Attorney provides details on Federal Court injunction to stop implementation of APHIS Retail Pet Store Rule.
READ IF YOU BREED! Your future is at stake.
USDA/APHIS INJUNCTION MADE SIMPLE!
"RETAIL PET STORE" RULE CHALLENGED IN FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT
Details by Frank Losey, Pentagon/Supreme Court Licensed Attorney
On December 16, 2013 a Lawsuit (Case 1:13-cv-01982) was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia that asks the Court to declare that the Retail Pet Store Rule is “arbitrary, capricious and inconsistent" with law, and to remand the Rule back to the USDA.
Then on Dec 30th, HSUS filed a Motion in the Lawsuit which asks the Court to allow it to intervene as a defendant. A Hearing on the HSUS Motion is expected to occur in January.
The Lawsuit also seeks an injunction that would bar the USDA from enforcing the Retail Pet Store Rule. This "Rule" was actively orchestrated and supported by the Humane Society of the U.S. (HSUS), with a focused and clandestine, multi-million dollar, behind the scenes campaign that began in 2009. And when the Rule was published by the USDA, it totally ignored, perverted and desecrated the fundamental right to privacy in one's home. And the breadth of coverage of the Rule will affect literally tens of thousands, and quite possibly hundreds of thousands, of caring and responsible hobby breeders throughout the U.S.
In short, there is a real and present risk that the sanctity and privacy of their homes will be sacrificed under the ruse and convoluted logic that the "Rights of Animals" are superior to the "Rights of Humans." In this regard, the draconian choices given to hobby breeders are that they either must apply for a USDA License and spend tens of thousands of dollars to modify their homes to meet USDA Standards for a "kennel," or a "cattery," or they must allow strangers to come into their homes and inspect their homes to ensure that hobby breeders are properly caring for their dogs and puppies.
This Rule suggests that Our Government is tyrannically "Against the People," rather than "For the People." And compounding the irrevocable flaws of the Rule is the fact that the USDA has acknowledged in its Regulatory Impact Analysis and Cost Analysis that the number of potentially affected breeders is not known, and that the actual cost for compliance is not known. In short, the USDA has failed to comply with the statutory requirements as set out in the Administrative Procedures Act.
The overwhelming majority of the potentially affected breeders who would be affected by the Rule are "hobby breeders" who breed their dogs and cats in their personal homes, rather than in a kennel or cattery.
The scope of the Rule is so broad that it would cover breeders whose dogs are often seen on Network TV Shows such as the Westminster Dog Show. In essence, the HSUS asserts that even these dogs are coming from "puppy mills" - - a phrase that is the equivalent of a racial or ethnic slur that was "coined" by the HSUS to enhance its deceptive "Factory Fundraising Campaigns" And the HSUS has even gone so far as to excoriate, disparage and state in the Spring of 2013 that the American Kennel Club (AKC) is "joined at the hip with the puppy millers." Prior to the Rule becoming a Final Rule, literally tens of thousands of breeders, as well as the AKC, expressed their opposition to the Rule.
The "Complaint" in the Lawsuit was filed on behalf of 42 Plaintiffs that consisted of Dog and Cat Clubs and Associations. Those 42 Plaintiffs included nearly 19,000 breeders who potentially would be adversely affected by the Rule. Most significantly, those 42 Plaintiffs represent less than 1% of the more than 5,500 Dog and Cat Clubs in the U.S., which fact supports the assertion that the Rule potentially affects far, far, far more than the 4,640 breeders that APHIS stated was the maximum number of breeders who potentially would be affected by the Rule.
One of the cornerstone assertions in the Complaint is the fact that APHIS failed to document how it arrived at its figure of 4,640 breeders, which figure is exponentially below the number of hobby breeders who potentially could be affected by the Rule.
The Complaint also highlights deficiencies in the flawed cost analysis that woefully underestimated the cost of compliance. Of note was APHIS's repeated use of the words "unknown," "not known" and "uncertainty" in the mandatory Regulatory Impact Assessment and Cost Analysis that were prepared by APHIS. In this regard, one of the lingering and major "uncertainties" in the minds of potentially hundreds of thousands of hobby breeders is whether or not they must incur the cost and inconvenience of modifying their homes to meet minimum space requirements and cleaning and sanitation requirements; and how many thousands of dollars such modifications of their residential homes would cost.
For example, there is uncertainty as to how they will be able to ensure that the floors in their homes where dogs and puppies walk are "impervious to moisture" without removing carpet from their living rooms and installing some type of drainage system in their floors. In short, APHIS's Regulatory Impact Assessment and the Cost Analysis are irrevocably flawed.
Another major flaw that was cited in the Complaint included the fact that USDA redefined the definition of a "retail pet store" without any statutory authority to do so.
Additional assertions in the Complaint included the failure of APHIS to address a number of issues that were raised in the tens of thousands of Public Comments that were submitted to APHIS. Those additional issues included, but were not limited to, cost of compliance; privacy; increased risk of spread of deadly diseases; increased risk of harassment by Animal Rights Activists; potential degradation of gene pools and loss of rare breeds; and lingering confusion that necessitated Webinars after the effective date of the Rule; and National Security.
Prior to the filing of the Lawsuit, a formal request was made to Secretary Vilsack to place a 60 day moratorium on the enforcement of the Rule, which was based in part on the following sentence: "Moreover, APHIS's hosting of two webinars after the effective date indicates that it concedes the requirements and scope of the Rule are not easy to understand."
In addition to the Lawsuit being filed, a Request for an Expedited Hearing will be submitted to the Court.
A copy of the Complaint in the Lawsuit is found at the Link that is entitled: "USDA Retail Pet Store Rule Lawsuit.”
Back to LEGISLATIVE Index or, to see how Animal Rights groups put dog breeders in this untenable position, read the following reports from TheDogPress.com and then decide if we’ve been outmaneuvered, outsmarted, and outspent by HSUS.
Explore TheDogPlace.org for authoritative DogCare™ information.
If you breed or show dogs, get your free subscription to TheDogPress.com
Judges, professional and owners handlers, to be sure to visit TheJudgesPlace.com