Tuesday, September 9, 2014

You Can't Serve Two Masters

Here's some deeply disturbing news. At a time when literally thousands of dog clubs and owners are fighting a legal battle to stave off the new APHIS rules for breeders, NAIA's Julian Prager, a bulldog breeder, AKC judge, lawyer and former NY animal control director, announced yesterday that he is now working for USDA-APHIS. He just can't get enough of government rules and regulations. Especially when he is getting fed in the process!
 Do animal owners have any hope for the future? I don't think so. My crystal ball tells me we can only look forward to more red tape strangulation.
The USDA was not founded as an agency meant to regulate anyone, it was initiated to educate and advise farmers on good practices. But like most anything involving the government, it has expanded like the blob, feeding off of our human rights. Congress passed a law in the 1960s allowing USDA to regulate "commercial" dog breeders, and wala, here we are a few short decades later; now anyone who owns a few bitches and who sells even one dog by remote means like air shipping, is under their iron fist. Quite a nauseating turn of events here in a land where our freedoms are supposed to be a priority. 

A letter rife with baloney like how he will help develop government guidelines for "preserving bloodlines" and squelching "bad actors" was released yesterday by Mr. Prager. 
Now aside from the fact that the USDA could not produce even ONE example of a "bad actor" when requested to do so, what business is it of the government how anyone breeds, be it for the purpose of "preserving bloodlines" or crossbreeding to create a new breed? Will we now have minimal daily requirements for dog breeding? Get them OUT of where they don't belong! 
You just can't make this stuff up. Although it would have been nice to awaken and say, "oh gosh, it was only a bad dream."



I wanted to be sure that Delegates who were not at the meeting today and all club legislative liaisons received word of the announcement I made at today’s meeting.
Small hobby and show breeders have all been concerned about the implications of the revision to the “Retail Pet Store Rule" by APHIS and the implication for that group. APHIS has heard your concerns. At last year’s NAIA conference the APHIS Deputy Administrator met with about 20 of us after the session to discuss our concerns and issues. He committed to work with us to work to resolve these issues.
Two weeks ago, I was hired by Animal Care within APHIS as part of it central policy staff. My position, Canine Program Advisor, was advertised to bring in someone who would facilitate communication among APHIS, the breeder community, rescue groups and related animal interest groups. I will be providing APHIS staff with technical guidance on dog issues, assist in training their field staff, participate in developing program information material, conduct outreach and education and, most significantly, work on developing related policies and rules.
Both the amendment to the Animals Welfare Act in the Farm Bill and Conference Committee Report provide an opportunity for APHIS to clarify the existing rules and provide for a more clear structure for exemptions from licensing. APHIS was asked to clarify the definition of “breeding female” and I will be working with other staff to do that. The changes to the law give the Secretary the authority to exempt from licensing those whose activities have a minimal impact on interstate commerce and the welfare of animals. Both the AKC GR staff and NAIA are aware that the additional authority granted by Congress was, in large part, directed at addressing concerns expressed by smaller breeders who were breeding to preserve bloodlines.
I have asked for feedback from the Delegates and all clubs regarding what fact-based standards would work for your breed in your real world activities. APHIS needs solid data, not conjecture, to bolster each type of exemption and the exemptions should be tailored, to the extent possible, to a range of situations, not just a particular breed. For example, what data are there to provide a basis for determining when the number of animals being bred is insufficient to maintain breed existence? For all of the concerns expressed during the process of adopting the new rule, real world, grounded examples are needed to support an suggestions made to provide for exemptions.
As I said at the Legislative Caucus, drafting rules to include one group of require licensing of another group are fairly easy. What is difficult is writing a rule that the bad actors can’t wiggle around while still permitting those properly caring for their animals through. This all started because large breeding facilities that were previously excluded from the retail pet store definition because they sold wholesale, began selling dog of questionable health directly to purchasers through internet sales. That was the target of the rule revision. It is your mission (in your own self interest) to provide APHIS with the information that justifies including one group under licensing requirements, while exempting another group. And it can’t be “because we are the good guys.” It has to be some fairly objective criterion or criteria that are unassailable. Because you know there are those out there who will claim that just because you breed, you are suspect.
I can be reached at Julian.D.Prager@aphis.usda.gov. I look forward to your assistance in developing clear rules and meaningful exemptions for activities which have a minimal effect on interstate commerce. If you have any comments, questions or suggestions, please let me know. This is a complex process and it will take time to address Congress’ changes to the law and requests to the agency. In the meanwhile, the current rule is being enforced. Since discussions are just starting internally, I cannot tell you where this will wind up, but there is a way forward and I ask for your help in establishing a clear path ahead.
Julian Prager

NO WONDER Mr. Prager has pooh-poohed the legal challenge to the new APHIS rules. He LIKES the new APHIS rules!
Sort of creepy how we see prominent people doing their political power dances. First the USDA hiring from the ranks of the HSUS, then we had Ed Sayres and PIJAC, and now Julian Prager and the USDA! I'm afraid to see what will happen next!


Here's an old and wise precept about conflict of interest. Matthew 6:24: 
"No one can serve two masters. Either you will hate the one and love the other, or you will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and money."
Or we could revise it for today: 
"You cannot serve both the breeding community and the USDA-APHIS."

29 comments:

  1. 1. I had no idea that Prager was a for head of A/C for NYC. Of course he worked hand-in-glove with the ASPCA (which has its only shelter in NYC) during his tenure.

    2. He mentions smaller breeders, “breeding to preserve bloodlines.” This is such a crock. We’re all proud of our bloodlines, but smaller breeders are breeding to make their breeds thrive.

    3, He then asks for information, “for determining when the number of animals being bred is insufficient to maintain breed existence.” What direction do you think this inquiry will go? If there are insufficient animals to maintain breed existence, are breeders mistreating animals by breeding into a diminishing gene pool? Or do you regulate breeding to maintain bare “sufficiency” in the gene pool, thereby ensuring the destruction of the breeds.

    Prager has shown himself to be the enemy – a very dangerous enemy in the position of APHIS Canine Program Advisor. The NAIA has also shown, once again, its willingness to allow the fancy to suffer death by a thousand cuts.

    I’m flabbergasted, and this “Wonderful news for the fancy” makes me want to throw up.

    ReplyDelete
  2. There can never be a "fair and balanced approach to dog breeding" that is orchestrated by the Federal Government. Prager has shown through his words and deeds that he is NOT a friend of the small breeder as much as he is a friend of BIG GOVERNMENT.

    ReplyDelete
  3. The national breed clubs have free access to the annual stud book statistics in their breed. Those stats serve as an indicator of the likely endurance of a breed from a sufficient number of animals. According to the stats in my breed, there were only 40 animals registered in the 2013 stud book- half the number from 2 years earlier. Since that stud book indicates only the animals that registered their first litter-both female and male- it is an indicator as to whether the breed is in danger of extinction. In wildlife, a population of 1000 is considered threatened, but a breeding population of fewer than 400 is near extinction.

    National breed clubs really need to bring these numbers to the attention of their members, many of whom may not even realize just how fragile their breed population is. While there are other registries, to increase those numbers, this is the only way that anyone can develop an argument that our breeds need careful preservation.

    ReplyDelete
  4. why do we need a fair and balanced approach " to dog breeding" If there are "bad actors' then APHIS should deal with them.. but they favor the big tent approach where all are covered and few have "exemptions carved out for them that will surely be narrowed down later.? HSUS drove this and APHIS followed like puppies on a leash. Notice too that he is creating the "us and them" divide that worked so well for HSUS etc I hope it works for us but I am not holding my breath I have more confidence in Sayres . and that is not saying much

    ReplyDelete
  5. This is the man who was cheering and saying the lawsuit to set aside the rule was "moot" after the Farm Bill was passed… now admitting that it is being enforced? The reasons he states as the basis for the rule conflict with what the USDA/APHIS claimed and both conflict with the facts coming out because of the lawsuit. HSUS has now admitted writing the rule change and has power positions within USDA/APHIS and the OIG.

    He admits they still don't know what they are doing yet are enforcing the rule…and wants our input? Geez… "lay your neck on this chopping block here". I continue to support the lawsuit to set aside the rule until they get their s@*t together!

    Why would anyone in their right mind be against stopping a law at least until it is done correctly? Why do we need more redundant laws? Now we know why the NAIA and AKC, advised by Prager, have been opposed to the lawsuit to stay the APHIS rule.

    Prager's announcement is full of mis-information and wording intended to feed the dislike of small breeders for large breeders. His stating that the rule was intended to stop large (bad) breeders can't be farther from the truth.

    HSUS has been getting data about breeders from USDA via the FOIA, so why is the AKC and NAIA (Prager) advising breeders to apply for licensing, to fill out forms with their personal information?

    When the rule change was announced, Prager advised me that "the intent was the law and not the written word"… this is WRONG.

    Just look at the legislation that has passed in the NAIA home state of Oregon… according to HSUS/ALDF, Oregon is one of the most AR friendly states. The NAIA track record speaks for itself… they don't fight legislation, they propose it and negotiate the wording. Now Prager has a "dream job" where he can pontificate, negotiate, discuss and debate… all the while, we small hobby breeders get regulated out of existence… and furthering the AR vegan agenda.


    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yep, the motto for the next NAIA conference is "If you're not at the table, you may be on it!" indicating their willingness to negotiate with terrorists. How very very foolish, as are their blind followers.

      Delete
    2. Don't confuse negotiation with subjugation. Negotiation does not have to end with agreement between the parties but it opens the idea of listening to each sides information, which is more difficult or even impossible if you are not at the table.

      Michele Kasten

      Delete
    3. It is not possible to negotiate with a party who has nothing to give up. The government holds all the cards in this one. They will do as they please, and right now that means pleasing HSUS. When you are at the table it's just quicker for them to have you for dinner. Subjugation? You betcha. This is the federal government we are talking about here.....

      Delete
    4. Liberty Belle, I don't know how much experience you have in legislation and negotiation, but from my years of experience the lawmakers will never listen to anyone who just screams "no we don't need a new law". The problem I alluded to is that of the efficient brainwashing of the public and lawmakers against breeders. Breeders who repeat year after year that they don't need to be regulated are absolutely ignored. These lawmakers only know what the ARs tell them unless WE speak to them. You can still stop bad laws by sitting at the table and destroying the AR emotions with facts.

      Delete
  6. Two masters but the agenda is not that different.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Really? You believe that the breeding community wishes to micromanage dog breeders and put many or most of them out of business? I don't think most breeders feel that way at all. We have a right to breed as we see fit, not within the confines of regulation. If I want to create a new breed, I should be able to do so. If I want to inbreed, I should be able to do so. If I want to breed my dog to a bat to produce a flying twirlhund, then that's my right. The government and those who support their intrusive rules can go to hell.

      Delete
    2. I think NAIA has no particular problem with regulating the other guys out of existence. They have never been a friend to commercial breeders or anyone who breeds more dogs than they approve. As you point out, they have a history of negotiation and have often been willing to side with ARs at the state level when it comes to regulations on breeders. Their opposition to the APHIS rule was half-hearted and they have opposed Frank Losey's lawsuit from the start. With Prager in a prominent position at APHIS now, I think we can expect more of the same -- more regulations on all but the most elite dog breeders. As the saying goes, you only need to be regulated if you have more dogs than Patti. NAIA and APHIS will control hobby dog breeding in the United States.

      Delete
  7. This blog writer has truly lost touch with reality IMHO. If APHIS needs a subject matter expert would you prefer the extremely bright, educated, totally committed to the support Julian or some HSUS flak? Do you just like to stir the pot? Apparently this writer thinks there is no way Government can do anything right and so attack, attack attack. I am delighted APHIS has been smart enough to get a lawyer who understands law, regulations, AND the sport of purebred dogs. You should be cheering but don't seem to have enough sense to do anything but complain. Sad.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The role of government, particularly the federal government, is strictly limited by the constitution. And while I fully support the purebred dog "fancy", I am smart enough to realize that the "fancy" is only a very small part of the global breeding community.

      Delete
  8. This doesn’t surprise me AT ALL, I’ve had a few go arounds with him about 3-4 years ago, and the handwriting was on the wall. Yes it was over the same stuff USDA/APHIS and what they were going to do. (Remember back when it was just a PROPOSAL?) He’s a ‘whistleblower’ on the dog breeders. So you’d better alert the entire dog world about it. Don’t bother with AKC they support him and of course we all know about Patty Strand. Fitting isn’t it? She’s breeder of the year and he now comes out of the closet that he’s on staff with USDA/APHIS. This should be the wakeup call for everybody.

    The only information that you need to give him is ‘kiss off’.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Did Mr. Prager write this comment or his partner?

    ReplyDelete
  10. Seems to be that APHIS is redundant and only serves to populate itself with more Nannies. All these are a bunch of “Do Gooders” wanting to further intrude into our lives. I suppose I am paying their salaries too and Julian Prager is going to be yet another recipient at the trough of government largess. My opinion has recently become the same for the EPA; all good when first thought of but who have all outgrown their need and now wallow in the same trough. The future is looking like you will need to say “Mother May I Breed this canine, feline or equine.” And the bureaucrat will say, “what is a canine, feline or equine I only deal with dogs, cats and horses………..in puzzlement.”

