PPA redux
We all knew it was coming and it's arrived right on schedule! The Humane Society
of the United States (HSUS) has just begun shopping a new version of the mislabeled
Puppy Protection Act to their activist constituents in order to jump-start support
for reintroduction. This year's draft does not include the controversial socialization
standards that were in the 2001 proposal, but retains other nice sounding, but
ill-conceived provisions.
Lead shopper in the effort on behalf of HSUS is John
Paul (JP) Goodwin, a former convict and spokesman for the Animal Liberation
Front. Founder of the Coalition Against the Fur Trade, Goodwin advocated animal
releases and arson to drive fur farmers out of business. He pled guilty to vandalizing
fur stores in 1993 and spent more than two years under house arrest. After his
release, he used the rest of the decade to encourage activists to use theft,
vandalism, and fire against furriers and mink farmers. In 2000, he decided to
switch to politics instead of violence to further his animal rights agenda.
HSUS hired him in 2001, giving him access to its $100 million treasury to achieve
his goal for "... the abolition of all animal agriculture."1
In 1996, Goodwin said in a speech at an animal rights conference2:
"It's time for the animal rights movement to take this industry and drive the
final nail into the coffin by whatever means it takes. If that means being outside
the executives houses, if that means blockading their doors, whatever it takes."
In his letter to drum up support for the latest HSUS bill to restrict dog breeding,
Goodwin said that Senators Rick Santorum (R-PA) and Richard Durbin (D-IL) and
Representatives Ed Whitfield (R-KY) and Sam Farr (D-CA) have agreed to introduce
the bill in both houses of Congress.
2001 PPA
The 2001 version of the puppy protection act was dropped from the Farm Appropriations
Bill by the House-Senate Conference Committee. That bill included the breeding
restriction, a socialization requirement, and a loosely-worded three strikes
provision that could have revoked a license for minor violations and prevented
revocation for a serious first-time offense. It was opposed by NAIA, the American
Kennel Club, the American Veterinary Medical Association, the Pet Industry Joint
Advisory Council, the Association of American Medical Colleges, the National
Association for Biomedical Research, the Cat Fanciers Association, individual
breed and kennel clubs, and thousands of responsible dog breeders.
As often happens, advocates of this legislation have whittled down the bill
in hopes of dividing opposition and thus increasing chances for passage. Gone
is the socialization requirement, but the three strikes and breeding restrictions
remain. As in the past, NAIA believes that all decisions regarding breeding
should be the province of the breeder and his veterinarian, not government,
and that any provisions for permanent revocation of licenses should be clearly
written so that they don't lead to negative consequences.
For more information about the puppy protection act of 2001, see "Good Intentions are not Enough!
Conference Committee Strips Puppy Protection Act from Farm Bill"
For more quotes from animal rights activists, see the NAIA collection of
quotes from AR leaders
- Goodwin statement on AR-Views, an animal-rights Internet discussion group,
in 1996.
- Goodwin speech at World Congress for Animals, June 20, 1996
|
