New Mexico animal lovers want to see animal abuse registry

Apparently the push by ALDF for animal abuser registries is still on.  These registries are a very bad idea. Learn more about the registries at the SAOVA website.

ALBUQUERQUE (KRQE) – Sex offenders have to register online, now there’s talks in New Mexico of making animal abusers do the same.

It all started with a recent post in a Facebook group for New Mexico animal lovers. The post brought up the idea of an animal abuse registry.

“My initial feeling was it was another resource that will give a voice to the voiceless,” said Krisinda Cheney. Cheney said when she saw the post about an animal abuse registry, she was all for the idea. “In New Mexico, a great deal goes unreported so I think it’s something that holds individuals accountable,” said Cheney.

This isn’t a new idea. Other states have considered the database before and some cities have already implemented it.

“So far this policy has been adopted in multiple jurisdictions in New York State,” said Scott Heiser of the Animal Legal Defense Fund. Heiser said the organization is pushing for a registry in every state.

“It’s a vehicle that prevents those who are placing animals or adoptive animals out into potentially loving homes, a tool to get accurate information when doing background checks,” said Heiser.

At Animal Protection of New Mexico, they said they’re for any initiative that protects animals. However, they said there’s still a lot of barriers to pass the database. “Not the least is figuring out who will run it, who will build it and maintain it, where the money will come from,” said Jessica Johnson of Animal Protection of New Mexico. Johnson also said the person running it has to have access to the right information from law enforcement.

Full article at link:  http://krqe.com/2015/06/22/new-mexico-animal-lovers-want-to-see-animal-abuse-registry/

News Briefs and Updates June 7, 2015

SAOVA Friends,

We have recently added an informational page on Agency Rulemaking to our website.  We have included a guide to the rulemaking process prepared by the Federal Register which can answer basic questions on the rulemaking process such as how an agency decides to begin rulemaking and the role Congress may or may not play in the process.

Animal rights and environmental groups often submit petitions to various agencies to initiate the rulemaking process in order to advance their agendas. These groups have found it is easier working through the rulemaking process than advocating for federal legislation as it is generally very difficult to get a bill passed by Congress.  Links to rules we have selected for this page show the diversity of departments, species, and animal use covered by these petitions where various groups have demanded change.  An agency will sometimes deny acting on a petition.

Please visit the new Agency Rulemaking page http://saova.org/Agency_rulemaking.html 

We trust this will become a useful resource for your information and research needs.

Thank you for reading. Cross Posting is encouraged.

Susan Wolf

Sportsmen's and Animal Owners' Voting Alliance

Working to identify and elect supportive legislators

saova@earthlink.net 

http://saova.org   

EPA FINALIZES CLEAN WATER RULE

EPA and the U.S. Army finalized the Clean Water Rule May 27. In its ruling release, the EPA states the rule does not create any new permitting requirements for agriculture and maintains all previous exemptions and exclusions.  According to EPA the rules will apply only to those waters with a "direct and significant" connection to larger bodies of water that are already protected. Critics of the rule argue that it will unduly expand federal influence. American Farm Bureau Federation President Bob Stallman said the EPA’s original proposal “dealt more with regulating land use” than water quality, and that the farm organization is still reviewing the final rule, particularly as it addresses streams, ditches, small ponds and isolated wetlands.   Congress is working on bills that will require EPA to withdraw the rule and to adhere to limiting principles that would ensure that any new proposal conforms to the jurisdictional limits set by Congress and affirmed by the Supreme Court.  See S 1140 Federal Water Quality Protection Act   http://tinyurl.com/q63cvnp  and HR 1732 Regulatory Integrity Protection Act of 2015 http://tinyurl.com/p8w9jyx which passed the House and has been received in the Senate.

