UH OH…………….Does anyone see the problem now? Now we can’t buy a commercial kennel dog, and we won’t be able to find a hobby breeder, and we will be banned from finding a dog online since the law applies to those sales, so we are all left to take rehomed rescued dogs or cats. Oh yeah– and it’s considered animal abuse in California, to transfer or sell or even display outside on public ground (like a dog park, the SPCA parking area,
the pet store front entry– this was exempted at last moment in the legislation, the local park down the street, the vet’s office grassy area outside, the area in front of your house, the local “meet up” place which is probably a local playground, and most public areas used for showing or displaying of animals)
Elitist breeders–it’s not commercial kennels anymore that just take the hit? We told elitists a long time ago, that all breeders need to stand together to fight groups like HSUS.
Instead, they only sought to put themselves at a distance and criticized commercial kennels? And look where it got them? Now HSUS has managed to call those with over 4 breeding females a pet store!!! If they had trouble regulating what they already had, they now have an impossible task of trying to regulate the entire United States.
Pet stores in some cities– must only SELL animals from rescue,shelter,or non profit SOURCE–that is the current TREND in California, including Los Angeles/San Diego for example……….
Now anyone who OWNS more than 4 breeding females is CONSIDERED A PET STORE? In some instances—yes. One may fall under the new changed law. However after reading the section it would appear that it would be fairly time consuming to track down someone who may have run afoul of the regulation. Anything that takes excessive time would pose the question “who would be doing all of this investigation” and to be honest, we think it would not be worth doing if someone only had a minimal amount of animals.
That means many hobby breeders now BECOME PET STORES. This appears to change the case below, which was current law:
Doris Day Animal League v. Veneman
315 F.3d 297
Decided Jan. 14, 2003
Animal rights group challenged validity of USDA’s regulations exempting breeders who sell dogs from their residences from licensure under Animal Welfare Act. The United States District Court for the District of Columbia held that the regulation was invalid, and USDA appealed. The Court of Appeals, Randolph, Circuit Judge, held that regulation was reasonable interpretation of Congressional intent.
Read the case
WHAT DOES THIS MEAN? For us, it will likely mean more business in the legal field since we believe the law will result in:
More animal seizure,more surveillance by ARs online, more snitches, more sting operations to catch anyone selling or giving away an animal, potential liens on real estate in case the bill for storing dogs is not paid, they will assign it to get a judgment and then attach on homes, more anonymous tipsters to franchise Tax board, and this type of conduct.
More animals being hidden, and higher prices for animals
More animals not getting health care, shots, or even going outside
Some people will give up and just not engage in selling the animals— could be a commerce clause issue under the law?
For AKC, it could mean a big loss of registration because if hobby breeders were to cut their breeding stock down nationwide, it would result in fewer litters being registered. Below is from AKC:
Details on New Rule
Is this rule retroactive? When does the new rule go into effect?
The rule is not retroactive and will go into effect 60 days after it is published in the Federal Register. APHIS has committed to working with breeders to help them understand the new rule and whether they need to come into compliance. There is no need to make immediate and drastic changes. Please review these FAQs and other resources on our resource page to understand if the rule will apply to you. For specific questions, we encourage you to contact Dr. Gerald Rushin with APHIS at (301) 851-3751.
How do I know if this rule applies to me?
This rule applies to those who maintain more than four “breeding females” AND sell a puppy as a pet “sight unseen” or sell to a third party (wholesale). This means that the buyer must actually see the puppy in person prior to the purchase. If you are concerned about buyers coming to your home, you may arrange a location to meet the buyer and allow them to see the puppy.*
*[PD Note: arranging to show a dog or cat in a public area as named in the CA law which started Jan 2012, under PC 597.4, it is basically under the animal abuse section, malicious mischief/abuse; and display/show for sale=animal abuse if one is not a rescue,shelter or non profit. If it was done at a dog show then if every single participant met every single local,state/federal rule concerning animals, then maybe your sale might be exempt. Maybe.]
If you have fewer than five breeding females, and/or allow buyers to see the puppy in person prior to purchase, then this rule does not apply to you.
