WAKE UP CALL....Federal regulation

[German Vanegas]

Originally posted by Dei:
<STRONG>
But I think the 'free' ride is over one way or another.</STRONG>

Run for Office!

[German Vanegas]

Originally posted by Jeff Stanley:
<STRONG>All I can say is “Thanks”.

You have just proven to everybody my point.

You have just posted a 6,000 word, 83 paragraph example of what happens when government decides to swoop down into our private lives.

Regulations, don’t you love them.</STRONG>

That's right! If you look at all the "comprehensive" crap formulated by the government to regulate dog breeding, you can easily tell that "Kimbertal Kennels" (breeders of Rottweilers, Doberman Pinschers and Fila Brasileiros) would pass with "flying colors"! Yep! "Kimbertal" would have the seal of approval of the U.S.A. Government. You see, the law will be promoting mass production commercial kennels, such as "Kimbertal". And of course, we all know what mass production of puppies mean, don't we?! ;)

[German Vanegas]

Originally posted by RSQRottweiler:
<STRONG>You know, since I'm not a breeder and I don't plan on breeding a litter anywhere in the near future, I could just shrug my shoulders and say this legislation won't affect me. I can also turn the other way when my city and state governments create new laws to ban or restrict pit bulls. Hey, I'm not a pit bull owner, so why should I care, right? I should be happy that something is being done to help animals, right?
I just can't bring myself to believe that federal regulations on dog breeding will bring positive changes. What kind of legislation does this pave the way for. . .nationwide breed bans (to "protect" the breeds, of course )? Perhaps a national spay/neuter requirement of all dogs? So much for a free country. :( </STRONG>

The last thing we need is more government intrusion in our lives... What is so scary about it is that some people seem to love it!

[kf7cg]

The posted regulations look detailed, but common sense unless read closely.

They don't specifically eliminate breeders from keeping dogs as house pets, but certainly make it very difficult.

If your dog is housed in your home and has free run of the house, you must not have carpet and are probably required to have a drop ceiling with replacable panels. You can't have any other business in your home. As the regs are written this would include home consulting and computer programming.

Also, a strict interpretation of these rules would probably preclude household furniture. Read the regs like an "animal rights" lawyer and then use this reading. Remember, PETA and DDAL will be reading and suing for enforcement.

Then consider if you can support or tolerate, on demand inspections of your home at the regulators convenience. I can't, I am at work and my dogs have the run of my house. An unannounced inspection would find me at work and no one home.

The problem with these regulations is not that they are bad. It is that they were specifically written by the USDA to cover large scale breeders. This will explain why most large scale breeders do not have dogs as house pets. (confusion about what is included in business area)

The rules are reasonable and necessary for large scale and commercial breeders and care facillities. They do not work well with small home breeders.

Remember, if your dogs have the run of the house, your kids room could well be part of the inspected area. MY kids rooms are guaranteed to be a subject for quarantine.

[kf7cg]

Sorry, in the previous post I forgot to provide a remedy just gloom and doom. This should be attacked through the legislature, we need a new law specifically instructing the USDA to exempt small, retail only breeders; or new law instructing them to specifically formulate rules applicable to small, retail breeders. They should be specifically directed to consider owners who maintain there animals as members of the family.

Remember, the law is specific, the law has no humor, the law can make no exceptions, and the law can only be interpreted by lawyers.

[German Vanegas]

Originally posted by GSDOwner-dogtrainer:
<STRONG>Remember, the law is specific, the law has no humor, the law can make no exceptions, and the law can only be interpreted by lawyers.</STRONG>

Now, that's more scary that "I see dead people" :p

[RSQRottweiler]

Originally posted by German Vanegas:
<STRONG>

Now, that's more scary that "I see dead people" :p</STRONG>

ROTFL! I know this is a serious topic, but thanks for the chuckle! :)

[Vicki]

I could support breeding restrictions, but not this one, because the USDA is worthless. Look at all the undercover work in puppy mills that the USDA inspectors have certified as being fine, it's sickening. They don't do the work they are supposed to be doing now, and I don't see any hope for the future.

[ August 10, 2001: Message edited by: Phoenix ]

[German Vanegas]

Originally posted by Vicki Magnus:
<STRONG>I could support breeding restrictions, but not this one, because the USDA is worthless. Look at all the undercover work in puppy mills that the USDA inspectors have certified as being fine, it's sickening. They don't do the work they are supposed to be doing now, and I don't see any hope for the future.</STRONG>

Well, imagine that the new proposed regulations would give a mass production commercial kennel, such as "Kimbertal", the USDA seal of approval. So puppy factories like "Kimbertal" would flourish everywhere, while the small ethical breeders probably would dissapear! Wake up people! Not only the government wants to tell you what dog breeds you can have and what others you cannot, but also who can breed dogs... That's a scary thought!

[kf7cg]

I am trying to find my old archives on this. This problem is multiple years old, at least 3 or four. It started when a suit was brought against the USDA for not enforcing this law against all breeders. In the non-regulatory paragraphs the law has as passed by congress has exemptions for some specified breeders and was intended to only impact larger wholesale operations and animal laboratories.

The result of the court case was that the USDA was told to revisit their rules and the list of establishments it would cover. They complied and came back with a new set of rules on covered establishments that again only hit larger scale operations. For this effort they were sued again and the court refused to hear any arguments that the regulations were for commercial interests.

This resulted in the ruling we are now talking about. The regulations that are to be enforced are written specifically to provide minimum living conditions for dogs and cats that are maintained at commercial breeders and laboratories. This attempt at regulation is like making all the rules for an eighteen wheeler apply to the family mini-pickup because you carry a load of dog food home once in a while. Unsafe trucks cause many accidents, but the rules don't fit: same with the current ruling.

As I see the problem is that the courts ordered USDA to enforce the rules that they currently have, not to generate and enforce rules for the home breeder.

I hope that this adequately explains the concern, and the reason why DDAL motives are suspect in this case.

[Soapie&Buddy'sMom]

Look, even me, the queen of promoting this regulation, will agree that the USDA is worthless. I am not saying that the individuals who work for the USDA are worthless, I am sure they do the best they can, but the whole division is underfunded and understaffed, not to mention without a focus.

I just think that this regulation is not a huge threat to the life, liberty and happiness of Americans, as some here would promote. It is an attempt to insure that minimum conditions are met by breeders who sell for retail are met (vs. those who breed for research labs, etc.) - PUPPY MILLS!!!
It is NOT an attempt to go after the BYB and the Hobby or professional breeder.

I think there is a lot of time and energy being spent blowing wind about this regulation when the USDA doesn't have the resources to enforce it, PARTICULARLY to small time breeders.

Does anyone know how many laws/regulations/etc are on the books that are not enforced????
TONS!!!! Did you know that if a law is passed that you think infringes on your constitutional rights, you cannot bring a cause of action until it is enforced against you? So my point is, why not wait and see how this plays out? Be optimistic - maybe it will ensure a more humane life for the dogs and cats bred in puppy mills until we all get our act together and get the PUPPY MILLS ELIMINATED completely? Why not work on that instead of sounding the alarm about how terrible this regulation is?

Oh...I forgot. It's easy to do THAT (whine and moan about the status quo.). Much harder to actually WORK to change anything.

[ August 10, 2001: Message edited by: Phoenix ]

Originally posted by German Vanegas:
<STRONG>

Well, imagine that the new proposed regulations would give a mass production commercial kennel, such as "Kimbertal", the USDA seal of approval. So puppy factories like "Kimbertal" would flourish everywhere, while the small ethical breeders probably would dissapear! Wake up people! Not only the government wants to tell you what dog breeds you can have and what others you cannot, but also who can breed dogs... That's a scary thought!</STRONG>

So...it's better to have a society where anyone and everyone can indiscriminately breed dogs/????

And...since the AKC qualify Kimbertal dogs, people like to get them?
And thus if the USDA also qualifies the Kimbertal dog, they will flourish, eliminating the ethical breeder???

I think I'm beginning to get it.

Originally posted by GSDOwner-dogtrainer:
<STRONG>I am trying to find my old archives on this. This problem is multiple years old, at least 3 or four. It started when a suit was brought against the USDA for not enforcing this law against all breeders. In the non-regulatory paragraphs the law has as passed by congress has exemptions for some specified breeders and was intended to only impact larger wholesale operations and animal laboratories.

The result of the court case was that the USDA was told to revisit their rules and the list of establishments it would cover. They complied and came back with a new set of rules on covered establishments that again only hit larger scale operations. For this effort they were sued again and the court refused to hear any arguments that the regulations were for commercial interests.

This resulted in the ruling we are now talking about. The regulations that are to be enforced are written specifically to provide minimum living conditions for dogs and cats that are maintained at commercial breeders and laboratories. This attempt at regulation is like making all the rules for an eighteen wheeler apply to the family mini-pickup because you carry a load of dog food home once in a while. Unsafe trucks cause many accidents, but the rules don't fit: same with the current ruling.

As I see the problem is that the courts ordered USDA to enforce the rules that they currently have, not to generate and enforce rules for the home breeder.

I hope that this adequately explains the concern, and the reason why DDAL motives are suspect in this case.</STRONG>

GSD owner, your post is the most intelligent one (vs. emotional, which is what I think most of the rest of the threads are, mine included.... ;) ) in this thread and I agree with most of it. What most seem to miss is that the one and only reason the DDAL went after this was to insure that puppy mills would provide more humane treatment for dogs. No one wants or expects this regulation to be enforced against the byb or hobby or "ethical" breeder. I think we all agree that the USDA is ineffectual, at best.

My problem is the scare tactics being used here to divert attention from the real issue - INDISCRIMINATE BREEDING.

I will bet 1 million dollars that this law NEVER gets enforced against an "ethical" breeder. But it sure makes a lot of folks here feel like they are doing something to whine and moan about how this regulation is taking away the freedom of all Americans.

[ August 10, 2001: Message edited by: Soapie&Buddy'sMom ]

[kf7cg]

One quick question for everyone. Do you know that "puppy mills" -- defined as wholesale breeding operations -- are already requalated as wholesale breeders.

The groups being regulated are the retail breeders that sell from their breeding establishment. The cure for them is simple education of the public (Wouldn't it be nice to outlaw stupidity?), and local enforcement. If you go to the retailers operation, you can observe and react to the breeders operation on your own. I have been known to call local law on what I thought were bad breeders.

Ethical and upstanding breeders can and will be targeted under this code, because when it becomes universal regulation it must be enforced whenever there is a complaint by anyone. Read the rules carefully. I can't pass, my dogs all live in the house and sleep with my kids.

Lot of vacuuming and sweeping but happy dogs and kids; unhappy USDA.

[ August 10, 2001: Message edited by: Phoenix ]

[Phoenix]

Discussions related to Animals Rights activism are forbidden on these boards. Please keep your discussions centered on the legislation at hand or the thread will have to be closed.

Thank you.