Senate Bill1139 Bad/Good?

[camarolynn73]

I have been reading this too since i am a dachshund breeder. AKC emailed me a link about it, because they are supporting it. From want I understand, for us small hobby breeders, if you have less than 7 liiters or less than 25 puppies registered with AKC you will have to get a license from the USDA. Look for the link on AKC they have alot of info there. I will not have my dogs on concrete 24/7 and will NOT raise puppies outside on a building. I will change over to CKC if I have too.

[lily]

Originally Posted by camarolynn73

I have been reading this too since i am a dachshund breeder. AKC emailed me a link about it, because they are supporting it. From want I understand, for us small hobby breeders, if you have less than 7 liiters or less than 25 puppies registered with AKC you will have to get a license from the USDA. Look for the link on AKC they have alot of info there. I will not have my dogs on concrete 24/7 and will NOT raise puppies outside on a building. I will change over to CKC if I have too.

mI argee! My puppies are raise in the house! Most of my buyers love that part of that! This is bull S--T! This for the money people in my eyes! If this goesthough us small breeders are dunned! lily

[minniemn]

I think there should be more regulations... if you own just about any business you have to get a lic. and have many rules and regs to follow, and many different groups that make sure you follow them (osha, dot ect) if you are producing puppies for a profit, that is a business.

This doesn't sound like it will affect the person who has a litter a year, or doesn't make a profit over 500.00.

This bill will affect mostly those who have "stock" and change out that "stock" when the female is no longer producing pups (usually selling the female.. so they have room in their "stock" for a female who can produce)

The usda has rules and regs that farmers have to follow with their "stock" also.. so it makes sense to me they are trying to have some say in breeders and their "stock".

I don't think you will find a bill that will attack puppy mills and not affect the breeder who has disposable bitches.... ie: stock, and several litters a year.

[topknot]

Most of us do not make a profit. But what if you transport, co-own another yorkie, or purchase one beautiful dog from out of country. You will need a USDA license. Dogs are classified by the government as agriculture. I know this sounds funny, but this is truth. Then if you need a license you will need to follow USDA guidelines. I have noticed that we do not have as many farmers/farms as in the past. Most of them went bankrupt or was not making enough to provide a living for their family. And as far as I know about AKC from the meeting - breeders only make up 4 percent of their profit. Doris Day organization is helping to fund billions to push this Bill through along with another organization. If passed AKC will be paid to help check records and flag people for inspection. So is the information that AKC is providing actually clear and non-bais? I do not know. I just know that money talks.
T.

[topknot]

From what I understand - if you raise two or more breeds you too will need a USDA license. And that could mean keeping your babies in a cement building and not in your warm clean home with one-on-one attention. I feel for you Camarolynn73.
T.

[minniemn]

topknot- I don't know anything about co-owning ect, since only I own my dog... so I can't really comment on that.

As for farmers, many farmers were put out of business, because the big corporate farmers took over, driving prices down putting the small/family farmer out of business... because the big farmers can mass produce. But have you seen how the big farmers treat their cattle/pigs ect? they have the most they can in the smallest space... kind of like puppy mills.

And yes money talks... it always does.

Most people who breed at home are not making a profit... and many will be creative so they don't show a profit... puppy mills included.

The best way to stop puppy mills would be to stop allowing pet shops to sell puppies, but the akc won't touch that since most of their money comes from pet shops from what I understand.

There are no easy answers, and no matter what they do, it will affect at least one person in a negative way.

I don't agree with getting rid of a bitch because she is done having babies, but to those that do... well that is just business for them... and all businesses have someone controlling them in some way shape or form... even though there are ways around it.. and many will find a way around it... and you will have more back yard breeders ect.... I don't see any answers really... but from a business standpoint I can see why and what they are wanting to do.. have more control over breeders that are in it for business.

[topknot]

My point exactly! Will we then only see big business breeders? Will this be the only place we will be able to buy a new puppy from? I just don't want to see our good home breeders go away, because (the good ones) raise such sweet babies and really care about them. It is not a business to them.
And you are right about the money AKC receives from Pet Shops! They are more of a profit to tAKC than us hobby breeders, so why should they care about us. I am just worried about how this will affect us. And I am sorry - I don't go around things - as you have found out. I follow the law to a T and do not ever want to get in trouble. So I do things by the book. I am the one that will return a penny to the cashier once I got to the car and found out she/he overpaid me. It drives my husband nuts. But can't help it - that is just me. I just don't want my rights taken away by others that do not understand what they do and how it affect everyone involved. They don't think of the big picture. If I want to buy a beautiful dog from overseas to strengthen my lines and show - I should be able to do so without it coasting so much. My rights are being denied then. Do you know what I mean? We all here at YT need to educate ourselves to really make sure we understand this new Bill. I still don't understand it all myself, but I am trying. It may be a good Bill, but what if it really isn't! I just know that my club members are good people and very experienced show people or rescue people (for non-profit) and they were very upset by this Bill.
T.

[yorkipower]

keep in mind that the bill is AMENDING an existing statute. You need to pull the Animal Welfare Act (which is quite long) to understand how these amendments work with the larger, enacted, statute.

1139 IS


109th CONGRESS

1st Session

S. 1139
To amend the Animal Welfare Act to strengthen the ability of the Secretary of Agriculture to regulate the pet industry.


IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

May 26, 2005
Mr. SANTORUM (for himself and Mr. DURBIN) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry



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


A BILL
To amend the Animal Welfare Act to strengthen the ability of the Secretary of Agriculture to regulate the pet industry.


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 `Pet Animal Welfare Statute of 2005'.

SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.

Section 2 of the Animal Welfare Act (7 U.S.C. 2132) is amended--

(1) by redesignating subsections (a), (b), (c), (d), (e), (f), (g), (h), (i), (j), (k), (l), (m), (n), and (o) as subsections (k), (o), (c), (p), (m), (e), (a), (f), (j), (b), (g), (h), (l), (d), and (i), respectively and moving the subsections so as to appear in alphabetical order;

(2) in subsection (e) (as redesignated by paragraph (1))--

(A) by striking `or (2) any' and all that follows through `include--' and inserting `(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--';

(B) in clause (i), by inserting `, or which sells any dogs imported from outside the United States' before the semicolon; and

(C) by striking clause (ii) and inserting the following:

`(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; and

`(II) derives not more than $500 gross income from the sale of other animals;'; and

(3) by inserting after subsection (m) (as redesignated by subsection (a)) the following:

`(n) Retail Pet Store-

`(1) IN GENERAL- The term `retail pet store' means a public retail establishment that sells animals commonly kept as pets in households in the United States, including--

`(A) dogs;

`(B) cats;

`(C) guinea pigs;

`(D) rabbits; and

`(E) hamsters.

`(2) EXCLUSION- The term `retail pet store' does not include--

`(A) a person breeding animals to sell to the public as pets;

`(B) a person selling hunting, security, or breeding dogs; or

`(C) a person selling wild animals.'.

SEC. 3. ACCESS TO SOURCE RECORDS FOR DOGS AND CATS.

Section 10 of the Animal Welfare Act (7 U.S.C. 2140) is amended--

(1) in the first sentence, by inserting `(a) In General- ' before `Dealers'; and

(2) by adding at the end the following:

`(b) Access to Source Records for Dogs and Cats- Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, all dealers and retail pet stores shall prepare, retain, and make available at all reasonable times for inspection and copying by the Secretary, for such reasonable period of time as the Secretary may prescribe, a record of--

`(1) the name and address of the person from whom each dog or cat was purchased or otherwise acquired; and

`(2) whether the person from whom each dog or cat was acquired is required to be licensed or registered under this Act.'.

SEC. 4. EXTENSION OF TEMPORARY SUSPENSION PERIOD.

Section 19(a) of the Animal Welfare Act (7 U.S.C. 2149) is amended--

(1) by inserting `(1)' after `(a)'; and

(2) by adding at the end the following:

`(2) Extension of temporary suspension period- If the Secretary has reason to believe that a violation that results in a temporary suspension pursuant to paragraph (1) is continuing or will continue after the expiration of the 21-day temporary suspension period described in that paragraph, and the violation will place the health of any animal in serious danger in violation of this Act, the Secretary may extend the temporary suspension period for such additional period as is necessary to ensure that the health of an animal is not in serious danger, as determined by the Secretary, but not to exceed 60 days.'.

SEC. 5. AUTHORITY TO APPLY FOR INJUNCTIONS.

Section 29 of the Animal Welfare Act (7 U.S.C. 2159) is amended--

(1) in subsection (a), by inserting `or that any person is acting as a dealer or exhibitor without a valid license that has not been suspended or revoked, as required by this Act,' after `promulgated thereunder,';

(2) in subsection (b), by striking the last sentence; and

(3) by adding at the end the following:

`(c) Injunctions; Representation-

`(1) INJUNCTIONS- The Secretary may apply directly to the appropriate United States district court for a temporary restraining order or injunction described in subsection (a).

`(2) REPRESENTATION- Attorneys of the Department of Agriculture may represent the Secretary in United States district court in any civil action brought under this section.'.

SEC. 6. CONFORMING AMENDMENT.

Section 3 of the Animal Welfare Act (7 U.S.C. 2133) is amended by striking `: Provided however,' and all that follows.

SEC. 7. EFFECT ON STATE LAW.

Nothing in this Act or the amendments made by this Act preempts any State law (including a regulation) that provides stricter requirements than the requirements provided in the amendments made by this Act.

[yorkipower]

Here's the section by section analysis as it was introduced in the Senate:

http://www.essfta.org/PAWS/SectionbySectionAnalysis.doc

If you guys can wait until monday, I could do a westlaw search to see where the bill is now.

[luzangela428]

So did you think it would better the lives of animals or not really?, at first I thought it was a good idea but now I am really confused!!

[lily]

Well I don't make 500 profit a yrs 'but I do have 2 breeds! I don't have 25 puppies a yr either! I just have to see if it's all the trouble to keep doing it! lily

[yorkipower]

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?"

[topknot]

This sounds then like it is not that bad as long as we fall under one of the three. Since I do not have more than 25 dogs sold or have more than 5 litters and if I would buy a dog overseas and don't sell it (which I would not) - I am okay. I guess I am right. Right? I just won't co-own or bring a puppy to someone for them. This way I am not involved or would need a USDA license. Is this right?
Thank you Yorkie Power for doing all this week. I had the Bill, but did not understand it with all those scratched out marks. I wonder then why my club members were upset.
T.

[yorkipower]

Scratched out marks? You mean you have a "blacklined" copy (a copy that shows the original text and the changes?) I'd love to see a copy if you do. Can you scan it and send it to me as an email. I'd be able to help members better if I could see the black line - then I'd be able to tell you what is REALLY different.

[whispersmom2]

There are many entries on another forum that many commercial breeders post on. They have been talking about this since it was first made public. They already have the USDA license and I tell you I would not breed animals under the conditions that are either allowed or required. Wire floors, no animals in the home (not sure if this includes pets) and essentially all they have to supply the animals are access to food, water and shelter. Some of those people have over 500 breeding dogs. Also from what I can figger out...the license they now have to get is the same one to breed livestock, goats, sheep if sold wholesale.
If I am wrong, One of our legal experts will set me straight, please..