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!

USDA Strikes Again!

THE ULTIMATE GOAL OF THE USDA - PET EXTINCTION!

Way back in 1966, the USDA was given the authority to regulate commercial dog breeders. Hobby breeders were OK with that, as they felt exempt. After all, they were not commercial breeders and never would be, right??

Well, surprise surprise. It took a few decades, but now the animal rights nuts have succeeded in their campaign to regulate just about everyone who is NOT a commercial breeder right out of existence. Here's what we get for allowing the USDA carte blanche over our trade.

Despite literally hundreds of thousands of written objections from groups and individuals, new rules are going into effect that will force many small breeders to apply for a commercial breeders' license with the USDA.

If you so much as ship one dog "sight unseen" to a buyer in another state or another country, you will need to apply for the privilege of USDA licensing and submit to unannounced inspections. Got a job outside your home? Travel to show your dogs? Too bad for you! You need someone at home during business hours so the almighty government bureaucrats can tell you how you should be raising your animals.

Why should breeders be forced to allow strangers to traipse through their homes? People have had puppies stolen at gunpoint by allowing strangers in. Other have been turned in to the local animal control department by AR nuts with an agenda who came into their home under the guise of wanting to buy a puppy. There is no animal welfare regulation anywhere that trumps human rights. Not in MY book.

Some of the biggest violators of animal welfare will, however, be exempt from this new rule. Every day we hear on the news that some fly-by-night "rescue" has sold sick dogs, or an animal shelter has imported dogs from another country, so they can have products to sell. Not one SHRED of regulation involved there.

If that isn't bad enough, anyone who owns more than four "breeding females" also will be required to apply for a USDA license. What is a "breeding female", you might ask? Why, it is ANY intact bitch over the age of four months old. Doesn't matter if they are actually ever bred, or not. The USDA has declared that only they shall determine if an intact female is exempt from being considered a "breeding female". You can bet your bottom dollar, if she is intact, she will be considered "breedable".

Small breeds with tiny litters require that we keep many more than four intact females to have a meaningful breeding program. We might like to keep them intact and grow them on for evaluation, or so that we have a variety of bloodlines to ensure health and genetic diversity. We might like to keep them intact so they can have the necessary hormones to develop normally and avoid painful orthopedic problems like hip dysplasia, patellar luxation or bone cancer.

But none of that matters one whit to the USDA.

What's all the fuss about anyway, why not just get a license and keep all the intact dogs you please?

I'm glad you asked.

People NEED to know that while they are frantically trying to decide if they should go the USDA route or not ---- it is IMPERATIVE that they know the first greatest risk is that all USDA facilities (those holding licenses) are listed publicly with the following information:

Names (These would be the breeders)
Address (Yes, that's your home! Online for anyone to see)
Phone numbers (No - you get no privacy!)
The number of animals at the time of inspection.
Any violations.

Aerial views of your house and property are available online once an address is obtained. From there you are easy prey for harrassment from any animal rights anti-breeding nut job. Because, you know, according to the animal rights people, every USDA commercial breeder is a PUPPY MILL.

Ever checked the website of "CAPS"; the "Companion Animal Protection Society"? They dedicate their existence to harrassing pet shops and commercial breeders until they can manage to bully them out of existence. There are big groups on Facebook dedicated to finding all USDA-licensed facilities and publishing them on FB in order to hunt down, harass and, in essence, destroy them.

Being a USDA licensed breeder is a big red flag screaming "COME AND GET ME".

The government's idea is that these new rules will help to regulate commercial breeders who currently skirt the AWA by selling online instead of through a retail pet store. If anyone can avoid the iron thumb of the USDA, I say more power to them! We already have state and local laws to cover animal welfare.

Neither the federal, state nor local agencies have the funds to fully enforce all the intrusive laws currently in effect, so enforcement will primarily be complaint-driven.

This makes us literally sitting ducks for these anti-breeding humaniac crusaders.

On a more mundane level, people who breed dogs as a hobby already operate in the red, but now they will find they need to spend even more money to paying annually for a Federal license.

This factor alone could force many people to stop breeding wonderful dogs. How many more breeds will face extinction?

To get your USDA license, you will need to comply with all requirements of the Animal Welfare Act. This includes housing standards that are difficult to meet in a home environment. Carpets and upholstered furniture are forbidden in the dogs primary enclosure. Stuffed toys are a no-no. Concrete is preferred. Regular use of harsh disinfectants is required. Want to raise a litter in your bedroom? Fuggedaboudit.

Free run of the house is a red flag. APHIS admits as much in their Q&A "Factsheet". Most hobby breeders allow their dogs free run of the house, and wouldn't want to have to change that.

Phooey on the USDA!

A Federal Bill dubbed "PUPS" or the "Puppy Uniform Safety and Protection Act" was proposing similar requirements, but now they don't even need to pass that bill, we've already got the government flexing its muscle to control us without even so much a a vote on the matter!

Where is Ron Paul when we need him? Abolish the USDA!

AVMA Surrendered to the Dark Side

As an owner of multiple dogs I was surprised to find that the American Veterinary Medical Association has position statements on their website, including a position statement in support of PUPS. PUPS is the federal bill that would subject many more breeders to APHIS guidelines. You know, those rules that force breeders to keep their dogs and puppies in sterile environments, to log all activity including any interaction with their dogs/puppies (thereby discouraging such interaction) and to submit to unannounced inspection of their property at any time.

 

Naturally, such unreasonable requirements discourage most reasonable people from breeding and would drastically reduce the ranks of dog breeders; but, of course, that is the whole intention of the new rules. The are certainly not intended to support and encourage dog breeding. I was pleased to see my friend post this note to the AVMA.

 

March 19, 2013 at 1:46 pm

Hi AVMA/Animal Rights Group:

 Do you have a list of vets who do NOT belong to AVMA? If so I would like to have it so I can find a vet that supports my rights to own, breed and co-own my chosen breed. A vet who realizes that I could own NO breeding animal on my own property and still fall under the PUPS guidelines. A vet who realizes that my home environment cannot be washed down with 180 degree water and that I have soft surfaces that are not "impervious to moisture" so I would never be able to comply with PUPS. A vet who knows that rally, obedience and flyball involve "repetitive exercise' and that I would not be in compliance with PUPS if I used these as forms of exercise for my dogs. A vet who knows that when I write him/her a check for thousands or dollars or slap down my open-ended credit card to save my dog's life that I am a caring breeder no matter how many "breedable' females I own or co-own or how many puppies I sell in one year. A vet who knows that without me, he/she would not be in business, or that their business would be sadly curtailed.

 Please send me that list of non-AVMA veterinarians so I can support that person.. the one who respects my rights, and my dogs, and my brain.

Thank you

 

 

BRAVO!!! I'll be asking for that list myself; or perhaps using the AVMA website function of "find a member" to determine who NOT to support with my hard-earned dollars.

 

This position statement of the AVMA is rather foolish, because after all, veterinarians are ultimately the ones who actually profit from dogs, not the vast majority of breeders. And where would pet lovers be without breeders? Petless and lonely, that's where.

 

Elimination of pet ownership is the dream of the animal rights extremists. It seems AVMA has already surrendered to the Dark Side. Let's hope for the good of society that they will wise up sooner rather than later.

 
 

Climate Control

"We" the responsible show breeders deserve to breed our dogs, because we are so, well, AWESOME, right? We pamper our pooches, we lose a ton of money breeding and showing our dogs. We seldom have litters, we screen our homes, we health test, we belong to breed clubs, we are motivated by love, not money.

Yes, we ARE the bees knees!!! But what about those who might have different goals and different purposes from ours? Are they less “worthy” of breeding? We seemingly don't have a problem with laws that limit those unscrupulous "other" breeders. And they may do things that most of us don't do. They sell dogs over the internet, or to "pet shops" or through brokers or they breed their bitches every year. But, we have to STOP assuming that every broker is bad, that pet stores are merchants of greed and horror, that anyone who is motivated by money is necessarily an evil abuser.

Because it's just plain not true.

All dogs are not destined to serve as primarily as "pets", although even those with jobs are usually dearly cherished by their owners. Military working dogs are procured via brokers and breeders who specifically breed for that market. Guide Dogs for the Blind organizations breed dogs for a specific “helpmate” function. They crossbreed, they breed for aptitude, and they certainly have more than one or two litters a year. Dogs used on farms and ranches have jobs to do, and those who are the strongest and smartest and demonstrate the best ability will probably be selected to be bred to provide us with the next generation.

Traditionally, we have had choice. The choice to own a purebred dog, or a mixed breed dog, to breed as we see fit, whether we want a pet litter of "doodles", or a show litter, or a litter to hopefully produce a dog who will excel at a certain function. (Even if that function is catching frisbees). Do we really want the government stepping in and setting up ridiculous breeding rules? Must belong to a breed club, must do X-Y-Z health certification, must not crossbreed, and on and on ad nauseum.

Do we really want the government demanding that we forego the purebred puppy in the pet shop, with a pedigree and a health history, in favor of imported strays with completely unknown backgrounds? Families who want a pet currently can pick up the newspaper want ads and find one to suit their needs (although last time I checked, there were NO pets advertised in our local paper). Should it be illegal to advertise animals over the internet or in newspaper want ads? Should people have to beg permission from the government in order to breed a litter? These are all issues we currently face in today's climate of government control of our hobby.

Animal Rights extremists want to replace puppies resulting from planned litters with unplanned, crossbred street dogs, many of which are from foreign countries. They've already gotten laws passed to make this the ONLY sort of pet found in a pet stores in many localities in California. They want strict government regulation of all breeding in the US. If the side effect of such over-regulation is causing most breeders to give up entirely, that would be dandy with them. If there were no pets in pet stores, or in newspaper ads, or on the internet, it would be "mission accomplished" for these Animal Wrongists.

Patti Page, famous for the songs "Tennessee Waltz" and "How Much is that Doggie in the Window," died January first at a nursing home in Encinitas, California. How different the climate was toward pets in the mid-twentieth century! Purebred puppies were regarded as one of life's treasures. Pet shop puppies went from societies’ darlings to social pariahs, because the Animal Wrongists have convinced the public that surely they are the product of unscrupulous animal abusers.

We need to get past such attitudes. We need to recognize that passing laws intended to eliminate the few "bad apple" breeders will not accomplish that goal, but such laws will eliminate all the great dogs that we love in the process. The show dogs, the working dogs, the mixed breed "doodle" pets, ALL of them! Patti Page was even pressured to re-write her "doggie in the window" song to one that promotes adoption of shelter dogs.

"Dog breeding is a privilege, not a right" someone recently commented on this blog. I think many people are beginning to fall into this sort of mindset. On the contrary, I believe it is our RIGHT to breed our dog, our cat, our bird, our hamster or our farm animals. They belong to us, and it is our right to breed them. And once we give up that right to government control or even to the discretion of dog clubs, then woe betide us.

We are a nation where choice and freedom are supposed to be guarded and cherished. Our freedom to breed in an unrestricted manner and our choice to own the pet that we want should not be determined for us by others who believe that somehow they know best. When we arrive at the "no breeding" goal of animal fanatics, life as we know it will never be the same. We'll be missing a very important part of our heart and soul.

ALERT - USDA Proposal to Regulate Hobby Breeders

ALERT - USDA proposal to regulate hobby breeders

The Humane Society of the US

recently submitted a petition on the "WhiteHouse.gov" website asking the Federal government to crack down on "puppy mills". In response to the over 30,000 signatures on that petition, USDA/APHIS is considering revising their rules.

 

Currently, anyone who sells pets at retail is exempt from USDA licensure requirements. That means if you are a hobby breeder or a pet store selling pets directly to the public, you do not need a license from the USDA. Only those breeders who sell pets at the wholesale level currently need a USDA license.

 

The new rule, however, would revise the definition of "retail seller".

 

If you:

• Have MORE than four intact female animals, and 
• ADVERTISE over the internet, in the newspaper or over the telephone, and
• Don't arrange for each buyer to visit your place of business to see the pet before or immediately after the purchase, then

 

You would no longer be considered an exempt retail seller, and under the new proposal would be required to be licensed and inspected by USDA.

 

Needless to say, this would be devastating to most serious hobby breeders. However, the USDA is accepting public comments on this proposed new rule. ALL comments will be read and considered. We call upon all pet owners to contact the USDA either on-line or by mail and inform them of your concerns over this proposal.

 

 

Be sure to have your comments submiktted on line or sent by mail by July 16th. Note that letters sent by mail MUST be received on or before July 16th to be considered.

 

The link that will take you to the "submit comments" page is:

http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=APHIS-2011-0003-0001

 

 

Do not send form letters. All form letters that are the same but signed by different individuals are considered ONE letter, no matter how many are received by APHIS. Your personal comment is important, even if it is only a sentence or two. A long letter is not necessary. You may comment more than once.

 

When commenting on line, please note that there is a time limit (approximately 20 minutes) that you can keep the "submit comments" page open. If you want to take time to compose your letter, then it is most efficient to draft it in a word program and then cut and paste it onto the comment section.  

 

In writing your letters or comments, you may wish to use some of the following talking points:

• It would be cost-prohibitive for me to have to build a USDA-compliant kennel. I would be unable to continue breeding.
  
• I prefer to raise pets in my home for optimal socialization. I do not wish to keep them in a kennel.
  
• This proposal would be harmful to my rare breed. Buyers are usually distant and rarely visit the premises during a sales transaction.
  
• I am selective in the homes I approve for my puppies; I sell few pets locally, and must advertise and ship. This proposal would hinder my ability to find the best homes for my pets.
  
• This new rule would be financially devastating to me. I cannot afford thousands of dollars to build a kennel facility to come into USDA compliance.
  
• Requiring me to allow strangers into my home exposes my animals to contagious diseases. These can be fatal, particularly for young puppies and kittens.
  
• Strangers entering my home makes me vulnerable to criminals who could target me for robbery or other crimes.
  
• Strangers entering my home can include animal rights activists who are philosophically opposed to any pet breeding. These extremists may likely file unsubstantiated complaints against me, claiming authority by having entered my home.
  
• Rescue groups often rely on use of a foster home network. They could not comply with USDA requirements and would be forced to cease operations. Crippling rescue groups would cause shelter intakes and deaths to rise.
  
• This proposal is government overreach.
  
• This proposal is a violation of my right to privacy.
  
• As a pet owner, I am concerned about my future ability to purchase a well-bred, well-socialized pet for a reasonable price.
  
• I am concerned about the future availability of service dogs, such as guide dogs for the blind. These dogs must be exposed to a variety of social situations and external stimuli. If serious hobby breeders are forced to keep their dogs and puppies in kennels, those dogs will not be suitable for service work.
  
• As a hobby breeder who works away from my home, I cannot comply with the APHIS requirement to be available for unannounced inspections. I would be forced to quit breeding or face thousands of dollars in fines for noncompliance with this rules.

 

There are undoubtedly many more concerns with this new proposal. You may return to the page and comment as many times as you wish.

 

The AKC is also gathering signatures on a petition to send to USDA.

 

http://www.akc.org/petition/ 

 

As of today, June 14, 2012, there are over 31,000 signatures on the AKC petition….a nice counter to the HSUS anti-breeder petition. Please do sign the AKC petition also, but remember, your signature on a petition is NOT a substitute for your official, personal comment to the USDA on their website. Both are helpful, but your personal comment to the USDA is ESSENTIAL to defeat this proposal.

 

Thank you for taking a few moments out of your day to post a comment to the USDA and to sign AKC's petition.

 

Sincerely yours,

Officers and Board of Directors

California

Federation of Dog Clubs

 

*****Cross-posting encouraged******

USDA attempts to regulate small breeders

How many of our rights and freedoms are we supposed to sacrifice in the attempt to protect the morons who don't research their purchases? Just when does the onus for personal responsibility enter the picture?




If you buy "hot" merchandise there is a legal presumption that you should know better. Why should people not be held accountable when they themselves support sellers and brokers like "Wizard of Claws" and such? Those buyers are perpetuating the problem and they are just as bad as the ones who sell them the dogs. IMO they get what they deserve when they buy without doing their due diligence and proper homework.


The government takes a few random complaints from idjits as their excuse to intrude and impose their ridiculous, excessive "standards" across the board. Like all government agencies, the primary operative mode for the USDA is self-preservation; expanding its sphere of influence and sucking up more and more of our tax dollars to ensure survival.

If we point out the exemption for the casual home breeder, who thoughtlessly allows their unregistered, unvaccinated, un-health-tested bitch to have an unplanned litter, next thing we know THAT will be made illegal and the owners of ALL bitches everywhere will be included....they'll dredge up the good ol' PUPS standard of ONE BITCH as the threshold for federal regulation.


Let's face it, the intent is not (or at least should not be) to "regulate" businesses that abuse animals, but to drive them out of business. And the ARs know that support for that goal will take out many other too. That's their plan! Unfortunately the rest of us will go down the drain right along with the few abusers when they are legislated out of the picture. The free market generally works best. Exposes and public education have worked to solve the  "overpopulation crisis", why not education about how NOT to buy a dog to solve the problem of unethical internet sellers?

Trojan Horse

A proposed change in USDA rules would bring almost every pet breeder under federal guidelines, forcing them to build commercial kennels and submit to unannounced inspections by either the public or the USDA. The new proposal would appease the blood-lust of animal extremist groups like the HSUS, PETA, ASPCA, and In Defense of Animals. These groups support a surge in the war against pet breeders, and using the US Federal government to aid in their vendetta makes it even more objectionable. Imagine our own federal income tax dollars spent in the quest to shut down any in-home pet breeding. Nauseating.

The new proposal comes at a time when we find the Federal government under heavy pressure from the HSUS and other AR groups to over-regulate animal breeders under the guise of improving animal welfare. Anti-hunting, anti-breeding, and anti-agriculture bills are popping up all over, and our legislators still don't seem to be clued in yet to the AR agenda.

The idea with the new USDA proposal is supposedly "to close a loophole for pets sold on the Internet." The truth is, there is no "loophole" that needs closing. Pet breeders are heavily regulated already at the Federal, state and/or local levels. With the federal budget deficit, there are insufficient resources to enforce the rules for commercial breeders as currently defined without bringing thousands of new entities under the USDA umbrella. And, so-called "Puppy Mill Bills" have been passed in almost a dozen large states, making federal intervention unnecessary in those locales.

A comment period is currently open until July 16. Please do go to the site to voice your objections and request the proposal be withdrawn:

http://www.regulations.gov/#!submitComment;D=APHIS-2011-0003-0001

To view previous comments and get an idea of what others have already said, check here:

http://tinyurl.com/7aqm66y

Now, ay, here's the rub. Should enough people complain that the USDA withdraws the new rules, there is a bill pending in Congress that will accomplish pretty much the same goal. This bill is PUPS and we have blogged about it here previously. PUPS would tag anyone with ownership of ONE bitch, who sells "X"-amount of dogs or puppies in a year, as a commercial breeder. Makes no difference if you are an active hobbyist who does some breeding but still operates at a financial loss as most do….it's just a numbers game played with the intent to stop breeding by any means possible.

PUPS has nearly enough sponsors to be passed should it come to a vote. And, if the new APHIS regulations are not implemented once the July comment period closes, then I strongly suspect that PUPS will be brought up almost immediately for a vote quicker than we can say "WHAM BAM THANK YOU MA'AM ".

So it is important to continue to oppose on both fronts….PUPS as well as the new APHIS regulations.

The Sale of Puppies Online

This article originally appeared in The Fancy Speaks column in the February 10, 2012 issue of Dog News. It is reprinted here by permission of the author.

The Sale of Puppies Online

Carlotta Cooper

I read the January 20, 2012 DOG NEWS editorial “Regulating The Sale Of Puppies Online” with concern. Although it’s clear that the editorial is well-intentioned, it comes dangerously close to embracing the PUPS bill which is now in Congress. And PUPS, H.R. 835/S. 707, would be very harmful for hobby dog breeders.

The editorial argues that the Internet is used for the sale of dogs, which is true, and that some of these dogs come from places which have no policy or guidelines for their sale. Some even come from “the unregulated commercial breeder.” This is also probably true. The editorial goes on to ask, “Who is there to determine whether or not the seller is responsible? Who establishes the policy to protect the dog in these situations whether or not it is a commercial or homebred sale?”

I would like to point out that people have been selling dogs by means of newspaper classified ads, magazine ads, billboard notices, and other forms of commerce and advertising for generations. No one has been regulating these retail sales directly to the public. The thinking has always been that the buyer needs to be careful when buying anything, from anyone. Caveat emptor has a very real meaning when it comes to buying a pet. The buyer should exercise due caution when buying a puppy or dog, whether they are buying from a magazine, newspaper, or over the Internet. It is not the responsibility of the government to regulate the sale of puppies for the buyer. It is up to the buyer to use some good judgment when making a purchase. This hasn’t changed since people were buying puppies from ads in dog magazines in the 1980s, or buying dogs at any other time in history.

Large commercial breeders who are inspected by the USDA are already regulated and they do report their wholesale sales. However, the retail sale of puppies and dogs directly to individual buyers has never been regulated at the federal level. In many states this kind of sale is now regulated at the state level, if you sell more than x number of puppies per year. In some states it is covered under a sales and use tax, the same kind of tax that covers the sale of Girl Scout Cookies or having a yard sale. If you sell more than a certain number of puppies per year in some states you would be required to get a business and/or kennel license so you could regularly report your tax income from sales.

HSUS calls the fact that retail sales to individuals are not regulated at the federal level a “loophole” and, in PUPS, they are trying to change this situation. But this exemption of retail sales for small breeders is not a loophole. It is the way the law was intended to work. In DDAL vs. Veneman (2003), the case in which the Doris Day Animal League sued the USDA to try to make them inspect retail breeders (home, hobby, show breeders), the judge gave a clear ruling that small breeders were not the same as pet stores and did not have to be regulated or inspected as such. HSUS has been trying to change the law through PAWS and PUPS ever since that time.

These small hobby breeders and others who sell puppies and dogs by retail means were not meant to be regulated in the same manner as large commercial breeders. But that’s what PUPS would do.

It is up to the buyer, not to the government, to check out the person who sells a puppy. Otherwise, all of us who breed dogs are going to have the USDA visiting our homes to see how we keep and raise our puppies.

Now, it’s true, as the editorial mentions, that many people don’t like the idea of “regulation,” but in this case regulation cuts right to the core of everyone who breeds and shows dogs. If PUPS becomes law it would cripple breeders who show, breed dogs for performance, and who breed quality companion dogs. We would be required to meet the same USDA standards that are in place for large commercial breeders, even though we raise puppies in our homes. Most of us could not do this and the result would be the end of countless serious breeding programs in the show world, along with the end of precious bloodlines and, in some cases, the end of breeds.

The AKC sees this, too. On January 26, 2012 they sent a letter to members of Congress from Dennis Sprung with their concerns about PUPS. Among other things it says:

“The AKC does not oppose the concept of regulating high volume breeder retailers but we believe that the definitions proposed in this bill are misleading, overly broad, and potentially damaging to responsible breeders who individually maintain and breed only a few dogs in their homes.

“Although PUPS was designed to regulate internet sales of puppies, it would require anyone who owns or co-owns even a few female dogs that produce 50 or more puppies offered for sale in a year to be regulated under existing USDA dog "dealer" regulations. These regulations are designed for high-volume commercial kennels that produce puppies for wholesale, and require a USDA commercial license, maintenance of specified commercial kennel engineering standards and regular inspections. They are not appropriate for small breeders who may keep only a few dogs in their homes.”

In short, AKC opposes PUPS as it is written and asked members of Congress to withhold their support.

As it is written, PUPS would also regulate anyone who sells these puppies by any means, not just over the Internet. It specifically includes anyone who “sells or offers for sale, via any means of conveyance (including the Internet, telephone, or newspaper),” so it does not just intend to regulate people who sell over the Internet.

I doubt I have to mention how many show breeders have web sites or sell puppies online. You would also fall under this bill for Internet regulation of puppy sales.

PUPS is a very dangerous bill that will harm all of us who breed and show dogs. If you haven’t contacted your legislators to ask them to withhold support for PUPS, you can contact them by visiting this site: http://www.contactingthecongress.org/

Here is some more information about PUPS:

WHAT PUPS DOES:

• Abandons traditional determination between wholesale and retail---so that

USDA can regulate home/hobby breeders who don't sell to pet stores.

• Begins USDA regulation of anyone (with 1 intact female dog over 4 months of

age) who sells, places, or adopts out more than 50 dogs in a year ... to start.

Could easily be amended down to 10 ... to 2.

• Takes away your right to privacy in your own home. USDA or their contractors

can without notice enter your home and inspect it if they SUSPECT you might

meet criteria for regulation.

• Over-regulates responsible home breeders out of existence. Mandates non-

porous floors, kennel sizes, floor drains, and pages of requirements impossible

for most home breeders to follow.

• Forces shelters, and home/hobby breeders to redesign their current facilities in

order to meet federal standards.

• Establishes government controlled exercise standards that are not scientifically

proven.

• Sets precedent with exercise standards for future rigid socialization and

breeding standards that would remove owner’s flexibility to use professional

judgment based on breed and purpose.

• Reduces the ability of the American public to obtain healthy privately bred or

rescue dogs of their choosing.

• Places an unfunded mandate on Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service

(APHIS) and overextends their enforcement ability.

• Fails to exempt sportsmen, sporting dog trainers, and hunting clubs from being

regulated alongside in-home sellers.

• Adds more federal oversight and regulation into Americans’ daily lives.

PUPS - "What Can We Do"?

PUPS (Puppy Uniform Protection and Safety) is the federal proposal that anyone who owns (or co-owns) even ONE intact bitch be brought under commercial regulations, if he also sells (or offers for sale) fifty dogs in a year. 

This measure is sponsored by the HSUS, so we know that the number "50" is arbitrary and will be reduced with future amendments. No need to reduce the number of intact bitches because anyone with an ownership interest in ONE intact bitch (as young as four months old) would be automatically included. Co-ownerships are specifically mentioned; it's possible that such things as breeding rights and puppy back contracts may also "count" in one way or another as your sales numbers are tabulated.

PUPS erases the line between those who sell at wholesale and those who sell at retail. Currently, retail sellers are regulated locally. PUPS is an effort to bring those who sell at retail (like anyone who advertises with a personal website) under the auspices of the federal Animal Welfare Act. Contrary to the claims of PUPS supporters it does NOT apply only to internet sales. PUPS includes breeders who place pets "via any means of conveyance"; internet ads/websites, newspaper, telephone, dog show contacts and so on.

Requiring hobby breeders to follow USDA rules would force many people to give up hobby breeding entirely. Commercial rules forbid keeping dogs in your house, and instead require that an expensive kennel facility be built. Carpet, grass and upholstered furniture (like a couch or chair) is forbidden in the dog areas. Raising pups in your bedroom instead of a kennel would not be allowed. Dogs must be kept in runs with cement floors, roof-style covers, an adequate ventilation system and floor drains for sanitation protocols which are also regulated. The cost of building such facilities would be out of reach for the vast majority of breeders.

Other rules that would be difficult if not impossible for hobby breeders to meet include submission to unannounced inspections and meeting ambiguous exercise requirements.

The USDA is currently criticised for lax enforcement of existing law. In 2008, the USDA had 99 inspectors who conducted 15,722 inspections or re-inspections on facilities including 4,604 licensed breeders and 1,116 licensed brokers. The numbers of facilities/homes that would be added by PUPS would be in the thousands, adding additional strain on the existing system. PUPS would result in fewer inspections of the large, commercial breeders the AWA was intended to regulate in the first place.

Along with many other canine groups, AKC opposes PUPS, stating:

 

The AKC also has a number of serious concerns with the bill as introduced and does not support this measure.

(You can read their concerns and the full alert at the link below)

http://www.akc.org/news/index.cfm?article_id=4543

One of best PUPS opposition statements belongs to the national cat registry association, CFA, even though PUPS doesn't even apply to them (doesn't apply YET - which is the whole idea of why they oppose):

http://www.cfa.org/Client/exhibitorsalert.aspx

There is a version of PUPS in the Senate, and a version in the House of Representatives. Presumably, this makes it easier to get it pushed through quickly once the votes are there. And, at last count, there were 196 congressional sponsors for PUPS; more are signing on every day. Once they get around 220 or so they will have enough votes to pass and it just might be brought up at that time. There is talk that PUPS may never come to a vote because the USDA may amend the AWA and then it might be a moot point. We can hope!

There's a new legislative site that allows you to contact your legislators quickly and let them know when you support or oppose proposed legislation.

Click on the two Popvox links below to urge your legislator to oppose PUPS in both House and Senate:

US Senate PUPS
https://www.popvox.com/bills/us/112/s707

US House of Representatives PUPS
https://www. popvox.com/ bills/us/ 112/hr835

The entire rationale for PUPS is to try to "catch" people who are breeding commercially and selling directly to the public via the internet. However, people who attempt to skirt the law now will not be more likely to comply if a new law is passed. Instead, we will lose many conscientious breeders who are the best sources for healthy, well-bred dogs in this country. The language of PUPS would also bring rescue groups and other resellers under onerous federal rules. Many of these groups use the internet (websites or puppyfind-type services) to find homes for their animals. All retailers who sell directly to the public should remain under local regulation.

Please take a minute to contact your senator and congressman. Popvox makes it quick and easy.

"Forever" is a long, long time

"I am a Forever Dog"

There's a warm and fuzzy message! Sounds good, no? If you can't keep a dog forever, then you shouldn't own one! Just fuggedaboudit. 

This sort of black-and-white thinking, this dogmatic mentality (pardon the pun) is further evidence of why we have so many intrusive and oppressive laws proposed.

• We say, you should spay/neuter your pets; they say, hey, let's make it the law.
• We say, microchipping saves lives; they say, great idea! let's make it mandatory.
• We say, to breed responsibly, you should belong to a breed club and do health testing, Hmmm, let's make it a law that ONLY those who belong to breed clubs with enforced codes of ethics can buy a breeder's permit.
• We say, don't breed too often; they say, OK let's make a legal limit of one litter per year.
• "Keep your numbers down and don't expect to make any money" we advise each other; they say, if you own a kennel or make money, you are a grubby puppy-miller. 
• We say, "rescue is noble, let's help make sure our breed doesn't add to the shelter population"; they say, "Don't breed or buy while shelter dogs die" .......... "Adopt, don't shop!" Pet sales become outlawed except for rescues
• We say, "Make sure when you get a dog it's not an impulse purchase"; they say, "A dog is forever" and forbid pet shop sales, or advertising in newspapers or via the internet. You'd better have your sales and breeding permit numbers displayed, and you'd better not transfer ownership in public.  (Oddly enough, it's OK to impulse purchase rescued animals in pet shops or at adoption fairs.)

Life changes, stuff happens. Sometimes the dog does not work out for the situation. Working dogs go where they are needed. You lose your job and maybe your home, you get sick or perhaps even die....the dog needs to be re-homed. Breeding dogs might be sold to new owners. Someone moves, a friend or relative takes their dog. A serviceman is relocated, and his dog needs a foster home, or a new home. Breeders may place their "retirees" in pet homes.

The "Forever Home" propaganda is just another crafty animal extremist method of discouraging pet ownership, and demonizing pet owners. Don't fall for it!

Pups Act Gets Obama Support

NEWS

PUPS ACT GETS OBAMA APPROVAL

The HSUS's petition for the PUPS act has met with a nod of approval from the OBAMA administration.

Humane Society Petition: http://www.humanesociety.org/news/press_releases/2011/10/puppy_mills_petition_white_house_100311.html

The Response from the White House:

Improving Regulation and Oversight of Commercial Breeders By Rebecca Blue, USDA Deputy Under Secretary for Marketing and Regulatory Programs Thank you for signing a petition on the We the People platform asking the Obama Administration to "crack down on puppy mills." The Obama Administration is committed to ensuring that USDA's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), which enforces the Animal Welfare Act (AWA), improves its regulation and oversight of commercial breeders. APHIS is currently developing proposed regulations that would ensure that Internet breeders provide their animals with care and treatment that meets the AWA standards. APHIS plans to publish its proposed rule covering Internet breeders in the Federal Register for public comment in 2012. We encourage interested citizens to provide their feedback on the rule at that time; comments can be logged at Regulations.gov.    APHIS is also moving forward with an enhanced AWA enforcement plan to improve its oversight of currently licensed dealers, breeders, and other entities regulated under the AWA (particularly those who are repeat violators). It is also working to improve the performance of its inspectors.  Additionally, in September 2011, USDA proposed a new rule that when finalized will help ensure that dogs imported into the United States for resale are in good health, are at least 6 months of age, and have received their proper vaccinations. Among other things, this proposed rule is designed to prevent the importation of puppies that have not yet been weaned or have fully developed immune systems, or are sick. Find more information about APHIS' efforts to improve its enforcement of the AWA.  Check out this response on We the People. Stay Connected Stay connected to the White House by signing up for periodic email updates from President Obama and other senior administration officials.

 

Under PUPS, anyone with ownership or co-ownership of ONE intact bitch qualifies to be examined. That means EVERY BREEDER. Then APHIS will scrutinize how many dogs or puppies you and co-owners have placed or sold in a year. If at or over that number, you must comply with reams of AWA commercial rules and regs that are impossible to meet in a home environment, like keeping dogs on nonporous surfaces. Right now the number needed to be sold.....or OFFERED for sale.....is 50, but HSUS has admitted they intend to ratchet down such numbers with future amendments.

The PUPS bill does NOT apply to commercial breeders, they already fall under APHIS regulations. An "Internet seller?" How many breeders have a WEBSITE? You are now an "internet seller." Make no mistake about it, the intent is to bring every dog breeder under Federal control.