IMPORTANT: If you breed, the government wants to classify you as a pet store - Havanese Forum : Havanese Forums
BREEDERS Breeders can show the health testing they do, the set up their dogs live in and all important information relating to being a breeder. DO NOT ADVERTISE PUPPIES HERE!

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
post #1 of 13 (permalink) Old 06-12-2012, 01:03 PM Thread Starter
Joe Cool!
 
morriscsps's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Metrowest Massachusetts
Posts: 2,059
Submit Photo: 0
Photo Submissions 9 Times in 9 Posts
Exclamation IMPORTANT: If you breed, the government wants to classify you as a pet store

I am not sure about this. The Beardie forum I belong to just posted this. If it is true, I think it will be a disaster. If it isn't true, the forum monitors can delete this thread and have my deepest apologies for causing a fuss.

Here comes a really long post in six parts. Sorry. They are nutsy on the other forum.

COPIED FROM THE BEARDIEMAINIACS yahoo forum

Part One



***Crossposting/ Forwarding is Permitted***

Hi again --

The following is long, but you really do need to read it in its entirety. I've
copied and pasted it with permission from Maria Jozwiak, BCCA Legislative
Liaison. The short version is that APHIS, the section of the USDA that regulates
animals, has been listening to HSUS/PETA/other AR groups telling them that all
dog breeders are evil and must be regulated so they don't trn out rabid mutants.
If APHIS makes the changes that PETA recommends, then anyone who has puppies at
home -- or who owns intact animals, whether or not they will ever be bred --
will be labeled a retail pet store.

Please read this over, and if you're moved as a dog owner to say anything about
this, follow the instructions to comment to APHIS here:

http://www.regulations.gov/#!documen...2011-0003-0001

and copy the AKC on your comments at [email protected]

The comment period runs from 5/16 to 7/16/12, so time is short.

--karen




ALL Beardie people need to be aware of how these proposed changes to the APHIS
Regulations might effect them, whether they be the individual owners who
purchase their Beardies, Stud dog owners and breeders, rescuers, foster homes,
or performance afficionados.

The Dog Federation of New York has prepared an excellent (LONG) explanation of
how these changes will, should they be approved, effect the "hobby breeder", the
buyers and owners, and the Rescue/Foster homes. Please read carefully.
Included are suggestions on making "Comments" and instructions on how, and to
whom, you address your comments.

The AKC has asked that any "Comments" you post be sent to them as well.
[email protected]

They are keeping track of everything so that they have "ammunition" to help
"deep six" these proposed changes. The goal among the Federations and their
memberships is to have the proposed changes to the Regulations entirely
withdrawn - Not Fixed, Not Amended - but Withdrawn!

I will continue to post all materials and updates that I receive from the
Federations, Groups, and Blogs that I receive on this topic. If any of you
receive pertinent information or commentary from your Kennel Clubs, Performance
Organizations, or other Groups, I will be please to post these items for the
further clarification of this issue of APHIS Regulation changes.

I also found that it is easier to read if it is printed out. Notations can be
made then to formulated your "Comments".

Thank you.
Maria G. Jozwiak
BCCA L.L.

TTFN,
Pam


Last edited by morriscsps; 06-12-2012 at 01:20 PM.
morriscsps is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 13 (permalink) Old 06-12-2012, 01:05 PM Thread Starter
Joe Cool!
 
morriscsps's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Metrowest Massachusetts
Posts: 2,059
Submit Photo: 0
Photo Submissions 9 Times in 9 Posts
PART TWO

http://www.dogfederationofnewyork. blogspot. com/


APHIS, USDA Regulations and you
DFNY June 4, 2012

http://www.dogfederationofnewyork. blogspot. com/

If you pay any attention to internet lists, you may have seen a big flap that
started in the middle of May about the new USDA proposed regulations. Well, it
is a big deal. Federal regulation impacting your ability to own pets is
something you need to understand, form an opinion about, and then submit a
comment to USDA during the public comment period. You should also send copies
of your comments to your senators and to your congressional representative. If
you own pets and want to continue to be able to own the pets of your choice –
all pets, not just dogs or cats – you can't just let this one slide and expect
someone else to take care of it for you.

