military protection
police
fire
education
roads
environmental protection
food safety
drug safety
social security
drinking water protection
bank deposit insurance

Are you sure of this? I'm having a panic attack over this. I have never sold a puppy sight unseen. I'm I except from this rules?

Please go to the AKC website and check their Legislative section to see the full version of the proposed bill. It is very scary indeed.

Among other things anyone with more than 4 breeding females, ( and the definition of breeding females is not what you may think), will be subject to the same licenses and restrictions as commercial breeders.

Check it out for yourself and then you may have to re-think whether you consider this a good thing.

It may not be a bad thing, unfortunately some breeders do need regulating. I'm sure at one point in time people weren't required to have a drivers license. Some people were reckless and endangered the life of other people and their property so it became necessary to make people accountable and to keep a history of their behavior. It's possible to drive drive without a drivers license and nobody will know the difference unless you break the law and your caught. It's also not against the law to own a car if you don't drive it.

You can't count on everyone to be responsible and do what's right for people or animals so unfortunately legislation (in general) is necessary and legislation costs money. I'm against internet sales of live animals.

I'm sorry, I have to ask, how many bitches of any age do you own? That counts bitches of any age even if you don't breed them anymore and puppy bitches of any age that a live with you or you co-own and live with others? is it only 4 in total?

So you're saying it's ok to hurt a large number of good people in order to punish a few bad? Just because the dogs don't live up to your standards doesn't mean they are being abused or neglected or need to be rescued or regulated. Growing up, our dogs lived in the backyard in the dirt. That's how dogs lived. They were walked often and brushed often and well-loved. Come on folks, this is NOT a good thing. More government regulation spurred on by the special interest groups who want to take away our rights to breed dogs. This doesn't concern you? I don't know about you but I love my dogs. I love going to shows. I love raising puppies. I love meeting people and placing a special dog with their family. Are you all so stupid as to think these special interest groups will stop with these new rules? This is a major victory for the HSUS. They pushed hard for these rules. They are empowered now. What happens when they decide they need to drop the number 2 breedable females? Now is not the time to brush it off.

You two who think this is a good thing are totally clueless. Most people are good people and take care of the their animals but because of a few anecdotal cases you've sited that you don't agree with suddenly it's ok for all us to pay the price for them? Give me a break! If they are already in violation what makes you think they will comply with these new rules? You will truly get what you deserve. As for me, I'll keep fighting for all of our rights to breed. It just gets tired and it would be nice if other breeders would see the bigger picture and get off their a$$e$ and learn the ways to fight this. Sadly most figure this won't affect them and therefore really don't care.

It's not just dogs, it is all inclusive of many small animals including, but not limited to cats, guinea pigs, rabbits, hamsters. Even if you have 3 bitches, a female rabbit and a female hamster, and you want to ship a puppy to your breeder friends, you will be obligated to become USDA licensed and compliant. These are just one of many little gems hidden in the rules. But then again the rules were being pushed as closing a loophole that would put an end to substandard breeders and most figured it wouldn't affect them. Maybe some should have read it a bit more closer or paid more attention.

This is the way I see it:
The buyer, the seller and the animal must be all present at selling time to be considered a retail store, which are exempt from this ruling.
Breeders with 4 or less breeding females can sell sight unseen and they don't need a license.
If you have 5 or more breeding female and you ship all or some of your puppies you must get a USDA license.
The definition of breeding female is not clear.
The combinations of breeding females of different species is not clear.
Kennels that have a combination of working dogs/show dogs/pets will be ruled in a one to one case. Most likely you will have to be licensed.
Working dogs are exempt from this ruling. Working dogs are not well defined.
Birds, cold blooded animals, farm animals are exempt.
There are other exemption.

"Be careful for what you wish for" likes to scare the crap out of you with embellishments. This legislation has revised the definition of “retail pet store” under the Animal Welfare Act to regulate pets sold sight unseen. If you have to sell your pet puppies on the internet then IMO you do need regulating. Silver breeders and puppy mills sell this way. Selling a dog to another breeder for the purpose of breeding does not come under regulation of the AWA.

http://www.aphis.usda.gov/newsroom/2013/09/pdf/faq_retail_pets_final_rule.pdf

Breeders of rare breeds also sell this via internet, not enough locals to take the pups they don't keep for showing. Reputable Labrador breeders who live in sparsely populated areas also sell this way (I can think of several well known, excellent kennels); they interview families on phone, ask for previous vet phone number, call and check and ask for two others for a reference, and then IF the family passes, they ship.

Some of you have absolutely NO CLUE of what it's like to deal with the USDA, well let me tell you!! My relatives own a USDA inspected food business and my teens/young adults work there - it's a nightmare! A label on crooked on a box, and all of the food in the 50 lb box is discarded - yes lots of $$ which drives food prices up. One tiny dent in a huge box of sealed food - can't sell the packaged, sealed food inside if the box has a tiny dent. One light switch or ceiling tile cracked, even if it happened while the inspector was in the room - that processing room is shut down, all the food currently in it discarded - again driving up food prices and causing owner loss. Wait until YOU get to deal with the USDA - uneducated and controlling inspectors, they've shut our relatives whole business down for a day or two for something as simple as a cracked tile, etc. Oh my, bring on the USDA!! My college age teens have asked the inspectors about their education, several don't even have a bachelor's degree in any science area and they are supposed to inspect based on a scientific basis?

As far as dogs, my county inspects our kennel, the federal government should never do what the local or state government does well already. It's a waste of taxpayer $$.

For those of us who are not happy with this latest development and want to stay on top of what's happening, go to: http://saova.org. This is the organization that fought the PAWS legislation several years ago and helped us win more time.

"What is SAOVA? The Sportsmen's and Animal Owners' Voting Alliance (SAOVA) is a nationwide, nonpartisan group of volunteers seeking to elect politicians who will oppose the "Animal Rightist" (AR) threat to our rights as Americans. It is the only national group working to protect both sportsmen and animal owners, natural allies, in the legislative and political arenas. SAOVA's members hunt, fish and own livestock, dogs, cats and other pets. We study political candidates in all states to identify those who understand and resist the AR threat, as well as those who are in the pocket of the Animal Rightists.

Since 2002, SAOVA's volunteers have interviewed politicians running for election to the U.S. Congress for the first time. Each election cycle, we also review the voting records of incumbents standing for reelection. The goal of these activities is to determine candidates' positions on the animal rightists' threats to our sport, avocations and farming livelihoods."

What some people do not get is, our rights are slowly being chipping away. Little by little, things that may seem "harmless", "don't affect me", "will control the bad guys" all add up. People need to understand that this is only one small step toward their ultimate goal. One day, we will find ourselves asking, "How did this happen?".

The legislation we are looking at would have been absolutely unthinkable 20-30 years ago. They are making progress and we are falling for it.

http://www.aphis.usda.gov/newsroom/2013/09/pdf/faq_retail_pets_final_rule.pdf Here is a cut/paste:

This does not include breeders who will not be affected

by the rule because they do not sell pets, because they

don’t have more than four breeding females, or

because they sell pets face-to-face.

So if you have 5 or more breeding females, and sell every puppy face to face, OR your breeding program is operated on the intent of producing all "working" stock (hunting, protection, etc), you are exempt from the licensing requirement.

We have a few comments by the same poster using a different name trying to slam their point across. Unscrupulous breeder selling most of her puppies over the internet? Most reputable breeders shouldn't have a problem with this and it could have been a lot worse. Read the link I posted.

Did you say the same thing when they took away your right to drink and drive intoxicated?

