Sneak attack [Archive] - RetrieverTraining.Net - the RTF

: Sneak attack

Doug Kennedy
07-30-2010, 07:34 PM
If you are interested in backdoor politics....see what the HSUS is doing thru a new dog breeders bill(federal) PUPS Bill (H.R.5434) or senate Bill S.3424

07-30-2010, 08:04 PM
It basically says that for Federal licensing and inspection purposes anyone who sells more than 50 dogs per year as pets is classified as a "high volume breeder" and is automatically classified as a dealer.If I read it right, having partial ownership in a dog that was actually living with someone else who bred the dog and sold the pups would count in meeting your 50 dog limit. While i have never met that definition, it would only take five litter to qualify. That will create a lot of paperwork chasing the wrong people in my opinion. Chalk a victory up for the true puppy mills if it passes. Hobby breeders competition will be diminished. Co-sponsors include:

Madeleine Bordallo [D-GU] (
Eleanor Norton [D-DC] (
Gary Ackerman [D-NY5] (
Shelley Berkley [D-NV1] (
Howard Berman [D-CA28] (
Timothy Bishop [D-NY1] (
Earl Blumenauer [D-OR3] (
Frederick Boucher [D-VA9] (
Robert Brady [D-PA1] (
Henry Brown [R-SC1] (
Ken Calvert [R-CA44] (
Lois Capps [D-CA23] (

Eric Johnson
07-31-2010, 12:05 PM

There's a lot more wrong with the bill than you've mentioned. Here's the AKC press release on this.


Federal PUPS Legislation Information Update

Print This Article

[Thursday, July 22, 2010]

The American Kennel Club and our Washington, D.C.-based advocacy team continue to closely monitor S. 3424/H.R. 5434, the federal Puppy Uniform Protection and Safety (PUPS) Act. There has been no official action on the bill since its introduction in late May.

As previously reported, the 2010 PUPS bill seeks to expand federal regulation of dog breeders who breed and sell more than 50 puppies a year directly to consumers. This version is a significant improvement over previous versions, which focused on the number of dogs owned, regardless of what was bred or sold. This version would require the new category of breeders to abide by basic minimum standards of care and conditions and to abide by new performance-based exercise requirements.

However, the AKC also has a number of serious concerns with the bill as introduced. Some of these concerns include:

Definition of "breeding female" as an intact female dog aged 4 months or older. Female dogs are not sufficiently mature at 4 months of age to be bred.

Definition of "high volume retail breeder" that is overly broad and does not take into account co- and joint ownerships. Additionally, a reference in this definition to the number of dogs owned by a breeder is unnecessary and potentially misleading.

Exercise language should be clarified to ensure that the daily exercise requirements do not preclude training that involves other types of activity as well.

We will continue to monitor this legislation vigilantly and to outline our concerns regarding PUPS legislation to appropriate members of Congress and staff. Given the issues that AKC and other responsible dog owner groups have raised, and that Congress will be in session for fewer than six weeks prior to the November elections, it is not likely that there will be action on PUPS in the near term.

AKC will continue its education campaign with legislators and we will keep you up to date on any new developments.

For more information about the PUPS bill view the links below:

View AKCís previous Legislative Alert, including information on USDA animal care standards and inspections
AKC Policy on Responsible Breeding Practices
AKC Policy on Enforcement of the Animal Welfare Act
AKC Policy on Breeding Restrictions

07-31-2010, 12:36 PM

Not arguing with any part of your post. I noticed the four month definition of a breeding female. However, since the standard used by the language says you only need to own one "breeding female" to qualify, it becomes moot. The co-ownership component bothered me because all pups sold by persons with whom you share ownership count toward meeting the 50 puppy limit whether or not you have an interest in those puppies. So I may have three litters of 30 pups myself, but fall under the definition of high volume breeder because two other litters of ten pups each were born and sold from dogs where I am listed as a co-owner.

The actual requirements in the bill seem misleading. They only reference exercise requirements. However, the exercise must not be purpose driven. Thus, training would not count as exercise. However, airing would. Unfortunately, you must keep daily records of the exercise provided to each adult dog and make these available for inspection.

It seems to me that the more important problems are hiding in the background. The bill classifies all "high volume breeders" as dealers for Federal licensing purposes. That is a classification that now applies only to persons selling a much larger number of pups (Haven't researched the specifics) or acting as a wholesale distributor, and carries with it more costs and more requirements concerning facilities and record keeping.

The biggest abuses in the current pet distribution system occur with breeders that breed in high volume and sell their pups to wholesale distributors for resale through pet stores. This law would do nothing about those. In fact, one could avoid falling under the high volume definition (I think but may be misreading) by selling pups to similar distributors rather than to end purchasers. That is why the bill seems to be to be a gift to puppy mills and wholesale distributors, while crippling moderate sized hobby breeders. It doesn't affect me for now because I operate under Pennsylvania's limit of 26 dogs/year to avoid having to become a licensed kennel. However, I now co-own one dog that will be bred and anticipate co-owning more. That would not affect me under PA law, but would affect me under this law.

07-31-2010, 01:47 PM
Having had a USDA license to breed dogs for a number of years I can tell you that this bill is not good. I'm not smart enough nor articulate enough to write a list of what's wrong with it. The animal rights people seem to be behind it and their stated goal is to elimimate man's use of animals. The animal rights people have taken over organizations that were previously only concerned with the animal's welfare and changed the organization's goal to something else. If this bill passes there will be more regulations that will make it difficult to breed dogs. The USDA regs are already "crazy"........ some breeders can not sell to just anyone. The language is written as one long ago inspecter said to me so that I could not understand it ........... she said they don't want you to know ! She was a good person and many of them aren't. The
"home office boys" will tell you one thing but the "local" inspecter will give you another story. I have had to re-paint my freshly painted kennel to suit my local inspecter when his boss had bragged on my previous choice. It is
the typical government run thing.........most don't know or care what is good and what is bad and why. The ones who pass the bill won't have even read it. Animal rights people have lots of donation money to lobby with.....lots of little old ladies ( kind of like me ) are sending the money to take care of the poor doggies and it's going to big salaries and the lobby use. Anyone who uses a dog or has pet dog better wake up and fight this type of legislation or we won't be able to go buy a dog like we want to. Well......those being brought in ( smuggled in mostly so far ) from Mexico may be cheap and plentifull but they may not live very long. CA people have learned that in the last few years.