HOW YOU CAN HELP ANIMALS!
Prohibit Retail Sales of Dogs and Cats
In 2009, ISAR
published Our Anti-Breeding Statute. In the
Introduction we wrote:
While
ISAR's [Anti-Breeding] Statute applies to all breeders, it contains certain
provisions aimed specifically at the horrors of mills because they are, by far,
the most inhumane kind of breeding that exists today in the United States and
elsewhere in the world.
Puppy
mills [and kitten factories], however, are only the first stage in the mass
production and sale of dogs [and cats]. Next come the facilitators, followed by
the commercial retailers who sell to the public.
That public, however, [usually] has little or no
[information] just how immoral and inhumane are certain aspects of the business
of commercially producing and selling puppies and adult dogs [and kittens and
adult cats] as if they were inanimate objects, no different from
sausages.
Not only is the factory-like commercial production
and sale of dogs [and cats] by itself immoral and inhumane, the business is a
leading cause of the nationwide canine [and feline] overpopulation problem. That
problem, in turn, has an adverse impact not only on the animals themselves, but
also on society at large. Overpopulation of dogs [and cats] has severe
economic, social, political, financial, health, environmental and other
consequences which are well-documented and not debatable.
Accordingly, by severely reducing the numbers of
dogs [and cats] produced by breeders, brokered by facilitators, and sold by
commercial retailers, the related problems of immorality, inhumaneness and
overpopulation could be dealt a serious blow.
Regrettably, however, even the most aggressive
educational efforts by the animal protection movement have not been powerful
enough to put sufficient pressure on breeders, facilitators and commercial
retailers to reduce voluntarily their production and sales of dogs, let alone to
drive them out of business altogether.
That said, however, there is a way in which
production, trafficking and sale of dogs [and cats] can be greatly reduced -- a
way in which puppy mill producers, facilitators and commercial retail sellers of
dogs [and cats] could virtually be put out of business.
How, then, to accomplish this worthy
goal?
The short
answer -- which is developed at length in this Monograph [containing
ISAR's Anti-Breeding Statute] --
is through strict administrative regulation of breeders, facilitators and
commercial retail sellers, coupled with harsh penalty and generous "standing to
sue" provisions.
As we made clear in that Monograph and
Anti-Breeding Statute, ISAR's strict, even extreme "regulation" of breeders,
facilitators and retail sellers was designed to be a virtual de facto
prohibition of dealing in dogs and cats. We wrote:
Preface to ISAR's
[Anti-Breeding Statute]
The
Humane Society of the United States suggests that an acceptable statute
regulating a puppy breeding facility is one which
applies to all
breeding operations with animals or animal sales numbering over a specified
threshold; requires a licensing fee and pre-inspection; includes routine,
unannounced inspections at least twice yearly; is enforced by an agency with
adequate funding and properly trained and tested staff; rotates inspectors to
cover different areas of the state; and is equipped with strong penalties when
facilities are in repeated non-compliance, including but not limited to cease
and desist orders.[1]
While these requirements impose conditions and
behavior which are better than those found today in most, if not all, statutes,
implicit in them are two premises which ISAR categorically rejects: (1) that
indiscriminate breeding of dogs [and cats] is morally acceptable so long as it
is moderately ("humanely"!?) regulated, and (2) that through such "moderate"
regulation the treatment of dog [and cat] "breeding machines" can be made
morally and humanely tolerable.
If another of ISAR's monographs The Policy, Law and Morality of Mandatory Spay/Neuter, and Chapters 1, 2 and 3 of [our Anti-Breeding]
monograph teach anything, they speak loudly for the proposition that there is an
intractable dog and cat overpopulation problem, that the only feasible way to
alleviate it today is by mandatory spay/neuter and severe regulation of
breeders, facilitators and commercial retail sales outlets, and that legislation
seeking to deal with the problem must be strict, comprehensive, loophole-free,
and without the kinds of compromises that gut the few statutes which have been
enacted and others that are now in the legislative pipelines.
In the end, dealing effectively with the
breeder-facilitator-commercial retail sales outlet situation, and the dog [and
cat] overpopulation problem it so greatly contributes to, is an either/or
choice.
Either the dog [and cat] breeding, facilitating and
sales valve is turned off almost completely, or useless and counterproductive
legislative efforts will perpetuate the charade that something constructive is
being done while countless millions of hapless prisoner dogs [and cats] continue
to be bred, born, traumatized, abused, killed, and incinerated -- and while
figuratively, and often literally, our land is suffused with their wind-borne
ashes.
In ISAR's proposed [Anti-Breeding] Statute, we have
made the "either" choice: ISAR proposes to turn off almost completely the dog
[and cat] breeding, facilitating and commercial retail selling outlet valve, and
in so doing see the dog [and cat] overpopulation problem substantially
ameliorated.
Before presenting the annotated text of ISAR's
proposed [Anti-Breeding] Statute, several important antecedent points have to be
made.
