SAOVA friends,
Two new agency rules are now in effect. It is important for you to review the rules
and determine any potential impact on your breeding program or business.
The rule currently gathering the most publicity is the
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) regulation for importing
young dogs. HSUS CEO Wayne Pacelle is
boasting that this rule is a blow against puppy mills abroad. It is not surprising that he would work this
to his advantage for publicity without mentioning the same rule also impacts
rescue imports. The new rule will slow the
importation of foreign strays and street dogs for resale in U.S. shelters.
We find it interesting that after Congress directed this
import rule in 2008 APHIS spent six years finalizing it. In 2006 Congress enacted the PETS Act which directed State and local emergency preparedness plans to include household pets
and service animals. In response, APHIS initiated a rule making process for licensed entities to also develop emergency contingency plans. APHIS issued a final rule December 2012;
however in July 2013 USDA issued a stay of the Animal Welfare Act Contingency
Plan Regulation. Moving forward to 2012,
HSUS submitted a petition to APHIS requesting revision of the retail pet rule
to include licensing small breeders inside their homes and all sight-unseen
sales. APHIS managed to accomplish the
entire rule making process between May 2012 and September 2013.
Thanks for reading. Cross posting is encouraged.
Sportsmen's & Animal Owners' Voting Alliance
IMPORTATION OF LIVE DOGS, Docket No. APHIS-2009-0053
Monday, August 18,
2014 Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) issued a final rule
for Importation of Live Dogs which goes into effect November 17, 2014. In the 2008 Farm Bill Congress added a
section to the Animal Welfare Act (AWA) which would restrict the importation of
certain live dogs. APHIS began the rule
making process in September 2011 and received over 74,000 comments.
The rule prohibits the importation of dogs, with
limited exceptions, from any part of the world into the continental United
States or Hawaii for purposes of resale, research, or veterinary treatment,
unless the dogs are in good health, have received all necessary vaccinations,
and are at least 6 months of age.
The term ‘‘resale’’ includes, but is not
limited to, any transfer of ownership or control of imported dogs to another
person, for more than de
minimis consideration. The term de minimis has
the standard dictionary meaning, which, according to Merriam-Webster, is
“lacking significance or importance; so minor as to merit disregard.” The term ‘‘consideration’’ has the standard
dictionary meaning, which is defined by Merriam-Webster as ‘‘the inducement to
a contract or other legal transaction; specifically: an act or forbearance or the promise thereof
done or given by one party in return for the act or promise of another.” The rule does not consider an “adoption fee”
to be de minimis consideration and therefore there is no
exemption for dogs rescued in other countries and brought to the U.S. for
resale.
This rule does not apply when there is no
transfer of ownership or control of a dog to another person after the dog’s
importation into the United States. Therefore, dogs imported by a person who
will use the dog as a personal pet, for sport, for shows or competitions,
breeding or for training as working dogs do not fall under this rule.
Under this rule, dogs may be imported for
veterinary treatment without meeting all of the age, health, and vaccination
requirements only if a licensed veterinarian in the country of export certifies
that the dog is in need of veterinary treatment that cannot be obtained in the
country of export.
Dogs imported for use in research, tests,
or experiments at a research facility are exempt provided that satisfactory
evidence has been submitted to APHIS along with import permit application.
RULE REQUIREMENTS
Dogs must be accompanied by an import permit issued by APHIS and imported into the continental United States or Hawaii within 30 days after the proposed date of arrival stated in the import permit.
Dogs must be accompanied by an import permit issued by APHIS and imported into the continental United States or Hawaii within 30 days after the proposed date of arrival stated in the import permit.
Each dog must be accompanied by an original
health certificate issued in English by a licensed veterinarian with a valid
license to practice veterinary medicine in the country of export stating that
the dog is at least 6 months of age and has been vaccinated in the past 12
months for distemper, hepatitis, leptospirosis, parvovirus, and parainfluenza
virus at a frequency that provides
continuous protection of the dog from those diseases and is in
accordance with currently accepted practices as cited in veterinary medicine
reference guides. The health certificate
must also state that the dog is free of infectious disease that would endanger
the dog or public health. Each dog must also be accompanied by a valid rabies
vaccination certificate.
