned in having federal standards for the education of children, and leave companion animals to be under the jurisdiction of the state governments. Considering the federal government was not created to manage things that it makes sense for states to do. The feds are for international trade, inter-state commerce, national defense. Governing dog breeders just does not seem to fall under anything remotely covered by the feds. USDA is for agriculture and farm animals and can make sense to have federal standards as these will be sold and ingested by humans throughout the country. But even though puppies can be sold to other states, or out of the country, it simply doesn't make sense that federal enforcement and funding ought to be used for companion animals.


So, are you saying that you would support enactment of this legislation if it was initiated at the state level? 

It seems to me that every time a state proposes similar legislation, there is the same kind of outcry on this board.


----------



## onyx'girl (May 18, 2007)

LifeofRiley said:


> As I can think of a couple of different ways to interpret this question, I really can't provide you with an answer. It would be a great help if you could specify the legislation you would like my opinion on.


The legislation in the bill this thread is about. Not sure how my question could be interpreted any other way?




_PUPS adds a new definition of a breeding female dog as an intact female dog aged 4 months or older. It is virtually impossible for a 4 month old female dog to be biologically capable of reproduction and therefore this definition should be rejected. This definition impacts the owner's ability to keep young bitches intact while training or evaluating traits and/or working ability, and any female dog kept intact for any reason whether actually bred or not bred. As defined, this regulation would compel breeders to spay at 4 months in order to keep a dog of this age on the premises without having it count toward the numeric criteria for licensing. Federal government would be well advised to avoid such specifics in light of current research that finds early spay/neuter can be injurious to long term canine health.
PUPS does not address specific problems cited in the OIG report or the past poor enforcement history of APHIS inspectors, but instead focuses on expanding federal regulation into the private sector by creating a complete new class of breeders and sellers. This major expansion of APHIS responsibility is unrealistic and unenforceable. _*


You seem to think that if this is passed, everything will be fine, but in reality as Betty pointed out it is just opening yet another door to control the responsible hobby breeders. More legislation is not needed, the gov't can't even enforce the laws already in place. 

HSUS is not getting any of my $ ever, I'd rather pick and choose exactly where my support goes.


----------



## LifeofRiley (Oct 20, 2011)

onyx'girl said:


> _PUPS adds a new definition of a breeding female dog as an intact female dog aged 4 months or older. It is virtually impossible for a 4 month old female dog to be biologically capable of reproduction and therefore this definition should be rejected. *This definition impacts the owner's ability to keep young bitches intact while training or evaluating traits and/or working ability, and any female dog kept intact for any reason whether actually bred or not bred. As defined, this regulation would compel breeders to spay at 4 months in order to keep a dog of this age on the premises without having it count toward the numeric criteria for licensing.* Federal government would be well advised to avoid such specifics in light of current research that finds early spay/neuter can be injurious to long term canine health. PUPS does not address specific problems cited in the OIG report or the past poor enforcement history of APHIS inspectors, but instead focuses on expanding federal regulation into the private sector by creating a complete new class of breeders and sellers. This major expansion of APHIS responsibility is unrealistic and unenforceable. _


Can someone please point out the specific provision in the proposed legislation that would make the part I bolded a true statement versus just a scare-tactic. I simply cannot find it anywhere in my reading of the legislation.


----------



## Gwenhwyfair (Jul 27, 2010)

Yeah, I'm going to disagree with the Michael Vick argument.

While I'm on the fence about HSUS as a whole and am open minded to both sides of the issues surrounding the legislation proposed.....

Using Michael Vick as a spokesperson AGAINST cruelty to animals is nothing new in the world of using a former felon/sinner to preach to others "Do NOT make the same mistakes I have made".

It uses humility as a way of establishing validity and sincerity.

Now whether this is an effective way to get a message across about helping animals is debatable but to use it as evidence that the HSUS is a totally corrupt organization is stretch.

If they are corrupt they are corrupt no matter who the spokesperson is. :shrug:



selzer said:


> I used to support my church, but when they refused to consider a black female minister because some of the people might leave, I stopped. My church is all about being inclusive and socially active, against opression, and all that crap, but when push comes to shove, it is about the bottom line.
> 
> The same is true with Michael Vick. Somethings you just cannot accept lying down. Having a convicted dog-fighter, one that owned the rings, and had money -- not just a player, as your poster child, then you have to say, these people are not about helping animals, they are about making money, and they do. They make tons of money. And I really cannot understand how people can look at MV and send money to HSUS. It makes zero sense to me at all. The only thing I can come up with is that overall, people WANT to believe that they are doing right, and HSUS is doing right, and it is really easy to ease your conscious by sending in $16 or $20 or $25 to some huge entity. Then you've done your part. Nobody cares to find out about the huge entity and where the money is actually going, and whether they really agree with what HSUS is really doing. They see the pictures of the sad and starving animals, and they want to do something about that. And they send their money.


----------



## Gwenhwyfair (Jul 27, 2010)

FWIW I think you are doing a good job explaining and supporting your views on this.

I'm not a big fan of slippery slope arguments either BUT sometimes they are fallacies sometimes they aren't.

IMHO what this boils down to for me is finding_ results oriented_ solutions on common ground. Something we seem to struggle with in this country. *sigh*

I think the sticking point is the frame of reference surrounding the 1 intact female. As you pointed out it's followed by the *AND* selling 50 or more puppies.

Why not just have the definition be, selling 50 or more puppies per year?

That's what makes a puppy miller a puppy miller, the number of puppies, not the number of intact dogs someone may have.

So what I think would be worrisome is how easily it would be to drop that 'and' in the future. I was just reviewing some state legislation and noted that those sort of 'tweaks' are easily and often done.

So, IMHO, if the legislation didn't have such tight limits regarding the age and number of intact animals I think it would be a lot more palatable.





LifeofRiley said:


> Hi Betty,
> Thank you for answering the question. I personally believe that people should judge this proposed legislation for what it is and not on what it could be/might become in some imaginary future state.


----------



## gagsd (Apr 24, 2003)

Why should there be different laws depending on the number of dogs one owns? Should people who own one dog or 10 dogs not have to care for that dog?

MOST areas in my experience have animal care and welfare laws. Follow them. Enforce them.
Why does the federal government need to have anything to do with that?


----------



## Gwenhwyfair (Jul 27, 2010)

Good question, the defense will be regulation of interstate commerce as this legislation deals with the retail sale of puppies.

If one state has tough well enforced laws but the neighboring state(s) do not the puppy millers will still be able to sell across state lines.

I would think the intent of the law would be to protect animals and consumers, so if puppy millers can sell across state lines that defeats the better laws of one state vs lax laws of another.

That's one of those tug of war balance issues. 

(see recent problem with lax regs in MA allowing tainted steroid injections produced there to be sold across state lines. When to regulate sales or not across state lines is often a sticking point too...)






gagsd said:


> Why should there be different laws depending on the number of dogs one owns? Should people who own one dog or 10 dogs not have to care for that dog?
> 
> MOST areas in my experience have animal care and welfare laws. Follow them. Enforce them.
> Why does the federal government need to have anything to do with that?


----------



## Betty (Aug 11, 2002)

gagsd said:


> Why should there be different laws depending on the number of dogs one owns? Should people who own one dog or 10 dogs not have to care for that dog?
> 
> MOST areas in my experience have animal care and welfare laws. Follow them. Enforce them.
> Why does the federal government need to have anything to do with that?


I am not saying that this law is the answer but would it be so bad for uniform Federal laws on the care of Animals? Some states do not even have a felony animal abuse law on the books. And there does have to be reasons (lack of laws) that puppy mills seem to come from certain states.

As breeders I think we open the door to Federal Oversight when we ship/sell/transport puppies across state lines.


----------



## LifeofRiley (Oct 20, 2011)

Gwenhwyfair said:


> Good question, *the defense will be regulation of interstate commerce* as this legislation deals with the retail sale of puppies.
> 
> If one state has tough well enforced laws but the neighboring state(s) do not the puppy millers will still be able to sell across state lines.
> 
> ...


Yes, this is it. Nicely put.


----------



## LifeofRiley (Oct 20, 2011)

gagsd said:


> *Why should there be different laws depending on the number of dogs one owns? Should people who own one dog or 10 dogs not have to care for that dog?*
> 
> MOST areas in my experience have animal care and welfare laws. Follow them. Enforce them.
> Why does the federal government need to have anything to do with that?


Re: the part of your post I bolded -

Nowhere in the proposed legislation does it suggest that there be different laws based on how many dogs a person owns. Please read the definition of “high volume breeder” – there is an *AND*, not *OR* between the two qualifying criteria.

_Excerpted from H.R.847 - Puppy Uniform Protection and Safety Act:_
(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 Internet, telephone, or newspaper), more than 50 of the offspring of such breeding female dogs for use as pets in any 1-year period.

I imagine the reason why they include the first criteria in the definition is to distinguish this group from other groups in the AWA such as brokers and dealers.


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

One of the problems with this law is that there is nothing that separates people who are co-owners of a litter, they have many bitches out there -- show breeders usually, and the owners of the bitches keep the dogs and raise the litters. And the person that co-owns them helps find good buyers for the puppies. 

It is a good way for people to be able to put their stamp on the breed without having an organization that is so large that individual dogs do not get the kind of care, that we want for all dogs, a family and home, training, walks, etc., instead of just being the bitch in kennel 38. 

50 dogs can be 5 litters, and if you go with averages, 7 litters. It may sound like an awful lot of dogs, but a good breeder can co-own many bitches, and be keeping track of all of them. There is no provision for this type of operation. 

Why most of us do not like the idea of being under the Department of Agriculture, or the USDA is because in their provisions, animals may not be raised within so many feet of human dwellings. This means, that you cannot raise puppies in the house. Companion animals SHOULD be raised in the house. 

