Lilie
New laws passed regarding breeders
1 reading
life of riley, it proves that what laws are in place are not advocating for the animals!!!! Why are more needed when the ones now are not affecting the huge puppy producers? But possibly going to do harm to the ones that actually have a program in place with future goals set that don't involve greed and profit$! What is it about this that you don't get?
northgashepherds..... In Georgia, if you breed more than 1 litter in a year, you already fall under similar laws of canine care.
I would never support laws that cater to the millers and put the small hobby breeder in the same catagory. Especially when the laws in place are not advocating for the welfare of the animals but for the personal agenda of the anti-pet lobbyists.
I dealt with this in the late '80's with the exotic bird industry. There was much that needed legislating, but if you aren't in that industry or knowledgeable about the reason to import for keeping certain species from extinction it was extremely harmful with the laws that HSUS and others were trying to implement. They have agenda's with big money backing them, and those agenda's are not always transparent.
I dealt with this in the late '80's with the exotic bird industry. There was much that needed legislating, but if you aren't in that industry or knowledgeable about the reason to import for keeping certain species from extinction it was extremely harmful with the laws that HSUS and others were trying to implement. They have agenda's with big money backing them, and those agenda's are not always transparent.
in the conference call, which I wasn't able to listen to all of, it was brought up again and again that, no we really don't have a plan to handle that. I've also called myself and been told the same thing. "Inspectors will use common sense in evaluating the situation. Loopholes mean that most small breeders won't have to be licensed." When asked what if I have to license and I breed in my home? "Well, it will have to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. Our inspectors will use their common sense to help you figure out if you are in compliance. No, we don't have anything to help you get ready before an inspection. No we don't plan on having anything like that at this time. I don't think there is a need for it. A breeder should already have a kennel set-up in place; I don't think there will be many home inspections because who breeds dogs in their home?" *bangs head on wall*
too late to edit:
I was also told, "it's really no big deal. Unless you got caught, no one would know that you weren't licensed when you should have been."
I was also told, "it's really no big deal. Unless you got caught, no one would know that you weren't licensed when you should have been."
Kudos to Dainerra for taking the initiative to dig deeper!
As crazy as some of the responses Dainerra mentions above are, I'm thinking it's code for "this is a feel good law, we aren't really funded nor staffed to enforce it".
What's really sad is we all agree that the big operations, like the one Onyx girl linked here and the Amish puppy mills and such really are a heartbreaking problem.
If anything it sounds like the USDA isn't taking this seriously and no one in a position of authority wants to address this problem other then the regulate the supplier model.
My guess is there'll probably be a couple of token 'busts' now and then and that'll be it.
As crazy as some of the responses Dainerra mentions above are, I'm thinking it's code for "this is a feel good law, we aren't really funded nor staffed to enforce it".
What's really sad is we all agree that the big operations, like the one Onyx girl linked here and the Amish puppy mills and such really are a heartbreaking problem.
If anything it sounds like the USDA isn't taking this seriously and no one in a position of authority wants to address this problem other then the regulate the supplier model.
My guess is there'll probably be a couple of token 'busts' now and then and that'll be it.
Well, that answers one of my questions since I've been looking at out of state breeders, it's going to be harder to buy a puppy if you cannot personally see it yourself OR have a friend, relative or other uncompensated individual go on your behalf.
I also personally know a top AKC basset breeder that's going to have some stomach aches over the fact that ANY intact bitch is considered a breeding animal. So if you have 5 bitches, but only plan to breed 3 of them it still counts as 5 and you *may* not be exempt.
Also don't like that one of the methods of enforcing this is through anonymous complaints. AR folks will love that.....
*****************************************************************
Below From the teleconference transcript.
Goffe: All right. Another thing that is noted in the commentary is that if a puppy buyer is unable to travel to the breeder to pick the puppy they purchased, it appears that they can send another person in their place. This would be a private agent of a type. And the question then continues. Can they compensate that person for example, to reimburse the gas for that private agent? We understand that it cannot be considered a commercial carrier or intermediate handler. But could that person --and this is a question that we may need to have in writing later because it is complex-- potentially be considered a dealer under the Animal Welfare Act if they are compensated more than $500 for this work?
