Updated..Note –we have not read the APHIS regs and have only summarily looked at what AKC has stated. We know AKC has the ability to challenge it if they wished to do so. At what point and in what manner, we do not venture to guess.
For the very longest, longest time, we have told the hobby breeders and the fanciers, the pet stores and commercial kennels are legal. Not those operating substandard or in-violation-of- the-law… but those who are in compliance with applicable regulations, including USDA and APHIS.
NOW— APHIS changes the rules in 2013, which seems to have upset the last case from 2003 when Doris Day v Venneman ruled that the regs categorizing hobby breeders– made them an exception [they were not considered to be pet stores] —- all the hobbyists are suddenly really pissed off. Why? Simply because it affects them, or at least potentially some of them.
NOW— hobbyists in general, tend to be or used to be elitist, and by that we mean, they think their animals are better because they often claim they don’t “make money” off breeding, they only breed to better their lines, and all that stuff. HOWEVER– that is exactly what animal rights claims— no one should make any $$ off of any breeding, selling, displaying, or buying. Because it is IMMORAL if you believe ARs.
The entire pet fancy, including huge fish hobbyists, reptile hobbyists, bird hobbyists, cat hobbyists, horse, rabbit, every animal imaginable– even dogs– has been targeted by ARs, including HSUS, ASPCA et al. Do we really THINK that breeders of every type of animal does it to LOSE money? Are we all that crazy? The pet TRADE is commercial enterprise, and the ARs want the pet TRADE to be abolished–remember–it’s in the 12 Steps of Animal Rights?
Thus to BRAG that one doesn’t make any money off your animals is ridiculous. You may break even or lose something, but if you’re breeding to better your breed then by golly– you should be making some money if only because you are contributing to society and deserve to get something out of it?
It is that contention–hobbyists don’t do it to make any money, but commercial kennels provide dogs into the stream of commerce so commercial kennels must be guilty and they are not so picky? But now hobbyists are cast potentially as pet stores– and pet stores are supposed to make money?
The very obvious is this: hobbyists are usually show fanciers and yes they raise to better the breed, but are very picky. A typical family does not need or want a show dog. But they could want a decent purebred dog? This is often called pet quality by breeders. SOMEONE has to sell pet quality animals. SOMEONE has to get ordinary animals to those who may want one. And even if ARs keep calling USDA commercial kennel animals the PM word, the fact is, people want these animals, and they are dogs.
We are not against commercial kenneling, or fish ponds, or raising animals in huge groups, or whatever. If someone is compliant with the LAW then they are not doing anything ILLEGAL. Thus the strongest side will be those who are in compliance. In case people forget, in
CA, there are tons of laws regulating pet stores and the animals sold. The CA Penal Code has the LARGEST number of laws in the USA– relating to animals, and it also includes related provisions named in Health and Welfare, Business, Food and Agriculture.
Hobbyists have had a weakened position after ARs figured a way to make hobby breeders fall under AWA and USDA, because even with the former case law, hobby breeders are interstate commerce regardless, and if that’s the case, they should use that to their advantage.
Pet stores have far more regulation and oversight.
If a pet store is commerce, and selling on a public street is commerce (since it’s being penalized as such because in CA, if it’s not a NON profit doing the ‘selling’, then it is PC597.4 malicious mischief, animal abuse) — then clearly all selling is commerce to some extent, and so is buying. Commerce clause cases are extremely fact based and can be very complicated as it is riddled with many separate rules for who is doing what, where, when and how.
Thus for ARs to say their non profits are NOT commerce when testing a commerce clause issue— means nothing. Non profits are interstate commerce for purposes of testing a commerce clause issue.
————— Understanding the absurdity of “PMs” and BANNING Animal SALES ———-
Pretend you have 10,000 restaurants– and 500 of them
are NOT in compliance and need to be fixed
Would you then close down or BAN the 9,500 restaurants
that ARE in compliance because of the “500”
that are substandard?
Would you BAN the 9,500 restaurants because
of the “500” and force everyone
to only go to the restaurants owned by non profits?
According to the ARs, the answer is apparently YES.