Proposed new aphis regulation

[gemy]

Originally Posted by Nancy1999

Again, why would this affect a reputable breeder? Reputable breeders don't sell their dogs over the internet sight unseen. There are NO laws that cover people selling directly over the internet, so how are there already enough?

YES THEY DO! Is it truly "sight" unseen? Well no of course not. What it often comes from, is meeting prosective buyers at shows, showing your sire and maybe bitch to these folks. Communicating via the internet on various topics. Showing the litter through various internet means. Talking ad infinitum to those folks.

For example; Betty Anne Durrer, has a pup for sale. I like the bloodlines, I know Betty from numerous shows; I know the dam, and I know the sire. I've seen pictures; I've talked numerous times over the phone. I decide to purchase a puppy from her; physical sight unseen. She would sell to me and I would purchase said puppy!

[Nancy1999]

Originally Posted by gemy

Section 3.1 of the AWA (1)


(c)Surfaces--(1) General requirements. The surfaces of housingfacilities--including houses, dens, and other furniture-type fixtures andobjects within the facility--must be constructed in a manner and made ofmaterials that allow them to be readily cleaned and sanitized, or removed orreplaced when worn or soiled. Interior surfaces and any surfaces that come incontact with dogs or cats must:
And Yes I have read the APHIS FAQ sheet; may I remind you and everyone, a FAQ is not the proposed law; but an interpretation that APHIS or if you will an explanation that APHIS has offered; what is to say if this regulation passes that "their" preliminary interpretation can't change over time????

Again I say, meeting someone at a show, buying a puppy at retail in a pet store, does NOTHING to police and or guarantee the health and good breeding of the puppy.
In my example the prospective buyer was sent all details of the parents, actually had met the sire at a show 2yrs ago, the details enable them to verify all health checks done; the face to face meeting of the puppy confirmed their choice. They did not visit my home to see how I kept my babies. It is laughable that APHIS purports to assert that a visit to a pet store, or even once to a breeders' home constitutes any real amount of oversight.

I don't know what the answer is. It truly is appalling to me that folks sell over the internet in order to bypass what-ever legal loopholes there are.
I will also say although it is a moot point to this regulation; there "should" be regulations that say any "commercial breeder" who deigns to advertise "purebred" dogs, MUST do all health checks that are required to receive a CHIC number. No health checks no LICENSE.
Nancy; there is a Huge Philosphical difference between "hobby breeders" and commercial enterprises. And that is the crux of the issue as I see it. I do not and will not keep my pups and my dogs according to AWA guidelines; which I think are hopelessly inadequate in terms of rearing, raising well bred, socialized pet companions.
It is not about the "licensing" fee at all, but about the appalling restrictions under which I would have to rear my pups!! The appalling restrictions that would force me to place a retired female, in order to make room under the regulations to have another.
I have said it once, and I will say it again, you want to "police" internet sales, then do it through the internet. Don't do it on the backs of small breeders who put their heart, their love, and their finances into breeding only the best of the best!.

Could you link the article that you got this from? Quoting just a line or two can often be misunderstood. I've talked with breeders who say, it's very important to sanitize the whelping area, for example. Also, when there is a large number of dogs, it's important to be able to clean the area in which they relieve themselves.

The FAQ comes from the people who make the law, it's should be accurate in describing what the law will do, if it isn't, you have a bigger problem than puppy mills.

Gail, this law is just to help regulate those breeders who sell from a website. Is the law perfect, no, there will still be those that abuse it, but now authorities will have some way to find and prosecute those breeders who are the very worst of the worst.


I would like you to answer two questions, do you think it's acceptable for a breeder to sell a dog through a website? Do you believe the breeder who does this needs no inspection of kennels?

[caw]

Gent...good point on the health checks. I agree...health checks on breeding dogs should be mandatory before allowed a license.

[caw]

Originally Posted by caw

Gent...good point on the health checks. I agree...health checks on breeding dogs should be mandatory before allowed a license.

I meant GEMY not gent....I hate this phone!!!! It has this auto spell check...if it doesn't.recognize a word, it puts one in that it does.

[Nancy1999]

Originally Posted by gemy

YES THEY DO! Is it truly "sight" unseen? Well no of course not. What it often comes from, is meeting prosective buyers at shows, showing your sire and maybe bitch to these folks. Communicating via the internet on various topics. Showing the litter through various internet means. Talking ad infinitum to those folks.

For example; Betty Anne Durrer, has a pup for sale. I like the bloodlines, I know Betty from numerous shows; I know the dam, and I know the sire. I've seen pictures; I've talked numerous times over the phone. I decide to purchase a puppy from her; physical sight unseen. She would sell to me and I would purchase said puppy!

You answered your own question it's not sight unseen. I'm talking about websites with one click shopping.

[gemy]

Originally Posted by Nancy1999

Could you link the article that you got this from? Quoting just a line or two can often be misunderstood. I've talked with breeders who say, it's very important to sanitize the whelping area, for example. Also, when there is a large number of dogs, it's important to be able to clean the area in which they relieve themselves.

The FAQ comes from the people who make the law, it's should be accurate in describing what the law will do, if it isn't, you have a bigger problem than puppy mills.

Gail, this law is just to help regulate those breeders who sell from a website. Is the law perfect, no, there will still be those that abuse it, but now authorities will have some way to find and prosecute those breeders who are the very worst of the worst.


I would like you to answer two questions,(1) do you think it's acceptable for a breeder to sell a dog through a website? (2) Do you believe the breeder who does this needs no inspection of kennels?

Animal Welfare Act | Animal Welfare Information Center

that is the link for the excerpt I abstracted. Also look at the very one FAQ where it stipulates "if" you allow your dogs free run of your home; then they will look at things essentially on a case by case basis.

(1) YES If this is a reputable breeder then why not? The question of internet sales or not, does not make defacto a "bad breeder. In this day and age, the internet is a wonderful tool, we can use to communicate to look up tons n tons of information. Why shouldn't a reputable breeder avail herself of this tool? I can as a buyer learn of some great puppies for sale in this way. How-ever all the research needs to be done by the buyer, prior to purchasing.

(2) Yes I believe in inspections actually. But under a different sort of circumstances the USA law seems to provide for. I believe that home breeders need to be given huge credits for doing what so many commercial breeders don't and can't do! That is rear a puppy 24/7 in a home environment. And yes the whelping area not only needs to be cleaned, but needs to be kept safe n secure from other pets in the house, during the critical0-5 or so weeks. We can do this, through the use of gates, doors, separate areas of the house.

Once the breeding is done, the whelping and puppy placement is done, why shouldn't I be allowed to let my dogs have free reign of the house? They are my dogs, my home, my companions, a huge part of my life!

[Nancy1999]

Originally Posted by gemy

Animal Welfare Act | Animal Welfare Information Center

that is the link for the excerpt I abstracted. Also look at the very one FAQ where it stipulates "if" you allow your dogs free run of your home; then they will look at things essentially on a case by case basis.

(1) YES If this is a reputable breeder then why not? The question of internet sales or not, does not make defacto a "bad breeder. In this day and age, the internet is a wonderful tool, we can use to communicate to look up tons n tons of information. Why shouldn't a reputable breeder avail herself of this tool? I can as a buyer learn of some great puppies for sale in this way. How-ever all the research needs to be done by the buyer, prior to purchasing.

(2) Yes I believe in inspections actually. But under a different sort of circumstances the USA law seems to provide for. I believe that home breeders need to be given huge credits for doing what so many commercial breeders don't and can't do! That is rear a puppy 24/7 in a home environment. And yes the whelping area not only needs to be cleaned, but needs to be kept safe n secure from other pets in the house, during the critical0-5 or so weeks. We can do this, through the use of gates, doors, separate areas of the house.

Once the breeding is done, the whelping and puppy placement is done, why shouldn't I be allowed to let my dogs have free reign of the house? They are my dogs, my home, my companions, a huge part of my life!

Thanks for the link, but I'm not finding the part you quoted, could you link the exact page? As far as saying a case by case basis, I think that's fine. If a breeder has numerous complaints of sickly dogs, they would probably want to do an inspection. Do you remember the case Teresita Hughes a breeder in Florida, they found hundreds of dogs in a bedroom in her home. How did they know to inspect, she had so many complaints from consumers who bought sickly dogs.

I disagree with you on reputable breeder, I feel so strongly about this. No reputable breeder sells from the website, sight unseen, part of being a reputable breeder includes making sure you are placing the dog into good hands.


Gail, your dogs will be allowed to have free roam of your house, I don't know why you don't think you will be able to do this. This doesn't even make sense. Again, this is the type of scare tactic put out by commercial breeders to scare the heck out of you small breeders and help you fight this law.

[magicgenie]

Originally Posted by Nancy1999

Again, there are no laws that cover breeders who sell directly over the internet. With this law a breeder who has over 4 breeding females, and sells over the internet without meeting the puppy buyers will have to have a license, the same as those breeders who sell to pet stores and brokers. Why shouldn't the need a license if those breeders who sell to pet stores need a license? The worse puppyery mills of all are run by unlicensed breeders who sell directly to the public, no law covers them! The breeders will have to pay for their licenses.

I think the regulation is for breeders with 4 OR MORE breeding females, but the legislation fails to define what constitutes a breeding female. Do they mean breeding age females? Females of any age that have been previously bred? Newborns that may be bred in the future? It's impossible to have a breeding program with only 3 females anyway, regardless of definition of breeding female, at least not if you're trying to establish a new line. I didn't read anything about the sellers and buyers have to meet. The legislation addresses situations where the buyer doesn't go to the seller's premises. The bad guys will soon arrange to have agents at every buyer's disposal to circumvent that requirement.
Why do we need this law? Every breeder is supposed to have a kennel license and inspection at the local level--city, town, county, state. AKC inspects us too. Why not have their reports forwarded to the powers that be. Why is the fed not just providing financial support so the locals can enforce the laws that are already in place?
This new law is going to cause a lot of confusion when inspectors find that some little breeder's living room isn't engineered to whatever the sanitation standards are for USDA---don't they require certain flooring materials and drains to facilitate cleaning, things that would apply well to a big big puppy farm?
People who buy puppies over the internet sight unseen from people they know nothing about are just plain careless, IMHO, and trying to protect them from themselves is futile.

I'm glad to see this discussion taking place, and very politely at that!

[concretegurl]

Originally Posted by magicgenie

Puppy mills will find ways to circumvent the law, so again it's the good breeder who will be hurt the most.
My fear is the animal rights extremists, PETA, HSUS, ASPCA, who are usually behind the legislation. All breeders are bad in their minds. They won't rest until humans are no longer allowed to own pets.
I would support laws that promote good breeding practice and crush puppy mills.

Its a bit extreme to include ASPCA as rxtremist.

This is backed by PETA and the humane society.

[magicgenie]

Originally Posted by concretegurl

Its a bit extreme to include ASPCA as rxtremist.

This is backed by PETA and the humane society.

I'm including ASPCA in the extremist category now because of some things they're involved in. I don't support them any more, but you are right that I MAY be a bit extreme in my thinking there. I'm still processing stuff there.

[Nancy1999]

Originally Posted by magicgenie

I think the regulation is for breeders with 4 OR MORE breeding females, but the legislation fails to define what constitutes a breeding female. Do they mean breeding age females? Females of any age that have been previously bred? Newborns that may be bred in the future? It's impossible to have a breeding program with only 3 females anyway, regardless of definition of breeding female, at least not if you're trying to establish a new line. I didn't read anything about the sellers and buyers have to meet. The legislation addresses situations where the buyer doesn't go to the seller's premises. The bad guys will soon arrange to have agents at every buyer's disposal to circumvent that requirement.
Why do we need this law? Every breeder is supposed to have a kennel license and inspection at the local level--city, town, county, state. AKC inspects us too. Why not have their reports forwarded to the powers that be. Why is the fed not just providing financial support so the locals can enforce the laws that are already in place?
This new law is going to cause a lot of confusion when inspectors find that some little breeder's living room isn't engineered to whatever the sanitation standards are for USDA---don't they require certain flooring materials and drains to facilitate cleaning, things that would apply well to a big big puppy farm?
People who buy puppies over the internet sight unseen from people they know nothing about are just plain careless, IMHO, and trying to protect them from themselves is futile.

I'm glad to see this discussion taking place, and very politely at that!

This is the one point that I would agree with. I think they need to define what they mean by breeding female, if it's means any unspayed female over 4 months of age, I don't think that's a good definition. However, again, this would only apply to those breeders who sell with no face to face interaction. In other words those breeders who sell from the websites. I would hope you breeders could have influence on defining this term better. Unfortunately it’s so hard to get good breeder to help in producing good legislation, they are afraid of any legislation because of what "others" have told them about it, and so it’s the commercial breeders who help compose it. A good breeder is much more likely to a puppy 4 months of age, still unsold, than a commercial breeder is.


You say why do we need the law? You’re missing an important point, I don't know why I can't get this across, but right now, the breeders who sell directly to the public do not need any kennel inspections or licenses, the original law was made to cover those breeders who sell to pet stores and brokers, and they have to be licensed by the USDA. This is designed to so that those breeders, who sell from their websites, will need now to have licenses if they have more than four breeding females. Everyone here always discourages people from buying from pet stores; they say no reputable breeder would ever sell to a pet store. Well, many of these commercial breeders have stopped using pet stores as their primary outlet and now they don’t even have any laws that touch them, because those breeders who sell directly to the public do not need to be licensed. What is so horrible about getting a license and having to be inspected? If you’re with the AKC you have to subject yourself to inspections anyway. Unfortunately, most of these commercial breeders are no longer with the AKC and have created their own registries. If you aren’t selling from your website, this bill wouldn’t affect you. I looked at your website, it tells about your breeding program, it doesn't have a PayPal button where an unseen person can purchase a dog without any type of human interaction. That's the type of breeder they want to regulate and inspect.

[lisaly]

Originally Posted by Nancy1999

I disagree with you on reputable breeder, I feel so strongly about this. No reputable breeder sells from the website, sight unseen, part of being a reputable breeder includes making sure you are placing the dog into good hands.

While it is imperative for a breeder to place a dog in a home where it will be well taken care of and loved, I think you are making a statement using too broad of a stroke. There are many ways to evaluate how good a home and care a person will be able to provide for a pup. There are also extenuating circumstances, and once you set something in stone like that, it doesn't allow for evaluation on a case by case basis.

Your dedication and determination into stopping large breeders and puppymills who don't place the welfare of the pups first and foremost is admirable, but we also should find a way to protect those breeders who strive to produce healthy, happy, and well-bred babies. They sacrifice so much and put their heart and soul into both the members of their family but also the beautiful offspring that they produce and also love. I have an even deeper respect and admiration for the breeders who give of themselves daily raising and caring for their babies in their homes and their hearts but also who are here to help our community. Our lives are enriched because of them.

[Nancy1999]

Originally Posted by lisaly

While it is imperative for a breeder to place a dog in a home where it will be well taken care of and loved, I think you are making a statement using too broad of a stroke. There are many ways to evaluate how good a home and care a person will be able to provide for a pup. There are also extenuating circumstances, and once you set something in stone like that, it doesn't allow for evaluation on a case by case basis.

Your dedication and determination into stopping large breeders and puppymills who don't place the welfare of the pups first and foremost is admirable, but we also should find a way to protect those breeders who strive to produce healthy, happy, and well-bred babies. They sacrifice so much and put their heart and soul into both the members of their family but also the beautiful offspring that they produce and also love. I have an even deeper respect and admiration for the breeders who give of themselves daily raising and caring for their babies in their homes and their hearts but also who are here to help our community. Our lives are enriched because of them.

How would a breeder know if it's a fit home without any type of human interaction? If you want to buy a or sell a puppy this way, it will still be possible, but now with this law, those breeders who sell this way, will need a license and be subject to the same rules as those breeders who sell to pet stores. Why should a breeder who sells to a pet store need a license and one who sells over the internet not need one?

[magicgenie]

Originally Posted by Nancy1999

This is the one point that I would agree with. I think they need to define what they mean by breeding female, if it's means any unspayed female over 4 months of age, I don't think that's a good definition. However, again, this would only apply to those breeders who sell with no face to face interaction. In other words those breeders who sell from the websites. I would hope you breeders could have influence on defining this term better. Unfortunately it’s so hard to get good breeder to help in producing good legislation, they are afraid of any legislation because of what "others" have told them about it, and so it’s the commercial breeders who help compose it. A good breeder is much more likely to a puppy 4 months of age, still unsold, than a commercial breeder is.


You say why do we need the law? You’re missing an important point, I don't know why I can't get this across, but right now, the breeders who sell directly to the public do not need any kennel inspections or licenses, the original law was made to cover those breeders who sell to pet stores and brokers, and they have to be licensed by the USDA. This is designed to so that those breeders, who sell from their websites, will need now to have licenses if they have more than four breeding females. Everyone here always discourages people from buying from pet stores; they say no reputable breeder would ever sell to a pet store. Well, many of these commercial breeders have stopped using pet stores as their primary outlet and now they don’t even have any laws that touch them, because those breeders who sell directly to the public do not need to be licensed. What is so horrible about getting a license and having to be inspected? If you’re with the AKC you have to subject yourself to inspections anyway. Unfortunately, most of these commercial breeders are no longer with the AKC and have created their own registries. If you aren’t selling from your website, this bill wouldn’t affect you. I looked at your website, it tells about your breeding program, it doesn't have a PayPal button where an unseen person can purchase a dog without any type of human interaction. That's the type of breeder they want to regulate and inspect.

Look at the discussion back and forth and how we've confused ourselves and each other trying to interpret this law.
There are already laws on the books that are supposed to put bad breeders out of business. If we enforce those with all our might these new laws won't be needed.
I do believe that all localities now have some kind of animal control laws that require kennel licensing and inspection of homes with 4 or more dogs. That should catch most of the bad breeders out there. I can support developing and enforcing those PROVIDED there are safeguards against rogue raids such as I was subjected to. As it stands, if one's animals are seized in a raid, they are never returned, even when the owner later prevails in court. This needs to be looked at.
I suppose someone could secretly have a kennel and be selling puppies directly on the internet, but that's underground business and the types that engage in that will always find a way to carry on.
My fear is the more law there is, the less people will understand it, and the more likely someone innocent will be harmed.

[Nancy1999]

Originally Posted by magicgenie

Look at the discussion back and forth and how we've confused ourselves and each other trying to interpret this law.
There are already laws on the books that are supposed to put bad breeders out of business. If we enforce those with all our might these new laws won't be needed.
I do believe that all localities now have some kind of animal control laws that require kennel licensing and inspection of homes with 4 or more dogs. That should catch most of the bad breeders out there. I can support developing and enforcing those PROVIDED there are safeguards against rogue raids such as I was subjected to. As it stands, if one's animals are seized in a raid, they are never returned, even when the owner later prevails in court. This needs to be looked at.
I suppose someone could secretly have a kennel and be selling puppies directly on the internet, but that's underground business and the types that engage in that will always find a way to carry on.
My fear is the more law there is, the less people will understand it, and the more likely someone innocent will be harmed.

That's where you're wrong there is no laws that are trying to put bad breeders out of business, that's not even what a law intends to do. There are laws that cover minimum standards for kennels, but breeders who sell directly to the public are not covered by these laws.