RetrieverTraining.Net - the RTF banner

USDA's Breeders License/inspection...clarification?

3K views 12 replies 8 participants last post by  Lonnie Spann 
#1 · (Edited)
If I have 4 or less breeding females of any kind (hunting dogs) AND sell at least one pup sight unseen that means I will need a license and will be subject to inspections correct?

Thanks,
Dan
 
#9 ·
May be a bit more to it than that. If not, then every breeder in the country would claim that they are breeding "working dogs".

Lonnie Spann
 
#6 ·
It's really going to come down to how the individual inspector wants to interpret the regs. Some will exercise some common sense and look to the "Intent" the revisors had in mind, other won't. We're going to have to deal with politics where we haven't had to in the past.
 
#7 ·
#8 ·
From the NAIA paper named "The Retail Pet Store Final Rule and You" is the following:

-- It is not the regulatory intent of USDA to regulate breeders, unless they are clearly breeding for the purpose of selling puppies.

-- If you keep 5 breeding females and sell even one dog, cat, etc., remotely, for use as a pet and are not engaged in one of the activities that are exempted from being a dealer, you must be license. (Writers note: The exempted activities are a dog sold for purposes of herding, working or sporting activities.)

--If you sell all of your puppies in person, you may keep as many breeding females as your local laws allow and not be regulated by the federal government.

The legal issues portion was written by Julian Prager. Julian is a breeder, shower, and judge of Bulldogs. He's also an attorney with more than a passing interest in dog law related subjects.

While there are several issues which need clarification, these are the primary ones that affect most of the members here. A couple of the other issues are puppies taken back or which serve as a stud fee and then ultimately sold. The rule and docket are silent on this example.

More as it is available.
 
#13 ·
I'm proud to have a puppy from your "backyard breeding". Actually I think Jim was the one responsible for the shore nuff back yard breeding!

Lonnie
 
#12 ·
The claim in the docket is that the increase in required inspections will be negligible. This was a point that many comments from the public focused on. The changes to the rule from the original publised in May 2012 probably reduces the total required inspections but ... negligible I can't say.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top