CONNECTICUT PASSES SUNDAY HUNTING BILL

On June 3, the Connecticut Senate approved legislation that would allow Sunday archery hunting for deer on private lands in the Constitution State. Championed throughout the process by the Connecticut Legislative Sportsmen’s Caucus, HB 6034 now heads to the Governor for his consideration.  The Sunday hunting ban in Connecticut originated from the American colonial era when puritanical “blue laws” were commonly enacted to encourage church attendance.  With the passage of HB 6034, Connecticut now joins the 45 other states throughout the nation that allow for Sunday hunting in some capacity.  Allowing Sunday hunting in Connecticut will fundamentally increase private property owners’ freedom to choose how to manage their land and its natural resources, and will provide an additional adaptive management tool for the Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection to effectively manage wildlife resources within the state. Additionally, Sunday hunting will result in increased economic activity for the state and will increase access to the resource for Connecticut’s 21,000 archery hunters.  Source: Sportsmen’s Link http://tinyurl.com/q93nnnj

NORTH CAROLINA PASSES PROPERTY PROTECTION ACT

NC House and Senate voted to override Governor Pat McCrory's veto of House Bill 405, a law that supporters say protects private property rights but opponents say suppresses whistleblowers. Nicknamed an "ag-gag" bill, animal rights groups claim the measure will hide animal cruelty by preventing undercover investigations. “The Property Protection Act, a result of careful bi-partisan negotiations, balances the rights of business owners with the rights of their employees to strengthen North Carolina trespass laws”, stated Representative John Szoka (R-Cumberland), primary bill sponsor. Szoka continued, “The bill protects property owners against those who gain access to non-public areas of the owner’s property and then engage in activities that go beyond the permission given by the owner. The bill is narrowly focused on illegal activities not on infringing on the liberties of whistleblowers or press.”  Bill Sponsor Senator Brent Jackson, a farmer representing Duplin County, says employees will not be liable for filming in areas where they are allowed to be. “This has to do with employees going to places they’re not allowed to go,” he said. “As long as they’re allowed to move in those facilities, they wouldn’t be liable.”

PENNSYLVANIA SENATE PASSES ONEROUS TETHER, SHELTER BILL

Senate Bill 373 to amend the state’s cruelty laws unanimously passed the Senate and will be sent to the House.  The bill prohibits a dog from being tethered outside if a severe weather alert has been issued; or for more than 30 minutes if the temperature is below 32 degrees. Compliance with this requirement would be impossible for those who work and are not home should temperatures or weather change during the day.  This would also have direct, negative impact on field trials and winter dog sports.  The bill also sets specific standards for shelter and bedding for dogs that are kept outdoors.  SB 373 requires dog housing to be moisture proof with a floor raised 3 inches from the ground, wind proof, and have an eight-inch overhanging roof to keep out rain. These requirements would force dog owners, breeders, and sportsmen who keep dogs outside in winter to virtually custom build new dog houses.  The bill includes size requirements for dog houses and prohibits certain types of bedding such as hay.

Current PA law already states that it is an offense “to deprive any animal of necessary sustenance, drink, shelter or veterinary care, or access to clean and sanitary shelter which will protect the animal against inclement weather and preserve the animal's body heat and keep it dry”.  Look up SB 373 http://tinyurl.com/l3949q6  and contact your Representative now to oppose these burdensome and unnecessary regulation changes.  http://tinyurl.com/mtsxsgt

TENNESSEE ACTIVISTS COMPLAIN ABOUT NEW ABUSER REGISTRY

Animal advocates are unhappy with the new registry claiming it is not strong enough. The original bill would have placed everyone who committed abuse, including hoarders and those convicted of even misdemeanor violations, on the TN Bureau of Investigation online registry.  However, the bill was amended to only place felony convictions for animal cruelty on the registry.  Activists are already considering campaigning to elevate some animal cruelty violations to felony charges which would then allow those convicted to be placed on the registry.  Chattanooga Humane Educational Society Executive Director Bob Citrullo told reporters people who commit animal abuse progress onto other things like murders and serial killings.   In May TN lawmakers passed the first statewide abuser registry in history.  Should activists resurrect this issue, we can only hope this will be a lesson learned for lawmakers that zealots are never satisfied.

TEXAS LAWMAKERS PASS RIGHT TO HUNT AND FISH AMENDMENT

Sportsmen’s groups are applauding members of the Texas state House and Senate for passing Senate Joint Resolution 22, a constitutional amendment to protect the right to hunt, fish and harvest wildlife in the state of Texas. Voters will have the opportunity to ratify the amendment on November 3, 2015.

“Adoption of the Right to Hunt and Fish amendment will safeguard the hunters and anglers of Texas from extreme animal rights groups dedicated to abolishing America’s outdoor tradition,” said Chris W. Cox, executive director of the National Rifle Association’s Institute for Legislative Action. “This important constitutional safeguard will protect wildlife and promote conservation.”

