Take, for example, the recent revision
of USDA-APHIS rules. The reasons cited for the revision include:
- Recommendation from an audit from the USDA's Office of the Inspector General (or “OIG”)
- Response to a petition to the White House from supporters of the Humane Society of the US (“HSUS”); and
- Many complaints received by the USDA from consumers who received sick pets after buying “sight-unseen” over the internet.
The response to these three reasons cited includes a revision of rules to require anyone who owns more than four breeding females of any species and who ships pets to even one buyer, must now fall under the licensing requirements of the USDA.
The problem with this is that hobby
breeders, who often own more than four breeding females (particularly with small breeds) and who frequently ship
pets, are generally unable to comply with USDA licensing requirements
meant for commercial breeders, dealers and exhibitors like circuses,
zoos and animal parks.
We don't keep dogs in cement kennels with
impermeable surfaces. Instead our dogs are housed in areas with
grass, carpeting and even upholstered furniture. We don't rely on our
dogs as a primary source of income, so we have a “real” job, and
are not home during business hours to submit to unannounced inspections. We
don't sell in order to make a net profit, and we sure don't have the
money to pay for additional structural modifications and licensing over and above our local
requirements.
A further claim by USDA is that FEW
breeders will be affected...about four thousand at most, they claim.
However, in their own OIG report, they claim that: “more than 80%
of breeders that OIG sampled were not licensed under the Animal
Welfare Act, because they sold pets over the internet and claimed
retail pet store status.”
Make up your mind, which is it? A few
thousand, or 80% of the hundreds of thousands of breeders in the US?
But let's back up a bit. How was this
impeccable USDA OIG research done?
By internet searches. Must have taken a
whole hour-and-a-half one afternoon. Your tax money at work, folks.
OIG report, page 37: “We used two
search engines to identify how many of these breeders were licensed
in two of our eight sampled states. We identified 138 breeders that
had more than 3 breeding females or handled more than 25 dogs a year.
We found 112 of the 138 (81 percent) were not licensed by APHIS. If
the breeders had sold their dogs wholesale (i.e. not retail through
the Internet), they would have needed a license.”
First off, how do you accept at face
value ANYTHING that's simply information gleaned from an
internet website? Someone could embellish their website to include dogs
they bred who are now owned by others. Or,
information could be out of date. People DIE and their websites still
live on.
Most people with common sense contact
sellers, ask for references from previous buyers or from their
veterinarian. They ask for recent photos to be sent to them or ask to
see the dog(s) on skype or Youtube. But not the USDA OIG. Nope, we get our
information the quick, lazy and unreliable way, via GOOGLE.
The plain fact is that it is not possible to know for sure how many dogs a person owns (intact or otherwise) or how many puppies they sell or if they actually do ship dogs, simply based on a website.
The plain fact is that it is not possible to know for sure how many dogs a person owns (intact or otherwise) or how many puppies they sell or if they actually do ship dogs, simply based on a website.
The USDA further admits in their own report that selling directly to the public via the internet is by definition RETAIL. Retail sellers have always been exempt from the AWA. This has been upheld in court! Look up DDAL v. Veneman.
Most all hobby breeders have a website
and sell remotely. That DOES NOT make them terrible, horrible, no good really bad animal exploiters who need
to be regulated by the USDA. In fact, it is a violation of our rights
to personal privacy to have government workers traipsing through our
homes unannounced simply because we have a hobby that involves
breeding our pets.
Then there's the question of sample
size. 138 websites in 8 states? Hardly a representative cross-section
of the nation's breeders.
And HOW do they know that those
breeders whose websites they perused sold even ONE animal
sight-unseen? THEY DON'T.
And even if the web seller in question
did sell pets remotely, SO WHAT??
Ah, but the USDA claims to have
received many complaints about people receiving sick animals when
purchasing and having the pet shipped to them.
See reason #3 above.
My first instinct in reaction to this is to say, BUYER
BEWARE. Do your homework, research the seller and his or her
reputation. Make your purchase thoughtfully. It is YOUR
responsibility to choose your next pet, after all. Not the
government's responsibility to protect you from your own
choices.
But upon reflection, my second instinct
is skepticism. Sick Dogs? WHERE ARE THEY?
PROVE IT!!!
A friend of mine was way ahead of me
there. She wrote to the USDA and demanded that they PROVE their assertion that people are receiving sick dogs when
buying sight-unseen via the Internet. Here is the response she received:
Dear Ms. XXXXX:
This is in response
to your July 16, 2012, Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request for
copies of
complaints
concerning the welfare of dogs and other pets received by APHIS
directly from
members of the
public as referenced in that statement. Your request was received in
this office on
October 13, 2011,
and assigned case number FOIA 12-03007-F.
Animal Care (AC)
employees conducted a thorough search of their files and did not
locate any information
responsive to your request.
AC has informed this
office that they have no records concerning the welfare of dogs
and other pets received by APHIS directly from members of the public
as referenced in the APHIS issued Regulatory Impact Analysis &
Initial Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis
Proposed Rule, APHIS-2011-0003 RIN 0579-AD57 because they do not
record complaints
regarding retail sales as it is not an Animal Welfare Act (AWA)
covered activity.
You may appeal our
no record determination. If you chose to appeal, your appeal must be
in writing
and must be received
within 45 days of the date of this letter to the following address:
Administrator
Animal and Plant
Health Inspection ServiceAg Box 3401
Washington, DC 20250-3401
Please refer to FOIA 12-03007-F in your
appeal letter and add the words “FOIA Appeal” to the front of the envelope. To assist the
Administrator in reviewing your appeal, provide specific reasons why
you believe modification of the
determination warranted.
If you have any questions, please
contact Ms. Kacie Edwards of my staff at (301) 851-4084.
Sincerely,
Tonya Woods
DirectorFreedom of Information & Privacy Act
Legislative and Public Affairs
BTW, an appeal was sent but was never
answered. Funny, eh?
So, there is absolutely NO
documentation to support the assertion that even ONE complaint about
internet sellers was ever received by the USDA!
We can see that the audit itself was a farce, and there is absolutely no validity to the claim of complaints about sellers shipping sick dogs. What about the petition?
A petition
by the radical animal rights group the Humane Society of the US was acted upon by the
current administration. Yet what was it that this petition requested? It
requested that “PUPPY MILLS” (a legally undefined entity) that
sell puppies via the internet be regulated under the AWA.
A reasonable reaction to anyone using such an emotion-laden term as "puppy mill" would NOT include lending any sort of consideration to their nonsensical request.
And hey, if you ship a dog and own more than four intact females, now you are automatically a "puppy mill"? Good to know.
A reasonable reaction to anyone using such an emotion-laden term as "puppy mill" would NOT include lending any sort of consideration to their nonsensical request.
And hey, if you ship a dog and own more than four intact females, now you are automatically a "puppy mill"? Good to know.
The current group of USDA-APHIS
licensed breeders are slurred as “puppy mills” by these same
animal rights activists, and laws are being passed in many locales to prevent the puppies from
licensed, inspected breeders to be sold! But these humaniacs want
even MORE breeders regulated under APHIS, so they can agitate to prevent
them from breeding and selling any puppies at all!! Pretty clever tactic,
I'll admit. And in today's current United States of Idiocracy, they
seem to be getting away with it so far.
Oddly enough, major dog organizations...the very
groups that should be on the front lines supporting our rights as
breeders.... have so far refused to challenge these new APHIS rules,
which clearly violate the intent of the Animal Welfare Act by regulating
non-commercial, hobby breeders. Instead, these groups are urging their supporters
to try to seek out loopholes for exemption. If we don't go along with
these new rules, they say, then Congress will pass PUPS and we'll be
in an even worse situation. In fact, these major groups have been cooperating with USDA-APHIS in formulating and implementing the new rules! A horrible betrayal of all of our rights, sadly enough.
Animal Rights "humaniacs" won't stop at redefining retail pet stores and new APHIS rules. They are going to push for an easy score like PUPS regardless of what happens with the new APHIS rules. When that happens, we will have to be on the front lines fighting that atrocity of PUPS as well.
A large group of independent dog breeders and
owners (over 21,000 to date) have decided to mount a legal challenge to these new rules.
You can read more about that process here:
www.keepourdomesticanimals.com
The new USDA-APHIS rules are based on a trifecta of lies....a report cobbled together by the USDA from internet searches, a petition to the White House from the ever-disingenuous HSUS, and the completely unsustantiated claim of "complaints" about sick puppies being shipped to buyers.
www.keepourdomesticanimals.com
The new USDA-APHIS rules are based on a trifecta of lies....a report cobbled together by the USDA from internet searches, a petition to the White House from the ever-disingenuous HSUS, and the completely unsustantiated claim of "complaints" about sick puppies being shipped to buyers.
Please support “KODA” and the
effort to protect our domestic animals from excessive federal
government regulation.
 |
| Surely he needs to be regulated by the Federal government! |
