from TX-RPOA~USDA/APHIS Update from Frank Losey

TX-RPOA E-News
>From Responsible Pet Owners Alliance Texas Outreach
March 3, 2014

From Frank Losey
Re: USDA/APHIS Lawsuit

For the last several weeks some have posted unqualified assurances that, as
a result of their behind the scenes efforts, the uncertainties created by
the Retail Pet Store Rule were resolved for the vast majority of Hobby
Breeders as a result of amendments that were made to the Animal Welfare Act
that were included in the Farm Bill that was signed into Law by President
Obama on February 7, 2014. However, those assurances were, in essence,
repudiated by APHIS in a Letter dated February 21, 2014, which included the
following quote:

“USDA is currently reviewing the statutory changes the Farm Bill makes to
the AWA and evaluating their effect, if any, on the retail pet store rule. . . .”

The above quote was included in a response to the Letter that was submitted
on behalf of the 42 Plaintiffs in the Retail Pet Store Rule Lawsuit to
Secretary Vilsack on February 7, 2014. The Letter to Secretary Vilsack
contained the following request:

“The concerns of the dog, cat and registry clubs on whose behalf I write
have been validated by the Act’s amendments to the AWA and by the Conference
Report. The amended AWA conflicts with the requirements of The Retail Pet
Store Rule. I therefore reiterate my request that you place a moratorium on
implementation and enforcement of the Rule until APHIS has complied with
Congress’ direction to conduct a rulemaking and the Rule has been replaced
by a final rule that faithfully reflects the will of Congress.”

The fact that APHIS has now stated in writing that it is “evaluating” the
“effect, IF ANY, on the retail pet store rule” not only ignores the express
mandate of Congress to conduct a “new rulemaking,” but it further reinforces
the fact that APHIS intends to continue to make subjective decisions and
interpretations that are based upon a very subjective, undefined
“case-by-case” standard the leaves all Hobby Breeders in the “Fog” of
“Uncertainty.” Consequently, all Hobby Breeders, without exception, are
still subject to the vague and subjective interpretations of APHIS as they
relate to what is “de minimis;” and what is the definition of a “breeding
female.” Additionally, APHIS has yet to clarify, as directed by Congress,
what is meant by “oversight of . . . sales . . . transactions in interstate
commerce as provided for under the Commerce Clause” Furthermore, the
“confusion among the regulated community,” which the Congressional Report
language expressly cited, remains to be the “business model” of APHIS.

Just like in Alice in Wonderland, Hobby Breeders are being told by APHIS
that the Rule subjectively “means what I say it means,” which, in essence,
“codifies” the intent of APHIS to leave the regulated community in the “Fog”
of “Uncertainty” without regard to the fact that APHIS is ignoring the
Congressional Finding that there is “confusion among the regulated
community.” In short, APHIS will continue to use its “case-by-case”
standard, and nothing – – absolutely nothing – – has yet changed as a result
of the Congressional Report Language that accompanied the Farm Bill.
Consequently, all Hobby Breeders are still in the “FOG” of “Uncertainty” as
to how the Retail Pet Store Rule will affect them, notwithstanding the
assurances by some that the Farm Bill has provided “IMMEDIATE” relief from
the draconian effects of the Retail Pet Store Rule on tens of thousands of
Hobby Breeders.

The only way that the “confusion among the regulated community” will be
resolved is for APHIS to impose a moratorium on the implementation and
enforcement of the Retail Pet Store Rule until it conducts a “new
rulemaking,” as mandated by Congress. And now that APHIS has suggested
that the Amendments to the Animal Welfare Act that are included in the Farm
Act may not have “ANY” effect on the Retail Pet Store Rule, the only
effective alternative for Hobby Breeders to pursue to obtain immediate
relief from the existing “Fog of Uncertainty” that engulfs all Hobby
Breeders is for the Retail Pet Store Rule Lawsuit to proceed so that APHIS
will be directed by Court Order to do what Congress has expressly mandated
that it do – – conduct a “new rulemaking.” Only in this way will the
“confusion among the regulated community” be eliminated with certainty, as
opposed to relying upon unfounded assurances that all is well, and that most
Hobby Breeders may conduct their activities in a “business as usual” manner.

