VoyForums
[ Show ]
Support VoyForums
[ Shrink ]
VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, 3, [4] ]

[ 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: 3.00b, ConfDB:
Before posting please read our privacy policy.
VoyForums(tm) is a Free Service from Voyager Info-Systems.
Copyright © 1998-2019 Voyager Info-Systems. All Rights Reserved.