Laissez Faire Today

The Laissez Faire Club Daily e-Letter

Government Targets the Breeders

102712_lft

It occurs to every kid of a certain age. Let’s say the kid has a hamster, and then two, and they make babies. New value, new commodities. This is fantastic! Maybe the kid can breed hamsters, sell them, and make a few bucks. The capital investment is low and the returns are potentially very high and ongoing. Forget those expensive pet stores. Anyone can get into this business. And especially with the Internet, wow, there is real potential here!

Remember that the commercial marketplace is not only about groceries, shoes, computers, and services. There are markets in everything. Anything that one human wants and other can assist in delivering can become a vibrant market and contribute to the flourishing of life on Earth. The market for pets is vibrant and ever more people can enter it and succeed.

Hold it right there. Maybe you thought that doing such things would be a right in the land of the free. It turns out that pet breeding and selling have been heavily regulated by law since 1966 (thanks, LBJ). All commercial breeders and sellers must be licensed and obey several severe rules on equipment, contracts, qualifications, conditions, and much more, and these have been constantly ramped up over the decades, year by year.

To be sure, the law has traditionally exempted — the terms are rather narrow — home breeders and sellers under the category of “retail store,” a fact which has undoubtedly annoyed the big players in the industry. The big guys never like competition. In 1995, when the Internet opened for business, these smaller institutions suddenly enjoyed new access to markets. Dogs could be shifted from one kennel to another depending on markets. People could sell pets through online contacts.

Maybe you remember the highflying Internet stock from the late 1990s called Pets.com. The dot-com bust laid waste to this institution, which had no capital and no profit at all. But reflect on the reason why it soared to the top. Many people saw a new opportunity here for information and commodity exchange. It’s a pain to go to a pet store and be subjected to their limited choices. Just as with clothing and music, pet owners need a broader range of options, and the Internet can provide that.

It’s not just about dogs and cats. It’s about snakes, guinea pigs, hedgehogs, mice, prairie dogs, flying squirrels, dingoes, and every other critter on the planet. The Animal Welfare Act covers them all, and the exemptions from the law are a matter for the state to decide. As a result, many home-based breeders and sellers have been operating in fear for years. Their fear is that with the stroke of a pen, they will be excluded from the category of retail shops and find themselves under extreme regulations that will shut them down completely.

That stroke of a pen is about to happen. It will come from a division of the Department of Agriculture called the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service. It is a proposed rule, internally generated by the bureaucrats themselves, subject to public comment, but not contingent on any vote in Congress or by the public plebiscite.

I spent several hours reading through all the details of the proposed rule, its exemptions, applications, and conditions. The language in which the whole thing is written is not English of the normal sort. I could barely find my way around — something I’ve come to expect from reading these rules.

I only wanted to know what is this going to mean for people who breed and sell stuff and use the Internet to find a market. If I want to buy an off-white Maltipoo tomorrow, is this rule going to make it harder or easier, more or less expensive? If I want a rare snake, will this new rule make the consumer better or worse off?

I’m once again grateful to Sofie Miller of George Washington University’s Regulatory Studies Center. She puts the upshot of this whole mess very plainly:

“The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service released a proposed rule revising the definition of ‘retail pet store’ for official licensing purposes, effectively excluding most online pet dealers from the market. The proposed definition of ‘retail pet store’ would be limited to ‘a place of business or residence that each buyer physically enters in order to personally observe the animals available for sale prior to purchase and/or to take custody of the animals after purchase, and where only certain animals are sold or offered for sale, at retail, for use as pets.’ Places officially labeled ‘retail pet stores’ are not required to be licensed or inspected under the Animal Welfare Act; excluding online pet retailers from this definition subjects those entities to AWA inspection and licensing.”

There we go: Independent breeders and sellers will be strangled. That’s the point. They can’t be considered excluded from the central plan and therefore will face such high costs that they will shut down or go underground. This is not only awful for consumers and home-based breeding businesses; it is awful for rare species too. So much for the government’s concern for endangered species!

As the Sportsmen’s and Animal Owners’ Voting Alliance points out:

Basically the new rules present breeders with few choices. Sell all animals only to buyers who physically enter your premises, reduce and maintain the number of breeding females to four (4) including co-ownerships and dogs shared with family members; or obtain a license under the Animal Welfare Act, have a federally compliant facility, and allow APHIS inspectors to inspect your homes and facilities.