Dr. Gerald Russian: Sheila, this is Jerry here. You know, the buyer agent that you're talking about; our intention when we put that out there is one, we understand that there are some cases in which that buyer for one reason or another may not be able to go see that dog, for example a grandmother may decide to send her grandson to go out there and take a look at that dog, with the understanding that that grandson would most likely have the best interests of the grandmother to make sure that the dog that she wants is healthy, bright and alert to bring back to her. We definitely understand that.
But also we do recognize, at some point some people may decide to make it into a business in which there may a business for the seller, it may be a business with the buyer; in those types of situations we're going to look into it and really see what's going on. Are you a class B dealer or you are an intermediate handler? So those types of situations in which it is being-- trying to circumvent being regulated, we're definitely looking at that. I think that, as I say, for the case-by-case determination. But that one, in the way that you described it to me; you're sending somebody out there to look at the dog, buy the dog; it wouldn't be; even at $500 limit. I don't know where that came from, unless it's some type of business and this person is charging everybody $500 or something like that in which we'll look into as- what are doing? But those occasions where you're sending someone down there out to take a look at that dog. We understand that happens. That's something that we wouldn't regulate.
So I hope that helped. I may have rambled a little bit for you guys, but I really want to try to get you guys to understand our intent here a little bit and what we're trying to do.
Sheila Goffe: There are a lot questions about the use of an agent and I think that whatever clarification we can get would be just--
Dr. Gerald Russian: Yeah, and I think in writing-- and that's something we definitely can work on and then we'll definitely do that. That's one of the issues that you guys aren't clear on. <Gwen comment No kidding, it was only clear as mud> I hear you. That's something that we can get into a Q&A out to you guys and we can send it to American Kennel
Sheila. Sheila can-- and as a matter of fact, maybe what we can do is actually-- we can get the Q&A, send it to you Sheila, and you can actually email it to your members and that way they can take a look at it and if it's still not clear, get back and we can look at it again and write it in a way in which they can understand what we're trying to do and that's what I was trying to do here.
I also personally know a top AKC basset breeder that's going to have some stomach aches over the fact that ANY intact bitch is considered a breeding animal. So if you have 5 bitches, but only plan to breed 3 of them it still counts as 5 and you *may* not be exempt.
Also don't like that one of the methods of enforcing this is through anonymous complaints. AR folks will love that.....
*****************************************************************
Below From the teleconference transcript.
Goffe: All right. Another thing that is noted in the commentary is that if a puppy buyer is unable to travel to the breeder to pick the puppy they purchased, it appears that they can send another person in their place. This would be a private agent of a type. And the question then continues. Can they compensate that person for example, to reimburse the gas for that private agent? We understand that it cannot be considered a commercial carrier or intermediate handler. But could that person --and this is a question that we may need to have in writing later because it is complex-- potentially be considered a dealer under the Animal Welfare Act if they are compensated more than $500 for this work?
Dr. Gerald Russian: Sheila, this is Jerry here. You know, the buyer agent that you're talking about; our intention when we put that out there is one, we understand that there are some cases in which that buyer for one reason or another may not be able to go see that dog, for example a grandmother may decide to send her grandson to go out there and take a look at that dog, with the understanding that that grandson would most likely have the best interests of the grandmother to make sure that the dog that she wants is healthy, bright and alert to bring back to her. We definitely understand that.
But also we do recognize, at some point some people may decide to make it into a business in which there may a business for the seller, it may be a business with the buyer; in those types of situations we're going to look into it and really see what's going on. Are you a class B dealer or you are an intermediate handler? So those types of situations in which it is being-- trying to circumvent being regulated, we're definitely looking at that. I think that, as I say, for the case-by-case determination. But that one, in the way that you described it to me; you're sending somebody out there to look at the dog, buy the dog; it wouldn't be; even at $500 limit. I don't know where that came from, unless it's some type of business and this person is charging everybody $500 or something like that in which we'll look into as- what are doing? But those occasions where you're sending someone down there out to take a look at that dog. We understand that happens. That's something that we wouldn't regulate.
So I hope that helped. I may have rambled a little bit for you guys, but I really want to try to get you guys to understand our intent here a little bit and what we're trying to do.