Language for the amendment includes the following:

“The people have the right to hunt, fish, and harvest wildlife, including by the use of traditional methods, subject to laws or regulations to conserve and manage wildlife and preserve the future of hunting and fishing. Hunting and fishing are preferred methods of managing and controlling wildlife.”

Nearly 3 million people spend more than $4 billion dollars a year on hunting and fishing in Texas. That translates into $415 million raised in state and local tax revenue. Passage of the Right to Hunt and Fish amendment ensures that money, as well as the 65,000 hunting and fishing related jobs, will stay in Texas. Source: NRA

News Briefs and Updates March 11, 2015

 SAOVA Friends,

Again as legislatures open, animal abuser registries have been introduced in several states.  Although they may not seem to be as pressing as tethering, anti-hunting, or commercial breeder bills they should be addressed. Bills have been introduced in Arizona, Connecticut, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Texas, and West Virginia.  Numerous versions have been introduced in New York where support is strong and registry bills have been passed in a handful of counties and also in New York City. 

Establishing animal abuser registries is a campaign championed by the extremely radical Animal Legal Defense Fund (ALDF). ALDF and other registry supporters justify the need for a registry with the claim that convicted animal abusers pose a real, ongoing threat to pets, family, and community, further claiming abuser actions will escalate to committing crimes against people. Activists have even gone so far as to say animal abusers are potential serial killers. Advocates claim the registry will make neighborhoods and pets safer.  To date, there is not a shred of evidence that registries can achieve any of the supporters’ claims.

The vast majority of animal cruelty involves neglect by the animal’s owner and many cases often involve hoarders. Animal hoarding refers to the compulsive need to collect and own animals for the sake of caring for them that usually results in accidental or unintentional neglect or abuse. Animal hoarding is a mental disorder and approximately 40 percent of object hoarders also hoard animals. Hoarders have an intense emotional attachment to the animals in their care and confuse loving the animals with the reality of their inability to provide a safe, clean, and healthy home for them. Treatment of hoarders by mental health services is a more prudent course of action in these situations than years of public exposure and humiliation on web site lists where hoarders are unrealistically stereotyped as dangers to society.

The SAOVA website has extensive information on the negative side of abuser registries.  http://saova.org/ALDF_AbuserRegistry.html  if a bill has been introduced in your state, review our site and take time to send an email to committee members where the bill resides.  This is a chance to educate them regarding the flawed concept of these dangerous animal abuser registries.

 Cross Posting is encouraged.

Susan Wolf

Sportsmen's and Animal Owners' Voting Alliance

Working to identify and elect supportive legislators

5TH CIRCUIT NIXES USDA HORSE-PROTECTION RULE

By Lorraine Bailey

February 23, 2015. (CN) - The 5th Circuit struck down a USDA rule aimed at penalizing horse owners who purposely injure their horses to achieve a gait prized at horse competitions.

Contender Farms, owned by Mark McGartland, sued the U.S. Department of Agriculture to block federal regulations aiming to crack down on cheaters who attempt to win horse shows by harming their horses.

Tennessee show horses have a distinctive high-stepping gait, achieved through extensive training. But it can also be achieved by illegal means by injuring the animal with harmful chemicals to get them to high step, a technique known as "soring."

Soring is prohibited by the Horse Protection Act, which also authorizes the USDA to regulate the management of horse shows, and set licensing requirements for inspectors who examine horses for signs of soring.

In the attempt to achieve a consistent punishment for the practice, the USDA adopted a new regulation in 2012 requiring horse organizations adopt mandatory minimum suspension penalties for soring violators as a condition of participating in the department's inspection program, a necessity for putting on a horse show.

However, the 5th Circuit ruled last week that the regulation overstepped the USDA's authority.  "The suspensions target participants in Tennessee walking horse events like Contender Farms and McGartland, and they are as much objects of the Regulation as the HIOs [horse industry organizations] themselves," Judge E. Grady Jolly said, writing for the three-judge panel. (Emphasis in original.)

The regulation states that if an inspector discovers a violation, individuals responsible for showing the horse, allowing entry of the horse into a show, or selling the horse must all be suspended.   "Although participants in horse shows have always been subject to regulations from both HIOs and the USDA, the USDA has now taken intrusive steps into the private scheme to strengthen the penalties that HIOs must levy against those found to sore horses," the 23-page opinion said.