The problem with most legislation to do with animals is that it is created and passed by people who may own a pet, but have no idea what goes into breeding and raising puppies. So a lot of this legislation has ridiculous and even dangerous rules, like dogs having to wear a collar and tags AT ALL TIMES. Or fencing having to be covered with rubber or plastic -- that's actually bad. Or the enclosure that houses the dogs must have no pourous surface -- that is your entire house can't have a wood floor or cloth/leather couch -- you cannot have the dogs inside with people. 

For the mass producers this really isn't a problem. Their dogs are raised outside in kennels set up for the purpose. They make the cages the exact measurements of the least the government allows. USDA is a minimum of what should be to raise dogs, but dogs can be raised MUCH better in situations that do not meet USDA standards, because they are within a home environment. Which is better?

50 may be a lot for one location to handle with 1-2 people. But it is not a lot if you are putting forth a breeding program by co-owning bitches, and maintaining the breeding rights of those bitches so you can ensure that health certifications are passed, and the dogs reach certain levels of training, and have the desired temperament. 

Doesn't matter, you will now be under USDA regulations, and had better be able to show the proper kennel facilities when they come calling to inspect.


----------



## LifeofRiley (Oct 20, 2011)

I know very little about co-ownership arrangements beyond what has been discussed on this board in other threads. From my reading of those threads, _I still very much question how this would be a problem to “responsible breeders,” as defined by this board._ 

Additionally, I do not believe that the co-owning argument is the root cause for people’s *wholesale rejection* of the proposed legislation. Instead, I am starting to believe that much of the discontent is based on misinformation, fear and/or a general distrust of government. That is sad. 

I maintain that selling 51 puppies a year for use as pets extends way beyond the responsible/reputable breeder mantra of *“quality over quantity.” * 

And, if you took a second to step outside of the “breeding” context, and consider a different industry, you might recognize that this is not some nefarious plan to ruin all breeders. It is common sense.

For example, say someone who is a great cook--- you know, the type that always has the best dinner parties, brings the best dishes to events, bakes the best cookies for the bake sale, etc.--- decides to start a full-service catering business serving a national clientele. Doesn’t it follow, that this person would become subject to licensing and health & safety standards that did not apply when they were cooking on a smaller scale? 

So, why should high-volume commercial breeders that sell directly to the public be exempt from licensing and oversight? They shouldn’t. It doesn’t make sense.


----------



## LifeofRiley (Oct 20, 2011)

Oh, and one last thought on this thread…

*Here is a link to the proposed legislation*:
H.R.847 - 113th Congress (2013-2014) - To amend the Animal Welfare Act to provide further protection for puppies. - Summary | Congress.gov | Library of Congress

*Here is a link to the USDA Audit of its own practices that resulted in several recommendations including one that inspired the PUPS Act in the first place.*
www.usda.gov/oig/webdocs/33002-4-SF.pdf
Warning: Graphic Images

*Here is the link to the near and longer term changes the USDA (APHIS) is making as a result of the audit ordered by the Office of the Inspector General: *
</title> <link href="/core/style.css" rel="stylesheet" type="text/css"> <meta http-equiv="Content-type" content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1"> </head> <body> <table cellspacing=0 cellpadding=0 border=0 width="767" id="intmaintable" align="center"> 

*And, here is the text from the website Vandal initially posted:*
_“The Puppy Uniform Protection and Safety Act (S. 395 / H.R. 847) has been reintroduced for the 113th Congress. 

At a time when jobs are scarce, the PUPS Act imposes an unfunded mandate which over regulates responsible dog breeders across America. The PUPS Act would kill not only the dog breeding industry itself, but harm all businesses related to the dog breeding industry by reducing the number of needed pet food producers, feed stores, veterinarians, dog groomers, and more. 

The PUPS Act is a deceptive piece of legislation written to advance the animal rights agenda promoted by the Humane Society of the United States. 

The PUPS Act does nothing to address the problem of unlicensed and unscrupulous breeders who are already in violation of existing laws. 

The PUPS Act is deceptively designed to make dog breeding prohibitively expensive and treats all dog breeders as criminals with the real goal being the elimination of legitimate, law abiding breeders nation-wide. 

The PUPS Act is sponsored by Senators **** Durbin (D-IL) and David Vitter (R-LA), and Representatives Jim Gerlach (R-PA), Sam Farr (D-CA), Bill Young (R-FL), and Lois Capps (D-CA).

The PUPS Act will cost American jobs.

Please write your U.S. Senators and Representative today and urge them to oppose this deceptive piece of legislation!”_



…*who is the extremist????*? Read and make up your own mind.


----------



## Chris Wild (Dec 14, 2001)

LifeofRiley said:


> So, why should high-volume commercial breeders that sell directly to the public be exempt from licensing and oversight? They shouldn’t. It doesn’t make sense.


50 pups is not high volume. That could be as few as 4-5 litters a year, which especially if a breeder has breeding partnerships like co-owns isn't really that many pups.

The problem with that licensing and oversight is that under USDA regulations, dogs become livestock where they must have their own kennel facility separate from the home. Breeders may be breeding for pets, but will no longer be able to raise them as such. Not once they hit the magic number that makes them subject to the USDA regulations.

That means no more puppies raised in the house.. now they all need to be booted out to a barn. A barn which pretty much no breeder who wasn't either a) independently wealthy or b) made a LOT of money of dogs.. probably by breeding lots and lots and lots of dogs (gee.. sounds like a puppy mill!) could afford based on the ridiculous requirements of the AWA. Requirements which, by the way, are exactly what caused things like wire cages with wire floors to become the standard of millers in the first place.


----------



## Chris Wild (Dec 14, 2001)

Also, you do realize don't you that those "high volume breeders" already ARE subjected to this licensing and oversight? Including every puppy mill in the country. 

What the attempted changes of the past couple of years would do is remove the retail exemption from smaller breeders and now make them subject to the same regulations... including needing the separate kennel facilities.

I have no problem with them wanting to add an exercise area requirement to their required kennel facilities for large operations. I have a big problem with them sneaking in that new definition of what constitutes a large operation.


----------



## Jax08 (Feb 13, 2009)

I don't know why I bothered to send in an email opposing this legislation...this is what our brilliant Tom Marino sent back to me



> Thank you for contacting me to express your support for H.R. 847, the _Puppy Uniform Protection and Safety (PUPS) Act_. I appreciate hearing your views.
> 
> If enacted, this legislation would amend the _Animal Welfare Act_ to define a "high volume retail breeder" as a person who, in commerce, for compensation or profit: (1) has an ownership interest in or custody of one or more breeding female dogs; and (2) sells, via any means of conveyance, more than 50 of the offspring of such dogs for use as pets in any one-year period. Additionally, this legislation requires dealers to include on licensing applications and annual renewals the total number of dogs exempted from exercise on the premises of the dealer in the preceding year by a licensed veterinarian.
> 
> ...


No. I won't be pleased to learn that...I won't be pleased at all.

Has ownership or custody of one or more breeding dogs? That just included EVERY breeder out there. And what defines a breeding dog? An intact female?


----------



## Msmaria (Mar 2, 2013)

Jax08 said:


> I don't know why I bothered to send in an email opposing this legislation...this is what our brilliant Tom Marino sent back to me
> 
> 
> No. I won't be pleased to learn that...I won't be pleased at all.
> ...



You mean from his secretary. He probably doesnt even care to read his emails. And yet people still think writing a letter to them will make all the difference in the world. Wake up people the politicians these days could care less what you want. its more about lining their pockets. I cant count the number of times in the past 6 months alone how many city council etc corruption stories ive read in LA and Orange county alone. yet nothing ever comes of it. All they do is retire before investigation and settle into nice life living on the overly paid retirement we pay them.
With that being said I still wrote and email..LOL


----------



## Muskeg (Jun 15, 2012)

I'm curious about the language of the law, where it specifies these 50 pups are being bred for use as PETS.

Define "pet".

Does this exempt mushers breeding sled dogs- some at rates that out pace a puppy mill? What about racing greyhounds and those who raise and breed hog hunting hounds or bird dogs? Or even GSD or malinois breeders with some dogs in a litter that go to "real life" working homes with police or military? 

The line between pet and working dog can be poorly defined. My dogs all have jobs, and some of them are even paid for them at times. But I still consider them companion animals, first and foremost. 

If I were to breed, I'd aim to produce dogs capable of military, police and search and rescue work. Along with "sport" ability to participate in ring, agility, dock diving, etc- as a second priority. But I'd also have a goal to produce stable dogs that are also able to be active companions to the right owners. So... would I be breeding for "pet" or not? 

Seems like this "pet" definition gives people a bit of wiggle room.


----------



## gagsd (Apr 24, 2003)

I am sure there is a definition somewhere about pet. But again I would ask, why are one group of dogs protected under this, and another group would not be?


----------



## LifeofRiley (Oct 20, 2011)

Chris Wild said:


> *Also, you do realize don't you that those "high volume breeders" already ARE subjected to this licensing and oversight? Including every puppy mill in the country*.
> 
> What the attempted changes of the past couple of years would do is remove the retail exemption from smaller breeders and now make them subject to the same regulations...


Yes, I do realize that puppy millers that sell to pet stores or brokers (i.e. not direct to the public) are currently covered by the AWA. 

But, in no way, shape or form does that mean that *all puppy mills* are covered by the AWA as you state in your post. 

As I have noted in earlier posts, one of the main goals of the PUPS Act is to amend the “retail exemption” that you cite in your post. The “retail exemption” provision is from 1970 – I think we can agree that the Internet (and e-commerce) was not really on anyone’s radar at that time.  

*Puppy millers are exploiting the “retail exemption” by selling direct to the public via the Internet thus evading any federal licensing or oversight. * 

Anyone who assumes that puppy millers are not doing so, must be trying really hard to keep their head in the sand - particularly if you think about how the Internet has radically transformed other industries. 

So, yes, some puppy mills are covered under the AWA as it stands, but NOT ALL.


