Dear friends and supporters,

I am asking you to join in supporting a legal challenge to the unreasonable USDA/APHIS rule that takes effect November 18, 2013.

Associated Dog Clubs of New York State is an AKC Federation of Dog Clubs with 56 member clubs in New York State. ADCNYS is a legislative advocacy group, but is now embarking on litigation on behalf of pet breeders whose activities depend on the ability to maintain sound breeding programs and practices.

We are happy to let you know that we have surpassed our initial target of $10,000 to pay a retainer for filing the motion for injunction, and are continuing to build the war chest we will need to support further litigation after the motion has been heard. If you or your group have contributed - Thank You! If you have not donated yet, here is some information that may help in your decision. And please note that we refer just to "dogs" for brevity; our concerns include all pet species regulated by USDA.
Filing for the injunction is the first step, not the whole process. An injunction is a court order that requires a party to do (or refrain from doing) specific acts. In this case we seek to block implementation of the rule on November 18. The basis for seeking an injunction is that USDA did not follow all the procedures and meet the standards for rulemaking, and the rule will adversely impact thousands of pet breeders who are doing nothing wrong in caring for and selling pets. The case will be heard by a judge, not a jury.
An injunction may be granted if the plaintiffs can make a case that they will be irreparably harmed by implementation of the new regulation. Irreparable harm is generally that which cannot be remedied by money damages - you can surely think of many examples of irreparable harm from a regulation that prevents you from buying puppies you want and selling to others who want what you breed. The rule will restrict shipping, impact common breeding arrangements among fanciers, and require significant changes in caring for our dogs - IF we can provide the physical environment the regulations require. If not, our breeding programs will be profoundly altered by limitations needed to remain unlicensed.
When the motion for a temporary injunction is filed, USDA would have the burden of proving that irreparable harm would not occur if the rule is implemented. Based on their responses to various questions in the conference calls and last week's webinar, it seems very unlikely they would be able to do that. In this stage of the litigation, our full case relating the flaws in USDA's adoption of the rule will be presented to the court. USDA would also have to convince the court that its procedures met all the requirements set forth by law, and we believe we can show that they did not. The litigation stage of the case will be lengthy and exacting, and will take resources that can't be estimated at this point - but we know it will be long and costly, and donations will be needed far beyond the "seed money" that lets us file for the injunction.
Even if a temporary injunction is not granted, we can still proceed with the litigation to prove that USDA did not follow the process and meet the standards required to adopt this rule. If the court does not agree there would be irreparable harm with enforcement of the rule, it may agree that the procedure was flawed and the rule must be rescinded, and that is our ultimate goal. It is likely that USDA would begin again to adopt the same rule or a similar rule, but it would have to follow procedures and we would have more opportunity to educate the officials involved so they can develop a rule that does not affect thousands of hobby breeders.

As you can see, this will be an exacting process that requires extensive preparation. To be sure we are presenting a thorough and persuasive case to the court, we have decided to delay our filing for the injunction by several days, perhaps up to two weeks. This does not jeopardize our right to challenge the rule, and it allows us additional time to expand the list of plaintiff organizations. It's important to have a widespread and diverse group of plaintiffs to show the seriousness of the rule's impact.

That's the nutshell version of the legal process we are launching. Here are some facts responding to other questions we have been asked:

What's your track record with cases like this? ADCNYS has had successes fighting bad state and local legislation in New York. It has not pursued court actions like this one, because there has not been a case with these implications. There have been only a handful of lawsuits in the entire nation to block implementation of a bad law once the governing body has enacted it. It is far better to block it from implementation than to strike it from the books later. For many breeders, this rule would require changes that can never truly be undone.

What if we don't get the injunction? If the community of pet breeders is willing to have its full case made to the court, as shown by the groundswell of donations and plaintiff support, failing to get a temporary injunction is a setback but not the end of the case. If we file for the injunction, we have a chance of getting it. If we don't file, we have a 100% chance of letting USDA go forward with the rule. We would rather fight now while we have a chance to stop it, than do nothing before it goes into effect. There are still ways to challenge it later if the injunction isn't granted, but the longer APHIS has to implement it, the more damage will be done. Delaying a challenge will cost many breeders a great deal of money, and opportunities they can never recover in their breeding programs.

Who are the plaintiffs and what do they do during this process? Clubs that have signed on as plaintiffs are simply saying, formally, that they believe this rule will cause serious and lasting harm to their members' ability to engage in lawful activities such as dog and cat breeding, and shows. Plaintiffs may provide examples of these effects for our litigation team to present, but it is highly unlikely that any plaintiff members would have to appear in court.

Why do we need a lot of plaintiffs? Having multiple plaintiffs across the country shows this rule affects many people who participate in activities involving domestic animals. It is not a small, elite group of breeders - it is, in fact, all BUT a relative handful of fanciers who breed dogs, cats, rabbits, hamsters, and other small pet species (except birds and reptiles). We post donors' locations (not names of individuals) for the same reason - implementation of this rule will be a nationwide calamity. If we aren't able to permanently block the rule in court, we will ask Congress to intervene through its oversight and funding functions, and we will be able to show we have serious supporters in every state.

Can plaintiffs be targeted for retaliation? Can they be sued for participating? USDA would have no reason to select members of a plaintiff club for scrutiny. Citizens have a right to challenge government actions, and as long as the challenge is in the form of filing a lawsuit, the government does not retaliate.

ADCNYS and the plaintiff clubs are ready to go the distance to change this excessive and punitive regulation of pet breeders who are "doing it right." Every dollar you can help raise for the lawsuit is a step toward that goal. Donation details and plaintiff forms are on our web site. Regardless of what happens with the injunction itself, please consider further donations so that we may continue the suit.

Sincerely,
Wanda Allen
President, ADCNYS
http://www.keepourdomesticanimals.com/
hobbah1@hotmail.com

I personally don't think this is going to effect most reputible hobby breeders. I have read the debates on here and I get it but these rules are mostly going to effect large scale breeders, byb's, silver breeders and puppy mills the most. Some type of regulation is going to happen regardless and the more you push the harder the activists are going to push back and they are loaded with money. We could end up with something way more restrictive in the end. The wording of the original post is so oblique that it's obvious that it's meant to instill fear. I would much rather donate money to canine medical research. Just my opinion and not wishing to debate this further unless some new pertinent information comes to light.

This bill will affect anyone with 4 or more intact bitches. The law does not exclude puppies or retired bitches. I would say that affects a good portion of hobby breeders.

Really??!?! Anybody with more than 4 bitches (actually any specie females) is affected by this rule. Either because you have to get a license or because you won't be able to ship a puppy even if it is only 1 puppy every 10 years. This rule does not affect large puppy mills because those are already licensed.

With all due respect, you are clueless...

Yes really. I do not ship puppies, have never shipped a puppy and all the reputable hobby breeders that I know do not ship puppies. The silver breeder a few blocks from me ships almost all her of puppies though.

With all due respect, you are the one that's clueless if you believe what you wrote!

....and we'll be safe right? So since you are so ethical and so elitist in your thought, let me get this straight, no reputable breeder ships their puppies? Yup you truly are clueless.

Not only do reputable breeders ship, those who have rarer breeds ship to other breeders or show homes ALL the time. It's your clueless mentality and narrow view of the world that makes you think that because you are so wonderful and reputable that the rules won't hurt you. That's just wonderful, sweet, you are so exceptional. For the rest of us, we would prefer to keep our right to ship when "we" feel it is right for "us". These rules take that right away from us and force us to comply with regulations that aren't right for "us". But that's ok it *may* stop your silver breeder friend from shipping her puppies.........smh. Get a clue and mark my words, "It won't stop here". It will only stop when NO ONE is allowed to breed any more.

So true

I never said that a breeder that ships puppies isn't reputable, LOL. I said all of the reputable hobby breeders that I know don't ship. Actually I don't personally know any BYB's or the silver breeder. I have no problems with a breeder wanting to ship but I have no need to.

FWIW, Leader Dogs for the Blind will not ship a puppy to an out of state puppy raiser, they must pick them up and drive them back. They also drive some of their puppies several states away to a prison for inmates to raise.

It's just the way you come off, your mentality, your way of thinking. Just because *you* personally do not know of any reputable breeder who ships puppies, doesn't mean that *reputable* breeders can't or do not ship puppies. This is *your* closed/narrow minded way of thinking that is wrong. Reputable breeders can and do ship puppies from time to time. Obviously *you* thought shipping puppies is wrong and that NO reputable breeder you know would do such a thing or you wouldn't have bothered to respond.

I don't agree with silver breeders, doodle breeders or commercial breeders, but I do respect their right to breed as long as they take care of their dogs. In this day and age of very active Animal Rights Groups who work behind the scenes of the USDA and are instrumental in writing and infiltrating this organization to end all breeding, we cannot afford to dictate who can and can not breed dogs or even breed animals for that matter. Like it or not, we are in the fight of our lives to retain *our* rights to breed our dogs as *we* like and as *we* see fit. Trying to tell others how they should or shouldn't breed is not going to preserve *your* rights to breed.

I've said this once and I'll say it again, when I read through letter after letter to APHIS regarding these proposed rules, I had a hard time disguising between the animal rights supporters and breeders as they said they wanted to shut down those "blankety blank breeders" yet let *me* still breed. You must remember to those writing, presenting, supporting and lobbying for such laws, ALL breeders to them are those "blankety, blank" breeders and ALL breeders must be stopped!

I know reputable breeders ship and that's their prerogative, no one is telling them they can't ship anymore or breed. If I ever find myself in a position where I wanted to ship a puppy I wouldn't have a problem with following the proper procedure.

You want the right to breed as you like and as you see fit? How do I know you aren't like the silver breeder near me (on a lot, in town) that had over 70 dogs (includes 2 litters) IN HER HOUSE!

You have your opinion and I have mine and nobody can predict the future. Fear tactics are being used (similar to what animal activist groups do) to pressure all breeders to financially support a cause that will have little effect on the majority of breeders. This law addresses shipping not your right to breed.

Dear Nada, This law covers much more than shipping. As stated before, if you have 4 or more intact bitches (again, no distinction between older bitches that you are not breeding or puppies that you are running on), this law will affect you. It opens your home to be inspected by the USDA and having your home conform to guidelines that are impossible for the average home to meet. If you don't want to contribute money then don't, however, you are doing harm by stating your opinion as a fact regarding this law when you are quite wrong.

ANYTHING that restricts our rights, affects us all. I have said this before and it needs to be said again. Our rights are being chipped away little by little by little. This seemingly small inconvenience is but a tiny step in a grand plan to take away our rights. Unless we stop this now, more steps will follow.

This says it all.

No, this law doesn't affect me because I don't ship.

"It opens your home to be inspected by the USDA and having your home conform to guidelines that are impossible for the average home to meet."

Such as??? I'm a hobby breeder not a large scale breeder, my dogs live in my home. If I were to apply for a license, what guidelines specifically are you referring to that will be impossible for the average home to meet?

I respect your opinion and it's well stated but it's conjecture to presume that this is part of a grand plan to take away our rights. One must pick their battles and I will save my resources for something that's more intrusive to breeding. I don't want to be regulated either but irresponsible people shipping live animals has caused this change.

You can check out the AKC web site. All the information is listed there.

....under a rock if you haven't realized that the Animal Rights Extremists want to END ALL BREEDING *PERIOD*. The way they are going about this is to 1) vilify breeders by showing photos of dogs in substandard conditions. Whether or not they are from a bad breeder, hoarder or were staged doesn't matter. The public viewing the photos become emotional at the sight and they will say whatever it takes to turn the public against breeders. 2) introduce laws that make it more expensive and more restrictive to breed dogs.

Believe what you want, but those who fight these laws and work with others who are in the know, know the true agenda of the animal rights movement. It does include exterminating ALL breeders. Scapegoating other types of breeders, blaming the bad ones for these new laws is naive and just burying your head in the sand. Truly is clueless. To the people who are introducing these laws and pushing for more and more legislation do NOT make any distinction between different types of breeders. To them we are all the same, that substandard hate slur used against all breeders regardless of quantity or quality. Your holier than thou attitude means NOTHING to them. They just want you and everyone else to STOP. They will do everything in their power and whatever their money can buy. With millions in their war chest and the way they've turned the public against breeders, I say it's a fight WE can't afford to just sit back and wait until it affects *us*. Just because it doesn't affect you *now*, doesn't mean it won't affect you in the future.

Just remember, "First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out--
Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out--
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out--
Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me--and there was no one left to speak for me."~Martin Niemöller

Nada,

I see why you don't oppose to this rule. Here is why you should not like this rule:

- You must get a license if you keep in your property more than 4 female animals that are capable of breeding (That includes any intact bitches, cats, rabbits, hamsters, etc.)

AND

1 Ship at least 1 puppy ever. A lot of breeders do not ship, so that's why they think they are exempt from this rule, or
2 Sale at least 1 dog that was not born and raised in your property. Everybody has bought a puppy, or got a puppy as a stud fee payment or part of payment for another dog that didn't work out and decided to place it in a forever home, or
3 sale or buy any animal parts, they never mentioned it, but that might include semen.

If you meet any of these criteria, you fall into a commercial category and you must keep ALL your animals in a building that complies the USDA requirements:

Sterile-able floors and walls (that is tile, stainless steel, or vinyl; no bare concrete or wood, no bedding or dog houses. Everything must be completely sterile.
There is a criteria about space for each dog. Which is reasonable.
Separate room for pregnant females and puppies that meet the sterile criteria. The puppies must be kept in these sterile spaces with no bedding or toys or anything but the floor, walls and the food/water stainless steel plates. No more puppies in your living room or Kitchen.
You can't keep your pet dog in your home and the breeding dogs in the "commercial" building. All areas where the animals roam, must be washable and able to be disinfected with chlorine or hot steam. That includes your home if you want to keep dogs with you.

They can inspect your property unannounced any time they feel like it during business hours. If you are not home, you get a $$$ fine that will increase as you repeat until they revoke your license.

Record keeping is long and tedious. For example, every time you go for a walk, you must record it in a log. Every show, vet visit, family visits, must be in a log for every dog and kept for at least 1 year.

The list is long, but at the end you would have to choose between having a 100% commercial kennel or having pets in your home.

Do you care now???