Congress zaps phony Puppy Protection Act from Farm Bill
NAIA, AKC led opposition
The long-awaited word came on Friday, April 26: the odious and falsely-named
Puppy Protection Act had been eliminated from the Farm Bill that sets US agricultural
policy for the next five years.
Sponsored by Senator Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania and heavily backed by the
Humane Society of the US, the Doris Day Animal League, and other animal rights
groups, the PPA was a scam designed to further restrict commercial dog breeders
and a carefully-crafted sub rosa threat for all breeders who own more than three
intact bitches. Introduced last October, the bill could not get a hearing on
its merits, so Senator Santorum proposed it as an undebated amendment to the
Farm Bill.
The National Animal Interest Alliance and the American Kennel Club led the
opposition, and the American Veterinary Medical Association added its voice.
Thousands of breeders, fanciers, exhibitors, dog clubs, and others contacted
their elected representatives to urge them to drop this burdensome piece of
legislation that does nothing more than forward the agenda of anti-breeding
groups.
“The PPA was inspired by special interest groups that fundraise using
emotional animal welfare issues,” said NAIA president Patti Strand. “As
such, it was based on sound bites and depended on evidence from those who aim
to restrict all dog breeding. While strongly supporting the elimination of substandard
breeding operations and thereby improving animal care, NAIA believes that any
legislation designed to do so should be grounded in science and reason as well
as good intentions.”
Noting that “Responsible breeders nationwide let their members of Congress
know that the PPA was bad public policy and would weaken the Animal Welfare
Act rather than improve it,” AKC worked with conferees in the House and
Senate to explain the shortcomings of the amendment.
AVMA said that the socialization provision in the PPA was “premature
and ill-advised” and that the breeding restrictions were “objectionable,”
going far beyond the scope of the Animal Welfare Act.
Background
The PPA was based on the false premise that purebred puppies in the US are
the product of “puppy mills,” an undefined, catch-all term used by
activists to invoke an image of filth, disease, and squalor and thereby discredit
dog breeding and the sale of purebred puppies. With the stage set on this illusory
foundation, the act would have allowed federal inspectors to determine when
and how often bitches could be bred and how puppies were to be socialized. Strangely,
though, it had the potential to weaken the current Animal Welfare Act by allowing
a licensed facility three violations of law in eight years before revocation
of the license. Currently, USDA can suspend or revoke licenses for a single
grievous violation.
While focusing on increasing the burden on licensed facilities, the PPA did
nothing to aid USDA in its attempts to find unlicensed kennels that are operating
below its radar. The AWA gives the agency the responsibility to regulate kennels
that sell puppies to retail outlets but does not provide the authority to track
puppies from the retailer to the supplier, thus allowing unlicensed and perhaps
substandard kennels to escape scrutiny.
Broader implications
While aimed at undefined “puppy mills,” the PPA had the potential
to impact all who own more than three intact bitches and sell their offspring.
Although activists scoffed at the idea that purebred dog enthusiasts have anything
to fear from the PPA and similar attempts to further restrict commercial dog
breeding, they carefully omitted any mention of a 2001 court ruling that all
breeders with more then three intact bitches should be licensed under the AWA.
Activists dragged breed enthusiasts into the puppy mill picture by attacking
the American Kennel Club for registering commercially-bred dogs and charging
that the AWA covers all breeders, not just those who sell to retail outlets.
After a long, drawn-out campaign, the Doris Day Animal League won a judge’s
decision ordering USDA to expand enforcement of the AWA to all dog and cat breeders
in the US.
USDA is appealing the decision, but loss of the appeal could have serious
consequences for dog breeders and could conceivably result in fewer inspections
of large commercial kennels as the resources of the agency are spread thin.
In conclusion
The PPA was based on propaganda generated from a mixture of extreme cases
and a deliberate blurring of the distinctions between the bad kennels that all
responsible people want to close and kennels that operate within the law, sometimes
with superior, even state-of-the-art care and facilities. It was promoted by
groups that depend on the emotional impact of legislative campaigns to raise
money for their coffers and bring their anti-breeding agenda into mainstream
thought.
“Everyone should be concerned about the well-being of animals,”
said Strand, “but when we pass laws to regulate these operations, we need
to make sure that our decisions are based on facts and sound reasoning, not
propaganda. Otherwise our efforts will do little more than address distractions
while real problems remain unresolved. It’s difficult to make good decisions
in an atmosphere where fundraising is paramount and emotionalism rules the day.”
Animal rights activists attempted to load the Farm Bill with more amendments
to further their agenda. See the related piece on page 19 to read the results.
For More Information
|
