Federal Dog Rule Should Worry Sportsmen

If you hunt with dogs, know someone who hunts with dogs, or might want to own a hunting dog someday, you need to be aware of a focused campaign by animal rights organizations to regulate dog owners—and dog breeders—out of existence.

The animal rights folks’ idea is simple – bury sporting dog and hobby breeders under a mountain of unnecessary and costly regulations until none are left.  Why?  Because many of them want to eliminate hunting with dogs, breeding purebred dogs, and all dog breeding.

Generally, we see most of their efforts at the state level.  Already this year, more than 90 bills have been introduced across the country that could be harmful for sporting dog owners.  Recently, the animal rights lobby persuaded the federal government to propose new rules that would expand the number and types of dog owners the federal government regulates.  Here’s why sportsmen should be worried:

New Federal Rule Would Regulate Many Hobby Breeders

To understand what is happening, you’ll need a little background on the federal Animal Welfare Act (AWA).  As far as dog owners are concerned, the AWA is meant to regulate large wholesale dog breeders and sellers.  Large breeders that fall under the AWA must comply with federal regulations, be licensed, and be inspected by the United States Department of Agriculture through their Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS).

The AWA regulations were written with these large dog breeders in mind and were not designed or intended for hobby breeders.  That’s why hunting dog owners and most other hobby breeders that sell dogs at retail (directly to the public) are currently exempt from the AWA’s regulation.

After lobbying by animal rights organizations, APHIS has proposed a new rule that would cause many hobby breeders to now fall under these regulations.  If the rule is approved, a person selling dogs will fall under the AWA unless every single person that buys a dog from them physically enters that person’s business or residence before buying or picking up the dog to personally observe the dogs.

Under the rule, hobby breeders that sell just one dog over the phone or internet would be treated like large wholesale dog breeders and would be required to comply with federal regulations and inspections.  The AWA was not meant to regulate these folks and could put many great hobby breeders out of existence.

Why the Rule Matters to Sportsmen

The good news is this proposed rule doesn’t mess with the sporting dog breeder exemption.  You’re probably asking, “if sporting dog breeders are exempt, why does it matter?”

  • It matters because it shows how hard the animal rights folks are pushing their anti-dog breeder agenda.  They’re not just lobbying the states; they’re working at the federal level too.
  • It matters because it is part of the BIG animal rights “divide and conquer” strategy.  Each effort by these groups is meant to regulate more and more dog owners, not just the “puppy mills” they claim to be after.
  • Their next move could be removing the hunting dog breeder exemption altogether.

Sportsmen need to be aware of what is going on and understand the big picture – these groups won’t stop until it’s almost impossible to breed or use hunting dogs.

A comment period for the proposed rule runs until August 15th.  The U.S. Sportsmen’s Alliance, as part of its Sporting Dog Defense Coalition, will be submitting comments to APHIS outlining concerns over the proposed rule.

44 comments on “Federal Dog Rule Should Worry Sportsmen

  1. Tresha Moorberg says:

    This lasw does not only affect sportsman, it affects the the everday dog owners as well. Your everyday pet, like a beagle or labrador, would be part of this legislation. Dogs who hunt, even if the breeder isn”t breeding them for that, they are still a sporting dog. I am sure that over 1 million owners would not be happy that they cannot own their favorite dog for a FAMILY PET

  2. Gin says:

    where are dogs mentioned in the Constitution?

    • Susan in MI says:

      Animals are not specified in the Constitution or Bill of Rights but Right of Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of Happiness is.

    • They aren’t but my choose to to hunt dogs and have dogs to hunt what ever I want is!! And I can have all the guns I want. It’s what matters to me its my life long dream and no damn AR a- – #@5&!!! is not going to stop me. I love hounddogs and will fight to the death to keep my right as an american citizen to do just that with no damn regulations on me!! It’s wrong and agains’t the const. of the united states. So you AR people can stick it where the sun doesn’t shine!!!

  3. Thank you, U.S. Sportsmen’s Alliance and Sporting Dog Defense Coalition, for commenting on these proposed rules. If they are passed, they will drive many of the best hobby dog breeders in the country out of breeding. Of course, that’s just what the ARs want to happen. Most of us can’t and won’t keep our dogs according to USDA regulations or allow unannounced inspections of our homes.