First a little history.

USDA (United States Department of Agriculture) , in the person of its
enforcement arm APHIS (Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service), has been
responsible for the administration of the rules and regulations written to
enforce all of the various animal welfare acts beginning with the Laboratory
Animal Welfare Act passed in 1966 to the Animal Welfare Act of 1976 and the Food
Security Act of 1985. As part of this enforcement, APHIS has been responsible
for the licensing and inspection of anyone who, for compensation, acts as a
broker or dealer of animals, or operates an auction house, or transports
animals, or uses animals in an exhibition such as a zoo or rodeo, or operates a
research facility using animals. In other words, APHIS has primarily been
concerned with animal wholesalers, exhibitors and researchers. All of these
people or businesses or organizations have been required to be licensed and to
meet minimum standards for care and treatment of their animals and to comply
with the other regulations written for enforcement of these Animal Welfare Acts
for many years – those standards being enforced by APHIS through regular
inspections of records and property.

The regulations to which we have all been subject since at least 1971 do contain
some exceptions. If a person or company meets the exception, they are exempt
under the federal law and are not required to be licensed or inspected by APHIS.
The current exemptions are for: 1. Retail pet stores that sell nondangerous,
pet-type animals at retail only; 2. A person who receives no more than $500
gross income from the sale of animals (not including dogs, cats, or wild or
exotic animals) in the course of a year, no matter whether they are sold
wholesale or retail; 3. A person who maintains no more than 3 breeding female
animals and sells only their offspring born and raised on the person's premises
for pets or exhibition; 4. A person who sells fewer than 25 dogs or cats in a
year for any purpose, as long as those animals were born and raised on the
person's premises; 5. A person arranging transportation of animals solely for
purposes of
breeding, purebred showing, boarding, grooming or medical treatment; 6. A
person who buys, sells or transports animals only for the purposes of food or
fiber; 7. A person who breeds and raises domestic pet animals for direct retail
sales to another person for the buyer's own use (e.g., a purebred dog or cat
fancier); or 8. A person who buys animals solely for his own use or enjoyment.

In other words, under current law and current regulations, if you have any
dealings with animals in any way you are required to be licensed and inspected
by USDA and to meet all of the housing, sanitary, etc. requirements in the
regulations unless you fit into one of the following 8 categories –

1. You are a retail pet store, or
2. You receive no more than $500 gross income from the sale of animals in a
year, or
3. You have no more than 3 breeding animals on your property and you sell
only, or their offspring, or
4. You sell less than 25 dogs or cats in a year for research, testing or
teaching, or to a research facility; or
5. You transport animals only for a few specific purposes primarily having
to do with pet care or purebred showing, or
6. You buy, sell or transport only animals used for food or fiber, or
7. You are a "purebred fancier", or
8. You are a pet buyer/owner.
There is a lot more than that in the current regulations, and if you want to
take a look at them yourself all 164 pages can be found at www.aphis.usda.
gov/animal_ welfare/download s/awr/awr. doc but this is the part that APHIS
wants to change.

TTFN,
Pam


Last edited by morriscsps; 06-12-2012 at 01:15 PM.
morriscsps is offline  
post #3 of 13 (permalink) Old 06-12-2012, 01:07 PM Thread Starter
Joe Cool!
 
morriscsps's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Metrowest Massachusetts
Posts: 2,059
Submit Photo: 0
Photo Submissions 9 Times in 9 Posts
PART THREE

Now a little more history.

In 2010, the results of an audit of the APHIS Animal Care Program by the Office
of the Inspector General were published. This report is entitled Animal and
Plant Health Inspection Service, Animal Care Program, Inspections of Problematic
Dealers and if you want to read the whole thing you can find it at
http://www.usda.gov/oig/webdocs/ 33002-4-SF.pdf

There is no denying that this document is a horrific indictment. The question
is: indictment of whom? The AR (animal rights) contingent[1] would have you
believe that this report, even though it contains the words "Problematic
Dealers" in the title, is a true representation of the majority of dog breeders.
If you do read the report, please make note of the Executive Summary, where it
states that this is the latest in a series of audits and where it also states
some of the problems the OIG has found with APHIS inspection procedures in the
past. This document is an indictment all right – but an indictment of APHIS
enforcement and penalty processes.