    ReplyDelete
  11. With Julian Prager's latest "now, now, it's going to be all right" missive, I am increasingly concerned that this whole thing will hasten the demise of purebred dogs. You'd think this country has had enough experience with Islamic and other terrorists that it could recognize that this is exactly what we are dealing with, just on a more conciliatory level than previously. APHIS will eventually drown purebred dog fanciers and NAIA is helping it along.
    I sure hope my great grandkids will have the opportunity to own the dog of their choice.
    Disgusted.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Thank you Anonymous for an objective, realistic approach. Sadly the torches have been lit. Since we KNEW someone was going to be representing us, I feel relieved that it is someone who has been battling with us. Could have been another Ed Sayres --oh WAIT PIJAC already hired him to "protect our interests"

    ReplyDelete
  13. Do any of you actually KNOW Julian Prager? I do and this is a bunch of baloney. Julian is one of the fairest, smartest people I know. He worked long and hard in PA to stop the ARs from hijacking the laws there and make sure the laws that were going to be passed whether we wanted them or not were laws that could be liveable for dog breeders. We need to stop the lynch mob and give Julian a chance to do what he is good at - dealing with legal issues. You will probably not even know when Julian does something because he won't jump out in the limelight and brag about what he has done. But he will be DOING SOMETHING which is more than many people in this lynch mob have done. JMHO

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm sure he is well-intended; however, I am familiar with him and disagree with him on just about every issue facing dog breeders and the role of government.
      The first thing he will be "doing" is attempting to sabotage the legal effort of thousands breeders and dozens of dog clubs to stay the new rules. But then, he's been DOING that all along. Thanks so much for DOING something.
      NOT.

      Delete
  14. The most telling thing about these comments is that they are almost with exception posted as "anonymous.. why?? because NO ONE wants APHIS on their backs.. and no one wants to draw attention to their breeding program Prager says open up tell us all.. we won;'t "do you wrong" I hope we can trust him but I fear the Stockholm Syndrome will not be long incoming.. in fact it is pretty close to here and now

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The problem is with google not letting you use your profile to comment. It was a pain for me and I posted as anonymous but did sign my name at the bottom, which is more than most will do.

      Delete
  15. "Everything government touches turns to crap." Ringo Starr

    Prager has now joined the "crap." I feel so much safer now....

    ReplyDelete
  16. I think it is way too premature to call this a dangerous situation. Who else did you have in mind to represent hobby breeders? This position requires experience in federal law, lawmaking and writing federal law. Mr. Prager has most, if not all this experience plus his background as a hobby breeder. What more do you want? FACT: dog breeders, through our own shortsightedness over the past decades, have not done enough to promote the purebred dog. We were too wrapped up in majors, litters, shows and gossip. FACT: the animal rights people have done a terrific job of brainwashing the general public into "knowing" that all breeders are bad. So now comes one of our own into a position of influence (note I did not say power), and some complain about it before he even gets a chance to start!

    The most important thing I've learned after years working for fair legislation in IL is that you have to learn the rules of engagement and then play accordingly to win. Just because its not fair or doesn't seem right never means you will prevail because you think you are right. With Mr. Prager in this position dog breeders at least have a chance to get our issues addressed, hopefully with a good dose of common sense. If you choose to assume Mr. Prager is now the enemy before he is even given a chance and before you send your issues to him, then YOU are part of the problem!

    I for one will be drafting a letter for my parent clubs approval to send our concerns to Mr. Prager with regard to a low registration, at risk breed.

    Michele Kasten

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Really? And what "problem" might that be? The imaginary one that USDA is addressing with these new broad rules that prohibit shipping by relatively small breeders?

      Delete
  17. You know, I really rather have a real enemy in Prager’s new role, rather than someone on the ideological borderline. The HSUS and its ilk would like to regulate the fancy out of existence; Prager is comfortable with a regulatory approach to “protecting” the fancy. I believe that a regulatory approach to “protecting” the fancy leads to its destruction. Gosh, there’s not a lot to talk about.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Nope, not really, and yet the voices of indignation continue. How dare I criticise Mr. Prager! Why can't we just shut up, sit down and go along with the government's plan for us all?
      Well I'm not going to shut up and sit down, and ten years from now, guess who will be saying "told you so". Unfortunately, that will be me. :(

      Delete
  18. Yes, there are lit torches....by those at the USDA and within "the fancy" who want to regulate "the other guys" out of existence.
    But, as long as their worthless "fancy" hide is covered with an exemption, that's all they care about.

    ReplyDelete