The Sale of Puppies Online

This article originally appeared in The Fancy Speaks column in the February 10, 2012 issue of Dog News. It is reprinted here by permission of the author.

The Sale of Puppies Online

Carlotta Cooper

I read the January 20, 2012 DOG NEWS editorial “Regulating The Sale Of Puppies Online” with concern. Although it’s clear that the editorial is well-intentioned, it comes dangerously close to embracing the PUPS bill which is now in Congress. And PUPS, H.R. 835/S. 707, would be very harmful for hobby dog breeders.

The editorial argues that the Internet is used for the sale of dogs, which is true, and that some of these dogs come from places which have no policy or guidelines for their sale. Some even come from “the unregulated commercial breeder.” This is also probably true. The editorial goes on to ask, “Who is there to determine whether or not the seller is responsible? Who establishes the policy to protect the dog in these situations whether or not it is a commercial or homebred sale?”

I would like to point out that people have been selling dogs by means of newspaper classified ads, magazine ads, billboard notices, and other forms of commerce and advertising for generations. No one has been regulating these retail sales directly to the public. The thinking has always been that the buyer needs to be careful when buying anything, from anyone. Caveat emptor has a very real meaning when it comes to buying a pet. The buyer should exercise due caution when buying a puppy or dog, whether they are buying from a magazine, newspaper, or over the Internet. It is not the responsibility of the government to regulate the sale of puppies for the buyer. It is up to the buyer to use some good judgment when making a purchase. This hasn’t changed since people were buying puppies from ads in dog magazines in the 1980s, or buying dogs at any other time in history.

Large commercial breeders who are inspected by the USDA are already regulated and they do report their wholesale sales. However, the retail sale of puppies and dogs directly to individual buyers has never been regulated at the federal level. In many states this kind of sale is now regulated at the state level, if you sell more than x number of puppies per year. In some states it is covered under a sales and use tax, the same kind of tax that covers the sale of Girl Scout Cookies or having a yard sale. If you sell more than a certain number of puppies per year in some states you would be required to get a business and/or kennel license so you could regularly report your tax income from sales.

HSUS calls the fact that retail sales to individuals are not regulated at the federal level a “loophole” and, in PUPS, they are trying to change this situation. But this exemption of retail sales for small breeders is not a loophole. It is the way the law was intended to work. In DDAL vs. Veneman (2003), the case in which the Doris Day Animal League sued the USDA to try to make them inspect retail breeders (home, hobby, show breeders), the judge gave a clear ruling that small breeders were not the same as pet stores and did not have to be regulated or inspected as such. HSUS has been trying to change the law through PAWS and PUPS ever since that time.

These small hobby breeders and others who sell puppies and dogs by retail means were not meant to be regulated in the same manner as large commercial breeders. But that’s what PUPS would do.

It is up to the buyer, not to the government, to check out the person who sells a puppy. Otherwise, all of us who breed dogs are going to have the USDA visiting our homes to see how we keep and raise our puppies.

Now, it’s true, as the editorial mentions, that many people don’t like the idea of “regulation,” but in this case regulation cuts right to the core of everyone who breeds and shows dogs. If PUPS becomes law it would cripple breeders who show, breed dogs for performance, and who breed quality companion dogs. We would be required to meet the same USDA standards that are in place for large commercial breeders, even though we raise puppies in our homes. Most of us could not do this and the result would be the end of countless serious breeding programs in the show world, along with the end of precious bloodlines and, in some cases, the end of breeds.

The AKC sees this, too. On January 26, 2012 they sent a letter (AKC Opposition to H.R. 835/S. 707 the PUPS Act (PDF) January 2012) to members of Congress from Dennis Sprung with their concerns about PUPS. Among other things it says:

“The AKC does not oppose the concept of regulating high volume breeder retailers but we believe that the definitions proposed in this bill are misleading, overly broad, and potentially damaging to responsible breeders who individually maintain and breed only a few dogs in their homes.

“Although PUPS was designed to regulate internet sales of puppies, it would require anyone who owns or co-owns even a few female dogs that produce 50 or more puppies offered for sale in a year to be regulated under existing USDA dog "dealer" regulations. These regulations are designed for high-volume commercial kennels that produce puppies for wholesale, and require a USDA commercial license, maintenance of specified commercial kennel engineering standards and regular inspections. They are not appropriate for small breeders who may keep only a few dogs in their homes.”

In short, AKC opposes PUPS as it is written and asked members of Congress to withhold their support.

As it is written, PUPS would also regulate anyone who sells these puppies by any means, not just over the Internet. It specifically includes anyone who “sells or offers for sale, via any means of conveyance (including the Internet, telephone, or newspaper),” so it does not just intend to regulate people who sell over the Internet.

I doubt I have to mention how many show breeders have web sites or sell puppies online. You would also fall under this bill for Internet regulation of puppy sales.

PUPS is a very dangerous bill that will harm all of us who breed and show dogs. If you haven’t contacted your legislators to ask them to withhold support for PUPS, you can contact them by visiting this site: http://www.contactingthecongress.org/

Here is some more information about PUPS. Talking points from Sportsmen's and Animal Owners' Voting Alliance (SAOVA):

WHAT PUPS DOES:

• Abandons traditional determination between wholesale and retail---so that USDA can regulate home/hobby breeders who don't sell to pet stores.

• Begins USDA regulation of anyone (with 1 intact female dog over 4 months of age) who sells, places, or adopts out more than 50 dogs in a year ... to start. Could easily be amended down to 10 ... to 2.

• Takes away your right to privacy in your own home. USDA or their contractors can without notice enter your home and inspect it if they SUSPECT you might meet criteria for regulation.

• Over-regulates responsible home breeders out of existence. Mandates non-porous floors, kennel sizes, floor drains, and pages of requirements impossible for most home breeders to follow.

• Forces shelters, and home/hobby breeders to redesign their current facilities in order to meet federal standards.

• Establishes government controlled exercise standards that are not scientifically proven.

• Sets precedent with exercise standards for future rigid socialization and breeding standards that would remove owner’s flexibility to use professional judgment based on breed and purpose.

• Reduces the ability of the American public to obtain healthy privately bred or rescue dogs of their choosing.

• Places an unfunded mandate on Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) and overextends their enforcement ability.

• Fails to exempt sportsmen, sporting dog trainers, and hunting clubs from being regulated alongside in-home sellers.

• Adds more federal oversight and regulation into Americans’ daily lives.

Negative Consequences of PUPS

Negative Consequences of PUPS

Carlotta Cooper

Recently I was reading Steve Dale’s excellent online article “Why Are Puppy Mills Allowed To Operate?” at PetWorld. The article isn’t quite what it sounds like. The article is actually about the new PUPS legislation and why it may not be a good idea.

Steve explains that we all know there are some problems with bad breeders. That’s not new information. He discusses the report from the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) which found problems with the way that inspections of some commercial breeders were being carried out: repeat violations ignored, penalties waived, inadequate documentation, first-time violators given a pass sometimes; and in some states a lack of inspectors.

The report goes on to recommend that APHIS, which carries out the inspections for the USDA, be able to immediately confiscate animals that are dying or seriously suffering, and to better train their inspectors to document, report and penalize wrongdoing.

That seems to be an appropriate response to the findings in the report. But, as Steve Dale reports, Sen. Dick Durbin (D-ILL) and others have introduced legislation called PUPS (Puppy Uniform Protection and Safety Act) which they say would close a “loophole” which allows breeders to operate online.

As Steve Dale writes in his article, there are a number of problems with the PUPS bill. PUPS would “make life tough for responsible breeders.” These are people who generally operate from their homes. If you drive these breeders away then the prices of purebred dogs rise and some breeds could disappear. In fact, show breeders could be included among these people who breed from their homes.

Instead, Steve and many other people advocate enforcing the laws that we already have for commercial breeders instead of creating new laws. In fact, there are approximately 100 inspectors for about 5000 commercial breeders and the PUPS bill does not suggest any new funding or inspectors for APHIS. If many more home and hobby breeders would be inspected under this bill it’s hard to imagine how the inspectors would be able to do a good job with their inspections if they are stretched thin now.

Although the stated purpose of the bill is to close the so-called “Internet loophole” that allows the sale of dogs over the Internet, I’ve been very concerned about the “ownership interest” provision in the bill.

The bill defines a High Volume Retail Breeder as follows:

•S 3424

‘‘(B) HIGH VOLUME RETAIL BREEDER.

— The term ‘high volume retail breeder’ means a

person who, in commerce, for compensation or

profit—

‘‘(i) has an ownership interest in or

custody of 1 or more breeding female dogs;

and

‘‘(ii) sells or offers for sale, via any

means of conveyance (including the Inter-

net, telephone, or newspaper), more than

50 of the offspring of such breeding female

dogs for use as pets in any 1-year period.

(And in the bill a four-month-old female puppy is designated as a breeding female.)

Consider what this definition means to a show breeder who co-owns bitches with other people. You may have one or two bitches yourself. You may or may not have a litter. It doesn’t matter. If your friends who co-own bitches with you have litters, no matter where they live in the United States, and they sell those puppies, then those puppies will be counted toward a fifty puppy total for you because you have an “ownership interest” in the dams.

If your co-owners sell a total of fifty or more puppies then you would be considered a high volume retail breeder. This means that you would have to become USDA-licensed and inspected under the PUPS act. If you keep dogs in your home (and I’m sure all of us do), your home would have to be inspected by USDA-APHIS inspectors. I’m also sure that you would not pass inspection. Not because you don’t have a lovely home, but because it does not meet Animal Welfare Act guidelines: you cannot hose down the floor and walls of your home; the surfaces of your home are not impervious to moisture; you cannot disinfect your home at high temperatures; and so on.

What this means is that you could not keep and raise dogs in your home if you had to be USDA-licensed under the PUPS act.

That is why PUPS is harmful to people who breed and raise dogs in their home.

For decades we have been co-owning dogs with each other in order to protect them and supervise their breeding. Now co-ownership can mean that we would be labeled high volume retail breeders and have to be USDA-licensed. It could mean that we would not be able to breed and raise dogs in our homes.

I don’t have statistics on how many breeders co-own bitches. Only the AKC could provide that kind of data. However, I think it’s estimated that the Fancy makes up about 20 percent of the core constituency for the AKC and perhaps 20 percent of their registrations. I think it would be reasonable to guess that a large number of that core constituency engages in co-ownership. (Three of my four adult dogs are co-owned and I co-own several dogs that I’ve sold to others.) No, they wouldn’t all be at risk of becoming high volume retail breeders but many certainly would be.

When replying to comments following Steve Dale’s article one person suggested several times that those of us who are show breeders should be willing to give up our hobby and reduce our breeding for the sake of passing PUPS. I don’t think he ever quite grasped the concept of “hobby” as opposed to breeding as a business.

I think what many people fail to realize is that those of us who breed dogs for show and as a hobby are the very people who are producing dogs of the highest quality in this country. It’s all very well to say that we should be willing to breed less, embrace PUPS, get rid of those awful bad kennel operators. But every time Congress tries to pass a law to get rid of bad breeders they include provisions that would hurt show and hobby breeders — the people who are breeding quality dogs, donating to canine health research, keeping breeds alive. If show and hobby breeders are driven out of breeding or forced to cut back, it hurts all purebred dogs in this country. It hurts dog owners and the consumer who wants to buy a dog. If there are fewer show and hobby breeders producing dogs, the quality of dogs in the U.S. will inevitably decline as a result of PUPS.

Instead of creating new laws like PUPS, which will hurt dedicated breeders, the USDA should be encouraged to better enforce the laws that are already on the books. There are simply too many negative consequences to PUPS which are not being considered by the people supporting it.

PUPS Discussion

The Steve Dale blog currently has a good discussion about PUPS if you're looking for more information about the bill. Steve discusses the bill and brings up some of the problems with it. For instance, he talks about things that the OIG report found when they did a review of the USDA inspection process for commercial breeders. Problems were definitely found. However, those issues are already being addressed by the agency.

Of course, what needs to happen at the USDA is better enforcement of existing laws, not the creation of a new law which would add thousands more breeders — hobby and home breeders! — for inspectors to inspect. The inspectors are already stretched thin (approximately 100 inspectors for 5000 commercial breeders). How on earth would they be able to improve their performance if they had to add thousands of new breeders to those they already inspect? It makes no sense whatsoever. PUPS makes no provision for additional funding or inspectors either. It would set the USDA up to fail even more spectacularly.

Check out the Steve Dale blog for a good discussion. Be sure to read the comments. There seems to be an HSUS shill commenting and pushing for the bill.

More Information about PUPS

There is more and better information about PUPS online now than when the bill was first introduced. The German Shepherd Dog Club of America has a good section on the bill: http://www.gsdca.org/german-shepherd-dogs/dog-legislation/pups-bill They provide many background materials about similar bills that have been introduced in the past along with supporting documents.

Of particular interest are the PUPS bill itself Read THE BILL (S-3424), the SAOVA position paper Here is the SAOVA PUPS Position Paper - Background and Analysis, and the Illinois Federation of Dog Clubs & Owners position paper Here is Position Paper of the Illinois Federation of Dog Club and Owners.

How To Find Your Congressman

If you're not sure who your congressman is you can go to this site Write Your Representative and find out.

Just select "Tennessee" in the pull-down menu. Then enter your zip code. It asks for your four-digit extension. If you're like many people and you don't know it you can click on the link and type in your address to find your four-digit extension.

Then click "Contact My Representative."

That will take you straight to the web form for your congressman. You can fill it out with your contact information and then paste in your message asking him/her not to take any action on PUPS.

Please do contact your representative. We really need to stop PUPS now by asking our representatives not to become co-sponsors. Don't forget to write to your U.S. senators, too.

Contact Info for Tennessee's Congressmen and Senators

According to the latest update today, there are now 94 co-sponsors for the House version of PUPS. We really need you to contact your congressman and both senators about PUPS and ask them not to take any action on these bills.

You can see the co-sponsors on this site:

http://www.thomas.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d111:HR05434:@@@P

So far there is only one Tennessee congressman on the list. We need to keep it that way! Write your congressman and make sure he doesn't become a co-sponsor!

Here are the e-mail addresses for our U.S. congressmen and senators from Tennessee. Please send the PUPS messages to your specific congressman and to BOTH senators.

http://www.house.gov/house/MemberWWW_by_State.shtml#tn

Tennessee

• Blackburn, Marsha, Tennessee 7th
• Cohen, Steve, Tennessee, 9th
• Cooper, Jim, Tennessee, 5th
• Davis, Lincoln, Tennessee, 4th
• Duncan Jr., John J., Tennessee, 2nd
• Gordon, Bart, Tennessee, 6th
• Roe, Phil, Tennessee, 1st
• Tanner, John, Tennessee, 8th
• Wamp, Zach, Tennessee, 3rd

You'll have to go to the web site for your congressman and click on the contact link. Then paste your message.

Here are the contact links for the two senators:

Alexander, Lamar - (R - TN)
455 DIRKSEN SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-4944
Web Form: alexander.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?p=Email
Corker, Bob - (R - TN)
185 DIRKSEN SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-3344
Web Form: corker.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?p=ContactMe

Carlotta

A Quick Look at the AVMA's "Model Law"

The following article originally appeared in GILBERTS' K-9 SEMINARS NEWS & REVIEW, and it is reprinted here by permission.

A Quick Look at the AVMA's "Model Law"

By Laurie Telfair

It is too late to hope that the American Veterinary Medical Association will confine its expertise to health care and stay out of law-making. Their Model Bill and Regulations to Assure Appropriate Care for Dogs Intended for Use as Pets has already hit the internet and will likely be coming to a state or city governing body near you.*

As an aspirational document designed to educate operators of large commercial puppy raising facilities, it isn’t all bad. It combines engineering standards for sizing enclosures, whelping areas and exercise areas and performance standards for describing the care that should be given. However, this model law would not apply to USDA-licensed persons or facilities and would attach an official, stigmatizing label of “high volume dog breeder” to those hobby breeders who breed six or more litters per year, regardless of how many puppies are whelped or sold.

I would quibble with some of the requirements and question others. For example, it mandates “dogs shall be provided with full-body physical contact with other compatible dogs daily, except as necessary for reasons such as veterinary treatment…” Dog aggressive dogs can be kept separated but “separation of dogs due to aggression should be accompanied by a program to resolve the underlying causes of this disorder.” Many breeds, including mine, German Shepherds, are not expected to play nice with others and most people don’t make a practice of keeping them in groups. This varies by individual dogs of course, but I would not consider a dog that doesn’t get along with other dogs to be suffering from a disorder. There seems to be an implication here that we all should aspire to produce dogs with a generic, “dumbed down” temperament.

The veterinarian authors of this model law reveal a certain amount of self-interest. Family farmers, the most prominent other group with small scale animal care operations, have the right to carry out “accepted animal husbandry practices” without any veterinary involvement. Licensed breeders, however, will be required to perform all of their routine preventive care as part of a veterinarian-client-patient relationship. The model law also requires that “veterinary care” must be provided as part of a veterinarian-client-patient relationship. This seems like a harmless no-brainer until you consider that the laws of some states include artificial insemination and some other breeding-related activities under their definition of veterinary practice.

The model law also states that a dog can only be bred if a veterinarian determines the dog to be fit for breeding purposes. Valid justifications to classify a dog as unfit “may include concerns about physical and/or behavioral health, the perpetuation of genetic defects, and frequency.” It seems to me that the usage of the word “may” here means that additional, unspecified justification may also be allowed. It should be noted that some veterinarians consider achondroplastic legs, brachycephalic head conformation, C section requirement, and any number of the physical traits that distinguish one breed from another to be “genetic defects.” This combined with what appears to be a poor understanding of the salient temperament differences among breeds, makes me very uncomfortable with a law that makes veterinarians into de facto breed wardens.

I have questions on the scope of the proposal. High volume breeder is defined as any person who whelps more than six litters a year, and high volume retailer is defined as any person who transfers ownership of more than 50 dogs a year. A “person” is defined as any individual, corporation, company, partnership, shelter, pound, rescue, firm, estate, trust or other legal entity. The law states that this would include “partnerships,” but what about co-breeders and co-owners? Small breeders who co-own with other breeders could easily exceed the six litters. A hobby breeder with planned litters that all happened to come about in close proximity could hit the limit one year. What happens the next year, when there are few or no litters born? Is a kennel license still required? Rescues and shelters could easily fall into the definition of high volume retailer. Lawmakers enacting this model law would certainly exempt publicly funded animal shelters and could alter the definition to exempt rescues and nonprofit human societies, as well, but there is no certainty that this would be done. Adding licensing fees and requirements could easily sink many of these operations.

Of course, from the standpoint of a state or municipality, the prospect of revenue is a powerful lure. All these purported thousands of so-called “puppy mills” will have to pay, thereby funding the entire cost of the program and maybe even providing additional revenue. We all know how that will end but, like Charlie Brown ever hopeful that this time Lucy will hold the football for him to kick, law makers seem to fall for this one every time.

I think my primary objection is triggered right in the title “Care for Dogs Intended for Use as Pets.” It is one of the consequences of the animal rights movement that hobby breeders are quitting in droves, tired of fending off the increasing restrictions on breeding animals. As we age out, the changed social attitudes toward breeding dogs has decreased the numbers of newcomers into our sport. In the future, more and more of our pet dogs will probably be born and raised in commercial facilities.

The hobby breeder, who knew the grandmother and great-grandmother of the puppies born in her family room or back bedroom, will no longer be the main supplier of pets. This breeder didn’t need to develop a written protocol to ensure that the social needs of her puppies were met. This is what breeders did by instinct and experience. Snaring hobby breeders into a model suited for institutions will hasten the end of the family raised puppies and accelerate the move to commercially produced family pets.

If a group really wanted to improve the health and welfare of family dogs, they would figure out a way to support, or at least not punish, the hobby breeder.

* The complete text of the model law can be read here: http://tinyurl.com/25pp96x [http://www.avma.org/advocacy/state/issues/Care_for_Dogs_Model_Act_and_Regulations.pdf ].

Remember, if this gets passed in your state or town, the threshold could be lower. Are you meeting all of these requirements? Imagine living with your dogs in this manner, including carrying out all of the necessary daily documentation.

Courtesy of Ed & Pat Gilberts’ K-9 Seminars. Copyright 2010. Web site: www.gilbertk9.com To subscribe to free News & Review send E-mail to: Gilbertk9@sbcglobal.net