I hope this isnt real !!! - Page 1

ALERT: AKC-HSUS-Santorum S1139 Anti-Dog Owner Bill Detailed Status Report and Action Plan -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- June 7, 2005 The American Kennel Club (AKC) has exposed rescuers, some hobby breeders and every seller of a dog for "hunting, security, or breeding purposes" to a very significant USDA licensing risk, involving burdensome commercial costs and inspection standards. On May 26th, the AKC announced that it had reached a *compromise* with the animal rightist Humane Society of the U.S. (HSUS) to amend the Animal Welfare Act (AWA), employing Senator Rick Santorum's (R-PA) S1139, "Pet Animal Welfare Statute of 2005" (PAWS). Both entities' press releases are heavily spun, focusing on importers or sellers advertising on the Internet and don't hint at the amendments' dangers to everyday dog owners. This is Sen. Santorum's third collaboration with HSUS to amend the AWA's pet statutes. The previous attempts failed and S1139 can not become law without the AKC's active support. Its defeat is assured if the registry joins with other organizations and individuals to vigorously oppose it. S1139 changes the AWA and USDA's existing, long-standing, legally tested basis for federal dog and cat business licensing and regulation. The current procedure is based on treating wholesale sales and retail sales differently. Reducing it to its simplest terms, under current law and USDA regulations, if you sell a dog to a wholesaler, you are regulated. Rescuers, hobby breeders and owners selling to retail buyers are exempt today. The Doris Day Animal League challenged the hobby breeder portion of this regulatory structure in court and lost in 2002. The AKC-HSUS-Santorum AWA amendments change only a few key words in a very long statute, but their effect is profound. The critical words for breeders and hunting dog owners are highlighted below. The new system, in red, is strictly based on numbers of dogs, pups and litters with sales outlets playing a minimal role. A crucial current law fragment is underlined. USDA concluded a rulemaking last October that determined *only wholesale* buyers and sellers of "dogs for hunting, security, or breeding purposes" would be licensed and inspected. That important victory has been ignored in S1139. Rather than including that provision in line (2) and adjusting the new (I)(aa) 25-dog sale limit provision, as should have been done, line (2) wasn't changed and (I)(aa) doesn't recognized such dog sellers. This strongly suggests that sellers of dogs for hunting, security, or breeding purposes could well be separately regulated as this amendment moves through the Congress or in a subsequent agency rulemaking. This S1139 disconnect is a trap waiting to be sprung. For the first time, rescuers appear to regulated, if they exceed the new (I)(aa) 25-dog sale limit. The six-litter exemption in red line (I)(bb) is also misleading. This only applies to dogs bred or raised on the breeder's premises. Whelp four litters of 7 dogs, resell another, or sell a co-ownership in the same calendar year and you've voided that six-litter breeder exemption and violated the 25-dog sale limit. You're now subject to USDA licensing!!

"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 [Emphasis added] (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; and (II) derives not more than $500 gross income from the sale of other animals." [Emphasis added] ------- A dog seller requiring a USDA license pays an annual fee of up to $760, as a function of gross income, must file an annual report, keep voluminous records and is subject to random inspections to determine compliance with 60 pages of care standards, which include separate, sheltered facilities kept at a temperature no lower than 45 deg F and no higher that 85 deg F. It's very clear that this numbers of dogs, numbers of litters based regulatory scheme is unenforceable unless the dog and cat registries give the USDA access to their registration data bases, or AKC, et al act as USDA agents and identify those customers that they think deserve federal scrutiny. WHAT'S GOING ON HERE? It's easy enough to see why anti-hunter, anti-animal owner HSUS is pushing this bill, but what's AKC thinking, supporting such an infringement of its customer's rights and interests? AKC personnel actually negotiated this language with HSUS, through Sen. Santorum's mediator. AKC's leaders decry increasing dog imports and high volume direct retail sellers that use the Internet, but there's no credible evidence that these chosen 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.

