Time is running out

There are just a few hours left to comment on the proposed rule that would drastically expand the USDA/APHIS' authority over private pet breeders in their homes throughout the USA. Comments need to be in by 11:59PM Eastern time tonight, Wednesday August 15th, 2012, but don't try to cut it too close.

Please comment and tell them this rule needs to be withdrawn. Remember, you can make as many comments as often as you like, and substance is more important than number. But HSUS and other anti-breeding organizations are blitzing the comments in these last few hours, and we need to make sure they are outnumbered and we make our voices heard. It's important to use your own words, but here are some ideas for you to use if desired.

Some talking points (Please use your own words when commenting, as duplicate comments are treated as one, even if posted multiple times):

* It's not APHIS' job to regulate private breeders in their homes. The Animal Welfare Act was never intended to regulate private retail sales, and the courts have affirmed that this is not USDA's job.

* People are perfectly capable of making their own decisions about how and where to buy a pet. We don't need the government regulating that.

* There is no evidence that animals purchased sight-unseen or shipped/transported to the buyer have a higher incidence of *anything* than animals purchased any other way, and APHIS themselves has admitted they have no data whatsoever on this. This makes this rule arbitrary, specious and capricious; based on anecdotal and emotional claims rather than on real data supported by evidence.

* We don't need more small hobbyist breeders forced to raise pets in sterile laboratory-style facilities, and AWA standards do not allow for home-raised pets. A small hobbyist breeder is not able to be home from 7AM to 7PM every weekday for inspections, and the requirement for sterile facilities with no impermeable surfaces, no animals raised with other types of animals, etc. makes it impossible for a home environment to meet AWA standards.

* Not being able to ship or transport breeding stock will destroy the genetic diversity of rare breeds and harm breeding programs, and will harm the production of working/service dogs, as well as preventing people from doing their own research and buying pets where and how they choose.

*  Animals have been purchased remotely and transported sight-unseen for thousands of years. The internet makes it easier, not harder, to research a breeder and make an informed purchasing decision.

* If they are going to pass this rule they need to make the "face to face" exemption clearly outlined in the text of the rule itself. Simply promising not to enforce the rule as written (as the current plan is) is not a good solution.

* Any problems can be dealt with simply by APHIS enforcing their own standards on existing licensed breeders, and by enforcing existing animal cruelty and mail fraud laws. All states already have laws with potentially severe penalties for dealing with animal cruelty.

* The USDA/APHIS is required to do an impact analysis when creating new rules. Their calculated cost of this rule both to breeders and to APHIS is severely underestimated to the point that it is laughable. Their data does not even attempt to include species other than dogs that will be impacted, and grossly underestimates even the number of dog breeders that will be impacted and the costs associated with that.

* The information given to the public and the way APHIS has described this rule during the comment period is grossly misleading and undermines transparency.

* $500 is an extremely low threshold for requiring breeders to be licensed, especially since it is calculated based on raw income rather than on profit.

The AWA says in Sec. 2133. Licensing of dealers and exhibitors,

"That any retail pet store or other person who derives less than a substantial portion of his income (as determined by the Secretary) from the breeding and raising of dogs or cats on his own premises and sells any such dog or cat to a dealer or research facility shall not be required to obtain a license as a dealer or exhibitor under this chapter."

$500 is no longer a substantial portion of the average person's income and this needs to be updated. If inflation continues at the same average rate as it has since the AWA was passed, by 2020 it will take about $5,000 to have the same buying power that $500 had in 1966. The exemptions for cats, dogs and exotic animals allow for the potential sale of many thousands of dollars worth of animals before licensing is required; it is unfair and capricious to have a so much lower threshold for other types of animals.

* Breeding females are not clearly defined, and several other definitions in the rule are not clearly defined either. 4 intact females is a very low threshold to reach, and owning them does not necessarily mean they are being bred. This threshold for determining licensing is also unfair, capricious and specious, as is the requirement that a breeder must never sell any animal that was not bred and raised by them in order to be exempt from licensing.

* This rule is being pushed by anti-breeder animal rights organizations such as HSUS that have the ultimate agenda of eliminating all existence and use of domestic animals. No amount of regulation will make them happy unless we do away with all breeding and animal ownership completely, and the U. S. Dept. of Agriculture should not be pandering to them.

Read and comment on the proposed rule here:
http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=APHIS-2011-0003-0001

Permission to repost granted; the original post is from Washington Animal Watch blog at http://waanimal.blogspot.com/2012/08/time-is-running-out.html and updates and any edits/corrections will be posted there.

What is a place of business?

In APHIS' fact sheet and in what is being reported by various people about what they have been told over the phone, in teleconferences, etc. the phrase "face to face transaction" has been repeated quite a bit.

The proposed rule states,

Retail pet store means a place of business or residence that each
buyer physically enters in order to personally observe the animals
available for sale prior to purchase and/or to take custody of the
animals after purchase

From what I understand from what several different people have said or reported from conversations with APHIS, the issue here may end up being how the term "place of business" is interpreted. This may be where the much-discussed "face to face" exemption comes in.

If the term "place of business" is interpreted to mean any place where you or your employees/representatives do business, then a showroom, parking lot, the buyer's home or another neutral location can become your "place of business" for the purposes of the rule. If that is the case, then wherever you or your authorized representative are present during the transaction becomes your "place of business."

We have been doing some research, and have not yet found a clear legal precedent for a place that the seller does not own, have control of, or use on a regular basis being considered their "place of business" for legal purposes. But this is definitely an interesting angle of thought. If anyone can point to resources, federal laws, or legal precedents that support this, please share them.

It seems it would be far more clear if APHIS simply wrote the law to state that transactions would be considered exempt direct retail sales if the buyer had the opportunity to refuse or return the animal upon seeing it, if that's what they're going for. But the angle of "place of business" being equivalent to a "face to face transaction" is interesting.

Hopefully APHIS will be clarifying that more thoroughly in the final rule. Asking in our comments to APHIS for the "face to face" exemption mentioned in their FAQ to be clarified very thoroughly in the actual rule would be good.

Of course, even the face-to-face exemption still leaves the issue of shipping animals or delivering them sight-unseen to a buyer. Leaving comments for APHIS explaining that sight-unseen transactions have been routine long before the advent of the internet, explaining how buyers can research to make informed purchasing decisions when buying animals in this type of situation, etc. would be very helpful.

It might also be useful to point out other potential ways of dealing with the stated problem of people purchasing animals sight-unseen and having them turn out to be ill or otherwise not as advertised, and what recourse and safety measures could be used to handle that situation.

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

APHIS FAQ sheet: http://www.arba.net/PDFs/APHIS_Fact_Sheet.pdf

Our thoughts on the APHIS fact sheet and ARBA/APHIS teleconference notes

[**Update** We have taken the Karen Horn conversation post offline for the moment, until we can further clarify a few points and allow ARBA and APHIS time to communicate with each other to ensure accuracy and clarity in their statements. Since APHIS has extended the comment period, this makes addressing these issues a bit less time-critical. At this time we are only going to address statements that have officially been published to the public.

Meanwhile, see our post, What is a place of business? at  http://waanimal.blogspot.com/2012/07/what-is-place-of-business.html for another possible angle on the "face to face" exemption mentioned in the APHIS FAQ document.]

APHIS has come out with a new FAQ document on the proposed rule, APHIS 2011-0003. http://www.aphis.usda.gov/publications/animal_welfare/2012/retail_pets_faq.pdf

The problem is, the FAQ document and what APHIS is reported as telling some people over the telephone seems to directly contradict the actual wording in the proposed rule.

For instance, the FAQ document says,

"Q.  How will this affect Internet, phone- and mail 
order retailers?
A.  The proposal will affect these retailers if they
currently sell their pet animals to buyers sight-unseen.
Pet animal retailers will have a choice. They can
either sell their animals to buyers who physically
enter a place of business or residence to observe
the animals available for sale prior to purchase or to
take custody of the animals after purchase, or they
can obtain a license under the AWA and allow APHIS
inspectors to inspect their facility."

But then it goes on to say,

"Q. How will this affect retailers who sell their animals to buyers in face-to-face transactions at a location other than their own premises?
A. The proposed rule is designed to close a loophole in the current regulations that allows pet animals to be sold sight-unseen, without any oversight by the public or APHIS. Pet animal retailers who sell their animals to their customers in face-to-face transactions at a location other than their own premises are subject to some degree of public oversight and therefore are not the focus of this proposed rule and would not need to obtain a license."

And,

"Q. How would this proposal affect rescue groups that participate in off-site adoption events?
A. As mentioned above, persons who engage in face-to-face transactions at a location other than their premises, which include off-site adoption events, are subject to some degree of public oversight and therefore are not the focus of this proposed rule and would not need to obtain a license."

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

Notice that they say these face-to-face transactions are "not the focus" of the proposed rule--they do not specifically say that they are not actually included in the proposed rule. They do not even state here that they will be changing the wording in the final draft of the rule to clearly and specifically allow a face-to-face exemption. Hopefully that will be the case. We encourage people to request that in their comments to APHIS.

Unless they actually are going to change the wording in the rule itself, this could mean little or nothing in practicality. It appears tatamount to saying that, while these transactions may technically violate the proposed rule, they are supposedly not going to enforce the rule in these situations. This does NOT, however, guarantee that it will not be enforced as written in the future.

It's never a good idea to take the lawmakers' or lobbyists' word that a law will not be enforced as it is written. They can tell you from here to the moon that they won't enforce the law the way it is written, but there is nothing to hold them to such assurances. What is going to ultimately matter is what the rule or law actually says in plain language, not what they told you over the phone or in some fact sheet about how it's not really going to do what it says it will do. You will not be able to use, "But so-and-so said that someone at APHIS told them over the phone that they weren't actually going to enforce the rule the way it is written" as a valid defense in court.

Even if they don't intend at this point to enforce it as written in most situations, you can guarantee that organizations such as PeTA and HSUS will quickly be putting pressure on them to enforce it stringently it as written, and will be making reports about facilities to try to force APHIS to shut down breeders.

In actuality there is nothing in the actual proposed rule that contains a clearly delineated "face to face" exemption that would apply at shows, sales at a neutral location, etc. The rule itself requires that all pet buyers physically enter your actual home or place of business. 

[Update: The definition of "place of business" itself may offer some sort of loophole, however: http://waanimal.blogspot.com/2012/07/what-is-place-of-business.html ]

The proposed APHIS rule 2011-0003 says,

"This proposed rule would rescind the ``retail pet store'' status of anyone selling, at retail for use as pets, the animals listed above to buyers who do not physically enter his or her place of business or residence in order to personally observe the animals available for sale prior to purchase and/or to take custody of the animals after purchase. 

Unless otherwise exempt under the regulations, these entities would be required to obtain a license from APHIS and would become subject to the requirements of the AWA, which include identification of animals and recordkeeping requirements, as well as the following standards: Facilities and operations (including space, structure and construction, waste disposal, heating, ventilation, lighting, and interior surface requirements for indoor and outdoor primary enclosures and housing facilities); animal health and husbandry (including requirements for veterinary care, sanitation and feeding, watering, and separation of animals); and transportation (including specifications for primary enclosures, primary conveyances, terminal facilities, and feeding, watering, care, and handling of animals in transit)."

The proposed wording of the actual law is as follows:

2. In Sec.  1.1, the definition of dealer and the introductory text of the definition of retail pet store are revised to read as follows:
Sec.  1.1  Definitions.
* * * * *
    Dealer means any person who, in commerce, for compensation or profit, delivers for transportation, or transports, except as a carrier, buys, or sells, or negotiates the purchase or sale of: Any dog or other animal whether alive or dead (including unborn animals, organs, limbs, blood, serum, or other parts) for research, teaching, testing, experimentation, exhibition, or for use as a pet; or any dog at the wholesale level for hunting, security, or breeding purposes.
This term does not include: A retail pet store, as defined in this section; any retail outlet where dogs are sold for hunting, breeding, or security purposes; or any person who does not sell or negotiate the purchase or sale of any wild or exotic animal, dog, or cat and who derives no more than $500 gross income from the sale of animals other than wild or exotic animals, dogs, or cats during any calendar year.
* * * * *
    Retail pet store means a place of business or residence that each buyer physically enters in order to personally 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. A retail pet store also includes any person who meets the criteria in Sec.  2.1(a)(3)(iii) of this subchapter. Such definition excludes--"
* * * * *
PART 2--REGULATIONS
    3. The authority citation for part 2 continues to read as follows:
    Authority:  7 U.S.C. 2131-2159; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.7.
    4. Section 2.1 is amended as follows:
    a. By revising paragraph (a)(3)(i) to read as set forth below.
    b. In paragraph (a)(3)(ii), by removing the words ``to a research facility, an exhibitor, a dealer, or a pet store''.
    c. In paragraph (a)(3)(iii), in the first sentence, by removing the words ``three (3)'' and adding the word ``four'' in their place, and in the second sentence, by removing the word ``three'' each of the three times it appears and adding the word ``four'' in its place.
    d. By removing paragraph (a)(3)(vii) and redesignating paragraph (a)(3)(viii) as paragraph (a)(3)(vii).
Sec.  2.1  Requirements and application.
* * * * *
    (a) * * *
    (3) * * *
    (i) Retail pet stores as defined in part 1 of this subchapter;
* * * * *

[emphasis added]

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


There is a similar disconnect in ARBA's report about their teleconference with APHIS. In addition to the "face to face" exemption previously mentioned, the teleconference notes also say,

2) If you require licensing
a) There is only an application
b. No inspection is required unless abuse is reported but a pre or post licensing visit may be done at the applicant's request. 
c.Upon receiving an abuse complaint, depending on the nature of the complaint, the USDA/APHIS will arrange to visit the facility without warning.

http://www.arba.net/PDFs/USDA_Teleconference07112012.pdf

[Note: This post has been updated to reflect ARBA's 7/13/2012 correction of what was apparently a typo or misunderstanding regarding inspections being unannounced. There will likely be further updates as ARBA and APHIS communicate further with each other, as some issues will be discussed and clarified more next week.]

The Animal Welfare Act itself, the AWA Regulations, APHIS' published standard operating procedures, and and APHIS's numerous Fact Sheets state that inspections are required in order to obtain and maintain a USDA license. The APHIS publications also make it very clear that routine APHIS-initiated inspections, as well as inspections following up on a complaint, will be unannounced.

This requirement for inspections of licensed facilities is encoded in The Animal Welfare Act:

"Sec. 2133. Licensing of dealers and exhibitors
". . . Provided, That no such license shall be issued until the dealer or exhibitor shall have demonstrated that his facilities comply with the standards promulgated by the Secretary pursuant to section 2143 of this title."
"Sec. 2146. Administration and enforcement by Secretary
-STATUTE-
(a) Investigations and inspections 

The Secretary shall make such investigations or inspections as he deems necessary to determine whether any dealer, exhibitor, intermediate handler, carrier, research facility, or operator of an auction sale subject to section 2142 of this title, has violated or is violating any provision of this chapter or any regulation or standard issued thereunder, and for such purposes, the Secretary shall, at all reasonable times, have access to the places of business and the facilities, animals, and those records required to be kept pursuant to section 2140 of this title of any such dealer, exhibitor, intermediate handler, carrier, research facility, or operator of an auction sale. The Secretary shall inspect each research facility at least once each year and, in the case of deficiencies or deviations from the standards promulgated under this chapter, shall conduct such follow-up inspections as may be necessary until all deficiencies or deviations from such standards are corrected."

http://www.aphis.usda.gov/animal_welfare/downloads/awa/awa.pdf

Both prelicensing and routine inspections are required in the AWA Regulations (the codification of the rules the Secretary "deems necessary" as instructed in the AWA--the rules about how the AWA is enforced):

"Sec. 2.3 Demonstration of compliance with standards and regulations.
(b) Each applicant for an initial license must be inspected by APHIS and
demonstrate compliance with the regulations and standards, as required in paragraph (a) of this section, before APHIS will issue a license."
"Sec. 2.126 Access and inspection of records and property.
(a) Each dealer, exhibitor, intermediate handler, or carrier, shall, during business hours, allow APHIS officials:
(1) To enter its place of business;
(2) To examine records required to be kept by the Act and the regulations in this part;
(3) To make copies of the records;
(4) To inspect and photograph the facilities, property and animals, as the APHIS officials consider necessary to enforce the provisions of the Act, the regulations and the standards in this subchapter; and
(5) To document, by the taking of photographs and other means, conditions and areas of noncompliance.
(b) The use of a room, table, or other facilities necessary for the proper examination of the records and inspection of the property or animals must be extended to APHIS officials by the dealer, exhibitor, intermediate handler or carrier, and a responsible adult shall be made available to accompany APHIS officials during the inspection process."

