Dog Breeding: USDA "Crack Down" Goes Into Effect Today

PoetikDragon

As of today, it is no longer legal to purchase puppies over the Internet from reputable breeders. All puppy buyers must visit and pick up the puppy in person; puppies cannot be shipped or delivered to their new families.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/usda-cracks-internet-pet-sales-20207528
http://www.aphis.usda.gov/newsroom/2013/09/retail_pet_final_rule.shtml

This is pretty bad. I don't have a link to the new regulations, but if anyone can find one, please let me know. Here are the issues I noted from the original regulations proposed in 2011. I don't know which, if any, of these have changed or been addressed:

(1) No statute of limitations.

It only takes one remote sale over the Internet, mail order, phone, etc to require a license. That's not one per year or one per decade; one in your entire lifetime. Presumably the sales only count after the regulations go into effect (today), but since it's not spelled out, it may be retroactive.

(2) Definition of breeding female.

The definition of breeding female is vague and all-encompassing. In short, it includes any animal with a uterus except fish and does not exclude animals of different species or too old/young to be bred. Nor does it specify that animals you do not own or intend to sell are excluded. It doesn't even state that you must have bred the animals yourself.

- If you have three senior bitches 10+ years old, one brood bitch, and a female puppy -- you have five "breeding females" and must be licensed, despite the fact that only one of the dogs is actually breedable.

- If you have four female parakeets and one brood bitch -- you have five "breeding females" and must be licensed, despite the fact that they are different species and you don't breed birds.

- If you have one brood bitch who gives birth to a litter with four females -- you have five "breeding females" and must be licensed, despite the fact that you intend to place all three puppies.

- If you are fostering a litter of puppies for a rescue which includes five females -- you have five "breeding females" and must be licensed, despite the fact that you didn't breed the litter and they're too young to be spayed/neutered.

- If you have three brood bitches and co-own two brood bitches with someone else -- you have five "breeding females" and must be licensed, despite the fact that the co-owned bitches don't live with you. The co-owned dogs are counted against each other owner as well.

(3) Definition of sight-unseen.

A license is required if a sale is made sight-unseen. The definition of sight-unseen does not allow for any kind of photography or live/recorded video of the animal, delivery, nor any third party pickup. The animal must be seen in person by the buyer at the seller's premises.

- If you deliver the puppy to the buyer in person instead of at your home -- it is "sight-unseen" and you must be licensed.

- If the buyer's sister comes to your house to pick up the puppy -- it is "sight-unseen" and you must be licensed.

- If you ship the puppy after taking hundreds of photos of the puppies, your home, and the parents -- it is "sight-unseen" and you must be licensed.

- If you ship the puppy after having a live video stream of the puppies up 24/7 for two months -- it is "sight-unseen" and you must be licensed.

(4) No choice for the buyer.

The buyer does not have the choice to have his puppy shipped to him. Even one sale that doesn't occur on the seller's premises would force the seller to need a license. Reputable breeders cannot be licensed (see below) and therefor cannot sell to anyone that does not pick up the puppy at their home. The buyer does not have the option to waive the requirement that he see the puppy and premises in person. Even if the buyer purchased a puppy in person from the seller in the past, he must again travel to the seller's home and see the puppy and its living conditions in person for the new transaction.

The entire mess could be solved if the breeder was only required to make his premises available and let the buyer choose to visit in person or not.

(5) Reputable breeders cannot be licensed.

The environment described and required by a USDA license is not only unfeasible and expensive for a homeowner, but it produces subpar conditions for the puppies you are raising.

One of many problems with being USDA licensed is that all surfaces must be impervious. That means you can't raise your pups in your house or let your dogs sleep in your bed or sit on the couch with you at night. Being USDA inspected is impossible for small breeders living in a neighborhood. It means [...] your breeder has to turn their breeding program into a sterile environment non-conducive to the best possible conditions for the animals.

mdokic

Holy cow, that's intense...it's for a great cause (lord knows how horrible puppy mills are), but it has to make things difficult for all other breeders who (I guess by reading the article) have 4+ "breeding females". O_o

Calia

Found this USDA news release: http://www.aphis.usda.gov/newsroom/2013/09/retail_pet_final_rule.shtml

PoetikDragon

Thanks, I will adjust my above post accordingly. I was off by 1.

Calia

Even though I'm not a breeder, but if I were I wouldn't mind following these rules if they actually accomplished what they were created to do, which is to fight bad breeders/mills. Problem is is that all they are losing is the profit of one out of the hundreds or thousands of puppies they sell each year. They'll just get this extra permit and take the minor hit, still making a decent profit off of the animals they abuse.

PoetikDragon

I would follow the regulations and get a license, if it were possible. However, the dogs cannot be pets; they must live in sterile cages with no porous surfaces and cannot come into the house. They must be housed in separate buildings -- one for intact animals and one for sick/pregnant/nursing mothers.

I refuse to turn my dogs into livestock.

Calia

"Also exempt are the following: people who breed and sell working dogs;"

This statement also makes me wonder what they use to define a "working dog" and how many kennels will try to use that to their advantage.

PoetikDragon

Yeah, I saw that part -- I'm very interested in that little gem. Not all puppies are qualified for work, no matter how good the parents' are at that job. You may have one good hunting prospect or police dog in a litter, right? And what if a litter is born with no good prospects? I want to know how many "working" dogs you have to produce. I assume service animals count. What about therapy dogs? Many ideas...

I have some options with my Akitas. I feel bad for the reputable breeders of companion/toy breeds who can't easily just start having their animals do some kind of work.

Calia

I would follow the regulations and get a license, if it were possible. However, the dogs cannot be pets; they must live in sterile cages with no porous surfaces and cannot come into the house. They must be housed in separate buildings -- one for intact animals and one for sick/pregnant/nursing mothers.

I refuse to turn my dogs into livestock.

But from the sounds of it, that would only apply to dogs being sold to buyers that haven't visited the breeder or are getting the pups shipped. If you require that all buyers pick up their pups from your home, which some breeders already follow, then it won't affect you much.

I'm not saying that I support it, just that it can be done. Either way, these restrictions do nothing to solve the problem of bad breeders.

ttddinh

This sucks.

Crispy

Will this have impact on importing dogs?

sunyata

I am curious to know what would happen if a buyer visited the premises when the pups were 4 weeks old, but wanted to have the dog shipped when he or she was 8 weeks old...

Either way, I appreciate the sentiment behind the new regulations, but the logistics of it and the implications for responsible breeders is a nightmare.

lindsayt

I thought hobby breeders were exempt? This won't affect people selling locally only, but it sure could make this hard for those of us in remote areas with rare breeds being sold out of state. Seriously tho, who is going to be enforcing and researching all of this on a 1 to 1 basis? As long as you don't have a paypal button on your site, who would know how many, where or to whom you sold puppies unless you volunteer yourself?

lindsayt

And how do "they" determine who needs to be licensed (I mean, I see the rules, but does somebody browse web pages all day, or look up x breed for x state breeders to see how they sell? So can small breeders avoid being "caught" up with the large scale commercial breeders?

PoetikDragon

@Calia In the three years which I've been receiving inquiries about litters, I have had only a handful willing and able to travel to me. Of course, I could turn away everyone who will not travel; but I love my puppy buyers who didn't come out in person like @ThreeFish231118 and would hate to have turned her away and never had this relationship and great home for Kyuubi.

Limiting my puppy buyers to those who can travel to me will do one of two things (a) only rich people who can afford the two-grand round trip get puppies or (b) flood the So Cal area with more Japanese Akitas it doesn't need while leaving the rest of the country bereft. I think (a) is a little unlikely, because if they can afford it, then they could also just import from Japan. I find (b) unpalatable because part of my goals as a breeder and member of Japanese Akita Club of America is to promote the breed and increase its population in the US -- not in California, but nationwide.

I wont produce a litter without homes already lines up for a reasonable number of possible puppies. I typically want about ten solid people I feel have a good chance of getting what they want in this litter and whom I'd like to do further interviews and discussions to determine if they're a good fit. Now trying to find good ten homes that are all willing to travel, all at the same time, is next to impossible for me. People are added and removed to my list all the time; I may have eight good prospects on the list, but while finding another two or waiting for a bitch to come into season again so she can be bred, three people drop off. Plus, not only would I be turning away great homes like @ThreeFish231118 but I'd have to lower my acceptance criteria to have a large enough group of stand-by people.

And don't get me started on how unpopular brindles are compared to reds. If the "working dog" loop hole doesn't work out, I don't think I'll breed brindles again. I'd never have enough people waiting for one and willing to travel that I'd be comfortable producing a litter. Placing four was difficult enough, and only one person flew out to pick up.

MirkaM

How about exporting dogs?

PoetikDragon

@lindsayt It's completely unenforceable. They simply don't have the budgeting to do it nor the staff for all the inspections. So yes, people can avoid getting caught breaking the rules relatively easily.

Not that I support such a thing. [If I was a D&D character, I'd be lawful neutral.]

lindsayt

Well, "working" seems to be a pretty loose definition these days, so why not?

*JackBurton*

Is there a link to the exact regulation?

sjp051993

There was also a line talking about preserving a bloodline. I would think that the rare breeds could fall under that. I am in the same boat, if I only sold to people that came and picked up their puppies, I would have lost out on 2 incredible puppy homes. Toshi would not be in Cali and Keira would not be in TX. Both puppies are in very loving homes and were perfect fits for their families.

*JackBurton*

a couple websites define breeding female as intact and 4 months old min age.

Saya

Comments on this is sad.

Just my humble opinion but after working the Atkisson puppy mill raid in 1998 (700+ dogs in conditions beyond human understanding) and running a small animal rescue operation for the past 25 years I believe that in order to own a female unspayed dog or cat you should have to pay a 150.00 a year fee per animal. The money should go to no kill animal shelters and low cost spay and neuter clinics, not in the pockets of local politicians

Wow. Crazy person.

I mean aren't dogs who are not spayed or neuter have to pay more anyways with the whole dog license thing?

This is sad. Does nothing, but punish reputable breeders as bad ones will still make money as people still don't care where they get their lab or shiba..

I'm talking about average joe..

Shut down every pet store and make it illegal to treat dogs like livestock!

PoetikDragon

What I want to see is a new department that is organized around the concept that reputable breeders have their animals in their homes as pets and companions. They can still do inspections, but instead of a pass/fail license, a grading system like you see at restaurants would be nice. Let the grades include more than just the home environment; get bonus points for other things such as having pedigrees, titles, health clearances, breed club membership, sales contracts, etc. I would be happy to comply with and proudly display my own ethical breeder certification.

A pass/fail inspection for a license given by an agency focused on livestock and food? What's the point...

mdokic

Holy cow i just read some of the comments on the abcnews article...people never cease to amaze me at just how STUPID and UNINFORMED they can be. Everyone who responds to them is quite literally wasting their time.. *yuck*

omgtain

How would this be enforced ? Would they just prevent airlines from shipping puppies ?

PoetikDragon

UKC took this very seriously and wrote the following letter last year. Apparently it went unheeded (along with the letter from AKC which I remember reading but don't have off hand).

http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=APHIS-2011-0003-15063

UNITED UNITED KENNEL CLUB KENNEL CLUB
Your Total Dog Registry Since 1898

Through this letter, United Kennel Club respectfully submits its comments on for the Proposed Rule put forth by the United States Department of Agriculture Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) on May 16, 2012. 77 Fed. Reg. 28799 (May 16, 2012).

Established in 1898, the United Kennel Club is the largest all-breed performance-dog registry in the world, registering dogs from all 50 states and 25 foreign countries. More than 60 percent of its 15,000 annually licensed events are tests of hunting ability, training and instinct. UKC prides itself on its family-oriented, friendly, educational events. UKC also seeks to protect and preserve the rights of its breeders to continue to produce healthy, happy, and well-rounded purebred dogs.

UKC has several concerns with the Proposed Rule and is apprehensive about the detrimental effect on responsible breeders. The main thrust of the change is to close the 'loophole' created by internet sales by narrowing the current retail pet store exemption that the majority of hobby breeders fall into. The internet sales of dogs themselves are not the issue. While internet sales help to foster an environment of ignorance for puppy buyers, the issue itself is the condition that dogs are kept in by unscrupulous breeders, not the fact that dogs are sold 'sight unseen.' Selling animals 'sight unseen' is nothing new and certainly nothing unique to the age of the internet. Animals have been sold via advertisements and other methods for centuries. In addition, many other instances of selling 'sight unseen' occur every day in the world of purebred dogs that have no maleficent implications: the buyer may already be familiar with the bloodlines, may be a previous customer, the dog may be transported to a show, or it may be a rare breed where breeders are few and far between and visiting the kennel is not realistic or feasible.

Implementation of the Proposed Rule could result in many responsible breeders significantly reducing their operations and stopping all 'sight unseen' sales in order to avoid licensing or many may simply stop breeding altogether. This will in turn funnel more pet buyers to the abusers and create more business for the breeders who are the concern of the rule change. It's quite clear that APHIS has vastly underestimated the amount of new breeders the overly broad definition will bring in as they have speculated only 1,500 'new' retail breeders. The number of dog breeders alone would be well beyond that estimate, but the fact that several species are included makes the estimate unrealistically low.

Not only is the requirement that buyers physically enter the premises to purchase an animal overly broad and overinclusive, but many terms are disconcertingly unclear as well. While UKC agrees with the decision to increase the exemption threshold from 3 to 4 "breeding females," 4 or less "breeding females" is not further defined. Many breeders may have more female animals than they actually use for breeding; it's quite common in show and performance kennels to retain dogs and see how they mature and progress, often for years, before deciding whether they are worthy of breeding or not. The proposed regulations would harm responsible breeding practices if breeders feel constrained in the number of females they may keep. No age is set for breeding females, so it could include anything from young puppies to old retired females. At a minimum, this definition would need clarification and exemptions for females not actively being used for breeding so as not to hinder responsible breeders. The exemption for "dogs used for hunting, security, or breeding purposes" is also vague. Many legitimate kennels sell dogs for several purposes; they may sell dogs for hunting purposes AND as pets. It's unclear as to whether dogs must be sold exclusively for "hunting, security, or breeding purposes" in order to meet the exception, or if selling some as pets would be acceptable as well.

While most state and local anti-cruelty laws are more than sufficient to address the conditions that APHIS is concerned with, should APHIS proceed with the proposed regulations, UKC respectfully requests that clarifications and amendments be made. The definition of the targeted group must be more narrowly tailored, as including any pet seller who makes one sale "sight unseen" is too broad and will do more harm to responsible breeders than the good it may do in curtailing the bad actors. In this state of economic affairs, USDA will not have the resources nor manpower to inspect and license the great number of breeders that will fall under the proposed regulations. UKC cannot support the Proposed Rule as currently written, and asks that APHIS consider alternatives to narrow the scope in order to better reach the intended target.

Sara Chisnell-Voigt
Legal Counsel
United Kennel Club, Inc.

*JackBurton*

Ok found it: This is from the Feb 27, 2013 draft:

Breeding female: ‘(1) DEFINITIONS- In this subsection:

‘(A) BREEDING FEMALE DOG- The term ‘breeding female dog’ means an intact female dog aged 4 months or older.

‘(B) HIGH VOLUME RETAIL BREEDER- The term ‘high volume retail breeder’ means a person who, in commerce, for compensation or profit--

‘(i) has an ownership interest in or custody of 1 or more breeding female dogs; and

‘(ii) sells or offers for sale, via any means of conveyance (including the Internet, telephone, or newspaper), more than 50 of the offspring of such breeding female dogs for use as pets in any 1-year period.

I don't know if this is the final version.

PoetikDragon

That's a different thing. That looks like H.R. 835 Puppy Uniform Protection and Safety Act (PUPS Act). Here is the AKC letter of opposition to PUPS. The act failed and was not reintroduced BTW.

http://www.akc.org/governmentrelations/documents/pdf/PUPSAct1-26-12.pdf

To my knowledge, breeding female has not been satisfactorily defined in any version of the USDA regulations.

*JackBurton*

http://www.aphis.usda.gov/newsroom/2013/09/pdf/pet_retail_docket_2011-2003.pdf

This was issued sept 2013

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

cdenney

Sorry I get puppy mills are sick business but who the hell is breeding females at 4 months or 6 when they first come into heat? They're still developing! Did the usda really get that age from history or just pulled one out of their ass!

I appreciate the sentiment of the law but it is unfeasible for home breeders!

ayk

Stinks.

From today's APHIS press release, the 4 breedable female rule includes dogs, cats or small exotic/wild pocket pets.

With a caveat, " Breeders who maintain four or fewer breeding females are considered hobby breeders who already provide sufficient care to their animals without APHIS’ oversight – provided they only sell the offspring of animals born and raised on their premises for pets or exhibition."