----------



## LifeofRiley (Oct 20, 2011)

Muskeg said:


> I'm curious about the language of the law, where it specifies these 50 pups are being bred for use as PETS.
> 
> Define "pet".


Yes, I agree, it is confusing as currently written. I couldn't really find a good definition of the "for use as pets" piece of this.


----------



## LifeofRiley (Oct 20, 2011)

Chris Wild said:


> 50 pups is not high volume. That could be as few as 4-5 litters a year, which especially if a breeder has breeding partnerships like co-owns isn't really that many pups.
> 
> *The problem with that licensing and oversight is that under USDA regulations, dogs become livestock where they must have their own kennel facility separate from the home. **** Breeders may be breeding for pets, but will no longer be able to raise them as such. Not once they hit the magic number that makes them subject to the USDA regulations.
> 
> *That means no more puppies raised in the house.. now they all need to be booted out to a barn. * A barn which pretty much no breeder who wasn't either a) independently wealthy or b) made a LOT of money of dogs.. probably by breeding lots and lots and lots of dogs (gee.. sounds like a puppy mill!) could afford based on the ridiculous requirements of the AWA. Requirements which, by the way, are exactly what caused things like wire cages with wire floors to become the standard of millers in the first place.


Okay, I am going to ask, do you produce 50+ puppies a year? 

I would hazard a guess that those that do have some sort of kennel facility that is separate from the house. So, big deal, it becomes subject to inspection. I can't imagine this being a problem for a "responsible" breeder.

Not to mention the fact that APHIS encourages breeders to EXCEED the minimum standards set forth in the act.

There is nothing in the AWA that *requires* someone (in place of a more humane system) to use a wire cage or an out building.

I do think that they could clarify the language, as it seems to be a real sticking point.

*****Oh, and, by the way, the AWA does not cover livestock or any farm animal used for the production of food or fiber. The “minimum care” standards set forth in the AWA were not written with livestock in mind as they were never part of the equation to begin with.


----------



## Betty (Aug 11, 2002)

I would need at least 6 litters a year here to produce 50 pups. That would pretty much mean me pushing one litter out the door as a mom is pushing out a new litter.

I keep seeing co-ownerships brought up but how many co-owned girls have one breeder claiming the whole litter? All the litters? 

Florida has a silly law that if you sell eggs, you have to have a room (detached from your home) for grading the eggs. Most states have an exemption on that type of requirement based on volume. 

Every week at the flea market and the farmer markets I see people giving away eggs but charging for the egg carton to carry them off in.


----------



## Chris Wild (Dec 14, 2001)

No, I don't have 50 pups a year, but that's hardly the point. Even if we do believe that it will stay at 50 as the magic number. This is already reducing the number of breeding females from 3 to 1. And then there's the whole LA spay/neuter law that was originally going to have exemptions but now most of those are being redacted. Different law, but shows how once these things get passed they get tweaked to become more and more invasive. So I don't have much faith that it will stay at 50 for very long.

There are plenty of excellent breeders out there who do hit that 50 minimum, and yes most have separate kennel facilities. Some absolutely fantastic kennel facilities that are practically doggy palaces.... but which wouldn't pass inspection because of some of the ridiculous requirements. No, the law doesn't call for wire cages... those came about because it's the easiest way to meet the requirements for sanitation, no porous surfaces, etc...

Yes, I understand that some "puppy mills" are selling via the internet and thus taking the retail exemption. But those aren't the majority of the mills out there, nor are they the majority of those who sell pups via the internet.

I am aware that the AWA doesn't cover livestock. However that is the main purpose of the USDA, and just reading any of their regulations, including the AWA, it is clear that they are looking at companion animals in the same light. And I just don't think a cow farmer has any business telling a dog breeder what to do, and vice versa.

If HSUS and everyone else intent on passing these laws would put a fraction of their time, effort and money into enforcing the ones already on the books and then educating the public about not buying from "mills" a whole lot more would be accomplished.


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

Chris Wild said:


> No, I don't have 50 pups a year, but that's hardly the point. Even if we do believe that it will stay at 50 as the magic number. This is already reducing the number of breeding females from 3 to 1. And then there's the whole LA spay/neuter law that was originally going to have exemptions but now most of those are being redacted. Different law, but shows how once these things get passed they get tweaked to become more and more invasive. So I don't have much faith that it will stay at 50 for very long.
> 
> There are plenty of excellent breeders out there who do hit that 50 minimum, and yes most have separate kennel facilities. Some absolutely fantastic kennel facilities that are practically doggy palaces.... but which wouldn't pass inspection because of some of the ridiculous requirements. No, the law doesn't call for wire cages... those came about because it's the easiest way to meet the requirements for sanitation, no porous surfaces, etc...
> 
> ...


:thumbup: Agree totally.


----------



## LifeofRiley (Oct 20, 2011)

Chris Wild said:


> No, I don't have 50 pups a year, but that's hardly the point. Even if we do believe that it will stay at 50 as the magic number. *This is already reducing the number of breeding females from 3 to 1.*


I don't know how to multi-quote so my response to your post may mean me making several posts... sorry for that.

As for the part bolded here, this is simply *NOT TRUE*. There is nothing in this legislation that would prohibit the number of breeding females you own.


----------



## LifeofRiley (Oct 20, 2011)

Chris Wild said:


> Yes, I understand that some "puppy mills" are selling via the internet and thus taking the retail exemption. *But those aren't the majority of the mills out there, nor are they the majority of those who sell pups via the internet.*


Please cite your source on that statement. 

If you find it is hard to do, it is probably because there is no registration or licensing that is required of them in almost all states or at the federal level.


----------



## LifeofRiley (Oct 20, 2011)

Chris Wild said:


> I am aware that the AWA doesn't cover livestock. *However that is the main purpose of the USDA*, and just reading any of their regulations, including the AWA, it is clear that they are looking at companion animals in the same light. And I just don't think a cow farmer has any business telling a dog breeder what to do, and vice versa.


The USDA did not write the Animal Welfare Act. The reason you think that animals are being treated as livestock has nothing do with the USDA. *It has to do with the conditions that warranted the legislation in the first place.*


----------



## LifeofRiley (Oct 20, 2011)

Chris Wild said:


> If HSUS and everyone else intent on passing these laws would put a fraction of their time, effort and money into enforcing the ones already on the books and then educating the public about not buying from "mills" a whole lot more would be accomplished.


This just made me LOL. If you took the time to read my earlier posts you will realize why.

In case you don't want to take that time... darn I really wish I knew how to multi-quote here... but the essence was...

This board always talks about the importance of awareness and education, but when the HSUS and ASPCA seek to do just that - thus becoming the target of industry-backed fear-mongering - this board decides to choose the fear-mongerer point-of-view. I really just don't get it. 

And, if you did look back on the earlier posts here you will see how pervasive this anti-HSUS point-of-view is regardless of whether that POV has any merit whatsoever. 

I don't think you really want the HSUS or ASPCA to have any credibility... so why put the onus of education and awareness on an organization that you, I assume, do not support?


----------



## Chris Wild (Dec 14, 2001)

LifeofRiley said:


> I don't know how to multi-quote so my response to your post may mean me making several posts... sorry for that.
> 
> As for the part bolded here, this is simply *NOT TRUE*. There is nothing in this legislation that would prohibit the number of breeding females you own.


Never said it did. What I said was that it reduced the number of females that made a breeder subject to the the regulations.


----------



## Chris Wild (Dec 14, 2001)

This is getting ridiculous. Early on you said that you were legitimately curious about why "responsible" breeders would have a problem with this legislation. A couple have responded, but you don't seem to want to listen.

READ the AWA, including all the little details of the requirements it puts on breeders. And then really think about what it would entail. Realize that the puppymills everyone hates, with their dogs crammed into cages or hutches, meet those requirements. Now think of how you'd like to see dogs housed, look at the details, and think about it. It doesn't take much imagination to realize that those puppymills are often set up the way they are because that is the cheapest, easiest way to meet the AWA requirements. Nor does it take much to realize that for most breeders who do care, the requirements would be practically impossible to meet. Few could afford to construct kennels that meet both the AWA requirements AND their own standards of care, and follow all of the other regulations. They couldn't afford to breed any longer. At least not in the manner that makes them good breeders in the first place.



LifeofRiley said:


> I don't think you really want the HSUS or ASPCA to have any credibility... so why put the onus of education and awareness on an organization that you, I assume, do not support?


I'd certainly welcome the existance of a credible, BALANCED organization. But there doesn't seem to be one out there. As for education, I see the breeders, fanciers.. heck even the AKC itself.. doing a lot more in that regard to help the buying public learn how to support good breeders and put the mills out of business than I see these huge, multi billion dollar animal "welfare" organizations doing.


----------



## LifeofRiley (Oct 20, 2011)

Chris Wild said:


> This is getting ridiculous. Early on you said that you were legitimately curious about why "responsible" breeders would have a problem with this legislation. A couple have responded, but you don't seem to want to listen.
> 
> READ the AWA, including all the little details of the requirements it puts on breeders. And then really think about what it would entail. Realize that the puppymills everyone hates, with their dogs crammed into cages or hutches, meet those requirements. Now think of how you'd like to see dogs housed, look at the details, and think about it. It doesn't take much imagination to realize that those puppymills are often set up the way they are because that is the cheapest, easiest way to meet the AWA requirements. Nor does it take much to realize that for most breeders who do care, the requirements would be practically impossible to meet. Few could afford to construct kennels that meet both the AWA requirements AND their own standards of care, and follow all of the other regulations. They couldn't afford to breed any longer. At least not in the manner that makes them good breeders in the first place.
> 
> I'd certainly welcome the existance of a credible, BALANCED organization. But there doesn't seem to be one out there. As for education, I see the breeders, fanciers.. heck even the AKC itself.. doing a lot more in that regard to help the buying public learn how to support good breeders and put the mills out of business than I see these huge, multi billion dollar animal "welfare" organizations doing.


