USDA Plan to Regulate Dog Breeders Internet Sales

Is this where that puppy came from?

  Time is running out for you to make your voice heard regarding the USDA's plan to regulate dog breeders who sell over the internet.  All comments must be received by August 15, 2012. 

You can submit your comments electronically by going to the federal rule making portal here.

These new USDA rules would require breeders who sell multiple puppies over the Internet to be federally licensed and regulated by the U. S. Department of Agriculture. Currently, Internet sellers are exempt from the Animal Welfare Act which only covers breeders for the wholesale market such as those who breed dogs for pet stores. 

 

The new rules would require large scale dog breeders that sell their puppies sight unseen over the Internet, by phone, or by mail, to be licensed and regulated to ensure they are providing their dogs with humane standards of care. These new rules would also apply to cat breeders who sell kittens over the Internet.

If you've followed the various legislation in several states that has been aimed at tightening dog breeding regulations and establishing humane care standards, it should come as no surprise that agriculture groups are very vocally opposed to the proposed USDA plan.  

As explained by the Missouri Alliance for Animal Legislation:

Pigs, cows, and sheep are coming soon to your local pet store if you listen to some agricultural interests. Believe it or not, some farm groups are alleging that USDA's plan to redefine the term "retail pet store" could adversely affect farmers. The Animal Agriculture Alliance (AAA) issued an alert on July 24, 2012 entitled "Proposed APHIS Rule Could Impact Farmers."

In reality, the proposed USDA rule merely extends the definition of a pet store to include large scale dog breeders who sell puppies over the Internet sight unseen. The AAA maintains, however, that if a farmer sells even one farm animal for a pet or sells a farm animal "for purposes such as a 4-H project" that they "could potentially come under the impact of the proposed new rule."

Never mind the fact that "farm animals" are specifically exempted from the Animal Welfare Act, the AAA states that this new proposed rule could cost a farmer "up to $10,000 per day" in penalties and that USDA may "seize animals or work with state and local authorities to seize animals." Later in their alert, the AAA concedes that "livestock used for food production are not included in this rule." The AAA continues to argue, however, that the new rule "potentially does present an opportunity for APHIS inspectors to gain access to agricultural operations, which is unprecedented."

What is not without precedence is the paranoia of agricultural groups and their claims that dogs are farm animals. We heard the same preposterous claims during the Prop B campaign when farm groups argued that Prop B covered all domestic animals and would lead to the closure of Missouri farms. While one might be tempted to laugh at such outlandish claims, the AAA alert encourages farmers to "take action" and provides the link for submitting comments to USDA on the new rule.  Unfortunately, pork and cattle industry publications have reprinted this same message urging farmers to submit comments in opposition to USDA's proposed rule.

Thousands of dogs desperately need your help to counteract the campaigns being waged by farming interests.   In addition to submitting your comments to the USDA, you should contact your US Senators and Representatives to let them know of your position on this issue.  Take action now!

Missouri Dirty Dozen Puppy Mills: Underweight Dogs, Dying Puppies

Background:

Late last year, researchers at The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) spent weeks poring over state and federal inspection reports, investigators’ photographs, and enforcement records to compile a list of some of the worst puppy mills in Missouri, known as “Missouri’s Dirty Dozen.” The report included direct quotes detailing horrific care violations documented in the facilities’ federal and/or state kennel inspection reports The violations included thin-coated breeds like Italian greyhounds found shivering in the cold in temperatures as low as 9 degrees, dogs with open, oozing or bleeding sores, underweight dogs with their entire skeletal structures showing, and sick or dying puppies who had not been treated by a vet.

March 9, 2011, the HSUS released an update to this report.  The majority of the Missouri Dirty Dozen kennels are still state licensed and in operation.  On the same day, the Missouri Senate voted 20 - 14 to repeal Prop B, the Puppy Mill Cruelty Prevention Act.  The Missouri House will vote on this issue soon.

If there is any doubt in your mind that MO Prop B, as written and passed by voters last November, is needed and provides essential protection for dogs, please read below for details from the Dirty Dozen update.

Bar M Ranch Kennel, Diana and Floyd Miller, Spickard, MO

Bar M Ranch Kennel is one of several examples of a facility that dropped its USDA license after amassing dozens of pages of Animal Welfare Act violations, yet the kennel remained state license until just recently.  It is now one of three kennels listed in the original Missouri's Dirty Dozen report that appears to have gone out of business.

Severe, repeat violations were recorded in 2009 for sick animals not receiving proper care, sanitation violations, animals in below-freezing conditions with inadequate shelter, an underweight dachshund who was "ver thin with prominent ribcage and vertebrae," a Sheltie with "easily palpable and prominent" vertebrae, hip bones, and ribs, and other underweight or sick animals who had not been treated by a vet, and dogs with open sores.

Gingerich Farms, Paul and Pollie Gingerich, Bogard, MO

While they were USDA licensed, the Gingerich facility was cited by inspectors dozens of times o9ver a period of several years for grave repeat violations of the Animal Welfare Act, including dogs with frozen water desperately trying to lick at the ice, underweight dogs whom inspectors described as shivering in the cold, filthy conditions, sick and dying puppies who had not been treated by a vet;  severely matted dogs, housinhg issues, and more.  There were also repeated "attempted inspection" violations in which federal inspectors were denied access to the the facility.  Before recently dropping their USDA license, the Gingeriches had amassed 62 pages of USDA violations since April 2008.  Yet even though they were no longer federally licensed, they still held a Missouri state kennel license through 2010.

As of February 2011, Gingerich Farms is another of the three kennels listed in the original Missouri's Dirty Dozen report that appears to be out of business.

Tiny Tails, Robert Dukes and Robin Dollens, Edgar Springs, MO

Before dropping his USDA license, this Missouri commercial dog breeder accumulated multiple repeat Animal Welfare Act violations fr4om at least 2006-2009, including citations for dogs without food and water in Oct 2008, injured dogs who were not being treated by a vet, sanitation issues and serious care issues.  In February 2009 there were two attempted USDA inspections during which the licensee did not show up or permit access to allow his facility to be viewed.

Robert Dukes cancelled his USDA license in May 2010.  Wilma Dukes, at the same address, cancelled her USDA license in January 2011.  Robert Dukes, Robin Dollens and Wilma Dukes were all on the Missouri state kennel license list for 2010 but are no longer licensed as of 2011.  Tiny Tails is among the three kennels listed in the original Missouri's Dirty Dozen report that appears to be out of business in 2011.

.