Words MATTER - SHOP! Don't "Adopt!"

Think it's "cute" to say you "adopted" a "rescue" who is now your "furkid?" Well, it's not really "cute" at all if you give it some thought.The words we use matter.

 Did you know that the state of California passed a law a few years ago that removed the word "pound" or "impound" from all prior animal legislation and replaced it with the word "shelter?" Like it or not, words have definite meanings that affect public opinion and form the cultural zeitgeist. Why do you think they legally changed the word "pound" to "shelter?".....even though they maintain the right to capriciously kill in the so-called "shelter?" Because the name you tag something with forms it's public image. Perception becomes reality.

Animal Rights people co-opting the terminology we use is very dangerous, it's not benign, and it's aimed squarely at legally removing our ownership rights. "Rescue" implies animal abuse. "Adopt" infers a status equal to humans. "Guardian" instead of "owner" means the pet has inherent rights that supercede your right to determine his care and destiny. If pets are "fur kids" the state can step in and mandate how you care for them down to minute details. Kiss your pet ownership rights goodbye.

The "Adopt don't Shop' mantra has been very successful at demonizing breeders. it's time to turn it around! Get a great pet....SHOP! Shopping is a good thing. Most shoppers thoughtfully research before they make a purchase. When it comes to a pet, research prior to purchase is important. Avoid those "adopt-a-thons" where impulse buying is encouraged, and you might just end up with a dog who doesn't suit your lifestyle or home situation. SHOP...and get the dog that is right for you to OWN!!

.

The Big Lie from ASPCA

The ASPCA sent out a post via email blast this week:

It'll be a cold day in hell when I donate anything to this group.

Imagine this scene: More than 100 dazed and frightened puppies are picked up one-by-one out of filthy, cramped, wire cages and crammed into a windowless van. Missing their mothers, they spend a week hurling across Interstate highways—crying, yelping, barking and suffering—until the van pulls up to deliver them through the back-door entrance of a shopping mall pet store. In the pet store, the cute but likely malnourished, impaired, disease-carrying or emotionally scarred pups are left to do what puppies have always done: look for love in a kind, smiling face. They are bought by an unsuspecting person, and the cycle begins again.

Wow, this sounds horrible! Why, they just described the cycle of abuse perpetrated by Retail Rescue! This is EXACTLY what happens when so-called "rescues" truck dogs across the country, and subject them to thousands-of-miles-long journeys into the US from around the world! These dogs are intended to replace puppies in pet stores sourced from breeders. And yes, predictably, many of these "rescued" dogs are sick and malnourished. Some have even been infected with RABIES! 

Yep, there is no documented history on these animals at all. No way to know what sort of diseases, inherited or acquired, may be lurking. No insight as to inherited temperament. When one of these "rescued" dogs is bought by some big-hearted but dumb, unsuspecting person (like YOU), he is not covered by any "Puppy Lemon Law" protection. That means, when he bites your kid or requires expensive veterinary bills, TOUGH LUCK. You have NO RECOURSE. There is NO GUARANTEE, NO consumer protection, and no financial compensation to you.

But wait! ASPCA doesn't care about any of that....in fact, golly gee gosh! I just realized with a little more reading....they actually aren't talking about Pet Flipping "Rescues" at all.  

This is the tragedy of a puppy mill. Animals bred, born and abused in commercial breeding facilities are the very same animals destined for pet store windows in cities and towns all across America. Scenes like this play out week after week, year after year, but these tragic facilities are usually only brought to light when they are raided by animal welfare groups like the ASPCA.

Whoa! The ASPCA is trying to convince us that dogs bred by licensed and inspected breeders are all abused!  What a crock of manure! If commercial breeders are heavily regulated (and they are), how many do you think need to be "raided"? How many of their puppies are "diseased"? Do they regularly starve and beat their puppies? REALLY??

In fact, pet insurers charge much lower premiums for commercially-bred pet store dogs than they do for dogs from any other source. The reason? Pet store puppies receive more veterinary care in the first weeks of their life than puppies from any other sources, and as a result, the dogs who come from pet store have FEWER INSURANCE CLAIMS. 

Got it, ASPCA?? Commercially bred puppies are HEALTHIER than dogs sourced from small breeders and shelters. How do you like them apples, you lying scumbags? 

But wait! The ASPCA isn't finished just yet! They set the stage with fraudulent lies, and NOW.... the HOOK!!! 

With your support today, we can strengthen our work to advocate against puppy mills. We can assist in raids to expose their cruelties, fight as hard as we can to regulate commercial breeders and, most importantly, find loving homes for every innocent animal. Imagine how much suffering we could stop, and how many dogs, cats and other animals we could save, if we eliminated puppy mills in our country. That is what your gift to the ASPCA can help make possible. Please make a donation right now.

Sorry, you two-faced sheisters at ASPCA,  but when you LIE claiming that commercial breeders are not already heavily regulated, claim that their puppies are sickly and abused, and slander the name of dog breeders in general, you won't get a dime from anyone who has two brain cells to rub together. 

No breeders=no pets. 

The real goal of the ASPCA....PET EXTINCTION. 

Big Bucks in Retail Rescue!

How would you like to own the beautiful dogs pictured above? Friendly, healthy, happy, well-groomed, tail-wagging purebred Cavalier King Charles Spaniels. RAISING MY HAND here! I'd like to have ALL of them.

The owner, a USDA licensed breeder, has obviously taken very good care of them. And apparently just got paid off, BIG TIME!

Several "Rescue" groups heard that these dogs would be made available by the owner at public auction. One rescue group actually set up a "Go Fund Me" page for the purpose of bidding on the dogs. In less than two weeks, this one rescue group raised......are you ready for this?......over $183,000!

I'm not sure how many dogs this one particular group bought for the purpose of reselling at retail, but if they bought all 108 of the dogs mentioned in the article, they would immediately have available about $1700 to spend on each and every dog! I'm sure the original owner is laughing all the way to the bank, for getting a big price for these retired breeding dogs.

Not to mention, the "rescue" will be SELLING them soon to the public. Probably for several hundred dollars apiece. 


