Petition Tag - animal welfare act

1. Universal Canine & Feline Welfare Protection

Current animal welfare acts in countries such as UK, USA and Australia have been reformed in the past 10 years and now go a long way towards protecting animals, however they do not go far enough and The Dog Express would like to see unity, standardization and a universal approach to animal welfare acts, especially where it concerns domesticated and working dogs.

We call for much tougher penalties and sentences when acts of cruelty, neglect and suffering are committed as 51 week jail sentences and £500 fines are not a deterrent to these kinds of people. We call for prison sentences with a minimum of 6 years where the death of a dog or cat is the result of neglect or cruelty and lifetime bans for any act causing unnecessary suffering.

We also call for sentences, fines and bans to be imposed on those who knowingly fail to report or stop any act of animal cruelty, as those who do nothing as just as accountable as those who commit the crimes.

2. Investigate USDA/APHIS and Stop Proposed Rule to Regulate Pet Sellers

Retail sellers including small home/hobby breeders who sell directly to consumers have long been provided an exemption from federal licensing through the broad definition of “retail pet store”.

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) has proposed to limit this definition so that it means a place of business or residence that EACH buyer physically enters in order to personally observe the animals available for sale prior to purchase and/or to take custody of the animals after purchase. APHIS erroneously claims this change restores the intent of Congress; however the intent of Congress to differentiate between wholesale and retail transactions for pets has always been understood and has been upheld in a court of law.

The Proposed Rule changes the Animal Welfare Act (AWA) and USDA responsibility forever by granting authority for federal regulation to extend beyond commercial dog businesses, invading the privacy of American homes in order to establish standards for pet care.

When draft rules are “significant” due to economic effects or because they raise important policy issues, the Regulatory Flexibility Act requires agencies to evaluate the potential effects on small businesses, small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions. An agency may also be required to analyze issues of unfunded mandates, families, and federalism. The agency must publish the regulatory text of the proposal, setting out amendments to the standing body of law in the Code of Federal Regulations.

APHIS did not fulfill a statutory duty to ensure full compliance with the Small Business Act including determination of impact under zoning laws presented by federalizing a hobby and converting small hobby breeders to home-based businesses, and submitting certification to the Small Business Administration with a detailed statement on the impact of the Proposed Rule on the affected "Small Businesses".

APHIS prepared an inadequate and incomplete economic analysis which drastically underestimated the number of affected dog breeders nationwide and did not include breeder/sellers of cats and other species, or rescue organizations that may no longer be exempt from regulation under the narrowed definition of retail pet store.

APHIS released a Revised FAQ in July 2012 that implied use of a double standard between existing commercial license holders and potential retail license holders. APHIS stated that pet retailers and rescue groups selling to buyers face-to-face at locations other than their own premises were "not the focus" of the Proposed Rule and would not need to obtain a license. The FAQ further stated in the case of dog breeders who allow their dogs to have free run of the entire house, APHIS inspectors will assess the homes individually for compliance with the federal standards. This implies that federal standards are interpretive and that APHIS will selectively enforce portions of the AWA and the Proposed Rule. Without accompanying written changes to the AWA all such statements in this FAQ are invalid.

We find publication of the flawed FAQ to be an inexcusable action by a federal agency. It appears to have been written to quell opposition to the Proposed Rule rather than to explain the effect of the rule if objectively implemented.

3. Join With the AKC to Protect Responsible Small Breeders

Join with the American Kennel Club to express your concerns about the harsh and unintended consequences that the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s proposed regulations (RIN 0579-AD57) to redefine “retail pet store” would have on responsible small and hobby breeders.

Under the proposed regulations, breeders - who maintain more than four “breeding females” and who sell even one puppy sight unseen, by any means (including online, by mail or by telephone), would now be regulated as commercial breeders by the USDA. The effect of these proposed regulations would be to take away the public’s opportunity to obtain puppies from some of our nation’s top breeders who in many cases, have dedicated their lives to breeding for health, breed type and temperament.

Under current law, the federal Animal Welfare Act exempts from federal oversight “retail pet stores,” which sell puppies directly to a final customer for use as pets. This exemption means that most non-commercial small or hobby breeders do not have to be licensed and regulated by the USDA. The proposed rule rescinds the exempt “retail pet store” status of anyone selling pets at retail to buyers who do not physically enter the breeder’s facilities in order to personally observe the animals available for sale.

The rule also requires anyone who owns more than four “breeding females” and sells puppies, cats or other small/exotic pets “sight unseen,” by any means, to be licensed, regulated and inspected as a USDA commercial breeder.

The AKC shares the USDA’s concern about substandard Internet puppy sellers that operate outside the current regulations. However, the unintended consequences of this proposed rule create unreasonable hardships on small hobby breeders. This rule could threaten the future of a vast number of small responsible dog breeders and the very existence of some rare breeds in the United States.

The rule creates an unfair burden on small breeders who may depend on the ability to place dogs very selectively in known situations without physically meeting with the purchaser at the specific time of sale. Likewise, many hobbyists are comfortable purchasing an animal sight-unseen based on known pedigrees, bloodlines, previous relationships or personal knowledge of each other’s facilities and programs. Such scenarios are particularly common and necessary for breeders and fanciers of rare breeds. The proposed rule does not make allowances if the purchaser is willing to sign a waiver of an in-person sale requirement.

It is unreasonable to expect small breeders, who may keep a handful of intact females in their homes, to be able to meet exacting USDA commercial kennel engineering standards that were never intended for home environments. Other pre-existing restrictions such as local ordinances, insurance or licensing may also prevent hobbyists from adapting their facilities.

4. Animal Welfare Act for Nepal

Nepal is one of the few countries in the world that has no legal protection of working animals, pets and stray animals.

Animal Welfare Network Nepal has drafted an Animal Welfare Act. Help us to get the act passed by the parliament!

5. Make the law tougher on animal cruelty

At Present the animal welfare act covers the below :

For a suitable environment (place to live)
For a suitable diet
To exhibit normal behaviour patterns
To be housed with, or apart from, other animals (if applicable)
To be protected from pain, injury, suffering and disease

It states as a owner/keeper you are responsible for the above and min age to keep an animal is now 16 .

It also states that :
Anyone who is cruel to an animal, or does not provide for its welfare needs, may be banned from owning animals, fined up to £20,000 and/or sent to prison (source http://www.defra.gov.uk/animalh/welfare/act/index.htm)
Yet in 2007 over 2,000 people were convicted in 2007, yet only only 54 were sent to prison.

And in 2008 complaints of abuse had risen by 12 per cent in 2007 to 137,245.(source : http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article4428985.ece)
There was a 42% rise of people sent to prison for animal abuse in 2008, but we think this needs to rise to at least an 80% rise.

Only recently there was the following case:
The RSPCA believe this dog was thrown 70ft to its death from a balcony, after being badly injured in a fight.

A witness has reported seeing a gang of approximately ten to fifteen youths throwing the Staffordshire Bull Terrier off the fifth floor of Sidmouth House in Lympstone Gardens, Peckham, at around 9.30pm last Friday night.

It is believed that the gang had carried the dog to the block of flats after it had sustained earlier facial injuries, which the RSPCA suspects were probably inflicted during a dogfight.

The witness to the act said that the group of youths, which included a teenage girl, had carried the dog through the flats and the visibly injured animal was whimpering with pain. The teenage gang then headed to the fifth floor and walked along the communal balcony, where they threw the dog over the edge.

The Bull Terrier fell approximately 70 feet to the concrete floor below, where the gang then picked up the dead animal and threw it into a communal bin.

RSPCA inspector Rebecca London said: "This is horrible cruelty. I am absolutely disgusted that this poor dog was whimpering and in distress and yet this group thought it was fine to just throw it over the balcony to get rid of it".
If you have any information on the youths the RSPCA urge you to contact them in confidence on 03001234 999.
These people need to be stopped and the law needs to change. And a min prison term needs to be put in place at present the maximum term you can serve for animal cruelty is 51 weeks, we think this should be the min term you can serve, and the maximum should depend on the circumstances reflecting the case.

We in the UK are meant to be a nation of animals lovers, and are encouraged to treat our pets as "one of the family", yet the laws are far too relax and need to be made tougher and pet shops & breeders need to be policed more about who they sell animals too.

Animals cannot fight for their rights and need us to fight for them.