USDA (and dog fanciers!) win in appeal
The US Court of Appeals agreed with the US Department of Agriculture that hobby
breeders should not be federally licensed and inspected and overturned a lower
court decision in an animal rights lawsuit in a decision filed on January 14,
2003.
NAIA congratulates AKC for its success on behalf of the dog fancy in opposing
the lawsuit and working with USDA to find and deal with substandard kennels
that have avoided compliance with the AWA. As a result of its standing as the
leading registry for purebred dogs, AKC was granted permission to file a friend
of the court brief to support the USDA appeal.
The court decision noted that USDA had acted within its authority to write
regulations that provide the most efficient use of resources to implement the
Animal Welfare Act and that federal oversight of home breeders could result
in government intrusion on private property.
The suit was filed by the Doris Day Animal League after USDA declined to make
regulatory changes that would bring all dog breeders under federal oversight.
The original court decision determined that Congress did not intend to exempt
breeders who produce and sell puppies from their homes, but the appeals court
said that Congress did not address the situation one way or another but instead
entrusted the Secretary of Agriculture with the job of writing regulations to
implement the AWA.
The court further found that the Secretary was within his authority to depend
on existing oversight of home breeders by the public, by breeder organizations
and through state and local laws. The decision noted this argument made by USDA:
“Second, we have determined that retail dealers, especially those who
sell from their homes, are already subject to a degree of self-regulation and
oversight by persons who purchase animals from the retailers’ homes, as
well as by breed and registry organizations. Breed and registry organizations,
such as kennel clubs, require their registrants to meet certain guidelines related
to the health and genetic makeup of animals bred and to the education of the
registrants. These organizations also monitor the conditions under which animals
are bred and raised. Wholesale dealers typically do not have this type of oversight
from the public.”
The opinion concluded as follows:
“While plaintiffs are unhappy about the degree of self-regulation and
the amount of oversight from local humane societies, kennel clubs, and state
agencies, the Secretary, applying his expertise, was entitled to rely on these
factors in making his judgment about the need for federal regulation. And he
was entitled also to differentiate retail sales from wholesale sales of dogs
on the basis that “wholesale dealers typically do not have this type of
oversight from the public.”
“The Secretary also declined to amend the definition on the ground that
the best interest of animal welfare is supported by allowing the Department
to ‘concentrate [its] resources on those facilities that present the greatest
risk of noncompliance with the regulations.’ The Department has decided
to focus on wholesale dealers, where its resources are likely to yield the greatest
benefit. This is a reasonable choice, keeping in mind the purpose of the Act
to promote animal welfare. It was also within the authority delegated to him
by Congress for the Secretary to decline to amend the definition in light of
the potential invasions of privacy that would result if federal inspectors began
enforcing ‘cleaning, sanitation, handling, and other regulatory requirements
in private homes.’”
Details of the court decision can be found on the AKC website (www.akc.org),
and background information is available in these NAIA articles:
AKC files ‘friend of the court’ brief: Appeal
of DDAL lawsuit set for November
NAIA, AKC led opposition: Congress zaps phony Puppy
Protection Act from Farm Bill
USDA to appeal: Court sides with DDAL interpretation
of AWA
This article appeared in NAIA News, Winter 2002-2003 issue.
|