Sheila Goffe: There are a lot questions about the use of an agent and I think that whatever clarification we can get would be just--
Dr. Gerald Russian: Yeah, and I think in writing-- and that's something we definitely can work on and then we'll definitely do that. That's one of the issues that you guys aren't clear on. <Gwen comment No kidding, it was only clear as mud
> I hear you. That's something that we can get into a Q&A out to you guys and we can send it to American Kennel Sheila. Sheila can-- and as a matter of fact, maybe what we can do is actually-- we can get the Q&A, send it to you Sheila, and you can actually email it to your members and that way they can take a look at it and if it's still not clear, get back and we can look at it again and write it in a way in which they can understand what we're trying to do and that's what I was trying to do here.
I can comment to the problems in the U.S. model from a more macro perspective that you may not see in the Eurozone (for global comparison of modern free market democracies) nearly as much is regulatory capture via lobbying by folks like the Stonehenge operation.
The proof of this regulatory capture will be if operations like Stonehenge can keep pumping out puppies and ship them to retail pet stores across the U.S. after this is fully implemented.
If operations like that aren't shut down that's clear evidence of another supply side regulatory failure.
The proof of this regulatory capture will be if operations like Stonehenge can keep pumping out puppies and ship them to retail pet stores across the U.S. after this is fully implemented.
If operations like that aren't shut down that's clear evidence of another supply side regulatory failure.
Help me to understand... I'm sure the answer is in the 12 pages of comments here, but I am just too lazy to ready through to find it.....
If you have four or more breeding females and sale puppies over the internet, to someone who has not seen the puppy in person, you will be required to register and license with the USDA?
What about people who advertise on the internet, but only sell locally?
If you have four or more breeding females and sale puppies over the internet, to someone who has not seen the puppy in person, you will be required to register and license with the USDA?
What about people who advertise on the internet, but only sell locally?
That is my understanding. The teleconference script lifeofriley linked to above goes into this in more detail. It's not too long.
If sales are Face to face only then you're o.k. it sounds like.
From what I gathered I as a buyer must at some point physically meet the puppy. I can place a deposit site unseen on a puppy but at some point the buyer or a buyer's uncompensated representative must physically meet the puppy. So it's not about advertising, it's about the buyer and seller physically meeting and seeing the puppy at some point during the transaction (not sure if there's a specific timeframe for that meeting).
If sales are Face to face only then you're o.k. it sounds like.
From what I gathered I as a buyer must at some point physically meet the puppy. I can place a deposit site unseen on a puppy but at some point the buyer or a buyer's uncompensated representative must physically meet the puppy. So it's not about advertising, it's about the buyer and seller physically meeting and seeing the puppy at some point during the transaction (not sure if there's a specific timeframe for that meeting).
Anyone have a working link to the final rule, in it's entirety? The links listed earlier in the thread are no longer working and nothing comes up with a Google search.
Hi Chris,
Here it is...
http://www.aphis.usda.gov/newsroom/2013/09/pdf/pet_retail_docket_2011-003.pdf
Here it is...
http://www.aphis.usda.gov/newsroom/2013/09/pdf/pet_retail_docket_2011-003.pdf
So as near as I can tell, we are probably NOT exempt.
The fact that our females are spread out between here and our co-owner could help us keep under the more than 4 females rule, however breeders are only allowed to sell pups "born and raised on the premises".
Well, our co-owned females whelp their litters at the co-owners and stay there through weaning. It is much better for the dam this way. After weaning they come here to be raised out the rest of the way, evaluated and placed. So we wouldn't qualify for the exemption there.
We also from time to time have purchased pups or older dogs from other breeders to add to our bloodlines. Sometimes these dogs have worked out, sometimes they have not and we have resold them or otherwise placed them in homes. Since they are not "born and raised here", selling those dogs would eliminate our exemption.
We have in the past also taken in rescues and rehomed them. If we charged anything for them, as with the dogs purchased from other breeders, we'd be a dealer and thus no longer exempt. I would think those involved in rescue would be VERY concerned about this later part causing breeders to literally put their entire breeding program on the line in order to help rescues.
I can't think of a whole lot of other very common breeder practices, such as leasing females or boarding females for breeding to their stud, that would also nullify their exemption. Heck, I don't even think we can continue to board dogs for family/friends/customers if one happens to be an intact female.
So it would appear our only option is to no longer ship puppies. There isn't even anything in place to allow shipping to repeat customers or others who already have a relationship with the breeder and don't see any need to meet face to face.
I can't imagine any other breeder being able to maintain an exemption under these rules. So yes indeed, this will affect us and many other fabulous breeders.
As to those who say "well, just get licensed", the answer is still heck no. APHIS says that this won't impact in home breeders because their dogs receive care above the minimum standards. However, there is NOTHING written into the law that says that. The AWA says what it says... non porous surfaces, separate living quarters and all. The new rule says who is subject to the AWA. Nothing in writing exempts in home breeders. The people calling the shots at APHIS say that this won't be a problem, that their inspectors will use common sense, see the care given to the dogs and go on their merry way. Well, I can't imagine too many breeders who are comfortable with that as an answer and trust that a government inspector is going to ignore the letter of the law of what he is supposed to be enforcing, always exhibit common sense and never have a power trip or get upset that the breeder didn't bow and curtsy and provide them with the right tea and cookies when they came for an inspection.
The fact that our females are spread out between here and our co-owner could help us keep under the more than 4 females rule, however breeders are only allowed to sell pups "born and raised on the premises".
Well, our co-owned females whelp their litters at the co-owners and stay there through weaning. It is much better for the dam this way. After weaning they come here to be raised out the rest of the way, evaluated and placed. So we wouldn't qualify for the exemption there.
We also from time to time have purchased pups or older dogs from other breeders to add to our bloodlines. Sometimes these dogs have worked out, sometimes they have not and we have resold them or otherwise placed them in homes. Since they are not "born and raised here", selling those dogs would eliminate our exemption.
We have in the past also taken in rescues and rehomed them. If we charged anything for them, as with the dogs purchased from other breeders, we'd be a dealer and thus no longer exempt. I would think those involved in rescue would be VERY concerned about this later part causing breeders to literally put their entire breeding program on the line in order to help rescues.
I can't think of a whole lot of other very common breeder practices, such as leasing females or boarding females for breeding to their stud, that would also nullify their exemption. Heck, I don't even think we can continue to board dogs for family/friends/customers if one happens to be an intact female.
So it would appear our only option is to no longer ship puppies. There isn't even anything in place to allow shipping to repeat customers or others who already have a relationship with the breeder and don't see any need to meet face to face.
I can't imagine any other breeder being able to maintain an exemption under these rules. So yes indeed, this will affect us and many other fabulous breeders.
As to those who say "well, just get licensed", the answer is still heck no. APHIS says that this won't impact in home breeders because their dogs receive care above the minimum standards. However, there is NOTHING written into the law that says that. The AWA says what it says... non porous surfaces, separate living quarters and all. The new rule says who is subject to the AWA. Nothing in writing exempts in home breeders. The people calling the shots at APHIS say that this won't be a problem, that their inspectors will use common sense, see the care given to the dogs and go on their merry way. Well, I can't imagine too many breeders who are comfortable with that as an answer and trust that a government inspector is going to ignore the letter of the law of what he is supposed to be enforcing, always exhibit common sense and never have a power trip or get upset that the breeder didn't bow and curtsy and provide them with the right tea and cookies when they came for an inspection.
And if I want to keep 15 intact females on my premises, so long as I do not sell the puppies over the internet, I can sell them from my home, or from anyone else's home, or from the parking lot at holiday in, or WalMart, or wherever else I want to sell them.
If I want to sell one to someone across the country, then someone is going to have to get on a plane and see the dog, or I can say that the 8 week old puppy is sold for home security, ie, it is therefore a working dog, not a pet, and I don't fall under the rules.
Anyone with a little creativity and a lack of moral fiber, can get around this. It is totally pointless. It may encourage a few people to spay their old ladies and any that have fallen out of their breeding program to stay compliant. And it may encourage a few people to go through the process of getting licensed. But I do not think it will improve anyone's experience with their puppy, or the living conditions of any dogs anywhere.
People are constantly complaining about the health of pups bought at pet stores. They saw the pup when they bought it. They either did not see that it ws sick, or they ignored it and bought it anyway. This law basically suggests that people who see the puppy can attest to its health which is obviously not true. I just don't see the point, except to get someone people to voluntarily give the government another tax.
Another law they do not intend to enforce, and they really don't expect people to follow. So it only hurts those individuals who want to be law-abiding.
If I want to sell one to someone across the country, then someone is going to have to get on a plane and see the dog, or I can say that the 8 week old puppy is sold for home security, ie, it is therefore a working dog, not a pet, and I don't fall under the rules.
Anyone with a little creativity and a lack of moral fiber, can get around this. It is totally pointless. It may encourage a few people to spay their old ladies and any that have fallen out of their breeding program to stay compliant. And it may encourage a few people to go through the process of getting licensed. But I do not think it will improve anyone's experience with their puppy, or the living conditions of any dogs anywhere.
People are constantly complaining about the health of pups bought at pet stores. They saw the pup when they bought it. They either did not see that it ws sick, or they ignored it and bought it anyway. This law basically suggests that people who see the puppy can attest to its health which is obviously not true. I just don't see the point, except to get someone people to voluntarily give the government another tax.
Another law they do not intend to enforce, and they really don't expect people to follow. So it only hurts those individuals who want to be law-abiding.
Only if the working dog is never allowed to "co-mingle" with any pets. No definition of what that means, of course, but it could mean they need to be identified at birth and immediately separated from their pet littermates.
If you sell puppies, sight unseen, you are probably not exempt. 4 intact bitches is really not that many for most breeders. I mean, if you have two producing, and two up and coming you are there.
I think it would be sad to base your decision on whether to let a bitch grow out some before making a decision on selling her, or adding her to your program, or to not bring in a bitch that is available because it would put you over the magic number that was pulled out of the air.
Chris, I guess you could charge the cost of a round trip ticket and go and meet your customers, when you deliver your puppy. While that really sucks, you would not have to be licensed if that were the case.
And, yeah, no way, if the law says you must do xyz, you cannot count on the inspector whose job is to find something, not to find what they did find. If you have horrid contitions, they will write you up for the bad stuff. If you have good conditions, they will write you up for the stuff that makes a home impossible for this.
I think it would be sad to base your decision on whether to let a bitch grow out some before making a decision on selling her, or adding her to your program, or to not bring in a bitch that is available because it would put you over the magic number that was pulled out of the air.
Chris, I guess you could charge the cost of a round trip ticket and go and meet your customers, when you deliver your puppy. While that really sucks, you would not have to be licensed if that were the case.
And, yeah, no way, if the law says you must do xyz, you cannot count on the inspector whose job is to find something, not to find what they did find. If you have horrid contitions, they will write you up for the bad stuff. If you have good conditions, they will write you up for the stuff that makes a home impossible for this.
What about breeders that do a 24/7 live 'puppycam' broadcast? Would that circumvent 'sight unseen'? LOL!
IMO Chris is doing a very good job, from a point of view of someone who knows and understands not only the ethical side of breeding but the practices and business aspects as well the downsides to this law.
As to something I mentioned earlier - I chatted with a very nice person who is extremely dedicated and intelligent person who works and shows dogs. This person wants to have one litter every year or so to develop. We discussed the impact this law has. The response was, for a serious small kennel, it's more trouble then it's worth. Some out of state clients will be getting a call that they must fly to me to pick up the puppies.
I than mentioned that the law probably won't be enforced much so why worry? I asked the question intentionally.
Sure enough this person responded "I care about my reputation and won't take the chance".
That fits with what I predicted. People who care about their dogs are ethical and care about their reputation will abide by the law.
BYBs will still sell 'face to face' at flea markets, large commercial operations can afford attorneys to research and cover them and puppy millers like the one Onyx girl linked to will probably keep being puppy factories.
I HOPE I'm wrong and places like Stonehenge will be a thing of the past, but I doubt it.
Also, along the theme Chris is on, unintended consequences, I predict that since the market is being reduced to local breeders only for dog buyers who are of more modest means it's possible local demand will go up. This will probably start pushing the prices up on dogs which in turn may cause people to be more likely to take their chances with BYBs and flea market specials. Again, JMHO....but it's not like this hasn't happened before with other supply side regs.
As to something I mentioned earlier - I chatted with a very nice person who is extremely dedicated and intelligent person who works and shows dogs. This person wants to have one litter every year or so to develop. We discussed the impact this law has. The response was, for a serious small kennel, it's more trouble then it's worth. Some out of state clients will be getting a call that they must fly to me to pick up the puppies.
