This was in my e mail box this morning:

USDA has posted the proposed regulation change to
http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=APHIS-2011-0003-0001 .
Comments are due by July 16 and can be submitted via e-mail. Instructions
for submitting comments are near the top of the document.

In a nutshell, the proposal covers all breeders with more than 4 breeding
females who sell puppies to buyers who do not visit their facility or
residence at some point during the transaction. The intent is to add retail
kennels that sell over the Internet and through other advertising means to
the regulations that now cover wholesale kennels. The Federal Register
announcement includes the rationale for the proposal.

"Breeding female" is not defined in the law or the proposal but has been
interpreted to mean any intact female more than 4 months of age. Obviously,
this will affect show and performance dog breeders who may have several
intact females of various ages but breeds only one of those girls in a
particular year.

I like the idea that prospective buyers must visit the home of the breeder at some point. I encourage all puppy buyers visit me and I visited the breeders I bought my puppies from.

Of course, I'm a hobby breeder, not a commercial breeder or puppy mill.

Flame suit on: You are kidding yourself. Do be aware that to the ARISTAs behind this bill, anyone who breeds is a puppy mill. Even folks who only breed every few years.

I thoroughly interview families and all pups are seen before purchase BUT not all families visit my home. I have driven to the airport where family or service organization had flown in. We sit in the lobby while we talk and they play with pup, we show off basic obedience, etc. and eventually the financial end is completed. Last year I spent 2 hours at a pup family's home where I delivered pup while traveling elsewhere. We sat, asked and answered questions, gave advice, kids interacted with pup, I gave pointers, etc. The part about the purchaser visiting the breeder's "facility" is ridiculous as is the whole proposed rule!

My local county does inspection of our 4 dog kennel, they are reasonable as to their expectations and yet have caught and processed several unsuitable kennels. Why have the feds do for lots of oversight, interference and $$, which a county can do better and cheaper with less interference?

...write your concerns for this proposal. I know you want to believe that it won't affect you or that you are such a wonderful breeder that the USDA and APHIS will see things your way. I'm here to tell you, they won't. The ARist are pushing so much anti-breeding legislation that it won't matter how you breed. They are after all breeders. I won't reinforce the word they like to use to describe ALL breeders because it is just a derogatory, vigilante, hate slur that has no real definition and used against breeders of any size. The AR extremists use this to blanket across all breeders so please stop using the term. We need to stop bickering amongst ourselves and say one is better than the other because that is what they want us to do. They want us to follow under their description, stay divided and pick us off one by one.

If you really want to see just how much love these ARists have for breeders (and let me reiterate, they MAKE no distinction) please read the comments that these extremists have made in support of the new proposal. This will give you just a slice of how many people want to see us quit doing what we so dearly love to do: http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;dct=FR%2BPR%2BN%2BO%2BSR%2BPS;rpp=100;po=0;D=APHIS-2011-0003

Here is the AKC's statement and what you can do to help: http://www.akc.org/news/index.cfm?article_id=4656

These new proposals do not need to go through congress to get passed. It's already part of the AWA law. Once the proposal is finalized, it will be law.

A message to dog owners about protecting their traditions, avocations and livelihoods from anti-hunting, anti-breeding, animal guardianship advocates. Forwarding and cross posting, with attribution, encouraged.

Dear friends,

Historically retail sellers of dogs, cats, and small animal such as rabbits, guinea pigs, hamsters, gerbils, domestic ferrets, and others for use as pets have been considered part of the “retail pet store” exemption and therefore are not required to procure federal licensing. This week APHIS posted a Notice of Rule making to revise the retail pet store definition. According to APHIS, the purpose is to modernize the Animal Welfare Act (AWA) and allow federal oversight for pets being sold sight unseen via the Internet. The proposed rule will change the definition of retail pet store so that it limits the exemption to only business and residences where buyers physically enter to observe the animals available for sale as pets prior to purchasing them.

Basically the new rules present breeders with few choices: Sell all dogs, cats, and listed small animals only to buyers who physically enter your premises, reduce and maintain the number of breeding females to four (4) including co-ownerships and dogs, cats, etc. shared with family members; OR obtain a license under the Animal Welfare Act, build a federally compliant facility, and allow APHIS inspectors to inspect your homes and facilities.

Selling even one pet off premise via shipping, at a friend's home, at a show, at a park, will result in loss of an exemption from licensing, placing limitations on both buyers and sellers. The narrow limits of the exemption restrict the ability of hobby breeders to work together remotely, sharing dog/cats from litters in order to implement their breeding programs and/or increase diversity in their lines.

This is a proposed rule by an agency, not a law Congress will vote on. The comment period is only for 60 days and APHIS needs to hear how this affects you.

APHIS cannot make a realistic analysis without understanding the dynamics of conflict with existing state/local ordinances and potential impact to small scale breeders that will be created by revising the current exemption.

Attached is a transcript of the teleconference hosted by APHIS as the proposed rule was announced, which should help explain coverage and limitations presented in the proposed rule. Additional information is available at the APHIS website. http://www.aphis.usda.gov/

A brief analysis is posted at the SAOVA website.

DOCKET NO. APHIS-2011-0003 RETAIL PET STORES AND LICENSING EXEMPTIONS

APHIS is seeking comments on the proposed rule on how best to target enforcement and whether exemptions should be maintained or expanded for smaller breeders. The proposed rule does not seek to change current standards for traditional retail pet stores, which are subject to individual state regulations.

Comments are due July 16, 2012 11:59 PM ET and may be submitted by visiting the Federal eRulemaking Portal at www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=APHIS-2011-0003

http://tinyurl.com/7ey5vp3

Comments may also be mailed to: Docket No. APHIS-2011-0003, Regulatory Analysis and Development PPD APHIS, Station 3A-03.8, 4700 River Road Unit 118, Riverdale, MD, 20737-1238.

Please read the proposed rule carefully. We encourage cross posting of this message.

Susan Wolf

Sportsmen’s & Animal Owners’ Voting Alliance

Working to Identify and Elect Supportive Legislators

The message above was posted by the Sportsmen's and Animal Owners' Voting Alliance (SAOVA).

SAOVA is a nonpartisan volunteer group working to protect Americans from the legislative and political threats of radical animal rightists. It is the only national organization fighting this struggle for both sportsmen and animal owners, natural allies, in these arenas. Visit our website at http://saova.org for this program's goals, methodology and list signup details.

SAOVA
PO Box 612, Spencer NC 28159

just read some of these comments. This is what we are up against:
"This must be passed and enforced stringently."

"These proposed regulations do not go nearly far enough to protect the helpless animals that are exploited by people for profit. Millions of dogs and cats are euthanized in this country every year because there are not enough homes for all the animals being bred. These unwanted animals are neglected, abused, tortured and killed daily. We need Federal laws to protect these innocent companion animals as the states are unwilling to protect them. In 17 states, bestiality is not even a crime! How can we call ourselves an educated, civilized sociey while we allow this continue? We must set an example for the rest of the world. How can we tell the South Koreans not to eat dogs when we don't care for the ones we have? Please do EVERYTHING in your power to change this despicable situation in our country for the voiceless who cannot help themselves. The time for change is long overdue. Thank you."

"Five million animals are killed annually in shelters simply because there aren’t enough homes for them. Craigslist and the opportunity to place cheap ads in newspapers and on the internet make it too easy for breeders, especially backyard breeders, to make a ‘quick buck’ selling puppies, creating this costly pet-overpopulation problem. Any healthy animal euthanized, merely because of overcrowding, is a tragedy. Unfortunately, pitbulls suffer disproportionately as they account for the largest share of these unnecessary deaths, a phenomenon never before seen in any other breed. Breeders make a few hundred dollars off the puppies. When any unsold puppies become too old and too big, breeders dump them at the nearest shelter or in a field. Breeders continue to profit while taxpayers are footing the bill and animals are paying with their lives. THEY DON"T CHARGE SALES TAX AND THEY DON'T PAY INCOME TAX."

"i DO NOT AGREE WITH LIMITING THE DEFINITION OF RETAIL PET STORE TO A PHYSICAL BUILDING. ANYONE SELLING PETS OF ANY TYPE SHOULD BE INCLUDED IN GOVERNMENTAL OVERSIGHT. ADDITIONALLY I DISAGREE WITH INCREASING THE NUMBER OF BREEDING ANIMALS ALLOWED AT EACH FACILITY. THIS MEANS A PERSON OR STORE COULD HAVE IN THEIR POSSESSION AT ANY TIME UP TO 50 ANIMALS IF A PET COULD HAVE 12 PUPPIES EACH AND THEN INCLUDE THE BREEDING ANIMALS. tHERE IS NO WAY TO ENSURE THE PROPER CARE OF THAT MANY ANIMALS INCLUDING WHATEVER ELSE THEY MAY HAVE IN THEIR STOCK. WE NEED TO DECREASE THE NUMBER OF ANIMALS BEING BRED TO ENSURE BETTER CARE AND LIMITING THE NUMBER OF ANIMALS ENTERING INTO THE ALREADY OVERLOADED SYSTEMS OF ANIMAL RESCUES. WE ARE ALREADY EUTHANIZING SO MANY ANIMALS BECAUSE PEOPLE BUY AND THEN GET RID OF THESE "DISPOSABLE" CREATURES. WE NEED TO INCREASE RESPONSIBILTY OF THOSE SELLING AND BREEDING."

"insert some language of minimum age allowed for a companion animal to be bred, and then only to be bred twice, at least a year apart, then spayed or neutered"

"In regards to : Animal Welfare; Retail Pet Stores and Licensing Exemptions (Document ID APHIS-2011-0003-0001) Every retailer should be licensed and monitored on a regular basis checking to see if there are any signs of animal cruelty regardless of excuses or loopholes. On the other hand, cats and dogs shouldn't be breed to sell from retailers when there is a HUGE overpopulation of them in shelters and on the streets and in homes that are unsuitable for them... they all await rescue by humane workers/agencies/animal control/ shelters/etc. Increasing the number of animals to be breed will not help the animals in need or the overpopulation problem. Retailers should be working with local/state/national places to adopt animals in need of homes and not encouraged to breed animals for HUMAN profit! There should be a LAW that will help animals in need instead of the need that will help HUMANS and their greed! Thank you for listening."

"Yes, please close the loophole to ensure the safety and humane treatment of animals. Personally, I believe animals should not be bought and sold at all because of the many suffering in shelters destined to be euthanized. But closing this loophole is a positive step forward."

"I feel this would greatly reduce animal abuse, animal hoarding, puppy mills, and the number of animals that are euthanized. People should have to be more professional and responsible. I have worked with rescues my whole life and all we hear is "yea got this one from a friend for my child/wife/whoever and we just don't have the time" or whatever their excuse is, fact is they sell to anyone without any research. One particular organization I have worked with spays/nueters and gives all shots before adoption, visits the home to check for fences and shelter, and stays in contact with the home to ensure they're happy and if they aren't the rescue willingly takes them back. I have yet to see more than 5 pets be returned and the rescue receives cards and pictures of the pets and their families. If breeders would take that extra effort which if a non profit rescue can manage I know a breeder can at 300+ a head! I hope this passes I wish they would outlaw breeding all together but this would definitely help more animals from being homeless, abandoned, starved, abused, etc....."
"Listen, You Guys need to PUT A STOP TO TRAPPING AND POISONING AND WHAT EVER ELSE YOU ARE LETTING TO HAPPEN TO THESE POOR ANIMALS. THEY WERE PUT ON THIS EARTH TO LIVE AND BE LOVED. Not to be Destroyed by IDIOTS WHO THINK IT IS FUN TO DO. SOPLEASE HAVE A HEART, DON'T BE HEARTLESS. HOW WOULD YOU FEEL IF IT WAS OTHER WAY AROUND. YOU WOULDN'T LIKE IT IF IT WAS."

Lets not forget about the fact that many of us who sell a puppy or two with 6 or 7 clearances to a reputable show home, might HAVE to SHIP to their new home and there is no visitation due to long distance and trust in our Lab circles. Some of us live in States where the majority of puppy buyers are out of state due to our ruralness and people locally not understanding the quality of our Labs. Yet everyone knows and trusts us for great, healthy Labs. Visitation is not always an option.

I am having a hard time understanding this.

If you have four or more females and sell puppies on the internet do you need a USDA license?

How much is te USDA license?

Does this limit your breeding.

Do people still have to come to your house to buy a puppy?

Are they trying to stop internet sales?

And,, how in the heck is this going to stop the Pit Bull overpopulation.

Shouldn't this be better directed to giving the Counties more control with back yard breeders?

Thank you!

If you have four or more females and sell puppies on the internet do you need a USDA license? No if you have four or fewer breedable (no definition of "breedable" given) AND sell at least ONE puppy without the buyer coming to your home, you MUST be USDA licensed and inspected.

How much is te USDA license? Not sure what the fee is, but you must comply with their regulations, which means you cannot raise your puppies in the house. You must have certain sized kennels (3'x6'). If you do not pass the first inspection, you get 2 more and if after 90 days you do not comply, they can and will seize your dogs.

Does this limit your breeding. YES, those who do not wish to become USDA compliant will have to have no more than 4 bitches including those you co-own. You can not sell any puppies that are not born and raised on your property, including those you may accept as a stud puppy or those you may split with a co-owner. You can not ship any puppies to any one, including other breeders. If you have a rare breed, you will not be able to ship in other dogs to expand your gene pool.

Do people still have to come to your house to buy a puppy? If you are USDA compliant, no they will no longer have to come to your house. If you want to limit yourself to their exemption, everyone must come to your house. You can not meet a buyer offsite or you can not sell to a repeat buyer without them coming back to your house.

Are they trying to stop internet sales? I'm not sure what loophole they are trying to close, but most breeders, regardless of how they sell their puppies, are regulated in some form. For me my county requires a hobby breeder permit or you can get a commercial license if you want no limits. Either way you are inspected at least once a year. All fees stay in the county. Unless the government starts going around answering ads on the internet there really is still no way to regulate this.

And, how in the heck is this going to stop the Pit Bull overpopulation. This has nothing to do with breeds or pet overpopulation. It's all about restricting breeding and bringing in more revenue for the government all the while being nearly impossible to enforce.

Shouldn't this be better directed to giving the Counties more control with back yard breeders? Again, the use of a totally meaningless term. Please don't label breeders you don't personally know. But yes, the county Animal Control is the enforcing agency that should be overseeing all breeders.

Remember that all breeders who sell directly from their home at "retail" are considered "Retail Pet Stores." The USDA and AHPIS have had that label on us for 40 years. They decided that since we sold directly to the public that they would come to our home and see our dogs. If they didn't like what they saw, they would not buy from us. Now with the internet the public no longer sees the dogs and how they are raised. So rather than keep the blame on the public for caveat emptor (buyer beware), they say the blame is on all breeders. There are no hard facts or figures that suggest puppies purchased over the internet are any less healthy than those bought in other venues. The AR groups are all behind this, as I've posted, thinking that somehow this will stop breeders and stop the euthansias. Unfortunately the only breeders it will hurt are those like us.

Thank you so much for answering my questions in a calm kind manner.

What many of you who think that this sounds like a great idea do not seem to know is: also included in this bill and its wording is that, as a "retail" breeder, you will now have additional housing acquirements for your dogs.....and that CANNOT be your home! Even you "hobby" breeders with only one litter a year must have an approved and separate kennel area for your dogs! And with the new requirements regarding heating, cooling, space, and septic/sanitation rules, this means putting up a commercial type of kennel which will cost the avg. breeder over $15,000.00. Is this cost effective for you and your one litter a year?
While I would love to have a facility with in/out door runs with radiant heat, hot/high pressure hoses to clean, and climate controlled heat/air, I can't provide this for my dogs without housing them in my home, which will not be allowed under this bill.

I understand your delimma with housing though I don't understand why they would want a litter of puppies in the kennel. They get more socialazition and care until they are old enough to go to an outdoor kennel. I have also slept with the mom to make sure all the puppies are eating and she doen't lay on any.

We set our place up with very few dogs (Two breeding females, two co-owns) and converted our two car garage into an indoor outdoor kennel. The indoor kennels are 4'x8' and the outside at least double which opens to larger runs to giant runs and around the house. It has heat and air conditioning, water, fridge, freezer, a small living room I can sleep in (I am wondering if they would consider this in the house). We have never made any money as this has never been paid for by selling puppies. I am a hobby breeder also. I have no idea how this will impact us, but I am tired of people saying how nice their dogs have it and sit in a little wire kennel all day in the heat without shade. I've seen people post pictures of cement slabs with wire and all the dogs lined up just waiting for someone to notice they are alive and so happy to just get a little pat, with an umbrella for shade.
The dogs are the ones suffering and if you can't afford to treat them as members of the family or let them out at least once a day to play, you shouldn't have them.
I have purchased three kennel dogs over the years and they are afraid to come out of a kennel, afraid of people and don't have any social skills. They are full of love but only have the ability to share that love one on one. It is so sad.
I am really torn in half over this law. I think this is being put in place to stop the puppy mills and we may just have to bite the bullet if it does pass and either pay for the improvements or get out.
I make it a point to go to the shelters twice a year and it saddens me. Many dogs are there because their owners died. I wish I could bring them home and find homes for them. I cry when I leave.
If this law does shut some people down just maybe someone will rescue a dog before they are put to sleep.
I don't have a Flame suit but I am going out to hide under a rock now.

Unfortunately, this is more legislation that still won't punish those that it intends to punish!!

The commercial, sell a million puppies a year breeder has the cash to renovate his facility and purchase the necessary documents to shut these bureaucrats up!!

It's the "I'm in it for the good of the breed" breeders who will suffer. They don't have the cash flow to make themselves compliant.

So, once again, laws on the books are not used and so new laws are created.

Makes me sad, gonna go hug a Lab.......

First off I am stunned by the number of people who continue to take a sit back and wait attitude. Have we all been paying attention to the changes happening in the UK currently. Do we want to see those type of regulations and more coming to this side of the pond? Second, I do have to say that while I do not think it's necessary for all of the small scale breeders to be USDA licensed I will say the regulations are not as bad as people make them out to be and they have a wide girth of interpretation (yes you can still raise dogs and puppies in the house and have a USDA license). Third, as someone who visits all walks of breeders in my job I can say that I am a firm believer in some sort of inspection program for everyone! The worst kennels I visit are the ones who profess to being the best breeders.The USDA kennels I visit are sometimes the best facilities I see. I'm not saying by any means the government should tell us how to breed dogs but there should be a minimum standard of care, hygiene and health for all animals. Fourth, this is not just about AR this is also about MONEY! It has come to the attention of our government just how much money they are losing in tax dollars because breeders do not report puppy sales as income and most do not charge sales tax. This is not new - a USDA inspector told me this was coming 12 months ago. They have been watching internet sites for several years now. Pet finder and puppy finder advertisers will be the first they will go after. Other advertising sites will be next. If you don't currently charge/pay sales tax for puppies sold in state you had better start. And finally, (and I have said this more than once on other forums) when the bill that takes away our rights as breeders is written it will not say puppy mill, it will not say commercial breeder, it will not say hobby breeder, it will not say hunting dogs - it will simply say BREEDER. This will affect each and every one of us. And, every person who does not take a stand now and speak while they have the chance has no one to point a finger at to blame except themselves. PLEASE anyone who breeds dogs in the US take 5 minutes to voice your concern and send a message to your senator that you oppose this change of interpretation. Let's not let hindsight be 20/20 this time!

Here is a very BASIC overview of the inspection process. http://www.aphis.usda.gov/publications/animal_welfare/content/printable_version/fs_awinspect.pdf I said previously - there is a LOT of room for interpretation of the actual regulations. I have viewed kennels done so many different ways it would make your head spin!. And, I do know of a few who operate with 10-15 dogs and primary enclosure is in their house. But, do we really need or want USDA inspecting us all - NO! If you want to read the in depth regulations (which include the fee's) you can herehttp://www.aphis.usda.gov/animal_welfare/downloads/awr/awr.pdf

Thanks Liz - I'd like to comment but am having a hard time trying to figure out WHAT I need to comment about. Typically there are talking points put out by AKC and other organizations that help us figure out the pertinent points we need to make. Anyone have a good talking point link to share?

The National Animal Interest Alliance has posted "The USDA proposed rule and you" at http://www.naiaonline.org/articles/article/the-usda-proposed-rule-and-you

Along with background information about the AWA regs, the entry lists the points that NAIA will address in its comment letter, including

the definition of breeding bitch;
how the regulations would treat shared ownership interests in breeding bitches between parties living on separate premises;
how the consequences of these rules could prove fatal to the rarer breeds, where maintaining genetic diversity is so critically important;
practices, which under the proposed rule would cause a breed enthusiast to lose their exemption;
selling even one dog remotely, even to a repeat purchaser, even in a rare breed where consumers and breeders are separated by hundreds or thousands of miles.
selling even one puppy taken in lieu of a stud fee or from a co-owned breeding bitch (selling puppies not bred or raised on seller’s premises).


Links to the proposal and the portal for making comments are at the end of the article. Comments are not limited to those who breed dogs; those who prefer to buy purebreds from a show or performance dog breeder will be affected as well if they can't find a breeder for their next dog.

An interesting read:
HSUS, Elitists and APHIS….Which is Smarter?
This entry was posted on May 20, 2012, in Uncategorized and tagged APHIS Elitists HSUS, APHIS regs 2012 proposed. Bookmark the permalink. Leave a comment
First— Let’s admit a few facts. The dog breeders of the USA are fragmented into commercial kennel, hobby breeders, and what people call BYB or backyard breeding. Part of the so-called “hobby breeding” includes breeders that raise, breed and show dogs. These show dog breeders that spend lots of $$ on their dogs and in health testing costs are often elitist breeders. That is, they believe they are better than most, know more than most, and look down on those who don’t do what they do. Their dogs cost a great deal in part because they spent a lot on testing, showing, and likely more showing. Driving across the country, paying for hotels, paying for meals, costs, handlers, you name it. A not-so-cheap “hobby” that can easily cost $40,000 or even $95,000 per year.

The average dog owner family doesn’t usually care if their dog is a show dog. Only maybe 2% of all dogs are show dogs. So obviously most people don’t have or own one or even really want or need one. This brings us to the question of whether the elitist breeders that are often AKC breeders, some of whom will side with HSUS—- are really looking after their own interests? If in fact elitist breeders were really worried about the breeding of animals, one would think that they would support the breeding of animals even if they were not bred as “well” as the elitists think they breed animals. But of course that isn’t going to happen because fanciers cannot get on the same page in most cases.

Fanciers might not like HSUS and they might not like animal rights, but in general, they will not back commercial kennels for fear of being associated with them. Commercial kennels produce dogs for owners that want dogs, not pedigrees. This is not to say all of any type of dogs in commercial kennels are bad. This is not to say that all hobby bred dogs are great. We think that the dog’s pedigree might be important, but in general, a dog’s worth is usually shown by its temperament and health. A more expensive dog might have had parent dogs with expansive testing. A less expensive dog may have had no testing. But are there any studies that prove that show dogs that cost $5,000 have better health/temperament than some mutt which costs $100 or even $50? We bet there is no such study, and no proof.

Dogs that are doted upon generally have more training, but can be very spoiled. Designer dogs can be very cute. They may not have a great purebred pedigree. Do people really care? For the most part, no. They sell like hotcakes. HSUS wants to eliminate them because people want them and buy them. They are not killed in shelters. It has been stated that 80% of people looking for a dog in a shelter wants a female, young, small dog. Good luck with that. You need a commercial kennel dog.

The dogs killed in shelters are often mongrels with no ascertainable background and possibly no training. So the HSUS push against breeders should really be against the NON breeders— the mutts that people don’t want [did not plan or want to breed] but they end up having. That is not a difficult concept. Yet HSUS uses any dog breeder to simply turn the story around 360 degrees to make a ” p-mill marketing campaign.” We got news for ya–they don’t kill commercial kennel type dogs in shelters. Most commercial kennel dogs are small breeds that fetch great prices. They are not large, they are not 85lb, they are not black dogs, usually they are 10lb and are white fluffballs. Which is why HSUS loves to seize them, they can be resold so quick you won’t have time to think. Also, HSUS will seize pitbulls as well, but makes sure to KILL ALL OF THEM with the notion that they are all just inherently dangerous bad dogs that must perish. Never mind that HSUS uses M. Vick to try and push their pitbull program. HSUS could never have an actual pitbull program. After all, HSUS claims that DNA dog testing is 100% accurate, that is what was claimed in HSUS’ amicus brief re pitbulls in Denver.

While it’s nice to be able to tell specific breeds apart, for they were designed for specific purposes, if choosing a dog for a specific purpose then it’s probably a better idea to get the purebred breed. If one isn’t choosing for any particular purpose, then knowing the family, the time and space, energy and likes and dislikes of the family should be considered. If one is afraid of taking a rescued animal without knowing its background then simply do not get one. Go and buy a puppy from a purebred breeder who knows what he/she is doing.

Now that HSUS has gotten APHIS to bring a new regulation proposal forward, AWA PROPOSED APHIS we are again back to the old AR train of how can we again ruin the breeders, sellers, and buying and selling of dogs in general? Even if it did affect other species, it has always been about canines. Cats are almost an afterthought with HSUS since they can’t control cats very well except to call them feral and kill them. Or wipe them out in one swift euth takeout by claiming there is too much disease in a shelter.

If we had to say who was smarter? — APHIS (supposedly the government but in reality, heavily influenced by HSUS), HSUS or elitists– it would definitely NOT be the elitists because most [not all] are way behind the bus when it comes to knowing what is and what is not fundamentally wrong. Most Elitists put up little and no resistance to SB917, which HAS to be the biggest legal mistake in California, since it labeled selling a dog as a CRIME [under animal abuse] but NOT if one is a “non profit.” The insanity of that law is mind boggling.

There were about 5 groups including Pet Pac lobbyist, Cal Federation of Dog Clubs, and a few others that registered opposition. Where were all the other fancier groups? Nowhere to be found.

That one fact alone shows that many elitists think they are above the law. They think if they were accused of selling that they would be innocent. HAH! Just wait. IF APHIS and HSUS pass the regulation, and it ends up snagging Elitist breeders, ya know what? They will be spending money, AKC will be spending $, and the rest of the people will just keep buying regular plain dogs. Nothing fancy. Just a dog. Maybe even one from a pet store if they’re still legal…. (meaning if pet stores are still legal, and if selling dogs is still legal !)