New USDA breeding regulations

[Nancy1999]

Originally Posted by makemepretty

I too don't understand why anyone would be against this. Granted, I don't understand breeding but there are so many animals out there, why does anyone need more than 4 females? We have such an over population of pets and more people are breeding.

I know people have said that they don't breed to make money that they barely break even but I call bullish*t on that. People breed to SELL puppies. It's gotten out of control. If they limited breeders to one or two litters a year, would we run out of pets? I think not.

I could never be a breeder, I don't understand taking a family member, making them have babies then selling those babies to people you don't know. However, I have seen such a large percentage of badly bred animals and animal shelters full of unwanted animals that I just don't get the *need* for anyone to breed.

Well, I can understand why people would want to breed and we really need good breeders who are doing it right. To have a "serious" breeding program, many breeders say you need at least 5 females, but I'm sure 4 would be plenty for most hobby breeders, especially since many believe in breeding back to back. I don't want laws that punish the small hobby breeder, but I don't think this one does.

[Maximo]

Nancy, you wrote AKC's standards are higher than USDA's. But the AKC is not happy with the new regulations.

I thought we all were in favor of small breeders who keep the dogs and pups in their home and not a separate structure/kennel. Four breeding females is not a lot, and I do think the threat of all un-altered dogs in the home being counted is real. I wouldn't be comfortable with AKC registration protecting me from being scrutinized by this regulation. All it would take is one phone call from a disgruntled neighbor or competitor.

I think these new regulations will encourage small breeders to go underground, to be less open.

[Nancy1999]

Originally Posted by Maximo

Nancy, you wrote AKC's standards are higher than USDA's. But the AKC is not happy with the new regulations.

I thought we all were in favor of small breeders who keep the dogs and pups in their home and not a separate structure/kennel. Four breeding females is not a lot, and I do think the threat of all un-altered dogs in the home being counted is real. I wouldn't be comfortable with AKC registration protecting me from being scrutinized by this regulation. All it would take is one phone call from a disgruntled neighbor or competitor.

I think these new regulations will encourage small breeders to go underground, to be less open.

Truthfully, I've never seen the AKC happy with any legislation, I'm not joking, I've never seen them in favor of any type of legislation that puts any restrictions on breeders, so that's not a good measure for me. I agree with some of the AKC complaints, what exactly is a "breeding female", but I don't think people realize that over 70% of the dogs sold are unregulated. This bill addresses those commercial breeders who sell directly to the public over the internet. In the past, people would have to visit their homes and could see the kennel conditions for themselves, but the internet changed all this. You can still have more than four breeding females, but if you do, you have to allow the buyer to see the dog before the buyer makes the purchase. Again, you wouldn't be regulated, unless you sell the dogs without meeting the buyer and have more than 4 breeding females. Since when do good breeders not want to meet the buyer?

I'm confused about your comment on a disgruntled neighbor, they could call without this legislation. Most of the puppy mills are really rather well hidden, and authorities can't do anything, because there are no laws to cover them. Once this takes place they will have to register and be inspected if they have more than 4 breeding females and sell directly over the internet without meeting the buyers. I also agree with you that a dogs should be kept in the home, not a separate structure, I'm not sure why people think that they will have to have the dogs in a separate structure, I would be against that. Are you saying this is true if a person has under 4 breeding females, because I can't find it in the actual bill.

[Maximo]

Originally Posted by Nancy1999

Truthfully, I've never seen the AKC happy with any legislation, I'm not joking, I've never seen them in favor of any type of legislation that puts any restrictions on breeders, so that's not a good measure for me. I agree with some of the AKC complaints, what exactly is a "breeding female", but I don't think people realize that over 70% of the dogs sold are unregulated. This bill addresses those commercial breeders who sell directly to the public over the internet. In the past, people would have to visit their homes and could see the kennel conditions for themselves, but the internet changed all this. You can still have more than four breeding females, but if you do, you have to allow the buyer to see the dog before the buyer makes the purchase. Again, you wouldn't be regulated, unless you sell the dogs without meeting the buyer and have more than 4 breeding females. Since when do good breeders not want to meet the buyer?

I'm confused about your comment on a disgruntled neighbor, they could call without this legislation. Most of the puppy mills are really rather well hidden, and authorities can't do anything, because there are no laws to cover them. Once this takes place they will have to register and be inspected if they have more than 4 breeding females and sell directly over the internet without meeting the buyers. I also agree with you that a dogs should be kept in the home, not a separate structure, I'm not sure why people think that they will have to have the dogs in a separate structure, I would be against that. Are you saying this is true if a person has under 4 breeding females, because I can't find it in the actual bill.

I am fully on-board with regulating the sale of dogs. I also support seeing the puppy before purchase (although I did put a deposit down on Max before meeting him, and I made a verbal commitment with the same breeder before meeting Teddy in person).

There are circumstances, friends here on YT, who have purchased their puppies from YT member breeders and had them shipped without meeting the puppy or breeder in person. This gives me mixed feelings about requiring meeting the puppy and breeder in person.

The separate structure -- I thought the new regulation is requiring this for breeders with more than 4 breeding females. Don't a lot of hobby and show breeders have more than 4?

The disgruntled neighbor example was in response to your comment that most small, in-home breeders would not be inspected under this new regulation because the authorities would be too busy with much bigger operations. Sorry if I misinterpreted your statement. If I were a small breeder, I would not feel comfortable relying on this. A disgruntled neighbor who might know a thing or two about these regulations and call the authorities to come out for an inspection.

[Yorkiemom1]

Originally Posted by Nancy1999

I'm sorry I really don't believe this, I think this is the sort of propaganda posted to scare the small breeders to death. I've seen this happen before where commercial breeders fought tooth and nail to get laws from being passed, and predicted all sorts of crazy things if the laws passed, but it just didn't happen, I thought after the last time we would no be having this type of arguments again, but it's happening. If you're registered with the AKC they already have the right to inspect the kennel conditions and your records, the USDA doesn't usually even inspect registered kennels if they know they are AKC registered, because AKC standards are higher. I'm truly sorry this law is causing you so much stress, I really appreciate concerns, I just don't believe it will happen. Again, the housing applies to breeders who have more than 4 breeding females. If this is true, than I really think we should all help fight it.

Believe it or not, I am LIVING this nightmare, as are many, many other small breeders. The AKC is NOT the problem...we all keep accurate records and are well known to AKC. (I have even been a federal firearm dealer in the past, and gladly opened my home up to federal ATF agents for inspection, so this is NOT a problem for me.) There are millions of people that think this is all "hogwash" or "propaganda" to scare smal breeders and since these people are actually "on the outside looking in", you really have no clearity on the reality of the situation. It will all come to pass, and THEN the damage that has been delivered will become evident. I would remind all, one of our very own members/breeder has already lived the terror of having her home essentially invaded by out of control "authorities", hell bent on confiscating her dogs and trying to close her down. Try to convence HER this law is all "scare tactics" and "propaganda". Thank God she had the financial where-with-all, as well as high powered people in the right places that effectively stopped this mad process mid stride. Thank God she was able to effective re-locate almost immediately, saving her breeding program and keeping her dogs. Others are not as fortunate. It is going to take me a year to relocate to North Texas and build a home with a DETACHED kennel, per specifications....even though I will still have only 4 or less breeding females, I still have other intact females on my property that are NOT breeders, but I will set up like a commercial breeding facility, resume breeding in late 2014, so I will pass regs of USDA. My breeders will no longer be kept in my home, underfoot, sitting on the couch or in the recliner with me, but kept outside in a "commercial" kennel area. NOT "propaganda" or "scare tactics".....FACTS. Or, I guess I could skip all this high dollar expense, and just do like all the other puppy mills/BYB's that are going to get around this legislation totally uneffected....have puppies, register them CKC if at all, because "they" will be tracking breeders thru registeries like AKC, monitoring litters produced and puppies sold.....post the babies in the local flea market, or quietly sell to pet stores, (let the pet stores deal with all the krappy regulations)....and of course, if I dump my puppies at 6-8 weeks of age,.....Here on YT, I am even seeing people buying babies 4 weeks old!!!... I wouldn't have all that "unnecessary" overhead from vet checks, vaccinations, etc....so while I will have to sell the babies cheaper, they wont be such a financial drain on me, and it will be a whole lot cheaper to do it that way, than trying to meet government regulations. Fact is, that is the ONLY way "breeders" make money doing breeding, and all you have to do is observe what is going on all around you, including posts on this forum.....FACTS, not scare tactics or propaganda, just reality. Not really a reality so many responsible, ethical breeders are emotionally or financially capable of dealing with.

[Maximo]

Originally Posted by Maximo

The separate structure -- I thought the new regulation is requiring this for breeders with more than 4 breeding females. Don't a lot of hobby and show breeders have more than 4?

Clarification of my question: or does this apply only if the breeder sells without the buyer meeting the puppy in person?

[Nancy1999]

Originally Posted by Yorkiemom1

Believe it or not, I am LIVING this nightmare, as are many, many other small breeders. The AKC is NOT the problem...we all keep accurate records and are well known to AKC. (I have even been a federal firearm dealer in the past, and gladly opened my home up to federal ATF agents for inspection, so this is NOT a problem for me.) There are millions of people that think this is all "hogwash" or "propaganda" to scare smal breeders and since these people are actually "on the outside looking in", you really have no clearity on the reality of the situation. It will all come to pass, and THEN the damage that has been delivered will become evident. I would remind all, one of our very own members/breeder has already lived the terror of having her home essentially invaded by out of control "authorities", hell bent on confiscating her dogs and trying to close her down. Try to convence HER this law is all "scare tactics" and "propaganda". Thank God she had the financial where-with-all, as well as high powered people in the right places that effectively stopped this mad process mid stride. Thank God she was able to effective re-locate almost immediately, saving her breeding program and keeping her dogs. Others are not as fortunate. It is going to take me a year to relocate to North Texas and build a home with a DETACHED kennel, per specifications....even though I will still have only 4 or less breeding females, I still have other intact females on my property that are NOT breeders, but I will set up like a commercial breeding facility, resume breeding in late 2014, so I will pass regs of USDA. My breeders will no longer be kept in my home, underfoot, sitting on the couch or in the recliner with me, but kept outside in a "commercial" kennel area. NOT "propaganda" or "scare tactics".....FACTS. Or, I guess I could skip all this high dollar expense, and just do like all the other puppy mills/BYB's that are going to get around this legislation totally uneffected....have puppies, register them CKC if at all, because "they" will be tracking breeders thru registeries like AKC, monitoring litters produced and puppies sold.....post the babies in the local flea market, or quietly sell to pet stores, (let the pet stores deal with all the krappy regulations)....and of course, if I dump my puppies at 6-8 weeks of age,.....Here on YT, I am even seeing people buying babies 4 weeks old!!!... I wouldn't have all that "unnecessary" overhead from vet checks, vaccinations, etc....so while I will have to sell the babies cheaper, they wont be such a financial drain on me, and it will be a whole lot cheaper to do it that way, than trying to meet government regulations. Fact is, that is the ONLY way "breeders" make money doing breeding, and all you have to do is observe what is going on all around you, including posts on this forum.....FACTS, not scare tactics or propaganda, just reality. Not really a reality so many responsible, ethical breeders are emotionally or financially capable of dealing with.

Don't know the breeder you're talking about, but some here aren't exactly small breeders no matter what they tell you. I'm just at a loss on what to say to you, don't you meet your puppy buyers? You can have over four breeding females if you meet the puppy buyers and the buyers see the dog in person before they purchase it.

[Nancy1999]

Originally Posted by Maximo

Clarification of my question: or does this apply only if the breeder sells without the buyer meeting the puppy in person?

If you sell directly over the internet and do not meet the buyers in person AND not or, if you have OVER 4 breeding females, you will have to register as a breeder just like the commercial breeders who sell to pet stores have to register. Why do we demand that breeders who sell to pet stores have to be regulated, but not those who sell literally thousands of dogs over the internet need no regulation? For years Yorkietalk has been telling puppy buyers to not buy pets from pet stores, but those dogs actually have better breeding conditions than the dogs who are sold directly over the internet. You've seen the sites, Posh puppies and micro toy dogs, and nothing authorities can do to inspect any of the breeding conditions. I just can't understand why there is this double standard. I would prefer a person buying from a petstore than over the internet. At least they have a tiny idea of what they are getting and those breeding dogs are regulated.

[Yorkiemom1]

Originally Posted by makemepretty

I too don't understand why anyone would be against this. Granted, I don't understand breeding but there are so many animals out there, why does anyone need more than 4 females? We have such an over population of pets and more people are breeding.

I know people have said that they don't breed to make money that they barely break even but I call bullish*t on that. People breed to SELL puppies. It's gotten out of control. If they limited breeders to one or two litters a year, would we run out of pets? I think not.

I could never be a breeder, I don't understand taking a family member, making them have babies then selling those babies to people you don't know. However, I have seen such a large percentage of badly bred animals and animal shelters full of unwanted animals that I just don't get the *need* for anyone to breed.

Your first comment about breeders do this strictly for money, is so far off reality, it would be amusing if it was not so dangerou. You have never bred and never would, which is a good thing, because you would very quickly come to that fork in the road, where you would need to decidse if you are breeding for money or to contribute to the production of purebred, quality, healthy, true to breed standard Yorkies. It is either your passion or your job.....puppy mills make it their job, and you are correct, they make money hand over fist. But anyone that has ever done this correctly, for the right reasons, is educated and knowledgable in what it takes to produce healthy dogs that are not laden with genetic issues, etc, that die on new owners at 6 months - 6 years old....bad livers, bad hearts, bad kidneys, bad lungs, bad immune systems, etc. That costs money and if you priced your babies to cover the costs of care and preventative measures taken to ensure your babies are healthy, people couldnt afford to buy them. It is propaganda and scare tactics to tell people that breeders all make money.....bovine scat??? not hardly......some of us just want to provide loving people pup[pies that are healthy and are not going to cost them thousands of dollars, trying to keep a sick puppy alive.....to think people are actually out there thinking we all do this for the sole purpose of selling dogs to make money......bovine scat!

[Maximo]

Originally Posted by Nancy1999

If you sell directly over the internet and do not meet the buyers in person AND not or, if you have OVER 4 breeding females, you will have to register as a breeder just like the commercial breeders who sell to pet stores have to register. Why do we demand that breeders who sell to pet stores have to be regulated, but not those who sell literally thousands of dogs over the internet need no regulation? For years Yorkietalk has been telling puppy buyers to not buy pets from pet stores, but those dogs actually have better breeding conditions than the dogs who are sold directly over the internet. You've seen the sites, Posh puppies and micro toy dogs, and nothing authorities can do to inspect any of the breeding conditions. I just can't understand why there is this double standard. I would prefer a person buying from a petstore than over the internet. At least they have a tiny idea of what they are getting and those breeding dogs are regulated.

Now I understand.

Personally, I would want to meet the puppy and the breeder in person and ideally meet the breeding pair and see the home where the dogs are bred -- and this is what I would encourage everyone to do.

However, there are circumstances where this is really frustrating. For instance, what if I had wanted Teddy shipped via human courier to me, sight unseen? I had already met the breeder, met the registered breeding pair (same as Max's), and seen her home where the dogs are bred and raised. I believe she had more than 4 breeding females.

[Nancy1999]

Originally Posted by Maximo

Now I understand.

Personally, I would want to meet the puppy and the breeder in person and ideally meet the breeding pair and see the home where the dogs are bred -- and this is what I would encourage everyone to do.

However, there are circumstances where this is really frustrating. For instance, what if I had wanted Teddy shipped via human courier to me, sight unseen? I had already met the breeder, met the registered breeding pair (same as Max's), and seen her home where the dogs are bred and raised. I believe she had more than 4 breeding females.

I think as long as you didn't actually pay her until you saw the dog, you'd be just fine. So there has to be trust on the part of the breeder for this to happen. Hopefully it will end, some of the bait and switch that's happening, puppy buyer picks a picture and gets a dog that looks nothing like the picture and is also half dead.