  4. Hunting dog breeders can only claim exemption if they ensure that EVERY pup they sell is sold as a hunting dog. Should they sell pups as pets, APHIS has made some remarks that breeders should then separate their breeding operation in pet and hunting. We all know this is impossible
    It is also important to note that they count every intact bitch as a breeding female – regardless if she is 6 months old or 15 years old or ever bred at all. And if you have an intact female barn cat hanging around or your kid has an intact female hamster, they will all count towards your total number. Co-ownerships counts as well. Please submit your comments opposing the proposed rules.

    • James F. Gaines, DVM,MS says:

      To reduce the number of puppy mills just raise the state license fee on intact dogs to $100 or so. The puppy mills cannot afford this rate and will go out of business so long as the license statutes are enforced. It will also eliminate the yard dogs that breed at will because the owner will not have them neutered/spayed. The serious breeders of quality dogs can just add the addtional fee to the price of the pups. Action such as this will add to lthe state coffers, support the local Veterinarians, and if the money is shared with the enforcement entities they will be eager to look for violators.
      James F. Gaines, DVM, MS, Dip. ACLAM

      • I’m a hobby breeder and I can’t afford $100 license fee per intact dog, nor should I have to pay that kind of differential licensing for keeping my dogs intact which is healthier for them in many ways. Breeding dogs is not a crime and people shouldn’t be punished or penalized for having intact dogs. I only breed a litter every 2-3 years but I already pay plenty for health testing, higher stud fees for better dogs, and working to achieve titles on my dogs. There are already plenty of laws on the books in every state against cruelty to animals. If laws are enforced then people who abuse animals are shut down. We don’t need to have more licensing or federal oversight of dog breeders. That’s what the animal rights fanatics want: to make dog breeding as difficult as possible.

      • Cat Mall says:

        And you are a vet….Hmmmm…have you wondered what will happen to your clientele if this passes? I guess you don’t have many breeders coming to you, so maybe it won’t affect you…but where will the dogs come from that are just pets? Do you think they just spring out of the ground? Or have you swallowed the hogwash the ARs are selling in vet school and that we are overpopulated with animals?
        Think again. I just lost my 17 year old Persian cat. Do you want to know how many Persian cats are in rescue and shelters in my area? ZERO. I don’t want a barn cat which are a dime a dozen. I had to go to a breeder to get my new baby – a Himalayan. This is my choice, not your right to take away from me. But this law passes and I will not be able to find the kind of pet I want but only what they ARs determine I can have.
        This will put vets out of business all over the nation and don’t think it won’t. You have better wake up.
        BTW – when you want to pay my $100 fee then you can set it that high. In the meantime I have the right to own property and that is given to me in the Constitution!

      • SmartysMom says:

        Dr. Gaines, you’ve drunk the kool-aide and believe that everyone who owns an intact dog is by definition a puppy mill. We aren’t. I own 7 intact dogs. My last litter was 2006. I have had no accidental litters (my mom taught me how to avoid unwanted pregnancy without being sterilized, but maybe they didn’t teach you that in vet school.) Sterilization, except for health reasons, does not benefit the dog. They need those hormones just like humans do.

        Ooops, didn’t realize you were part of the HSUS veterinary department committed to ridding the world of ALL domestic animals.

      • Susan in MI says:

        “The serious breeders of quality dogs can just add the addtional fee to the price of the pups. Action such as this will add to lthe state coffers, support the local Veterinarians, and if the money is shared with the enforcement entities they will be eager to look for violators.”

        Have you actually read the proposal? Didn’t think you had. The rule of $500 of GROSS sales is standing in place. Gross is NOT net after deductions for health checks like OFA or heart cerf or anything. It is GROSS and not subject to what the IRS would require.

        Are you also aware that USDA/APHIS is counting on AR snitches who can call in anonymous
        complaints without any basis warrant that’s been backed by a $5000 bounty by HSUS? Yes, Sir, our Federal Government is counting on the same tactics that Nazi Germany employed when the Gestapo relied on snitches to ferret out Jews. Cheap “out” they were counting on with a faulty cost analysis that saved having to go through GAO and Congress approval.

        James F. Gaines, DVM, MS, Dip. ACLAM you will NEVER be employed by me to treat or consult for my livestock or house animals.

      • Jackie says:

        There shouldn’t be a law that says I have to spay or neuter my dog. I keep my dogs tied when they are outside to keep them safe from traffic. I live in a small town, and sometimes dogs get loose. Mine or someone else’s. If my dog is bred by ACCIDENT there shouldn’t be a fine or penalty. Don’t you people have anything better to do. spend you time and money at these shelters that are killing these animals. I should have a choice where my animal comes from not have it dictated. It needs to be harder to dump these animals at shelters. people need to spend the time to rehome their own pets they can no longer keep. quit putting the crap on everyone out here. Each pet owner has to take responsiblilty for their own animal. There are times someone may need to take a pet to the pound, but not every instance. find a home for your animal and nix the “rehoming fee” that’s bs. you don’t want it let someone have it that does. along with it’s toys etc.

      • Dumb idea james !! I will not pay a $100. a year to have a intact dog NO WAY!!~!!! A spayed or neutered dog doesn’t have the guts it takes to run a bear or any other game down and hold it at bay till I get there. I may want to raise some pups every few years like one every 4 or 5 yrs. to keep a blood line going and to replace retired dogs. I’m a country boy and think your animal rights ways is just as dumb as they come! I think you are an idiot! You as@@@@@@&&* can try to make all the stupid damn laws you want BUT ME and my kind of people will not abide by THEM!!!

      • Peggy Richter says:

        Dr Gaines is apparently unaware of the license fees for intact dogs which are already triple the cost of a neutered animal in many areas. Nor the additional costs for things like eye exams (CERF), hips (OFA), and various specialty tests (thyroid, BAER, etc). Nor the restrictions on breeding ALREADY in place in many areas. Owning a dog for hunting (or herding or just to have a dog) ought not to be only the Privilege of the rich. And for Gin, who asked about where dogs are in the Constitution — they are under the same coverage as any right to property — see Amendment IV — The right of the people to be secure in their persons, HOUSES, papers, and EFFECTS, against unreasonable searches and SEIZURES, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
        Amendment V –No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, NOR BE DEPRIVED of life, liberty, OR PROPERTY, without due process of law; NOR SHALL PRIVATE PROPTERTY BE TAKEN for public use, without just compensation.
        Amendment IX –The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
        Amendment X –The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people
        Ownership of dogs predates civilization.

      • mark says:

        james there is no discription of what a puppy mill is….how many dogs constitutes a puppy mill?? until the terms the animal rights movement has made up, actually has a definition…all these laws that are wanting passed and have been passed is open season on anyone who owns a single dog.

    • Susan in MI says:

      You will also be caught in this web if you own, or someone in your household owns, a “breedable female” of any species to be counted in this number “4”. Where does this cast your 4H kid???

  5. Charles Barto says:

    I thought this was the land of the free.
    After all that is what I fought for and will live by.
    God bless America.
    Vietnam vet 1968- 1969
    Dam the liberals.

  6. Steve Sorensen says:

    I believe that dogs are mentioned in the Declaration of Independence – We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. The ownership of dogs is definitely my pursuit of happiness.

  7. Matt Cogswell says:

    This should matter to not only sportmen, but to anyone that believes that the federal government is continually overstepping its bounds. The federal government needs to demonstrate competency and efficiency in the things that they’ve actually LEGALLY been designated to do by the Consitution of this country before they begin offering oversight into anything else. People need to realize that laws implemented now have a way of being broadened in scope far beyond the original intent 10 or 20 years down the road when people forget the law was originally begun to address a far narrower issue.

  8. Nancy G. says:

    Food for thought: If this passes and will encompass hobby and working dog breeders who have previously been exempted because they sell only retail to the public, who will be the NEXT to lose their expemtion? Sporting/Hunting dogs?