"APHIS Rules Affecting Hobby Breeders.
The Administrative code always required a USDA license for people who fit the USDA definition of Dealer unless they fit into some very narrow exceptions. The definition of Dealer in the code excludes retail hobby stores. Hobby breeders who own three or fewer females capable of breeding are exempt from licensing under a separate provision of the code. That exemption was modified to increase the number of breeding females a hobby breeder can own and still remain exempt to 4 or fewer breeding females under the new rules.
Hobby breeders who owned more than 3 females capable of reproduction have historically used the pet store exemption for USDA licensing to avoid the licensing requirement because of their direct sales to consumers and the fact they did not sell to an intermediary such as a pet store or other broker. The new rules now limit how that exemption can be invoked. The biggest change for these breeders is the prohibition on shipping dogs. If they want to rely on the pet store exemption, they can't ship any dogs, sight unseen, to a buyer. All dog sales must be face to face where the buyer can observe the dog before completing the purchase. Apparently the Department stepped back from requiring the breeders to open their homes to buyers in order to invoke the retail pet store exemption. Safety concerns were undoubtedly an issue. There is NO ban on internet sales per se. Only a requirement that you obtain a USDA license if you intend to ship even one dog to a buyer without face to face contact and you don’t fit into any other exemptions.
The most chilling aspect of this new regulation is the way the Department plans on “reaching out” to breeders. During the telephone conference call yesterday the statement was made that this reaching out will include perusing the internet and obtaining information from breed registries. Almost immediately the AKC responded that they will not release any registration information without a court order. There are additional concerns with the regulations as drafted including the lack of a concrete definition of breeding female and whether or not animals co-owned by others would be included in determining if a person failed to meet the limitations under the hobby breeder exemption.
ALR will be putting together a seminar on the new regulations and their implications in the near future. Hopefully we can get something together within the next thirty days for presentation."

Quote: Did you say the same thing when they took away your right to drink and drive intoxicated?

Saying that was totally uncalled for and a slander of a well respected breeder and person! "Agree" is being most disagreeable and anti social, and has violated the rules of this forum.

The link you posted and Be Careful, Joan and other breeders are right. They haven't posted anything that isn't in the link you posted. I have been reading through it and it just confirms it.

I don't ship puppies except to other breeders now and again and NO I won't be able to do that anymore. I do not find an exemption that says you can ship to another breeder. The "for breeding part" means if you are shipping a dog to another breeder to be bred to their stud dog.

I agree "agree" is a troll.

Last I checked breeding dogs does not kill people. You can have one dog and neglect/abuse it. The more you get the Government involved in private business matters the less freedoms we have. I am seriously considering taking down my website or only having my boys on it. The Government does NOT need to be in my hobby!

This issue has nothing to do with a person's right to drink and drive intoxicated.

We're dealing with our dogs, our hobby and already established rules that if they were adhered to we wouldn't have these problems to begin with.

My post was an analogy, nothing personal, too bad you can't see that or are you just stirring the pot? When the strict DUI laws came to be there were many that were opposed to it claiming it violated their "rights" while the families of DUI victims didn't see it that way. There will always be people on both sides of an issue and your own selling practices will influence how you feel about this one. You can still ship puppies but you will now have to pay for a license so you can be regulated because people can't be trusted to do the right thing.

.......so the well-respected breeders who go by all the rules will have to pay more money for whatever reason and adhere to more rules. These new rules will be dismissed by those who have been ignoring the previous rules for years and no matter how many new laws passed, the unethical, questionable breeders will continue to do things their way. This new law will do nothing to "cure" those folks and everything to harm those of us who are following all the rules.

Seriously? If you read and confirmed these statements (from this thread) you need to spruce up on your reading comprehension skills!

"It doesn't matter if you know these people or if they are a repeat buyer, they must come to your house or if you ship a puppy to them or meet them at a show, you will now be under this new definition. " WRONG

"Among other things anyone with more than 4 breeding females, ( and the definition of breeding females is not what you may think), will be subject to the same licenses and restrictions as commercial breeders." WRONG

"That counts bitches of any age even if you don't breed them anymore and puppy bitches of any age that a live with you or you co-own and live with others? is it only 4 in total?" WRONG

" Even if you have 3 bitches, a female rabbit and a female hamster, and you want to ship a puppy to your breeder friends, you will be obligated to become USDA licensed and compliant." WRONG



From the link I posted:

Q. Does this final rule bring working dogs sold at
retail under regulation?

A. Working dogs are generally understood to be dogs
that are not sold for use as pets but for purposes such
as hunting, breeding, and security. Dogs sold at retail
for these purposes do not come under regulation
under the AWA.

