USDA's proposal to regulate ALL ANIMALS animals sold "sight unseen", including livestock!

Animal Plant Health Inspection Service - USDA ^ | July 2012 | APHIS/USDA

[Gennie]

Q. What is APHIS proposing?
A. APHIS is proposing to revise its definition of “retail pet store” to close a loophole that has in some cases threatened the health of pets sold sight unseen over the Internet and via phone- and mail-based businesses. Under the current definition of “retail pet store,” which was developed over 40 years ago and predates the Internet, some breeders selling pets are taking advantage of a loophole that improperly exempts them from meeting the basic requirements of the Animal Welfare Act (AWA). The proposed rule will close this loophole, ensuring that animals sold over the Internet and via phone- and mail-based businesses are better monitored for their overall health and humane treatment. The proposal will restore the definition to its original intent so that it limits the retail pet store exemption to only those places of business and residence:

• that buyers physically enter to observe the animals available for sale prior to purchase and/ or to take custody of the animals after purchase, and

• where only the following animals are sold or offered for sale at retail for use as pets: Dogs, cats, rabbits, guinea pigs, hamsters, gerbils, rats, mice, gophers, chinchilla, domestic ferrets, domestic farm animals, birds, and coldblooded species.

APHIS is also proposing to increase the number of breeding females from three to four that small hobby breeders of dogs, cats, and small exotic or wild mammals can own and still be exempt from licensing requirements. To meet the exemption requirements, these breeders can only sell the offspring of the breeding females that were born and raised on their premises, and sold for only pets or exhibition.

[Gennie]

This is the PDF file which is an overview of the updates to regulations on the Animal Welfare Act. I had posted a news article about this about a month and a half ago, but thought it would be important enough to highlight again. They are trying to claim to be going after only "large scale" puppy mills, but those places are most likely already regulated (at least they are in PA) and will hurt hobby breeders like myself, because while I only have one or two litters a year, I do have more than the 4 females proposed by this legislation due to owning dogs from specific bloodlines.

What is even worse, they mention 4 of ANY species, which can be dogs, cats, rats, even chickens or cows! I do not know what type of impact this would be for livestock owners, but I am guessing that at least some individuals would have animals shipped, just like in the dog world. This is a HUGE power grab, the Humane Society of the United States gives this a standing ovation so you know it's bad! Here is the link to contact USDA, I believe the last day they are accepting comments is July 16:

http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=APHIS-2011-0003

[econjack]

Keep in mind your prestige in Washington is directly proportional to the number of people who work for you. Bureaucrats have no responsibility to manage costs...after all, it's your money, not theirs, so why wouldn't they push through regulations that expand their sphere of influence?

I'd like to see Obozo have the stones to come out and say: "Executive Order #123456 says that every budget, save the military, will be 10% less tomorrow that it is today. Agency directors will provide the same or better service after these cuts. Those who cannot provide equal or better service will be fired and replaced with someone who can. Have a nice day."

[Don Corleone]

Seeing “Cows” on that list makes me wonder if they are not trying to get their nose under the tent of the “Futures Markets” Just wondering.

[Red Badger]

Well, Hillary! can do that without a stinkin’ law!................

[Gennie]

Interesting observation, because while they are pushing this as a response to “online puppy mills”, they did highlight all domestic animals.

[tacticalogic]

Does it include the buying and selling of politicians and bureaucrats?

[Isabel C.]

USDA's proposal to regulate ALL ANIMALS animals sold "sight unseen", including livestock!

Thanks for the EASY easy to understand TITLE title.

[Gennie]

LOL, didn’t have enough coffee before I posted it and once I noticed, it was already too late.

[econjack]

Trust me...if you see a “nose” under anything, they are trying to control it in some way.

[Carry_Okie]

I presume that would include a mail-order-bride.

[justa-hairyape]

Link is not working ?

[justa-hairyape]

Looks like the HTML version works, just not the pdf link.

[Gennie]

I linked to the Google Quickview version, but here's the original PDF overview:

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

[Gennie]

Here's also a link to the proposed wording in case anyone wants to read the full thing for themselves rather than the overview:

http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=APHIS-2011-0003-0001

[justa-hairyape]

Thanks. The Feds really are going over board in so many areas. Kinda ridiculous worrying about this kinda stuff when the global economy is in shambles, the US debt is out of control and we are on the verge of WW III in the middle east.

[justa-hairyape]

Got a chance to look into this proposed regulation change, looks like it only applies to animals that also get veterinarian care. Gee. Wonder why that is ?

[Gennie]

Having a bad day, not sure what you are getting at? The amazing thing is that they’re saying that all of these sick puppies are being shipped, but...it is already required by the airlines (and I believe state law, I have not shipped pups but I know that they are supposed to send the health records to the state for PA if a dog is to be flown) that the puppies are examined by a veterinarian and APPROVED for flying, they need a health certificate!