In any case the ARs (animal rights extremists who oppose the ownership of pets
and other animals), and particularly the highly paid lobbying arms of such AR
organizations as the HSUS (Humane Society of the United States) and ASPCA
(American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals), ran right to
federal legislators they anticipated would be amenable to their position and had
them dust off the old, defeated PAWS proposal and give it new life as PUPS – a
bastardized, science-lite, opinion-heavy piece of constitutionally questionable
legislation if ever there was one – designed solely to make the legal breeding
of dogs and cats in this country difficult, if not impossible. Their basis for
this action was the OIG report, detailing some of the abuses found (but not
punished) by APHIS inspectors. They conveniently glossed over information such
as that APHIS at the time had a total of 99 inspectors, the authors of the
report followed 19 of them, and 6 of those 19 were found to have problems with
paperwork and violation reporting – in other words 32% of those followed by OIG
(and by extrapolation, a presumed 32% of the total 99 federal inspectors) were
not doing their jobs.

The report also stated that some large breeders circumvent AWA by selling
animals over the internet. These breeders were taking advantage of the retail
pet store exemption and the report and APHIS called this "a massive loophole".
The ARs jumped on this bandwagon too, equating breeders who use the internet to
advertise with "puppy mills" (a term which has lost all meaning except as a
pejorative– if it ever had meaning to begin with) and demanding that they be
regulated by means of the PUPS proposal. Of course, the term "loophole" has an
emotional rule-bending, corner-cutting connotation that does not sit well with
people concerned with the well-being of puppies and kittens. But is this truly
a loophole in the law, or is it a 40 year long gap in the regulations written
and administered by APHIS itself? The internet may not have been around for 40
years, but magazine advertisements and telephone and postal service certainly
have
been.

Originally, the PUPS proposal appeared to be okay with USDA. In the report, the
OIG makes a recommendation to seek legislative change to exclude "Internet
breeders" from the definition of retail pet store and APHIS agrees. However,
for some reason[2], APHIS has reversed itself on this and now states that the
legislation currently in force does give it the authority to regulate internet
sales of animals and all that is required is a regulatory change.

TTFN,
Pam


Last edited by morriscsps; 06-12-2012 at 01:18 PM.
morriscsps is offline  
 
post #4 of 13 (permalink) Old 06-12-2012, 01:11 PM Thread Starter
Joe Cool!
 
morriscsps's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Metrowest Massachusetts
Posts: 2,059
Submit Photo: 0
Photo Submissions 9 Times in 9 Posts
PART FOUR

And thus we come to the present.

Last week APHIS published a proposed rule to, among other things, revise the
definition of retail pet store in the current regulations. You can find the
proposed rule here -
http://www.aphis.usda.gov/newsroom/2.../docket_APHIS_ 2011_0003.pdf The
comment period is from 5/16/12 to 7/16/12.

The proposed rule change deals with changes to the exemptions discussed above.

1. The retail pet store exemption remains, but the definition of a retail
pet store is changed. Under the proposed regulation a retail pet store would be
defined as a place of business or residence that every buyer must physically
enter 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 retail sale for use as pets.
2. This one is not changed – the $500 limitation on gross income from sale
of animals still remains.
3. The proposed rule increases the number of breeding females allowed from
3 to 4, but it adds persons meeting this criterion to the definition of retail
pet store. The APHIS Factsheet
(http://www.aphis.usda.gov/publicatio...e/2012/retail_ pets_faq.
pdf) states that "these breeders can only sell the offspring of the breeding
females that were born and raised on their premises, and sold for only pets or
exhibition".
4. No change is mentioned (this is the selling fewer than 25 animals one).
5. No change is mentioned (this is the transporting animals one).
6. No change is mentioned (this is the food or fiber animals one).
7. The purebred fancier exemption is deleted.
8. No change is mentioned (this is the pet buyer/owner one).
APHIS estimates that increasing the number of breeding females from 3 to 4 will
remove about 600 or so breeders from their current licensees while removing the
purebred fancier exemption will add about 1500 dog breeders (they do not seem to
think breeders of other species will be significantly affected) for a net
increase of 900 new licensees.

