New laws passed regarding breeders
1 reading
Lilie
121 - 140 of 350 Posts
Joined
·
1,285 Posts
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
Joined
·
6,677 Posts
Thanks!
Joined
·
1,285 Posts
Hi mehpenn,
Breeders who maintain more than 4 breeding females on their premises and sell the offspring as pets, sight unseen, will now need to obtain a license from the USDA if they wish to continue to sell said offspring sight unseen to the public.
If you have 4 or fewer breeding females on your premises - and you sell via face-to-face transations no licensing is required.
In either case, the AWA does not restrict the use of the Internet as a marketing or communication tool.
Hope this helps!
Joined
·
6,677 Posts
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.
Joined
·
30,303 Posts
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.
Joined
·
30,303 Posts
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.
Joined
·
6,677 Posts
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.
Joined
·
12,333 Posts
Yeah and that is in the best interest of the puppy.
Joined
·
5,125 Posts
I haven't read most of the thread but since this is a federal law it makes sense that they are trying to keep sales of dogs to in state or at least very close. Remember...anytime you sell something to someone out of state, and an issue pops up, its now a federal law issue and not a state issue. So a hypothetical lawsuit over the health of a dog or something else that was broken in a poorly written, not-ever-looked-over-by-a-lawyer contract is going to federal court not state court. And I'm not sure if there have been a lot of those happening...but if there have been, I see why the federal government doesn't want to deal with $1500 squabbles over dogs.
And I agree with selzer on everything she said...these are just pointless, unenforceable laws. Why our federal government spends any time on this stuff always pisses me off, but they do because someone out there squawks loud enough about it and the government thinks they come up with a great solution.
I also saw on another post how selzer posted something about having 4 breeding females and its not that much because 2 can be used now and 2 can be waiting. I'm assuming the federal government won't think of younger females that have never been bred as breeding females. Although the law is clear on "intent" I don't believe that is something they could prove in court...that you "intend to one day breed said bitches." So I'm sure that the main issue is for those that are using 4 different females to breed in one year. Which I know is an issue for some breeders, but there are plenty that do not reach that limit. Truth is...puppy mills ARE the most likely to have more than 4 breeding females in any one year....and I'm assuming that co-ownership of females will really throw a wrench into the system. Although it might also be the way that many "reputable or hobby" breeders will get around the system. Co-ownership is really only with registered dogs...and generally with the AKC, its not really a government thing (even when I go to register my dog with the county) so I bet many of the co-owned dogs can easily be said to not be owned by the ONE breeder in order to get around the system.
Just curious, if you did a couple video sessions on Skype or similar service with your prospective buyer, wouldn't that get around the 'sight unseen' thing?
Joined
·
6,677 Posts
You assume wrong.
This has been one of th biggest bones of contention amongst breeders, and on multiple occasions when this has been posed to APHIS they have said that they define a breeding female as ANY intact female. Period. So that would include not just females actively involved in breeding, but young prospects being raised as possible breeding females as well as non-breeding dogs and retired breeding dogs who are not spayed. Some people don't believe in spaying/neutering dogs even if they are not for breeding, or the dog has medical problems that preclude breeding but also make surgery unwise.
We had a wonderful young female we purchased as a puppy from another breeder, but unfortunately she developed epilepsy and then the seizures in turn damaged her heart causing sub-aortic stenosis. We wouldn't breed her, but couldn't spay her either as her heart condition made it likely she would die during surgery. She lived out what, unfortunately short, time she had as a beloved pet here. I guess now maybe it was a blessing that she died in her sleep a few months ago because now, thanks to APHIS, she would have counted against our allowed number of breeding females causing us to have to consider either spaying her against the advice of her cardiologist, find someone we could give her to that was willing to take on several hundred dollar a month medical expenses and a dog who due to the heart condition was unlikely to make it to her 4th birthday, or put her down. We wouldn't have been able to sell her, even if she didn't have the health problems and might have been worth a few dollars, because then we'd have been a dealer for selling a dog who wasn't born and raised here and lose exemption due to that.
APHIS also doesn't take into consideration ownership of the intact female, it's purpose for being at the breeder's, or how long it is in residence at the breeder's. They say ANY intact female, over 4 months old, who resides at the breeders for ANY length of time. So this means that the following would also count against the breeder's number of allowed females:
A female leased for a litter, owned by someone else, who will only be there temporarily.
A female being boarded at the breeder's for the purpose of being bred to one of their studs.
An unspayed rescue or stray that passes through the breeder's home, if even for an overnight as part of a transport.
A female being boarded at the breeder's for any other reason... we have always been open to boarding dogs for friends/family/customers on a short term basis when they are on vacation or such so that they don't have to use a kennel. No more of that if it's an intact female.
Friends/family visiting and staying at the breeder's bringing along their own dog. No more of that either if it's an intact female.
Breeders are expected to take dogs back if for some reason they don't work out or the customer can't keep them, and good breeders are always willing to do that. But now breeders will have to think twice about that if it happens to be an intact female.
The intact females number also refers to females of ANY of the species regulated. So if you have 3 female dogs, your daughter has an unspayed female rabbit as a pet in a cage in her room, and you pick up an unspayed stray cat off the side of the road, you just went over the allowed number for exemption.
Joined
·
6,677 Posts
The answer to both is NO. Breeders have been really thinking about this and how to get around some of these things while allowing APHIS to still go after the problematic commercial breeders that they say is the focus of this law. Those questions were posed, Skype was mentioned specifically, and the answer was no. It must be fact-to-face. Period.
Joined
·
6,677 Posts
If it even were possible, which of course it isn't. No one can tell early on which pup is a working/breeding prospect and thus exempt, and which is a pet, so as to prevent them from co-mingling.Yeah and that is in the best interest of the puppy.
I wonder if we'll see a resurgency in culling the old fashioned way, with pups who have disqualifying faults or minor deformaties that preclude them from being working or breeding prospects but who could work out fine as pets, and which are usually in this day and age sold as such on spay/neuter contracts instead being killed at birth as soon as they can be identified so as to prevent that awful co-mingling.
Joined
·
6,677 Posts
Joined
·
6,678 Posts
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.
Joined
·
1,596 Posts
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.
Joined
·
5,125 Posts
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.
121 - 140 of 350 Posts
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