That's ends up netting them over $2000 per dog. Pay for a dental, a quick-snip castration, and WALA! A fast and easy profit.

And they say dog breeders are money-grubbing "puppy mills"! Pot, meet kettle!

Dog breeders don't have bleeding heart donations from fraudulent "Go Fund Me" pages to help them pay their mortgages and veterinary expenses. 

Dog breeders must pay for a Federal license. They have to be inspected. They are required to provide proper care and treatment of their dogs, BY LAW. They have to pay a LOT of money to keep their premises in acceptable conditions, to provide regular veterinary care, to pay for permits and fees. They have people watching to make sure that drinking water is fresh, that any medications used are in date, that accommodations are roomy enough.

"Rescues", who in cases like this are really nothing but Retail Rescue pond scum, have NO REGULATION. No care standards, nobody watching to make sure they take good care of their charges. And indeed, we have seen MANY rescues in recent years busted for animal neglect and cruelty. 

Any other pet dealer has to be licensed by USDA, but apparently not if you are a self-proclaimed "rescue".

Yet, in the eyes of the public,dog breeders are the "greeders", the bad guys! Dog breeders want to MAKE MONEY!!!!

I ask you, how else can one pay for dog food?

But that doesn't stop people from justifying this insane action. Why, they are saving these dogs from a fate worse than death! Being used for BREEDING!  The awful original owner had 100 dogs and was a PUPPY MILL!!

And they are putting this horrible, dog-abusing "miller" out of business.....how? By paying him big bucks for his dogs? 

Good plan.

Maybe he can retire...or maybe, he can take that money and go out and buy a whole bunch of new dogs to continue his breeding program. 

Good for him! Take the money, because you sure ain't gettin' no respect. Hey, maybe you can get the rescue groups to buy dogs from you again! A lot more profitable than breeding, and easier, too.

The donations for the PET STORE DEALER oops, sorry, I mean "Rescue", continue to stream in from John Q. Public. I guess Obamacare's "architect" Gruber was right after all when he said people are stupid. You can check here to see how much money to date the "rescue" group has raised from all the bleeding heart dummies out there. Maybe it'll be up to a $$ quarter million $$ in another week or so. 

That'll buy a whole lotta halo polish.


The 'abused' dogs one day after purchase. So sick, neglected and terrified due to their awful lives with an EEEEEVIL
PUPPY MILLER!

 

News flash..... had to update this as I find out more. There was actually raised a total amount of over $350,000 to buy these hundred dogs! Sucker born every minute!

Can I keep My USDA Exemption?

Question: If I have only two females, can I ship and still keep my exemption? After all the discussion we've had about the new rule, I don't remember.
 

Answer: Yes, probably, since according to the amended Regulations, you can have up to four "breeding females" and ship "sight unseen" as pets. However, several issues come to mind that may not make this an easy question to answer:

1. Do you co-own "breeding females" elsewhere? Regulations unclear about whether they should be counted. Similarly, do you kennel or board "breeding females" owned by others? They possibly would be counted in the total number of breeding females allowed.


2. You are aware, aren't you? that APHIS definition of "breeding females" probably would include intact bitches that you wouldn't wouldn't consider breeding? (e.g., too old, too young, health problems etc.) -- you may not breed them but APHIS might still count them in the total if they believe them "breedable". 

 3. Do you participate in Rescue activities, and have you housed rescue "breeding females" (intact bitches)? From what I'm hearing, APHIS has for the present time chosen to look the other way on this issue, and not count rescue animals in the totals. However, by a strict interpretation of the Regulations, intact "rescue" females would count (especially if you transfer any dog "sight unseen" to a pet home), no matter how APHIS is viewing them now.


4. Are all animals shipped by you as pets offspring of the pets you own, and born and raised on your property? It's questionable how APHIS would view a "sight unseen" sale of a "stud fee puppy", for example since to obtain the "four or fewer" exemption, any pet you sell must have been "born and raised" on your property according to the Regulations.. This is not one of the changes made in 2013 to the Regulations, but was there all along, but wasn't generally enforced, at least for small home hobby breeders such as yourself. How or if it will be enforced now is a good question. (This is yet another thorny rescue question as well).


5. Do you own other "breeding females" that are included in the Regulations? (small pet mammals, primarily). Does anyone else in your household or who resides on your property have any "breeding females" (dogs or otherwise.) All those get counted in the total of "four or fewer."


You may want to get clarification on your situation from APHIS directly. Unfortunately, what an APHIS representative tells you now may or may not be admissible in Court if it conflicts with what's in the Regulations.


Finally, remember (especially if you openly ship to people you don't know well, or if you advertise that you ship) that you are a potential target for the ARs, and they might try to have you investigated. If APHIS comes to ask as to your mode of business, you will need to have proof that -- throughout the year that you shipped those animals -- that you only had two "breeding females" (and not more than four) and that you complied with other requirements of the Regulations needed for the "four or fewer" exemption.


If you choose to go the easier route, and decide to have no "sight unseen" sales, you can, of course, have as many "breeding females" as you wish if you sell to the final purchaser (and not wholesale should you own more than four breeding females). But it would still be a good idea to document how these animals were transferred to the new owner so that they weren't a "sight unseen" sale.


AWA and AWA Regulations can be found here, and here.

Submitted by Margo Milde via the Pet Law list.

Margo is long-time Legislative Liaison for five dog clubs: Rand Park Dog Training Club, Agility Ability Club of Illinois, Fox River Field Spaniel Club, Moraine Tracking Club, and Field Spaniel Society of America (AKC parent club). She is also a Board Member of the Illinois Federation of Dog Clubs and Owners. However, her answer here may not officially represent the position of these organizations.

"Sight Unseen" and other Drivel

Something has been nagging at the back of my mind; this whole recent chain of events with new government rules didn't seem to make sense. I just couldn't put my finger on it, but I knew something didn't add up. Today, it finally dawned on me exactly what the problem is.

Different rules from the same agency should not conflict. If the overall goal is to discourage so-called "SIGHT UNSEEN" pet sales and rid the market of supposed "bad breeders", then why are "SIGHT UNSEEN" sales from other countries not only unregulated, but actually sanctioned by recent USDA rules?
  

