VoyForums

[ VoyUser Login optional ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, [2], 3 ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 22:00:09 02/22/02 Fri
Author: Sheri Smith
Subject: Re: PPA LEGISLATIVE ALERT FROM AKC- 2/21
In reply to: Maureen 's message, "PPA LEGISLATIVE ALERT FROM AKC- 2/21" on 11:48:35 02/21/02 Thu

>URGENT: Ask Farm Bill Conferees to Delete the
>Puppy Protection Act from the Farm Bill Conference
>Report
>
>
>February 21, 2002
>
>On February 13, 2002 the Senate voted to include the
>Puppy Protection Act in the Senate farm bill. Although
>Senator Rick Santorum (R-PA), the lead sponsor of the
>PPA, made several minor last minute alterations in the
>bill, it is still unacceptable to purebred dog
>fanciers. Senator Santorum continues to tell fanciers
>and his colleagues that the PPA targets only "puppy
>mills" and will not affect hobby and show breeders.
>However, Senator Santorum rejected AKC's efforts to
>include language in the PPA, and even in Senate floor
>discussion, that would limit the PPA only to the
>commercial breeders currently regulated under the
>Animal Welfare Act.
>
>The farm bill now heads to a "conference committee" of
>Senators and Representatives who will attempt to
>reconcile differences in the Senate and House versions
>and produce a "clean bill" that the two chambers can
>agree on and send to the President. The conferees have
>their work cut out for them. The Senate farm bill,
>which is not yet printed, is expected to run to nearly
>1400 pages because of all the non-farm-program content
>like the PPA inserted by various senators. The House
>bill is "only" about 350 pages.
>
>There is no PPA provision in the House farm bill.
>Therefore the conferees have broad latitude to drop
>the PPA from the farm bill completely, adopt the
>Senate version of the PPA, or come up with a different
>provision. The AKC is urging conferees to eliminate
>the PPA from the farm bill.
>
>Although the conferees for the farm bill have not yet
>been named, a list of likely conferees appears at the
>end of this alert. This list will be updated if
>necessary. All fanciers are urged to communicate with
>your Senators and Representative and ask them to
>eliminate the PPA from the farm bill. Two model
>letters are included at the end of this alert, one for
>persons who are constituents of conferees and one for
>those who are not constituents of conferees. Even if
>your senators or representative are not conferees, you
>can still help by sending the model letter below, or a
>letter you make up yourself, asking your member to
>talk to the conferees and urge them to drop the PPA
>from the farm bill. This kind of member-to-member
>lobbying can be very effective. For fanciers who are
>constituents of conferees, your letters directly to
>the conferees are obviously very important.
>
>Congress is under great pressure to conference the
>farm bill quickly because the agricultural planting
>season is rapidly approaching. Therefore, contacts
>with conferees must be made immediately. Please
>remember that the number of communications is
>important. Don't rely only on your club secretary or
>Legislative Liaison to make a contact. Every fancier
>should make a contact.
>
>U.S. mail to the Washington D.C. offices of Senators
>and Representatives is still very slow because of the
>anthrax scare. However, written communications are
>still the most effective. Therefore, we suggest faxing
>your letter to your members at the Washington office
>fax numbers shown below. We have provided local office
>telephone numbers and e-mail addresses for those who
>do not want to write a letter. Phone calls and e-mails
>are helpful, but letters are most effective. (Don't
>hesitate to do all three.)
>
>Following are the AKC's objections to the PPA
>provisions in the Senate farm bill:
>
>The PPA requires the federal government to set
>standards for when to breed and how frequently to
>breed dogs. The decision on whether and when to breed
>should be made by owners, not the federal government.
>Currently the Animal Welfare Act does not regulate
>breeding practices for any species regulated under the
>Act. We believe it is a dangerous precedent and
>unnecessary for the federal government to begin
>attempting to control the breeding of domestic animals.
>
>
>The PPA requires the federal government to establish
>and enforce "socialization" standards for puppies and
>dogs. There is no basis in current science, and no
>consensus among breeders, veterinarians or animal
>behaviorists, as to what constitutes acceptable
>"socialization standards". Breeders follow a myriad of
>different practices for socializing dogs and puppies
>depending on the circumstances in which the animals
>are kept, the purposes for which they are breed, and
>differences in breeds and in individual dogs. Forcing
>the federal government to develop and enforce a
>socialization standard would mire the government in
>endless controversy, and would become an enforcement
>nightmare.
