|
HOORAY!
Conference Committee Strips Puppy Protection Act from Farm Bill
•
The Puppy Protection
Act
•
NAIA
Position
•
The
Real Problems
•
In Conclusion
Members
of the US House-Senate conference committee
said "no" to the so-called
Puppy Protection Act (PPA) and omitted
it from the final version of the Farm
Bill.
After
wading through reams of sensationalized
material, Senators and Representatives
determined that, although it was drafted
with good intentions, the PPA offered
only misguided, unenforceable public
policy. The failure of the PPA proves
that leaving animal experts out of the
process produces bad results.
"The
PPA was inspired by special interest
groups that fundraise using emotional
animal welfare issues," said Patti
Strand, president of the National Animal
Interest Alliance. "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."
The
American Veterinary Medical Association
(AVMA) and the American Kennel Club
(AKC), organizations that also promote
animal well-being and oppose substandard
breeding operations,
also opposed the PPA.
The
Puppy Protection Act
The Act had three provisions, none of
which were acceptable to knowledgeable
dog professionals and enthusiasts.
1.
Breeding frequency: The PPA breeding
frequency provision would have created
a precedent in the Animal Welfare Act
(AWA) by transferring the authority
for breeding decisions from breeders
to the federal government. Doing so
would have prevented even the most responsible
breeders and owners from working with
their veterinarians to make appropriate
breeding decisions about the health
and well-being of an individual animal.
NAIA agrees with the AVMA that the decision
of when to breed or not breed an animal
is an animal health issue best left
to professional judgment.
2.
Socialization standards: NAIA strongly
opposes the imposition of socialization
standards before they are developed
by the groups most qualified to draft
them. NAIA agrees with the AVMA that
the socialization provision was "premature
and ill-advised" and supports the
AKC's conclusion that there is no basis
in current science and no consensus
among breeders, veterinarians or animal
behaviorists as to what constitutes
acceptable "socialization standards."
3.
Enforcement provision: The three-strikes-and-you're-out"
provision was so poorly written it could
actually have hampered USDA's ability
to revoke licenses for a single violation
that severely
harmed animals and could have led to
regulatory abuses.
NAIA
Position
NAIA opposes substandard breeding kennels
commonly called "puppy mills"
and strongly supports their closure.
The PPA, however, failed to effectively
address the most critical issue of enforcement
and placed responsible hobby breeders
in the same category with irresponsible,
large-scale breeders.
The
Real Problems
The number one problem plaguing the
commercial dog-breeding world is the
large number of commercial kennels that
operate in violation of the AWA without
being licensed by the US Department
of Agriculture (USDA). Current interpretation
of the law hinders USDA from tracking
pet store puppies back to their suppliers,
a situation that hampers the agency's
ability to locate illegally operating
kennels. The number one priority for
people who want bad kennels closed is
to identify the illegal operations that
currently duck USDA licensing requirements.
Another
problem is that large breeders in Eastern
Europe and other foreign locales have
found a ready market for their puppies
in the US. It appears that the production
of most of these puppies is totally
unregulated. NAIA would like Congress
to consider legislation to assure American
consumers that the puppies and dogs
sold in international commerce are healthy
and raised in conditions that would
be acceptable under the AWA, regardless
of their country of origin.
NAIA
also notes that campaigns to stop pet
overpopulation have been so successful
they have caused a shortage of puppies
and small dogs in many shelters. Rather
than declare success and close their
doors, some of these shelters now pay
for puppies and dogs and import them
from other cities, territories and countries
so they will have dogs available for
adoption. NAIA believes some of the
rescue groups and shelters participating
in this relocation
process are acting as dealers and pet
stores and should be licensed accordingly.
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 ones that operate
within the law, sometimes with superior,
even state-of-the-art care and facilities.
The PPA 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 treatment
and 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."
NAIA
thanks and congratulates all the people
who worked tirelessly to defeat the
PPA. Without your work and the superb
leadership of the American Kennel Club,
this outcome would never have resulted.
|
