All Federal Bills can be followed At the Library Of Congress - Click Here

ALERT!! H.R.847
Latest Title: Puppy Uniform Protection and Safety Act
Sponsor: Rep Gerlach, Jim [PA-6] (introduced 2/18/2011)

Read all about this bill Click HERE!

Here for all Co-sponsors

Latest Major Action: 2/27/2013 Referred to House committee. Status: Referred to the House Committee on Agriculture. H.R.847 -- Puppy Uniform Protection and Safety Act (Introduced in House)

The Issue: Legislation that has appeared in similar form over the last two terms of Congress was introduced yet again in the House of Representatives, this time with Representative Jim Gerlach (PA) as the lead sponsor. The Puppy Uniform Protection and Safety Act (PUPS) H.R. 847 would amend the Animal Welfare Act (AWA) to limit the existing exemption for retailers and add substantive requirements to existing care standards under the law. As with past sponsors of this legislation, Rep.Gerlach touted the need to close the Internet loophole because, he claims, large breeders have evaded federal animal welfare laws by selling dogs on the Internet.


U.S U.S. Representative Jim Gerlach (PA) introduced the H.R 847 on February 18, 2011. The bill is designed to close the "internet loophole" in the Animal Welfare Act which allows breeders who sell numerous puppies over the internet or directly to the public to avoid the USDA regulation required of other breeder-retailers.

There have been varied attempts over the past 15-20 years to control in home breeding by hobbyists and domestic animal retailers. The documents on this page include a brief history of those attempts; the most recent proposed bill now referred to the U.S. Senate Agriculture Committee; US Department of Agriculture documents; and related analyses from opposed groups and individuals. To fully understand how this affects future breeding of dogs, please read the documents carefully.

H.R. 847 (2011PUPS) Review (Stormy Hope) Originally written for S. 395, only the bill # has to be changed.

Click Here to Read

The history of legislation leading up to PUPS will shed some light on the persistent efforts of certain groups to control all breeders, including those breeders who sell directly to the public. This review touches on those efforts and then examines those aspects of the bill that would directly affect hobby dog breeders

Read the Bill H,R. 847 PUPPY UNIFORM PROTECTION AND SAFETY ACT (PUPS) 2011 Gerlach-PA Click Here to Read

Federal Legislative Alert: Problematic PUPS Bill Reintroduced for 2013

The AKC continues to express grave concerns about this measure. The AKC
believes that all dog breeding programs should be undertaken responsibly
and does not oppose the concept of regulating high volume
breeder-retailers. However, as currently written, the definitions proposed
in this bill are misleading, overly broad, and potentially damaging to
small responsible breeders who individually maintain and breed only a few
dogs in their homes. Click Here to Read

SAOVA (Sportsmen & Animal Owners Alliance) PUPS Position Paper - SAOVA (Sportsmen & Animal Owners Alliance) has steadfastly opposed those laws that remove dogowners' rights. Over the years, SAOVA has brought the sportsman and all animal owners closer by communication and alerts.
Here is the SAOVA PUPS Position Paper - Background and Analysis
Click Here to Read

Updated SAOVA Alert
Click Here to Read

The Cat Fanciers Association
PUPS would¨dramatically change the concept of the AWA as established by Congress. It would require federal licensing and inspection of the private homes of many¨hobby dog breeders. It would vastly expand the power of the federal¨government to regulate pets in private homes

Click Click Here to Read their Position Statement
Click Here to Read their website

IFDCO (Illinois Federation of Dog Clubs and Owners)
Click Here to Read 2010


Click Here to Read 2011

Future of Dogs by Suzie Black of Hawkwind, edited by Cherie Rankin; An excellent article regarding PUPS written by a breeder.
Click Here to Read

Talking points for PUPS (S 395) to use in correspondence with politicians.
Click Here

For more information on any of the above Bills, Click Here and Check under the Bill number

Written by Frank Losey:

Based on my 20 years of Lobbying Experience in Washington DC, I believe that the HSUS is methodically executing a "Behind-the-Scenes Strategy," with the help of several Members of Congress, to ensure that the PUPS Bill is enacted this year for the following reasons:

  1. The number of co-sponsors of the PUPS Bill (H.R. 5434) in the House of Representatives continues to grow each week. As of July 23, 2010 the number of sponsors and co-sponsors in the House of Representatives is 83.
  2. HSUS is "beating the drum," behind the scenes, to Congressional Members and their respective Staffs about the scathing USDA IG Report with regards to APHIS Inspection Procedures, and is citing that Report as a reason for House Congressional Members to co- sponsor the PUPS Bill.
  3. HSUS has ballyhooed the Animal Crush Video Bill (H.R 5566), which passed the House on July 21, 2010 by a vote of 416 to only three votes in opposition. Significantly, nearly 300 House Members had co- sponsored this Bill. That is why House Rules on voting for this Bill were suspended. The horrific images used to gather Congressional support for this Animal Crush Video Bill will consciously and subliminally carry over in the minds of many Members of Congress and their respective staffs.
  4. HSUS is masterful with its use of subliminal messages and resonating, horrific images that have framed the Public's "misperceptions" about all breeders.
  5. HSUS has spent millions of dollars on advertising on the FOX Network. These ads on FOX raise the following question: Why would HSUS not run the same ads on other major networks, unless there was an ulterior motive? Unquestionably, HSUS is seeking donations as part of its "Factory Fundraising" efforts. However, a secondary and major subliminal purpose of using the FOX Network is to reach out to conservative Republicans, who historically have not scored well on the HSUS Congressional Scorecard. HSUS is politically streetwise and savvy, and it knows that Conservative Republicans are more apt to watch FOX, and "coincidentally" see the HSUS ads, which contain gut- wrenching" images of dogs and puppies. This is done not only to try and gather support for more co-sponsors on the PUPS Bill, but more importantly, to reduce and mute opposition to the inevitable efforts of the HSUS to orchestrate a "Sneak Attack" amendment to a"Must Pass Bill," such as an Appropriations Bill for funding the USDA.
  6. "Sneak Attacks" are by their very nature sneaky and designed to use the element of surprise to one's advantage. In short, you do not publicly tell your potential opposition of your plan of attack against responsible breeders until it is too late to stop the orchestrated "attack!!!!"
  7. Why would the HSUS use a "Sneak Attack" for the PUPS Bill????????? In March of 2009, during a Workshop sponsored by the Georgetown Law School and the HSUS, Congressman Moran from VA, who was a Congressional Panelist at the Workshop, was asked the following question: "Why is it so hard for us to amend the Animal Welfare Act, and how can we do it? His response was chilling, and the gist of what he said is as follows: The best way to overcome opposition is to wait until the eleventh hour and add a late night, last minute amendment to a "Must Pass Bill," such as an Appropriations Bill, so that there will be no time for opposition to kill the amendment. Significantly, Congressman Moran is on the Appropriations Committee!
  8. I respectfully submit that the reason why HSUS recently has been eerily "silent" on the PUPS Bill, and has not been repeatedly and publicly urging its "11 Million Members" to contact their respective Members of Congress and ask them to support the PUPS Bill is because the HSUS is executing a "Sneak Attack" in the following sequence: · Continue to work behind-the-scenes, and "under the radar" to gather co-sponsors for the PUPS Bill by following up with the nearly 300 U.S. Representatives who co-sponsored the Animal Crush Video Bill, and literally "take a license" with these unsuspecting Members of Congress by simply implying that their support is needed for the same reason as was their support for the Animal Crush Video Bill. · HSUS will continue to "recruit" more Representatives to co- sponsor the PUPS Bill, and once the number crosses the 100 threshold, HSUS will employ the "herd mentality" approach to persuade more and more Representatives to jump on the bandwagon. HSUS will claim that this will "protect those dogs and puppies that need your help." · When the USDA Appropriations Bill comes up for a vote, as Members of Congress are scrambling to wrap up outstanding issues in a hurry so that they may return to their States and Districts to run for re-election, the PUPS Bill will be added, "at the last minute," and the justification for "expediency" will be that since the PUPS Bill has well in excess of 100 co-sponsors, it "obviously" is not a controversial amendment, and it will become part of a "Must Pass Bill," and there will be no time to mount opposition to it.
  9. Why is this suggested "Sneak Attack" Scenario not only feasible, but likely, you ask? The Congressman who suggested a "Sneak Attack" Approach is Congressman Moran.
    • Congressman Moran co-founded and is the Co-Chair of the Congressional Animal Protection Caucus in the House of Representatives. This Caucus has 84 Members. The Website for the Congressional Animal Protection Caucus lists 40 different animal related Bills "currently under consideration by Congress." Conspicuous by its absence is the PUPS Bill, which currently is being sponsored and co-sponsored by 83 Members of the House - - that is nearly 20% of the House of Representatives. Could that "omission" be yet another tell-tale indication that a coordinated "Sneak Attack" is on-going, especially since Congressman Moran is the Co-Chair of this Caucus?!?!?!?!?!? Congressman Moran has introduced and sponsored Bills championed by the HSUS.
    • Congressman Moran has been a featured speaker at HSUS Events. Congressman Moran is a Member of the House Appropriations Committee which will be considering the Appropriations Bill for the USDA.