"Business hours means a reasonable number of hours between 7 a.m. and 7 p.m., Monday through Friday, except for legal Federal holidays, each week of the year, during which inspections by APHIS may be made." 

http://www.aphis.usda.gov/animal_welfare/downloads/awr/awr.pdf

The USDA Inspection Requirements document makes it very clear that, with the exception of prelicense inspections, all inspections must be unannounced:

"ATTEMPTED INSPECTION
All animal welfare inspections, with the exception of prelicense inspections, are to be conducted on an unannounced basis. An attempted inspection occurs when an authorized person is not available to accompany the inspector, and no inspection is conducted. NOTE: The person accompanying the inspector must be an adult, i.e. 18 years of age or older.
If nobody is present at the facility, you should call the phone number(s) provided by the licensee/registrant to contact him/her, and determine if an authorized person can be at the facility within 30 minutes. You should wait for 30 minutes, and if nobody shows up, you should cite section 2.126(b), and the narrative should read: 'On (date) at (time), licensee failed to have a responsible person available to conduct an animal welfare inspection.'"

"PRELICENSE INSPECTION
An applicant's facility must meet all applicable regulations and standards to obtain a license. Prelicense inspections are scheduled at a time agreeable to the applicant and the inspector. In addition to determining if a facility is in full compliance, prelicense inspections are the best time to educate the applicant about the AWA regulations and standards. Required written records must be completed and inspected during a prelicense inspection in order to consider the facility in compliance, including the PVC . . . There must be a written record of animals on hand with as much of the required information completed as possible." 

http://www.aphis.usda.gov/animal_welfare/downloads/Inspection_Requirements.PDF

[Note that not being present for an unannounced inspection is considered an Animal Welfare Act violation and will be written up as such, with potentially severe consequences.]

The Animal Welfare Act Fact Sheet published by the USDA says that inspections based on complaints are IN ADDITION to regular inspections, not instead of them:

"Before APHIS will issue a license, the applicant must be in compliance with all standards and regulations under the AWA. To ensure that all licensed and registered facilities continue to comply with the Act, APHIS inspectors regularly make unannounced inspections. . . . In addition to conducting regular inspections, APHIS will perform inspections in response to public input about the conditions of regulated facilities. Concerned individuals are also encouraged to inform APHIS about facilities that should be licensed or registered."

http://www.aphis.usda.gov/publications/animal_welfare/content/printable_version/fs_awawact.pdf

The APHIS Fact Sheet, Animal Care: Compliance Inspections, says,

"APHIS officials--veterinarians or qualified animal care inspectors employed by APHIS and trained to identify potential violations of the AWA and its regulations--conduct unannounced inspections of every licensed or registered facility in the country."http://www.aphis.usda.gov/publications/animal_welfare/content/printable_version/fs_compliance_inspection.pdf 
[emphasis added]

This document goes into quite a bit of detail about what these inspections involve and what standards must be met, including the requirement that "the interior of a facility must be substantially impervious to moisture" and that "puppies and kittens should be separated from adult animals other than their mothers," as well as requirements for things like climate control.

The APHIS fact sheet, Questions and Answers: Regulation of Dog and Cat Breeders and Dealers, gives some clue about how often such inspections take place:

"APHIS inspectors from the Animal Care program conduct unannounced compliance inspections to ensure that the animals receive humane care and treatment. . . . Depending on a facility's compliance status, it may be inspected once every year or so, or more often if the facility requires more frequent monitoring or in-depth inspections. APHIS inspectors always have the option of inspecting as often as they feel necessary and as resources allow; they also follow up on legitimate complaints from concerned citizens and organizations.

http://www.aphis.usda.gov/publications/animal_welfare/content/printable_version/faq_animal_dealers.pdf

Besides, even **if** inspections were solely complaint-driven, the name and address of anyone holding a USDA license are published on the USDA website and made available to the public. All any organization with the goal to shut down breeders would have to do is go through the list and get people to make complaints about every breeder who holds a license. They don't even need to have been to your place to file a complaint. APHIS specifically mentions in their Complaint Inspection Form that it is common to receive complaints from "animal protection groups" and that anonymous complaints are allowed.
http://www.aphis.usda.gov/animal_welfare/2011_Inspection_Guide//6.6%20Complaint%20Inspection.pdf

Remember, a violation can be something as simple as a cobweb on the ceiling, a spot of rust on a cage, an open container of feed or bedding (even if you're currently in the act of using it), not having paperwork in order or available on site (including detailed information about everyone you obtain animals from), having a permeable surface somewhere that an animal could come into contact with it, allowing puppies or kittens to interact with other adult animals besides their mother, or not being present when an unannounced inspection occurs.

To discuss the ARBA document further, there are several other issues that we feel need clarification or correction:
http://www.arba.net/PDFs/USDA_Teleconference07112012.pdf

For example,

"1) There exist a series of exemptions the licensing that preclude  most rabbit breeders from needing licensing. [sic]
a) Due to the number of exemptions, if you do not see one that covers your specific situation below, please contact the Legislative Committee to discuss.
b) Exhibition, commercial and livestock are all exempt.  The proposed regulation only applies to rabbits sold for use as pets.
c) Only animals sold without a face-to-face meeting are to be included in the $500 limit

Just to clarify, a $500 limit for unlicensed activity definitely applies to animals sold for exhibition purposes, and for commercial purposes that are covered in the AWA. There is no exemption from USDA licensing requirements for exhibition or "commercial" sales. These categories aren't exempt from licensing requirements; it's just that this particular rule addresses only pet sales.

Cat/dog/rabbit shows and things like competitions and agricultural displays at county fairs do not qualify as "exhibitions" under APHIS definition and do not trigger a licensing requirement under the exhibition clause. But there is no blanket exemption for exhibition animals; in fact, exhibition animals are specifically covered under the AWA and required to be licensed if the limit is exceeded.

It doesn't matter how face-to-face the meeting is if you're selling animals for experimentation, exhibition (by USDA definition), wholesale as pets, or the other specific AWA-covered purposes; those animals are definitely included in the $500 limit. APHIS does say in their FAQ sheet that animals sold at retail as pets are exempt if the sale is face-to-face.

Livestock are only exempt if they are not being sold for a covered purpose (i.e. exhibition, research, wholesale, pet) and are being used for specific exempt purposes such as food and fiber. Livestock being sold for a purpose such as a petting zoo, in a performance such as a circus or magic show, as a prop for professional photos, or to advertise a product (all exhibition under the rule) would NOT be exempt and would count toward the $500 limit.

[NOTE: On July 19. 2012 we verified with Dr. Rushin of APHIS that the $500 threshold is calculated by adding up all sales any category of AWA-covered situation, over the course of 1 year (12 months). So if you sell $200 worth of rabbits at wholesale as pets in January, sell $200 worth of show rabbits shipped or transported to the buyer in a non-face-to-face transaction in June, and sell $101 worth to a petting zoo in December, you are over the $500 amount and need to be USDA licensed. We will be writing a more thorough post on the $500 licensing threshold soon.]

According to the way the definitions are stated in the AWA Regulations, rabbits ONLY qualify for exemption as livestock " when they are used solely for purposes of meat or fur ."

However, there is some possible good news here, according to the ARBA notes on their teleconference:

"A) Discussions of breeder to breeder sales sight unseen will be addressed next week.
B) Discussions concerning show and breeding rabbits receiving their own categorical exemption  are ongoing and will be discussed next week."