    This isn’t just about your dogs who may live in your house suddenly thrust into kennels like large facility wholesale breeders and having the federal government in your home and on your property. Your private business WILL be subject to to public inspection via the Freedom of Information Act. Here are a list of things you can obtain from USDA (who handles licensing and inspection of federal licensees:
    1. Name, address, phone number and e-mail address.
    2. How many dogs and pups are on your property at each inspection.
    3. Your gross income from your dogs.
    4. Any pictures taken by inspectors during inspection.
    5. Every citation you receive and you WILL receive citations. Inspectors are now told “You WILL find something at every kennel you inspect”.
    6. Titer tests are not acceptable to the government. You will vaccinate your dogs according to their regulations and you will micro chip all dogs and puppies in your kennel and for sale.
    7. Every intact dog is counted whether or not it’s used for breeding.

    You will expect to be harassed by animal rights activists because of all of the above. They know everything they need to know about you through FIOA. They can call in complaints anonymously and they do. They do fly overs and take aerial shots of kennels and post all your contact information and encourage people to steal your animals to “save them from enslavement” and to continually call in complaints to the authorities who have to investigate those complaints. If you breed for ANY reason you ARE a puppy mill to these people. This is NOT about “puppy mills”.

  9. kaylor says:

    Oh, this isn’t a new rule. This is a new interpretation of an old rule. A redefining of what it is that makes a “retail” establishment. It is also an attempt to regulate those breeders who sell via the internet. There are some bad ones there, but I don’t think this will handle them. I know of some that breed small breeds in places like South Korea and sell over the internet. I don’t think the USDA will be able to force them to license and suffer inspections. Buyers should be better informed. If they buy something sight unseen, they should know it may not be what they expected.

  10. SmartysMom says:

    USSA, thought you’d never get around to telling your constituency to comment and comment often. Here’s the link to comment: http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=APHIS-2011-0003-0001 . Numbers of comments count. Everyone, if you care you should be commenting every day! Also, contact your senator and representative and let them know how you feel about the latest APHIS proposed regulation.

    Just say NO!

  11. Doug Bowling says:

    Face people these amimal rights people are nuts and are wanting to take away all of our rights to animals and are succeeding easily. They have the money but we have the numbers. Anybody who has chickens, dogs, farm animals, hunts, or fishes needs to stick together against these wackos.

    • Spirit Hawk says:

      Not all people who fight for animal rights are nuts. I worked with our local humane society chapter (on our own dime) on several abuse cases, cases where people had dogs crammed into small cages in their own filth, cases of starved animals, animals abandoned by the people they rely on, cases that have caused me numerous nightmares due to the horrific conditions, smells, and injuries caused by humans. I love my animals, but wouldn’t dream of breeding the majority of them with the health/conformation issues they have. I do breed goats, but the ones I have are exceptional individuals and are used for milking purposes. Any of those who are not exceptional in temperament and conformation are not placed in a position to breed or sterilized. I’m not against all breeding, but there IS an overpopulation issue in MANY states. Hundreds of animals are killed every month in our local shelter alone. I have farm animals, and I do agree that there should be regulations. I have a dog that was going to be used as a breeder by a “hobby breeder” who had 15-20 dogs in a small bedroom. This dog has had to have most of her teeth pulled due to the fact that they were ROTTING from inside the gum. All the diet and health-care precautions I took didn’t stop this. I was told it was genetics. She is missing a good portion of her coat, has severe allergies, skin sensitivity, and does not fit the breed standard in any way, yet this woman would have bred her and passed on her genetic imperfections to her puppies for the sake of a few bucks and to “exercise her Constitutional rights.” I do believe pieces of shit like her need to be stopped. I have a horse that was starved and bred since she was old enough to breed. I have two of her sons who are cryporchid (a dangerous genetic defect that causes an imbalance of testosterone) and the breeder is still breeding his horses despite the fact that he has too many, can’t feed or care for them properly, and is passing on dangerous genetic defects to horses that he sells for profit. Yet it is his right to breed. I rescued all 3 of these horses. 2 have approved homes who will not breed them and the older of the two males has already been gelded. The younger colt will be gelded next month. If people were more careful about how many animals they breed and the genetics they’re tampering with by breeding, we wouldn’t have the problem we have. For those who are saying we don’t have an over population problem,. come work with me and you’ll see just how bad the problem is! That being said, I do believe there should be some regulation. However, I do not agree with the way the regulations are being issued. Denying people the chance to breed at all or making it impossible to carry on good bloodlines will just cause problems in the future, especially with the inbreeding problems we already have. However, something needs to change before more animals are killed, starved, or abused simply because their human caretakers no longer want them and puppies/kittens are a dime a dozen. People who can’t bring them to the shelter often just drop them off somewhere or let them starve to death. We see tons of dogs like labs, pit bulls, shepherds, and terriers in the shelter all the time, yet I see hundreds of ads for puppies of these same breeds. I saw a handsome young dog with severe inbreeding on both sides, but this was desirable! Something needs to change, and not all animal rights activists are nuts. It is unfair to loop us all in with fanatics like PETA who advocate no domesticated animals at all. As far as sportsmen and hunting dogs go, I know some hunting dogs who live wonderful lives, but then I also know dogs that are used strictly for hunting and receive only basic care and are worked to the bone. I have an Australian shepherd. He’s used for herding, but when he’s not working, he’s a couch potato and sleeps in the bed with us. He can still function on a working farm while being a beloved family pet. I’m not against people who honestly care for their working animals and wouldn’t dream of stopping ownership rights of working dogs, hunting dogs included. Yet because I work with a humane society, I’m considered a “nut” and people think I am against all breeding. Our chapter simply wants people to make informed decisions about breeding and treat their animals in a humane way, giving proper care and attention to every animal. Breeders who pump out hundreds of puppies or kittens every year are adding to a growing problem. I fully agree that there needs to be standards and regulations, but not to the point where it is detrimental to a breed or way of life as long as the animals are treated properly. We aren’t all vegan either. Many of us aren’t against using animals for human consumption as long as the methods used to slaughter the animals are humane and the animal doesn’t suffer. It is the same concept for breeding or using animals to hunt or work. Help reduce the overpopulation problem, take good care of your animals, and worry more about the advancement of the breed instead of making a buck and we wouldn’t have half the problems we have now and would have less problems that would need regulation. What I do disagree with are the fines and fees that will be used to line government pockets and will do more to hinder responsible breeders than anything else.

  12. SmartysMom says:

    Here’s 2 links with additional information about the proposed ruling.



    At least skim the letter from the second link to see how totally HSUS has infiltrated and influenced this legislation. Back in 2008 USSA warned that some of the present administrations appointments were extreme animal rights activists. Now the consequences are coming home to roost! Well, I for one won’t be making the same mistake at the next election! Bud (Pigeon), you’re entitled to a big “I told you so”!

    In addition, the site for making comments appears to have been compromised so no one can make a comment. But please try anyway, and agree to take their survey so if you are blocked you can protest.

  13. Here is another site with lots of good info and links.
    Everybody, please comment on the APHIS site and urge your clubs and organisations to oppose as well.
    Thank you USSA for speaking up on behalf of sportsmen and breeders!
    Proud to be a member!

  14. Brad Wodruff says:

    The USDA/APHIS is heavily enfluenced by Wayne Pacelle of the Humane society of the United States. USUS’S stated position is to eliminate pedigreed animal breeding. That would effect dogs, cats, cattle and horses. They utilize contrbutions received by show casing sick puppies and kittens and abused horses to influence legislators to support legislation that supports their extreme animal rights and vegan beliefs. Don’t give them dime!

    • Susan in MI says:

      Of the millions of $$$$$$$ donations HSUS receives each year 1% goes toward animals. The rest is spent on salaries, pension funds, and lobbying. Both HSUS and ASPCA operate NO SHELTERS.

  15. KC says:

    Check out this video on HSUS

  16. Richard Smith says:

    I think you should set up a system whereby we could click on a spot to send an email or response to the appropiate senators or represtative to voice our opinion to them.

  17. Arie in MI says:

    What about dogs/cats etc that CAN’T be spayed/neutered because of a health reason? My dog has a heart problem and if I get her spayed she could die on the table. The HSUS needs to be PTS.