As you may recall, NAIA was complicit in formulating the new USDA import rules and publicly applauded their passage.* These new rules require imported dogs to have rabies vaccinations and health clearances, (GOOD). They forbid importing dogs for resale under the age of six months (BAD). The new rules would allow import of a dog from another country by purchasers who do not plan to resell the animal, as long as there is a health clearance (GOOD). So overall, more good than bad. Hobby breeders aren't really affected, so they are all fine with these new rules. They are happy to embrace a rule that they perceive will only adversely affect "Rescue Retailers."

Meanwhile, there is yet another rule that the USDA is implementing right here and right now in the US. This new rule requires anyone who ships a dog “sight-unseen” to a buyer, (and who also owns more than four bitches) to apply for USDA licensing. This revised rule would require thousands of small breeders to become USDA licensed, have their personal information registered into a publicly available database, be required to meet USDA "commercial" breeder standards (difficult to achieve in a home environment), and be available 24/7 for unannounced inspections by APHIS, regardless of the constraints of your “real job”.

Now, unless you are willing to cease shipping dogs entirely, if you keep four or more bitches you must be USDA licensed. This means you are now on the radar screen of animal rights groups, like CAPS and other loonies, who will have your contact information.

Animal rights nuts can and do target USDA commercial breeders for nasty terrorist attacks, with the intent to drive them out of business. Why would anyone want a USDA license? And who heads the USDA-APHIS enforcement division? Why a former employee of the anti-breeding HSUS, that's who! Many APHIS inspectors have been fully indoctrinated by animal rights fanatics, and are looking to "find something" on inspection. After all, they need to justify their existence, and finding violations and fining people is the only way do do that.

Due to many concerns arising from and the ambiguity associated with enforcement of these new rules, and the fact that despite several conferences, no one seems to really understand the new rules (including APHIS personnel themselves), thousands of breeders and dozens of dog clubs have mounted a legal challenge to block the new USDA-APHIS rules for breeders.

Representatives from the AKC and NAIA have not been supportive of this legal effort, claiming that breeders do not have “standing” in the matter. They have been assuring us that exemptions can solve all our worries. The matter of "standing" has now been settled, as the courts have determined that the case does indeed have merit, and the lawsuit moved forward with a court date. The USDA-APHIS then hired a NAIA lawyer as their consultant, to give the impression that the concerns of dog owners will be addressed. Never mind the fact that they did not address our concerns after literally thousands of public comments and questions during the conferences that went unanswered. But, adding a representative from the "breeder" side of the equation on their team will give them better odds in court, they reason. Window dressing.

Now think about this for a minute. Why are the events in regard to these two new rules from the USDA troublesome when viewed in conjunction with each other?

Here's why. These new rules don't dovetail. Foreign breeders can ship “sight-unseen” to buyers, while those in the US cannot do so without Federal regulation of their breeding activities.

Are breeders in other countries automatically more holy and righteous than breeders in the USA? Does the USDA wish to encourage"sight unseen" sales from overseas? Because that's what is going to happen when more US breeders quit shipping or even quit breeding altogether.

We also have a study in progress from Purdue that intends to set guidelines for breeding activities. Once that come on the scene, we will have yet another set of anti-breeding regulations that will effectively squelch the hopes of newbies who might aspire to being dog breeders....if only it weren't so difficult to qualify for that breeding permit! And how will breeders in other countries comply? Who will regulate them?

And then, we will have to have a NEW RULE that prohibits imports for ANYONE. It is easy to do, because there is already a prohibition for those who re-sell dogs under the age of six months, and no one said BOO when they slipped that neat little rule in there. In fact, the breeders stood up and cheered! All they need to do now, is to tweak it a bit. No one can import a dog for resale PERIOD. No one can have a dog shipped in from another country "sight unseen".  After all, that is the intent of the OTHER new APHIS rule, and we need all our rules to apply fairly to everyone and in all the same situations. Don't we?

If we can't ship a dog with a health certificate "sight unseen" without Federal oversight of our breeding operation, how can people ship one in from another country with just a health certificate?

The new rule requiring almost all US breeders to register with USDA-APHIS  MUST be struck down.

Support the KODA effort. Court date, October 9.

www.keepourdomesticanimals.com

 

*http://www.naiaonline.org/articles/article/naia-applauds-usda-rule-protecting-pets-and-people

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."

PIJAC HIJACKED?

Today I read a post from PIJAC on Facebook in support of going out to a park in Washington DC where "rescue" pet adoption was being offered. That's rather odd, coming from PIJAC, the "Pet Industry Joint Advisory Council;" a group that is supposed to be an advocate for the pet industry. I would assume "industry" might include commercial breeders, licensed private breeders, and the like. Supporting "industry" would seem to be at odds with "rescue" unless, of course, pet "rescue" with their commandeering of the pet store niche, importing animals for retail sales in the US and the like, is finally being recognized as part of the "pet industry."

Funny that in 2011, PIJAC joined the HSUS to also publicly support California's SB 917, a measure that prohibits sales of animals in public places. If "rescue" is an industry like any other, why is PIJAC supporting "rescue" sales in the park, when they previously supported a law to prohibit sales in public places? Why is PIJAC colluding with the HSUS on measures that prevent pet sales, yet at the same time promoting sales in the park?

Has PIJAC been hijacked by the schizophrenic insanity of the animal rights movement?

So, here in California we have many cities which allow no pets for sale in pet stores, unless they are from unlicensed, unregulated "rescues." No public sales, unless they are from unlicensed, unregulated "rescues."

A very successful rescue in my area, "Priceless Pets" has been obtaining pets from the Inland Valley Humane Society and SPCA (IVHS) in Pomona, California, and selling them at retail. In fact, they are following the suggested business model here in California cities. They are selling these pets in a retail outlet pet store in Chino Hills, CA.

That's good, right? We are passing laws to outlaw public sales, to outlaw pets in pet stores unless they come from a "rescue." So, our local rescue is going with the trend, rescuing dogs and selling them in a retail pet store outlet.

Hold it right there! The IVHS now is prohibiting Priceless Pets from pulling animals from the shelter. They want to examine PP's "business model." They are afraid that Priceless Pets is operating as......hold on to your hat.....a PET STORE!!

OH NO!

But wait, we all thought that's what the public wants? Pet stores selling rescued animals for adoption? Our legislators are passing laws giving rescues monopolies on sales. And now, they don't want the rescues to operate as "pet stores?" It's a bit late to change your mind about that, now, isn't it?

Maybe the plain truth of the metter is that they simply don't want ANYONE to sell pets. Not pet stores, not breeders, not rescues, not anyone!

We want you to sell rescued pets in public places and pet stores....yes, we do....no, we don't.....yes, we do.....no, we don't.......yes, we do.....no, we don't....

In fact, this very same rescue group, Priceless Pets, has been persecuted unmercifully by the Inland Valley Humane Society and SPCA. In 2011, the owners of Priceless Pets WENT TO JAIL FOR FIVE DAYS, at the insistence of the IVHS, for zoning violations!

Yes, they really want to find homes for the animals, don't they? NOT! They'd much rather kill them. The animal rights faction really does live up to the motto:

 

"Animal Rights Means No Animals Left."

This entire "pet store vs rescue" fiasco coming to the forefront this week reminded me that I had never posted the article to this blog about California's SB 917. It went to "The Dog Press," but not here. So, here it is now, three years later. Thanks, PIJAC, for helping the HSUS push this one through!

California approves ban on public sales of animals – SB 917

 

Sale of an animal in public will now be a criminal offense

 

 

Geneva Coats, R.N.

Secretary,California Federation of Dog Clubs

July 27, 2011

 

SB 917 was signed into law yesterday by Governor Jerry “Moonbeam” Brown. The criminal animal cruelty statute now will include public sales of animals, making sales a misdemeanor offense right up there in the same league with beating, torturing and cruelly killing an animal. The law will go into effect in 2012.

 

The notorious CA SB 917 has been promoted by supporters as a ban on "roadside sales" of animals. In actuality, this bill prohibits any public animal sales activities unless specifically exempted….roadside or not. No animal sales may transpire in any public place. Offenders would face a fine on a first offense, and misdemeanor criminal charges thereafter. SB 917 adds to the current criminal animal cruelty statue. Current law describes animal cruelty offenses (such as torturing, tormenting, cruelly beating, mutilating, or cruelly killing an animal) and specifies that such activities can be charged as either misdemeanors or felonies, with possible jail time. SB 917 doubles the maximum allowed penalties for these offenses.

 

Equating heinous, abusive actions with animal sales sets the bar for animal cruelty at a very low threshold. Under the language of this bill, selling puppies will become as unfavorably regarded by the public as selling such contraband items as illegal drugs or stolen merchandise. This bill also establishes a worrisome precedent by criminalizing the very act of sales itself. The act of selling is not inherently abusive by any stretch of the imagination. Where will this lead in the future? It is frightening to contemplate.

 

Dog club meeting at a coffee shop? Transferring ownership of animals in the parking lot is now a criminal offense. Do you live 200 miles from your buyer? Be careful! Meeting midway to sell a puppy in any public place could now earn you a rap sheet. Giving kittens away at the local supermarket could be considered a misdemeanor offense under the provisions of this bill, as that could be construed by overzealous officers as “giving away as part of a commercial transaction”. Hey, the kid has change in his pocket? He must have been selling those kittens!

 

In a practical sense, what does this mean for animals? Sadly, it means that many people will be afraid to place animals at all, and instead of animals finding good homes, more dogs and cats will become homeless, to starve or be hit by a car; or, they might end up in the local shelter where they will add to the death toll. The Good Samaritan who attempts to find homes for the litter of kittens under his porch would end up with a criminal record. 

 

SB 917 was crafted with some specific exemptions. Shelters, nonprofit rescues, SPCAs, and pet stores are exempt, as are events held by 4-H Clubs, and Junior or Future Farmers Clubs. Agricultural/county fairs are exempt. Stockyards, public livestock sales, and live animal markets are exempt. Dog shows, cat shows and bird shows are exempt.

The fact that certain groups can be exempt from the “crime” of selling, or that the “crime” is OK in some locations but not others, demonstrates that the act of selling itself is not inherently undesirable or criminal.

But beyond that, what does the exemption for "dog shows" mean for us as dog hobbyists?

 Not much. In order to comply with this law, the dog sale must occur on the confines of the showground. As we all are aware, AKC has a strict policy of no dog sales at dog shows. Further, in order for the sale to occur legally, the show must ensure that all exhibitors comply with all applicable federal, state, and local animal laws. This requirement would be a practical impossibility. Exhibitors travel from different cities, counties and even different states to the showgrounds. Different areas have different animal control regulations. In addition, the exhibitors must carry proof of their paid entry fee. This last requirement seems to indicate that animal control personnel intend to police showgrounds. 

And there is good reason to believe that animal control personnel intend to police this new law, determining administration of violations and penalties. The bill states: "A notice describing the charge and the penalty for a violation of this section may be issued by any peace officer, animal control officer......or humane officer". Many animal control officers have an adversarial attitude toward dog breeders, and will now have the power to serve them with criminal charges and penalties simply for conducting an honest and honorable business transaction. Criminal records adversely affects an individual's employment eligibility and credibility in general and should not be imposed lightly by an animal control officer with an ax to grind and little education in constitutional law.

 

If the dog show exemption is completely meaningless for dog hobbyists (and it is), what venue for sales is left to California dog breeders? Sales in public is prohibited, and AKC dog shows do not permit on site sales. The only alternative is to conduct dog sales from private residences. The dangers of an individual selling anything from his home are well-known. Home invasion robberies, assaults and even murders have occurred during private party sales gone awry. There have been documented incidents where puppies were stolen at gunpoint from individuals conducting sales at their residences.
   

Putting aside the danger involved, dog breeding and selling is already laden with multiple onerous regulations and is rapidly becoming cost prohibitive in California. Many localities including Los Angeles City and County limit breeders to one litter per year, and an expensive breeding permit is required. In the city of Los Angeles, it costs $335 per year to license ONE intact dog; and this only IF you meet the requirements to qualify for the intact exemption! The very survival of dog breeding in California is tenuous at best.