That's the way it is with all laws, you get caught you pay the price but if there aren't laws on the books there won't be consequences for the offender. Obviously there are enough complaints to warrant this law. The majority of silver breeders have to ship puppies and this new law might discourage some of them. I had one living by me that shipped 99% of her puppies.

If you have more than 4 breeding bitches and want to avoid getting the USDA license the solution is simple, don't ship puppies! From the sounds of it they will be going after people who advertise for shipping and do most of their business this way.

Not wrong. If you ship one puppy that will be primary a pet sight unseen prior to purchase, you need a license.
Per the rules: "However, this rule will only affect those dog breeders who sell dogs as pets, not for
hunting, security, breeding, or other purposes; who maintain more than four breeding females on
their property; and whose buyers are not all physically present to observe the animals prior to
purchase and/or to take custody of that animal after purchase."



Not wrong if you ship one puppy sight unseen. Definition of a breeding female is NOT defined. There is no age given, no criteria for what a breeding female is.



Again not wrong. No guidelines for age. No definition given. No mention of co-owner. There is mention of the dogs maintained on your property, but a co-owned bitch may go back in forth between co-owners. What is the definition of maintained? Which also presents another conundrum in that you are only allowed to sell puppies that were born and raised on your property (see rule excerpts above and below. If you split the litter and it was not born and raised on your property, then what? You have to get a license?



There are things in the rules that say 4 of this and 4 of that. The rules now say: "Restoring and amending the exemption in § 2.1(a)(3)(vii) so that any person including,
but not limited to, purebred dog or cat fanciers, who maintains a total of four or fewer
breeding female dogs, cats, and/or small exotic or wild mammals, and who sells, at retail,
only the offspring of these dogs, cats, and/or small exotic or wild mammals, which were
born and raised on his or her premises, for pets or exhibition, and is not otherwise
required to obtain a license, is also considered a retail pet store for regulatory purposes."

So as I read this it is a combination of any or all. Furthermore, it states that the animal has to be "born and raised on his or her premises". So what happens if you get a stud puppy and want to sell it? What if you have a pup you bought that didn't turn out and you want to sell it?



It is still a bit unclear, but as I posted above this is what I found later in the rules as I continued to read it. This is the entire rules in context: "However, this rule will only affect those dog breeders who sell dogs as pets, not for
hunting, security, breeding, or other purposes; who maintain more than four breeding females on
their property; and whose buyers are not all physically present to observe the animals prior to
purchase and/or to take custody of that animal after purchase."

Anyone who doesn't think that Animal Rights Groups aren't behind these new rules, please think again:

"Now the final rule has not yet been published so I can only go with what was said in the teleconference and the newly released FAQ's. But twice during the call, APHIS Airheads specifically said that dog show exhibitors are covered under this rule. They also said ALL animals on a person's premises would be covered and counted. ALL. A breeder managed to get through on the call and told the government lawyers and animal rights activists listening (idiot) who she was, what she raised, and that she owned five females and her daughter owned three females, but that they lived in the same house. Hey, want to tell the world your street address and GPS coordinates while you are at it? The government lawyers said, we don't care who owns the animals. We see them, we are counting them. You own eight, you are covered under this law. People you just don't get it. The government does not care! You are nothing but a number to them, nothing but a revenue source and that federal monster is hungry. That government inspector who forces their way into your home in violation of the Fourth Amendment is going to count everything they see with a pulse, no matter what specie it is. Destroyed Virginia dog breeder Jean Payne-Cyhanick (http://got50.blogspot.com/2010/12/trial-of-jean-payne-cyhanick.html) already knows that. She was caring for several of her daughter's dogs when state and local inspectors came looking. They all counted and Jean was convicted of criminal charges for having too many dogs, failing to brush their teeth, blah, blah, blah. Guess what professional dog show handlers, this means you. APHIS said at least twice that dog show dogs are covered and APHIS doesn't care who the owner is. They can see it, its counted, and you are out of luck."

http://tyrannyandliberty.blogspot.com/2013/09/a-government-for-people-and-by-people.html

Just don't ship puppies. Geez

Dear Agree your analogy between laws against drunk driving and laws against all breeders, is really a very poor one. Laws against drunk driving were laws targeted against a very specific type of behavior. Not only was the behavior very specific, but the conditions which would define the drunk driving behavior were laid out clearly even to the extent of what blood alcohol level would constitute intoxication.

The regulations promulgated to enforce the Animal Welfare Act legislation is a scattershot approach at best, which obviously shows a desire to deter dog breeding in general by saddling hobby breeders with regulations which were supposed to only deter internet dog sales by puppy mills.

I think Joan’s comments are extremely perceptive about what is actually happening. If HSUS attempted to promote legislation to end dog ownership outright, they would be stopped stone cold, because the American public would never put up with that nonsense. However with their minions now buried in the government bureaucracy, they can slowly erode dog ownership in this country, by making it hard for legitimate breeders to breed
apart from the puppy mill breeders against whom the legislation was originally intended to target. They can do this by drafting and promulgating regulations which go well beyond the legislative intent of the Animal Welfare Act. I have heard from other sources that these regulations are much more expansive than even the actual statutory language of the Animal Welfare Act itself. One can only hope that the AKC or another dog owner rights organization, picks the proper factual situation to use as a test case to litigate the validity of these regulations as being overly broad and well beyond the scope of the statute’s intent.

Unfortunately there will always be people with their heads in the sand. Their rights will be taken from them, because they have an inability to see the whole picture until it is too late. There will also always be people masquerading as concerned about animal welfare
when actually they are A.R. Trolls, who just want to see dog ownership go away and will try to keep the rest of us in a “don’t worry – be happy state of mind” while they work their underhanded machinations behind the scene.

I, for one, salute Joan for her savvy analysis.

People.....you don't get it....see above.....

At what point are you going to stand up and start defending your rights????

Enough already! All this regulation is going above and beyone...

Agree - You have not yet properly responded to my above post. The section about reputable breeders who live in isolated, remote areas. I recently had a diabetic service trainer at my own kennel to get an older pup. She had just come from the mountains in XYZ state. She ooohed and aaahed to me about an isolated gorgeous mountain Labrador kennel with it's homelike feel, large acreage play areas, the dogs, the wonderful owner/breeder who many of us know. That breeder has almost NO ONE within 150-300 miles of her kennel. And yes, with careful interviewing and following up with references, including a veterinarian, that breeder ships most of the pups she does not keep for showing. Why should such a respectable, responsible breeder be subject to USDA inspection (also see my above comments on dealing with the USDA).

It's so easy to say,"Don't ship." But it's also unreasonable for some excellent breeders to do otherwise due to their location.

I'm afraid soon all of us, whether we ship or not, will have to deal with the USDA and it'll be a nightmare. I believe that this is just the first baby step towards much worse control and legislation. Read the AR forums and blogs, they're rejoicing and talking about the next step to eliminate breeding altogether.

I wonder who'll eventually be the mandatory reporter(s)? The government always gets the people to narc on the people. My CPA spouse recently found out at a conference that CPA's are the mandatory reporters for the new health care law. Your CPA now has to verify that you have health coverage before he/she signs personal or corporate returns. His/her CPA license is on the line.

Teachers, all medical personnel, etc. are mandatory reporters for even remotely possible child abuse, hence 30% of todays reports are invalid but the family's name goes on a central registry. As one Social worker said, "It's all about protecting your professional license, you rather inaccurately report an innocent family of a child with a broken arm with an unusual story like falling off the bed, than lose your license."

I can see a Veterinarian's license being on the line if they don't report owners who ask for a shipping certificate, or airlines being forced to report who is shipping, etc. The government will find someone who will be forced to inform, it eases their workload.

We will all have to go "underground" eventually. I suppose we will be ambushed by agriculture agents at shows and our dogs ripped from our hands and we will be thrown in jail. WIH is this United States becoming??? Tryanny!

To Agree: A drunk driver has the potential to kill, or seriously mame himself/herself and innocent people. Noone should drive drunk, or drug intoxicated. That's a fact. That cannot even begin to be equated with anti breeder legislation. Two different things. Ridiculous analogy.

Laugh if you like, I am professionally a mandatory reporter for child abuse with 2 various licensures/certifications. It's not a nice place to be. I've personally chosen not to report several situations, but talked seriously to parents instead, all turned out fine as I have been able to follow up over 20 years. Having your family name on a central registry for a lifetime because you've once been falsely reported for something like little kids unclothed in their kiddy pool (a true example), is no laughing matter. Don't think it won't enter the dog world.

There is no laughing here. I meant this as a serious statement. It IS what we will have to do. Dog showing may come to an end some day too. We are all becoming little minnions of the state.

This is all happening because 99% of us have never taken the time to object to these proposals through our government officials. We never think it will happen to "us." And now that this has passed, I bet that we still will not pay any attention nor take the time to write about this law or any future laws.

Did the LRC write an objection? Did your regional club write an objection? All of our clubs need legal advocates to guide us in these matters. A legal advocate can merely be someone who is genuinely interested in these kinds of goings on in Washington or if lucky enough a real lawyer who will advice and suggest.

I don't ship my puppies but I should have the right to.

Another Breeder wrote:"
I don't ship my puppies but I should have the right to."

That is a good point. If I were to own five intact adult bitches and then went to ship a pet puppy to my sibling for a pet, I would need the license, wouldn't I? I don't even know if a gift of a pup is allowable if it is shipped. That is just one of the ways this is wrong.

Well said. We should have the right to ship our puppies without having to get a special breeding license. We also need to become more proactive in fighting these laws. Here is a good opinion, written by an attorney who is fighting for us. We need to come together. The Animal Rights Groups are not going away.

"I don't speak for ALR in this post but am using this platform to make the following statement. I personally am not "anti-government". A government is a collection of citizens that do a job to further collective goals of a society and it is made up of fellow citizens. I don't think it’s a bad concept. I like that my food is relatively safe and I have roads I can drive on without requiring a trip to the auto mechanic every week and that when I call the fire department, they come. We keep blaming the government for the problems, we breeders are facing, but we need to look at ourselves. Those who have a different viewpoint from us are well organized and had a plan for promoting their agenda. We sat around so absorbed in obtaining our next champion and infighting over whether or not it is fair to compete with professional handlers, patting ourselves on the back because we thought we were better than that "other breeder" who breeds more litters than us, and angry with the AKC because they seemed to support commercial purebred dog breeders, we failed to form our own coalition with the very people who may have helped us do a better job lobbying and informing the public of our position. So, those people who were organized and increased their ranks, became a well-funded majority through propaganda and the promotion of their ideas. The government listened to the people. We are a much smaller minority of opinion right now. We need to be much better at getting our own message out instead of sitting around complaining that our government is listening to what appears to them as a majority of its citizens. It isn't the government we need to fight, it is the opposition who is competing with us for the ear of the law makers we need to focus on and challenge at every turn. Unless we are able to do that, we will be doomed to hand wringing and complaining. Sheila Kessler"

I wonder is this rule is retroactive. I shipped 3 puppies about 5 years ago but I haven't ship any dogs after that. Anyone care to clarify this?

Legislation like this should not be taken lightly. That said, some of you are just nuts.

You can still ship puppies if you choose. But you have the responsibility to get a license and raise the puppies in accordance with the law.

Rights and responsibilities? How does that work? Oh yes. They take away our rights and we become responsible for complying with the new restrictions.

My idea of responsibility is for all of us to wake up and start fighting the regulations with which the very proactive animal rights people are burdening us.

Check this to-the-point and informative blog on "Time 4 Dogs".

http://time4dogs.blogspot.com/

This blog is misleading. It doesn't have the correct facts.

Here are the facts involving dog breeders:

1.- The buyer, the seller and the animal must be all present at selling time to be considered a retail store, which are exempt from this ruling.
2.- Breeders with 4 or less breeding females in the property can sell sight unseen and they don't need a license. It doesn't matter how many you own or co-own.
If you have 5 or more breeding female and you ship all or some of your puppies you must get a USDA license.
There are some exceptions that apply to Working dogs.


Retail pet store
SUMMARY: We are revising the definition of retail pet store and related regulations in order to ensure that the definition of retail pet store in the regulations is consistent with the Animal Welfare Act (AWA), thereby bringing more pet animals sold at retail under the protection of the
AWA. Specifically, we are narrowing the definition of retail pet store to mean a place of business or residence at which the seller, buyer, and the animal available for sale are physically present so that every buyer may personally observe the animal prior to purchasing and/or taking
custody of that animal after purchase, and where only certain animals are sold or offered for sale, at retail, for use as pets. Retail pet stores are not required to be licensed and inspected under the AWA. In addition, we are removing the limitation on the source of gross income from the licensing exemption in the regulations for any person who does not sell or negotiate the sale of any wild or exotic animal, dog, or cat and who derives no more than $500 gross income from the sale of the animals other than wild or exotic animals, dogs, or cats during any calendar year. We are also increasing from three to four the number of breeding female dogs, cats, and/or small
exotic or wild mammals that a person may maintain on his or her premises and be exempt from the licensing and inspection requirements if he or she sells only the offspring of those animals born and raised on his or her premises, for pets or exhibition. This exemption applies regardless of whether those animals are sold at retail or wholesale. These actions are necessary so that all animals sold at retail for use as pets are monitored for their health and humane treatment.

Dealer Definition
We proposed to amend the definition of dealer in § 1.1 of the AWA regulations to mean:
“Any person who, in commerce, for compensation or profit, delivers for transportation, or transports, except as a carrier, buys, sells, or negotiates the purchase or sale of: Any dog or other animal whether alive or dead (including unborn animals, organs, limbs, blood, serum, or other parts) for research, teaching, testing, experimentation, exhibition, or for use as a pet, or any dog at the wholesale level for hunting, security, or breeding purposes. This term does not include: A retail pet store, as defined in this section; any retail outlet where dogs are sold for hunting, breeding, or security purposes; or any person who does not sell or negotiate the purchase or sale of any wild or exotic animal, dog, or cat and who derives no more than $500 gross income from the sale of the animals other than wild or exotic animals, dogs, or cats during any calendar year.”

How about needing to send a puppy to a relative, say a parent, after their dog has passed away. I would put it on a flight and visit later, but now, you can't do that.

How about sending a puppy to a FABULOUS family that had one of your previous breedings for 14 years and moved across the country? It is so much easier to ship them and easier on the puppy - a roomy kennel with water and chewies versus a tiny bag crammed under the seat.

You are telling me you make no exceptions to your rules on finding local families? Many reputable well cared for puppies are shipped across country all the time to the buyer that they know well, have known for many years, or referred from someone that has known them. These families make great homes and a lot of times better than the local ones that just want a dog to be raised in the back yard. A lot of the sales are 'internet' sales but not what you think.

I think most people are seeing 'internet' sales as a website with puppies 'for sale' that you can put in your cart - I know you've all seen them. This law isn't talking just about that, its talking about your hobby breeder website where you list your well thought out litter and your home raised puppies that someone calls or e-mail because they saw your puppies or dogs on your website. Oh wait, you can't have home raised puppies any more and the jonart box isn't good enough - your whelping room must have bleachable/hoseable walls and tile... and preferably include a drain. And your puppies must have a separate building from your adult dogs. Forget the hobby breeder raising puppies in the house.

They've clarify that if you have a few dogs and you have them in your house, it is OK, you can keep them like that and be licensed. If you have 50 dogs, then that is not a hobby, hence you should have a separate building.
In my opinion the bitches's number line should be something between 8-12.
They real affected breeders are the show breeders that live in the middle of nowhere and they must ship puppies because they live too far away from everybody.

I always follow the current rules and regulations and raise my puppies in accordance to my own impeccable "laws". I don't need any more.

I get confused when I read about this new law.

1-Is the number of breeding females "4 or more," or "more than 4?"
2-Is the requirement to have a license because you meet the number of breeding females AND sell a puppy sight unseen or because you ship a puppy sight unseen regardless of the number of breeding females you own?
3-Is it only puppies sold sight unseen that matter? What about older dogs?

I think I understand that the definition of breeding female has not been stated. The fact that I would not breed a female until they are 2 years old and have all clearances doesn't matter.

I think I understand that whether you own or co-own the females hasn't been differentiated, that it's whether or not they are on your property that matters -- whether you own them, co-own them or don't even own them at all. Is this correct?

Here it goes again:

1.- The buyer, the seller and the animal must be all present at selling time to be considered a retail store, which are exempt from this ruling.
2.- Breeders with 4 or less breeding females in the property can sell sight unseen and they don't need a license. It doesn't matter how many you own or co-own, what matters to USDA is how many dogs are in the property.
If you have 5 or more breeding female and you ship all or some of your puppies or even one you must get a USDA license and get subject to all the hell's fury.
There are some exceptions that apply to Working dogs.
There might be a loop hole for breeders that breed to perpetuate blood lines, which are all show breeders because what matters in the intention for the breeding and no the final destination of the puppies

Don't assume but I would imagine that it begins the day legislation does. You should be grandfathered on the past, prior to when or if it becomes law. I believe it is a proposal at the moment.

I don't fall into the categories in this proposal but I still don't like it. It's the beginning of more rights taken away from all Americans.

Who Obama chose is a joke, all AR individuals deliberately. Typical of him, more socialism and this is a form of it! I wonder what the breeders of his dogs think of it?

Would this include puppy families who fly to come *personally* pick up their puppy? I can't really choose what method of transportation *they* choose to take their puppy home. Car, train or flying back with pup as carry on.

Or what if the puppy was not sold? Like a pup given to another breeder?

Or What if it was a puppy I bred, but have to ship the puppy to *my* new home?

Just questions that I couldn't seem to find answers for.

These are not the everyday cases they are after. As they've said it many times, if you have an sporadic case that you might have to flight a pet that is not being sold, you should call and ask them. They would probably tell you that it'll be ok if it is only one time. I can't be sure this is true or if it will be honored, so please it is your responsibility to call them and ask.

A puppy buyer who comes and personally meets you does not cause this rule to engage. So puppy buyers who take their pup home on cargo or carry on would not put you, if you have more than four intact bitches, into needing a license.

As for the others, I, too, cannot see answers to your questions, including the gift pup to a relative. I sure as heck am not going to call up and ask, although I do not have five intact girls nor have I flown a pup sight unseen. I like low profile, and my dogs on a couch and rug if I want them there. If I had five girls intact, maybe I'd call--but that would only be the answer from ONE inspector. If I were going to put myself out there, I'd want the ruling in writing. That opens up other cans of worms, I am sure.

Too bad I wasn't a girly girl who took up knitting and dressmaking as a hobby. It would be a lot more clear cut. Meanwhile, I will preserve my little line.

I'll do the same. I don't ship a puppy without the puppy going home with the new owners. I have spayed and intact bitches, 2 of each.

If family wants a puppy, they can come get it or I won't gift to them and I have many times. This won't effect me but I feel for the smaller breeder it will. The problem is what's next especially with the current administration still in and how much will be left over next election? Write to the president, he appointed these people. I already have a few times. I don't even get a form letter back! Nice guy eh? He promised Change. Well here is more Change once again! It's not good Change is it?