I than mentioned that the law probably won't be enforced much so why worry? I asked the question intentionally.
Sure enough this person responded "I care about my reputation and won't take the chance".
That fits with what I predicted. People who care about their dogs are ethical and care about their reputation will abide by the law.
BYBs will still sell 'face to face' at flea markets, large commercial operations can afford attorneys to research and cover them and puppy millers like the one Onyx girl linked to will probably keep being puppy factories.
I HOPE I'm wrong and places like Stonehenge will be a thing of the past, but I doubt it.
Also, along the theme Chris is on, unintended consequences, I predict that since the market is being reduced to local breeders only for dog buyers who are of more modest means it's possible local demand will go up. This will probably start pushing the prices up on dogs which in turn may cause people to be more likely to take their chances with BYBs and flea market specials. Again, JMHO....but it's not like this hasn't happened before with other supply side regs.
Well, the last few pages of this thread have been a real bummer to read through.
I was thinking that if I buy a puppy from a long-distance seller, it might be better to take a plane trip out to meet the breeder and see the pup's parents (or at least the mom) in person anyway, but COOL THANKS NEW RULE for making that non-optional.
I don't have a ton of faith in the USDA's ability to police puppy mills. One of my friends, who happens to be a super talented photographer, worked on a big puppy mill bust earlier this year. She took a picture of the stamped metal "USDA Licensed" tags that were on each of the dogs, and had to be cut off their necks along with the filthy, ingrown chains and matted hair around them. The groomers who were cleaning up these dogs piled all the tags into a big heap and my friend took a picture of it.
It's a really powerful image and I was going to repost it in this thread, but sadly I cannot resize it on my work computer. But anyway the point is, a "USDA Licensed" dog-breeding facility is very much not a good thing in my world.
I was thinking that if I buy a puppy from a long-distance seller, it might be better to take a plane trip out to meet the breeder and see the pup's parents (or at least the mom) in person anyway, but COOL THANKS NEW RULE for making that non-optional.
I don't have a ton of faith in the USDA's ability to police puppy mills. One of my friends, who happens to be a super talented photographer, worked on a big puppy mill bust earlier this year. She took a picture of the stamped metal "USDA Licensed" tags that were on each of the dogs, and had to be cut off their necks along with the filthy, ingrown chains and matted hair around them. The groomers who were cleaning up these dogs piled all the tags into a big heap and my friend took a picture of it.
It's a really powerful image and I was going to repost it in this thread, but sadly I cannot resize it on my work computer. But anyway the point is, a "USDA Licensed" dog-breeding facility is very much not a good thing in my world.
What you have to remember is that USDA licensed means its a farm. If you have more than a certain amount of animals on your property, you generally need this. Seeing USDA on a pedigree (I think some of the other registries actually list it) pretty much spells puppy mill. Sure its regulated...probably one visit a year just to make sure everything is clean and there are enough runs, but even that probably gets missed.
What worries me about laws like this...when they're based off of ethics that even we here on the forum cant' agree on...is that they either go too far or not far enough. Like the "face to face" thing. That is meant for brokers that just send dogs all over the place...probably brought up by someone that had a bad experience, or got screwed when they thought they were going to get one thing, but got another one. Someone out there came up with the idea that its better to deal locally (which isn't 100% wrong) and pushed hard enough for that to become law. And now this law messes with good hard working breeders that do send dogs across the country on a regular basis.
I really don't think this will do anything to local markets...maybe markets where there aren't that many breeders (not sure if those exist) but I know for sure my local area has plenty of good dogs. I'm talking an easy 1 hour drive to see some very good breeders. What people have to remember is that probably 95% or more of dogs get sold locally anyways. Most people don't even think about flying a dog in, or going to visit one across the country. I don't expect people to do 30 minutes of research on google...much less fly somewhere just to meet a breeder, the parents, the puppies.
What worries me about laws like this...when they're based off of ethics that even we here on the forum cant' agree on...is that they either go too far or not far enough. Like the "face to face" thing. That is meant for brokers that just send dogs all over the place...probably brought up by someone that had a bad experience, or got screwed when they thought they were going to get one thing, but got another one. Someone out there came up with the idea that its better to deal locally (which isn't 100% wrong) and pushed hard enough for that to become law. And now this law messes with good hard working breeders that do send dogs across the country on a regular basis.