 

The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) is the sponsor of SB 917. That fact alone should tell you that the bill is part of a larger agenda to stifle animal ownership. This same legislation was brought forward in previous sessions in 2009 and 2010, and did not pass. In 2009, then-governor Schwarzenegger returned the bill, AB 1122, writing: 

 

"I am returning Assembly Bill 1122 without my signature. I am concerned with the scope and unintended consequences of this bill and that it does not assure the humane and ethical treatment and welfare of animals. This bill has unknown costs associated with the enforcement and implementation of prohibiting the sale of live animals in specified venues and could drive the selling of animals underground or to private sites. For this reason I am unable to sign this bill."

 

A similar measure banning roadside sales was recently nixed by Texas Governor Perry, who wrote in his veto statement:

 

"House Bill 1768 would encroach upon the rights of private enterprise and property owners while fundamentally altering and expanding the role of county government....... As a state, we should not raise barriers of entry into the marketplace, stifle competition or hinder the entrepreneurial spirit."

 Those involved in breeding and raising animals heartily concur!

 The HSUS, the sponsor of SB 917, has an admitted agenda to make animal breeding incrementally more expensive and inconvenient. This bill is another weapon in the anti-dog breeder arsenal. Couple the ban on public sales with other bills presented this session that require sellers to report buyers information to animal control (AB 1121), that require microchipping of any dog that is impounded (SB 702), and that prohibit anyone convicted of an animal offense from residing with animals for a period of 5 to 10 years (AB 1117), and we can see the pieces of the puzzle fitting together. With HSUS sponsoring the bill, the intent is clear. Criminalize dog owners by any means possible, and then prohibit them from future animal ownership for a good long time.

 

The Animal Council and California Federation of Dog Clubs opposed SB 917 early on, and other groups in the state soon joined in the effort as well.

But sadly, the AKC chose to remain silent on this bill, citing lack of an official policy on public sales. Dwindling numbers of AKC registrations and declining sales by private parties does not seem to be sufficient motivation to spur AKC into active opposition of all anti-dog ownership proposals.  

 

The Farm Bureau also naively did not oppose SB 917, pointing to exemptions in the bill for public sales of livestock. Don’t farmers use herding, hunting and guard dogs? Do farmers realize that under SB 917, they could now be arrested for selling a puppy at a fair or livestock show? Creeping incrementalism in these animal rights-sponsored bills will hasten the day that working dogs cannot be obtained at any price.

 

PIJAC (Pet Industry Joint advisory Council) actively supported SB 917. It seems that PIJAC was delighted at the thought of eliminating any competition for pet stores and heavily-regulated commercial breeders. Unfortunately, the animal rights groups in California are also lobbying intensely to ban sales of purpose-bred pets in pet stores and replace them with unregulated “rescues”. Combine a pet store sales ban with a ban on public sales, and consumers in California will have limited options for obtaining the pet of their dreams.

 

On August 2, 1776, at the signing of the Declaration of Independence, Benjamin Franklin said "We must all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately” – meaning that if they did not band together in the fight against the British, they would all be hanged separately. These words still ring true today, 235 years later. We need all the animal interest groups to work together to oppose anti-dog ownership legislation.

So be warned, Californians. Soon you can be a criminal just for selling a dog.

 

  

New crimes created by CA SB 917

 

 SEC. 2.  Section 597.4 is added to the Penal Code, to read:

   597.4. (a) It shall be unlawful for any person to willfully do

either of the following:

   (1) Sell or give away as part of a commercial transaction, a live

animal on any street, highway, public right-of-way, parking lot,

carnival, or boardwalk.

   (2) Display or offer for sale, or display or offer to give away as

part of a commercial transaction, a live animal, if the act of

selling or giving away the live animal is to occur on any street,

highway, public right-of-way, parking lot, carnival, or boardwalk.

Puppies Are Products

Puppies are products. They are a commodity that the animal shelter pet stores should relocate according to supply and demand. At least, that's the opinion of an ASPCA senior director, who was quoted in a news article yesterday about the reasons that dogs and puppies are shuffled from shelter to shelter. She said:

"It is a supply and demand issue. If you had a store and you had extra widgets at one store, and people were buying up widgets at another store, wouldn't you move your widgets?"


So, puppies are widgets, and shelters are pet stores. Glad to see them finally admit it.

However, we should all be outraged.

This is hypocrisy of the highest order, because shelters and rescues often claim that their motives are altruistic and not based on money. They urge us to "adopt, not shop". Yet, now they themselves are admitting that there is no difference in "adopting" vs "shopping" and purchasing from any other source, be it a breeder or a pet shop. A sale is a sale, and even shelters and rescues are in business to sell their product.

Yes, Puppies ARE  Products.....

There has been a dramatic decline in shelter admissions across the nation. In certain areas, shelters don't have ANY adoptable dogs to offer the public for "adoption" (SALE). Puppies are imported from other states and even other countries in order to stock the shelves.

The decline in shelter admission is a huge success story. Education has worked! Shelter killing is at an all-time low. Hooray!

But, if you were a business, say the sheltering industry, and you saw your market declining, what would be your response? You'd work your butt off trying to extend the life of your current product and expand your offering. And one of the most effective ways to do that is to eliminate the competition.

So, you perpetuate the myth of overpopulation. You tacitly encourage the importation of dogs from Mexico, Puerto Rico and Taiwan to ensure a continuing revenue stream. You claim that there is a big problem with greedy, evil breeders. You sensationalize shelter killings. You sling arrows at "hoarders" and "backyard breeders."  You denigrate dog owners as "irresponsible." You try to convince people that only "rescued" animals should be available for the pet market. You popularize slogans like "Don't breed or buy while others die"!

Also, if you're a business in trouble, what else do you do? You reach out to the government for help. Monopolies, exemptions, subsidies, new laws to enforce against your competitors.