Selling even one pet off premise via shipping, at a friend’s home, at a show, at a park, will result in loss of an exemption from licensing, placing limitations on both buyers and sellers. The narrow limits of the exemption restrict the ability of hobby breeders to work together remotely, sharing dogs from litters in order to implement their breeding programs and/or increase diversity in their lines.

This Rule would have dire consequences on the ability of rare or uncommon breed breeders to sell their puppies. Generally, if a purchaser desires a puppy of a more unusual breed, they probably will not find one within easy driving distance, and the puppy must be either shipped commercially or otherwise transported, or the breeder will meet the buyer halfway. If each purchaser is required to visit the breeder to observe the animals or pick up his/her purchases, the number of buyers who are able to do this in the case of the more uncommon breeds is very low. Without a ready market to sell pups, these breeds will quickly die out.

In the case of rare or uncommon breeds, this Rule would make it difficult to maintain genetic diversity, since a breeder could not ship a puppy cross country to another breeder for the purposes of improving the genetic diversity in that person’s breeding program.

The question is: Who cares? Well, apparently, not too many people. There is no controversy about this. No presidential candidate was asked about this and there will be no press conferences. It is an agency with a job to do, and it is doing what agencies do: restricting freedom piece by piece.

But look at the big picture. We are in a deep economic stagnation, yet the government is killing off entrepreneurship in small steps taken every day. The online world has opened up new opportunities, but the government is shutting them day by day. We have unemployment, but the bureaucracies are strangling jobs and commercial growth. Freedom itself is in peril, yet the trajectory toward ever less liberty continues. No one with the power to stop it wants to stop it.

Surfing for information, I bumped into a reptile forum that runs classifieds for every variety of snakes one could imagine. The discussion centered on whether this new rule includes only mammals. The tenor of the conversation was clear: If we the snake people can be determined to be exempt, to heck with it. No one cares about other people’s liberties, just their own.

This is a great example of how it all works. It doesn’t matter unless you are in the market for a cool pet. You try to find one, but no: It is not available. You don’t know why. Most people would never suspect the heavy hand of the state. The effects of the regulation are invisible. Even researching in detail turns up nothing. The only people who know the truth are in the industry itself, but these people don’t talk, because they are afraid.

Meanwhile, the market moves underground, same as with so many other sectors. Less transparency, less quality control, less information. In the future, you will be buying your puppies off a park bench, exchanging money for the contents of a brown paper bag. It is the newest result of another enterprising sector harmed by invisible process of restriction that has been going on one hundred years and it is strangling the life out of society itself. Every step matters. Every step is evil. But this evil flies under the cover of night.

Best buy that beloved pet now. If you get two and they mate, prepare to break bad.

Jeffrey Tucker

  • fearnot

    Shelly is an HSUS shill pay no attention to her.. This is a bogus regulation that makes many small breeders into “criminals”

  • http://twitter.com/QueenieFrancie QUEENIE

    wow… first visit here at this site and reading through the comments is disheartening, no respect for others’ points of view/information. Shelly Powers’s (and her boyfriend/girlfriend Skeet’s) remarks are arrogant, disrespectful and condescending. If she doesn’t work for the USDA she surely works for some over-bloated, self-important gov’t bureau.

  • Samantha Prust

    “It turns out that pet breeding and selling have been heavily regulated
    by law since 1966 (thanks, LBJ).” Yes, thank goodness pet breeding and
    selling is heavily regulated, lest the breeders unknowingly unleash
    disease or knowingly inflict cruelty on God’s creatures in the name of
    making money. There is also the matter of pet population control. Do we
    really need more cats and dogs, for instance? There are plenty of pets
    at your local animal shelter.

    And if you want a rare breed,
    there are plenty of individual sellers out there to provide you with
    almost any pet under the sun. If you want some rare animal that no one
    can provide, then I guess you’ll have to just listen to that Rolling
    Stones song a couple of times: “You Can’t Always Get What You Want.”
    Although
    the Tea Partiers and Libertarians have framed the issue around freedom,
    freedom does not mean doing whatever you want, and it never has. That’s
    just a coarse simplification of what freedom means.

    Jeffrey
    writes, “Their fear is that with the stroke of a pen, they will be
    excluded from
    the category of retail shops and find themselves under extreme
    regulations that will shut them down completely.” This is scare tactics
    101. First off, online breeders just need to get a license. They’re not
    in the public eye like a brick-and-mortar retail store is, so anything
    could be going on on the premises, and there would be no way to check to
    make sure that animals aren’t being subjected to inhumane conditions.
    Is Jeffrey actually against that? Or does he just trust that all people
    are good and won’t cut corners at the expense of the animals’ welfare
    just to make more money? If so, he is certainly very trusting. That’s
    very optimistic.

    Unfortunately, not all people are good or have
    good intentions. Animals must be protected because they can’t protect
    themselves. I suppose Jeffrey doesn’t like regulations of day care
    centers, either. Taking away my freedom! Give me a break. If you’re an
    animal breeder, you need a license. Wow, that’s so extreme! It’s not the
    end of the world or of animal breeding.

    Also, bad breeders are already underground. Having a license
    actually helps legitimate breeders. If you’re a legitimate breeder, then
    you’ll get a license, and your facility will meet standards, and all
    will be hunky-dory. And there are distinctions between hobby breeders
    and commercial breeders in some states, which apply different standards,
    but Jeffrey didn’t include this information. He makes it sound as if
    the law instantly puts all online breeders out of business. That’s just
    not true.

  • Joyce Becherini

    Shelley, I am one of those small hobby breeders you are saying won’t be impacted by these new rules. I have only 3 intact females and average one 4 puppy litter a year. Saturday, I will be picking up a 7 month old puppy from a friend/breeder in at a show in a State that is 1/2 way between our homes. I have never been to her home although I’ve known her for many years. If these rules were in place, she would immediately lose her exemption as I am not traveling an additional 10 hours round trip to her home to get the puppy. If the puppy doesn’t turn into the show prospect that I hope and I then place her, I will also lose my exemption because I did not breed the puppy on my premises. I would not have the wherewithal to turn my home into the concrete kennel environment that woulbe requried to comply with USDA specification. Nor would it be warranted for my small hobby kennel. So, Shelly…are you reading this Loud and Clear? Absolutely Crystal Clear? These new rules ARE intrusive, untenable and are going to decimate Small Hobby breeders from the 1st day of its implementation. It is such an enormous over-reach of power that it will gain Congress’s attention. Unfortunately, not before it will do enormous damage to fragile pedigrees and the best source of quality pets available.

    • fearnot

      Shelly does not care about you.. she cares about the HSUS.. she is paid by them and works for them..they are progenitors of this regulation

  • http://www.facebook.com/vickie.littleton.9 Vickie Littleton

    Thanks for writing this–you obviously really GET it. This move by APHIS is going to be devastating to populations of rare dog breeds and rare small mammal species.

  • http://burningbird.net Shelley Powers

    As for ‘looking for a cool pet’, may I suggest your local shelter or qualified rescue organization?

    Over 4 million dogs and cats are euthanized in the US every year, because there are not enough homes for the animals.

    • Seadream

      Over 300,000 dogs were imported/shipped into the United States last year to shelters. Though some shelters are overpopulated, in many areas the shelters do not have enough dogs to meet supply and demand so they import dogs from Mexico and Puerto Rico or from other areas of the country. Adopting dogs has become big business for some shelters. This proposed APHIS will absolutely impact small hobby breeders who will not be able to meet USDA requirements for licensing, nor would we want to raise our puppies in that type of environment. This kind of legislation is continually pushed and backed by the HSUS, whose ultimate goal is to end all domesticated animal ownership and as mentioned above, breeders have made comments on the APHIS web site and written to legislators for months with very little response.

      • http://burningbird.net Shelley Powers

        You do know that Puerto Rico is part of the unincorporated US, right? It’s not a separate country?

        But I find it unlikely any homeless dogs are being smuggled across the border from Mexico into our shelters. And it’s kind of a silly non sequitur to this article and associated discussion.

        No, it will not impact on small breeders. AWA does not cover any breeder who has four or fewer breeding dogs. In fact, the new rule increases the number of exempt dogs for hobby and show breeders from three to four. It’s actually better for hobby/show breeders.

        http://www.aphis.usda.gov/publications/animal_welfare/2012/retail_pets_faq.pdf

        And please, do we really need to touch on the deceptive “Oh, the HSUS is trying to eliminate all animal ownership”, garbage? It’s becoming dull, and anyone with any commonsense who doesn’t have a specific agenda already knows this is bilge water.