    • mark says:

      they do not care if your pet is killed….a friend of mine in ohio who has a monkey, we just had an exotic ban go through….she took it to the vet to get certain shots for the monkey to make him legal and he died….she is heartbroke…just like loosing a child…it this law did not pass her monkey would still be alive…..we are aready over vaccinating our animals….yearly booster are no longer needed…..but vets still do it to make money!

  18. Rooster says:

    Gamefowl breeders tried to tell dog owners and sportsmrn this for years but would any you listen.NOOOOOOOO.noone cared about the Gamefowl breeders everyone thought what we done with our fowl was wrong.So I hate to be the one to say it but WE told so.now suck it up and pay to play.

    • Well, excuse me, but I’ve been writing about animal rights issues and HSUS for years to warn dog breeders and I’m not the only one. We’ve been fighting AR legislation in our state and others fight it in their states. So it’s not like this has come out of the blue. It’s not the time to “suck it up” or “pay to play.” It’s better for everyone if we work together to beat the ARs.

  19. OldBucks says:

    Dog owners need to unite. Anyone who owns a dog is at risk. If united we will have the power to stop these activists who want to regulate our pets, hobbies and hunting pals. With the numbers we can put together we can fund lobbyists to stop this regulation. Don’t let regulation turn us into sheep, being led by bureaucratic control. Remember we bare the land of thr free and the home of the brave. Have we lost our _alls and will to fight for our freedoms.

  20. James says:

    Hi Guys,

    I posted this Blog at the Gun Dogs community at vorts.com. It’s a good one.



  21. Susan in MI says:

    As stated in the APHIS Strategic Plan FY 2010-2015

    “In addition, APHIS is responsible for ensuring the
    humane care and handling of animals used in
    research, exhibited to the public, bred for
    commercial sale, or transported in commerce.  
    The public has demonstrated increasing levels of
    concern about the health status of dogs sold by
    individuals over the Internet and by foreign
    dealers.  The questionable health status of these
    dogs erodes general public confidence in this
    industry, hurting even reputable individuals
    selling dogs.  More than 85 percent of the
    domestic licensed dealers that sell dogs are
    family owned and operated in rural locales.  
    APHIS inspection and enforcement activities
    focusing on problematic dog dealers are key to
    keeping reputable small family operations viable
    and thriving.”     

    This has not been demonstrated or reported by any reputable source about the health status of dogs sold by individuals over the internet or by foreign dealers. Publishing this in the APHIS Strategic Plan 2010-2015 does not constitute fact. Facts are demonstrable and this thinly veiled transparent reason is not a fact. There are already and have been stringent requirements for shipping animals that require a licensed Veterinarian statement that the animal(s) is/are healthy and free of disease or visible defects at time of shipment. This whole idea and excuse of not selling at distance for this proposal, Docket 2011-0003, is a means to the end of the goal to stop the breeding of ALL pets by the Humane Society of the United States.

    In the case of DDAL v. Veneman in 2002-2003 USDA fought and OPPOSED this sort of expansion of their regulatory duties. But now with HSUS backing and offering a $5000 reward for turning in breeders for any infraction of the proposed rule it would ease the burden of the Federal Government budget and USDA/APHIS inspectors by not diverting resources. Yet in March 16, 2012, the FedBidOpps.gov posted this job opportunity that would cost the already over burdened middle class taxpayers even more money: Mining the internet for animal breeders.

    Returning to the above quoted paragraph in the APHIS Strategic Plan FY 2010-2015:
    “More than 85 percent of the
    domestic licensed dealers that sell dogs are
    family owned and operated in rural locales.  
    APHIS inspection and enforcement activities
    focusing on problematic dog dealers are key to
    keeping reputable small family operations viable
    and thriving.”  

    According to this, and the wording of Docket 2011-0003, 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).

    So I am forced to open my home to strangers in order to be in compliance. Unrealistic and a gross over stepping of Government rules and regulations even IF zoning ordinances could be changed. I am forced to put my physical well being and life in jeopardy by my government? What happened to the concept of LIBERTY as stated in the United States Declaration of Independence adopted by the Second Continental Congress on July 4, 1776. “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable Rights that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness”.

