# USDA/APHIS Proposal Against Breeders



## Chris Wild

This website does and EXCELLENT job of outlining the new proposal and how it would have a serious negative impact on the good breeders of every breed.

USDA/APHIS Proposed Regulations Affecting Dog Breeders


Most good breeders are not going to be willing to become USDA licensed, as doing so would not only present an undue hardship but mean that much of what makes them good breeders would not longer be allowed. If this goes through, most would be forced to either go out of business or opperate "illegally". Which in turn would severely limit the ability of customers to obtain good dogs. This affects everyone, so please pass this on.

This government site is collecting the thoughts of the people, and open for comments through the middle of next month.

http://www.regulations.gov/#%21documentDetail;D=APHIS-2011-0003-0001


----------



## Zeeva

Which regulations are you most concerned about? I don't know anything about breeding but isn't it fair to not have more than four bitches for breeding purposes. It sounded to me like they are trying to control puppy mills? 

Also, why do you feel like this prevents good breeding? 

I mean no offense by these comments. Just curious...

Thanks for the link.


----------



## I_LOVE_MY_MIKKO

Zeeva said:


> Which regulations are you most concerned about? I don't know anything about breeding but isn't it fair to not have more than four bitches for breeding purposes. It sounded to me like they are trying to control puppy mills?
> 
> Also, why do you feel like this prevents good breeding?
> 
> I mean no offense by these comments. Just curious...
> 
> Thanks for the link.


 
Prevent puppy mills? LOL, that's kind of funny since all the USDA seems to do is oversee puppy mills and we all know they aren't going away anytime soon. It's my understanding that the regulations they put in place for puppy mills to maintain the dogs' lives (I won't even say to take care of them)would transfer to all breeders who either 
1. have more than 4 breeding bitches and/or 
2. Sell any dog site unseen.

Many good breeders have more than four breeding bitches- or even more than four intact females (some may be retired, some may be puppies, etc). Four females really isn't that much anyway.

So, if they have more than four, then in order to avoid the USDA they have to make sure that every person who buys a dog from them steps foot on their property at least once. I'm guessing this is the bigger problem since it seems like many breeders ship puppies.

The OP, Chris, is a very reputable breeder and if she has a problem with this regulation, then it's probably not a good thing!

The USDA regulating breeders kind of reminds me of the way meat is regulated. If the farmer has a nice farm with free ranging animals and kills them humanely and doesn't wash them in ammonia, etc, then the meat is labeled not for human consumption. But if the animals are jammed inside living in their own filth, never seeing daylight, and cleaned after they are killed, then it's okay. The regulations in this country are so backwards.


----------



## Chris Wild

Mikko summed it up well. Both are problems. Under the new regulations if a breeder does these things they would have to be USDA licensed. USDA licensing would put most breeders out of business. Not due to cost, but due to regulations. No more housing breeding stock and raising pups in their homes for one.. has to be done in a separate building. I know for sure I'm not going to go build a barn and stick my dogs out there, and raise my pups out there. They're staying in the house! And most hobby breeders would feel the same.

4 breeding females really translates to 4 intact females of breeding age. A breeder might only have 1 female that is actually being bred, but then has her mom who is older and retired but still intact, and 2 daughters who are a couple years away from being breeding stock but are physically mature enough to have pups. One more female, and they are over the limit. That really isn't a lot of females, especially when hopeful youngsters and retirees are included.

Many breeders sell dogs all over the country, outside of their immediate area. This allows breeders to find the best homes, and customers to find the best dogs for them, and not be limited to what is available close to home. Under these regulations breeders would have to require customers to visit the breeder at least once. And that's once per sale. So even a previous customer who visited when they got their last pup would have to come again. This would either mean breeders and customers are now limited to just those close by, or customers have to incur the cost and inconvenienct of driving or flying, potentially clear across the country.


----------



## Mrs.K

Yeah, posted this about a week ago in the dog affairs section, for some reason it doesn't seem to get as much attention as I thought it would since it really affects every single one of us on here.

If you haven't done so, go over and sign the AKC's petition to protect small breeders like Chris. 

http://www.germanshepherds.com/foru...4616-akc-petition-protect-small-breeders.html


----------



## TrickyShepherd

Not a fan of USDA on terms of dog breeding. They allow puppy mills to exist and let them use the USDA Cert, to claim how they are "great breeders". The "breeder" Zira came from is USDA Certified.... and we see what that created. She has every problem listed in the book of veterinary medicine. 

I definitely do not want them linked in any way, shape, or form with the real respected, moral breeders! 

Gosh I hope this doesn't really happen.


----------



## TrickyShepherd

Mrs.K said:


> Yeah, posted this about a week ago in the dog affairs section, for some reason it doesn't seem to get as much attention as I thought it would since it really affects every single one of us on here.
> 
> If you haven't done so, go over and sign the AKC's petition to protect small breeders like Chris.
> 
> http://www.germanshepherds.com/foru...4616-akc-petition-protect-small-breeders.html


Signed.

Thanks for the link!


----------



## Dainerra

Also, the "4 breeding females" doesn't just include dogs that you plan to breed. It would count dogs that you board for customers, dogs you co-own that live somewhere else, your daughter's yorkie that she is doing JR showmanship with but doesn't plan to breed. It includes any unaltered female dog, possibly as young as 4 months old.

If you read over the checklist, there are some items that would make it impossible to whelp a litter in anything other than a commercial-type building.
- all surfaces that the animals come in contact with must be impervious to liquids. that means no carpets, no bedding, no furniture. How happy would your dog be if he couldn't even have a blanket to lay on?
- drains. my house didn't come with drains installed in the floor
- inspected by your vet every 12 months
and the biggie
- can contain nothing not directly related to animal husbandry!!


----------



## Chris Wild

From what I've heard, while nice the AKC petition isn't getting much weight because it's just a list of names. Comments on the government site I linked in the first post will have the most effect.


----------



## TrickyShepherd

Chris Wild said:


> From what I've heard, while nice the AKC petition isn't getting much weight because it's just a list of names. Comments on the government site I linked in the first post will have the most effect.


Ah, ok. I will go there too. Thanks


----------



## onyx'girl

On FB, the dogs deserve better page had this posted and everyone is gungho signing it to have it PASS! They are ignorant to the real issues and think they are signing in support of stopping puppy millers. 
Word needs to be spread that this will only hurt the responsible hobby breeders and have no impact on stopping the millers.


----------



## Dainerra

This legislation actually does more to HELP puppy mills than to hinder them. 
It leaves the reputable breeder with having to give up all of the things that make them reputable. No more home-raised puppies. No more keeping back pups to see how they grow out before deciding which route best suits your program. It even makes it harder for a breeder to mentor the next generation - co-owning a dog counts against your limit of 4. Want to take a puppy back? how close to you are your limit?
It removes the idea that there is a better alternative than the dog in the pet store.


----------



## Sunflowers

Fantastic. 
More government regulations.
Ugh.


----------



## Mrs.K

onyx'girl said:


> On FB, the dogs deserve better page had this posted and everyone is gungho signing it to have it PASS! They are ignorant to the real issues and think they are signing in support of stopping puppy millers.
> Word needs to be spread that this will only hurt the responsible hobby breeders and have no impact on stopping the millers.



Yeah, those are the same nuts like the person in Germany that got a petition going to get a breeding ban over all of Europe... as if that would solve the issues. :help:


----------



## LARHAGE

Bleeding heart idiots, it's not enough to stop us from buying large sodas, and monitoring our sugar intake, we now need regulations to breed our dogs, this is why when ever HSUS , USDA and PETA groups ever get a collective thought in their heads, I automatically am against it, slowly but surely we are losing our rights in this country, it's unbelievable the power some people think their entitled to.


----------



## onyx'girl

Completely agree Lorie. And it won't stop, unfortunately. I was involved in a war with HSUS in the late 80's w/ the parrot industry. I still wonder why they have such 'power' so many decades later?


----------



## jnr

*My submitted comment*

This is very impotant to sll of us - the wonderful breeders who put their heart and soul into these dogs, and those of us who look to them for our puppies. Here is the comment I posted. There is a word limit, or I would have kept going, but perhaps others can use it for ideas:

I am a responsible dog owner who obtains my pets from high quality hobby breeders who would be severely threatened by the proposed regulations. Unlike puppy mills, these breeders typically raise their puppies at home, in an environment where they are highly socialized and treated as family members. The commercial quality of the regulations, which require a sterile, livestock type environment, may be appropriate for large mills (assuming such mills should exist) which you already have jurisdiction over. Requiring that every customer physically come to the breeder or that there be no more than four owned females that potentially could be bred works only for the breeders who care least about their puppies - the back yard breeders who sell a bunch of poorly bred puppies to the local market. Breeders who strive to match the best male and female often search regionally or nationally for both their mates and for potential buyers. With the Internet, there are many specialty forums where people trade detailed information about prospective breeders, and rather than allow even a segment of the potential purchasers to communicate and purchase their dogs over the Internet, your proposal would take away the retail exemption if even ONE buyer did not personally pick up their puppy if the breeder had ownership or co-ownership of even four potential breeding females. You should permit the retail exemption to be used if the breeder holds himself out as open for visits and actually does permit visits even if not everyone can actually come. This insures that there are not hidden breeding hovels that the public cannot visit in a direct way, while recognizing that in the 21 st century at least some transactions will be consumated with modern communications. Similarly, the four female limit is far too small, particularly since it appears to cover females that may simply be co-owned. Many responsible breeders own or co-own several females and raise puppies in their home.


----------



## Vandal

These regulations will affect serious working dog breeders. Those who sell dogs all over the country for Search and Rescue, Police , Detection etc. These regulations unfairly limit and financially punish breeders who keep dogs in order to establish and maintain a bloodline. 

Purchasers of these dogs would also be punished financially due to required travel costs in order to purchase dogs suited for their needs. Breeders would be forced to raise the price of the dogs in order to cover the costs of labor requirements, (needed to comply with regulations designed for completely different kinds of facilities), extremely expensive upgrades to their home and property, and licensing fees. 

Read the link that Chris provided. I believe there is a link to the USDA inspection report. So labor intensive, no small breeder could possibly afford it.

Not all dogs develop into breeding dogs. There are health tests that can only be administered at two years of age, ( hips x-rays, elbows x-rays for example). Forcing breeders to limit breeding females to four, has the potential to wipe out a breeding program if the dogs kept back, do not meet health and temperament standards for breeding. If I like the results of a particular breeding, I will usually keep back more than one, since you never know if they will develop into a breeding animal, ( hips etc). These changes would make that impossible and would impose a severe threat to a bloodline that has taken decades to develop.

Many breeders will take back and re-home dogs that do not work out in their original placement. This is to prevent the dog from entering the shelter system and to keep the dog safe. Forcing breeders to sterilize these dogs, ( to avoid exceeding the four dog limit), would again, impose an unfair financial burden and possibly result in many more dogs entering shelters across the country. It would also eliminate the breeder's ability to assess the dog as a breeding candidate. There are simply not that many good candidates for breeding. These regulations will limit a very small number to even less and will have a serious impact on those breeders attempting to produce quality dogs. Since almost all the AR backed laws now insist that dogs be sterilized by four months of age, it is safe to assume this will be the case here as well.

Again, this leaves those who are not as selective more free to breed dogs of lesser temperament and health. It would be easy to just keep four and breed them no matter what but if you are trying to produce good dogs and honestly try to evaluate what you have, and whether that dog can and does produce quality dogs, these rule changes are simply poison.

It would be exceptionally difficult for a breeder to achieve the proper level of diversity in their bloodlines if they are limited to four intact females. Again, not all dogs develop into breeding dogs . Some, although good dogs themselves, do not produce well and are therefore removed from use for breeding. The limits placed on breeders increase the odds of losing years of work developing a bloodline if the one female they keep back from that line, ( due to imposed limits), is not suited for breeding. People simply breeding puppies with no plan will not be affected at all. The breeders with a goal and desire to maintain a bloodline will be. 

The requirements will have an opposite effect than they are pretending, ( I refuse to to believe there is a good intent here), in that people who breed without testing, knowledge and a goal, will be less regulated while the serious breeders with knowledge and a goal, will suffer. 

These new rules are being heavily promoted by the Humane Society for the United States. Animal Rights activists who are repelled at the very thought of breeding dogs, yet they think they know how it is done right. The reality is....they do not want ANY breeding and these rule changes will go a long way in achieving their goal. 

*PLEASE*, everyone who values well bred dogs needs to comment on the APHIS site and OPPOSE these changes.
Regulations.gov


----------



## DianaM

I signed and commented. There are a few thick, spikey cacti around here I have reserved as special seats for PETA and HSUS and the other animal rights wahoos...

I basically said that home breeders do the best for dogs, raising them in home environments as opposed to cages and more cages, that hobby breeders were responsible for nearly all breeds in existence. The upland game bird hunters created the spaniel breeds to assist with hunting, the shepherds bred the herding breeds to tend their particular livestock, etc. The hobby breeder can discuss in detail dogs many generations back in pedigrees, why a breeding combo was chosen, the pros and the cons, whereas factory breeders simply do not have the resources for the checks and balances available to the hobby breeder. 

Hopefully people will get their heads out of their rears.


----------



## jmdjack

I do not breed and I do not consider myself political. However, I see this regulation negatively impacting breeders I respect and the type of dogs I cherish. Thus, I felt compelled to comment in opposition to this regulation. It was easy and did not take much time. Hint, hint!


----------



## onyx'girl

jmdjack said:


> I do not breed and I do not consider myself political. However, I see this regulation negatively impacting breeders I respect and the type of dogs I cherish. Thus, I felt compelled to comment in opposition to this regulation. It was easy and did not take much time. Hint, hint!


Thank you! 
We~ who do not breed, yet want good dogs from good breeders are the ones that need to speak up!
Would you be willing to share what you wrote as an example(not that anyone should do a copy/paste-but use their own words/thoughts) so others can do the same....see how easy it was?


----------



## jmdjack

onyx'girl said:


> Thank you!
> We~ who do not breed, yet want good dogs from good breeders are the ones that need to speak up!
> Would you be willing to share what you wrote as an example(not that anyone should do a copy/paste-but use their own words/thoughts) so others can do the same....see how easy it was?


Sure. I borrowed from others in this thread, in particular Anne's and Chris Wild's posts. In fact, it was Anne's post in the Schutzhund forum that caused me to post (I do not even check this subforum). Certainly not perfect, but most importantly, another voice in opposition. Here goes:

I am a responsible dog owner and I am OPPOSED to this regulation. This regulation will impose undue hardship on the very people who are doing things right. Many, if not most, excellent breeders breed on a small scale and raise puppies in their homes with family, as family. The regulations are so onerous that no small scale, hobby breeder would be willing and/or able to comply with these regulations. The exemptions are far too narrow. The limit on four breeding females has no bearing in reality. It often takes years to determine if a dog is suitable for breeding (testing, titling, health checks which cannot be obtained until two years old). Thus, good breeders who are focused on building or maintaining a bloodline which can be of use and assistance to society often will hold more than one dog back from a breeding to determine if it will turn out to be a dog worthy of breeding. Many do not make the cut and are not bred, but the regulation would effectively punish these breeders for going the extra mile. Moreover, the requirement that a buyer enter the breeder’s home/place of business ignores modern communications and modern commerce. Many small breeders of working dogs sell their dogs across the county and internationally based upon these modern communication. In sum, I am OPPOSED to this regulation as it will harm good breeders and ultimately limit the availability of good, sound dogs.


----------



## Fast

If you want to see this type of ill conceived regulation end, you have to propose your own. We are constantly reacting to this type of stuff but we need to act offensively. We need to get out in front of these issues and go to the legislators with our ideas. If we don't do that we will continue to get blindsided by this nonsense.


----------



## Andaka

Those of you who live in the same state can get together and start a federation of people opposed to stupid dog laws. I belong to the Illinois Federation of Dog Clubs and Owners (illinoisfederationdogclubs&owners). Most of the meeting are done on the internet (we do have two in-person meetings at dog shows). that way you have a combined voice not only for national items such as this, but also for local regulations that you would like to change.


----------



## gagsd

I just received this email:

Feel free to forward.

Perhaps I can weigh in here. I am a member of the ASCA legislative*committee and I have been living and breathing this stuff for over a month*now.
First of all, sellers of working dogs are theoretically exempt from having*to be USDA licensed, but that exemption really only worked because the*other pups from the litter who washed out as working dogs were generally*sold as pets directly to the public and the breeder still was exempt from
having to be USDA licensed under what was known as the "retail pet store"*exemption. If this rule change goes through it is very likely that a
breeder of working dogs, if they do not want to become USDA compliant - 164*pages of rules and regulations that will insure that the puppy they produce*will not have had the early learning experiences that we have come to find*invaluable to a successful working career - then that breeder will have to*go back to the practices common 40 or 50 years ago. * All the washouts were*pretty much euthanized back then.* Before the advent of agility and the*other highly competitive dog sports we have now, there were no homes for*the drivey dogs that didn't make the cut.
USDA, in various reported telephone conversations, has no clue how they are*going to go forward administering that particular exemption.
Basically the change they are making is to the definition of retail pet*store. Under the Animal Welfare Act, USDA has no mandate to inspect or
license retail pet stores. The current USDA definition of retail pet store*is anyone who sells an animal directly to the public, without an*intermediary. So all breeders who sell their own puppies to the ultimate*owner have been retail pet stores. There is some other stuff in there, but
this is the critical part.
USDA claims to have complaints from people who purchased puppies over the*internet and then found the puppies to have problems - too young, sick, not
as represented - whatever. USDA does not appear to have done any research*into whether this is an actual problem. Rather, based probably on urging
from various animal rights contingents, they have used this as an excuse to*change the definition of retail pet store to only those places where each
buyer visits the actual property at least once during each transaction.
They claim that this will now allow them to oversee "internet sellers".
(This by the way is the new AR buzzword, soon to supplant "puppy mill".)
They are keeping an exemption for breeders who have 4 (changing that from 3*in the current regulations) or fewer "breeding females" (an undefined term*but Dr. Rushin of USDA has stated that their current working definition is
"females capable of being bred") and who sell *only* the offspring of those*females.

The effects of this rule change are that EVERY dog breeder will have to be*USDA compliant unless they sell ONLY to people who physically come to their
property OR they maintain fewer than 4 breeding females AND they never sell*a dog not born and raised on their property. Any other circumstance of a*sale and they must be USDA licensed, all dogs must be kenneled, puppies*cannot interact in a family environment or with adult dogs other than their*mother, and a whole host of other requirements (164 pages actually,*although some of them address elephant enclosures and dolphin pools).

To understand why this is a bad thing, you have to understand how small*breeders operate. Most of them have websites. Most of them sell at least
some of their puppies to people who found them through their website. Most*of them have, at least once, not required a buyer to come to their homes to*pick up the puppy. Maybe the puppy was shipped, maybe they met at a show,*maybe they met halfway between their homes, maybe they arranged transport*through mutual friends - hundreds of different ways that could occur. If
they only have 4 intact females on their property, they're still okay. But*most small breeders have also done things like taken a puppy in lieu of a
stud fee, or taken back a pick puppy as part of a sale agreement on a bitch*they sold, or fostered a rescue dog, or taken in dogs from a breeder friend
who died or became disabled. If that small breeder sells any of the dogs*in the previous sentence, then all buyers of all dogs must always come to*the breeder's property or else the breeder must be USDA licensed.

If you stop to really think through the consequences, you will see that
this is pretty much going to stop the way many people choose to manage
their dogs and their lives. It will impact breeding decisions, sales*contracts, availability for buyers, breed rescue operations, and so much*more.

This rule change has not been properly researched by USDA. There has been*no valid cost/benefit analysis done - which is required by law before a
major rule can be implemented. There has been no valid study of whether*the problem it is supposed to address even exists.

Please think about how this rule change will affect you, the decisions you*will make about your dogs now and your future working partners, and then
comment on the USDA site....*
Susan Beals


----------



## lhczth

Done. How many times can we comment? They limit the size of the comment and I had to cut my thoughts down dramtically.


----------



## guitarest

Chris Wild said:


> This website does and EXCELLENT job of outlining the new proposal and how it would have a serious negative impact on the good breeders of every breed.
> 
> USDA/APHIS Proposed Regulations Affecting Dog Breeders
> 
> 
> Most good breeders are not going to be willing to become USDA licensed, as doing so would not only present an undue hardship but mean that much of what makes them good breeders would not longer be allowed. If this goes through, most would be forced to either go out of business or opperate "illegally". Which in turn would severely limit the ability of customers to obtain good dogs. This affects everyone, so please pass this on.
> 
> This government site is collecting the thoughts of the people, and open for comments through the middle of next month.
> 
> http://www.regulations.gov/#%21documentDetail;D=APHIS-2011-0003-0001


But it would have a very positive effect on all the puppy mills and backyard breeder puppymills. Go through the USDA get your license and your all good. I have a friend who is a well established breeder and she is State inspected and USDA; if she can do it so can everyone else. I guess it depends on how legit you really want to be. Rise about the puppymills or have the same inspection standards as them.


----------



## guitarest

Andaka said:


> Those of you who live in the same state can get together and start a federation of people opposed to stupid dog laws. I belong to the Illinois Federation of Dog Clubs and Owners (illinoisfederationdogclubs&owners). Most of the meeting are done on the internet (we do have two in-person meetings at dog shows). that way you have a combined voice not only for national items such as this, but also for local regulations that you would like to change.


Nothing stupid about these laws; they need them. For every legit breeder who there are many here; there are 100's of back yard puppy mills/breeders who do not care about their product or anything other than the money. 

Suck it up and become legit.


----------



## onyx'girl

Ummmm..NO. The millers are already USDA regulated and look where they are. Who wants to keep their dogs out in kennels 24/7?
Rescues will be affected by this as well. Do some more reading and you will see that this bill is a huge detriment to the responsible hobby breeders. Where will you get your next dog?


----------



## guitarest

onyx'girl said:


> Thank you!
> We~ who do not breed, yet want good dogs from good breeders are the ones that need to speak up!
> Would you be willing to share what you wrote as an example(not that anyone should do a copy/paste-but use their own words/thoughts) so others can do the same....see how easy it was?


A good breeder should support this.


----------



## I_LOVE_MY_MIKKO

guitarest said:


> But it would have a very positive effect on all the puppy mills and backyard breeder puppymills. Go through the USDA get your license and your all good. I have a friend who is a well established breeder and she is State inspected and USDA; if she can do it so can everyone else. I guess it depends on how legit you really want to be. Rise about the puppymills or have the same inspection standards as them.





> Nothing stupid about these laws; they need them. For every legit breeder who there are many here; there are 100's of back yard puppy mills/breeders who do not care about their product or anything other than the money.
> 
> Suck it up and become legit.


Let me get this straight...puppy mills are already USDA inspected, yet somehow if good, responsible breeders are mandated to have USDA inspections, that will make them more responsible or better somehow?



> A good breeder should support this.


Why would a good breeder want to take the puppies out of their home and raise them outside? Among other regulations.


----------



## Chris Wild

<sigh> And unfortunately it's narrow minded beliefs such as that that get these things on the books. People make their opinions and lend their support to anything that is claimed to be against bad breeders, without taking the time to understand the complexity of the issue and who it really affects.

Puppymills are already USDA registered.
BYBs won't need to be because they don't fit the requirements.
The breeders who will be affected are the good, hobby breeders. "Sucking it up and becoming legit" would involve them no longer doing what it is that makes them good breeders in the first place


----------



## lhczth

What Chris said!!


----------



## CelticGlory

I third Chris!!


----------



## Debbieg

The second link Chris posted and the one Anne posted won't open for me.


----------



## selzer

What Chris said.

Good breeders are and should be against this.


----------



## Betty

guitarest said:


> Nothing stupid about these laws; they need them. For every legit breeder who there are many here; there are 100's of back yard puppy mills/breeders who do not care about their product or anything other than the money.
> 
> Suck it up and become legit.


How do you see this change doing that? Can you be specific on what you think this law would do that would be good?

Do you think this proposed change is well written and will accomplish what it's goal is suppose to be? 

Not trying to give you a hard time, I'm legitimately curious.


----------



## Dainerra

guitarest, I know 2 breeders that are USDA inspected. One owns a "Blue Ribbon Kennel" in MO. I wouldn't buy dog food from them, let alone a puppy. The dogs are livestock - that is what the USDA does, regulate livestock. The dogs may get some outside playtime (though that isn't required) - puppies playing outside make cuter advertising than puppies in cages. 
Otherwise the dogs live 24/7 in their USDA approved cages. They get fed, watered, and bred. The live and then they die and that is their entire life.

There is nothing wrong with a breeder keeping their dogs in kennels. But is that their entire life? Do the pups live on wire grates from the day they are born or do they get to spend their time socializing with the family? 
This law says that dogs can NOT be living in the house. No ifs, ands, or buts about it.


----------



## Wolfgeist

This infuriates me... I am completely speechless. Losing your human rights, one pathetic regulation at a time.

Heaven forbid you raise your litter of puppies in the home, stable, safe and well socialized.

*RAGE*


----------



## Nikitta

I think these regulations are horrible. I got both my GSDs sight unseen from a wonderful breeder and have 2 great dogs. I think what they are proposing is ridiculous and will only hurt good breeders like the one I got my dogs from. I posted both places.


----------



## kbella999

I got my dog from a not so great breeder and I'm all for stopping puppy mills so I wondered at first why people would be against this. After reading it, I was shocked to see how they don't allow dogs to be raised inside the home. It is almost like they are trying to create puppy mills instead of get rid of them.


----------



## lhczth

The people backing this know darn well who this change in regulation would hurt. It has nothing to do with stopping puppy mills or your so called back yard breeders.


----------



## Chris Wild

lhczth said:


> The people backing this know darn well who this change in regulation would hurt. It has nothing to do with stopping puppy mills or your so called back yard breeders.


Exactly. 
Their agenda is no purebred dogs, or domestic animals living as "slaves" period. They will whittle away until that goal is achieved. The puppymills and the like will be the last to go. Why? Because it is their existance that allows these organizations to create anti-breeder sentiment in the first place. Once that is created, it becomes easier to paint all breeders with the same brush, and to convince the masses that regulations like this are good. People will assume they are against puppymills and lend their support to it, without bothering to read any further to find out who they really hurt. Those puppymills are just too convenient and useful as anti-breeder propaganda to garner the support they need to further their goals of eliminating pet ownership.


----------



## Daisy&Lucky's Mom

guitarest said:


> Nothing stupid about these laws; they need them. For every legit breeder who there are many here; there are 100's of back yard puppy mills/breeders who do not care about their product or anything other than the money.
> 
> Suck it up and become legit.


Perhaps in your mind. Im no expert but I will hopefully purchase my next dog from a hobby breeder who may be eliminated by this legislation,2 My next dog could be from a breed rescue which said legislation will wipe them out per all that wonderful stipulations. It would definitely affect canine foster homes the back bone of rescue. Im not sure the words you would use but stupid is the mildest word I would use . Im still trying to make it through the 164 pages but breeders I know and trust as well as breed rescues ,private all breed rescues and animal welfare agencies are not supportive of said legislation.


----------



## JeanKBBMMMAAN

D/LMom - if you find it in the legislation - because I do not find it in there - where it mentions rescues, would you please post a copy/paste of it? In the legislation. I actually had the PDF and search term rescue, shelter and the only thing that came up was shelter as in type and size of buildings. 

I am not minimizing what this could do - but do not see where foster homes or any other rescue is mentioned in the legislation/changes. 

I think Fast is right, but that means that people will have to step away from the groups that run with the corporations and the millers - that place that has the spay neuter PDF posted here all the time with the board run by the Ringling Bros guy, Hunte/AKC, etc. So you will be losing all the marketing money and lobbying funds, but, if you do that, you could show what and where and how things work. Sometimes - and now more than ever - grassroots efforts can work via social media. However, people would need to agree on things and I am not sure that is possible. Witness rescue and the differences between rescue groups, no-kill groups, etc. However, we seem more willing to cannibalize ourselves.


----------



## Daisy&Lucky's Mom

Jean- Im sorry I was mistaken re rescues.I have a colleague who is involved w/ a local shelter and she was talking about proposed legislation in Ohio that would make outdoor runs difficult and other parts of the proposal regarding number of dogs that can be in a residential address. I just searched my download and nothing appears to be related to rescue. Unless they count adoption fees and numbers of dogs adopted out. I cannot imagine that happening but with PITA and HSUS being in favor of said legislation its not impossible to imagine. The rescue comment I made is not accurate my sincere apologies. I was referencing a ohio proposed legislation that may be dead now. Again my apologies to both you and guitarrest. I still see this legislation as taking away the very breeders Von Stephanwitz stated the GSD breed depended on.


----------



## selzer

Fast said:


> If you want to see this type of ill conceived regulation end, you have to propose your own. We are constantly reacting to this type of stuff but we need to act offensively. We need to get out in front of these issues and go to the legislators with our ideas. If we don't do that we will continue to get blindsided by this nonsense.


I think this is what Jean is referring to?

Well, I agree that it will be next to impossible for breeders to suggest legislation that would regulate small and hobby breeders. Even our own breed, the GSD, cannot agree on just about anything, save that we love our breed. The various lines are not going to agree with what should be required by breeders in order to sell puppies. 

The AKC has some regulations in place, but they really do not represent all dog breeders either. I do not think we want the AKC creating legislation that affects all dog breeders. It would have to be very generic, and what is the point of that anyway? 

I think the USDA should stick with what they cannot seem to regulate well currently. 