Any dog may be refused entry for
noncompliance with the requirements of the rule or may be seized and the person
intending to import the dog will be required to provide care at his or her
expense. The AWA provides for both criminal and civil penalties for violations,
including civil penalties of up to $10,000 for each violation. Any person who
violates the regulations will be subject to these penalties.
All dogs imported into the U.S. may be
subject to other laws and regulations. The Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention (CDC) also has requirements for imported dogs that must be met.
The complete rule may be viewed at the
Federal Register: http://tinyurl.com/nsd7zf2
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION ANIMAL
INCIDENT REPORTING, Docket DOT–OST–2010–0211
The Department of Transportation (USDOT)
issued a final rule to amend the requirement for air carriers to report
incidents involving the loss, injury, or death of an animal during air
transport. The final rule will expand the reporting requirement to U.S.
carriers that operate scheduled service with at least one aircraft with a
design capacity of more than 60 seats. The rule also expands the definition of
animal to include all cats and dogs transported by covered carriers, regardless
of whether the cat or dog is transported as a pet by its owner or as part of a
commercial shipment shipped by a breeder, trainer, or handler. This rule goes
into effect January 1, 2015.
Carrier reports will include carrier and
flight number; date; time; description of the animal; name and contact
information of owner, representative, or shipper of the animal; and a narrative
of the incident and action taken.
Carriers must file monthly and annual reports and report “0” if there
were no reportable incidents.
In August 2010, the Department received a
petition for rulemaking from the Animal Legal Defense Fund (ALDF) requesting
the reporting of loss, injury, or death of animals in air transport be revised
to require airlines to report any such incident involving any animal they
carry. ALDF maintained that whether an
animal is shipped as a pet or as an item of commerce has no bearing on its
ability to suffer.
HSUS, ASPCA, Humane Society Veterinary
Medical Association (HSVMA), Animal Welfare Institute, and other animal rights
groups requested the airlines account for incidents involving all species of
animals regardless of intended use.
Senator Richard Durbin and former Senators Bob Menendez and Joe
Lieberman supported the ALDF petition and requested that the Department
consider pursuing a comprehensive study on what animals are traveling in plane cargo holds and how the
Department could further expand the definition of "animal" without placing
undue burden on air carriers.
USDOT received 5,414 comments including
airlines, six animal rights organizations, The Association of Zoos and
Aquariums (AZA) and the National Association for Biomedical Research (NABR).
USDOT also received 5,403individual comments. While the individual comments
also urged expanding the definition of animal to all species, the majority
appeared to be form letters from members of the animal rights advocacy groups.
Airlines for America (A4A) opposed
expanding the definition of animal on the basis that doing so would conflict
with Congressional intent that the term animal in the original regulations
meant pets.
AZA also commented that the Congressional intent of the underlying authorizing legislation was to focus on the loss, injury or death of family pets and that the proposed rule could not effectively and efficiently be applied to the entire animal kingdom. AZA further noted that if the definition of animal were expanded to include all species, it is conceivable that the burden placed upon the airlines could effectively force air carriers to completely discontinue the transport of all animals. This would create catastrophic consequences for the AZA zoo and aquarium community and the sustainability of the animal collections in their care.
AZA also commented that the Congressional intent of the underlying authorizing legislation was to focus on the loss, injury or death of family pets and that the proposed rule could not effectively and efficiently be applied to the entire animal kingdom. AZA further noted that if the definition of animal were expanded to include all species, it is conceivable that the burden placed upon the airlines could effectively force air carriers to completely discontinue the transport of all animals. This would create catastrophic consequences for the AZA zoo and aquarium community and the sustainability of the animal collections in their care.
USDOT declined to expand the definition of
animal to cover all species of animals stating, “We believe it would be unduly burdensome to require covered carriers to report the death,
loss, or injury of all species of animals because there potentially could be
thousands of individual animals such as fish, rodents, and insects that are
transported by air carriers in a single commercial shipment.”
No comments:
Post a Comment