The justification for this rule change is that APHIS believes there has been
such an increase in volume of remote sales, particularly internet sales, in the
last 20 years that there is a large population of animals being sold directly to
the public, i.e. at retail, as pets that are not being monitored for their
health or humane treatment. Retail pet stores are specifically exempt from the
provisions of the Animal Welfare Act and are not required to be licensed by
APHIS. APHIS' solution for this problem is to remove from the definition of
"retail pet store" any seller who does not require that the buyer physically
present themselves at the seller's facility either prior to or at the time of
purchase. APHIS justifies their proposed all-or-nothing rule as written by
claiming that they do not have the authority to require retail pet stores to
make or retain records that would verify the proportion of remote sales that
make up their business.

If even one buyer does not appear in person, then the seller will need to be
licensed in accordance with AWA regulations and will become subject to all other
applicable AWA provisions. This point is key here. You need to understand that
this is not just a matter of filling out an application, paying a fee, and
letting an inspector into your house once a year for a few minutes. If you are
required to become a "licensed entity" you will need to comply with animal
identification and recordkeeping requirements and with standards for facilities
and operations (including space, structure and construction, waste disposal,
heating, ventilation, lighting, and interior surface requirements for indoor and
outdoor primary enclosures and housing facilities); animal health and husbandry
(including requirements for veterinary care, sanitation and feeding, watering,
and separation of animals); and transportation (including specifications for
primary enclosures, primary conveyances, terminal facilities, and feeding,
watering, care, and handling of animals in transit). The regulations covering
all this stuff are 164 pages long!

So what does this mean? There is a lot of confusion.

Problems – in no particular order of importance.

If you are a breeder there are only 3 ways to remain legal under this
new proposed rule – get licensed under the AWA, upgrade your facilities to be
compliant with 164 pages of federal regulation and allow APHIS inspectors into
your home OR sell all animals only to buyers who physically enter your home and
facilities OR have only 4 breeding females and sell only their progeny.
There is no written definition of breeding female. According to Dr.
Rushin in the transcript of the stakeholders' conference, APHIS has been using a
working definition in their wholesaling inspections of "dogs that have the
ability to breed". It has not been an issue for dog breeders in the past, but
with the purebred exemption being removed it will now be of paramount
importance. ARs believe, and have advanced legislation in multiple venues to
try to codify their belief, that any intact female dog over the age of 4 months
qualifies as a breeding female. The vast majority of dog breeders who were
previously exempt under the purebred fancier paragraph do not breed their female
puppies on their first heat. Some health testing cannot be done until the dog
is 2 years old and the overwhelming majority of the breeders who will now be
captured under the new rules do not even consider a bitch to be breedable until
she is at least 2. Some breeders are concerned with late-onset diseases such as
epilepsy known to have a genetic component but no testing available, and prefer
to wait until their dogs are 3 or 4 or even 5 years old before breeding the
animal for the first time. Some breeders raise up multiple puppies from a
litter before deciding who to breed as an adult. Some breeders do not spay
their retired bitches. Some view surgical castration as an unnecessary and even
detrimental procedure and do not routinely neuter their animals, even if they
will not breed them. How will a breeder know what animals count as breeding
females?
The language in the regulation specifies 4 breeding females, and it is
apparent from the context that it is only the number that is important. Species
does not matter. As an example, perhaps there is a dog breeder who previously
qualified as exempt under the purebred fancier paragraph, without regard to the
number of intact female dogs she had. Let's say she has 3 dogs that will be
considered breeding females. Let's also say that her young son breeds guinea
pigs for 4H. If he has more than 1 female guinea pig and if he sells a guinea
pig to a friend at the 4H fair, his family will require a USDA license – with
all the accompanying expense of kennel construction, licensing and inspection.
USDA itself is inconsistent on this point. People who have spoken to Dr. Rushin
report that he has said this is not how it will be interpreted, but people who
have spoken to other officials with USDA report that they have agreed withthis
interpretation. Whatever the interpretation, it must be spelled out and not
left to the whim of the inspector at the time of inspection.
"4 breeding females" may include co-ownerships and will include
animals shared with family members or animals that are temporarily in residence
with the breeder. It is possible that a bitch on your property for stud service
or your sister's bitch that you are boarding while she is on vacation could be
included in your count if the inspectors happen to be counting on that day. The
actual text of the proposed rule is "maintain on his or her premises", however
there does not appear to be a definition of "maintain" in the regulations.
Even one sale to a buyer who does not physically enter the breeder's
home/kennel will cause the breeder to lose the exemption from licensing. This
is certainly true for anyone exempt from licensing under the retail pet store
exemption. It is not clear at all from the various wordings provided in the
APHIS documentation whether this will also be true for a breeder exempt by
virtue of having 4 "breeding females", however Dr. Kay Carter-Corker of APHIS,
in a telephone conversation on 5/24/12, assured me that breeders having 4 or
fewer breeding females who sell only the offspring of those females born and
raised on their premises will not lose the exemption from licensing if they sell
an animal offsite.
To meet the exemption for 4 breeding females, those breeders can ONLY
sell the offspring that were born and raised on their premises. This leads to
several problems for breeders. If a breeder gets a puppy back as a stud fee or
gets a puppy back from a bitch sold previously, that puppy cannot be sold
without the breeder losing the exemption. If a breeder retires a bitch and
wants to rehome her, that cannot be done without losing the exemption unless the
bitch is one bred and raised by the breeder. If a breeder wants to retire a
stud dog and rehome him, same problem.

