Proposed Changes to Animal Welfare Act/APHIS/USDA

Rabbit Talk  Forum

Help Support Rabbit Talk Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
toastedoat37":27848epe said:
Making the wrong comments like yall are doing in here will hurt ya more than help ya,,,,,,if the rabbit business is not self regulating,,,,the usda will step in,,,it cant be regulating if everyones rabbitry is private,,,,,why the hell do you all want to be so secretive about your rabbits?

The USDA people didn't wake up in the morning and go, "MAN, these rabbit breeders are just going WAY TOO CRAZY. Let's write a law that forces them to compromise their biosecurity, so all their rabbits get sick and die! (MUAHAHAHAH)"

No, it's because of purebred/designer/teacup dogs and cats with price tags above a grand. The bill is written about the dog industry. Nobody gives a crap about rabbits. The USDA wrote a bill about DOGS because their inspectors had enough free time and funding that they could troll the internet for small-time magicians, which seriously, is way less glamorous than fining puppy mills up the arse.

Also, I don't think we have to worry about rabbit railroads -- you don't buy a pet on the rabbit railroad, you buy show bunnies or brood stock.
 
kyle,,,i understand it being your hobby and you not wanting to follow rules and regulations. I myself have never been an employee,,,ive had several differnt businesses in three different states in my life. Each one of them started out as a hobby. But when your hobby starts to turn into a business, well we just have to follow the laws of the land (God said so). Ive been in the process of closing down my business the last year and half because cant stand all the regulations and inspections, but i do understand the reason that they are needed.
Ive been away from raising rabbits for quite few years, and now that im interested in it again, im amazed at how the rabbit world has changed. I feel that something does need to be done about it. With all the WRONG things being taught by people online about rabbits, and all the iresponsible breeders , people starting out are not gonna be able to figure out what information is correct and whats not. I dont know how it can be fixed, but i think that the government trying to do something about it is the lessor of two evils,,,,the other , letting it go on the way it is.

Your comment about no one agreeing with me , and never will,,,,well, no one has to agree with me, no one has like me, no one has to respond to me, a few will learn from me, and i have been learning some things from some. I know a lot of the stuff ive said in this thread is fact, some of its opinion.
But im not gonna just go along with what the majority says just to "fit in". I know that some here do.<br /><br />__________ Thu Jun 28, 2012 10:24 pm __________<br /><br />the arguement that you dont want someone coming through your rabbitry because of biosecurity is really an arguement for the need to have some inspections. Your saying that there are so many sick rabbits out there that your afraid yours will get sick , law makers are gonna say, well if this is the case, something needs to be done about it.
 
toastedoat37":1jpfu1hs said:
I got a question, how many of you that sell rabbits are willing to write out a bill of sale?

Most of us do. It's a document which is commonly referred to as a pedigree.
 
toastedoat37":3mkwbajo said:
the arguement that you dont want someone coming through your rabbitry because of biosecurity is really an arguement for the need to have some inspections. Your saying that there are so many sick rabbits out there that your afraid yours will get sick , law makers are gonna say, well if this is the case, something needs to be done about it.

Actually, it has nothing to do with sick rabbits, and everything to do with rabbits in different rabbitries being resistant to different things.

Like that Indian tribe that was wiped out because the settlers they came in contact with had been exposed to smallpox and were resistant to it. Smallpox had never been over here, so when the Indians were exposed, it tore through them like wildfire, and killed them all. All except for one, a very famous one... Squanto. He survived because he had been kidnapped and taken to Europe. When he came back, his tribe was gone.

If that tribe had never been exposed to the European settlers, they would presumably have remained healthy and still been there when Squanto returned. The Europeans weren't sick, though. But they and the Indians were resistant to different pathogens.

There are pathogens -- bacteria, viruses, fungi -- all around us. Each farm will have a unique mix of these. The animals that thrive there are the ones that are resistant to the germs that are there. A mile away, is another farm with its own mix of germs. Farmer A wants to buy a rabbit from Farmer B, and goes to Farmer B's place to check out his rabbits. Farmer B lets him tour his rabbitry, maybe handle some of his rabbits. A few days later, Farmer A's other rabbits start showing symptoms of illness. His rabbits were not resistant to some germ that Farmer B brought over on his clothes.

Does this mean Farmer B's animals are sick? No. It just means they are resistant to that particular germ, while Farmer A's are not. So what doesn't bother Farmer B's animals at all begins killing Farmer A's rabbits. The government inspecting either facility will not do any good at all. All the animals are healthy, as long as they aren't exposed to each other like happened when Farmer B toured Farmer A's rabbitry.

Farmer B takes his new rabbit home. If he puts that rabbit right into his rabbitry, he is endangering his other rabbits -- not because the new rabbit is sick, but because it could be carrying something it is resistant to, that his herd is not. If he is wise, he will quarantine the rabbit for a month, so it is slowly introduced to the germs at the new farm, and so Farmer B's rabbits are slowly introduced to the germs from the new rabbit.

This is one of the big reasons for closed rabbitries and biosecurity.
 
Coming in very late.
I suspect the law is as HR Ranchito says, about the mill businesses.
There is a certain expectation in dog land particularly that a good breeder wants you to meet the family, see the set up etc. suspicion is raised if that's not welcome.
 
toastedoat37":1abmx1fn said:
satin, a pedigree paper has nothing to do with a bill of sale

Yes, it actually does. It may not state what the buyer paid for the rabbit (which is nobody else's stinking business in the first place), but it very much is a recorded transfer of a rabbit from its breeder to the new owner, complete with the date of transfer and all the pertinent info on that rabbit's lineage. It's even signed and in most cases is dated by the seller.

A big part of your problem is that you have the mentality that it's just easier to develop a reactionary, knee-jerk response to everything, rather than just having the fortitude to stand your ground where it pertains to your rights. There is an old saying which states that people who will sacrifice liberty in exchange for peace will get neither. That sums up why the antis are so successful in some states while they're unsuccessful in others. You have rights in this country which are guaranteed by a document called the U.S. Constitution, listed in a section commonly referred to as the Bill of Rights. Quit letting people walk all over you and violate your rights under the law, and they will leave you the heck alone. It's only when they sense you won't stand up for yourself that they will take ten miles every time you yield an inch.
 
toastedoat37":2oja6fg5 said:
Your comment about no one agreeing with me , and never will,,,,well, no one has to agree with me, no one has like me, no one has to respond to me, a few will learn from me, and i have been learning some things from some. I know a lot of the stuff ive said in this thread is fact, some of its opinion.
But im not gonna just go along with what the majority says just to "fit in". I know that some here do
Welcome to my "ignore" filter. I never expected to have to use it here. :furious:
 
Alright, time for me to put on my Moderator hat and say ENOUGH...

We all have our personal opinions and us arguing amongst ourselves is not going to change anything. This PARTICULAR piece of legislation, not the ENTIRE AWA, just the portion that they want to change, has to do with ONLY the following...

This proposed rule would:

1) rescind the ``retail pet store'' status of anyone selling, at retail for use as pets, the animals listed above to buyers who do not physically enter his or her 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 order to be classified as a "retail pet store" and be EXEMPT from licensing and regulation, they want the buyer to actually SEE THE ANIMALS before they buy them, and the transaction must take place face to face. It does not matter if you are a hobby breeder, commercial breeder, or whatever. Your house/barn/shed becomes a "retail pet store".

2) 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.

If you sell less than $500 per year worth of rabbits FOR ANY REASON, you would be automatically EXEMPT from licensing and regulation.

3) increase 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 if he or she sells only the offspring of those animals born and raised on his or her premises for use as pets or exhibition, regardless of whether those animals are sold at retail or wholesale.

Under these changes, you could have up to 4 breeding females and still be EXEMPT from licensing and regulation. However, this would severely limit the ability of breeders to produce the numbers they would like to. This is primarily aimed at dogs, but does not specifically exclude rabbits.

NOW, these are the issues that the proposed changes will affect...and these are what you need to comment on...

NOT Gov't inspectors coming to your facility/home

NOT whether you breed for meat or pet

NOT whether you are for or against more or less Gov't regulation of your life....
 
-HRanchito":5n3hvjta said:
toastedoat37":5n3hvjta said:
Making the wrong comments like yall are doing in here will hurt ya more than help ya,,,,,,if the rabbit business is not self regulating,,,,the usda will step in,,,it cant be regulating if everyones rabbitry is private,,,,,why the hell do you all want to be so secretive about your rabbits?

The USDA people didn't wake up in the morning and go, "MAN, these rabbit breeders are just going WAY TOO CRAZY. Let's write a law that forces them to compromise their biosecurity, so all their rabbits get sick and die! (MUAHAHAHAH)"

No, it's because of purebred/designer/teacup dogs and cats with price tags above a grand. The bill is written about the dog industry. Nobody gives a crap about rabbits. The USDA wrote a bill about DOGS because their inspectors had enough free time and funding that they could troll the internet for small-time magicians, which seriously, is way less glamorous than fining puppy mills up the arse.

Also, I don't think we have to worry about rabbit railroads -- you don't buy a pet on the rabbit railroad, you buy show bunnies or brood stock.

It really is that ARAs have used every bad kennel pic in the last 15 or so years to say that ALL dog breeders are bad. and now that mind set is going after the other breeder as well. and will turn to common livestock if given a chance.
"i didn't stand up for the dog breeder because I wasn't a dog breeder......"

__________ Fri Jun 29, 2012 2:22 pm __________

Brody":5n3hvjta said:
Coming in very late.
I suspect the law is as HR Ranchito says, about the mill businesses.
There is a certain expectation in dog land particularly that a good breeder wants you to meet the family, see the set up etc. suspicion is raised if that's not welcome.

NO!
A good breeder want their dogs and family SAFE. a good breeder will not let you run willy nilly around their dogs or home.
more and more responsible breeders will NOT ALLOW people to come to their homes due to theft, viruses and murder. that is what is upsetting ARs. they can no long easily inter your home.
 
I think part of it is confusion on what a dog or rabbit or whatever breeder IS. People say "breeder" and they immediately conjure mental images of puppy mills or something equally horrific, something PETA would have a field day with. They don't understand that true top-quality non-professional breeders are out there with perfect setups and healthy animals.

I've known some horrible "breeders"...and some truly amazing ones. Thanks to the media however, the majority of people can't understand the difference, so when they seek to regulate one, they act like someone wielding a shotgun and aiming at a single marble...they'll accidentally take out everything around their intended target as well.

I think better education on what constitutes a "good breeder" would go a long way, irregardless of what animal species we're talking about. :)
 
true BUT who is to say who is a good breeder??
in dogs for example. you have the pet breeder, the show breeder, the breeder of merit breeder, the USDA breeder, the working breeder.
all claiming they are the best kind. each has their own reason and each make good points.

the pet breeder says they don't inbreed. the show breeder says they are about a good sound dog,has reliable looks and is friendly. and breeder of merit say that they have the money to show and do many health tests no matter if that test is worthless. the USDA breeder says that they protect their stock and pups in sanitize able living quarters.
working breeder say it is all about the job and being able to do it.
Who is right?

__________ Fri Jun 29, 2012 3:03 pm __________

"To help prevent disease problems, do not permit casual visitors inside the rabbitry. They may introduce disease and cause additional stress to the animals"
http://pubs.cas.psu.edu/freepubs/pdfs/ua274.pdf
found on a USDA page
http://afsic.nal.usda.gov/grazing-syste ... ds/rabbits

__________ Fri Jun 29, 2012 3:09 pm __________

"If you sell rabbits on a regular schedule to a dealer, have marketable stock
segregated and confined outside of the rabbitry entrance. The pickup man visits
many rabbitries in rapid succession and will appreciate your help in keeping him
from spreading disease."

http://www.poultry.msstate.edu/extensio ... uction.pdf
all so found on the USDA page
http://afsic.nal.usda.gov/grazing-syste ... ds/rabbits

__________ Fri Jun 29, 2012 5:00 pm __________

too bad they can't legislate proper use of one's brain!

Yes I stole the saying but it is a very good one!
 
the pet breeder says they don't inbreed. the show breeder says they are about a good sound dog,has reliable looks and is friendly. and breeder of merit say that they have the money to show and do many health tests no matter if that test is worthless. the USDA breeder says that they protect their stock and pups in sanitize able living quarters.
working breeder say it is all about the job and being able to do it.
Who is right?

I'd say partially all of them. :) First off since inbreeding, when done responsibly, causes no harm...then pet breeders who have only that to lay claim to are not good breeders unless they also do genetic screening or breed dogs capable of working. For example, hip dysplasia is testable and genetic, so if you have three dogs, one tests positive, don't breed that one dog no matter what. I dislike "designer breeders" but if they test their dogs for common ailments, then I'm okay with them breeding whatever to whatever.

I know a gentleman who limits linebreeding and inbreeding to a bare minimum, he has tested hips, heart, eyes, elbows and I forget the other thing, to make sure all dogs are screened against all testable genetic defects AND he breeds for show with an emphasis on a good quality, properly conformed dog. His Great Danes are AMAZING.

However dogs and rabbits do not come close to each other. Most places don't allow you to kill and eat dogs that don't live up to your standards. ;)

For me, when I look for my next dog, I'll be looking for many things...I want a show-quality dog but also one who is strong enough and fast enough to do lurecoursing (I'm determined my next dog shall be an Afghan) and I will only buy from a breeder who tests for all testable genetic issues. :)
 
the prob is that many/most, the mode of inheritance is unknown or polygenic or are late onset.

yes all have good points in their breeding and yet someone could argue "bad" points in each as well.
breeding is like religion everyone thinks theirs is the right one/way.

I doubt you will find a breeder that test for ALL testable genetic issues. afghans seem to have only three and seem to be reasonable.


"The AHCA has required tests for hip dysplasia, eye anomalies through CERF, and thyroid testing."
http://afghanhoundclubofamerica.org/ind ... ealth-care

same with chic
http://www.caninehealthinfo.org/brdreqs.html?breed=AH<br /><br />__________ Mon Jul 02, 2012 9:41 am __________<br /><br />Aphis comment my Mary Hammond


"Fact sheets are not laws. Read the full proposed rule. In the USDA's and HSUS' constant focus on dogs, and insistence on including all other warm blooded animals in rules like this, animals that are actually part of the FARM industries of this country are being removed from the farm step by step. The way the rule is written, it leaves less possibility for the non pet use of rabbits and other small farm livestock in the way of food and fiber. Recent calls to the USDA have returned the result from various personnel from veterinarians in the APHIS head office all the way down to local USDA service centers that rabbits are PETS unless they are "in the form of" or sold "for food and fiber". Not food and fiber PRODUCTION, just food or fiber. Under that interpretation, easily garnered in this new rule, the way it is written, with the removal of previous "non pet use" clauses, rabbits are either pets or research animals unless they are dead. The rule needs to address clearly, and simply, the non pet uses of rabbits such as angora wool production, meat rabbit breeding stock production and show rabbit breeding stock production. A clear clause, coming from our U.S. Agricultural Department acknowledging the agricultural uses of rabbits, would be more to the point than what is in this rule and more to the point of the USDA's own existence. Otherwise, down the road, rabbit will no longer be on the menu in this country for humans, all angora wool will come from China, and U.S. dog breeders everywhere can expect to import all of their feed from China. Step up to the plate, USDA, and defend agriculture. Stop destroying agriculture in this country with so called welfare acts for pets. Pull this rule."

http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDe ... -0003-3568
 
There are only a few more days left to comment on the rule change.

H$U$ is promising a ton of signatures to be delivered to the USDA in the next day our so.

I have small hope of this being defeated....even some very wise people on the Pet Law group are saying that it sounds as tho USDA was told to DO THIS... and they are going to shove it thru or else. Guess we will need to hold on for the ride...

................................................

I do not think it is gonna be 'pretty' for a while. H$U$ is offering up to $5000 for tips for unlicensed "puppy mills" Nice to know that the donations they rake in... will be going to the Animals.
 
Random Rabbit":39lz2ybz said:
I do not think it is gonna be 'pretty' for a while. H$U$ is offering up to $5000 for tips for unlicensed "puppy mills" Nice to know that the donations they rake in... will be going to the Animals.

It is, just not four legged ones
 
Once I started looking into this, I didn't want to stop till I understood it from the beginning. Then I actually got a chance to take part in a teleconference with Dr. Rushin and members of the SRPS last week, which was definitely helpful. Anyway, I put what I've learned at this page. I just finished it today and it turned out to be 4000 words, but it's broken down into little sections. You guys may already know all that's there, but it was helpful for me to write it out from current laws to proposed changes to suggestions for comments.

I see this as pretty important, and I'm frustrated that some rabbit breeders don't seem to agree. The whole thing started after the HSUS petitioned the USDA to crack down on “puppy mills.” They are raging in support of this change. AKC, SAOVA.org, and many other animal breeder organizations are not taking this as an idle threat!
 
Back
Top