# USDA Regulations on shipping puppies to buyers



## RLwhaler

Can someone confirm with me that a potential buyer has to pick up her/his puppy in person from a breeder?Due to the new USDA guidelines?

Thanks!


----------



## selzer

Actually, there are new regulations that if you sell puppies, sight unseen, you will fall under USDA regulations, which most breeders do not want to do, because it requires things to be run like a farm moreso than puppies being raised in a home environment.

To avoid this, you can refuse to ship puppies, and require owners to come pick them up. This means you will not fall under USDA regulations soley because you ship puppies to people you haven't met. You may still fall under the regulations depending on how many puppies/litters are produced.

USDA probably has guidelines for shipping so I am guessing the breeeder is avoiding falling under their regualtions.


----------



## LifeofRiley

The AWA requirements are minimum care standards. The USDA has repeatedly said that the vast majority of responsible home-based breeders would not just meet but, far and away exceed, the standards of care set out by the AWA. 

It is simply not true that the “rule change” that went into effect last year prohibits breeding dogs from being in the home or that pups cannot be whelped in the home... i.e. that they must be treated like farm animals as Selzer would have you believe in her post. 

The USDA actually put together a webinar for home-based breeders to address this myth. It is available on the USDA/Aphis website for anyone who is interested. 

Unfortunately, there is a lot of misinformation out there about the 2013 USDA rule change. 

If your breeder chose not to become licensed, it probably has more to do with their attitude about the federal government/federal regulation than anything else.


----------



## Lauri & The Gang

This is from the AWA rulebook: http://www.aphis.usda.gov/animal_welfare/downloads/Animal Care Blue Book - 2013 - FINAL.pdf

Page 62
Section 3.2 Indoor Housing Facilities - item D



> The floors and walls of indoor housing facilities, and any other surfaces in contact with the animals, must be impervious to moisture.


That means that I could not keep my breeding dogs inside my house. My wood floors are NOT impervious to moisture. Instead, in order to comply with the rules, I would have to build something outside of my house to where I would keep my dogs. Something where the floors were concrete (no other surface is impervious to moisture).


----------



## LifeofRiley

The "indoor housing facility" referred to in that section refers to a very specific type of animal housing... think puppy mill out-buildings. 

Home-based breeders and other types of out-buildings/kennel housing have entirely different standards. Please look up the webinar I referenced earlier.


----------



## LifeofRiley

Here is the link to the "What is APHIS’ Inspection Process in the Home?" webinar for anyone who is interested:

http://www.aphis.usda.gov/animal_welfare/downloads/Retail_Pet_Store_Rule/Webinar%20Retail%20Pet%20Store%20Implementation%2011-21-13.pdf


----------



## RLwhaler

Wow...amazing..Regulating air we breathe will be next.
So,IF I had a friend that lived in NY drove to VT.(breeder) pays for my pup,have him ship to Houston via Delta Airlines would be considered adequate?


----------



## Chris Wild

Actually, the gist of the webinars was "trust us, home breeders won't be affected, we'll take it on a case by case basis and use common sense", and frankly a whole lot of home based breeders aren't too keen on taking USDA's word for it or trusting that their inspectors will show common sense and not have their own agenda. So yes, a lot of breeders are going to do what they can to avoid having to be USDA licensed. Not selling pups "sight unseen", aka not shipping, is one way for a breeder to avoid that.

A buyer CAN have an uncompensated representative, such as a friend, pick up the puppy from the breeder. This meets USDA's requirement for either the buyer, or someone of the buyer's choosing, viewing the puppy in person prior to purchase. So yes, you could have your friend pick the puppy up and ship it to you.


----------



## gsdsar

How about Skype? Could you do that with the breeder, have them hold the puppy up? Then it's not sight unseen? 


Sent from Petguide.com Free App


----------



## Chris Wild

LifeofRiley said:


> The "indoor housing facility" referred to in that section refers to a very specific type of animal housing... think puppy mill out-buildings.


It also applies to any area INside the home designated for housing or whelping. So the whole "impervious to moisture" thing DOES apply to that bathroom/bedroom/basement/mudroom/kitchen or wherever the puppies are actually whelped.


----------



## Chris Wild

gsdsar said:


> How about Skype? Could you do that with the breeder, have them hold the puppy up? Then it's not sight unseen?
> 
> 
> Sent from Petguide.com Free App


That question was directly posed to APHIS during one of the webinars and the answer was NO. Skype and similar things are not allowed. It must be in person, face-to-face.


----------



## alexg

So the breeder's friend can pretend to become a buyer's friend and ship the puppy to the buyer. The more regulations the government created, the more loopholes will be found to bypass these regulations. The only beneficiaries are the bureaucrats.


----------



## RLwhaler

Chris Wild said:


> Actually, the gist of the webinars was "trust us, home breeders won't be affected


Reminds me of R Reagan's Quote:" the nine most terrifying words the the english language is..I'm from the government,and I'm here to help".:help:


----------



## selzer

alexg said:


> So the breeder's friend can pretend to become a buyer's friend and ship the puppy to the buyer. The more regulations the government created, the more loopholes will be found to bypass these regulations. The only beneficiaries are the bureaucrats.


Of course that before the law was passed, people were looking for ways to get around it: here, buy my uber-wonderful crate for $1500 and I will send you a free puppy -- fill out questionnaire so we can best suit you to the puppy. Shipping and handling fees not included.

It is a bad law that is now affecting ordinary puppy buyers. Life of Riley would have you believe that everywhere organizations that will regulate this sort of thing will be above board, incorruptable, and rule with common sense and reasonableness. It's kind of like when the mayor of Jefferson folded to the grief of some parents that lost their children to a car accident and changed all the 35mph signs in the village to 25mph, but insisted that he did not expect the police to do anything unless people are clearly going over 35mph in those areas. Right! 

This inspector may see your whelping room and give you a pass. The next inspector may see your whelping room in your house and fail you for the impervious baloney. You will always be in jeopardy, at every inspection. USDA is for farm animals, not for pets. And the regulations are set up for farm animals. And they are not going to deliberately train every new employee to ignore regulations. 

And so there has to be some go-arounds. Don't ship puppies is one that will work for most people. If the breeder's friend who doubles for the buyers friend, gets compensated in any way, or does it more than once, they might just be considered some type of broker. And brokers will also fall under USDA guidelines.

However, under the new law, selling puppies in the WalMart parking lot or Holiday Inn, is still perfectly ok. You are good to go. No problem. Oh, and pet stores are ok too, because the buyer has an opportunity to check the pup over before he buys it. Doesn't matter that a LOT of sick puppy horror stories are coming out of pet stores where the people looked it over originally. Doesn't matter. Doesn't effect them (most of these breeders are and have been under USDA reguations anyway).
Oh, and doesn't matter that before shipping, puppies must have clearance from a veterinarian, with a license, and policed by the AVMA. Doesn't matter, a vet looking over and giving a health certificate before shipping is not as likely to detect an unhealthy puppy as a purchaser looking at a cute pup in a pet store. 

It doesn't matter. Not really. The good breeders are just going to go down to 1 litter every year or every 2-3 year, and only sell to their friends and repeat customers. That way, all the majority of people will have available are puppies from USDA breeder AKA puppy mills. Yay, Government! 

BTW -- those puppy mills with their atrocious conditions that you see pictures of after raids. Just about all of them are regulated, (and most of them passed) by the departments of agriculture -- USDA. Go government! They can't manage what is under their scope, but they want more.

And unless there are a lot of people willing to fly to a breeder across the country, before long, we will be able to look at the dogs, and say, that's a NW American Shepherd, or that's a South East American Shepherd. Whatever.


----------



## martemchik

Well...its not a law. Its a regulation.

My belief is that many times regulations are made so that the judicial system has some sort of statutory basis because there isn't a common law example to go off of. So this is something that has been "passed" and a judge or lawyer can grasp for it in case some sort of case comes up in FEDERAL court over the sale of a puppy across state lines.

It is my opinion that our federal court rooms need to be used for more important things than "$2000 puppy was not what I expected." Sadly, its not the small time pet owners that usually cause a stink over these things, its usually huge, big time, show/sport type people that plan on including a dog in their breeding program, and don't get what they expected, and have the capital to start a lawsuit over it.

So although I don't like regulations or laws over these types of things. They're necessary only because one too many lawsuits are taking up valuable court time over interstate sales of dogs. Too many people start having issues, without a good form of recourse to solve these types of issues, regulators HAVE to step in.


----------



## Chris Wild

martemchik said:


> Sadly, its not the small time pet owners that usually cause a stink over these things, its usually huge, big time, show/sport type people that plan on including a dog in their breeding program, and don't get what they expected, and have the capital to start a lawsuit over it.


Actually, it is the other way around. It IS the "small time pet owners" who are the problem if you look at the history behind making the new regulations to "close the retail pet store loophole". This was caused by people getting sickly puppies when they bought them online through PuppiesRUs.com or whatever other commercial breeder internet storefront that they came up with on page 1 of a Google search. And then they screamed for someone (government) to do something about it.

The "big time show/sport" people buy known dogs from known breeders, not internet pet wholesalers. If there is a problem they go directly to court with a bunch of contracts in hand as back up. They aren't getting USDA involved or crying for the government to do something because their Doodle or Schnoodle or whatever arrived sick.

Though considering every puppy being shipped must be inspected by a licensed veterinarian and accompanied by a USDA health cert signed by that veterinarian before it can board a plane, I'll never understand why its the breeding community as a whole that has been targeted rather than the vets signing off on sickly puppies.


----------



## Merciel

The puppies _usually_ aren't visibly sick when they get shipped. At that point they're still generally in the incubation stage, so they look fine to vet inspection. They break with parvo or kennel cough or whatever after arrival.


----------



## martemchik

Chris Wild said:


> Actually, it is the other way around. It IS the "small time pet owners" who are the problem if you look at the history behind making the new regulations to "close the retail pet store loophole". This was caused by people getting sickly puppies when they bought them online through PuppiesRUs.com or whatever other commercial breeder internet storefront that they came up with on page 1 of a Google search. And then they screamed for someone (government) to do something about it.
> 
> The "big time show/sport" people buy known dogs from known breeders, not internet pet wholesalers. If there is a problem they go directly to court with a bunch of contracts in hand as back up. They aren't getting USDA involved or crying for the government to do something because their Doodle or Schnoodle or whatever arrived sick.
> 
> Though considering every puppy being shipped must be inspected by a licensed veterinarian and accompanied by a USDA health cert signed by that veterinarian before it can board a plane, I'll never understand why its the breeding community as a whole that has been targeted rather than the vets signing off on sickly puppies.


Not sure what you mean to prove...that's what my point is. The small time people go to the media and all the other outlets. The big time people head to court...wasting valuable court time about a purchase of a dog. You can drag all the contracts you want into court, it doesn't mean its a done deal and a victory.

If you go to court...you're screaming for the government to do something, and instead of wasting time on internet forums, change.org, or whatever other way you have of getting your message out, you're wasting the time of federal judges who could be dealing with multi million dollar cases instead.

Contracts aren't bullet proof. I'll use your example about a sick puppy: Contract says the pup will be healthy, pup is inspected by a vet, given the okay, and gets shipped. On arrival, puppy is sick, buyer goes to vet, disease is found, lawsuit is filed in FEDERAL COURT (not small claims) because this is an interstate issue. Arguing over what district/court the lawsuit will be held in occurs, thousands of dollars to lawyers are spent. Finally court appearances occur with expert testimony heard. More money, and more time wasted when there aren't regulations on the books for what to do.

So no...its not the "small time people." Small time people can squak all you want, but the real change occurs when the money starts to back up the claims.


----------



## Chris Wild

My point is, it was those small time people buying from questionable internet sellers who brought about the new APHIS regulations. It was NOT the serious sport/show people, which is what you seemed to indicate. 

And those show/sport cases are not sucking up valuable federal court time. They are mostly handled in smaller courts, usually small claims court, if they go to court at all which they rarely do. And those few cases had nothing to do with the new regulations.

If you can slog through the zillion pages of actual documentation on the regulations it is quite clear what the supposed purpose of these is and it is entirely pet related.


----------



## LifeofRiley

selzer said:


> USDA is for farm animals, not for pets. And the regulations are set up for farm animals. And they are not going to deliberately train every new employee to ignore regulations.


I really don’t know how you can come to the conclusion that the USDA based the AWA’s minimum housing and welfare requirements on housing standards for farm animals. 

The fact of the matter is that there are *no* federal laws or regulations governing the housing standards of farm animals. The agri-business lobby has pretty much blocked any effort to institute federal standards on housing and humane practices of farm animals. 

If you think that the puppy mill industry looks a lot like factory farming of farm animals that is due to the puppy mill industry emulating the unregulated agri-business industry. It has nothing to do with the AWA. The AWA sought to establish minimum standards as a result of common practices that were observed in that industry prior to extending the AWA to cover dog/cat wholesale breeders.

It is also important to note that the AWA has always had different standards for different types of housing arrangements, including residential. *If you look at the Inspection Manual that all inspectors are trained on, there are VERY different standards for numerous types of set ups including residential*.


----------



## LifeofRiley

Oh, and I think it is important to note that the AWA is enforced by APHIS Animal Care, a division that is separate and distinct from other USDA divisions. The USDA is a huge umbrella organization that houses many different and distinct divisions and functions. 

So, in addition to Animal Care, the USDA also houses functions such as not the *Forest Service*, the *Natural Resource Conservation Service* and the *Wildlife Management Service*…. and there are many more.


----------



## Gwenhwyfair

Companion animal laws historically have been driven at the state and county levels. The other services you mention have to do with concerns that typically fall under the jurisdiction of the Feds.


----------



## CelticGlory

Does anyone know of this will impact importing dogs? Thanks!!


----------



## Chris Wild

RE: Imports, yes and no. Importing directly to the new owner won't be affected, so long as that new owner isn't a breeder. However it will definitely impact importing by anyone who breeds and wants to avoid licensing, regardless of whether they import as a broker or occasionally for friends or even for use in their own breeding program.


----------



## selzer

The USDA, is the United States Department of Agriculture. How shocking that I might expect the USDA to be geared toward farming and and farm animals. I think there are a LOT of regulations for meat producing and dairy-producing farm animals. And probably more regulations regarding the shipment of animals and animal-products and other agriculture over state lines. But I wouldn't know, as I am not a farmer, I just live in farm country. And the small hobby farms are not going to be regulated like the large producers, it just makes sense.

Again, most of those puppy mill operations that you see pictures of fall beneath the umbrella of their state's department of agriculture and generally those places have passed inspection numerous times. This new regulation in the AWA is NOT going to stop horrendous conditions from happening. Because the local departments of agriculture regularly pass horrendous operations. It is just going to place other people under those same regulations. 

Will they pass? 

The thing is, with the non-porous surface, they will be going into EVERY inspection, KNOWING they fail in some aspects. For example, my 10x15 kennels may not pass because they need to be 4x16' -- not sure if that will be this regulation though, I think that bill did not pass, yet. 10 x 15 is larger, but having them come out, the right auditor might say, "Nope, you need to change all of your kennels so that they meet the regulation size. So, you start at a disadvantage. 

My guess is the really foul puppy mills, know how to offer a couple of hundred bucks here or there and get a minor finding or two, or get a pass. How else could some of those places pass? The little people aren't going to have the first idea how to go about offering bribes to the auditors. And the rest of us are busy deluding ourselves that that sort of thing does not happen. And that we will be just fine because they will be using common sense.


----------



## selzer

Chris Wild said:


> RE: Imports, yes and no. Importing directly to the new owner won't be affected, so long as that new owner isn't a breeder. However it will definitely impact importing by anyone who breeds and wants to avoid licensing, regardless of whether they import as a broker or occasionally for friends or even for use in their own breeding program.


I haven't heard how importing will be effected. We can't import a dog for breeding purposes, without being under the USDA? Could you give a synopsis of that section of this?


----------



## Chris Wild

selzer said:


> I haven't heard how importing will be effected. We can't import a dog for breeding purposes, without being under the USDA? Could you give a synopsis of that section of this?


Importing itself won't be affected. But many of the people who import will, due to breeders only being able to sell animals "born and raised on their premises" if they want to remain exempt. What are breeders now to do with dogs they purchase from others, either imports or domestic, that either don't work out or that they want to rehome after retirement? A dog that they may have paid tens of thousands of dollars for and now are forced to give away, or PTS or dump in a shelter, because they are prohibited from selling it. That is certainly going to make some breeders think twice about importing, or getting dogs from any other breeder (which could have a serious negative impact on some the gene pool of some breeds) and will certainly probably cut down on breeders using their connections to import dogs for friends and others.


----------



## selzer

Chris Wild said:


> Importing itself won't be affected. But many of the people who import will, due to breeders only being able to sell animals "born and raised on their premises" if they want to remain exempt. What are breeders now to do with dogs they purchase from others, either imports or domestic, that either don't work out or that they want to rehome after retirement? A dog that they may have paid tens of thousands of dollars for and now are forced to give away, or PTS or dump in a shelter, because they are prohibited from selling it. That is certainly going to make some breeders think twice about importing, or getting dogs from any other breeder (which could have a serious negative impact on some the gene pool of some breeds) and will certainly probably cut down on breeders using their connections to import dogs for friends and others.


Good point. 

Thanks. I forgot about the part that we cannot sell anything that has not been born or raised here. That stinks, really. It is bad for the dogs. People will either keep more animals than they have the time and resources for, where all of them will suffer, or they will be forced to give the dogs away. That's nuts.


----------



## Chris Wild

Not just bad for the dogs, but bad for the breeds themselves if it restricts breeders' ability to access the genetics that they need for their programs.


----------



## selzer

Chris Wild said:


> Not just bad for the dogs, but bad for the breeds themselves if it restricts breeders' ability to access the genetics that they need for their programs.


Definitely. 

It's a bad law, and it will directly or indirectly affect us all, but most importantly the breeds -- all breeds, not just ours.


----------



## CelticGlory

Thank you Chris and Sue, I hate this because I had wanted to import when I was ready for a dog through a broker or finding a breeder to work with that offered import services. I also can't afford to back and forth to view a puppy either. I think the government needs to realize that the majority of the problems are from bybs not the hobby breeder who have set guidelines that the buyers don't always follow. I have more to say about this, but I'm at work. Will reply again later.


Sent from Petguide.com Free App


----------



## Gwenhwyfair

I think it's really important to note the 'government' doesn't drive this, people do. Often stupid people who did not do their due diligence before buying a puppy and then complain to the USDA rather then learning from their mistakes.

Similar to the prong collar issue, if we the people allow misinformation to rule, then before we know it stupid regulations are put in place.

The USDA covers a lot of regulatory and oversight ground for really important matters such as is the meat in the grocery store safe enough to eat without putting people in the hospital. I really don't think they would have taken the pet breeding industry on if not for all the ding dongs who kept complaining about their sick puppy mill puppies they bought off the internet.

It's not the 'government' per se, it's the loudest group that gets these sort of balls rolling. Folks like us and breeders, all of us together, should have been louder.......



CelticGlory said:


> Thank you Chris and Sue, I hate this because I had wanted to import when I was ready for a dog through a broker or finding a breeder to work with that offered import services. I also can't afford to back and forth to view a puppy either. *I think the government needs to realize *that the majority of the problems are from bybs not the hobby breeder who have set guidelines that the buyers don't always follow. I have more to say about this, but I'm at work. Will reply again later.
> 
> 
> Sent from Petguide.com Free App


----------



## Vandal

As I recall, breeders were plenty loud about it and were mostly ignored. Lots of donations from huge animal rights groups put them on a first name basis with the people making these decisions.

You are right about one thing...people now are simply way too apathetic about their rights. They think someone else will take care of the problem and if they simply thank those people on a forum or Facebook, that should be enough to make up for their lack of effort. It isn't.


----------



## Gwenhwyfair

They weren't loud enough. It's also about getting the public behind you as well. 

It would follow that some of the big puppy millers (some of which are wealthy and well connected) would have fought against this as well?.....but that's more of a side bar.

I just don't buy into the AR groups being *that* well funded. I think they are better at organizing and propagandizing to get the general public behind them though. They can get people to call legislators, send letters and sign petitions.

That's what the breeders aren't good at. The largest breeder organization in the U.S. is the AKC and maybe they were doing something but clearly it was not effective OR they didn't care......??

What I'm pushing against here, in general, is this undercurrent that feeds the sense of apathy. The sense that it's a David vs. Goliath thing and it really isn't. It's about who has their acts together in an organized way to educate, impassion and move public opinion. That IMO is where we get apathetic.

Is there a group or lobby for small but serious breeders, like a group dedicated to breeding working dogs of all types? 




Vandal said:


> As I recall, breeders were plenty loud about it and were mostly ignored. Lots of donations from huge animal rights groups put them on a first name basis with the people making these decisions.
> 
> You are right about one thing...people now are simply way too apathetic about their rights. They think someone else will take care of the problem and if they simply thank those people on a forum or Facebook, that should be enough to make up for their lack of effort. It isn't.


----------



## lhczth

Breeders do not have multimillion dollar lobbying budgets. The AR's do. We have also done a good job of dividing ourselves in an attempt to separate ourselves from the dreaded "puppy mills" and "byb". The AR's all agree on their goal. They do not separate us. We are all evil in their eyes. Significantly more money and more unified voices.


----------



## wolfstraum

PETA and HSUS are AR groups....so many people who have pets fall prey to the cute ads on TV and the internet and fund these groups who want to rid society of all pets and meat animals!!!!!!!!!!!!!

And yes - they get TONS of money and are behind everything that limits your rights with your animals.

Lee


----------



## Gwenhwyfair

At some point WE have to take responsibility too!!

Maybe people would not buy into the cutesy commercials if there was some organization and push back on these issues. 

I know PETA is a bunch O nuts but they will NEVER stop people from eating meat and I just don't buy they have THAT MUCH power!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

O.K. so I really don't need all those exclamation points but here's the thing, what you say is partly, but ONLY partly true.

See Lisa's point above about being divided (which is a really good point) it's about lack of organization and goals as much as anything else.

We do NOT have to be the 80 pound weaklings in the room, that really is a choice....



wolfstraum said:


> PETA and HSUS are AR groups....so many people who have pets fall prey to the cute ads on TV and the internet and fund these groups who want to rid society of all pets and meat animals!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> 
> And yes - they get TONS of money and are behind everything that limits your rights with your animals.
> 
> Lee


----------



## LifeofRiley

The conversation about the HSUS on this thread is unbelievable. The HSUS and the ASPCA have done so much for Animal Welfare in this country. We would not have seen the declines in shelter euthanasia without their spay/neuter campaigns and adoption education/awareness campaigns. We would not have any idea about many animal welfare issues (companion animal, farm animal, wildlife) without their willingness to commit dollars to research and advocacy.

And, that success, has led them to become the target of industry groups. Agri-business, in particular, sees any changes in welfare standards for companion animals as a slippery slope to their factory farm animals. They have dedicated a lot of money to fight any change to their practices. The provision that was thankfully defeated in the last Farm Bill is case and point.

I must admit that I am surprised by how effective the smear campaigns funded by agri-business and large scale commercial dog producers/brokers has been in certain circles of the dog world.


----------



## selzer

HSUS lost all credibility when they planted a yayhoo in a circus, and PAID him, while he actually abused elephants and videotaped it to gain public outcries. I think it was Ringling Bros that sued and won. 

Also, they put ads on tv and send them to me in the mail about abused dogs, and animals in Katrina, etc. And then the money you send DOESN'T go to the abused dog on a chain or the animals in Katrina. It goes to a bunch of lobbyists, and their own hierarchy. Sorry, but they are pretty disgusting. They do not want to stop animals from suffering because then they would be out of a very lucrative business. 

It is crappy when some breeders cut every corner and profit off of critters that they do not care properly for, but they don't hold a candle to how HSUS people profit off of the suffering of animals. 

I hate that they will keep a dog burned over a large percent of their body, or needing major surgeries and amputations, alive because it is proven that the heartstrings are connected to the purse strings. And people will give when they see a critter suffering like that. 

I have no use for HSUS. 

I do not know much about the ASPCA. I think they are a shelter in NY, and though they take money from all over for their shelter, the majority goes to that shelter. 

If you feel like helping dogs in need, donate cash, food, and supplies to your local animal shelter and support reputable rescues.


----------



## Vandal

I sure hope Riley is right and it is indeed effective. It's about time someone.... anyone....started to fight back. LOTS of people have helped with the shelter situation and we would have indeed seen a decrease in dogs there. That's just BS that they are soley responsible. 
They have simply done a great job demonizing anyone who diagrees with their exterme agenda. Wayne Pacelle makes as much money as the POTUS. I can't even imagine what I could do with that kind of money in actually helping animals. Makes me sick these people collect it all and basically waste much of it, pay themselves too **** much and use the rest to try to force the rest of us to think like they do. The world and the animals would be better off without them.


----------



## wolfstraum

Thank you Anne!!!!


----------



## onyx'girl

Wayne Pacelle and his cohorts should be exposed. I was fighting legislation in the late 80's and early 90's about exotic bird importation. The admin's names in the HSUS have changed names but not agendas....it's all about $ and power, the welfare of the animals doesn't really gel with their power trips. I still have a file cabinet drawer full of the paperwork they generated. Though I have to say, the exotic bird breeding industry was(probably still is) full of illegal activity because usually drugs are brought in with the birds.


----------



## CelticGlory

Gwenhwyfair said:


> I think it's really important to note the 'government' doesn't drive this, people do. Often stupid people who did not do their due diligence before buying a puppy and then complain to the USDA rather then learning from their mistakes.
> 
> Similar to the prong collar issue, if we the people allow misinformation to rule, then before we know it stupid regulations are put in place.
> 
> The USDA covers a lot of regulatory and oversight ground for really important matters such as is the meat in the grocery store safe enough to eat without putting people in the hospital. I really don't think they would have taken the pet breeding industry on if not for all the ding dongs who kept complaining about their sick puppy mill puppies they bought off the internet.
> 
> It's not the 'government' per se, it's the loudest group that gets these sort of balls rolling. Folks like us and breeders, all of us together, should have been louder.......


Haven't been able to get back on until this point, I said the above because they are the ones to pass the laws, but they never get the opinions of the other side of the issue. They know of the AKC, UKC, and CKC, and the parent clubs. Why is it that none of the reputable breeders and the AKC and other kennel clubs were asked for their opinions on this bill? Why the hush until it was too late and the first bill came out (that had too many against it at the time, but is revamped-which is this current version)?
Another point, why is it that they deem keeping animals inside the home as 'unclean' and the breeders found to do so will get into trouble if any trace of animals being inside the home is found out when being inspected? This isn't just about dogs but all animals used for breeding. This even has an impact on your ferret and rabbits if you want to breed them! Doesn't make sense does it?

Many people claim that they prefer their animals to be raised inside the home, where they can get socialized, but where are these people now? This has floated around the internet for a long time now since it has been made known, but where are the people who supported hobby breeders? When I signed the petition (and I believe a lot of people sent emails and letters) this year, it wasn't that many that had signed it at that time and no way to comment either.


----------



## LifeofRiley

@Vandal - 
Just so we are clear, when I mentioned that the anti-HSUS propaganda campaign was effective in certain circles of the dog-world, I was referring to comments I have read on this forum, and this forum alone. Interesting, but by no means representative.

Nobody I know in real life buys into the nonsense that is being spread by "HumaneWatch." And, I would ask anyone who cites them as a source to take a much closer look at that organization. If you do so, and still support them, well, we will have to simply agree to disagree on that point.


----------



## Gwenhwyfair

I don't know that it was hushed up though?

I read a lot of information around the net before any changes were actually made. I don't think it was really well known to the general public though.

I think what Lisa said earlier is the key, there isn't a cohesive force to fight back. Part of the problem breeders have is they have to educate to help a larger audience understand the difference between BYBs, puppy millers and ethical responsible breeders. That's going to be almost always a Sisyphean task. 

Most people, who you would want to recruit to your side are going to default to the simpler views on breeders and breeding which usually is: I got (or know someone who got) a very sick puppy from a breeder; therefore all breeders are bad.

I see this in marketing. When you have to educate people about a product you've got an uphill slog ahead of you because it's easier to sell something people already *think* they know about. To a certain extent it seems intuitively correct if all you hear about are the dogs being put down in shelters......

This is what gets back to the lawmakers and they too act on it.

I wondered about the AKC and UKC and breed clubs too. I'm not sure why they haven't been more actively pushing back against what really is, at it's core, anti-breeding memes taking hold. There seems to be a certain amount of apathy on their parts? I don't know, that's admittedly conjecture. I do see the AKC doing more things to invite general public/casual dog owners into sports and activities by allowing neutered dogs, even mixes to participate. That's a good way to introduce people to well bred animals in conformation and sport.

I don't think breeding of pure bred dogs will ever be out right banned but what I do predict is well bred ,pure bred dogs will become less accessible to the general public and that's not good for several reasons.





CelticGlory said:


> Haven't been able to get back on until this point, I said the above because they are the ones to pass the laws, but they never get the opinions of the other side of the issue. They know of the AKC, UKC, and CKC, and the parent clubs. Why is it that none of the reputable breeders and the AKC and other kennel clubs were asked for their opinions on this bill? Why the hush until it was too late and the first bill came out (that had too many against it at the time, but is revamped-which is this current version)?
> Another point, why is it that they deem keeping animals inside the home as 'unclean' and the breeders found to do so will get into trouble if any trace of animals being inside the home is found out when being inspected? This isn't just about dogs but all animals used for breeding. This even has an impact on your ferret and rabbits if you want to breed them! Doesn't make sense does it?
> 
> Many people claim that they prefer their animals to be raised inside the home, where they can get socialized, but where are these people now? This has floated around the internet for a long time now since it has been made known, but where are the people who supported hobby breeders? When I signed the petition (and I believe a lot of people sent emails and letters) this year, it wasn't that many that had signed it at that time and no way to comment either.


----------



## selzer

Gwenhwyfair said:


> I don't know that it was hushed up though?
> 
> I read a lot of information around the net before any changes were actually made. I don't think it was really well known to the general public though.
> 
> I think what Lisa said earlier is the key, there isn't a cohesive force to fight back. Part of the problem breeders have is they have to educate to help a larger audience understand the difference between BYBs, puppy millers and ethical responsible breeders. That's going to be almost always a Sisyphean task.
> 
> *Most people, who you would want to recruit to your side are going to default to the simpler views on breeders and breeding which usually is: I got (or know someone who got) a very sick puppy from a breeder; therefore all breeders are bad*.
> 
> I see this in marketing. When you have to educate people about a product you've got an uphill slog ahead of you because it's easier to sell something people already *think* they know about. To a certain extent it seems intuitively correct if all you hear about are the dogs being put down in shelters......
> 
> This is what gets back to the lawmakers and they too act on it.
> 
> I wondered about the AKC and UKC and breed clubs too. I'm not sure why they haven't been more actively pushing back against what really is, at it's core, anti-breeding memes taking hold. There seems to be a certain amount of apathy on their parts? I don't know, that's admittedly conjecture. I do see the AKC doing more things to invite general public/casual dog owners into sports and activities by allowing neutered dogs, even mixes to participate. That's a good way to introduce people to well bred animals in conformation and sport.
> 
> I don't think breeding of pure bred dogs will ever be out right banned but what I do predict is well bred ,pure bred dogs will become less accessible to the general public and that's not good for several reasons.


I think this is true, except, the puppy does not need to be seriously ill, it could have a genetic problem, it could have a problem like parvo-distemper -- seriously ill out of the gate, or a problem like MegE that takes work all their lives. But it could also be a dog with pano, or a dog with demodex, or a dog with allergies (not severe), or a dog that got hemangiosarcoma at 10 years old. Nowadays, people seem to think that unless critters are built impervious, then it's the breeder's fault. They do not seem to realize that every living creature is dying, is going to die, is going through the process of life where cells break down and imperfections are inevitable. 

There are a lot of problems out there, and better vets are finding more problems than we did in the past. People are keeping dogs with serious problems around longer because they can manage them now. And dogs are not living as long, probably due in part to genetics and in part due to diseases like cancer that seem rampant in human populations as well as canine. 

So all breeders are bad, and people who have not given it a good long think or are not involved in sport or breeding, will not get past the current mindset.


----------



## Vandal

Riley, I read anti HSUS/PETA comments in many places nowadays. Well deserved if you ask me. I know who is behind Humane Watch and mostly, what he is presenting are facts. I also am well aware of who is behind HSUS, ASPCA and PETA. I realize the people who think they should tell the rest of us what to eat, what animals are politically correct to own and are busy making laws meant to force people to comply with their extreme beliefs, are not happy with those who dare to stand up to it , but there is always a tipping point. People will only eat so much BS before they start to spit it out. Like I said, I am quite happy someone is willing to fight back while we still have any rights left.


----------



## LifeofRiley

Vandal said:


> Riley, I read anti HSUS/PETA comments in many places nowadays. Well deserved if you ask me. I know who is behind Humane Watch and mostly, what he is presenting are facts. I also am well aware of who is behind HSUS, ASPCA and PETA. I realize the people who think they should tell the rest of us what to eat, what animals are politically correct to own and are busy making laws meant to force people to comply with their extreme beliefs, are not happy with those who dare to stand up to it , but there is always a tipping point. People will only eat so much BS before they start to spit it out. Like I said, I am quite happy someone is willing to fight back while we still have any rights left.


If you really have looked into HumaneWatch, I honestly don't know how you can defend them.

Do you also think that MADD and the CDC are part of some conspiracy... these are just a couple of the other organizations that have come under the same type of attack that the HSUS has by the same organization.

Not to mention the fact, that Richard Berman (the person behind HumaneWatch) made a lot of his initial money by defending the Tobacco Industry. So, his PR empire began by undermining any organization that tried to say that smoking was bad for people's health.

Again, if you look into them, very hard to defend that organization - at least, from my point of view.


----------



## Vandal

Well of course Riley, you have clearly imbibed on the kool-aid being sold by HSUS etc. I invite everyone to investigate the extremists behind HSUS/PETA et al and especially where all that donated money goes. Just read the facts, they speak for themselves.

I could help quite a few animals if I had the money they spend on just one Hollywood fundraiser. These people are living it up and wasting resources, while animals continue to suffer. Mostly, the money is spent on lobbying for laws to control the rest of us. There is something quite sinister behind these people but you go on ahead promoting their version of Utopia. I only wish the people who are being duped by them could spend just 24 hours in the world they want us all to live in.


----------



## CelticGlory

Anne,

Unfortunately, I know all about the PETA and HSUS. I found out about somethings by researching and word of mouth. I used to be pro-PETA/HSUS, now I know better now.


----------



## LifeofRiley

In my opinion, the people who suggest that PETA and the HSUS are one and the same, and blindly follow the misinformation spread by industry groups are the ones who have "imbibed the Kool-Aid."

Honestly, look harder folks. If you read my responses on the "Stop the Pups Act" thread, you will see that the HSUS has nothing to hide. They have always been upfront about how they spend money and they are very transparent on that point. They have done a lot of good for Animal Welfare in this country. Again, look it up.


----------



## LifeofRiley

CelticGlory said:


> Anne,
> 
> Unfortunately, I know all about the PETA and HSUS. I found out about somethings by researching and word of mouth. I used to be pro-PETA/HSUS, now I know better now.


It would be helpful if you cited your sources. Again, be careful who you believe. There has been a very well funded campaign by industry groups to discredit the HSUS. So, I would be curious to hear more about your research.


----------



## LifeofRiley

A final note on this topic:

The interesting, yet sad, reality in this debate is that I think Vandal and I share a lot of the same goals in terms of helping animals in need.

I strongly support Vandal’s request for responsible breeders to engage lawmakers. Unfortunately, I feel that the propaganda that many breeders have bought into will likely undermine their efforts to address lawmakers in a productive conversation.

If responsible breeders unite with less than responsible puppy producers to fight every piece of proposed regulation at a State and Federal level using the same extreme arguments without offering up alternative policy recommendations… well, it is hard for lawmakers to take them seriously.


----------



## LifeofRiley

selzer said:


> The thing is, with the non-porous surface, they will be going into EVERY inspection, KNOWING they fail in some aspects. For example, my 10x15 kennels may not pass because they need to be 4x16' -- not sure if that will be this regulation though, I think that bill did not pass, yet. 10 x 15 is larger, but having them come out, the right auditor might say, "Nope, you need to change all of your kennels so that they meet the regulation size. So, you start at a disadvantage.


Not true. 

I know you do not ship animals so you are not personally concerned about the rule change. As such, I imagine that is the reason you do not know the real regulations. But, please don't pretend to as this is a public forum read by many.


----------



## Vandal

I have already dealt with lawmakers Riley. That was after the AR groups in our area decided to create a "Puppy Mill" crisis out of nothing. Politicians have a nasty habit of going along with anything that will get them attention. They simply take what the AR fanatics tell them as fact, and allow them to actually write the laws they end up promoting. What we offered in response to their ridiculous and trumped up claims were FACTS. We simply educated them about proper animal care, the dangers of what the AR people, ( who have ZERO knowledge about animal care and the needs of individual breeds), were suggesting and a few simple solutions for those people who refused to follow the existing laws. Those laws are in FACT sufficient, if they are used. The problem is what it has always been, resources and also normal everyday people who refuse to report abuse when they see it. 
The AR written laws are designed to regulate dog and animal breeding out of existence and to punish people, more than to help animals. Sorry that you cannot or will not look harder at that reality but it is simply the truth. They are using several approaches to close the walls in on people who dare to breed animals and that includes farmers. When you make one law and regulation after the other, it tends to increase the cost of doing business. That's the idea, regulate it out of existence. They have teams of lawyers working for them. Most people who are breeding animals are not making tons of money, they simply can't afford the increased costs or to fight followers of these groups, who are many times downright frightening and dangerous. The laws also have a chilling affect and the ARs are certainly aware of that. 
I have no doubt you will continue to spread the propaganda because you refuse to see the other side's point of view. Money is the root of all evil and HSUS has plenty and are using it to bring about an end to many people's way of life.


----------



## onyx'girl

HumaneWatch | HSUS Contributions Drop $20 Million in 2013


----------



## selzer

LifeofRiley said:


> Not true.
> 
> I know you do not ship animals so you are not personally concerned about the rule change. As such, I imagine that is the reason you do not know the real regulations. But, please don't pretend to as this is a public forum read by many.


I know you are omniscient on the topic, but this, the size limits on kennels was part of legislation proposed in Ohio. Our club hosted the state senator and we discussed many aspects of the bill. I did not pull that out of the air, I actually have 10'x15' kennels that would fail because they are not 4'x16'. And in my post, I did suggest that it would not necessarily be a problem with this legislation. It was the point, if I fell under the Ohio Department of Agriculture, those kennels would probably be overlooked by some auditors because they are definitely sufficient and better than what is legislated. But another auditor, someone new on the job, someone who doesn't like the way I part my hair, might just write me up. Of course, no one wants to be under that kind of scrutiny, unless they are setting up a commercial operation under existing code. 

At our meeting with the senator, Senator Grendel (Sp?), we suggested enforcing existing laws and increasing animal cruelty to a felony. The senator's response was that the answer is not to make more felons, and send more people to prison. So the facts of life actually are that the government does not care about animal cruelty and stopping it. The government cares about lobbyists pushing legislation to stop dog-breeding. 

They are more concerned with putting the brakes on breeders like Robin and Chris and any others the people here actually consider good breeders, than putting away people who are actually deliberately cruel to animals. They do not care about puppies being sold in pet stores, and the operations behind them -- they are already covered by the department of agriculture AND PASS. They do not care at all about the people selling dogs at WalMart parking lots, or Holiday Inns in masses. They do not care about the little people selling dogs out of the newspaper every month with a new litter. 

It is a bad law. HSUS is behind it. It promotes their agenda.


----------



## LifeofRiley

Vandal said:


> Money is the root of all evil.


Oh, I tend to agree. But, if you are concerned about the corrupting influence of money and power in politics, you need look no further than the Agri-Business lobby. Industry groups are the big fish in this game, not the HSUS. 

The corporatization of the of the American food system was created and is sustained by the huge sums of money agri-business pumps into lobbying activities, campaign contributions and – yes – to the Richard Berman’s of this world (the person behind HumaneWatch and many other sham non-profits created to attack legitimate organizations). 

HSUS has nowhere near the money or power (comparatively speaking) that people who try to undermine them would have everyone believe. To industry groups, the campaign against the HSUS is just one very tiny part of a larger strategy to further consolidate industry power and influence over policy decisions that extend far beyond Animal Welfare issues. 

The reason HumaneWatch exists is ultimately because industry-groups do not want any change to even the most egregious factory farming practices. HumaneWatch’s sole purpose is to discredit the HSUS to further that goal. That is what Richard Berman is hired for. He is using the same tactics that his various sham non-profits have used to attack the CDC on their efforts to raise awareness about obesity, MADD on their efforts to combat drunk driving and the Economic Policy Institute on efforts to raise the minimum wage.

I also agree that that there are AR fanatics out there that seem to always come out of the woodwork to attend meetings like the one you described. But, they are typically viewed as fringe by people within the Animal Welfare community and while they may be loud at times they really do not have a lot of influence.


----------



## Doc

No! I refuse to drink the kool aid..... Now push me back down to the computer room.


----------



## Vandal

I know all about who is who Riley. I won't be having a debate about things that don't matter to me. HSUS is no stranger to corruption and they certainly are not an animal welfare group. They are animal rights.

The people at those meetings I mentioned were legitimate members orf organizations affiliated with HSUS. "Fringe" is right and that defines many of the people who support HSUS and PETA....they are the same ones who think they should decide what the rest of us can eat, what clothes we can wear, what entertainment we can watch and what pets we can own and breed. Those people on the "fringe", all support HSUS. 
Like I said before, I am simply glad someone is finally presenting some facts about HSUS and letting people make their own decisions based on those facts vs the endless emotional manipulation and deceit coming from HSUS.


----------



## LifeofRiley

Vandal said:


> Like I said before, I am simply glad someone is finally presenting some facts about HSUS and letting people make their own decisions based on those facts vs the endless emotional manipulation and deceit coming from HSUS.


The whole point of my posts on the “Stop the Pups Act” thread and this thread were to point out that HumaneWatch is not a fact-seeking or truth-giving organization, they peddle in distortion of facts and outright falsehoods. That is how they service their clients.

Listen, I get it, you don’t want any regulation on breeding activities. As such, you don’t like the HSUS’s position on several legislative issues. That’s fine. 

But, don’t undermine your credibility by citing the likes of HumaneWatch. Address the problems you see with the specific legislative issue at hand. I listen to, and respect, people’s experiences who differ from mine. It just can be hard to separate the wheat from the chaff when everyone on the opposition of every single proposed piece of legislation cites sources I know to be industry-beholden and false. 

I don’t care if you don’t personally like some of the positions the HSUS support, that is your prerogative. But, I bet if you took a closer look at what they actually do, you would find you agree with some of their positions on issues and programs they sponsor. 

I simply don’t like it when people rely on smear campaigns vs. addressing the specific issues they have with the topic at hand.


----------



## Vandal

Speaking of distortion....I didn't site them as a source, I said much of what they are presenting are facts and I agree with them.
I have been forced to look at what HSUS does ever since I and a bunch of other people, ( who were doing NOTHING wrong), were on the receiving end of groups affiliated with them back in 2009. Their "activism" on behalf of dogs who in no way needed their help or to be "rescued" by new laws, woke me up and I have paid attention ever since. 
Was I happy to see Humane Watch fighting back? You bet I was. There are many other sources and organizations fighting these people and for that I am extremely grateful. I have to chuckle at this: " they peddle in distortion of facts and outright falsehoods". Perhaps you should look harder at YOUR source...meaning HSUS. They set the standard in that regard. They dupe many people into supporting them. Make it seem as if the money goes straight to helping animals and instead waste it or use it for things like lobbying for laws to control the rest of us. I completely "get" what they are up to.
As for legislation, there is a new law presented daily. We don't NEED more laws, we need resources to enforce the existing laws and to help the animals that need help TODAY. Hence the reason supporting local shelters, rescues etc is a MUCH better idea and much more effective That is, if you are really an animal lover more than a control freak who thinks everyone should be guided by your extremism. 
I could go on and on about distortion that HSUS puts out there daily. The endless "Puppy Mill" laws are just one scam they have used for years now, that ultimately hurts hobby breeders the most. That is indeed their plan, eliminate breeding..."one generation and out " as Wayne says.


----------



## LifeofRiley

Vandal said:


> I have been forced to look at what HSUS does ever since I and a bunch of other people, ( who were doing NOTHING wrong), were on the receiving end of groups affiliated with them back in 2009. Their "activism" on behalf of dogs who in no way needed their help or to be "rescued" by new laws, woke me up and I have paid attention ever since....
> 
> ....Perhaps you should look harder at YOUR source...meaning HSUS. They set the standard in that regard...
> 
> ...As for legislation, there is a new law presented daily. We don't NEED more laws, we need resources to enforce the existing laws and to help the animals that need help TODAY.


Hmmm… I think that one of the only times I have cited an HSUS source was to point out that the HSUS is an effective national voice in combating breed bans in this country. They, together with the ASPCA, are also doing really great work with interested States in pressuring insurance companies to eliminate breed-based restrictions from their homeowner policies.

In general, on legislative issues I am interested in, I do not rely on a single source to form my opinion. I actually read the proposed legislation, the position statements from groups on all sides of the issue and public comments before forming my opinion. 

Due to that diligence on my part, I am all too aware of how much misinformation is being spread on specific legislative issues by various groups. 

I must admit I was really disappointed to see how many members, who I really respect on this forum due to their knowledge and expertise in the breed, were willing to just let misinformation pass as fact on several legislative issues that have been discussed on this forum. 

While I am involved in a lot of real-life dog-related communities, this is the only internet forum that I actively take part in, so it has been interesting to me to see how quickly outright falsehoods about most proposed pieces of legislation spread on the Internet. It really has been an eye-opener for me.

I do respect you Vandal. It is clear to me that you are extremely knowledgeable about the breed and passionate about preserving it. I admire that. As such, I am more interested in having a conversation with you on the issues vs. a heated debate. I really want to know more about what responsible breeders feel may be the unintended consequences of proposed legislation and what they feel are the best solutions to the animal welfare issues that we face in this country.

I agree that enforcing existing laws is important. But, IMO, just making that statement is not enough. There is a lot of training, education and funding that needs to be put in place to make that statement a reality. Many national and local animal welfare organizations are working hard to achieve that goal... including the HSUS. 

Overall, it seems to me that we simply disagree on the value and importance of state and federal regulation in furthering animal welfare goals that we both likely support.

BTW: I did look up the 2009 legislative efforts in California. If the one I found is the one that you refer to in your posts on this thread, I must admit that I am surprised that you felt threatened by it.


----------



## Dainerra

the problem is, there have been numerous discussions on this thread and on others about the problems that breeders have with this legislation. You have poo-poohed all of their concerns and told them that, basically, they are being silly.

The problem I have, and I think most others as well, can be summed up with the attitude of "Don't worry, we're from the government and will use common sense" Sorry, those are 2 words that aren't really used in the same sentence.

The problem is, the laws state a specific thing and the focus toward education on good breeders seems to be on ways to get around the law. Counting on the dog knowledge of the inspectors. Counting on no one getting vindictive and trying to get you in trouble.

It affects the ability of good breeders to do a lot of things, from importing dogs to reselling breeding prospects that didn't work out. If they get licensed, the law clearly describes the facilities necessary - those used by puppy farms. 
To top it off, the breeders who are mostly pushing out the sick puppies the law is intended to stop are either a) puppy mills or b) small time breeders who aren't going to be covered by the law anyway. 
It clearly allows the guy who sells the parvo puppy in the walmart parking lot to continue. The focus of all that money that went into promoting this legislation should have gone into educating buyers about how to find a healthy puppy. Instead, it gives a false sense of security that "the government will make it illegal to sell a sick puppy"

You're still young but most of us have developed a healthy distrust of any new law that swears to fix a problem. Especially a "moral" problem.


----------



## Gwenhwyfair

In blue. Exactly.

I think small breeders should get together, maybe put some pressure on the AKC too and really push educating the public on how to buy a puppy *responsibly*.

In my day to day life I'm surprised by how many people equate "AKC registered" to automatically = high quality dog, period, end of story. So the result is as long as the puppy mill puppy is "pure bread" AKC registered the buyers think it's all good and don't dig deeper. (btw I blame the AKC for this too...)

I do what I can when people tell me they are thinking of getting a new puppy. I try to educate people whenever the opportunity arises.



Dainerra said:


> the problem is, there have been numerous discussions on this thread and on others about the problems that breeders have with this legislation. You have poo-poohed all of their concerns and told them that, basically, they are being silly.
> 
> The problem I have, and I think most others as well, can be summed up with the attitude of "Don't worry, we're from the government and will use common sense" Sorry, those are 2 words that aren't really used in the same sentence.
> 
> The problem is, the laws state a specific thing and the focus toward education on good breeders seems to be on ways to get around the law. Counting on the dog knowledge of the inspectors. Counting on no one getting vindictive and trying to get you in trouble.
> 
> It affects the ability of good breeders to do a lot of things, from importing dogs to reselling breeding prospects that didn't work out. If they get licensed, the law clearly describes the facilities necessary - those used by puppy farms.
> To top it off, the breeders who are mostly pushing out the sick puppies the law is intended to stop are either a) puppy mills or b) small time breeders who aren't going to be covered by the law anyway.
> It clearly allows the guy who sells the parvo puppy in the walmart parking lot to continue. *The focus of all that money that went into promoting this legislation should have gone into educating buyers about how to find a healthy puppy. Instead, it gives a false sense of security that "the government will make it illegal to sell a sick puppy"
> *
> You're still young but most of us have developed a healthy distrust of any new law that swears to fix a problem. Especially a "moral" problem.


----------



## LifeofRiley

Dainerra said:


> You're still young but most of us have developed a healthy distrust of any new law that swears to fix a problem. Especially a "moral" problem.


I don’t think that my age is particularly relevant, but since you seem to think it is, I will tell you this - I learned to type on an actual typewriter and I well remember what life was like without microwaves, VCRs, CD players… much less computers and cell phones.

Perhaps, in my case, it is all the time I have spent in parts of the world that have little to no government services, regulation or infrastructure that has pushed back the age of onset of the ‘I don’t need gov’t in my life’ mindset. Or, maybe you are indeed older than me and so this is still coming.

I would be curious to hear from you if the age that this happens is before or after the eligibility age to receive Medicare and Social Security benefits.


----------



## Doc

You see how effective the Government is in shutting down puppy mills? They have more than enough work there to keep them busy. Passing more crap legislation only hurts those breeders who work extremely hard to do their best in producing quality dogs. Less government and more common sense.


----------



## Gwenhwyfair

....and now I'm going to jump to your defense. 

I think we are about the same age, I remember the old 'Selectric' typewriters and carbon paper! 

I too don't think this should be an overall judgement on the 'government' and/or it's efficacy (or lack thereof) at a large. It's off topic and there are plenty of myths to go around on that point. It's funny that a lot of those myths are perpetuated by those livin' large working for the very institutions they condemn(ed). :wild:

IMO looking at these new rules specifically wrt people buying sickly puppies off the internet time will tell, but I suspect people with the same lack of information are just going to buy their sickly puppies more locally now. 

As I've said In the past I don't think this addresses the core problem, lack of knowledge on the part of the puppy buying public. This is, at it's core a free market demand problem. Personally I'm stunned that in this day and age of the World Wide Web...people can't be bothered to do some research before buying another living breathing creature?

So before we get too upset with "the government" maybe we should look at one of the most important aspects of this....puppy buyers who aren't paying the least bit of attention and are not educated at all.....




LifeofRiley said:


> I don’t think that my age is particularly relevant, but since you seem to think it is, I will tell you this - I learned to type on an actual typewriter and I well remember what life was like without microwaves, VCRs, CD players… much less computers and cell phones.
> 
> Perhaps, in my case, it is all the time I have spent in parts of the world that have little to no government services, regulation or infrastructure that has pushed back the age of onset of the ‘I don’t need gov’t in my life’ mindset. Or, maybe you are indeed older than me and so this is still coming.
> 
> I would be curious to hear from you if the age that this happens is before or after the eligibility age to receive Medicare and Social Security benefits.


----------



## selzer

Dainerra said:


> the problem is, there have been numerous discussions on this thread and on others about the problems that breeders have with this legislation. You have poo-poohed all of their concerns and told them that, basically, they are being silly.
> 
> The problem I have, and I think most others as well, can be summed up with the attitude of "Don't worry, we're from the government and will use common sense" Sorry, those are 2 words that aren't really used in the same sentence.
> 
> The problem is, the laws state a specific thing and the focus toward education on good breeders seems to be on ways to get around the law. Counting on the dog knowledge of the inspectors. Counting on no one getting vindictive and trying to get you in trouble.
> 
> It affects the ability of good breeders to do a lot of things, from importing dogs to reselling breeding prospects that didn't work out. If they get licensed, the law clearly describes the facilities necessary - those used by puppy farms.
> To top it off, the breeders who are mostly pushing out the sick puppies the law is intended to stop are either a) puppy mills or b) small time breeders who aren't going to be covered by the law anyway.
> It clearly allows the guy who sells the parvo puppy in the walmart parking lot to continue. The focus of all that money that went into promoting this legislation should have gone into educating buyers about how to find a healthy puppy. Instead, it gives a false sense of security that "the government will make it illegal to sell a sick puppy"
> 
> You're still young but most of us have developed a healthy distrust of any new law that swears to fix a problem. Especially a "moral" problem.


Great post. 

The AR people did recognize a nitch of breeders that fall outside of government control and want to bring them within or eliminate them altogether. I believe there are full-fledged puppy mills that sell exclusively through the internet and perhaps this legislation does target them. But it is written to include people that sell even 1 dog sight unseen, even 1 dog that was not whelped and raised on their premises. And this is all breeders that are doing it right, pretty much. 

The thing is, most of these breeders, the full-fledged puppy mills, will fall under state agriculture limits. I think in Ohio, the new legislation is 9 litters and 60 puppies. That sounds like a lot. It could be a breeder with 9 healthy bitches who breeds each one an average of once per year, and has an average of 7 puppies per litter. This breeder would fall under the state agriculture's guidelines and inspections. It is a much larger operation than most of the people here would like to see, but it is a far cry from an actual puppy mill that has hundreds of bitches and sells thousands of puppies. This clearly is targetting breeders who breed a number of dogs and sell a number of puppies, which the new federal regulations do not do. The federal regulations are targetting ALL breeders, except those that are creating oops litters, or are selling pups cheap out of the newspaper, to local people who will come and get them.

As for getting all the small breeders together, we cannot even get all GSD breeders together on anything. The AL breeders aren't doing schutzhund, so the working line breeders treat them like pariah. The show line breeders do not like the looks or temperaments of the WL dogs, and they have nothing to do with them. WL people have schutzhund clubs, showline people have breed clubs -- and believe me that GSLs are the red-headed step children there. How can we possibly come to any consensus across the breeds? The AKC could be that medium, but alas, they are only a registry. They try to fight legislation, but breed fanciers often have a low opinion of them, and do not want to support them in any way. 

I really don't have any answers, but creating more legislation when we do not bother to enforce current legislation, drawing more people under the USDA umbrella when they can't keep the mills that they do inspect in line, makes no sense whatsoever.


----------



## LifeofRiley

Gwenhwyfair said:


> I think we are about the same age, I remember the old 'Selectric' typewriters and carbon paper!


Hi Gwen,

You know, it’s funny… after I posted that part about the technology that shaped my early years, I thought – wow, the 20-somethings on this forum are going to think I am an ancient fossil. And, we’re not! The speed with which technological innovation has profoundly changed how we access information, communicate, work, shop and consume media has been astounding. And, it will continue.

I remember one of my first job assignments out of college was to research and write about this new thing, the “World Wide Web” for a major publisher of magazines. My work was to inform internal business planning, not articles for the magazines. I learned a lot about who the early players were... oh, if only I had money to invest at the time .


----------



## Vandal

Riley:


> I did look up the 2009 legislative efforts in California. If the one I found is the one that you refer to in your posts on this thread, I must admit that I am surprised that you felt threatened by it.


LOL...well of COURSE! You have NO idea because you have never been on the receiving end of the harassment and downright idiocy of the AR groups. That's because you are firmly on their side.

Lets go through the list of things I felt "threatened by".
First one...the one they started off with....was to remove the ability to keep breeding animals on the property I OWN, (at least I thought I did), and force me to either give up my dogs or else purchase VERY expensive property, zoned M2. Never mind that I, ( and the rest of the LA County breeders), had been approved by the county, ( Zoning, Animal Control and Regional planning), and had kennel licenses that never, (in 20 years of living here), prohibited dog breeding. They were just going to take it away and they didn't care how much we had all invested in our properties in order to care for the dogs the best way we knew how. They were just going to rip that right away to satisfy the Animal Rights fanatics who convinced them the breeders in LA County were all "Puppy Mills". The Supervisors office even formed a "Puppy Mill Task Force"! THERE ARE NO PUPPY MILLS IN LA COUNTY!!! PERIOD! It was the Animal Rights group LYING to the Govt...just like they always do.

In Los Angeles, M2 is heavy industrial. That's the property that refineries and factories are on. Those wonderful "animal lovers" cough cough....thought the dogs would be so much better off living without me, on a piece of factory land in the middle of some of the worst parts of the city. In reality, they knew not one of us could afford that land. So, dog breeding would be eliminated...mission accomplished. Again, as I said in an earlier post, THAT is their mission, to eliminate breeding. 

Oh sure, I could still board dogs here but somehow, "breeding dogs" were suddenly a "public health concern". Yes, I felt quite "threatened" by that but I could see how people who don't give a rat's arsh about animals thinking we should just give them up .
After that crap was pushed back...there was one idiotic demand after the other on how we should keep the animals. Suddenly, dogs were as perishable as produce. They wanted very costly modifications to kennels, huge dog runs, strict exercise, ( no matter the breed or the weather which could actually kill some dogs), and on and on and on!!!!!!!!!!!!! YES!!!! THAT IS THREATENING when people are trying to break you financially and take your animals.
I can't help that you are a tool for these people, that's your problem. I am also well aware I will not be changing your mind but I sure hope other people will read what I say and WAKE UP!!

One last comment about "Puppy Mills". If you are to believe the AR fanatics there are as many puppy mills as there are supermarkets. Sorry, but like so many of their claims, that is just a LIE! They make it seem like it is a national problem. It ISN'T!! Things have improved dramatically for dogs over the last few decades. That kind of news does not sell people on giving money to AR rights groups so they will just keep up the propaganda until you won't be finding a good dog to own....Oh and the ownership thing will be gone as well. You will all be "guardians" who can have their animals taken for the slightest infraction. Like I said, wake up and stop being so easily duped into believing these claims


----------



## LifeofRiley

Maybe we are talking about different pieces of proposed legislation. The one I was referring to was AB 241. What you describe is not at all apparent in the legislation that was sent to California's congress for a vote.

It sought to limit the number of animals used for breeding purposes by any individual to 50 animals. That bill did not have any housing requirements as part of it. 

I will admit that I don't know much about the background of it as I do not follow all state initiatives.


----------



## LifeofRiley

Vandal said:


> Riley: Things have improved dramatically for dogs over the last few decades.


Yes, they have. Due in no short measure to the efforts of animal welfare groups.


----------



## LifeofRiley

Vandal said:


> Riley:
> 
> One last comment about "Puppy Mills"... They make it seem like it is a national problem. It ISN'T!!


I agree that the severity of the problem varies by region. I live in the Midwest which is the puppy mill heartland. The problems we see in our region are likely worse than other areas. That is true.


----------



## Vandal

LifeofRiley said:


> Yes, they have. Due in no short measure to the efforts of animal welfare groups.


I could...and will, argue that point as well. More than anything else, retailers , ( who saw the potential for huge profits), are to be credited with the shift in how animals are treated. As someone who is very acquainted with retail and marketing, I can tell you that the boom in pet care products , dog food etc, was predicted decades ago. The marketing to convince and reinforce how much people should "love" their pets, ( so buy this product), has been splashed all over TV, and media for years now. THAT alone has changed the mentality of how we keep and care for our pets. You can be sure, the states where Petcos and Pet Smart are scarce, some problems still persist. Once they move in, things will start to change.


----------



## selzer

I think the internet has changed how people view dogs. As do television shows, and movies. 

I really don't see much of what HSUS or PETA or any of the AR people have done in a positive way to effect how dogs are treated.


----------



## LifeofRiley

Vandal said:


> I could...and will, argue that point as well. More than anything else, retailers , ( who saw the potential for huge profits), are to be credited with the shift in how animals are treated. As someone who is very acquainted with retail and marketing, I can tell you that the boom in pet care products , dog food etc, was predicted decades ago. The marketing to convince and reinforce how much people should "love" their pets, ( so buy this product), has been splashed all over TV, and media for years now. THAT alone has changed the mentality of how we keep and care for our pets. You can be sure, the states where Petcos and Pet Smart are scarce, some problems still persist. Once they move in, things will start to change.


I disagree with this assessment. The progress we have seen in terms of the reduction of shelter euthanasia numbers in our country has been driven by the efforts of animal welfare groups (local and national) to raise awareness about responsible pet ownership, animal adoption and spay/neuter campaigns. 

PetSmart worked with animal welfare groups to inform their dog and cat strategy. So, they are to be applauded for deciding not to follow the path of the traditional pet stores at that time.


----------



## Vandal

PetSmart made a choice they felt would increase profits. No successful company makes decisions any other way. If and when that strategy no longer works for them, they will change it in a hot minute. The amount of money and mass marketing that went into their sale pitch has had a profound effect. No animal welfare group had even a tiny portion of the money these retailers spent. Anyone who thinks they didn't have a big hand in changing things is deluding themselves.

As for spay and neuter. Oh yes, I will give credit to the Animal groups. Now we find that what they have been suggesting, and even demanding through new laws, is harmful to our dogs. Early spay and neuter is making many dogs sick and dooms them to cancer and other disorders. Too late, it's now law and no one has the guts or decency to speak up on behalf of the dogs and bring some sanity into it. The dogs after all, have very little to do with any of this. It is about control.

Once again, HSUS is NOT an Animal Welfare Organization, they are an Animal RIGHTS group. There is simply a huge difference between the two.


----------



## Gwenhwyfair

Hadn't thought of the Petsmart/Petco angle but having been involved in private sector decision making in the past, makes sense. Profit margins are the core driver for most decisions and those companies nailed it....for sure. Pet care industry is one of the few industries that didn't experience as much of a slow down during this recession.


----------



## Vandal

Many people stood to gain, (and still do), from making pets into "fur people". You can add Vets to that list, as well as pharmaceutical companies. Once they made spay and neuter the law in CA, the Vets immediately raised their prices making it very difficult for anyone on a fixed income. We are talking about a doubling, and in some cases more, of a price jump. 

One other thing that I didn't mention in my little horror tale a couple of posts back. All of the kennels that were impacted by the three years of harassment we endured, had consistently received A's during their annual inspections. There was a problem with ONE kennel having more dogs than they were allowed. The EXISTING laws were used to fix that problem but as all the crooks say...."never waste a crisis"...only in this case, the ARs manufactured one and the clueless politicians went right along with it. Nothing like attention to make a politician happy and they rarely need real facts in order to act. 

Since that time, other cities have passed similar laws and ordinances. In Riverside County, you must have a state of the art facility in order to breed dogs. Regular people cannot afford that, so, their mission was accomplished. What those laws leave are all the illegal, uncaring, "breeders" who allow their dogs to mate in the backyard. Their animals ultimately end up in the local shelter making it so very easy for the real breeders to be blamed by the likes of PETA. 
If you are looking to do things above board, legally...you will have to pay and pay and pay. As I said earlier, their teams of lawyers have figured out a plan to regulate dog breeding out of existence. It is working. I cannot sell my property as a kennel now. It will not be allowed. So, they managed to steal my huge investment here. 

We hear about these things all over the place and I have to admit, I always thought there must be another side to the story. Why would the Govt do that to someone I thought. Well, now I have lived it and the reality is, they will do it and they are doing it daily. They take advantage of the situation, like the situation in New York with the carriage horses. Lots of people have something to gain there or already did get paid for that. 
If people want to protect their rights, they need to educate their local politicians. HSUS and PETA et al have no shame about lying and telling great big fish tales in order to get their extreme views imposed on everyone else. They have Hollywood firmly behind them and are coming out with new propaganda films daily. If you don't like tofu, I suggest you get busy.


----------



## Blanketback

Wow, that's disgusting that you can't sell your property as a kennel! I would have thought - although unfortunately I'd be wrong - that it would be a grandfathered right. I'm not surprise though, when I see the kind of crap they pull in my backyard.


----------



## lhczth

It is grandfathered for Anne, but not for future use. I have friends who bought residential property outside of town 22 years ago. It was rezoned recently, against the wishes of the land owners, to industrial. Their taxes went up and the property will now be far harder to sell.


----------



## Blanketback

That's what's happening here too. They rezone residential as commercial, to accommodate the growth - but then the only people interested in the property are those that will tear down and rebuild. So all the seniors who had visions of selling their homes to downsize and retire in comfort are now struggling with the rising costs instead. It's disgusting. The city should be forced to purchase this land, if they want to expand, IMO.


----------



## Vandal

The LA zoning dept has an amazing amount of power. No one tells them what to do. Not even the Board of "Supervisors" and not even the Regional Planning Commission. 

After the Regional Planning Commission hearing, where they ultimately told Zoning "no way, we are not taking their zoning and they are not Puppy Mills"....Zoning went right ahead telling people that they were not allowed to breed on A2 zoned land.
Anyone interested in a kennel license who said they planned to breed, were turned down. They then started imposing restrictions and demands for the way new kennels must be built. Central air and heat in the buildings, extremely expensive ways to build the kennels and on and on and on. There are groups STILL working to get clear rules and more realistic demands for the construction of kennel buildings from Zoning and they continue to do whatever they want. 

When I was at the Regional Planning hearing, a few people from our group pointed out an attorney who worked for AR groups sitting with the zoning officials. Turns out, she is high up in zoning. There is something else going on here as well, because it seems to be a case where Zoning is out of control all over the country now. 

In LA, they are actively ignoring what the Regional Planning Commission,(during a legal proceeding), ordered them to do. They told my neighbor, (after they told her she was not allowed to breed dogs on her zoning), that ruling "didn't apply to them". It is stunning what people are getting away with who work in Govt. That is because so many people now have been trained to sit quietly. Take your Prozac, (and give it to your dog too), and accept what we tell you to do. 

Another neighbor was told by zoning, (when she tried to apply for a kennel license to be a rescue), that we would all not be here in another ten years. They plan to zone us out. She was refused because " zoning doesn't like Mobile Homes". 
That was what she was told and was also behind the NAT, (Nuisance Abatement Teams), forcing their way onto people's properties a few years back. Modular or Mobile homes mean bad people live in them, that was according to the Sheriff,( he stated it in a meeting I attended), zoning etc. You are welcome to google Nuisance Abatement Teams ...that one will make your hair stand on end. They started using them in the poorer areas and then moved into more affluent areas. They used aerial photos to identify sheds and outbuildings that were not 'permitted' and then went onto people's property with guns drawn. Really???? You couldn't write a letter? SCARY times we are living in when the truth is more frightening than fiction.


----------



## Vandal

...and one last point I should have made in my last post. THAT is why people should not leave the USDA matter up to the "judgment" of Govt officials....because there is the potential for them to use it. So many people now have been led to believe that breeders are evil. When that gets added to the mix, yes, there is the potential to make the wrong choices on behalf of what they "perceive" to be right. Good vs evil.

The last 20 years has seen a complete shift in how breeders are viewed by the general public. This is especially true with young people but older ones are not immune. This kind of demonization always takes place before the actions to put an end to something are triggered. One only has to look at history for proof of that. This is how some of the worst atrocities on earth have started.


----------



## Blanketback

I did google NAT, and wow...why not just pass out the poison? Unfreakingbelievable! I know in my area, where originally the homes were mostly vacation mobiles, they want them gone because the taxes on a 'normal' house with foundation is aprox. $450/month but the old mobiles are only paying $100/month. That's a tidy increase in revenue for the township - they no longer allow mobiles unless over a specific size, and on a foundation, with the added taxes.


----------



## Gwenhwyfair

...and when it comes to zoning make NO mistake this is happening everywhere, including the south!

The square footage under heat/air mimimum keeps creeping up and up.


----------



## LifeofRiley

Vandal said:


> The LA zoning dept has an amazing amount of power. No one tells them what to do. Not even the Board of "Supervisors" and not even the Regional Planning Commission.
> 
> After the Regional Planning Commission hearing, where they ultimately told Zoning "no way, we are not taking their zoning and they are not Puppy Mills"....Zoning went right ahead telling people that they were not allowed to breed on A2 zoned land.
> Anyone interested in a kennel license who said they planned to breed, were turned down. They then started imposing restrictions and demands for the way new kennels must be built. Central air and heat in the buildings, extremely expensive ways to build the kennels and on and on and on. There are groups STILL working to get clear rules and more realistic demands for the construction of kennel buildings from Zoning and they continue to do whatever they want.
> 
> When I was at the Regional Planning hearing, a few people from our group pointed out an attorney who worked for AR groups sitting with the zoning officials. Turns out, she is high up in zoning. There is something else going on here as well, because it seems to be a case where Zoning is out of control all over the country now.
> 
> In LA, they are actively ignoring what the Regional Planning Commission,(during a legal proceeding), ordered them to do. They told my neighbor, (after they told her she was not allowed to breed dogs on her zoning), that ruling "didn't apply to them". It is stunning what people are getting away with who work in Govt. That is because so many people now have been trained to sit quietly. Take your Prozac, (and give it to your dog too), and accept what we tell you to do.
> 
> Another neighbor was told by zoning, (when she tried to apply for a kennel license to be a rescue), that we would all not be here in another ten years. They plan to zone us out. She was refused because " zoning doesn't like Mobile Homes".
> That was what she was told and was also behind the NAT, (Nuisance Abatement Teams), forcing their way onto people's properties a few years back. Modular or Mobile homes mean bad people live in them, that was according to the Sheriff,( he stated it in a meeting I attended), zoning etc. You are welcome to google Nuisance Abatement Teams ...that one will make your hair stand on end. They started using them in the poorer areas and then moved into more affluent areas. They used aerial photos to identify sheds and outbuildings that were not 'permitted' and then went onto people's property with guns drawn. Really???? You couldn't write a letter? SCARY times we are living in when the truth is more frightening than fiction.


So, we were talking about two different things. What you describe sounds like a mess. 

In general, when it comes to changes in zoning ordinances, or changes in how existing ordinances are enforced, I have found it to be useful to take a close look at who stands to gain financially from those decisions.

In Chicago, I have seen developers use some pretty underhanded tactics to oust low-income families from gentrifying neighborhoods.


----------



## Vandal

NO, I am NOT talking about two different things. All of what I have talked about was started by the AR groups. Zoning was part of the "Puppy Mill Task Force" they formed to fight the NON-EXISTENT "Puppy Mill Crisis" in Los Angeles County.
I know you are all for more laws but THIS is what results. Only people who have a taste of this can truly appreciate how awful and stressful it is to deal with. The rest of the people just sit on forums promoting the actions of AR groups and trying to make it all seem reasonable. There was nothing reasonable about what those people put us through.


----------



## LifeofRiley

Vandal said:


> *PetSmart made a choice they felt would increase profits. No successful company makes decisions any other way.* If and when that strategy no longer works for them, they will change it in a hot minute. The amount of money and mass marketing that went into their sale pitch has had a profound effect. No animal welfare group had even a tiny portion of the money these retailers spent. Anyone who thinks they didn't have a big hand in changing things is deluding themselves.
> 
> .... Once again, HSUS is NOT an Animal Welfare Organization, they are an Animal RIGHTS group. There is simply a huge difference between the two.


"Jim and Janice Dougherty, the founders of PetSmart, wanted to help solve the problem of pet homelessness. In the early 1990s, they made the radical decision to never sell dogs and cats in their stores. Instead, they created PetSmart Charities® as a nonprofit animal welfare organization — separate from PetSmart, Inc."
Founded by PetSmart® to Save Lives | Petsmart Charities

"Pets for Life is a program of the Humane Society of the United States that PetSmart Charities strongly supports. HSUS understands that many great pet parents do not have the resources to seek out pet care. So, they decided to reach out to these pet owners in underserved communities. Their goal was to “help pets by helping people.” So, PetSmart Charities supported the Pets for Life program by providing more than $450,000 in grant funding to 10 mentorship communities across the country.

The program began in Philadelphia, *Chicago*, Atlanta and Los Angeles. In 2013, 10 animal welfare organizations were added to the program, including one in Milwaukee."
Source: PetSmart Charities

The PetsforLife program is a good program.


----------



## Vandal

Is this supposed to be some kind of proof of something you said? It proves they were doing exactly what I said they did. They helped change how animals are treated with their marketing campaigns. Make no mistake, this is one of them...along with being a nice tax write off. 
They are not well liked for selling exotic animals though, they have been dodging owning up to how much they make there. Just for the record, Petco and Petsmart make BILLIONS of dollars per year. All big companies need tax write offs and this one is brilliant. It pays off for them in SO many ways.


----------



## Vandal

BTW, I have read similar write ups about the owners of Walmart. What lovely people they were and all that. They would talk about the people who founded the company I used to work for also. Nevermind that they bought them out decades earlier and their influence no longer existed..... at all. Those stories SELL their products.


----------



## selzer

As for spay/neuter, that campaign has worked maybe too well. There are not enough puppies out there for people who want puppies. These people do not adopt older dogs, they want puppies! PUPPIES!!! 

So they humane societies have to bring them puppies from somewhere. Instead of getting puppies from the areas that have lots within the country that ship them in from Mexico and Puerto Rico. And some of them were actually homed and these puppies did not have to go through quarantine, that other dogs incoming would have had to if they were not vaccinated, so some came with rabies. Great! and were home to families with rabies.

Reducing the number of oops litters is probably a good thing. I don't know if importing puppies to meet the demand is such a good thing though. 

Up here in the north, we pretty much eliminated brucellosis and some other diseases, but when Katrina hit, all kinds of dogs from the south made their way up here and we have seen increases in many dreaded diseases. 

I don't know if these organizations really do that much good overall. 
For every action there is a reaction.


----------



## LifeofRiley

selzer said:


> As for spay/neuter, that campaign has worked maybe too well....
> 
> Up here in the north, we pretty much eliminated *brucellosis* and some other diseases, but when Katrina hit, all kinds of dogs from the south made their way up here and we have seen increases in many dreaded diseases.


While great strides have been made, national shelter statistics do not support your story. I, personally, think that the transporting of adoptable animals from low-adoption areas to high-adoption areas is a really good thing. I have participated in that effort alongside some of the most reputable rescues and non-profits in the city.

Canine *brucellosis is transmitted during breeding*. Most shelters have a spay/neuter requirement prior to adoption. *In Chicago, all will spay/neuter prior to adoption*. So, not sure how you can blame the spread of that disease on communities that have stronger regulations on shelters.

If you are truly worried about the re-emergence of disease, you may want to focus your attention on the counties that have lax animal sheltering laws and the anti-vaccination fanatics that seem to have grown in numbers lately.


----------



## selzer

There is no vaccination for brucellosis. And, not every shelter up here requires the spay/neuter thing. At least not until the dog is actually adopted. While it is fostered, it may not be altered. 

But the problem is, altering a dog with brucellosis does not eliminate the problem, and yes, this disease is considered to be a breeding disease, because breeding animals will become sterile if infected, and pups will miscarry or be born very weak. But it can be transmitted through the urine, etc. It is a zoonotic disease. 

It used to be that infected dogs were euthanized. But now they are not. But just altering them does not necessarily take care of the problems.


----------



## LifeofRiley

Vandal said:


> Just for the record, Petco and Petsmart make BILLIONS of dollars per year.


Well, PetSmart and Petco do not generate billions in income per year. But, I suspect you are talking about the marketing efforts of the commercial pet industry that includes pet supply stores, dog/cat food manufacturers, pet health care, etc.

I will argue that the inclusion of shelter pets into many of these campaigns did not happen arbitrarily. It was designed to support the efforts of animal welfare groups to raise awareness of adoptable dogs at shelters. 

Even with that said, the organizations that have spent the most time, money and effort in sending *a very directed national message* about shelter pets have not been the for-profit arms of these companies. 

Note: the not-for-profit entities of PetSmart and Petco have done a lot of good at the local level. In Chicago, they have been really great partners to local animal rescues.

I, personally, think it is good that shelter pets have gained recognition over the years. And, I am uncertain as to why you think that is such a bad thing.


----------



## selzer

LifeofRiley said:


> Well, PetSmart and Petco do not generate billions in income per year. But, I suspect you are talking about the marketing efforts of the commercial pet industry that includes pet supply stores, dog/cat food manufacturers, pet health care, etc.
> 
> I will argue that the inclusion of shelter pets into many of these campaigns did not happen arbitrarily. It was designed to support the efforts of animal welfare groups to raise awareness of adoptable dogs at shelters.
> 
> Even with that said, the organizations that have spent the most time, money and effort in sending *a very directed national message* about shelter pets have not been the for-profit arms of these companies.
> 
> Note: the not-for-profit entities of PetSmart and Petco have done a lot of good at the local level. In Chicago, they have been really great partners to local animal rescues.
> 
> *I, personally, think it is good that shelter pets have gained recognition over the years. And, I am uncertain as to why you think that is such a bad thing*.


I don't think this was aimed at me, but I am going to take a stab at it anyway. I am fine with shelter pets. No problem. But I don't like the trend toward making people who get a dog from a breeder feel guilty. Purchasing a dog from a shelter or a rescue or a breeder does not make one a better person. People should not feel their dog is less because it comes from a shelter or rescue, and people should not feel guilty for buying one from a breeder.


----------



## angelas

LifeofRiley said:


> Canine *brucellosis is transmitted during breeding*. Most shelters have a spay/neuter requirement prior to adoption. *In Chicago, all will spay/neuter prior to adoption*. So, not sure how you can blame the spread of that disease on communities that have stronger regulations on shelters.
> 
> If you are truly worried about the re-emergence of disease, you may want to focus your attention on the counties that have lax animal sheltering laws and the anti-vaccination fanatics that seem to have grown in numbers lately.


Not always the case re: transmission. From The Center for Food Security and Public Health:



> In dogs, B. canis primarily *enters the body by ingestion and through the genital, oronasal and conjunctival mucosa, but transmission through broken skin may also be possible.* Most cases are thought to be acquired by venereal transmission or by contact with the fetus and fetal membranes after abortions and stillbirths. Puppies can be infected in utero, and may remain persistently infected even if they appear normal.
> Nursing puppies can be infected from milk, but the importance of this route is controversial. Other potential sources of infection include blood transfusions and contaminated syringes.
> B. canis can be spread on fomites. In conditions of high humidity, low temperatures and no sunlight, Brucellaspp. can remain viable for several months in water, aborted fetuses, feces, equipment and clothing.
> Brucella species can withstand drying, particularly when organic material is present, and can survive in dust and soil.
> Survival is longer when the temperature is low, particularly when it is below freezing.





So even a dog not used for breeding can transmit on contract this disease.

As far as transporting shelter dogs out of their area of origin I'm fine with that as long as they are quarantined and health tested for diseases that are not present in the destination area (like heartworm, lyme disease, brucellosis etc) and have a permanent, approved home waiting for them. However, there is no reason for a dog to be moved just to languish in rescue and take up space that could have been used for a local dog.


----------



## angelas

selzer said:


> I don't think this was aimed at me, but I am going to take a stab at it anyway. I am fine with shelter pets. No problem.* But I don't like the trend toward making people who get a dog from a breeder feel guilty*. Purchasing a dog from a shelter or a rescue or a breeder does not make one a better person. People should not feel their dog is less because it comes from a shelter or rescue, and people should not feel guilty for buying one from a breeder.


Amen, I had a Purina peddler at Petsmart try this on me on Sunday. After he told me how many times there are so many dogs in shelters locally (despite all the ones in the store being imports from Calif) I finally asked him where I could find one who's parents/family were completely health tested and had proven stable temperaments because I've already had two wild-card dogs and this time I was going to stack the deck in my favor*.

*not that I wouldn't have taken the little brindle pitty that attacked me with her tongue in a hot second


----------



## LifeofRiley

From my perspective, the biggest costs rescues are facing when bringing dogs up from the South is treatment for Heartworm.

I truly hope that the anti-vaccination - anti-veterinarian advice - crowd recognizes how serious of a problem this is to those who deal with the dogs who have been cast aside. 

Of course, I recognize that most of the problem is due to people who are clueless as to what it means to own a dog, but I do feel that some of what I have heard on here is also not helping the situation.


----------



## LifeofRiley

Hi folks,

Sorry for subjecting this thread to yet another tangent last night. Let me explain my train of thought re: the anti-vaccination theme and how it was relevant to earlier discussion.

I was thinking about Vandal’s comment about how the marketing efforts of pet stores promote the idea of pets being vital members of the family, i.e. “furkids.” Her comment made it seem like this was a really bad thing. I was thinking that -by and large - I don’t see it as a bad thing… from my perspective, if that mindset drives more active engagement with pets and sensitivity to their needs, how can that be wrong? And, then I thought about people who have decided not to vaccinate their children because they have bought into some pseudo-science on the issue. So, I thought, hmmm… maybe there are some areas where the “furkids” mindset has become problematic.

The issue of vaccination of human children is all the more meaningful to me because I know that children in the developing world die everyday because they do not have access to the life-saving vaccines people here so willingly take for granted. I have been at the rural clinics in those parts of the world, I have seen the lack of access and its consequences first hand.


----------



## selzer

LifeofRiley said:


> From my perspective, the biggest costs rescues are facing when bringing dogs up from the South is treatment for Heartworm.
> 
> I truly hope that the anti-vaccination - anti-veterinarian advice - crowd recognizes how serious of a problem this is to those who deal with the dogs who have been cast aside.
> 
> Of course, I recognize that most of the problem is due to people who are clueless as to what it means to own a dog, but I do feel that some of what I have heard on here is also not helping the situation.


Before Katrina, heartworm was not wide spread in this area. The way that problem works is that the mosquito must become infected by biting an infected dog, and then it matures with in the mosquito, and is deposited in another dog. So if all those infected dogs were not brought up this way, we wouldn't be having as much of a problem here. The mosquitos themselves do not bring the problem, it is transmitted from infected dogs. This is a huge problem with relocating pets from outside the area to an area. And they didn't bother to treat them before they got them here.


----------



## LifeofRiley

selzer said:


> Before Katrina, heartworm was not wide spread in this area. The way that problem works is that the mosquito must become infected by biting an infected dog, and then it matures with in the mosquito, and is deposited in another dog. So if all those infected dogs were not brought up this way, we wouldn't be having as much of a problem here. The mosquitos themselves do not bring the problem, it is transmitted from infected dogs. This is a huge problem with relocating pets from outside the area to an area. And they didn't bother to treat them before they got them here.


Hi Selzer,

It really is not that simple. Heartworm has long been present in the Midwest.

And, there are a number of factors that influence heartworm infection rates in any given region year-to-year. They include:

Size and distribution of mosquito populations that are capable of transmitting the disease in any given year
Spread of mosquito populations to new habitats due to environmental factors (natural and human made).
Municipal/regional mosquito control practices
Socio-economic factors that influence the likelihood of any given owner population to comply with screening tests and use of heartworm preventatives
Timely screening and treatment of infected dogs by owners
Strong animal sheltering procedures that include screening and treatment of animals infected with heartworm
Infection rates in regional wildlife populations – primarily coyotes.
Mobility of humans and dogs (people moving with untreated dogs and the movement of dogs from high-incidence areas without timely treatment upon arrival in shelter/rescue)
My dog was pulled from a rural shelter in downstate Illinois. He arrived in rescue HW+. He was promptly treated.


----------

