"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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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/
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?
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.