[Maximo]

Originally Posted by Yorkiemom1

[/B]

Your first comment about breeders do this strictly for money, is so far off reality, it would be amusing if it was not so dangerou. You have never bred and never would, which is a good thing, because you would very quickly come to that fork in the road, where you would need to decidse if you are breeding for money or to contribute to the production of purebred, quality, healthy, true to breed standard Yorkies. It is either your passion or your job.....puppy mills make it their job, and you are correct, they make money hand over fist. But anyone that has ever done this correctly, for the right reasons, is educated and knowledgable in what it takes to produce healthy dogs that are not laden with genetic issues, etc, that die on new owners at 6 months - 6 years old....bad livers, bad hearts, bad kidneys, bad lungs, bad immune systems, etc. That costs money and if you priced your babies to cover the costs of care and preventative measures taken to ensure your babies are healthy, people couldnt afford to buy them. It is propaganda and scare tactics to tell people that breeders all make money.....bovine scat??? not hardly......some of us just want to provide loving people pup[pies that are healthy and are not going to cost them thousands of dollars, trying to keep a sick puppy alive.....to think people are actually out there thinking we all do this for the sole purpose of selling dogs to make money......bovine scat!

I think it is hard for people to see beyond the buying price and understand the overhead costs (when breeding is done right, and when a breeder stands behind her puppies). Breeding done right is a ridiculously hard job with the least amount of return. $

Yes, there is a sadly huge number of homeless animals, and I applaud everyone who rescues and adopts, but I do not support wiping out purebred breeding. That won't stop indiscriminate breeding. I also would not want to see the end of purebred dogs.

[gemy]

Look folks we all can form our own opinions on this law, but unless you have been a breeder, trying to do the whole picture right, this law is awfull.

First how do you "prove" a negative, and yes you betcha anonymous complaints can come in and you WILL get inspected. So you in accordance with all your local bylaws have 6 dogs in your home. All 6 are unspayed, and btw if you are Golden Retreiver breeder., you betcha they should be based on what is becoming overwhelming evidence that the Golden Tumour Dog is quite negatively effected by spaying AT ANY AGE!. Now the Gestapo comes aka Inspectors, without a warrant, because I am dang sure they don't have to go before a judge to get a warrant; and HOW DO YOU PROVE A NEGATIVE? That you are only breeding 2 or 3 of these intact females? What proof exactly is necessary? How do you PROVE a Negative? After all you could be breeding them, and only registering through AKC 2 or 3 of the female litters, and the others through dis-reputable registries. So they make you subject your dog to Xrays and or other invasive techniques to PROVE to them you are not breeding these intact females? Oh and Yes probably at Your Cost!

And they could probably seize your dogs immediately. Do you know how devastating that is for the dogs, that have only ever lived in a home is? How would you feel Nancy if all your dogs were seized by an animal control officer from a nuisance complaint?

The threat felt by us is very very real. Maybe you don't understand it. But we do.

And you actually think I look at the fear mongers/aka commercial breeder comments; not really at all. I look at the law. And I do know APHIS little helpful summary (and let me remind you it is from their point of view), but their little helpful summary has yet to be tested in court as to its' actual accuracy.

[Nancy1999]

Originally Posted by Nancy1999

I think as long as you didn't actually pay her until you saw the dog, you'd be just fine. So there has to be trust on the part of the breeder for this to happen. Hopefully it will end, some of the bait and switch that's happening, puppy buyer picks a picture and gets a dog that looks nothing like the picture and is also half dead.

Oh, I just wanted to add, if you've ever been to house before, I think that covers it. This bill is an attempt to provide oversight to thousands of breeders who sell over the internet, before the internet, the public provided some oversight by viewing personally the kennels or home conditions.

[magicgenie]

The non-breeding masses won't understand this is a problem until the day comes, in the very near future, that they can't find a nice pure bred dog for a price than can even think of affording. They'll wonder what went wrong when their grandchildren can't have a pet at all and have no idea what a Yorkshire Terrier was.