Dobs4ever
Hot Topics Subscriber
Cross-posted with permission from Julian Prager:
First, everyone take a breath. Then read the APHIS press release and
the proposed rules, both in PDF format. I will try to summarize it, but
understand that APHIS is taking comments for 60 days and this is not a
final rule.
Why is there a need for the Rule? The existing AWA and its rules, were
written before the Internet to exempt pet stores who sold directly to
the public, where people could see the dogs before the purchase was
finalized. AWA regulation was restricted (for relevant purposes) to
those selling to dealers or pet stores for resale. With the advent of
the Internet, a number of large commercial breeders started selling
directly to the public instead of selling to stores for resale. This
exempted them from AWA regulation even though they were still the same
operation, just selling a different way. This lead to the push for PUPS
to regulate all breeders (not just commercial breeders) selling over the
Internet. We all opposed PUPS as an overreaching reaction that did more
than address the identified problem but potentially harmed all breeders.
The proposed rules require that you have both the number of bitches and
sell to people who cannot see your dogs and premises. By increasing the
number of breeding bitches, they exclude breeders who might otherwise be
covered. Bitches who have been spayed do not count towards the 4 needed
to be covered by the rule, so you can have any number of retired and
spayed bitches and still not be regulated. Yes, regulations can be
changed, but the movement on this is in our direction. It is unlikely
that they will summarily reverse their own decision. A new
administration always has the potential to revise regulations, so
depending on the election and the philosophy of the administration for
2013-2016, things can always change and we must stay vigilant.
I do not like all the provisions of the proposed rule because they
either are too burdensome or do not achieve the intended purpose. That
is what a comment period is for - to get it modified.
The biggest problem is that the sale of a single dog to someone who
hasn’t been to your home puts you under the AWA. That needs to be
changed. The question is how to change it to achieve the needed result
and to stop PUPs (which is even worse) in its tracks. Let’s not lose
track of the fact that if PUPs passes, everyone loses. There are a
number of potential solutions how to address this while gaining
regulatory authority over large commercial kennels. Some are discussed
in the proposed rule and comments are requested. I would be interested
in hearing any solutions you might have.
Now that we have seen the actual proposed rule changes, NAIA will
release its comments in the near future, after we digest the contents in
full.
Julian Prager
First, everyone take a breath. Then read the APHIS press release and
the proposed rules, both in PDF format. I will try to summarize it, but
understand that APHIS is taking comments for 60 days and this is not a
final rule.
Why is there a need for the Rule? The existing AWA and its rules, were
written before the Internet to exempt pet stores who sold directly to
the public, where people could see the dogs before the purchase was
finalized. AWA regulation was restricted (for relevant purposes) to
those selling to dealers or pet stores for resale. With the advent of
the Internet, a number of large commercial breeders started selling
directly to the public instead of selling to stores for resale. This
exempted them from AWA regulation even though they were still the same
operation, just selling a different way. This lead to the push for PUPS
to regulate all breeders (not just commercial breeders) selling over the
Internet. We all opposed PUPS as an overreaching reaction that did more
than address the identified problem but potentially harmed all breeders.
The proposed rules require that you have both the number of bitches and
sell to people who cannot see your dogs and premises. By increasing the
number of breeding bitches, they exclude breeders who might otherwise be
covered. Bitches who have been spayed do not count towards the 4 needed
to be covered by the rule, so you can have any number of retired and
spayed bitches and still not be regulated. Yes, regulations can be
changed, but the movement on this is in our direction. It is unlikely
that they will summarily reverse their own decision. A new
administration always has the potential to revise regulations, so
depending on the election and the philosophy of the administration for
2013-2016, things can always change and we must stay vigilant.
I do not like all the provisions of the proposed rule because they
either are too burdensome or do not achieve the intended purpose. That
is what a comment period is for - to get it modified.
The biggest problem is that the sale of a single dog to someone who
hasn’t been to your home puts you under the AWA. That needs to be
changed. The question is how to change it to achieve the needed result
and to stop PUPs (which is even worse) in its tracks. Let’s not lose
track of the fact that if PUPs passes, everyone loses. There are a
number of potential solutions how to address this while gaining
regulatory authority over large commercial kennels. Some are discussed
in the proposed rule and comments are requested. I would be interested
in hearing any solutions you might have.
Now that we have seen the actual proposed rule changes, NAIA will
release its comments in the near future, after we digest the contents in
full.
Julian Prager
