# New USDA breeder requirements - no more than 4



## outwest

No one has mentioned the new regulatons that were approved last week having to do with breeders. Bottom line? Anyone with over 4 breeding females will need a USDA license. It seems to be upsetting many people. I am not sure exactly why. Maybe because it means inspection? Or, maybe because of the clause that the animals can not be sent sight unseen across the country?

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

FAQ:
http://www.aphis.usda.gov/publications/animal_welfare/2013/faq_retail_pets_final_rule.pdf

the details (91 pages)
http://www.aphis.usda.gov/newsroom/2013/09/pdf/pet_retail_docket_2011-2003.pdf


----------



## Tiny Poodles

I would be curious to know what the "minimum standards" that they require are, but I assume that most reputable breeders would exceed those standards, so I don't see what the problem is, other then adding more paperwork and some small licensing fees to their lives.
To me it seems like this is mostly aimed at greeders and mills, and that would be a good thing, no? I mean there are certain ones on the internet are infamous for complaints about their puppies, so with this, perhaps something can be done about them?


----------



## Angl

After attempting to read the 91 page PDF file, that might be part of the problem. After dealing with the government for over 30 years, whenever they try to fix something with more regulations- they just screw it up more. 


Sent from Petguide.com Free App


----------



## bigredpoodle

outwest said:


> No one has mentioned the new regulatons that were approved last week having to do with breeders. Bottom line? Anyone with over 4 breeding females will need a USDA license. It seems to be upsetting many people. I am not sure exactly why. Maybe because it means inspection? Or, maybe because of the clause that the animals can not be sent sight unseen across the country?
> 
> http://www.aphis.usda.gov/newsroom/2013/09/pdf/retail_pet_final_rule.pdf
> 
> FAQ:
> http://www.aphis.usda.gov/publications/animal_welfare/2013/faq_retail_pets_final_rule.pdf
> 
> the details (91 pages)
> http://www.aphis.usda.gov/newsroom/2013/09/pdf/pet_retail_docket_2011-2003.pdf


It is the level of government control that is upsetting ..


----------



## JudyD

I'd venture to say most everyone on this forum is appalled by puppy mill activities. I haven't read the regulations, but if they help stop that kind of "breeder" from abusing dogs, I'm all for it. (But, hey, I'm a liberal--what would you expect?  )


----------



## bigredpoodle

Angl said:


> After attempting to read the 91 page PDF file, that might be part of the problem. After dealing with the government for over 30 years, whenever they try to fix something with more regulations- they just screw it up more.
> 
> 
> Sent from Petguide.com Free App


YEP very true


----------



## Tiny Poodles

Angl said:


> After attempting to read the 91 page PDF file, that might be part of the problem. After dealing with the government for over 30 years, whenever they try to fix something with more regulations- they just screw it up more.
> 
> 
> Sent from Petguide.com Free App


The 91 pages is mostly them answering people's concerns and questions about the regulations - not the actual regulations.


Sent from Petguide.com Free App


----------



## patk

custom poodles has a notice on its website re the third party requirement in the case of shipping. breeders who already will not ship are going to do fine on that score. those who do ship will face some hurdles, mainly because their prospective buyers will face hurdles. 

this may cut down on some puppy mill stuff. on the other hand, "small" byb operations will flourish, i should think. let's see, now, 4 female standard poodles bred twice a year would be maybe 80 puppies a year? and your friendly byb is the only affordable place to purchase because of the cost to travel to pick up a puppy. oh, boy.


----------



## Carley's Mom

I did a "Happy Dance". I am for any law that makes it harder to breed more dogs of any breed.


----------



## Tiny Poodles

patk said:


> custom poodles has a notice on its website re the third party requirement in the case of shipping. breeders who already will not ship are going to do fine on that score. those who do ship will face some hurdles, mainly because their prospective buyers will face hurdles.
> 
> this may cut down on some puppy mill stuff. on the other hand, "small" byb operations will flourish, i should think. let's see, now, 4 female standard poodles bred twice a year would be maybe 80 puppies a year? and your friendly byb is the only affordable place to purchase because of the cost to travel to pick up a puppy. oh, boy.


It is three - 4 will subject them to the licensing, but you make a good point - in a large breed, your typical byb could still produce a lot of ill bread puppies - especially if they breed every heat.


Sent from Petguide.com Free App


----------



## Carley's Mom

Do you really think a byb could find 80 puppy buyers without shipping?


----------



## JudyD

I'm thinking of it as the glass half full--at least the giant puppy mills will have to shut down. I think many BYB truly do love their animals and do them less harm than the millers.


----------



## patk

Carley's Mom said:


> Do you really think a byb could find 80 puppy buyers without shipping?


i have no idea. and possibly other bybs would enter the marketplace, too, making it economically unfeasible to breed 80 dogs a year, though that would not mitigate the fact that they would still be bybs. (omg, 80 is such a horrible thought for the dogs involved.) i am actually in favor of trying to do something about puppy mills and even some "reputable" breeders who teeter on the edge of being puppy mills but somehow manage to dodge the stigma except among insiders who know they have way too many dogs or use their females like coke machines. it's just that there's always the law of unintended consequences out there waiting to bite us all. some of the better breeders could end up failing and some of the worst could end up thriving, despite all the best intentions behind the law.


----------



## spindledreams

4 or more breeding females (term not defined, the inspector decides what is a breeding female) AND selling puppies AS A PET to ANYONE who doesn't come to see the puppy in person or has an agent come see the puppy in person will have to get a license. 

The license requires all dogs be kept in manner consistent with the AWA rules and regulations. Said rules and regulations were written for Labs originally so they include some things that have most folks who raise their puppies in the house and underfoot along with all their other adult dogs concerned. 

You can find more information here  OH and this rule affects more then dogs. Cats, small exotic mammals and other species are included....


----------



## spindledreams

Um no they won't in fact this rule will not do anything at all to shut down or even slow down sales from the puppy factories as they are already licensed and inspected and keep their dogs in AWA conditions.... If any thing this rule will increase their sales since many/most responsible breeders will be re-evaluating their sales policies and will in many cases stop shipping pets to anyone.


----------



## Carley's Mom

I don't breed dogs. I don't know anything about this law. I just want puppy mills to end ! I know that people always find loop holes and find ways to do what they want to do ... I am happy that something is being done and they are trying to end the suffering of so many helpless animals. It will continue to come down to education. People do better when they know better. My first dog purchase was from a pet store ( I was 18 years old) and my 2nd a byb ( I was 22 years old) I did not know what I know today. The only other dog I have ever purchased has been Carley and she came from a great breeder that wanted to retire her to a great home. ( I was 50 years old)


----------



## Tiny Poodles

Carley's Mom said:


> Do you really think a byb could find 80 puppy buyers without shipping?


I think that with Craig's list maybe they could - have you ever seen them posting, getting flagged and then posting again all day and night?! I think that there are even services that will do that for them!


Sent from Petguide.com Free App


----------



## poodlecrazy51

Tiny Poodles said:


> It is three - 4 will subject them to the licensing, but you make a good point - in a large breed, your typical byb could still produce a lot of ill bread puppies - especially if they breed every heat.
> 
> 
> Sent from Petguide.com Free App


If I read the document correctly, This new regulation increases the number of breeding females from 3 to 4. It states, that a breeder of 4 or less breeding females will be exempt. I don't see how that is going in the right direction. I wish, any breeder ( even those with 1 or 2 breeding females) that ship puppies sight unseen, should be regulated. I have run across such a breeder, and found appalling living conditions for those 2 litters and their mommas. This breeder ships. She has to. Most people would walk away in disgust like we did. I wish we could get AKC to have some regulations. In AQHA, we are members and pay a fee to register our horses. We have a rule book, full of regulations. If regulations are broken, that person can be fined, put on probation, or kicked out, not allowed to show AQHA. These people are listed on a roster every month in the AQHA magazine. Any one of us can turn someone in. It must be in writing, be completely factual, substantiated, and you must give your name. I turned a trainer in once. AQHA flew a team out to her training facility and inspected her and the horse she was cheating me on. The vet involved was also inspected and almost lost his license. 
If I understand Breeder Of Merit, it is based on several criterion, but one really upsets me. It is based on the number of puppies, their buyers have registered their pup with AKC. So how does that distinquish a Breeder of Merit???? Pretty ridiculous. I would love to start a process to address these issues, of puppy milling, unethical breeders, too much sight unseen shipping going on, with AKC. Does anyone care to join me in my crusade to protect innocent puppies?


----------



## spindledreams

Sigh yes some features of the Breeder of Merit program may need tweaked in the world we currently live in but what frightens me and others is that this rule change is not just aimed at dogs. It was written to include a number of species used for pets such as cats, rabbits, "small exotic mammals" etc. 

The inspector has the right to determine how many of your dogs are "breeding females". There are NO rules or definitions covering what a breeding female is and one way to read the new rule says they can lump all females of all covered species in your house to make the 4+ number if they want. 

Loopholes um yes lots of them. A dog sold as breeding stock can be sold sight unseen. If I sell a poodle for hunting to someone sight unseen that is okay but if I send a poodle to a person for show that is not okay as dog shows are not exempt those dogs are still considered to be pets, same with an agility dog or an obedience dog. No one has asked yet if a dog sold or donated to be a service dog would be considered a working dog or a pet...

Since this rule change is not funded they will be relying on people to turn in breeders that are violating the rules. The more complaints the sooner they will inspect them. How difficult will it be for folks whose agenda is to make domestic animals extinct to file false complaints over and over again on a breeder? All they have to do is look up a breeders website and go from there... 

In other species we have been seeing deliberate raids made when they know the breeder is at work or out of town but with someone tending their stock. In most cases they start altering the animals as soon as they get their hands on them and paint the breeder as an abusive owner or a hoarder. Hundred of animals have been removed from their owners in this manner. What is even more frustrating is that these animals are then "adopted" for $100 or more for a single animal... while invaluable genes have been lost in breeds that are struggling for survival. 

Am I concerned where this could lead yes, have I been fighting with others to get them to make reasonable rules that will close all the loopholes yes, am I scared, frustrated and angry yes. I feel that my right to chose who and where I buy my pets from is being infringed with deliberate intention to limit and eventually remove my right to have a pet or show animal of any species. 

*Did you know that there are people trying to say that horses are pets and if they get that through any horse breeders will then fall under these rules.... *


----------



## CharismaticMillie

Haven't read all of the pages - but just popping in to clarify that licensure isn't necessary for any amount of bitches as long as not one single puppy is sold sight unseen.


----------



## outwest

In the FAQ section they did say you can keep the mama's and babies in the house. A lot of people were originally against it because they thought they had to be outside in kennels, which would make no sense. The idea behind it is that the puppies sold are healthy- disease free. They weren't thinking about the mental health of the puppies as much. They tweeked the law a bit since it was first announced. I still don't see the issue with the law. When you have loads of dogs and puppies you do need to keep things clean and disease free or else it can whip like wildfire throughout all the dogs. 

I wonder.....could Skype count for seeing the puppy before it is shipped??


----------



## Tiny Poodles

outwest said:


> In the FAQ section they did say you can keep the mama's and babies in the house. A lot of people were originally against it because they thought they had to be outside in kennels, which would make no sense. The idea behind it is that the puppies sold are healthy- disease free. They weren't thinking about the mental health of the puppies as much. They tweeked the law a bit since it was first announced. I still don't see the issue with the law. When you have loads of dogs and puppies you do need to keep things clean and disease free or else it can whip like wildfire throughout all the dogs.
> 
> I wonder.....could Skype count for seeing the puppy before it is shipped??


I think that they said that it has to be in person.
Really think though it should be if they ALLOW the buyer to come in person ( indicating that they have nothing to hide) while still giving the buyer the option not to. 


Sent from Petguide.com Free App


----------



## PoodlePaws

I was looking through Craigslist the other day for a bigger crate, and ran across 2 ads for spoos for $300. I was mortified. Those poor babies. They were beautiful ouppies, bit No telling what the background is and for certain no health testing. Cannot stand byb's. 


Sent from Petguide.com Free App


----------



## NOLA Standards

Seems that as long as a law is presented in a way to create warm fuzzies (_we are shutting down the big bad millers_) people will swallow it and think it a good thing.

I strongly beg to differ.

This updated regulation is typical govt garbage and doubletalk that benefits exactly those who it claims to crack down on.

BUT...it was hugged and pushed and marketed by HSUS and even ASPCA so the majority of animal lovers think it is a GOOD. THING.

Again, I beg to differ.

There will be many fanciers who will no longer breed because they will not (and they should not be asked to) meet USDA requirements. 

Fabulous Female - titled - product of careful breeding - fully tested -much loved - bred to the absolute best male the owner could find in any country - produces a litter raised underfoot and treated like gold.

*One* pup shipped out of state - EVEN to a person the breeder has been talking to since the breeding was PLANNED (in CM's case she's had a breeding planned over a year now) - photos - videos - DO NOT MATTER

Subjects that breeder to USDA requirements.

That, my esteemed animal lovers - is utter BS :****: 

It does not prohibit, slow down or hinder in anyway the mass farming of puppies.

INSTEAD, it causes a GREAT BREEDER to not breed again. It potentially damages the breed as a whole.

*But the medicine went down nicely, because they told you it would stop a puppy mill.*
Most of those are already USDA licensed.


Tabatha
NOLA Standards


----------



## NOLA Standards

Here ya go.

A nice USDA licensed breeder for ya'll.

Look at the photo....

I'd call that a PUPPY MILL

But what do I know....


----------



## patk

beginning to sound as though the puppy millers were behind this to drive out the competition, doesn't it? i don't think that was the intent of may, but that may be where it goes.


----------



## outwest

If shipping puppies unseen is the issue, wouldn't the picture posted of the mill also have to comply with that clause? I don't see the big deal with a license. If someone doesn't want to pay the small amount needed for a license, then do they have something to hide? CM doesn't have more than 4 breeding females and doesn't need to have a license, so she could ship a puppy, right? Maybe I am missing something.


----------



## spindledreams

Sigh that is the thing they are already complying. They are a USDA licensed, inspected kennel which can sell as many pets as they want to sight unseen to people they don't know and will probably never communicate with past the delivery of the puppy. 

On the other hand say you are head over heels in love with your puppy and wish another one from the breeder you have had a long term relationship with. You have moved and now need the new puppy shipped to you. Your breeder friend has 4 females in her house. One she will breed for your puppy, 2 are under the age of two and have not been tested. One is retired but has not been spayed yet for health reasons. Last month she could have shipped your puppy to you. After January if she ships your puppy to you without you or your agent physically seeing/handling that puppy she will need to be licensed and be inspected and now keep her dogs in a manner that is unappealing to those of us who have house pets we happen to show. So this long time friend who would love to send you another of her puppies to raise and love will tell you sorry it is not possible under the new rules. Where are you going to go for that next family member?


----------



## sulamk

Carley's Mom said:


> I did a "Happy Dance". I am for any law that makes it harder to breed more dogs of any breed.


What will happen when no animals of any description are bred! When the last dog etc. becomes extinct!


----------



## spindledreams

Actually it is not the "small" license fee that is bothering folks it is the regulations and other problems that will come with it. Read this article then stop and think how you would handle the changes 'getting a license" would mean to you, how would it affect you and how you now live.
http://saova.org/news/APHIS/Living.with.USDA.Licensing.pdf


----------



## CharismaticMillie

The thing is, a USDA licensed facility isn't such a high standard to have. :/


----------



## bigredpoodle

APHIS-USDA 2013 ANIMAL WELFARE ACT

USDA - APHIS - Animal Welfare - Animal Care

This is just th beginning folks.. It is not aimed at mills It is aimed at the hobby breeder, middle class America.. The government is looking for way to garner more taxes...Plain and simple


----------



## murphys

I am still reading up on this before I decide but I'm leaning toward not liking this. I do have concerns. First of all, I don't trust the goverment to do anything correctly when it comes to money in their pocket. Secondly, most people save for years for that wanted puppy. Now you are told you not only have to save for the puppy, but for the travel expenses involved with picking it up and oh by the way, be on a waiting list for months or years. Will most people do that or will they go to the BYB or doodle breeder the next town over? 

Oh yes, what about the breeder who co-owns dogs with other people. Does that bring them over the limit of breeding animals?

For me, I would travel to meet the breeder. But not all have that option. If you know people who recommend a certain breeder, have passed their criteria and they yours, I don't see the issue with shipping the puppy. Maybe I'm missing something. 

I've read the information on the AKC.org page and they have some valid concerns. So far, I don't see where this really affects the majority of BYB's or puppy mills. What am I missing?


----------



## bigredpoodle

It does not affect the high volume as they are already licensed and inspected, and we have seen the result. this goes after the middle class person that is doing things right.. It is simply a way to make money and control something that has never been controlled.. The figures they quote are way off.. I do ask for folks to come and get their baby, but I do understand that not everyone can.. So yes you are correct it will force this puppy buyer back to the newspaper...To the byb to the pet store in their neighborhood..Exactly the opposite of the intent .. This will force the small breeder out of business...many are already throwing in the towel..Personally I DO NOT want my dogs in stainless steel kennel runs ..UGH ! I want them in my house with me ..


----------



## JudyD

I still don't understand how the high-volume breeders can ship or sell without the buyer/broker seeing the pups, while a small breeder can't.


----------



## outwest

Right, I think the new law effects them all. The no shipping without seeing the puppy effects the already licensed, too.


----------



## spindledreams

JudyD said:


> I still don't understand how the high-volume breeders can ship or sell without the buyer/broker seeing the pups, while a small breeder can't.


Because they are already licensed and inspected. This rule change will have NO effect on how they operate. 

The ones that will be affected are the hobby breeders that currently raise puppies in the house and underfoot. Exposed to carpeting, tile, vinyl and hardwood floors, soft furniture and other pets. Many of the things we now consider important for the proper emotional and social development of puppies are actually forbidden under the AWA standards.


----------



## spindledreams

outwest said:


> Right, I think the new law effects them all. The no shipping without seeing the puppy effects the already licensed, too.


Actually no the rule change has no effect on how a licensed and inspected kennel operates. Since they already fulfill the requirement to be licensed and inspected they are allowed to ship puppies they have sold as pets with no changes in how they operate. Despite what the some folks are saying this rule change will have no impact on how the puppy factories operate.


----------



## Marciemae

*Frustrating*

I rarely post, but this new law is ridiculous and although I'm not a breeder and I don't know as much about this as most of you do, I feel the need to reply.

My standard and miniature poodles were purchased sight unseen (had pictures and a lot of communication with breeders by email and phone calls). I live in Colorado and got my standard from Washington state and my mini from Idaho. They come from health tested parents, AKC champion lines, and are both excellent representations of the breed. I am extremely pleased with my "kids". My mini boy's sire is an AKC grand champion. I wouldn't have been able to purchase them if the new law had been in effect.

The National Mill Dog Rescue (National Mill Dog Rescue) is located about an hour from me. They do amazing work! I've watched many videos of puppy mills on their site. They are heartbreaking to watch, but I force myself to view them because they are proof of the deplorable conditions. THOSE PUPPY MILLS ARE LICENSED! 

It's my understanding that many, if not most puppy mill dogs are purchased by pet shops. It's also my understanding that many of those puppies sold by pet shops end up in shelters.

I believe that the AKC could help put an end to those mills if they refused to register those puppies. Sadly, I think that the average uninformed buyer tends to think that the "papers" are the utmost proof of having a great pup.

Sorry to be so long winded, but this new law is very upsetting and it really accomplishes nothing other than to hurt the honest, reputable breeders.


----------



## NOLA Standards

Am finding it hard to comprehend the lack of comprehension. :alberteinstein:

USDA licensed mills - can ship sight unseen. They have their license.

This potentially devastates the small breeders who give it their heart and soul to get it right.

MoveOn Petitions - USDA : ASPCA VIOLATES DOG BREEDERS RIGHTS


Tabatha
NOLA Standards


----------



## Tiny Poodles

NOLA Standards said:


> Am finding it hard to comprehend the lack of comprehension. :alberteinstein:
> 
> USDA licensed mills - can ship sight unseen. They have their license.
> 
> This potentially devastates the small breeders who give it their heart and soul to get it right.
> 
> MoveOn Petitions - USDA : ASPCA VIOLATES DOG BREEDERS RIGHTS
> 
> 
> Tabatha
> NOLA Standards


Devastates? I do not understand how breeders are taking this as " how do I circumvent this - OMG I can't - I'm finished". For a couple of extra bucks and some paperwork, they can keep doing exactly what they have always been doing.
Sure, they will now be subject to inspection ( but likely only if there are complaints from buyers) and minimum care requirements - but these are inspections that they should already be able to pass with ease.
The biggest problem that I saw reading it is that they will issue all of the dos ID tags, and some people do not feel that wearing collars with tags indoors is the safest thing - dogs can get caught to one another or other things and hurt themselves.


Sent from Petguide.com Free App


----------



## ArreauStandardPoodle

NOLA is 100% correct. This regulation will not affect the millers and large commercial operations AT ALL! Not one iota, because they are already licensed. This is going to kill small hobby breeders- the ones who are doing everything possible to breed and rear litters the RIGHT way. Karin Benker of Karbit Poodles is already offering some of her breeding dogs for sale. This is going to kill any hope of new bloodlines and diversity, because breeders are not prepared to spay fourteen year old bitches and risk death to them to keep their numbers at four or less. And just so you understand how ridiculous this regulation is...it does not mean four breeding bitches of a specific breed. It means FOUR intact females of any age, of any species. So if you own an intact female cat, and an intact female dwarf rabbit, and an intact female gerbil, now you are allowed ONE intact female dog. Any more, and you have to be licensed.

And CM does not have four breeding bitches-but it does not matter. If she sells so much as ONE puppy and ships it sight unseen, NOW she has to be licensed.


----------



## ArreauStandardPoodle

This regulation also outlines how a USDA licensed operation must be run. Puppies and mothers have to be is a separate area or building that can be washed down with disifectant and a pressure washer with drains in the floor. It must be impervious to water. Concrete and stainless steel- no blankets, no dog beds, no toys. The pups must be secluded from all other dogs except their mother from two weeks of age until placed. There must be three sheets of info filled out per puppy, per day, and a complete list of when the area has been disinfected and when they have been fed, vetted, etc. They can insist and in most cases will, that all grass be removed from areas where the pups will be. Concrete only, as it can be fully disinfected.

The pups who grow up in this environment are going to be under socialized nut cases who have no idea how to interact with other dogs. But in ten years when the results begin to affect everyone, it will be too late. PETA and HSUS will have won, because the species will be so entirely messed up, that nobody will want to own a dog. And THAT folks, is their ultimate goal!


----------



## Tiny Poodles

I am thinking that the best effect it will have is on the greeders who are selling directly to the public, such as teascuppoodle.com or wizard of ( what is it paws or claws?)
and they do say that it is 4 females capable of breeding, so I really doubt that would include a 14 year old in the four.
My question still remains - what is the big deal if they have to pay a couple of hundred extra bucks a year, do some paperwork and are now subject to minimal care requirements? Sure, it is another annoying thing to have to deal with, but hardly a reason to give up doing something that you love and have a passion for!


Sent from Petguide.com Free App


----------



## ArreauStandardPoodle

Tiny Poodles said:


> I am thinking that the best effect it will have is on the greeders who are selling directly to the public, such as teascuppoodle.com or wizard of ( what is it paws or claws?)
> and they do say that it is 4 females capable of breeding, so I really doubt that would include a 14 year old in the four.
> My question still remains - what is the big deal if they have to pay a couple of hundred extra bucks a year, do some paperwork and are now subject to minimal care requirements? Sure, it is another annoying thing to have to deal with, but hardly a reason to give up doing something that you love and have a passion for!
> 
> 
> Sent from Petguide.com Free App


If your 14 year old bitch is intact, she would count as one breeding female. And it is not only a couple of hundred dollars a year. The license will cost money, a building which suits their demands is about $50,000. And is this the kind of environment you want a pup raised in? Like NOLA, my mind is boggled at how any dog lover can think this is a good thing.


----------



## patk

gotta ask for a rewind here. are puppy mills already licensed under the law grandfathered so that they don't have to meet any of the requirements of this new law? or are they already operating their mills per the concrete floor/separated from their dams after two weeks standards? this sounds to me like a bunch of well-intentioned folks got outfoxed again by a powerful farm belt lobby. (not meaning to insult anyone, but the farm belt is where a lot of puppy mills operate; and i think that is because there is already an attitude among many about what animals are for and where they stand in our society.)

are there any provisions for breeders already licensed by the state in which they reside? 

and where was the akc in all of this?


----------



## ArreauStandardPoodle

patk said:


> gotta ask for a rewind here. are puppy mills already licensed under the law grandfathered so that they don't have to meet any of the requirements of this new law? or are they already operating their mills per the concrete floor/separated from their dams after two weeks standards? this sounds to me like a bunch of well-intentioned folks got outfoxed again by a powerful farm belt lobby. (not meaning to insult anyone, but the farm belt is where a lot of puppy mills operate; and i think that is because there is already an attitude among many about what animals are for and where they stand in our society.)
> 
> are there any provisions for breeders already licensed by the state in which they reside?
> 
> and where was the akc in all of this?


They are already licensed. The people who have outfoxed them are PETA and HSUS, who alreacdy think animals should live free, not be pets, not be crated. PETA is the same group who has gone to dog shows and opened cratges to release dogs, and who have poisoned dogs at shows and circus animals, because better a dead anikmal that one who does not live free.

What do you want to bet, that if this is accepted, onced they are aware of all the small breeders and have them all corralled, that in a couple of years they will then go after the millers and commercial operations, so eventually there will be no way to purchase a pet anywhere in the US.

This regulation does not at this point affect me in the slightest, being Canadian, unless I wish to ship a puppy from a breeder in the US. BUT, I sit here and watch this going down and know so many people who are going to be finished in breeding, which could hurt me one day. If I had the facilities and the manpower, I'd take some of these wonderful, diverse dogs which will be lost forever to help people out, but sadly, I do not. And who knows...Canada could be PETA's next target!


----------



## poodlecrazy51

spindledreams said:


> Sigh that is the thing they are already complying. They are a USDA licensed, inspected kennel which can sell as many pets as they want to sight unseen to people they don't know and will probably never communicate with past the delivery of the puppy.
> 
> On the other hand say you are head over heels in love with your puppy and wish another one from the breeder you have had a long term relationship with. You have moved and now need the new puppy shipped to you. Your breeder friend has 4 females in her house. One she will breed for your puppy, 2 are under the age of two and have not been tested. One is retired but has not been spayed yet for health reasons. Last month she could have shipped your puppy to you. After January if she ships your puppy to you without you or your agent physically seeing/handling that puppy she will need to be licensed and be inspected and now keep her dogs in a manner that is unappealing to those of us who have house pets we happen to show. So this long time friend who would love to send you another of her puppies to raise and love will tell you sorry it is not possible under the new rules. Where are you going to go for that next family member?


If she has 4 females, she is exempt. And the FAQ section does address what constitutes a breeding female. Not one too old, too ill, too young. So the breeder you describe is exempt. I do see your point. Just your scenario is not quite correct. I do think, that somehow, can we check up on the groups that want to ban all pets to see if they are behind this? Isnt it some anacronym...PETA, maybe? Is that who I am thinking of? I think we can do something about getting this regulation addressing the real issues. Sounds like we can send in our concerns. This doesn't really do what we all agree on, limiting/banning the selling of poorly breed dogs by less than ethical people that are producing puppies without any care for their well-being, or the problems the pet buyer/owner would face trying to house and vet those puppies. And I think, though puppy millers have existed for quite a while, before the internet, The internet sales has made it a booming business. And why is it sounding to me like they are being protected, in a way? ugh. Then there is the monitoring and managing of this regulation. Money should be spent educating people, say the teenagers coming out of high school/college, starting their own home and family. They are the next puppy buyers. Lets take our CGC dogs into the schools and give a demo of what a good dog is like, what it takes to have one, red flags to avoid when buying one, etc.....I will be starting a group locally, that will go into elementary schools and hopefully high schools, to do this. Getting to the route of the problem will better solve it, than the government trying to put a bandaid on the wrong boo-boo. Or missing the boo-boo altogether. What about petitions to the government agency enacting this, with this strategy. Take their manpower and funds into the schools to educate. What is that saying. Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach him how to fish and you give him food for his lifetime????


----------



## patk

ArreauStandardPoodle said:


> They are already licensed. The people who have outfoxed them are PETA and HSUS, who alreacdy think animals should live free, not be pets, not be crated. PETA is the same group who has gone to dog shows and opened cratges to release dogs, and who have poisoned dogs at shows and circus animals, because better a dead anikmal that one who does not live free.


wouldn't peta be out there attacking puppy mills, including opening crates? my suspicion, knowing the way our congress works, is that this bill may have gained traction partly because of peta, the humane society and some other (self-proclaimed) animal rights organizations, but the farm lobby managed to insert a clause grandfathering already existing operations. that left everyone else as the target but missed the main target, the puppy millers. the really sad bottom line is that in addition to the puppy millers, the bybs of the worst kind will also thrive. first of all, they are the most likely to ignore the law and as many are under the radar, that will be easy for them to do. there would have to be massive resources available for usda, which is already unable to do its job, to do rigorous enforcement. 

well peta is hopeless, but akc should be out there talking to the humane society about the inhumane breeding conditions written into the bill and now associated with their name. a bunch of signatures from breeders just won't be that effective. i would say you need a coalition of some of the name dog experts (including cesar millan, because, like it or not, he has clout - enough clout that jean donaldson and the sf humane society backed off on their attack on him - and he has a big following - the kind of thing elected officials pay attention to), akc, veterinary organizations, etc., to create some serious opposition. i'd also check out every member of congress who has a dog from a reputable breeder (assuming there are some) and have that breeder help with approaching the congress person on the issue.

but folks need to understand that the farm lobby will do everything it can to protect the puppy mills. those are constituents and they bring income into the state.


----------



## Tiny Poodles

ArreauStandardPoodle said:


> If your 14 year old bitch is intact, she would count as one breeding female. And it is not only a couple of hundred dollars a year. The license will cost money, a building which suits their demands is about $50,000. And is this the kind of environment you want a pup raised in? Like NOLA, my mind is boggled at how any dog lover can think this is a good thing.


Sorry, but that is just not what I read - it said that the inspector will decide if the intact female Is considered capable of breeding, and it is pretty unlikely that they would consider a 14 year old to be such.
The license fees are minimal, and where did you get the idea that you would have to build a 5o thousand dollar building? It clearly says that it is fine if the dogs live freely in the home or are kenneled in the home as long as they have the minimal space to move - and if one has so many dogs in their home that they do not have as much space as a dog in a research lab, I think it is a good thing if an official body comes in and tells you that is not ok!


Sent from Petguide.com Free App


----------



## Tiny Poodles

ArreauStandardPoodle said:


> This regulation also outlines how a USDA licensed operation must be run. Puppies and mothers have to be is a separate area or building that can be washed down with disifectant and a pressure washer with drains in the floor. It must be impervious to water. Concrete and stainless steel- no blankets, no dog beds, no toys. The pups must be secluded from all other dogs except their mother from two weeks of age until placed. There must be three sheets of info filled out per puppy, per day, and a complete list of when the area has been disinfected and when they have been fed, vetted, etc. They can insist and in most cases will, that all grass be removed from areas where the pups will be. Concrete only, as it can be fully disinfected.
> 
> The pups who grow up in this environment are going to be under socialized nut cases who have no idea how to interact with other dogs. But in ten years when the results begin to affect everyone, it will be too late. PETA and HSUS will have won, because the species will be so entirely messed up, that nobody will want to own a dog. And THAT folks, is their ultimate goal!


Where does it say that? What I read was that it is perfectly fine for them to have free run of the home.


Sent from Petguide.com Free App


----------



## poodlecrazy51

Am I not comprehending what I am reading on this regulation? So many are saying that the pet stores and puppy millers are already licensed and exempt. That is not what I am reading. It states that the traditional, "brick and mortar" store is exempt, because they sell their animals to people coming into their store, thus public oversight. It then goes on to say, that if animals are being sold on the internet, without public oversight, then, they will be under scrutiny. Does anyone read it like this? They seem to be trying to control internet selling of animals, shipping sight unseen, which, I personally feel is a good thing. If you are buying a 2nd animal from a breeder you trust, there will probably be a legal way for you to have an agent inspect the animal for you, then you can ship. That is one scenario that doesn't seem fair. Making all sight unseen sales be scrutinized, when, many times, it is perfectly fine to do so...good breeder you know and trust...etc. I loved the ideas about the congress members pitching in, and vets, and famous trainers.


----------



## ArreauStandardPoodle

Tiny Poodles said:


> Where does it say that? What I read was that it is perfectly fine for them to have free run of the home.
> 
> 
> Sent from Petguide.com Free App


It does say that. It also says "if the environment is deemed safe". Which means when they come to inspect, your happy, healthy, well socialized litter might be taken away if the inspector does not happen to like the pups playing on grass, or playing with your other pets. Or their toys. Or laying on clean carpet.


----------



## Tiny Poodles

ArreauStandardPoodle said:


> It does say that. It also says "if the environment is deemed safe". Which means when they come to inspect, your happy, healthy, well socialized litter might be taken away if the inspector does not happen to like the pups playing on grass, or playing with your other pets. Or their toys. Or laying on clean carpet.


I hope that is just your fear talking - I don't see where it says that - you really think that this is about taking clean happy healthy well cared for litters from responsible breeders? That would be devastating, but I am just not convinced that this is what is happening...


Sent from Petguide.com Free App


----------



## bigredpoodle

murphys said:


> I am still reading up on this before I decide but I'm leaning toward not liking this. I do have concerns. First of all, I don't trust the goverment to do anything correctly when it comes to money in their pocket. Secondly, most people save for years for that wanted puppy. Now you are told you not only have to save for the puppy, but for the travel expenses involved with picking it up and oh by the way, be on a waiting list for months or years. Will most people do that or will they go to the BYB or doodle breeder the next town over?
> 
> Oh yes, what about the breeder who co-owns dogs with other people. Does that bring them over the limit of breeding animals?
> 
> For me, I would travel to meet the breeder. But not all have that option. If you know people who recommend a certain breeder, have passed their criteria and they yours, I don't see the issue with shipping the puppy. Maybe I'm missing something.
> 
> I've read the information on the AKC.org page and they have some valid concerns. So far, I don't see where this really affects the majority of BYB's or puppy mills. What am I missing?





Tiny Poodles said:


> I hope that is just your fear talking - I don't see where it says that - you really think that this is about taking clean happy healthy well cared for litters from responsible breeders? That would be devastating, but I am just not convinced that this is what is happening...
> 
> 
> Sent from Petguide.com Free App


That is a little drastic ! I am not getting this from this either, but then this does not really affect me either. Thanks be to god I do face to face transaction, and have less than 5 bitches.. But what will be next , we should not be lulled into a false sense of security .. This is extremely invasive .....


----------



## JudyD

So if the mills can ship because they have a license, then if smaller breeders get a license, can't they ship as well?


----------



## JudyD

ArreauStandardPoodle said:


> This regulation also outlines how a USDA licensed operation must be run. Puppies and mothers have to be is a separate area or building that can be washed down with disifectant and a pressure washer with drains in the floor. It must be impervious to water. Concrete and stainless steel- no blankets, no dog beds, no toys. The pups must be secluded from all other dogs except their mother from two weeks of age until placed. There must be three sheets of info filled out per puppy, per day, and a complete list of when the area has been disinfected and when they have been fed, vetted, etc. They can insist and in most cases will, that all grass be removed from areas where the pups will be. Concrete only, as it can be fully disinfected.
> 
> The pups who grow up in this environment are going to be under socialized nut cases who have no idea how to interact with other dogs. But in ten years when the results begin to affect everyone, it will be too late. PETA and HSUS will have won, because the species will be so entirely messed up, that nobody will want to own a dog. And THAT folks, is their ultimate goal!


Are you saying that the commercial breeders are doing all of this already? Surely you can't mean that the mills aren't required to meet the same standards, just because they're already licensed?


----------



## bigredpoodle

Every licenced kennel will have to meet the requirements ,and yes if you become licensed you will be able to ship.. the issue is that the mills have been licensed and we can all see the conditions that the dogs were allowed to live in .. So this means that they have done nothing thus far... So what I am understanding is now they want to take it into the home .. Inspect the home and have everyone keep their dogs in the same conditions that we have been seeing .. Would you want to buy a dog like that ? 
These pictures of horror were USDA licensed facilities..AKC inspected.. They want to do away with the middle class period.. They want to tax us to death .. It is all about money .. PETA and HSUS have won ! We have lost.. We have allowed this to happen , AKC did not speak up for us ... Now we are frantically trying to find a way to make sure that the home based breeder is not going to have to quit ..We will become extinct


----------



## spindledreams

Lets see this so wonderful bill *WILL NOT* affect puppy factories. Most are already licensed and inspected by the USDA. All those horrid photos you see are of regularly inspected kennels. These folks will continue to be able to ship puppies as pets to folks they have never met. Many greeders have already got their license and are already inspected. They do not live in residential areas where commercial enterprises are forbidden. 

Many, many breeders who are trying to do it right live in areas where commercial enterprises are forbidden. If they get a license they will have to move as they are now a commercial enterprise. Yep they can have the dogs in the house IF they are in a restricted area that is water proof and can be sanitized on a regular basis. Puppies and moms must have a separate area from any other adults. Puppies are not allowed to interact with adults other then their mom at any time before they leave for new homes. 

You are right however if all their puppies are sold locally to pet homes then there are no changes. If the only puppies they ship sight unseen by the buyer are sold as breeding stock there is no change. 

The big change will be for the PET BUYER. They will no longer be allowed to develop a long distance relationship with a breeder and have them ship a puppy to them sight unseen. The pet buyer will become limited to local breeders ONLY unless they wish to deal with a puppy factory or greeder. Or of course if they are rich enough to travel to see the puppies before they bring them home. This means if you are yearning for a rare breed or rare color for a pet you may never be able to get a well bred puppy from health tested parents. You chances of getting a well loved, healthy, happy, socialized puppy of any breed/color unless bred locally will be greatly diminished.


----------



## patk

JudyD said:


> Are you saying that the commercial breeders are doing all of this already? Surely you can't mean that the mills aren't required to meet the same standards, just because they're already licensed?


after grappling with the links provided by outwest at the very beginning of this thread, i think the key here is "retail pet store" regulation. a lot of the puppy millers are not retailers, they are wholesalers to the pet stores. i think they fall under different regulations. from the press release:

_APHIS already regulates the commercial sale of pet animals on the wholesale side to ensure that animals bred at wholesale facilities are receiving humane care and treatment._

so this revision of the "retail pet store" regulations is mainly directed at internet pet sellers, but obviously the devil is in the details and it will affect more than just the worst of the worst.


----------



## NOLA Standards

*Sorry, but that is just not what I read - it said that the inspector will decide if the intact female Is considered capable of breeding, and it is pretty unlikely that they would consider a 14 year old to be such.*

Tiny Poodle,

It would be GREAT - Fabulous even if what you "thought" would also be what the Govt Inspector thought.

However, since I have read the transcripts of multiple conference calls - it turns out what you "think" is not the case.

If it were/had been, then the many requests for APHIS to directly address the definition of a qualified breeding female, would have occurred. Wouldn't you *THINK*?

But it was not to be.

You might find it interesting to read some of those transcripts, objectively written concerns and questions and then realize they were almost completely ignored in favor of the black and white "inspector's discretion".

Now... maybe it is because I am from Louisiana.... and well....we have such a fabulous history of corruption in govt - but I am a tad concerned when a former HSUS attorney is now an APHIS employee and in charge of leading the charge. :ahhhhh:

Just call me jaded.

And, you'll have to forgive me for not hanging my breeding hopes on what you THINK the USDA inspector will THINK of what I have invested my heart and soul into.

Respectfully, 

Tabatha
NOLA Standards


PS And this was really not ment as a direct attack at you. 
I personally, have a problem with uneducated and yet to be hired Inspectors inspecting that which they know nothing about. I REALLY have a problem with HSUS Volunteers Inspecting. I will probably make the news if a HSUS Volunteer Inspector ever shows up at my house to "Inspect" me, so stay tuned. With the way our rights are being taken it could happen. Hopefully, I will still have the "right to an attorney..." :scream:


----------



## ArreauStandardPoodle

Maybe the reason the breeders "get it" while others are having difficulty grasping this, is because messages have been circulating on FB and on various groups that the breeders are privy to, but most pet owners are not. I have read all the transcripts as well, and the language this regulation is written in is purposely vague, so it is going to mean some people will have a false sense of security. Just wait until the inspectors knock on the door! And until their dogs are yanked out from under them. What this is going to do to purebred dog breeding is going to be heartbreaking, to say the very least. And this is not my fear talking. This regulation will not affect me, the way I sell my puppies or the puppies I import or export. But it is going to deeply affect MANY breeders whose dogs I have admired for many years. I know lots who are packing it in now. What happens to those bloodlines?


----------



## hunny518

patk said:


> i am actually in favor of trying to do something about puppy mills and even some "reputable" breeders who teeter on the edge of being puppy mills but somehow manage to dodge the stigma except among insiders who know they have way too many dogs or use their females like coke machines.


I'm sorry but the last line here made me giggle. I had a vision of female spoos walking around with random coke bottles shooting out of them.. Lol




Sent from Petguide.com Free App


----------



## outwest

I laughed at the coke machine, too.  But, it isn't really funny because I do think there are people who do this.

If you have more than four breeding females I believe you should be licensed. Five is a lot of puppy disease potential and a whole lot of work to care properly for them. Four breeding females still allows a lot of puppies. 

I am still working out this shipping thing. If the licensed places are allowed to ship (like the photo NOLA showed) then someone with 5 or more girls in their home who is licensed would also be allowed to ship. If you have 5 or more, you should have a way to sterilize and clean surfaces. I don't read anywhere that you can't have them living in the house, on carpet or anything like that. If you have that many dogs, I would hope you got rid of the carpet anyway! Can you imagine a carpeted house with that many dogs? Yikes.


----------



## patk

has anyone seen a policy statement on all of this by the pca?


----------



## ArreauStandardPoodle

spindledreams said:


> Lets see this so wonderful bill *WILL NOT* affect puppy factories. Most are already licensed and inspected by the USDA. All those horrid photos you see are of regularly inspected kennels. These folks will continue to be able to ship puppies as pets to folks they have never met. Many greeders have already got their license and are already inspected. They do not live in residential areas where commercial enterprises are forbidden.
> 
> Many, many breeders who are trying to do it right live in areas where commercial enterprises are forbidden. If they get a license they will have to move as they are now a commercial enterprise. Yep they can have the dogs in the house IF they are in a restricted area that is water proof and can be sanitized on a regular basis. Puppies and moms must have a separate area from any other adults. Puppies are not allowed to interact with adults other then their mom at any time before they leave for new homes.
> 
> You are right however if all their puppies are sold locally to pet homes then there are no changes. If the only puppies they ship sight unseen by the buyer are sold as breeding stock there is no change.
> 
> The big change will be for the PET BUYER. They will no longer be allowed to develop a long distance relationship with a breeder and have them ship a puppy to them sight unseen. The pet buyer will become limited to local breeders ONLY unless they wish to deal with a puppy factory or greeder. Or of course if they are rich enough to travel to see the puppies before they bring them home. This means if you are yearning for a rare breed or rare color for a pet you may never be able to get a well bred puppy from health tested parents. You chances of getting a well loved, healthy, happy, socialized puppy of any breed/color unless bred locally will be greatly diminished.


spindledreams...AMEN! Your post is spot on!


----------



## patk

outwest said:


> I laughed at the coke machine, too.  But, it isn't really funny because I do think there are people who do this.
> 
> If you have more than four breeding females I believe you should be licensed. Five is a lot of puppy disease potential and a whole lot of work to care properly for them. Four breeding females still allows a lot of puppies.
> 
> I am still working out this shipping thing. If the licensed places are allowed to ship (like the photo NOLA showed) then someone with 5 or more girls in their home who is licensed would also be allowed to ship. If you have 5 or more, you should have a way to sterilize and clean surfaces. I don't read anywhere that you can't have them living in the house, on carpet or anything like that. If you have that many dogs, I would hope you got rid of the carpet anyway! Can you imagine a carpeted house with that many dogs? Yikes.


the already licensed wholesale enterprises are viewed differently because, i assume, they are shipping to retailers who are then assumed to be dealing face to face with buyers. retailers are also regulated. the issue is, who is a retailer. i think the new regs change the definition, supposedly as a method of trying to get internet retail, no personal viewing by the buyer of the puppy first, transactions under control. some of the wholesalers apparently were unhappy with raising the limit on home or hobby breeder exemptions to four dogs instead of three. i guess they already knew what i figured out - could be as many as 80 dogs a year from a ruthless "hobby" breeder and cut into their similarly run business. but the bottom line is that some of the better breeders could still be hurt by this. it's not the licensing, i suspect, that's causing real angst. it's the amorphousness of the enforcement parameters. we've all dealt with that one little clerk so taken by his/her authority to screw you over that can't be resisted. in an office environment, you can usually appeal to someone who is hopefully a little more experienced and flexible. out in the field with an inspector with a clerk's mentality, yup, i know why people are already envisioning nightmare scenarios.


----------



## Tiny Poodles

NOLA Standards said:


> *Sorry, but that is just not what I read - it said that the inspector will decide if the intact female Is considered capable of breeding, and it is pretty unlikely that they would consider a 14 year old to be such.*
> 
> Tiny Poodle,
> 
> It would be GREAT - Fabulous even if what you "thought" would also be what the Govt Inspector thought.
> 
> However, since I have read the transcripts of multiple conference calls - it turns out what you "think" is not the case.
> 
> If it were/had been, then the many requests for APHIS to directly address the definition of a qualified breeding female, would have occurred. Wouldn't you *THINK*?
> 
> But it was not to be.
> 
> You might find it interesting to read some of those transcripts, objectively written concerns and questions and then realize they were almost completely ignored in favor of the black and white "inspector's discretion".
> 
> Now... maybe it is because I am from Louisiana.... and well....we have such a fabulous history of corruption in govt - but I am a tad concerned when a former HSUS attorney is now an APHIS employee and in charge of leading the charge. :ahhhhh:
> 
> Just call me jaded.
> 
> And, you'll have to forgive me for not hanging my breeding hopes on what you THINK the USDA inspector will THINK of what I have invested my heart and soul into.
> 
> Respectfully,
> 
> Tabatha
> NOLA Standards
> 
> 
> PS And this was really not ment as a direct attack at you.
> I personally, have a problem with uneducated and yet to be hired Inspectors inspecting that which they know nothing about. I REALLY have a problem with HSUS Volunteers Inspecting. I will probably make the news if a HSUS Volunteer Inspector ever shows up at my house to "Inspect" me, so stay tuned. With the way our rights are being taken it could happen. Hopefully, I will still have the "right to an attorney..." :scream:


Thank you, I understand more clearly what your concern is.


Sent from Petguide.com Free App


----------



## Tiny Poodles

ArreauStandardPoodle said:


> spindledreams...AMEN! Your post is spot on!


Wait - so does that mean if they sell the puppy sight unseen with breeder rights, they are exempt? That is not good!


Sent from Petguide.com Free App


----------



## outwest

In my opinion, if you have five or more breeding females you are more than a hobby breeder and should be licensed. However warm and fuzzy it is, it is a business at that point. For a standard poodle you are talking a potential of dozens of puppies a year at, say, $2K a pop that is - well, you can add it up. At 1K a year you are still in the 20K-30K range with small litters once a year. To me, that is a business.
Businesses are not bad. 

If you have nothing to hide, it shouldn't be an issue. You can ship your puppies, so that point is moot. If you have four or fewer, you can ship your puppies. The only ones I see an issue with are those that have way more dogs than they should for the size of the property or facilities. If you live somewhere that doesn't allow licensed kennels in the city and you've been hiding in the shadows then you shouldn't be there anyway. 

I guess i am in the minority, but with the changes from 3 to 4 females (I did think four should be okay) and the clarification that they are allowed in the house and carpet, I like the law. The inspectors are not devils. They are inspecting for the welfare of the puppies and animals. These are not bad people. They will be able to tell a loving breeders home from a factory. Why do some of you think they won't?


----------



## AngelsMommy

Let me start off by saying, I do not have a dog in the hunt or a horse in the race. I do not breed dogs and I do not intend to breed dogs or have a pet store etc. But I am a dog lover and I want to keep a well bred healthy purebred companion dog in my life for the rest of my life.

It is not only the nightmare aspect that is bothering the small breeder. 

The rules as I read them require the equivalent of going from your homes kitchen to require a factory style kitchen if you want to fix your family food. A regular stove would not be enough, you have to have commercial one. Think of the difference between your kitchen and a restaurant kitchen. These are not cheap or easy changes, and for some they would be impossible. 

The rules are about Laboratory standards. And that means that the breeder needs have all surfaces that the animals come in contact with be impervious to moisture and the temperature always controlled and have commercial sewers and permits and a whole list of other rules that I for one think is not needful to raise a healthy happy puppy that is social and ready to be a part of your family. Poodles are people dogs not ones that would be good with being separated by cages and walls and surrounded by tile and concrete. 

It means they cannot be with their adult male parent, that is against the rules. They cannot be in the same building or at least room as any adult that is not their dam. So it is all about isolation for disease and not about raising animals that enjoy being with humans. They will require standard pens and housing. Think more of the look of a shelter and not what you want your breeders home to look like. 

I feel that there is an agenda here that is hidden. I am not sure if it is money based as in wanting the tax money or if there is an deeper hidden agenda that wants animals unavailable in toto.

I too want the puppy mills that are abusing the dogs all closed. 

I LOVE MY ANIMALS!!! And I want the best for them! 

I just question that these rules qualify. I think the only reason so many think they are great is they think they would CLOSE ALL OF THE PUPPY MILLS! BUT THEY WON'T!!

I would love it if all dogs could have a healthy, happy life with wonderful owners. That there could be an end to shelters everywhere because all dogs and cats had great forever homes. 

But I feel that these rules are not the way to make it happen. They are a misguided at best attempt to fix problem breeders. You know, the ones that do not follow the rules now and most likely won't care about the new ones either. But the potential loss of DNA from great breeders walking away from any breed saddens me. Because once lost it is gone forever.

I hope that I am wrong about this, but I am fearful that this is just the beginning.


----------



## outwest

Well, I still think the law is okay. I know there will be some gliches, but it isn't that strict.


----------



## patk

outwest said:


> Well, I still think the law is okay. I know there will be some gliches, but it isn't that strict.


i think it could be okay, but we're not there yet. it will depend very much on how it is administered.


----------



## NOLA Standards

It will be "Administered" with the Great Lack of Competency with which our Govt Manages all its Endeavors. I have Faith! (It's currently not researched, funded or clearly defined. Yeah, it's off to a _GREAT_ start. smh)

That there are people who honestly think Bureaucracy is a good thing. :afraid:

I'm going to need a bit of time to process that......


----------



## spindledreams

Tiny Poodles said:


> Wait - so does that mean if they sell the puppy sight unseen with breeder rights, they are exempt? That is not good!
> 
> 
> Sent from Petguide.com Free App



Yes it sure does. Breeding stock, stock sold for hunting, or working is exempt from the face to face rule. Uhoh do I see another loophole? Sigh responsible breeders are not going to lie and say every puppy sold sight unseen is for breeding or "preservation of the bloodline" what ever that means. No they are going to record that the pet puppies were sold with a neuter/spay agreement. 

One problem with the rule is the fact it is not just being applied to dogs. No far from it. This rule also applies to cats, rabbits, guinea pigs, "small exotic mammals commonly kept as pets" and yep horses if some folks have their way. This is one reason for the vagueness or so they say but how difficult is it to list dogs breeding age is 6 months to 7 years, cats breeding age is 5 months to 5 years, etc etc? This would make many of us who have females heave a great sigh of relief especially if we have multiple species at our place. As it stands right now the inspectors decide what makes a female a breeding female. If they firmly believe in pediatric spay and neuter they are likely to call any thing over the age of 6 weeks a female capable of being bred...


----------



## spindledreams

poodlecrazy51 said:


> I do think, that somehow, can we check up on the groups that want to ban all pets to see if they are behind this? Isnt it some anacronym...PETA, maybe? Is that who I am thinking of? I think we can do something about getting this regulation addressing the real issues. Sounds like we can send in our concerns. This doesn't really do what we all agree on, limiting/banning the selling of poorly breed dogs by less than ethical people that are producing puppies without any care for their well-being, or the problems the pet buyer/owner would face trying to house and vet those puppies?


HSUS and the ASPCA are strong supporters of this rule change and are selling it to folks who really care as a step toward ending factory farming of puppies. PETA is also touting it as a step towards ending factory farming of puppies and a step toward eliminating all domestic animals...

And despite what others may think I am aware that AKC, UKC, ARBA, CFA, ACFA and many other small animal registries in the US have been pushing for revisions to the rule change as originally published for over a year. So have many thousands of breeders and pet owners. We have actually asked for clarification and changes repeatedly. For many of us the big change we asked for was a definition of "breeding female" and a clearer description of how they would count them in a multi species household. After a year of haggling there are exactly THREE minor changes in the finial bill. They included sales of stock "for the preservation of a bloodline" they now allow an agent of the buyer to come look at the animal and for the sake of personal safety you may now meet them at a prearranged location instead of having to allow every stranger that wants to look at and possibly buy one of your animals into your private residence. 

When pushed for changes we were repeatedly told by the USDA "don't worry we can make changes after it takes effect". 

Also despite what many are being told this rule change will have no effect on the number of animals in our shelters as many are already IMPORTING puppies from outside our nation to "adopt" to folks that have been taught that purebreds are bad and shelter dogs are good. Save a life adopt right? But if you are adopting imported strays whose life are you saving? And to make matters worse these puppies are now being BRED to be sold to Americans. They are not off the street rescues. 

stepping down off my soapbox now


----------



## roulette

The regulation itself is so vague and poorly written, and leaves too much to the "inspector's" discretion. Also, just wondering.. why in the HECK does it revolve around the # of breeding females?? Standard Poodle litters are usually 6-11 pups.. what about the breeders whose breeds only produce 2 pups per litter.. they are shut out completely! Let's see.. say 6 pups produced per year, and they have to pay a 750-1000 licensing fee every year? Those home breeders of those breeds are doomed. 

Also, by designating one's home a retail store.. does this mean that one's HOME is open to unannounced inspection (as a public space)? I'm with NOLA on this one.. my property is PRIVATE property.. no-one gets in without my permission or a warrant.

What drives the reason for an unannounced inspection? An anonymous call from a competitor or vigilante-type Animals Rights enthusiast? If you ever want to see how this situation can go south in a hurry.. just google last year's seizure of Johnny Angel's whippets in Canada. Apparently, some pet owner's whose pets were being boarded at his facility are STILL without return of their pets. Not to mention his subsequent legal fees to regain ownership of his own dogs...

I LOVE the idea of "agents" to substitute for a face to face transaction.. but why not Skype?? Shoot, Dr's use it to treat patients.. for years Judges have used off site real-time video to sentence defendants..

Which all points to the REAL reason it is written as it has been... not to regulate, but to eliminate.

Rant over. for now.


----------



## spindledreams

roulette said:


> Also, by designating one's home a retail store.. does this mean that one's HOME is open to unannounced inspection (as a public space)?
> 
> What drives the reason for an unannounced inspection? An anonymous call from a competitor or vigilante-type Animals Rights enthusiast?
> .




Yes once licensed you must be ready for unannounced drop in inspections 24/7 365 days a year. If you or a person designated on your license are not available when they drop in then you will receive a violation. After x number of violations you will be fined...

Yes anonymous reports or complaints will trigger an inspection. 

In other species the groups have monitored your movements for weeks and even months and will pick a time you are at work or out of town to lead a raid to "rescue" your animals. Many times they will already have new homes waiting for them. You will be painted as an abusive owner, hoarder or the media will be told that you abandoned your animals EVEN if they find someone there caring for them. Your "rescued" animals will be housed in shelters that will beg for donations to cover the cost of their care while they charge you for boarding them while your case is in limbo waiting for a hearing. When you are so deep in debt that you can no longer afford to pay the boarding fees the animals will be shipped all over the US where they will be "adopetd" for fees of $100 or more PLUS the rescue group will be begging for donations for their care and transport which is all being done by volunteers. One recent raid actually brought in over $30,000 just in adoption fees for the animals. This does not include what they raised in donations to help the poor abused animals who were among the best in their breed....


----------



## roulette

ASPCA VIOLATES DOG BREEDERS, by Frank Losey, J.D. The Dog’s Attorney


----------



## spindledreams

By the way if you think this rule change is scary look up the PUPS bill....


----------



## bigredpoodle

spindledreams said:


> HSUS and the ASPCA are strong supporters of this rule change and are selling it to folks who really care as a step toward ending factory farming of puppies. PETA is also touting it as a step towards ending factory farming of puppies and a step toward eliminating all domestic animals...
> 
> And despite what others may think I am aware that AKC, UKC, ARBA, CFA, ACFA and many other small animal registries in the US have been pushing for revisions to the rule change as originally published for over a year. So have many thousands of breeders and pet owners. We have actually asked for clarification and changes repeatedly. For many of us the big change we asked for was a definition of "breeding female" and a clearer description of how they would count them in a multi species household. After a year of haggling there are exactly THREE minor changes in the finial bill. They included sales of stock "for the preservation of a bloodline" they now allow an agent of the buyer to come look at the animal and for the sake of personal safety you may now meet them at a prearranged location instead of having to allow every stranger that wants to look at and possibly buy one of your animals into your private residence.
> 
> When pushed for changes we were repeatedly told by the USDA "don't worry we can make changes after it takes effect".
> 
> Also despite what many are being told this rule change will have no effect on the number of animals in our shelters as many are already IMPORTING puppies from outside our nation to "adopt" to folks that have been taught that purebreds are bad and shelter dogs are good. Save a life adopt right? But if you are adopting imported strays whose life are you saving? And to make matters worse these puppies are now being BRED to be sold to Americans. They are not off the street rescues.
> 
> stepping down off my soapbox now


this is actually true .. Best friends animal sanctuary is b=very guilty of this very thing .. the sanctuary is full of dogs from Israel, and other countries.. i died a thousand death while they had Art after the fire...I appreciate what they did , but they hate breeders.....


----------



## Angl

I just know one thing, if PETA is involved, it is not good. 

Their headquarters is here. We tend to get the full story of their shady dealings from local press. They are not looking out for the welfare of animals. They believe that dead is better. 

Hollywood types that loan their name to this horrible group never get my support again.


----------



## Tiny Poodles

Here is a dumb question - how would they know if my breeder shipped my puppy to me? I mean as long as we mail one another signed contracts, and it does not say "yes we ship" on the website, how would they know if I went there in person or made arrangements with the airlines?


----------



## ArreauStandardPoodle

Tiny Poodles said:


> Here is a dumb question - how would they know if my breeder shipped my puppy to me? I mean as long as we mail one another signed contracts, and it does not say "yes we ship" on the website, how would they know if I went there in person or made arrangements with the airlines?


Airline records? If they questioned it, you'd have to prove it. When we imported Journey, Quincy and Jameson, there are clear indications on the Airline's paperwork that dogs were shipped. It would be very hard for them to follow up on this, but the possibility is still there. And only one person needs to complain, or one adversary report you, and you can bet they'd be all over that like flies on a gut wagon!


----------



## spindledreams

Tiny Poodles said:


> Here is a dumb question - how would they know if my breeder shipped my puppy to me? I mean as long as we mail one another signed contracts, and it does not say "yes we ship" on the website, how would they know if I went there in person or made arrangements with the airlines?


Someone makes a complaint or more likely multiple anonymous complaints or tips that the breeder was shipping dogs would bring the USDA to the breeders house. At that time the BREEDER has to prove that you saw your puppy IRL before it was shipped not the USDA prove that they shipped a pet puppy without you seeing it. You may not be aware of it but both the ASPCA and HSUS have a reward program for their followers that manage to put a breeder out of business...


----------



## Countryboy

spindledreams said:


> HSUS and the ASPCA are strong supporters of this rule change and are selling it to folks who really care as a step toward ending factory farming of puppies. PETA is also touting it as a step towards ending factory farming of puppies and a step toward eliminating all domestic animals...
> ........................................
> Also despite what many are being told this rule change will have no effect on the number of animals in our shelters as many are already IMPORTING puppies from outside our nation to "adopt" to folks that have been taught that purebreds are bad and shelter dogs are good. Save a life adopt right? But if you are adopting imported strays whose life are you saving? And to make matters worse these puppies are now being BRED to be sold to Americans. They are not off the street rescues.
> 
> stepping down off my soapbox now


Don't u dare step down!! Lean on me if u have to!


----------



## Tiny Poodles

ArreauStandardPoodle said:


> Airline records? If they questioned it, you'd have to prove it. When we imported Journey, Quincy and Jameson, there are clear indications on the Airline's paperwork that dogs were shipped. It would be very hard for them to follow up on this, but the possibility is still there. And only one person needs to complain, or one adversary report you, and you can bet they'd be all over that like flies on a gut wagon!


They would really have to be out to get the breeder if they are going to subpoena airline records to prove that I did not drive there to pick up the puppy because of course I would not be handing those records over. 
Or, couldn't the breeder just have a friend act as the agent and take the puppy to the airport?


Sent from Petguide.com Free App


----------



## Tiny Poodles

spindledreams said:


> Someone makes a complaint or more likely multiple anonymous complaints or tips that the breeder was shipping dogs would bring the USDA to the breeders house. At that time the BREEDER has to prove that you saw your puppy IRL before it was shipped not the USDA prove that they shipped a pet puppy without you seeing it. You may not be aware of it but both the ASPCA and HSUS have a reward program for their followers that manage to put a breeder out of business...


How on earth could a breeder prove that someone picked up a puppy? Have them sign a form that they did? Well there is still snail mail. 


Sent from Petguide.com Free App


----------



## ArreauStandardPoodle

I am hoping this link will work. The top photo is a USDA licensed kennel. The bottom, a typical hobby breeder raising pups in a clean, loving environment. Where would you rather get a puppy from?

https://www.facebook.com/#!/photo.php?fbid=10200538278324283&set=gm.559167057463686&type=1&theater


----------



## patk

NOLA Standards said:


> It will be "Administered" with the Great Lack of Competency with which our Govt Manages all its Endeavors. I have Faith! (It's currently not researched, funded or clearly defined. Yeah, it's off to a _GREAT_ start. smh)
> 
> That there are people who honestly think Bureaucracy is a good thing. :afraid:
> 
> I'm going to need a bit of time to process that......


bureaucracy flourishes because honor and integrity do not, not because anyone thinks it's a good thing. as i've said elsewhere, i live in a condo association. when it was brand new and we were all naive, we had an honor system guest parking policy, where each household had two guest passes to be used for overnight guests. we also had a rule that residents could not park in the guest stalls. so what happened? residents stuck the guest passes in their own cars and left them parked for days on end in guest stalls, causing other residents with guests who couldn't find parking to complain. we cancelled that policy and moved to giving warnings for parking violations. in one month, there were 109 violations given - some of them, of course, to the same person more than once. another failed policy. then we went to towing cars. big uproar. but finally people found that their guests could, indeed, park. is that the best system? no, it isn't. now we're back to trying a warning, but this time it's accompanied by a call from the office. this system is even more cumbersome (bureaucratic) to administer, requires more labor (the maintenance of spreadsheets) and has some flaws - as on weekends, when the spreadsheets cannot be kept up and no one makes follow up calls on warnings. so at the very time that the demand is probably highest for guest parking, the mechanism functions least well.

that is similar to what i think we're witnessing with the awa. and it's happening not because anyone thinks bureaucracy is good, but because some people have proven untrustworthy. there's a saying: "it only takes one to spoil it for everybody else." that's where we're at. i think responsible breeders have to keep plugging away at problems they have with the law. but clearly they don't have the clout aspca and the humane society have. i would look at ways to work with rather than against those organizations on inspections, for example. i know some breeders advertise that they are akc inspected. other breeders are in areas where licensing laws require inspections. responsible breeders should look for a way to work these mechanisms into the system as a substitute for usda inspection. usda is going to need help anyway. as i said, they don't have the resources to do serious enforcement. reasonable triage would say if someone is akc inspected, that's the last breeder i'm looking at.

otherwise, as someone looking for a silver toy poodle in a year or two, may i add that i am screwed, too, as it is likely that my choices will be even more limited due to the new regs. on the other hand, as someone who laments the indiscriminate breeding and sale of puppies, i think i may have to suck it up. there really are times you can't have it both ways.


----------



## Gator

So how does this impact breeders who foster their co-owned bitches out and use them two or three times for breeding? Also, I got my first poodle, a male, from a very reputable breeder. She knew I wanted a show quality dog and I did not see him until I picked him up at the airport. I since have gone back and gotten a second, a bitch, from her. I did see the bitch before I bought her, but when I bought the male, I would not even have known what to look for in the way of structure, gait, etc. The breeder of course did all testing and my male and bitch are both clear of anything that can be detected currently. I think the regulation to have to actually see the dog before you buy it is a bit too much and restricts commerce across state lines and also in big states like CA where it can take as much as 13 hours of constant driving to get from one end of the state to the other. Also, in some places it can take as long as 5 or 6 hours just to get to a major airport so you can fly in and out. If you followed the rules for this it would take at least two trips. One to look at the entire litter and another to pick up your puppy when it was old enough. I like the part that limits the number of females, but the sales thing is a bit much. What about shipping to Europe? Is that included in the shipping regulations as I know several breeders that do that and I get inquiries from Europe fairly often?


----------



## Gator

I have a suspicion that this regulation has more to do with monitoring income and collecting fees and taxes than making sure puppy mills go out of business. Look who it is hurting, not the puppy mills, but the breeder who is conscientious and keeps only one or two top dogs to breed infrequently, but yet wants to write off the expenses. Sorry to be so suspicious, but when the govt gets involved, it is usually for money to line its insatiable pocket.


----------



## JudyD

I can't see this as a big money maker for the government. What worries me now is the involvement of HSUS and PETA. Any time fanatics are in the mix, it's not a good sign.


----------



## patk

JudyD said:


> I can't see this as a big money maker for the government. What worries me now is the involvement of HSUS and PETA. *Any time fanatics are in the mix, it's not a good sign*.


totally agree, but i'm not sure why the humane society (that is what you mean by hsus?) is lumped in with peta. any explanation would be appreciated.


----------



## spindledreams

patk said:


> i think responsible breeders have to keep plugging away at problems they have with the law. but clearly they don't have the clout aspca and the humane society have. i would look at ways to work with rather than against those organizations on inspections,


Yes we need to keep plugging away at the problems with the rule change. However you need to understand that HSUS and the ASPCA already have in place a systems of rewards for their supporters that help them get breeders shut down. They are both pushing the rescue only, adopt and save a life, purebreds should be extinct agenda. HSUS is going even one step further and the head has actually publicly said he sees no problem with the total extinction of all domesticated animals. 

Even in this forum there are some that as much as they love their poodles would apparently not have a problem if they became extinct because no one was breeding them anywhere. For many, many years folks have been told over and over and over that the problems are because of the breeder, or puppy mills, or anyone but the actual people at fault. Those folks are the OWNERS. The ones that think that any pet is disposable, that training is to much work, that all dogs deserve the right to run free. Until OWNERS and our society change and we will continue to have problems. 

Besides moaning about the new restrictions we need to start OWNER education programs. We need to work on developing a culture that looks down on loose running dogs, untrained dogs, and the owners that allow both of those things to happen. Our culture needs to stop looking at pets of any kind as disposable. We need to start teaching the public and future owners that pet ownership is a privilege not a right and that by acquiring a pet we are saying I will provide for this animal to the best of my ability for the rest of its life. If something happens in my life that makes it impossible for me to care for this animal I will do my best to find it a new home. 
Rescues and Shelters etc need to stop talking about "forever homes" they need to learn to acknowledge that life happens and NO ONE can promise that they will be able to care for that pet for it whole life and sometimes the best thing for a pet is to find it a new home. Or sometimes what a person needs is a little help. A friend had to give up her 12 and 15 year old dogs when she was struck with cancer, that was the point when she gave up. If there had been a program that understood and would help her to keep her dogs it would have been a win win situation for the dogs and her. Taking them to shelter knowing that they would be put down as unadoptable was the hardest thing she ever had to do.


----------



## spindledreams

patk said:


> totally agree, but i'm not sure why the humane society (that is what you mean by hsus?) is lumped in with peta. any explanation would be appreciated.


HSUS is closer to a bully and terrorist then a true humane society. The majority of their "income" is used for lobbying. Their actual support for shelters is negligible. Many of the ads they run are extremely misleading and they are currently involved in a RICO or racketeering suit as the persons doing the racketeering. 

https://www.wonews.com/t-FeatureArticle_HSUSRacketeering_072412.aspx

oh and check out this link http://www.ringlingbrostrialinfo.com/


----------



## Countryboy

spindledreams said:


> HSUS is closer to a bully and terrorist then a true humane society. The majority of their "income" is used for lobbying. Their actual support for shelters is negligible. Many of the ads they run are extremely misleading and they are currently involved in a RICO or racketeering suit as the persons doing the racketeering.


And do note on their site that they link to NO other rescues, conservation groups, any other Humane Societies, or shelters. 

All by themselves as a separate corporation... all salaries paid thru donations.


----------



## spindledreams

Interesting article here about the original intentions as compared to the actual effects of the rule as written.


----------



## bigredpoodle

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2013-09-18/pdf/2013-22616.pdf
final ruling


----------



## patk

spindledreams said:


> Besides moaning about the new restrictions we need to start OWNER education programs. We need to work on developing a culture that looks down on loose running dogs, untrained dogs, and the owners that allow both of those things to happen. Our culture needs to stop looking at pets of any kind as disposable. We need to start teaching the public and future owners that pet ownership is a privilege not a right and that by acquiring a pet we are saying I will provide for this animal to the best of my ability for the rest of its life. If something happens in my life that makes it impossible for me to care for this animal I will do my best to find it a new home.
> .


i agree that this is the real problem, but because it's the average guy, it's the most intractable. it's actually "easier" to deal with the institutions that you see as problematic than reach and teach the average person. probably some of you who care most about saving breeds (and, by the way, i have a lowchen, which probably has one of the smallest gene pools around - only a few dogs survived after ww2 and that is all there was of "foundation" stock of the modern lowchen) need to organize and lay out a serious strategy for taking on the idea that it is okay to wipe out a breed. that is a policy issue and therefore a political issue and you probably have the best chance in a public and political arena, not in a practically sub rosa place like pf. 

not that i am putting down pf or this discussion, which i have certainly found enlightening. but in many ways you are preaching to the choir. good vibes you can find here, but not the needed outcome.


----------



## Jacamar

spindledreams said:


> Interesting article here about the original intentions as compared to the actual effects of the rule as written.



That article, which is critical of the AWA, is on the website of the "National Animal Interest Alliance".

According to SourceWatch:

_The National Animal Interest Alliance (NAIA) is a front group and industry funded lobbying organization for animal commerce and agribusiness based in Portland, Oregon. 

NAIA receives its primary financial support from "member donations" from related businesses and associations in farm animal agribusiness, commercial breeding, hunting, fishing, trapping, fur ranching, animal testing, rodeos and circuses. The Fur Commission is a member of the NAIA.

The NAIA aggressively pursues a horse slaughter agenda.

NAIA lobbies in favor of corporate factory farms. Humane laws are described as "unnecessary and unreasonable".
_

Etc. etc…

Full article: National Animal Interest Alliance - SourceWatch


----------



## ArreauStandardPoodle

Time 4 Dogs: Read Between the lines - USDA Conference Call


----------



## ArreauStandardPoodle

patk said:


> i agree that this is the real problem, but because it's the average guy, it's the most intractable. it's actually "easier" to deal with the institutions that you see as problematic than reach and teach the average person. probably some of you who care most about saving breeds (and, by the way, i have a lowchen, which probably has one of the smallest gene pools around - only a few dogs survived after ww2 and that is all there was of "foundation" stock of the modern lowchen) need to organize and lay out a serious strategy for taking on the idea that it is okay to wipe out a breed. that is a policy issue and therefore a political issue and you probably have the best chance in a public and political arena, not in a practically sub rosa place like pf.
> 
> not that i am putting down pf or this discussion, which i have certainly found enlightening. but in many ways you are preaching to the choir. good vibes you can find here, but not the needed outcome.


In a lot of cases we are preaching to the choir, but I am shocked how many people here still think this regulation is ok or sort of ok. The whole thing stinks and while a lot of us know that, some have been misled into thinking this will not affect them, either in breeding or purchasing purebred dogs.


----------



## bigredpoodle

I agree, I am stunned as it takes away the ability to ship EVER ! i no longer will be shipping AT ALL...FACE to Face only !


----------



## Tiny Poodles

bigredpoodle said:


> I agree, I am stunned as it takes away the ability to ship EVER ! i no longer will be shipping AT ALL...FACE to Face only !


Well, if you have someone willing to act as an agent for the customer and take the puppy to the airport, wouldn't that work?


----------



## bigredpoodle

Tiny Poodles said:


> Well, if you have someone willing to act as an agent for the customer and take the puppy to the airport, wouldn't that work?


NOPE has to be the buyer


----------



## Tiny Poodles

bigredpoodle said:


> NOPE has to be the buyer


Are you sure? I know that I read that you could - unless they changed it?


----------



## outwest

Yes, that was one of the other changes they made from the original proposal. You don't have to go there yourself, but it can't be a commercial transporter or intermediate handler. The person who picks the dog up is considered the owner.


----------



## patk

ArreauStandardPoodle said:


> In a lot of cases we are preaching to the choir, but I am shocked how many people here still think this regulation is ok or sort of ok. The whole thing stinks and while a lot of us know that, some have been misled into thinking this will not affect them, either in breeding or purchasing purebred dogs.


i fall into the category of one who both does not think the whole thing stinks and knows it will affect me negatively as a buyer. unlicensed puppy mill and byb operations have been thriving due to the internet. to me, that is a cause for concern. of course, i also think licensed puppy mills are an issue, but given the history, that might be a losing battle no matter what.

the thing is, i started out thinking these new regs did stink, because of the objections of several at pf. but reading the regs themselves, i have started to think if it works with regard to some of the worst breeders, it could be okay or close thereto. now having said that, i pretty much expect that someone will figure out some scheme to get around the no shipping sight unseen provision somehow, and, of course, it will almost certainly be one of the worst breeders. in addition, it seem unfortunate that there is no way to sort out the better breeders from the rest. but i do think breeder inability to govern themselves is part of that; that seems to be why the breed organizations that did weigh in trying to sell the idea that they should be allowed to self-inspect were rejected. i still think something along those lines could be worked out with usda, but maybe i'm an optimist. in the meantime, i am waiting to see some the breeders i have been eyeing announce that either they do not ship or can only ship in conjunction with pickup by a requisite qualified third party. that's going to hurt.


----------



## outwest

Here is a new link with the up to date information (from a couple days ago):

The Retail Pet Store Final Rule and You!
The Retail Pet Store Final Rule and You! | National Animal Interest Alliance

Hopefully that will put some people more at ease.


----------



## Jacamar

Countryboy said:


> And do note on their site that they link to NO other rescues, conservation groups, any other Humane Societies, or shelters.



That's not true, of course. Just searching the HSUS website for my state, and just for feral cat organizations, they link to 93 organizations:










They also link to larger organizations like The Fund for Animals and the Doris Day Animal League.

And they have links and articles on getting a pet from a shelter:
How to Find Your Local Animal Shelter : The Humane Society of the United States


----------



## patk

link to the akc press release, which i believe reflects all the concerns i have read here from breeders.


AKC News - USDA/APHIS FINALIZES RULE IMPACTING PET BREEDERS

still waiting to hear if anyone has knowledge of any pca policy statement.


----------



## Countryboy

Jacamar said:


> They also link to larger organizations like The Fund for Animals and the Doris Day Animal League.


U should maybe quit drinking the HSUS cool-aid and find out who owns the Fund for Animals... and who sponsors the Doris Day Animal League.


----------



## Jacamar

Countryboy said:


> And do note on their site that they link to NO other rescues, conservation groups, any other Humane Societies, or shelters.


Maybe you should quit making stuff up.


----------



## Countryboy

Naw... I just forgot u were an HSUS lover. Maybe you're bitter abt donating all those dollars to a scam. 

But, try as I might, I still don't find a link from their main page to any organization not controlled by them.


----------



## jonny cash

This is just stifling legislation to any breeder trying to run even a small program. Just because I may have 4,5, or even 6 bitches on premises doesn't mean I am going to breed them all every year. We try to have two litters a year, some years it works out, this year it didn't, we had one. We all know our breed needs diversity, just how am I supposed to do that with only 2 or 3 bitches from which to draw my genes? I have currently have 3 "breedable" bitches, but only one that is 2 years old and health tested. The other two are 2 years away from being bred, currently being shown. I have a spring litter planned, truly hoping I have nice bitch to keep out of that litter. After that I basically have to quit breeding, which I believe to be the true intent of this law. I can't have more than 4 bitches on premises. I don't breed just to sell puppies, which is what this law should be about. We put lots of planning into every breeding, trying to get the results we are looking for. We breed with the hope of having a well rounded, beautiful, healthy dog who furthers not just our program, but betters the breed in the long run. Until I spay a bitch or rehome her I am just **** outa luck. This law is just a handout to the total nutty wack jobs from HSUS and PETA. NO THOUGHT was given to responsible breeders, because they want to get rid of us. This just more government intrusion into our personal lives and freedoms.


----------



## bigredpoodle

Well said , you are of course correct


----------



## jonny cash

The loop-hole for puppy mills and unscrupulous breeders will be to sell all puppies with open registration, therefore breeding stock. That is what we all really want isn't it, thousands more dogs out there that can have akc registered puppies. The BYB business will flourish, not diminish. What a crock!!


----------



## ArreauStandardPoodle

It is putting breeders in a position they have not been in before making decisions that just do not seem right. My co-owner and I have been talking about what we will do if this comes to Canada. We have always been of the mind that a retired breeding bitch should stay happily ensconced in the home she has grown up in for the rest of her life. These girls do not owe their people a thing and should be rewarded with a life of leisure with the people they know and love. But if this happens here, we will spay and re-home our girls after a couple of litters to make room for the diversity the next girl might bring to the table. It is horrible to us that any of you might be put in a position like this, but it really is the only way breeders will be able to move on with this four bitch limit to be exempt. Most of us do not have unlimited space, and that has been where fostering and co-owning has been a Godsend, but I have not been able to find a person yet who knows for certain that co-owned bitches living elsewhere do not make up part of the four bitch limit, so, it is going to be a sad departure from the norm for most breeders with how they deal with this limit.


----------



## PonkiPoodles

This is disturbing and I've heard that there are already rumors that the animal activists will be lobbying to remove the exemptions starting in december. That means anyone who has puppies will have to be licensed, regardless of the amount of dogs you have.


----------



## spindledreams

patk said:


> i pretty much expect that someone will figure out some scheme to get around the no shipping sight unseen provision somehow.


Actually there is a big loophole in the law all anyone has to do is say/record the puppy was sold for breeding purposes or for to be used as a working dog. So those kennels that already sell everything with full breeding rights will just continue as before. Those who sell puppies as pets with a neuter/spay contract are the one who will be effected. 

The big loser in all this are the folks that want pets of a rare breed or color. For instance we have someone in the forum looking for a brown female standard poodle for a pet. A breeder from another state and she are talking right now as there are none within driving distance of her. Right now that breeder feels fine offering her a pet from her breeding and shipping it to her. Come January when this rule goes into effect that same breeder will no longer ship pets... That person has waited 23 years to be in a position where she felt she could get and have a brown female pet poodle. Now she will not be able to fulfill that dream for how many more years... 

How many other responsible loving pet homes will be denied the chance to get the pup of their dreams from a kennel they have researched thoroughly? How many will with broken hearts decide to forgo ownership of their perfect puppy or turn to the local doodle breeder or pet shop for a chance at something like what they want? 
The loser in the short term is the pet owner not the breeders and the loser in the long term is the breed because some pet owners become breeders and protectors of the breed. It is an ever changing cycle, pet owners become breeders, breeders become pet owners.


----------



## Tiny Poodles

spindledreams said:


> Actually there is a big loophole in the law all anyone has to do is say/record the puppy was sold for breeding purposes or for to be used as a working dog. So those kennels that already sell everything with full breeding rights will just continue as before. Those who sell puppies as pets with a neuter/spay contract are the one who will be effected.
> 
> The big loser in all this are the folks that want pets of a rare breed or color. For instance we have someone in the forum looking for a brown female standard poodle for a pet. A breeder from another state and she are talking right now as there are none within driving distance of her. Right now that breeder feels fine offering her a pet from her breeding and shipping it to her. Come January when this rule goes into effect that same breeder will no longer ship pets... That person has waited 23 years to be in a position where she felt she could get and have a brown female pet poodle. Now she will not be able to fulfill that dream for how many more years...
> 
> How many other responsible loving pet homes will be denied the chance to get the pup of their dreams from a kennel they have researched thoroughly? How many will with broken hearts decide to forgo ownership of their perfect puppy or turn to the local doodle breeder or pet shop for a chance at something like what they want?
> The loser in the short term is the pet owner not the breeders and the loser in the long term is the breed because some pet owners become breeders and protectors of the breed. It is an ever changing cycle, pet owners become breeders, breeders become pet owners.


That sounds horrible - there are already way too few people who go to the trouble to find a well bred, healthy dog from a reputable breeder - even if it means going long distance. 
Beginning to sound like the result of this law will mean more people going to their local pet shop for a puppymill dog - not good!

Of course there will be those of us who will just have to add the cost of airfare to the already high price of obtaining a quality dog - but of course, that is if anyone reputable keeps breeding :-(


----------



## Marciemae

*Worth Trying*

Many of you have made some excellent posts regarding the hardships this new law will have on you and prospective buyers.

It probably won't help much, but I think it would be a good idea for you to post those same concerns in a message to the White House. Maybe hearing from "real" people affected by this law might make someone in our government think twice about what it's going to do to so many of you. At any rate, it sure can't hurt to try.

Submit Questions & Comments | The White House


----------



## jonny cash

I think puppymill breeders will find a few different alternatives. Ownership seems to be a keyword in this regulation.  I can see millers "leasing" their bitches to each other, thereby skirting the ownership language. They will get creative. I have to wonder how the federal government will feel when all the real breeder's realize that if they are going to do this and be USDA licensed, that they all start claiming the deductions they should be due. I can see the IRS saying they have a hobby and the USDA regulating them like a business.


----------



## patk

spindledreams said:


> Actually there is a big loophole in the law all anyone has to do is say/record the puppy was sold for breeding purposes or for to be used as a working dog. So those kennels that already sell everything with full breeding rights will just continue as before. Those who sell puppies as pets with a neuter/spay contract are the one who will be effected.


aren't the internet puppy millers already selling pups without any spay/neuter contracts, thus contributing to the proliferation of ill-bred dogs? what i got from reading the responses to comments is that usda/aphis is going to be looking very closely first of all at high volume sellers. if they can manage to really do that, i don't see using a false claim of sale for breeding purposes holding up. from what i understand, the sale for breeding purposes provision was actually put in to meet the concerns of some of those wanting to be able to maintain and improve various breeds. if you're going to have a law like this, i wouldn't want to see that provision dismantled. i continue to believe that how enforcement is handled is the key issue and breed organizations and the akc need to focus on that. one of the effects of well-thought out enforcement could actually be to eventually put reputable breeders on a more solid competitive footing financially vis-a-vis the slimy ones.


----------



## outwest

Johnnycash, Why don't you want to be lisenced? I'm trying to understand the objections. It doesn't sound like that big a deal to be lisenced.


----------



## jonny cash

I have a small family operation, just me and Natalie. I am very proud of it, it has taken a lot of blood, sweat and dollars. As nice as it is, I don't have stainless enclosures, nor do I want to raise my pups that way. Our pups are raised in the home. I will be the first to tell you we don't have the cash to build a professional kennel. To isolate my pups in the house, all other dogs will be forced to move to the kennel, which overwhelms my number of runs. All my dogs spend time in the house, we have a regular rotation, and it reaally works well. All of our dogs are also our pets. I guess I could figure out how to have an impermeable surface in my house, just not sure I can figure out to use the pressure washer in it without destroying the rest of my home. Anybody who runs the type of program we do, will tell you, resources are scarce. There is no money to be made at this, only millers and byb's make money. I leaanred long ago, to make a small fortune breeding poodles, you have to start with a large fortune.


----------



## ArreauStandardPoodle

Why would ANYONE want to be licensed? Then you must adhere to ther ridiculous ideas of how litters of puppies are to be raised- on concrete and stainless steel with nothing soft to play with or sleep on. Litters to be secluded from every dog in your home aside from the mother. To be subject to inspection of one's HOME without notice. To have to do reams of paperwork every single day per puppy. To know in one's heart that the whole process was created to push out breeders like me, but will do nothing to thwart the puppymills or commercial operations. I don't think ANY small hobby breeder would welcome this intrusion, or Nazi Germany mentality, taking away the rights of the only people trying to do things the right way.


----------



## jonny cash

Just to give you an idea of cost, to replace my galvanized kennel runs, with the stainless runs from Morse company, I am looking at almost $10,000 dollars just for the runs. That's no shipping, installing them myself. 10k!!!!!!
Before you get the idea that I must be running some kind of huge operation, that is for 6 kennel runs.


----------



## patk

jonny cash said:


> Just to give you an idea of cost, to replace my galvanized kennel runs, with the stainless runs from Morse company, I am looking at almost $10,000 dollars just for the runs. That's no shipping, installing them myself. 10k!!!!!!
> Before you get the idea that I must be running some kind of huge operation, that is for 6 kennel runs.


that can be very very tough on one's pocketbook. but where does it say that that is what has to be used? from what i could find, there's some leeway for smaller breeders, even if they are still outside the hobby breeder classification. maybe i am looking at the wrong info.


----------



## ArreauStandardPoodle

patk said:


> that can be very very tough on one's pocketbook. but where does it say that that is what has to be used? from what i could find, there's some leeway for smaller breeders, even if they are still outside the hobby breeder classification. maybe i am looking at the wrong info.


I think you must be. We are all being told, IF you are licensed, you will follow their recommendations- or else. They are claiming they may be a little softer on a home breeder, but we all know they will not be. We are who this is designed to push out. And without things written in plain language about what IS acceptable for home breeders (not what MIGHT be ) you can bet that nothing we do will be good enough until we adhere to their recommendations.


----------



## patk

yes, but where are their recommendations? what i saw on the web site did not get down to things like stainless steel flooring in kennel runs.


----------



## ArreauStandardPoodle

It says impervious to water. And has to have drains in the floor. It has to be able to be sanitized and pressure washed daily.


----------



## patk

here's what i'm looking at. it's from the aphis commercial breeders training section:


http://www.cfsph.iastate.edu/pdf/commercial-dog-housing-part-1-speaker-notes


what are you looking at? i'm just trying to get to the latest info. nothing says what's on the aphis website is the most up to date, after all.


----------



## Jacamar

outwest said:


> No one has mentioned the new regulatons that were approved last week having to do with breeders. Bottom line? Anyone with over 4 breeding females will need a USDA license. It seems to be upsetting many people. I am not sure exactly why. Maybe because it means inspection? Or, maybe because of the clause that the animals can not be sent sight unseen across the country?
> 
> http://www.aphis.usda.gov/newsroom/2013/09/pdf/retail_pet_final_rule.pdf
> 
> FAQ:
> http://www.aphis.usda.gov/publications/animal_welfare/2013/faq_retail_pets_final_rule.pdf
> 
> the details (91 pages)
> http://www.aphis.usda.gov/newsroom/2013/09/pdf/pet_retail_docket_2011-2003.pdf




Here is part of the comment from the Humane Society on the new legislation:

_Of the dozens of puppy mills that The HSUS has assisted in closing down over the past five years, the vast majority were selling puppies online and escaping any federal oversight because a loophole in federal Animal Welfare Act regulations exempts Internet sellers. Because large-scale dog breeders who sell animals to pet stores are regulated, but breeders who sell directly to the public are not, there has been a massive migration of breeders to the latter sales strategy within the last decade or so. If they could sell dogs and escape any federal oversight, why not get in on that act and continue to cut corners on animal care?_


You can read the rest of the comment here:

USDA Announces Landmark Rule to Crack Down on Online Puppy Mills


----------



## outwest

I'm not seeing that you have to have stainless steel, jonnycash. From what I am reading even laminate flooring would meet the requirement. I'm also not seeing that you have to have a drain in the house. You only have to be able to sanitize the flooring and must remove it if it becomes damaged (can't be sterilized). If you have puppies, you should have them on surfaces you can sanitize. 

It seems to me people are stressing out and saying things that are not actually in the legislation. Now I am going to check the 'not allowed near other dogs' thing. Let me see what it actually says.


----------



## ArreauStandardPoodle

I am going to ask Apres Argent to come on and explain her knowledge of this regulation. She has been diligent about informing other in various groups about this for months.


----------



## NOLA Standards

Removed what I originally wrote here.....

I respect this is the _(in theory even though I do notice my rights being taken away on what feels like a daily basis_) Land of the Free and Home of the Brave...

and those who disagree with me (_are wrong_) have the right to disagree with me....

and... I want to go to Heaven so I have to play nice with others (_even though they are wrong_...)....


Tabatha
NOLA Standards


----------



## outwest

Here is the full powerpoint:

Introductory Course for Commercial Dog Breeders « CFSPH

You can't house puppies under 4 months old with dogs other than the mothers. It doesn't say they can't play in the yard with other dogs, only that you can't "house" them- which I read as put them in a kennel with a bunch of other adult dogs. That is far different from the 'not allowed near other dogs'. 

The way I read it:
If you have more than four breeding females you can have co-owners and not be licensed. You can rotate your females with other co-owners - no license needed. 

You can have the puppies with other adults, but they can't be housed or left with other adults (makes sense to me). 

You don't have to have any drains. You only have to be able to sanitize the surface and prevent the dog from getting wet or standing in water. So, you move them to the other room while you sanitize the floor - which is only required every two weeks. 

After reading most of this law, it seems to me that responsible breeders far exceed the requirements, which are honestly pretty minimal. 

The issue about selling sight unseen is a problem for many. So, have them fly to meet the puppy. Big whoop. They are paying a lot to buy a puppy, they should certainly see it beforehand. If they can't go there, they can send someone else. It only can't be a commercial animal transporter. 

btw: gravel qualifies in the kennels. If they can't be sanitized, you have to be able to remove soiled material. 

I'm not seeing the problems here. The law was adjusted to close the loophole of internet sales of pets that were not being regulated like the puppy mills were being regulated.


----------



## Jacamar

Nice analysis, outwest!

Now you know why the Humane Society supported it, and the National Animal Interest Alliance opposed it. Its good legislation!


----------



## patk

NOLA Standards said:


> Removed what I originally wrote here.....
> 
> I respect this is the _(in theory even though I do notice my rights being taken away on what feels like a daily basis_) Land of the Free and Home of the Brave...
> 
> and those who disagree with me (_are wrong_) have the right to disagree with me....
> 
> and... I want to go to Heaven so I have to play nice with others (_even though they are wrong_...)....
> 
> 
> Tabatha
> NOLA Standards



as a bottom of the barrel not only non breeder but not even poodle owner, i think that may be a false divide that will not help anyone. i think the reality is that people like you could experience a degree of collateral damage, but i doubt very much that you are the target. 

i do believe that the puppy millers who are operating online are the target and are a legitimate target, because i also believe there is no redeeming value in their enterprise; it's all about profit for themselves and not about the dogs, the future of any breed or the customer.

i don't hear the breeders you cite even admitting that that is an issue, and that's going to make it harder to get your concerns heard, because you are up against a usda oig report pointing to unacceptable breeding conditions for some of those puppy mill dogs compounded by the supporting testimony of vets and disappointed and deceived pet owners, not just hsus and the rest of what you consider to be the fringe. 

at this point, lamenting is not going to change anything. there's a new regulation. it's going to take effect. to minimize the damage to good breeders, you have to develop a strategy. i really hope that happens, because i think commitment to the breed by people like you matters a good deal.


----------



## jonny cash

Good Legislation is an oxymoron. If I have to qualify under USDA guidelines, I will also need to qualify under Illinois. In Il, animal waste from a "commercial facility", requires a NPDES permit, so I will also answer to the IEPA as well as the USDA and IDA. It is easy for non-breeders to sanctimoniously praise this regulation being forced on us, not so easy for people who are really trying to make a positive contribution to dogs. I hope I can place dogs for the amount this is going to cost. Breeding dogs is a labor of love, but I will not go broke doing it. Have never made any money, never expected to. Walk a mile ina breeders shoes before you tell us how great this is.


----------



## NOLA Standards

Beautiful post, Johnny Cash.



Patk... not sure what is next. Conference call today maybe, maybe made me feel a bit better about the Legislation. Still, PUPS waits in the wings and monthly some new take on pet/breeder elimination legislation promoted primarily by AR with $ behind them *(PLEASE support your LOCAL shelters if your intention is to make a difference in the life of an animal)* is presented to our government - local, state and federal. I DO petition and call and write letters and even meet with elected officials on a parish and state level. I am a member of an All Breed KC and part of the Legislative Liaison team and still, even our local KC is divided. VERY FEW people want to put their efforts into what they want and believe. Responsible Pet Owner Education is a "_for instance_". Most seem to want to say OK to some bill that allows Govt to decide. It makes them "_feel good_". For me it is disheartening and frustrating.

I'm not giving up....I'm just a bit (LOT) discouraged right now.


----------



## patk

NOLA Standards said:


> Beautiful post, Johnny Cash.
> 
> 
> rest of quote edited at request of NOLA Standards. see her edited post below.


well i'm not telling you what is best. i'm saying it's here. you have to find a way to develop a strategy that lets you and other good breeders survive. and it is my sincere wish that one outcome will be at least some leveling of the playing field so that you and folks like you are in a better position to compete against the non-responsible breeders. up to now, it has cost them the absolute minimum as unregulated enterprises to breed dogs for profit, often at the expense of the breed and without regard for the customer. now, if usda can really do what it claims it can, they may have to do what you and others have been doing for years, actually make a serious investment if they want to be in business or go elsewhere. (i hope for the latter.)


----------



## NOLA Standards

Patk

You gotta quite posting what I write BEFORE I edit myself! :act-up:

Post the EDITED version!

It is...

_"Patk... not sure what is next. Conference call today maybe, maybe made me feel a bit better about the Legislation. Still, PUPS waits in the wings and monthly some new take on pet/breeder elimination legislation promoted primarily by AR with $ behind them (PLEASE support your LOCAL shelters if your intention is to make a difference in the life of an animal) is presented to our government - local, state and federal. I DO petition and call and write letters and even meet with elected officials on a parish and state level. I am a member of an All Breed KC and part of the Legislative Liaison team and still, even our local KC is divided. VERY FEW people want to put their efforts into what they want and believe. Responsible Pet Owner Education is a "for instance". Most seem to want to say OK to some bill that allows Govt to decide. It makes them "feel good". For me it is disheartening and frustrating.

I'm not giving up....I'm just a bit (LOT) discouraged right now._ "


----------



## Countryboy

NOLA Standards said:


> Patk
> 
> You gotta quite posting what I write BEFORE I edit myself! :act-up:
> 
> Post the EDITED version!


Heeheehee! :devil:


----------



## Marciemae

*Puppy Mills*

More puppy mills could be shut down if the USDA had more inspectors. Apparently they can't afford to hire them. It probably wouldn't matter anyway because the USDA, according to their guidlines, finds most of those deplorable conditions acceptable.

You can find videos of puppy mills on YouTube, done by people going undercover, and it's almost impossible to watch them because the conditions are so horrible, and yet they remain open for business.

HSUS and PETA should spend their time and money trying to get those mills shut down, because more government rules and regulations aren't going to help one tiny bit. The "bad guys" will still do whatever they please because no laws have been able to stop them.

Also it should be against the law to allow shelters to take in animals from other countries. And then we're told about the high numbers of dogs living in those shelters and USA breeders are being blamed for that.

*Bottom line, this new law isn't going to fix what truly needs fixing.
*
(The following is said "tongue in cheek")
The next thing you know, women won't be allowed to give birth because there are so many children waiting to be adopted here and overseas.


----------



## spindledreams

Marciemae said:


> (The following is said "tongue in cheek")
> The next thing you know, women won't be allowed to give birth because there are so many children waiting to be adopted here and overseas.


Actually some women I know are facing a lot of pressure to adopt from overseas rather then add to the overpopulation problem... hmm why does that sounds so familiar. 

I do have to say that I agree that it should be illegal for shelter OR rescues to import dogs from other nations for the purposes of adoption. I mean if we have such a horrid overpopulation problem in the US why do they want to bring in more dogs and force the killing of more dogs? Why do they NEED to bring in dogs from other countries?


----------



## PonkiPoodles

Marciemae said:


> HSUS and PETA should spend their time and money trying to get those mills shut down, because more government rules and regulations aren't going to help one tiny bit. The "bad guys" will still do whatever they please because no laws have been able to stop them.


Marciemae, HSUS and PETA has no interest in "fixing" things... their approach on all animal cruelty matters are 'how much money is this going to make for us?'. They have the money and the resources to shut down all puppy mills in the US within a matter of months. Why haven't they done this? Because playing the '"woe is me - save these helpless, defenseless animals'" card is what causes people to send them money every month. If they actually took care of these issues and truly worked or passed legislation that would shut down real animal cruelty issues they'd be out of business in a couple of years. They NEED these puppy mills to stick around because their paychecks depend on it.


----------



## NOLA Standards

Going to post this again....

That HSUS can churn out thousands of signatures in an afternoon and people who love the pets they got from their REPUTABLE BREEDER can not stand up and support those very breeders :afraid:

MoveOn Petitions - USDA : ASPCA VIOLATES DOG BREEDERS RIGHTS


It likely won't make a hill of beans difference... But a great show of support would be nice.

There is an area for you to comment.


PS Not just "dog breeders rights" - but also 4th Ammendment Rights and potentially Property Owner Rights...


----------



## Marciemae

I am in complete agreement with you, Ponkipoodles! The following is from the HSUS web site.

_"It's important to know that, in many cases, puppy mills are not illegal. In most states, a breeding kennel can legally keep dozens, even hundreds, of dogs in cages for their entire lives, as long as the dogs are given the basics of food, water, and shelter. When documented cruelty exists, The HSUS assists in shutting down puppy mills with the cooperation of local law enforcement. The HSUS has assisted in the rescue of almost *5,000 dogs* from puppy mills over the past two years alone. But while The HSUS is opposed to puppy mills, *The HSUS cannot shut down or raid legal businesses*. The HSUS is not a government, law enforcement, or regulatory agency."_ * POOR EXCUSE IN MY OPINION.*

The HSUS and PETA absolutely have the money and clout to force closures, licensed or not!

It makes me laugh because a mill dog rescue near me, National Mill Dog Rescue, is privately owned, dependent on donations, and has rescued over *8,000 dogs*......and just think....without any government help. They can't shut them down, but they have managed to use the right approach to get those mills to release many of their dogs to them.

If you want your dollars to count then donate to your local shelters and rescues. I would never send a penny to the HSUS and PETA!


----------



## Countryboy

Marciemae said:


> If you want your dollars to count then donate to your local shelters and rescues.


It's soooo easy to do. A couple bags of kibble... a couple hours spent walking the dogs. All local... and instantly rewarding!


----------



## ArreauStandardPoodle

Here's the latest! Terrifying!

USDA Internet Mining


----------



## patk

Countryboy said:


> It's soooo easy to do. A couple bags of kibble... a couple hours spent walking the dogs. All local... and instantly rewarding!


i agree with this sentiment. it's not so hard to "sacrifice" that cup of starbucks whatever, either, which a lot of people buy daily without thinking twice about it. but what do you do if you find out that the shelter is importing dogs, which i don't agree with?


----------



## roulette

This was just brought up on another media site, and I wondered what this knowledgeable crowd would think: Will homeowner's insurance cover the home if it is considered a retail store? separate policy??


----------



## bigredpoodle

roulette said:


> This was just brought up on another media site, and I wondered what this knowledgeable crowd would think: Will homeowner's insurance cover the home if it is considered a retail store? separate policy??


After the fire , all dog grooming equipment and dog supplies crates beds bowls Xpens Whelping boxes, in other words all to do with the dogs was disallowed . Allstate considered what i did as a business.. If one puppy was sold , that constituted a business.. 
So the answer to your question is no ....Homeowners will not cover a business..


----------



## bigredpoodle

patk said:


> as a bottom of the barrel not only non breeder but not even poodle owner, i think that may be a false divide that will not help anyone. i think the reality is that people like you could experience a degree of collateral damage, but i doubt very much that you are the target.
> 
> i do believe that the puppy millers who are operating online are the target and are a legitimate target, because i also believe there is no redeeming value in their enterprise; it's all about profit for themselves and not about the dogs, the future of any breed or the customer.
> 
> i don't hear the breeders you cite even admitting that that is an issue, and that's going to make it harder to get your concerns heard, because you are up against a usda oig report pointing to unacceptable breeding conditions for some of those puppy mill dogs compounded by the supporting testimony of vets and disappointed and deceived pet owners, not just hsus and the rest of what you consider to be the fringe.
> 
> at this point, lamenting is not going to change anything. there's a new regulation. it's going to take effect. to minimize the damage to good breeders, you have to develop a strategy. i really hope that happens, because i think commitment to the breed by people like you matters a good deal.


No this bill is targeted at the small hobby breeder, not the mills... the mills sell to pet stores and in large internet sites..They are already licensed and regulated, and you see ho nice that is .NO NO NO they are wanting the untapped revenue of the middle class person..


----------



## ArreauStandardPoodle

My opinion is, this has nothing to do with revenue, but everything to do with PETA and HSUS wanting to make it next to impossible to breed/sell dogs, working toward eventually making PETA's dream of no domesticated animals a reality.


----------



## bigredpoodle

APHIS PROPOSAL VIOLATES REGULATIONS, by Frank Losey, attorney


----------



## roulette

I agree Arreau.. also to root out and identify breeders who are not paying taxes or reporting income.. so the revenue thing applies as well..


----------



## patk

bigredpoodle said:


> No this bill is targeted at the small hobby breeder, not the mills... the mills sell to pet stores and in large internet sites..They are already licensed and regulated, and you see ho nice that is .NO NO NO they are wanting the untapped revenue of the middle class person..


no one can change what you believe except yourself, but if you read the intro to the new regs, it indicates that puppy millers were moving to the internet and exploiting the former loophole re internet sales that permitted them to claim to be retailers and exempt from meeting the same standards re breeding conditions as commercially licensed breeders. that contention was supported by comments from vets and unhappy buyers. that's part of what gave the new regs momentum. i suspect the internet trawling module aphis either has or is in the process of establishing also lent impetus to establishment of the regs. 

btw, if you are running a business and not filing tax returns reflecting that, you are probably in violation of us tax laws. if you are filing tax returns, there is no untapped revenue. the only thing preventing the irs from collecting every last penny from all of us who are not super wealthy and can pay people to find loopholes is insufficient staff.


----------



## bigredpoodle

If you can consider one to two litters a year a business , well then you are incorrect.. do you have any clue what it costs to breed, show , and groom? 
Now if i have over 4 intact ANYTHING in my house I am considered a business.. File tax returns on what ? The losses? 
What they are after is licensing fees that is pretty evident....And creating jobs for the government .. They will have to hire hundreds..


----------



## patk

brp, if you have 4 breeding females or fewer and sell your puppies from those females in face to face transactions, you aren't required to be licensed by aphis. you're considered to be a hobby breeder under the aphis regs and how you handle reporting your income is solely your problem. i actually pointed out earlier that unscrupulous breeders with four breeding females could turn over as many as 80 dogs/year or more (if you assume breeding each female twice a year and litters of about 10 pups each) under the radar except, perhaps, for the new buyer must be present at sale requirement. 

in fact, the burden is now as much on the buyer as the seller and that is tough all around, but it may be the right thing. most of you who participate at pf urge buyers to meet the breeder anyway. it's we who are buyers who keep saying we can't travel and complain about the price of dogs, then end up buying a puppy mill dog that many then think of as a disposable. that's the ugly part that's being overlooked.


----------



## bigredpoodle

patk said:


> brp, if you have 4 breeding females or fewer and sell your puppies from those females in face to face transactions, you aren't required to be licensed by aphis. you're considered to be a hobby breeder under the aphis regs and how you handle reporting your income is solely your problem. i actually pointed out earlier that unscrupulous breeders with four breeding females could turn over as many as 80 dogs/year or more (if you assume breeding each female twice a year and litters of about 10 pups each) under the radar except, perhaps, for the new buyer must be present at sale requirement.
> 
> in fact, the burden is now as much on the buyer as the seller and that is tough all around, but it may be the right thing. most of you who participate at pf urge buyers to meet the breeder anyway. it's we who are buyers who keep saying we can't travel and complain about the price of dogs, then end up buying a puppy mill dog that many then think of as a disposable. that's the ugly part that's being overlooked.


Oh I gotcha .. I do require that folks come to get the new baby , it is important for us to meet go over everything , see how the dogs are taken care of here .. See what I feed.. Grooming tips so on .. They become a member of my family  As I said in a previous post some of my puppy folks come and watch dogs so I can go to the shows.. some come as a place ro chill out , from high stress jobs.. It works for me and it certainly works for them ..I have a spare room that is Poodley and the hall bath is done all poodle..And I make a mean Margarita... OH NO DOES that make me a BAR?


----------



## bigredpoodle

No seriously , it is only a matter of time before they come after folks like me ! 
If I think otherwise i am fooling myself..


----------



## Marciemae

*From HSUS Site*

_"Inspection records obtained by The HSUS show that many USDA-licensed breeders get away with repeated violations of the Animal Welfare Act. These violators are rarely fined and their licenses are rarely suspended. Facilities with long histories of repeated violations for basic care conditions are often allowed to renew their licenses again and again."_

*And they think that adding more rules and regulations is going to help.....give me a break......our government didn't even prosecute them for violations in the past.*


----------



## outwest

bigredpoodle said:


> Now if i have over 4 intact ANYTHING in my house I am considered a business.. ..


Actually, four is okay. If you had five intact females (males don't count).


----------



## Tiny Poodles

outwest said:


> Actually, four is okay. If you had five intact females (males don't count).


And 50 is ok as long as you sell them in person, right?


Sent from Petguide.com Free App


----------



## kukukachoo

i'm jumping in with a random thought here, but this makes me wonder about something. so, we adopted daisy from a goldendoodle byb/puppy mill. she was a retired bitch.

anyway, i peek in on their facebook page every now and then and i recently saw them saying they were going to start a new program of giving away females to people who would agree to keep them in tact and let them come back to the farm for mating and welping. they claimed it was so these females would be more adoptable after they were retired (becuase their dogs live outdoors all lined up in runs and are never exposed to indoor, family life).

i thought it was odd, but figured it was better than the dogs only being allowed out of their runs once a week like they currently are. but, now i wonder if this new regulation is not their true motivation to this "new program"!


----------



## ArreauStandardPoodle

Well, techincally, two litters a year could generate $40,000 a year in sales.

Let's hope this lawyer who has filed the lawsuit gets somewhere and at least slows this mess down. Apparently the internet mining has been going on since 2009, so I am sure these folks have tons of information to use against tons of people already.


----------



## ArreauStandardPoodle

outwest said:


> Actually, four is okay. If you had five intact females (males don't count).



Four is their number for the number of intact females of any warm blooded species, excluding humans. So, if you have an intact female cat and hamster, you are then only allowed 2 intact, female canines


----------



## ArreauStandardPoodle

outwest said:


> Right, I think the new law effects them all. The no shipping without seeing the puppy effects the already licensed, too.


no it doesn't. If they are licensed, they can sell sight unseen...to pet shops, to auctions, to other millers, to brokers...


----------



## patk

ArreauStandardPoodle said:


> no it doesn't. If they are licensed, they can sell sight unseen...to pet shops, to auctions, to other millers, to brokers...


true. but the main target was the shipping sight unseen/unlicensed sales that had moved to the internet, giving the puppy millers a loophole to get out from under being regulated. (not that a loophole matters if enforcement is nonexistent to begin with.)

it appears, though, no one's hands are clean in any of this. i just took a look at the list of plaintiffs in the lawsuit and among them is the goldendoodle club. that should be enough to make any of the reputable breeders at pf nauseous. talk about supporting bybs. on the other hand, i saw an exchange on patricia mcconnell's blog in which she generally came down on the side of the new regs. so the old saying holds: politics makes strange bedfellows.


----------



## spotsonofbun

ArreauStandardPoodle said:


> Four is their number for the number of intact females of any warm blooded species, excluding humans. So, if you have an intact female cat and hamster, you are then only allowed 2 intact, female canines


well that makes sense you don't want that hamster and spoo breeding and become one of those doodle breeders, a doodster breeder. :afraid:


----------



## jonny cash

https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.10152162359599731.1073741945.156905404730&type=1

This is what legitimate breeders are being compared to with this stupid law. These kennels already comply with the law, they are USDA licensed.


----------

