35 replies to this topic

[Eileen Stein]

The US Department of Agriculture is proposing to change their regulations in a way that will affect a lot of border collie breeders. They have published their proposed changes in order for the public to be able to see them and submit comments about them. The deadline for comments is July 16. After all the comments are in, the USDA will review the comments and either go ahead with the new regulations they have proposed, or modify them, or leave the regulations as they are now. You can read the proposal at http://www.aphis.usd...S_2011_0003.pdf

Basically, the change would require a lot of breeders to be licensed by the USDA as dog "Dealers" who are not required to be licensed now. They would need to pay a license fee, comply with regulations about housing facilities, feeding, sanitation, vet care, etc. for their dogs, keep specified records, and permit inspections of their premises by USDA inspectors. Those who sell pups or dogs wholesale are already required to be licensed, but under the proposed regulations, you could be required to be licensed and regulated even if you only sell directly to dog owners.

The following chain of questions will help you figure out if the proposed change in the regulations would affect you:

1. Do you sell any pups or dogs to pet homes (including folks who do dog sports like agility and flyball)? If you don’t, you would not need to be licensed under the new regulations. If you do, go on to Question 2.

2. Do you sell any pups or dogs to people who don’t come to your premises to see them (for example, do you ever ship pups, or deliver them to their new owner at trials or clinics)? If you don’t, you would not need to be licensed under the new regulations. If you do, go on to Question 3.

3. Do you have more than four breeding females in your household, regardless of who owns them, or do you act in concert with others to collectively maintain more than four breeding females? (The proposed regulations do not define the term “breeding female,” so it’s not clear whether it would be interpreted to mean only bitches who are actually being bred, or if it would be interpreted to include all sexually mature intact bitches.) If you do have more than four, you would need to be licensed under the new regulations. If you don’t, go on to Question 4.

4. Do you ever sell pups or dogs other than those that are produced by your four or fewer breeding females and are born and raised on your premises (for example, do you ever sell dogs you’ve bought in and trained, or dogs you’ve brought over from the UK, or dogs you’ve bought that didn’t work out, or dogs you're placing for a friend, or dogs you've rescued)? If you do, you would need to be licensed under the new regulations.

If you would be adversely affected by these proposed regulations, or if breeders you respect and depend on for pups would be adversely affected, you can submit comments to the Department of Agriculture by going to http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=APHIS-2011-0003-0001 and clicking on “Comment Now!” Comments can also be submitted by postal mail, especially if your comments are lengthy. The address for mailed-in comments is: Docket No. APHIS-2011-0003, Regulatory Analysis and Development, PPD, APHIS, Station 3A-03.8, 4700 River Road Unit 118, Riverdale, MD 20737-1238. The deadline for comments is July 16.

The comments that are most likely to be taken seriously are ones that tell in your own words the reasons why you support or oppose this change in the regulations, tell what effect it would have on you or people you know, and provide any suggestions you may have about what the USDA should do instead. Some of the many reasons for opposing the changes are:

--They are not targeted toward high-volume producers, which is where the animal welfare problems are. They would impose licensing and regulation on thousands of individuals who only breed occasionally.

--They would place a burden on breeders of good stockdogs, which in turn would diminish the quality and quantity of these dogs available to the farmers and ranchers who depend on them.

--Occasional breeders could not afford to comply with these new requirements, which in most cases would require expenditures that far exceed their income from puppy sales.

--Occasional breeders often keep their dogs in their homes, and whelp and raise pups in their homes, rather than in kennels. It would not be practical for these owners to build and maintain facilities to the specifications the regulations require for full-time, high-volume wholesale breeders, nor would it benefit the dogs and puppies to be moved out of the household into such facilities.

--Enforcement of these regulations would be extremely difficult, and the cost would be too high in relation to the benefits. Either much more money will have to be budgeted for enforcement, or resources will have to be diverted away from inspection of large commercial kennels, where inspection is most needed.

--Regulations which would authorize federal inspectors to enter and inspect people’s homes because they occasionally sell pups or dogs drastically violate the liberty and privacy rights of Americans.

--If large Internet retailers have become a problem, the issue should be addressed by Congress, which can target legislation more precisely toward remedying it. Broadening the Animal Welfare Act's coverage to include retail sellers is not the answer.

The ABCA is likely to submit comments as an organization. For our comments to be the most valid and effective, it would be very helpful for us to have as much information as possible about how many of our members would be affected by this change, and what their views are about the change. So if you are an ABCA member, please let us know why and how the proposed change in the regulations would affect you, and why you think the change should or should not be made. You can email this information to Eileen Stein at USDAregs@bordercollie.org. Also, one of the possible alternatives to the approach taken in these regulations would be to require those who sell more than X number of dogs and pups per year to be subject to regulation. Do you think this would be a better approach, and if so, what should be the appropriate number of sales which would trigger regulation? Please let us know your thoughts. But be sure to submit comments directly to the USDA as well -- they need to know how many people are concerned about this.

Fuller and more detailed information about this can be found on the ABCA website at http://www.americanb...regulation.html

[Maralynn]

Thank you Eileen for a concise overview of the proposed regulations! I will definitely be voicing my objection.

[Chesney's Girl]

Thank you Eileen for making this clearly understandable to someone like me who does not understand a lot of legal lingo.

[Sue R]

Thank you, Eileen - that is really well summarized and understandable. I appreciate your writing that up for those of us who find reading "legalese" to be darn near impossible, and understanding it to be even less possible.

These regulations would not, I believe, have much impact on the worst offenders but would certainly seem to affect many responsible, small-scale breeders (including many working Border Collie breeders).

Thank you!

[SecretBC]

Perhaps I am the odd one out here, but having read all 25 pages of the document posted above, I do not have a problem with the proposed legislation.

Wisconsin enacted the Act-90 law over a year ago which states that any facility/breeder/shelter that sells more than 25 dogs per year must be licensed and inspected. The sky has not fallen and the world has not ended. It has not made small scale breeders go belly up. It has not made it more difficult to find dogs to adopt or purchase.

Our shelter had to make a few minor changes (the biggest was to come up with a plan to insure that all dogs received their minimum exercise requirements each day), but we were mostly in line with everything already --- As MOST responsible breeders or facilities should be. We passed our inspection, got a license and won't be bothered for another two years (unless someone lodges a complaint). It's really not that big of a deal.

These legislative acts are brought about to make sure animals are not being abused or neglected (as they tend to be in large commercial operations). Considering it is for the greater good, I don't think it's really that hard to comply. If you are breeding more than four bitches per year, that makes you a fairly commercial breeder and there should be regulations. The cost of the license is relative to the number of animals you sell, so it's not like it will put anyone under.

[juliepoudrier]

Karissa,
I'm a bit confused by your comments. You work at a shelter and so the dogs are already kept in a kennel situation as required (I presume, at least from what I've read) by the legislation. The changes the shelter had to make to comply were minimal.

What about someone who breeds a litter a year, raises the pups in the house, and sells to folks who may be close enough to come through the door to get a pup, but also to folks who may live in other parts of the country? Do you see how the legislation could have a HUGE effect on such a breeder? Aside from the cost of creating a compliant facility, what about the philosophical issues surrounding where the best place is for a puppy to be raised?

I raised Twist's puppies on an enclosed back porch (i.e., inside the house, since the enclosed back porch was essentially a room off my bedroom and the kitchen). I don't think that was a compliant location, and yet I certainly would be considered a responsible breeder by most.

There are likely puppy mills that are compliant with the legislation, but that certainly doesn't make the operators of those mills responsible breeders.

J.

[SecretBC]

How do you figure a breeder would not be allowed to raise a litter of puppies in their house? Where do you see that a kennel facility is required?

The requirements are simply that animals are safely housed in a clean environment with adequate food, water, exercise and stimulation. This does not mean "kennel."

Many breeders of the scale discussed in the bill do have kennel facilities because it is inconvenient to house so many dogs/litters in the house. It is doubtful that many home breeders will have to worry about being affected by such a thing.

If you breed one litter per year and have four or fewer breeding bitches you can sell to someone in Timbucktoo if you please without having to be licensed. Again, this does not affect small scale breeders.

[Alchemist]

I will remain eternally grateful to the breeder of a working Border collie who was willing to sell a pup to my "pet home". So far this has led me into a lot of new endeavors, including a desire to someday sell our house and move somewhere with some land (and our own sheep). I know many on these Boards followed similar trajectories. Shouldn't USDA be trying to support small farmers?

I'd love to get a second dog, and would hate to consider the possibility that someone might be unwilling to sell a dog or pup to me simply because they were afraid to run afoul of USDA regulations.

And, personally, I think a kennel is exactly the wrong place to raise a Border collie puppy. They need to bond to humans to a level it's hard to imagine being fostered in a kennel with dogs barking all around. Raise them in a home, with lots of attention and exposure to humans and noises from vaccuum cleaners and what have you.

These proposed regulations, IMO, are failing to address the root problem. The phrase 'throwing out the baby with the bathwater' springs to mind.

I've "commented" on the USDA website, and I've also emailed ABCA.

[SecretBC]

Karissa,
I'm a bit confused by your comments. You work at a shelter and so the dogs are already kept in a kennel situation as required (I presume, at least from what I've read) by the legislation. The changes the shelter had to make to comply were minimal.

Actually, it is worth mentioning that the majority of our kennels do NOT comply with the dimensions set forth within Act 90. Our "double" kennel units are of the appropriate size, but the singles are considered too small. We do not have the space or ability to make all of our kennels into doubles at this time (it would cut the number of dogs we can house by half and force us to do space euthanasia) -- So they issued a variance that gives our kennel size a pass so long as we guarantee a minimum of two hours per day outside for each dog housed in a smaller unit. We came up with a plan to achieve that goal and they granted our facility a license. We continue to keep records showing that all dogs are getting the required time out of their kennels should the matter ever come up again in the future.

[Debbie Meier]

@ SecretBC, look into the USDA housing and transportation requirements, everything gets inspected, every place that a dog is housed, crates, kennels, yards and everything they are transported in, car, truck, dog trailer and everything must meet minumum standards. We would also be required to be here at our homes/kennels during regular business hours for inspection, not being here will result in a indirect violation.

[Maralynn]

It doesn't say breeding 4 litters a year - its 4 breeding females. So if you have 4 females that you intend to breed sometime and just breed one litter a year you'd still need a license. And FWIW I believe these regulations are being proposed to protect consumers not dogs.

[Debbie Meier]

This is also worth looking at: http://www.aphis.usd...Attachments.PDF

[terrecar]

There are likely puppy mills that are compliant with the legislation, but that certainly doesn't make the operators of those mills responsible breeders.

This is exactly why I have a problem with the legislation. Essentially, what it would accomplish is to narrow the puppy buyer's choices for purchasing a puppy to places they would be least likely to get a carefully bred pup: a profit motivated facility where pups are produced en masse; ergo the puppy buyer would have fewer legitimate sources for a responsibly bred purebred puppy. Why does the USDA insist on promoting puppy mills?

[SecretBC]

It doesn't say breeding 4 litters a year - its 4 breeding females. So if you have 4 females that you intend to breed sometime and just breed one litter a year you'd still need a license. And FWIW I believe these regulations are being proposed to protect consumers not dogs.

If you want to get technical, they are changing the number of allowed breeding females from three to four. So it only affects you if you have five or more. It doesn't even address male dogs -- You could have 50 of those, apparently.

I believe it protects the dogs. The reason that store front operations (or shall we say, breeders who only sell out of their home) are exempt from legislation is because they believe that having the public come in to view the living conditions of the dogs keeps breeders honest & reputable.

I've heard very bad things about some of the commercial breeding operations that are selling puppies over the internet. It is because of those breeders that this is being proposed.

It will affect others, yes, but I really don't feel that reputable small scale ethical breeders have anything to be concerned about.

[juliepoudrier]

How do you figure a breeder would not be allowed to raise a litter of puppies in their house? Where do you see that a kennel facility is required?

Well, those requirements don't seem to be included in this particular document, which largely seems to be a long-winded explanation of why APHIS wants to change the rules. So it discusses who would be included and why. If you want to see the actual requirements for housing breeding animals, I assume you'd have to look at the actual legislation that states those requirements, which I don't have time for at the moment, but which are geared toward large-scale breeders. I suspect, though, that you would find the regulations to be a bit more stringent than what could be met by raising pups in a house. And since regulated breeders are open to inspection, then raising pups in my house would open my facility (my house) to inspection. Among other things.

If you breed one litter per year and have four or fewer breeding bitches you can sell to someone in Timbucktoo if you please without having to be licensed. Again, this does not affect small scale breeders.

That's not the way I read it. If I sell to someone in Timbuktu, then I fall under the legislation (because they aren't entering my door to buy a pup) and so would indeed be subject to the regulations governing the large-scale breeders.

And what about the part that also includes dogs I might sell on, etc.? Methinks that pretty quickly one could go from being a regular person (under the radar, so to speak) to someone who needs to be licensed, with all that entails, including the record-keeping and reporting requirements. Those requirements would be onerous. And I don't see where it says that you even have to breed your five bitches; you just have to *own* them to fall under the licensing requirements (and it's not just licensing, because once you get the license, then you have to comply to all the regs that go with it, and those regs aren't even included in the APHIS document that proposes the changes). Before anyone says this won't affect the average one or two litter a year breeder, I think the regs to which this APHIS documents points would really need to be read.

J.

[PSmitty]

I've seen this all over FB, with people up in arms that the "small, hobby breeder" will no longer be able to breed, and that puppies in the house will become "illegal", while high volume kennel type operations will be perfectly legal. It seemed a little propaganda-ish (made that up, I did), so I'm glad to be able to read this discussion and get a better understanding of the issue.

[SecretBC]

That's not the way I read it. If I sell to someone in Timbuktu, then I fall under the legislation (because they aren't entering my door to buy a pup) and so would indeed be subject to the regulations governing the large-scale breeders.

The 25 page document posted above clearly states repeatedly that none of this proposed legislation affects anyone with four or fewer breeding females. If you have four or fewer breeding females, you are welcome to fly your puppy 5000 miles around the world without being subject to legislation.

[juliepoudrier]

The 25 page document posted above clearly states repeatedly that none of this proposed legislation affects anyone with four or fewer breeding females. If you have four or fewer breeding females, you are welcome to fly your puppy 5000 miles around the world without being subject to legislation.

And if I happen to have five, even if I never breed them, I am affected. I used to keep nothing but females, and I certainly have had four intact females at the same time. Add just one pup that six months later becomes breedable and suddenly I'm looking at licensing. That shouldn't be reason enough to subject me to this legislation. Period. And yet, I've bred one litter. I'm just the sort of person who would be affected by this, and no, I don't think anyone should be able to tell me how many intact females I should be able to keep. I could probably support something like this if it was based on the number of *puppies* produced/sold per year, which would then certainly target the backyard millers and the "sanctioned" millers, but as it stands now, I will not support it, and I'm guessing that a number of puppies requirement would be more difficult to enforce, which is why they haven't gone that route.

And really that's just one part of this. If Q4 above is any indication, you could become subject to the legislation for more than just owning five intact bitches.

ETA: In this economy, these licensing requirements could certainly raise revenue, but given the apparent rather lax enforcement that already exists, not to mention the lack of enforcement personnel, I'd rather see my tax dollars going to enforce compliance at the large mills rather than bothering with what amounts to backyard breeders? (Not defending BYB mills--just questioning whether it even makes sense to enact legislation that seems unenforceable in many respects.

J.

[PSmitty]

I guess it would be nice for the legislation to define "breeding females".

[SecretBC]

And if I happen to have five, even if I never breed them, I am affected. I used to keep nothing but females, and I certainly have had four intact females at the same time. Add just one pup that six months later becomes breedable and suddenly I'm looking at licensing.

I realize I'm being nitpicky, but if you NEVER breed any of your intact females, you are NOT subject to a seller's license. You are subject to your local municipality's kennel & licensing laws, but the proposed legislation only applies to sellers of animals. If it's allowed in your area you could have 10 bitches and not worry about this legislation if you never breed them and produce puppies. Just saying.