Taking Command: December 2003

Editor's Note

Yet another year draws to a close, and with it brings our annual Year in Review issue-a chance to look back at some of the significant activities of 2003. Several long-fought battles, from airline embargoes to the DDAL lawsuit, culminated in victories this year thanks in large part to the efforts of the fancy. At the state and local level, Legislative Liaisons were able to lead their clubs and federations to many similarly important wins, such as the defeat of breed-specific legislation in New Jersey. A quick review of the bills we tackled, however, proves that the rights of responsible dog owners continue to be threatened on many levels. 2004 will no doubt be an equally challenging year.

Even as 2003 is ending, a new fight is beginning. A revised version of the Puppy Protection Act was introduced in November, bringing with it many of the same concerns that were raised when fanciers first confronted it two years ago. Please see the story on page 4 for details.
Many thanks to everyone for your tireless legislative efforts throughout this year. Best wishes for a safe and happy holiday season.

Regards,



The Year in Review

CALIFORNIA - California sportsmen could have been severely impacted by AB342, which would have prohibited all hunting with dogs or training for that purpose. AKC and resident fanciers opposed the bill, even after it was amended to focus solely on hunting black bears and bobcats, because of concern that passage could be a first step toward the end of hunting. In April, AB342 was soundly rejected in committee by a vote of 19-0. It was granted reconsideration but has not seen action since.

- San Francisco owners officially became "guardians" in January without the mayor's signature. The new ordinance amends the city's animal control code to use the terms "guardian" and "owner" interchangeably. The AKC and San Francisco fanciers opposed the measure for several years, arguing that the change could remove residents' legal rights to protect their dogs while doing nothing to prevent a person from abusing animals.

COLORADO - H1260 would have elevated the status of pets from property to "companions" by allowing owners to collect damages of up to $100,000 from veterinarians whose negligent care resulted in the injury or death of a pet. Owners could also have collected the same amount from any person who cruelly tortured or killed a pet. The bill also required veterinarians to obtain an owner's written consent before performing a service involving substantial risk to a companion dog or cat, and to discuss alternative approaches to the procedure. The Colorado Federation of Dog Clubs worked closely with the veterinary community and other allied groups to defeat the bill.

GEORGIA - H347 was enacted this summer. The law revises the state's Veterinary Practice Act, defining certain practices and clarifying the powers and duties of the State Board of Medicine. It also provides for the licensing of veterinarians, but unlike some similar bills that have been introduced elsewhere, it does not prohibit owners from treating their own dogs for common ailments. H347 was based on the American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA)'s Model Veterinary Practice Act. In May, the AKC submitted comments to the AVMA regarding the model's very broad definitions "alternative therapies" and "practice of veterinary medicine." The letter cited AKC's concern that such vague language could easily encompass activities performed by responsible breeders and owners, such as the administration of an aspirin.

HAWAII - After long debate, the state finally relaxed its one-month quarantine law for pets. Pets entering Hawaii may now be released after five days if their owners meet various pre-arrival requirements. These include documentation of two rabies vaccinations, microchip implantation, and blood test results showing the rabies vaccination was successful. However, due to rabies' long inoculation period, visitors will have to wait 120 days after the blood test is submitted before being eligible for the program. AKC believes that contemporary vaccinations, microchipping techniques and appropriate record-keeping have made any form of pet quarantine requirement unnecessary and in fact lobbied for the quarantine to be eliminated. However, we were pleased that the state made some positive progress toward easing the burden on pets and owners.

ILLINOIS - H184 was signed into law despite opposition from AKC, the Illinois Dog Breeders Association and other dog owners. The bill contained many provisions that strengthen the state's dangerous dog law, and AKC supported this language. However, H184 also requires municipalities to establish animal licensing and litter fees, and allows municipalities to require microchipping for all dogs. AKC and fanciers objected to breeding restriction and mandatory microchipping provisions, and they asked the governor to do the same. Unfortunately, the bill passed and many municipalities including Madison and Cook counties are already considering ordinances based on H184.

IOWA - Overwhelming opposition by Iowa fanciers lead to the temporary defeat of S446. The bill, which originally declared all Rottweilers, Dobermans and "pit bulls" dangerous, was amended to declare all unleashed or unmuzzled dogs dangerous regardless of their behavior. Furthermore, any dog that entered another person's property could immediately have been seized and destroyed by the property owner without liability.

The legislature carries over to 2004, so this poorly-worded bill could be reconsidered next year. AKC will continue to monitor the situation and alert fanciers to any new developments.

KANSAS - Wichita fanciers were quick to mobilize in response to proposed breed-specific legislation in their area. Well-organized and well-armed with AKC materials, dog owners worked together to defeat the measure in favor of a more reasonable dangerous dog law. In the process, fanciers developed new, positive relationships with many city officials with a view toward working together on future issues.

MARYLAND - Strong opposition from the Maryland Dog Federation and AKC helped defeat H355. The bill would have restricted dog owners' right to surgically debark their dogs unless the procedure was done to protect the life of the animal. Debarking is sometime used as a last resort by owners of noisy dogs when all other training measured had failed, but H355 would have made this a felony, punishable by up to five years in prison and/or $5000 in fines.

NEBRASKA - LB273 and LB274 became laws in March. LB273 establishes housing requirements for commercial breeders, including having ample food and water, sanitary conditions and adequate space for dog and cats to move around. A commercial breeder is currently defined as: (1) a person who owns 4 or more unaltered dogs or cats who is engaged in the business of breeding and who sells, exchanges or leases dogs and cats, (2) a person who sells, exchanges or leases more than 30 dogs and cats per year, (3) a person knowingly selling, exchanging, or leasing any dogs or cats for later retail sale. LB274 requires pet dealers to provide buyers with information about the benefits of spaying and neutering. Pet dealer is defined as anyone who is engaged in the selling or buying for resale over 30 dogs or cats per year.

NEWS HAMPSHIRE - Dog Owners of the Granite State (DOGS) quickly grew concerned about their rights when S79 was introduced this year. The potentially invasive bill allowed any police, animal control or humane society officer to seize a person's animals if they were suspected of cruelty, and it gave the officers extremely broad authority in dealing with the animals. DOGS lobbied to have the bill amended so that it only pertains to those suspected of harboring or breeding fighting animals.

NEW JERSEY - The New Jersey Federation of Dog Clubs and other determined fanciers in the state successfully convinced Asm. Burzichelli to withdraw A2906 in May. The breed-specific bill would have required a special license for all "pit bulls," including American Pit Bull Terriers, American Staffordshire Terriers, Staffordshire Bull Terriers and other bull breeds. The bill also provided strict provisions for keeping pit bulls, with violators facing fines up to $1000 per day. A ground swell of opposition from concerned dog owners resulted in victory, however a companion bill (S2391) still lingers in the Senate. S2391 did not see movement for the second half of the year, but New Jersey's legislative session carriers over to 2004, so fanciers should monitor the issue closely.

NEW MEXICO - Congratulations to New Mexico fanciers on their successful efforts to defeat H19. H19 would have established the crime of animal hoarder, defining "hoarder" as one who possessed over 15 animals and failed to provide adequate nutrition, shelter and veterinary care. Fanciers were extremely concerned that anyone who owned more than 15 animals could have had them seized under the presumption that they were a "hoarder." In a determined and well-organized opposition campaign, fanciers flooded their representatives with phone calls, faxes and e-mails in order to kill the bill.

NORTH DAKOTA - The Board of Animal Health (BOAH) voted unanimously to drop an import permit requirement for dogs and cats entering the state. The excessive regulation was part of a temporary rule enacted in response to Europe's outbreak of Foot-and-Mouth Disease nearly two years ago. If permanently enforced, the rule would have negatively impacted hunters, dog show attendees, and residents returning with their pets from vacations. The AKC and many concerned dog owners expressed their opposition to the requirement when the board took public comments on the rule earlier this year.

OHIO - In August, Cincinnati's City Council voted to reinstate their ban on "pit bulls." Current owners of pit bulls (which include Staffordshire Bull Terriers and American Staffordshire Terriers) must now microchip and tattoo their animals, as well as obtain $50,000 liability insurance. New pit bulls were not permitted into the city after November 1. The move disappointed the AKC and fanciers who successfully fought for an end to the ban in 1999 in favor of strict care conditions for pit bulls that included registration of the animals. City officials claimed that owners were not complying with the registration requirement, leaving them no choice but to reinstate the ban.

- Ohio fanciers continue to monitor H195, which creates a puppy lemon law. After two committee hearings, the bill was sent back to the sponsor for revisions, and an amended version is expected early next year. Ohio Valley Dog Owners is still pressing for several changes, including a disclaimer absolving sellers if buyers are told in advance that no genetic testing has been done and no history is available.

RHODE ISLAND - Animal rights activists would have gained a huge victory had Rhode Island fanciers not fought so hard to oppose H5817. The bill threatened the rights of dog owners to protect their animals by blindly taking away animal care and control decisions and handing them over to humane agencies. Thankfully, Rhode Island fanciers were able to meet with key legislators and have many of the most onerous provisions removed, including one provision empowering "special humane agents" and another requiring 21 categories of professionals (including doctors, school employees, clergymen and photographers) to report suspected abuse and neglect. Amendments also removed references to bodily alterations, including cropping and docking and improved sections requiring the provision of aid to injured animals. H5817 will carry over to 2004, so fanciers should continue to monitor developments.

SOUTH CAROLINA - Congratulations to Spartanburg fanciers, who successfully opposed an ordinance requiring differential licensing fees and expensive permits for "breeding kennels." In a well-organized effort, residents were able to convince commissioners that breeding restrictions would not solve the county's problem with shelter overcrowding. County council members tabled the measure in November. For more information, contact Sandy (dogordinance@cs.com).

TENNESSEE - Nashville fanciers scored a hard-won victory in their defeat over proposed differential licensing. Residents spent many tireless months meeting with Metropolitan Council members, veterinarians and animal control staff. Calls were made, letters sent, and "Vote No on the Dog Tax" buttons created. The fancy's efforts paid off when the council rejected the measure in August. Dog owners and city officials are now teaming up to find better solutions to the city's animal control problems.

VIRGINIA - S950 became law in April. The legislation removes the definition of "companion animal rescue agency," eliminating the need for them to be licensed as the result of a law that passed last year. It also includes a clarified definition of "home-based rescue" and reduced fines for violations. Finally, the law eases the previously burdensome record keeping requirements for rescue groups and allows then to accept signed statements from potential adopters and foster care providers rather than having to do background checks on them.

WISCONSIN - Wisconsin breeders and rescue groups are concerned about a bill that could significantly affect them. Sponsored by Rep. Larry Balow, AB536 would require licensing and inspection of pet dealers and breeders, defined as those who sell, exchange or offer for adoption 25 or more pets per year. The bill authorizes the state's Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection to establish standards for operating as a pet breeder or dealer, and the program would be funded by an increase in licensing fees for all dog owners. Violators could face fines of up to $10,000 and 9 months in prison. For more information, contact Leonard Pokrywka, President, Dog Federation of Wisconsin (pokrywka@maqs.net).

UNITED STATES - H.R. 3484, a slightly modified version of the "Puppy Protection Act," was introduced by Rep. Ed Whitfield in November. Please see the article on page 4 for further details.

- In October, the U.S. Supreme Court denied the Doris Day Animal League's (DDAL) petition to appeal a case against the USDA that would have made all residential breeders of dogs and cats subject to federal licensing and inspection. The decision, which upholds an earlier ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, supports the current exemption of residential breeders who sell dogs only at retail from regulation under the Animal Welfare Act.

- The skies became friendlier for fanciers thanks to two successful grassroots campaigns by AKC and purebred dog owners. In March, United Airlines announced it would lift its restrictions on shipping dogs as excess baggage. The embargo was in place for nearly three years. Dog owners who choose United are now able to ship their animals unaccompanied as cargo, travel with them as excess baggage, or carry them on in the cabin if they fit under the seat. In May, after extensive negotiations, American Airlines reversed its ban on Rottweilers, Doberman Pinschers, American Staffordshire Terriers, Bull Terriers, American Pit Bull Terriers, and mixes of these breeds. All dogs are now accepted for shipment, and safer container requirements have been imposed. In both situations, purebred dog owners responded to AKC's call to action and flooded airline company officials with calls, letters and e-mails. AKC also worked behind the scenes with the Air Transport Authority, the International Air Trade Association and Members of Congress to secure these improvements.


Puppy Protection Act Introduced in the House
The so-called "Puppy Protection Act" (PPA) has been introduced in the House of Representatives by Rep. Ed Whitfield (R-KY) designated H.R. 3484. 36 co-sponsors have already signed onto the bill. H.R. 3484 is virtually identical to the PPA introduced by Whitfield in the 107th Congress, except that it does not require setting federal "socialization" standards for dogs. Companion legislation is expected to be introduced in the Senate shortly, sponsored by Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA). The AKC urges all fanciers to write or call your U.S. Representative asking him or her NOT TO COSPONSOR H.R. 3484.


The PPA is once again being promoted by the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS), a Washington-based animal rights organization that opposes all purposeful breeding of purebred dogs. The PPA would amend the federal Animal Welfare Act (AWA) to require the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) to regulate the breeding practices of dog breeders covered by the Act, including the frequency and age at which bitches are bred. It would also require the USDA to adopt a punitive "three-strikes-and-you're-out" enforcement policy revoking the license to breed and sell dogs of persons who commit three violations of the USDA's regulations over an eight year period. According to an HSUS press release, the decision to drop socialization standards from the current version of the PPA was a "strategic" decision intended to reduce opposition to the bill this year. Clearly the HSUS has not given up on the idea of socialization standards in the long run.


In the 107th Congress the PPA was opposed by the AKC, the American Veterinary Medical Association, most other animal interest organizations, and even some animal welfare organizations. An attempt to circumvent normal legislative processes and attach the PPA to the 2002 Farm Bill was soundly rejected by House-Senate conferees.
The AKC strongly supports the Animal Welfare Act and has a longstanding history of opposing substandard kennel operations. The AKC maintains care and condition standards which it enforces through regular inspections of all breeding establishments. In 2002 the AKC conducted more than 4000 kennel inspections. The AKC denies registration and other privileges to breeders who do not comply with the AKC's standards. Nevertheless, the AKC opposes H.R. 3484 because it is bad public policy and sets dangerous federal legislative precedents.

• The Animal Welfare Act currently does not regulate breeding practices of any species of animals. H.R. 3484 will, for the first time, thrust the federal government into a whole new arena of animal regulation. The federal government should not be in the business of specifying and regulating breeding practices of dog breeders. Furthermore, and very importantly, there is no scientific basis for the specific breeding restrictions included in H.R. 3484.
  
  
• The USDA's Animal Care regulations already require commercial dog breeders to follow a program of veterinary care developed and supervised by a licensed veterinarian to protect the health of all animals in commercial breeding facilities, including the breeding stock. Breeding decisions should be made by breeders and their veterinarians. H.R. 3484 would co-opt the judgment and discretion of breeders and veterinarians.
  
  
• As a practical matter, it will be impossible for the USDA, which enforces the Animal Welfare Act, to police breeding practices without imposing overwhelmingly intrusive burdens on persons who breed dogs.
  
  
• The "three-strikes-and-you're-out" approach to enforcement of the animal care regulations will undermine rather than enhance compliance with USDA's regulations. Rather than providing incentives to admit and promptly correct violations, it will create incentives to contest alleged violations, and bog down the USDA's enforcement process in litigation.
  
  
• Compliance with the Animal Welfare Act has improved substantially in recent years. Congress has increased appropriations for USDA enforcement by more than 50 percent over the past several budget cycles, and the number of USDA inspectors has nearly doubled. Industry groups such as the AKC also conduct educational programs and kennel inspections. The AKC alone conducted more than 4000 kennel inspections in 2002, about half as many kennel inspections annually as the USDA.
  
  
• Current USDA Animal Care regulations, including the veterinary care standards, strike an appropriate balance in protecting both the welfare of dogs in commercial breeding establishments and the public who purchase those dogs, without being overly intrusive or injecting the federal government into decisions which should properly be the province of individual dog breeders and owners. H.R. 3484 would upset this balance, and impose excessive burdens on small business owners without improving the welfare of animals.

The AKC believes that what is needed to improve the welfare of dogs in substandard kennel operations is not legislation imposing new standards on dog breeders, but legislation that strengthens the USDA's tools for achieving compliance with the existing standards. We believe the purpose of the Animal Welfare Act is to assure compliance with the Act, not put breeders out of business. H.R. 3484 would undermine rather than enhance the USDA's efforts to achieve compliance with the Act. The AKC is working with several members of Congress on the introduction of legislation that would strengthen enforcement of the Animal Welfare Act, and truly address the problems of commercial breeders who do not comply with the Act, without imposing additional restrictions on responsible breeders.


The AKC urges all fanciers to write or call their Representatives asking them not to co-sponsor H.R. 3484. The AKC has also sent letters to all members of the House of Representatives urging them not to cosponsor the bill.

What you can do:

• Contact your U.S. Representative in Washington. Ask them not to sponsor H.R. 3484 for the reasons stated above. To find out how to reach your representative or to read the text of the bill, please visit www.akc.org.
  
  

Roles of Congressional Staff

In lobbying Congress to oppose the Puppy Protection Act, fanciers may find themselves working with Congressional staff. Each Member of Congress has staff to assist him/her during a term in office. To be most effective in communicating with Congress, it is helpful to know the titles and principal functions of key staff. Here are some commonly used titles and job functions:

Administrative Assistant (AA) or Chief of Staff (CoS): The AA reports directly to the Member of Congress. He/she usually has overall responsibility for evaluating the political outcomes of various legislative proposals and constituent requests. The AA is usually the person in charge of overall office operations, including the assignment of work and the supervision of key staff.

Legislative Director (LD), Senior Legislative Assistant (Sr LA), or Legislative Counsel (LC): The LD is usually the staff person who monitors the legislative schedule and makes recommendations regarding the pros and cons of particular issues. In some congressional offices there are several LAs, and responsibilities are assigned to staff with particular expertise in certain areas. For example, depending on the responsibilities and interests of the Member, an office may include a different LA for health or environmental issues, taxes, etc.

Press Secretary (Press) or Communications Director (Comm Dir): The Press Secretary's responsibility is to build and maintain open and effective lines of communication between the Member, his/her constituency, and the general public. The Press Secretary is expected to know the benefits, demands, and special requirements of both print and electronic media, and how to most effectively promote the Member's views or position on specific issues.

Appointment Secretary (Appt), Personal Secretary, or Scheduler (Sch): The Appointment Secretary is usually responsible for allocating a Member's time among the many demands that arise from congressional responsibilities, staff requirements, and constituent requests. The Appointment Secretary may also be responsible for making necessary travel arrangements, arranging speaking dates, visits to the district, etc.

Caseworker: The Caseworker is the staff member usually assigned to help with constituent requests by preparing replies for the Member's signature. The Caseworker's responsibilities may also include helping resolve problems constituents present in relation to federal agencies, i.e. Social Security and Medicare issues, veteran's benefits, passports, etc. There are often several Caseworkers in a congressional office.

Other Staff Titles: Other titles used in a congressional office may include: Executive Assistant, Legislative Correspondent, Executive Secretary, Office Manager, and Receptionist.


By the Numbers
In 2003, the Canine Legislation department provided support to thousands of fanciers, Legislative Liaisons, federation members and general dog owners on local, state and federal initiatives. The department:

• Acted on an unprecedented 275 bills and ordinances that impact the rights of dog owners.
• Answered approximately 3,300 e-mail inquiries to doglaw@akc.org.
• Posted nearly 40 legislative alerts and updates to AKC's Web site.
  Hosted our first-ever Lobby Day in Washington, DC
• Increased our Legislative Alerts subscription membership to 2,300.
• Improved materials to help fanciers work effectively with legislators.
• Networked with over 10,000 elected officials at National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL) and National Association of Counties (NACo) annual meetings.
• Cosponsored "Pet Night" reception on Capitol Hill for Members of Congress.
• Participated in AKC's internship program.

Reminder
The next issue of Taking Command will be a combined January/February edition. Look for it in your mailboxes in early February.