Here are various passages from the Animal Welfare Act that are relevant to issues discussed in this post:

"Sec. 2131. Congressional statement of policy . . . The Congress further finds that it is essential to regulate, as provided in this chapter, the transportation, purchase, sale, housing, care, handling, and treatment of animals by carriers or by persons or organizations engaged in using them for research or experimental purposes or for exhibition purposes or holding them for sale as pets or for any such purpose or use."
Sec. 2132. Definitions
-STATUTE-
When used in this chapter -
(f) The term "dealer" means any person who, in commerce, for compensation or profit, delivers for transportation, or transports, except as a carrier, buys, or sells, or negotiates the purchase or sale of, (1) any dog or other animal whether alive or dead for research, teaching, exhibition, or use as a pet, or (2) any dog for hunting, security, or breeding purposes, except that this term does not include -(i) a retail pet store except such store which sells any animals to a research facility, an exhibitor, or a dealer; or(ii) any person who does not sell, or negotiate the purchase or sale of any wild animal, dog, or cat, and who derives no more than $500 gross income from the sale of other animals during any calendar year;
(g) The term "animal" means any live or dead dog, cat, monkey (nonhuman primate mammal), guinea pig, hamster, rabbit, or such other warm-blooded animal, as the Secretary may determine is beingused, or is intended for use, for research, testing, experimentation, or exhibition purposes, or as a pet; but such term excludes (1) birds, rats of the genus Rattus, and mice of the genus Mus, bred for use in research, (2) horses not used for research purposes, and (3) other farm animals, such as, but not limited to livestock or poultry, used or intended for use as food or fiber, or livestock or poultry used or intended for use for improving animal nutrition, breeding, management, or production efficiency, or for improving the quality of food or fiber. With respect to a dog, the term means all dogs including those used for hunting, security, or breeding purposes;


(h) The term "exhibitor" means any person (public or private) exhibiting any animals, which were purchased in commerce or the intended distribution of which affects commerce, or will affect commerce, to the public for compensation, as determined by the Secretary, and such term includes carnivals, circuses, and zoos exhibiting such animals whether operated for profit or not; but such term excludes retail pet stores, organizations sponsoring and all persons participating in State and country fairs, livestock shows, rodeos, purebred dog and cat shows, and any other fairs or exhibitions intended to advance agricultural arts and sciences, as may be determined by the Secretary;

Sec. 2132. Definitions
-STATUTE-
When used in this chapter -
(f) The term "dealer" means any person who, in commerce, for compensation or profit, delivers for transportation, or transports, except as a carrier, buys, or sells, or negotiates the purchase or sale of, (1) any dog or other animal whether alive or dead for research, teaching, exhibition, or use as a pet, or (2) any dog for hunting, security, or breeding purposes, except that this term does not include -(i) a retail pet store except such store which sells any animals to a research facility, an exhibitor, or a dealer; or(ii) any person who does not sell, or negotiate the purchase or sale of any wild animal, dog, or cat, and who derives no more than $500 gross income from the sale of other animals during any calendar year;
(g) The term "animal" means any live or dead dog, cat, monkey (nonhuman primate mammal), guinea pig, hamster, rabbit, or such other warm-blooded animal, as the Secretary may determine is being used, or is intended for use, for research, testing, experimentation, or exhibition purposes, or as a pet; but such term excludes (1) birds, rats of the genus Rattus, and mice of the genus Mus, bred for use in research, (2) horses not used for research purposes, and (3) other farm animals, such as, but not limited to livestock or poultry, used or intended for use as food or fiber, or livestock or poultry used or intended for use for improving animal nutrition, breeding, management, or production efficiency, or for improving the quality of food or fiber. With respect to a dog, the term means all dogs including those used for hunting, security, or breeding purposes;
(h) The term "exhibitor" means any person (public or private) exhibiting any animals, which were purchased in commerce or the intended distribution of which affects commerce, or will affect commerce, to the public for compensation, as determined by the Secretary, and such term includes carnivals, circuses, and zoos exhibiting such animals whether operated for profit or not; but such term excludes retail pet stores, organizations sponsoring and all persons participating in State and country fairs, livestock shows, rodeos, purebred dog and cat shows, and any other fairs or exhibitions intended to advance agricultural arts and sciences, as may be determined by the Secretary;
Sec. 2134. Valid license for dealers and exhibitors required
-STATUTE-
No dealer or exhibitor shall sell or offer to sell or transport or offer for transportation, in commerce, to any research facility or for exhibition or for use as a pet any animal, or buy, sell, offer to buy or sell, transport or offer for transportation, in commerce, to or from another dealer or exhibitor under this chapter any animals, unless and until such dealer or exhibitor shall have obtained a license from the Secretary and such license shall not have been suspended or revoked."

http://www.aphis.usda.gov/animal_welfare/downloads/awa/awa.pdf

The AWA Standards flesh it out more:

" . . . Animal means any live or dead dog, cat, nonhuman primate, guinea pig,hamster, rabbit, or any other warmblooded animal, which is being used, or is intended for use for research, teaching, testing, experimentation, or exhibition purposes, or as a pet. This term excludes birds, rats of the genus Rattus, and mice of the genus Mus, bred for use in research; horses not used for research purposes; and other farm animals, such as, but not limited to, livestock or poultry used or intended for use as food or fiber, or livestock or poultry used or intended for use for improving animal nutrition, breeding, management, or production efficiency, or for improving the quality of food or fiber. With respect to a dog, the term means all dogs, including those used for hunting, security, or breeding purposes. . . . " 

. . . Class ``A'' licensee (breeder) means a person subject to the licensing requirements under part 2 and meeting the definition of a ``dealer'' (Sec. 1.1), and whose business involving animals consists only of animals that are bred and raised on the premises in a closed or stable colony and those animals acquired for the sole purpose of maintaining or enhancing the breeding colony. 

Class ``B'' licensee means a person subject to the licensing requirements under part 2 and meeting the definition of a ``dealer'' (Sec. 1.1), and whose business includes the purchase and/or resale of any animal. This term includes brokers, and operators of an auction sale, as such individuals negotiate or arrange for the purchase, sale, or transport of animals in commerce. Such individuals do not usually take actual physical possession or control of the animals, and do not usually hold animals in any facilities. A class ``B'' licensee may also exhibit animals as a minor part of the business. 

Class ``C'' licensee (exhibitor) means a person subject to the licensing requirements under part 2 and meeting the definition of an ``exhibitor'' (Sec. 1.1), and whose business involves the showing or displaying of animals to the public. A class ``C'' licensee may buy and sell animals as a minor part of the business in order to maintain or add to his animal collection. . . .   

". . . Dealer means any person who, in commerce, for compensation or profit,delivers for transportation, or transports, except as a carrier, buys, or sells, or negotiates the purchase or sale of: Any dog or other animal whether alive or dead (including unborn animals, organs, limbs, blood, serum, or other parts) for research, teaching, testing, experimentation, exhibition, or for use as a pet; or any dog at the wholesale level for hunting, security, or breeding purposes. This term does not include: A retail pet store, as defined in this section, unless such store sells any animal to a research facility, an exhibitor, or a dealer (wholesale); any retail outlet where dogs are sold for hunting, breeding, or security purposes; or any person who does not sell or negotiate the purchase or sale of any wild or exotic animal, dog, or cat and who derives no more than $500 gross income from the sale of animals other than wild or exotic animals, dogs, or cats during any calendar year. . . "

" . . . Exhibitor means any person (public or private) exhibiting any animals, which were purchased in commerce or the intended distribution of which affects commerce, or will affect commerce, to the public for compensation, as determined by the Secretary. This term includes carnivals, circuses, animal acts, zoos, and educational exhibits, exhibiting such animals whether operated for profit or not. This term excludes retail pet stores, horse and dog races, organizations sponsoring and all persons articipating in State and county fairs, livestock shows, rodeos, field trials, coursing events, purebred dog and cat shows and any other fairs or exhibitions intended to advance agricultural arts and sciences as may be determined by the Secretary. . . . "

. . . Exotic animal means any animal not identified in the definition of ``animal'' provided in this part that is native to a foreign country or of foreign origin or character, is not native to the United States, or was introduced from abroad. This term specifically includes animals such as, but not limited to, lions, tigers, leopards, elephants, camels, antelope, anteaters, kangaroos, and water buffalo, and species of foreign domestic cattle, such as Ankole, Gayal, and Yak.

. . . Farm animal means any domestic species of cattle, sheep, swine, goats, llamas, or horses, which are normally and have historically, been kept and raised on farms in the United States, and used or intended for use as food or fiber, or for improving animal nutrition, breeding, management, or production efficiency, or for improving the quality of food or fiber. This term also includes animals such as rabbits, mink, and chinchilla, when they are used solely for purposes of meat or fur, and animals such as horses and llamas when used solely as work and pack animals. . . " 

". . . Pet animal means any animal that has commonly been kept as a pet in family households in the United States, such as dogs, cats, guinea pigs, rabbits, and hamsters. This term excludes exotic animals and wild animals. . . . "

". . . Retail pet store means any outlet 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. Such definition excludes-
-
(1) Establishments or persons who deal in dogs used for hunting, security, or breeding purposes;
(2) Establishments or persons exhibiting, selling, or offering to exhibit or sell any wild or exotic or other nonpet species of warmblooded animals (except birds), such as skunks, raccoons, nonhuman primates, squirrels, ocelots, foxes, coyotes, etc.;
(3) Any establishment or person selling warmblooded animals (except birds, and laboratory rats and mice) for research or exhibition purposes; and
(4) Any establishment wholesaling any animals (except birds, rats and mice).
(5) Any establishment exhibiting pet animals in a room that is separate from or adjacent to the retail pet store, or in an outside area, or anywhere off the retail pet store premises. . . . "

[Emphasis added; note that these exclusions are NOT exemptions from licensing requirements; they are only exclusions from the definition of a retail pet store.]

PART 2_REGULATIONS--Table of Contents
Subpart A_Licensing
Sec. 2.1 Requirements and application. 

(a)(1) Any person operating or intending to operate as a dealer, exhibitor,or operator of an auction sale, except persons who are exempted from the licensing requirements under paragraph (a)(3) of this section, must have a valid license. A person must be 18 years of age or older to obtain a license. A person seeking a license shall apply on a form which will be furnished by the AC Regional Director in the State in which that person operates or intends to operate. The applicant shall provide the information requested on the application form, including a valid mailing address through which the licensee or applicant can be reached at all times, and a valid premises address where animals, animal facilities, equipment, and records may be inspected for compliance. The applicant shall file the completed application form with the AC Regional Director.

(2) If an applicant for a license or license renewal operates in more than one State, he or she shall apply in the State in which he or she has his or her principal place of business. All premises, facilities, or sites where such person operates or keeps animals shall be indicated on the application form or on a separate sheet attached to it. The completed application form, along with the application fee indicated in paragraph (c) of this section, and the annual license fee indicated in table 1 or 2 of Sec. 2.6 shall be filed with the AC Regional Director.  

(3) The following persons are exempt from the licensing requirements under section 2 or section 3 of the Act:
(i) Retail pet stores which sell nondangerous, pet-type animals, such as dogs, cats, birds, rabbits, hamsters, guinea pigs, gophers, domestic ferrets, chinchilla, rats, and mice, for pets, at retail only: Provided, That, Anyone wholesaling any animals, selling any animals for research or exhibition, or selling any wild, exotic, or nonpet animals retail, must have a license;
(ii) Any person who sells or negotiates the sale or purchase of any animal except wild or exotic animals, dogs, or cats, and who derives no more than $500 gross income from the sale of such animals to a research facility, an exhibitor, a dealer, or a pet store during any calendar year and is not otherwise required to obtain a license;
(iii) Any person who maintains a total of three (3) or fewer breeding female dogs, cats, and/or small exotic or wild mammals, such as hedgehogs, degus, spiny mice, prairie dogs, flying squirrels, and jerboas, and who sells only the offspring of these dogs, cats, or small exotic or wild mammals, which were born and raised on his or her premises, for pets or exhibition, and is not otherwise required to obtain a license. This exemption does not extend to any person residing in a household that collectively maintains a total of more than three breeding female dogs, cats, and/or small exotic or wild mammals, regardless of ownership, nor to any person maintaining breeding female dogs, cats, and/or small exotic or wild mammals on premises on which more than three breeding female dogs, cats, and/or small exotic or wild mammals are maintained, nor to any person acting in concert with others where they collectively maintain a total of more than three breeding female dogs, cats, and/or small exotic or wild mammals regardless of ownership;
(iv) Any person who sells fewer than 25 dogs and/or cats per year, which were born and raised on his or her premises, for research, teaching, or testing purposes or to any research facility and is not otherwise required to obtain a license. This exemption does not extend to any person residing in a household that collectively sells 25 or more dogs and/or cats, regardless of ownership, nor to any person acting in concert with others where they collectively sell 25 or more dogs and/or cats, regardless of ownership. The sale of any dog or cat not born and raised on the premises for research purposes requires a license;
(v) Any person who arranges for transportation or transports animals solely for the purpose of breeding, exhibiting in purebred shows, boarding (not in association with commercial transportation), grooming, or medical treatment, and is not otherwise required to obtain a license;
(vi) Any person who buys, sells, transports, or negotiates the sale, purchase, or transportation of any animals used only for the purposes of food or fiber (including fur);
(vii) Any person who breeds and raises domestic pet animals for direct retail sales to another person for the buyer's own use and who buys no animals for resale and who sells no animals to a research facility, an exhibitor, a dealer, or a pet store (e.g., a purebred dog or cat fancier) and is not otherwise required to obtain a license;
(viii) Any person who buys animals solely for his or her own use or enjoyment and does not sell or exhibit animals, or is not otherwise required to obtain a license;

[emphasis added]


http://www.aphis.usda.gov/animal_welfare/downloads/awr/awr.pdf

The language in this section and the definition of "retail pet store" is part of what the proposed APHIS rule would change, adding the language  "Retail pet store means a place of business or residence that each buyer physically enters in order to personally observe the animals available for sale prior to purchase and/or to take custody of the animals after purchase," and removing and changing the other phrases noted near the beginning of this article.

The rule also makes some other changes we have not discussed in this post, such as changing the number of breeding dog, cat or exotic animal females a breeder can have and be exempt from licensing requirements if they meet certain criteria.


More information and sources: 

Here is the link where you can make comments directly to APHIS (as many as you like; you're not limited to just one) on the proposed new rule which would drastically widen the pool of people required to be licensed: http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=APHIS-2011-0003-0001

The Cavalry Group has put up a website with some information and a summary put together by law experts: http://www.thecavalrygroup.com/aphis.php

They also have a tool to make it easy to email your congressional representatives about this issue (this is important because the new rule must be approved by Congress). You can use their suggested wording, or (preferably, for more impact) revise and edit it to reflect your own situation and wording. (While you're at it, it would also be a good idea to write another note asking them NOT to support the PUPS (Puppy Uniform Protection and Safety) Act, another very similar law backed by the HSUS and other animal supremacy groups that some congressfolks are trying to pass.)
http://the-cavalry-group.rallycongress.com/6980/urge-congress-take-action-to-support-cavalry-group-mission/

Here are the published regulations pertaining to the Animal Welfare Act: http://www.aphis.usda.gov/animal_welfare/downloads/awr/awr.pdf

  Washington Animal Watch Posts about the proposed USDA/APHIS rule:

New USDA rule would force small breeders to become licensed. http://waanimal.blogspot.com/2012/06/new-usda-rule-would-force-millions-of.html

Why not just apply for a USDA license? http://waanimal.blogspot.com/2012/06/why-not-just-apply-for-usda-license.html

 Images Opposing PUPS and the APHIS proposal (for posting on your own site, Facebook page, etc.) http://waanimal.blogspot.com/2012/06/ads-opposing-pups-and-aphis-proposal.html

Buying Animals at Shows: http://waanimal.blogspot.com/2012/06/buying-animals-at-shows.html

Our thoughts on the APHIS fact sheet and ARBA/APHIS teleconference notes: http://waanimal.blogspot.com/2012/07/never-trust-lawmakers-who-say-they.html


~~ Copyright Washington Animal Watch, 2012 ~~


 Please remember that all original works are copyrighted unless otherwise stated, even if they do not carry a copyright notice. You may freely share the link to this page, and brief excerpts (with credit and a link), but republishing an article elsewhere or copying and pasting it to share on newsgroups, websites, etc. is a copyright violation. More importantly, the hyperlinks may not be included and the unauthorized version will not include any more recent corrections or updates.

Buying animals at shows

[To understand a bit about ARBA shows, see the trailer for the movie Rabbit Fever here: http://www.rabbitfever.com/trailer/ ]

--------------------

Rabbits and cavies are often sold at sanctioned ARBA shows.

This has many advantages for both buyer and the seller: It's a safe environment with many people around; it doesn't bring strangers to the breeder's home to endanger their family, possessions and animals; and it doesn't compromise herd biosecurity.

Most importantly, it allows the buyer an opportunity to get  expert second opinions on the health and quality of the animal. Other breeders and judges routinely look over rabbits/cavies for potential buyers. It's common to see multiple breeders and/or judges helping a buyer make a purchasing decision at a show. It's also quite common for someone who lives a long distance away or can't make it to the show to ask a trusted friend to inspect and choose animals for them. This would no longer be allowed if the new USDA rule passes, unless the seller was USDA licensed.

(Remember, the AWA standards for licensed breeders require that animals be raised in a sterile environment with restrictions designed for laboratories and large commercial facilities--impossible for hobby breeders or family farms to meet, and preventing animals from being raised in a typical home/family environment.)

An unhealthy or poorly cared for rabbit/cavy is readily apparent by examining the animal itself; with a careful and knowledgeable inspection one does not need to see where they were raised. Most breeders also guarantee the health of the rabbit for at least a few days after purchase. Since the show world is a very small and tight-knit community, simply asking around about a breeder's reputation will quickly tell you who to buy from or avoid.

This rule would remove a very important safeguard for buyers.

Please allow consumers to choose shows, competitions and other offsite ways to buy animals, without forcing USDA licensing. We do not need a nanny government to protect us from the freedom to make our own informed purchasing decisions. We're perfectly capable of thinking for ourselves.

---------------------

This is the comment we submitted today. 

Animal Welfare; Retail Pet Stores and Licensing Exemptions


Agency: APHIS 
Document ID: APHIS-2011-0003-0001
Your Comment Tracking Number: 8105dab3




Submit your comment to APHIS here: http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=APHIS-2011-0003-0001

Don't forget to also contact your congressional representatives!

You can also call Jerry Rushing, the staff vet for the Animal Care Department. His phone number is (301) 851-3735.

A couple of new things about us . . .

We are changing our name from Washington State Animal Watch to Washington Animal Watch to reflect the fact that we follow federal (Washington D.C.) issues as well as just Washington State. Both federal and state laws and rules will impact Washingtonians, so it's important that we cover both types of issues.

Of course, if you are not a Washington resident but may visit or ship animals to WA, you will also want to follow our posts.

Washington Animal Watch now has a Facebook page! You can "like" our page for updates and to share our photos more easily. https://www.facebook.com/waanimal

Images Opposing PUPS and the APHIS proposal

These images are free to repost on your own site, provided that you do not edit or change them (making the file size smaller without altering the image itself is fine). You must leave the text intact.

Check back; more images will be added to this post over the next few days.

We also wish to clarify that we are not against commercial facilities for raising animals. We are against taking away the CHOICE for breeders to use any humane method of animal husbandry, including raising animals in a home environment.

You can click on any of these photos to view and download a larger version. To post on Facebook, just go to our page at http://www.facebook.com/waanimal to find the image you like, and click "share."

Suggested text to publish alongside, for the ones that don't include as many details in the image itself:

The proposed new USDA/APHIS rule and PUPS law would prevent most animals from being raised in a home and family setting. The Animal Welfare Act limits licensed breeders to only commercial/laboratory style settings. 


Allow farmers, breeders, show competitors, hatcheries, working/service animal producers, shelters and rescues to choose any humane method that works for them, their animals and their goals. Please oppose PUPS legislation and the APHIS-2011-0003-0001 proposed rule, "Animal Welfare; Retail Pet Stores and Licensing Exemptions."  

For more information, see http://waanimal.weebly.com/aphis.html 

or, 

APHIS 2011-0003 applies to "Dogs, cats, rabbits, guinea pigs, hamsters, gerbils, rats, mice, gophers, chinchilla, domestic ferrets, domestic farm animals, birds, and cold-blooded species." PUPS applies to dogs.

Both would greatly restrict the ability to raise pets in home and family farm settings. 

For more information, see http://waanimal.weebly.com/aphis.html 

With any of these images, you may also wish to include a link to our post, "Why not just apply for a USDA license?" http://waanimal.blogspot.com/2012/06/why-not-just-apply-for-usda-license.html


And/or, "New USDA rule would force small breeders to become licensed." http://waanimal.blogspot.com/2012/06/new-usda-rule-would-force-millions-of.html 



Or, here is an excellent site which combines all the most important links in one place: STOP the proposed APHIS RULE in 3 Easy Steps! http://www.icontact-archive.com/sRszqmyZGmERhv5PQPZvnX-eSvbsTRM0?w=2



* Note: All photos are either royalty-free pictures from online libraries that are labeled free to use for this type of purpose, are purchased with a license that allows this type of use, or are used by permission of the owners.

New USDA rule would force small breeders to become licensed.

The proposed federal APHIS/USDA rule which is being falsely touted as an "anti-puppymill" rule actually applies to "Dogs, cats, rabbits, guinea pigs, hamsters, gerbils, rats, mice, gophers, chinchilla, domestic ferrets, domestic farm animals, birds, and cold-blooded species."

From the proposed rule:

In addition to retail pet stores, the proposed rule would exempt  from regulation anyone who sells or negotiates the sale or purchase of any animal, except wild or exotic animals, dogs, or cats, and who derives no more than $500 gross income from the sale of such animals. In addition, the proposed rule would increase from three to four the number of breeding female dogs, cats, and/or small exotic or wild mammals that a person may maintain on his or her premises and be exempt from licensing and inspection if he or she sells only the offspring of those animals born and raised on his or her premises for use as pets or exhibition, regardless of whether those animals are sold at retail or wholesale.

In other words, if you own or co-own more than 4 breedable females (of any combination of cats, dogs or exotic animals) and sell pets (or animals for exhibition--which can include something as simple as using an animal in a photo promoting a product--or any other USDA-regulated animals), sell any animals not born and raised on your premises as pets, sell more than $500 worth of AWA-regulated animals (gross, not profit), or sell even one animal as a pet in a transaction in which the buyer does not personally come to your home or place of business, you must be USDA licensed and conform to AWA standards.

Here is a handy chart to help you understand the exemptions (just substitute the word "females" for species other than dogs--it does apply to more than just dogs): http://www.virginiafederation.org/how-will-it-affect-you

This means that people will no longer be able to carefully choose the pet (or the prospective home for their animal) that is the best fit, but will instead be limited by geographic proximity.  

Without being USDA licensed, rescues can no longer adopt animals out of foster homes unless every prospective adopter goes to the foster family's house. It may affect chick hatcheries being able to ship chicks to people who want backyard chickens or ducks as pets. Sales can no longer take place at competitive shows where multiple knowledgeable second opinions about the health and quality of the animal are readily available.

Pets will not be able to be shipped or transported by either a third party or the seller themselves to the prospective buyer, no matter how carefully the buyer and seller (or rescue and adopter) have checked each other out or how well they know each other, or even whether they have already had previous dealings and this is a repeat transaction (and even though animals being shipped are already required to have a certificate from a veterinarian verifying that they are healthy and have had all required vaccines and testing). It will eliminate chains of volunteers forming a "train" to transport a rescue pet or a rare breed across the country.

For a small hobbyist breeder or rescue who keeps their animals in their home with their family, forcing them to bring every prospective buyer or adopter is dangerous for many reasons. 

Bringing all buyers into the home compromises biosecurity and puts the animals at risk from disease--things like parvo, mites, parasites and other issues can easily be carried on visitors' shoes, hands or clothing. It could also compromise the emotional well-being of the animals; as an animal recovering from surgery, giving birth, or in advanced old age could be easily stressed out by strangers coming into their space.

It also opens up both the animals and the homeowner to a substantial risk from thieves, animal rights activists, vandals, and others who may wish them harm.

