This is a placeholder text
Group text
by Tngsd on 26 June 2010 - 22:06
elderly intact bitches well past a breedable age; bitches left
intact for reasons of veterinary recommendation; or bitches left intact for show, working ability,
or any other purposes, even if the bitch was not intended to be bred that year, or ever.
Additionally, mandatory spay-neuter laws are increasingly being proposed, and passed across
the United States, with a four-month age limit, illustrating the goal of Animal Rights activists to
have all dogs spayed or neutered before any reasonable breedable age is achieved. Might the
wording of PUPS be interpreted as extra coercion towards having co-owned bitches spayed
rather than left intact?
Given the second requirement of more than 50 puppies sold or offered for sale, the fact that
only one “breeding female dog” is included appears odd, given that it is biologically impossible
for the best producing bitch to produce 50 saleable puppies in a one year period! However, the
“one breeding female dog” might be a omen of further AWA revisions to come, in which the
number of puppies sold is reduced to that more harmonious with what a “breeding female dog”
can reasonably be expected to whelp in a given year.
Use of term “sells or offers for sale”: The term “sells or offers for sale” adds further potential
complications to this bill. As any long term breeder knows, the number of puppies the breeder
“offers to sell” in any given time period does not mean that all those puppies were actually sold.
Perhaps, for example, the number of puppies actually produced was not the optimistic number
that the breeder had buyers for, or perhaps a poor economy forced buyers to back out of the
deal at the last minute, leaving those puppies unsold. Yet, the breeder would still be classified by
the number he or she “offered to sell” in any given year, as opposed to the actual number of
puppies sold.
More than breeders who sell via the Internet will be impacted: In Senator Durbin’s May
25, 2010 press release announcing the introduction of PUPS, he stated that the purpose of the
bill is to “close the loophole that allows large breeders to sell puppies online, escaping inspection
and oversight.”9 Quite to the contrary, however, is the bill’s wording, which includes the phrase
“sells or offers for sale, via any means of conveyance (including the Internet, telephone, or
newspaper), more than 50 of the offspring….” This shows that the net is being cast to include all
breeders with the one intact bitch/more than 50 puppies offered for sale minimums, not just
those breeders who sell “on the Internet.” Additionally, the bill does not make allowances for the
many responsible breeders who make use of the Internet (or telephone, or newspaper) as initial
first contact only, but who require a meeting in person with the potential purchaser typically at
the home of breeder, prior to the finalization of the sale.
Consequences of the bill for the home hobby breeder: This bill poses enormous
ramifications for a home hobby dog breeder that would now be defined under the Animal
Welfare Act as a “High Volume Retail Breeder.” In order to be licensed, they would have to be
inspected through APHIS to ensure that their facility (i.e., their home in most cases) meets the
engineering standards required for a commercial USDA-licensed kennel. Unless such a breeder
keeps their dogs kenneled in a separate portion of the home, and away from the "human" home
proper, it would be difficult to meet the minimum engineering standards as directed. Several
obvious conflicts arise when attempting to apply the speci
intact for reasons of veterinary recommendation; or bitches left intact for show, working ability,
or any other purposes, even if the bitch was not intended to be bred that year, or ever.
Additionally, mandatory spay-neuter laws are increasingly being proposed, and passed across
the United States, with a four-month age limit, illustrating the goal of Animal Rights activists to
have all dogs spayed or neutered before any reasonable breedable age is achieved. Might the
wording of PUPS be interpreted as extra coercion towards having co-owned bitches spayed
rather than left intact?
Given the second requirement of more than 50 puppies sold or offered for sale, the fact that
only one “breeding female dog” is included appears odd, given that it is biologically impossible
for the best producing bitch to produce 50 saleable puppies in a one year period! However, the
“one breeding female dog” might be a omen of further AWA revisions to come, in which the
number of puppies sold is reduced to that more harmonious with what a “breeding female dog”
can reasonably be expected to whelp in a given year.
Use of term “sells or offers for sale”: The term “sells or offers for sale” adds further potential
complications to this bill. As any long term breeder knows, the number of puppies the breeder
“offers to sell” in any given time period does not mean that all those puppies were actually sold.
Perhaps, for example, the number of puppies actually produced was not the optimistic number
that the breeder had buyers for, or perhaps a poor economy forced buyers to back out of the
deal at the last minute, leaving those puppies unsold. Yet, the breeder would still be classified by
the number he or she “offered to sell” in any given year, as opposed to the actual number of
puppies sold.
More than breeders who sell via the Internet will be impacted: In Senator Durbin’s May
25, 2010 press release announcing the introduction of PUPS, he stated that the purpose of the
bill is to “close the loophole that allows large breeders to sell puppies online, escaping inspection
and oversight.”9 Quite to the contrary, however, is the bill’s wording, which includes the phrase
“sells or offers for sale, via any means of conveyance (including the Internet, telephone, or
newspaper), more than 50 of the offspring….” This shows that the net is being cast to include all
breeders with the one intact bitch/more than 50 puppies offered for sale minimums, not just
those breeders who sell “on the Internet.” Additionally, the bill does not make allowances for the
many responsible breeders who make use of the Internet (or telephone, or newspaper) as initial
first contact only, but who require a meeting in person with the potential purchaser typically at
the home of breeder, prior to the finalization of the sale.
Consequences of the bill for the home hobby breeder: This bill poses enormous
ramifications for a home hobby dog breeder that would now be defined under the Animal
Welfare Act as a “High Volume Retail Breeder.” In order to be licensed, they would have to be
inspected through APHIS to ensure that their facility (i.e., their home in most cases) meets the
engineering standards required for a commercial USDA-licensed kennel. Unless such a breeder
keeps their dogs kenneled in a separate portion of the home, and away from the "human" home
proper, it would be difficult to meet the minimum engineering standards as directed. Several
obvious conflicts arise when attempting to apply the speci
Contact information Disclaimer Privacy Statement Copyright Information Terms of Service Cookie policy ↑ Back to top