This is a placeholder text
Group text
by GSD Admin on 11 September 2013 - 01:09
And Malndobe here ya go.
One commenter asked how recently buyers must have visited a facility before a seller can sell them a pup remotely. As an example, the commenter wanted to know whether, if buyers visited her facility 2 years earlier to buy a pup, she could remain exempt if she shipped them a second pup without them visiting her a second time. As indicated in our revised definition of retail pet store, each purchase of a pet animal requires that the seller, buyer, and the animal available for sale are physically present so thatevery buyer may personally observe the animal prior to purchasing and/or taking custody of that animal after purchase. Accordingly, if the buyers observed this second pup during their visit, this condition is fulfilled. If they did not (e.g., if the pup was not yet born when the prior transaction took place), this condition is not fulfilled.
One commenter asked how recently buyers must have visited a facility before a seller can sell them a pup remotely. As an example, the commenter wanted to know whether, if buyers visited her facility 2 years earlier to buy a pup, she could remain exempt if she shipped them a second pup without them visiting her a second time. As indicated in our revised definition of retail pet store, each purchase of a pet animal requires that the seller, buyer, and the animal available for sale are physically present so thatevery buyer may personally observe the animal prior to purchasing and/or taking custody of that animal after purchase. Accordingly, if the buyers observed this second pup during their visit, this condition is fulfilled. If they did not (e.g., if the pup was not yet born when the prior transaction took place), this condition is not fulfilled.
by leoetta on 11 September 2013 - 03:09
"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."
Looks like this may exclude any "hobby breeders" that import a female from Germany.
Looks like this may exclude any "hobby breeders" that import a female from Germany.
by Blitzen on 11 September 2013 - 09:09
Dog brokers would be subjected to these rules.
by malndobe on 11 September 2013 - 15:09
"Ah, I am a breeder. Before I go any further do you want Olis email address? It seems to be an issue with you when I/we answer back or comment on anything you don't agree with."
I already have Oli's email address, thank you anyway. For the most part I don't pay enough attention to the people posting on this forum to remember any "history" beyond the current posts. However based on your reply to me I could see us having butted heads in the past.
If you are a breeder, I don't understand why you would think this is funny?
Anyway, back to the topic at hand, the actual article. They changed the wording, removing the word "allow" in regards to physical visits, and making them required, so I no longer believe it won't impact breeders.
Several commenters suggested amending the definition to allow buyers the option to
waive the requirement to physically enter the seller’s place of business or residence to observe
the animals offered for sale. The commenters stated that this would prevent buyers who have an
existing relationship with a seller from having to travel long distances to view animals when they
felt confident about the care standards provided by the seller. (This was denied, no changes will be made)
It will be interesting to see what happens, and how well it's enforced. I suspect this loophole will be used, a breeder can just "sell" the dog to someone local, who then "resells" the dog to the intended owner. This is what I pointed out earlier in terms of brokers and puppymills.
The commenters assumed that the buyer of an animal sold at retail is the ultimate owner
of the animal. However, as noted above, we consider the buyer of an animal sold at retail to be
the person who takes custody of that animal after purchase; this might not be the ultimate owner.
For purposes of the definition of retail pet store, it is this person, not necessarily the ultimate
owner, who must be physically present to observe animals available for sale. However, a carrier
or intermediate handler cannot be designated as the buyer.
Not sure how they would define "carrier" or "intermediate handler" but if there is a bill of sale to the "broker" and then another bill of sale to the owner, it sounds like it meets the requirements.
It doesn't look like they count co-ownerships as part of the 4 breeding female limit. Had to do a bunch of reading to find this, as initially it sounded like they did, but
We acknowledge that co-ownership of breeding females is a standard practice among
small-scale residential breeders. Provided that no more than four breeding females are
maintained on his or her premises, these individuals would qualify for the exemption in
So breeders can continue to keep more than 4 females in their program if they utilize co-owns. It does sound like the female would need to whelp the litter at the co-owners though, vs coming back to the breeder to whelp, unless the breeder had less than 4 intact females at their place.
The biggest loophole I see is
However, this rule will only affect those dog breeders who sell dogs as pets, not for
hunting, security, breeding, or other purposes;
So all a breeder has to do is say they are selling their pups for breeding purposes and they are exempt. Not sure if they sell a breed like GSD if saying they are being sold for personal protection would count as "security". "other purposes" gets confusing though
The examples cited in the exemption (hunting, security, or
breeding purposes) are only intended to illustrate other purposes for buying or selling a dog at
retail. As commenters pointed out, those examples are not exhaustive, and there are many other
purposes that a dog can be used or trained for that are not included under the definition of dealer.
But later someone specifically asks about agility dogs, and the reply is that most agility dogs are pets so they qualify as pets and therefore aren't under the exemption.
I already have Oli's email address, thank you anyway. For the most part I don't pay enough attention to the people posting on this forum to remember any "history" beyond the current posts. However based on your reply to me I could see us having butted heads in the past.
If you are a breeder, I don't understand why you would think this is funny?
Anyway, back to the topic at hand, the actual article. They changed the wording, removing the word "allow" in regards to physical visits, and making them required, so I no longer believe it won't impact breeders.
Several commenters suggested amending the definition to allow buyers the option to
waive the requirement to physically enter the seller’s place of business or residence to observe
the animals offered for sale. The commenters stated that this would prevent buyers who have an
existing relationship with a seller from having to travel long distances to view animals when they
felt confident about the care standards provided by the seller. (This was denied, no changes will be made)
It will be interesting to see what happens, and how well it's enforced. I suspect this loophole will be used, a breeder can just "sell" the dog to someone local, who then "resells" the dog to the intended owner. This is what I pointed out earlier in terms of brokers and puppymills.
The commenters assumed that the buyer of an animal sold at retail is the ultimate owner
of the animal. However, as noted above, we consider the buyer of an animal sold at retail to be
the person who takes custody of that animal after purchase; this might not be the ultimate owner.
For purposes of the definition of retail pet store, it is this person, not necessarily the ultimate
owner, who must be physically present to observe animals available for sale. However, a carrier
or intermediate handler cannot be designated as the buyer.
Not sure how they would define "carrier" or "intermediate handler" but if there is a bill of sale to the "broker" and then another bill of sale to the owner, it sounds like it meets the requirements.
It doesn't look like they count co-ownerships as part of the 4 breeding female limit. Had to do a bunch of reading to find this, as initially it sounded like they did, but
We acknowledge that co-ownership of breeding females is a standard practice among
small-scale residential breeders. Provided that no more than four breeding females are
maintained on his or her premises, these individuals would qualify for the exemption in
So breeders can continue to keep more than 4 females in their program if they utilize co-owns. It does sound like the female would need to whelp the litter at the co-owners though, vs coming back to the breeder to whelp, unless the breeder had less than 4 intact females at their place.
The biggest loophole I see is
However, this rule will only affect those dog breeders who sell dogs as pets, not for
hunting, security, breeding, or other purposes;
So all a breeder has to do is say they are selling their pups for breeding purposes and they are exempt. Not sure if they sell a breed like GSD if saying they are being sold for personal protection would count as "security". "other purposes" gets confusing though
The examples cited in the exemption (hunting, security, or
breeding purposes) are only intended to illustrate other purposes for buying or selling a dog at
retail. As commenters pointed out, those examples are not exhaustive, and there are many other
purposes that a dog can be used or trained for that are not included under the definition of dealer.
But later someone specifically asks about agility dogs, and the reply is that most agility dogs are pets so they qualify as pets and therefore aren't under the exemption.
by beetree on 11 September 2013 - 17:09
I think this link is easier to read as it attempts to explain most questions. http://www.aphis.usda.gov/newsroom/2013/09/pdf/faq_retail_pets_final_rule.pdf
Looks like most rescues, and importers don't have to worry. The worst case scenario is some breeders will have to pay for a new license, an expense deemed not a hardship, if they do indeed fit the category on the Retail Pet Store Final Rule.
Looks like most rescues, and importers don't have to worry. The worst case scenario is some breeders will have to pay for a new license, an expense deemed not a hardship, if they do indeed fit the category on the Retail Pet Store Final Rule.
by Olga Ashley on 12 September 2013 - 02:09
So, I'm not sure I fully understand the wording. As I read it, it would apply to those who have over 4 "breeding females", aka intact bitches, AND ship/sell puppies "sight unseen" ? Not to those who have less than 4 intact bitches, and would like to ship puppies to new families or to those who have over 4 intact bitches and only sell puppies to people who pick them up in person? Is that correct? .
Contact information Disclaimer Privacy Statement Copyright Information Terms of Service Cookie policy ↑ Back to top
