[ SHOWGSD-L ] NAIA comments re: Proposed Import Rules
- From: Stormy Hope <Stormy435@xxxxxxx>
- To: Show GSD <showgsd-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 6 Sep 2011 16:21:09 -0700
I have asked Patti Strand and Julian Prager if I could condense their
responses on the NAIA membership list and send them out. They have
given permission. Also, they will be sending out a more complete
analysis tomorrow mornng.
Please do not forward without checking with me first. Thanks
Stormy Hope
GSDCA Legislation Liaison
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Question: What's to stop an inspector from stopping a private
individual coming back from Europe with a single puppy? How would the
individual prove that the puppy was not for resale?
This was part of the farm bill and it applies to everyone importing a
dog for resale. Under the law, getting more than minimal
consideration is a resale. Since things other than money count as
consideration (things like being able to save more animals and reduced
euthanasia levels) even if a shelter were not making money off the
transfer, they might be receiving consideration for the transfer.
Also, small individual sales can added up to more than de minimus
actual consideration by their cumulative effect. The fact that HSUS
isn't considering this does not make this a bad definition. They are,
I believe, legally wrong.
The rule being defined implements the farm bill from the past session
of Congress. While this is the law, it cannot be implemented without
the required regulations that implement the law. USDA has not said
that this is the final version - it is their final proposal for which
they are soliciting comments. We need to provide rational comments to
shape the regulations.
Julian
I agree that the regulations should contain a specific mechanism, by
whatever mechanism it is described, to clarify the right of
individuals to import dogs for their own use and not for resale. The
regulations are exactly the place that a provision to do that belongs.
USDA and APHIS are not interested in impeding people who want to
import a dog for their own use, but how that is to be ensured needs to
be clear in the regulations.
That is why it is important that during the two month comment period
individuals write focused comments to enable them to properly flesh
out these regulations. These regulations will implement a law that
should reduce the import of puppies into the continental U.S. for
resale (as defined) and thereby increase the pressure on shelters to
place the dogs they already have rather then euthanize them because
they have "cuter" imports available. It will reduce the introduction
of diseases into the country that both endanger our agricultural
interests and create danger to the human population thorough the
transfer of zoonotic diseases. When the appropriate language is added
based on our comments, it will ensure that individuals importing for
their own use will not be burdened by unnecessary restrictions on
their right to import dogs as provided for in the existing law.
We all should be commenting on the need for this language and suggest
ways in which this can be done. While sometimes paranoia reflects a
real attempt of someone to harm you, in this case I think its just the
regulatory process moving along. We have an opportunity to affect the
final regulations and we should be concentrating on the minor language
changes needed to ensure our protection and not oppose good
regulations to enforce good legislation. The law exists and need
regulations in order to have effect. While the regulations can only be
designed to implement the laws already passed, we have a potential
opportunity here to make further progress by working on future
Congressional legislation."
One or two dogs brought into the country should not raise a red flag.
Some have suggested a "de minimus exception." Simply requiring a sworn
statement by the individual or group bringing the dog in that it is
not intended for resale as defined in the act could do it. Anyone
providing such a statement who resells the dog would be committing a
crime (or more than one, depending on how they want to prosecute it).
That would not be a hassle for an individual bringing in their own
import to use in breeding, for performance, hunting or any other
personal use. But it would raise questions if 14 dogs under 6 months
were imported by the same person at the same time. Other processes may
work as well. We need to let them know our concerns and suggest ways
to address them.
Julian Prager
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Julian is exactly correct. The plain language of
the Farm Bill states the intent - and that is to
prevent dogs under 6 months of age from coming
into the country for resale. Right now, the
agency is seeking comments about how to implement
this intent in the best possible way. They don't
want to stop dogs that US citizens are purchasing
for their own use, just the importation of dogs
for the purpose of transfer for more than de
minimis consideration to another. This will
affect the Eastern European shipment of dogs to
middlemen in the U.S. pet industry, and dogs that
are being brought in for transfer to consumers of
the shelter/rescue pet trade. We'll elaborate on
the issue more next week. Meantime, everyone
should be reading the actual statute (it was
attached to our earlier article), and preparing
to write up their concerns, (urging them to
protect people who are importing for their own
use, urging them to include in the definition of
resale the dogs that are being imported from
foreign countries and offshore territories for
the shelter/rescue pet trade, etc.) and
specifically requesting that these concerns be
addressed more clearly in the final rule. That is
what the comment period is for. If the agents on
the ground don't have clear directions from the
rule that implements the language and intent of
the Farm Bill, we'll all be screaming at
them. They are NOT trying to pull one over on
us, they are asking us to help them get it right.
Remember, this is a proposed rule, not a final
rule. We have 60 days to comment.
Patti Strand
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
There's no way to guarantee that a pup is going to grow up to fulfill
the expectations of breeder and owner.
Say I import a 12 week old pup, intending to show him and use him on
bitches I own. At 5 months his bite goes off, and I wait until he is
10 months hoping it will correct, but it doesn't. I can't keep an
infinite number of dogs, and there is someone in my book club who
loves this breed and would like to have him as a pet, so I have him
neutered and plan for his transition to his new home. But because I
imported him at less than six months of age, intending to keep him for
my own use, the only legal option is to GIVE this dog away, with no
opportunity to recover any of my costs of buying him or even of
neutering him. Is this a reasonable consequence to impose on fanciers
who invest in importing a puppy for their own use - if the dog doesn't
turn out, my only options are to keep him or give him away?
~~~~~~~~~
The thing that initially got the agencies
attention was the increase in dogs imported into
the US for the pet trade between 2001 and
2006. For example, one importer alone brought in
more than 4,000 of 10,000+ dogs shipped through
O'Hare in 2006, 51% of the total without health
certificates. If you go back 10 years, there was
virtually no importing for the pet trade. US laws
have considered dogs a companion animal, not a
commodity like livestock, so there are no laws to
deal with these changes in the global
marketplace. Hopefully, the fact that the people
importing dogs for resale (including dogs for
adoption) bring in a constant stream of dogs,
will enable the agencies to figure out how to
distinguish them from citizens bringing in dogs for their own use.
When you write your comment letter describe your
scenario as a breeder and ask them to draft
language that will safeguard your right to
continue to import dogs for your breeding
program. Explain that breeders sell dogs that
don't work out in their programs but as a breeder
it would not be your intent to import for
resale. Just spell it out. I can assure you its
not their intent to snag you, but as been pointed out, it's our job to
bring
clarity to the drafting of the rules.
We need new laws in this area. We just need to get the rules drafted
carefully.
Patti
~~~~~~~~~~~~
The intent when the dog is imported is the controlling factor. No
shelter is going to bring in a puppy, keep it for several months and
then sell it - it would not be cost effective. If after five or six
months the dog has not turned out, I would document the reason and
then sell it. Of course, we could also ask that a minimum period be
placed in the regulations before a transfer could be made for
consideration and if held that length of time it would be presumptive
evidence that the dog wasn't brought in for resale.
There are solutions for all these issues, we just have to let USDA
know what the issues are and suggest solutions.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I think the thing that disturbs me the most is that "Sale" does not
include (or seem to include) shelters importing animals from overseas
and/or Puerto Rico. I don't care if it comes in on a private plane, or
commercial flight, I want animals coming in from overseas to have
health certificates and properly administered vaccinations! I guess
the other thing I want is for, at least APHIS to recognize that
shelter "adoptions" are sales by any other name.
~~~~~~~~~
We are hopeful that the language in the Farm
Bill, which defines a sale as a "transfer for
more than de minimis consideration" will cover
the rescue/shelter imports. Please write what
you've stated below in your comment to
APHIS. They need to hear this from as many people as possible.
Patti
~~~~~~~
The definition of "resale" is very broad and clearly covers what
shelters and rescues call adoptions. Section 14210 of the AWA defines
resale in reference to the importation of dogs as follows:
RESALE - The term ?resale? includes any transfer of ownership or
control of an imported dog of less than 6 months of age to another
person, for more than de minimis consideration.
That seems to cover pretty much anything a shelter or a rescue can do.
It means no more cute little puppy imports to fill the coffers of
shelters while the dogs here are euthanized for lack of effort to get
them placed or to educate the public.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
It will limit the total number of dogs coming in,
identify the people involved in the trade and
provide real penalties for those who violate the
requirements. It could have a huge impact on
middlemen, the pilots and truck drivers who move
these dogs. The proposed rule is limited in
scope, but it opens the door to much larger
issues and provides needed improvements for all
imports that are at least 6 months old. To deal
with the subject fully we'll need our own legislation.
Patti
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
url for comments
http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=APHIS-2009-0053-0001
http://tinyurl.com/3tfx4ma
============================================================================
POST is Copyrighted 2011. All material remains the property of the original
author and of GSD Communication, Inc. NO REPRODUCTIONS or FORWARDS of any kind
are permitted without prior permission of the original author AND of the
Showgsd-l Management. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
Each Author is responsible for the content of his/her post. This group and its
administrators are not responsible for the comments or opinions expressed in
any post.
ALL PERSONS ARE ON NOTICE THAT THE FORWARDING, REPRODUCTION OR USE IN ANY
MANNER OF ANY MATERIAL WHICH APPEARS ON SHOWGSD-L WITHOUT THE EXPRESS
PERMISSION OF ALL PARTIES TO THE POST AND THE LIST MANAGEMENT IS EXPRESSLY
FORBIDDEN, AND IS A VIOLATION OF LAW. VIOLATORS OF THIS PROHIBITION WILL BE
PROSECUTED.
For assistance, please contact the List Management at admin@xxxxxxxxxxx
VISIT OUR WEBSITE - http://showgsd.org
SUBSCRIPTION:http://showgsd.org/mail.html
NATIONAL BLOG - http://gsdnational.blogspot.com/
============================================================================
Other related posts:
