Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

USDA seeks change to regulate Internet pet sales
Associated Press ^ | May 10, 2012 | TRACIE CONE

Posted on 05/11/2012 5:43:22 AM PDT by Gennie

Dog breeders who skirt animal welfare laws by selling puppies over the Internet would face tighter scrutiny under a rule change proposed Thursday by the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

The change would subject dog owners who breed more than four females and sell the puppies electronically, by mail or over the phone to the same oversight faced by wholesale dealers as part of the Animal Welfare Act.

That law, written in 1966, set standards of care for animals bred for commercial sale and research. Retail sales were exempt from inspections under the assumption that anyone who visited the store could see whether the animals appeared healthy and cared for.

The Internet opened a new venue for puppy sales, and thousands of large-scale breeders who advertise there have not been subject to oversight or inspection.

The proposed change seeks to close that loophole by ensuring that anyone who sells pets over the Internet, by phone or mail order can no longer do so sight-unseen. Sellers either must open their doors to the public so buyers can see the animals before they purchase them, or obtain a license and be subject to inspections by the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.

"We feel this is certainly a much-needed change to an outdated system," said Rebecca Blue, deputy undersecretary for marketing and regulatory programs.

(Excerpt) Read more at google.com ...


TOPICS: Government; Miscellaneous; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: dogs; internet; netneutrality; puppies; usda
It would not allow me to post the whole article...
1 posted on 05/11/2012 5:43:29 AM PDT by Gennie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Gennie

That is the big push.

They want to regulate speech. Badly.


2 posted on 05/11/2012 5:47:38 AM PDT by GeronL (The Right to Life came before the Right to Pursue Happiness)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Gennie

Is this a federal responsibility? Or state? or county? or city?


3 posted on 05/11/2012 5:48:23 AM PDT by Rapscallion (For English press "3", or "4". Whatever.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Gennie

That’s because AP is copyrighted material and should be excerpted.

Thanks,


4 posted on 05/11/2012 5:49:05 AM PDT by Admin Moderator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Rapscallion

Well there are already state puppy lemon laws and regulations, sometimes county regulations too. This would be in addition to it, so a person could be legal in their municipality/county/state but be illegal federally.


5 posted on 05/11/2012 5:50:24 AM PDT by Gennie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Admin Moderator

I understand that, I only mentioned it so that people would know there’s more to the article, not saying it in a bad way :)


6 posted on 05/11/2012 5:51:15 AM PDT by Gennie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Gennie
This is something to take note of from the article:

"You need to open your home if you breed more than four dogs. That sounds appropriate to me," said Patti Strand, director of the National Animal Interest Alliance.
7 posted on 05/11/2012 5:52:22 AM PDT by Gennie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Gennie
USDA seeks change to regulate Internet pet sales

Wouldn't it be easier and cheaper in the long run if government just did everything and decided everything from one central location?

You know, kinda' like cutting out the middleman?

8 posted on 05/11/2012 5:54:30 AM PDT by EGPWS (Trust in God, question everyone else)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Gennie

So it won’t affect backyard breeders. And those are the ones in Amish country that need to be shut down. Stacks upon stacks of caged females having puppies over and over.


9 posted on 05/11/2012 5:57:39 AM PDT by arbee4bush (My Dad, My Hero. Love You Dad!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: arbee4bush

Wrong. It will affect more than just the Amish. You do realize that there are already state laws in place for puppy mills, right? I will give you an example. Someone that may want to show their dogs and have, let’s say, 5 females. That doesn’t necessarily mean they breed all their dogs at one time, but that they are intact. They may have two litters a year, because the number of litters are not specified, only the number of dogs. If they take a deposit OR ship their puppies (because people are purchasing them wtihout physically seeing them first), they would also need to be inspected by the APHIS OR only sell to people who will come to their residence. Unfortunately, this is not about animals, but control.


10 posted on 05/11/2012 6:01:10 AM PDT by Gennie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Gennie

I used to work at USDA. It’s full of retards.


11 posted on 05/11/2012 6:01:10 AM PDT by YourAdHere (Spike Lee's films are boring and unoriginal.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AnAmericanMother; Titan Magroyne; Badeye; SandRat; arbooz; potlatch; afraidfortherepublic; ...
WOOOF!

The Doggie Ping list is for FReepers who would like to be notified of threads relating to all things canid. If you would like to join the Doggie Ping Pack (or be unleashed from it), FReemail me.

12 posted on 05/11/2012 6:04:29 AM PDT by Joe 6-pack (Que me amat, amet et canem meum)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: EGPWS

After watching Animal Planet’s ‘Houston SPCA’ and checking Petfinders - it’s clear that the animal rescue centers are making a fortune by closing down puppy mills & confiscating abused animals, with the assistance of law enforcement.

Their adoption fees are equal or greater than pet shops and abusive breeders. Because of the mandatory spaying - owners of rescue dogs have no option to continue a pedigree line from their pets.


13 posted on 05/11/2012 6:09:28 AM PDT by sodpoodle (Newtrition - soul food for a starving America.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: sodpoodle
Their adoption fees are equal or greater than pet shops and abusive breeders.

Plus their write-offs and donations.

14 posted on 05/11/2012 6:13:08 AM PDT by EGPWS (Trust in God, question everyone else)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Gennie

This will have the effect of taking out many rare dog breeds. Breeders have a pair or 2 who do it out of dedication will just quit rather than risk a federal prosecution. So in the end more dogs will be gone....wait a minute what part of the world considers dogs to be vermin....right! that’s the muslim world, this is creeping SHARIA!!!!!! slow but sure


15 posted on 05/11/2012 6:17:08 AM PDT by ohiobuckeye1997
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Gennie

Oh for pete’s sake!


16 posted on 05/11/2012 6:21:08 AM PDT by Chickensoup (The Great O-pression.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ohiobuckeye1997

Exactly, it will impact people who may not necessarily be large-scale breeders but have breeding dogs. It will impact me, I have German Shepherds, I only have one or two litters a year. As a default, if you ship your puppies (I do not), you would automatically have to be inspected. This will cause bloodlines to be fixated in certain areas, you would never have diversity, unless a person wishes to allow inspections. From glancing over at what they have outlined on the website, it looks above and beyond any state regulations.


17 posted on 05/11/2012 6:21:54 AM PDT by Gennie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: YourAdHere
I used to work at USDA. It’s full of retards.

They think puppies are "agriculture", so they can't be too bright.

18 posted on 05/11/2012 6:22:06 AM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh, bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic
They think puppies are "agriculture", so they can't be too bright.

HAH! Well I never knew they had a new sub-division called the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, which is what this falls under:

WASHINGTON, May 10, 2012--The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) is proposing to revise its definition of “retail pet store” to close a loophole that has threatened the health and humane treatment of pets sold sight unseen over the Internet and via phone- and mail-based businesses.

http://www.aphis.usda.gov/newsroom/2012/05/retail_pets_051012.shtml
19 posted on 05/11/2012 6:40:46 AM PDT by Gennie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Gennie

OK - cool beans.


20 posted on 05/11/2012 6:44:52 AM PDT by Admin Moderator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Gennie; xzins

Unless dogs are used for culinary purposes I see no grant of authority for the USDA to regulate pet sales. The USDA is supposed to regulate food.

Unless you are from Indonesia, like Obama, pets are not intended for sale as a food product. Someone needs to get the message to Obama that Americans don’t eat dogs and cats.


21 posted on 05/11/2012 6:58:05 AM PDT by P-Marlowe (Virgil Goode! Because everyone else is Bad!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: P-Marlowe

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xbbcvr_peking-moon_fun


22 posted on 05/11/2012 7:07:55 AM PDT by Hillarys Gate Cult (Liberals make unrealistic demands on reality and reality doesn't oblige them.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Gennie; brytlea; Salamander; Joe 6-pack
This is something to take note of from the article:

"You need to open your home if you breed more than four dogs. That sounds appropriate to me," said Patti Strand, director of the National Animal Interest Alliance.

I do NOT believe Patti Strand said this. It is the antithesis to what NAIA stands for.

National Animal Interest Alliance Somebody in the drive-by media is twisting this spokesman's words.

23 posted on 05/11/2012 7:16:06 AM PDT by Darnright ("I don't trust liberals, I trust conservatives." - Lucius Annaeus Seneca)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Gennie

Without the actual rule to look at, and going on what the article quotes, it seems to me that if the buyer handles the shipping arrangements and costs, separate from the purchase of the dog, you would be exempt.

We are in the same boat that you are (small GSD breeder), but we allow anyone to come and look at the dogs, and generally prefer to sell locally, shipping only rarely; and during the summer we cannot ship by air anyway, so most drive in to pick up. We have had people drive from the east coast (mainly because they don’t trust air shipping anymore).

And about the localized bloodlines: as long as you can ship semen, and if this new set of rules doesn’t affect the actual breeding, you can still breed to anyone anywhere.

And you are right about local puppy mill laws: there is enough local control in most cases to handle things. This is one more case of the Feds overstepping their boundaries, and making it difficult to do any sort of business at all; and regulating things they have no knowledge of.


24 posted on 05/11/2012 7:24:10 AM PDT by LaRueLaDue
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Gennie

“breeders who advertise there have not been subject to oversight or inspection.”

Yet, I would wager that the private breeders produce much better quality dogs. In general, they breed out of passion for the breed and as a result they ensure that they only enhance the positive aspects of the breeds. The current regulations most likely cover puppy mills already and have not helped in the least.

These are guesses on my part, but I have yet to see a government intrusion that results in a better quality anything!


25 posted on 05/11/2012 7:28:17 AM PDT by CSM (Keeper of the Dave Ramsey Ping list. FReepmail me if you want your beeber stuned.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LaRueLaDue
The actual rule is at http://www.aphis.usda.gov/. From the Q and A PDF:

We are proposing to revise the definition of retail pet store and related regulations to bring more pet animals sold at retail under the protection of the Animal Welfare Act (AWA). Specifically, we would narrow the definition of retail pet store so that it means a place of business or residence that each buyer physically enters in order to personally observe the animals available for sale prior to purchase and/or to take custody of the animals after purchase, and where only certain animals are sold or offered for sale, at retail, for use as pets. Retail pet stores are not required to be licensed and inspected under the AWA. We are also proposing to increase from three to four the number of breeding female dogs, cats, and/or small exotic or wild mammals that a person may maintain on his or her premises and be exempt from the licensing and inspection requirements if he or she sells only the offspring of those animals born and raised on his or her premises, for pets or exhibition.

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

While I do allow people to come look at my dogs, I have taken deposits before people actually choose puppies. That would be monetary exchange before the people physically see the dog, which would be a "no no". Also, you seem to think that shipping semen would be the answer to everything, but what if I wanted to purchase a dog from a breeder who is no longer able to ship? Bloodlines would certainly suffer, because outside of semen shipment, you would not be able to obtain an outcross OR whatever specific line without doing that. Not to mention, shipping of semen would be a PIA as well as costly, with less of a chance of it working.

Ironically, I'm looking into having my male's semen frozen, I will still do this as he is absolutely wonderful and needs to be saved to be used at a future time, but this did give me a brief pause. Personally, I would not have to change much outside of not taking deposits until people see the dogs first, but that is still a hindrance. I have also offered to meet people halfway if we're planning a trip, that would be out. I do not show my dogs, but I can imagine this impacting those that do show dogs and may not necessarily have many litters. Breeds will suffer.

In the end though, it's about control, not the dogs or cats or rats (yes, RATS!), all of which is included in this catch-all regulation.
26 posted on 05/11/2012 7:36:58 AM PDT by Gennie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: CSM

These so called ‘puppy mill’ laws are a joke and fall into the same category as the depressing SPCA ads asking for money IMO. How many dogs you have is not necessarily an indicator of how they are treated. I have malinois and any trainer/breeder who specializes in working/military dogs will tell you that they have to import dogs because there aren’t enough quality dogs bred in the USA. Many of the famous malinois/german shepherd kennels in Belgium, Holland,France and Germany would be labeled puppy mills here, and they most certainly are not. Short story is that the gubmint hates any internet sales, because they are much more difficult for them to take control over, tax, etc.


27 posted on 05/11/2012 7:42:19 AM PDT by nobamanomore
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: P-Marlowe

>Unless dogs are used for culinary purposes I see no grant of authority for the USDA to regulate pet sales. The USDA is supposed to regulate food.<

USDA has regulated commercial pet breeders/brokers for decades. Many farmers supplement their incomes with dog breeding and have been regulated in how these animals are housed and cared for. Sadly, the dogs and cats in these operations might be clean and fed/watered, but they do not live the way hobby breeders’dogs and household pets do. In fact, animals kept under USDA regs may NOT be household residents. They must be kept in separate buildings, with separate plumbing/sewer.

In other words, if small hobby or small breeders are swept under the USDA umbrella, people who breed non-commercially will no longer be able to keep canines as pets.

Keep in mind, this proposed law will count every intact female FOUR MONTHS OLD and up, regardless of whether she is being bred, as a “female used for breeding”. People who show and who breed for hobby purposes routinely keep young, intact females (you cannot show a spayed dog) until they’re old enough to be health screened for breeding suitability, plus old enough to have completed the requirements for an AKC championship or other title. If the dog does not pass all clearances, she is then spayed and will never enter the gene pool.


28 posted on 05/11/2012 8:06:24 AM PDT by Darnright ("I don't trust liberals, I trust conservatives." - Lucius Annaeus Seneca)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Gennie

AKC’s statement on this topic:

http://www.akc.org/news/index.cfm?article_id=4653

Early next week, the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) of United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) will be releasing for public comment a new interpretation of portions of existing regulations for the federal Animal Welfare Act.

In particular, two proposed changes may have a potentially significant impact on AKC breeders:

Current AWA regulations do not require licensing of “retail pet stores”. The newly proposed rule will significantly narrow the definition of retail pet stores so that: “Retail pet store means any outlet a place of business or residence that each buyer physically enters in order to personally observe the animals available for sale prior to purchase and/or to take custody of the animals after purchase …” .
This rescinds the “retail pet store” status/protection for those who engage in internet sales. Breeders who engage in internet-only or other sales without allowing the buyer to personally observe the puppy ahead of purchase will be subject to current USDA commercial breeder licensing and inspections. However, breeders who sell pets to their customers face-to-face will now qualify as “retail pet stores” for the purpose of remaining exempt from USDA regulations.

The proposed new rule also increases the exception for regulation as a commercial breeder for those who maintain up to four breeding female dogs on their premises if person sells only the offspring born and raised on the premises for use as pets or exhibition (regardless of whether those animals are sold at retail or wholesale).
The American Kennel Club will review the proposal, provide comment after fully analyzing the impacts of the proposed rule, and will report all developments as they warrant.

For more information, visit http://www.aphis.usda.gov/publications/animal_welfare/2012/retail_pets_faq.pdf for a fact sheet prepared by USDA/APHIS regarding the proposed rule change; and http://www.aphis.usda.gov/newsroom/2012/05/pdf/docket_APHIS_2011_0003.pdf for a preliminary copy of the proposal.


29 posted on 05/11/2012 8:08:24 AM PDT by Darnright ("I don't trust liberals, I trust conservatives." - Lucius Annaeus Seneca)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nobamanomore

Exactly. You could have many “breeding dogs” but because you are responsible, have very few litters, carefully watch where puppies go and be regulated...OR you could have up to the limit with 4 breeding females, produce 8 litters a year if you bred all those girls every heat, sell those people to WHOEVER and be exempt. Makes perfect sense! </sarc>


30 posted on 05/11/2012 8:09:23 AM PDT by Gennie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Gennie

Why don’t they all just shut up themselves..and leave We the People alone?


31 posted on 05/11/2012 8:19:13 AM PDT by mo (If you understand, no explanation is needed. If you don't understand, no explanation is possible.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Gennie

Questions and Answers:
Proposed Rule – Retail Pet Sales

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


32 posted on 05/11/2012 8:22:41 AM PDT by Whenifhow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: mo

That would be nice...the federal government is about to get even bigger since I guess they think the states aren’t doing enough.


33 posted on 05/11/2012 8:24:19 AM PDT by Gennie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Darnright
According to their Facebook page, they are for it at this time?

"NAIA gave considerable input during the formulation of these rules. Now, we can only hope they have not added further changes that we cannot support."

http://www.facebook.com/pages/National-Animal-Interest-Alliance-NAIA/98942497243
34 posted on 05/11/2012 8:28:37 AM PDT by Gennie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Gennie

But what about other pets? Will you still be able to sell pussy over the Internet?


35 posted on 05/11/2012 8:31:32 AM PDT by RichInOC (Palin 2012: The Perfect Storm.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Gennie

Hmm... I cannot find the actual rule changes, just a thumbnail description. From the Q&A, it appears that proposed rules are more restrictive than a lot of the state and local puppy mill rules. Not good... I don’t know who they think will enforce these, as the current state and local rules are essentially unenforceable due to lack of manpower, unless someone complains...

We also take deposits, but not on a specific dog, so that might skirt the rules... We don’t select the puppies that will go to specific owners until late in the process.

And I don’t think that shipped semen is the be-all-end-all answer, but it is affordable (for the most part) and doable by any competent vet across the country. It is not as “exotic” as it used to be for dogs... The conception rate for shipped semen/AI are just as good as normal breeding, if you have competent vets on both sides and there are no other issues with the dogs; just like normal breeding. You just have to do your normal homework and due diligence.

And if you want a puppy/dog from someone who cannot ship, you would just have to arrange for transport on your own. I don’t see any problem with that, as we cannot ship for about 3/4 of the year, due to shipping heat restrictions. (And I dislike air shipping anyway...)

Don’t take my arguments to say that I am on-board with this sort of rule change. I hate it, and I dislike anyone telling me how to run my hobby/business when they have never done it, and haven’t a clue on what they are dealing with. This is just one more reason to run under the radar as much as possible...


36 posted on 05/11/2012 8:32:37 AM PDT by LaRueLaDue
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: LaRueLaDue
This it the proposal:

http://www.aphis.usda.gov/newsroom/2012/05/pdf/docket_APHIS_2011_0003.pdf

I do not know if by taking a deposit at all, it is skirting the rules, I personally would not chance it as you are still taking money for a dog "sight unseen", even if the dog is unnamed.

As far as semen shipping or arranging other forms of transport (remember the issue is still sending money for a dog sight unseen, it wouldn't matter if I arranged for the pickup, I'm not seeing the dog before I get it back to my place), it's the principal. This will hurt more than just scumbag puppy mills. I'm sure there would be ways around it, in my case I would stop doing deposits and since I don't ship it wouldn't impact me, BUT I was hoping to keep that option open in the future if the economy got bad enough, which I wouldn't be able to do. It's just about the control. PETA would certainly be happy as a lot of people would get out of it based on the hassle alone, a lot of GOOD people.
37 posted on 05/11/2012 8:38:49 AM PDT by Gennie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Gennie

>According to their Facebook page, they are for it at this time?<

Here’s a quote from Strand off the FB comments on this subject:

“As you might imagine, seeing all the buzzwords and having my quote placed immediately after Wayne’s made me more than a little uncomfortable, too. I understand everyone’s concern. Many of the people posting here didn’t realize at first that this is a proposed rule, and none had been able to read it for themselves yet.

At NAIA we have said for decades that one of the distinguishing characteristics between the commercial breeders and us, especially when it comes to regulation, is that the dog-buying public can see the puppies, littermates, dam and in some cases the relatives of the puppy they are buying, when they buy from us”

Frankly, I am beyond disappointed in Ms Strand and NAIA at this point. Four, 4 month and up females in a non-commercial dog breeder/exhibitor’s home is in no way unusual nor is it indicative of “volume” breeding activity.


38 posted on 05/11/2012 8:46:20 AM PDT by Darnright ("I don't trust liberals, I trust conservatives." - Lucius Annaeus Seneca)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Gennie

Another relevant post by Strand (although I’m sorry, I don’t buy it. Spin faster, Patti.

“First, no one including me knows what the final proposal will be as it has not been published yet. The AP called me for a comment and I replied to the limited information the writer provided me. There are a number of ways that my comments can be construed, but the part I responded to was the part that would exempt breeders who provide their purchasers access to their home or kennel. The devil is always in the details, though, so rest assured that if the proposal in its entirety turns out to be unreasonable, we won’t support it.

Keep in mind that this is a “proposed rule” which requires public input before finalizing. In other words, hobby breeders will have the opportunity to write them and push for changes and/or better methods of implementation if the proposal is unreasonable. The USDA has the authority to draft the regulations needed to implement laws already on the books and no one doubts their authority in this matter. What’s important now is giving them the right input after we’ve all had a chance to read it.”


39 posted on 05/11/2012 8:51:31 AM PDT by Darnright ("I don't trust liberals, I trust conservatives." - Lucius Annaeus Seneca)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Darnright
Push for changes? How about SCRAP all of it? Hang on though, because from me picking more into this actual proposal, it looks like those exempt with the 4 dogs or less would STILL have to sell from their property, meaning those who have less dogs but still want to ship a puppy would have to be licensed? It's hard reading this stuff with kids, but here is what I'm talking about:

In addition, the proposed rule would increase from three to four the number of breeding female dogs, cats, and/or small exotic or wild mammals that a person may maintain on his or her premises and be exempt from licensing and inspection if he or she sells only the offspring of those animals born and raised on his or her premises for use as pets or exhibition, regardless of whether those animals are sold at retail or wholesale.
40 posted on 05/11/2012 9:20:45 AM PDT by Gennie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Gennie

This thing is an absolute mess, Gennie. For example, you are exempt as long as puppy buyers come to your home only. Well, hello Craigslist. The USDA wants to force you to open your home to every Tom, Dick & Harry who wants to “see the puppies”. Ok, never mind this opens you up to Parvo, Distemper and whatever else was at the other breeder this person visited earlier that day, it also opens your home to persons who might be scouting out their next break-in.

If a person breeds something rare, this limits others’ options who might want a pup, but who live too far away from the puppies to drive.

Ok, so the USDA will open up discussion for 60 days. Do you think for a second PETA and HSUS will not flood their inboxes with approval messages? How do we get enough opposition to be heard?


41 posted on 05/11/2012 10:40:08 AM PDT by Darnright ("I don't trust liberals, I trust conservatives." - Lucius Annaeus Seneca)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Darnright
You're exactly right. I don't even allow people onto my property until first shots and have had people fight with me, TOO BAD. PETA I have not seen give approval yet, but I didn't do an internet search. However HSUS practically gave it a standing ovation -

http://www.humanesociety.org/news/press_releases/2012/05/hsus_applauds_usda_proposal_puppy_mills_051012.html

So you KNOW it's bad. As far as getting enough opposition, we would need ALL (good lol) BREEDERS to come out for this, as well as ANYONE standing on behalf of liberty and freedom.

I was so upset and sick when I read this yesterday, I saw it on Drudge. A few hours later I went back to look and it was already off? WTF? I would think something like that, which is regulating the sales and breeding of ALL domestic animals, would be a bit important? I don't understand how they could even TRY something like this!! Are they expecting enough people to be asleep or what? I've already heard someone on Facebook that is SUPPOSEDLY "limited government" minded support this, I gave them a piece of my mind, but when people hear "Oh, it's for the puppies!" they think it's a good thing. Ugh.
42 posted on 05/11/2012 10:59:50 AM PDT by Gennie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Gennie

Ironic that a human male can donate sperm to anonymous women and sire hundreds of children - but dog breeders are under scrutiny for shipping semen & puppies to identifiable purchasers.

Follow the money!!!!!


43 posted on 05/12/2012 3:45:02 AM PDT by sodpoodle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: sodpoodle

Another concerned AKC Breeder Of Merit .
Count me in to fight this!


44 posted on 05/12/2012 5:19:47 AM PDT by wndycndy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Gennie
Durbin, Vitter commend USDA rule to regulate online puppy sales

WASHINGTON, D.C. — U.S. Senators Dick Durbin (D-IL) and David Vitter (R-LA) commended the U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA) Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) for closing a loophole that allows domestic puppy mills selling puppies via the internet to escape regulation and avoid inspection. This rule, which will specifically apply to large breeders, is an important step towards ensuring that pets sold over the Internet are treated humanely and receive proper care. Last year, Durbin and Vitter introduced the Puppy Uniform Protection and Safety Act, which would close the same loophole and require previously unregulated breeders to be licensed and to undergo inspections.

*snip*

In October 2011, Durbin and Vitter wrote to Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack to urge USDA to close this unnecessary loophole through regulatory action, rather than requiring additional congressional action.
45 posted on 05/13/2012 8:31:06 AM PDT by Gennie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ohiobuckeye1997

I kind of wondered how this will work. If you sell ANY puppies over the internet or sight unseen, even tho you also sell puppies locally? When I was actually showing and breeding, I did sometimes sell a puppy to someone in another state via word of mouth with only phone contact and photos, videos, etc. Does this mean I would have suddenly come under this legislation if I had 4 or more intact females? I think this could hit many hobby/show breeders if it does. As always, the Federal Government wants to be in our lives, but they use the excuse it’s “for the children” or “the sweet little abused puppies”.
In fact, I currently do not breed (I have a beautiful champion bitch with all of her clearances who will not have a litter) mostly because I live where there is an onerous breeder permit law. I do pay a 75$ licensing fee for the privilege of not spaying her yet. I would have never thought Americans would agree that the government could tell them what surgery they had to do to their dogs. We live in CrazyTown.


46 posted on 05/15/2012 12:00:12 PM PDT by brytlea (An ounce of chocolate is worth a pound of cure)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Gennie

Most people not involved in dog sports think this kind of law is a good idea. And in fact, some of my friends involved in dogs agree because they hate commercial breeders so much. They are short sighted, but not everyone is smart, face it. If they were we wouldn’t be where we are as a country.


47 posted on 05/15/2012 12:03:07 PM PDT by brytlea (An ounce of chocolate is worth a pound of cure)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: brytlea
It sounds like your friends are acting out of emotion and their hearts rather than their heads and that's where the libs get a lot of people. Most fellow dog breeders I converse with, think this is absolutely awful. I read back over the proposal, and from how I understand this, if you have more than 4 intact "breeding" females, even if you do not necessarily BREED them all at the same time, you will be subject to USDA federal licensing and inspections. The 4 and under exemption is only for people who only sell their puppies at their home and do not take deposits or ship "sight unseen".

In the case of rare breeds that are only limited to a few hundred throughout the country, this could be disastrous as most breeders would most likely not want to be inspected and follow requirements such as stainless steel whelping boxes, concrete kennels, etc. and whatever other draconian implementations they require versus a loving home. What's interesting is that there are already laws in most states that cover something like this. I follow the laws here for Pennsylvania and do not have a kennel, but any type of "puppy mill" would already NEED to be inspected by the PA Department of Agriculture because if you have 26+ dogs (both your own dogs as well as puppies produced) in a calendar year, you are required to be inspected and licensed. But hey, IT'S FOR THE PUPPIES so it must be good, right? lol

Interesting point to note though, this covers all animals so while I am unfamiliar with the sales of cattle, horses, pigs, etc. I would have to guess there is at least some type of online sales for them, which it would also impact.
48 posted on 05/15/2012 6:59:42 PM PDT by Gennie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: brytlea

Yes, you are exactly right, it will impact the hobby/show aka RESPONSIBLE breeder much more than it will some puppy mill who is most likely ALREADY inspected in their state. From how I understood it, if you sold puppies locally AND sold online via the internet, yep you’d need to be licensed. After I read the whole proposal again, the 4 or less exemption would only be IF you only sell from your house, you would not be exempt if you also shipped or sold in some way “sight unseen before purchase”. Where do you live that you have a breeder permit law? How awful!


49 posted on 05/15/2012 7:02:30 PM PDT by Gennie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Gennie

Palm Beach County, FL.


50 posted on 05/17/2012 11:46:35 AM PDT by brytlea (An ounce of chocolate is worth a pound of cure)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson