Everyone Please read this is at a FEDERAL Level Part1 - Page 1

Illinois Federation of Dog Clubs and Owners (IFDCO)
Position Statement on PUPS (Puppy Uniform Protection and Safety Act, S.3424)
June 15, 2010
OPPOSE as currently written
Name and number of bill
Puppy Uniform Protection and Safety Act – Senate Bill 3424
This bill would amend the current Animal Welfare Act, and was introduced into the US Senate on
May 25, 2010.
Sponsors: Richard J. Durbin (D-IL) and David Vitter (R-LA).
A complete copy of the bill can be found on the Library of Congress “Thomas” website.1
Summary of Reasons to Oppose:
 “Co-ownership” questions would be raised by this bill and would prove
problematic to quality purebred dog breeders of various registries
 Would force licensing for many hobby breeders under current federal Animal
Welfare Act (AWA) regulations, which most home breeders would be unable to
meet
 Would not improve conditions for dogs residing in substandard kennels of known
current AWA violators
 The need for the stated exercise requirements, intended for all AWA breeder
licensees, are not scientifically proven
 Would decrease the number of quality purposefully-bred puppies available for
purchase by the American public
Background
Under current regulations contained in the federal Animal Welfare Act (AWA), dog breeders who
do not buy dogs for resale, sell only animals they produce, and sell puppies and dogs directly to
the end purchaser for the purchaser’s own use (“retail sales”) without any sales to brokers,
dealers, or pet stores, are exempt from licensing requirements.2 Additionally, even if this “retail
sales only” exemption is not met, breeders who gross less than $500 annually from sales of
these animals3, or who owns 3 or fewer “breeding females” and who sell their offspring as pets,
are likewise exempt4. Thus, “hobby breeders” of purposefully bred dogs are generally excluded
from licensing under this Act. Pet stores that sell puppies and other animals are also excluded,
provided that the wholesaler sources of the pets sold in these stores are licensed under the
AWA.5 The AWA is administered by Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) under
the auspices of the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA.)
This “retail” exemption is a longstanding one, and has survived a past major court challenge
seeking to force its change. In 1999, in response to a rule-making petition filed by the Doris Day
Animal League (DDAL), the USDA Secretary stated the Department’s intention of continuing this
exemption. The DDAL petition had requested that residential operations no longer be exempted
from AWA regulations. The USDA Secretary, in defending this position, said that it was best for
the Department to “concentrate [its] resources on those facilities that present the greatest risk
of noncompliance with the regulations", and thereby focus only on wholesale dealers. Reasons
that the Secretary gave in support of this position included the “self-regulation oversight” for
retail dealers as compared with wholesalers, as well as the numerous state and local laws
already in existence which cover these retail operations. The legality of these “retail pet stores”
exemptions then came under judicial review, when DDAL filed suit against Ann M. Veneman,
then Secretary of the USDA. This exemption from AWA licensing was upheld in the US Circuit
Court of Appeals, District of Columbia, in January 2003.6
In May, 2010, the USDA Office of the Inspector General (OIG) released a report, “Animal and
Plant He

While I certainly agree that US citizens need to make known their view of this proposed amendment to the Animal Welfare Act, it is unlikely that this proposal would ever pass, because it's unlikely there will ever be sufficient funding to task an already over-extended USDA APHIS Animal Care agency with regulating the additional operations this amendment would encompass.  The agency is presently charged with the inspection and regulation of commercial dog and cat breeding operations, and is so understaffed and underfunded that it struggles to contend with the problems the present licensed facilities create.

Doesn't it clearly state that those who aren't really puppy milling would not be considered for this law?  That's what I  thought I saw.  To me the def of "puppy mill" is pretty simple: you aren't breeding for your own use and seling the surplus pups, you are breeding to resale for $$$$. 

I thnk Wa  state just passed a "puppy mill" law, I'll do check.  And yes,these things won't get enforced,heck they can't even enforce dog licencing or leash law. 

Well, get your online protesting done while you still can. Thursday the Senate approved the internet "kill switch" for online communications.

Your papers please, Comrade.

BE4U- do you have a link to that I can read?

The kill switch is hype, don't bother.

Here's a link to the bill:
hsgac.senate.gov/public/

Hummm all hype ? I don't think so Travels .... the bill passed on Thursday is a face-lift restoration of Sen. Jay Rockefeller's Cyber Security Act of 2009 and continued from that Communications Act passed 1 month after the 1941 December attack on Pearl Harbor by those Japanese.

If you go back and READ and compare both the 1941 Commissions Act and Rockefeller's Cybersecurity 2009 Act with the new Cyber Security Act  passed on Thursday ... it's gives the President an instant "kill switch" on demand of all private sector domestic and foreign internet and electronic "smart" communications. Also, it can be in effect for 120 days before Congress is even notified for approval, something that for one, is illegal via the Constitution and two, not in any of the previous Communication Acts. This is only one issue I'm mentioning here.

On a brighter note, we now know we need a 120 (at least) 2nd option. Well water ? Carrier Pigeons ?  Q-Code auxiliary radios ?  Vegetable-oil burners to cook ?  lol

But I dunno, maybe your right, it's all HYPE !!!! 

Edit: link (even the media isn't mentioning everything)
www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/08/28/senate-president-emergency-control-internet/

And why can't we just read the bill?  Why do we need Fox to interpret for us?

"BE4U- do you have a link to that I can read?"

Here's the truth, Kelly:

tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/06/joe-lieberman-and-the-myth-of-the-internet-kill-switch.php