If you wish to own more than 4 “breeding females” and sell the offspring as pets and do not wish to be regulated, you may avoid regulation by selling all your dogs in a face-to-face transaction. A face-to-face transaction includes one where the seller and buyer are physically present and the buyer has the opportunity to observe the animal before taking custody of it.
Are there any exemptions to this rule?
The new definition of dealer subject to USDA licensing and regulation includes “any dog… for research, testing, experimentation, exhibition*, or for use as a pet, or any dog sold at the wholesale level for hunting, security or breeding purposes“. (*exhibition as defined in the AWA excludes purebred cat and dog shows).
The rule seems to indicate that if you are selling a dog as a breeding prospect, to maintain bloodlines, or for hunting, working, or security, you would be exempt. If you are selling the dog as a pet, you would not be exempt. It is important that the seller be able to clearly demonstrate their purpose in selling the dog at the time of sale. However, additional clarification from USDA is needed on this point.
BELOW IS WHAT AKC HAS PUBLISHED ON THEIR OWN AKC INFO:
- Operational standards originally designed for commercial-type facilities fail to account for circumstances appropriate for how hobby/fancy breeders who will be subject to the regulations will keep their dogs. As a result of AKC’s long history and breadth of experience in advancing the care and conditions of dogs and conducting kennel inspections, we know that there are a wide variety of circumstances and kinds of facilities in which dogs may be suitably raised and maintained. AKC’s Care and Conditions policy is based on performance standards, rather than strict engineering requirements.
- This is because many breeds would fail to thrive in the required commercial kennel setting and, therefore, are better raised in residential settings. It is not reasonable to expect small breeders, who keep a handful of dogs and make a choice to raise dogs in their homes, to be able to meet exacting USDA kennel engineering standards that are designed for large commercial wholesale or research kennels.
- Likewise, many could be prevented from adapting their facilities because of local ordinances, zoning limitations, restrictions on their ability to obtain business licenses or necessary insurance. We believe performance-based standards are a better option for small home-based operations.
- The AKC believes that the continued effort to subject small home-based breeding operations to the same exacting standards required of purely commercial facilities is unreasonable and unnecessary.
To learn more about our specific concerns with the rule, please visit AKC’s USDA/APHIS Regulations Resources Page.
IN FACT, IF HSUS COULD GET THE REGISTRATION LITTER INFORMATION, THEY COULD THEN TRY AND TARGET ALL OF THEM SYSTEMATICALLY.
And someone mentioned this to us: from dominosfall.wordpress.com
Andrew Hunte- Hunte Corporation started the Breeder Legal Defense Fund “Winning this fight will require every breeder, veterinarian, as well as anyone else who relies on pets for their livelihood, to fight for breeders by financially supporting this fund.” “direct donations to the fund by others in the pet industry, such as manufacturers, veterinarians, vet clinics, rescue groups, groomers and individual concerned citizens.”
Board Members of the Breeders Legal Defense Fund are:
- Chris Fleming
- Brian Winslow, Regional Director of Operations at Petland Inc
- David Miller, Missouri Pet Breeders Association-new president
- Becky Blaes co-owners and operators of J and B PREMIER PUPPIES, Animal Breeder Representative of the Governor appointed Kansas Pet Animal Advisory Board and as a member of the Board of Directors in the Kansas Pet Professionals organization
- Dr. Kenton Beard, Veterinarian and a Spokesperson for the Hunte corp- owned by Andrew Hunte
- Andrew Hunte, owner of the Hunte Corp- dog distributor and manufacturer of pet products
- Hank Grosenbacher, Vice President-owner of HEARTLAND SALES DOG AUCTION, LLC with partners Steve Rees and Randy Rees.
We likely wouldn’t care if people want to defend their own interests because in the dog fancy, that’s all they do anyway. Since we are not dog fanciers, taking sides with either hobby or commercial or anything else is not needed for us. However from a strategy viewpoint to stand up for what one believes in, it does take concerted efforts, preferably targeted. $$ is always helpful but much can be accomplished even without the $$ if you get your army together.
Getting the army together can be difficult when ranks are divided. We see that as one of the main issues that still remains. Other than that, knowing the law and trying to fix situations that are allowed simply because no one stands up is what interests us.