# New laws passed regarding breeders



## Lilie

* USDA Cracks Down on Internet Pet Sales - ABC News*



I'm curious how everyone feels about this.


----------



## LifeofRiley

I support the rule change.

Here is some more information:
http://www.aphis.usda.gov/newsroom/2013/09/pdf/faq_retail_pets_final_rule.pdf


----------



## marbury

Horrible, personally. Another instance of the 'good guys' being hurt by legislation targeted (legitimately) at 'bad guys'. And unfortunately, the baddies are still going to keep trucking on regardless.

If breeders did all their sales in-state or required home visits it would really change the way bloodlines are distributed. I know I'm game to drive up to Washington to pick up a pup, but not everybody is that crazy.


----------



## onyx'girl

Nope, not in support whatsoever. It won't change how the millers operate, and cause problems for the good responsible breeders that know what they are doing.


----------



## LifeofRiley

Before this thread turns into a laundry list of assumptions about the impact of the rule change, please read the above link to the APHIS Factsheet.

I have no problem with people having a different opinion than my own, but I do think it makes for better discussion when those opinions are based on actual facts versus fears.


----------



## onyx'girl

http://www.germanshepherds.com/forum/current-dog-affairs/295338-stop-pups-act.html

We know how you feel, LifeofRiley, and wy do you assume anyone is posting their opinion not based on fact?
http://www.germanshepherds.com/foru...-talk-about-pups-act-related-legislation.html


----------



## LifeofRiley

The rule change that went into effect is different from the PUPS Act. The PUPS Act is still pending in Congress as far as I know.


----------



## Merciel

I read the fact sheet but it didn't seem materially different from what was discussed in the other thread. The details are different but the broad outlines of the argument seem to be about the same. Correct me if I'm wrong, though, I might well have overlooked something.


----------



## LifeofRiley

The goal is the same - to provide some oversight to high-volume commercial breeders that sell directly to the public vs. through a pet store.

But, as you mention, the details are different. And, since it was the details of the PUPS Act that had many up in arms, I think it is important that they read the actual rule before passing judgement.


----------



## onyx'girl

This part of it is left up for interpretation..it just brings more confusion because some of the Amish puppy millers will no doubt say they are breeding working dogs.
WORKING DOGS
Q. Does this fi nal rule bring working dogs sold at 
retail under regulation?
A. Working dogs are generally understood to be dogs 
that are not sold for use as pets but for purposes such 
as hunting, breeding, and security. Dogs sold at retail 
for these purposes do not come under regulation 
under the AWA. 
Q. Will APHIS require working dog breeders to be 
regulated if they occasionally sell an animal as a 
pet that has proved unsuitable as a working dog 
due to birth defects, poor temperament, or other 
fl aws? 
A. Individuals who intend to breed and sell dogs at 
retail as working dogs may occasionally raise a dog 
that lacks the characteristics that would enable it to be 
sold or used for its intended working purpose. As long 
as the individual originally intended to raise and sell 
the dog at retail for that purpose and the individual 
continues to market his or her dogs for that purpose, 
the individual could sell the individual dog at retail 
without needing to be regulated by APHIS.


----------



## Merciel

onyx'girl said:


> some of the Amish puppy millers will no doubt say they are breeding working dogs.


lol

(not at you, I am depressingly quite sure you're right. just lol @ the notion of an Amish puppy mill dog being able to "work" at anything, poor unfortunate creatures that they are. They might as well sell them as floppy-eared zebra rabbits.)


----------



## LifeofRiley

One of the main reasons that these steps are necessary is because the breed clubs and nationally recognized registries are not doing their part to combat puppy mills. That is what I find sad.

We can analyze the rules and hypothesize about how puppy mills might evade them, but some rules are better than no rules. More information about the problem is better than less.

Hopefully, the exposure that USDA oversight brings to these operations will lead to more public education and more outcry for change.

It is not the rules themselves that make change, it is the data that is possible to collect as a result of those rules that really has the most potential to impact change.


----------



## Whiteshepherds

LifeofRiley said:


> One of the main reasons that these steps are necessary is because the breed clubs and nationally recognized registries are not doing their part to combat puppy mills. That is what I find sad.


This won't stop puppy mills. 
The breeders who have nothing to hide will comply if they're forced to but nothing will be gained because they aren't doing anything wrong to begin with.
The breeders who have everything to hide will change the wording on their websites to take advantage of the working dog loophole or find some other way to sidestep the issue.


----------



## LifeofRiley

@whiteshepherds - the same argument was made when the initial law was passed that only included pet stores. So, I disagree. 

Pet stores will soon be as anachronistic as eight-track players. If you look closely at trends, you know that is a true statement.

Puppy millers know that and that is why they have turned to online sales... we need to keep pace with change. 

The only reason pet stores became readily known as places to avoid buying dogs from was because we were able to gather - and share - information about the problem due to the inspection rules in place.

AKC does not make any inspection reports public - and they only have nine inspectors for the entire country. USDA is also understaffed, but not to that level. And, the USDA does make inspection reports public... that is the most important factor here.

It is only by giving the public better information that we can expect to see any change.

Do I think the USDA should be the responsible party here? In an ideal world, no. But, since the breed establishment world is not stepping to the plate, I would rather there be something than nothing.


----------



## selzer

Anyone have a link to the law in its entirety, as revised?


----------



## LifeofRiley

selzer said:


> Anyone have a link to the law in its entirety, as revised?


Ask and you shall receive 

http://www.aphis.usda.gov/newsroom/2013/09/pdf/pet_retail_docket_2011-2003.pdf

I should add that is it not a new law, per se, just a rule change.


----------



## LifeofRiley

LifeofRiley said:


> @whiteshepherds - the same argument was made when the initial law was passed that only included pet stores. So, I disagree.
> 
> To be absolutely clear here, I should point out that that the outcry was from breeders and brokers who sold to pet stores that became subject to regulation. Pet store owners were, and still are, exempt from the AWA oversight.
> 
> It was the pressure on the supplier (high volume breeders and brokers) that caused change... but we have to keep up with supplier tactics... online is the new frontier for them.


----------



## Whiteshepherds

LifeofRiley said:


> One of the main reasons that these steps are necessary is because the breed clubs and nationally recognized registries are not doing their part to combat puppy mills. That is what I find sad.


If you were in charge, what would you have breed clubs or registries do to help the situation?


----------



## Gretchen

Reading from the link, it sounds like their have been many complaints from customers who buy their dogs online. I only know 3 people that purchased their dogs online and all arrived healthy and years later the owners are happy with their dogs, but I'm sure their are some horror stories out there.

I really see this as the government trying to collect taxes and fees that have evaded them with online shopping. Last year the state of California pressured Amazon and other online retailers to start charging sales tax. So I suppose this legislation is actually more about commerce than protecting puppies from horrible breeders.


----------



## marbury

I still have a problem with it... am I missing something?

What I'm reading is that, as a hobby breeder with more than four breeding females (hypothetically) who has a website listing my dogs and available litters (again, hypothetically) and has a client seven states away who is interested in one of my dogs... I am now a pet store? My interpretation of the first few pages is that any prospective puppy buyer now has to come to my residence (residence, mind you, I don't have any sort of kennel) to transact the purchase in person. While I completely understand how the law will attempt to impact puppy mills, how am I supposed to be OK with this as a responsible hobby breeder? I made it to page 5, maybe I missed something later on...


----------



## NTexFoster

Personally, I would prefer the market place address this problem. People who actually care need to get off their butts and educate their friends and neighbors.

Asking the government to fix the problem generally only makes the problem worse. We have a war on drugs and it would be easier for me to get pseudoephedrine from a drug dealer than the store today. Well done.

The puppy mills will continue churning out puppies as long as their is a market for them. No amount of government regulation will change that. It might change the price or the manner in which the transaction is conducted, but as long as there is somebody with money to buy a puppy there will be somebody there to take the money and deliver a puppy.

I roll my eyes at every person and post I see here asking about this or that breeder of long haired whip tailed East Oceania Shepherds - why? There's like 30 perfectly good German Shepherds at DFW German Shepherd Rescue looking for homes because people like that did what they do. And yes: those people are responsible. 

Anyway - this is politics and there is no profit for me here. I'm out.


----------



## KZoppa

Nope. Cant support it. Only makes it difficult for responsible breeders. Puppy millers will continue to breed and find the loopholes.


----------



## shepherdmom

My opinion is it is just more government intrusion into our lives. These laws only keep honest people honest. They do nothing to stop the bad breeders who don't care about laws anyway.


----------



## Xeph

Do not support it AT ALL!

This law also affects co owned animals. I co own Wesson with her breeder. Wesson lives here....but because Catherine's name is also on her papers, Wesson would count towards her total number if intact bitches. That is total crap!

I also have somebody interested in a puppy out of Wesson. She lives on the west coast...I am in the great lakes area. So she is supposed to come ALL THE WAY to Pennsylvania for me to remain compliant with the law!?

I will be providing pictures and video for her, so her puppy will not be "sight unseen"...only it would be under this "rule change".

"Puppy mills" (for lack of a better term) are already USDA licensed. So HOW does this law affect them?

It doesn't.


----------



## wyominggrandma

The issue I see is HSUS and PETA are going to keep getting involved and they ARE involved in this,and pushing this type of thing to fulfill their outcome of NO pets for anyone.
Someone was saying during a discussion of this: how will the USDA check all the breeders to make them follow the new rules ?. I said the breeders and neighbors will take care of this: get mad at your neighbor or a breeder whom you don't like because they are competition for you or whatever and just a phone call away and the Feds will be there.
Sad state of affairs when the Feds can now come to your home and inspect where you dogs live and insist you have to have concrete kennels for them and they can't live in the house, etc. Its gonna get bad.


----------



## onyx'girl

Gretchen said:


> Reading from the link,* it sounds like their have been many complaints from customers who buy their dogs online.* I only know 3 people that purchased their dogs online and all arrived healthy and years later the owners are happy with their dogs, but I'm sure their are some horror stories out there.
> 
> I really see this as the government trying to collect taxes and fees that have evaded them with online shopping. Last year the state of California pressured Amazon and other online retailers to start charging sales tax. So I suppose this legislation is actually more about commerce than protecting puppies from horrible breeders.


Maybe if consumers did their research and not just click to buy a puppy off a classified ad there would be less complaints. IMO those people deserve exactly what they were promised....


----------



## lhczth

onyx'girl said:


> Maybe if consumers did their research and not just click to buy a puppy off a classified ad there would be less complaints. IMO those people deserve exactly what they were promised....


:thumbup: Pick your puppy, give us your CC and we will send you your product. All neat and clean until they get their order. Very sad for the animals, but, I am sorry, the people deserve what they get.


----------



## Courtney

Love shopping on-line. Sometimes I even read product reviews. But I will not purchase anything on-line with a heartbeat. That purchase deserves my full hands on attention and due diligence.


----------



## selzer

marbury said:


> I still have a problem with it... am I missing something?
> 
> What I'm reading is that, as a hobby breeder with more than four breeding females (hypothetically) who has a website listing my dogs and available litters (again, hypothetically) and has a client seven states away who is interested in one of my dogs... I am now a pet store? My interpretation of the first few pages is that any prospective puppy buyer now has to come to my residence (residence, mind you, I don't have any sort of kennel) to transact the purchase in person. While I completely understand how the law will attempt to impact puppy mills, how am I supposed to be OK with this as a responsible hobby breeder? I made it to page 5, maybe I missed something later on...



I think that I read that as long as the seller, the buyer and the puppy/dog are present, the transaction can be held in any location, Like the WalMart parking lot -- they are fine. Holiday Inn -- they are fine too. 

What my questions are, are:

1: Lots of people buy puppies at pet stores only to find that they are seriously ill and pay thousands in medical bills to save the pup's life, and sometimes the dog dies anyway. They actually saw the dog when they bought it, and did not realize that it was seriously ill. How can we guaranty that if a buyer looks at a puppy first, they will be providing whatever oversight is required? 

2: Why not require any dog shipped over state lines to have a health certificate from a veterinarian to ship with it. Part of the paperwork. Can't board a plane, or be picked up by a pet transport without it? I would think that those in the business of transporting pets would want this anyway, because if the animal become deathly ill, during transit, well, there would be accountability.

Why make these people subject to special licensing -- which will still do nothing, and then have to have them go find some currently non-existant individual to put their eyes on your puppy before you ship it, to tell you what? That the dog will not become ill within the next 48 hours? Really? 

It looks like another useless method for the government to separate money from people who are trying to make money. I think the crappier breeders will just pay it, and breed a few more bitches to make up for the added cost. It will only negatively affect breeders who have bitches out on co-owns, and take stud fee puppies, etc.


----------



## Chris Wild

selzer said:


> 2: Why not require any dog shipped over state lines to have a health certificate from a veterinarian to ship with it. Part of the paperwork. Can't board a plane, or be picked up by a pet transport without it? I would think that those in the business of transporting pets would want this anyway, because if the animal become deathly ill, during transit, well, there would be accountability.


Actually, this is already a requirement. Airlines and pet transport companies will not ship without one and they are supposed to be provided for private transport as well, though many skip that part since there is no one to check it.

All those sickly puppies being bought online and shipped out of state DO have that health cert... by a vet employed by the puppy mill of course.


----------



## selzer

Chris Wild said:


> Actually, this is already a requirement. Airlines and pet transport companies will not ship without one and they are supposed to be provided for private transport as well, though many skip that part since there is no one to check it.
> 
> All those sickly puppies being bought online and shipped out of state DO have that health cert... by a vet employed by the puppy mill of course.


Maybe some accountability to should made to the person taking the pay check on each pup they issue a certificate for, then. 

I have never shipped a pup. I have gotten a dog imported, and health-cert was part of it. 

If you have an extra pair of eyes looking at the puppy, how would adding more government controls change anything? 

I would think that if you imported a pup and it was seriously ill, then the vet that signed such a certificate, ought to have some sort of something back on them for issuing a cert for a sick pup. 

And if a vet can't tell if a pup is sick or not, what will this third party inspector be able to tell?


----------



## selzer

Chris Wild said:


> Actually, this is already a requirement. Airlines and pet transport companies will not ship without one and they are supposed to be provided for private transport as well, though many skip that part since there is no one to check it.
> 
> All those sickly puppies being bought online and shipped out of state DO have that health cert... by a vet employed by the puppy mill of course.


I guess, what I mean is, if there are safegards in place, and the safegards are broken. Why not fix the safegards, rather than putting more safegards in place?


----------



## onyx'girl

exactly...more rules to enforce the rules that they can't enforce. Great idea, but it is par for the course with gov't. 
If only HSUS and others would put their power trips and agenda's aside. Maybe they should ask the responsible breeders for their input on the wording of any bills that are introduced to legislature.


----------



## Chris Wild

selzer said:


> I guess, what I mean is, if there are safegards in place, and the safegards are broken. Why not fix the safegards, rather than putting more safegards in place?


Exactly. But that never seems to be the way things go. Rather than enforcing what is on the books, instead they just make it appear to the public like they are doing something productive by making new rules. Happens with everything, not just dogs.




onyx'girl said:


> Maybe they should ask the responsible breeders for their input on the wording of any bills that are introduced to legislature.


A bunch of people who are really into dogs and who all love the same breed can't agree on what constitutes a "responsible" breeder just discussing it on a message board. No way the country as a whole is ever going to agree. And certainly not when AR groups who's underlying belief is that ALL breeding is bad are involved.


----------



## Liberatore

Just some reading for everyone. And, no, I do not in any way shape or form agree with this. This not only affect dogs, but other animals as well. The 10yr old 4-H kid down the street raising rabbits, the person who co-owns more than 5 females, many, many people will be affected. And, please, tell me how a buyer, with no veterinary medical experience will be better able to detect a sick animal that a vet was unable to detect? Because, let's remember, any animal being shipped is required to undergo a health check and have a veterinary issued health certificate before flying. If sick animals are being shipped out maybe the vets should be looked at closer, not the breeders! This will severly limit the breeders that are available to a buyer. 

ASPCA VIOLATES DOG BREEDERS, by Frank Losey, J.D. The Dog’s Attorney

http://www.aphis.usda.gov/publications/animal_welfare/2013/faq_retail_pets_final_rule.pdf

http://www.aphis.usda.gov/publications/animal_welfare/2012/animal_welfare_act_english.pdf

Katharine's Musings on Liberty and Tyranny: The USDA Pounds a Nail into the Coffin of America's Dogs

Ang


----------



## LifeofRiley

Whiteshepherds said:


> If you were in charge, what would you have breed clubs or registries do to help the situation?


Sorry, I have been traveling so have not had time to drop in here for a couple of days. 

To be fair, I don’t think that the kennel and breed clubs can single-handedly solve the problem. It does have to be a multi-faceted effort

But, I do think they could do more to help with the problem. 

So, if I were in charge, I would significantly tighten up litter registration eligibility requirements. I would set limits on the number of litters that can be registered by any one dam per year as well as limits over the lifetime of that animal. And, I would work with reputable breeders to determine what those limits should be and to brainstorm other ways that registry rules could be changed to promote ethical breeding practices and overall breed health.

I also think that the AKC should work to make more of the data it collects accessible to the public. 

For example… 
If there is a kennel producing and registering 100+ litters a year, that should be information that is readily available to anyone trying to learn more about any given kennel. 

Pedigree information and health certificates attached to any given litter should also be made publicly available and easily searchable. Even better if there were analysis tools to help individuals make more informed decisions. 

I am sure that some of the breeders on here could come up with even better ideas and thoughts on what the AKC could do with regard to litter registration eligibility and effective use of information that might help limit puppy mills ability to churn out “AKC puppies.”

Breed clubs could place a lot more pressure on the AKC to do something or create their own certification and registration system.


----------



## marbury

100+ litters a year! YIKES!! I hope an operation that large already DOES have folks checking in on them. By definition all hobby breeders aren't out there throwing even twelve litters a year. They're likely to whelp one, maybe three.

I would support a limit on number of litters whelped per dam over her lifetime. I would also support mandatory disclosure on health testing, to avoid 'covering up' pairings that resulted in significant issues in offspring. I also support the certification of CHIC dogs, a registry of breeding animals that have met or exceeded the minimum breed testing requirements (including temperament testing) and make it a lynchpin to increasing litters sired in studs or whelped in dams. IE: untested AKC dam can register 2 litters, CHIC certified AKC dam can register 4 etc.

Of course then folks would just find another registry!


----------



## Chris Wild

I think those who think that the breed clubs ought to be involved should look at the SV model. It started with great intentions. On paper it still looks great. The reality is that it has become an epic fail. If anything it has contributed to a significant downslide in this breed. Similar systems will likely over time have the same effect. 

And that's just the breeders who follow the system to get registration. Add requirements, and there will just be more breeders using the alternate fake registries like CKC (not Canadian of course). AKC and it's breed clubs can do nothing about those breeders. Then of course there are all the designer breed mutt breeders which are all the rage these days amongst the very people who would purchase a puppy via a "buy it now" button on a website. Who will police all the Doodles, Puggles, Daisy Dogs, and whatever else is the new thing?

No matter what requirements are put in place, either by dog organizations or the government, the bad breeders will find a way around them so it is only the good breeders who don't need this oversight are the ones who will be harmed, or the corruption of the breeders will bleed over into the organization as a whole as it has with the SV. 

That's why I still maintain that the only real way to fix the problem is to educate the consumers so the scum breeders go out of business.


----------



## Vandal

I'm not going to address all of this since some posts are just propaganda. 
Chris, the SV system worked for decades until the ARs in Germany got involved. Fear of fanatics has led to the decline in the test and yet these same people will pretend they somehow want to help.

Here in Los Angeles County, the majority of the dogs in shelters are Pit Bulls and Chihuahuas. There are no puppy mills here churning those breeds out and there aren't any breeders of those dogs either. Yet,the ARs will say it's the fault of breeders and to limit their numbers. 

The people who are pumping out those dogs are not puppy mills and they are NOT breeders, they are ignorant, uncaring slobs. Tired of them being labeled as breeders, they are completely different animals. These same people will in NO WAY be affected by these new laws. They don't follow laws. It's the same story as with gun laws. They punish the law abiding, no one else. 

My definition of a breeder is not someone who knows nothing about their breed and just lets their registered and unregistered dogs have sex, and then dumps the resulting puppies. I wish breeders would start pushing back on the misuse of that term by people who would like to see them eliminated.


----------



## lhczth

Excellent Anne. I have always referred to those people as "puppy producers" (or some things I can't post on here).


----------



## LifeofRiley

Vandal said:


> I'm not going to address all of this since some posts are just propaganda.
> Chris, the SV system worked for decades until the ARs in Germany got involved. Fear of fanatics has led to the decline in the test and yet these same people will pretend they somehow want to help.


Tell me me more, I'm curious. How is it that Animal Welfare advocates have led to the decline of the SV system in Germany?

To me, I see the issue at hand in a very different light. Germany does not have the puppy mill problem we have here. 

And, problems with the SV have more to do with breed health and breed direction vs. being a de-facto stamp of approval for unethical breeding practices a la the puppy mills we see here in the United States.

I am willing to be wrong on the above points so I do hope you come back to provide more information supporting your viewpoint.


----------



## onyx'girl

Pitbulls are dominant in shelters everywhere...Detroit has over 50,000 strays roaming the streets. 50,000! the puppy producers need to stop the insanity.


----------



## Vandal

First, I didn't say animal welfare but I am pretty sure you knew that. I said ANIMAL RIGHTS. There is a significant difference but it's that same pattern of confusing terms. 

Second, I don't think you have a clue about what is or has gone on in Germany. If you did, you would not need to ask that question. 

Sorry, I have no interest in engaging with you further. I simply don't have the time to waste.


----------



## LifeofRiley

Vandal said:


> First, I didn't say animal welfare but I am pretty sure you knew that. I said ANIMAL RIGHTS. There is a significant difference but it's that same pattern of confusing terms.
> 
> Second, I don't think you have a clue about what is or has gone on in Germany. If you did, you would not need to ask that question.
> 
> Sorry, I have no interest in engaging with you further. I simply don't have the time to waste.


That's fine. Your engagement on this topic - or lack thereof - isn't going to upset me.

As to whether or not I know what is going on in Germany at a level that is beyond any particular breed... well, having lived there, I think I do have a valid point of view.


----------



## Vandal

HA...I have participated in that system for almost 40 years. I didn't just visit an area where it takes place. Please stop with the balony.


----------



## LifeofRiley

Vandal said:


> HA...I have participated in that system for almost 40 years. I didn't just visit an area where it takes place. Please stop with the balony.


Not sure where all of this aggression is coming from


----------



## Gwenhwyfair

welp....I gotta say I'm with Chris and Anne and Sue on this.....

AND I'm not one of those all regulations are terrible kind of people either (first career financial sector I personally witnessed what thoughtless rampant deregulation can do....)

Anyhow I saw where LifeofRiley mentioned limiting how many times a female is bred per year. My understanding is females on average only come into season 2X per year. There are some ethical breeders who believe in the females having two litters per year and then retiring them at a younger age. Now I don't know if that's scientifically accurate but it does make sense that a younger dog is generally healthier and more apt to safely have litters. So when people who are not breeders start making up rules it may actually back fire. 

Those who aren't ethical won't know, won't care and the USDA doesn't seem to have the resources to enforce the rules we currently have. Given the anti-gov't trajectory this country is on pretty soon they'll be down to so little funds and staff it's really doesn't make sense to create more rules.

A possible scenario of more rules is ethical good breeders will breed less, prices will go up which will incentivize more 'puppy producers' to find ways to fill the demand. Sort of like prohibition.....because the demand will always be there......


----------



## LifeofRiley

LifeofRiley said:


> Not sure where all of this aggression is coming from


I’ll answer my own rhetorical question. 

Vandal seems to have interpreted my posts as having malicious motivations – an overly emotional response that does not reflect the actual content (or intent) of my posts on this thread. 

As internet posts are an imperfect form of communication, I will attempt to clarify my own posts:

In my earlier post re: living in Germany - I was simply attempting to point out that the experience of having actually lived in Germany, coupled with my interest in animal welfare issues, gave me a valid basis upon which to opine that Germany is not faced with the same “puppy mill” problem that we are faced with here in the United States. 

I have never claimed to be an expert on the SV system or the breed– I have been very clear about that across multiple threads on this forum. The perspective that I shared about the state of the SV system (as it relates to “puppy mills”) was based solely on opinions I have read here and elsewhere… it is entirely possible that my take on it is wrong and that the SV system in Germany does, in fact, rubber-stamp puppy mill operations. 

I was curious about Vandal’s contention that *“animal rights”* have contributed to the decline of the SV system for the very simple reason that I have never heard that particular argument made in prior discussions about the SV system on this board. 

And, yes, I did change the wording deliberately. But, not for malicious purposes. I was hoping to tease out a discussion about the differences between animal welfare and animal rights. *I do get tired of people using “animal rights” as code for extremism* when the true extremists are only one faction within the broader animal rights and animal welfare conversation.

*It is actually very much akin to the problem Vandal has with the umbrella usage of the term “breeder.” * In both cases, it is unfortunate that everyone is grouped under the same term when the truth is that there is a great deal of variation underneath it– good, bad and ugly. If the “bad” and “ugly” gain more press, well then the “good” suffer by association. 

The fact that Vandal did not wish to elaborate is fine with me. *It was more idle curiosity and a hope that an interesting conversation might ensue than a pressing need to know… lol. *

*On this forum, the topic of animal welfare policy seems to be yet another one where emotion derails discourse. * I guess some people find it easier, and more self-validating, to stay comfortably within the confines of their own echo chamber.

*I, personally, find echo chambers boring* – that is one of the reasons why I like engaging in dialogue with people who do not share my opinion on issues. I find that when I make an honest effort to consider the viewpoints of others, I make myself open to discover new insight. 

For example, *I found my conversations with Chris Wild (on other threads) to be very interesting and insightful. They did cause me to reflect on some of the biases and assumptions underlying some of my own opinions.* It spurred me to take the time and effort to do some research into topics that I otherwise would never have thought to research. _The result, albeit admittedly a work in progress, is a far more well-rounded understanding of the issues at hand._


----------



## Liesje

LifeofRiley said:


> I was curious about Vandal’s contention that *“animal rights”* have contributed to the decline of the SV system for the very simple reason that I have never heard that particular argument made in prior discussions about the SV system on this board.


Really? There have been threads. They are changing the trial elements, commands you can use, how the dog is scored, etc. It has been discussed here and elsewhere. If you don't participate, I can see how it would be easily missed.


----------



## JakodaCD OA

I'm against this and I am not a breeder nor ever claimed to be one.

I don't want some yahoo telling me, I have to travel across country to someone's "home" to buy a puppy. Ridiculous as well as most of the other bull.

I do have a question tho....Since the AKC / USDA can't 'police' what's going on now, how in heck are they going to police these new regulations? 

Not happening..and hope it doesn't happen


----------



## Gwenhwyfair

In addition to trying to outlaw SchH (in all places, Germany) according to Mrs. K and some other information I've seen. Hence the change to 'IPO'. 





Liesje said:


> Really? There have been threads. They are changing the trial elements, commands you can use, how the dog is scored, etc. It has been discussed here and elsewhere. If you don't participate, I can see how it would be easily missed.


----------



## Gwenhwyfair

Yup...

People who are ethical don't need to be policed, they'll follow the rules because it's in their nature.

Those who don't give a flip will keep on doing what they do.

I can't stand puppy mills and the fact that people still buy puppies at 'pet stores' drives me bonkers....but hitting this problem from the supply side isn't going to change anything.

It reminds when (and I was on board with this law) banning the slaughter of horses in the U.S. came to be.

What happened, the horses just got shipped into Canada or Mexico and nothing changed. The demand was there the suppliers figured out how to fill it and the horses suffered even more.

That's when I stopped jumping on board with these supply side 'solutions', unintended consequences aren't thought through enough. 





JakodaCD OA said:


> I'm against this and I am not a breeder nor ever claimed to be one.
> 
> I don't want some yahoo telling me, I have to travel across country to someone's "home" to buy a puppy. Ridiculous as well as most of the other bull.
> 
> I do have a question tho....*Since the AKC / USDA can't 'police' what's going on now, how in heck are they going to police these new regulations*?
> 
> Not happening..and hope it doesn't happen


----------



## LifeofRiley

I am curious to hear if any of the breeders who post on this forum will actually be effected by the new rule change in USDA enforcement of the AWA.

I think I would find their opinions to be of particular interest. 

And, it would be even better, if those breeders who actually are effected would share with this forum their actual experiences in going through the new licensing procedures as it unfolds. I think we could all learn from that.


----------



## marbury

LifeofRiley said:


> I am curious to hear if any of the breeders who post on this forum will actually be effected by the new rule change in USDA enforcement of the AWA.
> 
> I think I would find their opinions to be of particular interest.
> 
> And, it would be even better, if those breeders who actually are effected would share with this forum their actual experiences in going through the new licensing procedures as it unfolds. I think we could all learn from that.


Ultimately, I doubt any reputable hobby breeder will be affected. Do the rules apply to them? Absolutely. Will it ever come up? Only if they piss someone off and have legal intervention.

I still disagree with the underlying concept and the fact that is still going to be absolutely useless against the worst of the perpetrators, the very demographic this was targeted to affect.


----------



## selzer

It won't affect me at all. I am against it. But some of my reasons flirt with subject matter not allowed. And, I just do not want to give incomplete answers on the subject.


----------



## selzer

marbury said:


> Ultimately, I doubt any reputable hobby breeder will be affected. Do the rules apply to them? Absolutely. Will it ever come up? Only if they piss someone off and have legal intervention.
> 
> I still disagree with the underlying concept and the fact that is still going to be absolutely useless against the worst of the perpetrators, the very demographic this was targeted to affect.


But how can you be reputable, and have rules/laws that apply to you, and choose not to comply to them? Please explain.


----------



## marbury

selzer said:


> But how can you be reputable, and have rules/laws that apply to you, and choose not to comply to them? Please explain.


I mean, I'm really not going to tattle on a breeder (that fits the criteria outlined in the legislation) who is based in NY that is willing to meet me in NC so I don't have to drive all that way to pick up a pup. That breeder's program, early development, etc might be spectacular but I'm not going to call attention to their kind effort to save me a few days of travel time and get them in trouble, if that makes sense. I might have seen the sire and dam at a show and thus never have been to her facility/home; if I'm reading that document correctly, the breeder would technically be violating that law by engaging in a sale off her premises, no? If not then disregard.


----------



## LifeofRiley

marbury said:


> I mean, I'm really not going to tattle on a breeder (that fits the criteria outlined in the legislation) who is based in NY that is willing to meet me in NC so I don't have to drive all that way to pick up a pup. That breeder's program, early development, etc might be spectacular but I'm not going to call attention to their kind effort to save me a few days of travel time and get them in trouble, if that makes sense. I might have seen the sire and dam at a show and thus never have been to her facility/home; if I'm reading that document correctly, the breeder would technically be violating that law by engaging in a sale off her premises, no? If not then disregard.


You, and the breeder, would not be in violation of the rule change in the scenario you describe above. So, no worries


----------



## marbury

LifeofRiley said:


> You, and the breeder, would not be violating the rule change. So, no worries


Well then! Disregard, I'm clearly still missing something from that original file. Mayhaps I should make it past page 5. :laugh:


----------



## LifeofRiley

marbury said:


> Well then! Disregard, I'm clearly still missing something from that original file. Mayhaps I should make it past page 5. :laugh:


Lol... I appreciate you contributing your thoughts on this thread either way!


----------



## selzer

marbury said:


> I mean, I'm really not going to tattle on a breeder (that fits the criteria outlined in the legislation) who is based in NY that is willing to meet me in NC so I don't have to drive all that way to pick up a pup. That breeder's program, early development, etc might be spectacular but I'm not going to call attention to their kind effort to save me a few days of travel time and get them in trouble, if that makes sense. I might have seen the sire and dam at a show and thus never have been to her facility/home; if I'm reading that document correctly, the breeder would technically be violating that law by engaging in a sale off her premises, no? If not then disregard.


No, so long as the the seller, the buyer, and the puppy/dog being sold are present, than you can make a sale at any location -- WalMart, Holiday Inn, side of the road -- all ok. 

Actually, you can have a third party step in for the buyer. So if the stud owner is trusted by the buyer, that person can look at the puppy and stand in for the buyer, if I read it correctly.

But if you sell a puppy, in the gas station of a particular gas-mini mart in the hood in Cleveland, to save the elderly Euclid guy a long drive, then expect to see the clerk water the side of the store in broad daylight, and then he will come out and ask you what the heck is going on, when you are going over the paperwork in the guy's pick up truck. My brother's buddy was with me, and I think someone got shot there when we were there. It was really crazy. I have met people half-way before, but that was definitely the most interesting location.


----------



## Lauri & The Gang

Here are some questions / issues I have with the new rules.

First - what is the definition of "breeding females" as used in the following:

Amending the exemption from licensing for persons maintaining four or fewer breeding females

​If we are talking about intact females - all but one of my females is intact but I don't necessarily plan to breed them all. I don't believe in spaying/neutering an animal just to keep them from procreating.

Also - I'd have a problem with this part:

The possibility of an animal carrying a zoonotic disease is reduced with adequate veterinary care, including vaccinations. To the extent that improved oversight reduces the likelihood of
 pet-to-human transmission of zoonotic diseases such as rabies, the public as a whole will benefit from the rule.​I do not vaccinate my puppies and not because I'm cheap. I do it because I believe that proper diet and health care will create a puppy that doesn't NEED to be vaccinated. I also believe that vaccinations are causing many of the health problems we see in dogs.

And this - this is just wrong:

When a buyer receives a sick or abused pet animal, sight unseen, the responsibility for correcting inadequate care has been effectively transferred from the seller to the buyer without the buyer’s knowledge or consent.​Not for my puppies it hasn't. My puppies come with a health guarantee. They need to be seen by the new owners vet with 72 hours of receiving the puppy/dog. If there are any health problems at that point - they will be taken care of at MY expense. I also have the puppies knees (Cresteds are a breed with patella issues) and hearts checked before they go to their new homes. I make sure my breeding animals have the correct health clearances as well.

And this sentence:

However, this rule will only affect those dog breeders who sell dogs as pets, not for hunting, security, breeding, or other purposes;

​"Other purposes"?? That is such a WIDE OPEN statement that ANYONE could find a loophole!! Plus, I could sell my intact puppies at 8 weeks of age and claim they are being sold for 'breeding' and get around the rule.

I have said this many times and I will say it again - the ONLY ONLY ONLY way to stop puppy mills is to educate the *consumer *- not regulate the people creating the products.


----------



## Gwenhwyfair

...and even though I'm not a breeder but rather a person who may want to buy a puppy from a breeder and be affected by this as a purchaser I'll just pipe up here.....

This, in blue, is how a client of mine bought a puppy mill dog a couple of years ago. She didn't realize until later and learned her lesson. 

If the buyer doesn't know better or just doesn't care where the puppy comes from this rule doesn't stop a puppy miller from selling dogs in the walmart parking lot. 





selzer said:


> No, so long as the *the seller, the buyer, and the puppy/dog being sold are present, than you can make a sale at any location -- WalMart,* Holiday Inn, side of the road -- all ok.
> 
> Actually, you can have a third party step in for the buyer. So if the stud owner is trusted by the buyer, that person can look at the puppy and stand in for the buyer, if I read it correctly.
> 
> But if you sell a puppy, in the gas station of a particular gas-mini mart in the hood in Cleveland, to save the elderly Euclid guy a long drive, then expect to see the clerk water the side of the store in broad daylight, and then he will come out and ask you what the heck is going on, when you are going over the paperwork in the guy's pick up truck. My brother's buddy was with me, and I think someone got shot there when we were there. It was really crazy. I have met people half-way before, but that was definitely the most interesting location.


----------



## selzer

Gwenhwyfair said:


> ...and even though I'm not a breeder but rather a person who may want to buy a puppy from a breeder and be affected by this as a purchaser I'll just pipe up here.....
> 
> This, in blue, is how a client of mine bought a puppy mill dog a couple of years ago. She didn't realize until later and learned her lesson.
> 
> If the buyer doesn't know better or just doesn't care where the puppy comes from this rule doesn't stop a puppy miller from selling dogs in the walmart parking lot.


Correct, which makes you really wonder if the people making these laws know anything at all about it, and whether the people driving these laws really want to stop puppy mills. 

Those organizations who survive on donations from the suffering of animals to support lobbyists really do not want to stop puppy mills. Because this legislation will not do much at all. Without nasty puppy mills, they are all out of jobs. Everyone of them says yay, they would be happy to not need such an organization, but the fact remains, that the majority of the money they take in pays salaries and does not even go indirectly to suffering animals. And this, like every other piece of garbage they get passed, doesn't stop puppy mills. Because they are NOT targeting puppy mills. 

And the government is just hoping to pull in some revenue from people who will buy the licenses to remain compliant with the law. It will not stop them from breeding 10 bitches in three months, and shipping them all over. It will just mean they will need to have a license to do so, and jump through a few mediocre hoops. For the high volume producers i ti sjust a spit in the bucket.


----------



## Gwenhwyfair

.....and come to think of it my neighbors across the street bought their shi-poo mix puppy at the flea market. *sigh*

I hate puppy mills. I also don't get why people like my neighbors and others go to pet stores and flea markets to still buy dogs?

The psychology on the supplier side of this is pretty simple, money.

Trying to unravel why there is still demand is the hard part and the real problem. No demand, no puppy mills, simple.

Yet just as with cigarettes, even though most of us know they are really bad for your health, even though the cost of cigarettes have gone up and things have gotten better there are *still* a lot of people who make the choice to start smoking. 

Trying to stamp out suppliers just means the suppliers will find ways to get around the rules as they always have, money is a huge incentive.

I don't think we'll ever be able to completely stamp out the demand side of the equation because some people are truly just clueless and other people really and truly do not care about what the breeding dogs suffer.

I wish there were a silver bullet answer but there isn't. IMHO all we can do is try to educate people about puppy mills and try to do it without dragging good ethical breeders down the tubes....financially and in the public perception**.

(**I think the AKC should be getting more out in front of this issue and while doing better they've been sticking their heads in the sand for too long and it may well backfire on them. There's a tendency for those who do get on board against puppy mills to glump good breeders in with the bad...public opinion is not always very nuanced .) 




selzer said:


> Correct, which makes you really wonder if the people making these laws know anything at all about it, and whether the people driving these laws really want to stop puppy mills.
> 
> Those organizations who survive on donations from the suffering of animals to support lobbyists really do not want to stop puppy mills. Because this legislation will not do much at all. Without nasty puppy mills, they are all out of jobs. Everyone of them says yay, they would be happy to not need such an organization, but the fact remains, that the majority of the money they take in pays salaries and does not even go indirectly to suffering animals. And this, like every other piece of garbage they get passed, doesn't stop puppy mills. Because they are NOT targeting puppy mills.
> 
> And the government is just hoping to pull in some revenue from people who will buy the licenses to remain compliant with the law. It will not stop them from breeding 10 bitches in three months, and shipping them all over. It will just mean they will need to have a license to do so, and jump through a few mediocre hoops. For the high volume producers i ti sjust a spit in the bucket.


----------



## LifeofRiley

Fyi... thought some of the breeders on here who have questions/concerns might be interested in the following:

"*USDA Rule to be Published, AKC Schedules Conference Call for Thursday (9/19)*

Tomorrow (Wednesday, September 18), USDA/APHIS is scheduled to officially publish the new regulations that narrow the definition of a “retail pet store”. The regulations will go into effect 60 days thereafter. 

In an effort to help you better understand the new rule, the AKC Government Relations Department (AKC GR)has arranged to host a conference call for its constituents with USDA/APHIS to address questions and obtain clarifications.

*The details are as follows:
Date: Thursday, September 19, 2013
Time: 2 pm-3 pm Eastern
RSVP: To reserve a spot to participate in this conference call, e-mail [email protected] before 2 pm ET on Wednesday, September 18. *

You must include your name, phone number and e-mail address when 
making your reservation.This is the only way to reserve a spot to participate on the call. Calling AKC GR or e-mailing another address will not reserve a spot. 
Please note that space on this call is limited and significant interest is expected, so it is recommended that clubs and organizations interested designate one person to participate. 

*Reservations are on a first come, first serve basis*. If you secure a reservation, you will receive a confirmation e-mail with directions regarding how to access the call. If you are unable to participate in the call, the call will be recorded and a transcript will be made available.

In an effort to make the call as efficient and helpful as possible, AKC GR recommends that you submit questions to [email protected] when registering for the call. The moderator will review these questions and 
ask APHIS about issues of greatest concern. There will be a very brief opportunity for participants to ask additional questions at the end of the call; however, we highly recommend that you submit questions in 
advance."

Source: AKC Government Relations Department


----------



## Andaka

I friend of mine breeds Skipperkes and rescues them as well. She informed me on Monday that she will no longer be able to do rescue and breed Skips. Since her breed often just has one or two pups in a litter, and the limit is four intact bitches four months of age or older, she can't continue to use a "rescue train" to place dogs or send puppies out of town when sold.


----------



## shepherdmom

Gwenhwyfair said:


> .....and come to think of it my neighbors across the street bought their shi-poo mix puppy at the flea market. *sigh*
> 
> I hate puppy mills. I also don't get why people like my neighbors and others go to pet stores and flea markets to still buy dogs?
> 
> The psychology on the supplier side of this is pretty simple, money.
> 
> Trying to unravel why there is still demand is the hard part and the real problem. No demand, no puppy mills, simple.


I can tell you why people go to flea markets or pet stores. It's a business transaction. You pay your money you get the dog. There are no breeder contracts, no BS strings, nobody looking down on you if you buy a dog and have an infant in the house or an unaltered other dog, or if your fence isn't perfect or if you want two puppies at the same time. Whatever the case may be.


----------



## Gwenhwyfair

That probably is part of it...

BUT I gotta tell you I've had that problem far more with trying to adopt through rescues, ironically.

I almost didn't get my Smitty dog because of all the hoops (including not having a fenced backyard) I had to jump through and he had been in the foster home going on 6 months, no one wanted him because of his soft ears. 

I think part of it is the impulse buy situation. You don't have to wait, you go into the store/flea market see a cute pup and walk out with it a few minutes later. We humans are pretty good at rationalizing bad decisions too. If the store clerk says 'oh we only go to good breeders' that's enough to push aside any concerns about puppy mills because you gotta have that puppy...right now.

Still, I think what you say holds validity too but IMO there's more to it.



shepherdmom said:


> I can tell you why people go to flea markets or pet stores. It's a business transaction. You pay your money you get the dog. There are no breeder contracts, no BS strings, nobody looking down on you if you buy a dog and have an infant in the house or an unaltered other dog, or if your fence isn't perfect or if you want two puppies at the same time. Whatever the case may be.


----------



## Chris Wild

I'd be willing to bet that the vast majority of the pet store/flea market purchasers aren't even aware that there are breeders who have what you call "BS strings". They aren't educated about the different types of breeders, or types and bloodlines of dogs, enough to be aware. To them any old beagle/poodle/lab/GSD/whatever is the same as any other, but this one here in the back of the pickup truck is here right now, cheap and convenient and looking cute.


----------



## shepherdmom

Chris Wild said:


> I'd be willing to bet that the vast majority of the pet store/flea market purchasers aren't even aware that there are breeders who have what you call "BS strings". They aren't educated about the different types of breeders, or types and bloodlines of dogs, enough to be aware. To them any old beagle/poodle/lab/GSD/whatever is the same as any other, but this one here in the back of the pickup truck is here right now, cheap and convenient and looking cute.


You would be surprised. I've heard more than one person say if I'm going to spend $2000 for a dog, I'm ****(dang) well going to pick my own puppy or I will breed it if I want. Those people will go to the puppy mills just to not have any strings attached. 

As far as rescues go yes we are a lot stricter than the breeders. I walked away from a rescue who told me that a puppy was to much for me to handle. Excuse me?! Kiss my behind! I'm not that old I can't handle a puppy anymore. The funny thing was, I wasn't really interested in the puppy. I was just playing with it while I waiting on someone. I had actually been looking for an older dog. Thankfully the rescue I work with is a lot less condescending although we are strict about sputering and not letting your dog ride in the back of pickups.


----------



## Gwenhwyfair

Just thinking out loud so to speak...but instead of hiring a PR firm if the AKC spent the money and went to work studying WHY people buy dogs irresponsibly and THEN acted on that information to help educate people. 

Well, I won't hold my breath on that....


----------



## dogfaeries

shepherdmom said:


> You would be surprised. I've heard more than one person say if I'm going to spend $2000 for a dog, I'm ****(dang) well going to pick my own puppy or I will breed it if I want. Those people will go to the puppy mills just to not have any strings attached.



Around here (Oklahoma) it's not even that. I can talk to my grooming customers until I'm blue in the face about not going to puppy mills, about not buying a BYB dog, but they do it anyway. People want a puppy NOW. And they think spending more than $200 for it is just ridiculous. To the vast majority of the general public, a dog is a dog is a dog. They don't want one of those fancy show dogs or police dogs, they just want a dog. And they are going to spend as little as possible for it. I see it every day.


----------



## LifeofRiley

Gwenhwyfair said:


> Yup...
> 
> People who are ethical don't need to be policed, they'll follow the rules because it's in their nature.
> 
> Those who don't give a flip will keep on doing what they do.


So, I can’t stop myself from wanting to discuss your above quote.  

If you were to think more broadly about that statement, do you think your reasoning still holds true? By that, I mean, are you really saying that there is no point to regulate anything because some will always find a way to evade regulation? 

I would hazard a guess that you are, in fact, not saying that.  So, what makes this industry different? Why not provide regulatory oversight to this commercial industry? 

I know that some see government as ineffective, useless and intrusive. But, I have spent a lot of time in parts of the world that have no standards, no regulations, no safeguards – air, water, food, transportation, commerce, healthcare, animal welfare etc., etc… and, trust me, it is most certainly not the utopia that some on here seem to imagine it to be. 

With that said, I am also not an “any law is a good law” type of person. I can point to many laws and legislative initiatives at the city, state and federal level that I find absurd – both within, and outside of, “dogdom.”


----------



## LifeofRiley

Oh, I should add that when I say "commercial industry," I mean high-volume operations.


----------



## Chris Wild

But of course, this doesn't just affect the "commercial industry". 

It is a very sad situation for a number of excellent breeders. And also for buyers who will now often be forced to choose between limiting their puppy search to breeders nearby, or if looking outside their geographical location have to incur significant cost traveling to see the pup in person.


----------



## Gwenhwyfair

The efficacy of regulations does depend on what industry is being regulated and the psychology driving the demand for that particular industry.

Banking regulations were effective (back when we had them) prohibition of alcohol was not.

I categorize the psychology of demand for puppies more closely with drugs and alcohol where a different methodology is required.

Per the admission of groups that are trying to stop puppy millers it's a multi million dollar business at least and the current laws/regs aren't making a dent. Therefore it's reasonable to conclude that due to either ineffective laws and/or inability to enforce current laws more of the same is likely to also have the same non-results. Not to mention potential negative unintended consequences such as my example with horse slaughter regs.


So while from a very wide angle macro lens your point sounds good, drilling down on historical and current evidence it doesn't quite hold as much water.

In other words, there is a method to my madness.  





LifeofRiley said:


> So, I can’t stop myself from wanting to discuss your above quote.
> 
> If you were to think more broadly about that statement, do you think your reasoning still holds true? By that, I mean, are you really saying that there is no point to regulate anything because some will always find a way to evade regulation?
> 
> I would hazard a guess that you are, in fact, not saying that.  So, what makes this industry different? Why not provide regulatory oversight to this commercial industry?
> 
> I know that some see government as ineffective, useless and intrusive. But, I have spent a lot of time in parts of the world that have no standards, no regulations, no safeguards – air, water, food, transportation, commerce, healthcare, animal welfare etc., etc… and, trust me, it is most certainly not the utopia that some on here seem to imagine it to be.
> 
> With that said, I am also not an “any law is a good law” type of person. I can point to many laws and legislative initiatives at the city, state and federal level that I find absurd – both within, and outside of, “dogdom.”


----------



## Gwenhwyfair

I think you may have missed my earlier post also, LifeofRiley, Glass Steagall was an elegant regulation that worked.

These laws/rules, not so much....

The reality of these new laws, as I understand them is, it will be much harder for me to buy a puppy from Chris then it is for me to go to the local flea market.

If I'm the average puppy buyer I'm going to take the route of least resistance and go to the flea market. That's the reality of the demand side of this.

Furthermore I don't think the Feds are going to be of much help (see my second blue highlighted point below). My understanding is the USDA is the responsible for enforcement of these new rules (yes?)

They'll be down about $10 billion in funding overall, 1 Bill in discretionary and are managing with less staffing. How much of that has to do with subsidies and direct ag/conservation and such I don't know. (I don't know that the USDA is really the best governing agency for this when you look at all the bases they cover...but that also begs the ongoing question of do we treat companion animals the same as livestock). My guess would be puppy millers is/are going to be low on the priority list.



> USDA’s funding for ongoing discretionary operating and program expenses has decreased by over $1 billion since 2009. USDA agencies have implemented efficiencies to manage a workload that has increased due to a greater number and complexity of programs and higher participation levels. Over the same period, staff resources to manage that increased program level have declined by roughly 5 percent.
> 
> <snipped>
> 
> Funding for selected programs is reduced or terminated and resources would be reallocated to fund targeted investments in priority programs and infrastructure to support sustainable economic growth.


 






Gwenhwyfair said:


> welp....I gotta say I'm with Chris and Anne and Sue on this.....
> 
> AND I'm not one of those all regulations are terrible kind of people either (first career financial sector I personally witnessed what thoughtless rampant deregulation can do....)
> 
> <snipped>
> 
> Those who aren't ethical won't know, won't care and the USDA doesn't seem to have the resources to enforce the rules we currently have. Given the anti-gov't trajectory this country is on pretty soon they'll be down to so little funds and staff it's really doesn't make sense to create more rules.
> 
> A possible scenario of more rules is ethical good breeders will breed less, prices will go up which will incentivize more 'puppy producers' to find ways to fill the demand. Sort of like prohibition.....because the demand will always be there......


----------



## Gwenhwyfair

Well durn, it wouldn't put the link in my post above to the budget info.

Here it is:

http://www.obpa.usda.gov/budsum/FY14budsum.pdf


----------



## LifeofRiley

> In other words, there is a method to my madness.


Yes, I suspected as much which is why I wanted to discuss the topic with you.  And, thank you, for your thoughtful response.

A few comments…



Gwenhwyfair said:


> Banking regulations were effective (back when we had them) prohibition of alcohol was not.


I agree. But, I am not sure how the “prohibition” example applies to this particular issue. I saw a few other posters make similar references.

The AWA does not ban any kind of breeding establishment. And, the rule change does not ban breeders from shipping dogs. It simply requires that breeders (who are not exempt) apply for a license. Licensing requires that the breeders be compliant with the minimum care standards as set out in the AWA and gives APHIS the authority to conduct inspections at their facilities. 

As far as I know, people are still required to have a license to distribute and sell alcohol. 

*I think people are confused about the purview of the AWA. It is not to ban any kind of business model, it is not to solve the shelter overpopulation problem, it is to set minimum care standards for animals that are used for commercial purposes, laboratory experimentation and exhibition. * It sets out to establish and uphold the most basic of care standards. 

In fact, it is for this reason that I am not all that happy with the rule change. I fear that legislators will abandon the PUPS Act as a result of this action and I felt there were a couple of provisions in there that could have actually enhanced the quality of life of the animals that find themselves in puppy mill operations (i.e. the exercise requirement). 

This rule does not meaningfully change the standards of care set out in the AWA. I think that is something that needs to be addressed. 



> The efficacy of regulations does depend on what industry is being regulated and the psychology driving the demand for that particular industry.


The efficacy of this regulation, IMO, depends on stepped up enforcement, instituting the other recommendations laid out in the OIG audit *and effective use of the information gathered via the inspection process to educate the public.*

I suspect that most people do not want to support puppy mills. Puppy mills go to great effort online to appear to be what they are not. The information that this rule will make accessible public will hopefully help with that. Below, an example:

The ASPCA's "No Pet Store Puppies" campaign aims to reduce the demand for puppy mill puppies… In June, the ASPCA launched a new tool on it ‘No Pet Store Puppies’… The database contains more than ten thousand photos of commercial dog breeding facilities, which not only show conditions that violate federal law, but also conditions that are legal but that the ASPCA—and the general public—consider inhumane.”

Quote from Menkin:
*“Thanks to this new rule, our database will expand to include more breeders who will fall under federal oversight for the first time and allow consumers to make informed decisions and refrain from buying puppies at pet stores or online.’"*



> Glass Steagall was an elegant regulation that worked.


I agree. And, I agree, that this rule change is far from elegant. I suspect that is mostly due to it being made through an administrative process versus a legislative process. By that, I mean, the USDA only has so much authority to unilaterally impose change. I definitely see clunkiness in this new rule that is likely related to that fact. 



> The reality of these new laws, as I understand them is, it will be much harder for me to buy a puppy from Chris then it is for me to go to the local flea market.


I doubt that Chris will be impacted by the rule change. If she is, that would cause me to re-think my stance on this rule change. But, for the sake of discussion, let’s assume that scenario to be valid.

If Chris became subject to the AWA as a result of this rule change, Chris would have two options:

Become licensed. A licensed breeder would be able to sell dogs sight unseen.
Require that the buyer (or representative of the buyer) pick up the puppy in person at a location TBD by either Chris or the buyer/representative.



> My understanding is the USDA is the responsible for enforcement of these new rules (yes?)


Yes. Here is more info from the USDA:

“APHIS’ Animal Care (AC) staff is composed of experts on animal care and husbandry. Through the AC program, APHIS provides leadership for determining standards of humane care and treatment of animals. APHIS implements those standards and achieves compliance through inspection, education, and by working closely with States, industry, and non-governmental organizations.
The vast majority of AC employees are veterinarians or individuals with education in the biological sciences and extensive animal handling experience. AC employs more than 120 inspectors nationwide who are responsible for performing the bulk of inspections to support enforcement of the Animal Welfare Act and the Horse Protection Act. AC also employs specialists who have specific expertise and experience with birds, elephants, marine mammals, exotic cats, and non-human primates.

The expertise of the AC staff is integral to its ability to promote and enforce animal welfare standards, provide guidance to States on emergency issues, and act as a Federal resource on animal welfare issues.”

I agree. It will be important to maintain funding for these efforts.


----------



## LifeofRiley

Chris Wild said:


> But of course, this doesn't just affect the "commercial industry".
> 
> It is a very sad situation for a number of excellent breeders. And also for buyers who will now often be forced to choose between limiting their puppy search to breeders nearby, or if looking outside their geographical location have to incur significant cost traveling to see the pup in person.


Are they sure they will become subject to the AWA as a result of the rule change? I ask only because I can see how there is ample room for confusion given what has been communicated to date.

In any event, why wouldn't they just opt for licensing? It seems, from the discussion that was included in the announcement, that they address the housing requirement concerns you expressed on other threads. I will admit that I could very well be wrong on that


----------



## Chris Wild

LifeofRiley said:


> Are they sure they will become subject to the AWA as a result of the rule change? I ask only because I can see how there is ample room for confusion given what has been communicated to date.
> 
> In any event, why wouldn't they just opt for licensing? It seems, from the discussion that was included in the announcement, that they address the housing requirement concerns you expressed on other threads. I will admit that I could very well be wrong on that


IMO, a FAQ with the ambiguous answer of "generally not" to the questions regarding housing is not sufficient. The AWA clearly lists out housing requirements that are simply NOT POSSIBLE for a breeder to meet inside their home, or in any number of really nice kennel set ups I have seen. Heck, we do have a room built especially for raising pups, and a couple years ago put $6000 into remodeling it with FRP wall paneling, cabinets with a counter for food prep, and a professionally installed epoxy and quartz floor with integrated baseboard... and that would not be good enough. 

The whole "so why not get licensed" strikes me as really just sort of a ridiculous question. A home cannot meet the requirements. That is clear to anyone who has read them. The only possible way that most in-home, and even many kennel breeders, could become licensed is if the inspectors just turn a blind eye to what is actually written in the law. Which some might, since the homes and kennels are nicer than what is in the law and the dogs clearly are receiving far more than the "minimum care standards". But I don't know too many people who are going to count on a government inspector paying more attention to common sense than to the regulations he's supposed to be enforcing.

Getting licensed would not be an option because the requirements could not be met without kicking the dogs out of the house.

So that means the only options are to stay under the requirements for needing to be licensed, either don't ship puppies or keep to less than 4 females.



LifeofRiley said:


> I doubt that Chris will be impacted by the rule change. If she is, that would cause me to re-think my stance on this rule change. But, for the sake of discussion, let’s assume that scenario to be valid.
> 
> If Chris became subject to the AWA as a result of this rule change, Chris would have two options:
> 
> Become licensed. A licensed breeder would be able to sell dogs sight unseen.
> Require that the buyer (or representative of the buyer) pick up the puppy in person at a location TBD by either Chris or the buyer/representative.


I don't like to make this personal, but maybe if I do and people can see how it could impact someone that they "know", at least via the internet, some of these concerns would sink in and people might reconsider their support.

At this time, I don't *think* we will be affected, but I'm not entirely sure. We have 4 intact females, either currently being bred or youngsters intended for breeding. Right now, some live with our co-owner so I don't believe we are affected because they aren't at the same location. But since the actual law doesn't say that, just some of the "clarification" from APHIS, that may not actually be the case. 

We cannot jump through the hoops to get licensed. We are not changing the way we house and breed our dogs. 

So that means we either have to cut back on the breeding program, huge as it is (sarcasm), which could significantly impact what we are able to accomplish in the long run with respect to our goals for breeding and our plans for the future, or essentially we never ship puppies again.

Many of our best homes are with people we've never met due to the distances involved. Some we only met in person for the first time after they already had one of our pups. Some of these are people that you also "know" here on the board.Castlemaid/Lucia with Gryffon, Shawn with Saber, MaggieRoseLee/Jen with Bretta and Glory, cliffson/Cliff with Maverick...just to list a few. The pups got great homes, we got great customers and friends, and they got some pretty nice dogs. 

Yup, great new tactic to get rid of those evil puppy mills.....


----------



## Chris Wild

A few of the key points from SAOVA's press release on this that are particular to what I'm talking about. (Crossposted with permission.)

" Living under USDA licensing is NOT an option for the average home-based
retail seller. The average house cannot be converted to a USDA compliant
facility. Federal standards for licensed facilities dictate sanitation
measures not feasible in a normal home, surfaces that are impervious to
moisture, ventilation, bio-hazard control, veterinary care, exercise,
temperature controls, waste disposal systems, diurnal lighting, drainage
systems, washrooms, perimeter fencing, as well as transportation standards
for regulated animals.

We are very concerned about the Q&A section regarding use of your homes. The
answer is disingenuous and we trust those who have read it do not believe
they can continue utilizing their homes once they are licensed. The revised
APHIS Q&A asks the question: Will regulated breeders who keep their dogs in
their homes have to put them in a kennel? APHIS answers “generally not” and
proceeds with a misleading explanation that APHIS will determine if your
home meets their standards; and states that a number of currently licensed
wholesale breeders maintain their animals in their homes.

IF you can give up a room in your house and convert it to be the moisture
proof, sterile environment described above, AND gain approval from an APHIS
inspector, you may be able to crate or pen animals in that room. This room
would then be for either adults or puppies/kittens but not both. Under the
USDA standards puppies and kittens under 4 months of age cannot be housed in
the same primary enclosure with adults, other than the dam/queen or foster
dam/queen. Since the remainder of your house does not meet the above
requirements, allowing animals to roam freely would cause you to be in
violation of the AWA. And unless your bedroom is coated in epoxy and has a
floor drain, you won’t be doing any whelping there.

A separate facility will be needed for females by two weeks prior to
whelping. Even if you make one room in your house compliant with the AWA
standards, females cannot be whelped in that room. That means an additional
room will be required, plus one for each additional litter within the next
3.5 months.

Any room in your home used for whelping or birthing must meet USDA
standards – impervious to moisture – meaning tile floor and vinyl-coated
walls.

All surfaces touched by animals must be waterproof and sterilized every two
weeks with your choice of live steam under pressure, 180 degree water and
detergent with disinfectant, or a combination detergent/disinfectant
product.

You must have a separate food preparation area from your kitchen.

In addition to a written exercise plan and veterinary plan you must now have
an emergency plan that documents your awareness and understanding of your
responsibility to protect your animals in emergency situations.

The USDA license may classify you as a commercial business. You will need to
know the allowed uses for your property in the current zoning and land use
regulations and whether home businesses are allowed. Your property tax
status may be affected and your tax liabilities could change, depending on
state and local laws.

Finally, your information, photos of your property, and inspection reports
will be the subject of Freedom of Information Act requests by activists.
Inspectors will always write you up for something or it looks as if they are
not doing their jobs, thus giving activists something to read and complain
about. Activists are not above taking the information out of context and
using it to suit their purposes."


----------



## onyx'girl

If humans were subjected to such strict guidelines for birthing...can you imagine the backlash?
transpose the words to apply to people and this is utterly ridiculous:
_
IF you can give up a room in your house and convert it to be the moisture
proof, sterile environment described above, AND gain approval from an APHIS
inspector, you may be able to *rock babies* in that room. This room
would then be for either adults or babies but not both. Under the
USDA standards *babies* under 4 months of age cannot be housed in
the same primary enclosure with adults, other than the dam/queen or foster
dam/queen. Since the remainder of your house does not meet the above
requirements, allowing *people* to roam freely would cause you to be in
violation of the AWA. And unless your bedroom is coated in epoxy and has a
floor drain, you won’t be doing any whelping there. 

A separate facility will be needed for females by two weeks prior to
whelping. Even if you make one room in your house compliant with the AWA
standards, females cannot be whelped in that room. That means an additional
room will be required, plus one for each additional baby within the next
*9*.5 months.

Any room in your home used for whelping or birthing must meet USDA
standards – impervious to moisture – meaning tile floor and vinyl-coated
walls.

All surfaces touched by *people* must be waterproof and sterilized every two
weeks with your choice of live steam under pressure, 180 degree water and
detergent with disinfectant, or a combination detergent/disinfectant
product.

You must have a separate food preparation area from your kitchen.

In addition to a written exercise plan and veterinary plan you must now have
an emergency plan that documents your awareness and understanding of your
responsibility to protect your *baby* in emergency situations._


----------



## LifeofRiley

Hi Chris,

I, for one, have always appreciated that you take the time and effort to help others understand the responsible breeder perspective. So, once again, thank you for your post. 

Earlier on in this thread I posted the full text of the final rule change (including discussion summaries). It does provide more information than the FAQ… 90+ pages worth... I suspect you will find more complete answers to your questions in that document…. I will admit that it is most certainly not a page turner : ) and I imagine that you will still have questions after reading it. 

As I said in one of the posts of mine that you quoted, if it turns out that a breeder like yourself is impacted by the rule change, that would come as a surprise to me and make me re-examine my stance on it. 

However, based on your post, and my reading of the rule change, you are exempt. 

Of course, I know that your concern extends beyond your personal situation. 

Based on my reading of the full discussion, and my understanding of USDA inspection procedures, I can tell you that the press release you posted is taking information out of context. The USDA has different guidelines for different types of housing structures. The more onerous requirements cited in that press release relate to a very particular kind of structure that would not apply to a home setting.

The USDA expects that very few breeders who are on the smaller end of the spectrum (5 breeding females or more maintained on premise) will have to make any changes to their structures or housing arrangements to be compliant. And, as they operationalize the rule change, I suspect that will become clearer to breeders.

Do you know anyone that attended the teleconference yesterday? Did it provide any additional clarity?


----------



## selzer

Ya know what. 

We have lots of problems in this country with crime. Real crime. We have people dying all over the place taking heroine, and meth labs are everywhere. People make mobile meth labs and drive around making that crap. And it just seems like we are getting no where with it. If anything, it is getting worse and worse. 

Now, I realize that this is a dog site, but when was the last time a disgusting, foul puppy mill with dogs suffering and dying, actually caused hundreds of school kids to turn onto meth or heroine?

I TRULY do not want the government to turn a blind eye to situations that come to there attention where there is animal cruelty or neglect. 

But I do not want THIS country to get to the point where it is is ILLEGAL to use an e-collar (Like Germany -- felony). People, kids, dying on drugs and we will be worried about whether someone has five bitches or four. 

Whether you are breeding dogs or not, the care of dogs should be sufficient, and if it is not, and someone sees your dog suffering and calls the cops, then they should investigate and give you a citation if you are breaking the law. But we have lots of laws that we cannot come close to enforcing, laws that impact the whole of society every day, that I really do not want to see the government allocating tons of money to set up a system of more and more and more laws. 

We all love dogs. And because I love dogs, I will not buy from places that get those dogs from puppy mills. I tell people that pups at pet stores come from puppy mills. I explain that decent breeders do not let puppies they care about be sold by high school kids to the first person with a credit card with enough room on it for the pup. 

Maybe that isn't enough. But I just think our country has bigger fish to fry. They need to spend their money dealing with the serious issue of drug trafficking and drug abuse, the recivitism rates of people going through the penal system. And all the crime that is derived by people who are trying to buy, sell, or finance their addictions. When they have that cleaned up, then maybe I would feel differently about putting more and more people under a stupid system that hasn't worked for the past 20 years.


----------



## Chantald

selzer said:


> Ya know what.
> 
> We have lots of problems in this country with crime. Real crime. We have people dying all over the place taking heroine, and meth labs are everywhere. People make mobile meth labs and drive around making that crap. And it just seems like we are getting no where with it. If anything, it is getting worse and worse.
> 
> Now, I realize that this is a dog site, but when was the last time a disgusting, foul puppy mill with dogs suffering and dying, actually caused hundreds of school kids to turn onto meth or heroine?
> 
> I TRULY do not want the government to turn a blind eye to situations that come to there attention where there is animal cruelty or neglect.
> 
> But I do not want THIS country to get to the point where it is is ILLEGAL to use an e-collar (Like Germany -- felony). People, kids, dying on drugs and we will be worried about whether someone has five bitches or four.
> 
> Whether you are breeding dogs or not, the care of dogs should be sufficient, and if it is not, and someone sees your dog suffering and calls the cops, then they should investigate and give you a citation if you are breaking the law. But we have lots of laws that we cannot come close to enforcing, laws that impact the whole of society every day, that I really do not want to see the government allocating tons of money to set up a system of more and more and more laws.
> 
> We all love dogs. And because I love dogs, I will not buy from places that get those dogs from puppy mills. I tell people that pups at pet stores come from puppy mills. I explain that decent breeders do not let puppies they care about be sold by high school kids to the first person with a credit card with enough room on it for the pup.
> 
> Maybe that isn't enough. But I just think our country has bigger fish to fry. They need to spend their money dealing with the serious issue of drug trafficking and drug abuse, the recivitism rates of people going through the penal system. And all the crime that is derived by people who are trying to buy, sell, or finance their addictions. When they have that cleaned up, then maybe I would feel differently about putting more and more people under a stupid system that hasn't worked for the past 20 years.


I have a lot of opinions on this post as an addictions worker who has focused on harm reduction and sensible drug policy. I don't want to go too much into it since this is a dog forum and not one about social policy, but spending money on the criminalization of drug users is not the answer either, and the "war on drugs" is not founded in any scientific research. 

I think that both the issues of substance use and irresponsible breeders are a lot more complicated than current legislation really takes into account, and that we need to start looking to other models that have actually had impacts when implementing new laws.


Sent from Petguide.com Free App


----------



## Dainerra

the problem that I see is that in all of the discussions, Q&A sessions and the law itself, what will allow people like Chris to continue without license is the amount of loopholes. 
What happens when this law doesn't end puppy mills (because we know that it won't) and they begin to close those loopholes. Chris has already pointed out that the numerous ways it is impossible for a good breeder to comply with these without turning into a commercial kennel facility. 
Plus, the very people that it is supposed to stop aren't going to be affected. The puppy mills are already supposed to be licensed. Those selling litter after litter of sick puppies at the flea market or meeting at Wal-Mart are going to be exempt. So what, in the end, is this really going to accomplish?
The only way this is going to work is consumer education. People need to do research - know what conditions are common in the breed they want to buy and what health tests a breeder should be doing. Learn how to recognize a good breeder. Most of all, stop looking for cheap instant gratification.

Right now on my local facebook yardsale group there are probably a dozen litters of puppies for sale. No health testing, no initial shots, never been seen by a vet. Prices range from $50 to $1000. From yorkies and maltipoos to GSD/malinois cross. Many of the new owners will meet up with the breeder at the empty lot beside wal-mart despite the fact that there is a long-standing warning that parvo pups have been in that lot.


----------



## LifeofRiley

Chantald said:


> I think that both the issues of substance use and irresponsible breeders are a lot more complicated than current legislation really takes into account, *and that we need to start looking to other models that have actually had impacts when implementing new laws*Sent from Petguide.com Free App


Hi Chantald,

Thank you for your post.

I am always very interested in hearing other people's thoughts on possible solutions! 

So, re: the part bolded above: what models do you think would be important to consider from a regulatory or legislative pov as it relates to puppy mills?

As some (not all) people on this forum become very prickly when you ask them to say more on a topic, I want you to know that I am honestly curious (and not at all in a judgmental sense)...


----------



## robinhuerta

Chris....I 100% agree with you.
This is what MANY buyers will now face....they will be forced to buy ONLY where they can physically navigate....no other choice will be optional.
I have emails from potential out of State "buyers", that I will now need to seriously consider NOT being of assistance to them, because of violating the "shipping rule".

I am AGAINST this new ruling...


----------



## Gwenhwyfair

O.k. I've been wandering in the hinterlands of 'the thread' but that's done. *phew* I'm not doing that again.

My response, in blue below.



LifeofRiley said:


> Yes, *I suspected as much* which is why I wanted to discuss the topic with you.  And, thank you, for your thoughtful response.
> 
> *I appreciate that!!*  You almost caught me in a logical fallacy...hehehe
> 
> I often don't take the time to flesh out the reasoning behind my conclusions because it often ends up being time wasted, on the net especially.
> 
> A few comments…
> 
> 
> 
> I agree. But, I am not sure how the “prohibition” example applies to this particular issue. I saw a few other posters make similar references.
> 
> The AWA does not ban any kind of breeding establishment. And, the rule change does not ban breeders from shipping dogs. It simply requires that breeders (who are not exempt) apply for a license. Licensing requires that the breeders be compliant with the minimum care standards as set out in the AWA and gives APHIS the authority to conduct inspections at their facilities.
> 
> As far as I know, people are still required to have a license to distribute and sell alcohol.
> 
> *I think people are confused about the purview of the AWA. It is not to ban any kind of business model, it is not to solve the shelter overpopulation problem, it is to set minimum care standards for animals that are used for commercial purposes, laboratory experimentation and exhibition. *It sets out to establish and uphold the most basic of care standards.
> 
> I agree it's not a one-to-one analogy BUT that's why I qualify the comparison by referring to the psychology of the demand side being similar, not the business model on the supply side. Though you could say there are some similarities on the supply side too. Bath tub gin and stills in the woods are similar to byb's and puppy millers. Speaking of logical fallacies, I'm not super fond of slippery slope arguments but the 'war against alcohol' didn't start with sweeping federal legislation. It started with many small cuts. The reality is, there are people out there with very extreme views who would be perfectly happy taking this to an equally extreme conclusion and put the vast majority of breeders good AND bad out of business.
> 
> In fact, it is for this reason that I am not all that happy with the rule change. I fear that legislators will abandon the PUPS Act as a result of this action and I felt there were a couple of provisions in there that could have actually enhanced the quality of life of the animals that find themselves in puppy mill operations (i.e. the exercise requirement).
> 
> This rule does not meaningfully change the standards of care set out in the AWA. I think that is something that needs to be addressed.
> 
> I'll defer to the breeders on this aspect, as I'm not knowledgeable of the different and appropriate ways of caring for owning and breeding dogs so I can't make an argument either way.
> 
> The efficacy of this regulation, IMO, depends on stepped up enforcement, instituting the other recommendations laid out in the OIG audit *and effective use of the information gathered via the inspection process to educate the public.*
> 
> As you know, I'm all on board with educating the public! As long as that education is not at the expense of reputable breeders, see my comment below.
> 
> I suspect that most people do not want to support puppy mills. Puppy mills go to great effort online to appear to be what they are not. The information that this rule will make accessible public will hopefully help with that. Below, an example:
> 
> The ASPCA's "No Pet Store Puppies" campaign aims to reduce the demand for puppy mill puppies… In June, the ASPCA launched a new tool on it ‘No Pet Store Puppies’… The database contains more than ten thousand photos of commercial dog breeding facilities, which not only show conditions that violate federal law, but also conditions that are legal but that the ASPCA—and the general public—consider inhumane.”
> 
> Quote from Menkin:
> *“Thanks to this new rule, our database will expand to include more breeders who will fall under federal oversight for the first time and allow consumers to make informed decisions and refrain from buying puppies at pet stores or online.’"*
> 
> One concern, which we see today, is that people who aren't dog nerds like we are, will not see the difference between a puppy miller and ethical breeders. Just recently I got a major scowl directed at me when I mentioned our Aussie is from a breeder. I don't know how to counter that but it is a legitimate concern.
> 
> 
> 
> I agree. And, I agree, that this rule change is far from elegant. I suspect that is mostly due to it being made through an administrative process versus a legislative process. By that, I mean, the USDA only has so much authority to unilaterally impose change. I definitely see clunkiness in this new rule that is likely related to that fact.
> 
> I would argue, again, because of the psychology of demand involved with buying a puppy, IMO is the reason this rule is not elegant. That's why to support my reasoning I point to prohibition AND the fact that if the current regs aren't working it follows that more of the same won't make a difference either.
> 
> Other then the PSA campaigns you cite above (which have been ongoing as well) these regs are hitting the supply side of the equation almost exclusively.
> 
> btw- totally an aside and I have to research but E. Warren recently stated the demise of G.S. is not the cause of any bank failures.  Gonna have to dig into that one....
> 
> 
> I doubt that Chris will be impacted by the rule change. If she is, that would cause me to re-think my stance on this rule change. But, for the sake of discussion, let’s assume that scenario to be valid.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If Chris became subject to the AWA as a result of this rule change, Chris would have two options:
> Become licensed. A licensed breeder would be able to sell dogs sight unseen.
> Require that the buyer (or representative of the buyer) pick up the puppy in person at a location TBD by either Chris or the buyer/representative.
> RE: #2 So if I wanted to buy a puppy from Robin or Chris, they could hand the puppy off to a third party that I hired, my representative. That person could take the puppy to the airport and handle getting the puppy shipped to my local airport and I pick it up there?
> 
> Yes. Here is more info from the USDA:
> 
> “APHIS’ Animal Care (AC) staff is composed of experts on animal care and husbandry. Through the AC program, APHIS provides leadership for determining standards of humane care and treatment of animals. APHIS implements those standards and achieves compliance through inspection, education, and by working closely with States, industry, and non-governmental organizations.
> The vast majority of AC employees are veterinarians or individuals with education in the biological sciences and extensive animal handling experience. AC employs more than 120 inspectors nationwide who are responsible for performing the bulk of inspections to support enforcement of the Animal Welfare Act and the Horse Protection Act. AC also employs specialists who have specific expertise and experience with birds, elephants, marine mammals, exotic cats, and non-human primates.
> 
> The expertise of the AC staff is integral to its ability to promote and enforce animal welfare standards, provide guidance to States on emergency issues, and act as a Federal resource on animal welfare issues.”
> 
> I agree. It will be important to maintain funding for these efforts.
> 
> I don't see the mood changing in this country wrt increasing budgets of federal agencies. Per my earlier link to the USDA budget they have reduced staff by 5% and the overall budget by 10 million. So we can say it's important but it's definitely not in sync with current reality.


----------



## Gwenhwyfair

IMHO the model would have to include the reality that there will never be a perfect solution in the macro free market model we have (well have for certain segments anyway...)

I've mentioned before the campaign against smoking/cigarettes as a model. I understand that part of that model was increasing taxes on cigarettes which many would (myself included) balk at. 

However if a pricing incentive could be structured in to encourage responsible puppy buying??? Breeders who get licensed, meet certain care standards become exempt from increased fees.

Sort of like 'energy star' appliances, buyers get a break, suppliers are rewarded with a selling point that shows they are producing a more ethical product, or ethically bringing new life into this world...puppies. 






LifeofRiley said:


> Hi Chantald,
> 
> Thank you for your post.
> 
> I am always very interested in hearing other people's thoughts on possible solutions!
> 
> So, re: the part bolded above: *what models do you think would be important to consider* from a regulatory or legislative pov as it relates to puppy mills?
> 
> As some (not all) people on this forum become very prickly when you ask them to say more on a topic, I want you to know that I am honestly curious (and not at all in a judgmental sense)...


----------



## onyx'girl

A USDA approved kennel set up:








https://www.facebook.com/pages/Iowa-Animal-Welfare-Alliance/342314819129629
*Iowa Animal Welfare Alliance*
Our cover photo, on this National Puppy Mill Awareness Day, features the infamous Stonehenge Kennels in West Point, Iowa. Alot of puppies that end up in Florida pet stores start out here. On the most recent USDA inspection report dated 6/26/13, owner and "pillar in his community" Steve Kruse was noted as keeping 1087 dogs and puppies caged in this facility. Think about that...875 adult dogs and 212 puppies. While the USDA inspector could not find anything in non-compliance with federal regulation with this operation, we certainly have to wonder what kind of care and environment this CAFO for dogs provides them with. Obviously they must make a lot of noise, and create a lot of waste, since Mr. Kruse needs at least three cesspools for all of that mess. We wonder if this state-of-the-art professional kennel offers public tours? We would hope so, to dispel the assumption that this is not a healthy and happy place for over 1000 captive animals.

NO THANK YOU


----------



## Gwenhwyfair

uggghhhh.... I thought it looked like a modern professional live stock farm and what does google pull up:



> StoneHenge Kennels is the most recent business in a line of successful projects begun by Steve Kruse. He began in the farming industry with Kruse Brothers in 1967. Kruse’ company became one of the largest hog farming operations in Southeast Iowa at the time. Always looking for the next opportunity, Steve Kruse started Kruse Construction in 1983, a building company that specialized in bricklaying. In 1986, Steve Kruse was able to fulfill his life-long dream of breeding dogs, and founded StoneHenge Kennels, a top-quality dog breeding facility located in West Point, Iowa
> 
> <snipped>
> 
> Since its foundation, Steve Kruse has invested over a million dollars in StoneHenge Kennels, making it the superior breeding farm it is today.


 Steve Kruse's VisualCV - Steve Kruse

He's a pillar of the community because he's got money. A business man wouldn't invest that kind of money in something if it wasn't highly profitable....and round and round it goes.

Here he is, black suit and all:










(is this creepy or what?)


----------



## Chantald

Gwenhwyfair said:


> IMHO the model would have to include the reality that there will never be a perfect solution in the macro free market model we have (well have for certain segments anyway...)
> 
> I've mentioned before the campaign against smoking/cigarettes as a model. I understand that part of that model was increasing taxes on cigarettes which many would (myself included) balk at.
> 
> However if a pricing incentive could be structured in to encourage responsible puppy buying??? Breeders who get licensed, meet certain care standards become exempt from increased fees.
> 
> Sort of like 'energy star' appliances, buyers get a break, suppliers are rewarded with a selling point that shows they are producing a more ethical product, or ethically bringing new life into this world...puppies.


I think this makes a lot of sense personally! I'm not overly familiar with the legislation to be honest, and I'm Canadian and not American so I'd have to do a bit more research, and I'm sure the laws are different here. What I have found though in so many others areas are that programs that provide incentives to be more responsible and education around being so tend to produce better results. I'm a fan of doing my research, so I think where I would start would be to see what other models are in place around the globe, and what works and doesn't work in them, and move forward from there. I'm not the most educated on the topic though, so I still have loads more reading to do now 

I also just felt really weird about the addiction comparison and felt the need to say something about that. The research actually shows that supporting drug users through prevention/harm reduction/treatment works best, and criminalization doesn't, yet in Canada 90% of funds spent on addiction are on criminalization. So I guess what I'm saying with this is often we get caught up in ideologies and not in what works. 


Sent from Petguide.com Free App


----------



## LifeofRiley

onyx'girl said:


> A USDA approved kennel set up:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.facebook.com/pages/Iowa-Animal-Welfare-Alliance/342314819129629
> *Iowa Animal Welfare Alliance*
> Our cover photo, on this National Puppy Mill Awareness Day, features the infamous Stonehenge Kennels in West Point, Iowa. Alot of puppies that end up in Florida pet stores start out here. On the most recent USDA inspection report dated 6/26/13, owner and "pillar in his community" Steve Kruse was noted as keeping 1087 dogs and puppies caged in this facility. Think about that...875 adult dogs and 212 puppies. While the USDA inspector could not find anything in non-compliance with federal regulation with this operation, we certainly have to wonder what kind of care and environment this CAFO for dogs provides them with. Obviously they must make a lot of noise, and create a lot of waste, since Mr. Kruse needs at least three cesspools for all of that mess. We wonder if this state-of-the-art professional kennel offers public tours? We would hope so, to dispel the assumption that this is not a healthy and happy place for over 1000 captive animals.
> 
> NO THANK YOU


Yes, I absolutely agree. I find facilities like this to be an abomination. 

But, would you prefer that an operation of this scale not be held accountable to any kind of care and handling standards? Any oversight? Any inspections? 

Do you think that the AWA created the puppy mill business model? I will tell you that, no, it did not. 

Do you think that the animals that find themselves being used for profit would be better off if businesses of this scale were not subject to regulatory oversight?

As I mentioned earlier in this thread, the AWA is agnostic on the overall wisdom of high-volume breeding establishments. It simply seeks to establish and uphold minimum care standards for animals used for commercial, research or exhibition purposes. 

I, personally, think the minimum care standards set out in the AWA are insufficient… but that is a different conversation as the USDA does not have the authority to make any substantive changes to those standards unilaterally – that would require legislative action.

@ Gwen… thanks for the link. Steve Kruse’s name is well known in the Chicago area… an unsavory character indeed…. So, I second the ugghhhh…


----------



## Dainerra

The problem is, it pushes breeders toward a kennel model like that. To fit the required care guidelines, you need to look into what the home breeders will be required to do. Chris pointed out in her post

Sent from Petguide.com Free App


----------



## onyx'girl

life of riley, it proves that what laws are in place are not advocating for the animals!!!! Why are more needed when the ones now are not affecting the huge puppy producers? But possibly going to do harm to the ones that actually have a program in place with future goals set that don't involve greed and profit$! What is it about this that you don't get?


----------



## LifeofRiley

Dainerra said:


> The problem is, it pushes breeders toward a kennel model like that. To fit the required care guidelines, you need to look into what the home breeders will be required to do. Chris pointed out in her post
> 
> Sent from Petguide.com Free App


That is not true. But, I recognize it to be a fear that many people have.


----------



## northgashepherds

I don't really understand this new rule. Are breeders still allowed to ship puppies? Are buyers allowed to purchase a puppy without personally seeing it first?


----------



## Dainerra

LifeofRiley said:


> That is not true. But, I recognize it to be a fear that many people have.


You keep saying that, but other than promises of "inspectors will use common sense"and "loopholes will mean that you probably won't need to be licensed" I haven't seen any actual proof that this is the case. "government"and "common sense"are two things rarely used in the same sentence and loopholes are very easy to close

Sent from Petguide.com Free App


----------



## gagsd

northgashepherds..... In Georgia, if you breed more than 1 litter in a year, you already fall under similar laws of canine care.


----------



## LifeofRiley

onyx'girl said:


> What is it about this that you don't get?


I could ask you the same question


----------



## LifeofRiley

Dainerra said:


> You keep saying that, but other than promises of "inspectors will use common sense"and "loopholes will mean that you probably won't need to be licensed" *I haven't seen any actual proof that this is the case. * "government"and "common sense"are two things rarely used in the same sentence and loopholes are very easy to close
> 
> Sent from Petguide.com Free App


Re: the bolded part - You haven't looked hard enough. Pro tip - rely more on primary sources than editorial commentary


----------



## onyx'girl

I would never support laws that cater to the millers and put the small hobby breeder in the same catagory. Especially when the laws in place are not advocating for the welfare of the animals but for the personal agenda of the anti-pet lobbyists.
I dealt with this in the late '80's with the exotic bird industry. There was much that needed legislating, but if you aren't in that industry or knowledgeable about the reason to import for keeping certain species from extinction it was extremely harmful with the laws that HSUS and others were trying to implement. They have agenda's with big money backing them, and those agenda's are not always transparent.


----------



## Dainerra

LifeofRiley said:


> Re: the bolded part - You haven't looked hard enough. Pro tip - rely more on primary sources than editorial commentary


and you assume that I haven't?? because I have. I have also scoured the replies by the USDA itself where they admit that they have no concept in place for dealing with people that raise dogs in the home. That they have no plan on drawing one up but, if enough people complain, they might do an unofficial sheet for inspectors to use. They have no plan beyond telling people who are asking, we'll use common sense. They have nothing to tell people what to expect. No plan on what needs to be done at your home. etc


Powered by SelectionLinks​about this ad


----------



## Dainerra

in the conference call, which I wasn't able to listen to all of, it was brought up again and again that, no we really don't have a plan to handle that. I've also called myself and been told the same thing. "Inspectors will use common sense in evaluating the situation. Loopholes mean that most small breeders won't have to be licensed." When asked what if I have to license and I breed in my home? "Well, it will have to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. Our inspectors will use their common sense to help you figure out if you are in compliance. No, we don't have anything to help you get ready before an inspection. No we don't plan on having anything like that at this time. I don't think there is a need for it. A breeder should already have a kennel set-up in place; I don't think there will be many home inspections because who breeds dogs in their home?" *bangs head on wall*


----------



## Dainerra

too late to edit:
I was also told, "it's really no big deal. Unless you got caught, no one would know that you weren't licensed when you should have been."


----------



## Gwenhwyfair

Kudos to Dainerra for taking the initiative to dig deeper!

As crazy as some of the responses Dainerra mentions above are, I'm thinking it's code for "this is a feel good law, we aren't really funded nor staffed to enforce it".

What's really sad is we all agree that the big operations, like the one Onyx girl linked here and the Amish puppy mills and such really are a heartbreaking problem. 

If anything it sounds like the USDA isn't taking this seriously and no one in a position of authority wants to address this problem other then the regulate the supplier model.  My guess is there'll probably be a couple of token 'busts' now and then and that'll be it.


----------



## Gwenhwyfair

Hi Chantald.

I agree!! 

I think there's too many people, especially in positions of authority invested (financially and otherwise) it not actually searching for resolutions to these problems.

Criminalizing often = profit for certain powerful actors.

The other thing is the tendency to want a silver bullet fix that will work 100% of the time. Rarely is there ever such a solution. But often in the public policy arena that's what you run into opinion wise. So we've got authorities in organizations on one side, entrenched in their systems with no incentive to change and a general public that doesn't want to invest time or effort in pushing for smarter more elegant solutions.

Usually though, it boils down to follow the money. People often complain about how regs have gotten more complicated and take reams and reams of paper. What a lot of them don't realize is that is due to exceptions, loopholes and exemptions bought and paid for by big time operators......probably like the 'USDA" approved facility linked earlier.


(off topic but ** black bold....as you probably are aware similar situation in the U.S. but if there's one thing you should fight against in Canada, if it hasn't happened already is do NOT let them privatize prisons as has happened here. Fight that for all your worth friend....)








Chantald said:


> I think this makes a lot of sense personally! I'm not overly familiar with the legislation to be honest, and I'm Canadian and not American so I'd have to do a bit more research, and I'm sure the laws are different here. *What I have found though in so many others areas are that programs that provide incentives to be more responsible and education around being so tend to produce better results*. I'm a fan of doing my research, so I think where I would start would be to see what other models are in place around the globe, and what works and doesn't work in them, and move forward from there. I'm not the most educated on the topic though, so I still have loads more reading to do now
> 
> I also just felt really weird about the addiction comparison and felt the need to say something about that. The research actually shows that supporting drug users through prevention/harm reduction/treatment works best, and criminalization doesn't, ***yet in Canada 90% of funds spent on addiction are on criminalization.* So I guess what I'm saying with this is often we get caught up in ideologies and not in what works.
> 
> 
> Sent from Petguide.com Free App


----------



## LifeofRiley

Dainerra said:


> *and you assume that I haven't?? because I have*. I have also scoured the replies by the USDA itself where they admit that they have no concept in place for dealing with people that raise dogs in the home. That they have no plan on drawing one up but, if enough people complain, they might do an unofficial sheet for inspectors to use. They have no plan beyond telling people who are asking, we'll use common sense. They have nothing to tell people what to expect. No plan on what needs to be done at your home. etc


Hi Dainerra,

Re: the *bolded* part above - I think it is great that you took the time and effort to look further into the topic! I find that very, very refreshing to hear. I do apologize for making the assumption that you were basing your opinion solely off of the press release posted on this thread. That was not fair on my part.

However, if you look at my comments on this thread re: housing, your research should confirm that everything I said is a true statement. 

As to the “case-by-case”, and “common sense” tactics, I think it does make more sense to take a context-based approach vs. a highly prescriptive approach to a home setting…. But, that is just my take... others will surely see it differently.

BTW, here is a link to the full transcript of the teleconference: 
http://images.akc.org/pdf/governmentrelations/documents/APHIS_transcriptSept2013.pdf

A lot of questions are raised and answered but it does not address the housing issue. The focus is, understandably, primarily on understanding who is - and is not - subject to the rule change.

I think this below quote from the teleconference transcript is particularly pertinent to the overall discussion on this thread:



> “Dr. Gerald Russian: This is Jerry here, Sheila…. *we're currently updating our Q&A, number one. So all the questions that we're getting from both our regions and headquarters; we're reviewing those questions, we're answering those questions and we're going to put them up on our website*.
> 
> Number two, we're reaching out to everyone and anyone, every group, organization- no matter how small you are we want to talk to you. *We want to hear your concerns, your issues; and we're going to try to work together. The goal of this regulation is not to put the hobby breeder out of business. That's not our intention.* So we're looking at everything. We're going to work together. We're updating our website as fast as we can with new information to keep people abreast of what's going on. *I know there's been talk from a lot of people over the last few days, there's a lot of fear out there.* But also I know there are a lot of rumors out there about this rule; what it does and what it doesn't do. And we're trying as much as possible to try to quell those fears, to reach out to people and get people to talk to us.
> 
> So we hear you, Sheila and we're trying to do as many things as we can. If any of the callers have ideas, by all means please share them with me. If you don't feel comfortable sharing with me, by all means please share them with Sheila and they will get back to me.
> 
> So if it's something we're not doing and if you think there's something that we can do better, we want to hear from you. *You know, we're all in this together. I think at the end of the day, we all have the same thing that we all can say that we're pushing for and that's the welfare of these animals.* And I think if we keep focused on what we're trying to do, we focus on what you're trying to do, I really think we can work together. So I hope that helps, Sheila.”


To close, I guess the person you had the phone call with didn’t get quite get this memo : )… I think the truth is that it will take some time to bring everyone up to speed – the USDA staff and breeders.


----------



## Gwenhwyfair

Well, that answers one of my questions since I've been looking at out of state breeders, it's going to be harder to buy a puppy if you cannot personally see it yourself OR have a friend, relative or other uncompensated individual go on your behalf.

I also personally know a top AKC basset breeder that's going to have some stomach aches over the fact that ANY intact bitch is considered a breeding animal. So if you have 5 bitches, but only plan to breed 3 of them it still counts as 5 and you *may* not be exempt.

Also don't like that one of the methods of enforcing this is through anonymous complaints. AR folks will love that.....

*****************************************************************
*Below From the teleconference transcript.* 

Goffe: All right. Another thing that is noted in the commentary is that if a puppy buyer is unable to travel to the breeder to pick the puppy they purchased, it appears that they can send another person in their place. This would be a private agent of a type. And the question then continues. Can they compensate that person for example, to reimburse the gas for that private agent? We understand that it cannot be considered a commercial carrier or intermediate handler. But could that person --and this is a question that we may need to have in writing later because it is complex-- potentially be considered a dealer under the Animal Welfare Act if they are compensated more than $500 for this work? 

Dr. Gerald Russian: Sheila, this is Jerry here. You know, the buyer agent that you're talking about; our intention when we put that out there is one, we understand that there are some cases in which that buyer for one reason or another may not be able to go see that dog, for example a grandmother may decide to send her grandson to go out there and take a look at that dog, with the understanding that that grandson would most likely have the best interests of the grandmother to make sure that the dog that she wants is healthy, bright and alert to bring back to her. We definitely understand that. 
But also we do recognize, at some point some people may decide to make it into a business in which there may a business for the seller, it may be a business with the buyer; in those types of situations we're going to look into it and really see what's going on. Are you a class B dealer or you are an intermediate handler? So those types of situations in which it is being-- trying to circumvent being regulated, we're definitely looking at that. I think that, as I say, for the case-by-case determination. But that one, in the way that you described it to me; you're sending somebody out there to look at the dog, buy the dog; it wouldn't be; even at $500 limit. I don't know where that came from, unless it's some type of business and this person is charging everybody $500 or something like that in which we'll look into as- what are doing? But those occasions where you're sending someone down there out to take a look at that dog. We understand that happens. That's something that we wouldn't regulate. 
So I hope that helped. I may have rambled a little bit for you guys, but I really want to try to get you guys to understand our intent here a little bit and what we're trying to do. 

Sheila Goffe: There are a lot questions about the use of an agent and I think that whatever clarification we can get would be just-- 

Dr. Gerald Russian: Yeah, and I think in writing-- and that's something we definitely can work on and then we'll definitely do that. *That's one of the issues that you guys aren't clear on*. <Gwen comment No kidding, it was only clear as mud > I hear you. That's something that we can get into a Q&A out to you guys and we can send it to American Kennel 
Sheila. Sheila can-- and as a matter of fact, maybe what we can do is actually-- we can get the Q&A, send it to you Sheila, and you can actually email it to your members and that way they can take a look at it and if it's still not clear, get back and we can look at it again and write it in a way in which they can understand what we're trying to do and that's what I was trying to do here.


----------



## LifeofRiley

Chantald said:


> I'm a fan of doing my research, so I think where I would start would be to see what other models are in place around the globe, and what works and doesn't work in them, and move forward from there.
> 
> So I guess what I'm saying with this is often we get caught up in ideologies and not in what works. Sent from Petguide.com Free App


Re: the above excerpts of your post, I absolutely agree!


----------



## Gwenhwyfair

I can comment to the problems in the U.S. model from a more macro perspective that you may *not *see in the Eurozone (for global comparison of modern free market democracies) nearly as much is regulatory capture via lobbying by folks like the Stonehenge operation.

The proof of this regulatory capture will be if operations like Stonehenge can keep pumping out puppies and ship them to retail pet stores across the U.S. after this is fully implemented.

If operations like that aren't shut down that's clear evidence of another supply side regulatory failure.


----------



## Dainerra

Gwenhwyfair said:


> I also personally know a top AKC basset breeder that's going to have some stomach aches over the fact that ANY intact bitch is considered a breeding animal. So if you have 5 bitches, but only plan to breed 3 of them it still counts as 5 and you *may* not be exempt.


it's not just situations like that since it includes ANY species covered by the USDA. I have chickens, 8 of them are hens so I am automatically over the limit for "intact females" If you have barn cats that are unaltered, again, you are going to find yourself over the limit. Have cattle? Again, those count against your number. 

LifeofRiley, it's not just me who is getting answers like that. Dozens of people that I correspond with are being given identical answers. "Don't worry, you probably won't have to register anyway" is not an answer that anyone wants to hear.


----------



## Gwenhwyfair

I caught some mentions about rabbits too....

BUT...if they are being owned/used for food production (like you eat the eggs) then they are exempt yes? 

In blue, I read the entire teleconference script and the 'case-by-case' basis came up often. I do get lifeofriley's point that flexibility is good...but TOO much flexibility = uncertainty and possibly favoritism and cronyism.

As a business person I understand the desire to have a bit more concrete answers so that I can plan better....






Dainerra said:


> it's not just situations like that since it includes ANY species covered by the USDA. I have chickens, 8 of them are hens so I am automatically over the limit for "intact females" If you have barn cats that are unaltered, again, you are going to find yourself over the limit. Have cattle? Again, those count against your number.
> 
> LifeofRiley, it's not just me who is getting answers like that. Dozens of people that I correspond with are being given identical answers. "*Don't worry, you probably won't have to register anyway" is not an answer that anyone wants to hear*.


----------



## mehpenn

Help me to understand... I'm sure the answer is in the 12 pages of comments here, but I am just too lazy to ready through to find it..... 

If you have four or more breeding females and sale puppies over the internet, to someone who has not seen the puppy in person, you will be required to register and license with the USDA? 
What about people who advertise on the internet, but only sell locally?


----------



## Gwenhwyfair

That is my understanding. The teleconference script lifeofriley linked to above goes into this in more detail. It's not too long.

If sales are Face to face only then you're o.k. it sounds like.

From what I gathered I as a buyer must at some point physically meet the puppy. I can place a deposit site unseen on a puppy but at some point the buyer or a buyer's uncompensated representative must physically meet the puppy. So it's not about advertising, it's about the buyer and seller physically meeting and seeing the puppy at some point during the transaction (not sure if there's a specific timeframe for that meeting).





mehpenn said:


> Help me to understand... I'm sure the answer is in the 12 pages of comments here, but I am just too lazy to ready through to find it.....
> 
> If you have four or more breeding females and sale puppies over the internet, to someone who has not seen the puppy in person, you will be required to register and license with the USDA?
> What about people who advertise on the internet, but only sell locally?


----------



## Chris Wild

Anyone have a working link to the final rule, in it's entirety? The links listed earlier in the thread are no longer working and nothing comes up with a Google search.


----------



## Liesje

onyx'girl said:


> I would never support laws that cater to the millers and put the small hobby breeder in the same catagory. Especially when the laws in place are not advocating for the welfare of the animals but for the personal agenda of the anti-pet lobbyists.
> 
> I dealt with this in the late '80's with the exotic bird industry. There was much that needed legislating, but if you aren't in that industry or knowledgeable about the reason to import for keeping certain species from extinction it was extremely harmful with the laws that HSUS and others were trying to implement. They have agenda's with big money backing them, and those agenda's are not always transparent.


This is pretty much the long and short of it, IMO. Puppy mills and commercial breeders are ALREADY licensed and registered. A fat lot of good that does. Someone prove to me how this new legislation helps _anything_...... *crickets chirp*


----------



## LifeofRiley

Hi Chris,

Here it is...
http://www.aphis.usda.gov/newsroom/2013/09/pdf/pet_retail_docket_2011-003.pdf


----------



## Chris Wild

Thanks!


----------



## LifeofRiley

mehpenn said:


> Help me to understand... I'm sure the answer is in the 12 pages of comments here, but I am just too lazy to ready through to find it.....
> 
> If you have four or more breeding females and sale puppies over the internet, to someone who has not seen the puppy in person, you will be required to register and license with the USDA?
> What about people who advertise on the internet, but only sell locally?


Hi mehpenn,

Breeders who maintain *more than* 4 breeding females on their premises and sell the offspring as pets, *sight unseen*, will now need to obtain a license from the USDA if they wish to continue to sell said offspring sight unseen to the public. 

If you have *4 or fewer* breeding females on your premises - and you sell via face-to-face transations no licensing is required. 

In either case, the AWA does not restrict the use of the Internet as a marketing or communication tool. 

Hope this helps!


----------



## Chris Wild

So as near as I can tell, we are probably NOT exempt.
The fact that our females are spread out between here and our co-owner could help us keep under the more than 4 females rule, however breeders are only allowed to sell pups "born and raised on the premises".
Well, our co-owned females whelp their litters at the co-owners and stay there through weaning. It is much better for the dam this way. After weaning they come here to be raised out the rest of the way, evaluated and placed. So we wouldn't qualify for the exemption there.
We also from time to time have purchased pups or older dogs from other breeders to add to our bloodlines. Sometimes these dogs have worked out, sometimes they have not and we have resold them or otherwise placed them in homes. Since they are not "born and raised here", selling those dogs would eliminate our exemption.
We have in the past also taken in rescues and rehomed them. If we charged anything for them, as with the dogs purchased from other breeders, we'd be a dealer and thus no longer exempt. I would think those involved in rescue would be VERY concerned about this later part causing breeders to literally put their entire breeding program on the line in order to help rescues.
I can't think of a whole lot of other very common breeder practices, such as leasing females or boarding females for breeding to their stud, that would also nullify their exemption. Heck, I don't even think we can continue to board dogs for family/friends/customers if one happens to be an intact female.

So it would appear our only option is to no longer ship puppies. There isn't even anything in place to allow shipping to repeat customers or others who already have a relationship with the breeder and don't see any need to meet face to face. 

I can't imagine any other breeder being able to maintain an exemption under these rules. So yes indeed, this will affect us and many other fabulous breeders. 

As to those who say "well, just get licensed", the answer is still heck no. APHIS says that this won't impact in home breeders because their dogs receive care above the minimum standards. However, there is NOTHING written into the law that says that. The AWA says what it says... non porous surfaces, separate living quarters and all. The new rule says who is subject to the AWA. Nothing in writing exempts in home breeders. The people calling the shots at APHIS say that this won't be a problem, that their inspectors will use common sense, see the care given to the dogs and go on their merry way. Well, I can't imagine too many breeders who are comfortable with that as an answer and trust that a government inspector is going to ignore the letter of the law of what he is supposed to be enforcing, always exhibit common sense and never have a power trip or get upset that the breeder didn't bow and curtsy and provide them with the right tea and cookies when they came for an inspection.


----------



## selzer

And if I want to keep 15 intact females on my premises, so long as I do not sell the puppies over the internet, I can sell them from my home, or from anyone else's home, or from the parking lot at holiday in, or WalMart, or wherever else I want to sell them. 

If I want to sell one to someone across the country, then someone is going to have to get on a plane and see the dog, or I can say that the 8 week old puppy is sold for home security, ie, it is therefore a working dog, not a pet, and I don't fall under the rules. 

Anyone with a little creativity and a lack of moral fiber, can get around this. It is totally pointless. It may encourage a few people to spay their old ladies and any that have fallen out of their breeding program to stay compliant. And it may encourage a few people to go through the process of getting licensed. But I do not think it will improve anyone's experience with their puppy, or the living conditions of any dogs anywhere. 

People are constantly complaining about the health of pups bought at pet stores. They saw the pup when they bought it. They either did not see that it ws sick, or they ignored it and bought it anyway. This law basically suggests that people who see the puppy can attest to its health which is obviously not true. I just don't see the point, except to get someone people to voluntarily give the government another tax. 

Another law they do not intend to enforce, and they really don't expect people to follow. So it only hurts those individuals who want to be law-abiding.


----------



## selzer

If you sell puppies, sight unseen, you are probably not exempt. 4 intact bitches is really not that many for most breeders. I mean, if you have two producing, and two up and coming you are there. 

I think it would be sad to base your decision on whether to let a bitch grow out some before making a decision on selling her, or adding her to your program, or to not bring in a bitch that is available because it would put you over the magic number that was pulled out of the air. 

Chris, I guess you could charge the cost of a round trip ticket and go and meet your customers, when you deliver your puppy. While that really sucks, you would not have to be licensed if that were the case.

And, yeah, no way, if the law says you must do xyz, you cannot count on the inspector whose job is to find something, not to find what they did find. If you have horrid contitions, they will write you up for the bad stuff. If you have good conditions, they will write you up for the stuff that makes a home impossible for this.


----------



## Chris Wild

selzer said:


> or I can say that the 8 week old puppy is sold for home security, ie, it is therefore a working dog, not a pet, and I don't fall under the rules.


Only if the working dog is never allowed to "co-mingle" with any pets. No definition of what that means, of course, but it could mean they need to be identified at birth and immediately separated from their pet littermates.


----------



## lhczth

Chris Wild said:


> Only if the working dog is never allowed to "co-mingle" with any pets. No definition of what that means, of course, but it could mean they need to be identified at birth and immediately separated from their pet littermates.


Yeah and that is in the best interest of the puppy.


----------



## Doc

I'm too **** old for all this crap. :-((


----------



## martemchik

selzer said:


> And if I want to keep 15 intact females on my premises, so long as I do not sell the puppies over the internet, I can sell them from my home, or from anyone else's home, or from the parking lot at holiday in, or WalMart, or wherever else I want to sell them.
> 
> If I want to sell one to someone across the country, then someone is going to have to get on a plane and see the dog, or I can say that the 8 week old puppy is sold for home security, ie, it is therefore a working dog, not a pet, and I don't fall under the rules.
> 
> Anyone with a little creativity and a lack of moral fiber, can get around this. It is totally pointless. It may encourage a few people to spay their old ladies and any that have fallen out of their breeding program to stay compliant. And it may encourage a few people to go through the process of getting licensed. But I do not think it will improve anyone's experience with their puppy, or the living conditions of any dogs anywhere.
> 
> Another law they do not intend to enforce, and they really don't expect people to follow. So it only hurts those individuals who want to be law-abiding.


I haven't read most of the thread but since this is a federal law it makes sense that they are trying to keep sales of dogs to in state or at least very close. Remember...anytime you sell something to someone out of state, and an issue pops up, its now a federal law issue and not a state issue. So a hypothetical lawsuit over the health of a dog or something else that was broken in a poorly written, not-ever-looked-over-by-a-lawyer contract is going to federal court not state court. And I'm not sure if there have been a lot of those happening...but if there have been, I see why the federal government doesn't want to deal with $1500 squabbles over dogs.

And I agree with selzer on everything she said...these are just pointless, unenforceable laws. Why our federal government spends any time on this stuff always pisses me off, but they do because someone out there squawks loud enough about it and the government thinks they come up with a great solution.

I also saw on another post how selzer posted something about having 4 breeding females and its not that much because 2 can be used now and 2 can be waiting. I'm assuming the federal government won't think of younger females that have never been bred as breeding females. Although the law is clear on "intent" I don't believe that is something they could prove in court...that you "intend to one day breed said bitches." So I'm sure that the main issue is for those that are using 4 different females to breed in one year. Which I know is an issue for some breeders, but there are plenty that do not reach that limit. Truth is...puppy mills ARE the most likely to have more than 4 breeding females in any one year....and I'm assuming that co-ownership of females will really throw a wrench into the system. Although it might also be the way that many "reputable or hobby" breeders will get around the system. Co-ownership is really only with registered dogs...and generally with the AKC, its not really a government thing (even when I go to register my dog with the county) so I bet many of the co-owned dogs can easily be said to not be owned by the ONE breeder in order to get around the system.


----------



## Glacier

selzer said:


> If you sell puppies, sight unseen, you are probably not exempt. 4 intact bitches is really not that many for most breeders. I mean, if you have two producing, and two up and coming you are there.
> 
> I think it would be sad to base your decision on whether to let a bitch grow out some before making a decision on selling her, or adding her to your program, or to not bring in a bitch that is available because it would put you over the magic number that was pulled out of the air.
> 
> Chris, I guess you could charge the cost of a round trip ticket and go and meet your customers, when you deliver your puppy. While that really sucks, you would not have to be licensed if that were the case.
> 
> And, yeah, no way, if the law says you must do xyz, you cannot count on the inspector whose job is to find something, not to find what they did find. If you have horrid contitions, they will write you up for the bad stuff. If you have good conditions, they will write you up for the stuff that makes a home impossible for this.


Just curious, if you did a couple video sessions on Skype or similar service with your prospective buyer, wouldn't that get around the 'sight unseen' thing?


----------



## marbury

What about breeders that do a 24/7 live 'puppycam' broadcast? Would that circumvent 'sight unseen'? LOL!


----------



## Chris Wild

martemchik said:


> . I'm assuming the federal government won't think of younger females that have never been bred as breeding females.


You assume wrong.
This has been one of th biggest bones of contention amongst breeders, and on multiple occasions when this has been posed to APHIS they have said that they define a breeding female as ANY intact female. Period. So that would include not just females actively involved in breeding, but young prospects being raised as possible breeding females as well as non-breeding dogs and retired breeding dogs who are not spayed. Some people don't believe in spaying/neutering dogs even if they are not for breeding, or the dog has medical problems that preclude breeding but also make surgery unwise.

We had a wonderful young female we purchased as a puppy from another breeder, but unfortunately she developed epilepsy and then the seizures in turn damaged her heart causing sub-aortic stenosis. We wouldn't breed her, but couldn't spay her either as her heart condition made it likely she would die during surgery. She lived out what, unfortunately short, time she had as a beloved pet here. I guess now maybe it was a blessing that she died in her sleep a few months ago because now, thanks to APHIS, she would have counted against our allowed number of breeding females causing us to have to consider either spaying her against the advice of her cardiologist, find someone we could give her to that was willing to take on several hundred dollar a month medical expenses and a dog who due to the heart condition was unlikely to make it to her 4th birthday, or put her down. We wouldn't have been able to sell her, even if she didn't have the health problems and might have been worth a few dollars, because then we'd have been a dealer for selling a dog who wasn't born and raised here and lose exemption due to that.

APHIS also doesn't take into consideration ownership of the intact female, it's purpose for being at the breeder's, or how long it is in residence at the breeder's. They say ANY intact female, over 4 months old, who resides at the breeders for ANY length of time. So this means that the following would also count against the breeder's number of allowed females:
A female leased for a litter, owned by someone else, who will only be there temporarily.
A female being boarded at the breeder's for the purpose of being bred to one of their studs.
An unspayed rescue or stray that passes through the breeder's home, if even for an overnight as part of a transport.
A female being boarded at the breeder's for any other reason... we have always been open to boarding dogs for friends/family/customers on a short term basis when they are on vacation or such so that they don't have to use a kennel. No more of that if it's an intact female.
Friends/family visiting and staying at the breeder's bringing along their own dog. No more of that either if it's an intact female.
Breeders are expected to take dogs back if for some reason they don't work out or the customer can't keep them, and good breeders are always willing to do that. But now breeders will have to think twice about that if it happens to be an intact female.

The intact females number also refers to females of ANY of the species regulated. So if you have 3 female dogs, your daughter has an unspayed female rabbit as a pet in a cage in her room, and you pick up an unspayed stray cat off the side of the road, you just went over the allowed number for exemption.


----------



## Chris Wild

Glacier said:


> Just curious, if you did a couple video sessions on Skype or similar service with your prospective buyer, wouldn't that get around the 'sight unseen' thing?





marbury said:


> What about breeders that do a 24/7 live 'puppycam' broadcast? Would that circumvent 'sight unseen'? LOL!


The answer to both is NO. Breeders have been really thinking about this and how to get around some of these things while allowing APHIS to still go after the problematic commercial breeders that they say is the focus of this law. Those questions were posed, Skype was mentioned specifically, and the answer was no. It must be fact-to-face. Period.


----------



## Chris Wild

lhczth said:


> Yeah and that is in the best interest of the puppy.


If it even were possible, which of course it isn't. No one can tell early on which pup is a working/breeding prospect and thus exempt, and which is a pet, so as to prevent them from co-mingling.

I wonder if we'll see a resurgency in culling the old fashioned way, with pups who have disqualifying faults or minor deformaties that preclude them from being working or breeding prospects but who could work out fine as pets, and which are usually in this day and age sold as such on spay/neuter contracts instead being killed at birth as soon as they can be identified so as to prevent that awful co-mingling.


----------



## onyx'girl

The milkbar will have a non-working/working section


----------



## Chris Wild




----------



## Gwenhwyfair

IMO Chris is doing a very good job, from a point of view of someone who knows and understands not only the ethical side of breeding but the practices and business aspects as well the downsides to this law.

As to something I mentioned earlier - I chatted with a very nice person who is extremely dedicated and intelligent person who works and shows dogs. This person wants to have one litter every year or so to develop. We discussed the impact this law has. The response was, for a serious small kennel, it's more trouble then it's worth. Some out of state clients will be getting a call that they must fly to me to pick up the puppies.

I than mentioned that the law probably won't be enforced much so why worry? I asked the question intentionally.

Sure enough this person responded "I care about my reputation and won't take the chance".

That fits with what I predicted. People who care about their dogs are ethical and care about their reputation will abide by the law.

BYBs will still sell 'face to face' at flea markets, large commercial operations can afford attorneys to research and cover them and puppy millers like the one Onyx girl linked to will probably keep being puppy factories.

I HOPE I'm wrong and places like Stonehenge will be a thing of the past, but I doubt it.

Also, along the theme Chris is on, unintended consequences, I predict that since the market is being reduced to local breeders only for dog buyers who are of more modest means it's possible local demand will go up. This will probably start pushing the prices up on dogs which in turn may cause people to be more likely to take their chances with BYBs and flea market specials. Again, JMHO....but it's not like this hasn't happened before with other supply side regs.


----------



## Merciel

Well, the last few pages of this thread have been a real bummer to read through.

I was thinking that if I buy a puppy from a long-distance seller, it might be better to take a plane trip out to meet the breeder and see the pup's parents (or at least the mom) in person anyway, but COOL THANKS NEW RULE for making that non-optional.

I don't have a ton of faith in the USDA's ability to police puppy mills. One of my friends, who happens to be a super talented photographer, worked on a big puppy mill bust earlier this year. She took a picture of the stamped metal "USDA Licensed" tags that were on each of the dogs, and had to be cut off their necks along with the filthy, ingrown chains and matted hair around them. The groomers who were cleaning up these dogs piled all the tags into a big heap and my friend took a picture of it.

It's a really powerful image and I was going to repost it in this thread, but sadly I cannot resize it on my work computer. But anyway the point is, a "USDA Licensed" dog-breeding facility is very much not a good thing in my world.


----------



## martemchik

What you have to remember is that USDA licensed means its a farm. If you have more than a certain amount of animals on your property, you generally need this. Seeing USDA on a pedigree (I think some of the other registries actually list it) pretty much spells puppy mill. Sure its regulated...probably one visit a year just to make sure everything is clean and there are enough runs, but even that probably gets missed.

What worries me about laws like this...when they're based off of ethics that even we here on the forum cant' agree on...is that they either go too far or not far enough. Like the "face to face" thing. That is meant for brokers that just send dogs all over the place...probably brought up by someone that had a bad experience, or got screwed when they thought they were going to get one thing, but got another one. Someone out there came up with the idea that its better to deal locally (which isn't 100% wrong) and pushed hard enough for that to become law. And now this law messes with good hard working breeders that do send dogs across the country on a regular basis.

I really don't think this will do anything to local markets...maybe markets where there aren't that many breeders (not sure if those exist) but I know for sure my local area has plenty of good dogs. I'm talking an easy 1 hour drive to see some very good breeders. What people have to remember is that probably 95% or more of dogs get sold locally anyways. Most people don't even think about flying a dog in, or going to visit one across the country. I don't expect people to do 30 minutes of research on google...much less fly somewhere just to meet a breeder, the parents, the puppies.


----------



## selzer

The thing is, we don't want the HAVE to get around the law. We want to stay well within the law. But as Chris mentioned, the rule of four will rule out brining home any bitch that isn't spayed for any reason. On return of a female pup, we would have to drop her at the vet and have her spayed before taking her home. And that is crazy.

If you have just one or two litters per year, it is not hard to sell locally, and maintain face-to-face sales on every puppy, especially if for the most part you are selling pets. If you are highly competitive and selling dogs for competition in conformation, schutzhund, or to be trained as working dogs then this law really sucks as it means seriously limiting finding the best owners, who will be the most likely to reach the potential of the dog. And, while some people may truly understand and be willing to add the cost of a round trip ticket to the price of their pup, it's a hard sell. 

It's a bad law. It will do nothing about the tons of puppies who are born each year from people who just want their bitch to experience motherhood, or want to have puppies, or don't care if they do have puppies. Dogs that are AKC, or purebred without papers -- pop's a police dog, right!, or mixtures -- still 75% of dogs in shelters are mixtures -- this does NOTHING about all that. 

And the reason is very simple. There is no money in that. Some of these dogs live in horrible conditions, give birth in a crappy igloo in January, or under a porch. But because these dogs are given away for free or sold for a couple of hundred bucks, nobody cares. There is no money in it, nothing to tax. 

On the state level, if you sell a puppy to someone within your state, than at least in Ohio, you must charge sales tax, and the state gets 6.75 or more percent of the cost of the puppy. If you sell it outside of your state, then you do not have to charge sales tax. And the buyer _should_ declare the sale on his income tax and pay sales tax on the dog to his own state. I think that the government just sees an avenue for revenue. They are not doing this to decrease the number of dogs in shelters, or to improve the conditions that dogs used for breeding are kept in. It it were so, they would regulate anyone with more than four dogs, whether those dogs were male, female, intact or altered, used for breeding, sport, competition, or pets. 

If you have barn cats on your property, that aren't fixed, eh! you are over four breeding females!


----------



## Merciel

martemchik said:


> What people have to remember is that probably 95% or more of dogs get sold locally anyways.


That's true, and a good point, but I've been looking at some smaller breeds along with GSDs (specifically I'm thinking of Belgian Tervuren, which have a _tiny_ working population that, from what I can tell, is mostly centered on the West Coast) and there it is pretty common that you do have to either fly out to visit the breeder or fly the puppy to you.

Still, I think you're right that it isn't going to affect that many people/dogs. In a way that might make it worse, though, since the group of people who are detrimentally affected may be too small to push back.


----------



## Andaka

What if I buy a dog from out of the country?


----------



## Chris Wild

Andaka said:


> What if I buy a dog from out of the country?


You can buy a dog from outside the country. You will just be considered a dealer, and thus potentially subjected to this law, if for any reason you resold that dog. So if you didn't keep it, you would have to give it away for no monetary compensation whatsoever, since it wasn't "born and raised on your premesis" or an offspring of one of your females. See the last 2 boxes on the lower right of the flowchart.


----------



## Gwenhwyfair

Yup!

To add to that point...

Ironically people looking for a certain kind of dog, with a goal in mind of competing or showing will be looking at larger geographic swaths. Breeders who cater to that type of buyer (which if you think about it these are the better breeders and the more devoted dog people) are going to have a much harder time.

People who just want pets/companion dogs probably won't be affected as they get their dogs locally anyways.

IMO the fact that this won't affect the vast majority of buyers isn't a strong argument 'for' this law given that the people affected the most are the ones who would support ethical breeders and actually do something, compete with their dogs.



Merciel said:


> That's true, and a good point, but I've been looking at some smaller breeds along with GSDs (specifically I'm thinking of Belgian Tervuren, which have a _tiny_ working population that, from what I can tell, is mostly centered on the West Coast) and there it is pretty common that you do have to either fly out to visit the breeder or fly the puppy to you.
> 
> Still, I think you're right that it isn't going to affect that many people/dogs. In a way that might make it worse, though, since the group of people who are detrimentally affected may be too small to push back.


----------



## lalachka

I don't see how this law affect puppy mills. Most people drive to the Amish puppy mills, most of the time not knowing it's a puppy mill. I didn't even know that puppy mills shipped dogs. 

Or this wasn't the purpose of it, to stop puppy mills. 

What's the purpose of this law?


----------



## marbury

lalachka said:


> I don't see how this law affect puppy mills. Most people drive to the Amish puppy mills, most of the time not knowing it's a puppy mill. I didn't even know that puppy mills shipped dogs.
> 
> Or this wasn't the purpose of it, to stop puppy mills.
> 
> What's the purpose of this law?


That's a pretty limited view of puppy mills! You're lucky in your area that you don't have PetLand or other such 'buy-a-puppy-here' stores. All of the puppies you see in those sorts of retail establishments are _usually_ from puppy mills... after all, what responsible breeder could ever dream of handing their 5 week old children off to a broker to sell to ANYONE who could hand them a valid credit card? They aren't breeding those puppies in the back room, they're buying them from whichever low-cost miller can meet their demand, local or otherwise.


----------



## Chris Wild

The puppies in those stores, and the breeders who breed them, will be exempt as they are sold in retail establishments.

The law is (supposedly) aimed at breeders who use internet marketing and sell pups sight unseen. There are many large commercial operations that have essentially PuppiesRUs.com websites, and these are (again supposedly), the target.

It will however in reality impact almost all breeders with a website or any other sort of out of area marketing that are willing to ship puppies.


----------



## lalachka

marbury said:


> That's a pretty limited view of puppy mills! You're lucky in your area that you don't have PetLand or other such 'buy-a-puppy-here' stores. All of the puppies you see in those sorts of retail establishments are _usually_ from puppy mills... after all, what responsible breeder could ever dream of handing their 5 week old children off to a broker to sell to ANYONE who could hand them a valid credit card? They aren't breeding those puppies in the back room, they're buying them from whichever low-cost miller can meet their demand, local or otherwise.


Ohh we have those. We have pet stores here. But how does this affect them? They don't ship anything either. 

What's the purpose of this law?


----------



## lalachka

Chris Wild said:


> The puppies in those stores, and the breeders who breed them, will be exempt as they are sold in retail establishments.
> 
> The law is (supposedly) aimed at breeders who use internet marketing and sell pups sight unseen. There are many large commercial operations that have essentially PuppiesRUs.com websites, and these are (again supposedly), the target.
> 
> It will however in reality impact almost all breeders with a website or any other sort of out of area marketing that are willing to ship puppies.


OK I see. Yes, the real breeders fall under this. 

So you're saying puppy mills have these websites and ship pups? And this is supposed to shut them down how?


----------



## lhczth

No, it will not shut them down. It will just require them to be either USDA inspected/licensed (which most are) or they will have to require buyers to meet them face to face (which can mean pull the filthy pup out of a cage, clean it up, and meet the buyer at WalMart).


----------



## lalachka

lhczth said:


> No, it will not shut them down. It will just require them to be either USDA inspected/licensed (which most are) or they will have to require buyers to meet them face to face (which can mean pull the filthy pup out of a cage, clean it up, and meet the buyer at WalMart).


Exactly. And so the point of the law is...?

Or that's what the thread is about? I skimmed thru it


----------



## marbury

lalachka said:


> Or that's what the thread is about? I skimmed thru it


Yes. Yes, that would be the point of the thread. Instead of getting a succinct recap, take a gander back. It's actually meandered a long way and has been quite informative.


----------



## lhczth

Some things to think about. 
Time 4 Dogs: Rock Bottom
Time 4 Dogs: Read Between the lines - USDA Conference Call


----------



## lhczth

I could not find a specific link so am posting the whole thing:



> TX-RPOA E-News
> From Responsible Pet Owners Alliance Texas Outreach
> Crossposting is encouraged.
> September 24, 2013
> (LONG but IMPORTANT!)
> 
> CALL TO "BATTLE STATIONS" - - "IT'S NOW OR NEVER!
> Posted by: [email protected]
> Information on Website: Frank Losey
> 
> I wish to share what I believe "Everyone Needs to Hear, Rather Than What
> They Want to Hear."
> 
> The APHIS FINAL RULE is like a runaway freight train, and I personally and
> professionally believe that the only realistic, practical way to "derail"
> the "freight train" before November 17, 2013 is for a Federal Judge to issue
> a Temporary (ideally a Permanent) Injunction that would expressly prohibit
> the USDA from implementing the Final Rule. In short, the "60-Day Time Bomb
> Clock" is ticking, and if a Federal Injunction is not issued before November
> 17, 2013, the APHIS Final Rule will have the "EFFECT" OF LAW THAT MAY BE
> ENFORCED AGAINST ANY BREEDER THAT APHIS (A.K.A. MS. SARAH L. CONANT)
> DETERMINES TO BE IN NON-COMPLIANCE!
> 
> Although the APHIS Final Rule is a "Regulation," it is a "Readers Digest"
> version of the PUPS Bill, and it will "grease" the HSUS path for HSUS to
> begin 2014 with a Full Court Press to persuade Congress to enact the PUPS
> Bill. In this regard, an unchallenged APHIS Final Regulation will
> strengthen the arguments that HSUS will put forward for Congress to enact
> the PUPS Bill. And what is so chilling is that when the PUPS Bill comes up
> for a vote, the APHIS Rule will - - repeat "WILL" - - be cited in support of
> an "eleventh hour" floor amendment to add a few tweaks that purportedly will
> be technical in nature, but could be the final nails being drilled into the
> figurative coffins of all Hobby and Commercial Breeders.
> 
> While there is so much truth in the adage that "Desperate Times Call for
> Desperate Measures," I fervently believe that "Desperate Measure" of citing
> subjective "loopholes," such as claiming that all dogs bred fall into the
> hunting or working or any other "exempt" dog category is doomed - - yes
> doomed - - to failure because Dr. Rushin stated that decisions will be made
> on a "case by case" basis. Such a subjective "case by case" statement could
> be cited as one of the judicial arguments for seeking a Federal Injunction
> because it constitutes an admission that the Final Rule is so vague and
> ambiguous that breeders may be subject to subjective rather than objective
> standards, which will create a realistic potential that their
> Constitutionally guaranteed due process rights may be jeopardized because
> they will be subject to arbitrary interpretations that would not stand the
> scrutiny of judicial review. In this regard, bear in mind that "case by
> case" interpretations may very well be made by Ms. Sarah L. Conant, the
> former HSUS Litigation Attorney who is now the Chief of the APHIS
> Investigative and Enforcement Branch! And she has the authority to decide
> how great fines will be for a violation of this Final Rule, and in
> "appropriate" cases, she may further make recommendations as to
> "prosecutions!"
> 
> BOTTOMLINE: Those who believe they can circumvent compliance with the Final
> Rule by claiming that they fall within an "exception" are playing with fire
> that could ultimately result in fines and lifetime prohibitions from ever
> being permitted to breed dogs. That is why it is so important to challenge
> the Final Rule before it becomes, in effect, a "Rule of Law." In this
> regard, if all breeders contacted their respective Member Organizations and
> urged them to immediately and collaboratively work together in order to seek
> a Federal Injunction NOW, the "Window of Opportunity" to stop the "runaway
> freight train" will not be lost, and the PUPS Bill may be mortally wounded,
> and lose Congressional Support!
> 
> The "Desperate Measure" that has the greatest chance of success to stall and
> "derail" the runaway APHIS FINAL RULE freight train is for all breeders - -
> Hobby and Commercial Breeders - - to make a commitment to "STAND UNITED,"
> and to cease and desist "pointing fingers at one another," and follow the
> HSUS Playbook Strategy of presenting a "unified front."
> 
> Last year the HSUS orchestrated the APHIS Proposed Rule as part of its
> "masterful" and diabolical Strategic Plan, which it has "masterfully"
> orchestrated over the last 10+ years by, step-by-step, deceiving and
> dividing the breeder community of Hobby and Commercial Breeders. First, it
> deceived the hobby breeder community in the 2004-2006 time-frame by claiming
> that it only was targeting the commercial breeders which it referred to as
> the nasty and inhumane "PMs." (Note I never publicly use the phrase that
> the "PM" stands for because it was designed by the HSUS to create a false
> image in the minds of the America Public and Elected Officials! And it has
> worked, even though it is the equivalent of a despicable racial or ethnic
> slur.)
> 
> Many within the Hobby Breeder Community have used the HSUS' "PM" phrase over
> and over again without realizing that this usage supported the "divide and
> conquer strategy" of the HSUS because it offended a significant number of
> Commercial Breeders who truly, truly care about the health and welfare of
> their dogs and puppies, and who meet or exceed even the AKC Standards. And
> to the dismay of AKC and the thousands of AKC Breeders, they were shocked
> on May 1, 2013 when the HSUS stated that the AKC was "joined at the hip"
> with the "PMs!" All the more reason for AKC Breeders to cease using the
> "PM" phrase that predictably will transition into the HSUS referring to
> Commercial "PMs" and Hobby "PMs."
> 
> Predictably, the HSUS will use any attempt by the Hobby Community to exempt
> themselves out from under the Final Rule as further evidence that the AKC
> and its Hobby Breeders are "joined at the hip" with the "PMs," and the HSUS
> will put on a major push at the beginning of next year to claim that the
> flaws associated with the APHIS Final Rule can only be corrected by the
> passage of PUPS. In short, "loophole" arguments will be cited as a reason
> for swift passage of the PUPS Bill, at which time a few "tweaked" provisions
> will be added as late night "Floor Amendments," which Amendments would
> tighten the noose tighter around the necks of all breeders - - Hobby and
> Commercial - - and provide yet another basis for HSUS to press for
> publishing a new and even more stringent Final Rule that will have death
> knoll implications for all breeders. This is why Commercial Breeders must
> support all efforts by the Hobby Breeder Community to stop the USDA from
> enforcing the Final Rule with a Federal Injunction. In this regard, if the
> collective efforts of "ALL" breeders resulted in a Federal Injunction that
> barred the enforcement of the APHIS Final Rule, such an Injunction would all
> but absolutely- positively "kill" - - like a "poison pill - - the PUPS
> Bill, which Bill is even worse than the APHIS Final Rule. Thus, a "WIN-WIN"
> for all Hobby Breeders and all Commercial Breeders. In short, the PUPS Bill
> would become "toxic," and even the current co-sponsors would not push for a
> vote.
> 
> In the words of Benjamin Franklin: "We must indeed all hang together, or
> most assuredly we shall all hang separately." In short, Commercial
> Breeders must support any effort by the Hobby Breeders to obtain a Federal
> Injunction that will stop the USDA from enforcing the APHIS Final Rule on
> November 17, 2013.
> 
> The time, cost and expense of seeking a Federal Injunction will be
> substantial. However, in the long run, the cost of supporting the effort to
> obtain a Federal Injunction will pale in comparison to the financial and
> psychological cost to all affected breeders who are forced to either comply
> with the APHIS Final Rule, as interpreted by Ms. Conant, or to cease
> breeding dogs all together. In this regard, no Hobby Clubs or State
> Commercial Breeder Organizations have the financial resources to
> independently fund an effort to stop the immediate and follow-on "carnage"
> that will occur if the Final Rule is not successfully challenged in a
> Federal Court. That is why I believe that it is imperative for an
> organization, such as AKC, to take the lead in pursuing the effort to seek a
> Federal Injunction. They have the name recognition and stature to make the
> representation to a Federal Court that it has "legal standing" to represent
> the interests of the single "largest class" of breeders in the U.S., as
> opposed to just a few breeders. Here it is significant to note that AKC
> Breeders not only include Hobby Breeders, but also include a significantly
> large number of USDA Commercial Breeders. While AKC is in the best position
> to take the lead, all other Commercial and Hobby Breeder Organizations
> should financially support the Federal Injunction Option to the best of
> their financial ability.
> 
> If the APHIS Final Rule is not Successfully Challenged, there may not be
> another opportunity to derail the HSUS Freight Train. From a military
> perspective, when possible, it is best to pick the battles you have the best
> chance to win. The APHIS Final Rule may be the best battle to wage because
> there are so many flaws and "omissions" in the Background Justification
> published in the Federal Register that may be cited as the legal bases for a
> Federal Judge to grant an Injunction. (I do not wish to publicly cite all
> of the legal bases as I do not believe it is prudent to give the HSUS a
> "heads-up." Never tell your enemy how you plan to defeat it!)
> 
> BOTTOMLINE: As an attorney, I professionally believe that the published
> discussion of the Comments that APHIS referenced in the September 18, 2013
> Federal Register provides a number of legal arguments that may be cited in
> support of a Lawsuit that seeks to restrain the USDA and APHIS from
> enforcing the APHIS Final Rule.
> 
> The Words of "It's Now or Never" have never been truer or more appropriate
> to say.
> 
> Frank


----------



## marbury

lhczth said:


> Some things to think about.
> Time 4 Dogs: Rock Bottom


:thumbup:


----------



## lhczth

BTW, these are not "laws" since the USDA does not have the authority to pass law. These are rules or regulations. There is a difference.


----------



## lalachka

lhczth said:


> Some things to think about.
> Time 4 Dogs: Rock Bottom
> Time 4 Dogs: Read Between the lines - USDA Conference Call


this is depressing. i'm pissed and i don't even breed.

i have a million questions about this entire thing but i will hold them, they're not helping anything.

i can't believe the government can just do this. all they're going to achieve is outlawing breeders. there will be a black market for purebreds if they keep going this way.

i mean pohibiting things worked sooo well with drugs and other things that they might as well use the same concept on other "problems"


----------



## lalachka

lhczth said:


> BTW, these are not "laws" since the USDA does not have the authority to pass law. These are rules or regulations. There is a difference.


 what's the difference? what can they realistically do to breederes?

also, the spay and neuter in CA, is THAT a law? what happens if you don't?


----------



## lalachka

since this is not a law i'm assuming all they can do is keep fining the breeders until they go out of business, right?

what are they trying to achieve? i don't understand. in your 2nd link it sounds like they're trying to stop breeders from breeding.

and then? what about BYBs? puppy mills? whose interests are they protecting?

i'm confused


----------



## martemchik

lalachka said:


> since this is not a law i'm assuming all they can do is keep fining the breeders until they go out of business, right?
> 
> what are they trying to achieve? i don't understand. in your 2nd link it sounds like they're trying to stop breeders from breeding.
> 
> and then? what about BYBs? puppy mills? whose interests are they protecting?
> 
> i'm confused


I'm not even sure the USDA could fine a breeder. Since their not producing animals for consumption its not like the breeder is really a huge threat to society in a major way. The USDA can call in the police, who can get a warrant, and inspect the facility if they believe animals are being mistreated. The law gives the USDA some more avenues/reasons to be able to check on breeders and its really not going to affect that many people because the USDA just doesn't have the man power to check every single breeder with a website anyways. I'm assuming if they get enough complaints...they'll do something...but if they don't get any complaints they aren't just going to be googling breeder websites and then knocking on their doors.

The issue is what selzer and Chris have been talking about. THEY WANT TO FOLLOW THE LAW. Although the chances they get "caught" for breaking said law is very small...many people still don't like operating outside the law (or guideline).


----------



## lalachka

And I believe they do and that's very honorable of them. I guess I don't understand what the regulations are meant to achieve. 

As someone already said, they don't have the resources to enforce the regulations already in place. 

What's the argument? That the abuse comes from small scale breeders? Like why trying to get them licensed?
I'd think the harm is done by the large facilities. 


Martemchik, what do YOU think about this?


----------



## martemchik

That the new guideline is now lumping the "small scale breeders" that are doing things right, in with the large scale facilities by making rules that apply to both. So there are 4 breeding females...which like the breeders have mentioned, is not that many. So it causes issues for those smaller breeders that are unnecessary. Sure, the large scale facilities are bad, but they also have the funds and income to try and fight rulings and lawsuits. Small breeders do not.

I'm not completely for this being such a huge issue because I for one will admit to not having problems living in the grey. I don't have an issue speeding, I don't have a problem having my dog off-leash in certain areas even though on leash signs are posted, and I pretty much believe that if I'm not hurting anyone and no one has a reason to squawk about my actions, I'll be fine.

But then again, I don't see an issue with licensing/certifying. I know that in my county if you want to own more than 3 dogs you have to have a special license, pay an extra fee yearly to have that license. That is on top of the $12-$24 that you have to pay to license each dog you own in the county.


----------



## lalachka

Lolol I guess I live in dark grey from black a few years ago 


Yeah, unnecessary. And the animals don't win from these regulations though supposedly this is all about them.


----------



## selzer

The USDA can pull your license to operate I think. They do not make laws, the AWA places you under their regulations or not. Once you are under their regulations, if you do not comply, than you will lose your license and the government will stop you from operating your buisness. I think. As well as fines and even criminal charges I believe can be levied from failure to comply with the government regulations, which is what the USDA is. 

I think that generally they try to work with you, fine you, give you so much time to get up to code. But I think that can pull your license and make it ILLEGAL for you to sell any dog until you are up to code.


----------



## Gwenhwyfair

While not under the auspices of the USDA if I do not keep my license current but continue to operate I can be fined and/or face jail time.


----------



## Gwenhwyfair

lalachka said:


> since this is not a law i'm assuming all they can do is keep fining the breeders until they go out of business, right?
> 
> what are they trying to achieve? i don't understand. in your 2nd link it sounds like they're trying to stop breeders from breeding.
> 
> and then? what about BYBs? puppy mills? whose interests are they protecting?
> 
> i'm confused


Lala, here's the section of the regs which pertain to your question:



> 2.1.
> Since the AWA regulations were
> issued, most retailers of pet animals
> have been exempt from licensing by
> virtue of our considering them to be
> ‘‘retail pet stores’’ as defined in § 1.1 of
> the AWA regulations.
> Because the previous definition of​_retail pet store​_​​​​in the AWA regulations
> covered nearly all retail outlets, retailers
> selling animals by any means, including
> sight unseen sales conducted over the
> Internet or by mail, telephone, or any
> other method where customers do not
> personally observe the animals available
> for sale prior to purchasing and/or
> taking custody of them, were considered
> to be retail pet stores and as such had
> been exempt from licensing and
> inspection under § 2.1(a)(3)(i) and
> § 2.1(a)(3)(vii).1​
> With the growth of the Internet in the
> 1990s, technology brought with it new
> and unforeseen opportunities to buy
> and sell pets. More retailers began
> offering pets for sale sight unseen and
> to sell and ship them nationwide. While
> pet animals were sometimes sold sight
> unseen via telephone and mail order
> decades before passage of the AWA, the
> Internet has made it possible for many
> more persons throughout the United
> States to buy pets online from retailers
> without ever having to be physically
> present at the seller’s place of business
> or residence and personally observe the
> animals offered for sale as the AWA
> intended. With the dramatic rise in sight
> unseen sales have come increasing
> complaints from the public about the
> lack of monitoring and oversight of the
> health and humane treatment of those
> animals.​


----------



## Lauri & The Gang

LifeofRiley said:


> Breeders who maintain *more than* 4 breeding females on their premises ...


Define "breeding females".

Are these females that are physically able to get pregnant and have puppies?

Are these females that I, as a breeder, have plans to use for breeding at some point?

Right now I have 2 intact females on my premises. Kaynya is my foundation bitch so I KNOW she would count as one "breeding female". Wasabi, her daughter, is physically able to be bred but I don't know if I ever WILL breed her. I'm working on showing her and deciding if she's what I want to continue my lines.

What about females I co-own but don't spend ALL their time with me? If they come to stay with me for a month do they count towards my total?

What if I decide to retire Kaynya from breeding but I don't want to get her spayed. Does she still count?? If she DID count and I wanted to have another bitch for actual breeding that means that I'd have to either spay her or place her somewhere else.

Neither of those options are ok with me.

So, in order to try to stop bad breeders they are going to also be stopping the GOOD breeders.

All in all it comes down to the fact that pure bred dogs are going to be limited in their genetic pools (if you can't ship puppies how are you going to get new blood in new areas?).


----------



## LifeofRiley

Why is it that threads that I am interested in explode with activity when I have very little time available to participate? :laugh: 

Oh well, I will try to address some of the issues raised tonight and over the next couple of days!


----------



## Gwenhwyfair

ummmm just don't say we aren't reading the provided material....when you come back. (pro tip  )


----------



## selzer

Dog breeders have been regulated under USDA for a long time. I believe that the qualifier that made people fall under USDA regulations was the number of puppies and or litters produced. I think that Ohio just adjusted their number to 9 litters or 60 puppies/dogs sold in a calendar year. Though that may be the state department of agriculture. 

In any event, this is why being licensed by the USDA is really the marker for a puppy mill. Yes you may be up to code -- separate buildings for whelping and raising litters, non-porous surfaces, and the works. Still very grim scene. These people generally have hundreds of dogs on the premises and have methods of dealing with refuse, feeding, and watering that doesn't even provide the dogs with human contact on a daily basis. These are truly puppy factories, and all perfectly legal, and because of the shear volumes of dogs, the ability for the care of those dogs falling behind and getting out of control makes regulation for these places necessary.

What I do not understand is why selling on line, over the internet, should make a difference. A smaller operation may have more potential customers because there is a larger area, larger population. But the number of potential buyers is limited by the cost of shipping the puppy. The puppy must be shipped in an appropriate crate, air fair, and vet certification. So the overall cost of the puppy increases considerably. And unless the buyers are looking for something special, they will be purchasing a dog closer to home. 

Except that some puppy mills who sell puppies wholesale to brokers for 50 or 100 a head, may be eliminateing the middle man and selling to the public through the internet for 50 or 100$ above the cost of shipping, I suppose. So one could purchase a dog for $650 from someone from a good web site, and really be purchasing from a puppy mill. But those people are already registered. 

Unless the criteria to require licensing by the USDA is selling in retail pet stores with locations in multiple states? And someone who chooses not to sell to puppy stores, might fall through the cracks so to speak. 

I just think that it makes more sense to go with the number of dogs you sell, or litters you have than how many breeding dogs you posess and whether you sell a dog without meeting in person.


----------



## lalachka

Yes, that's the part I'm missing. What does selling over the net have to do with anything? 

As far as counting litters, maybe they think they can't know for sure how many litters are produced as opposed to counting females is kind of black and white (unless people will hide some of them). 

Whatever. Dumb rule. No good purpose. Not helping the animals.


----------



## onyx'girl

I can't wait to read LifeOfRiley's post defending this.


----------



## selzer

lalachka said:


> Yes, that's the part I'm missing. What does selling over the net have to do with anything?
> 
> As far as counting litters, maybe they think they can't know for sure how many litters are produced as opposed to counting females is kind of black and white (unless people will hide some of them).
> 
> Whatever. Dumb rule. No good purpose. Not helping the animals.


If you are registering the dog through any registry, you register the litter, so if people are registering the dogs, then they have records of the litters produced. It would be stupid to lie about it if you made such a record. 

If you are not registering the dogs, chances are pretty good you are not covered under any regulations, and there will always be people who will lie and try to get around rules. I don't think that is a good reason to use a different criteria that people can also lie about. 

Are we going to have to have spay certificates issued for our dogs or will they just knotch the ears?


----------



## lalachka

Selzer, I didn't know that. But it's still a dumb rule. I was just trying to find an explanation for them counting females when you're right, it'd make much more sense to count litters. 

Whatever, I don't like it and it doesn't even affect me.


----------



## Merciel

lalachka said:


> What does selling over the net have to do with anything?


Internet sales of puppy mill dogs _are_ a legitimate issue. It's really taken off in the past... I want to say maybe ten years?, but I'm not 100% sure about that.

Anyway, it's a thing because (a) people have become aware that pet store dogs are from puppy mills, but some good breeders do sell across the Internet; (b) puppy millers realized they could pocket a bigger chunk of the profits if they sold directly to the public from the Internet instead of using pet stores as intermediaries; and (c) it's easier to project a wholesome fake image online than in person.

This rule doesn't do anything effective to stop or even discourage them, but that doesn't mean there isn't a real problem at the root of it.

edit: also (d) the convenience factor. Ooh, have a puppy shipped to your door just in time for Christmas! What could beat that.


----------



## Chris Wild

Yes, unsavory internet sellers exist. APHIS claims that what spurred this is many complaints from customers getting sick puppies purchased online and shipped to them. They assume that the customer would have surely known the pup was sick if they'd seen it face to face as they would in a retail store, and thus closing the loophole as they see it by regulating internet breeders will reduce those cases.

As an excuse for this regulation, that really doesn't make sense to me. A puppy cannot be shipped, actually per existing USDA regulations cannot cross state lines, without a health certificate filled out by a veterinarian, a copy of which goes to the USDA. So if they want to go after someone, why not go after the veterinarians who are providing these health certificates? After all, if the puppy is so sick that a layman customer would have known it was sick had the person seen it before purchase then surely a vet couldn't have missed it.


----------



## lhczth

:thumbup:


----------



## Chantald

Wow, so I definitely lost track of this thread long enough enough to come back to 4 pages of reading! 

A lot of interesting perspectives, and it's given me many things to think about. But yeah, the more I continue to read, the less I'm seeing any sort of tangible benefit to any of these regulation changes. I'm no expert by any means, but yeah, I'm just not convinced this is the right approach.


Sent from Petguide.com Free App


----------



## LifeofRiley

Wow, so I was thinking I would spend my time addressing specific issues relating to the rule change. But, given some of the more recent posts here... I think I need to step back a bit.


My position, from the beginning of this thread, *has been that the AWA sets out to establish and uphold the most minimal of minimum care standards for animals that are used for purposes of commerce, research and public exhibition.* That’s it. There is no rational reason for people on here to assume that a responsible breeder would not meet those minimum care standards if they chose to become licensed. 

For those of you who question the need for the AWA, I suggest you take a closer look at conditions that pre-existed the AWA– in laboratory experimentation, commercial breeding farms, circuses, etc... 

The Animal Welfare Act was passed into law in 1966 and expanded in 1970 to include commercial breeding operations. For those interested in learning more about the history of the AWA, you can read more here:
Animal Welfare Act: Historical Perspectives and Future Directions: Symposium Proceedings Sept. 1996

For some perspective, some of you may not know the origin story of the AWA:

Quote from above link:
“How did it all happen? And why did it take so infernally long for our country to adopt a civilized approach to the treatment of laboratory animals? Legislation to regulate experimental use of animals was introduced in Congress in 1880 following the lead of the 1876 British Cruelty to Animals Act, but the medical establishment crushed it immediately, and for the next 80 years the animals suffered in silence. No legislation to protect them was even proposed, though their numbers grew and grew....

...A war of attrition between anti-vivisection societies and medical research interests went on and on…”

*So fast forward to today*… can you honestly say that puppy mills can police themselves if this is just one snapshot of historical perspective?

With that said, I think it is important to re-iterate to everyone here that you cannot judge the efficacy of the AWA based on the existence of high-volume commercial breeding operations as *the AWA does not ban any kind of business operation.* 

*The real question you have to ask yourself is whether or not you think that the animals that are in those very same establishments would be better off - or worse off - if there were NO standards and oversight.* 

Do you think the conditions at federally regulated puppy mills would be better if they were self-policed by the industry? 
Do you think that state anti-cruelty laws can suffice without an entity that has the authority to conduct inspections without a “search warrant”? 
Do you think that the public would have better - or worse - access to information about problematic breeding operations without the AWA?

Finally, let’s return to the origin of the AWA, do you think that the care and handling of animals used for experimentation would be better than the circumstances that preceded the adoption of the AWA in 1966?


----------



## Dainerra

LifeofRiley said:


> Wow, so I was thinking I would spend my time addressing specific issues relating to the rule change. But, given some of the more recent posts here... I think I need to step back a bit.
> 
> 
> My position, from the beginning of this thread, *has been that the AWA sets out to establish and uphold the most minimal of minimum care standards for animals that are used for purposes of commerce, research and public exhibition.* That’s it. There is no rational reason for people on here to assume that a responsible breeder would not meet those minimum care standards if they chose to become licensed.


that is exactly the problem, however!! While we all know that the home environment where a GOOD breeder raises puppies is superior, it will not meet the letter of the law. Therefore, unless you have an inspector that is willing to overlook the rules and display common sense, then NO!! that good breeder will not be allowed to continue in their homes. The law is very specific in spelling out exact descriptions of the environment that the pups must be raised in. It is something that you can't duplicate in the home. 

I know that you are younger than many of us, if I remember correctly. Perhaps we are just cynical but I find great truth in the old warning "Don't worry, we're from the government and we're here to help"
Your faith in this seems to be based on the belief that the inspectors will use common sense and realize that YES! this home based breeder is far surpassing the environment required by the law. In my experience, however, the inspector will look at the paperwork that says that the floor must be a surface easily sterilized, look at the carpet on the living room floor and say "nope" Look at the regulation and see "puppies must be kept separate from all dogs other than the mother," look at the living room where mom and pups regularly come into contact with the other dogs in the house and say "nope" There are very specific things that are spelled out that are impossible to match at home. Yes, any inspector will see that you have a 5X5 cage for the dog and the law only requires 4X4 and say "you have done better than necessary, good job" However, when the law specifically states animals must be kept in an easily sterilized area that is deep steamed/chemically sterilized Xtimes a week and looks at your average home, they are going to say NO. Chris spelled out all of the ways that her operation would likely not pass such an inspection.
Everything written in the regulations DOES improve the lives of factory dogs and lab animals. However, it doesn't give leeway for a better class of animal welfare. Instead, it brings down the care to match that of a factory farm. It treats raising puppies in the same manner as any other livestock. By requiring them to be licensed and subject to this act, the USDA will judge breeders by the same criteria as any other agricultural operation.


----------



## Dainerra

and just to add.... in my experience, there are plenty of inspectors out there that will read "cage must be 3' X 4'" and look at the pups in an open room and say "no, these animals are given free roam of the house? that is absolutely not allowed" 
Many inspectors are the type that read the law very black and white. They are good at their jobs because they won't let anything slide. If the law says the animal must be contained in an area and it is roaming the house, then they will consider that a violation.


----------



## lhczth

LifeofRiley said:


> Do you think that state anti-cruelty laws can suffice without an entity that has the authority to conduct inspections without a “search warrant”?


No. I do NOT believe in violating the 4th amendment rights of anyone and that people are OK with this is down right frightening. 

This thread is not about the AWA. It is about how the USDA/APHIS has now decided to interpret it, so, please, refrain from your sanctimonious history lessons.


----------



## lhczth

Dainerra said:


> th
> Everything written in the regulations DOES improve the lives of factory dogs and lab animals. However, it doesn't give leeway for a better class of animal welfare. Instead, it brings down the care to match that of a factory farm. It treats raising puppies in the same manner as any other livestock. By requiring them to be licensed and subject to this act, the USDA will judge breeders by the same criteria as any other agricultural operation.


Yup.


----------



## Gwenhwyfair

O.K. I'm going into blunt mode. What the literature/documentation explaining these regs refers to, in a nutshell, is shifting the burden of making sure that the puppy you buy is healthy and well cared for at the time of purchase on to the buyer.

I submit that the same stupid people who would NOT do tons of due diligence research prior to buying a puppy online will be the same stupid people who walk into 'Puppies Galore' (real store name not too far from me) or a flea market or the 'set up' amish barn that looks so quaint, or the guy in the walmart parking lot and buy the puppy there. The stupidity follows the people not the venue from which they purchase the puppy.

They don't and will not have any clue as to what the conditions of the breeding facility were nor whether the breeder tests for genetic problems unless they demand to see the actual breeding facility.

If you look at ripoff report on Stonehenge dogs with major health problems most of the buyers went into the petstore and bought the puppy 'face to face' there.


----------



## Chris Wild

Thanks for the history lesson, though I don't think it was needed. I don't think you'll find a single person on this board, breeders included, who wouldn't like to see "puppy mills" eliminated from the face of the earth, or at the very least something put into place to ensure a better life for the dogs.

The difference is that most of us are unwilling to let responsible breeders and good dogs go the way of the Dodo in order to accomplish that.



LifeofRiley said:


> WowThere is no rational reason for people on here to assume that a responsible breeder would not meet those minimum care standards if they chose to become licensed.


How can you actually say that? I'm quite sure you've read the AWA. It is quite clear that dogs living in homes, or in some very nice kennels, are not living in situations that are AWA compliant. Sure, a responsible breeder far exceeds the "minimum care standards", but only to someone looking at it from a common sense rather than a letter of the law situation.

The AWA says what is says. Any breeder being licensed must adhere to the AWA, at least by law. Sure, you and APHIS are saying that they will treat things in a case by case basis and it will ultimately be up to their inspectors to determine if the dogs are well cared for.

I would think anyone with an ounce of common sense could just look at the photo galleries on my website of our dogs and puppies to see that they are living in a situation far above the "minimum care standards". But it would also be darned obvious that they are not living in an AWA compliant facility either since they're in the house.

So what wins? Common sense or the rules and regulations as they are written? You and APHIS would have us believe that common sense will. Well, most of us aren't going to buy that. Lets look at some reasons why.

First, government does not seek out autonomous individuals who are prone to forming their own opinions, thinking on their own, utilizing common sense and adhering to the spirit of the law for employment, particularly in positions such as inspectors, auditors, and such. They look to employ people who think in a very black and white manner, don't question the rules or what they are doing and instead just tow the line and do as they're told without too much thought or emotion, reliably following a neat little checklist. That is clear to anyone who has had to work with government officials, especially those in positions such as these inspectors.

Second, as the saying goes "power corrupts". This is seen from top to bottom in government, and those on the front lines who essentially hold the lives, or near to it, of the public in their hands are certainly not immune. If anything, they are often more likely to power trip because they can get immediate gratification from it.

Given those two things, I see no reason to expect any more common sense or respect from an APHIS inspector as we get from our friendly TSA agents.

History has shown that things are far more likely to play out along the lines of my fears than your optimistic, but IMO very naive, idea to trust the goverment to do what's right and ignore their own rules and regulations when common sense says that they should.

Now throw in that many of those who are in charge of enforcement of this at a high level have known ties to organizations who's ultimate goal is to end all pet ownership. If that is who is running things I think it reasonable to assume that some of their worker bees may share similar opinions.


----------



## Liesje

LOL why is the burden of proof on people to demonstrate why these new regulations are worthless? Shouldn't the burden be on folks to prove why they would have any positive outcome? Still waiting for that.....


----------



## Chris Wild

As I've already mentioned, this new regulation will already negatively impact myself and most other breeders I know. But what if it got worse? What if 4 females was reduced to 1? Then it would impact every single breeder in the country, and not in a good way.

Silly? Paranoid? I think not. Let's just look at some very recent history of this regulation...

Does anyone remember when it was discussed here on the board a couple of months ago, and the proposed regulation read 4 females and sells more than 50 pups a year? Anyone notice something missing from the final version? Where did the 50 pups thing go?

At the time when it was discussed on the board previously, several of us mentioned concerns about even that version. We admited that 50 pups was a lot, perhaps more than most in home breeders would produce, but we expressed concern because it would still impact a lot of very good, responsible breeders, and we also expressed worry about what if the 50 number was reduced, or the wording changed from "and" to "or" at some point in the future.

At the time, we were essentially told we were just fear mongering. I'd have to say that fear was more than justified. It happened faster than we thought. We were afraid it might be changed at a later date, they just went ahead and threw the 50 pups thing out right at the beginning before even getting this passed.


----------



## lalachka

Merciel said:


> Internet sales of puppy mill dogs _are_ a legitimate issue. It's really taken off in the past... I want to say maybe ten years?, but I'm not 100% sure about that.
> 
> Anyway, it's a thing because (a) people have become aware that pet store dogs are from puppy mills, but some good breeders do sell across the Internet; (b) puppy millers realized they could pocket a bigger chunk of the profits if they sold directly to the public from the Internet instead of using pet stores as intermediaries; and (c) it's easier to project a wholesome fake image online than in person.
> 
> This rule doesn't do anything effective to stop or even discourage them, but that doesn't mean there isn't a real problem at the root of it.
> 
> edit: also (d) the convenience factor. Ooh, have a puppy shipped to your door just in time for Christmas! What could beat that.


I didn't know that. Still, 4 bitches? Hardly a puppy mill. And as selzer said, why not count litters? There are people that have 4 intact bitches and that are not breeding at all. Are they exempt?

It just seems like this rule wouldn't be making any positive changes. 


Also, as someone pointed out, puppy mills, due to their size, already fall under all kinds of regulations and are already licensed. 
So I still don't get the point of it


Sent from Petguide.com Free App


----------



## lalachka

Chris Wild said:


> Yes, unsavory internet sellers exist. APHIS claims that what spurred this is many complaints from customers getting sick puppies purchased online and shipped to them. They assume that the customer would have surely known the pup was sick if they'd seen it face to face as they would in a retail store, and thus closing the loophole as they see it by regulating internet breeders will reduce those cases.
> 
> As an excuse for this regulation, that really doesn't make sense to me. A puppy cannot be shipped, actually per existing USDA regulations cannot cross state lines, without a health certificate filled out by a veterinarian, a copy of which goes to the USDA. So if they want to go after someone, why not go after the veterinarians who are providing these health certificates? After all, if the puppy is so sick that a layman customer would have known it was sick had the person seen it before purchase then surely a vet couldn't have missed it.


Yeah, their reasoning on the surface sounds like a noble move. Until you put some thought into it.

But they're not stupid so I'm sure they thought of everything above. 

So what's going on? 


Sent from Petguide.com Free App


----------



## lalachka

I don't want to quote the large posts but someone said that any breeder breeding in the house wouldn't pass but supposedly if the inspectors used common sense they'd see that the pups have a much better standard of care in the house. 

Here's my problem (I don't breed, I just feel bad for good breeders) 

I don't want to have to hope that the inspector I get will 
1. have common sense. 
2. Will like me enough to want to apply it (we are all people, sometimes someone irritates us for no reason, so what then? Just because the breeder is not my type of a person do I hold them to the regulations?)

I don't want to have to be at the mercy of the inspectors is what I'm saying. 


Bottom line is that puppy mills are already covered by other regulations. The new rules don't do anything for puppy mills, this is just a way to have the right to legitimately harass ANY breeder. 


Sent from Petguide.com Free App


----------



## Merciel

lalachka said:


> But they're not stupid so I'm sure they thought of everything above.
> 
> So what's going on?


I think what's going on is that you're giving them too much credit for not being stupid (or, more likely, ignorant/apathetic). 

Unlike some others, I am not inclined to see this as an intentional effort to put good breeders out of business. To cite Hanlon's Razor: "never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity."

I think it's just the outcome of legislators and rule-writers who don't know much about a given problem trying to form a solution based on incomplete and distorted understandings.

Unfortunately (and I say this as someone who works about 30 feet from my office's Legislative Unit and has seen firsthand what goes into the crafting of animal welfare legislation in PA), most lawmakers "love animals" in the way that the general public "loves animals," i.e., with a lot of Hallmark sentimentality and not a lot of actual knowledge. Few are seriously involved in the dog world or know anything about it (I know for a fact that at least one PA legislator has dogs from one of these big commercial facilities and thinks that they are just _fantastic_ breeders because their soulless kennels are spotless and hospital-clean. In this guy's mind, no filthy cages = not a puppy mill. This guy has nothing whatsoever to do with the rule we're discussing, I just cite him as an example because I would be willing to bet a fair amount of money that plenty of other lawmakers have equally unsophisticated understandings).

Regardless of the whys behind it, though, the final effect is no good.


----------



## Gwenhwyfair

I dunno about ad homs against inspectors. There are good ones who are fair and bad ones and sometimes regulations are good and work. I've had to deal with inspectors and *generally* found if you work with them they'll also work with you.

IMO

It's not a very elegant solution and doesn't address the underlying problem of people buying unhealthy dogs from less then ethical breeders.

It'll just shift demand from online puppy millers to other sales outlets.


----------



## Gwenhwyfair

:thumbup:



Merciel said:


> I think what's going on is that you're giving them too much credit for not being stupid (or, more likely, ignorant/apathetic).
> 
> Unlike some others, I am not inclined to see this as an intentional effort to put good breeders out of business. *To cite Hanlon's Razor*: "*never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity*."
> 
> I think it's just the outcome of legislators and rule-writers who don't know much about a given problem trying to form a solution based on incomplete and distorted understandings.
> 
> Unfortunately (and I say this as someone who works about 30 feet from my office's Legislative Unit and has seen firsthand what goes into the crafting of animal welfare legislation in PA), most lawmakers "love animals" in the way that the general public "loves animals," i.e., with a lot of Hallmark sentimentality and not a lot of actual knowledge. Few are seriously involved in the dog world or know anything about it (I know for a fact that at least one PA legislator has dogs from one of these big commercial facilities and thinks that they are just _fantastic_ breeders because their soulless kennels are spotless and hospital-clean. In this guy's mind, no filthy cages = not a puppy mill. This guy has nothing whatsoever to do with the rule we're discussing, I just cite him as an example because I would be willing to bet a fair amount of money that plenty of other lawmakers have equally unsophisticated understandings).
> 
> Regardless of the whys behind it, though, the final effect is no good.


----------



## lhczth

I am on a rather large breeders FB group and the general consensus is that the majority will stop shipping. People want to buy one of their puppies they will need to come pick it up in person. In one swell swoop the USDA/APHIS has limited the options of puppy buyers since most will have neither the time nor the money to drive/fly across country. They will no longer be able to chose the best breeder/puppy for them, but the closest and most cost effective. 

Read this blog again. 

Time 4 Dogs: Rock Bottom


----------



## gagsd

Has anyone considered the impact this will have regarding local zoning code?
if I get a commercial breeding license, I am a business and it is illegal to have a client based business, or a kennel license where I live.
That would seem a pretty darn big problem.
But I can lease some land, throw up some sheds, store dogs out there, and be legal.
Which is better?


----------



## Chantald

Merciel said:


> I think it's just the outcome of legislators and rule-writers who don't know much about a given problem trying to form a solution based on incomplete and distorted understandings.


This is my impression as well! As I said, I'm not overly familiar with legislation around breeding, but I've seen it all too many times in other arena's of social policy (like addiction services, harm reduction methodology, criminal justice system, poverty, welfare, and subsidized housing). Legislators like to use "common sense" approaches based on ideology and not fact. I think this is the kind of policy that gives legislators warm fuzzies thinking they're helping the animals, when in reality it has very real impacts on the ground that aren't as positive as they may think.




Sent from Petguide.com Free App


----------



## Chris Wild

lhczth said:


> I am on a rather large breeders FB group and the general consensus is that the majority will stop shipping. People want to buy one of their puppies they will need to come pick it up in person. In one swell swoop the USDA/APHIS has limited the options of puppy buyers since most will have neither the time nor the money to drive/fly across country. They will no longer be able to chose the best breeder/puppy for them, but the closest and most cost effective.


Yup. Likewise, it severely limits the ability of breeders to find the best homes for their dogs. Particularly those breeding dogs that are beyond just pets, and focus on dogs for show, sport, work, etc....

Breeders are also customers at times, often networking with other breeders or buying dogs/puppies outright to add new blood to their program. As any customer, breeders will now have to face the same no shipping restriction, plus the additional problem of what to do with it if they purchase a dog/pup from someone else and it doesn't work out as a breeding prospect. Now they can't resell it as they would have in the past either.


----------



## lhczth

IMO, as others want to believe, this legislation was not, for the most part, passed by warm and fuzzy naive people. To think common sense will be used when investigating hobby breeders when the Chief of the APHIS Investigative and Enforcement Branch is a former HSUS litigating attorney is naive. Can we say "conflict of interest"?


----------



## martemchik

I don't get all the bad talk about inspectors...they aren't ALLOWED to use common sense. Common sense doesn't hold up in court...so the inspector walks into a "breeder's home" and sees A LOT of issues. Things that are "illegal" by AWA standards and things that are just wrong by ethics/morals of animal treatment. Well...its easier to cite the person for the things that are actually on the law rather than "I thought this was mistreatment." But then...the inspector goes to another breeder and sees all these AWA standards broken but the dogs are treated well...no issues with the inspectors ethics/morals. So they don't issue any citations. Breeder A finds out about Breeder B and brings that up in court...clearly justice isn't being served, people aren't being treated equally.

Can't fault inspectors for doing what they need to do.


----------



## Gwenhwyfair

There's the possibility of favoritism and certainly regulatory capture comes into play where the 'big boys' get off the hook, but if you've got stupid regs that don't fit the industry it will make the inspectors look bad no matter what...that's for sure.


----------



## lalachka

Merciel said:


> To cite Hanlon's Razor: "never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity."


 !!!!!!!!!!)))))))))))
I love good quotes. I can't believe I never heard this


Sent from Petguide.com Free App


----------



## selzer

Once upon a time, 4 kids were driving to a school event in our town, and the ran a red light and got squashed. A couple died. The outcome was that on every single road in the rural town that was not 25 mph, the speed limit was changed to 25mph. It was controversial, and the mayor said, that he doesn't want to hear about anyone getting ticketed in these areas who aren't going over 40mph -- the previous speed limit was 35mph. 

Well, the mayor was voted out of office, and the police cheif has changed in the past few years, but the speed limit remains at 25mph, and many people have gotten ticketed in those areas for going less than 40. 

Legislators are not voted into office for their knowledge of the dog world, sorry. So they put these things onto a department that _should _have an understanding about animal husbandry. The department of agriculture is much more concerned with standards in raising animals for human consumption than for the family farm. We are talking about farms that have 1000 pigs, or 800 cows. That is what this organization specializes in. 

They did not sit down with blank sheets of papers to write up the requirements of dog breeding facilities. They probably picked the current legislation for raising pigs, and adjusted it for raising puppies. I don't know this to be the case, just guessing. They are treating the whole works as a farm, and probably, if you have 600 bitches, these regulations probably make sense. Ensuring there are not other adult males or females in the puppy enclosure, making sure there is a separate building for females that are whelping and raising puppies. They just do not translate to low volume, home-based kennels. 

The reason for this legislation is actually very simple. HSUS and PETA spend almost ALL their millions of dollars lining the pockets of legislators, through the lobbyists they employ. Pure bred dog breeding, showing, competing, etc is an abomination to the PETA people, and HSUS, I am not sure but we aren't on their list of sweethearts. They know EXACTLY who they are targeting -- not the government agencies that passed the bill, I think they are at best pet pet owners, and their knowledge is typical to any of our newbie members with their first pure-bred puppy. But I think that the driving forces behind the legislation is the lobbying funded by PETA/HSUS, and they are very deliberate in targeting small home-based breeders.


----------



## Chantald

lhczth said:


> IMO, as others want to believe, this legislation was not, for the most part, passed by warm and fuzzy naive people. To think common sense will be used when investigating hobby breeders when the Chief of the APHIS Investigative and Enforcement Branch is a former HSUS litigating attorney is naive. Can we say "conflict of interest"?


I don't actually think "common sense" exists in the first place, in any realm really. There's a reason why there's a saying about how common sense is not all that common. My idea of common sense may be completely different than someone else's because we come from different backgrounds and lived experiences. 

When I talk about "common sense" legislation, I'm talking more so about common held societal beliefs that are not founded in any fact or evidence, yet somehow have an impact on social policy. Hence "common sense" in quotations.

So I could be wrong about the warm fuzzies, but I picture legislators thinking "oh this is going to lead to better care for the animals, and less sick puppies to new buyers, etc..." When in reality it just makes the process more difficult for responsible breeders working on a smaller scale as their is still minimal actual oversight of these new rules, and that they aren't as clearly defined as they could be. 




Sent from Petguide.com Free App


----------



## Chantald

selzer said:


> Legislators are not voted into office for their knowledge of the dog world, sorry. So they put these things onto a department that _should _have an understanding about animal husbandry. The department of agriculture is much more concerned with standards in raising animals for human consumption than for the family farm. We are talking about farms that have 1000 pigs, or 800 cows. That is what this organization specializes in.
> 
> They did not sit down with blank sheets of papers to write up the requirements of dog breeding facilities. They probably picked the current legislation for raising pigs, and adjusted it for raising puppies. I don't know this to be the case, just guessing. They are treating the whole works as a farm, and probably, if you have 600 bitches, these regulations probably make sense. Ensuring there are not other adult males or females in the puppy enclosure, making sure there is a separate building for females that are whelping and raising puppies. They just do not translate to low volume, home-based kennels.
> 
> The reason for this legislation is actually very simple. HSUS and PETA spend almost ALL their millions of dollars lining the pockets of legislators, through the lobbyists they employ. Pure bred dog breeding, showing, competing, etc is an abomination to the PETA people, and HSUS, I am not sure but we aren't on their list of sweethearts. They know EXACTLY who they are targeting -- not the government agencies that passed the bill, I think they are at best pet pet owners, and their knowledge is typical to any of our newbie members with their first pure-bred puppy. But I think that the driving forces behind the legislation is the lobbying funded by PETA/HSUS, and they are very deliberate in targeting small home-based breeders.


This makes perfect sense to me. I see legislators who really don't know the dog world, or dog breeding. They are following standards for large scale operations in consumption animals because that's what's been legislated in the past, and an area where they have some frame of reference. And then lobby groups aren't helping by feeding them all sorts of misinformation as well. To me, it sounds like there needs to be more consultation with actual breeders to create legislation that works?




Sent from Petguide.com Free App


----------



## LifeofRiley

Chris,

First of all, I think your posts on this topic do a great job helping others understand the responsible breeder perspective. As I mentioned before, I am very surprised to hear that you may be affected by the rule change. It does make me think that they did miss the mark in how the defined the exemptions. 




Chris Wild said:


> *How can you actually say that? *I'm quite sure you've read the AWA. It is quite clear that dogs living in homes, or in some very nice kennels, are not living in situations that are AWA compliant. Sure, a responsible breeder far exceeds the "minimum care standards", but only to someone looking at it from a common sense rather than a letter of the law situation.


Re: the *bolded* part -The reason I say that, and the reason the rule change did not make any official changes to 9 CFR Part 3, is *because the concerns raised are predicated on assumptions of current procedures that are not backed up by APHIS’s actual experience enforcing the AWA*.

In fact, prior to this rule change the threshold was 3 breeding females - they raised it to 4 as part of this rule change. And, in their experience inspecting these smaller breeders they found them to be substantially in compliance. The *“primary enclosure” requirements*, in their experience, are the ones that apply to home breeders. 

Below, I quote those requirements from 9 CFR Part 3 as it stood prior to the rule change.

“*Primary enclosures* for dogs and cats must meet the following minimum requirements:
(a) General requirements. 
(1) Primary enclosures must be designed and constructed of suitable materials so that they are structurally sound. The primary enclosures must be kept in good repair.

(2) Primary enclosures must be constructed and maintained so that they:
(i) Have no sharp points or edges that could injure the dogs and cats;
(ii) Protect the dogs and cats from injury;
(iii) Contain the dogs and cats securely;
(iv) Keep other animals from entering the enclosure;
(v) Enable the dogs and cats to remain dry and clean;
(vi) Provide shelter and protection from extreme temperatures and weather conditions that may be uncomfortable or hazardous to all the dogs and cats;
(vii) Provide sufficient shade to shelter all the dogs and cats housed in the primary enclosure at one time;
(viii) Provide all the dogs and cats with easy and convenient access to clean food and water;
(ix) Enable all surfaces in contact with the dogs and cats to be readily cleaned and sanitized in accordance with § 3.11(b) of this subpart, or be replaceable when worn or soiled;
(x) Have floors that are constructed in a manner that protects the dogs' and cats' feet and legs from injury, and that, if of mesh or slatted construction, do not allow the dogs' and cats' feet to pass through any openings in the floor;
(xi) Provide sufficient space to allow each dog and cat to turn about freely, to stand, sit, and lie in a comfortable, normal position, and to walk in a normal manner; and
(xii) Primary enclosures constructed on or after February 20, 1998 and floors replaced on or after that date, must comply with the requirements in this paragraph (a)(2). On or after January 21, 2000, all primary enclosures must be in compliance with the requirements in this paragraph (a)(2). If the suspended floor of a primary enclosure is constructed of metal strands, the strands must either be greater than 1/8 of an inch in diameter (9 gauge) or coated with a material such as plastic or fiberglass. The suspended floor of any primary enclosure must be strong enough so that the floor does not sag or bend between the structural supports…. 

…(c) Additional requirements for dogs—
(1) Space. 
(i)Each dog housed in a primary enclosure (including weaned puppies) must be provided a minimum amount of floor space, calculated as follows: Find the mathematical square of the sum of the length of the dog in inches (measured from the tip of its nose to the base of its tail) plus 6 inches; then divide the product by 144. The calculation is: (length of dog in inches + 6) × (length of dog in inches + 6) = required floor space in square inches. Required floor space in inches/144 = required floor space in square feet.
(ii) Each bitch with nursing puppies must be provided with an additional amount of floor space, based on her breed and behavioral characteristics, and in accordance with generally accepted husbandry practices as determined by the attending veterinarian. If the additional amount of floor space for each nursing puppy is less than 5 percent of the minimum requirement for the bitch, such housing must be approved by the attending veterinarian in the case of a research facility, and, in the case of dealers and exhibitors, such housing must be approved by the Administrator.
(iii) The interior height of a primary enclosure must be at least 6 inches higher than the head of the tallest dog in the enclosure when it is in a normal standing position: Provided That, prior to February 15, 1994, each dog must be able to stand in a comfortable normal position.

(2) Compatibility. 
All dogs housed in the same primary enclosure must be compatible, as determined by observation. Not more than 12 adult nonconditioned dogs may be housed in the same primary enclosure. Bitches in heat may not be housed in the same primary enclosure with sexually mature males, except for breeding. Except when maintained in breeding colonies, bitches with litters may not be housed in the same primary enclosure with other adult dogs, and puppies under 4 months of age may not be housed in the same primary enclosure with adult dogs, other than the dam or foster dam. Dogs with a vicious or aggressive disposition must be housed separately….

… (d) Innovative primary enclosures not precisely meeting the floor area and height requirements provided in paragraphs (b)(1) and (c)(1) of this section, but that provide the dogs or cats with a sufficient volume of space and the opportunity to express species-typical behavior, may be used at research facilities when approved by the Committee, and by dealers and exhibitors when approved by the Administrator.
Source: ANIMAL WELFARE

*So, that is the information I am using to draw that conclusion. Some of the more onerous requirements cited on this thread apply to a different kind of structure that they (unfortunately) label “indoor housing facility.”* IMO, the fabulous set-up you have could not reasonably be classified as an “indoor housing facility” as the term is defined in the CFR thus the only requirement you would have to meet is that of the “primary enclosure.” I could very well by missing something. 



> So what wins? Common sense or the rules and regulations as they are written? You and APHIS would have us believe that common sense will. Well, most of us aren't going to buy that. Lets look at some reasons why... I see no reason to expect any more common sense or respect from an APHIS inspector as we get from our friendly TSA agents.


Re:“common sense" and "inspector discretion.” I don't disagree with the overall feeling on this. I do think this could be problematic in the “breeding female” designation. There is a lot of ambiguity about what factors inspectors would use to make that determination… at least I haven’t found much that helps clarify that point. I think that adds an unnecessary burden on inspectors and breeders.

Btw... off topic, but the TSA “pre-approved traveller” program is a godsend...


----------



## LifeofRiley

Chris Wild said:


> As I've already mentioned, this new regulation will already negatively impact myself and most other breeders I know. But what if it got worse? What if 4 females was reduced to 1? Then it would impact every single breeder in the country, and not in a good way.
> 
> Silly? Paranoid? I think not. Let's just look at some very recent history of this regulation...
> 
> Does anyone remember when it was discussed here on the board a couple of months ago, and the proposed regulation read 4 females and sells more than 50 pups a year? Anyone notice something missing from the final version? Where did the 50 pups thing go?
> 
> At the time when it was discussed on the board previously, several of us mentioned concerns about even that version. We admited that 50 pups was a lot, perhaps more than most in home breeders would produce, but we expressed concern because it would still impact a lot of very good, responsible breeders, and we also expressed worry about what if the 50 number was reduced, or the wording changed from "and" to "or" at some point in the future.
> 
> At the time, we were essentially told we were just fear mongering. I'd have to say that fear was more than justified. It happened faster than we thought. We were afraid it might be changed at a later date, they just went ahead and threw the 50 pups thing out right at the beginning before even getting this passed.



As I already mentioned the rule change actually raises the previous threshold from 3 to 4 breeding females.

I think you are referring to the PUPS Act with the 50+ puppies comment. The PUPS Act is different than the rule change. 

I did not in the publication of the FINAL RULE that they considered the 50 pup threshold but determined there would be issues with enforcement as there is no way they could require all breeders to keep and submit records.


----------



## LifeofRiley

Chris Wild said:


> Only if the working dog is never allowed to "co-mingle" with any pets. No definition of what that means, of course, *but it could mean they need to be identified at birth and immediately separated from their pet littermates.*


It doesn't mean that.


----------



## LifeofRiley

lhczth said:


> This thread is not about the AWA. It is about how the USDA/APHIS has now decided to interpret it, so, please, refrain from your sanctimonious history lessons.


This thread is about the AWA as the only thing this rule change does is bring more breeders under the purview of the AWA.

As to the history lesson. It was not intended as such. Several posters had asked about the purpose of these laws. As the law in question is the AWA, I felt that taking a historical perspective might help answer the question as to the purpose of the AWA.


----------



## LifeofRiley

Gwenhwyfair said:


> O.K. I'm going into blunt mode. What the literature/documentation explaining these regs refers to, in a nutshell, is shifting the burden of making sure that the puppy you buy is healthy and well cared for at the time of purchase on to the buyer.


Yes, remember when I said I could read clunkiness in the rule change that was likely do to the fact that the changes were made using an administrative process. 



> I submit that the same stupid people who would NOT do tons of due diligence research prior to buying a puppy online will be the same stupid people who walk into 'Puppies Galore' (real store name not too far from me) or a flea market or the 'set up' amish barn that looks so quaint, or the guy in the walmart parking lot and buy the puppy there. The stupidity follows the people not the venue from which they purchase the puppy.


I agree. The AWA is not going to fix stupid... that is not the purpose of the law. I have agreed with you on other threads that there are a number of approaches that need to be considered if we really want to solve the problem of puppy mills.


----------



## Chris Wild

So what is a "primary enclosure"?

If it is the house as a whole, or a portion of the house, then this would certainly present a problem:
"Bitches in heat may not be housed in the same primary enclosure with sexually mature males, except for breeding. Except when maintained in breeding colonies, bitches with litters may not be housed in the same primary enclosure with other adult dogs, and puppies under 4 months of age may not be housed in the same primary enclosure with adult dogs, other than the dam or foster dam. "

If it is a kennel outdoors, then we're into the other areas of the regulation which are nearly impossible for a small breeder to adhere to.

If it is a crate, well there is no crate on the market (including the gigantic Varikennel 700s that we have) that fits their space requirements for a GSD.

Where do the in home breeders get to keep their dogs?


----------



## Chris Wild

LifeofRiley said:


> It doesn't mean that.


Than what does it mean? I haven't found a clear cut definition of what constitutes co-mingling anywhere. But then admitedly, after a few pages of reading the #$%@ thing my eyes start crossing.....

It doesn't really matter anyway as the working/hunting/security exemption isn't going to apply to many. Especially when they consider show and sport, including things like SchH, to be pets. Interesting that I can't find where they've addressed how to deal with working dogs who by the very nature of their work, service dogs for example, must also be pets.


----------



## Gwenhwyfair

I sure do remember, you have indeed said those things.

So that begs the question (and it's a sincere question, not meaning to be unkind to you at all)....why do you make posts basically defending these regulations then if you agree it's clunky and fundamentally ineffective?

I don't see the sales venue as the problem here at all, internet, puppy store, flea market it's all the same.

If these rules do not stop the stonehenges of the world but does make it hard for the Lisa's and Chris's of the world what is the point?





LifeofRiley said:


> Yes, remember when I said I could read clunkiness in the rule change that was likely do to the fact that the changes were made using an administrative process.
> 
> 
> 
> I agree. The AWA is not going to fix stupid... that is not the purpose of the law. I have agreed with you on other threads that there are a number of approaches that need to be considered if we really want to solve the problem of puppy mills.


----------



## LifeofRiley

Hi Chris,

Excerpted from the CRF
"Primary enclosure means any structure or device used to restrict an animal or animals to a limited amount of space, such as a room, pen, run, cage, compartment, pool, or hutch."

In your case, I imagine it would mean the crate/kennels that you use.


----------



## LifeofRiley

Chris Wild said:


> If it is a crate, well there is no crate on the market (including the gigantic Varikennel 700s that we have) that fits their space requirements for a GSD.


Good point! Yes, I honestly don't know how the situation would be handled then.


----------



## lalachka

LifeofRiley said:


> Good point! Yes, I honestly don't know how the situation would be handled then.


Hey, someone already asked you but I don't think you replied. 

So you seem to notice all the problems with the regulations and the fact that they're not changing anything. 

So why are you defending them still? What good do you see coming out of them?


Sent from Petguide.com Free App


----------



## JakodaCD OA

I admit I am not an 'expert' in alot of the things being proposed by the USDA.

It would seem to me tho, if they did their job in the first place, (as in inspecting and shutting down all these TRUE puppy mills , but wait, they don't have enough help right?) there would be no need to throw all the responsible good breeders into this mix.

I personally will be REALLY ticked off if I can't ship in a puppy sight unseen if I so choose..I'm not going to travel cross country because I happen to want one from someone not near me.

To me, the whole thing is ridiculous, they haven't got enough inspectors now, there are puppy mills all over the place, yet they are still in business..And they will STILL be in business should these new regs pass . they haven't been able to shut them down anyway because they lack the man force to even do basic inspections. 

It's a slap in the face to reputable responsible breeders.


----------



## Doc

Just take me out back and shoot me.


----------



## lhczth

Diane, these rules have passed. They take effect in November.


----------



## LifeofRiley

Gwenhwyfair said:


> So that begs the question (and it's a sincere question, not meaning to be unkind to you at all)....why do you make posts basically defending these regulations then if you agree it's clunky and fundamentally ineffective?


At the highest level, my opinion is that *“animal welfare”* policy (local, state and federal) is one very important leg of the proverbial *“three-legged stool”* in addressing the puppy mill problem (as well as other animal welfare issues). In addition to animal welfare policy, it is essential to address the “consumer” problem with education campaigns as well as with novel incentive/disincentive policies (at a local, state and federal level). And, finally, it is also important that nationally recognized breed registries do their part by setting responsible registry rules and by putting the data they collect as part of the (new or existing) registration process to productive use. 

With that context established, I support the *primary goal* of the rule change because Merciel’s post (quoted below) is correct. *Many high-volume commercial breeders switched their business model to sell direct to the public via the Internet vs. through a pet store for all of the reasons Merciel cited **AND because they would be exempt from the AWA in so doing. 
*


> Internet sales of puppy mill dogs are a legitimate issue. It's really taken off in the past... I want to say maybe ten years?, but I'm not 100% sure about that.
> 
> Anyway, it's a thing because (a) people have become aware that pet store dogs are from puppy mills, but some good breeders do sell across the Internet; (b) puppy millers realized they could pocket a bigger chunk of the profits if they sold directly to the public from the Internet instead of using pet stores as intermediaries; and (c) it's easier to project a wholesome fake image online than in person.


The rule change under discussion in this thread *voids that exemption* by changing the AWA’s definition of “retail pet store” from the way it had been previously defined. The rule change is attempting to address the fact that the Internet has profoundly impacted the way commerce is conducted in this country.

*Re: Potential evasion by target entities*
The financial analysis of the industry conducted by APHIS leads them (and me) to believe that the current *“click and ship” *business model that this new type of puppy miller employs is so lucrative that they will opt to become licensed versus changing their business model to selling puppies solely via face-to-face transactions. And, if they chose to instead sell wholesale to pet stores, they would, by long-established policy, automatically become subject to the AWA.

*Re: Purpose and value of the AWA*
As I have already said multiple times on this thread, *it is my opinion that it is important that these types of establishments be held accountable to the minimum care and handling standards set out in the AWA and that they be subject to inspection. *

Once again, when you look at photos of USDA-licensed puppy mills, you have to ask yourself the question of whether these animals would be better off –or worse off – if the operators of such establishments were not subject any standards. The existence of these operations is not proof that the AWA is ineffective. There is no existing law, the AWA included, that bans high volume commercial breeding operations. The AWA establishes standards and seeks to enforce them. *Without the AWA, there would be no unified minimum standards and, more importantly, no access for federal and state enforcement mechanisms.*

I, personally, do not trust the operators of those types of establishments to self-regulate when it comes to establishing and maintaining even the most basic care standards if they are not subject to oversight (*which IS the case right now in most states*).

*Furthermore, the inspection and enforcement authority serves many purposes including making information available to the public for use in educational campaigns. *

Some would say that state regulations are enough, there is no need for federal involvement. Well, an analysis of state laws indicates that the majority of state animal welfare laws fall below the principles set out in the AWA, and under current commercial breeder laws, many breeders can evade the laws by moving to a state that has more lenient regulations.
The AWA, by mandating inspections, allows federal inspectors to provide information to the states. *One benefit of that access is that they can provide information to help the states enforce applicable anti-cruelty laws (at least, in those states that have actually have any meaningful anti-cruelty laws on the books.)*

*Re: Enforcement issues*
I agree that enforcement has been a problem, but I do not agree that this is a reason to throw out the AWA. The recent OIG Audit resulted in several recommendations on how APHIS Animal Care can improve enforcement practices. Many of those recommendations are in the process of being acted upon.

*Re: Problems with the rule change that I have acknowledged on this thread
*
For most of them, I understand the underlying reason they are what they are as they directly relate to the authority APHIS Animal Control has to unilaterally make changes to the AWA without legislative involvement. In other words, to make the rule change a less “clunky” change to the requirements of the Animal Welfare Act (i.e. directly address the primary goal of the rule change), the changes would have to be made in Congress. 

I do think that the fact that a breeder like Chris feels that she “may” be affected means that they should have done a better job in writing the exemptions and defining the term “breeding female.” To me, the biggest problem with that is the fact that APHIS will probably have to spend a lot of time and effort addressing the concerns of low-risk breeders - and evaluating “breeding female” status of low-risk breeders. I think that creates an unnecessary burden on the system. 

*Re: Summary thoughts*
I do find it interesting (not to mention amusing) that people on here are so outraged by the idea of an Animal Welfare Act and this rule change. Our federal (and most state) laws on this topic are lagging when compared to most other developed countries. I guess that the HSUS got to them first… :rofl:

In all seriousness, if you (some of you) want to have a credible voice in shaping public opinion and policy, you will have to engage in the conversation in a meaningful way. Reliance on extremist propaganda that positions the government as being part of larger anti-pet conspiracy will not serve you well. On other threads, I have said that your concerns – and the resulting policy – would be better served if you actually engaged in reasonable dialogue with governing bodies on the issues at hand. I know, that sounds crazy to some of you… but, that would likely result in laws that did a better job differentiating between responsible and problematic breeders.


----------



## lalachka

Of course puppy mills should be regulated but 4 bitches is not a puppy mill


----------



## JakodaCD OA

LIsa, guess I missed that, well this sucks in plain english 

Lala, well 4 bitches "can" make a puppy mill, it depends on the person who has the 4 bitches

I am not a happy camper


----------



## Chantald

LifeofRiley, I think that's a really well thought out response as well. 

I think if maybe the legislation went back to the drawing board, with consultation from responsible breeders, it has the potential of being effective. 

In the social service world, we have a saying that goes like "nothing about us without us". If they're talking about policy that affects drug users or sex workers, there should **** well be those people sitting around the table and they should be given a voice.


Sent from Petguide.com Free App


----------



## Chantald

Chantald said:


> LifeofRiley, I think that's a really well thought out response as well.
> 
> I think if maybe the legislation went back to the drawing board, with consultation from responsible breeders, it has the potential of being effective.
> 
> In the social service world, we have a saying that goes like "nothing about us without us". If they're talking about policy that affects drug users or sex workers, there should **** well be those people sitting around the table and they should be given a voice.
> 
> 
> Sent from Petguide.com Free App


Oops, I swore without realizing it, my bad!


Sent from Petguide.com Free App


----------



## lhczth

Go back and read the 24 page USDA/APHIS PDF file that LifeofRiley posted back about 10 pages ago (Yes, I have read it). Many, MANY breeders, competitors, and owners voiced their opinions. They were ignored.


----------



## Chantald

lhczth said:


> Go back and read the 24 page USDA/APHIS PDF file that LifeofRiley posted back about 10 pages ago (Yes, I have read it). Many, MANY breeders, competitors, and owners voiced their opinions. They were ignored.


That's what I find unfortunate, the lack of real consultation!


Sent from Petguide.com Free App


----------



## selzer

JakodaCD OA said:


> LIsa, guess I missed that, well this sucks in plain english
> 
> Lala, well 4 bitches "can" make a puppy mill, it depends on the person who has the 4 bitches
> 
> I am not a happy camper


Figuring 7 pups to a litter average and two litters to a bitch maximum, that's 56 pups in a year's time, tops. That could be a large BYB, but I really couldn't say that this number is a puppy mill, regardless of the conditions. Puppy mills pump out puppies, usually 50 or more per month, maybe per week. Not fifty in a year's time. 

It's important because a different set of regulations, requirements, are needed for people who are averaging 1 litter or less in a month's time, in their home, than for people who are whelping four litters a week, as this conversation clearly suggests. 

I know there are no set definitions for BYB, puppy mill, commercial breeder, reputable breeder, and so forth. And I think that is part of the problem. When the term "breeder" pops up in each individual brain, a different picture of what that means crops up. 

At the same point, no one wants to accept the label of puppy mill. I think the term high-volume breeder might be politically correct. Home-based breeder might be a way to define those breeders who raise litters in their home and are low-volume breeders. Then we have to determine what numbers high-volume actually are. 

High-volume breeders or High-Volume Commercial Breeders would be those breeders who sell to pet stores, sell through brokers, who are regulated by the USDA. 

You could break it up further for mid range breeders for those breeders who have x-number of litters/puppies sold, through any venue. 

And then low-volume, home-based breeders. 

It is just apples to oranges, lumping breeders who have 4-5 breeding females in with people who have hundreds of breeding females. It just doesn't make any sense whatsoever. 

Below a certain volume, you do not need to differentiate between people who are selling puppies, and people who have pets, intact or altered dogs. The standards for care should be the same. If there are people who are failing to care for their animals sufficiently, they should be charged with neglect or cruelty, regardless of the reason they have dogs. 

By determining classification by the number of puppies produced or sold, or the number of litters whelped, dogs who are at the premises for boarding, returns, youngsters that are being raised to possibly be added to the program or not, are not effected. I just think that would be a more precise method for determining what level of regulatory oversight should be employed.


----------



## Doc

maybe APHIDS will build a prison for all the violators to be placed in. then we all can learn how to breed German shepherds and get out of prison and know a trade. Wonder if we will be covered by Obamacare as an ex-con?


----------



## selzer

Doc said:


> maybe APHIDS will build a prison for all the violators to be placed in. then we all can learn how to breed German shepherds and get out of prison and know a trade. Wonder if we will be covered by Obamacare as an ex-con?


Maybe they can just put us in prison because we ARE breeders and we are certain to violate numerous laws, so they might as well just throw us all in prison as a preventive measure, provide for our healthcare, food, etc, and while they are at it, we should be able to bring our dogs too, so that they can teach us this trade.


----------



## Gwenhwyfair

Merciel also wrote this:



Merciel said:


> <snipped>
> 
> *I don't have a ton of faith in the USDA's ability to police puppy mills.* *One of my friends, who happens to be a super talented photographer, worked on a big puppy mill bust earlier this year. She took a picture of the stamped metal "USDA Licensed" tags that were on each of the dogs, and had to be cut off their necks along with the filthy, ingrown chains and matted hair around them. *The groomers who were cleaning up these dogs piled all the tags into a big heap and my friend took a picture of it.
> 
> It's a really powerful image and I was going to repost it in this thread, but sadly I cannot resize it on my work computer. But anyway the point is, a "USDA Licensed" dog-breeding facility is very much not a good thing in my world.


I think the stool has one leg too short, one leg is rotten, the seat too small and it's being held up as the solution for all seating needs. Slapping a new bit of paint on it doesn't change a thing.

I don't even fault the USDA!

I said earlier and it was pointed out by Dainerra that this about treating kennel operations more like livestock for human consumption. That's what the United States Department of *Agriculture* core mission is! As this country has moved to the 'factory farming'** model it seems that the next move is for puppy millers to become factory dog farms via regulatory capture. That Stonehenge guy didn't throw all that money into his 'operation', modeling on his hog farms, without reason. I would venture to say, from my days in corporate world and watching what the 'big boys' did he knew this was coming down the pike and his facility meets all the 'care' standards. Yet you can find reams of complaints about his dogs online.

Not to mention the fact I documented earlier that the USDA is down 5% on staffing and looks to be loosing 10 Billion in funding since 2007 its VERY reasonable to conclude that these new rules and any iterations on the same rotten foundation won't really help puppy mill dogs. The USDA can't even keep up with inspection of chicken processing plants and are trying to shift that burden onto the employees of the plants! 

I think this is going to be a big fail because the problem of unhealthy and cruel breeding conditions is not being addressed from the 'companion' animal perspective.

It is for these foundational reasons that I do not believe adapting what a 'retail' outlet is to mean 'face to face' is going to improve much of anything.

**This, btw, has been a back and forth conflict for a long time, some see dogs as livestock and some see cattle as pets and the resulting rules/regs and laws often are a poor fit for the industry in question.

I wish Mrs K were still around for input as to how this problem IS handled in other developed nations like Germany. I don't know details on this and feel pretty sure you don't either since you didn't mention specifics. I can tell you they are different culturally. More informed public and less likely to engage in solutions that are proven to be ineffective or to benefit only the largest operations. 

Which...btw...is why some people have this sort of extreme anti-regulation meme going on. They intuitively know it's unfair, the problem IMHO, is some (*not *referring to any participants in this thread) attribute that unfairness to the gov't only, not the big money boys behind it all.


(also RE: your summary. Pro tip - don't engage in that which accuse others of, it makes your statement seem disingenuous.)





LifeofRiley said:


> At the highest level, my opinion is that *“animal welfare”* policy (local, state and federal) is one very important leg of the proverbial *“three-legged stool”* in addressing the puppy mill problem (as well as other animal welfare issues). In addition to animal welfare policy, it is essential to address the “consumer” problem with education campaigns as well as with novel incentive/disincentive policies (at a local, state and federal level). And, finally, it is also important that nationally recognized breed registries do their part by setting responsible registry rules and by putting the data they collect as part of the (new or existing) registration process to productive use.
> 
> With that context established, I support the *primary goal* of the rule change because Merciel’s post (quoted below) is correct. *Many high-volume commercial breeders switched their business model to sell direct to the public via the Internet vs. through a pet store for all of the reasons Merciel cited **AND because they would be exempt from the AWA in so doing. *
> 
> 
> 
> The rule change under discussion in this thread *voids that exemption* by changing the AWA’s definition of “retail pet store” from the way it had been previously defined. The rule change is attempting to address the fact that the Internet has profoundly impacted the way commerce is conducted in this country.
> 
> *Re: Potential evasion by target entities*
> The financial analysis of the industry conducted by APHIS leads them (and me) to believe that the current *“click and ship” *business model that this new type of puppy miller employs is so lucrative that they will opt to become licensed versus changing their business model to selling puppies solely via face-to-face transactions. And, if they chose to instead sell wholesale to pet stores, they would, by long-established policy, automatically become subject to the AWA.
> 
> *Re: Purpose and value of the AWA*
> As I have already said multiple times on this thread, *it is my opinion that it is important that these types of establishments be held accountable to the minimum care and handling standards set out in the AWA and that they be subject to inspection. *
> 
> Once again, when you look at photos of USDA-licensed puppy mills, you have to ask yourself the question of whether these animals would be better off –or worse off – if the operators of such establishments were not subject any standards. The existence of these operations is not proof that the AWA is ineffective. There is no existing law, the AWA included, that bans high volume commercial breeding operations. The AWA establishes standards and seeks to enforce them. *Without the AWA, there would be no unified minimum standards and, more importantly, no access for federal and state enforcement mechanisms.*
> 
> I, personally, do not trust the operators of those types of establishments to self-regulate when it comes to establishing and maintaining even the most basic care standards if they are not subject to oversight (*which IS the case right now in most states*).
> 
> *Furthermore, the inspection and enforcement authority serves many purposes including making information available to the public for use in educational campaigns. *
> 
> Some would say that state regulations are enough, there is no need for federal involvement. Well, an analysis of state laws indicates that the majority of state animal welfare laws fall below the principles set out in the AWA, and under current commercial breeder laws, many breeders can evade the laws by moving to a state that has more lenient regulations.
> The AWA, by mandating inspections, allows federal inspectors to provide information to the states. *One benefit of that access is that they can provide information to help the states enforce applicable anti-cruelty laws (at least, in those states that have actually have any meaningful anti-cruelty laws on the books.)*
> 
> *Re: Enforcement issues*
> I agree that enforcement has been a problem, but I do not agree that this is a reason to throw out the AWA. The recent OIG Audit resulted in several recommendations on how APHIS Animal Care can improve enforcement practices. Many of those recommendations are in the process of being acted upon.
> 
> *Re: Problems with the rule change that I have acknowledged on this thread*
> 
> For most of them, I understand the underlying reason they are what they are as they directly relate to the authority APHIS Animal Control has to unilaterally make changes to the AWA without legislative involvement. In other words, to make the rule change a less “clunky” change to the requirements of the Animal Welfare Act (i.e. directly address the primary goal of the rule change), the changes would have to be made in Congress.
> 
> I do think that the fact that a breeder like Chris feels that she “may” be affected means that they should have done a better job in writing the exemptions and defining the term “breeding female.” To me, the biggest problem with that is the fact that APHIS will probably have to spend a lot of time and effort addressing the concerns of low-risk breeders - and evaluating “breeding female” status of low-risk breeders. I think that creates an unnecessary burden on the system.
> 
> *Re: Summary thoughts*
> I do find it interesting (not to mention amusing) that people on here are so outraged by the idea of an Animal Welfare Act and this rule change. Our federal (and most state) laws on this topic are lagging when compared to most other developed countries. I guess that the HSUS got to them first… :rofl:
> 
> In all seriousness, if you (some of you) want to have a credible voice in shaping public opinion and policy, you will have to engage in the conversation in a meaningful way. Reliance on extremist propaganda that positions the government as being part of larger anti-pet conspiracy will not serve you well. On other threads, I have said that your concerns – and the resulting policy – would be better served if you actually engaged in reasonable dialogue with governing bodies on the issues at hand. I know, that sounds crazy to some of you… but, that would likely result in laws that did a better job differentiating between responsible and problematic breeders.


----------



## LifeofRiley

Well, this government shut down certainly isn’t going to help breeders get answers to their questions. 




Gwenhwyfair said:


> I said earlier and it was pointed out by Dainerra that this about treating kennel operations more like livestock for human consumption. That's what the United States Department of *Agriculture* core mission is! As this country has moved to the 'factory farming'** model it seems that the next move is for puppy millers to become factory dog farms via regulatory capture.


Yes, I agree, the agri-business lobby is powerful. Good evidence of that is that there are *no* federal animal welfare laws or regulations that address how farm animals are reared and housed on factory farms or any other type of farm. There is the Humane Slaughter Act, but that only applies to how they die (and it excludes chickens).




> That Stonehenge guy didn't throw all that money into his 'operation', modeling on his hog farms, without reason. I would venture to say, from my days in corporate world and watching what the 'big boys' did he knew this was coming down the pike and his facility meets all the 'care' standards. Yet you can find reams of complaints about his dogs online.


Factory farms are the invention of industry, not the by-product of animal welfare regulation.



> The USDA can't even keep up with inspection of chicken processing plants and are trying to shift that burden onto the employees of the plants!


APHIS Animal Care does not conduct Food Safety inspections. That is handled by an entirely different division of the USDA with its own operating budget. Budget cuts are a concern for APHIS Animal Care though too.



> **This, btw, has been a back and forth conflict for a long time, some see dogs as livestock and some see cattle as pets and the resulting rules/regs and laws often are a poor fit for the industry in question.


Yes, it has.



> I don't know details on this and feel pretty sure you don't either since you didn't mention specifics.


Actually, I didn’t think anyone would be interested. If you are, I did post a link to a good site a while back towards the end of the “Let’s talk about the PUPs Act…” thread. I also excerpted a quote that speaks specifically to Germany.



> I can tell you they are different culturally.


By profession, I study behavior and culture within, and outside of, the United States. So, I always enjoy the topic of cultural factors .


----------



## selzer

With the government wasting time and money on a ridiculous piece of ineffective legislation like this, maybe we are better off with them shut down for a spell. 

I know in our locality a lot of our government offices are only open half days or certain days of the week. Like you can go up there to pay your property tax, or buy your dog license, and you find out they are only open these days between these hours. OK, I can come back then. If it makes running the local government cheaper, fine. 

With less and less money, with all these government shut down scares, why are we trying to increase the burden on the governement with respect to dog breeding? There are laws. Every single time you see people removing dogs from a high volume breeder/puppy mill, there are laws broken to pieces all over the place. Shut them down, take their dogs, fine them, and throw them in prison. No problem with any of that. That is what SHOULD happen. Why anyone believes just adding more people and more laws on the already faulty system is going to improve matters is truly beyond me. 

People who make such legislation deserve to get some unpaid time-off.


----------



## LifeofRiley

selzer said:


> People who make such legislation deserve to get some unpaid time-off.


The legislators will continue to be paid through the shutdown. Yes, I agree, ridiculous. Although, my disdain of that fact is probably different than yours. And, of course, it wasn't legislators who made the rule change. So, if you meant the USDA APHIS Animal Care staff, yes they are likely furloughed.


----------



## David Taggart

You are on the puppy end, but look, who is on the other end of the leash.Cutting back on financial freedom of a breeder wouldn't do the job. If to start about the mill puppies - they always would be many, as many, as required. *If there wasn't a buyer - there wouldn't be a seller.* It's not the misery of a puppy mill makes dogs miserable, but the hands they are destined to go to. Only if you make responsible enough the person who wants to own the dog, you would almost solve the problem. Taxing and dog owner (special for GSD) licence can help. Though, it will be much less breeders and not so many dogs. Do you think, there are far too many dogs in US and too little of good morality in people? It is a problem of the modern society, who cannot handle life of another creture, and many people should not.


----------



## JustJim

LifeofRiley said:


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Chris Wild*
> _Only if the working dog is never allowed to "co-mingle" with any pets. No definition of what that means, of course, *but it could mean they need to be identified at birth and immediately separated from their pet littermates.*_
> 
> It doesn't mean that.


Curious. The nice fellow I spoke with at APHIS said it meant just that: the way he read the regulation, "pet" puppies and "working" puppies would have to be separated and kept separate _even if the pups were from the same litter_. 



> *Many high-volume commercial breeders switched their business model to sell direct to the public via the Internet vs. through a pet store for all of the reasons Merciel cited **AND because they would be exempt from the AWA in so doing. *


Got a citation, and maybe some actual numbers/percentages, to support that claim? The USDA doesn't seem to have any; what is your source for your claims?



> As I have already said multiple times on this thread, *it is my opinion that it is important that these types of establishments be held accountable to the minimum care and handling standards set out in the AWA and that they be subject to inspection. *


A concern of many is that this is not what many people--including many who helped write the new regs--are seeking. For instance, Cori Menken, of the ASPCA, is on record as saying, ". . . if they're only meeting USDA standards, and not exceeding them, then we would consider their operation a puppy mill." A little skepticism about the goals of those promoting these regulations seems warranted. 



> *Furthermore, the inspection and enforcement authority serves many purposes including making information available to the public for use in educational campaigns. *


Educational campaigns such as the ASPCA's "nopetstorepuppies" campaign? 



> I do think that the fact that a breeder like Chris feels that she “may” be affected means that they should have done a better job in writing the exemptions and defining the term “breeding female.” To me, the biggest problem with that is the fact that APHIS will probably have to spend a lot of time and effort addressing the concerns of low-risk breeders - and evaluating “breeding female” status of low-risk breeders. I think that creates an unnecessary burden on the system.


Who's fault is that? Is it the "low-risk breeders," many of whom provided thoughtful input and suggestions during the comment period, repeatedly sought clarification of how APHIS intended to define a "breeding female," and contacted everyone from their congresspeople to everyone at the USDA who'd listen, on down to the local dogcatcher? Or is it the fault of APHIS for ignoring the input of those affected, refusing to objectively define their terms, and choosing to press a bureaucratic overreach without adequate planning?

The "efforts" of APHIS would have a great deal more credibility if they had taken steps to address known problems already within their jurisdiction, before seeking to expand that jurisdiction.


----------



## LifeofRiley

JustJim said:


> Curious. The nice fellow I spoke with at APHIS said it meant just that: the way he read the regulation, "pet" puppies and "working" puppies would have to be separated and kept separate _even if the pups were from the same litter_.


Sorry, but that is not true. What the rule change says re: co-mingle is that you can not, as a business, *market* yourself as a provider of both working and pet dogs and still claim the working dog exemption.


----------



## JustJim

LifeofRiley said:


> Sorry, but that is not true.


No, that _is_ actually what I was told--whether it is legally correct or not is another matter. The problem in this instance is that the people charged with enforcement have no more idea of the actual rules than the people who are going to be expected to follow them.


----------



## LifeofRiley

JustJim said:


> No, that _is_ actually what I was told--whether it is legally correct or not is another matter. The problem in this instance is that the people charged with enforcement have no more idea of the actual rules than the people who are going to be expected to follow them.


Very interesting. Did you call one of the regional numbers listed by APHIS Animal Care on their website?


----------



## JustJim

LifeofRiley said:


> Very interesting. Did you call one of the regional numbers listed by APHIS Animal Care on their website?


Nice try, but no. 

I called the number given for those seeking official answers to specific questions: 301.851.3751. Offhand, I'm guessing that could be considered to be an "authoritative source." As an individual, I have to go with the response given by the "authoritative source" as being indicative of how the regulation will be enforced.


----------



## lhczth

JustJim said:


> Nice try, but no.
> 
> I called the number given for those seeking official answers to specific questions: 301.851.3751. Offhand, I'm guessing that could be considered to be an "authoritative source." As an individual, I have to go with the response given by the "authoritative source" as being indicative of how the regulation will be enforced.


Thank you, Jim, for factual information from the "horse's mouth".


----------



## JustJim

But that's what is so frustrating as well: that is how the guy I spoke with interpreted the regulation, the next person may well have a different interpretation. As a result, not only can we not rely on the written rules and regulations, we can't rely on the "case-by-case" interpretations made by anyone from APHIS.


----------



## Chris Wild

Which is exactly why most breeders are assuming worst case scenario when it comes to anything that is up for interpretation. There is too much at risk not to.


----------



## Chris Wild

LifeofRiley said:


> I do think that the fact that a breeder like Chris feels that she “may” be affected means that they should have done a better job in writing the exemptions and defining the term “breeding female.”


Not "may", WILL. And not due to the number of females reason either, though that number is still a big problem. 

The "only offspring born and raised on the premises" is an equally large concern, and will affect almost every breeder I know in one way or another.
Sell such a dog just once and a breeder is no longer exempt, regardless of how many females or if their transactions are face to face. Apparently breeders can no longer share breeding stock, lease breeding stock, utilize co-owns, purchase breeding stock from other breeders, take a pup in lieu of stud fee.. or many other long used, common, very sound practices used to enhance their bloodlines. No more helping out the occasional rescue, stray or shelter dog either unless they give it away for free because if they place it with an adoption fee they are no longer exempt.


----------



## J and J M

In case anyone's wandering, I believe the running total is 
1 for the law and 27 against. Wait forgot to count myself. 28 against.


----------



## Smithie86

I asked this question on another board/thread.

What about rescues? How will they be checked and confirmed?

You have a rescue that is not a non-profit (not a true one, one that states they are, but is not a 501c3) that houses multiple dogs. 

You have a rescue that is a true non- profit (registered 501c3) that houses multiple dogs.


----------



## onyx'girl

Rescues are not breeders. If a breeder is helping w/ a rescue thru fostering, those dogs should not be considered the breeders 'property' or included in their breeding program. But there will probably be some sort of regulations just to muck things up.


----------



## Smithie86

Some rescues are breeders. HAve seen it multiple times.


----------



## selzer

onyx'girl said:


> Rescues are not breeders. If a breeder is helping w/ a rescue thru fostering, those dogs should not be considered the breeders 'property' or included in their breeding program. But there will probably be some sort of regulations just to muck things up.


Only I haven't read anything about a breeder not being penalized for helping a rescue out by fostering a dog, whelping a litter and raising the pups, even doing transport if the bitch is intact, they go against their total. If they charge any nominal fee, it goes against a dog not whelped or raised on the premises. 

The powers that be do not want to consider the idea that breeders might also rescue dogs. So no provisions for that.

I suppose they feel that if that if you sell any pup that is not your own, whelped and raised on your property, you are a broker. And they aren't in tune enough with good breeding practices to even consider co-owners. 

So if I decide that Odie has had enough litters, and she would be better off in a pet home, selling her would put me into another category, so I either keep her, dump her in a shelter, give her away, or euthanize her. Not sure if I would be ok giving her away either. 

So this hurts retired breeding stock -- if you did not whelp and raise them yourself.

With the purchase of this beautiful $1600 crate, you will receive one purebred German Shepherd puppy absolutely free. Shipping and handling not included.


----------



## onyx'girl

The gov't shutdown has included APHIS website 
United States Department of Agriculture - Home
USDA

Due to the lapse in federal government funding, this website is not available.
After funding has been restored, please allow some time for this website to
become available again.

For information about available government services, visit usa.gov

To view U.S. Department of Agriculture Agency Contingency plans, visit: Agency Contingency Plans | The White House


Message from the President to U.S. Government Employees


----------



## lhczth

Let's not stray from the topic, please, and DON"T let this go into a different political direction. 

ADMIN Lisa

P.S. Jane, not saying you are. Just don't want it to go farther.


----------



## selzer

lhczth said:


> Let's not stray from the topic, please, and DON"T let this go into a different political direction.
> 
> ADMIN Lisa
> 
> P.S. Jane, not saying you are. Just don't want it to go farther.


I thought that politics that have to do with dog-related issues were ok. Frankly, I think that letting us know that the website and people are not available for our questions on this is a good thing. 

You can't get away from the government on topics like this. The government and politics are not one and the same. We can talk about how the government is handling or not handling dog-related issues. 

Please do not ham-string us, this is a government issue, and a dog issue, and under the rules totally allowed.


----------



## Chris Wild

I think you're overreacting, Sue. I am pretty sure Lisa's caution was intended to make sure this stays on the topic of dog legislation and doesn't devolve into a discussion on the government shutdown in general.


----------



## lhczth

Yes, thus the comment about not getting off topic.


----------



## selzer

So is asking how a government that cannot fund its many existing programs to the point where they are unable to function and need to shut down is going to pay for adding a lot more breeders to the already understaffed and overwhelmed USDA ok? 

And how in fact new training will have to happen to deal with breeders who are home-based, so that these people, who are spread too thinly as it is, will have to use common sense when it comes to auditing these homes? 

Does the government hope to fund the increases with the voluntary reporting to place oneself under their regulations and fees for licenses to enforce both these breeders and those who fail to report themselves as meeting the requirements?

If they find that the increase in revenue is much less than they hoped (are necessary to fund the needed changes), will they increase the cost of licenses adn remove the current limitation of not shipping puppies, working dogs, 4 breeding females?


----------



## onyx'girl

Still it won't regulate the puppymillers(who are already "regulated" ya, right) So there is no point whatsoever of this ridiculous legislation...the agenda funded by HSUS carries way too much power.

This is political, I understand we cannot go down that big fork in the road, so essentially we are at a detour or a dead end.


----------



## selzer

onyx'girl said:


> Still it won't regulate the puppymillers(who are already "regulated" ya, right) So there is no point whatsoever of this ridiculous legislation...the agenda funded by HSUS carries way too much power.
> 
> This is political, I understand we cannot go down that big fork in the road, so essentially we are at a detour or a dead end.


It's a done deal, right?

I heard that there may be something we can do by a certain date to head it off, or remove it? Is this correct, and if so will the government shut-down block any attempt to block this?


----------



## JakodaCD OA

Apparently from what i've been told it IS a done deal, and supposed to go into effect Oct 1? maybe? No blocking it, deal done

Not sure how the shutdown affects it, probably it can't be enforced at the moment because of shutdown? 

The whole thing is a bunch of dog hooey..


----------



## JustJim

Legally, it goes into effect on 18 November, 2013 (60 days after the rule was published in the Federal Register). APHIS has apparently acknowledged that it will take some time before they are prepared to enforce the rules, so it may be some time after that before it functionally takes effect. (I wouldn't rely on that though.)


----------



## lesslis

Sooo, should I now expect trying to save for a great working dog to take 5 or 10 years instead of the current 1 or 2?
Just asking.


----------



## JakodaCD OA

they couldn't enforce what they had, so I'm thinking they will never have enough man power to enforce the new stuff


----------



## Doc

Who is going to come visit me when they throw me in jail? Anybody willing to post my bail? I guess they will put me in with all the meth and coke dealers.


----------



## selzer

Doc said:


> Who is going to come visit me when they throw me in jail? Anybody willing to post my bail? I guess they will put me in with all the meth and coke dealers.


Uhg! I can't say what I want because it _would _violate board rules. 

You might be on your own doc, we're all going to be trying to keep one step ahead of the man. At least this legislation isn't requiring all of us to get finger-printed.


----------



## Andaka

I'll come and get you Doc!


----------



## Gwenhwyfair

Yup.

LoR is dodging it a bit but me thinks we should be more worried about salmonella in our chicken then the USDA (under which umbrella the APHIS is organized and funded).....enforcing this.

Having said that reputable breeders care about their reputation and as one small breeder told me, 'I'm not risking my reputation' and this breeder will not be shipping puppies out of an abundance of caution.

Meanwhile Stonehenge will churn out it's factory farm puppies. woo hoo. 




JakodaCD OA said:


> they couldn't enforce what they had, so I'm thinking they will never have enough man power to enforce the new stuff


----------



## ILGHAUS

J and J M said:


> In case anyone's wandering, I believe the running total is
> 1 for the law and 27 against. Wait forgot to count myself. 28 against.


Please add me to the "against" in this.


----------



## Gwenhwyfair

Just a _wee_ bit over the top......

There's a heck of a lot more money to be made in the 'war on drugs' then a war on 'small responsible breeders'....just sayin'.




Doc said:


> Who is going to come visit me when they throw me in jail? Anybody willing to post my bail? I guess they will put me in with all the meth and coke dealers.


----------



## LifeofRiley

JustJim said:


> The "efforts" of APHIS would have a great deal more credibility if they had taken steps to address known problems already within their jurisdiction, before seeking to expand that jurisdiction.


I actually don’t disagree with you on this statement. I whole-heartedly agree. 

In fact, if it weren’t for public disdain of how the enforcement of the AWA has been handled, the 2010 OIG Audit would never have happened. I was a strong supporter of the need for the OIG Audit and I am a strong supporter of them carrying through with the recommendations resulting from that very same OIG Audit.

With that said, I feel that kennel clubs, breed clubs and breed associations have their own credibility issues. *The fact that the same rhetoric is trotted out for every single municipal, state and federal legislative initiative targeting high-volume commercial breeders is telling.* It doesn’t matter if the breeding female number is set at 70, 50, 11, 7, or 5, the exact same arguments are made… HSUS/government anti-pet conspiracy, will only affect reputable breeders, will lead to the demise of purebred dogs, etc…. And, to be clear, when the proposed legislation seeks to define high-volume breeder by number of puppies sold, vs. number of breeding females, again, the exact same rhetoric is used. 

On top of that, I have yet to see any of these breed establishment organizations propose any type of legislation to curb puppy mill abuses. I suppose the argument would be that they reserve their lobbying dollars for fighting anything and everything that has to do with the topic.

*So, I ask you, as I have asked people here before, if you agree with me that puppy mills are a problem, what do you see as sensible legislative efforts? These legislative efforts will continue to arise if the past several years are indicative of a trend. So, what is your proactive response?*

And, saying that “enforcing the laws on the books” is a non-starter for me (and many others). Anyone who has even a simple understanding of the “laws on the books” in most states knows that they are not sufficient. And, anyone who has even a basic understanding of the legal purview of federal law in our country, knows that there are significant limitations that apply to how our government can handle general animal neglect and cruelty.


----------



## Dainerra

but this rule only serves to apply the standards to MORE people. It isn't going to have any effect on the businesses currently in business.
It actually only serves to give the public a false sense of security - the government is ending puppy mills so I don't have to check that I'm not buying from one. The government is making it illegal to sell sick puppies so I don't have to research to make sure my breeder health tests.

The reason that you won't see anyone proposing legislation is that many people don't WANT legislation. If people were to educate themselves and each other, the problem would 90% rectify itself. Puppy mills are in business because they make MONEY. Laws may increase the overhead but they aren't going to stop the business. They just raise the prices and write off expenses on their taxes. 

Could the laws be better. Probably. Fines/punishments could be strengthened. Honestly, though, it's a bit hard to narrow down laws the relate to "health and well-being" It's not a cookie cutter definition. What one individual needs would be excessive to another and vice versa. For example, exercise requirements. What is enough for my current dog, even just to keep the edge off, would have ran my deceased boy into the ground. Likewise, the amount of exercise that was sufficient for him would have left my current boy pacing the floor with boredom. So how do you legislate that? How do you legislate all of the little things like proper socialization/interaction with puppies? What about interaction with other dogs? Food needs? Mental stimulation? The ways to do it responsibly are infinite. The ways it is tailored to the individual are even more so. How would you legislate that?

ETA: and, more importantly, who gets to decide? diet - does the RAW crowd get to write those guidelines or the anti-raw? vaccines - the vaccinate for everything every year group or the limited vaccine protocol? etc etc ad nauseum


----------



## Gwenhwyfair

'tis true there's a lot of knee jerk anti-regulation-ism going around these days and I find myself in the unusual position of arguing against this particular rule.

Below, me in blue.





LifeofRiley said:


> I actually don’t disagree with you on this statement. I whole-heartedly agree.
> 
> In fact, if it weren’t for public disdain of how the enforcement of the AWA has been handled, the 2010 OIG Audit would never have happened. I was a strong supporter of the need for the OIG Audit and I am a strong supporter of them carrying through with the recommendations resulting from that very same OIG Audit.
> 
> With that said, I feel that kennel clubs, breed clubs and breed associations have their own credibility issues. *The fact that the same rhetoric is trotted out for every single municipal, state and federal legislative initiative targeting high-volume commercial breeders is telling.* It doesn’t matter if the breeding female number is set at 70, 50, 11, 7, or 5, the exact same arguments are made… HSUS/government anti-pet conspiracy, will only affect reputable breeders, will lead to the demise of purebred dogs, etc…. And, to be clear, when the proposed legislation seeks to define high-volume breeder by number of puppies sold, vs. number of breeding females, again, the exact same rhetoric is used.
> 
> On top of that, I have yet to see any of these breed establishment organizations propose any type of legislation to curb puppy mill abuses. I suppose the argument would be that they reserve their lobbying dollars for fighting anything and everything that has to do with the topic.
> 
> *So, I ask you, as I have asked people here before, if you agree with me that puppy mills are a problem, what do you see as sensible legislative efforts? These legislative efforts will continue to arise if the past several years are indicative of a trend. So, what is your proactive response?*
> 
> I and some others have posted responses to that question and you've either dismissed the ideas or not responded.
> 
> 
> And, saying that “enforcing the laws on the books” is a non-starter for me (and many others). Anyone who has even a simple understanding of the “laws on the books” in most states knows that they are not sufficient. And, anyone who has even a basic understanding of the legal purview of federal law in our country, knows that there are significant limitations that apply to how our government can handle general animal neglect and cruelty.
> 
> Purple above and by your own admission this argument would apply to Fed level laws as well. :shrug:


----------



## Vandal

Proposed state regulations for animal shelters - Boston News, New England News, WHDH-TV 7NEWS WHDH.COM


----------



## gagsd

Vandal said:


> Proposed state regulations for animal shelters - Boston News, New England News, WHDH-TV 7NEWS WHDH.COM


Well, that certainly fits in with the "Furkids" and "Pets are people too" mentality.
Foster home=inspection


----------



## JakodaCD OA

interesting


----------



## Merciel

I don't really see those Massachusetts regs as being a big deal. I had to get similarly licensed as a "kennel home" to foster dogs for the rescue I work with in PA (which was, incidentally, the only one of all the rescues I volunteered with that actually observed the letter of the law and did those registrations). Got a spiffy pink certificate and everything.


----------



## Vandal

Animal Shelter and Rescue Program

It's not just about inspecting foster homes. As usual, the news does a lousy job of informing but they did provide the link to read the new regulations.


----------



## LifeofRiley

Vandal said:


> Animal Shelter and Rescue Program
> 
> It's not just about inspecting foster homes. As usual, the news does a lousy job of informing but they did provide the link to read the new regulations.


Well, this is clearly a poorly thought out law and a radical overreach of government.  Just kidding. Really. 

I am actually not familiar with this proposed legislation. I will look into it. 

At first glance, it doesn’t look any different from regulations that already exist here in Illinois. In my experience, most shelters I volunteer with are already licensed and registered with the state and are already subject to similar requirements as set forth in the proposed legislation. 

As much as we don’t like to admit it, there are wingnuts within the rescue community that are essentially animal hoarders that masquerade as a rescue… I do think they are a problem from an animal welfare pov and should be subject to inspection.


----------



## Merciel

I read the regs -- in no great depth, but enough to get the gist of it -- and again, I don't see the big deal. I think they're pretty good, on the whole.

Infectious and contagious diseases being brought in by imported animals without adequate vetting _are_ a problem. A 48-hour observation period would go a long way toward just getting rid of the problem of puppies breaking with parvo straight off the bus (which is a thing that's happened more than once even with a legit vet examination at the time of departure, to major headaches and heartbreak).

Animal hoarders are a problem, so licensing with the threat of inspections can only be a good thing. I have no problem if somebody wants to inspect my place, and the guidelines are pretty reasonable as to what's required of a foster home.

Shady rescues are a problem.

Lack of information transfer is a problem. I'm a big fan of requiring the sponsoring rescue to give copies of the dog's medical records to the fosters. I once wasted almost $300 of the rescue's money getting a foster dog checked out for a limp that had already been examined by a vet, because despite my repeated requests for the dog's records, they wouldn't give them to me, so I had to get the dog checked out again.

Fosters who have no training and absolutely no idea how to handle dogs are a problem, so having them read and sign a copy of "best practices" can only be a good thing, assuming the best practices are themselves reasonable.

All in all, I'm really not seeing a lot that looks objectionable to me here.


----------



## Vandal

That doesn't surprise me in the least Riley. I doubt you have ever met a law you didn't like. The more reasons for Govt intervention, the better.

It's a shame that the AR crowd is not as smart and creative as they are smug. Maybe some better ideas, utilizing everyone, instead of the constant divide and conquer techniques, could be developed in order to help animals. The best they can come up with are laws that really won't have much impact on the real problems, which makes me question their motives. I have dealt with Animal Rights groups here and they all use the same terminology and make the same old arguments, while nothing gets better for animals. 

I 'am' interested in what the real Rescue people think about this. Seems the people on the video are not really pleased. Looks like just one more instance that will make people angry, while nothing good happens for the animals. There will still be the so called "hoarders", (they sure won't be registering,) but the Govt will have the white gloves on for the legitimate rescues. The so called "breeders", who are not licensed kennels or have breeding permits, will keep on letting their dogs mate in the front yard and the laws will keep getting stricter for those who do things above board.


----------



## LifeofRiley

Merciel said:


> I read the regs -- in no great depth, but enough to get the gist of it -- and again, I don't see the big deal. I think they're pretty good, on the whole.
> 
> Infectious and contagious diseases being brought in by imported animals without adequate vetting _are_ a problem. A 48-hour observation period would go a long way toward just getting rid of the problem of puppies breaking with parvo straight off the bus (which is a thing that's happened more than once even with a legit vet examination at the time of departure, to major headaches and heartbreak).
> 
> Animal hoarders are a problem, so licensing with the threat of inspections can only be a good thing. I have no problem if somebody wants to inspect my place, and the guidelines are pretty reasonable as to what's required of a foster home.
> 
> Shady rescues are a problem.
> 
> Lack of information transfer is a problem. I'm a big fan of requiring the sponsoring rescue to give copies of the dog's medical records to the fosters. I once wasted almost $300 of the rescue's money getting a foster dog checked out for a limp that had already been examined by a vet, because despite my repeated requests for the dog's records, they wouldn't give them to me, so I had to get the dog checked out again.
> 
> Fosters who have no training and absolutely no idea how to handle dogs are a problem, so having them read and sign a copy of "best practices" can only be a good thing, assuming the best practices are themselves reasonable.
> 
> All in all, I'm really not seeing a lot that looks objectionable to me here.


:thumbup: Thank you. Because I am who I am, I will still take a closer look at the regs. But, I imagine, based on this analysis that I will come to the same conclusion.


----------



## Liesje

Newsflash....reputable rescues ALREADY inspect foster homes!! The police are really going to know what to look for more than the president of the rescue?


----------



## Merciel

Liesje said:


> Newsflash....reputable rescues ALREADY inspect foster homes!! The police are really going to know what to look for more than the president of the rescue?


No, they don't. Some do, but a lot don't -- including some really good ones. And some of the ones that _do_ inspect foster homes are run by complete crazies.

Out of the... nine or so rescues I've worked with, not one of them has actually inspected my home. One sent a volunteer to the front door of the condo but they didn't go inside, and another said they were going to do a home inspection but never followed through. The best rescue I've ever volunteered with never even asked about a home inspection.

Besides, what if the president of the rescue is the hoarder?

External oversight is pretty important, I think. Rescues have almost no regulation and a lot of them are run by complete nutjobs. You _have_ to be a little crazy to want to repeatedly host random untrained dogs in your home and give them up as soon as they start acting semi-civilized. And it's pretty easy for that "little crazy" to shade into a lot.

Most hoarders don't start out as hoarders; it develops over time, often because they don't know when to say no and get in way over their heads. So I think periodic licensing and occasional checks (or even just having the legal _authority_ to make those checks if and when community complaints give the authorities some need to go in there) are pretty important to addressing some of the problems that repeatedly pop up on the rescue scene.


----------



## Liesje

More rules and regulations are not going to help. If people are concerned, make sure you are volunteering for a legit, reputable rescue. It's really not rocket science! I'd never foster for someone who is an animal hoarder. Yes plenty of them ARE run by total nutjobs. If *police* are "periodically" checking my house without good reason then I'm done fostering and a reputable rescue will lose a great foster home. It's crazy how much abuse and neglect some people can get away with when it comes to children yet now you can't foster an animal without the possibility of someone knocking on your door at any moment. No thanks.

FWIW at least where I live we already have regulations that make hoarding situations unlawful. We don't need to waste police time checking the homes of rescue volunteers, there is enough real crime to deal with and not enough resources already.


----------



## lhczth

Liesje said:


> Mor It's crazy how much abuse and neglect some people can get away with when it comes to children yet now you can't foster an animal without the possibility of someone knocking on your door at any moment. No thanks.


It is also crazy that people are so willing to give up their 4th amendment rights and have no issues with a warrant-less search/invasion of their home.


----------



## Liesje

I may be liberal but I'm not going THAT far! lol If there is a REASON to come to my house, that is one thing. When I got bit separating dogs in a fight, an ACO showed up to follow up. I offered for him to come inside and offered to let him meet each dog. I understand he was not there to blame anyone but rabies is real and they county needs to follow up if a human gets bit by anything for any reason. Fair enough. But you can't just show up and demand a tour just because.


----------



## hunterisgreat

lhczth said:


> It is also crazy that people are so willing to give up their 4th amendment rights and have no issues with a warrant-less search/invasion of their home.


Crazy how willing some are to give up *any* of the rights in all the amendments


----------



## Merciel

Liesje said:


> More rules and regulations are not going to help.


Why not? Honestly: why not?

What's wrong with having a 48-hour quarantine period when animals are imported across state lines? Yes, it will raise costs for rescues, and that will probably reduce the numbers of animals that cross-state rescues can save. That's unfortunate. But it only affects rescues doing cross-state transports, and as someone who's been fostering for one or another of those rescues for a few years now, I have seen a _lot_ of heartache come from puppies who get brought up here, adopted out immediately after they come off the transport bus, and break with parvo, coccidia, and/or other diseases within those first 48 hours. So I think that's a tradeoff worth making.

What's wrong with having foster homes read over a set of guidelines on responsible dog care? There's nothing requiring them to _follow_ those practices; all they have to do is read and sign to indicate they've read the thing. It's a purely educational measure and I, personally, am all for it. Many rescues give out foster manuals, but many others don't. I had to write the foster manual for the rescue I'm currently with, because they didn't have one at all before that.

We get a ton of great, enthusiastic volunteers with zero prior experience; many of them are fostering as a way to get experience before adopting their first dogs. These newbies need guidance, and they often don't get it. Many other volunteers already know the basics, but even people with prior pet experience can often pick up a few good tips from a solid foster manual. There's always more you can learn, and I've got no complaints about a regulation that pushes education.

What's wrong with having registrations and records of which dogs have gone where? I think a paper trail is really important. If a rescue is a front for a puppy mill, the papers will show that. If a rescue is routinely putting sick dogs out in the community, the papers will show that. And, like I said, loss of information is a big problem. Small rescues are often really slipshod about their recordkeeping, and it causes a bunch of headaches. Putting forth a clear set of guidelines about what records must be kept, and who needs to get copies of them, helps people who otherwise often have no idea how to organize or maintain their records.

I'm not real sure where you're drawing the conclusion that the home inspections will be done by police with no notice. I may have missed it in the regs (and if so, I'll have to reconsider; as I said, I didn't read them in huge depth), but I don't recall seeing that.


----------



## Merciel

lhczth said:


> It is also crazy that people are so willing to give up their 4th amendment rights and have no issues with a warrant-less search/invasion of their home.


I actually _do_ Fourth Amendment litigation as my everyday job and I really don't see this as being a concern with these regs.

Even assuming for the sake of argument that the regulations did purport to authorize police to conduct warrantless searches of a foster home (which, again, I don't think they do), that would get knocked down pretty easily the first time anyone took it to court.


----------



## Liesje

Merciel said:


> Why not? Honestly: why not?
> 
> What's wrong with having a 48-hour quarantine period when animals are imported across state lines? Yes, it will raise costs for rescues, and that will probably reduce the numbers of animals that cross-state rescues can save. That's unfortunate. But it only affects rescues doing cross-state transports, and as someone who's been fostering for one or another of those rescues for a few years now, I have seen a _lot_ of heartache come from puppies who get brought up here, adopted out immediately after they come off the transport bus, and break with parvo, coccidia, and/or other diseases within those first 48 hours. So I think that's a tradeoff worth making.
> 
> What's wrong with having foster homes read over a set of guidelines on responsible dog care? There's nothing requiring them to _follow_ those practices; all they have to do is read and sign to indicate they've read the thing. It's a purely educational measure and I, personally, am all for it. Many rescues give out foster manuals, but many others don't. I had to write the foster manual for the rescue I'm currently with, because they didn't have one at all before that.
> 
> We get a ton of great, enthusiastic volunteers with zero prior experience; many of them are fostering as a way to get experience before adopting their first dogs. These newbies need guidance, and they often don't get it. Many other volunteers already know the basics, but even people with prior pet experience can often pick up a few good tips from a solid foster manual. There's always more you can learn, and I've got no complaints about a regulation that pushes education.
> 
> What's wrong with having registrations and records of which dogs have gone where? I think a paper trail is really important. If a rescue is a front for a puppy mill, the papers will show that. If a rescue is routinely putting sick dogs out in the community, the papers will show that. And, like I said, loss of information is a big problem. Small rescues are often really slipshod about their recordkeeping, and it causes a bunch of headaches. Putting forth a clear set of guidelines about what records must be kept, and who needs to get copies of them, helps people who otherwise often have no idea how to organize or maintain their records.


Why would a rescue move a dog across state lines and adopt it out within 48 hours?! To me that seems irresponsible. I would not foster for or adopt from such a rescue. Typically my fosters are with me at least 2 weeks and these are healthy, adoptable dogs. A dog recovering from a health or behavioral problem would take longer. I had one foster adopted almost overnight but he had already been in foster care and had an adoption pending, I simply took over because his foster family was leaving for an extended vacation and the adopting family didn't want to wait that long since he'd already been in foster care and they were approved. And these are dogs whose health status was known and were not crossing state lines or stressed out by big moves.

I already have a paper trail of all my fosters, in addition to the papers I send to the rescue president (the adoption paper is a 3-way carbon copy). Every dog that has ever passed through my home has paper and electronic files, so even if the rescue or adopters were to lose their papers I still have them.

I was not asked to read over guidelines, I was asked to PROVE that I am experienced enough to foster dogs and that included a thorough home visit as well as the president meeting all of my current dogs and consulting with my vet.

All these things are just common sense to any half decent rescue or foster. Bad rescues exist NOT because they aren't being regulated but because people are being duped into giving them their money. We need to spend more time educating the public and potential dog buyers/adopters, not asking awesome rescues already strapped for resources to jump through even MORE hoops and red tape.


----------



## Merciel

Liesje said:


> Why would a rescue move a dog across state lines and adopt it out within 48 hours?! To me that seems irresponsible. I would not foster for or adopt from such a rescue.


Oh I know. I am 100% with you there. I think it's enormously irresponsible and I've told them not to do it and I flat-out refuse to do it with any of my own foster dogs.

The argument (which, for the record, I don't agree with) is that the puppies have already had a vet examination and two-week quarantine on the other side (which is true BUT we've had problems with puppies getting sick when they're supposedly in quarantine, because the care standards on the originating side are sometimes not that great, and vets are human, so occasionally they miss things when examining 50 dogs in a day). And it costs more to board them in a quarantine facility on this side (also true: it'd be about $20-30 per dog, which adds up when you're doing 100-150 dogs per month and are a purely donor/adopter-funded rescue) and so overall they save more lives by not having a second "redundant" quarantine on this side.

I don't think this is a best practice, but currently it's completely legal in PA and widely accepted. The MA regulations would change that. Therefore I think it's a good move.



Liesje said:


> I already have a paper trail of all my fosters, in addition to the papers I send to the rescue president (the adoption paper is a 3-way carbon copy). Every dog that has ever passed through my home has paper and electronic files, so even if the rescue or adopters were to lose their papers I still have them.
> 
> I was not asked to read over guidelines, I was asked to PROVE that I am experienced enough to foster dogs and that included a thorough home visit as well as the president meeting all of my current dogs and consulting with my vet.
> 
> All these things are just common sense to any half decent rescue or foster.


You do, but a lot of others don't, and it isn't necessarily common sense that they need to keep all this paperwork or transmit it to every person in the chain. It SHOULD be. But it isn't. Therefore, again, a regulation that mandates this very basic "common sense" practice can only be a good thing, because it IS a good practice and a whole lot of people are not doing it. People who already see the importance are doing it, and people who don't yet recognize why it matters will be required to do the same. So the regulation raises the standard of care across the board, and imposes no extra costs. Where's the down side?

As I said, a lot of the volunteers we get are first-timers. They don't have any experience, so they wouldn't be able to prove it, and they wouldn't have any vet references either. Even if they did, again: where's the harm in making some educational material available to them?

Home visits and personal interviews are great, but only as good as the people conducting the visits and interviews, and (again) not all rescues do them or _can_ do them. They don't always have the resources.


----------



## onyx'girl

There are transports that will have the adoptors greet them to pick up their new dog...but I'd assume those dogs aren't recent shelter pulls but dogs that have been in rescue for awhile.
Even then, dogs are subject to all sorts of virus and their immune system probably is compromised due to stress. I wouldn't want them sitting with others for 48 more hours to add to that stress. Better to get them into individual foster homes or forever homes where they can get care as necessary.

More regulations are not going to stop the bad ones, they'll just find away to work around the laws.


----------



## Gwenhwyfair

> 2) Any Shelter, facility, or foster home required to maintain a kennel license in accordance with M.G.L. Chapter 140, Section 137A, is subject to inspection by the Animal Control Officer of the Municipality in which the shelter, facility, or foster home is located.


Sounds like once you're licensed as a kennel you will be subject to inspections. Some what like food handling/restaurant operations (?).

But....in general my dealings with rescues they aren't the most organized bunch, that's for sure. We have one here (CPR) that's excellent but the founder of the organization is also a judge and runs a tight ship.

In other words, for some groups, well intentioned though they may be actually being a rescue AND professional and organized is almost a contradiction in terms. It's part of the reason I don't get more deeply involved in rescue. One group I avoid because the leader is all about getting in the paper and recognition but try to get involved in one of 'their' events as a supporting vendor. ugggghhhh.....last event participation was down by 50% because they just cannot get their act together. 

(eta: now that I think about it I had to have my rescue, Smitty, retested for heartworm right after adopting him because the group didn't have the paper work showing he was negative, so I couldn't get HW preventative without getting him retested. )




Merciel said:


> I actually _do_ Fourth Amendment litigation as my everyday job and I really don't see this as being a concern with these regs.
> 
> Even assuming for the sake of argument that the regulations did purport to authorize police to conduct warrantless searches of a foster home (which, again, I don't think they do), that would get knocked down pretty easily the first time anyone took it to court.


----------



## Merciel

onyx'girl said:


> There are transports that will have the adoptors greet them to pick up their new dog...but I'd assume those dogs aren't recent shelter pulls but dogs that have been in rescue for awhile.
> Even then, dogs are subject to all sorts of virus and their immune system probably is compromised due to stress. I wouldn't want them sitting with others for 48 more hours to add to that stress. Better to get them into individual foster homes or forever homes where they can get care as necessary.
> 
> More regulations are not going to stop the bad ones, they'll just find away to work around the laws.


Yes, that's what my rescue does. Here is the usual practice:

(1) Dog is pulled from shelter. Dog has usually had zero vetting at that shelter because these are very poor rural shelters with no money to give intake vaccinations or do HW tests or anything else.

(2) Dog gets preliminary vet exam, any obvious medical problems are treated.

(3) Dog goes into "quarantine" at volunteer foster home. This is where the first big problems tend to occur. These homes are mostly well-intentioned people who love dogs and have very little practical knowledge or skill. They do things like feed pregnant dogs on nothing but potato chips and peanut butter sandwiches on Wonder Bread, allow the dogs to sleep in their own beds on the pillow and then refuse to adopt the dog to any home that _won't_ allow the dog to sleep on the owner's bed pillow, or have the "quarantined" dog mingling loose inside their homes with 40 other "quarantined" dogs (SURPRISE!, that foster came to me filthy and infested with fleas).

Yes I realize these are all ridiculously lousy practices, that is the point. A LOT of people in rescue love love love dogs _and know nothing_. Rules and regulations _will in fact_ help these people do better, because they _want_ to do a good job, they just don't know how. All the problems that happen at this stage originate not in malice, but in ignorance.

If you (meaning "I") try to tell them not to do that, they get defensive, because who am I to tell them to do things differently? Just some uppity Northeastern city yuppie looking down my nose at good honest people. But if it is a regulation, then it has the shine of authority, and they _have_ to comply or the dogs can't come up here.

(4) Dog gets a second vet exam for the health certificate. Sometimes health problems slip through the cracks because the examining vet is usually trying to do a huge number of animals under considerable time pressure. The transport bus carries anywhere from 50 to almost 200 animals and they all have to get examined within a few days of departure.

We have had problems with a couple of specific vets doing really bad jobs in the past, and we don't use those vets anymore, but in order for the problems to get discovered, multiple dogs have to break with obvious diseases after arrival. Otherwise, obviously, nothing seems wrong and life goes on. If there had been a 48-hour quarantine in the receiving state, a lot of bad things could have been averted.

(5) Dogs arrive in receiving facility. Many of these dogs, especially the puppies, already have adopting homes waiting to receive them and go straight into those homes, because the rescue does not have enough fosters to hold them and doesn't have money to board them and they _have_ to go to these adopters, there's nowhere else to put them. And this is, again, a completely legal and widely accepted practice THAT I THINK IS REALLY STUPID but which is totally within acceptable norms. It's not "substandard" because there is no official standard saying it's not okay. And, again, I think changing that would be a good thing.

I don't know why people keep saying "bad rescues will find a way to work around the laws." The problems don't happen because rescues are intentionally trying to find ways to cut corners. They happen because good, well-intentioned people don't know any better and don't _have_ to do more.


----------



## Merciel

Gwenhwyfair said:


> In other words, for some groups, well intentioned though they may be actually being a rescue AND professional and organized is almost a contradiction in terms. It's part of the reason I don't get more deeply involved in rescue.


yep

I complain about a lot of the things my rescue does that I think are dumb, but I still volunteer with them because I worked with a bunch of other rescues before this one, and this is the one that does the _fewest_ dumb things and mostly ones that I know enough now to avoid or prevent in my own foster dogs.

But yeah this is why a lot of my adopters choose to adopt foster dogs from me specifically and not my overall rescue in general.


----------



## Liesje

Merciel said:


> They don't always have the resources.


So where will they get the resources to comply with a bunch of new rules? The problem with mandating common sense is that now someone has to go out and enforce it and the rescue will have to abide by some process of proving they are in compliance.

I've done a home visit for a rescue that did not have the resources to home visit all over so I did one for them. As far as I know it's fairly common practice...you have a potential foster or adopter somewhere where you don't actually have a volunteer that can do a home check so you ask another rescue in that area to do one for you. Now I know of cases where a home visit is not necessary but in general if a rescue cannot do home visits then maybe they shouldn't have a rescue, move their volunteers and resources over to other rescues who need more help and not rely on "municipality" people to do it.


----------



## selzer

The thing is, if you are a foul puppy mill or a hoarder, you just can't clean that shtuff up overnight or in a long weekend, whichever time it takes to file for a warrant. 

No one should be able to just show up and walk into your home where you live, to look at the conditions that your dogs are kept in. If there are complaints -- not anonymous, complaints that can be substantiated with a name and address, a judge can determine on the evidence whether there is enough evidence to send law enforcement officers to your home to check. 

Whether you are a breeder or a rescue, unless you fall under the USDA, meaning you are selling high volume puppies using middlemen/pet stores, and selling to these brokers/petstores across state lines, which means they need not enter your home at all, but only your out buildings, which you have to have to run this type of business. 

There is a reason for the fourth ammendment. No one should be able to demand entrance to a person's home without substantial evidence that a crime is being committed. 

It's not like you can flush the pot down the toilet. Hoarders can't clean their areas up to the point of reasonableness that quickly. And all citizens have the right to be treated like any other citizen. That idiot who let that dog Joseph become skeletel and have sores all over he wasn't a breeder, foster, or shelter. He was just a common scumbag whose neighbors could SEE what was happening and finally turned him in. 

You couldn't have changed that dog's condition -- save euthanize him, overnight or in the few hours it takes to get a warrant. Should we let the fact that you own dogs at all, be a wide-open invitation for LEOs, dog wardens, and when they are over-run, anyone they choose to half-ass train to go in and do inspections on people's property? 

I'm sorry, but there is WAY too much opportunity for abuse in all of this. 

You can't put 20 pounds on a thin dog or heal up imbedded collars and other outward signs of neglect and abuse in the time it takes to get a warrant. 

An anonymous complaint is NOT a good excuse for the government to come calling, demanding entrance to inspect.

An anonymous complaint IS enough for the AKC to come to your door -- as we voluntarily join the AKC and use them as a registry. Their rules are that if they come, they are to be given entrance to go over your books and look at your dogs. That is voluntary. If they will not let them look on the day, they will be suspended and maybe fined. That is not the same as the government sending people to your home. Totally different. 

All the breeders on this site that sell AKC puppies are not complaining about the fact that they can do this. When the AKC sees criminal neglect or abuse, they call the authorities and report it. HSUS doesn't mention this.


----------



## Merciel

Liesje said:


> So where will they get the resources to comply with a bunch of new rules?


They're going to have to pull fewer dogs, that's what it comes down to. They are going to have to redirect money from saving some of those dogs to complying with improved standards of care. The numbers will go down.

re: home visits, I don't know what to tell you, it's just not that common a thing around here.

The first three "rescues" I tried to foster for were all foster programs run out of city-funded municipal shelters or their no-kill partner shelters. The numbers for these organizations are staggering; ACCT routinely takes in hundreds of animals per day, thousands per week. They don't have the resources to do home visits and they never will. They do give you a really good foster manual, contact information for experienced volunteers who can offer support, and an initial intake interview with an experienced volunteer who can help match you to an appropriate dog, though.

The next couple of rescues I did end up fostering for were very small independent rescues that were run by absolutely crazy people. It was an eye-opening experience. The dogs were fine, the people were insaaaaane.

After that I tried to foster for a different small rescue that also had a great foster manual and did home visits and all that stuff, but they didn't pull very many animals at all, so I never got a dog from them in a month or two of trying.

The next couple of rescues I fostered for imploded due to personal drama among different founders and coordinators, which is of course a huge thing in this scene.

Now I foster for the rescue I've been talking about throughout this thread. I also do adoption counseling and the Unpaid Customer Service Monkey job of responding to adoption and prospective foster inquiries, which is alternately hilarious and depressing and very occasionally uplifting, but gives me a pretty good sense of what people do and do not know when they're first getting their feet wet.

Anyway, the point is, there are a few rescues that do all the good things proposed in the MA regulations, and that's awesome, and I can't see where it would cost them anything other than filling out a little extra paperwork every couple of years to be in compliance with all the regs. And there are a TON of other rescues that have good intentions and would be happy to comply if they had to (or not so happy, but they'd do it anyway because they want to do the right thing), but are currently not being held to that standard so they just don't see the need.


----------



## Gwenhwyfair

I commend you for your patience. 

A big part of the problem is many times the volunteers all want to be the 'chiefs' and no one wants to be the 'indian'. It's almost like the whole thing is about a big power trip sometimes. From how a dog should be fed and trained to what type of adopter is 'allowed' to adopt the dog.

That's why I think CPR works so well. The people in charge know how to be leaders and they attract volunteers with professional backgrounds who can (and are willing to) follow instructions.





Merciel said:


> yep
> 
> I complain about a lot of the things my rescue does that I think are dumb, but I still volunteer with them because I worked with a bunch of other rescues before this one, and this is the one that does the _fewest_ dumb things and mostly ones that I know enough now to avoid or prevent in my own foster dogs.
> 
> But yeah this is why a lot of my adopters choose to adopt foster dogs from me specifically and not my overall rescue in general.


----------



## Merciel

Gwenhwyfair said:


> A big part of the problem is many times the volunteers all want to be the 'chiefs' and no one wants to be the 'indian'.


Man, no way, being in charge _sucks_. 

It's like owning the crappiest small business in the universe: you lose money constantly, you attract a bunch of completely crazy "employees" that you can't really fire, your tiny handful of _good_ employees gets burned out and quits all the time, your "business partners" are frequently flaky and unreliable if not outright insane, and on top of all that, you get a bunch of basically wild animals pooping in your house forever.

Yeah wow I have really renewed my love of doing rescue today.

And on that note I think I'm done spamming up this thread.


----------



## sitstay

Liesje said:


> Why would a rescue move a dog across state lines and adopt it out within 48 hours?! To me that seems irresponsible.


It is irresponsible, but it does happen a fair amount. There are "rescues" that travel through the south, pulling puppies and other highly adoptable dogs from shelters. They then transport them up north, to the New England states, and adopt them out. They have adopters meet them in public parking lots and it is a mass adoption event with 50, 75, 100 people all showing up. The animals are not fostered, often have no vetting and go from the shelter to the transport van to the adopter. A litter of puppies can be in a poor, rural shelter on Tuesday, in a transport van on Thursday and handed over to the adopter in a parking lot on Saturday afternoon.

It is fairly lucrative. There is little overhead. The rescue doesn't put much (if anything) into vetting the animals and the puppy they paid $10 for in Kentucky can have a line of people wanting to pay a $300 adoption fee in Maine or Massachusetts. 
Sheilah


----------



## onyx'girl

There are video's of just as you describe Sheilah, happy people waiting for the transport to show up....wonder how many of those dogs are failed after the honeymoon is over? Then there are these problems with transports, that ole saying 'do you know where that dog is going' should always be heeded: 
https://www.facebook.com/pages/The-Good-the-Bad-the-Unforgivable-of-Animal-Rescue/344666565559561
https://www.facebook.com/pages/Rescue-WatchDogs/118203958324305


----------



## JakodaCD OA

I'm in CT, and I see this ALL the time,,one 'rescue' in particular, having HUGE adoptathons at various times of the year, all dogs from down south , trucking them up here..

At one point, I heard THIS is why MA is buckling down on rescues/adoptions, because so many dogs are going into that state from down south, when they already have alotta dogs in need right there.

It's funny , well not really 'funny', that the minute you see one of these adoptathons, or a dog on tv that needs a home, people are scrambling for them..Why? I don't get it..When there's so many sitting in shelters right here..Maybe it's the fact they are on TV or they think it's a big deal to rescue a dog/puppy from the south

And don't get me wrong, I know there is a great number ofdogs down south needing homes, BUT there's alot here to..Same with Puerta Rican dogs,,they are shipping them here CONSTANTLY!


----------



## Merciel

JakodaCD OA said:


> It's funny , well not really 'funny', that the minute you see one of these adoptathons, or a dog on tv that needs a home, people are scrambling for them..Why? I don't get it..When there's so many sitting in shelters right here..


I've posted this before, but in a lot of places, it's because the shelter dog population is different.

In Philadelphia city shelters, the overwhelming majority of dogs are pit bulls or pittie mixes. Other types of dogs generally get adopted very quickly, unless they have Issues (and often even then).

Families who want to adopt lab mix puppies or golden retriever puppies or sweet-tempered, young adult beagles, or whatever else -- they won't find those dogs in city shelters. They basically don't exist here. They _do_ exist down South. Almost all the adopters we get have gone to the city shelters first and been unable to find the dogs they wanted there. We get adopters who drive five or six or seven hours from CT or NH to adopt some of these dogs.

Whether or not this is fair or right is a totally different question. I'm just saying that the huge majority of our adopters have been to their local shelters already and decided, for whatever individual reasons they might have, that they didn't want those dogs. But they DO want to adopt and save a life.

So, IMO, the best compromise between saving canine lives and giving these people the dogs they want and keeping all the dogs (imported and local alike) safe from contagious disease is to enact something that looks a lot like the regulatory scheme proposed in MA.


----------



## Gwenhwyfair

...and another load is heading up CT way in a couple of weeks from GA......

What shocked me was when the folks with the local group got back from the last event they said people were actually camping out to be in line to adopt.

I was told that was because the spay/neuter and other programs keep the shelter populations lower in your area.

So that's not correct then? 


ETA just read Merciels post above. That's what I've heard as well, lots of hounds/hound mixes, lab mixes get sent up north for adoption and are more popular amongst adopters.



JakodaCD OA said:


> I'm in CT, and I see this ALL the time,,one 'rescue' in particular, having HUGE adoptathons at various times of the year, all dogs from down south , trucking them up here..
> 
> At one point, I heard THIS is why MA is buckling down on rescues/adoptions, because so many dogs are going into that state from down south, *when they already have alotta dogs in need right there*.
> 
> It's funny , well not really 'funny', that the minute you see one of these adoptathons, or a dog on tv that needs a home, people are scrambling for them..Why? I don't get it..When there's so many sitting in shelters right here..Maybe it's the fact they are on TV or they think it's a big deal to rescue a dog/puppy from the south
> 
> And don't get me wrong, I know there is a great number ofdogs down south needing homes, BUT there's alot here to..Same with Puerta Rican dogs,,they are shipping them here CONSTANTLY!


----------



## Gwenhwyfair

LOL! That about sums it up!





Merciel said:


> Man, no way, being in charge _sucks_.
> 
> It's like owning the crappiest small business in the universe: you lose money constantly, you attract a bunch of completely crazy "employees" that you can't really fire, your tiny handful of _good_ employees gets burned out and quits all the time, your "business partners" are frequently flaky and unreliable if not outright insane, and on top of all that, you get a bunch of basically wild animals pooping in your house forever.
> 
> Yeah wow I have really renewed my love of doing rescue today.
> 
> And on that note I think I'm done spamming up this thread.


----------



## Vandal

> t's funny , well not really 'funny', that the minute you see one of these adoptathons, or a dog on tv that needs a home, people are scrambling for them..Why? I don't get it..When there's so many sitting in shelters right here..


You are more right about this than you might think. I don't agree it is about people being more selective. There is a real human nature aspect to this but it is not what Merciel thinks it is. 
Sure, there are some people who are more deliberate and selective but many are kind of riding emotions and if you can heighten that experience for them, they really want the dog. Human nature.


----------



## JustJim

LifeofRiley said:


> *So, I ask you, as I have asked people here before, if you agree with me that puppy mills are a problem, what do you see as sensible legislative efforts? These legislative efforts will continue to arise if the past several years are indicative of a trend. So, what is your proactive response?*
> 
> And, saying that “enforcing the laws on the books” is a non-starter for me (and many others). Anyone who has even a simple understanding of the “laws on the books” in most states knows that they are not sufficient. And, anyone who has even a basic understanding of the legal purview of federal law in our country, knows that there are significant limitations that apply to how our government can handle general animal neglect and cruelty.


Like most supporters of these regulations, you're begging the question. You claim, "puppy mills are a problem" without even providing an objective definition of what a "puppy mill" is, let alone what you claim is the "problem." You provide no proof that this "problem" exists, or the frequency of the "problem." You claim state laws are inadequate and federal laws are too limited: again, with no proof to support your statements. 

And you seriously expect anyone to agree with this all as a starting premise for a discussion?

If you wish to be taken seriously in making these claims, _prove them_. Define--in objective terms--what you think the problem is, provide numbers from an at-least-somewhat-unbiased source (i.e., not HSUS, etc) establishing the extent of the "problem." If you think the current laws/rules/regulations are failing to adequately address this problem, again, it is incumbent upon you to show this, with numbers from the same or a similarly-unbiased source. 

But you can't get that definition of the problem, and the numbers, from APHIS. They seem to see the "problem" as an ever-changing, floating target. They've never studied the situation enough to get actual numbers to establish how much of a "problem" is actually occurring. They've never applied the laws/rules/regulations to all facilities they previously were responsible for licensing, and never actually enforced the law across the board, so they don't know if the laws/rules/regulations would have worked. 

Right now, _nothing_ objectively indicates that the previous rules and regulations (you know, the ones that supporters originally claimed were going to bring an end to what they claimed were wide-spread abuses of animals by volume breeders) were ever given a fair chance to work. APHIS acknowledges wasn't done. There is _nothing_ that objectively establishes the need for the new regulations. 

Had this been done in the first place--if an objective definition of the "problem" been developed, research done to show that the "problem" actually was a problem, attempts made to develop rules to resolve the problem, a fair try made to enforce those rules and the rules objectively found to be inadequate--many of the people objecting to this set of new rules would likely support it. Despite the veiled (or not-so-veiled) accusations of many of the supporters of this new set of rules and regulations, most folks genuinely don't want dogs to be neglected or abused. 

But once again, our invited input was almost completely ignored. A new set of rules and regulations allegedly-intended to cure the abuses of the "evil puppy mills" has been forced upon us. Many of us are finding that these new rules and regulations have moved such that we are now being included as part of the "puppy mill problem." 

By the way, still waiting to learn the source for your claim that, "_*Many high-volume commercial breeders switched their business model to sell direct to the public via the Internet vs. through a pet store for all of the reasons Merciel cited *_*AND because they would be exempt from the AWA in so doing.*" Or were you begging the question yet again?


----------



## Merciel

Gwenhwyfair said:


> I was told that was because the spay/neuter and other programs keep the shelter populations lower in your area.
> 
> So that's not correct then?


It does and it doesn't. Again, I'm talking about Philly and not CT because Philly is what I know, but as far as I'm aware, what I'm saying here generally holds mostly true for all the big cities in the region.

Our absolute numbers are lower relative to the dog and human population in the area. There are a lot more dogs and people in Philly (and in East Coast cities generally) than there are in rural Georgia, so our shelters do take in a whole lot more dogs every day than theirs do, but as a percentage of population it's much lower.

The more important thing, though, is that because spay/neuter campaigns have been so successful among educated pet owners, the sweet, affectionate dogs owned by middle-class pet families are not out there breeding entire litters of sweet mutt puppies. The dogs that _are_ breeding indiscriminately (or are being intentionally bred by their owners) are overwhelmingly pitties and pit mixes.

So those are the dogs in our shelters, because those are the ones whose parents' owners don't spay or neuter and give the puppies away casually or sell them cheaply to the first buyer. Those are the ones that end up getting dumped as soon as the puppy cuteness wears off and woah hey now there's this big unruly adolescent pittie jumping on the counters and pooping in the kitchen.

I mean, just look at the dogs available in ACCT as opposed to those available through Almost Home (an excellent rescue that is NOT my rescue that I've been complaining about this whole thread. Almost Home is a great group with great volunteers and they do everything to the best standards and I have no complaints about them. Just so we're clear!).

ACCT: pet-search - Petfinder

Almost Home: pet-search - Petfinder

So it's not real hard to see why adopters who don't want pitties end up looking outside the city shelter system.

It is, incidentally, extremely difficult for my rescue to place the tiny handful of pitties that we pull. Anybody who is open to one of those dogs is adopting locally -- it's cheaper, it's easier, and there's a much wider selection. Unless it's a baby puppy, we pretty much have to have an extraordinary sob story and a CGC on a pittie for it to find a home.


----------



## JakodaCD OA

Gwen, tho shelters aren't overflowing here, there still are ALOT of dogs IN shelters here..We have a couple of inner cities, that tend to have alot of pit/mix type dogs, but they aren't what's loading the shelters,,it's ALL kinds,,few purebreds, lots of mixes, also makes me wonder if the mixes are dogs that are shipped up/don't work out..

And yes, at some of these 'events',,there are LINES of people waiting to get in to adopt a dog..

I think the shelters/pounds here do a pretty good job of networking their animals, petfinder/newspaper etc..

Another thing I see on Petfinder, alot of the rescue orgs up here are advertising dogs for adoption, but they aren't HERE, they will ship them up from say, gulf coast etc for example 550...So basically sight unseen, which I see a few do that to,,Like a dog? Fill out the app, send in your fee, pick the dog up a week later..


----------



## Gwenhwyfair

Interesting.

It's worth noting that here in the south we do have adoption events but you never and I do mean never see people camping out in line to adopt. Some events will get more traffic but not people coming hours early to get in line.

I'm not sure why that is, lack of advertising, lack of concern on the part of the public? I would pin it more to cultural attitudes here. People are very stubborn about 'you ain't the boss of me if'n I want to breed my dawgs I dang will'.

Suffice it to say we have a lot of very high kill rate shelters in the south. 




JakodaCD OA said:


> Gwen, tho shelters aren't overflowing here, there still are ALOT of dogs IN shelters here..We have a couple of inner cities, that tend to have alot of pit/mix type dogs, but they aren't what's loading the shelters,,it's ALL kinds,,few purebreds, lots of mixes, also makes me wonder if the mixes are dogs that are shipped up/don't work out..
> 
> And yes, at some of these 'events',,there are LINES of people waiting to get in to adopt a dog..
> 
> I think the shelters/pounds here do a pretty good job of networking their animals, petfinder/newspaper etc..
> 
> Another thing I see on Petfinder, alot of the rescue orgs up here are advertising dogs for adoption, but they aren't HERE, they will ship them up from say, gulf coast etc for example 550...So basically sight unseen, which I see a few do that to,,Like a dog? Fill out the app, send in your fee, pick the dog up a week later..


----------



## JakodaCD OA

tho we do have some kill shelters here, most of them are not I would say..HS is a no kill here so they are particular about what they take..


----------



## Gwenhwyfair

I can see both worlds too as I'm on the 'rural' edge. Our local more rural shelter gets a mix of pitties and lab/lab mixes in and surprisingly, smaller dogs too (like Shih Tzu, mini poodle, Chihuahua mixes too) there's an adorable wirehair daschie mix there right now....

Maine Lab rescue pulled several labs recently, so out of state breed rescues are pulling dogs from shelters here and transporting up north.

In the ATL urban shelters lots of pitties. One of the ATL area shelter workers said pitties are a double problem. They are harder to get adopted and quite a few are DA so they can't double them up in runs. Therefore even if they don't represent a super majority of the shelter population they quickly overload the shelters. 

I haven't looked at numbers so this is admittedly anecdotal but basically my observations and what I've heard in the rescue community agree with your comments.




Merciel said:


> It does and it doesn't. Again, I'm talking about Philly and not CT because Philly is what I know, but as far as I'm aware, what I'm saying here generally holds mostly true for all the big cities in the region.
> 
> Our absolute numbers are lower relative to the dog and human population in the area. There are a lot more dogs and people in Philly (and in East Coast cities generally) than there are in rural Georgia, so our shelters do take in a whole lot more dogs every day than theirs do, but as a percentage of population it's much lower.
> 
> The more important thing, though, is that because spay/neuter campaigns have been so successful among educated pet owners, the sweet, affectionate dogs owned by middle-class pet families are not out there breeding entire litters of sweet mutt puppies. The dogs that _are_ breeding indiscriminately (or are being intentionally bred by their owners) are overwhelmingly pitties and pit mixes.
> 
> So those are the dogs in our shelters, because those are the ones whose parents' owners don't spay or neuter and give the puppies away casually or sell them cheaply to the first buyer. Those are the ones that end up getting dumped as soon as the puppy cuteness wears off and woah hey now there's this big unruly adolescent pittie jumping on the counters and pooping in the kitchen.
> 
> I mean, just look at the dogs available in ACCT as opposed to those available through Almost Home (an excellent rescue that is NOT my rescue that I've been complaining about this whole thread. Almost Home is a great group with great volunteers and they do everything to the best standards and I have no complaints about them. Just so we're clear!).
> 
> ACCT: pet-search - Petfinder
> 
> Almost Home: pet-search - Petfinder
> 
> So it's not real hard to see why adopters who don't want pitties end up looking outside the city shelter system.
> 
> It is, incidentally, extremely difficult for my rescue to place the tiny handful of pitties that we pull. Anybody who is open to one of those dogs is adopting locally -- it's cheaper, it's easier, and there's a much wider selection. Unless it's a baby puppy, we pretty much have to have an extraordinary sob story and a CGC on a pittie for it to find a home.


----------



## Merciel

JakodaCD OA said:


> Another thing I see on Petfinder, alot of the rescue orgs up here are advertising dogs for adoption, but they aren't HERE, they will ship them up from say, gulf coast etc for example 550...So basically sight unseen, which I see a few do that to,,Like a dog? Fill out the app, send in your fee, pick the dog up a week later..


Yes, my rescue does that too (and I personally do it as well).

There are two scenarios in which this happens:

(1) We commit to pulling the dog from the shelter. While the dog is in its two-week quarantine, we post pictures and a preliminary description on Petfinder. This gives us a two-week lead time to market the dog online and generate some interest so that it can hopefully have an adoption commitment before it arrives.

This does NOT always mean that the dog gets adopted straight off the bus (although that does happen sometimes, and as I've discussed above, I'm not a fan of this practice). Sometimes it just means that the foster stays in touch with the prospective adopter and sends them direct updates, pictures/videos, progress reports, etc. for a few weeks before the dog is fully evaluated and ready to go home. This is what I do. I imagine it is pretty similar to what breeders do in updating puppy buyers for weeks before the dog actually goes home.

My experience has been that the adopters really enjoy getting these updates, get excited about the anticipation, and feel that they have a much better handle on who the dog is and what it's like before they actually take it home. And because I've had longer to talk to them, I have a much better sense of who this adopter is and how they should get along with the dog in question. So personally I really like advance marketing of dogs before they arrive; I've had good experiences with it.

This is the more common scenario, and the dog comes up to PA whether or not it has any adoption interest at the end of the quarantine period.

(2) We commit to pulling the dog from the shelter, but we don't have a foster home up North who is willing and able to take that particular dog, so it has to stay down South in a foster home or boarding facility until we have either a foster or adoption commitment up here. This happens much more rarely and it's a situation that we try to avoid, because it's not ideal for the adopters and it usually results in the dog remaining in limbo for a really long time.

Very few people want to adopt a dog sight unseen, and it doesn't help that most of these dogs are in limbo because their breed/size/Issues are a strike against them in some way that prevents them from sliding easily into a foster home.

These dogs are disproportionately larger pittie mixes (60+ pounds) and often have animal-aggression issues which make them difficult to fit into foster homes, because almost all our fosters already have at least one resident dog or cat. Or they might not have any issues beyond being big and unruly, but we don't have anyone who wants to deal with that type of foster dog, so they sit in limbo.

Usually when this happens it's because a foster home originally offered to take the dog but fell through for some reason (for example, lately a lot of our best volunteers have been going out on maternity), and the other volunteers aren't as experienced or don't have the right setup to handle that dog, so in limbo it stays. These dogs don't come up to PA until they have somewhere to go.

This is a bad situation and we try really hard to avoid it but it still happens sometimes, and when it does, that dog usually sits unwanted for months.


----------



## Merciel

Oh, also, to clarify one minor point: It's not a "pay your money and we'll ship up this dog on order" scenario in either case. The adoption process is the same (you still have to file an application and go through screening and all that stuff), and the adopter has to wait until the next transport bus comes up from that region anyway (it's not like ordering the dog out of a catalog and it ships the next day).

What puts most people off is that, in the second scenario, they have to make a commitment to the dog before meeting it. In the first scenario, they file the application and then they come meet the dog and if they like the dog after meeting it in person, they can finalize the adoption and take it home; if not, there's no commitment, we'll just put the dog back up for adoption to someone else. For most of the highly desirable dogs (cute fluffy puppies and sweet-tempered small dogs) there's a backup waiting list of alternates anyway, so it's not a big deal.

But for dogs in the second scenario, while no money changes hands until the adoption is finalized, there is an understanding that the adopter _will _take the dog, at least as a temporary foster if they decide not to adopt, because we have nowhere else to put those dogs.

And most people take this commitment very seriously, so they are understandably reluctant to do that.


----------



## Vandal

> Like most supporters of these regulations, you're begging the question. You claim, "puppy mills are a problem" without even providing an objective definition of what a "puppy mill" is, let alone what you claim is the "problem." You provide no proof that this "problem" exists, or the frequency of the "problem." You claim state laws are inadequate and federal laws are too limited: again, with no proof to support your statements.
> 
> And you seriously expect anyone to agree with this all as a starting premise for a discussion?
> 
> If you wish to be taken seriously in making these claims, _prove them_. Define--in objective terms--what you think the problem is, provide numbers from an at-least-somewhat-unbiased source (i.e., not HSUS, etc) establishing the extent of the "problem." If you think the current laws/rules/regulations are failing to adequately address this problem, again, it is incumbent upon you to show this, with numbers from the same or a similarly-unbiased source.
> 
> But you can't get that definition of the problem, and the numbers, from APHIS. They seem to see the "problem" as an ever-changing, floating target. They've never studied the situation enough to get actual numbers to establish how much of a "problem" is actually occurring. They've never applied the laws/rules/regulations to all facilities they previously were responsible for licensing, and never actually enforced the law across the board, so they don't know if the laws/rules/regulations would have worked.
> 
> Right now, _nothing_ objectively indicates that the previous rules and regulations (you know, the ones that supporters originally claimed were going to bring an end to what they claimed were wide-spread abuses of animals by volume breeders) were ever given a fair chance to work. APHIS acknowledges wasn't done. There is _nothing_ that objectively establishes the need for the new regulations.
> 
> Had this been done in the first place--if an objective definition of the "problem" been developed, research done to show that the "problem" actually was a problem, attempts made to develop rules to resolve the problem, a fair try made to enforce those rules and the rules objectively found to be inadequate--many of the people objecting to this set of new rules would likely support it. Despite the veiled (or not-so-veiled) accusations of many of the supporters of this new set of rules and regulations, most folks genuinely don't want dogs to be neglected or abused.
> 
> But once again, our invited input was almost completely ignored. A new set of rules and regulations allegedly-intended to cure the abuses of the "evil puppy mills" has been forced upon us. Many of us are finding that these new rules and regulations have moved such that we are now being included as part of the "puppy mill problem."
> 
> By the way, still waiting to learn the source for your claim that, "_*Many high-volume commercial breeders switched their business model to sell direct to the public via the Internet vs. through a pet store for all of the reasons Merciel cited *_*AND because they would be exempt from the AWA in so doing.*" Or were you begging the question yet again?


The "Puppy Mill" tactic was predicted years ago and is certainly working. "Puppy Mill" is the magic term for the AR groups and there is absolutely no legal definition for it. Hence the reason it is so easy to label just about anyone, a Puppy Mill. Change what it means, as often as you like, to fit whoever you don't like. 

Look how many times the term has been repeated here in this thread. Look how often Breeders use it to describe someone they don't like. The ARs LOVE it when they can get you to say it over and over. It sinks into the brains of people and since most just "hate" puppy mills, why not say every single law, (that doesn't), will have an impact on them?

We faced the same problem here in LA County when the AR groups convinced the local politicians that we had a Puppy Mill problem in Los Angeles County. No we didn't, there was ONE kennel, out of over 100 licensed kennels, who had too many dogs. Animal Control took care of the problem, (with the existing laws and regulations), but no good "crisis" should go to waste. The ARs wanted everything changed, so, the politicians formed a "Puppy Mill Task Force". This task force included Zoning, Regional Planning, Animal Control, the ARs and one AR friendly Rescue....the kennels/breeders were not invited to participate. 

Their first act was, (without notice to the breeders/ kennels), to hold a hearing at the Regional Planning Commission, to try to convince them that breeding dogs should not be allowed on A2 zoning, (zoning necessary to obtain a kennel permit in LA County). It would still be okay to board dogs on A2 but the breeding dogs would have to be moved to M1 or M2 property. This is zoning for factories and manufacturing....extremely expensive, not to mention the rather hideous environment for the dogs. But hey, the ARs only care about the welfare of the animals......
Next they wanted all kinds of new and very expensive changes to the kennels themselves. Ridiculously large dog runs, heat and air conditioning. no crating the dogs ever, exercise for at least an hour a day and so on. Since the ARs are all convinced that certain behaviors are only related to stress and neglect vs being related to the breed of dog, there were somewhat idiotic rules to address that as well. 

Most will say, well that doesn't sound too bad but when you consider things you might not know , how kennels/breeders operate and the expertise required to care for certain breeds, those things presented problems. For example, not all breeders owned a kennel, some used crates to bring their dogs inside the house during extreme weather. For other breeds, it is dangerous to exercise them for an hour, especially in hot weather. Think English Bulldog for example. 
When you take away the ability of the caregiver to make reasonable decisions concerning care, and hand it to the Govt, ( who are no where near as knowledgeable and will mostly follow what is written in the regs), you are asking for disaster. It really is the height of arrogance to think you can write laws about animal care when you know nothing about it. It was quite clear in the meetings with the 20 something's, (and the older guy who told them what to say), that they had very little experience or knowledge in dog care or of the difference in dog breeds..... but they had volunteered at the shelter! 

We knew it would be difficult to fight back, since the news did such a good job of repeating their claims of Puppy Mills everywhere and of course, the pictures they displayed. 
I could go on and on about the amount of time and toil it took to fight back but we were successful and also relieved that the Regional Planning Commission was actually offended by the use of the term "Puppy Mill", to describe the breeders there testifying. They were luckily, normal people who were able to see through the BS and the sensationalism from the news story that that zoning dept used to make their case.. 

After that, we were then faced with the same changes being presented to Title 10, ( codes and rules for kennels), which were clearly written and presented by the ARs. After over two years of fighting, we managed to do enough educating to get many of the new restrictions removed. We attended numerous meetings, pointing out one FACT after another in such a convincing fashion, even one head of the AR group allowed herself to admit that WE were not the problem. Well, it was just "US" the laws and regulations were affecting and of course she knew that. Just slipped out, probably because they all looked like such jackasses. All the suggestions offered that actually WOULD work to prevent that one situation from occurring again, (without significant costs to the tax payers), were presented by the breeders/kennels. They were really simple and minor changes to the existing regulations and are being used now. 

There is one point I absolutely agree with Riley on. Talking on forums might inform the public but unless you are talking to your local and state representative, all the typing is mostly worthless. Most of the people in Govt are blank slates when it comes to animal care. Who is there writing on that slate? The Animal Rights groups. Breeders etc are simply silent. Why? I have NO idea. I am now much more vocal and do not hesitate to call someone when I see them trying to pull one over on the politicians. There are people who are AR supporters in positions of power and anyone who thinks that is not a conflict of interest, needs their head examined.


----------



## LifeofRiley

JustJim said:


> Like most supporters of these regulations, you're begging the question. You claim, "puppy mills are a problem" without even providing an objective definition of what a "puppy mill" is, let alone what you claim is the "problem." You provide no proof that this "problem" exists, or the frequency of the "problem." You claim state laws are inadequate and federal laws are too limited: again, with no proof to support your statements.


I am well aware that there is no legal, official, or otherwise standard definition of ‘puppy mill.” The same holds true for “responsible breeder” or “reputable breeder.” I *do* think that the lack of an agreed upon terminology/typology creates a lot of problems from a regulatory standpoint. But, instead of essentially arguing that “puppy mills” don’t exist because there isn’t a legal definition for them, I would think that the breeders on here would want to be more *proactive* in providing definitions and a typology for lawmakers (and regulators) to use. It would probably help a lot.

I, personally, think that the PUPS Act, by seeking to provide a definition of “High Volume Retail Breeder,” would be a cleaner addition to the AWA than this rule change.

I recognize that many breeders here were unhappy with the definition in the PUPS Act. But, in the “Let’s Talk about the PUPS Act…” thread I am pretty sure I point-blank asked what people thought the definition of “High Volume Retail Breeder” should be… I didn’t get many answers and the general tone was that it could not be based on the number of puppies sold. So, what should it be? How can we create a new terminology/typology that would actually be helpful from a regulatory standpoint?

You and Vandal state that legislators lump all breeders together. I get that and I understand the concern. But, I would argue that, by opposing every legislative effort no matter how high the threshold of “high volume” is defined, you are actually contributing to that perception problem. 

If the only message the public sees from breeders (of any type) is that of fighting every piece of legislation that is proposed (using very extreme rhetoric) regardless of how “high volume” is being defined, why would you expect people to think there were any meaningful differences? Of course, I know there are very significant and meaningful differences. And, I can see that much opposition (at a State and Federal level) is based on “slippery slope” rationales. But, you are asking a lot of legislators and the general public to sort through all of that.

To make matters worse, the AKC has more or less abdicated its role as being the “voice” of quality breeders due to its reliance on “puppy mills, high volume commercial breeders, commercial breeding establishments, volume kennels… “ whatever the heck we choose to call them. In fact, they encourage breeders (of all types) to unite together against “Animal Rightists” thus exasperating the problem. They are using a classic “us” vs. “them” tactic that only further diminishes the possibility of a real discussion of the very real issues that, I believe, we all agree are important to address.

BTW… speaking of definition problems, how do you define “Animal Rights” people?


----------



## Liesje

Actually I'd bet that most of the public has no clue any of this is happening. None of my dog-owning friends care. Maybe that's why it makes it so far along. Like Anne is saying, if the only voice that's heard is the AR agenda....hmmmm. When meeting with prospective adopters of my rescue fosters, or talking to prospective buyers of the pups I've handled for a breeder-friend, no one has *ever* asked me about the PUPS Act or any of this legislature. I've never once had to defend my position against it because it just doesn't come up.

To me "Animal Rights" people are people that give animals more rights than people.


----------



## Vandal

> If the only message the public sees from breeders (of any type) is that of fighting every piece of legislation that is proposed (using very extreme rhetoric) regardless of how “high volume” is being defined, why would you expect people to think there were any meaningful differences?


You mean "very extreme rhetoric" like this?
Breeders | PETA.org

and this


----------



## LifeofRiley

I know very little about PETA. I do not pay much attention to their tactics and I don't know anyone "in real life" that doesn't see through their rhetoric.


----------



## Vandal

> You and Vandal state that legislators lump all breeders together. I get that and I understand the concern. But, I would argue that, by opposing every legislative effort no matter how high the threshold of “high volume” is defined, you are actually contributing to that perception problem.


More BS. I was minding my own business when suddenly my ability to keep my animals was threatened by dirty, underhanded tactics.
People are being duped by the animal rights groups because like Lies said, most people have no idea any of it is going on and think all the laws are somehow helping animals. 
I am not seeing a huge decrease in the number of animals at the local kill shelter. Especially Pit Bulls and Chihuahuas which are NOT being produced by breeders.
You still have not answered Just Jim's other questions about what percentage "Puppy Mills" are contributing to "the problem". I guess it's so bad, rescues have to import animals now to keep it that way.


----------



## Vandal

I realize PETA is low hanging fruit but many of the AR groups hold that same opinion and repeat it.


----------



## Merciel

Liesje said:


> Actually I'd bet that most of the public has no clue any of this is happening. None of my dog-owning friends care.


Yeah, I haven't heard anyone talking about it either. I have a lot of friends and contacts in the rescue world who would be totally supportive of this rule, because they don't have any exposure to the world of purebreds (except for picking up dumped puppy mill dogs, which is enough to sour anyone's opinion if that's all you ever see) and are still in the "breeder = bad" mindset. And they don't know about it.

I have a couple of friends who breed dogs very occasionally -- rarely enough that this wouldn't affect them, since they only have one or two breeding females active at a time and only produce maybe one litter every 2-3 years -- and _they_ don't know about it either, even though they're all active in the performance world (and some in conformation too) and they're technically "breeders."

I only know about it through threads on this board. If not for these threads, I'd have no idea either. It has never once been discussed anywhere else I've been.

So even people who are fairly plugged into the dog world are not necessarily aware that this is a thing that exists.


----------



## Vandal

Remember Riley, you were the one who accused breeders of using "extreme rhetoric". That is simply disingenuous at best and an outright lie at worst. We are being bombarded with laws and regulations at every level of Govt. It is a very earnest attempt by the AR groups to regulate breeders out of existence and they do not care if you are high volume or not.

As for PETA, I talk to people daily who have been influenced by their rhetoric and there is absolutely an anti breeder mentality in many people nowadays. They have been quite successful with their rhetoric and so has HSUS.


----------



## JustJim

LifeofRiley said:


> I am well aware that there is no legal, official, or otherwise standard definition of ‘puppy mill.”


For purposes of this discussion, I don't care about "standard" definitions, be they legal or official. I'm asking _you_ to define them, in objective quantifiable terms, to make clear what _you_ mean when _you_ use them, so that we can engage in a productive discussion, with both sides agreeing on what we are talking about. I'm asking what evidence _you_ have to support your position, in an attempt to understand and evaluate that position, in order to know if I agree with your proposed solution or not. 



LifeofRiley said:


> The same holds true for “responsible breeder” or “reputable breeder.”


I have no idea what the definitions for those terms might be--that would be a separate discussion. If you want to use the terms, define them to mean what you want, but share the definitions so we can all know what you are talking about. 



LifeofRiley said:


> But, instead of essentially arguing that “puppy mills” don’t exist because there isn’t a legal definition for them, I would think that the breeders on here would want to be more *proactive* in providing definitions and a typology for lawmakers (and regulators) to use. It would probably help a lot.


Sometime, when you have a lot of time to kill, do a search of this forum for claims that "puppy mills" don't exist. You'll find discussion and argument about what might constitute a "puppy mill," but no claims they don't exist. If you want to claim "puppy mills" are a _problem_, then you have to define what you mean by a "puppy mill." (I'm almost starting to wonder if you are referring to a device used to grind puppies into pulp for some nefarious purpose.) 



LifeofRiley said:


> So, what should it be? How can we create a new terminology/typology that would actually be helpful from a regulatory standpoint?


1. You refuse to define--let alone objectively define--what you see as a problem.
2. You've provided no evidence that a problem exists, despite repeated requests for that information. 
3. You've provided no evidence that suggests that a regulatory approach is the best way to resolve this "problem." 
4. You haven't defined what you see as the desired endpoint or goal of your resolution.
5. You've knowingly chosen to disregard the willful past failures of your chosen regulatory agency to actually carry out their responsibilities, and seem to expect that the situation will be improved by an increase in their responsibilities. 
6. Past attempts by people knowledgeable of dog breeding, and/or of the shared culture of "dog people," to participate in the process of developing those definitions and regulatory solutions have been denied, belittled, and ignored, by both your chosen regulatory agency and by the groups promoting this legislation/regulatory scheme. 

Given all that, why should anyone here cooperate with your goal of producing "a new terminology/typology that would actually be helpful from a regulatory standpoint?"



LifeofRiley said:


> BTW… speaking of definition problems, how do you define “Animal Rights” people?


I don't use the term; I have no responsibility to define it. 

Yet again, please define your terms and cite your sources. An explanation of what you see as the desired goal or endpoint of your proposed solution would also be helpful. 

If you can't, or won't, the logical solution is to reject your arguments and proposed solution _in toto_, as has already been done by many.


----------



## Liesje

I feel I should write to one of my favorite authors because she just published a short story using a puppy mill in the plot line and then at the end gave several tips on how to help animals, one of them being supporting stricter regulations on breeding. I totally get her overall sentiment and concern for the welfare of animals (and she is not an extremist and not part of any group like PETA that I'm aware of) but this is the sort of thing that can be dangerous. I think her intentions are good but clearly she does not understand breeding and has zero experience with it so someone who sells millions of copies of books should probably not be asking her readers to advocate for legislation she/they know nothing about.


----------



## Gwenhwyfair

RE: JustJim's request for data to support there is a problem. In the material linked earlier the USDA states it is the increased number of complaints being filed by people who have purchased puppies online sight unseen.

I didn't see any specific numbers in the documentation I've read though.


----------



## Andaka

Illinois tried to pass a law that called any breeder with 4 or more intact bitches over the age of 4 months to be a high volume breeder. Unfortunately, I fell into that catagory, I had one 3 year old bitch, a 7 year old, an 8 year old, and a 12 year old. This law was fought off successfully by IFDCO. It was a bad law. Instead a task force was formed that included IFDCO, HSUS, and shelter directers in order to find a better solution to the problem of dog attacks in the Chicago area. Ultimately they worked out plans for stricter consequences for dog owners who allow their dogs to run free.

It doesn't take much to end up on the wrong side of the fence.


----------



## JustJim

Gwenhwyfair said:


> RE: JustJim's request for data to support there is a problem. In the material linked earlier the USDA states it is the increased number of complaints being filed by people who have purchased puppies online sight unseen.
> 
> I didn't see any specific numbers in the documentation I've read though.


There don't appear to be any actual numbers, just a claim of an "increase in the number of complaints." I'd really like to know what the actual numbers are, in order to evaluate the claims that all this is necessary. 

For example, a "300% increase" can mean a lot of things. It could mean an increase from 1 complaint per year to 3, with the same number of dogs sold in that manner. It could mean an increase from 1 per day to 3, with the same number of dogs sold. Or it could mean that the number of complaints has been taken out of context. 

In the same examples, if the number of dogs sold in that manner has increased 300% at the same time the number of complaints has increased 300%, the percentage of problematic sales would have remained the same. If they are comparing the number of complaints about dogs purchased via mail-order in 1980 (just picking a year) vs. the number of complaints about dogs purchased using the internet in 2011 (again, just picking a year), they are not comparing the same things. 

I was unable to get any numbers from APHIS before the shutdown. I don't know if the numbers were unavailable, or if APHIS is unwilling to provide them. I suspect that if they have actual numbers (vs. a vague "increased number of complaints"), it may take an FOIA request to obtain them.


----------



## Gwenhwyfair

Yup, the only info I read was vague at best. 

Seems to me if the USDA folks are getting an increased number of complaints against a kennel or retailer they should inspect the kennel per existing laws.

Tons of complaints about 'Stonehenge kennels' out there but that USDA approved puppy factory keeps chugging along. :shrug:




JustJim said:


> There don't appear to be any actual numbers, just a claim of an "increase in the number of complaints." I'd really like to know what the actual numbers are, in order to evaluate the claims that all this is necessary.
> 
> For example, a "300% increase" can mean a lot of things. It could mean an increase from 1 complaint per year to 3, with the same number of dogs sold in that manner. It could mean an increase from 1 per day to 3, with the same number of dogs sold. Or it could mean that the number of complaints has been taken out of context.
> 
> In the same examples, if the number of dogs sold in that manner has increased 300% at the same time the number of complaints has increased 300%, the percentage of problematic sales would have remained the same. If they are comparing the number of complaints about dogs purchased via mail-order in 1980 (just picking a year) vs. the number of complaints about dogs purchased using the internet in 2011 (again, just picking a year), they are not comparing the same things.
> 
> I was unable to get any numbers from APHIS before the shutdown. I don't know if the numbers were unavailable, or if APHIS is unwilling to provide them. I suspect that if they have actual numbers (vs. a vague "increased number of complaints"), it may take an FOIA request to obtain them.


----------



## LifeofRiley

JustJim said:


> 1. You refuse to define--let alone objectively define--what you see as a problem.
> 2. You've provided no evidence that a problem exists, despite repeated requests for that information.
> 3. You've provided no evidence that suggests that a regulatory approach is the best way to resolve this "problem."
> 4. You haven't defined what you see as the desired endpoint or goal of your resolution.
> 5. You've knowingly chosen to disregard the willful past failures of your chosen regulatory agency to actually carry out their responsibilities, and seem to expect that the situation will be improved by an increase in their responsibilities.
> 6. Past attempts by people knowledgeable of dog breeding, and/or of the shared culture of "dog people," to participate in the process of developing those definitions and regulatory solutions have been denied, belittled, and ignored, by both your chosen regulatory agency and by the groups promoting this legislation/regulatory scheme.


*Problem:*
Lack of oversight of the commercial dog breeding industry from both an animal welfare and business reporting standpoint.

*Why it is a problem?*

Lack of uniform reporting standards within the industry as a whole (wholesale + direct to public) makes it impossible to reliably track, measure and assess the commercial production of dogs and cats in this country. 

Today, we can only estimate the scale and the scope of the commercial breeding industry (at the national and state level) by developing algorithms using the data sources that are available; i.e. industry sources, regulatory sources (where available) and ownership sources. You can choose to look at those and say that they are false. But, you would also have a hard time proving your point-of-view because the data is just not there to support one claim over the other.

Data is extremely important to informing policy, public resource allocations, consumer education campaigns, etc.

*And, most importantly, in this void of oversight, there are animals that are being used exclusively for the pursuit of profit with little to no regard as to their well-being – physical, mental or social. *

*Definitions?*
I define a “puppy mill” as an operation where the pursuit of profit is the primary motivation for breeding. Puppy mills, by my definition, will seek to maximize efficiencies and cost-savings at the expense of an animal’s health and well-being.

I define a “commercial breeder” as someone whose primary (or otherwise significant) source of income is derived from the sale of dogs and puppies. I recognize that not all commercial breeders are “puppy mills” (by my definition). But, I believe that all commercial breeders should be subject to standards in animal welfare and business reporting.


*Factors that contribute to the problem?*

23 states do not require commercial breeding businesses to obtain a license to operate. And, even in states that have a licensing requirement, there is no uniformity in how “commercial breeder” is defined or how standards will be enforced. 
States do not work together, especially regionally, in order to ensure that illegitimate breeders do not slip through the cracks of the current laws.
In states with no inspection mandates on commercial breeding facilities (no matter how large), law enforcement agencies can only investigate if a citizen reports it. Due to the fact that breeding kennels are private property, unethical breeders rarely, if ever, allow people access to their kennels.
Animal Cruelty laws are often phrased in a way that makes them difficult to prosecute and, more importantly, anti-cruelty laws* only apply after the act of cruelty has occurred*.
Reliance on cruelty investigations and prosecution as a means to encourage ethical commercial business standards is time-consuming and costly for local law enforcement, animal control and the courts.
Source: Table of Commercial Pet Breeder Laws
Animal Legal & Historical Center - Michigan State University College of Law

*Role of the AWA rule change in helping the problem?*
I do not believe that the AWA is the magical answer to the problem as I defined it. The AWA serves a purpose, but a very limited purpose. I have never suggested that I feel that the AWA, alone, can solve the problem or be the sole regulatory agency responsible.

The AWA sets minimum standards that I think we all agree are not enough from an animal welfare point-of-view. Yet, despite that, they do require that data is collected, recorded, and made available to the public. That is the primary value of the AWA. 

*Solving the problem requires more than the AWA*

I believe that individual states need to continue to enact, refine and fund regulatory efforts from both a commercial breeding and animal cruelty standpoint.

Responsible breeders need to be part of the creation of new policy. I know that some states established committees that included all stakeholders as part of their process.

Information that is generated from regulatory activities needs to be made available to the public in ways that help consumers make better purchase decisions – database tools, educational campaigns, etc. 

Incentives and disincentives, on the demand side, need to continue to be considered and enacted. I liked Gwen’s idea that was posted eons ago on this thread.

It would also be great if the AKC stepped up and put some of the data it has to use in better helping consumers find responsible and reputable breeders. It would also be great if they changed their registry rules in ways that promoted ethical breeding practices.

*A couple of interesting factoids that pertain to the rule change:*
200,000 - number of American families who bought puppies online in 2004
Source: American Pet Products Manufacturers Association; cited by Doris Day Animal League

Before the government shutdown, I looked at license trends over the past several years. And, indeed they have been on the decline. In some states, there have been significant declines. I believe there was only one state whose numbers have increased over the past 5 years. I imagine there are several factors that contribute to those declines, including enforcement action, but APHIS Animal Care maintains that one factor has been a switch in business model.


----------



## LifeofRiley

Vandal said:


> Remember Riley, you were the one who accused breeders of using "extreme rhetoric". That is simply disingenuous at best and an outright lie at worst.


Really? We must define "extreme rhetoric" differently.

I have already seen what I consider to be extreme rhetoric posted on this thread and others.

But, maybe you are right, maybe it is not extreme rhetoric, just misinformation.

Did you pay attention to the discourse surrounding Missouri's legislative efforts? Or, for that matter, what is happening in Minnesota right now?

It is interesting.

One of my favorite quotes is the following:
“Just as many conscientious Germans lived to regret the alluring rhetoric of Hitler, and just as the fly died as a result of the alluring rhetoric of the Spider, voters in Missouri could live to regret accepting, at face value, the alluring rhetoric of the HSUS. VOTE NO on Proposition B on November 2nd.”
-Franklin W. Losey


----------



## Vandal

You need to get out more and read what the side you seem to spend your life defending, is saying. 



> "Six million Jews died in concentration camps, but six billion broiler chickens will die this year in slaughterhouses." Ingrid Newkirk
> 
> "Pet ownership is an absolutely abysmal situation brought on by human manipulation."
> 
> "One day we would like an end to pet shops and the breeding of animals. [Dogs] would pursue their natural lives in the wild… They would have full lives, not waiting at home for someone to come home in the evening and pet them and then sit there and watch TV."
> 
> "Eventually companion animals would be phased out, and we would return to a more symbiotic relationship, enjoyment at a distance"
> 
> Ingrid Newkirk PETA




Lots of other comparisons to the Holocaust...."on your plate"...., etc...too many and too offensive to post.




> “We have no ethical obligation to preserve the different breeds of livestock produced through selective breeding …One generation and out. We have no problems with the extinction of domestic animals. They are creations of human selective breeding.”
> — Wayne Pacelle HSUS




Interesting how Ingrid would like DOMESTICATED dogs to live in the wild. They would be dead soon enough, just like the dogs who end up at PETA.

As for your claim that people you know see through PETA's rhetoric...huge numbers of people send them money to the tune of millions of dollars.

Breeders have endured and continue to endure the mentality they promote and lies they tell on a daily basis. This has gone on for decades now. 
I think Frank Losey's statements are pretty tame in comparison and there is truth there in that lies are told over and over in the same fashion, to gain control. Much more frightening than the words, is the mentality behind them. 

There are MANY more comments by these people and the people they employ. Anyone interested can look it up themselves.


----------



## Vandal

> Animal Cruelty laws are often phrased in a way that makes them difficult to prosecute and, more importantly, anti-cruelty laws* only apply after the act of cruelty has occurred*.


This is an interesting and rather frightening comment. So people who own animals should be subjected to a different kind of justice system? They should be searched without a warrant and arrested before they commit a crime?


----------



## LifeofRiley

Vandal said:


> You need to get out more and read what the side you seem to spend your life defending, is saying.
> 
> 
> 
> Lots of other comparisons to the Holocaust...."on your plate"...., etc...too many and too offensive to post.
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting how Ingrid would like DOMESTICATED dogs to live in the wild. They would be dead soon enough, just like the dogs who end up at PETA.
> 
> As for your claim that people you know see through PETA's rhetoric...huge numbers of people send them money to the tune of millions of dollars.
> 
> Breeders have endured and continue to endure the mentality they promote and lies they tell on a daily basis. This has gone on for decades now.
> *I think Frank Losey's statements are pretty tame in comparison and there is truth there in that lies are told over and over in the same fashion, to gain control.* Much more frightening than the words, is the mentality behind them.
> 
> There are MANY more comments by these people and the people they employ. Anyone interested can look it up themselves.


Why do you keep trying to lump my position on this issue together with PETA? 

As I have already said, I know very little about them and I do not take what I have seen seriously. On top of that, as I also said earlier, I don’t know anyone who does take them seriously. 

I find any rhetoric that essentially belittles the tragedy of the holocaust to be extremely offensive no matter who uses it!

By contrast, you essentially called me a liar for stating that extreme rhetoric was being used by the commercial dog breeding community. I think the “anti-pet” conspiracy theory *is* an extreme position. You do not… obviously.


----------



## selzer

LifeofRiley said:


> Why do you keep trying to lump my position on this issue together with PETA?
> 
> As I have already said, I know very little about them and I do not take what I have seen seriously. On top of that, as I also said earlier, I don’t know anyone who does take them seriously.
> 
> I find any rhetoric that essentially belittles the tragedy of the holocaust to be extremely offensive no matter who uses it!
> 
> By contrast, you essentially called me a liar for stating that extreme rhetoric was being used by the commercial dog breeding community. I think the “anti-pet” conspiracy theory *is* an extreme position. You do not… obviously.


PETA, HSUS, and other AR groups encourage this type of legislation. 

When they started, everything they trotted out there, people thought was nuts. But as the years go by, some things most people think is ludicrous. But a lot more of the more subtle things they have pushed are taking hold. 

I mean, who wouldn't want animals treated ethically? 

There has been a real shift in how people who breed dogs are portrayed. In the old days, it was, "Oh, you have puppies? That's nice." Now people will say, "I _always _get dogs from the shelter." or "Why would you breed your dog? Ewwww!" It's a whole other world out there. And lots of people who chose to buy from a breeder are hazed for doing so. 

Think PETA's body bag commercial isn't extreme rhetoric? 





Buy One Kill One Free - YouTube


I think that Peta has this on breeders -- they are well organized, have loud voices, and lots of money. Breeders cannot even agree on what a commercial breeder is, what a puppy mill is, what a byb is, what a hobby breeder is -- and other than a few dog clubs, there is really no coming together of breeders to combat PETA and HSUS. We certainly have no one up there lobbying for us, and if the big producers of puppies did, we wouldn't want to be associated with them.


----------



## Vandal

And you are not "lumping" breeders together? I realize that most people will not read all the long posts from you, seeing for themselves that you don't have much to support your opinions and how you distort what others say in response. 
I said "breeders" not what you switched it to: "commercial dog breeding community". For the most part, breeders are constantly on the defensive. It is a fairly recent event that any organization is fighting back against the likes of the mufti-million dollar Animal Rights groups. 
I wish we had fought back a lot sooner but breeders are CERTAINLY not the ones spewing these extreme and offensive views. I have no idea if Frank Losey is a breeder but he didn't talk about the Holocaust, he talked about fanatics, who managed to fool and bully an entire country into following them.

PETA...... and HSUS...(who is driving most of this anti breeder legalization), do not hold similar views to yours?....not buying it but continue on, for anyone really paying attention, your words speak for themselves.


----------



## Vandal

> I think the “anti-pet” conspiracy theory *is* an extreme position.


Of course you do. We should all just sit and take it according to people like you. ...and apparently you feel the criminalization of breeders and animal owners is just fine. Referring to your comments I quoted above that you have not addressed. 

I listen carefully to what people say. What I listed were exact quotes. People are not making this up. They said it and PETA continues to say it in no uncertain terms. As for no one taking PETA seriously...another example of it being the case because YOU say so. Millions of dollars in donations says MANY people do. 
Wayne is a little more clever in his delivery but it's clear the agenda is the same. You are supporting that agenda.


----------



## selzer

Breeders make money by producing puppies. This in and of itself, is not a bad thing. 

HSUS, and PETA make money by exploiting the suffering of animals. Their existance and their jobs are dependent on animals suffering. Of course they are going to go after the group of people least likely to make any difference when it comes to animals suffering. It's a multi-million dollar business, this exploitation of animal-suffering. They aren't looking to give it up any time soon. If they can't find it, they manufacture it. I think Ringling Bros. Had to take them to court over abuse that the HSUS plant committed so he could videotape it. 

Yes, to be charged with animal cruelty, animal cruelty has to have taken place. Exactly. That's how it should be.


----------



## LifeofRiley

Vandal said:


> And you are not "lumping" breeders together? I realize that most people will not read all the long posts from you, seeing for themselves that you don't have much to support your opinions and how you distort what others say in response.


Are you kidding me? I, believe, I was chastised by you and JustJim for using the term "puppy mill," so I clarified my definitions. I, obviously, do not lump all breeders together. 

You, on the other hand, seem to want to label anyone who thinks that it is sensible that a commercial business be licensed and regulated as a PETA extremist. 

Businesses - in most other industries - are held accountable to standards of reporting and practices via licensing and regulation.


----------



## selzer

I run a few businesses. 

I do not have to meet any standards, nor am under any regulations when it comes to being a nanny for my sister's company. I get a 1099, and have to claim it on my income tax. And there is a schedule C on my income tax. In fact, if I do some inspections for their product for one of their companies, there is no difference in how that is reported. 

The tack shop that I run is not regulated in any way either. We have to declare sales tax. And I am sure my sister has to produce a profit/loss statement on her income tax. 

In Ohio, if you have a kennel license -- anyone who breeds dogs for sale or hunting must have a kennel license. This is $60 as of 2014 and provides you with 5 tags. Added tags can be purchased for $1. The license fee is $12 for dogs in our county. So if you have 6 or more dogs, a kennel license will save you money. 

A few years ago, they added the stipulation that you must get a vendor's license to have a kennel license. It is a 1-time $25 fee. You also have to file sales tax twice a year. It is a pain in the backside, but you do what you must. 

Profit or loss of the business must be provided on your income taxes/schedule C. 

I think there are plenty of businesses it makes sense to be under the the oversite of the government. Food, drugs, medical devices, etc. I do not see why puppies need to be there, unless the operation is so large, that it should be classified as a high volume puppy-farm rather than a kennel. 

I do not think your typical family farm is subject to regular inspections. You can have a couple of horses, cows, goats, chickens, and never have a government inspector show up, and that is how it ought to be. If you have a pig farm where you have 1700 Sows, then maybe someone should come and check you out. That size operation, if there are not proper procedures for handling feces/clean up -- health, environmental hazard, selling live animals across state lines can spread disease -- health certificate or proper handling/cleaning/testing, may be required, selling animals raised for food can be a health issue. 


How are farms classified as those requiring to be inspected regularly, and those that do not need any inspection? I would expect the same type of designations to be used by people who keep, breed, sell dogs. The same rules and regulations do not make sense for people who keep a small number of dogs, and take care of them themselves, as those that have a thousand dogs and have staff or should have staff to maintain them. 

Farms that are so large that they are a health or environmental inpact maybe should have some oversite. Currently puppies shipped need to have health certifications, that makes sense, no one is arguing about that. If that is broken, the AVA needs to fix it. 

I really do not see what this legislation is trying to accomplish. 

Pets4Life, your definition of a commercial breeder is different than any I have noticed before. I think I have read in one set of legislation that a commercial breeder is one who sells dogs primarily through wholesalers, to retail pet stores. As completely different from that definition to your definition, it is no wonder that no one can come up with anything that is reasonable. We cannot be clear about the terminology.


----------



## selzer

Ohio's new rule is 9 litters and 50 or 60 puppies/dogs sold, and you fall under the department of agriculture. In the light of the insanity in this legislation, Ohio almost sounds incredibly sane, LOL!


----------



## LifeofRiley

selzer said:


> Pets4Life, your definition of a commercial breeder is different than any I have noticed before. I think I have read in one set of legislation that a commercial breeder is one who sells dogs primarily through wholesalers, to retail pet stores. As completely different from that definition to your definition, it is no wonder that no one can come up with anything that is reasonable. We cannot be clear about the terminology.


Did you mean me? Yep, they are not definitions used in any legislation. I was asked to define the problem as I see it and define the terms as I think about them. I am not saying my take is the right one or that it should be used for regulatory purposes. I thought the goal of that post was to enable a discussion about possible solutions where we all talk about how we view the problem and define the terms. 

In terms of actual regulatory definitions, there are no standard definitions for “commercial breeder, “volume breeder,” “dog breeder” etc. in this country. It is defined very differently from state to state.

You already cited Ohio. 

Here are some other ways these terms are defined in those states that do actually have licensing requirements: 

Indiana: “Commercial dog breeder” means a person who maintains more than twenty (20) unaltered female dogs that are at least twelve (12) months of age.

Iowa: “Commercial breeder” means a person, engaged in the business of breeding dogs or cats, who sells, exchanges, or leases dogs or cats in return for consideration, or who offers to do so, whether or not the animals are raised, trained, groomed, or boarded by the person. A person who owns or harbors three or fewer breeding males or females is not a commercial breeder.

Virginia: “Commercial dog breeder” means any person who, during any 12-month period, maintains 30 or more adult female dogs for the primary purpose of the sale of their offspring as companion animals.

Texas: “Dog or cat breeder” means a person who possesses 11 or more adult intact female animals and is engaged in the business of breeding those animals for direct or indirect sale or for exchange in return for consideration and who sells or exchanges, or offers to sell or exchange, not fewer than 20 animals in a calendar year.

Washington: Breeder not specifically defined, but law applies to a person who keeps 10 or more dogs with intact sexual organs over the age of 6 months in an enclosure for the majority of the day.

Wisconsin: "Dog breeder” means a person who sells 25 or more dogs in a year that the person has bred and raised, except that “dog breeder” does not include a person who sells 25 or more dogs in a year that the person has bred and raised if all of those dogs are from no more than 3 litters.

Source: Table of Commercial Pet Breeder Laws

I agree that not having agreed upon definitions is a problem.


----------



## JustJim

LifeofRiley said:


> Problem:
> Lack of oversight of the commercial dog breeding industry from both an animal welfare and business reporting standpoint.


Well, that's a start. Unfortunately, your proposed (and now admittedly short-term) solution is to regulate, rather than first gaining the information to determine the extent of the problem, and considering alternative ways of resolving them.



LifeofRiley said:


> Today, we can only estimate the scale and the scope of the commercial breeding industry (at the national and state level) by developing algorithms using the data sources that are available; i.e. industry sources, regulatory sources (where available) and ownership sources. You can choose to look at those and say that they are false. But, you would also have a hard time proving your point-of-view because the data is just not there to support one claim over the other.


You are assuming a problem apparently based in large part on the absence of evidence, then trying to shift the burden of proof onto someone whom you think doesn't agree with you. As one making the claim of need for such regulation, it is your responsibility to prove it. Using that same "logic" and lack of facts, demands could be made that ICE regulate the passage of illegal entities from other planets and/or dimensions, including increased taxation and "user fees" to provide funding, and applying to everyone (in order to identify the "illegal entities"). Absurd, but until you can provide facts--actual numbers--that demand would have equal validity.

There should be a factual basis for the development and implementation of these regulations, and that you have provided no facts to support your position calling for increased regulation. (Congress has expressed the same expectations of regulatory bodies. This was something APHIS vaguely addressed in their explanatory notes; unfortunately, they didn't provide any actual facts.) 



LifeofRiley said:


> I define a “puppy mill” as an operation where the pursuit of profit is the primary motivation for breeding. Puppy mills, by my definition, will seek to maximize efficiencies and cost-savings at the expense of an animal’s health and well-being.
> 
> I define a “commercial breeder” as someone whose primary (or otherwise significant) source of income is derived from the sale of dogs and puppies. I recognize that not all commercial breeders are “puppy mills” (by my definition).


Those aren't bad definitions for purposes of general discussion, probably better than most. Unfortunately, under APHIS, if someone meets the criteria for regulation and licensing, they are a "commercial breeder" and the legal assumption is made by APHIS, IRS, etc, that their primary motivation is the pursuit of profit. 

In other words, if you consistently apply your definitions to the regulations you support, all APHIS-licensed "commercial breeders" are "puppy mills." This is a common tactic of many of the supporters of the APHIS regulations: to claim they are only trying to regulate "puppy mills," while at the same time they are re-defining all breeders as "puppy mills." This may be part of why some here have the opinion that you are a supporter of the positions of PETA, HSUS, etc.



LifeofRiley said:


> Factors that contribute to the problem?


This is a description of the current "regulatory landscape," not a list of "factors that contribute to the problem." You would need to show how these elements contribute to the problem, i.e., how they lead to what you have described as the problem, for them to be relevant.



LifeofRiley said:


> Role of the AWA rule change in helping the problem?
> I do not believe that the AWA is the magical answer to the problem as I defined it. The AWA serves a purpose, but a very limited purpose. I have never suggested that I feel that the AWA, alone, can solve the problem or be the sole regulatory agency responsible.


In this statement, you seem to be acknowledging the validity of the "slippery slope" concerns of increased regulations expressed by some in this thread. Would that be a correct characterization of your statement and beliefs?



LifeofRiley said:


> The AWA sets minimum standards that I think we all agree are not enough from an animal welfare point-of-view. Yet, despite that, they do require that data is collected, recorded, and made available to the public. That is the primary value of the AWA.


Clearly, from posts made in this thread, not everyone is in agreement with your position on the minimum standards set. Data can be "collected, recorded, and made available to the public" without creating or enlarging a regulatory umbrella. That data is supposed to be collected _before_ the regulations are created or expanded. 

What little information collected prior to the initial development and proposal of the new regulations is what in statistics would be called a "convenience sample." APHIS got the numbers where it was convenient to gather the data without considering the source, and seem to have relied heavily on anecdotes where it wasn't "convenient" to gather data. Convenience samples and anecdotes are frequently not representative of the entire population being studied, and leads to inaccurate and prejudicial views of that entire population.

What follows is a rather extreme example, but one selected for clarity. I'm specifically not making the claim that the anecdotes and convenience samples used by APHIS have lead to equally-absurd conclusions, but rather that no one knows if they apply to the general population--and thus, if the regulations are necessary. 
Almost everyone knows, or knows of, someone of advanced years who smokes cigarettes; this is an anecdote. A person could study a local geriatric facility and find many more people of advanced years who smoke cigarettes; this is a convenience sample. It would not be correct to assume, because of this anecdote and convenience sample, that cigarette smoking poses no threat to long-term health. 



LifeofRiley said:


> Solving the problem requires more than the AWA
> 
> I believe


For the most part, there is no need to further read your proposed solution. You have no evidence to support the need for further regulation. No one is questioning your right to your beliefs, but that does not mean you have the right to force others to act in accordance with your beliefs. 



LifeofRiley said:


> A couple of interesting factoids that pertain to the rule change:


Interesting choice of words there on your part. "Factoid" is commonly defined as "an unverified statement without supporting evidence," or something similar.



LifeofRiley said:


> 200,000 - number of American families who bought puppies online in 2004
> Source: American Pet Products Manufacturers Association; cited by Doris Day Animal League.


You might want to consider your sources. The "Doris Day Animal League" merged with HSUS several years ago.

Unless it is contained in their $1,200 market survey, that information is not available from the American Pet Products Manufacturing Association. If true, and if they provided definitions of "buying online," and actual numbers rather than an estimate, that information might have been relevant to increased regulation in 2004-2005. Multi-year data (rather than estimates from a single year) might be directly relevant to the question of actual need for the regulations today. Multi-year data on the number of health problems in dogs purchased sight-unseen would be directly relevant to the question of actual need for the regulations.



LifeofRiley said:


> Before the government shutdown, I looked at license trends over the past several years. And, indeed they have been on the decline. In some states, there have been significant declines. I believe there was only one state whose numbers have increased over the past 5 years. I imagine there are several factors that contribute to those declines, including enforcement action, but APHIS Animal Care maintains that one factor has been a switch in business model.


A decline in license trends do not necessarily imply or support the idea of a change in business model; certainly APHIS offered no evidence to support their claim. What you "imagine" may well be right, but until and unless you have facts to support it--rather than merely trying to attribute a declining trend to whatever causes you "imagine"--there is no reason for anyone to think you are correct.


----------



## LifeofRiley

JustJim said:


> Well, that's a start. Unfortunately, your proposed (and now admittedly short-term) solution is to regulate, rather than first gaining the information to determine the extent of the problem, and considering alternative ways of resolving them.
> 
> 
> 
> You are assuming a problem apparently based in large part on the absence of evidence, then trying to shift the burden of proof onto someone whom you think doesn't agree with you. As one making the claim of need for such regulation, it is your responsibility to prove it. Using that same "logic" and lack of facts, demands could be made that ICE regulate the passage of illegal entities from other planets and/or dimensions, including increased taxation and "user fees" to provide funding, and applying to everyone (in order to identify the "illegal entities"). Absurd, but until you can provide facts--actual numbers--that demand would have equal validity.
> 
> There should be a factual basis for the development and implementation of these regulations, and that you have provided no facts to support your position calling for increased regulation. (Congress has expressed the same expectations of regulatory bodies. This was something APHIS vaguely addressed in their explanatory notes; unfortunately, they didn't provide any actual facts.)
> 
> 
> Those aren't bad definitions for purposes of general discussion, probably better than most. Unfortunately, under APHIS, if someone meets the criteria for regulation and licensing, they are a "commercial breeder" and the legal assumption is made by APHIS, IRS, etc, that their primary motivation is the pursuit of profit.
> 
> In other words, if you consistently apply your definitions to the regulations you support, all APHIS-licensed "commercial breeders" are "puppy mills." This is a common tactic of many of the supporters of the APHIS regulations: to claim they are only trying to regulate "puppy mills," while at the same time they are re-defining all breeders as "puppy mills." This may be part of why some here have the opinion that you are a supporter of the positions of PETA, HSUS, etc.
> 
> 
> This is a description of the current "regulatory landscape," not a list of "factors that contribute to the problem." You would need to show how these elements contribute to the problem, i.e., how they lead to what you have described as the problem, for them to be relevant.
> 
> 
> In this statement, you seem to be acknowledging the validity of the "slippery slope" concerns of increased regulations expressed by some in this thread. Would that be a correct characterization of your statement and beliefs?
> 
> 
> Clearly, from posts made in this thread, not everyone is in agreement with your position on the minimum standards set. Data can be "collected, recorded, and made available to the public" without creating or enlarging a regulatory umbrella. That data is supposed to be collected _before_ the regulations are created or expanded.
> 
> What little information collected prior to the initial development and proposal of the new regulations is what in statistics would be called a "convenience sample." APHIS got the numbers where it was convenient to gather the data without considering the source, and seem to have relied heavily on anecdotes where it wasn't "convenient" to gather data. Convenience samples and anecdotes are frequently not representative of the entire population being studied, and leads to inaccurate and prejudicial views of that entire population.
> 
> What follows is a rather extreme example, but one selected for clarity. I'm specifically not making the claim that the anecdotes and convenience samples used by APHIS have lead to equally-absurd conclusions, but rather that no one knows if they apply to the general population--and thus, if the regulations are necessary.
> Almost everyone knows, or knows of, someone of advanced years who smokes cigarettes; this is an anecdote. A person could study a local geriatric facility and find many more people of advanced years who smoke cigarettes; this is a convenience sample. It would not be correct to assume, because of this anecdote and convenience sample, that cigarette smoking poses no threat to long-term health.
> 
> 
> 
> For the most part, there is no need to further read your proposed solution. You have no evidence to support the need for further regulation. No one is questioning your right to your beliefs, but that does not mean you have the right to force others to act in accordance with your beliefs.
> 
> 
> Interesting choice of words there on your part. "Factoid" is commonly defined as "an unverified statement without supporting evidence," or something similar.
> 
> 
> You might want to consider your sources. The "Doris Day Animal League" merged with HSUS several years ago.
> 
> Unless it is contained in their $1,200 market survey, that information is not available from the American Pet Products Manufacturing Association. If true, and if they provided definitions of "buying online," and actual numbers rather than an estimate, that information might have been relevant to increased regulation in 2004-2005. Multi-year data (rather than estimates from a single year) might be directly relevant to the question of actual need for the regulations today. Multi-year data on the number of health problems in dogs purchased sight-unseen would be directly relevant to the question of actual need for the regulations.
> 
> 
> A decline in license trends do not necessarily imply or support the idea of a change in business model; certainly APHIS offered no evidence to support their claim. What you "imagine" may well be right, but until and unless you have facts to support it--rather than merely trying to attribute a declining trend to whatever causes you "imagine"--there is no reason for anyone to think you are correct.


It is always easier to critique a position than it is to posit one of your own. 

I thought you wanted to engage in a productive discussion. Yet, clearly, I was wrong.

Based on your posts, you obviously have a position of your own as to how to define and address the problem. Yet, you have not articulated it or provided any of your own objective data to support it. 

As such, I do not think you have made any good faith effort that would incline me to take you seriously or otherwise respond to some of the points you made in your most recent post.


----------



## Smithie86

Riley,

He was asking you to clarify (back up) your position with specifics.

That is all.


----------



## Gwenhwyfair

It is true JustJim questioned the validity of your source due to possible bias (Doris Day Animal League) but he's also correct in that since you support the legislation the burden of proof is on you to provide better data. The fact that the regulatory agency itself is not (or cannot?) providing data really does put a big dent in your argument LoR. 

You've also skirted and deflected about the fact that the USDA isn't funded or able to enforce the regs/rules they have already.

The irony of the argument for these rules, at a more macro level, is the USDA/APHIS is basically admitting their failure at putting at least a decent downward curve on unethical breeders/puppy millers. This is then a reason to enact more rules/regs. and expect a different outcome? Nope.

So more of the same by an underfunded, undermanned agency is going to help? All the what if's and rhetoric aside a top level view indicates this rule will probably only really hurt small ethical breeders who care about their reputation. There simply is no evidence past or present to convince otherwise.

No pun intended, but as they say here in the south, that dog won't hunt. 





LifeofRiley said:


> It is always easier to critique a position than it is to posit one of your own.
> 
> I thought you wanted to engage in a productive discussion. Yet, clearly, I was wrong.
> 
> Based on your posts, you obviously have a position of your own as to how to define and address the problem. Yet, you have not articulated it or provided any of your own objective data to support it.
> 
> As such, I do not think you have made any good faith effort that would incline me to take you seriously or otherwise respond to some of the points you made in your most recent post.


----------



## LifeofRiley

People here have grounded their opposition of the rule change on the claim that the AWA has been ineffective. 

I contend that the AWA has been effective in addressing the reporting side of the problem as I have defined it.

APHIS Animal Care has a lot of great data on the wholesale side of the commercial breeding business. *I believe that this data has played an important role in informing consumer awareness and education campaigns and in informing state and local policy. * This has been the primary value of the AWA.

It is only because of the AWA that we have 40+ years of data on the wholesale side of the commercial dog breeding industry. Every year the USDA issues a report that reports how many Class A (dog/cat breeders) and Class B (dog/cat dealers) USDA licensees exist in each state. This data allows us to identify those states with the highest concentration of licenses, track national and state-level trends over time as well as track trends in animal inventory at licensed facilities over time.


This data allows me to be able to cite the following figures as of 2013:
1. Missouri – 678 (note: this number is why it was so interesting to follow Missouri’s effort to enact a new state law)
2. Iowa - 248
3. Oklahoma - 205
4. Kansas - 195
5. Ohio - 149
6. Arkansas - 146
7. Indiana - 129
8. Nebraska - 74
9. South Dakota - 62
10. Texas - 58
11. Minnesota - 36
12. Pennsylvania - 34
13. New York - 32
14. Wisconsin - 28
15. Illinois - 25

This information can normally be found at this site but obviously it not accessible now due to the shutdown -USDA: Animal Welfare License and Registration List 

Source for the above: http://files.meetup.com/1258100/2007-2013 USDA LicensesInventoryReport_v3.pdf

The above linked document also shows *3-year and 7-year trends in license holders as well as trends in animal inventory counts among the highest volume licensees.* This data can normally be found using the APHIS Animal Care database. But, again, due to the shutdown, it is not currently available. 

In addition to this type of data, the documentation provided by inspection reports gives us *access* to the conditions at these facilities. This information has also been used effectively to raise awareness of the animal welfare problems within the wholesale industry.

I believe that, if it were not for the AWA, public awareness about the wholesale industry would not be where it is today. I believe that without the AWA, it would be much harder for states to know the scale and scope of the wholesale industry that exists in their state. That is the value of the AWA, as it has existed for the past 40+ years – data collection and *reporting*. 

As I have said before, solving the *“animal welfare” problem* that some of these facilities represent takes much more than the AWA. But, many of the “demand side” initiatives would be less effective without the information provided by the AWA – particularly since many people on here do not consider the data gathering efforts of animal welfare groups to be credible.


----------



## Merciel

Bumping the thread to add a link to Patrica McConnell's blog post on the subject: USDA Internet Sale Regulations TheOtherEndoftheLeash

I imagine most here have seen it already but figured I'd put the link in anyway, just to complete the record or whatnot.

Her opinion is a lot more favorable than mine and is causing me to reconsider whether I was too uncharitable in my judgments. The comments also include some thoughts from people who work in/with enforcement of the rule, which I found illuminating.


----------



## Gwenhwyfair

Interesting read. However the comments following the blog post bring up some concise and pointed counter arguments as well. Worth the time to read comments also IMO.



Merciel said:


> Bumping the thread to add a link to Patrica McConnell's blog post on the subject: USDA Internet Sale Regulations TheOtherEndoftheLeash
> 
> I imagine most here have seen it already but figured I'd put the link in anyway, just to complete the record or whatnot.
> 
> Her opinion is a lot more favorable than mine and is causing me to reconsider whether I was too uncharitable in my judgments. The comments also include some thoughts from people who work in/with enforcement of the rule, which I found illuminating.


----------



## Merciel

Yeah, the comments on her blog are usually of very good quality and often thought-provoking.

I'm still not convinced the rule is actually a good thing, but I do value having other informed perspectives on it.


----------



## CelticGlory

Actually, when re-reading it; wouldn't pictures and video be included as "seeing the puppy"? Especially, if the hobby breeders get live feed video streaming? Just curious, because if asked some hobby breeders do provide videos of the puppies upon request, at least in other breeds they do. So wouldn't that mean that the purchase of that puppy to someone out of state isn't considered sight unseen?

ETA: ALSO, wouldn't this mean that you could infact have another breeder within or outside of the breed be the "second" person that a buyer could use to see the puppy? I'm trying to figure this out because I am not (refuse to) limiting myself to breeder's in my state alone.


----------



## LifeofRiley

FYI... given some of the discussion here, I thought some might be interested in this webinar offered by APHIS - "*What is USDA’s Inspection Process in a Home?*"

Here is the link: USDA - APHIS - Animal Welfare - Animal Care

By following this link, you will also have the opportunity to read other webinars held re: the rule change.


----------

