Last week when I voiced my concerns about the proposed lawsuit against the USDA among other concerns, I suggested that the proposed law suit against the USDA needed more work and preparation if it were to go forward. I reported my conversation with the attorney who was identified as the person drafting all the paperwork and I claimed that based on that conversation, he may not have seen or read some of the cases that applied to this case and that the action may not be well prepared. I also claimed it was ill-conceived. One week ago, the reports from the group spearheading the efforts to file an “injunction” indicated that this case had to be filed before the new regulations went into effect. The pleas for groups to sign on as plaintiffs and groups and individuals to send money were urgent. Money needed to be to the group by the 14th of November so the action could be filed on time. We learned that urgency wasn’t as urgent as claimed on Friday. Today we also find that the group orchestrating this lawsuit agrees with my assessment of last week that court documents might need some work and preparation and the DC attorney hired will work with the volunteer attorney to get them ready. I was vilified in social media as a turn coat to the breeder community and the mere fact that I would question the process and the plan was tantamount to joining forces with the HSUS. Nothing could be further from the truth. I am a breeder advocate. I represent breeders and defend them in criminal and civil proceeding related to their dogs. I have been successful win winning orders from judges requiring the Humane Officers to return animals to their owners. So my allegiance shouldn’t be in doubt. Now that one part of my claim, the suit was ill prepared and the preparer needed some additional research materials seems to have been borne out by some of the newest reports. Just maybe my other claim, that this action is ill conceived, might have some traction as well. I reported that this case was a long shot. I was personally attacked for even implying this action would not work and by yesterday, even groups supporting this action are recognizing this as a long shot. The battle cry now is “if we go down, we go down with a fight”. I understand fighting on principle, but I also know that when you lose an issue in a public way, it discourages people from joining your efforts. Lawmakers who may be on the fence about PUPS and don’t know much about us, could very well see a public loss as evidence we are wrong on many things and they may close their ears and minds to our cause. But, that is only if we lose. (I say we because I am just as affected by this as anyone interested enough to read this) What happens if the lawsuit is successful? That wouldn’t necessarily win us anything except a little more time under the old regulations. Even the attorney who began this plan says that a win will only result in a “do over”. A “do over” doesn’t mean we will get anything better from this and we may get something worse. People who commented during the comment period wanted the regulations to go further than they did. If you read the federal register where the regulations are published, you can read some of the comments against us. It doesn’t just open it up to us having an impact on the “do over”, it opens it to the opposite side to make more inroads as well. So, is a win really a win and at what cost? I only asked that there be debate on this. If after a debate within our breeder community, people decide they want to go forward, so be it. But maybe it isn’t the right course of action, especially when we have a bigger fight on the horizon. We need to marshal our energies and resources to fight the reintroduced PUPS legislation.
Posted on: Tue, 19 Nov 2013 02:44:53 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015