Say What?

aphisThat’s what the government told us! The same government that had an open comment period for concerned citizens to offer their opinion on the proposed new APHIS regulations. They heard from every segment of the population and made exactly ZERO changes to their new proposed regulations, and then told us just to call them and describe our situation and they would tell us whether we fell under these regulations, Well, “Yeah, umm… NO! Do you really think I can trust you?”

Of course I can’t! The USDA has become overrun with Animal Rights Extremists and Terrorists, so if their mission is to outlaw animal usage by humans, do I really think they would apply logic, science or even a common sense approach to dog breeders?

One of the sticklers, for me, is the very lack of definition of “breeding females.” One would think, hope and expect that an agency of the Government would provide clear directives and definitions to the regulations they impose on those they are charged with regulating, but if they did that, it would be so much harder to catch unsuspecting, and well-meaning, individuals in those “gotcha” moments that could ruin the lives of its tax-paying citizens. (You know, those tax-paying citizens that pay their salaries.) BUT, they have zero definition of what a breeding female is. It could be any female of any species that is not surgically altered, but they won’t just say that. They tell you to call them and they will make a case-by-case decision. Say what?

I will use a real life example of a friend of mine: Say person Z is a dog breeder and has 20 dogs, 3 cats, 5 chickens, 2 Nigerian Dwarf goats and 3 horses. Now, of those 33 animals on Person Z’s farm, 22 are genetically female. This person would fall under APHIS if they ever place an animal sight unseen– even if they send a dog across the country to their cousin, their FAMILY!
Now, let’s take a closer look at those 24 females: 5 are hens. There is no rooster, so no breeding would be taken place, but technically they “could” be bred! 2 are ancient goat does! There is no buck, so no breeding would be taking place, but technically they “could” be bred! 2 are horses (mares) and of those 2, only 1 SHOULD or WOULD ever be bred. The other has too many health issues to even attempt to list, but she technically “could” be bred. 1 is a cat, and is spayed, so she can’t count as “breedable.” 14 are dogs (bitches). {Now, remember, this person is a hobby/ show breeder} Of those 14, A, B, and C are 12 years old or older and spayed because of pyometras and in their lifetimes they have combined to produce exactly 2 litters for a total of 3 puppies. D is 9 y.o. and has produced a total of 1 litter of 2 puppies in her lifetime. E is 9 y.o. and has never been bred and currently has T-cell lymphoma. F is 9 y.o. and has never been bred. G, H and I are 8 y.o. and have never been bred and didn’t pass a couple of their health clearances so wouldn’t be bred. J is 7 y.o. and didn’t pass a couple of her clearances and would never be bred. K is 6 y.o. and has passed EVERY health clearance and has been bred ONCE producing 4 puppies. L is 3 y.o. and had 1 litter producing 3 puppies. M is 2 y.o. and didn’t pass a couple of her health tests so she would not be bred. N is just coming 2 y.o. and has yet to finish her health tests. So, according to the term breedable, A, B, and C don’t count, but D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, L, M and N do. That is more than 5, even though D, E, F, G, H, I, J and M haven’t been or wouldn’t be bred, leaving only K, L and N that as a hobby/ show breeder they would possibly breed. So, out of the 11 that are technically breedable, only 3 would possibly be. Add that to the possible breeding of 1 of the livestock animals (the healthy mare) this individual has, in any common-sense/ logical interpretation 4 breedable females.

But, what do you suppose the powers-that-be would say if this person picked up the phone and called the government and explained their situation? Does any logical person living in reality think the government would say, “Oh, don’t worry about APHIS, it doesn’t apply to you!” Of course NOT! They would demand to come onto the property and inspect and make their own determination. Question: When did Animal Ownership equate to invasion of privacy by the Government? What probable cause would they have to search and inspect such a person’s property? And if they can search theirs, what is to stop them from “inspecting” yours?