Demand that the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) and its Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) modify its final Rule redefining "retail pet store" to prohibit sales of companion animals (Part III)

HOW YOU CAN HELP ANIMALS!

By demanding that the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) and its Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) modify its final Rule redefining "retail pet store" to prohibit sales of companion animals (Part III)

A major defect in many animal protection statutes is that crucial terms are ill-defined, or not defined at all.  This failure leads to ambiguity, unavoidable litigation, lack of enforcement, and other problems undermining or defeating the goals the legislation was enacted to achieve.
 

Hence, for purposes of ISAR's anti-breeding Monograph and our "Model Statute Prohibiting Commercial Retail Sales of Dogs and Cats" (hereafter "Model Statute"), we employed the following definitions:  

• "Commercial": "relating to the buying, selling, or barter of dogs and cats in return for a monetary or non-monetary benefit."

• "Retail": "the selling of dogs and cats directly to purchasers."[1]

• "Sale": "the transfer of ownership of dogs and cats for monetary or other consideration."

• "Seller": "any person or legal entity that makes a sale."

• "Outlet": "the place where, or through the means of which, a retail sale occurs."

• "Purchaser": "any person or legal entity that is the recipient of a sale."
• "Breeder": "any person who, or legal entity which, intentionally, recklessly or negligently causes or allows a female dog or cat to be inseminated by, respectively, a male canine or feline."[2]
• "Mill": "a place where at the same time more than three female dogs or cats are kept whose sole or major purpose is producing puppies or kittens for sale."[3]

• "Facilitator": "any person or legal entity, not a breeder, seller, outlet or purchaser, as defined herein, who acts as a broker, dealer, wholesaler, agent, bundler, middleman or in any similar role in the sale, purchase, trade, auction, or other transfer of the ownership of dogs or cats, whether or not such animals are in the custody or control of the facilitator at the time of transfer."[4]
   

ISAR published our Anti-Breeding Statute in 2009.  In our Introduction we wrote:

While ISAR's [Anti-Breeding] Statute applies to all breeders, it contains certain provisions aimed specifically at the horrors of mills because they are, by far, the most inhumane kind of breeding that exists today in the United States and elsewhere in the world.

Puppy mills, however, are only the first stage in the mass production and sale of dogs.  Next come the facilitators, followed by the commercial retailers who sell to the public.

That public, however, [usually] has little or no [information] just how immoral and inhumane are certain aspects of the business of commercially producing and selling puppies and adult dogs [and kittens and adult cats] as if they were inanimate objects, no different from sausages.
 

Not only is the factory-like commercial production and sale of dogs [and cats] by itself immoral and inhumane, the business is a leading cause of the nationwide canine [and feline] overpopulation problem. That problem, in turn, has an adverse impact not only on the animals themselves, but also on society at large.  Overpopulation of dogs [and cats] has severe economic, social, political, financial, health, environmental and other consequences which are well-documented and not debatable.
 

Accordingly, by severely reducing the numbers of dogs [and cats] produced by breeders, brokered by facilitators, and sold by commercial retailers, the related problems of immorality, inhumaneness and overpopulation could be dealt a serious blow.

Regrettably, however, even the most aggressive educational efforts by the animal protection movement have not been powerful enough to put sufficient pressure on breeders, facilitators and commercial retailers to reduce voluntarily their production and sales of dogs, let alone to drive them out of business altogether.
 

That said, however, there is a way in which production, trafficking and sale of dogs [and cats] can be greatly reduced -- a way in which puppy mill producers, facilitators and commercial retail sellers of dogs [and cats] could virtually be put out of business.
 

How, then, to accomplish this worthy goal?
 

The short answer -- which is developed at length in this Monograph [containing ISAR's Anti-Breeding Statute] -- is through strict administrative regulation of breeders, facilitators and commercial retail sellers, coupled with harsh penalty and generous "standing to sue" provisions.

As we made clear in that Monograph and Anti-Breeding Statute, ISAR's strict, even extreme "regulation" of breeders, facilitators and retail sellers was designed to be a virtual de facto prohibition of dealing in dogs and cats.  We wrote:
 

Preface to ISAR's [Anti-Breeding Statute]

The Humane Society of the United States suggests that an acceptable statute regulating a puppy breeding facility is one which
 

applies to all breeding operations with animals or animal sales numbering over a specified threshold; requires a licensing fee and pre-inspection; includes routine, unannounced inspections at least twice yearly; is enforced by an agency with adequate funding and properly trained and tested staff; rotates inspectors to cover different areas of the state; and is equipped with strong penalties when facilities are in repeated non-compliance, including but not limited to cease and desist orders.[5]

While these requirements impose conditions and behavior which are better than those found today in most, if not all, statutes, implicit in them are two premises which ISAR categorically rejects: (1) that indiscriminate breeding of dogs [and cats] is morally acceptable so long as it is moderately ("humanely"!?) regulated, and (2) that through such "moderate" regulation the treatment of dog [and cat] "breeding machines" can be made morally and humanely tolerable.
 

If another of  ISAR's monographs The Policy, Law and Morality of Mandatory Spay/Neuter, and Chapters 1, 2 and 3 of [our Anti-Breeding] monograph teach anything, they speak loudly for the proposition that there is an intractable dog and cat overpopulation problem, that the only feasible way to alleviate it today is by mandatory spay/neuter and severe regulation of breeders, facilitators and commercial retail sales outlets, and that legislation seeking to deal with the problem must be strict, comprehensive, loophole-free, and without the kinds of compromises that gut the few statutes which have been enacted and others that are now in the legislative pipelines.
 

In the end, dealing effectively with the breeder-facilitator-commercial retail sales outlet situation, and the dog [and cat] overpopulation problem it so greatly contributes to, is an either/or choice.
 

Either the dog [and cat] breeding, facilitating and sales valve is turned off almost completely, or useless and counterproductive legislative efforts will perpetuate the charade that something constructive is being done while countless millions of hapless prisoner dogs [and cats] continue to be bred, born, traumatized, abused, killed, and incinerated-and while figuratively, and often literally, our land is suffused with their wind-borne ashes.

In ISAR's proposed [Anti-Breeding] Statute, we have made the "either" choice: ISAR proposes to turn off almost completely the dog [and cat] breeding, facilitating and commercial retail selling outlet valve, and in so doing see the dog [and cat] overpopulation problem substantially ameliorated.
 

Before presenting the annotated text of ISAR's proposed [Anti-Breeding] Statute, several important antecedent points have to be made.
 

First.  ISAR realizes that its proposed [Anti-Breeding] Statute far exceeds the prohibitions on breeding, facilitation and sales which appear in other animal protection laws, actual and proposed. ISAR has staked out its extreme position because our organization deeply believes that only very strict regulatory laws will achieve the stated goal, and if there are to be necessary compromises they must be as few, narrow, and morally and humanely defensible as possible.
 

Second.  ISAR acknowledges that even if its proposed [Anti-Breeding] Statute were to be adopted by the federal government, or in a slightly different form by every state in America, there would still be unwanted dogs [and cats]. ISAR believes, however, that if its [Anti-Breeding] Statute accomplishes its intended purpose there would be adoptive homes for those far fewer dogs [and cats].  (In this connection, see ISAR's blog: Redemption: The Myth of Pet Overpopulation in America by Nathan J. Winograd).
 

Third.  ISAR believes that while Americans have the right to enjoy the companionship and services of dogs [and cats] of their choosing, no one has either the moral or legal right to be an accessory to the tortured lives and ultimate fates that await the living reproductive machines of most breeders and all puppy [and cat] mills, and many of their offspring.
 

Fourth.  As Chapter 2 proves, there are neither constitutional nor legal impediments to even the most restrictive breeding and sales laws. Attacks on them in court will fail if the statutes are drafted carefully and defended intelligently.
 

Fifth.  Readers of ISAR's [Anti-Breeding] Statute may be surprised at its comparative simplicity. There are several reasons for its comparative brevity. Since ISAR's [Anti-Breeding] Statute could be enacted on the federal level, and thus be uniformly applicable nationwide, no provisions for state or local involvement are necessary.  However, absent Congressional enactment, the statute could easily be adapted for, and enacted on, a state level.  Even then, there would be no need for local involvement.[6]
 

Sixth.  ISAR's [Anti-Breeding] Statute is not the last word on the subject, neither from [its own text,] nor [from] any one person or other organization who can offer constructive suggestions -- so long as others recognize the underlying premise upon which ISAR's proposal is based: turning off almost completely the dog [and cat] breeding, facilitating and commercial retail sales outlet valve [emphasis in original]. That is ISAR's goal, and that is what it has endeavored to codify in the [Anti-Breeding] Statute.
 

Seventh.  ISAR is well aware that our statute will be unpopular not only with dog breeders, facilitators and commercial retail sales outlets, aiders and abettors, and others complicit in the dog-trade, but also with other animal protection organizations.  So be it!
 

ISAR's pessimistic 2009 prediction proved correct, doubtless because our Anti-Breeding Statute challenged the root premises of commercial production of dogs and cats, from their conception to their sale at retail.
 

Many individuals and organizations who should have known better, and from whom we expected support, opposed ISAR's Anti-Breeding Statute.  Because the nature and quality of their objections lacked consistency, let alone substance, they will not be discussed here.
 

On the other hand, since 2009 some of ISAR's supporters argued for an outright ban on retail sales of dogs and cats, and have sought ISAR's help in making the argument in support of that goal.
 

Accordingly, our Monograph and ISAR's "Model Statute Prohibiting Retail Sales of Dogs and Cats," is a brief in support of that goal.[7]
 

That goal has become even more important because on November 18, 2013 a new rule of the United States Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service became final. According to APHIS
 

USDA has changed the Animal Welfare Act regulations by revising its definition of retail pet store in order to keep pace with the modern marketplace and to ensure that animals sold via the Internet or other non-traditional methods receive humane care and treatment. USDA Animal Care has posted several materials on this webpage in an effort to provide all interested parties with pertinent information. We encourage you to please read through these materials in order to: 1) gain a better understanding of this regulation change; 2) learn the reasons that prompted the change; and 3) see if you need a USDA license or if you are exempt from licensing.
 

As ISAR will explain in a forthcoming essay, the deficiencies in APHIS's regulation of pet shops and those associated in the sale of companion animals are so glaring and counterproductive that the only humane solution is, as ISAR's model statute proposes, outright prohibition of retail sale.

Part IV sets forth ISAR's Model Statute.

---

1 Many if not most of the dogs and cats seen on retail levels-pet shops, malls, auctions, roadside cages, or elsewhere-have traveled through a pipeline that began with breeders, either commercial or amateurs. For an extensive discussion of that pipeline, see Chapters 1, 2, and 3 of ISAR's "Model Statute Regulating Dog Breeding, Facilitation, and Sales (hereafter, "Anti-Breeding Statute"). http://www.isaronline.org/puppy_mill_statute.html 

2 This definition is deliberately broad because it intends to include all breeding-from family pets to the most egregious types, puppy mills and kitten factories.

3 A puppy mill has been defined by one court as "a dog breeding operation in which the health of the dogs is disregarded in order to maintain a low overhead and maximize profits." Avenson v. Zegart, 577 F. Supp. 958, 960 (D. Minn. 1984).  While that description of a puppy mill accurately identifies one aspect of such an operation, applying equally to a place where cats are bred commercially, it does not adequately invoke the horrors of mills and is thus insufficient for the purposes of ISAR's Model Statute.

4 The Animal Health and Plant Inspection Service (hereafter "APHIS"), a division of the United States Department of Agriculture (hereafter "USDA") has grouped "pet wholesalers" and "animal brokers" under the heading of "dealers."  Pet wholesalers are defined as "anyone importing, buying, selling, or trading pets in wholesale channels." Licensing and Registration Under the Animal Welfare Act, USDA, available at http://www.aphis.usda.gov/animal_welfare/downloads/aw/awlicreg.pdf .  Animal brokers are defined as "anyone who deals in regulated animals but does not take physical possession." Id.  Both pet wholesalers and animal brokers are required to be licensed by USDA. Id.  The Humane Society of the United States (hereafter "HSUS") defines brokers as those who purchase dogs from puppy mills and kennels and then resell them to retail pet stores. More on How Petland Continues to Support Cruel Puppy Mills, HSUS, Jun. 29, 2009, available at http://www.hsus.org/pets/. The term "facilitator" as used in ISAR's Model Statute is intended to include all of the persons and legal entities described above.

5 State Legislation, Humane Society of the United States, available at http://www.humanesociety.org/about/departments/legislation/state_legislation.html.

6 In addition, compromises and exemptions which always require considerable verbiage to accommodate, have been held to a bare minimum, unlike in the recent unlamented California "mandatory" spay/neuter statute which, until its demise at the hands of compromisers and lobbyists, attempted to accommodate various anti-mandatory spay/neuter constituencies and in doing so turned itself inside out.

7 Please note that throughout the Monograph 12-point Georgia font was used.  The same specifications apply to the text of ISAR's Model Statute. However, in order to identify ISAR's annotation of each section of the West Hollywood ordinance and our Model Statute, ISAR's comments appear immediately after each section in 12-point Courier font, in which this sentence is written).

By demanding that the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) and its Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) modify its final Rule redefining "retail pet store" to prohibit sales of companion animals (Part II)

HOW YOU CAN HELP ANIMALS!

By demanding that the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) and its Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) modify its final Rule redefining "retail pet store" to prohibit sales of companion animals (Part II)

As we said at the end of Part I, the new Rule's core rationale "can be summarized by two words: 'public oversight' -- the foundational premise upon which the new Rule rests."
 

That being the premise, traditional "brick and mortar" pet stores will not be reached by the new Rule; they will continue to be exempt from the AWA's federal licensing and inspection requirements because prospective buyers in actually seeing the animals for sale already provide the "public oversight" that the new Rule imposes.
 

It is the Internet vendors and other "unseen" sellers that must be licensed and inspected for "minimum standards of care" under the new Rule.
 

According to APHIS there are many exceptions granted by the new Rule because the nature of the exemption recipients' operations provides the requisite "public oversight." Included are animal rescue groups, public and private pounds and shelters, and humane societies. Also, those who breed and sell working dogs; sell rabbits for food, fiber and fur; breed to preserve bloodlines; children involved in 4H projects; operations that raise, buy, and sell farm animals for food, fiber, and fur; and businesses dealing only with fish, reptiles and other cold-blooded animals.
 

There are other exemptions: No license is required if someone sells dogs, cats, domestic pocket pets born and raised on one's own premises where buyers can physically observe them before or during purchase. Nor if one sells birds, rats, mice, amphibians, and reptiles.
 

Besides these and other exemptions the new Rule increases from 3 to 4 a seller's breeding females (dogs, cats or small exotic/wild pocket pets) before being required to be licensed and inspected under the AWA. These people are considered by APHIS as "hobby breeders," whose activities usually occur under circumstances and in places (such as private homes) where public oversight is present, thus removing the need for APHIS oversight. (APHIS already regulates wholesale commercial breeders.)
 

From the foregoing, it is obvious that the new Rule -- as most government administrative rules --  is lengthy and complicated. It raises at least as many questions as it answers. For example, must the actual purchaser himself observe the animal? Probably not; he can have someone else do it because there would still be public oversight. Must the observation be in a pet store? No, as long as the purchaser or someone acting on his behalf is physically present. Can breeders with 5 or more breeding females sell on the Internet? Yes, but a license is required. Can breeders with 5 or more breeding females sell on the Internet without a license? Yes, if the "physically seen" requirement is satisfied. Can a 4-or-less breeder sell on the Internet without a license? Yes.
 

The new Rule raises other questions, most of which are answered by recourse to the underlying principle for which the Rule was designed: Public oversight.
 

APHIS sums up the new Rule this way:
 

The entities affected by the rule are likely to be considered small. They are persons who sell their animals to any buyer who does not physically observe the animals prior to purchase and/or to take custody of the animals after purchase, such as sales conducted exclusively over the Internet.
 

Persons who maintain four or fewer breeding female dogs, cats, and/or small exotic or wild mammals will be exempt from the new licensing requirements.
 

Persons who derive less than $500 gross income from the sale of animals, other than dogs, cats, or wild or exotic animals will also be exempt from the new licensing requirements. In addition, some current licensees will no longer be required to be licensed due to the increase of the exemption threshold from three to four breeding females.
 

Doubtless, when the animal protection movement became aware of the proposed new Rule, and then its final version, there was great satisfaction. That satisfaction was understandable because, at least on the surface, it does provide some measure of protection not so much for the animals, but instead for the consumer. In other words, the new APHIS Rule is not an animal protection provision but instead a consumer protection measure-just like APHIS's recent Rule regarding the importation of puppies. Consumer protection is not synonymous with animal rights. 
 

Lest anyone misunderstand ISAR's position on the subject of commercial retail sales of companion animals, we want it clearly understood that we oppose them. So much so that we have prepared a Memorandum and a Model Statute designed to end such sales.
 

Part III, to be published on October 15, provides the highlights of each.

Demand that the USDA and APHIS modify its final Rule redefining "retail pet store" to prohibit sale of companion animals (Part I)

HOW YOU CAN HELP ANIMALS!

By demanding that the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) and its Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) modify its final Rule redefining "retail pet store" to prohibit sales of companion animals (Part I)

 

Among other duties delegated by Congress to USDA through APHIS is enforcement of the Animal Welfare Act (AWA).
 

ISAR, together with many other animal protection organizations, has long objected to the fundamental premise of the AWA: That humans can do virtually whatever they want to animals so long as it's done "humanely." To accomplish that specious goal, the principal task of APHIS has been to license certain categories of animal-related activities (e.g., puppy mills) and then inspect those activities for compliance with the "humane" criteria of the AWA.
 

For the purpose of this essay, ISAR is going to put aside all of our and others' complaints about AWA and APHIS, of which there are many, and focus solely on a recent development of crucial importance to companion animals and organizations such as ISAR whose mission is to protect those animals from abuse and exploitation. 

Since the Internet became widely used, it has been too easy for companion animals, mostly dogs, to be sold by means of the Internet. Not only to be sold, but to be sold sight-unseen.  

Everyone in the animal protection movement has heard heartbreaking stories of dogs (and other animals) purchased sight unseen through the Internet, then integrated into a loving family only to become ill from existing ailments, suffer, and often die.
 
In 2010 the USDA Office of Inspector General conducted an audit which revealed that 80% of the breeders who were sampled had not been inspected for the health of their animals or to ascertain if they were providing humane treatment.
 

The breeders got away with their deplorable conduct because even though they were Internet sellers they claimed to be "retail pet stores" as defined in the previous APHIS regulations. As such, there was no APHIS oversight, nor any consumer oversight.
 

To deal with this serious problem, in May 2012 APHIS published a new proposed Rule to bring retail sellers under its jurisdiction. In 90 days, some 210,000+ comments from the public were received. Also, some 213,000 petition signatures were submitted by organizations on each side of the issue.
 

In the process of initiating and developing the proposed and final Rule, APHIS produced hundreds of pages of information and commentary.

Finally, in June 2013 APHIS published a "Regulatory Impact Analysis and Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis to accompany a new final Rule constituting a "Revision of the Definition of Retail Pet Store." Its Summary explains the Rule's rationale [all following italics and bracketed commentary has been supplied by ISAR].

APHIS is revising the definition of retail pet store and related regulations in order to ensure that the definition of retail pet store in the regulations is consistent with the Animal Welfare Act (AWA),thereby bringing more pet animals sold at retail under the protection of the AWA. [Accepting for sake of argument that AWA does in fact protect animals, in APHIS's view revising-actually enlarging -- the definition of "retail pet store" will increase its protection of animals.]

To ensure that animals sold at retail receive humane handling, care, and treatment, we are revising the definition of retail pet store so that it only includes those places of business or residence at which the seller, buyer, and the animal available for sale are physically present so that every buyer may personally observe the animal prior to purchasing and/or taking custody of that animal after purchase. [This sentence is awkwardly expressed. It intends to say that under the new definition a "retail pet store" can only be a "business or residence at which theseller, buyer, and the animal available for sale are physically presentso that every buyer may personally observe the animal prior to purchasing and/or taking custody of that animal after purchase." As we shall see, this sentence is the core of APHIS's redefinition of "retail pet store." The idea is that unseen purchases of animals, primarily but not exclusively from the Internet, will be disallowed except under what APHIS considers narrow circumstances.]

We are also increasing from three to four the number of breeding female dogs, cats, and/or small exotic or wild mammals that a person may maintain on his or her premises and be exempt from licensing and inspection requirements if he or she sells only the offspring of those animals born and raised on his or her premises, regardless if the offspring of those animals are sold at retail or wholesale. [This exemption, as we'll explain later, is intended to foster the rationale of APHIS' redefinition].

In addition, we are removing the limitation on the source of gross income from the licensing exemption in the regulations for any person who does not sell or negotiate the purchase or sale of any wild or exotic animal, dog, or cat and who derives no more than $500 gross income from the sale of animals other than wild or exotic animals, dogs, or cats during any calendar year. [This change, as we'll explain later, is intended to foster the rationale of APHIS' redefinition].

This rule will primarily affect dog breeders who maintain more than four breeding females at their facilities, sell the offspring as pets, and whose buyers are not all physically present to observe the animals prior to purchase and/or to take custody of the animals after purchase. [To be explained later].

The rule may also affect some cat and rabbit breeders. While the scope of this rule applies to certain other animals, based on our experience,most retailers of animals other than dogs will meet the amended definition of retail pet store and continue to be exempt from regulation.

In other words, by redefining "retail pet store" to prevent sale of companion animals that are not physically seen by purchasers the retail pet store sellers and their operations are brought within the AWA and become subject to licensing and inspections.
 

Accepting for sake of argument that allowing most breeding and retail sale of companion animals is both moral and good public policy -- which ISAR emphatically denies -- APHIS's redefinition appears on the surface to serve a legitimate purpose. Assuming, of course, that APHIS's standards for "humane" treatment are high enough, and that there is a high level of licensing requirements and inspection. And penalties for violation. ISAR remains skeptical.
 

As to the policy, APHIS argued that the benefits of the new Rule outweigh its costs. Among the former, obviously, is that healthier pets will be sold and thus purchasers will be spared unnecessary heartbreak and expenses. More pets will survive illness, suffering, shelters, and death. The new Rule shifts responsibility for the animals' health from the unsuspecting buyer to the seller. Shelters and taxpayers will be spared the costs imposed by unscrupulous Internet sellers. Transfer of animal diseases, rabies for example, will be reduced.
 

That policy can be summarized by two words: "public oversight" -- the foundational premise upon which the new Rule rests.
 

Part II, to be published on October 1, will discuss the nuts and bolts of the new Rule. 

Help ISAR work toward the elimination of puppy mills and most retail sales of companion animals here and abroad

HOW YOU CAN HELP ANIMALS!

By helping ISAR work toward the elimination of puppy mills and most retail sales of companion animals here and abroad.

ISAR's supporters know how long we've been working to eliminate puppy mills and most retail sales of companion animals. (See www.isaronline.org)
 

Now, finally, even the United States Department of Agriculture has admitted that one aspect of the puppy mill problem -- the thousands of puppies shipped into this country from abroad (e.g., South Korea, China and Eastern Europe) -- present a serious problem. Until now, among them at least 25% have died in transit before even reaching this country.
 

In mid-August of this year, after many years of ignoring the problem, according to the Associated Press "[t]he U.S. Department of Agriculture approved a regulation . . . that, starting in 90 days, will require all puppies imported to the United States to be at least 6 months old, healthy, and up-to-date on vaccinations."

While those of us who work tirelessly for animal rights and know too well the scourge of puppy mills and most other breeders might welcome the USDA regulation the fact is that sadly it misses the mark.

For one thing, the government's concern is not for the puppies -- according to the AP usually less than 8 weeks old -- but for the American consumer. That's the wrong emphasis. Breeding of puppies generally and their importation in particular is a moral issue of animal rights, and is rooted in the philosophical premise that animals are akin to inanimate objects and thus can be treated as chairs and bowling balls (See Some Thoughts on the Rights of Animals). That's why the puppies are crammed into crates in the holds of intercontinental airplanes with little or no concern for their wellbeing. Protecting not the helpless puppies, but the American consumer.

Second, as a practical matter, even if the new regulation was acceptable morally and legally, which it is not, it is unenforceable given the general corruption and document forgeries that the breeders' countries are known for. To say the least, it is naïve to believe that puppy mill operators abroad (especially in countries whose populations eat dogs) will not falsify the documents required by the new USDA regulation. It requires that the puppies be "at least 6 months old, healthy, and up-to-date on vaccinations." There is simply no way overworked, and perhaps indifferent, USDA inspectors can get behind the paperwork to ascertain how old puppies are, whether they are "healthy" (whatever that means), or whether they ever received the vaccinations the regulation requires.

Third, those of us who labor in the animal protection movement know how unsuccessful USDA is in enforcing other laws within its jurisdiction pertaining to the welfare of animals. The new regulation will not be adequately enforced, if at all.

Fourth, the heralded fine of up to $10,000 presupposes that violators will be identified (in South Korea, China, and Eastern Europe countries!), fined, and then the fines actually collected -- a utopian assumption that defies reality. And even if the shippers do pay a fine, why would one think they will be deterred?

An official with a national humane organization has said that the new USDA regulation "eliminates the easy access to market that foreign breeders have had for years." Nonsense! Not only is that statement not so, but those who support the regulation have now given the shippers and USDA a fig leaf to cover the vile importation practice by making it appear that the problem has been dealt with. Indeed, an official with a national humane organization has said that by promulgating the regulation the organization and USDA "are taking steps in the right direction."

Sorry, but that's not the "right direction."

 There are only two "right directions."

If American puppy-buyers are determined to support breeders by purchasing dogs (and cats, for that matter), rather than by going to a shelter the least they can do morally is make certain that the animal has not been imported. There are more than enough homeless companion animals right here in the United States. More than more than enough.
 

Even more important, those purchasers should reconsider the entire breeding issue, and then support ISAR's efforts to prohibit puppy mills both abroad and in the United States.

ISAR's International Homeless Animals' Day Publicizes Pet Overpopulation on a Global Scale

Each year since 1992, on the third Saturday of August, ISAR's conceived and annual International Homeless Animals' Day® observances have proven a useful weapon in reducing suffering in the lives of homeless companion animals. As a result of International Homeless Animals' Day events, thousands upon thousands of shelter animals have been adopted into loving new homes and countless more have been spayed/neutered.

ISAR's International Homeless Animals' Day campaign serves as an opportunity for animal advocates from around the globe to band together on a special day and jump start new spay/neuter/adoption campaigns while rekindling existing programs in their communities that raise awareness about pet overpopulation.

Humane societies, animal protection organizations, and concerned individuals mark the Day with candlelight vigils, spay/neuter and microchip clinics, adopt-a-thons, pet walks, information stalls, and often host guest speakers; including elected officials, veterinarians, shelter personnel, media personalities, local celebrities, and many more.

For instance, this year participants at Defenders of Animals 20th Annual International Homeless Animals' Day Candlelight Vigil in Rhode Island will honor local police and fire personnel, city council members and State Sen. Dominick J.Ruggerio, for their commendable work protecting animals. Advancing the Interests of Animals in Southern California will feature special guest speakers: former LA animal cruelty prosecutor and humane education specialist, Bob Ferber, and Los Angeles Councilmember Paul Koretz representing the City's historic Fifth District.

Pawlooza, Canada, is gearing up once again to welcome more than 25,000 people and over 6,000 canines to their "ultimate dog party," while hosting dozens of animal rescue groups featuring companion animals available for adoption.

Taking place on International Homeless Animals' Day this year, Empty the Shelter Day will be the largest adoption event held across North Texas with an unprecedented number of municipal and non-profit animal shelters joining forces to offer free adoptions on Saturday, August 16, 2014.

ISAR's new website, www.homelessanimalsday.org, is now publicizing these and many other events taking place on International Homeless Animals' Day 2014. If you find there is not an International Homeless Animals' Day event in your area, ISAR invites you to light a candle in its 13th annual virtual online vigil. ISAR also encourages the public to visit their local animal shelters, become a volunteer, donate much needed supplies, sponsor a spay or neuter surgery, and/or promote ISAR's website, www.isaronline.org, to enlighten others about the pet overpopulation epidemic and its spay/neuter solution.

There has never been a more important time than now to make a positive difference in the lives of companion animals!

Working for enactment of ISAR's Model Euthanasia Statistics Statute

HOW YOU CAN HELP ANIMALS!

By working for enactment of ISAR's Model Euthanasia Statistics Statute

There are several ways to characterize the undeniable fact that uncountable and unwanted dogs and cats, puppies and kittens, are euthanized annually in the United States by shelters and other humane organizations: sad, disgusting, ghastly, horrendous, sickening, appalling, uncivilized, barbaric, horrific, and more. Words alone, of course, cannot begin to adequately describe the true nature and extent of the killing rooms.

Largely, the euthanasia phenomenon is attributable to the seemingly intractable problem of dog and cat overpopulation. Killing healthy dogs and cats, puppies and kittens, is a loathsome business, but apparently very necessary in the United States today as even the "No-Kill" forces reluctantly admit.

We have used the word "uncountable" above because no one, even shelters, know, or perhaps can ever know, how many dogs and cats are actually euthanized.

ISAR believes that as a matter of policy the public would be well-served -- both for informational and activism purposes -- if there were at least some reliable figures available on a state level of how many dogs and cats were euthanized annually.

Among other reasons, the numbers are bound to be shocking -- and that knowledge could, in turn, lead activists to work even harder to promote spay/neuter, adoption, and other policies aimed at reducing the unwanted population.

In furtherance of that goal, ISAR has prepared a model statute.

 

ISAR Model Euthanasia Statistics Statute

A bill providing for the compiling of certain information relating to the activities of public and private animal shelters, for additional duties of the Attorney General, and for penalties.

The legislature finds as follows: 

(1) That there is today in this jurisdiction a serious problem of dog and cat overpopulation which has consequences for the public fisc, health, safety, welfare, and environment.

