SAOVA S1139 (PAWS) Communication to the American Kennel Club Sent June 4, 2005 with a Typo-edited June 6, 2005 Follow-up

----- Original Message ----- From: Robert Kane Sent: Saturday, June 04, 2005 1:49 PM Subject: Urgent Dog Fancy Concern Dear President Sprung and American Kennel Club Board of Directors, I'm most alarmed at the American Kennel Club's (AKC) support of Senator Santorum's S1139, Pet Animal Welfare Statute of 2005 (PAWS). Further, I was totally flabbergasted to learn that AKC personnel drafted extensive portions of this legislation. I'm a retired career federal lobbyist and have registered all of my litters and dogs with you for the last thirty-five years. I've also judged and competed in AKC sporting dog performance events, titling six dogs. I've made it my avocation to protect hunting dog owners' interests since my retirement and I have an excellent working knowledge of the Animal Welfare Act (AWA) (7 U.S.C. §§ 2131 - 59), its implementation rulemakings and related litigation. My Washington, DC agribusiness lobbying and agriculture committee contacts remain functional. With that background, the AKC's support for S1139 is unfathomable to me. Nothing about your position, outlined either in your website postings, Mrs. Lane's emails or in a private conversation with James Holt, who I've met before lobbying in DC, makes sense from the fancy's viewpoint. You've abandoned an established regulatory structure for one that is guaranteed to force current dog and cat hobby breeders to become USDA licensed in an apparent effort to improve AKC's financial bottom line. There's no documentary evidence that your importer and large breeder targets sell animals that are inordinately unhealthy or less satisfactory pets than the norm. To the degree there's any minimal change in animal welfare due to this bill, it will be coincidental and unrelated to its intended impact. Companies frequently attempt to use the government to level a business playing field, or gain a competitive advantage. In this case, the ancillary damage is just too great. This bill amounts to the proverbial throwing the baby out with the bath water. Your definition of "dealer," and I say your definition based on my conversation with Mr. Holt, employs numerical limits of 25 dogs or cats bred and sold, or six litters. At or below those figures, a USDA license isn't required, above them one is subject to federal licensing and inspection. Setting aside the very obvious certainty that the fancy will be engaged in full-time lobbying every future Congress, trying to block those limits' reduction, the AKC failed to recognize the significance of the S.1139 exemption's second test. 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, or (3) any dog imported from outside the United States, unless the dog is imported by the person for the use and enjoyment of the person, 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 which sells any dogs imported from outside the United States; or (ii) any person who, during any calendar year- (I)(aa) sells not more than 25 dogs or cats at wholesale or to the public; or (bb) does not whelp more than 6 litters of dogs or cats and sells only dogs or cats bred or raised on the premises of the person directly at retail to persons who purchase such animals for their own use and enjoyment and not for resale; [emphasis added] This dual requirement forces any breeder of over 25 pups from fewer than 6 litters to be licensed, if he or she places a rescue and receives a fee, sells a dog or cat that others bred and raised, or sells an animal co-ownership interest, even to the other co-owner in the same calendar year." All of these breeders and their residences will be subject to federal inspection and fines, if their homes don't meet commercial kennel standards, which are based on animal research facilities. How can this be justified? What is most disturbing to my constituents is that, in abandoning the wholesale-retail distinction, the AKC has exposed every seller of a dog for "hunting, security, or breeding purposes" to a very significant federal licensing risk. You may recall that the Doris Day Animal League (DDAL) lawsuit against USDA filed in the DC Circuit alleged two agency failures to implement the AWA's congressional intent. The first complaint, that USDA improperly failed to regulate hobby breeders (sic), was rejected on appeal. The second complaint, that USDA wasn't properly regulating sellers of hunting, security and breeding dogs, was judged premature, since the agency hadn't completed its rulemaking on this portion of the statute. On October 21, 2004, USDA's APHIS concluded a four year rule promulgation by publishing its final determination that only wholesale sellers of "dogs for hunting, security, or breeding purposes" would be licensed and inspected. Having read the briefs in the DDAL litigation, I'm comfortable that this decision would be affirmed, if challenged in court. Your action, in advocating numerical limits, has put at risk virtually every dog owner in America, not just the aforementioned breeders. S1139 can not become law without the AKC's active support. That's a given, as far as I'm concerned. The bill's sponsors, the Humane Society of the United States and the Doris Day Animal League, with whom the AKC "compromised," can't move this bill. Should you fail to publicly disassociate the AKC from this bill, you put the fancy and all dog owners at considerable risk in legislative and regulatory processes that you can't control and for which you have demonstrated only modest aptitude. For my part, I can't let that happen and I will use every resource at my disposal to prevent it. I look forward to a direct communication from Mr. Sprung or Mr. Menaker by June 7, 2004. Sincerely, Robert J. Kane, President Virginia Hunting Dog Owners' Association http://vhdoa.uplandbirddog.com/ Sportsmen's and Animal Owners' Voting Alliance - Working to identify and elect supportive legislators http://saova.org

Back