Well, I read through the analysis more carefully this time - I'd still need to sift through the amendment and compare it side by side with AWA but if my reading is correct, I really don't think this bill is all that bad (after all the AKC - which has killed a number of previous bills, is endorsing this one - that says a lot!):
Here's S. Hatch's analysis as it is more relevant to our concerns:
The section amends the definition of “dealer” to include persons who sell dogs at retail regardless of whether or not they bred any of the dogs or cats sold, unless the person is a retail pet store, narrowly defined, or a hobby or show breeder, narrowly defined. It brings under federal regulation persons who import dogs and/or sell dogs at retail who do not meet one of three exemption criteria: (1) they sell 25 or fewer dogs per year; (2) they sell only dogs or cats which they bred or raised on their own premises and whelp 6 or fewer litters per year; or, (3) they meet the statutory definition of a retail pet store. Note the use of the word “or” in the statute. A toy breeder, for example, who sells 25 or fewer dogs per year would not be a dealer, even if they whelped more than 6 litters.
There's specific allowances made in this analysis for rescue organizations. I think it's very important to look at the legislative record here - because the AKC is being asked to work with the USDA in writing the regulations that will ultimatly be used to enforce this law.
Someone on my board made a very good point which, as far as I can tell, remains unanswered. "OK, its all and well that they want to bust puppymills, but if there's no money behind this bill, what are the chances its actually going to get enforced?" |