New USDA regs- I told you so...2 years ago - Page 1

Hi all:

2 years ago I posted to this forum that new regs were coming, and that some people wouldn't like them much. The intent of the regulations is to cut down on people importing whole litters of puppies for resale on the internet. It also inflicts registration with USDA on kennels having 4 breeding age females on premises or importing or buying 4 litters per year. It will be hard for any breeder to advertise on the internet, and not show the litters or breeding stock, and thus they will be required to register with USDA.. 

Please read the REAL regulations, not the rabble rousing AP wire story.

Please read what was will actually be in the regulations, as opposed to how the rabble rousing muck raking media AP wire has interpreted the information. The new regs take effect in November

https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2014/08/18/2014-19515/animal-welfare-importation-of-live-dogs

 

There is a key paragraph for importers:

This rule does not apply when there is no transfer of ownership or control of a dog to another person for more than de minimis consideration after the dog's importation into the United States. Therefore, dogs imported by a person who will use the dog as a personal pet, for sport, for shows or competitions, or for breeding or semen collection are not subject to the 6-month age restriction or any other requirements of this rule. Additionally, we do not consider dogs imported for training as working dogs to be imported for purposes of resale. Thus, the rule will not apply to puppies imported by legitimate training organizations for the purpose of training the dog to be a working dog.   I am happy to answer questions as pertains to imports and customs, but I am not an attorney and cannot give legal advice to people who want to import pups that will fall outside of these generous loopholes. Best regards, Ellen Chance, CHB Jean Duncan Customs Brokers

the usda is updating their regulations to be in sinc with the animal wellfare act revisions.

I see an opportunity for new services to emerge from savvy veterinarians:

(2) Veterinary care. The provisions of paragraphs (a)(1)(iii) through (a)(1)(v) and (a)(2) of this section do not apply to any person who imports a live dog from any part of the world into the continental United States or Hawaii for veterinary treatment by a licensed veterinarian, provided that:

(i) The original health certificate required in paragraph (a)(1) of this section states that the dog is in need of veterinary treatment that cannot be obtained in the country of export and states the name and address of the licensed veterinarian in the United States who intends to provide the dog such veterinary treatment; and

(ii) The person who imports the dog completes a veterinary treatment agreement with Animal Care at the time of application for an import permit and confines the animal until the conditions specified in the agreement are met. Such conditions may include determinations by the licensed veterinarian in the United States that the dog is in good health, has been adequately vaccinated against DHLPP and rabies, and is at least 6 months of age. The person importing the dog shall bear the expense of veterinary treatment and confinement.

Because it seems a USA based vet providing "unavailable care" can bypasss the following rules because they "do not apply" as stated above :

(iii) Specifies a date of rabies vaccination at least 30 days before the date of arrival of the dog at a U.S. port;

(iv) Specifies a date of expiration of the vaccination which is after the date of arrival of the dog at a U.S. port. If no date of expiration is specified, then the date of vaccination shall be no more than 12 months before the date of arrival at a U.S. port; and

(v) Bears the signature and the license number of the veterinarian issuing the certificate.

(a)(2) Rabies vaccination certificate. Each dog is accompanied by a valid rabies vaccination certificate ^[6] that was issued in English by a licensed veterinarian with a valid license to practice veterinary medicine in the country of export for the dog not less than 3 months of age at the time of vaccination that:

(i) Specifies the name and address of the person intending to import the dog into the continental United States or Hawaii;Show citation box

(ii) Identifies the dog on the basis of breed, sex, age, color, markings, and other identifying information;

(iii) Specifies a date of rabies vaccination at least 30 days before the date of arrival of the dog at a U.S. port;

(iv) Specifies a date of expiration of the vaccination which is after the date of arrival of the dog at a U.S. port. If no date of expiration is specified, then the date of vaccination shall be no more than 12 months before the date of arrival at a U.S. port; and

(v) Bears the signature and the license number of the veterinarian issuing the certificate.

I'd say if you had the dogs transported to an "intermediary" country that "cannot provide veterinary care" the dogs could then be imported to the USA directly to a vet, meeting the requirement that the "dog is in need of veterinary treatment".  The cost will certainly go up, using this tactic, to import a less than 6 month old pup, due to additional paperwork and "intermediary" holding costs, but should still cost less than flying to Europe and buying in person.

I'm not sure anyone is getting hurt here that doesn't deserve it and I wish the rule was even more restrictive.  What is BEST for the puppies being imported and not what is best for people saving or making money off of the misery and trauma to puppies shipped into the USA, brokered, sold one or two times and then landing in a home or homes before finally getting to stop the merry-go-round.  Imported females bred in Europe and imported are not affected.  Imported parents giving birth in the USA likewise not affected.  Dogs for police or service organizations including police dog brokers are unfortunately not affected.  Maybe doing the right thing won't hurt the person who wants a dog to love and train.  For those to whom profit is the motive and misery doesn't matter then grin and bear it.

The problem with this and any govt "rule or law" is that once again those who do the right thing will be penalized and those who don't will find some way to get around it. I'm 50 yo and over the years with all the rules you would think things would get better. I havent seen this to be true. It's getting worse. Maybe instead of another law which the USDA imposes (since they are doing such a bang up job now) why not enforce the ones they already have and go after those who need it.

Bhaugh, new rules are made because people circumvent existing rules.
For people "who do the right thing" rules are not necassary.
It´s a loop without end - people are cheating = new rules are made / people are cheating again = new rules...
The "good ones" are always the ones who suffer, but that´s life.

You also have to understand though, in the new rules no dogs that breeders are using can be housed in their homes (like the majority of the show and working dog people do). They have to have kennels for all dogs, drains, and proper floors that can be washed each and every day. Those breedable animals cannot be in the house at all, I have read this up and down many times already. I read it the first time it came out too. You have to have a building that will house said animals, you have to be up to inspections at anytime (they aren't scheduled, but more like "surprise" random inspections). The puppy buyer has to come see the puppies to be able to buy from a breeder, that is the only way they can be shipped afterwards. Pictures aren't enough or you have to have a person in your place go for you. Also, a person had asked on another board if video would count and the answer is "no", it has be in person by you or a person that is going in for you.

https://www.akc.org/governmentrelations/usda_aphis.cfm

 

-----------------

http://www.stca.biz/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1188:usdaaphis-breeder-licensing-rules-changes-comments-and-information&catid=337:legislative-news&Itemid=227

"

However, as proposed, the rule changes goes beyond the desired scope:

• It will likely require licensing of small, dedicated breeders, such as STCA breeders, even those recognized by the AKC as Breeders of Merit.  This is because the rules are not based on quantity or quality of breeding, but simply on the sales process and the number of “breeding females” that may be present (even if not actively bred). 
• These changes will also impact Rescue in a significant and likely negative way.

It is important that the USDA hear from quality purebred breeders and rescue to get appropriate changesmade so these rules achieve the intent behind the rules and avoid negative unintended consequences.
Comments must be received at USDA by July 16, 2012.
Comments can be submitted at: 

http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=APHIS-2011-0003-0001

 or at:

APHIS–2011–0003,

Regulatory Analysis and Development, PPD, APHIS,

Station 3A–03.8,

4700 River Road Unit 118,

Riverdale, MD 20737–1238

Summary:

Here are some aspects of the rules that are problematic and must be addressed.

• Physical visit rule.  Each and every sale must include a physical visit by the purchaser to the breeder’s site. 
  • Even one case where the purchaser does not physically visit the breeder’s facility will trigger a requirement for a license.
  • Rescue: this will mean every and every placement requires a visit to the foster home.
  • Requiring physical visit for each and every sale is overreaching.
     
• Four Breeding Bitches rule.  If you have more than 4 breed(able) bitches, you will require a license.
  • Breeding bitches is not defined. If a litter of puppies includes females, and you keep some past 6 months, they will likely be considered ‘breeding bitches’- even if they are just awaiting homes.
  • Co-ownership is not addressed. If you co-own a bitch that resides at another location – she may be counted in your “four.”
  • Rescue: this means that breeders cannot be involved in fostering rescue does in any way. If they do so – they will loose their exemption because they are placing/selling a dog they did not breed.
     
• Every dog you sell must be bred by you or you must be licensed.
  • What if you receive a “pay-back” puppy and sell it. Since you did not breed it, you will require a license.
  • Rescue: Breeders must not be involved in rescue fostering.

-------

So, puppies that cannot find a home and are female will be considered "breedable" under the new rules. This is just a mess. The breeders who do rescue too, can no longer do so. Still think this is a good rule? Oh, and I'm not a breeder. Rescues will also be in trouble as well.

 

Co-ownership is not addressed. If you co-own a bitch that resides at another location – she may be counted in your “four.”

What if you receive a “pay-back” puppy and sell it. Since you did not breed it, you will require a license.

Can't forming a legal Co-op solve most of these issues and provide a tax benefit to boot under Domestic Production Activities Deduction Form 8903 (DPAD)?

Physical visit rule.  Each and every sale must include a physical visit by the purchaser to the breeder’s site. 

Even one case where the purchaser does not physically visit the breeder’s facility will trigger a requirement for a license.

Can't a "broker" acting as a pass though, whom transfers ownership from themselves to the "next owner" solve this issue also?

the "R" word - can't wait for someone to turn this into the right to bear arms to defend against the commie big gov.