This is a placeholder text
Group text
by Tngsd on 26 June 2010 - 22:06
In May, 2010, the USDA Office of the Inspector General (OIG) released a report, “Animal and
Plant Health Inspection Service, Animal Care Program, Inspections of Problematic Dealers.” 7
This report focused on APHIS inspection of already known and licensed “problematic dealers”,
covering 50 breeders and 18 brokers, all currently licensed under the AWA, and all with at least
one previous violation under this Act. Many of the violations observed and documented during
the audit period were of a highly serious nature, including several that resulted in deaths of the
licensees’ dogs. Several cases of previously-cited, unlicensed substandard breeders, who chose
to remain unlicensed due to the relatively insignificant monetary penalties assessed by APHIS,
were also described. The report detailed many APHIS inspection deficiencies, including
ineffective enforcement processes, lack of proper violation documentation, and the Inspectors’
misuse of APHIS guidelines which improperly lowered penalties assessed these continual
violators. There is no question that the substandard practices of these “problematic breeders”,
abhorrent to everyone, must be remedied, and that the existing AWA regulations must be fairly
enforced against all breeders that are required to be licensed under existing wording of this Act.
While the OIG report briefly refers to “some large breeders [who] circumvented AWA by selling
animals over the internet” as an area requiring scrutiny under the AWA, it is clear that this is not
the major focus of their report. Additionally, there is no hard substantiation offered in the OIG
report validating the need to pull these “Internet breeders” under the umbrella of the AWA via
new regulations, such as contained in PUPS. Allegations concerning these “Internet breeders”
are quite unlike the well-documented cases in the OIG report that described ongoing
substandard practices among already licensed breeders and those “wholesale” breeders who
illegally refused licensing. Indeed, the OIG audit listed only four cases describing unhealthy
puppies purchased by pet owners from supposedly unlicensed breeders who sold over the
Internet: one case from their own OIG hotline, a second from a Better Business Bureau website
response page, and two quoted from popular media articles. The OIG offered no further
substantiation, such as veterinarian records, photos, or personal examination of the puppies, to
validate the puppy purchaser’s claims. Significantly more hard data and evidence should be
required in order to understand the scope and magnitude of the supposed “Internet breeder”
phenomenon prior to proposing legislation, to best determine what type of legislative solution is
needed, or even if new regulations are needed at all.
Supposedly in response to these ongoing problems, Senator Richard J. Durbin (D-IL) introduced
PUPS (Puppy Uniform Protection and Safety Act) in the U.S. Senate on May 25, 2010, according
to a press release appearing on his official website.8 What is highly puzzling, however, is that his
bill only addresses a minor concern named in the OIG report: dog breeders that sell more than
50 dogs per year directly to the public and who are not currently required to be licensed under
the AWA. PUPS therefore ignores the major problem as described in the OIG report, namely, the
inability of APHIS to enforce current regulations found in the AWA for those licensed commercial
breeders who incur repeated violations. In addition, Durbin’s bill “also requires that dogs in
commercial breeding facilities have appropriate space and opportunity for regular
Plant Health Inspection Service, Animal Care Program, Inspections of Problematic Dealers.” 7
This report focused on APHIS inspection of already known and licensed “problematic dealers”,
covering 50 breeders and 18 brokers, all currently licensed under the AWA, and all with at least
one previous violation under this Act. Many of the violations observed and documented during
the audit period were of a highly serious nature, including several that resulted in deaths of the
licensees’ dogs. Several cases of previously-cited, unlicensed substandard breeders, who chose
to remain unlicensed due to the relatively insignificant monetary penalties assessed by APHIS,
were also described. The report detailed many APHIS inspection deficiencies, including
ineffective enforcement processes, lack of proper violation documentation, and the Inspectors’
misuse of APHIS guidelines which improperly lowered penalties assessed these continual
violators. There is no question that the substandard practices of these “problematic breeders”,
abhorrent to everyone, must be remedied, and that the existing AWA regulations must be fairly
enforced against all breeders that are required to be licensed under existing wording of this Act.
While the OIG report briefly refers to “some large breeders [who] circumvented AWA by selling
animals over the internet” as an area requiring scrutiny under the AWA, it is clear that this is not
the major focus of their report. Additionally, there is no hard substantiation offered in the OIG
report validating the need to pull these “Internet breeders” under the umbrella of the AWA via
new regulations, such as contained in PUPS. Allegations concerning these “Internet breeders”
are quite unlike the well-documented cases in the OIG report that described ongoing
substandard practices among already licensed breeders and those “wholesale” breeders who
illegally refused licensing. Indeed, the OIG audit listed only four cases describing unhealthy
puppies purchased by pet owners from supposedly unlicensed breeders who sold over the
Internet: one case from their own OIG hotline, a second from a Better Business Bureau website
response page, and two quoted from popular media articles. The OIG offered no further
substantiation, such as veterinarian records, photos, or personal examination of the puppies, to
validate the puppy purchaser’s claims. Significantly more hard data and evidence should be
required in order to understand the scope and magnitude of the supposed “Internet breeder”
phenomenon prior to proposing legislation, to best determine what type of legislative solution is
needed, or even if new regulations are needed at all.
Supposedly in response to these ongoing problems, Senator Richard J. Durbin (D-IL) introduced
PUPS (Puppy Uniform Protection and Safety Act) in the U.S. Senate on May 25, 2010, according
to a press release appearing on his official website.8 What is highly puzzling, however, is that his
bill only addresses a minor concern named in the OIG report: dog breeders that sell more than
50 dogs per year directly to the public and who are not currently required to be licensed under
the AWA. PUPS therefore ignores the major problem as described in the OIG report, namely, the
inability of APHIS to enforce current regulations found in the AWA for those licensed commercial
breeders who incur repeated violations. In addition, Durbin’s bill “also requires that dogs in
commercial breeding facilities have appropriate space and opportunity for regular
Contact information Disclaimer Privacy Statement Copyright Information Terms of Service Cookie policy ↑ Back to top