Unfortunately, the sheltering industry model has one additional facet - the compulsion of law. Other businesses ultimately survive because people choose to do business with them as suppliers or customers. The sheltering industry has the ability to compel a portion of the community to involuntarily provide product and then make themselves the only store in town.

You shut down the competition, seize their animals, call it a "rescue" and voila! Free widgets for the store.

It doesn't get any sweeter than that.

ASPCA: Puppies Are Widgets in our Stores

The rescue relocation shuffle among animal shelters, the new pet stores, is being justified by this statement from an ASPCA senior director:

"It is a supply and demand issue," Monterose said. "If you had a store and you had extra widgets at one store, and people were buying up widgets at another store, wouldn't you move your widgets?"

Ah, NOW I understand. When the humaniac rescuers at the ASPCA and elsewhere claim that "Puppies AREN'T Products" what they really mean to say is, "Puppies ARE Widgets". Glad they cleared that up for us.

www.adn.com/2014/01/22/3285442/map-pinpoints-shelters-with-too.html#storylink=cpy

KEEP OUR DOMESTIC ANIMALS

We've become accustomed to “White Lies” from the popular media and from our government. Most of the time we just laugh and dismiss them as irrelevant. But sometimes, these lies take on a life of their own.

Take, for example, the recent revision of USDA-APHIS rules. The reasons cited for the revision include:

1. Recommendation from an audit from the USDA's Office of the Inspector General (or “OIG”)
2. Response to a petition to the White House from supporters of the Humane Society of the US (“HSUS”); and
3. 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 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 Service
Ag 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

Director
Freedom 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.

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.

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!

The USDA Wants YOU!

TO STOP SELLING PETS!

Of concern to all dog owners and breeders in the US are new APHIS rules set to go into effect in November, 2013. The rules are intended to address internet sales, which the USDA alleges are problematic. I'm still waiting to see the facts and figures which provoked that allegation, but am not holding my breath. 

These new rules expand the influence of USDA/APHIS. They will increase the number of breeders who will be forced to comply with USDA regulations. The new rules are ninety-one (that's 91) pages long and are posted on the APHIS website. There is also a Q & A document on the APHIS website, which raises even more questions than it answers.

We do know for certain that anyone who houses more than four intact bitches (or in combination with females of any other covered species) on his or her premises AND who ships any dog by so-called “sight-unseen” methods will now be required to be licensed and inspected by the USDA.

The new rules explanation is vague, leaving many specific questions unanswered. How will breeders be able to comply with commercial kennel guidelines when raising dogs in a home environment? How can I be available during business hours for inspections, when I have a full-time job outside my home? Will rescues be held to these same guidelines? How will that be possible when they do not breed and raise the dogs on their premises? Why is shipping suspect, when all airlines require veterinary health certification prior to shipping? What if you want to sell a dog that is not born and raised on your premises? Why is offering dogs to pet homes considered an undesirable activity, subject to investigation and regulation? What is the definition of a “breeding bitch”? What is the definition of a “working dog”? What proof will be needed for exemption as a breeder working to preserve bloodlines? Why is the Federal government now usurping states' rights to regulate intrastate commerce? Why are small breeders who only sell at retail being subjected to rules meant for wholesalers and dealers?

 
Unfortunately, during the telephone conference calls with USDA officials, the answers to many of these questions invariably reverted to “we will determine that on a case-by-case basis”. Nothing quite as malleable (and subject to being overturned) as vague rules and guidelines.

The USDA employs animal rights activists in high positions, including Ms. Sarah Conant, formerly an HSUS attorney and now the chief of enforcement at APHIS. The USDA under Ms. Conant has demonstrated a crusader-style, anti-breeder bias, and with these new vague rules that lack specific guidelines, we will likely find that our exemptions are not as available as we think they may be.

The advice from APHIS to breeders is to give the USDA a call, to run your “business model” past them, and then they will inform you whether or not you need to be licensed with them.

 
USDA licensed breeders have long been subjected to a campaign of hate and discrimination by animal extremist groups. If licensed by the USDA, your information goes public and you may be vulnerable to attack by animal enterprise terrorist groups. These groups like HSUS, PETA, Best Friends and CAPS have conducted smear campaigns against USDA licensed breeders, and they have driven pet shops out of business and pushed for laws making pet sales in retail stores ILLEGAL in certain locales like California. How long until that “no retail sales” mentality is extended to those who sell dogs as retailers.....us! The hobby breeders who are exempt from USDA licensing, because we are in the same category of retail sellers! So we'll be damned if we do get a USDA license, and damned if we don't.

In addition to Ms. Conant, there are other known radical animal rights activist associations at the USDA. The head of the department is Tom Vilsack. Tom's wife Christie was the recipient of HSUS campaign contributions and a near-million dollar campaign television advertising blitz funded by the HSUS in her Iowa congressional bid against Steve King. Deborah Dubow Press, an animal rights activist who co-founded the Student Animal Legal Defense Fund at Cornell University, and received a grant from the HSUS's PCRM, was also employed by the USDA until just last January as an APHIS enforcment specialist.

The “intent” of the breeder is being judged by the Federal government; if you sell mostly pets, then the USDA feels that you need to be subjected to excessive regulations and red tape. The “intent” of the USDA seems clear enough. Though they deny it, it is obvious that they hope that there will be a chilling effect on the breeding of pets. The goal is to gradually and incrementally eliminate breeding of pets.

As a branch of the United States government, the USDA was created to collect and distribute the best farming knowledge.  In 1862, Congress passed a bill establishing a Department of Agriculture. Its mission was “to acquire and to diffuse among the people of the United States useful information on subjects connected with agriculture in the most general and comprehensive sense of that word.” When did we jump the fence and allow the USDA to over-regulate every little agricultural detail? What happened to the mission of EDUCATION?

Who dreamed way back in 1862 that the people at USDA would turn out to be the most threatening animal enterprise terrorists of all?

Read Between the lines - USDA Conference Call

I've got the transcript in front of me from the USDA conference call regarding the new rules for retail pet stores, that took place on Sept 10, 2013, Thanks to the Sportsman and Animals Owners' Voting Alliance! I've also listened to the recording of the call, courtesy of The Cavalry Group. After examining the details of the call, I tried to imagine how it might go with a "read-between-the-lines" interpretation. Here we go!

Kevin:

Welcome, callers. After suffering years of much yammering in our ears from scam groups like the Humane Society of the United States, the Doris Day Animal League, the ASPCA and other radical animal extremist groups, we are posting new rules limiting your exemption from the Animal Welfare Act as a retailer of pets. Dogs, primarily. But of course we will combine different species to "count against you" in order to limit you further.

We've discovered that 80% of breeders out there are hobbyists and are escaping our iron fist. That will never do! We want them to change to a business model.

The humaniac supporters of our new rules claim that USDA licensing is the hallmark of a "puppy mill". We're not so sure about that, but we are really listening to them. It seems that even though they don't like USDA licensed breeders, they want to have thousands more of them. Go figure! But, we need the money so we're anxious to get started. Why, they've already greased the palms of the politicians who appoint us with millions of dollars! We are DETERMINED to please them! Maybe we'll enjoy more of that sweet gravy!

We relied on the HSUS and other animal fanatics to help write up these new rules. They decided that you should be allowed no more than four female dogs on your premises. Any intact bitch "counts against you" as long as she is not too old or too young. But we will be the ones to decide if she "counts against you" or not! It's good to be queen, no? We don't bother with those pesky little details, like whether or not she is ever actually bred.

Further, our good friends, the humaniacs, insist that you must have a face-to-face meeting involving buyer, seller and the pet when the transfer is made. This doesn't need to be at your home, where you could be robbed at gunpoint or targeted by animal rights nuts who enjoy turning breeders in to authorities for any infraction of rules or laws, whether real or imagined.

No problem! You can meet in the WalMart parking lot. Just like all the people who sell sick dogs out of the backs of their trucks that they brought up from Mexico a few days ago.. You just go ahead and model your business practices after them. Many of them claim to be "rescues", so we can be sure that they are more noble than the rest of humanity. We like those "rescues" because they don't intentionally breed dogs. At least, we can't prove that they do, so no point in pursuing them. They are exempt from any and all rules.

Even though all dogs shipped currently are examined by a veterinarian, we have no confidence in the ability of a veterinarian to evaluate health. A veterinary health certificate is useless, even though all airlines currently require one to ship a dog. The buyer knows better than a veterinarian if the pet is healthy or not. Besides, we really don't care about health. It's all about getting snitches into your home in our quest to stop you from breeding.  

We are fully aware that hundreds of thousands of you oppose being brought under wholesale, commercial breeder regulations. We also know of the many concerns you have and exactly WHY you are opposed. We've read all of your comments, petitions and letters; but frankly, WE DON'T CARE. These are the new rules. If you don't like them, then you can just quit breeding dogs. Please.

We are only here today to explain to you, the BREEDERS who sell and ship sick, genetically defective pets to poor, unsuspecting buyers, why you can't do that any more. We will answer your questions if we feel like it. Regarding the questions we don't understand or don't want to be truthful about? Well, we will simply hem, haw and hedge.

Frankly, we don't like the fact that the information superhighway has facilitated sales of pets. Things have just been too easy lately for buyers and sellers. We prefer the days when people had to rely on classified ads in newspapers or the back of magazines to sell pets. That really put a cramp on pet sales, and we appreciated that. We really thought it was terrible that Sears, Roebuck and Co. sold dogs by catalog, but we could never figure our any way to "get" them for doing that.

Until now, that is.

We initially provided estimates on how many more breeders we thought we would be licensing, but we really doubt that will happen. We know that most of you will give up your dog breeding entirely, or at least cut it back significantly. If you want to give USDA licensing a whirl, we anticipate that you will need a one-time investment in an amount to effectively double the size of your current mortgage, to convert your home into a commercial kennel. Of course, your local zoning laws will prevent that anyway, so don't worry! It's all good.

OK let's get right to those questions! Who is first?

Susan from Virginia Federation of Dog Clubs and Breeders:

My dogs both work in the field and are pets and are show dogs, too. Must I become USDA licensed? What do you consider a "working dog" for purposes of exemption?

Dr. Russian:

Let me get this straight, you have a dog who does multiple things?

Susan: Right.

Dr. Russian:
Wow that's incredible! Then you must keep separate kennels. Dogs that work must be kept separately from dogs who are pets.

Susan:

But it's the same breed. It's the same dogs. All my dogs have multiple uses. They are retrievers, they hunt. I don't keep them in kennels. They are house pets too. Would hunting dogs and retrieving dogs be considered "working dogs" for purposes of exemption?

Dr. Russian:

What a conundrum. I really don't understand the concept of dogs having multiple uses and purposes. I suggest you call me and run your "business model" past me. That way I can figure out the best way to harrass you, OK? And make sure to tell all the other people in your group to call me, too! Next caller.

Roland from the National Finch and Softbill Society:

Are birds exempt? What about birds or dogs bred to a breed standard? How many comments opposed your new rules? Will the USDA contract out their inspections?

Kevin:

Birds are exempt. That's why we took your call. Geez, why did you have to ask other questions too? Who the hell is screening these callers?

Well, let me try to tackle the other questions, since this is probably all going on the record. We have no plans to outsource inspections at this time. Why should we when we have HSUS lackies employed right here at the USDA for that purpose? No comment on how many comments were submitted in opposition to the new rules. We frankly don't care. As to standards, we have our own standards, and they are arbitrary and capricious. That suits us just fine. We don't care about you.

Roland:

Again, why are show standards not taken into consideration?

Dr. Russian:

The rules are up, read them and get back to me. We've already told you, we don't give a shit about show standards.

Sarah from HSUS and Doris Day Animal League:

We are SO EXCITED that OUR new rules are going into effect!!! We only hope that they can do enough damage to really cripple pet breeding here in the US before this gets challenged in court. Our group (DDAL) already tried to push retail hobby breeders into the same regulations as wholesale, commercial breeders, but the courts ruled that we couldn't do that. The nerve of those courts, upholding the constitution! But that won't stop us from continuing on our crusade to ban breeding! My question is, how will you make effective use of your time and limited resources? How soon will you jump on board our bandwagon and start reaching out to bitchslap some breeders?

Kevin:

Not to worry, Sarah and other goodie two-shoes. We want to get to the most people as quickly as possible in order to protect animals from being exploited as pampered pets. We will look initially at those breeders we can catch who appear to have high volume, then we will be happy to take complaints from humaniacs such as yourself. So we will be depending on you guys from HSUS, DDAL, CAPS and other to help us out here, OK? Please don't let us down!!

Sarah:

We are ready, Kevin!! We won't fail in our quest to shut down every dog breeder in the US! Thanks again!

Jennifer from the HTPCB:

What is the definition of a "breeding bitch"?

Kevin:

It doesn't matter as long as you let people into your home to inspect you. Why are you breeders so hung up on definitions? We make the definitions up as we go along.

Dr. Russian:

Breeding FEMALE (oh I just can't bring myself to use that "B" word!). I say, it's a dog that can breed. Ultimately, we decide what does or does not "count against you" for your numbers limit. End of story!

Cathy from Animal Welfare Institute:

Hallelujah! Our prayers have been answered! New rules to put more pet breeders out of business. I just want to be sure you cover each and every species of pet. There is too much animal suffering, forcing them to be pets.

Kevin:

Yes, don't worry. All species of pets are covered.

Cathy:

Whew! Thanks again!

Tracy from the HSUS:

We are thrilled that those greedy, evil breeders will now be forced into the USDA system or quit breeding entirely. Thrilled, I tell you! When can we get started?

Kevin:

Well, by law, we have to wait 60 days to start enforcing any new rules. However, our motto here at the USDA is "why wait on legal technicalities"? Let's start right now looking for people to harrass by going through breed registries and looking at people advertising on the internet. We hope they will voluntarily just give up breeding on their own, or turn themselves in for enforcement, but if not, don't worry, we'll be on the lookout for them.

Larry, President of North American Falconers Association:

Are birds exempt?

Kevin:

Another call about birds? Great! Yes, birds are exempt.

Larry:

But you just told the lady from Animal Welfare that all species of pets are included?

Kevin:

Well if you were looking for honesty, Larry, this is the wrong place to be. Birds are exempt. We haven't figured out how to include them "at this point". Our friends at the HSUS are helping us work on getting standards in place to regulate birds.

Larry:

Great!! Birds are exempt! Yay!

Linda, hobby breeder:

Currently buyers all come into my house. I don't ship. So I'm a retail store, right?

Kevin:

You are covered.

Dr. Russian:

People don't need to come to your home for you to be exempt. Don't listen to Kevin, he doesn't know what the fuck he is talking about.

Linda:

Wal Mart parking lot is OK?

Kevin:

Sure, why not? But be careful not to get arrested in the states that have laws against sales in public places. Those new laws are awesome!! Hooray for HSUS! We're so glad to see that selling animals is now a crime in many places.

Linda:

My daughter and I both have breeding bitches, she has three, I have five. I also am a broker for other people. How does all that work? These new rules are confusing.

Dr. Russian:

We see intact dogs on your premises, they are being counted. If you don't ship any dogs you are not covered. But now that we know you are a dog breeder and broker, we are going to definitely have you on our radar screen.

Linda:

But I don't ship.

Kevin:

We will wait, maybe, for a few months or even years before we start to go after people like you. But rest assured, we WILL be coming after you eventually. What we say now, and how the rules are written, may be two entirely different things.

Linda:

I advertise online, sometimes dozens of dogs for sale at a time.

Kevin:

Boy, you are one of those upfront, honest people who will be the first to go. SUCKER!!

Since you say you don't ship, we will be leaving you alone. Temporarily. Rules will be tightened up in the future to better protect dogs and persecute breeders.

Deborah from ASPCA:

Thank you thank you! How can we make sure that everyone is licensed within 60 days? How will we go after people who don't apply for a license?

Dr. G:

We will outreach beginning immediately. We will try to get the more naïve to turn themselves in and those who don't, we will be on the lookout for them. Rest assured, humaniacs, that your wish is our command.

Carla, breeder of Aussies:

There is an exemption for working dogs. What about stock dogs? And, if I have a state license, why do I need a license with the feds?

Kevin:

We don't care how many layers of bureaucracy you have to contend with. The more, the better. I don't know what a "stock dog" is so I'll let Dr. Russian address that part.

Dr. Russian:

Good God, I don't know what a "stock dog" is either. But if it isn't used for research, teaching, testing, experimentation, exhibition or use as a pet, then we can't sink our meat hooks into it. Darn.

Kara from MPBA:

Can we advertise on the internet as long as we don't ship? What about my stock dogs? What if I say I'm selling breeders? Can't you give us a few loopholes to work with?

Dr. Russian:

We LOVE people who advertise on the net, that's where we will go a-huntin' for breeders. So advertise away! Your business model is what we are looking at. If you sell dogs, then how you do it is OUR decision!

After all these questions about dogs for stock, I am really wondering now what the heck you are talking about. Stocking the shelves of your stores? Making soup? You breeders are really wierd!!

Kevin:

We are from the government, and we are here to help! Restraint of trade is what we do best. Who needs free enterprise? Phooey.

We suggest if you are confused about the rules that you call us so we can begin to investigate you immediately. We need to know about your "business model" even though you are a hobby breeder, not a business. We don't take into consideration your profit or loss, only the fact that you dare to sell pets. At the end of the day, that's all that matters. We are here for the animals, and as long as we draw breath and continue to collect our six-figure salaries (provided by your tax dollars), we are committed to continuing to dream up new ways to screw over anyone evil enough to breed pets.

I will happily refer those of you with further questions to our knowledgeable enforcement division: Sarah L. Conant, former lawyer for the Humane Society of the US, and animal rights extremist Deborah Dubow Press. They are waiting to prosecute you to the fullest extent of the law. They'll even do it with a smile!

And, if we can drive a few breeds extinct, or prevent someone from getting the dog of their dreams, then our efforts will not have been in vain.

The dog of tomorrow, once breeding is stopped.