Now that APHIS has expressly indicated by Letter dated February 21, 2014
that the Amendment to the Animal Welfare Act may not have “any” effect on
the Retail Pet Store Rule, it is incumbent upon all who support the best
interests of Hobby Breeders to support the Lawsuit, which is being pursued
in order to protect the interests of not only the nearly 19,000 Hobby
Breeder Members of the 42 Plaintiffs, but will also protect each and every
one of the tens of thousands of Hobby Breeders throughout the entire the
U.S.
Frank Losey
…………………………………………….
Donate with PayPal or mail in:
www.rpoatexasoutreach.org

_____________________________________

Disclaimer connected to this blog…Things said are of my opinion and the opinions of others…Stay tuned and follow this blog  -B

Advertisements

~ by topcatsroar on March 3, 2014.

One Response to “from TX-RPOA~USDA/APHIS Update from Frank Losey”

  1. Did everybody get that? Clear as mud! What I get is: A dog owned and bred by a Hobby Breeder is to be set upon a pedestal and looked at differently than a dog bred by a commercial breeder or a dog owner in this free country of ours who owns more than 4 intact female animals….Now, notice, that I did not say 4 intact canines, I said 4 intact female in animals total! So if you or any other current inhabitant of the U.S. have a guinea pig, a gerbil, a Cat and a dog of the female sex which remains sexually unaltered……which means they technically can become pregnant at some point in time, and if you chose to breed or your female animal becomes pregnant and you choose to place them on the internet for sale…..then when you take money for one of them and ship it to them…..you are creating a crime…..You must be USDA licensed and certified and if ANY of these animals happen to live in your house…..anywhere the animals can get to??? The USDA inspector must be allowed to get to also…WITH A CAMERA…..and post the pictures on their website….from which HSUS and other Animal rights oriented persons and entities may thru a F.O.I.A. (freedom of information act) filing obtain copies of these photos of your property, including your own bedroom!!! If FiFi or Rover is EVER allowed to frequent that space. NOW, in saying all that…I urge you to think about this…a cruelly treated animal is such a subjected phrase….Do you really believe a person who owns many animals owns animals of less deserving status than a person who owns a few? I do not believe you do! I also do not believe a person who owns a fighting rooster to which I understand they strap knives to their ankles or legs?? And put them in a circle to fight each other till death…..should be charged with the same misdemeanor animal charges as a toy breed Pomeranian, poodle, or other dog which has poor teeth or tartar accumulation on their teeth! This is happening around you folks! AS they say THEY WALK AMONGST US! And “the THEY” will become YOU or SOMEONE you know personally within am very short time, if YOU don’t start LISTENING to real people and STOP BELIEVING the TV and NEWSPAPER clips…….MAKE it your responsibility to LISTEN and research, before you see your own personal space invaded by strangers with a notion of destroying our animal life on earth! I DO NOT BELIEVE that more than 1 or 2 out of every 10-12 so-called animal cruelty cases are in reality, what 95% of us would consider CRUELTY cases! DO YOU KNOW: when animals are confiscated from what some people consider uninhabitable conditions, that the children and elderly are left to thrive in the same conditions OR if they too are removed at the time, that they ARE NEARLY ALWAYS returned within a week or two? HMMM….Do you think IF THEY COULD NOT SELL THE ANIMALS THEY CONFISCATE, THAT THEY WOULD MAYBE RETURN THEM ALSO? SO, the difference is??? IT IS ILLEGAL TO SELL THE CHILDREN AND GRANNY as yet, or is it that maybe those DEPLORABLE conditions, weren’t so deplorable after all, just caught in a moment in time and/or doctored up or photo shopped a bit to APPEAR to be something to shock your senses. Try turning the sound off when you watch some of the tv clips…..THINK for yourself even, then compare your thoughts! Get SANE …….. RE-THINK. HUMAN(e)!!! I apologize for the rambling, but not for the thought provoking content I urge you to heed!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

 
%d bloggers like this: