I've seen references to the PAWS Act on other websites and blogs, and decided to do some research on this.

In short, the bill (S1139 and HR2669) seeks to regulate small-volume, home-based animal breeders, what are often referred to as "hobby breeders". These are folks who breed and sell puppies on a small scale, often as a side business. They mostly cater to clientele who seek dogs of specific breeds, mixes, traits and/or bloodlines.

Senator Rick Santorum (R) of Pennsylvania introduced S1139 as a way to fight puppy mills. But in a press release, he admitted that the PAWS Act does not establish any new animal care standards...

PAWS does not require or justify creating any new animal care standards, like our previous legislation did. It focuses only on bringing under regulation high volume commercial dealers currently evading regulation and on strengthening the Secretary of Agriculture’s ability to identify and bring into compliance high volume dealers who are not in compliance with existing law or, as a last resort, shut them down.

In effect, the PAWS Act tries to address puppy mills by affecting all small volume breeders, whether they are puppy mills or not. It's another example of "lazy legislation", that makes everyone suffer for the acts of a few bad apples.

I tried to read the texts of the above bills but found it very difficult to understand. It consists of insertions, deletions, rewordings and recodifications, to the point where you can't understand what its intent is without first having an intimate knowledge of the Animal Welfare Act, and its history.

Therefore, I rely upon analyses from two sources, "Whence Comes the Reversal of Course", by Jeff Helsdon, Esq., Director of the DPCA Legislative Committee (opposing to PAWS), and, "Questions and Answers About PAWS", by the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) (favoring PAWS).

I'll start by telling you that I'm against this legislation.

The HSUS tells us that the PAWS Act is necessary because it feels that the breeding of dogs has exploded thanks to the Internet:

The growing popularity of the Internet has created an unintentional loophole in the current law, allowing these commercial breeders to classify themselves "retail pet stores" and evade all federal oversight.

But I counter that statement by saying that there's no cause for federal oversight unless some kind of negative outcome has occurred with hobby breeders. HSUS will argue that the negative outcome are the puppy mills. But I say that hobby breeders are not puppy mills. They're breeders who cater to clients with very specific demands and are known to pay up to $2,000 for the most outstanding of traits. Puppy mills were not the creation of the Internet. They existed long before, thriving in newspapers and pet shops. It's a gross injustice to associate hobby breeders with puppy mills.

If the PAWS Act gets signed into law, two things will happen. First, many hobby breeders who sell more than the minimum levels defined in the PAWS Act will go out of business because it will force them to obtain a USDA license, and they will not want to make modifications to their home just to get that license. Second, those puppy mills that Senator Santorum is speaking about will move their operations into the Caribbean or in Mexico, where they will be totally free from US oversight.

Moreover, the PAWS Act appears to affect rescue organizations as well. Most proponents claim, however, that it does not. But Jeff Helsdon, an attorney who has analyzed the PAWS Act, states that it actually will..

Any rescue person or organization, therefore, must shut down after the 25th rescue in a given year - or not receive compensation for their costs associated with rescuing the dog or cat from the local shelter, having it micro-chipped and spayed or neutered, advancing veterinary costs and so forth.

The solution to fighting puppy mills lies at the state and local levels. The federal government is incapable of fighting this because it can't define what a puppy mill is. Congress had made attempts to define this before, but failed to pass anything because it couldn't come to an agreement. Too many states had too much interest at stake.

The PAWS Act will actually create more puppy mills. This is because it's a solution that puts a mask over a problem. We're supposed to rest easier thinking that we finally have a law that will crack down on puppy mills, when the fact is that this law has no teeth. The problem of puppy mills will flourish under this law because we'll relax thinking the USDA is going to do something about it.

I say that it has no teeth because it doesn't explain how the USDA is supposed to monitor the tens of thousands of small volume breeders. In fact, it doesn't even provide the USDA with additional funds to monitor breeders, license them, or hire agents. How is the USDA supposed to enforce this new level of regulation, if it doesn't have the means to carry it out?

At best, the PAWS Act is just a law designed to scare legitimate breeders out of business, in hopes that a few of those breeders might have had some kind of substandard living conditions. But do you think that those puppy mills, the ones who make the big bucks, are going to be scared out of business by a piece of toothless legislation?

If you think so, then boy do I have a great piece of vacation property to sell you!