First. ISAR realizes that its proposed
[Anti-Breeding] Statute far exceeds the prohibitions on breeding, facilitation
and sales which appear in other animal protection laws, actual and proposed.
ISAR has staked out its extreme position because our organization deeply
believes that only very strict regulatory laws will achieve the stated goal, and
if there are to be necessary compromises they must be as few, narrow, and
morally and humanely defensible as possible.
Second. ISAR acknowledges that even if its
proposed [Anti-Breeding] Statute were to be adopted by the federal government,
or in a slightly different form by every state in America, there would still be
unwanted dogs [and cats]. ISAR believes, however, that if its [Anti-Breeding]
Statute accomplishes its intended purpose there would be adoptive homes for
those far fewer dogs [and cats]. (In this connection, see http://isaronline.blogspot.com/2008/04/redemption-myth-of-pet-overpopulation.html).
Third. ISAR believes that while Americans have the
right to enjoy the companionship and services of dogs [and cats] of their
choosing, no one has either the moral or legal right to be an accessory to the
tortured lives and ultimate fates that await the living reproductive machines of
most breeders and all puppy [and cat] mills, and many of their
offspring.
Fourth. As Chapter 2 proves, there are neither
constitutional nor legal impediments to even the most restrictive breeding and
sales laws. Attacks on them in court will fail if the statutes are drafted
carefully and defended intelligently.
Fifth. Readers of ISAR's [Anti-Breeding] Statute
may be surprised at its comparative simplicity. There are several reasons for
its comparative brevity. Since ISAR's [Anti-Breeding] Statute could be enacted
on the federal level, and thus be uniformly applicable nationwide, no provisions
for state or local involvement are necessary. However, absent Congressional
enactment, the statute could easily be adapted for, and enacted on, a state
level. Even then, there would be no need for local involvement.[2]
Sixth. ISAR's [Anti-Breeding] Statute is not the
last word on the subject, neither from [its own text,] nor [from] any one person
or other organization who can offer constructive suggestions -- so long as
others recognize the underlying premise upon which ISAR's proposal is based:
turning off almost completely the dog [and cat] breeding, facilitating and
commercial retail sales outlet valve [emphasis in original].That is ISAR's
goal, and that iswhat it has endeavored to codify in the [Anti-Breeding]
Statute.
Seventh. ISAR is well aware that our statute will
be unpopular not only with dog breeders, facilitators and commercial retail
sales outlets, aiders and abettors, and others complicit in the dog-trade, but
also with other animal protection organizations. So be it!
ISAR's pessimistic prediction proved correct,
doubtless because our Anti-Breeding Statute challenged the root premises of
commercial production of dogs and cats, from their conception to their sale at
retail.
Many individuals and organizations who should know
better, and from whom we expected support, have opposed ISAR's Anti-Breeding
Statute. Because the nature and quality of their objections lack consistency,
let alone substance, they will not be discussed here.
On the other hand, some of ISAR's supporters have
argued for an outright ban on retail sales of dogs and cats, and have sought
ISAR's help in making the argument in support of that goal.
Accordingly, this monograph and ISAR's "Model Statute Prohibiting
Retail Sales of Dogs and Cats," is a brief in support of that
goal.[3]
That goal has become even more important because on
November 18, 2013 a new rule of the United States Department of Agriculture,
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service became final. According to
APHIS
USDA has changed the Animal Welfare Act regulations
by revising its definition of retail pet store in order to keep pace with the
modern marketplace and to ensure that animals sold via the Internet or other
non-traditional methods receive humane care and treatment. USDA Animal Care has
posted several materials on this webpage in an effort to provide all interested
parties with pertinent information. We encourage you to please read through
these materials in order to: 1) gain a better understanding of this regulation
change; 2) learn the reasons that prompted the change; and 3) see if you need a
USDA license or if you are exempt from licensing.
As ISAR will explain in a forthcoming monograph,
the deficiencies in APHIS's regulation of pet shops and those associated in the
sale of companion animal are so glaring and counterproductive that the only
humane solution is, as ISAR's model statute proposes, outright prohibition of
retail sale.
Supporters of ISAR's prohibitory cause need only
find a legislator (on any level of government -- village, town, city, county,
state) -- who will introduce ISAR's "Model Statute Prohibiting Retail Sales of Dogs and
Cats" and fight like a tiger (no pun intended) for its enactment.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
[2] In addition, compromises and exemptions which
always require considerable verbiage to accommodate, have been held to a bare
minimum, unlike in the recent unlamented California "mandatory" spay/neuter
statute which, until its demise at the hands of compromisers and lobbyists,
attempted to accommodate various anti-mandatory spay/neuter constituencies and
in doing so turned itself inside out.
[3] Please note that throughout
[the] Monograph 12-point Georgia font has been used. The same specifications
apply to the text of ISAR's Model Statute. However, in
order to identify ISAR's annotation of each section of
the West Hollywood ordinance and our Model Statute, ISAR's comments appear immediately after each section in 12-point
Courier font, in which this sentence is written).
Posts