I really don't think this will do anything to local markets...maybe markets where there aren't that many breeders (not sure if those exist) but I know for sure my local area has plenty of good dogs. I'm talking an easy 1 hour drive to see some very good breeders. What people have to remember is that probably 95% or more of dogs get sold locally anyways. Most people don't even think about flying a dog in, or going to visit one across the country. I don't expect people to do 30 minutes of research on google...much less fly somewhere just to meet a breeder, the parents, the puppies.
The thing is, we don't want the HAVE to get around the law. We want to stay well within the law. But as Chris mentioned, the rule of four will rule out brining home any bitch that isn't spayed for any reason. On return of a female pup, we would have to drop her at the vet and have her spayed before taking her home. And that is crazy.
If you have just one or two litters per year, it is not hard to sell locally, and maintain face-to-face sales on every puppy, especially if for the most part you are selling pets. If you are highly competitive and selling dogs for competition in conformation, schutzhund, or to be trained as working dogs then this law really sucks as it means seriously limiting finding the best owners, who will be the most likely to reach the potential of the dog. And, while some people may truly understand and be willing to add the cost of a round trip ticket to the price of their pup, it's a hard sell.
It's a bad law. It will do nothing about the tons of puppies who are born each year from people who just want their bitch to experience motherhood, or want to have puppies, or don't care if they do have puppies. Dogs that are AKC, or purebred without papers -- pop's a police dog, right!, or mixtures -- still 75% of dogs in shelters are mixtures -- this does NOTHING about all that.
And the reason is very simple. There is no money in that. Some of these dogs live in horrible conditions, give birth in a crappy igloo in January, or under a porch. But because these dogs are given away for free or sold for a couple of hundred bucks, nobody cares. There is no money in it, nothing to tax.
On the state level, if you sell a puppy to someone within your state, than at least in Ohio, you must charge sales tax, and the state gets 6.75 or more percent of the cost of the puppy. If you sell it outside of your state, then you do not have to charge sales tax. And the buyer should declare the sale on his income tax and pay sales tax on the dog to his own state. I think that the government just sees an avenue for revenue. They are not doing this to decrease the number of dogs in shelters, or to improve the conditions that dogs used for breeding are kept in. It it were so, they would regulate anyone with more than four dogs, whether those dogs were male, female, intact or altered, used for breeding, sport, competition, or pets.
If you have barn cats on your property, that aren't fixed, eh! you are over four breeding females!
If you have just one or two litters per year, it is not hard to sell locally, and maintain face-to-face sales on every puppy, especially if for the most part you are selling pets. If you are highly competitive and selling dogs for competition in conformation, schutzhund, or to be trained as working dogs then this law really sucks as it means seriously limiting finding the best owners, who will be the most likely to reach the potential of the dog. And, while some people may truly understand and be willing to add the cost of a round trip ticket to the price of their pup, it's a hard sell.
It's a bad law. It will do nothing about the tons of puppies who are born each year from people who just want their bitch to experience motherhood, or want to have puppies, or don't care if they do have puppies. Dogs that are AKC, or purebred without papers -- pop's a police dog, right!, or mixtures -- still 75% of dogs in shelters are mixtures -- this does NOTHING about all that.
And the reason is very simple. There is no money in that. Some of these dogs live in horrible conditions, give birth in a crappy igloo in January, or under a porch. But because these dogs are given away for free or sold for a couple of hundred bucks, nobody cares. There is no money in it, nothing to tax.
On the state level, if you sell a puppy to someone within your state, than at least in Ohio, you must charge sales tax, and the state gets 6.75 or more percent of the cost of the puppy. If you sell it outside of your state, then you do not have to charge sales tax. And the buyer should declare the sale on his income tax and pay sales tax on the dog to his own state. I think that the government just sees an avenue for revenue. They are not doing this to decrease the number of dogs in shelters, or to improve the conditions that dogs used for breeding are kept in. It it were so, they would regulate anyone with more than four dogs, whether those dogs were male, female, intact or altered, used for breeding, sport, competition, or pets.
If you have barn cats on your property, that aren't fixed, eh! you are over four breeding females!
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
