USDA seeks change to regulate Internet and retail pet sales

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

his 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: http://tinyurl.com/7b9kbpj

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.

This is getting crazy. I read about this before this post and the article I read talked only about dogs.

I'm not sure I understand what this means. Are we going to have to get licenses and allow the USDA to start inspecting our homes?

Got any sources that specifically say livestock? The link included only mentions "female dogs, cats, and/or small exotic or wild mammals".

From the other article I read, some bozo in the federal government is going to try to restrict internet sales and shipping of pets. I didn't know it applied to reptiles until I saw this thread.

Here's the article I read:

http://www.seattlepi.com/news/articl...es-3549051.php

Quote:

---

The AWA, enforced by APHIS, seeks to ensure the humane care and treatment of dogs and cats bred commercially, warm-blooded animals exhibited to the public, and others. The AWA does not apply to agricultural animals used for food or fiber.

---

Means it can affect horses. I know a bunch of horse people that I can pass this on to.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don

From the other article I read, some bozo in the federal government is going to try to restrict internet sales and shipping of pets. I didn't know it applied to reptiles until I saw this thread.

Here's the article I read:

http://www.seattlepi.com/news/articl...es-3549051.php

---

Yeah that article makes it sound like they're only going after puppy mills.

They always try to make these things almost impossible to understand. Thats just how they get this idiotic stuff to pass.

A few years ago there was a bill that was thankfully shot down that would of banned the possession of any "wild" animal. Basically the only thing allowed would be dogs, cats, a few small mammals, a handful of species of fish, birds, and reptiles. Its pretty much a more refined version of what California has in place now.

In the end its all about making money. Someone is going to be profiting from this.

Seems only to effect mammals at the moment.......oh but usda and the gov is great at making last minute changes. we need to watch this like hawks but not too much like hawks putting us under the jurisdiction of the migratory bird act and subject to usda inspections and caging requirements and not to forget state licensing and apprenticeship requirements......ahhh the government SUCKS. Hippie B.S. regulation telling us how and where and why we live.:salute:


ahh needed to rant illogically:D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Raptor

Got any sources that specifically say livestock? The link included only mentions "female dogs, cats, and/or small exotic or wild mammals".

---

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

Quote:

---

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.

---

Here is another link
http://www.aphis.usda.gov/animal_wel...w/awlicreg.pdf

This is all very unclear, but the USDA hasn't required licensing for reptile breeders or sellers, so far as I know, so would this really affect us? I'm not even sure that I disagree with it, to be honest, even if it WOULD affect us. It all depends on the requirements. From what I was reading, pet stores only need to be inspected if they sell species the USDA requires licensing for? (I could be wrong).

Reptiles have always been exempt from USDA licensing, so is there any reason to think this would change that?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WingedWolfPsion

Reptiles have always been exempt from USDA licensing, so is there any reason to think this would change that?

---

Burmese Pythons, African Rock Pythons, and Yellow Anacondas have always been exempt from Lacy Act requirements (236 years exempt to be exact), any reason to think that would have been changed a few months ago? The very common boa constrictors and 4 other species would have joined them in illegality if USARK and others had not fought so hard. Some people do not want exotic pet ownership to exist and over regulation is one of the best ways to stifle and eventually eliminate any form of commerce. The USDA, like the Lacey Act, is just another tool in the gov't toolbox. The Gibson Guitar company is a prime example of commerce suppression through over-regulation and their story provides a very possibly real glimpse into exotic animal keepers' futures.

I actually expect to see a birth of tea partyers being born out of the reptile community from this amount of 'over regulation' (since opinions do vary). I personally think they are over zealous nuts that bred a hostile and divided government, but now and then I think they do have a point once in a while. :rolleye2:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jabberwocky Dragons

Burmese Pythons, African Rock Pythons, and Yellow Anacondas have always been exempt from Lacy Act requirements (236 years exempt to be exact), any reason to think that would have been changed a few months ago?

---

Yes, there were a lot of things leading up to that--in particular, legislation was proposed to accomplish it.

The USDA hasn't proposed adding reptiles to the species that require licensing. If they do, then we will have cause to be concerned. At the moment, we don't.

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2012...2012-11839.pdf

http://www.aphis.usda.gov/publicatio...l_pets_faq.pdf

The FAQ states that the animal welfare act does not apply to cold blooded animals. Might be because of the rate pet fish and iguanas die from pet stores it was needed to be that way

its just a matter of time before big brother comes to the realization of the amount of money they're "missing out on" through the sale of expensive morph reptiles. you know nothing gets bought or sold without HIM getting his piece of the pie. The reptile breeding industry has grown so large i cant imagine it will continue to be overlooked for long.

if 1,000 breeders sold $500 worth of snakes every year! consider the revenue on sales tax alone. then factor in breeder registration fees, permits, insurance. our hobby is a cash cow. they'll figure out a way to get it.

The first part isn't a problem. Even if you sell online, most breeders will let a buyer look at the snake before making a purchase. The second part about 4 breeding females is a bit disturbing though. We'll have to wait to see where this goes. I think it is a good idea for dogs and cats to prevent puppy mills, but snakes are different; lawmakers don't really understand our hobby.