If people have a problem with small-scale puppy mills, then they need to start enforcing the laws that are on the books. Maybe they need to up the ante, with harsher penalties for neglect and abuse. 

No serious breeder wants the government involved in what types of hoops breeders should jump through to prove their animals breed-worthy. That is not what this legislation does. This legislation will not affect at all whether your dog dies under a year old from cancer. Sorry. Or if your dog has a genetic condition. It will not stop people from breeding dogs without papers, health screenings, breeding every season and then dumping the bitch. 

Every single time you see a local humane organization taking animals out of a hoarding or breeding situation where the animals were neglected and suffering, there are laws being broken already. They could not remove them otherwise. 

Puppy mills have been regulated under the USDA for decades, and still there are terrible abuses of animals. Why does anyone believe that expanding their jurisdiction will be in the interest of animals?

The only thing left when the USDA takes over the hobby and small breeders are the breeders who have the volumes of animals to support the types of structures that must be built to stay within the code of the USDA. Those breeders will have to breed their bitches, all their bitches, every season, dump them when they go dry, just to pay the mortgage on these huge structures. 

Good breeders will be forced to cut their program, spay bitches before they are old enough to make a good decision about them, and spay their older bitches or re-home them, to stay within the number game. They will limit themselves by refusing to ship. 
I think it will reduce the gene pool. Just because a breeder has six bitches, does not mean they are breeding all six. They just make their decisions more carefully.

A good breeder will breed for the future, so they must keep bitches and raise them and use them or not use them in the program dependent on the bitch. A good breeder will take back dogs from people when the match does not work, or if problems arise. They will hold onto these dogs, work with them, until they can be placed in a new home, or they will keep them. Some good breeders choose to keep their older bitches, and some place them, but that should be up to the breeder, not a number thing. I think it is unfortunate that so many people thing that a good hobby breeder is going to have one or two females in their home. So people think 4 is an exorbitant number of females.


----------



## JeanKBBMMMAAN

Daisy&Lucky's Mom said:


> Jean- Im sorry I was mistaken re rescues.I have a colleague who is involved w/ a local shelter and she was talking about proposed legislation in Ohio that would make outdoor runs difficult and other parts of the proposal regarding number of dogs that can be in a residential address. I just searched my download and nothing appears to be related to rescue. Unless they count adoption fees and numbers of dogs adopted out. I cannot imagine that happening but with PITA and HSUS being in favor of said legislation its not impossible to imagine. The rescue comment I made is not accurate my sincere apologies. I was referencing a ohio proposed legislation that may be dead now. Again my apologies to both you and guitarrest. I still see this legislation as taking away the very breeders Von Stephanwitz stated the GSD breed depended on.


PFFFFFFT! No problem! 

Yes, Sue, that was it. I am not good at the quotey thing lots of times (remembered to do it for 1 post this time!).


----------



## guitarest

Narrow minded people, I would think all the individual who are actually breeders and care about your craft are already exceeding the USDA Guidelines. Please point out one puppymill that's USDA Inspected. 

Its a great idea and with all this uproar here makes me wonder abut the care some of you give your breeding stock.


----------



## Dainerra

guitarest, the problem is, the thing that they do that makes them a good breeder - puppies raised in a home environment - will become illegal.
The regulations only allow for dogs to be in cages - yes you can have a bigger run and building than is required, but you can't whelp your puppies in the house. You can't raise them in the house. They will have to live their lives in the runs. 

Most puppymills are already inspected. For them, it's the price of doing business. So is cutting corners and maximizing profit. 

I know one of the owners of a kennel listed on this site. I've seen the proud videos they show off of their breeding stock and their facility. Personally, it turns my stomach. Blue Ribbon Kennel Program


----------



## selzer

Yupp, we need to keep up with this:

Loeb-A-Rosa Kennel Facilities

Well, the landscaping is nice.


----------



## selzer

Here is one:
Puppy mill - nearly 800 animals - Ronks, PA | Pet-Abuse.Com Animal Cruelty Database

They inspected and found horrible conditions 269 dogs in the one of the two kennels, father and son, I did not read it all. A couple of misdemeaners. 

But they are under the USDA. If the runs weren't filled with fecies, they would be perfectly ok. 

The USDA needs to get it right with the people they are already trying to deal with before they put a multitude of small breeders under their wing, force ridiculous legislation that makes no sense on them, and force them out of business while the men here start right back up again.

These guys had been caught already for similar violations within the past year!

I think we need to keep the USDA out of the breeders who sell to the general public. They cannot even regulate the guys who are selling to pet stores properly!


----------



## Dainerra

love the fact that the inspection before this they passed with flying colors? And that there have been other kennels that have been charged since new inspectors were hired.


----------



## JeanKBBMMMAAN

Yeah, I see a layer and tiered system. Start with the big, commercial programs, mills, etc...oh wait, guess who has the money to advocate! But that is the way to do it. IF they can get that under control - including shipping, then they can look around and say what did we learn and can any of those things help dogs from elsewhere. 

Take care of that "top" big group, then take care of the "bottom" that just let nature take its course. By that point, we won't have much else to worry about (except so called rescues that are actually puppy sellers, dog flippers, and brokers - and we would welcome that help if done well).


----------



## selzer

guitarest said:


> Narrow minded people, I would think all the individual who are actually breeders and care about your craft are already exceeding the USDA Guidelines. Please point out one puppymill that's USDA Inspected.
> 
> Its a great idea and with all this uproar here makes me wonder abut the care some of you give your breeding stock.



My breeding stock! Well, they are all but one pups that I have whelped, and raised, and put through classes, and most of them have titles, and, most of them have been rejected by me from my breeding program, but they are cared for exactly the same way as I care for those who I do choose to breed.

Do I meet or exceed USDA standards? No. My puppies are raised in an area that does have pourous surfaces. It happens to be my home. They can listen to the telephone, the washer, the toilet flushing, the stereo, and the TV. They can go outside and see me mowing the lawn, and come inside and watch me prepare dinner. 

They will be pets, all of them. Some will go to people who will get titles and train them, but 99.9% of the time they will be pets and they should be whelped and raised in the home!

The USDA requires dogs to be housed in separate buildings than puppies, they have all kinds of rules that separate good breeders from those who are warehousing dogs. The USDA regulates the warehouses of dogs.


----------



## selzer

Dainerra said:


> love the fact that the inspection before this they passed with flying colors? And that there have been other kennels that have been charged since new inspectors were hired.


I need to step away from this for a while. I need to go home and pick up poop and feed puppies, any way. Maybe I will look in later. This is totally crazy. But I am afraid too many people have no clue what they are condemning the puppies of the future to. These guys. The ones with 269 dogs and fecies built up. Moldy fecies in the food bins. This is where the dogs will come from, because _they _will be legal. 

Well dark comes soon, got to go get poop while the sun shines!


----------



## selzer

Ok, what we are all upset about and think needs to stop is the breeders in the example that have volumes of dogs in warehouses, and allow their dogs to lie in their own poop for days, weeks, months. This law does not affect these people at all. These people are breeding under the USDA jurisdiction already. 

Before you sign petitions to say, yay! go for those rotten no good breeders! Be very careful what you are signing and what exactly it is going to do. The government agencies have been trying to govern high volume breeders, and sometimes they catch them and give them write ups, and so much time to clean up their act, and sometimes, they charge them and fine them, but the dogs are still living in disgusting conditions, and the people are still producing puppies for pet stores.

If you want to get rid of high volume breeders, you have to stop puppy sales at pet stores, puppy sales in auctions, puppy sales in holiday inns. And there are probably people running pretty large operations over the internet and shipping direct. 

This legislation is supposed to try to handle those puppy sellers who are operating over the internet and therefore do not fall under USDA regulations because they are not selling to pet stores or pet brokers. 

There is probably a need for high volume internet based puppy sellers to be governed in some way. But 4 bitches isn't where the line ought to be drawn, and 1 sight unseen sale or sale of a pup not born and raised on the property should not qualify you as requiring this sort of a set up. This includes bitches that are co-owned and puppies taken in lieu of a stud fee.


----------



## gagsd

I believe that if I take in a rescue dog, which I seem to have a habit of doing, charge a $100 adoption fee for that dog.... Then I would have to become a USDA breeder if I breed a litter. I am not a "real" rescue so any rescue activities would be construed as selling a dog not produced by my "exempt" female, thus losing my exempt status.

In this situation, I will not be taking in another rescue dog.


----------



## onyx'girl

THESE dogs, who are also located on a USDA-licensed puppy mill in the Bedford area, in far southern Iowa. Although this photo was taken in December 2011, this breeder has been using these hutches since at least last summer. It is presumed that these dogs are housed in these facilities year round, in a variety of temperature and weather extremes. We will be following up on this facility now that summer weather has set in. Iowa Animal Welfare Alliance's Photos https://www.facebook.com/pages/Iowa-Animal-Welfare-Alliance/342314819129629








Iowa currently ranks #2 in the nation with almost 240 USDA licensed, inspected and approved commercial dog breeding operations....more pics of some of those kennels from the fb link above
Ya, I want a dog from a place like that!


----------



## Debbieg

So what is the best way, practically speaking to fight and beat this proposal? It seems like and issue where breeders and owners of different lines could lay aside their differences and pull together for the love of the breed.

We must be able to do more than click on a link and leave a comment, but what?


----------



## onyx'girl

> So what is the best way, practically speaking to fight and beat this proposal? It seems like and issue where breeders and owners of different lines could lay aside their differences and pull together for the love of the breed.
> 
> We must be able to do more than click on a link and leave a comment, but what?


It isn't just about the breed, but owners and breeders rights in general.
I think if each state does what the Virginia organization did, and become *watchdogs* for legislation, at least networking to get the word out would help let the government and their buddies know what they do won't be taken lightly. 
_Founded over 40 years ago, the Virginia Federation of Dog Clubs and Breeders is one of the oldest dog club federations in the country. The objectives established in the late 1970s – to share information and monitor state and federal legislation – are even more critical today, and the VFDCB has risen to the challenges of the times. The Federation now includes nearly every all-breed club in Virginia and many breed and performance clubs as well. It also offers individual memberships to fanciers not associated with clubs or those who want to support the Federation personally as well as through their clubs. The Federation is governed by officers and board members elected from the membership._


----------



## Dainerra

guitarest, here is the inspection list and I've highlighted a few things that,while necessary for professional breeders who raise dogs as livestock, will prevent good hobby breeders from raising healthy well-socialized dogs in a home environment.

http://www.aphis.usda.gov/animal_welfare/downloads/Inspection_Requirements_Attachments.PDF

The inspection checklist. For people who want to raise puppies in their home this is where you will lose that ability -
1) any surface the dog will come in contact with must be impervious to moisture - that means no carpets anywhere the dogs have access. also no furniture, bedding, etc
2) your vet must inspect the facilities at least once a year
3) cleaned and sanitized every 2 weeks. - how would you sanitize your entire house?
4) all surfaces must be free of sharp points/edges. 
5) floor drains
and the real biggie
ITEMS NOT NECESSARY FOR ANIMAL HUSBANDRY NOT KEPT WITHIN KENNEL AREA.


----------



## Chris Wild

guitarest said:


> Narrow minded people, I would think all the individual who are actually breeders and care about your craft are already exceeding the USDA Guidelines. Please point out one puppymill that's USDA Inspected.
> 
> Its a great idea and with all this uproar here makes me wonder abut the care some of you give your breeding stock.


We're narrow minded? Have you actually *read* the USDA regulations to see what they entail?

As others have pointed out, every puppymill is USDA registered. They raise their dogs like livestock in cages in buildings, not as pets. And livestock is what the USDA regulates. 

Maybe this will help you see what we're all in an uproar about. If you actually want to see, which I'm not sure of. As they say, photos are worth 1000 words....

Here is how my puppies are raised. 
















































And our "Breeding stock", better known as our PETS.
(German Shepherd Photos, by Wildhaus Kennels )
(German Shepherd Photos, by Wildhaus Kennels )

Under USDA regulations, none of that would be allowed.

You truly believe that being kept in metal cages in a separate building away from the sights and sounds of daily living and regular interaction with other dogs an people, no toys or blankets or other "non porous" items allowed, is a better way to rear pups?


----------



## Lauri & The Gang

Check out this picture from a USDA licensed kennel:










At first glance it looks so nice and cozy ... but look closer.

The numbers on the cages. Does this breeder have *SO *many dogs she has to number the changes??

And the paper card on the cage - is that for identifying the dog?? The breeder wouldn't know which dog was in the cage without that card telling them??

In this warm, cozy picture the dogs are a commodity - a 'thing' that makes money for the breeder. Not a living, breathing creature. Sure - they take good care of the dogs ... because that allows them to breed the dogs more and make more money from the dogs.

USDA would be *PROUD *to license that kennel.

I would tell people to *RUN *from it.


----------



## Chris Wild

And actually Lauri, that's one of the *nicest* USDA licensed facilities I've seen. Very few are that "cozy". Most look like the hutchs posted previously in the thread. Or like livestock barns where if you didn't look inside the cages you wouldn't know if it was chickens, rabbits or dogs.

Those are ok with USDA. In fact they're required. But the raising pups in the home as members of the family isn't.


----------



## Mrs.K

Lauri & The Gang said:


> Check out this picture from a USDA licensed kennel:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> At first glance it looks so nice and cozy ... but look closer.
> 
> The numbers on the cages. Does this breeder have *SO *many dogs she has to number the changes??
> 
> And the paper card on the cage - is that for identifying the dog?? The breeder wouldn't know which dog was in the cage without that card telling them??
> 
> In this warm, cozy picture the dogs are a commodity - a 'thing' that makes money for the breeder. Not a living, breathing creature. Sure - they take good care of the dogs ... because that allows them to breed the dogs more and make more money from the dogs.
> 
> USDA would be *PROUD *to license that kennel.
> 
> I would tell people to *RUN *from it.


This is horrible. Honestly, under German Law, any of these breeders would break every animal welfare law out there. :help:

I can't believe that the exact same people that advocate animal welfare are advocating for a law that would doom every single breeder to treat their dogs like lifestock.


----------



## Vandal

Whether pups are raised in the house or not, is not what I consider to be the biggest problem. The regulations for USDA are exceptionally onerous, very labor intensive and would require small breeders to construct a kennel facility and hire help. No one simply breeding as a hobby, or only breeding a few litters a year, could possibly afford it. Just keeping records, paying for Vet inspections, more than one Govt. licence, dealing with more than one inspection,( due to local agencies also inspecting), and trying to comply with USDA regulations,( that are designed for different types of facilities), would make dog breeding a full time job. Therefore, in order to comply with these new rules, you'd have to breed and sell many more dogs to be able to afford it... at that point, you would be known as a Puppy Mill .


This is simply a very clever trap, a catch 22 by HSUS who has promoted these changes at every turn. Everything is packaged as helping pets, when in reality, it is about wiping out the ability of anyone to breed or own them. 

Anyone who does not understand and thinks people should just "suck it up", needs to take a math class.


----------



## Vandal

> I can't believe that the exact same people that advocate animal welfare are advocating for a law that would doom every single breeder to treat their dogs like lifestock.


The people behind this are NOT Animal Welfare advocates. They are Animal RIGHTS extremists. There is a difference...They are PETA in business suits...same thing, different package.


----------



## Debbieg

The scary thing is many people who their pets will mis understand and think this proposal protects them. 
We need to do all we can ti educate people though face book, blogs letter to the editors of our local newpapers, which pictures like the ones posted here by Chris and one the ones with the dogs in the cages.


----------



## CelticGlory

I was thinking, does this mean that they don't even want pets in the homes either? I mean those who gets a puppy? I may be reading a little more into it, but this does not seem to only have a negative impact on us as dog owners, but all species of animals that we keep for pets (domesticated and Exotics): Cats, birds, horses, those few that have pigs as pets, etc. Am I wrong to assume this?

It also says that no furniture can be used, does that include dog houses? You have to have proper flooring, what cement? Also, it says that a adult has to be on the property at all times and no waste can be in the kennels (I agree with another poster that would be a full time job), well what if that hobby breeder works since they don't do this full time? Are they to stop working just because of this or give up their love of showing/sports/training? It makes no sense at all.

Does anyone have recent numbers for those against it and for the bill?

Won't this also have a bad impact on farmers who have animals to breed? I'm just looking at the bigger impact of this bill passing, that means no more cows, chicken, etc. to be able to be used for food. I mean we are talking about AR groups, in anything I read I look for the hidden meaning behind things and question it. What is the saying "To birds with one stone"?


----------



## Chris Wild

I just want to clarify what the proposed changes are, because it seems some folk may be misunderstanding some things.

First, there is no change to the USDA regulations themselves. They are already in place, and have been for years, with regard to commercial dog breeding operations. Yes, they require dog breeding to be managed just like any other sort of livestock breeding. People can still have dogs as pets, but breeding stock and puppies must be housed in separate USDA approved buildings. This is already the case, dogs mass produced as a commodity. USDA is fine with that. Afterall, regulating mass production of animals is what they do. 

Now rather than just the large commercial puppy operations having to handle their breeding programs that way, the smaller breeders potentially would too.

What is changing is that smaller hobby breeders have been exempt from those requirements under the "retail exemption" clause. The idea being that since smaller breeders sell directly to the new owner, not through brokers and pet stores, etc... that the public itself would regulate them. No government agencies doing inspections are needed, because the buyers coming to get the pups would be effectively doing that, and if things were not up to snuff someone would report it.

The proposed change is to eliminate the retail exemption clause for most small breeders. Only those who have 4 or fewer intact females (whether they are breeding females or not) and who have every single puppy buyer come to their home at least once per sale (so no more shipping or delivering pups) would now be exempt. Everyone else would have to be USDA licensed and regulated. Which for most would end mean an end to their breeding programs, or at the very least significantly scaling back, leaving only the huge commercial operations and backyard breeders left producing puppies in this country.


----------



## Chris Wild

Some more information on who to contact to get your voice heard is on UKC's website.

United Kennel Club: Will the proposed USDA regulations affect


----------



## Debbieg

You can read and post comments here. 
http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;dct=FR%252BPR%252BN%252BO%252BSR%252BPS;rpp=10;po=0;D=APHIS-2011-0003


----------



## Elektra2167

This is a frightening proposal. There is no way we could comply with the "kennel" regulations, nor would I want to. Our pups are in the house with us, interacting, playing, learning about cats, etc. How can you tell someone that their future partner has been in a "sterile" environment, and now that they are 8 weeks (or more) you can try and undo all the damage from lack of socialization, lack of exposure to environmental conditions, woods, water, people, etc. I also rarely have people come to my house. Why? Because unless they have, or rent a 4x4, they can't get here.
We set up puppy playgrounds in the living room so they can get exposure to all kinds of fun stuff. IF this proposal goes through, I am NOT stuffing my pups in some kennel because the govt thinks they know how to raise my pups better than I do. We will figure out something, but it won't be kennel building and inspection.
We would also have to stop taking in females for training,since they are on the premises, and would count in the numbers game. 

This is nothing more than a control grab. They have zero interest in the animal welfare, it is about animal elimination.


----------



## radulf

A few links on this topic:

Why the Proposed APHIS Licensing Changes Will Screw Small Hobby Breeders and the People Who Buy Puppies from Them

Lies from HSUS on the Proposed APHIS Rule Change 

ASPCA Lies About the Proposed APHIS Rule Change 

How NOT to Raise Pups the APHIS Way


----------



## lhczth

Bump.


----------



## Chris Wild

BUMP. Time is running out for comments.


----------



## onyx'girl

CAPS vs. Bauck, How a Small Nonprofit Brought Down a Large Puppy Mill on Vimeo 
USDA doesn't need to oversee small breeders, they can't even oversee the commercial kennels/millers.
Though I should add....not sure CAPS is for the smaller breeders either.
This video is evidence that even the USDA inspected breeding facilities can be horrid prisons for the dogs.


----------



## radulf

A Reminder to Comment Against the Proposed APHIS Rule Affecting Small Breeders


----------



## shadow mum

Comment posted.

I have been watching this very carefully, and have some concerns. Reading this, it is designed to put the small, "hobby" breeders out of business. As a consumer, I much prefer to purchase my dogs from a hobby breeder who home raises the animals. The pups are used to all different stimulants and situations when raised in a home for the first 8 weeks of life. If I am reading this proposal correctly, this will no longer occur. The pups will not be exposed to carpeting, stairs, or any of the normal everyday things found in the average home. Instead, they will be raised individually, in pens isolated from all normal activities as well as each other. 
The requirement to see the animals in person at least once for EACH purchase is also inhibitive. As a Canadian resident, this would be difficult for me to accomplish. In today's age of technology, it is easy to "meet" and view the parents and pups via the internet, as well as to cultivate a relationship with the breeder and have the pup shipped. I don't need to see / meet the pup in person if I choose the right breeder who I trust to match me with the correct pup based on information provided.
I was looking to import my next pup from the States, but if this passes, will be looking closer to home. This will close the doors of many good breeders who have spent years developing their breeding programs. It will be a very sad day in the dog world if this passes.


----------



## onyx'girl

Great post Di!


----------



## Vandal

The US Department of Agriculture (USDA)/Animal Plant Health and Inspection Service (APHIS) announced today that the comment period on the proposed regulations regarding “Retail Pet Stores and Licensing Exemptions” has been extended until August 15, 2012. We encourage any concerned dog owners who have not yet signed the AKC petition and/or submitted comments about this problematic proposal to take advantage of this extra time to do so.

American Kennel Club - Proposed USDA Regulation Comment Period Extended Until August 15


----------



## von Bolen

Simply put: The USDA/gov'ment wants their share of the earnings, but are instilling uneducated rules and regulations to make it look like they care and are involved.


----------



## JeanKBBMMMAAN

No time to merge: http://www.germanshepherds.com/foru...possible-unintended-consequences-new-law.html


----------



## NancyJ

Vandal said:


> The US Department of Agriculture (USDA)/Animal Plant Health and Inspection Service (APHIS) announced today that the comment period on the proposed regulations regarding “Retail Pet Stores and Licensing Exemptions” has been extended until August 15, 2012. We encourage any concerned dog owners who have not yet signed the AKC petition and/or submitted comments about this problematic proposal to take advantage of this extra time to do so.
> 
> American Kennel Club - Proposed USDA Regulation Comment Period Extended Until August 15


Is the decision directly made by the USDA or does it go through our elected representatives? I have signed the petition and added comments but not sure what else to do.


----------



## Elektra2167

This is an APHIS policy change. There is a big discussion right now on the legislation board that the previous comment period's comments don't mean much, since the extension also came with some revisions, so they consider the currently posted one as a "new" potential policy. It was also mentioned that the revision and extension coincides with HSUS ramping up ads for the changes because something like 66% of the comments were against it. So they are trying to build support for it as things were not going their way.
If you haven't posted comments on the policy link itself, please do so!


----------



## NancyJ

I followed the AKC link but it is to the OLD May link
I found the revised policy link on the APHIS page - please verify

Regulations.gov


----------



## Elektra2167

Yes, the July 16th post date is the revised version. If you have already made a comment, people are being encouraged to repost their comments just in case they really do exclude the previous ones! Better to err on the side of caution I think.


----------



## robk

The government is becoming too intrusive. Period.


----------



## Samba

Well, we can not talk politics here, so we don't want to diverge from the pressing importance of this dog law and it's implications for quality breeding.


----------



## von Bolen

This law does not implicate quality breeding. It's making things unnecessarily harder for quality breeders with Nazi-like regulations when they should take things at a case-by-case basis.


----------



## Samba

Implicate and implications are two very different words!


----------



## jnr

The APHIS posted a fact sheet with the regs, which attempts to answer some of the criticisms. Of course, they do it in a very poor manner and seem to believe that so long as they "apply" the regulations to be what they think is more friendly to home breeders, then everything is ok. There are a few problems with this. First, the regs as proposed say nothing about this, so the government is essentially proposing to arbitrarily act in a certain way that is not tied to the law or regulations. Second, the application of there standards is very unclear. Finally, it is still very unrealistic about regulating any separate area used - the dogs must have "free run" of the house. Any whelping room is subject to the full regs, and this is a bizarre situation where I presume they could just show up and demand to inspect how you divide the rooms in the house. Comments should address this new "fact sheet." The text of the pertinent Q & A follows:


Q. If this proposal is adopted, would breeders who come under regulation and allow their dogs to roam free in their homes have to put their animals in a kennel?
A. No. The AWA regulations define a primary enclosure broadly to mean any structure or device used to restrict an animal or animals to a limited amount of space. As such, a home can be considered a dog’s primary enclosure. If a room of a house is used as a dog’s primary enclosure (e.g., a whelping room or nursery), APHIS will apply the applicable regulations and standards to the room.
If, however, a dog breeder allows their dogs to have free run of the entire house, APHIS will assess whether the home can house animals within the health and humane standards contemplated by the AWA. If the breeder has a kennel or cages that the dogs can stay in inside the home that meet AWA standards, we would consider that compliance with the primary enclosure requirements has been achieved.


----------



## von Bolen

I still question their motives for this. It still feels to me that they are wanting their share of the profits, first and foremost.


----------



## gagsd

I d


----------



## gagsd

I don't really care the motives. I feel strongly that the only people to come in my house, are those I invited.
Shoot, I even have family that's not welcome
If I am not breaking the law, or have a serious complaint against me, the government has no business knocking on my door.
JMO.


----------



## von Bolen

As much as I want something done about backyard breeders, I don't feel this helps in any way.


----------



## von Bolen

I share your opinion. I do feel their are proper regulations that could be put into place that would beneficial, but I don't feel the current plan represents those.


----------



## dOg

our tax dollars hard at work, again,still.

the aspsca & hsus are both perps here.

Pursuit of Happiness, DENIED!

Feeling FREE yet?


----------



## Vandal

Alert: USDA to Host Briefing on Proposed Rule

Alliance Action Alert
USDA To Host Briefing on Proposed Rule

August 2, 2012 - The U.S. Department of Agriculture - APHIS reached out to the Animal Agriculture Alliance with an invitation to hold a briefing via conference call to discuss the proposed revision of regulations implementing the Animal Welfare Act (AWA) to redefine "retail pet store." The proposed rule would expand the number and type of animal breeding and husbandry facilities subject to licensure, inspection, and recordkeeping under AWA. The Alliance recently issued an action alert due to concerns about its potential impact on farmers and ranchers.

The call will be held Monday, August 6 at 10:00 am (EST).
The call-in number is 888-858-2144 and the passcode is 9730358.

The comment period for this proposed rule change has been extended by USDA until August 15.

Read the original comments submitted by the Alliance.

APHIS representatives will provide an overview of the proposed rule and discuss key points they feel are important to our members. The call will also include a question and answer session, allowing all participants to voice their concerns.

While the proposed rule appears to be focused on pet breeders, the Alliance feels farmers and ranchers could be impacted. As it is written, it appears that if a farmer or breeder sells even one animal as a "pet" in a situation where the buyer does not come to their home, farm or place of business, they will be required to become USDA licensed. A farmer selling an animal for purposes such as 4-H projects could potentially come under the impact of the rule.

This regulation could impact anybody intending to bring home a pet. The animals included under this regulation include dogs, cats, rabbits, guinea pigs, hamsters, gerbils, rats, mice, gophers, chinchilla, domestic ferrets, domestic farm animals, birds, and cold-blooded species. Also affected are rescuers, foster homes, service animals, guide dogs for the blind, sportsmen, military dogs, and any other groups that “sell” animals.

The Alliance encourages its members to educate themselves on this issue and participate in the August 6 briefing to learn more about the potential impact of this rule change, and to voice their concerns, if needed.


----------



## Mrs.K

Another law that is put into place way too fast without having it completely thought through. It's another way to control the citizen of this country and it makes me sick.


----------



## selzer

Mrs.K said:


> Another law that is put into place way too fast without having it completely thought through. It's another way to control the citizen of this country and it makes me sick.


Agree totally.


----------



## gagsd

Where do we stand on this?


----------



## Andaka

We who? Each of us is allowed a personal feeling on this. I, for one, am against it as it is poorly written and would most affect the breeders who do the best job of producing quality puppies, not the puppy mills and backyard breeders.


----------



## gagsd

Sorry... poorly worded
Where does the proposed bill stand? Is it still in the works?


----------



## Andaka

Ah! I thought you were wondering if the board had taken a particular stand on the issue. My bad.


----------



## Anubis_Star

TOTALLY OT, but pictures like these, STOP! Get's the puppy fever raging :wub:




Chris Wild said:


> We're narrow minded? Have you actually *read* the USDA regulations to see what they entail?
> 
> As others have pointed out, every puppymill is USDA registered. They raise their dogs like livestock in cages in buildings, not as pets. And livestock is what the USDA regulates.
> 
> Maybe this will help you see what we're all in an uproar about. If you actually want to see, which I'm not sure of. As they say, photos are worth 1000 words....
> 
> Here is how my puppies are raised.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And our "Breeding stock", better known as our PETS.
> (German Shepherd Photos, by Wildhaus Kennels )
> (German Shepherd Photos, by Wildhaus Kennels )
> 
> Under USDA regulations, none of that would be allowed.
> 
> You truly believe that being kept in metal cages in a separate building away from the sights and sounds of daily living and regular interaction with other dogs an people, no toys or blankets or other "non porous" items allowed, is a better way to rear pups?


----------



## Mrs.K

Yeah, is there any news on this?


----------



## onyx'girl

bumping this up, I'd like to know if there are updates, or was it killed to be re-written?


----------