I am not trying to be difficult. Really, I’m not. I was genuinely curious about why some of the breeders on this board oppose the PUPS Act. 

I guess I am just a bit disappointed (and frustrated) by all the misinformation and exaggeration that is being used to discredit the PUPS Act.

Let’s review some of the claims that have been made about the PUPS Act on this thread:

It will apply to every breeder and put every breeder out of business
It will subject every breeder who owns one intact female to the regulation (even if they do not sell 50+ puppies a year).
It will require breeders to keep their dogs in cages 24/7
It will require breeders to spay female dogs at 4 months.
It is not necessary because the AWA already covers all puppy mills
It will seriously impact the dog food industry and the income of veterinarians and dog groomers 
It will result in no one being able to own a dog
Ridiculous, indeed.

It seems to me that Betty was right, the real concern is that this may someday lead to legislation that may apply to breeders like you. 

As you are a breeder, I can understand why you have that concern. I just do not like it when people claim that those fears have a factual basis in the PUPS Act as written today.


----------



## Chris Wild (Dec 14, 2001)

LifeofRiley said:


> It seems to me that Betty was right, the real concern is that this may someday lead to legislation that may apply to breeders like you.


That, and that as it is currently written with the 50 pup thing, it WOULD apply to many very good, ethical, responsible breeders because the requirements they would then be subjected to with regard to housing would be difficult, if not impossible to meet. Their dogs are already housed better than the minimum standard in the AWA, but any one little detail out of compliance... even if that detail provides for a *better* environment (like oh no, porous concrete or brick pavers in the kennels!)... would be a violation.


----------



## Jax08 (Feb 13, 2009)

LifeofRiley said:


> It will subject every breeder who owns one intact female to the regulation (even if they do not sell 50+ puppies a year).




THAT is what my state representative stated...


owns ONE or more breeding females AND sells more than 50 offspring. 





> If enacted, this legislation would amend the _Animal Welfare Act_ to define a "high volume retail breeder" as a person who, in commerce, for compensation or profit: *(1) has an ownership interest in or custody of one or more breeding female dogs;* and (2) sells, via any means of conveyance, more than 50 of the offspring of such dogs for use as pets in any one-year period. Additionally, this legislation requires dealers to include on licensing applications and annual renewals the total number of dogs exempted from exercise on the premises of the dealer in the preceding year by a licensed veterinarian.



In my opinion, this is a poorly worded and poorly thought out bill. If they would just enforce the laws on the books and staff the humane societies with humane officers capable of doing their jobs, many of these puppy mills would be put out of business and up on cruelty charges. Let's start with dogs being sold across the country from mills and BYB's. There are animals shipped in from Kansas to PA to sell in pet stores. Start by shutting down the brokers, broker sites and prohibiting the sale of animals in stores. Enforce, and tighten, the cruelty laws we currently have.


----------



## LifeofRiley (Oct 20, 2011)

Jax08 said:


> [/LIST]
> THAT is what my state representative stated...
> 
> 
> owns ONE or more breeding females AND sells more than 50 offspring.


As some people seem to think I have already been overly pedantic on this thread, I was hoping someone else would step in to clear this up for you. But, nobody did.

The myth about the PUPS Act that I listed in my previous post – and that you quoted in your reply – *is indeed a myth*.

To qualify as a “high volume breeder” in the PUPS Act, the breeder must meet *both* criteria in the definition. So, if they do not sell 50+ pups per year, they are exempt from the proposed legislation.


----------



## Jax08 (Feb 13, 2009)

LifeofRiley said:


> As some people seem to think I have already been overly pedantic on this thread, *I was hoping someone else would step in to clear this up for you.* But, nobody did.
> 
> The myth about the PUPS Act that I listed in my previous post – and that you quoted in your reply – *is indeed a myth*.
> 
> To qualify as a “high volume breeder” in the PUPS Act, the breeder must meet *both* criteria in the definition. So, if they do not sell 50+ pups per year, they are exempt from the proposed legislation.


Did I not stress the *AND *enough for you? One or more breeding female *AND *50 puppies... Before you argue with people as if they can't understand a simple sentence, try actually reading what they wrote.

What I said...


> owns ONE or more breeding females *AND *sells more than 50 offspring.


What Congressman Tom Marino said



> If enacted, this legislation would amend the _Animal Welfare Act_ to define a "high volume retail breeder" as a person who, in commerce, for compensation or profit: (1) has an ownership interest in or custody of one or more breeding female dogs; * and *(2) sells, via any means of conveyance, more than 50 of the offspring of such dogs for use as pets in any one-year period. Additionally, this legislation requires dealers to include on licensing applications and annual renewals the total number of dogs exempted from exercise on the premises of the dealer in the preceding year by a licensed veterinarian.


I'm pretty sure I don't need anything cleared up for me as the *AND *was quite clear in both what I said and what I quoted from Tom Marino so I'm sure that is why nobody stepped forward to clear that up for my little mind.

But continue to be "overly pedantic" and condescending if that makes you happy.


----------



## LifeofRiley (Oct 20, 2011)

Jax08,

As you quoted the bullet point from a list I generated of misinformation and exaggeration in the PUPS Act, I assumed you were saying that you did not believe it was a myth. Otherwise, I don't know why you quoted it and said what you did about it to begin with.

I think I have been far more respectful in my posts than many others on this thread. If you see it otherwise, well, you are entitled to your opinion.


----------



## Jax08 (Feb 13, 2009)

well...I was actually backing up what you said. I won't make that mistake again and will just put you on ignore as it's becoming obvious you just want to argue.


----------



## LifeofRiley (Oct 20, 2011)

Jax08 said:


> I don't know why I bothered to send in an email opposing this legislation...this is what our brilliant Tom Marino sent back to me
> 
> 
> No. I won't be pleased to learn that...I won't be pleased at all.
> ...


Thank you for trying to back me up. Now that I understand that was your intention, I do really appreciate it. 

The above quote is probably why I made the assumption I did in the first place.

Again, apologies.


----------



## Gwenhwyfair (Jul 27, 2010)

IMO the real question is, since previous legislation doesn't seem to have made a difference** how will more legislation make a difference?

(**If I am incorrect in this I'd like to know)

I like to use the example of cigarettes as a model of how education (but it has to be persistent and consistent) can really change consumer buying habits. Granted there were more taxes placed on cigarette purchases as well but I don't think that was the main driver behind reduction in smoking.

I'd like to see that model applied to puppy millers. Blitz ad campaigns, get school kids involved (remember the campaigns to stop mustang slaughters? A lot of school children were involved in that).


----------



## LifeofRiley (Oct 20, 2011)

Gwenhwyfair said:


> IMO the real question is, since previous legislation doesn't seem to have made a difference** how will more legislation make a difference?
> 
> (**If I am incorrect in this I'd like to know)
> 
> ...


Good question Gwen!

I firmly believe that an education-only approach will not work.

The tobacco industry, and smoking, is heavily regulated at the state and federal level. The regulations evolved over time as new information about the health effects of smoking became available and as it became clear that young audiences were the target of many of big tobacco’s marketing campaigns – to name a few instances that caused legislative changes. 

(btw – interesting side note, the very same Richard Berman, of HumaneWatch fame, has made a lot of money lobbying on behalf of Big Tobacco.)

I believe it is the combination of regulations, awareness/education efforts and, in this case study, litigation and taxation that has led to the decline of smoking in this country.

We need a similar multi-faceted effort to stop puppy mill abuses.

I would like to see the following:
*1. Sensible local, state and federal regulation (that works in concert with each other). * Legislation to better regulate puppy mills is coming. In addition to federal efforts, the number of states that have introduced new legislation has grown substantially over the past few years. 

It’s too bad that reputable breeders have joined industry groups in fighting virtually all the proposed bills. I think we would have a better chance of reaching the goal of “sensible legislation” if reputable breeders joined with legislators and animal welfare groups to demand that animals not suffer at the hands of puppy millers in the pursuit of profit. 

I believe that if reputable breeders joined the conversation, it would be a great way to have their concerns heard, and addressed, in a productive fashion. I believe that, in so doing, reputable breeders could help educate lawmakers about what distinguishes bad breeders from good and that could go a long way in allaying their own fears of eventually becoming subject to future regulation.

Instead, I fear that reputable breeders are doing themselves a disservice by fighting legislation with misinformation and scare-tactics. It discredits them in the eyes of the very people (lawmakers) that they are afraid of… not to mention in the eyes of the non breed-fancier public.

*2. Better coordination and cooperation of local, state and federal agencies in carrying out mandated inspections and enforcing animal welfare laws. * 

Of course, remember, you can only enforce laws that are on the books. There are a number of states that do not even have felony animal cruelty laws (5 worst states to be an animal: Abuse laws lax - Health - Pet health | NBC News). Not to mention, many State “puppy mill” laws are woefully inadequate. 

So, better enforcement is not the only answer. That being said, IT IS AN EXTREMELY IMPORTANT PART of attaining a better future for the animals that are currently subject to puppy mill abuses.

*3. Awareness and education campaigns.* Gwen, I like your ideas on this. To be effective, I agree, these campaigns have to come from many different voices – not just the animal welfare groups. Having reputable breeders, the AKC, veterinarians, school children, working together with animal welfare groups on a common message would be great!

You know, it is interesting that perhaps this is the area where the current AWA has had the most impact.***** The AWA, in mandating inspections, has given the public a view into the conditions puppy mill animals are forced to live in. It is the inspection photos and reports that are being used by animal welfare groups to better educate the public.

*****I think we all agree that enforcement of the AWA has been abysmal to date. Yes, the 2010 audit (that I provided a link to in an earlier post), is seeking to correct some of that. But, it remains a problem. The only good news is that awareness campaigns can also lead to better funding of APHIS/Animal Care inspectors.


----------



## Gretchen (Jan 20, 2011)

Already got a response from my senate person in CA, and they are "for" this bill.
Sorry.


----------