Forcing a private citizen to bring customers into their home is far more dangerous than having customers come into a business. Farm homes are often remote from other people, out of view from the road or other public areas, and too far from neighbors for anyone to hear calls for help. Emergency services such as fire, medical and police help are farther away and will turn out in smaller force for a residential call than for a business call.

If this rule passes, it will make it far too easy for thieves, rapists, murderers, extremists and other dangerous people to gain access to private homes.

It may also cause issues with city and county code compliance, as many counties allow home businesses in certain districts only as long as customers do not come to the home. Home insurance companies are also likely to drop people's policies or charge far more if customers are coming to the home.

If you're thinking that requiring more people to be licensed and inspected is a good thing, think again. Animal Welfare Act standards were written and intended for laboratories and large commercial enterprises, not small family businesses, rescues, service dog organizations or in-home breeders. A person CANNOT raise animals in a home with a family environment and meet AWA standards.

If someone is USDA licensed, they are required to keep their animals in a sterile commercial-type setting with myriad regulations about things like having impermeable services, specific sizes and types of enclosures, pristine like-new equipment and facilities (even a few hairs on the floor, a spot of rust on an enclosure or a cobweb on the ceiling can be a violation) and not having young animals around any other animal besides their mother. Not to mention the types of records required to be kept, excessive veterinary requirements, and other issues we go into more detail about in our previous post, Why not just apply for a USDA license? 

Remember, this is a federal rule, which means it will apply to all of the USA--not just one state.

--------------------




More information and sources:

Here is the link where you can make comments directly to APHIS (as many as you like; you're not limited to just one) on the proposed new rule which would drastically widen the pool of people required to be licensed: http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=APHIS-2011-0003-0001

The Cavalry Group has put up a website with a tool to make it easy to email your congressional representatives about this issue (this is important because the new rule must be approved by Congress). You can use their suggested wording, or (for more impact) revise and edit it to reflect your own situation and wording. (While you're at it, it would also be a good idea to write another note asking them NOT to support the PUPS (Puppy Uniform Protection and Safety) Act, another very similar law backed by the HSUS and other animal supremacy groups that some congressfolks are trying to pass.) http://the-cavalry-group.rallycongress.com/6980/urge-congress-take-action-to-support-cavalry-group-mission/

The AKC also has a petition going: http://www.akc.org/petition/


Here is the site where you can look up inspection reports. You can search by any term, including type of animal. http://acissearch.aphis.usda.gov/LPASearch/faces/CustomerSearch.jspx

And here are the published regulations pertaining to the Animal Welfare Act:
http://www.aphis.usda.gov/animal_welfare/downloads/awr/awr.pdf

Here are a lot of the forms and other info:
http://www.aphis.usda.gov/animal_welfare/pubs_reports.shtml

Washington Animal Watch Posts about the proposed USDA/APHIS rule:

New USDA rule would force small breeders to become licensed. http://waanimal.blogspot.com/2012/06/new-usda-rule-would-force-millions-of.html

Why not just apply for a USDA license? http://waanimal.blogspot.com/2012/06/why-not-just-apply-for-usda-license.html

Images Opposing PUPS and the APHIS proposal (for posting on your own site, Facebook page, etc.) http://waanimal.blogspot.com/2012/06/ads-opposing-pups-and-aphis-proposal.html

Buying Animals at Shows: http://waanimal.blogspot.com/2012/06/buying-animals-at-shows.html

Our thoughts on the APHIS fact sheet and ARBA/APHIS teleconference notes: http://waanimal.blogspot.com/2012/07/never-trust-lawmakers-who-say-they.html

What is a place of business? (be sure to read the comments, too):  http://waanimal.blogspot.com/2012/07/what-is-place-of-business.html


-----------------------

Copyright Washington Animal Watch, 2012




Please remember that all original works are copyrighted unless otherwise stated, even if they do not carry a copyright notice. You may freely share the link to this page, and brief excerpts (with credit and a link), but republishing an article elsewhere or copying and pasting it to share on newsgroups, websites, etc. is a copyright violation. More importantly, the hyperlinks may not be included and the unauthorized version will not include any more recent corrections or updates.

Why not just apply for a USDA license?

Note: This post is about a FEDERAL rule that will affect all of the USA. See our post giving more information about the rule itself and who it will apply to: New USDA rule would force small breeders to become licensed. 

With the current APHIS rule up for comment which would make almost every breeder, rescue and farmer subject to Animal Welfare Act (AWA) requirements and USDA licensing, many are asking, "Why not just get a USDA license?"

The AWA requirements may make sense for laboratories and large commercial facilities. The problem is that the license requirements are so extensive, costly and restrictive that virtually no small hobby breeder, rescue, service dog raiser or family farmer will be able to comply with them.

While I believe people should have the option to become USDA licensed if they wish, I do not feel it is appropriate to force small breeders, hobbyists, show competitors and family farmers to become USDA licensed and inspected. 

Many people don't realize that AWA standards require that all animals be raised in a sterile commercial-style facility. The rules are designed for laboratories, commercial facilities and large scale operations--not for a family farm, small rescue, foster home or hobbyist breeder.


You CANNOT raise animals in your home in a family environment and meet USDA licensing requirements. For instance, all surfaces in contact with animals must be impermeable and sterilizable. That means no carpeting, no unsealed wood, no soft bedding, no sofa or bed in the area your animals are raised.

No more well-socialized puppies or kittens being raised in a home with a family and routine exposure to various people, pets, appliances and other normal household goings-on. No more young animals learning manners from or learning to interact with other animals in the household, because generally baby animals in USDA licensed facilities must be kept apart from all animals other than their mother and littermates.

If you go to the USDA website you can read inspection reports. Here is the link. http://acissearch.aphis.usda.gov/LPASearch/faces/CustomerSearch.jspx

A violation can result in consequences including warnings, having your license suspended or revoked, and/or a monetary fine of up to $10,000 per animal per day. This isn't necessarily determined by the severity of the offense. For instance, the Dollarhite family faced extreme penalties (a more than $90,000 fine, which was a "discounted" penalty from the nearly 4 million dollars calculated to be the maximum possible penalty) because they did not have the required license to sell more than $500 gross in rabbits and cavies to a pet store. This was not about animal welfare violations, but simply about the lack of a USDA license.

Another family was told that they would be fined $10,000 because they were leaving for a family funeral when the APHIS inspector arrived, and it was cited as an Animal Welfare Act violation when they wouldn't skip the funeral to accommodate the surprise inspection.


Not only does USDA licensing open you up to violations of your privacy and your 4th Amendment rights with inspectors in your home, but also in the public sector.

Inspection reports are posted online. This means that your name, address, number and type of animals, and other details about your operation are posted online in publicly accessible locations. Especially for people who raise animals at their residence, this can put breeders at risk from thieves, animal rights activists, and others who might wish to steal from or harm them.

In order to have a USDA license, you must:

1. Have a responsible adult who can explain your operations available every weekday during business hours (defined as 7AM to 7PM) to accommodate surprise USDA inspections. If they come for an inspection while you are gone due to an errand or emergency, you will be written up for a violation. This means you must hire someone to be present EVERY TIME you must leave home during business hours. This is completely impractical for small farms, hobby breeders, and rescues that use foster homes.

2. Obtain animals only from USDA licensed facilities or those that can prove they are exempt. The records you must maintain are extensive, including the name, address, driver's license number, and make/model/license plate of vehicle of people you obtain animals from; as well as detailed records about the animals themselves. These records must be kept on the premises and available for inspection at all times. See the form here: http://www.aphis.usda.gov/animal_welfare/downloads/forms/aph7020.pdf
(The form makes it sound like you only have to get the vehicle/DL info. on commercial drivers, but if you read the inspection reports they expect you to maintain this information for anyone who is not USDA licensed).

3. Have pristine laboratory-style equipment and facilities in essentially brand new, perfect condition. No animals in your home, as previously mentioned--homes have permeable surfaces like carpeting and wood.

All surfaces must be impermeable, flawless and able to be completely and regularly sterilized. Nothing that could conceivably injure an animal under any stretch of the imagination. Nothing that could conceivably attract or harbor pests. Lighting, climate control, water and electrical access, and wash facilities and methods all must meet specific requirements.

Depending on the inspector you happen to get, the slightest amount of dirt or soiling may be unacceptable. Something that one inspector deems acceptable, the next inspector may write up as a violation. The guidelines are vague and extensive enough that an inspector can always find a violation of some sort if they want to, no matter how well kept your animals and how clean your facility.

Sample citations on record in this category, from actual inspection reports:


• A barn with no sink installed. Lack of climate control, and/or the temperature, humidity, etc. being outside the required narrow range. Cracks, rough edges or gaps on surfaces, even surfaces not directly in contact with animals. Wood surfaces, especially if unsealed or showing any signs of wear or chewing. Unsealed concrete, even if not in contact with animals. Rust on any surface, including the outsides of animal enclosures.


• Metal urine guards in cages. Wire floors with gaps large enough for toes or baby animal feet to go through at all (basically all wire floors could fall into this category, even for species such as rabbits where wire floors are standard and supported by scientific research as appropriate). One to six inches of feces on the ground underneath hanging rabbit cages, despite noted lack of odor. Bags of manure outside a barn.


• Sterilizing equipment with a bleach solution (bleach alone is not an approved method).


• Weeds or tall grass in the yard outside the building. Dust on an object that was not inside any animal enclosure. Cobwebs on a ceiling. Exposed nail heads and/or insulation in the building. Anything not immediately needed for the care of the animals anywhere in the general area (even if not inside animal enclosures). Animal hair on the floor.
  


• Open containers of hay, lime or feed. Staining, soiling or holes on/in walls behind (not in) cages. Unlabeled containers. A door (not to enclosures confining animals, but to the building) left ajar. Open garbage cans. Empty feed bags. Full feed bags, opened or unopened, stored in the area.

Those are just a few examples. I recommend that you read through the reports with cited violations to get a fuller picture.

The takeaway for me is that the vast majority of "AWA violations" cited are not the type of thing most people would think of when they consider animal abuse and neglect--at least not in isolation as a minor occurrence. And yet each item listed here could potentially carry a penalty of up to $10,000 per day for each animal affected.


4. Have a veterinarian on staff or on call and regularly attending the animals in your facility. Not just as needed or for occasional checks, but the veterinarian is required to be supervising and having authority over everything. The vet does not have to be the one doing daily inspections, but is supposed to be in charge of the animals' health in your facility.

My vet charges a $30 farm call fee, on top of his normal fee which is a $75 minimum for up to the first half hour and then I think it was $130 per hour after that. That is not including any supplies, procedures, etc. So I'm at a minimum of over $100 every time the vet is called in.

One of the violations cited in an APHIS facility inspection was that there was a rabbit with what sounded like wry neck when the inspector arrived. The employee was waiting for someone with more authority to arrive to tell them what to do. When the USDA inspector informed them that waiting a short time to do something was not an option and they needed to call the vet, they euthanized the rabbit--something most breeders would agree was an appropriate action for wry neck, as the prognosis for this disease is very poor and it puts other animals at risk. They were then cited for putting the rabbit down without first consulting the vet.

A number of facilities were cited for using standard over-the-counter or home treatments for routine parasite treatment, minor wound care and common non-serious ailments, because the vet hadn't been called in on it--particularly if the specific use was off-label, even if commonly used that way by veterinarians and animal caretakers.

 Minor issues that were being treated with over-the-counter remedies (or that had just occurred and had not yet had time for treatment) were cited as violations, as were issues such as tartar on dog's teeth and a red spot on an animal's paw.

Having expired ointments or medications on the premises--even if you're not actually using them to treat an animal--is a veterinary care violation. Using medications off-label without a prescription is another, even if they are standard treatments for that issue (i.e. using a topical antibiotic cream on a wound for a type of animal not specifically listed on the label, even if a similar type of animal is listed and it is known to be an appropriate treatment for the animal you are dealing with).

So, not only do you have to have normal routine vet checks, you basically have to call the vet in for every little thing, even if all you plan to do is immediately euthanize the sick animal.

Many vets are going to recommend extensive treatments for many things that most breeders would cull a small animal, livestock or meat animal for.

These treatments can be prohibitively expensive and can also interfere with the intended use of the animal. For instance, Baytril, a commonly prescribed antibiotic, is very expensive. I believe it costs about $50 for enough to treat one small (i.e. 4 lb.) critter for one week. Like most medications, it is not approved for use in some types of meat animals, and there is a withdrawl time for others. Other medications are blacklisted so that if that medication is ever used during the life of the animal, it can never be used as meat. It makes no sense to spend thousands of dollars to do surgery on an animal that was intended for slaughter in a few days anyway--most would opt to put the animal down rather than treating it in such a situation.

But if a facility is USDA licensed, you now have a situation where the breeder is no longer free to make decisions about whether to treat or cull based on cost effectiveness or the greater good of the herd, or can vet the animals themselves for standard things every good farmer knows how to treat. The USDA licensed facility must call in the vet for everything.

If the treatment the vet recommends is too expensive and complicated, or you don't feel the prognosis is good enough, or it's a meat animal and you plan to butcher it soon anyway so you opt to slaughter it early rather than dealing with treatments and medication residues, what then? Are you now out of compliance for failing to follow the veterinarian's recommendations?

It's also a complicating factor that for some types of animals, it's very difficult to find a veterinarian that is knowledgeable about the species--and even more so a vet that is familiar with herd or flock management. Veterinarians have been known to do things like prescribe oral amoxicillin for a rabbit with enteritis, despite the owner's protests that it was an inappropriate medication choice for rabbits. Another common occurrence is for vets accustomed to treating pet animals to prescribe medications not appropriate for food animals.

So what are your options then? You're either going to have to pay ANOTHER vet for a second opinion, be out of compliance by not following the vet's advice, or be out of compliance or at least doing something terribly unethical and possibly killing the animal by giving it a medication known to be contraindicated for that species or situation.

Not only could the veterinary requirements alone easily end up costing hundreds or thousands of dollars per month, it could also significantly hamper a breeder's ability to make appropriate decisions for themselves, their business and their animals.


-------------

More information and sources:

Here is the link where you can make comments directly to APHIS (as many as you like; you're not limited to just one) on the proposed new rule which would drastically widen the pool of people required to be licensed: http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=APHIS-2011-0003-0001

The Cavalry Group has put up a website with a tool to make it easy to email your congressional representatives about this issue (this is important because the new rule must be approved by Congress). You can use their suggested wording, or (for more impact) revise and edit it to reflect your own situation and wording. (While you're at it, it would also be a good idea to write another note asking them NOT to support the PUPS (Puppy Uniform Protection and Safety) Act, another very similar law backed by the HSUS and other animal supremacy groups that some congressfolks are trying to pass.) http://the-cavalry-group.rallycongress.com/6980/urge-congress-take-action-to-support-cavalry-group-mission/

The AKC also has a petition going: http://www.akc.org/petition/


Here is the site where you can look up inspection reports. You can search by any term, including type of animal. http://acissearch.aphis.usda.gov/LPASearch/faces/CustomerSearch.jspx

And here are the published regulations pertaining to the Animal Welfare Act:
http://www.aphis.usda.gov/animal_welfare/downloads/awr/awr.pdf

Here are a lot of the forms and other info:
http://www.aphis.usda.gov/animal_welfare/pubs_reports.shtml



Washington Animal Watch Posts about the proposed USDA/APHIS rule:

New USDA rule would force small breeders to become licensed. http://waanimal.blogspot.com/2012/06/new-usda-rule-would-force-millions-of.html

Why not just apply for a USDA license? http://waanimal.blogspot.com/2012/06/why-not-just-apply-for-usda-license.html

Images Opposing PUPS and the APHIS proposal (for posting on your own site, Facebook page, etc.) http://waanimal.blogspot.com/2012/06/ads-opposing-pups-and-aphis-proposal.html

-----------------------

Copyright Washington Animal Watch, 2012


Please remember that all original works are copyrighted unless otherwise stated, even if they do not carry a copyright notice. You may freely share the link to this page, and brief excerpts (with credit and a link), but republishing an article elsewhere or copying and pasting it to share on newsgroups, websites, etc. is a copyright violation.