USDA seeks change to regulate Internet and retail pet sales

[minguss]

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

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.

[minguss]

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

[WingedWolfPsion]

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).

[WingedWolfPsion]

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

[Jabberwocky Dragons]

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.

[Dragoon]

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.

[WingedWolfPsion]

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.

[minguss]

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

[minguss]

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

[Dragoon]

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