>
>
>The PPA imposes a three-strikes-and-you're-out
>standard on violators of the Animal Welfare Act. This
>provision does not give the USDA any authority it does
>not already have; it only reduces the discretion of
>the Department in dealing with violators. It will mire
>the Department down in bureaucratic requirements and
>litigation because it will create an incentive for
>dealers to challenge every violation rather than
>providing an incentive to come into compliance. It
>does not address the real enforcement problem, which
>is persons operating without a license or with a
>suspended or revoked license.
>
>
>Although the proponents of the PPA say that it is
>intended to apply only to the approximately 3000 dog
>dealers licensed under current USDA regulations, the
>same groups are supporting litigation that would bring
>all persons who buy or sell dogs for hunting, breeding
>or security purposes, or for use as a pet, under
>licensing except actual retail pet stores. This would
>require USDA to go into hundreds of thousands of
>individual homes to inspect and regulate the
>conditions under which hobby and show breeders and
>ordinary pet owners maintain their pets, including how
>and when they breed and how they socialize their dogs
>and puppies.
>Likely Farm Bill Conferees:
>
>Senate
>
>The Hon. Thad Cochran (R-MS)
>senator@cochran.senate.gov
>202-224-5054
>202-224-9450 (fax)
>District offices: Jackson, 601-965-4459;
>Oxford, 662-236-1018
>
>The Hon. Kent Conrad (D-ND)
>senator@conrad.senate.gov
>202-224-2043
>202-224-7776 (fax)
>District offices: Bismark, 701-258-4648; Fargo,
>701-232-8030; Grand Forks, 701-775-9601; Minot,
>701-852-0703
>
>The Hon. Tom Daschle (D-SD)
>tom_dashchle@daschle.senate.gov
>202-224-2321
>202-224-7895 (fax)
>District offices: Aberdeen, 605-225-8823; Sioux Falls,
>605-334-9596; Rapid City, 605-348-7551
>
>* The Hon. Tom Harkin (D-IA)
>tom_harkin@harkin.senate.gov
>202-224-3254
>202-224-9369 (fax)
>District offices: Des Moines, 515-284-4574; Cedar
>Rapids, 3196-365-4504;
>Davenport, 319-322-1338 Dubuque,
>319-582-2130; Sioux City, 712-252-1550
>
>The Hon. Jesse Helms (R-NC)
>jesse_helms@helms.senate.gov
>202-224-6342
>202-228-1339 (fax)
>District offices: Raleigh, 919-856-4630, Hickory,
>828-322-5170
>
>* The Hon. Patrick Leahy (D-VT)
>senator_leahy@leahy.senate.gov
>202-224-4242
>202-224-3479 (fax)
>District offices: Burlington, 802-863-2525;
>Montpelier, 802-229-0569
>
>The Hon. Richard Lugar (R-IN)
>senator_lugar@lugar.senate.gov
>202-224-4814
>202-228-0360
>District offices: Indianapolis, 317-226-5555;
>Jeffersonville, 812-288-3377; Ft. Wayne,
>219-422-1505; Merrillville, 219-736-9084; Evansville,
>812-465-6313
>
>House
>
>The Hon. John Boehner (R-OH)
>john.boehner@mail.house.gov
>202-225-6205
>202-225-0704 (fax)
>District offices: Hamilton, 513-870-0300; Troy,
>937-339-1524
>
>The Hon. Saxby Chambliss (R-GA)
>saxby.chambliss@mail.house.gov
>202-225-6531
>202-225-3013 (fax)
>District offices: Macon, 912-752-0800; Waycross,
>912-287-1180
>
>The Hon. Eva Clayton (D-NC)
>eclayton1@mail.house.gov
>202-225-3101
>202-225-3354 (fax)
>District offices: Norlina, 252-456-4800; Greenville,
>252-758-8800
>
>The Hon. Larry Combest (R-TX)
>E-mail not available
>202-225-4005
>202-225-9615 (fax)
>District offices: Lubbock, 806-763-1611; Amarillo,
>806-353-3945; Odessa, 915-332-0742
>
>The Hon. Gary Condit (D-CA)
>rep.condit@mail.house.gov
>202-225-6131
>202-225-0819 (fax)
>District offices: Modesto, 209-527-1914;
>Mered, 209-383-4455
>
>The Hon. Calvin Dooley (D-CA)
>E-mail not available
>202-225-3341
>202-225-9308 (fax)
>District office: Fresno, 559-441-7496
>
>The Hon. Terry Everett (R-AL)
>terry.everett@mail.house.gov
>202-225-2901
>202-225-8913 (fax)
>District offices: Dothan, 334-794-9680, Montgomery,
>334-277-9113, Opp, 334-493-9253
>
>The Hon. Bob Goodlatte (R-VA)
>talk2bob@mail.house.gov
>202-225-5431
>202-225-9681 (fax)
>District offices: Roanoke, 540-857-2672, Staunton,
>540-885-3861, Harrisonburg,
>540-432-2391; Lynchburg, 804-845-8306
>
>The Hon. Tim Holden (D-PA)
>E-mail not available
>202-225-5546
>202-226-0996 (fax)
>District offices: Pottsville, 570-622-4212, Reading,
>610-371-9931
>
>The Hon. Frank Lucas (R-OK)
>replucas@mail.house.gov
>202-225-5565
>202-225-8698 (fax)
>District offices: Oklahoma City, 405-235-5311;
>Woodward, 580-256-5752; Enid, 580-233-9224; Clinton,
>580-323-6232
>
>The Hon. Jerry Moran (R-KS)
>jerry.moran@mail.house.gov
>202-225-2715
>202-225-5124 (fax)
>District offices: Hutchinson, 316-665-6138; Hays,
>785-628-6401
>
>The Hon. Collin Peterson (D-MN)
>tocollin.peterson@mail.house.gov
>202-225-2165
>202-225-1593 (fax)
>District offices: Detroit Lakes, 218-847-5056; Waite
>Park, 320-259-0559; Red Lake Falls,
>218-253-4356
>
>The Hon. Richard Pombo (R-CA)
>Rpombo@mail.house.gov
>202-225-1947
>202-226-0861 (fax)
>District office: Stockton, 209-951-3091
>
>The Hon. Charles Stenholm (D-TX)
>E-mail not available
>202-225-6605
>202-225-2234 (fax)
>District offices: Stamford, 915-773-3623; Abilene,
>915-673-7221,
>San Angelo, 915-655-7994
>
>(*) indicates cosponsor of the PPA
>
>
>MODEL LETTER TO BE SENT TO MEMBERS OF CONGRESS
>WHO ARE FARM BILL CONFEREES
>
>
>Dear [Senator/Congressman _________]:
>
>I am writing to express my strong opposition to the
>inclusion of the Santorum "Puppy Protection Act" (PPA)
>in the Senate farm bill (S. 1731/H.R.2646). I
>understand that you are likely to be a conferee on the
>farm bill. For the reasons below, I am asking that you
>strike the "Puppy Protection Act from the conference
>report on the farm bill.
>
>[Include a SHORT paragraph about yourself and your dog
>interest, pointing out that you are a constituent of
>the conferee. Use the following as a model: "I live in
>[city and state]. I have bred, owned and shown
>Dalmatians for more than 15 years. I breed and raise a
>litter of puppies occasionally in my own home and sell
>my puppies at retail directly to persons who purchase
>them as their own household pet or for show or
>breeding purposes."]
>
>No hearings and no debate was ever held on the PPA in
>either the Senate or the House. The language of the
>PPA circumvented th normal legislative process, and
>the need for this legislation has not been established.
>
>The PPA would, for the first time, inject the federal
>government into controlling the breeding of domestic
>animals. The Animals Welfare Act currently does not
>regulate the breeding of any animal species. This is
>not an issue the federal government should become
>involved in. The PPA also requires the federal
>government to regulate the socialization of dogs and
>puppies. There is no scientific basis, and no
>consensus among breeders, veterinarians or animal
>behaviorists, about standards for socialization of
>puppies and adult dogs. The PPA sets a dangerous
>precedent for the intrusion of the federal government
>into new areas of regulation that should remain the
>province of breeders.