TTFN,
Pam


Last edited by morriscsps; 06-12-2012 at 01:18 PM.
morriscsps is offline  
post #5 of 13 (permalink) Old 06-12-2012, 01:12 PM Thread Starter
Joe Cool!
 
morriscsps's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Metrowest Massachusetts
Posts: 2,059
Submit Photo: 0
Photo Submissions 9 Times in 9 Posts
PART FIVE

To meet the exemption for 4 breeding females, breeders can ONLY sell
animals as pets. It appears that dogs cannot be sold for police or military
work or hunting or breeding purposes without the breeder accepting the
requirements of licensing, upgrading and inspection. It is questionable whether
dogs can be sold for search and rescue work, or assistance dog work, or farm
work, or any of the multitude of other uses that people have for dogs without
losing the exemption.
Under the current regulations, any person or establishment who deals
in dogs used for "hunting, security, or breeding purposes" is not included in
the definition of retail pet store even if the dogs are sold at retail. There
is, however, no explanation of what is meant by "hunting, security, or breeding
purposes" and no clear explanation of the consequences if animals meeting this
classification are sold.
Buyers will be limited to only dogs available within the area the
buyer wishes to travel unless the breeder is USDA licensed. There can no longer
be arrangements for a puppy to ride along to a show to meet up with a new owner.
Sellers can no longer agree to meet a buyer half-way or to deliver the puppy
themselves. Buyers can no longer choose to have a puppy shipped. Buyers who
have had a long history with a breeder will be forced to go to the breeder's
location for their next dog, even though they know there is no need for them to
"inspect" the facilities.
Breeders will be severely limited in their choices and abilities to
maintain genetic diversity in their lines. They will no longer be able to
purchase new breeding stock unless the breeder they are purchasing from is
either close enough to travel to or is licensed with USDA.
Breeders will no longer be able to be active in breed rescue.
Fostering and selling dogs not of their own breeding for their purebred rescue
group will cause them to lose their licensing exemption.
Rescue organizations have historically been exempt from licensing
under the retail pet store exemption. Many rescues will no longer qualify under
this new rule. Rescues sell rescued animals, not those born and raised on the
premises. Rescues sell animals off the premises at special adoption days.
Rescues have special arrangements with other establishments to allow their
animals to be showcased and sold from remote locations. Rescues transport
animals to buyers who did not physically visit their location.
Applying different rules to rescues engaged in substantially the same
activities as breeders, with whom they are in competition, would lead to
constitutional issues.
What can be done?
Comment. Comment. Comment.

APHIS has specifically requested comments on the number of people and/or
businesses that will be affected by this proposed rule and also the operational
changes – both the changes themselves and the estimated cost of the changes –
that will be required for people to meet the licensing requirements.

Your comments need to be personal and to the point. Simply saying "Hey what a
stupid idea!" or "About time you guys did something like this!" is not
effective. APHIS has come up with this idea. You can bet your boots they like
it and they didn't put it out for comment just to be validated. They put it out
for comment because – 1. They are required to and 2. They want to know if there
is something drastically wrong with it that they don't know about.

APHIS is basing their estimates of the financial and regulatory impact of this
rule change on the limited data they have available from their historical
interactions with regulating wholesale breeders. They seem to think that the
retail breeders who will suddenly need to be licensed have business models and
practices substantially similar to the wholesale breeders with which they are
familiar. They are estimating that only 1500 dog breeders across the country
will be added to their enforcement and inspection load.
They have no clue how the whole sub-culture of purebred dogs works.

They have no clue how hobby breeders work. USDA does not even define "hobby
breeder". In their lexicon you are either a "breeder" (Class A license) or a
"dealer" (Class B license). They have no clue about co-ownerships and puppies
in lieu of a stud fee and puppies back from a litter and leasing animals across
country and all the myriad of other common practices used to maintain genetic
diversity and maintain and improve lines. They have no clue about the
requirements of genetic and health testing and performance testing and
temperament and conformation and working ability assessments and how all of that
interplays to finally determine whether or not a dog is worth breeding. They
have no clue how long it takes to determine if a dog will be bred.

They have no clue how dog sports work. They have no clue about how much time
and effort a person looking for a performance dog spends finding the right
lines, finding the right breeder, finding the right dog. They have no clue
about how common it is for a west coast person to buy an east coast dog, or vice
versa. They have no clue about the relationships that often develop between
breeders and buyers, making it completely unnecessary for a buyer to come to the
breeder's home.

They have no clue how rescues work. They have no clue about webs of foster
homes and internet networking of dogs in need. They have no clue about adoption
events and fundraising events. They have no clue about breeders who take in
dogs not of their breeding and find them homes.

They have no clue. Period. Comments can be questions. If something confuses
you, ask how it is supposed to be interpreted. Ask how APHIS has defined it.
Ask why it was defined in that way. Comments need to be written to address how
these rule changes will make it difficult or impossible for breeders to
continue. Comments need to be written to address how these rule changes will
make it difficult or impossible for buyers to choose the puppies they want. The
comments need to be specific. You can make multiple comment submissions and I
recommend you submit a separate comment for each separate issue. The comments
need to be personal.

Tell a personal story about some specific action you took for the betterment of
your dogs and your breeding activities that you will not be able to repeat if
this rule change is implemented as written. If you are a breeder, provide a
cost analysis of what it would take to bring your facility into compliance with
the regulations. Tell a personal story about the last dog you bought, about how
spectacular he is, and how you would not have been able to buy him if this rule
had been in existence when he was a puppy. Tell a personal story about a rescue
you took in and rehomed, about what a great dog she is and how she is a delight
to the family who now owns her and how you will never be able to do that again
if this rule change is implemented as written.

Comments like these are best in your own words, since we all have a different
story to tell. Tell the reader immediately what has happened and why it's
important. "Let me tell you about my rescue dog, Murphy. If this proposed
rule had been in place 8 years ago, he would be dead." A good story gets
straight to the point and loads in the human interest right at the very
beginning. "My friend is a hobby dog breeder and Murphy showed up on her lawn
when he was about 6 months old. She found a scared puppy sleeping under a bush
when she let her own dogs out in the morning. Someone had dumped him on her
country road during the night." Always set it up to answer the basic
journalistic questions - Who? What? When? Where? Why? How? So What? "She tried
to find an owner, but she knew he had been dumped. So she had him vetted and
then sold him to me for the cost of the vet bills." Keep it simple with clear,
direct language.

Use short words instead of long, and omit useless words. "If this proposed rule
had been in force at that time she would have taken him to the local pound
instead. An untrained, pit bull mix puppy? They would have killed him." Make
sure the comment answers the "so what?" question. It needs to explain the
significance of your story and how it relates to the issue. Tell them something
you don't think they understand. "With this rule, my friend can no longer rescue
even one dog without being required to be licensed under the AWA." Come up to
the ending with an emotional tag if you can. "If Murphy had gone to the pound,
the people at the senior center would not have his visits to look forward to,
the "orphans" in the green room during his two runs in "Annie" would not have
had him to play with, and I would not have my best friend." And then, for the
finale, tell them what you want them to do. "This rule as currently proposed
will be devastating to the activities of hobby breeders and of rescuers. Please
find a way to write this rule that will accomplish the regulation and oversight
of large volume breeders without the terrible unintended consequences to
families and their pets that will happen if it is enforced as you have proposed
it."

The following quotation is taken from the automated comment form ASPCA has set
up for ARs to send.

TTFN,
Pam


Last edited by morriscsps; 06-12-2012 at 01:18 PM.
morriscsps is offline  
post #6 of 13 (permalink) Old 06-12-2012, 01:13 PM Thread Starter
Joe Cool!
 
morriscsps's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Metrowest Massachusetts
Posts: 2,059
Submit Photo: 0
Photo Submissions 9 Times in 9 Posts
PART SIX

Finally, in order to ensure that all animals are protected, I urge you to
require that buyers be allowed to personally observe all animals on the property
and their living conditions prior to purchasing any animal in order for a
breeder to qualify for the newly proposed retail pet store exemption. If the
USDA intends to exempt a breeder from USDA inspection, all dogs and their living
conditions must be open to buyers' full scrutiny to truly ensure the well-being
of all animals, including those used for breeding purposes. This small
adjustment to the rule fulfills the original intent of the retail pet store
exemption by allowing the public to oversee what the USDA does not.

If you are a small hobby breeder, this should scare the living hell out of you.
The ARs are pushing to be able to crawl throughout your home, peeking into your
kid's closets and looking under your sink. In particular, all breeders should
be commenting on the potential for egregious invasion of privacy inherent in
this proposed rule. Not to mention the health risks to puppies, young dogs, and
your geriatric pets.

In addition, the ARs are pushing for rescues to be totally exempted from these
regulations. This is a bad idea for many reasons, but the main one is that,
based on media reports, there are just as many abusive rescues as there are
abusive breeders. If breeders need to be regulated, rescues need to be subject
to the same regulations and APHIS needs to see as many comments from the general
public in support of this position as they are going to see from the AR
automated email comments. (And during the Texas rule-making process a few
months ago the AR automated lines generated THOUSANDS of identical emails.)

How to comment

This is the link to the rulemaking portal.
http://www.regulations.gov/#!documen...2011-0003-0001

Click "Comment Now". This will display the comment web form. You can then enter
your submitter information (if required), and type your comment on the web form.
Information such as your name entered on the web form may be publicly viewable.
The globe icon beside the field name identifies these fields.

The system allows 20 minutes to complete the comment form. If you need more time
to submit your comment, be sure to continue your session when prompted;
otherwise, you will be timed-out and your comment will not be submitted.

I would suggest you write your comment ahead of time in your word processor.
Then you can just copy and paste and you won't have to worry about the time
limit.

You can also attach additional files (up to 10MB). If you are, for example,
submitting a cost analysis of what it will take to bring your facility into
compliance I would suggest you do it as an attachment. Also, there appears to
be a limit of 2000 on the number of characters allowed in a comment. If your
comment is going to be longer than that, you can send it as an attachment.

When you have finished typing your comment, click the "Preview Comment" link to
review. Once you are satisfied with your comment, click the "Submit" button to
send your comment to the Federal agency. Upon completion, you will receive a
tracking number for your submission. To learn more about comment submission,
visit the Help section.

In addition, I would suggest you also send copies of every comment you submit to
your senators and your federal representative. You can find your senators and
their contact information here -
http://www.senate.gov/general/contac...nators_cfm.cfm and you can
find your representative and his/her contact information here -
http://www.house.gov/representatives/.

You comment will not be posted immediately to the list of comments, but if you
want to read what other people have submitted you can find them by clicking on
"View Docket Folder" from the comments page. When the Docket Folder Summary
comes up, put a check mark in the box beside "Public Submission".

Whether you are a breeder or an owner – please comment! Let APHIS know how this
change will affect you and your family. Give details. Stay on point. Be
polite.

[1] Animal rights is not synonymous with animal welfare. For those who don't
quite get the distinction, giving animals the right to be free, to frolic in the
streets and be run down by cars, or to play in the fields and be eaten by hawks,
foxes and coyotes, is not exactly conducive to their long-term welfare.

[2] A breeder is a breeder is a breeder. Some are good, some aren't. APHIS has
been letting the ones who were not selling wholesale slide by - didn't matter
how they were selling or what volume. They got called on it by the OIG and
first started crying that it wasn't their fault because the law didn't say they
could go after them. Then APHIS changed their tune and said they could regulate
them. I wonder what, if any, effect the USDA hiring of Sarah Conant - ex-HSUS
litigation attorney - had on that about face? It certainly happened when it
looked like PUPS was shaping up to a major battle.

TTFN,
Pam


Last edited by morriscsps; 06-12-2012 at 01:19 PM.
morriscsps is offline  
post #7 of 13 (permalink) Old 06-12-2012, 02:11 PM Thread Starter
Joe Cool!
 
morriscsps's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Metrowest Massachusetts
Posts: 2,059
Submit Photo: 0
Photo Submissions 9 Times in 9 Posts
Egads, I think I have stunned the forum into silence. There has been some views but no comments?

Is it true?

TTFN,
Pam

morriscsps is offline  
post #8 of 13 (permalink) Old 06-12-2012, 02:20 PM
Senior Member
 
Tom King's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Lake Gaston, N.C.
Posts: 3,073
Submit Photo: 0
Photo Submissions 21 Times in 21 Posts
This sort of thing comes up every few weeks somewhere in the country.
Tom King is offline  
post #9 of 13 (permalink) Old 06-12-2012, 02:53 PM
Flynn of Sir Winston fame
 
Flynn Gentry-Taylor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Helen, Georgia
Posts: 2,745
Submit Photo: 22
Photo Submissions 9 Times in 9 Posts
I think there is a lack of monitoring proposals such as this..one day it is going to get passed and then you will hear all kinds of complaints. Licensing breeders comes up very often on the forums I monitor..
I don't know how the Havanese Club monitors or responds to this, but am guessing they have someone in charge of monitoring proposed legislation...hope we will hear from someone. Thank you for taking the time to send all of this. I am sure you will get response..sometimes it takes a while..you are right to be concerned. Flynn

Sir Winston sez "Non Basta Una Vita.

Flynn, lady-in-waiting to Sir Winston and Lady Mia
Flynn Gentry-Taylor is offline  
post #10 of 13 (permalink) Old 06-12-2012, 03:21 PM
Senior Member
 
The Laughing Magpie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 3,335
Submit Photo: 4
Photo Submissions 13 Times in 13 Posts
There are a ton of things like this that are proposed. I wonder what their definition of "Purebred Fanicer" is, and the last one 'Pet Buyer/Owner. It's only the ones who maybe supported by someone with influence that the public will hear about.

The sad fact is some of these proposals get 'sold' as answers to getting a foot in the door of smaller puppymill type operations, rogue rescues, and animal horders. The way the laws are in many states until there are literally several dead animals hanging on their gates the law can do nothing to check out the premises so they can enforce the local laws, of course all new proposals will have a financal benefit to sweeten the deal. These things are very dangerous in a time like now where many people are unemployed and their is less money to fight with.

Robbie, Boo Boo, Yogi, and Misty's human.
Poohkey miss you, monkey.
The Laughing Magpie is offline  
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the Havanese Forum : Havanese Forums forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in










Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Linear Mode



Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

 
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome