USDA seeks change to regulate Internet pet sales - Page 1

Good, bad or indifferent? This could put brokers and others who sell other breeders puppies/dogs in a bind. What do you think?

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/05/10/usda-seeks-change-to-regulate-internet-pet-sales

Dog breeders who skirt animal welfare laws by selling puppies over the Internet would face tighter scrutiny under a rule change proposed Thursday by the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

The change would subject dog owners who breed more than four females and sell the puppies electronically, by mail or over the phone to the same oversight faced by wholesale dealers as part of the Animal Welfare Act.

That law, written in 1966, set standards of care for animals bred for commercial sale and research. Retail sales were exempt from inspections under the assumption that anyone who visited the store could see whether the animals appeared healthy and cared for.

The Internet opened a new venue for puppy sales, and thousands of large-scale breeders who advertise there have not been subject to oversight or inspection.

The proposed change seeks to close that loophole by ensuring that anyone who sells pets over the Internet, by phone or mail order can no longer do so sight-unseen. Sellers either must open their doors to the public so buyers can see the animals before they purchase them, or obtain a license and be subject to inspections by the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.

"We feel this is certainly a much-needed change to an outdated system," said Rebecca Blue, deputy undersecretary for marketing and regulatory programs.

The change does not affect backyard breeders who sell puppies from their homes or other physical locations. Blue said it's designed to ensure that dogs sold and shipped to buyers are healthy, treated well and genetically sound.

"This is a very significant proposed federal action, since thousands of large-scale breeders take advantage of a loophole that allows them to escape any federal inspections," said Wayne Pacelle, president and CEO of The Humane Society of the United States. "Dogs in puppy mills often live in small, overcrowded cages, living in filth and denied veterinary care. We need more eyes on these operations, and this rule will help."

Opposition to the change is hard to find.

"You need to open your home if you breed more than four dogs. That sounds appropriate to me," said Patti Strand, director of the National Animal Interest Alliance.

The proposed rule change came as Congress considers legislation backed by Rep. Sam Farr, D-Calif., a longtime animal welfare supporter, and Reps. Jim Gerlach, R-Pa., Bill Young, R-Fla., and Lois Capps, D-Calif., as well as Sens. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., Dick Durbin, D-Ill., and David Vitter, R-La. — that sought to make similar changes to the regulations.

Farr welcomed the USDA's decision.

"The change will finally allow the USDA to properly enforce violations, shut down puppy mills, and prevent future abuses of dogs and unsuspecting customers," Farr said.

The USDA will accept comments on the proposed rule change for 60 days.

http://www.aphis.usda.gov/publications/animal_welfare/2012/retail_pets_faq.pdf

there's a link at the bottom of the publication for comments...


And how much does a licens cost and what are the requirements.........and last question....I just read the constitution and bill of rights and I just cannot find even one enumerated power that even gets close......

How will this affect Internet, phone- and mailorder retailers?

The proposal will affect these retailers if they currently sell their pet animals to buyers sight-unseen. Pet animal retailers will have a choice. They can either sell their animals to buyers who physically enter their store to visibly observe the animals available for sale, or they can obtain a license under the Animal Welfare Act and allow APHIS inspectors to inspect their facility.





 

It puts a lot of breeders out of businesses in my eyes, but you know how this stuff goes pretty soon there will be more exceptions than puppy mills. It looks like it takes a big bite out of resellers and brokers. This is probably a good thing for most pet owners. I guess.

I'm all for shutting down puppy mills, but I wonder how they will keep track of how many breeders have bred four or more dogs?   How would they enforce it?

Big brother knows all. I don't think this will put many puppy mills out of business.

What if the seller ships some pups to buyers (who never step foot on the breeder's property) and sells other pups to buyers who do come to the breeder's property?   Does the breeder have to comply with this law if they sell even one puppy to a buyer who doesn't come to their property? 

I'm against puppymills too, but I also don't trust the agendas of animal rights organizations like HSUS.  
Puppymills breed dozens of female dogs each year, not just 5, 6 or 7.  So they're targeting more breeders than just puppymills.  If it's a bad breeder who is breeding less than a dozen litters each year it's still a BYB breeder, not a full blown puppymill. 
A visual inspection of a dog may tell if it's healthy and treated well, but it's not going to tell if it's genetically sound, how are they going to enforce "genetically sound"?
How are they going to track internet ads to find out who is selling what?  Sounds like it would be allowing an invasion of privacy.  Perhaps if you advertise a single puppy online available to a good home then you've just waived all rights to your personal privacy and property?

This is more likely to hurt mid-size good breeders who try to follow the laws than giant size bad breeders who will find ways to circumvent this. 

How on earth do they propose to fund the personel to enforce this law???  More fines, fees, taxes?  USDA and local governments already have anti-cruelty laws and regulations in place, they just don't bother to enforce them.  So how is making more laws going to help?

I'm sure PeTA, HSUS and ASPCA are trying to get the government to allow their own people to do the "enforcing" of this law. 

I will be astounded and amazed if this modification to the existing regulations ever gets passed--the USDA APHIS Animal Care agency doesn't have sufficient personnel or funding from Congress to adequately oversee the various operations they're already charged with monitoring and gaining compliance from: in addition to the commercial dog and cat operations, this agency is also responsible for licensing and inspection of research facilities that use species other than rats, mice and rabbits, and privately-owned zoos and menageries that involve any public exhibition. The addition of web-based pet brokers and sellers would be a logistical nightmare to coordinate, let alone try and enforce the regulations for such operations. It's something that will appeal to the public's ears, but will fall by the wayside when that same public finds out what it would cost to put into action.

there will be a "comment peroid" so if we want to have a voice we must comment......
say nothing and the new standard will most definately happen....

It appears that congress was ready to move on this before the proposed rule change.

Quoted from the article.

"The proposed rule change came as Congress considers legislation backed by Rep. Sam Farr, D-Calif., a longtime animal welfare supporter, and Reps. Jim Gerlach, R-Pa., Bill Young, R-Fla., and Lois Capps, D-Calif., as well as Sens. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., Dick Durbin, D-Ill., and David Vitter, R-La. — that sought to make similar changes to the regulations."

Yeah, but Congress 'considers' legislation at a rate comparable to the number of rolls of toilet paper that are used at "Baking with ExLax" competition...

I'm not suggesting that people not comment on the proposals--far from it. I'm all for the public using every venue we're given to voice our thoughts on how the governmental agencies legislate our lives and business.

I just don't think this particular proposed change to the Animal Welfare regs really has the legs its being touted to have.