Upcoming puppymill legislation - Please help!

Charliesmommy

I run with scissors
Joined
Dec 15, 2006
Messages
2,243
Likes
0
Points
36
Age
50
Location
Indiana
#1
H.R. 6949 was introduced in September and went nowhere. California state rep Sam Farr intends to introduce it again in January. WE NEED EVERYONE TO WRITE TO YOUR STATE REPRESENTATIVES AND URGE THEM TO SUPPORT THIS BILL.

H.R. 6949, aka "Baby's bill" or "PUPS" (Puppy Uniform Protection and Safety Act), would close a huge loophole in the Animal Welfare Act. It would require that all dog breeders who sell directly to the public and who sell more than 50 dogs per year be federally licensed and inspected. It would also would mandate that dogs in commercial-breeding facilities be given the opportunity to walk and exercise for 60 minutes a day.

It is sooooo easy to do. Go to this website https://writerep.house.gov/writerep/welcome.shtml to contact your representative.




Copy and paste this letter (or write one of your own):

I am very concerned about the puppymill industry in the United States and I strongly urge you to support H.R. 6949. Too many animals suffer needlessly for the profit of a few, due to the loopholes in the Animal Welfare Act. Many states do not have the laws necessary to enforce even minimum standards for these animals. It has already been proven that many so-called "breeders" don't pay sales tax or correctly report income tax. That hurts everyone.



Seriously, folks, it will take you about one minute to do this. Please copy and paste this post anywhere you can.
 

ACooper

Moderator
Joined
Jan 7, 2007
Messages
27,772
Likes
1
Points
38
Location
IN
#2
Done.

Really folks, it takes about 60 seconds (or less) just go to that site and select your state with zip..........it will bring the email link for your Rep right up :)
 

Romy

Taxiderpy
Joined
Dec 2, 2006
Messages
10,233
Likes
1
Points
38
Location
Olympia, WA
#4
I found a copy of the bill text, it doesn't look like they snuck in any weird things that could affect responsible breeders:

HR 6949 IH
110th CONGRESS
2d Session
H. R. 6949
To amend the Animal Welfare Act to provide further protection for puppies.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
September 18, 2008
Mr. FARR (for himself, Mr. GERLACH, Mrs. CAPPS, Mr. EVERETT, Mr. PATRICK J. MURPHY of Pennsylvania, Mr. NADLER, Mr. LIPINSKI, Mr. KENNEDY, Mr. MOORE of Kansas, Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts, Mr. GALLEGLY, Mr. MCCOTTER, Mr. KIRK, Ms. SCHAKOWSKY, Mrs. BIGGERT, Mr. MORAN of Virginia, Mr. MCGOVERN, and Ms. MCCOLLUM of Minnesota) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Agriculture

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A BILL
To amend the Animal Welfare Act to provide further protection for puppies.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ‘Puppy Uniform Protection and Safety Act’.
SEC. 2. REGULATION OF HIGH-VOLUME SELLERS OF PUPPIES.
(a) Retail Pet Store Defined- Section 2 of the Animal Welfare Act (7 U.S.C. 2132) is amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:
‘(p) The term ‘retail pet store’ means a person that--
‘(1) sells an animal directly to the public for use as a pet; and
‘(2) does not breed or raise more than 50 dogs for use as pets during any one-year period.’.
(b) Licenses- Section 3 of the Animal Welfare Act (7 U.S.C. 2133) is amended in the second proviso--
(1) by striking ‘retail pet store or other person who’ and inserting ‘retail pet store, or other person who (1) does not breed or raise more than 50 dogs for use as pets during any one-year period, and (2)’; and
(2) by striking ‘research facility’ and inserting ‘research facility,’.
(c) Humane Standards- Section 13 of the Animal Welfare Act (7 U.S.C. 2143) is amended--
(1) by redesignating subsection (g) and (h) as subsections (h) and (i), respectively;
(2) by redesignating the second subsection (f) as subsection (g); and
(3) by adding at the end the following new subsection:
‘(j)(1) Subject to paragraph (2), a dealer shall provide each dog held by such dealer that is of the age of 12 weeks or older with a minimum of two exercise periods during each day for a total of not less than one hour of exercise during such day. Such exercise shall include removing the dog from the dog’s primary enclosure and allowing the dog to walk for the entire exercise period, but shall not include use of a treadmill, catmill, jenny mill, slat mill, or similar device, unless prescribed by a doctor of veterinary medicine.
‘(2) Paragraph (1) shall not apply to a dog certified by a doctor of veterinary medicine, on a form designated by and submitted to the Secretary, as being medically precluded from exercise.’.
SEC. 3. EFFECT ON STATE LAW.
The amendments made by this Act shall not be construed to preempt any law or regulation of a State or a political subdivision of a State containing requirements that are greater than the requirements of the amendments made by this Act.
Here is the link:

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h110-6949

All in all, it looks pretty good. It prohibits treadmills being used in a puppy mill except where recommended by a vet, which is probably for the best...though with that many dogs it may be the only way most of them could get exercised.

Actually, now that I think of it, it seems like it would be better for the dogs if treadmills were allowed. How are they going to enforce that miller dogs are walked? And if millers don't have the time to walk them all themselves, or the inclination to hire people to do it, without an option like treadmill it's not likely to get done at all. :confused:
 

corgipower

Tweleve Enthusiest
Joined
Sep 19, 2007
Messages
8,233
Likes
0
Points
36
Location
here
#5
Actually that is not what it would do. If you read the bill, what it says is:

The term 'retail pet store' means a person that -
1. sells an animal directly to the public for use as a pet; and
2. does not breed or raise more than 50 dogs for use as pets during any one-year period.
That would define pretty much every small hobby breeder as a retail pet store and subject them to being compliant with the AWA. This is a bill that needs to NOT pass!
 

ACooper

Moderator
Joined
Jan 7, 2007
Messages
27,772
Likes
1
Points
38
Location
IN
#6
I guess I should have posted the bill when I went to read it too! LOL

Romy, I think as long as the dogs are allowed to run around in an open fenced area for an hour or two a day it would DEFINITELY be an improvement over what many of them suffer now.
 

Charliesmommy

I run with scissors
Joined
Dec 15, 2006
Messages
2,243
Likes
0
Points
36
Age
50
Location
Indiana
#7
Corgipower, that is incorrect. You need to read the animal welfare act, and then read the proposed bill to understand the changes that would be made.

The Animal Welfare Act exempts retail pet stores from inspection and defines a retail pet store as anyone who sells animals as pets to the public.

This bill would change that definition, and therefore would EXEMPT those who sell less than 50 animals per year from inspection.
 

Romy

Taxiderpy
Joined
Dec 2, 2006
Messages
10,233
Likes
1
Points
38
Location
Olympia, WA
#8
Just to clarify, I don't think this is a bad idea, it is a very good idea. I guess if not exercising them is illegal, then that will be another charge they can slap on these guys/excuse to do an inspection.
 

HoundedByHounds

Oh, it's *you*
Joined
Aug 6, 2007
Messages
8,415
Likes
0
Points
0
Location
N Texas, USA
#9
For balance...

"HSUS Lies To Congress, Public
About New `PUPS' Legislation
Would Call Out Feds On Many Non-Breeding Kennels
by JOHN YATES
American Sporting Dog Alliance
http://www.americansportingdogalliance.org
asda@...

WASHINGTON, DC – The Humane Society of the United States is pushing
new federal legislation that the radical animal rights group claims
is aimed at stopping large dog breeding kennels that skirt the law.
According to HSUS, the legislation targets only kennels that sell
more than 50 puppies a year. The bill's sponsors, Senator Richard
Durbin (D-IL) and Rep. Sam Farr (D-CA), repeat those claims.
They are lying through their teeth, an American Sporting Dog
Alliance analysis of the actual legislation shows. In fact, the
legislation targets almost every boarding, day care, training and
handling kennel in America, along with many hunt clubs and hunting
plantations.

It also impacts many serious hobbyists, who have a lot
of dogs even though they only raise a couple of litters of puppies a
year, our analysis shows Rep. Farr is the prime sponsor of H.R. 6949, and Sen. Durbin is the sponsor of its companion bill in the Senate, S. 3519. The formal name of this legislation is the "Puppy Uniform Protection Statute,"or "PUPS." It also has been nicknamed "Baby's Bill," after a rescued dog from a commercial kennel that is touring the country with its
owner, Chicagoan Jana Kohl.

Kohl is on an HSUS-sponsored campaign
against "puppy mills," and has visited several states. Her recent
book includes a photo of presidential candidate Barrack Obama, and
his reported commitment to clamp down on "puppy mills."
The legislation is an amendment to the federal Animal Welfare Act,
which requires federal licensure of commercial kennels
(called "dealers") who sell puppies wholesale to brokers or pet
stores. This law does not regulate people who sell dogs and puppies
directly to the consumer.

HSUS calls this a "loophole," and has been pushing for many years to
include kennels that sell directly to the buyer. Previous attempts,
such as the Pet Animal Welfare Act and Sen. Durbin's attempted
amendment to the 2008 Farm Bill, have failed. The PUPS legislation is the latest attempt by HSUS.

Here is how HSUS describes the legislation: "The Humane Society of
the United States and Humane Society Legislative Fund commend
federal lawmakers for introducing bills that will crack down on
abusive "puppy mills" in the United States — where breeding dogs are
often stacked in wire cages for years to produce litter after
litter. The legislation will close a loophole in the Animal Welfare
Act that currently allows large, commercial breeders who sell
puppies online and directly to the public to escape licensing and
regulation."

Here is the HSUS description of who will be affected: "All dog
breeders who sell more than 50 puppies per year directly to the
public will be federally licensed and inspected…The bill will not
affect small breeders and hobby breeders who sell fewer than 50 dogs
per year directly to the public, but is crafted to cover only the
largest commercial breeding facilities."

Press releases by Sen. Durbin, Rep. Farr and other members of
Congress echo those claims.

Here is what the legislation actually says, in sections defining a
dealer and who is exempt from licensure as a dealer.

A person or kennel owner who "does not breed or raise more than 50
dogs for use as pets during any one-year period" and who sells dogs
or puppies "directly to the public for use as a pet" is exempt from
licensure and regulation as a dealer. Any dog is defined by the Act
as a pet, regardless of its use or purpose. Thus, a person who meets
that definition does not require a federal license.

The words "breed or raise" are an obvious and deliberate attempt to
snare many kennel and dog owners in federal regulations, including
many kennels that do not breed at all. The language is very
ambiguous and could be interpreted to include virtually anyone who
has a lot of dogs.

The term "raise" is not defined in the legislation, but is generally
interpreted to mean a person who keeps, cares for, houses or owns a
dog or dogs.

Most professional trainers and handlers of field trial, show,
obedience or performance dogs would have more than 50 dogs in their
kennels over the course of a year. In fact, many trainers and
handlers who employ helpers would have more than 50 dogs at any
given time, and most do not breed at all.

A boarding kennel, dog daycare service, hound hunt club, hunting
plantation or circus could be included under a definition that
they "raise" more than 50 dogs per year. Even many private field
trialers and show dog people would have more than 50 dogs a year in
their kennels, as they often keep most of the puppies they produce
to evaluate. For field trial dogs, for example, it often takes two
or three years of working with a young dog to determine if it is
worthy to use for competition or breeding.

A favorite tactic of HSUS is to deliberately use ambiguity in model
legislation in order to entrap as many kennels and dogs in the law
as possible, going far beyond the stated purpose. If HSUS and its
elected cronies had wanted to be honest, the legislation simply
would say that it excludes anyone who sells fewer than 50 puppies a
year.

It is obvious that truth is not their highest priority.

The HSUS propaganda mill for this legislation continues to attack
people who use the Internet to sell dogs or puppies. It attempts to
link Internet sales with sick puppies and shoddy "puppy mills."
In fact, almost all of America's finest kennels in every breed have
a presence on the Internet. Most have websites, and many run online
advertisements to sell individual dogs and litters of puppies.
If anything, a good case could be made that it is almost impossible
to buy a high quality puppy from a kennel that does not make use of
the Internet. The Internet simply is a reality of modern life, and a
reported 80-percent of American households use it.

This smear campaign is simply another attempt by HSUS to tar dog
breeders with the broadest possible brush. At best, it shows
complete ignorance of the real world of dogs. At worst, it shows a
vicious attempt to defame honest and conscientious people who raise
dogs.

HSUS is not an animal welfare organization. It has nothing to do
with local humane societies. Instead, it is a political action and
lobbying arm of the radical animal rights movement that continually
pushes for tighter restrictions on animal ownership, with each piece
of legislation making a step toward its ultimate goal, which is the
total elimination of animal ownership in America.

Another section of the legislation requires all dogs kept in
federally licensed kennels an hour of exercise a day, divided into
at least two separate periods. Dogs would be removed from their
primary enclosures and allowed to walk for these exercise periods.
The final section of the legislation specifically allows states to
adopt more stringent standards.

While a member of the California Assembly, Farr also authored
legislation to severely regulate dog breeding.

Co-sponsors of PUPS in the Senate are Sen. Dianne Feinstein [D-CA],
Sen. Claire McCaskill [D-MO], and Sen. Ron Wyden [D-OR]. House co-
sponsors are Reps. Judy Biggert (IL), Lois Capps (CA), Terry Everett
(AL), Barney Frank (MA), Elton Gallegly (CA), Jim Gerlach (PA),
Patrick Kennedy (RI), Mark Steven Kirk (IL), Daniel Lipinski (IL),
Betty McCollum (MN), Thaddeus McCotter (MI), James McGovern (MA),
Dennis Moore (KS), James Moran (VA), Patrick J. Murphy (PA), Jerrold
Nadler (NY) and Janice Schakowsky (IL).

The American Sporting Dog Alliance is urging all dog and kennel
owners to immediately contact their congressman and senator and ask
them to vigorously oppose this legislation.
Here is a link for contact information for senators:
http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm.
Here is a link to contact information for the House of
Representatives: http://www.house.gov/house/MemberWWW.shtml.
The American Sporting Dog Alliance represents owners, breeders and
professionals who work with breeds of dogs that are used for
hunting. We welcome people who work with other breeds, too, as
legislative issues affect all of us. We are a grassroots movement
working to protect the rights of dog owners, and to assure that the
traditional relationships between dogs and humans maintains its
rightful place in American society and life.
The American Sporting Dog Alliance also needs your help so that we
can continue to work to protect the rights of dog owners. Your
membership, participation and support are truly essential to the
success of our mission. We are funded solely by the donations of our
members, and maintain strict independence.
Please visit us on the web at
http://www.americansportingdogalliance.org. Our email is
asda@.... Complete directions to join by mail or online are
found at the bottom left of each page.
PLEASE CROSS-POST AND FORWARD THIS REPORT TO YOUR FRIENDS"
 

Charliesmommy

I run with scissors
Joined
Dec 15, 2006
Messages
2,243
Likes
0
Points
36
Age
50
Location
Indiana
#10
I am unclear as to why ANYONE, regardless if they are a sporting dog enthusiast, a breeder, a doggy daycare, whatever, would be opposed to dogs being let out of cages for 60 minutes per day, or would be opposed to inspsection. If you are treating the dogs humanely, what exactly is the problem with an inspection?

Regardless, the information is here. Do with it what you will.
 

Romy

Taxiderpy
Joined
Dec 2, 2006
Messages
10,233
Likes
1
Points
38
Location
Olympia, WA
#11
Thanks hounded, it seems like these kinds of things always have something hidden tacked on, which is why I went and looked for the text itself. That's very interesting, and saddening at the same time.

Perhaps we could contact our representatives and ask them to push for amendments to be made.

I am not opposed to the core of the bill, which is targetting puppy mills. But maybe make them aware of the amibigious wording, and how it could be used to take the spirit of the bill out of context and how it would have a very negative effect on working dog kennels, like Sch kennels that train dogs for PP and law enforcement, etc.

There's a good reason most of these go through the ringer several times before they make it into law.
 

Romy

Taxiderpy
Joined
Dec 2, 2006
Messages
10,233
Likes
1
Points
38
Location
Olympia, WA
#12
I am unclear as to why ANYONE, regardless if they are a sporting dog enthusiast, a breeder, a doggy daycare, whatever, would be opposed to dogs being let out of cages for 60 minutes per day, or would be opposed to inspsection. If you are treating the dogs humanely, what exactly is the problem with an inspection?

Regardless, the information is here. Do with it what you will.
Well, if it is going to potentially cause doggy day cares, training facilities, etc. to have to pay out for USDA licenses (ranging from $30-$750 annually) when those places do exercise their dogs anyway, I can see an issue.

Those places, by default of the services they provide, are already complying with the proposed law...including them under it would only:

A. Put more government interference in with small business owners and hobbyists.

B. Spread the USDA inspectors even thinner. There are a very limited number of inspectors out there, and if they have to check up on every doggy day care/training facility out there then the chances that they are going to catch the guys this bill is supposed to be aimed at really start to decrease. Not to mention the waste of tax dollars.

Personally, I am going to write a letter pointing out the ambigious wording and strongly suggest that it be changed so that it only targets puppymills. No need to drag everybody else into the fray.

ETA: Another thing that gets a little sticky with the feds...By the FDAs definition, any unaltered animal is a "breeding animal". Regardless of age, or whether or not that animal has been bred that year (if at all). For people who keep back a litter for a year to assess their working qualities, or people who are showing, or keep their working stock intact this is a pretty big issue as well.
 

HoundedByHounds

Oh, it's *you*
Joined
Aug 6, 2007
Messages
8,415
Likes
0
Points
0
Location
N Texas, USA
#13
Romy...very well put. Important to see all sides and everyone who will be affected. I posted what I did for information...and it won't kill anyone ;).
 

joce

Active Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2005
Messages
4,448
Likes
0
Points
36
Age
40
Location
Ohio
#14
I am unclear as to why ANYONE, regardless if they are a sporting dog enthusiast, a breeder, a doggy daycare, whatever, would be opposed to dogs being let out of cages for 60 minutes per day, or would be opposed to inspsection. If you are treating the dogs humanely, what exactly is the problem with an inspection?

Regardless, the information is here. Do with it what you will.
I'll admit I didn't read the whole bill but I will say think about your local pound or pet store.

Disease is rampant and letting the dogs out for two hours just puts them at more risk to spread something around and catch something.

There needs to be a bill that just covers amount of pups places pump out(with an exception for a real rescue) and that no dogs can be sold in stores. Then move onto other things. I'd love to see health tests required on every dog to.
 

Charliesmommy

I run with scissors
Joined
Dec 15, 2006
Messages
2,243
Likes
0
Points
36
Age
50
Location
Indiana
#15
Again, you have to actually read the Animal Welfare Act to understand the changes that the bill proposes.

The bill states:

‘(j)(1) Subject to paragraph (2), a dealer shall provide each dog held by such dealer that is of the age of 12 weeks or older with a minimum of two exercise periods during each day for a total of not less than one hour of exercise during such day. Such exercise shall include removing the dog from the dog’s primary enclosure and allowing the dog to walk for the entire exercise period, but shall not include use of a treadmill, catmill, jenny mill, slat mill, or similar device, unless prescribed by a doctor of veterinary medicine.

In the Animal Welfare Act, a dealer is defined as:

(f) The term "dealer" means any person who, in commerce, for compensation or profit, delivers for transportation, or transports, except as a carrier, buys, or sells, or negotiates the purchase or sale of, (1) any dog or other animal whether alive or dead for research, teaching, exhibition, or use as a pet, or (2) any dog for hunting, security, or breeding purposes, except that this term does not include

(i) a retail pet store except such store which sells any animals to a research facility, an exhibitor, or a dealer; or

(ii) any person who does not sell, or negotiate the purchase or sale or any wild animal, dog, or cat and who derives no more than $500 gross income from the sale of other animals during any calendar year;
This means it applies to people who buy and sell animals or negotiates the sale of, or transports animals to be bought or sold. This does NOT apply to facilities such as doggy daycares and training facilities.
 

Sweet72947

Squishy face
Joined
May 18, 2006
Messages
9,159
Likes
1
Points
38
Location
Northern Virginia
#17
Yeah I don't understand how it includes doggie daycares and the like either. They aren't SELLING animals, they are selling a SERVICE. I don't see any wording in this bill that would affect them unless somehow the selling of the service is interpreted as the selling of the animal BACK to the owner at the end of the day. But that would be weird...
 

Lilavati

Arbitrary and Capricious
Joined
Sep 3, 2007
Messages
7,644
Likes
0
Points
36
Age
47
Location
Alexandria, VA
#18
Yeah I don't understand how it includes doggie daycares and the like either. They aren't SELLING animals, they are selling a SERVICE. I don't see any wording in this bill that would affect them unless somehow the selling of the service is interpreted as the selling of the animal BACK to the owner at the end of the day. But that would be weird...
Yeah, I'm pretty sure when they say sell, they mean sell. Though that might include "adopt." I'm also still trying to figure out if your average breeder would magically become a retail pet store. It needs some work.
 

Groch

Gadget Hound
Joined
Jan 10, 2007
Messages
270
Likes
0
Points
0
Location
Denver Colorado
#19
The "American Sporting Dog Alliance" is a front group that lobbys for commercial puppy mills.

They have never supported ANY legislation that restricts commercial breeders in any way. By their own charter they cannot support any legislation that could put ANY breeder out of business (ie cost money).

If you search on this board you will find their e-mails posted urging the defeat of numerous bills for many years. These e-mails almost always twist and change the wording of the legislation and interpret it to say things it does not.

They espouse the "slippery slope" theory. That is, ANY attempt to regulate breeders will eventually and inevitably lead to outlawing of dogs and cats as pets. If they can convince enough dog owners to believe this nonsense, then their commercial mills can continue unregulated.

Just so you know who you are dealing with.

Their are crazies on all sides...but in this case the crazies have a financial interest in their craziness.
 
Joined
Mar 26, 2006
Messages
1,341
Likes
0
Points
0
Location
Texas
#20
Yeah, I'm pretty sure when they say sell, they mean sell. Though that might include "adopt." I'm also still trying to figure out if your average breeder would magically become a retail pet store. It needs some work.
Selling happens when money changes hands and I don't know of any rescue or shelter that doesn't charge a fee for adoption.

Just be VERY careful before supporting any type of dog legislation. Often they really do have hidden agendas.
 

Members online

No members online now.
Top