There is a new proposed legislation that will require anyone who has more then 6 litters or sell more then 25 dogs per year to get a USDA license regardless of how or who they sell to. That could include just about anyone with as little as 4 dogs. Unlike other legislations in the past, the hypocrite traitors at the AKC are actually supporting this bill because it targets those who sell through internet sites like this one and through news paper. What the hell where they thinking. If you have a problem with that, and most of the breeders who advertise and post here should, now is the time to let your representative know how you feel about it.
Before you say this is a good thing, donít let the special interest AR groups bamboozle you and tell you this is to get rid of puppy mills. It will directly affect small privet breeders much worse then it will affect unlicensed puppy mills. The mills will simply comply and get a license. The responsible breeders in many cases wonít be able to even if they wanted to. Familiarize yourself with the USDA rules and see if you can or even want to comply. The current UDSA rules were written for commercial large scale breeders who breed for a living. Many of these rules can not be enforced on hobby and show breeders with out harming the dogs and breeders. Read the USDA rules for yourself and see how they will affect small breeders who breed from their home, and think about the resulting consequences to the pet market in general when suddenly, so many breeders will have so many more outlets to sell their dogs. This bill will also affect rescue organizations that sell more then 25 dogs per year. This bill is BAD news and will backfire big time. DONíT LET IT PASS.
I have read up on this bill and maybe I'm looking at it from the standpoint of someone who's not a breeder.
The bill specifically targets people who import 25 dogs a year and sell them at retail, or sell more than 25 dogs a year at retail that they did not breed or raise.
I don't see that dog rescues and animal shelters are selling dogs at 'retail' and thus, why would they be targeted?
I do notice it empowers the USDA lawyers to go directly to court to enact sanctions on breeders who break the law direction, instead of having to find US attorneys who are willing to take the cases.
The bad thing about it is that it's going to really put a strain on the USDA, they will have even more to do and to regulate.. but the bill also gives them more power to do that regulating.
It's a confusing bill and I both support it and kinda don't.
The AKC's stance is basically people on the internet are using that medium to mass market litter after litter of puppies without going to a broker or wholesaler. A person could concievably have a barn full of 50 breeding females, all whelping or nursing or whatever. They sell the litters via the internet, that's legal because the dog's aren't sold for wholesale, and thus aren't governed by USDA regulation. And they certainly should be.
It also targets those lowlives who are importing purebred dogs from mexico (adam hernandez anyone?) and selling the unhealthy dogs.. again, without hving to be USDA regulated.
"some persons who import dogs for resale or sell dogs at retail through the internet or the mass media which they did not breed and raise. It will also bring under coverage high volume breeders who sell dogs at retail. "
So in other words,any one you SHOULD buy a puppy from will not even be affected?
I don't se that much of a problem with it because I guess I see it as anyone that whelps more than seven should maybe be inspected anyway.
Here's my take-Yes I am a breeder-but not USDA licensed since I sell privately, but well assure all of you that my terriers are very well taken care of and we exceed the standards here.
1) This will not stop poor breeding or sick dogs-there is no way. I have read your opinions on the USDA regs and very few of you believe that they even are adequeate enough. So how will forcing more breeders to become licensed help this? It will further dilute the work of the inpectors and they will not be able to deal with the problems as efficiently. I repeat it will not stop sick pupppies and poor breeding-as it is just for the care and vet care of the dogs-nothing with genetics, etc.
2) Really, please look at it this way. If we pushed more for tougher state lemon laws and state requirements, wouldn't that be better. Everything would be on a local level, inspectors closers, problems dealt with faster, and with the lemon laws, would help push breeders into really focusing on the quality of a pup vrs quantitiy as they would be held accountable. IN my state, anyone has to have a state license if they have 3 or more breeding females and we see a lot less problems than other states.
3) If you are from PA-don't take this personally, please. Sen Santorum is from PA and PA is one of the worst states for companion animal legislation and is probably the 2nd most known for puppymills (the word I hate to use-but am making a point here) If he hasn't done anything to improve the conditions and laws within his own state, why should he be out preaching to the rest of the country.
4) HOw many of you realize what all the USDA covers? Do you know that a local butcher who does private meat processing and private sales of meat, is not required to have a USDA license? The fact is, that if this passes on inspecting private sales breeders, that it is possible that we are looking at a total overhaul of the USDA system, thus taking away the privatization of any aspect of agriculture whatsoever. This would infringe on a free enterprise system.
5) Many, not all, breeders that sell privately, work hard to plan their litters. When you sell privately, you are legally responsible and have to answer directly to the people who buy it. You are bound by the lemon laws and can be taken to court. As a USDA licensed breeder who can sell to pet stores, you lose some of that liability, as it is passed on to the broker or pet store. So forcing private sales breeders to comply with the regs, does not really mean anything but that. If it isn't in a breeders morals to produce a healthy pup, they won't change because of USDA-just improve the care of their dogs if they aren't already in compliance. It upsets me as the law states now that I cannot whelp in my own home, that I will have to do it in a moisture proof environment. I also cannot have personal belongings in my kennel-so no bed out there to sleep in the kennel with them.
There are so many more points that I have been addressing in my letters to Senators. I really think the bottom line that I can see many of you being concerned with here, as fanciers, breeders and pet owners and lovers, is that it won't stop bad breeding as it is now. It will just force everyone to one standard-and require a vet to inspect once a year. Nothing to stop breeding of dogs that shouldn't be bred and really nothing to gain for the consumers in the health, purity, socialization aspects of a puppy. I know many breeders that will fall under 7 litters a year, and you would be sickend at how they keep their dogs! I know breeders that have many, many dogs and I think you would be suprised at their care and wonderful dogs. This is not a place to draw a line, even though the AKC would like to have a line between amature fanciers and high volume breeders. As I have said before, I use AKC as well as another registry. AKC is a registry and they are allowed to have an opinion, but will lose many members that aren't affected if the continue to support this. I know that I posted before, but they came to one of our breeders meetings about 6 months ago and wanted our high volume breeders back that had left as they missed that groups business. What the public doesn't know, besides where AKC stands, is that they go behind the public and beg for something that they are now saying they are against. They have upset many-both affected and not affected by this legislation. I know they are hearing about it now. If you are wanting to do something, contact your Senators now.
Joce- I think the best and safest way to conduct inspections would be to allow the states to do it. They could really deal with the problems faster, more effective and could get something done much quicker than the USDA. I agree about everyone having some sort of inspections, but at the state level. It does no good for a USDA inspector to go out 1 or 2 times a year and find nothing or go on a bad day. By the time it is dealt with it is too late.
If this bill is to happen when will it get passed? What do you think the chance will be for it to get passed? I hope it does not I am not for it at all! I just don't think it is right.
Hey here is a question I always wondered . . . what happens to the people that are breeding that do not have a lic? I often wondered that because I heard about one lady that had loads of dogs and sold the puppy's with papers. Wouldn't the place that she is registered with know that she has all these dogs and shouldn't, or that she does not have a lic, or maybe her area does not allow that many dogs? I often wondered this. Seems a good time to bring up! They never said what happened to her just that the dogs are finding new homes.
i'm not saying anything about the usdas inspection methods. I just think that after a certain number of pups come out a year there is no reason they shouldn't be inspected. Nothing screams that it is horrible to me but I'm not a breeder.
Right now you get a series of warnings, then a series of fines, and then you go to court and may not be allowed to breed. So they will just do it under another name. That is what many do now to fall between the cracks.
I could put half my dogs in my b/fs name and now I can breed 12 litters a year and be fine.
But there needs to be enforcement of laws. Even at the local level. If my neighbors complain about my dogs I will have a visit from animal control and possibly be fined because I dunno, anything, what if I am bording an unaltered dog and they have a rule?
I know I break oen rule because I let my genders mix and that is often against USDA rules.
It is very fustrating.
***Edited By: Icyhound on 6/2/2005 6:13:47 PM*** Reason: add
Holiday-very good question and a good time to ask. I am not USDA licensed, but state licensed and my state has a good policy. Some states have no licensing and if they sell privately, have no inspections whatsoever-just up to their moral standards to keep everything top notch-and we know that doesn't happen. I personally would like to see good standards set by every state-they can enforce it whether or not you sell privately, as the USDA would be infringing on private sales that are not currently regulated by the USDA.
Here's the way you can look at this through a registry. 1) If a registry could turn anyone in-breeders could move from one to another-7 litters per registry a year and still have produced a lot of puppies and no one would know.
2) Registries run the risk of being sued if they do turn someone in-it's part of the privacy thing. They cannot police this.
One thing that I didn't address before is, Who is going to police this? IF we have the USDA policing this, they would have to have access to every breeders records-not registry records-since they don't have to register every litter. How would they police someone who breeds their 4 dogs in the privacy of their home and isn't required to have even a state license. I think the complexity of this has been overlooked. With USDA licensed breeders, they have the option to sell to a broker. Brokers must have proof they are licensed before they can buy-so they are easier to keep track of since someone without a license cannot sell to a broker or pet store. If I don't have a license and sell privately, how are they going to know and find me? But seriously, if the law changes, I will sure comply, as I would never, ever want to risk something I love so much.
I never knew that! I don't get how people can go under a different name without having a social security card or proof that they are that person. What about the people on the internet a lot of those places to list a puppy takes credit cards wouldn't they know who you are then, you wouldn't have a fake credit card under a fake name? I get it with using your friends name, but what if you don't have a friends name to use? I always wondered these things how people get away with it and still sell puppy's with papers. The only ones I see is no papers because then how will they know who you are. I get confused, I guess I am no good at telling a fib that is why this is hard to understand.
So Icy you can get a fine if your neighbors complain? Do you live on a farm? How close are they to you? Do they like you, or are they just causing problems? That is not fun for you sorry to hear that you have to go through that.
Icy-can't you have one male with a female or multiple females, just not 2 males as to question the father? IF not, then I am guilty there, but my female cairns can't be kept together, so I have them with their mate instead. One and One.
The USDA can't fine you for a complaint unless it is found to be a violation. Otherwise animal rights people would do nothing but complain and see breeders out of business. There is some due process involved.
my shadow - you sell privatly and do not have a lic? I think that is what you wrote, but if not sorry I misunderstood. Do you have to have a lic? How do you find out what your area requires? I know some areas around me only allows someone to have 3 dogs, I wonder if that would be different if they were a breeder?
Another thing, is this bill doesn't offer any consumer protection. If we all had state lemon laws that had guidelines that would benefit the consumers, breeders would really focus on improving their puppies-regardless of how they sell. I don't think advertising on the internet is bad-I do it. But, I treat it as a matter of advertising, not as a see and purchase thing like ordering a shirt from Penny's. It should only be used as a matter of contact. I think the unsuspecting consumer should really be the focus of this. THe internet has made it easier for business to be conducted, but it has also increased the # of unsuspecting or uneducated consumers. The puppy looks so cute, lets give them a credit card and it'll be here next week-that's the problem! I think that we need to look more at holding breeders accountable-not through USDA, but in state standards and lemon laws. We all win then.
Actually my neighbors and I get along, its just an example. THey don't want to upset me cuz I can call the county for the trash dump of their back yard, and I don't bother them for their never ending barking dogs cuz have a housefull (who are not chained outside barkign) so we get along.
Unaltered dogs are not to run together period. It makes it quite hard for breeds where the same sex does not get along, and I personally prefer to run dogs in at least pairs.
I don't want to get so "big" that they can't be in a pack situation so I'm very cautious as to who and waht I bring in.
I actually plan to build a kennel and one that can pass USDA lisencing but that dosent mean its how my dogs will live day to day. The good thing about a well made kennel is that I can go out of town and have someone else tend the dogs without worrying about 'problems'.
he means he breeds and doesn't have a usda license I think. If you sell dogs to pet stores or wholesalers/brokers, you are required to have a USDA license. Thats why right now when you see an internet breeder that advertises as USDA licensed, its not a good thing
Holiday-Yes, you have that correct. I place my puppies privately-some are flown and we also welcome families to our farm and home for their own inspections and to meet all of our dogs. I do not currently need a USDA license unless I decide to sell to a third party or what is known as wholesale. This was a personal choice to only sell privately and have no desire whatsoever to sell to a pet store or broker.
However, in my state, anyone who has 3 or more unaltered females must have a state license. My states has basically the same regs as USDA with a few others thrown in there. So I have a state license.
In my state, I contacted the Bureau of Animal Industry to find out more about licensing. I went to several USDA and FSA offices for info and they knew nothing about the licensing for state, so I had to find a breeder with the info.