        If you’re going to get into corporate funded front group attacks on HSUS, rather than stick to the topic of this story, then I’m out of here. I have no time to waste on correcting obvious and deliberate misinformation.

        • http://www.facebook.com/vickie.littleton.9 Vickie Littleton

          Wayne Pacelle has made it clear in his own words that HSUS is against pet ownership and animal agriculture. So any story about HSUS-backed legislation, bringing that up is fair game and on-topic.

          • http://burningbird.net Shelley Powers

            Only in stories about tooth fairies and the Loch Ness Monster and other myths.

        • Seadream

          Shelley you are the one who brought up the issue that dogs are being euthanized in shelters because, “there are not enough homes”. So that is why it is part of this discussion. And dogs are being brought in from Mexico to shelters. But that aside, the APHIS bill would affect small breeders. If a breeder has two unspayed bitches, and then a litter of five female puppies……they would immediately be over the limit of allowed bitches. The article above specifically explains how it would impact small hobby breeders. Requiring licensing and USDA regulatoins will put the small hobby breeder out of business. And eventually, different breeds of purebred dogs, bred carefully by responsible breeders will become a thing of the past. if this was not of great concern to breeders, then why have thousands of breeders and organizations posted comments during the comment period?

          • http://burningbird.net Shelley Powers

            No, that’s not true.

            The limit is on the number of adult, viable dogs–this does not include puppies.

            You know, the AWA and the new proposed rule are in readable English. No reason to not be informed before you comment.

          • fearnot

            that is a bald faced lie.. and dog “breedable’ count as does any “breedable animal” so if you have a six month old that you are not breeding but they come into heat they count.. on the other hand if you have an 11 year that has not been spayed she also counts and it is NOT just about the internet.. it is about ANY sale where the buyer does not enter your home

        • http://www.facebook.com/annemarie.duhon Anne Marie Duhon

          The rule says 4 breeding FEMALES it does not specify dogs, cats, horses, pigs or hippos for that matter. So if you have four female animals on your property that are CAPABLE of breeding (intact) you fall under the rule. So if you have a 7 mth old bitch that you are watching grow ( say a large breed that is not usually bred til full adulthood ~ 2 yrs) her mother that is being actively bred, a mare and a cat and a couple of hens you are in trouble. HSUS has been quoted time and again as against pet ownership in many places. while you sound extremely knowledgeable Ms. Powers you are misreading the rule saying that it only pertains to dogs. It pertains to all mammals that have the potential of ever being sold as pets.
          And again it will also impact rescues and foster home networks negatively to the point that small rescues that do most of the hard dirty in the trenches work will have to shut down. and how will that help animals??
          Breeders have their spot in the scheme of things. Some people do not want to get any animal from an unknown source and wants to meet the animals parents and see where itwas raised. Some breeders breed for a certain reason, s&r, guide dogs, guard dogs, show animals ( of all types) things like that that a rescue animal would not work.
          This rule will destroy all of that also.

        • http://www.facebook.com/people/Krista-Johnson/1550980251 Krista Johnson

          It WILL affect small breeders. Five females is small, especially when they ALL COUNT, whether they’re being bred or not (too young for OFA testing, working on championships prior to being bred, etc.). A small breeder who sells a second dog to a family who doesn’t care to visit because the first dog went so well? Exemption gone, regulations kick in. Regulations like impermeable surfaces and floor drains and separate food preparation areas eliminate in-home breeding, the kind everyone is supposed to be looking for.

        • fearnot

          what is “dull ” to Shelly is the truth to the rest of us.. she does not want you to know ..Shelly what part of / don’t you understand

  • http://burningbird.net Shelley Powers

    It helps to be informed before you write, rather than be shown errors afterwards.

    Your understanding of the Animal Welfare Act is incorrect.

    First, the act only covers warm blooded animals. It does no cover ‘every critter on the planet’. There are no ‘exemptions from the law that are left for the state’. It doesn’t cover animals raised for the purpose of food. It only covers animals used in research, or sold as pets.

    Typically, the only people covered are those who are commercial pet breeders. This means selling to wholesalers. This does not mean selling to people who come to your home to buy a puppy or kitten.

    There was a loophole that allowed people to sell pets online. The new rule closes this.

    The rules you seem to find heinous are rules that ensure animals are fed, are kept warm in cold weather, cool in extremely hot weather. Oh and that they have enough room to turn around in their cages, and are seen by a vet when sick.