(2) That the problem is dealt with principally by public and private animal shelters.

(3) That a principal method by which those shelters deal with the problem of dog and cat overpopulation is by euthanizing the unwanted animals.

(4) That the euthanizing of large numbers of unwanted dogs and cats annually causes public fiscal, health, safety, welfare, and environmental problems which the legislature may from time to time wish to address in legislation.

(5) That at present there are no reliable statistics of how many unwanted dogs and cats public and private shelters in this jurisdiction euthanize annually, and thus no concrete data upon which the legislature can base any legislative conclusions it may wish to draw in order to deal with the public fiscal, health, safety, welfare, environmental, and other issues presented by the euthanasia of unwanted dogs and cats.

The legislature of __________hereby enacts the following Euthanasia Statistics Statute:

Section 1. Definitions.

The following words and phrases when used in this act shall have the meanings given to them in this section unless the context clearly indicates otherwise.

"Animal shelter" includes all shelters for dogs and cats operated for their care, adoption, and euthanasia regardless of source of funds and whether for profit or not for profit.

"Office." The Office of Attorney General.

"Reported year." The calendar year for which a report is made under Section 2.

Section 2. Reporting requirements.

 a) Content -- All animal shelter operators shall for each calendar, no later than April 1 of the following year, render a written report to the Office. This report shall include the following information:

(1) The number of dogs, by breed, on hand as of January 1 of the reported year.

(2) The number of dogs, by breed, on hand as of 11:59 p.m. on December 31 of the reported year.

(3) The number of cats, by breed, on hand as of January 1 of the reported year.

(4) The number of cats, by breed, on hand as of 11:59 p.m. on December 31 of the reported year.

(5) The number of dogs redeemed by their owners and not returned during the reported year.

(6) The number of cats redeemed by their owners and not returned during the reported year.

(7) The number of dogs redeemed by their owners and returned during the reported year.

(8) The number of cats redeemed by their owners and returned during the reported year.

(9) The number of dogs adopted and not returned during the reported year.

(10) The number of cats adopted and not returned during the reported year.

(11) The number of dogs adopted and returned during the reported year.

(12) The number of cats adopted and returned during the reported year.

(13) The number of dogs euthanized during the reported year.

(14) The number of cats euthanized during the reported year.

(15) The number of dogs transferred or otherwise provided to dealers and the number of dogs transferred or otherwise provided to laboratories and biological supply houses during the reported year.
 

(16) The number of cats transferred or otherwise provided to dealers and the number of cats transferred or otherwise provided to laboratories and biological supply houses during the reported year.

(17) The number of dogs which have escaped, died naturally, or were subject to other disposition which shall be specified.

(18) The number of cats which have escaped, died naturally, or were subject to other disposition which shall be specified.

(19) The amount of public funds and the amount of private funds, and the sources thereof, which were expended in support of the activities which were the subject of the report.
 

b) Method of euthanasia. -- The report shall specify the method of euthanasia and the manner of disposition of the remains.
 

c) Form. -- The Office shall develop and provide a standard reporting form. The form shall include a statement that the maker of the report certifies it to be true and correct.

d) Fee. -- The office may charge a reasonable fee to cover the cost of collecting and processing the reports, which shall be available in print and online.

Section 3. Compilation.

The Office shall compile the reports on a statewide and on a county-by-county basis. Reports shall be maintained by the Office for at least ten years. Reports made under this statute shall be public records and shall be open to public inspection, and access to such reports shall not be denied pursuit to any exemption in this jurisdiction's Freedom of Information Act or similar law.

Section 4. Penalties

a) Failure to file. -- Failure to file a report under this statute constitutes [here include appropriate punishment under the jurisdiction's civil and/or criminal laws].

b) False statement. -- Any person or animal shelter who knowingly submits a false or fraudulent report or who supplies false or fraudulent information in a report commits [here include appropriate punishment under the jurisdiction's criminal laws].

Section 5. Rules and regulations.

 The Office of Attorney General shall promulgate rules and regulations to administer and enforce this Statute.

Section 6. Effective date.

This statute shall take effect immediately upon being duly approved in accordance with law.

* * *

Lest there be any question about the constitutionality of spay/neuter legislation in general, and the foregoing statute in particular, it can quickly be laid to rest. The Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States gives the states (and thus political subdivisions like counties, cities, towns and villages) the power to enact virtually any laws they wish that are reasonably related to the public health, safety and welfare.