>
>The amendment also contains new enforcement provisions
>that would actually reduce the USDA's enforcement
>discretion in obtaining compliance with its
>regulations by dog dealers. It would mire the agency
>in bureaucratic requirements and litigation, resulting
>in less rather than more effective enforcement.
>
>Again, I strongly urge you as a likely farm bill
>conferee not to support inclusion of the PPA in the
>conference report on the farm bill.
>
>Thank you.
>
>Sincerely yours,
>
>
>MODEL LETTER TO BE SENT TO MEMBERS OF CONGRESS
>WHO ARE NOT FARM BILL CONFEREES
>
>
>Dear [Senator/Congressman _________]:
>
>I am writing to express my strong opposition to
>inclusion of the Santorum "Puppy Protection Act" (PPA)
>as an amendment to the Senate farm bill (S.
>1731/H.R.2646). For the reasons below, I am asking
>that you speak to your colleagues who will be
>conferees on the farm bill and ask them to strike the
>"Puppy Protection Act" from the conference report on
>the farm bill.
>
>[Include a SHORT paragraph about yourself and your dog
>interest, using the following example as a model. "I
>have owned, bred and shown Dalmatians for more than 15
>years. I breed and raise a litter of puppies
>occasionally in my own home and sell my puppies at
>retail directly to persons who purchase them as their
>own household pet or for show or breeding purposes."]
>
>No hearings and no debate was ever held on the
>Santorum amendment in either the Senate or the House.
>The need for this legislation has not been
>established, and the language of the amendment
>circumvented the normal legislative process.
>
>The PPA would, for the first time, inject the federal
>government into controlling the breeding of domestic
>animals. The Animals Welfare Act currently does not
>regulate the breeding of any animal species. This is
>not an issue the federal government should become
>involved in. The PPA also requires the federal
>government to regulate the socialization of dogs and
>puppies. There is no scientific basis, and no
>consensus among breeders, veterinarians or animal
>behaviorists, about standards for socialization of
>puppies and adult dogs. The PPA sets a dangerous
>precedent for the intrusion of the federal government
>into new areas of regulation that should remain the
>province of breeders.
>
>The amendment also contains new enforcement provisions
>that would actually reduce the USDA's enforcement
>discretion in obtaining compliance with its
>regulations by dog dealers. It would mire the agency
>in bureaucratic requirements and litigation, resulting
>in less rather than more effective enforcement.
>
>Again, please discuss this provision with your
>colleagues who are farm bill conferees, and ask them
>to remove the PPA from the final bill.
>
>Thank you.
>
>Sincerely yours,
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Home | Breeds | Life with Dogs | Dog Events |
>Clubs | Shop AKC | Registration | News |
>Inside AKC
>
>© 2002 American Kennel Club | Contact AKC |
>Corporate Advertising | Privacy statement | About
>This Site
>
>
>
>BreedsBy NameFeatured BreedBreeders SearchClubsRescue
>GroupsAbout...Life With DogsGet a DogCareTrainingDogs
>& KidsBreeder EducationPublic EducationFAQsDog
>EventsEvent InformationCompanion Dog
>EventsConformation EventsPerformance
>EventsJudgesHandler's ProgramJuniorsResults &
>ReportsTelevised EventsClubsFind a ClubForm a
>ClubSeminarsRescue ClubsEnter StoreMerchandiseOnline
>ReportsMagazinesWhat's NewRegistrationDogs &
>LittersApplications & RulesSpecial Registry
>ServicesDNAStatisticsFront PageLegislative
>AlertsFeaturesEvent ResultsArchiveNew On Our
>SiteInside AKCMinutes & ReportsBoard Policy Manual
>OnlineStructureAbout this SiteStatisticsWorld of
>AKCMagazinesContact AKCEmploymentFAQsCanine Health
>FoundationDog MuseumBuying A PuppyCare and
>TrainingHealthcare and NutritionKids' CornerCanine
>LegislationPublic EducationCreate Your Account

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]
[ Contact Forum Admin ]

Forum timezone: GMT-8
VF Version: 2.94, ConfDB:
Before posting please read our privacy policy.
VoyForums(tm) is a Free Service from Voyager Info-Systems.
Copyright © 1998-2008 Voyager Info-Systems. All Rights Reserved.