USDA seeks change to regulate Internet and retail pet sales

I received this last night form The Sportsmen's and Animal Owners voting Alliance.

This afternoon USDA’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) held a stakeholders conference call to announce a forthcoming proposal to revise its definition of “retail pet store”. APHIS states this proposal restores the definition to its original intent so that it limits the retail pet store exemption to only those places where buyers physically enter to observe the animals available for sale prior to purchasing them and where certain animals are sold or offered for sale at retail for use as pets. The definition of pet includes dogs, cats, rabbits, guinea pigs, hamsters, gerbils, rats, mice, gophers, chinchilla, domestic ferrets, domestic farm animals, birds, and coldblooded species.


To meet the exemption requirements for the newly defined retail pet store, buyers must be allowed to physically enter the retail seller’s 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. In addition, breeders must have four or less breeding females and can only sell the offspring of the breeding females that were born and raised on their premises, and sold for pets or exhibition.
USDA/APHIS issued a press release this afternoon: USDA Proposes to Close Loophole on Retail Pet Sales to Ensure Health and Humane Treatment which can be found at this link: USDA - APHIS - Newsroom
The notice is scheduled for publication within a week in the Federal Register. The proposed rule and an FAQ are currently available at www.aphis.usda.gov.
Proposed Rule is Docket No. APHIS-2011-0003, Regulatory Analysis and Development PPD APHIS, Station 3A-03.8, 4700 River Road Unit 118, Riverdale , MD , 20737-1238 .
Once the rule is published there will be a 60 day comment period.
The APHIS Factsheet states: under the proposed rule, no dog or other pet animal will be sold at retail without either public or APHIS oversight. Obviously this rulemaking proposal will have far reaching impacts on sportsmen, dog, cat, and small animal breeders. SAOVA will distribute further analysis and updates as the rule making process continues.

We definitely need to watch this one and try to get it killed.

Where did the definition of pet used in the OP's post originate? If you read the actual press release, it only mentions mammals... for example

The proposed rule would also increase from three to four the number of breeding female dogs, cats, and/or small exotic or wild mammals that a person may maintain before they would be required to be licensed, if they only sell the offspring of those animals born and raised on their premises, for pets or exhibition

There is no reference to any reptiles, amphibians, fish or even arthropods.....

See http://www.aphis.usda.gov/newsroom/2...s_051012.shtml for the specifics...

Ed

Originally Posted by EdwardK

Where did the definition of pet used in the OP's post originate? If you read the actual press release, it only mentions mammals... for example


There is no reference to any reptiles, amphibians, fish or even arthropods.....

See http://www.aphis.usda.gov/newsroom/2...s_051012.shtml for the specifics...

Ed

Ed,

Some paragraphs in the article may refer to only mammals:

"The proposed rule would also increase from three to four the number of breeding female dogs, cats, and/or small exotic or wild mammals that a person may maintain before they would be required to be licensed"

But statements like this are more worrisome:

“This proposed change is aimed at modernizing our regulations to require individuals who sell animals directly to the public to meet basic care and feeding as required by the Animal Welfare Act,” said Rebecca Blue, Deputy Under Secretary for Marketing and Regulatory Programs. “By revising the definition of retail pet store to be better suited to today’s marketplace, we will improve the welfare of pets sold to consumers via online, phone- and mail-based businesses.”

This seems to indicate that all animals sold via the internet fall under this legislation.

Jon

I fail to see the big concern with this.

What's happening is the Animal Welfare Act contains exemptions for retail pet stores. Certain breeders/dealers are claiming to be a retail pet store, but selling only online, not maintaining a storefront or being accessible to the public, but still taking advantage of the exemption and therefore not being held to the requirements of humane treatment covered by the AWA.

Besides, the entire issue doesn't pertain to us anyway, reptiles are not covered by the Animal Welfare Act, which is what this proposed change pertains to.

The definition of pet includes dogs, cats, rabbits, guinea pigs, hamsters, gerbils, rats, mice, gophers, chinchilla, domestic ferrets, domestic farm animals, birds, and coldblooded species.

This statement in reference to the AWA is simply false. This is from the AWA directly, section 2132(g):

The term “animal” means any live or dead dog, cat, monkey (nonhuman primate mammal), guinea pig, hamster, rabbit, or such other warm-blooded animal, as the Secretary may determine is being used, or is intended for use, for research, testing, experimentation, or exhibition purposes, or as a pet; but such term excludes (1) birds, rats of the genus Rattus, and mice of the genus Mus, bred for use in research, (2) horses not used for research purposes, and (3) 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;

Animal is defined as being warm blooded, and birds are specifically excluded as are domestic livestock. All reptiles and amphibians are excluded by default. In fact the words "reptile" "snake" "frog" or "lizard" do not even occur in the entire Act.

This statement by SAOVA also irks me a little.

In addition, breeders must have four or less breeding females and can only sell the offspring of the breeding females that were born and raised on their premises, and sold for pets or exhibition.

I dislike it when an organization phrases statements in such a way that they suggest a more sinister meaning in order to strengthen their own argument.
What the press release said specifically was this:

The proposed rule would also increase from three to four the number of breeding female dogs, cats, and/or small exotic or wild mammals that a person may maintain before they would be required to be licensed, if they only sell the offspring of those animals born and raised on their premises, for pets or exhibition.

So rather than dog breeders being now limited to only four females as suggested by the phrasing of the SAOVA statement, they are actually being allowed to have one additional female breeder before a license is required. In reality an improvement over existing regulations but SAOVA failed to mention that bit.

Take it as you will Clay. I never said this was just about reptiles.

Taken from here
http://www.aphis.usda.gov/newsroom/2..._2011_0003.pdf

II. Summary of Major Provisions
“Retail pet stores” are not required to obtain a license under the AWA or comply with the
AWA regulations and standards. Currently, anyone selling, at retail, the following animals for
use as pets are considered retail pet stores: Dogs, cats, rabbits, guinea pigs, hamsters, gerbils,
rats, mice, gophers, chinchilla, domestic ferrets, domestic farm animals, birds, and cold-blooded
species.
.......

In addition to retail pet stores, the proposed rule would exempt from regulation anyone
who sells or negotiates the sale or purchase of any animal, except wild or exotic animals, dogs,
or cats, and who derives no more than $500 gross income from the sale of such animals.

Another link
http://www.aphis.usda.gov/animal_wel...w/awlicreg.pdf

Taken from the second document you linked to:

Normal farm-type operations that raise, or buy and sell,
animals only for food and fiber, and businesses that use only fish and other coldblooded animals
are exempt by law; those that use only rats, mice, or birds are exempt by regulation.

Dealers in a Nonregulated Species: There is a blanket exemption for anyone handling only
those animals not included under Federal law or regulations (see Introduction). Examples of
businesses not needing licensing or registration are those restricted to birds, fish, reptiles, and
amphibians.

As for the quote you posted from the Summary of Major Provisions, they can say what they like in such a setting, but until Congress makes another amendment to the Act changing the definition of "animal" that the Act has authority over, reptiles are still unconditionally exempted.

Don't take my comments or previous post as being negatively directed towards you or your original post, I was merely pointing out that this is not particularly an issue that we need to get all up in arms about. There are a few issues that attack us directly, but this is not one of them.
That doesn't mean I support this proposed change, just that I don't see the need for herpers to get all upset over it thinking it will apply directly to us.

I'm not a supporter of increased governmental interference in any form, whether it affects me or not, I merely wanted to show that this does not actually affect us, so that while it's something to oppose, it's not something to direct our energy towards instead of other reptile specific legislation.

USDA only regulate MAMMALS/BIRDS.... They have NEVER regulated reptiles.

still, with all this being said- who knows if they- or another organization- will want to put reptiles into it in the future. Also- it still comes down to more regulations that can not be fair for breeders of other animals.