While a horsing organization may decline to hire USDA-approved inspectors, it must then accept liability for failing to disqualify a sored horse, even if management was unaware the horse was sore, a choice very few organizations make, according to the judgment. 

"The plain language of the HPA suggests that Congress intended a private horse inspection system. This statutory regime does not support the USDA's position that Congress authorized it to promulgate the regulation, which requires private parties to impose government-mandated suspensions as an arm of HPA enforcement," Jolly concluded. (Emphasis in original.)   SOURCE:  Courthouse News 

ARKANSAS COMMERCIAL BREEDER BILL

HB 1620 To Regulate the Breeding of Certain Animals; Create the Arkansas Commercial Breeding Kennel Act; and Declare an Emergency    Sponsor: Representative Sorvillo (R-District 32).  The bill is intended to, among other things, require the licensing of commercial breeding kennels and of dogs sold for commercial purposes and to increase the standards of care for commercial breeding kennels.  Items of concern include the following: An unclear definition of commercial breeding kennel; unclear exemption for hunting dogs; a definition of "sufficient housing, including protection from the elements" that would prevent a breeder from keeping a dog in an outdoors enclosure with access to an adequately insulated dog house. HB 1620 would also define how frequently a dog may be bred. This decision is best left to the breeder and veterinarian, not a lawmaker. The bill is now scheduled to be heard in the House Agriculture, Forestry and Economic Development Committee on Friday, March 13.  Arkansas dog owners,  breeders, and sportsmen should continue to contact the bill's sponsor, the Agriculture committee members, and other House members immediately with their concerns. Track the bill here: http://tinyurl.com/pp8fboa

Contact for committee members here: http://tinyurl.com/l62jwhl

NORTH CAROLINA COMMERCIAL BREEDER BILL HB159

Once again the misguided McCrory/HSUS breeder regulation bill has been introduced by Rep. Jason Saine (R-Lincoln). This latest version attempts to create an exemption for those who keep dogs exclusively for herding, guarding livestock or farm animals, hunting, tracking, or exhibiting in dog shows, performance events, or field and obedience trials. However, the bill defines commercial breeder as anyone who owns or maintains 11 or more female dogs over the age of 6 months primarily for the purpose of breeding. This bases the law once again on ownership and not sales and requires no sales activity in order to enact regulation. The bill includes requirements for kennel standards, outdoor lighting, perimeter fencing, temperature control, and record keeping. The bill would also transfer animal welfare oversight from the Department of Agriculture to the Department of Public Safety. Law enforcement should not be burdened with developing, administering, and regulating animal policy. Their time is too valuable to be to be spent as HSUS foot soldiers. Moving Animal Welfare to the Department of Public Safety is an attempt to start rewriting laws regarding animal welfare in accordance with the animal rights agenda. Track the bill here: http://tinyurl.com/qbtq899 HB159 has been assigned to House Judiciary II Committee. http://tinyurl.com/kesckyn  Contact committee members and your representative now with opposition to this bill.

SOUTH CAROLINA PUSH FOR COMMERCIAL BREEDER BILL

Senator Greg Hembree (R-Dillon and Horry Counties) recently delivered a report to the Senate Agriculture and Natural Resources Committee on animal welfare laws.  Senator Hembree believes the problem of puppy mills is recognized by both the House and the Senate.  Hembree told reporters, "They know it's there. It's a matter of getting enough momentum behind the problem to push legislation along." Currently, puppy mills, breeders, and nonprofits are not regulated. Hembree said the General Assembly is moving in the right direction, but lawmakers need help from home to get legislation filed. Hembree added that he strongly believes some legislation regarding the regulation of puppy mills and nonprofits organizations will go before the General Assembly this year.  SOURCE: Carolina Live 

Legislation Updates February 16, 2014

SAOVA Friends,

Most legislatures are now in session for 2014 and there is no shortage of bills being introduced targeting dog breeders and sportsmen.  We have a short list of bills below that require your attention now.  Additional bills are being tracked at the SAOVA website http://saova.org/news.html Please check weekly for updates.  Cross posting is encouraged.

