PPA Redux

PPA Redux


By: Norma Bennett Woolf  Date: 01/9/2012 Category: | Animal Legislation |

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



About The Author

Norma Bennett Woolf's photo
Norma Bennett Woolf -

Editor and Writer for the National Animal Interest Alliance.




All Authors Of This Article: | Norma Bennett Woolf |

 

Discussions

 

blog comments powered by Disqus