https://www.gofundme.com/f/my-sick-beagle-dog

could anyone post this on their Facebook, or whatever they have for media. It is for Lucy (my beagle) She is totally blind from cataracts in both eyes. She can get surgery, but, it cost $1000.00 per eye. Even if I got one eye done, it is better than nothing at all.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dog food recalls: viewtopic.php?f=67&t=14747]

USDA proposed rule changes

Exotic legal issues, bans, laws, regulations, Animal Rights discussions etc.

Moderators: Ash, hecate, TamanduaGirl

User avatar
TamanduaGirl
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 10578
Joined: Wed Mar 22, 2006 11:42 pm
Location: Oregon, USA
Contact:

USDA proposed rule changes

Postby TamanduaGirl » Mon Apr 22, 2019 10:26 pm

6 major things:

#1 they want 3 yrs fixed licences which currently i get an inspection randomly during year to year renewal (should verify compliance) and now it will be 3 (1 each year) plus now a "initial" inspection verses a renewal requires 3 inspectors. since they are cutting my fees from 760 x 3 =2280 to a flat fee of 120$ it will cost tax payers more money. So now we go from 3 inspections to now 6 plus any stateside inspections. When is enough enough? We are raising dogs not trafficking children.

#2 they are going to close the loop hole of exotic owners who skirted the law in a state that banned them by possessing a "exhibitor" license without exhibiting them. Doesn't apply to me but this is sad as it forces those with exotics who obviously can up hold USDA requirements to either move to another state or relinquish their animals to a hell hole sanctuary

#3 wanting water in front of dogs 24/7. While admitting that it doesn't matter as they are going to continue to allow cats to be under same rules. 3.6 says access to continual water while in their primary enclosure and 3.10 if not continual (intended for temporary or seasonal times) you are to provide min of every 12 hrs for 1 hr (in between freezing) or as necessary. now the main problem with this if your dog turns over a bowl you are now in "violation". claim it will only cost average of $1200/kennel expense.

Now it obviously makes no never mind health wise as they are allowing cats to remain under current law. This is to appease the AR's nothing more. what it would cost to put in auto waters or heater elements(cost each) in buckets (don't forget you have to run electricity out there and make sure they don't eat them)

#4 they want you to now start having a physical well check, vaccinations and fecal annually done on each dog. AND you are to start recording every time you clip a nail, groom, poke a pill ect in each dogs folder. We already have a annual vet visit to the property, and daily observations of animals.The ONLY other animal enterprise that APHIS requires annual vetting are cetaceans (dolphins and whales) and sirenians (manatees)

If you have a car accident lets say a week before your dogs are due to have their annual and are set back financially to not do it now (dogs are healthy) but maybe can afford to do it in a month, you are in "violation" and could be terminated. Their estimated cost per kennel ONLY $150 starting and $50/yr/facility there after. Yeah i want their vet please.

Besides the scientific evidence of annually vaccinating animals is detrimental, we need to disclose the amount it would cost us (financial hardship) to request our vet to do an annual check up with fecal and vaccinations We don't believe the government should mandate US or OUR children to have an annual physical and vaccinations then why would we permit them to dictate what we do with our dogs?. Again nothing more than to appease AR's. When is enough enough?

#5 Changing language that if you obtain ONE "violation" during your 3 yr time is grounds for denial. no matter whether it is a cob web in a corner, feed can lid off, you NOT home, expired tube of neosporin. Denied future license. not allowing for proof of fixing violations, not defining differences of severity. big difference between a dead dog setting in 2 inches of sh** and a cob web. A restaurant is allowed to correct a violation. hell even Boeing airlines just KILLED 354 people by making a safety feature an accessory and they are NOT banned forever from the industry. This is ridiculous. This is setting where when AR's get in they can deny you a livelihood just because.

#6 Rescues and shelters will still be EXEMPT from ALL of these supposed "upgrades" to "welfare". Voice your opinion as to why this is bull.

We need at least 1000 people to comment individually on these topics. You may do 6 different posts 1 on each subject or discuss them all together. You want to beat the AR's this is what NEEDS to be done.

Call your vet and a plumber (for your estimations of costs). Tell them why "violations" need to have a grading score like a restaurant or a hotel and that there should be a place for fixing minor issues. That a 3 year license is not cost effective and would cost the tax payers more without really accomplishing anything, How it is not right to condemn exotic animals to a hell hole sanctuary who has NO government oversite. Oh and don't forget the rescues and shelters still skirting ANY of these requirements.

Click link, then click comment button and COMMENT. then show how proactive you really are by telling us you did so. We can do this. 5550 HSUS and PETA supporters already have are you going to allow them to destroy our industry? Illegal kennels will remain illegal. These changes ONLY effect law abiding citizens.

If you need more clarification just ASK. Thank you EVERYBODY in advance. https://www.regulations.gov/document?D= ... 0062-47066


I said stopping people from getting a license unless they are already exhibiting means they will need to break the law and exhibit without a license to qualify for a license, which makes no sense but would be the law if that passes. And it wont do anything anyway, since people can just exhibit the family dog or rat to qualify and then get their exotic. They already will pull your license if you don't exhibit under class C, so it's just pointless red tape that isn't even logical.

Issue 1 on this list(don't use those numbers if commenting that was just done by someone who posted their issues with the rule change) I already commented on before. It's just stupid and makes more work for all for no reason. The regular unannounced inspections are compliance inspections. Having to reapply and have a scheduled application inspection makes no sense, and it's announced so does less than the regular unannounced visits. Then the fact your license number will change every 3 years since you would have to apply for a new one ever 3 years.
User avatar
Ash
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 8041
Joined: Fri Oct 08, 2010 11:38 am
Location: Utah

Re: USDA proposed rule changes

Postby Ash » Wed Apr 24, 2019 12:12 pm

This is nuts. When I have a little more time later today, I'll give them a piece of my mind. I'm sick of these proposed regs and how hard it makes it for law-abiding citizens.

Although I disagree with their number 2. You shouldn't have a license if you're just using it as a loophole--that's not the intended purpose of the law and the owner knows it. And who can't comply to USDA standards? If someone can't comply with USDA standards, sometimes I wonder if they should even have an animal--now, I do understand that there are things like needing a perimeter fence or needing to do x number of shows a year or whatever that would be difficult for a pet owner to accomplish. But come on. They need to be following the regs just like everybody else.
I'm Fable and Ifrit's mommy. Also mommy to Carousel, Breeze, and a bunch of snakes, lizards, and spiders. Oh, and one amphibian!
User avatar
TamanduaGirl
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 10578
Joined: Wed Mar 22, 2006 11:42 pm
Location: Oregon, USA
Contact:

Re: USDA proposed rule changes

Postby TamanduaGirl » Wed Apr 24, 2019 8:24 pm

Yeah it's not a loophole but that's how USDA see's it, they want to do less work, and they are trying to stop people from getting USDA to have banned species. Like I could get Iki because I have USDA and my state exempts USDA from the ban. Right now you can apply if you plan to exhibit but they want to make it so you have to be exhibiting to apply, but if it's illegal to exhibit without a license then they have to break the law to qualify for the license. It doesn't make sense. And you could just exhibit a non-state-regulated pet and qualify and then get the license so it wont do a thing to stop what they are trying to stop anyway.

They had a number of exhibitions needed in their minimums(older separate proposal and change) and dollar amount to be exempt from needing a license originally but that part didn't pass along with the part that did. But as it is my inspector checks each visit to be sure I've exhibited in some way and if you don't for at all for a year they can revoke the license. I actually would have liked to see some sort of minimums like that passed at least a money one. Like breeders it's $500 a year,. My inspector said that for exhibition as well but officially it's not in writing and varies on who you talk to. It would help catch it up to the internet. Like one person at USDA said they don't regulate exhibition on the internet but some people are making a living off ad revenue from videos of their pets, and without the oversight they could, potentially, be locking them in tiny cages or otherwise mishandling them or putting public at risk. If you had to get licensed when you make $500 exhibiting or x number then they couldn't ignore it as easily.

But I guess that's sort of a separate topic except to say minimums would have a better impact on closing the "loophole" than this nonsense of having to exhibit before getting licensed.

Return to “Laws & LEGAL ISSUES”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest