Basset Hounds Forum banner

1 - 14 of 14 Posts

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
5,042 Posts
Discussion Starter #1

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,902 Posts
Moving a post from the breeding forum--this contains a link to AKC's discussion of this legislation.

These puppy mills and BYBs that sell at retail (direct to consumer) over the Internet are the reason AKC has finally agreed to support the latest incarnation of the Puppy Protection Act, the Pet Animal Welfare Statute (PAWS) of 2005.
WHY IS AKC SUPPORTING THIS LEGISLATION AFTER MANY YEARS OF OPPOSING CHANGES TO THE RETAIL PET STORE EXEMPTION?

The Internet and other mass marketing channels now enable high volume breeders to breed and sell substantial numbers of puppies directly at retail. Commercial breeding for direct retail sales is substantial and increasing. In the 1970s, when dog dealers were first brought under the AWA, breeders who sold exclusively at retail were small operations and were mostly hobby breeders. Further, there are a growing number of dealers who are importing foreign-bred puppies for direct retail sales, and many of the puppies being imported have health and other problems. Because of the USDA's expansive interpretation of the retail pet store exemption, breeders and importers who sell all of their puppies directly at retail currently fall outside any federal regulation, regardless of the volume of activity.

Historically the AKC has supported the exemption of retail sellers. However, changing pet market realities, and growing interest among legislators to address problems posed by large breeding operations which sell at retail, has necessitated that the AKC reconsider its position.
[ August 10, 2005, 09:41 PM: Message edited by: Barbara Winters ]
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
797 Posts
WARNING -------There was a press conference near me recently with Senator Santorum and US Rep Gerlach. The local paper reported that the PAWS legislation would also cover anybody who "made $ 500 of gross income from puppy sales" !!!!I sent a fax to each and have not gotten a reply, but can believe that some people would love to see all breeders regulated. I am still trying to find out if it was an error by the paper or if they are trying to sneak new restrictions past us..
Dean Wickwire Glen Moore, PA 610-942-2840 [email protected]

[ July 17, 2005, 02:07 PM: Message edited by: Dean ]
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,902 Posts
A reminder to please sign posts to the politics forum. Dean, can you edit your post to sign it, please? Thanks in advance.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,960 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
369 Posts
Barbara, I have to agree with you. After perusing the statement by Carmen Battaglia, one wonders....is this protection or interference? I'm very much in favor of having breed standards intact, but what ever happened to free enterprise? I'm not saying let the BYB's run amok, but just where does the government's reach end??? There are very caring people out there, about their breeds and all breed standards, who are NOT trying to retire on the money they sell pupies for.
My boss,, and friend, had ONE litter of Rhodesian Ridgeback hounds, many of which she kept. One of those has her Ch. (bitch) and one is close to attaining his Ch. The Sire and Dam were both champion line hounds. She did sell a few of the litter (dinners are interesting events with 6 Ridgebacks at her house). She may consider breeding her Ch. bitch, but is uncertain currently.

When did it become a Republican concern to get involved in people who want to breed dogs as a hobby?

Wow! :mad:

g.w. klocke

[ August 11, 2005, 12:22 PM: Message edited by: Scratch & Sniff ]
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
5,042 Posts
Discussion Starter #7

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,558 Posts
"Most people know that in the last several years we fought a really terrible bill, the so-called Puppy Protection Act, authored by the very same Sen. Santorum now trotting out the PAWS act. The PPA was pushed by activists who were aware Santorum's state, Pennsylvania, had a large number of Amish farmers breeding dogs on a large scale. Santorum was perfect prey for these groups."-quote from the dognews article referenced by Miriam Delfen

I think this explains Santorum's involvement pretty well- don't think most Republicans have any interest in "getting involved with people who want to breed dogs as a hobby".

Mary Gottfried

[ August 11, 2005, 08:52 AM: Message edited by: murraysmom ]
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
369 Posts
Ah, politics...
I think I needed to clarify my meaning on my last statement. I only mentioned one party in particular because this party is, historically, for LESS government involvment in people's personal lives. Sen. Santorum is on that particular side of the fence; hence my question.

Really, my perspective is NO political party affiliate has any business extending the government's reach that far. I'm glad this is a topic which has been brought to the forefront. Most people are not aware of these types of legislation which are going on at the same time as some of the other news grabbers. It's very important we're made aware.
Thanks again for this forum!

g.w. klocke
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
5,042 Posts
Discussion Starter #12

·
Registered
Joined
·
84 Posts
I can tell you with certainty that 4 the Hounds Basset Rescue, Inc. is among those opposing PAWS. The ramifications of this bill, should someone take it upon themselves to read between the lines and press the issue, could wipe out rescues. No rescue, not even the very large ones, can afford to conform to the USDA regs.

Sherry Faulkner
Secretary/Webmaster
4 the Hounds Basset Rescue, Inc.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
797 Posts
I requested information on the PAWS bill from my senator and U.S. rep--- only one responded (1 more than I expected )-- what I was sent indicated that any breeder earning more than $500 of GROSS profit would be regulated by this bill. This means any basset breeder would be considered the same as a puppy mill.
 
1 - 14 of 14 Posts
Top