    You disagree with animals being fed? Kept warm in extremely cold conditions? Getting help when sick?

    Why kind of person disagrees with animals being fed?

    • Franklin

      There is no difference between commerical selling and grandma selling one of her cats to a neighbor; those are transactions between or among people. It’s not up to the USDA, which is underwritten by a body forcibly taking my money, to direct what I see and don’t see. It is up to me and others to assess the world around us, by way of communicating, advertising, and living as sentient beings.
      When you learn the nature of bureaucracy, it’s true nature and root lifeblood, you will discover what is appalling.
      Rather than argue from emotionalism, consider the monopoly power you wish to assign to a government that has no compunction whatsoever in life and death decisions. But of course, those life and death decisions are usually directives aimed, repugnantly, toward human beings.

      • http://burningbird.net Shelley Powers

        Now that’s a silly comment to make.

        There’s a world of difference between someone selling cookies at the local Farmer’s Market and Nabisco.

        The Animal Welfare Act’s only purpose is to ensure the health and well being of the animals.

        Do you disagree with this? Do you think it’s OK for dogs to be starved to death? To be allowed to sit, shivering in cold, wet conditions? To be crammed into spaces so small they can’t turn around? To go blind because they’re not treated by a vet?

        You think this is OK?

        This is what it is all about. You can wave your hands and scream property rights all you want, but this is what it is all about.

        • Madelynn Frazier

          The USDA could care less about the welfare and condition of animals. THAT’s been proven by the conditions they have been documented as allowing. The whole purpose of the USDA regulation is to CONTROL access and protect the monopoly of large producers from individuals cutting into their profits. No one here is buying your crap Shelley so go back to your USDA office and stop trying to make us believe what is obviously untrue.

          • http://burningbird.net Shelley Powers

            I was expecting the “Oh you must work for the USDA” from someone in this thread.

            A typically clueless response.

          • Madelynn Frazier

            Seems like we’re ALL clueless but you shelley…..wonder why that is?? and you SHOULD have expected such a comment, you sound like a USDA bot.

          • Skeet

            I’m always amazed at the attacks on somebody speaking from a knowledge standpoint by those who merely repeat ridiculous propaganda. Try to use your brain.

          • fearnot

            hey Skeet .. what is it like living with Shelly

    • fearnot

      see what i mean.Shelly will turn any dog breeder into an “abuser” in one post.. don;t buy it.. she is a shill

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100000074303433 Doris Kelsey

    This includes ‘domestic farm animals’. Goats, sheep, ponies, pot bellied pigs, they are all included!

    • http://burningbird.net Shelley Powers

      No, they are not. Not unless they’re bred specifically for sale as pets.

      • http://www.facebook.com/annemarie.duhon Anne Marie Duhon

        If the owners breed or have one female horse, one female dog, one female chicken and one female goat and one female pig they are now not exempt. All animals count and many farmers breed for commercial purposes and neighbor Jane decides her little boy wants a pet rabbit and then BAM they are included. It WILL include EVERY animal on the planet even if not specifically mentioned This rule will destroy all hobby breeders, all small rescues, all foster homes, all individuals that have one opps litter of any type of animal from ant to zebra.

        • http://burningbird.net Shelley Powers

          Well, I didn’t think anyone could create new misinformation, but you certainly did.

          “One of each is enough!”

          No, not true.

          Besides, if it were true, you’d be in trouble with three animals under the current laws.

          Remember this has to do with selling animals as pets over the internet–not having pets.

      • fearnot

        it boogles the mind that Shelly is so thick.. on purpose..if you breed goats for sale as milk goats but someone buys ONE as a pet.. you are “in the soup”

  • http://www.facebook.com/Tim.McMahon.Author Timothy J McMahon

    Sounds like more of the same. Last year USDA fines family up to four million dollars for selling bunny rabbits. http://www.naturalnews.com/032476_rabbits_USDA.html

    • http://burningbird.net Shelley Powers
      • Madelynn Frazier

        Shelley you do NOT know what you’re talking about. I personally attended 2 local protests at the FDA office and Missouri representative Billy Long’s office concerning this incident.

        • http://burningbird.net Shelley Powers

          The Animal Welfare Act is implemented by the USDA.

          You don’t even know which agency you’re talking about.

          And I know the Dollarhite thing, and your little tiny protest. I have all the documentation on the Dollarhites, and followed the case from the beginning.

          • Madelynn Frazier

            Yes you’re correct that it was the USDA not the FDA. That was a typo on my part. And no private citizen faced with a $4 million dine considers it “tiny”. Your attitude and responses are arrogant and insulting and I can only assume that you are a strong supporter of invasive gov’t regulations. You speak as if YOU not only have full knowledge of this new regulation but full understanding of just what the USDA intends with it. Actually you sound like you work for the USDA. And if you “followed” the Dollarhite case you are fully aware that it was a trumped up charge to intimidate and bully a small breeder of pet rabbits.

            If you didn’t write this legislation then you aren’t in a position to know exactly what their intentions are concerning it and I don’t consider you an expert at interpreting it so maybe it’s time for you to stand down and stop sounding to belittling and superior to the rest of us.

          • http://burningbird.net Shelley Powers

            There was no 4 million dollar fine.

            And just a reminder that the USDA was willing to drop all potential fines, but it was the Dollarhites who kept it going.

          • Madelynn Frazier

            You are totally misinformed. I’m not sure where you got what you consider your information. I was personally involved and can attest to you know knowing what you’re talking about in this case and probably not in anything you’ve said in these postings. The Dollarhites fought the principle of what the USDA was doing but they complied with the requirements to get the fines dropped. The proposed $4 million fine was absurd in the extreme to begin with and was meant as harassment and a scare tactic. They were told by a woman at the main offices of the USDA that the USDA was going to make an example of the Dollarhites.

          • http://burningbird.net Shelley Powers

            I got mine by a FOIA request to the USDA for a copy of its complete file on the Dollarhites.

            I have a 120 pages of documentation on this case.

            And you?

          • Madelynn Frazier

            And I can’t help but WONDER why you would request a 120 page document on an incident that did not affect you involving people you don’t even know. I’m through here.

          • http://burningbird.net Shelley Powers

            Because I write about puppy, kitten, and bunny mills in Missouri.

            So I have actual factual material, and you have unsophisticated umbrage. OK, not an even competition here.

          • fearnot

            yes God forbid you should question Shelly.. HSUS does not like to be questioned

          • Skeet

            You’re way out of your league lady. Shelley knows more about animal-related issues in this state than most other people still walking the earth. I’ve never seen somebody more knowledgeable and more articulate than Shelley. Best you slink off to your rock.

          • http://burningbird.net Shelley Powers

            And no, was not a ‘trumped up charge’.

            The Dollarhites were large scale pet breeders distributing animals to a pet store and a petting zoo in Branson. That’s a wholesale business.

          • http://burningbird.net Shelley Powers

            Lastly, I certainly know a lot more about the Animal Welfare Act than anyone else associated with this article or most of the comments.

          • fearnot

            words like “your tiny little protest’ shoud tell you all you need to know about this HSUS shill

    • Madelynn Frazier

      Yes and that family is friends of mine. It was a nightmare and the FDA stated they planned to make
      “an example” of that family. This is just one more effort to control.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Kay-Lorraine-Lauro/1538261466 Kay Lorraine-Lauro

    Great article, but it does underrate the evil of it all. I know, he does say it is evil, but not exactly just how horridly evil it is. Many of us have tried, over and over, to get our legislators to do something. HA! Half of them are receiving funding from hsus, who is behind all of this. We don’t get answrs from them, or cryptic “say-nothing” form letters. Most don’t even know what the heck we are talking about. At leat one said they have no contorl over it, it is in the hands of the USDA…………….BIG MISTAKE

  • Mooney

    While the shelters are overwhelmed with homeless animals and petstores
    sell puppies from bad breeders instead of helping out their local
    shelter, there should be no breeding. The minimum amount to keep
    bloodlines healthy should be strictly regulated instead of allowing
    numerous idiots to breed just because their animal isn’t altered.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=698297196 Terry Martin

    Great article. And some of us have approached elected officials and candidates on this issue. Getting a response is very difficult. A great number of them have no idea about the agenda of the radical animal rights groups behind this and most of them just don’t respond at all. If the APHIS rule passes or even a portion of it, it is going to have a devastating effect on purebred dog breeders as well as many others. Those who work hard to eliminate unhealthy animals from their bloodlines and spend a great deal of money doing health checks and research will be no longer able to breed animals simply because it is not a business and they can not comply with USDA specifications.