S1139 is about improving AKC's bottom line and competitive position. Other registries weren't consulted. Companies frequently attempt to use the government to level a business playing field, or gain a competitive advantage. This bill is designed to hurt users of other registries, at minimal cost to the AKC. However, perhaps with the encouragement of HSUS, AKC again ignored hunting dog owners' interests. The result is a very bad bill with lots of ancillary damage. S1139 amounts to the AKC throwing the baby out with the bath water. Action Plan Either intentionally or through carelessness, the AKC has put dog owners using all registries at significant risk. America's dog owners must insist that the AKC publicly withdraw its support of S.1139 immediately. Thus far its management has stonewalled. Since the AKC has put its own business interest before that of its customers and betrayed their trust, the strongest possible message must be sent. That message is BOYCOTT AKC!. This clickable BOYCOTT AKC email is preaddressed to AKC CEO Dennis Sprung with copies to the AKC's Board of Directors and the bill sponsors. Tell that group that unless the AKC publicly announces it no longer supports S.1139 at its June 13, 2005 Delegate's Meeting, you are prepared to move your registration business and dog event participation to registries such as the Field Dog Stud Book, the United Kennel Club and the American Canine Association. As additional information on S1193's status in Congress becomes available and specific action is advised, this page will be updated and SAOVA regional elist alerts will be emailed to you. Please do your part. Everyone needs to weigh in and prevent this looming train wreck from becoming anything more serious than a colossal AKC embarrassment. Forwarding, cross posting and citations encouraged.

It's real and has been a hot topic on some other dog lists. UKC has gone on record as opposing it, other dog organizations are in favor. If passed, it will only apply to breeder who breed and sell more than 25 puppies per year OR more than 6 litters. This would probably not effect most of the hobby breeders on this list, but would the commercial ones. Frankly, I don't think it's such a bad idea, but some would disagree. Read the act in its entirety and make your own conclusions. I don't see it as a way for AKC to improve the bottom line, I see it as one of the few ways they are legally able to discourage the wholesale breeding of dogs in this country. Too bad if it effects the brokers and wholesalers. God knows this breed, for one, could use some help in regulating the way they do business.

If anyone is interested in reading this bill in its entirety, you can find it at http://www.akc.org/news/index.cfm?article_id=2525 This site includes AKC's justification for supporting this bill, but you can still skip over all of that and just read the actual bill. What is listed here is an arguement against the bill and is not actually what the bill says. Again, read it and make your own decision and support or reject it accordingly.

Apparently in the state of Georgia you must be licensed if you produce more than ONE litter a year! I am not sure if they get the info from AKC, classified advertisements or what but I was a bit surprised when the Dept of Ag pulled up at our house the other day. We just had a litter here for the first time in nearly 3 years.

They probably read the classified. Too bad a government office has nothing better to do. What a crock! Your tax dollars at work. This bill would be legislated at the federal level and would be in addition to state dog laws. It would only apply to those breeding for sale more than 25 dogs per year OR more than 6 litters.

If they can't tax you on it then they will damn sure make you pay for a license .One way or another they will find a way to make money off of us.... God Bless America

So which is it, i am not good at this legal jargon. Although I have 1 breeding female some day I'll have more if they are worthy, but say I had more females. If I have 6 litters and 30 pups am I okay? What if it were 25 pups and 8 litters am I okay? I guess what I am saying is it More set ont he NUMBER of litters or is it on the number of pups??? HMMM how does 1 go about obtaining this kennel lic? And also, what would classify 3 or more females that are breedable??? I mean that could prevent My mother from having 4 females that are all having heat cycles but she doesn't breed? Ohh sooo confused... anyone know how to make understandable for me, parts I get others I am still fuzzy on. Vereinigte

Vereinigte, It's always a long haul from proposal to any enactment but as I understand it: In both instances mentioned by you, you'd be caught by the proposed regulation. Breed more than 25 pups and you need licence - irrespective of litter numbers. Breed more than 6 litters and you need licence - irrespective of pup numbers.