Susan Wolf

Sportsmen's & Animal Owners' Voting Alliance

Working to Identify and Elect Supportive Legislators

saova@earthlink.net

ARIZONA

Wayne Pacelle made a personal appearance at this month’s Humane Lobby Day to push HSUS priority bills. Among them HB 2022 prohibiting convicted animal abusers from owning or otherwise caring for any animal and HB 2215/SB 1036 adding cockfighting or other animal-fighting crimes to the list of racketeering crimes.

HB 2242 Commercial Dog Breeders and Pet Dealers is another HSUS priority bill. Sponsors: Representatives Kavanagh, Sherwood, Ugenti, Coleman, Forese, Lovas, Pratt, Shope; Senators Reagan, McComish, Melvin, Meza. HB 2242 adds definition of commercial dog breeder to Pet Lemon Law Statute 44-1799. Commercial dog breeder defined as a person that sells twenty or more dogs in a calendar year but does not include commercial livestock operations. The bill adds commercial breeder to the definition of pet dealer and also requires a veterinary examination of all female dogs owned before breeding. Commercial breeders would then be subject to provisions of the Pet Lemon Law including record keeping, purchaser remedies, and civil penalties. STATUS: Passed House Agriculture and Water Committee 8-0; passed House second read 1/23/14. Placed on Consent Calendar 2/10/14. Calls in opposition are urgently needed now.

HB 2302 Public Sale of Animals Sponsors: Representatives Frank Pratt (R, 8), T J Shope (R, 8).

Revises statutes making public sale of animals unlawful on any public highway, street or park or any public property adjacent to a public highway, street or park, or any commercial private property without the express consent of the owner or lessee of the property. Status: 1/22/14 PASSED Agriculture and Water 8-0. Placed on Consent Calendar 2/10/14. It is common practice for dog breeders and sportsmen to meet at mutually convenient locations in order to buy or sell a dog. HB 2302 would make this illegal. Now that the APHIS pet rule demands sales for most breeders be transacted in person, it is more important than ever to stop bills that place prohibitions on where sales can take place.   

Contact info for Arizona House Members: http://tinyurl.com/y746ffv

ILLINOIS

HB 4188 Animal Abuse Registry. Sponsor Maria Antonia Berrios (D-39) creates the Animal Abuse Registry Fund; amends the Humane Care for Animals Act. Provides that the Department of Agriculture shall create and maintain an animal abuse registry. Failure to register is a Class B misdemeanor for a first offense and a Class 4 felony for a subsequent violation. Prohibits a registered person from owning a companion animal or being employed at an animal shelter, pound, pet shop, zoo, or other business where companion animals are present. See SAOVA page opposing Animal Abuser Registry Campaign http://saova.org/ALDF_AbuserRegistry.html 

Animal abuse cases comprise less than 1% of all convictions in the State of Illinois. At this time, the small percentage of convictions does not warrant the large expenditure of funds required to set up and maintain a registry.  See SAOVA’s opposition letter http://tinyurl.com/q4lp27n

HEARING SCHEDULED. Agriculture & Conservation Committee Feb 18 2014 2:00PM Stratton Building Room D-1 Springfield, IL. 

Call committee members and OPPOSE the registry.

Patrick J. Verschoore (217) 782-5970

Jerry F. Costello, II  (217) 782-1018

Donald L. Moffitt  (217) 782-8032

Kelly Burke  (217) 782-0515

John D. Cavaletto  (217) 782-0066

Katherine Cloonen  (217) 782-5981

Marcus C. Evans, Jr.  (217) 782-8272

Brad E. Halbrook  (217) 558-1040

Josh Harms  (217) 558-1039

Stephanie A. Kifowit  (217) 782-8028

Frank J. Mautino  (217) 782-0140

Charles E. Meier  (217) 782-6401

Christian L. Mitchell  (217) 782-2023

Raymond Poe  (217) 782-0044

Wayne Rosenthal  (217) 782-8071

Sue Scherer  (217) 524-0353

Brian W. Stewart  (217) 782-8186

VIRGINIA

SB42 Penning of fox or coyote; penalty. Summary as passed by Senate: Makes it a Class 1 misdemeanor for any person to erect or maintain an enclosure for the purpose of pursuing, hunting, or killing or attempting to pursue, hunt, or kill a fox or coyote with dogs. The bill exempts from the prohibition any enclosure operated by a person holding a permit initially issued prior to January 1, 2014. The bill has been assigned to House Subcommittee on Natural Resources http://tinyurl.com/mmh8eg9

There are nearly 40 pens in rural parts of Virginia. Penning is NOT a blood sport as HSUS claims; the pens are a good way to train dogs while keeping them out of roads and off property of others.  Sportsmen should continue to oppose SB42.

WEST VIRGINIA

HB 4218 Permitting counties to adopt certain ordinances relating to dogs and cats; introduced and referred to House Political Subdivisions 01/17/14.  Sponsor Rep. Marty Gearheart (R-27); Cosponsors  Shott, Ellington, Border, Sponaugle, Fleischauer, Manypenny, Evans, A., Westfall, Campbell, Romine. Bill summary: the Legislature finds that it may be in the best interest of the public to protect the health and safety of the individuals as well as the health and safety of animals owned by residents of a county by reducing the number of dogs and cats that are stray or abandoned. HB 4218 confers authority to counties to enact ordinances requiring various restraints and control of dogs owned or in the custody and control of persons in the county. The bill allows county commissions to adopt an ordinance upon approval by referendum.

An ordinance may:

Prohibit persons from keeping a dog on a leash and tied to the ground or structure;

Prohibit persons from confining a dog to a pen, run or cage or leave a dog in a vehicle without adequate protection;

Prohibit persons from leaving a dog confined without providing adequate food or water to safely sustain the dog at all times.

Limit the number of animals owned that are not spayed or neutered;
Provide penalties for violations and authorize humane officers to take possession of any dog or cat that is not properly spayed or neutered or adequately restrained or controlled as required by the ordinance.

HB 4218 is a roadmap for bad local legislation and ownership restrictions.  Contact information for House Political Subdivisions Committee: http://tinyurl.com/mchketq

  

Legislation Briefs and APHIS Rule Update October 14, 2013

SAOVA Friends,

Since APHIS announced the Final Retail Pet Store Rule a number of commentaries have surfaced as groups and individuals attempt to interpret this rule and provide guidance. The overarching intent of the revision is to regulate sight unseen sales which APHIS claims have dramatically increased as a result of growing internet usage. APHIS has determined that their mission to enforce regulation of listed animal species under the Animal Welfare Act (AWA) now includes those sold in retail as well as commercial markets.

The revised language as set in the APHIS rule now has the force and effect of law. Anything else stated by APHIS staff in response to questions should only be considered as an explanation of pending policy. These policies are not only open to interpretation by individual inspectors, but can be modified by the agency at any time.

Part 3 of the AWA details the Standards of Care for housing, facilities, exercise, cleaning, sanitization, and housekeeping required under USDA/APHIS regulation. Standards will not be revised for home-based retail sellers as APHIS cannot privilege newly licensed breeders over currently licensed breeders. The Final Rule notes: “Several of these commenters suggested that we amend part 3 in the final rule to establish alternate, performance-based standards for dog and cat fanciers and other small-scale residential breeders. We are making no changes in response to these comments. The comments were predicated on an assumption that it will be cost-prohibitive for most residential breeders who are regulated as a result of this rule to meet the standards in part 3; we do not consider that to be the case. (Page 63 of 91)

Below is a short list of noteworthy statements from the Final Rule Discussion of Comments regarding who APHIS intends to license. Access this document at http://www.saova.org/APHIS_rulemaking.html

1. We consider private rescues and shelters that perform any of the activities listed in the definition of dealer, including transporting or offering animals for compensation, to be dealers. We consider acts of compensation to include any remuneration for the animal, regardless of whether it is for profit or not for profit. Remuneration thus includes, but is not limited to, sales, adoption fees, and donations. (Page 13 of 91)

2. If an individual is selling animals at retail for breeding purposes, that individual is not a dealer. We do, however, share the concern that claiming breeding purposes as the purpose for an animal’s retail sale could be subject to abuse. Therefore, if we were to receive word that individuals making such claims are, in fact, marketing their animals as pets, we would consider this to be grounds for initiating an investigation to resolve the matter. (Page 15 of 91)

3. Those who own more than four breeding females and wish to continue selling the offspring as pets, sight unseen, can do so by obtaining a license and allowing APHIS inspectors to inspect their facility. (Page 24 of 91)

4. As is the case with commercial pet retailers, representatives of rescue groups also must be physically present at a place of business so that potential buyers/adoptees can personally observe their animals before purchasing and/or taking custody of them. (Page 35 of 91)

5. In instances where there is some question about the method of sale, APHIS will conduct an investigation and determine whether a sight unseen sale has occurred. (Page 36 of 91)

6. APHIS investigates all credible reports we receive of unlicensed activities involving sales of covered pets. (Page 39 of 91) Note: APHIS stated in a conference call hosted by AKC that complaints of noncompliance will be accepted by email and through their web site and can be anonymous.

7. Farm animals intended for use as food, fiber, or other purposes specified under the definition of farm animal in § 1.1 are exempt from regulation, regardless of whether those animals are sold face-to-face or sight unseen. Farm animals sold specifically as pets in face-to-face transactions are also exempt from licensing. (Page 41 of 91)

8. If sellers of such [working] dogs also sell dogs at retail for pets, any female dogs bred to produce puppies for sale would be counted as breeding females. (Page 57 of 91)

The commentary contains considerable discussion of Breeding Females and Offspring as the final rule exempts anyone who maintains a total of four or fewer breeding female dogs, cats, and/or small exotic or wild mammals, and who sells only the offspring of these dogs, cats, and/or small exotic or wild mammals, which were born and raised on his or her premises. It is important to note that the word “maintains” includes any breeding female even temporarily residing at that premise, and that the exemption refers to the aggregate number of females on premise regardless of species. It is ultimately an APHIS inspector’s responsibility to decide whether an animal is a breeding female and, generally, APHIS assumes that any female capable of breeding may be bred.

When the rule was proposed in 2012 there was uncertainty regarding its effect on sales of farm animals because the definition of retail pet store names domestic farm animals in the list of covered animals. We were told by APHIS personnel this was not an issue as farm animals were excluded from AWA regulation by definition. However, the Final Rule Discussion of Comments raises this concern once again. APHIS acknowledges that farm animals intended for use as food, fiber, or other purposes specified under the definition of farm animal in § 1.1 are exempt from regulation, then adds “Farm animals intended to be used as pets, for biomedical research, or other nonagricultural research are regulated under the AWA. APHIS further stipulates (Page 41) “Farm animals sold specifically as pets in face-to-face transactions are also exempt from licensing.” Does this provision imply that shipping a “farm animal” as a pet requires a license?

APHIS repeatedly states they will determine who requires a license on a case by case basis. We would strongly advise having an attorney assist you in any dealings with APHIS regarding these decisions.

Thanks for reading. Cross posting is encouraged.

Susan Wolf
Sportsmen's & Animal Owners' Voting Alliance
Working to Identify and Elect Supportive Legislators
saova@earthlink.net

UKC COMMENTARY ON NEW USDA RULES
Posted by Sara Chisnell, UKC Legal Counsel under Your Dog, Your Rights

By now, most of you have heard that some changes have been made to the Animal Welfare Act (AWA) that affect dog breeders, but there has been a lot of confusion on exactly how these changes work. I will attempt to clarify and simplify, to the best of my knowledge, but many of the definitions and applications remain unclear.

First of all, what is the AWA? In a nutshell, the AWA was originally created in order to oversee the humane treatment of animals used in research, and was later expanded to include transporting and dealing animals, as well. The law delineates who must be licensed and subsequently adhere to regulations and standards. Dog breeders who sell pets only at retail, and “retail pet stores”, are exempted from the AWA. The changes to the AWA revise and narrow the definition of “retail pet stores”.

The AWA regulates and requires dealers to be licensed and inspected. A “dealer” is defined as “any person who, in commerce, for compensation or profit, delivers for transportation, or transports, except as a carrier, buys, sells, or negotiates the purchase or sale of: Any dog or other animal whether alive or dead (including unborn animals, organs, limbs, blood, serum or other parts) for research, teaching, testing, experimentation, exhibition, or for use as a pet, or any dog at the wholesale level for hunting, security or breeding purposes.” “Retail pet stores” or anyone who sells dogs at retail for “hunting, breeding or security purposes” are exempt from licensing.

Who will be affected by this definition change? It might not be as sweeping and over-inclusive as it first appeared. Basically, the dog breeders it will affect will be those who sell dogs sight unseen, have more than four (4) “breeding females”, and sell dogs as pets. Sounds simple, right? Not so much. Read commentary at link: http://tinyurl.com/mlwqwxj

USDA ORDERS FOSTER FOODS TO CLEAN-UP PLANTS
Foster Farms in California was told to clean-up or shut down after three of their California plants were linked to a salmonella outbreak. This week Foster Farms issued a press release stating plants would stay open. “USDA Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) today reviewed Foster Farms’ safety plan for its three California facilities in Livingston and Fresno. This follows Foster Farms’ implementation of several new food safety controls over the last two months and the company’s commitment to install added processes during an enhanced inspection period over the next 90 days.”

The CDC reported in July of 2013 that testing of samples traced back to two Foster Farms slaughter establishments. The CDC also reported that some of the salmonella strains detected were showing resistance to antibiotics. The L.A. Times reported a statement by John Glisson, director of research for the U.S. Poultry & Egg Assn., defending the use of antibiotics in agriculture. Glisson stressed that salmonella was a formidable challenge to the poultry industry. The bacteria grows in animals' intestinal tracts and is spread through feces. It can contaminate a chicken farm through water, feed, birds and rodents. When infected chicken waste dries, salmonella can spread through dust.

Foster Farms was the first major broiler chicken producer in the nation to carry the American Humane Association seal, ensuring consumers that its farms meet the nonprofit's animal welfare guidelines for raising poultry. Sources: CDC , Foster Farms, LA Times, SF Gate

HSUS SEEKS REGULATION CHANGE IN KANSAS
Proposed changes to the Kansas Pet Animal Act (KPAA) are being considered by a House-Senate committee which will forward its recommendations to the full Legislature when the 2014 session starts in January. HSUS state director, Midge Grinstead, called for more inspections of breeders to make sure that animal housing standards are being met. Advocates claim current regulations are inadequate to ensure animals in crowded conditions have adequate water, are subject to proper temperatures, and given enough room to move around. Several committee members said they did not see the need to regulate "hobby" breeders or animal training businesses. HSUS included 11 Kansas breeders in their Horrible Hundred list — the third highest of the 20 states in the study.

MASSACHUSETTS PAWS ACT
New legislation filed by Minority Leader Bruce Tarr of Gloucester titled An Act Protecting Animal Welfare and Safety (PAWS Act) would raise animal cruelty fines and penalties. Second or subsequent offenses would have increased penalties from 5 to 10 years in state prison and fines up to $20,000. The legislation would create an anonymous animal abuse tip hotline and impose a fine of up to $1,000 on any veterinarian who fails to report a suspected act of cruelty to an animal. A statewide registry of individuals convicted of animal abuse crimes would be established, and all animal shelters, pet stores or animal breeders would be required to check the registry prior to offering, selling, delivering, or giving an animal to any individual.

PENNSYLVANIA SB1126 MOVES DOG LAW TO HEALTH DEPARTMENT
Introduced October 10, 2013 by Senators Dinniman, Alloway, Erickson, Vogel and Greenleaf, SB1126 amends the Dog Law by moving responsibility from the Department of Agriculture to the Department of Health. The Department of Health would carry out all the administrative and oversight tasks currently required by the Dog Law, including the regulation of dog kennels; the collection of complaints and tips alleging violations of the Dog Law; the seizure of dogs from illegal, unlicensed kennels; and the collection of dog-license, kennel and out-of-state-dealers fees. Senators Dinniman (D, Chester) and Alloway (R, Franklin) state with Dog Law enforcement in the Department of Agriculture, dogs are treated as any other agricultural product and moving them under the responsibility of the Department of Health correctly changes the focus to health, welfare and safety. Senators Dinniman and Alloway plan to unveil a package of bills October 22 with a public dog rally at the Capitol.

COBB COUNTY GA ANIMAL ABUSE UNIT
Cobb District Attorney Vic Reynolds names Sherwin Figueroa and Theresa Schiefer, who both joined the District Attorney’s Office earlier this year, as part of a new Animal Abuse Unit. His office prosecuted five felony aggravated cruelty to animal cases in 2011 and 2012 and, so far in 2013, there have been two cases indicted. Misdemeanor animal cases are prosecuted by the Solicitor General’s Office. Figueroa is an advocate of animal protection and serves as the vice president of the State Bar of Georgia’s Animal Law Section. Source: Marietta Daily Journal