# Not sure if this has been posted here yet.



## tailwagging (Jan 6, 2005)

written by Peggy Richter, United States Working Dog Foundation 

"The proposed USDA/APHIS regulation change (Maintenance
pdf/2012-11839.pdf) Docket No. APHISâ2011â0003 is being proposed ostensibly to ensure that
is necessary to âensure that animals sold at retail are monitored for their health and humane
treatmentâ. It does no such thing.
The AWA defines Animal as follows: 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. (TITLE 9 AWA INTEGRATED (APHIS RULEMAKING 2012) [CITE: 9CFR1.1] PART
1_DEFINITION OF TERMS--Table of Contents Sec. 1.1 Definitions.
The proposed rule would rescind the exempt "retail pet store" status of anyone who sells
an âANIMALâ as defined above âas a petâ to a buyer who does not physically enter a place of
business or residence in order to personally observe the animals available for sale. It would
allow exemption ONLY if a person who sells either dogs or cats âsells only the offspring of
those animals born and raised on his or her premises for use as pets or exhibition.â (see http:/
/www.regulations.gov/#%21documentDetail;D=APHIS-2011-0003-0001, II. Summary of Major
Provisions, paragraph 1).
The exemption does NOT cover either working herding dogs or Livestock Guardian Dogs
(LGDs). Neither of these essential working dog specialty groups are âpetsâ nor are they
necessarily âexhibitionâ animals. The vast majority of working herding dogs are not exhibited
in conformation events nor in performance trials. They simply go about their business working
as an aid to manage and control livestock. Consequently, NO individual selling a dog for use
in herding or a dog for use as a LGD would be able to maintain their exemption, regardless of
if they did or did not meet the 3 (or 4) âbreeding femalesâ (the term isnât defined) and the rule
regarding having buyers physically enter the place of business or residence.
Further, the requirement that one sell âonly the offspring of those animals born and raised on
his or her premisesâ could be interpreted to read that it is limited only to those who sell offspring
{of those animals born and raised on his or her premises} or only the animals {born and raised
on his /her premises} whelped or born to animals resident on the premises. Which is it? Both
are extremely restrictive. The first reading would eliminate, for example, any animal born at a
veterinary hospital. If the latter interpretation is used, it would eliminate any animal where the
mother died or is no longer resident, regardless of the reason. And which location? The farm or
the farmerâs house? They may or may not be located at the same physical address.
Many breeders of border collies and other herding dogs import dogs from overseas. Some
ship overseas. Even within the US, because many herding and Livestock Guardian Dogs are
bred and raised on rural ranches and farms, it is far more difficult for all buyers to physically go
to âthe premisesâ. It is therefore economically more difficult to arrange for ALL buyers to obtain
their animal on the premises. The requirement, therefore, of going to âthe premisesâ would
s e v e rely restrict the transfer of bloodlines to ensure quality in these dogs.
It is also far more risky to the US â as the experience of Great Britain demonstrates, diseases
such as hoof and mouth, West Nile and similar livestock devastating pandemics are easiest
to transmit by visitors to rural farms and ranches (http://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/11/12/05-
0908_article.htm). Yet this is exactly what this regulation proposes to require.
If not exempt, most breeders of LGD would not be able to comply with USDA rules and
regulations regarding management and care â one of the critical necessities of utilizing LGD
is to raise them in company with livestock â something that would be banned under these
regulations. The requirement regarding housing and isolation from other dogs than their dam
can be devastating to herding dogs â many are trained using a senior dog as a backup and
for the young dog to imitate. This works best if the dogs are well acquainted with each other
â something that wouldnât be possible if the ability of the farmer to keep the dogs together is
prohibited.
The regulation makes no exemption if one has âbreeding femalesâ but doesnât breed even
annually. Many individuals with LGD or herding dogs may breed only once in several years
â yet keep more than â3â (or 4) âbreeding femalesâ. Since the term isnât clearly defined, any
intact female over 4 months is a potential âbreeding femaleâ regardless if it is bred or not.
Yet it is impossible to tell if a 4 month old animal is a good cow dog or a good sheep dog.
Such determinations are made at 2 years or sometimes not even until 4 years or older, when
sufficient training has occurred. Yet if one has ONE animal that is bred, even if only once every
3 years, the regulations would apply.
Nor does the issue of âinternet salesâ preclude quality and the âinspection of premisesâ ensure
quality. Cars and even property can change hands via the Internet (Dodge Vehicles | Build your own Crossover, SUV, Car, or Minivan | Dodge
en/ as an example). Buyers are neither urged nor auto manufacturers required, to âinspect
the premisesâ as a means of ensuring either automobile quality nor the value. Existing laws
regarding false advertising, regarding latent defects and in most states, âpuppy lemon lawsâ
provide redress regarding poor quality animals. The existing Animal Welfare Act and numerous
Federal and State laws provide for humane care and management of dogs.
Instead, this proposed rule expects the average buyer, whom it believes is incapable of
determining what to buy or where to buy an animal, who it asserts cannot make an intelligent
decision based on an Internet ad and whatever follow up they choose to conduct, should be
employed as inspectors of humane care and quality on an individualâs premises. Which is it? Is
the buyer competent to make a decision or not? If they are, use of the Internet will only provide
information that previously would have been provided in ads in such publications as Dog World
and Horsetrader. If not, physically visiting someoneâs home will not make them so.
The proposed regulation has significant flaws and no benefits. It should be discarded and
therefore we request that USDA Secretary Tom Vilsack withdraw this proposed regulation
completely."
Peggy Richter, United States Working Dog Foundation Expert Advisory Panel
Member.


----------