    The ORIGINAL intent of the Animal Welfare Act (AWA) was to PROTECT the people who had animals stolen by thieves and sold to laboratories to be used as test subjects. Now my government is trying to enforce a rule that destroys the rights of all citizens who own breeding animals dictating that homes should be open to the general public to inspect how animals are kept and maintained. Turns the Declaration of Independence on it’s head and inside out by denying citizens of the rights of Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. By forcing breeders to comply or register with USDA then the government is greatly overstepping by huffing and puffing to blow the door down and using a crow bar to finish the invasion. The door of privacy in one’s own home and property. The Federal Government has the duty to assist citizens rights to privacy from the public and potential criminal activity against law abiding citizens.

    Who would advocate a pet, that would be expected to live in a home with a family, whether it be 1 or however many people, should be raised till 8 weeks or so in a sterile environment? You want a puppy who’s been raised like that never having been exposed to normal, every day life sound bites? A kitten raised under these conditions would be guaranteed to be feral and in need of serious rehab. Bo Obama wasn’t raised by his breeder according to those regulations before Senator Ted Kennedy delivered him to the White House. Bo Obama’s breeder has a website http://www.amigopwd.com but using an “agent” (Senator Ted Kennedy) and by delivering a puppy to the new owners residing in the White House, with the Obama family having never inspected her home, what a true pickle she would be in under this new, revised edition of the AWA as proposed by APHIS.

    USDA/APHIS did not compose this rule/regulation/proposal with the welfare of animals in mind at all. This agency did so to intrude on individual privacy and freedoms because they have the power to intrude and force people to relinquish their hobby with the goal of no more pets or any animal agriculture following the stated dogma of HSUS. Not in the best interest of the American people at all Tom Vilsack or Sarah L. Conant using the philology and goals of HSUS to shape your thinking and policy. Sarah L. Conant started working for USDA/APHIS just two days after being a litigation lawyer for HSUS and yet is expected to present an unadulterated and impartial view? On the FEC page for the Humane Society Legislative Fund PAC for distributions:
    P.O. BOX 641
    AMES, Iowa 50010
    Political Contribution 1000.00

    Karma has left the building empty.

    NRA defeated the ATT just days ago so the UN will not be able to overstep on our Constitutional rights guaranteed by the Second Amendment.

    APHIS did not fulfill the statutory duty as required by the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) to perform an adequate assessment of the impact of the Rule, consult with the appropriate agencies, or provide reliable information to the public for purposes of a public comment period.
    This proposed Rule presented via Docket ID 2011 – 0003 is fatally flawed from inception and has to end up on the cutting room floor never to be seen or heard from again.

  22. I know Cristie Vilsack sucks, worthless no good H$U$ supporter is, YOUR ENEMY!!! Congressman Steve King from the fifth desstrict of Iowa is your friend. He will fight for you!! And he is doing a good job.

  23. Vernon says:

    Fantastic post however I was wondering if you could write a litte more on this topic?

    I’d be very thankful if you could elaborate a little bit more. Bless you!

    • Jeremy Rine says:


      Thank you for the comment. Here is a quick update on what is going on. The comment period for the rule is closed and APHIS is still reviewing the comments that were submitted to it. I believe there were more than 15,000 comments submitted. After reviewing the comments APHIS can do any number of things including keeping the rule as is, modifying it, or completely scrapping it.

      There is no deadline set for APHIS to take any of these actions and with the large number of comments received it may take good bit of time before anything else happens. Once we hear something I’ll be sure to give an update.


      Jeremy Rine

  24. I actually speculate as to why you labeled this specific blog post, “Federal Dog Rule Should Worry Sportsmen Protect What’s Right”. In any event I really adored the post!Thanks for the post,Roman

  25. Shinrin says:

    I’m not a hunter nor a breeder, but I don’t like these regulations. I believe in helping animals in need, but not extremist groups like these. I personally have a dog who is a watchdog, protector and he also hunts varmints out of the yard. My last dog was good at treeing squirrels. I support hunters who hunt witg dogs.

Tell Us What You Think...

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s