      And in the Senate, which must also pass the Appropriations Bill for USDA, you have Senator Durbin, who could smooth the way for Senate passage of the PUPS Bill as an Amendment to the USDA Appropriations Bill in the Senate because:

    • Senator Durbin is in a Democrat Leadership Position in the Senate.
    • Senator Durbin introduced an identical version of the PUPS Bill in the Senate.
    • Senator Durbin is on the Senate Appropriations Committee.

      The HSUS Annual Lobbying Event in Washington DC (Taking Action for Animals) concluded on July 26, 2010 with a Major Lobby Day Campaign, which was totally scripted by the HSUS, and resulted in hundreds of HSUS supporters descending upon the U.S. Capitol to personally tell their respective Members of Congress to support every Bill that HSUS wishes to have Congress enact - - this includes the PUPS Bill!

      For all of the reasons set out above, I believe the "Perfect Storm" exists for the HSUS to successfully orchestrate the enactment of the PUPS Bill.


Follow the HSUS Lobbying Play Book, and send E-Mails to your respective Members of Congress that politely ask that they suspend judgment and action on the PUPS Bill (H.R. 5434 and S. 3424) until the following questions are fully vetted in a Committee Hearing:

  1. Is the "perceived problem" and "need" for the PUPS Bill caused by the so-called internet sales "loophole," or by simply an inability of APHIS to enforce existing laws and regulations? In short, would the "perceived problem" and "need" be best addressed by more strictly enforcing the existing laws and regulations, rather than adding new laws and regulations onto the existing laws and regulations that may not have been strictly enforced?
  2. Is it the intent of Congress to mandate that if someone has as few as one intact female dog that is capable of being used for breeding, then that person may be subject to the expanded coverage of the PUPS Bill?
  3. Is it appropriate for Congress to define a four-month-old puppy to be an adult dog?
  4. Would the existing language in the PUPS Bill have the unintended consequence of dramatically reducing the number of available dogs that are specifically bred and trained for use by special needs organizations that support the handicapped and the blind?
  5. Would the existing language in the PUPS Bill have the unintended consequence of dramatically reducing the number of available dogs that that are specifically bred and trained for use by law enforcement throughout the U.S., the Department of Homeland Security, and the Department of Defense, such as bomb sniffing dogs?
  6. Why has the Humane Society of the U.S., for the last three years, repeatedly refused to tell the American Public and the U.S. Congress that major Pet Breeder Organizations in 10 States have publicly condemned substandard kennels? Significantly, over 85% of all Federally licensed and inspected kennels are located in those 10 States.

If you live in Arkansas, Colorado, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania or South Dakota, you may wish to add the following sentence. "Our State is one of the 10 States."

If enough breeders send E-Mails to their respective Members of Congress, such a collective effort may derail and stop the HSUS PUPS Bill Freight Train that is picking up steam.

Frank Losey

Contact your Federal Legislators This WEEK.



PETA on targeting children: "Everything we do is based at adults." Ingrid Newkirk, PETA President on CNN, March 21, 2002


"Our campaigns are always geared towards children and they always will be." Dan Matthews, PETA Vice President, on FOX News, Dec 19, 2003 


What does it mean to be involved?
When negative legislation is proposed or adopted, it affects and alters the time and energy devoted to positive events as efforts are diverted to protecting our freedoms and those of our animals. It is extremely important to halt the negative influences of animal rights organizations so that energy can be devoted to all the beneficial effects that our animals can bring, such as having events that promote responsible dog ownership, etc. like showing our communities the countless types of work that our dogs are capable of doing.
What are you doing to be involved?
Here to see what others are doing



here To Ask Questions via Our Contact Us Page

DHTML Menu / JavaScript Menu - Created Using NavStudio (OpenCube Inc.)