Rules Published with this Register and Final Regulatory Flexibility Analyses

Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection

CR 10-100

(ATCP # 09-R-19)

Revises Chapter ATCP 16, relating to dog sellers an dog facilities. Effective 6-1-11.

Summary of Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

This rule will affect persons who operate "animal control facilities," "animal shelters" or "dog breeding facilities" in this state. It will also affect persons who operate as "dog breeders," "dog dealers" or "out-of-state dog dealers" in this state. Under 2009 Wis. Act 90, those persons must be annually licensed and must pay annual license fees as provided in this rule (see above). This rule does not, by itself, increase license requirements or fees (beyond the licensing requirements and fees already created by Act 90).

This rule spells out licensing standards for persons who are required to be licensed under this rule, including standards for the care, transportation and sale of dogs. Many of the persons who are subject to licensing under this rule are already meeting the standards under this rule, but others will incur costs to bring their facilities and practices into compliance with this rule.

Under Act 90 and this rule, whenever a license holder sells a dog in this state, the dog must be accompanied by a certificate of veterinary inspection (health certificate). The certificate must be issued by a Wisconsin certified veterinarian, on an official form provided by DATCP. The certificate forms cost only $0.60 each (an estimated $44,000 for sellers statewide), but there will be a significant cost for veterinarian services. This could have a significant financial impact on license holders, especially small dog breeders. However, this rule does not add any costs beyond those imposed by Act 90 itself.

The facility requirements in this rule are, for the most part, rudimentary. However, some license holders may need to make significant facility upgrades in order to comply with the standards in this rule and ensure a humane level of care.

This rule requires license holders to keep inventory, identification and health records related to dogs that they keep or sell. Many of the persons affected by this rule already keep such records, but others do not. This rule may impose additional recordkeeping costs on those who do not. Many of the recordkeeping requirements in this rule are also contained (in more general form) in Act 90, so this rule does not add significantly to the costs already imposed by Act 90.

This rule may require some dog sellers to hire additional staff, or hire professional services (especially veterinarian services) to comply with this rule and provide a humane level of care to dogs under their custody or control.

This rule will benefit the dog care and sales industry by establishing basic standards of humane care and fair competition. This rule will also benefit dog buyers by providing greater assurance that dogs are healthy and well-adjusted, and have been humanely treated.

Many of the persons affected by this rule are "small businesses." This rule, like Act 90, exempts animal shelters that keep no more than 25 dogs per year. It also exempts dog breeders and dog dealers who sell no more than 25 dogs a year from no more than 3 litters. But neither Act 90 nor this rule make other significant exemptions for "small business," because many of the most serious animal health and humane problems addressed by Act 90 are found in "small business" settings.

The standards in this rule give affected businesses some flexibility and choices, consistent with the basic requirement of humane care. DATCP may issue licenses on a conditional basis, giving some license holders additional time to bring their operations into full compliance. DATCP may also grant variances for good cause, if the variance does not undermine the purpose of the standard from which the variance is granted.

Summary of Comments by Legislative Review Committees

On January 3, 2011, DATCP transmitted the above rule for legislative committee review. The rule was assigned to the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Forestry, and Higher Education and to the Assembly Committee on Consumer Protection Personal Privacy. Neither the Senate committee nor the Assembly committee held a hearing or took any action on the rule.