SAOVA friends,
We have an important message from our friends at the Associated Dog Clubs of New York State (ADCNYS) regarding their current effort to file an injunction against APHIS in order to block implementation of the Retail Pet Store Rule. 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
Dear Friends,
I am asking you to join in supporting a legal challenge to the unreasonable USDA/APHIS rule that takes effect November 18, 2013.
Associated Dog Clubs of New York State is an AKC Federation of Dog Clubs with 56 member clubs in New York State. ADCNYS is a legislative advocacy group, but is now embarking on litigation on behalf of pet breeders whose activities depend on the ability to maintain sound breeding programs and practices.
We are happy to let you know that we have surpassed our initial target of $10,000 to pay a retainer for filing the motion for injunction, and are continuing to build the war chest we will need to support further litigation after the motion has been heard. If you or your group have contributed - Thank You! If you have not donated yet, here is some information that may help in your decision. And please note that we refer just to "dogs" for brevity; our concerns include all pet species regulated by USDA.
• Filing for the injunction is the first step, not the whole process. An injunction is a court order that requires a party to do (or refrain from doing) specific acts. In this case we seek to block implementation of the rule on November 18. The basis for seeking an injunction is that USDA did not follow all the procedures and meet the standards for rulemaking, and the rule will adversely impact thousands of pet breeders who are doing nothing wrong in caring for and selling pets. The case will be heard by a judge, not a jury.
• An injunction may be granted if the plaintiffs can make a case that they will be irreparably harmed by implementation of the new regulation. Irreparable harm is generally that which cannot be remedied by money damages - you can surely think of many examples of irreparable harm from a regulation that prevents you from buying puppies you want and selling to others who want what you breed. The rule will restrict shipping, impact common breeding arrangements among fanciers, and require significant changes in caring for our dogs - IF we can provide the physical environment the regulations require. If not, our breeding programs will be profoundly altered by limitations needed to remain unlicensed.
• When the motion for a temporary injunction is filed, USDA would have the burden of proving that irreparable harm would not occur if the rule is implemented. Based on their responses to various questions in the conference calls and last week's webinar, it seems very unlikely they would be able to do that. In this stage of the litigation, our full case relating the flaws in USDA's adoption of the rule will be presented to the court. USDA would also have to convince the court that its procedures met all the requirements set forth by law, and we believe we can show that they did not. The litigation stage of the case will be lengthy and exacting, and will take resources that can't be estimated at this point - but we know it will be long and costly, and donations will be needed far beyond the "seed money" that lets us file for the injunction.
• Even if a temporary injunction is not granted, we can still proceed with the litigation to prove that USDA did not follow the process and meet the standards required to adopt this rule. If the court does not agree there would be irreparable harm with enforcement of the rule, it may agree that the procedure was flawed and the rule must be rescinded, and that is our ultimate goal. It is likely that USDA would begin again to adopt the same rule or a similar rule, but it would have to follow procedures and we would have more opportunity to educate the officials involved so they can develop a rule that does not affect thousands of hobby breeders.
As you can see, this will be an exacting process that requires extensive preparation. To be sure we are presenting a thorough and persuasive case to the court, we have decided to delay our filing for the injunction by several days, perhaps up to two weeks. This does not jeopardize our right to challenge the rule, and it allows us additional time to expand the list of plaintiff organizations. It's important to have a widespread and diverse group of plaintiffs to show the seriousness of the rule's impact.
That's the nutshell version of the legal process we are launching. Here are some facts responding to other questions we have been asked:
What's your track record with cases like this? ADCNYS has had successes fighting bad state and local legislation in New York. It has not pursued court actions like this one, because there has not been a case with these implications. There have been only a handful of lawsuits in the entire nation to block implementation of a bad law once the governing body has enacted it. It is far better to block it from implementation than to strike it from the books later. For many breeders, this rule would require changes that can never truly be undone.
What if we don't get the injunction? If the community of pet breeders is willing to have its full case made to the court, as shown by the groundswell of donations and plaintiff support, failing to get a temporary injunction is a setback but not the end of the case. If we file for the injunction, we have a chance of getting it. If we don't file, we have a 100% chance of letting USDA go forward with the rule. We would rather fight now while we have a chance to stop it, than do nothing before it goes into effect. There are still ways to challenge it later if the injunction isn't granted, but the longer APHIS has to implement it, the more damage will be done. Delaying a challenge will cost many breeders a great deal of money, and opportunities they can never recover in their breeding programs.
Who are the plaintiffs and what do they do during this process? Clubs that have signed on as plaintiffs are simply saying, formally, that they believe this rule will cause serious and lasting harm to their members' ability to engage in lawful activities such as dog and cat breeding, and shows. Plaintiffs may provide examples of these effects for our litigation team to present, but it is highly unlikely that any plaintiff members would have to appear in court.
Why do we need a lot of plaintiffs? Having multiple plaintiffs across the country shows this rule affects many people who participate in activities involving purebred animals. It is not a small, elite group of breeders - it is, in fact, all BUT a relative handful of fanciers who breed dogs, cats, rabbits, hamsters, and other small pet species (except birds and reptiles). We post donors' locations (not names of individuals) for the same reason - implementation of this rule will be a nationwide calamity. If we aren't able to permanently block the rule in court, we will ask Congress to intervene through its oversight and funding functions, and we will be able to show we have serious supporters in every state.
Can plaintiffs be targeted for retaliation? Can they be sued for participating? USDA would have no reason to select members of a plaintiff club for scrutiny. Citizens have a right to challenge government actions, and as long as the challenge is in the form of filing a lawsuit, the government does not retaliate.
ADCNYS and the plaintiff clubs are ready to go the distance to change this excessive and punitive regulation of pet breeders who are "doing it right." Every dollar you can help raise for the lawsuit is a step toward that goal. Donation details and plaintiff forms are on our web site. Regardless of what happens with the injunction itself, please consider further donations so that we may continue the suit.
Sincerely,
Wanda Allen
President, ADCNYS
http://www.keepourdomesticanimals.com/
hobbah1@hotmail.com
Friday, November 15, 2013
Thursday, November 7, 2013
Farm Bill Fight Keys on Protecting Interstate Commerce
National Hog Farmer, Nov. 6, 2013. In its latest attempt to coerce Congress, the lobbying arm of The Humane Society has taken out $100,000 in online ads to force the removal of a key animal rights amendment from the 2013 farm bill, according to The Hill (http://thehill.com.).
The ads, which began running Friday, target members of the newly formed House-Senate farm bill conference committee, which began work last Wednesday. At issue is an amendment sponsored by Rep. Steve King (R-IA) that attempts to stop states such as California from banning goods made in other states based on the means of production.
The California law is aimed at eggs laid by hens kept in battery cages, and helped spur an agreement between the Humane Society and the United Egg Producers to phase out battery cages. A smaller group of egg producers and lobbyists for other growers, including pig farmers, are behind the King amendment.
The Humane Society Legislative Fund is targeting Sens. Max Baucus (D-MT), Tom Harkin (D-IA, and Amy Klobuchar (D-MN.) and Reps. Collin Peterson (D-MN), Tim Walz (D-MN), Mike McIntyre (D-NC), Steve Southerland (R-FL), Martha Roby (R-AL), Rodney Davis (R-IL), Austin Scott (R-GA), and Glenn Thompson (R-PA).
In 2012, the Humane Society Legislative Fund spent heavily in a failed effort to defeat King, whom the group views as its chief foe in Congress.
The ads, which began running Friday, target members of the newly formed House-Senate farm bill conference committee, which began work last Wednesday. At issue is an amendment sponsored by Rep. Steve King (R-IA) that attempts to stop states such as California from banning goods made in other states based on the means of production.
The California law is aimed at eggs laid by hens kept in battery cages, and helped spur an agreement between the Humane Society and the United Egg Producers to phase out battery cages. A smaller group of egg producers and lobbyists for other growers, including pig farmers, are behind the King amendment.
The Humane Society Legislative Fund is targeting Sens. Max Baucus (D-MT), Tom Harkin (D-IA, and Amy Klobuchar (D-MN.) and Reps. Collin Peterson (D-MN), Tim Walz (D-MN), Mike McIntyre (D-NC), Steve Southerland (R-FL), Martha Roby (R-AL), Rodney Davis (R-IL), Austin Scott (R-GA), and Glenn Thompson (R-PA).
In 2012, the Humane Society Legislative Fund spent heavily in a failed effort to defeat King, whom the group views as its chief foe in Congress.
Sunday, November 3, 2013
Legislation Briefs November 3, 2013
SAOVA Friends,
The final pet seller rule goes into effect on November 18, 2013. This rule would extend APHIS authority to include large segments of the retail pet trade as regulated under the Animal Welfare Act (AWA), including pet species as dogs, cats, guinea pigs, rabbits, and hamsters, among others. The overarching intent of the revision is to regulate sight unseen retail pet sales, which, without proof, APHIS claims have dramatically increased as a result of growing Internet usage. APHIS also claims the rule closes a so-called “Internet loophole” and restores the original intent of Congress for administration of the AWA.
We have always believed the issue of how Congress intended the AWA to be enforced was decided by the Circuit Court in Doris Day Animal League (DDAL) v. Ann M. Veneman (Secretary, USDA). We agree with the Court’s decision and do not think that several decades ago, Congress ever meant USDA to enforce the AWA inside people’s homes. However, now that the current APHIS administration has elected to make a determination granting themselves additional authority of such magnitude, we believe Congress is obligated to review this issue, and should do so as quickly as possible.
Download full article at http://saova.org/APHIS_authority.html
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
APHIS PET RULE LICENSING WEBINARS
USDA Animal Care will host a series of Retail Pet Store Rule webinars in November and December. Webinars will be held Thursdays from 2 p.m. to 3 p.m. EST for a four-week period. http://tinyurl.com/kgk4c3p The schedule of topics for the webinars is as follows:
November 7 – Am I regulated under USDA’s Retail Pet Store Rule
November 14 – How will USDA implement the Retail Pet Store Rule
November 21 – What is USDA’s inspection process in a home
December 5 – How will USDA enforce the Retail Pet Store Rule
FDA DECISION ON LABELING REQUIREMENTS FOR EGGS
Docket ID: FDA-2006-P-0338. September 22, 2013 FDA posted Denial of petition to revise requirements http://tinyurl.com/k7rxvey
Compassion Over Killing and Animal Legal Defense Fund and Penn Law Animal Law Project Petition, University of PA Law School, filed a citizens petition September 21, 2010 requesting new labeling of shell eggs sold in the U.S. Petitioners claim that current labeling fails to reveal to consumers certain material facts that substantially influence their purchasing decisions. Petitioners further requested that FDA require shell eggs to bear one of three labels: Free Range Eggs, Cage Free Eggs, Eggs From Caged Hens and provided descriptions of production conditions that would be associated with each term.
The agency states in its decision summary, “After careful review of your citizen petition and for the reasons described below, FDA is denying your citizen petition in accordance with 21 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 10.30(e)(3) because you do not provide a sufficient basis for the agency to revise the current labeling requirements for shell eggs. Specifically, you have not provided evidence sufficient to show that eggs from caged hens are “nutritionally inferior” to eggs from free-range and cage-free hens. Therefore, nutritional properties cannot provide a basis to consider the method of production for eggs to be a material fact. Moreover, nutritional information regarding particular eggs is conveyed to consumers directly by placing the particular nutrient information on the label, not by identifying the method of production, which does not provide consumers with information as to nutritive content. Second, you have not provided sufficient evidence to show that eggs from caged hens have a greater risk of Salmonella contamination than eggs from the other two production methods you define; consequently, the risk of Salmonella cannot provide a basis to consider the method of production for eggs to be a material fact. Finally, even assuming the method of egg production may be of interest to some consumers, consumer interest alone is not a material fact. Therefore, FDA is not compelled under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (“the Act”) or it’s implementing regulations to require such labeling under the law. Finally, even if the agency could require such labeling, it would choose to use its limited resources on rulemakings of higher priority, such as those that are of greatest public health significance or are statutorily-mandated.
PROHIBIT PUBLIC CONTACT WITH BIG CATS, BEARS, AND NONHUMAN PRIMATES
Docket No. APHIS-2012-0107. In August 2013, HSUS, World Wildlife Fund, Animal Legal Defense Fund (ALDF), Big Cat Rescue, and others petitioned APHIS to amend sections of the AWA. Petitioners requested regulation changes in part 2.131 to explicitly prohibit licensed exhibitors from allowing persons, with some exceptions, from coming into direct physical contact with any big cats, bears, and nonhuman primates of any age. The petition states that the current handling regulations in 9 CFR part 2 allow licensees the opportunity to engage in animal exhibition practices via interactive public contact sessions and photographic opportunities, and that these activities not only place these animals at risk of harm but threaten public safety. Petitioners also suggested revisions to 9 CFR part 3 to ensure that the sections containing specific standards for the handling of nonhuman primates are consistent with the regulatory changes they propose in § 2.131. Nonhuman primates include lemurs which are a popular exhibit at many petting zoos.
APHIS issued an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) requesting comments on conditions where public contact could be allowed; whether exhibitors and dealers should be required to keep additional records and identify their animals with microchips or retinal scans, etc. The comment period has been extended to November 18, 2013. Comment at Federal Register: http://tinyurl.com/ln76cs3
The majority of comments at this time are form letters from the HSUS website supporting a rule.
JUDGE CLEARS WAY FOR DOMESTIC HORSE SLAUGHTER
Judge’s Ruling Favors USDA Providing Horse Slaughter Inspections by Dan Flynn, November 1, 2013
USDA is not required to conduct an Environmental impact Statement or Environmental Assessment in order to grant equine inspection services to businesses planning to pack horsemeat for export, U.S. District Court Judge Christina Armijo ruled Friday. The judge denied the request by animal groups for a permanent injunction and dismissed the case challenging USDA’s authority. The decision is a massive loss for the Humane Society of the U.S., which largely funded the lawsuit and enlisted 15 other groups and individuals to join it as plaintiffs.
And it was a defining victory for the Department of Justice attorneys who re-affirmed USDA powers contained in the Federal Meat Inspection Act that go back more than 100 years. It means horse slaughter for human consumption could resume shortly under USDA inspection for the first time since 2006. “Valley Meat Company, LLC and Rains Natural Meats are both very pleased with the decision of Judge Armijo, said Albuquerque attorney A. Blair Dunn. “This is a very well-reasoned and thorough opinion. Valley and Rains are very grateful for the hard work and thought that Judge Armijo put into this decision. Both companies will now focus on final preparations to open and begin work.” Full story at link: http://tinyurl.com/mredlmd
CONGRESSIONAL SPORTSMEN'S CAUCUS BIPARTISAN LEADERSHIP
PUSHES TO RESTORE SEQUESTERED SPORTSMEN TRUST FUNDS
For Immediate Release. November 1, 2013 (Washington, DC). In an effort to exempt vital sportsmen trust funds from budget sequestration, the bipartisan Senate leadership of the Congressional Sportsmen's Caucus (CSC) sent a letter to Sylvia Burwell, Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), requesting that the $50 million sequestered from the Wildlife Restoration, Sport Fish Restoration and Boating Safety Trust Funds in 2013 be returned to the states.
In bipartisan fashion, CSC Senate Co-Chairs, Kay Hagan and John Thune, and Senate Vice-Chairs, Mark Pryor and James Risch, signed on to the letter, requesting the OMB release the sequestered sportsmen trust funds that are derived from excise taxes levied on guns and ammunition; fishing tackle and equipment; motorboat fuel; and bows and arrows. The trust funds are the foundation of the unique American System of Conservation Funding, a "user pays-public benefits" program. This user-pays funding strategy has produced numerous public benefits including: abundant fish and wildlife populations, access to public lands and clean waters, improved fish and wildlife habitat, improved soil and water conservation, shooting ranges, and boating access facilities.
Jeff Crane, President of the Congressional Sportsmen's Foundation (CSF) praised the Senate CSC leadership for their continued bipartisan support. "We salute the bipartisan leadership of the Congressional Sportsmen's Caucus for once again standing up in support of hunters and anglers. These dedicated trust funds form the financial backbone of the most successful conservation story in history, and to release them back to the state wildlife agencies where they belong is simply the right thing to do."
"North Carolina and states across the country depend on this funding to restore and manage fisheries and wildlife habitats, open and maintain recreational access, and provide hunting and boating safety education. Moreover, applying sequestration to the trust funds represents a breach in trust between sportsmen and women and industries that pay an excise tax to specifically fund projects that enhance outdoor recreation activities and opportunities," Senator Hagan stated.
By withholding $50 million from Wildlife Restoration, Sport Fish Restoration, and Boating Safety programs, the Budget Control Act of 2011 will adversely affect states' ability to manage their fish and wildlife resources; open and maintain recreational access; and deliver hunter and boating safety education.
In the letter, CSC leadership noted that in implementing sequestration, OMB is required to follow rules outlined in the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985. The act provides that budgetary resources sequestered in trust fund accounts in a fiscal year "shall be available in subsequent years to the extent otherwise provided in law."
In March, CSF, along with 44 organizations representing millions of hunters, anglers and other conservationists, sent a letter to House and Senate leadership requesting assistance in exempting the Wildlife and Sport Fish Restoration and Boating Safety Trust Funds from the Budget Sequestration Act of 2011. http://tinyurl.com/lvz9mal
CONTACT: Cole Henry cole@sportsmenslink.org
The final pet seller rule goes into effect on November 18, 2013. This rule would extend APHIS authority to include large segments of the retail pet trade as regulated under the Animal Welfare Act (AWA), including pet species as dogs, cats, guinea pigs, rabbits, and hamsters, among others. The overarching intent of the revision is to regulate sight unseen retail pet sales, which, without proof, APHIS claims have dramatically increased as a result of growing Internet usage. APHIS also claims the rule closes a so-called “Internet loophole” and restores the original intent of Congress for administration of the AWA.
We have always believed the issue of how Congress intended the AWA to be enforced was decided by the Circuit Court in Doris Day Animal League (DDAL) v. Ann M. Veneman (Secretary, USDA). We agree with the Court’s decision and do not think that several decades ago, Congress ever meant USDA to enforce the AWA inside people’s homes. However, now that the current APHIS administration has elected to make a determination granting themselves additional authority of such magnitude, we believe Congress is obligated to review this issue, and should do so as quickly as possible.
Download full article at http://saova.org/APHIS_authority.html
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
APHIS PET RULE LICENSING WEBINARS
USDA Animal Care will host a series of Retail Pet Store Rule webinars in November and December. Webinars will be held Thursdays from 2 p.m. to 3 p.m. EST for a four-week period. http://tinyurl.com/kgk4c3p The schedule of topics for the webinars is as follows:
November 7 – Am I regulated under USDA’s Retail Pet Store Rule
November 14 – How will USDA implement the Retail Pet Store Rule
November 21 – What is USDA’s inspection process in a home
December 5 – How will USDA enforce the Retail Pet Store Rule
FDA DECISION ON LABELING REQUIREMENTS FOR EGGS
Docket ID: FDA-2006-P-0338. September 22, 2013 FDA posted Denial of petition to revise requirements http://tinyurl.com/k7rxvey
Compassion Over Killing and Animal Legal Defense Fund and Penn Law Animal Law Project Petition, University of PA Law School, filed a citizens petition September 21, 2010 requesting new labeling of shell eggs sold in the U.S. Petitioners claim that current labeling fails to reveal to consumers certain material facts that substantially influence their purchasing decisions. Petitioners further requested that FDA require shell eggs to bear one of three labels: Free Range Eggs, Cage Free Eggs, Eggs From Caged Hens and provided descriptions of production conditions that would be associated with each term.
The agency states in its decision summary, “After careful review of your citizen petition and for the reasons described below, FDA is denying your citizen petition in accordance with 21 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 10.30(e)(3) because you do not provide a sufficient basis for the agency to revise the current labeling requirements for shell eggs. Specifically, you have not provided evidence sufficient to show that eggs from caged hens are “nutritionally inferior” to eggs from free-range and cage-free hens. Therefore, nutritional properties cannot provide a basis to consider the method of production for eggs to be a material fact. Moreover, nutritional information regarding particular eggs is conveyed to consumers directly by placing the particular nutrient information on the label, not by identifying the method of production, which does not provide consumers with information as to nutritive content. Second, you have not provided sufficient evidence to show that eggs from caged hens have a greater risk of Salmonella contamination than eggs from the other two production methods you define; consequently, the risk of Salmonella cannot provide a basis to consider the method of production for eggs to be a material fact. Finally, even assuming the method of egg production may be of interest to some consumers, consumer interest alone is not a material fact. Therefore, FDA is not compelled under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (“the Act”) or it’s implementing regulations to require such labeling under the law. Finally, even if the agency could require such labeling, it would choose to use its limited resources on rulemakings of higher priority, such as those that are of greatest public health significance or are statutorily-mandated.
PROHIBIT PUBLIC CONTACT WITH BIG CATS, BEARS, AND NONHUMAN PRIMATES
Docket No. APHIS-2012-0107. In August 2013, HSUS, World Wildlife Fund, Animal Legal Defense Fund (ALDF), Big Cat Rescue, and others petitioned APHIS to amend sections of the AWA. Petitioners requested regulation changes in part 2.131 to explicitly prohibit licensed exhibitors from allowing persons, with some exceptions, from coming into direct physical contact with any big cats, bears, and nonhuman primates of any age. The petition states that the current handling regulations in 9 CFR part 2 allow licensees the opportunity to engage in animal exhibition practices via interactive public contact sessions and photographic opportunities, and that these activities not only place these animals at risk of harm but threaten public safety. Petitioners also suggested revisions to 9 CFR part 3 to ensure that the sections containing specific standards for the handling of nonhuman primates are consistent with the regulatory changes they propose in § 2.131. Nonhuman primates include lemurs which are a popular exhibit at many petting zoos.
APHIS issued an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) requesting comments on conditions where public contact could be allowed; whether exhibitors and dealers should be required to keep additional records and identify their animals with microchips or retinal scans, etc. The comment period has been extended to November 18, 2013. Comment at Federal Register: http://tinyurl.com/ln76cs3
The majority of comments at this time are form letters from the HSUS website supporting a rule.
JUDGE CLEARS WAY FOR DOMESTIC HORSE SLAUGHTER
Judge’s Ruling Favors USDA Providing Horse Slaughter Inspections by Dan Flynn, November 1, 2013
USDA is not required to conduct an Environmental impact Statement or Environmental Assessment in order to grant equine inspection services to businesses planning to pack horsemeat for export, U.S. District Court Judge Christina Armijo ruled Friday. The judge denied the request by animal groups for a permanent injunction and dismissed the case challenging USDA’s authority. The decision is a massive loss for the Humane Society of the U.S., which largely funded the lawsuit and enlisted 15 other groups and individuals to join it as plaintiffs.
And it was a defining victory for the Department of Justice attorneys who re-affirmed USDA powers contained in the Federal Meat Inspection Act that go back more than 100 years. It means horse slaughter for human consumption could resume shortly under USDA inspection for the first time since 2006. “Valley Meat Company, LLC and Rains Natural Meats are both very pleased with the decision of Judge Armijo, said Albuquerque attorney A. Blair Dunn. “This is a very well-reasoned and thorough opinion. Valley and Rains are very grateful for the hard work and thought that Judge Armijo put into this decision. Both companies will now focus on final preparations to open and begin work.” Full story at link: http://tinyurl.com/mredlmd
CONGRESSIONAL SPORTSMEN'S CAUCUS BIPARTISAN LEADERSHIP
PUSHES TO RESTORE SEQUESTERED SPORTSMEN TRUST FUNDS
For Immediate Release. November 1, 2013 (Washington, DC). In an effort to exempt vital sportsmen trust funds from budget sequestration, the bipartisan Senate leadership of the Congressional Sportsmen's Caucus (CSC) sent a letter to Sylvia Burwell, Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), requesting that the $50 million sequestered from the Wildlife Restoration, Sport Fish Restoration and Boating Safety Trust Funds in 2013 be returned to the states.
In bipartisan fashion, CSC Senate Co-Chairs, Kay Hagan and John Thune, and Senate Vice-Chairs, Mark Pryor and James Risch, signed on to the letter, requesting the OMB release the sequestered sportsmen trust funds that are derived from excise taxes levied on guns and ammunition; fishing tackle and equipment; motorboat fuel; and bows and arrows. The trust funds are the foundation of the unique American System of Conservation Funding, a "user pays-public benefits" program. This user-pays funding strategy has produced numerous public benefits including: abundant fish and wildlife populations, access to public lands and clean waters, improved fish and wildlife habitat, improved soil and water conservation, shooting ranges, and boating access facilities.
Jeff Crane, President of the Congressional Sportsmen's Foundation (CSF) praised the Senate CSC leadership for their continued bipartisan support. "We salute the bipartisan leadership of the Congressional Sportsmen's Caucus for once again standing up in support of hunters and anglers. These dedicated trust funds form the financial backbone of the most successful conservation story in history, and to release them back to the state wildlife agencies where they belong is simply the right thing to do."
"North Carolina and states across the country depend on this funding to restore and manage fisheries and wildlife habitats, open and maintain recreational access, and provide hunting and boating safety education. Moreover, applying sequestration to the trust funds represents a breach in trust between sportsmen and women and industries that pay an excise tax to specifically fund projects that enhance outdoor recreation activities and opportunities," Senator Hagan stated.
By withholding $50 million from Wildlife Restoration, Sport Fish Restoration, and Boating Safety programs, the Budget Control Act of 2011 will adversely affect states' ability to manage their fish and wildlife resources; open and maintain recreational access; and deliver hunter and boating safety education.
In the letter, CSC leadership noted that in implementing sequestration, OMB is required to follow rules outlined in the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985. The act provides that budgetary resources sequestered in trust fund accounts in a fiscal year "shall be available in subsequent years to the extent otherwise provided in law."
In March, CSF, along with 44 organizations representing millions of hunters, anglers and other conservationists, sent a letter to House and Senate leadership requesting assistance in exempting the Wildlife and Sport Fish Restoration and Boating Safety Trust Funds from the Budget Sequestration Act of 2011. http://tinyurl.com/lvz9mal
CONTACT: Cole Henry cole@sportsmenslink.org
Letter From The Editor: A Trial Court Surprise
BY DAN FLYNN | NOVEMBER 3, 2013
Friday’s ruling by U.S. District Court Judge Christina Armijo surprised me.
I was expecting New Mexico’s top federal judge to issue a permanent injunction against USDA from providing equine inspection services. Then I thought Department of Justice attorneys assigned to represent USDA would appeal to the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals where Armijo’s ruling would be reversed.
My thinking was that New Mexico’s political leadership, from both parties, are enough anti- horse slaughter that the body politic would influence Armijo. It was part of a stereotype I’ve created in my own mind about New Mexican political groupthink.
But surprise me she did, especially by nailing the legal reasoning I thought we would see from a 10th Circuit panel of judges. After reading Armijo’s 33-page decision, I was struck by how clear everything looks now. With some tweaking along the way, Congress has for more than a century tasked USDA with inspecting meat and meat products, be it from beef, lamb, pork, horse or whatever else has hooves.
The legal challenge was based on apparently misguided readings of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the Administrative Procedures Act (APA). Both are about government decision-making where discretion exists, not where government action is mandated.
USDA has a job to do, albeit one that some find unpopular. More at Food Safety News
Friday’s ruling by U.S. District Court Judge Christina Armijo surprised me.
I was expecting New Mexico’s top federal judge to issue a permanent injunction against USDA from providing equine inspection services. Then I thought Department of Justice attorneys assigned to represent USDA would appeal to the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals where Armijo’s ruling would be reversed.
My thinking was that New Mexico’s political leadership, from both parties, are enough anti- horse slaughter that the body politic would influence Armijo. It was part of a stereotype I’ve created in my own mind about New Mexican political groupthink.
But surprise me she did, especially by nailing the legal reasoning I thought we would see from a 10th Circuit panel of judges. After reading Armijo’s 33-page decision, I was struck by how clear everything looks now. With some tweaking along the way, Congress has for more than a century tasked USDA with inspecting meat and meat products, be it from beef, lamb, pork, horse or whatever else has hooves.
The legal challenge was based on apparently misguided readings of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the Administrative Procedures Act (APA). Both are about government decision-making where discretion exists, not where government action is mandated.
USDA has a job to do, albeit one that some find unpopular. More at Food Safety News
Thursday, October 31, 2013
APHIS RETAIL PET SELLERS RULE: Does APHIS have authority to enact this rule?
Re: Docket ID: APHIS-2011-0003, Animal Welfare; Retail Pet Stores and Licensing Exemptions
APHIS issued the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking May 16, 2012. The final rule was published in the federal register September 18, 2013 and goes into effect November 18, 2013. This Rule would extend APHIS authority to include large segments of the retail pet trade as regulated under the Animal Welfare Act (AWA), including pet species as dogs, cats, guinea pigs, rabbits, and hamsters, among others. The overarching intent of the revision is to regulate sight unseen retail pet sales, which, without proof, APHIS claims have dramatically increased as a result of growing Internet usage.
In May, 2010, APHIS received severe criticism from the USDA Office of Inspector General (OIG) regarding lax enforcement of currently licensed dog breeders in the report, “Inspections of Problematic Dealers”. In June 2010 APHIS announced a plan to improve consistency in Animal Care inspectors’ approach for inspections, provide more complete guidance to its employees, and improve regulation of dog dealers particularly those who are repeat offenders. As part of the Longer Term Actions included in the original Enhanced Animal Welfare Act Enforcement Plan in May 2010 APHIS set the following goal: “Develop regulations regarding Internet sales. This will transpire once legislation is passed to close a loophole in the law and enable APHIS to regulate this area of the industry.”
http://www.usda.gov/oig/webdocs/33002-4-SF.pdf
It is very clear APHIS believed this measure was specifically dependent upon legislation; however, unwilling to wait for Congressional action and pressured by the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS), APHIS added the following comment to their enforcement plan in a report which was undated but, from text dates, obviously compiled after May 31, 2011: “USDA has determined that it has legislative authority to regulate Internet sales. A proposed rule will be submitted for departmental clearance in spring 2011 and published in the Federal Register for public comment in fall 2011.”
http://www.aphis.usda.gov/newsroom/content/2010/05/AWA_enforcement_plan.shtml
The retail pet store revision would not improve enforcement of substandard current license holders, the major focus of the original OIG report, but would instead regulate many retailers, hobbyists, rescues, and small business entities far above APHIS claims of closing a so-called “Internet loophole” and restoring the original intent of Congress for administration of the AWA.
It is our impression that the current APHIS administration finds it immaterial that the existing definition of retail pet store and method of enforcement has been upheld in a court of law. Decided January 14, 2003, Doris Day Animal League (DDAL) v. Ann M. Veneman (Secretary, USDA) provides compelling arguments for retaining the construct between wholesale and retail sellers. The issue at hand was to determine if the traditional exemption under pet retail store definition, which exempted breeders who sell dogs as pets from their residences, was valid. In his opinion, Circuit Judge Randolph noted “Hundreds of thousands of dog breeders throughout the United States raise and sell puppies from their homes. Still it is true that in the years since passage of the Act and the Secretary's adoption of the regulation, Congress has not altered the regulatory definition of ‘retail pet store’ although it has amended the act three times.” At that time USDA declined to amend the definition in light of the potential invasions of privacy that would result if federal inspectors began enforcing regulations in private homes. USDA also maintained if they were to regulate these dealers in addition to state and local officials, it would clearly not be the most efficient use of their resources.
Efficient use of resources is just as relevant today, if not more so, considering the agency’s current budget challenges and the general state of the nation’s economy. The proposed rule threatens to exponentially increase the number of entities requiring licensure. Without a corresponding increase in inspection staff, the ability of APHIS to effectively enforce the AWA will be compromised. Besides not being economically feasible, there are many state and local laws and ordinances already in place to monitor the welfare and housing for animals owned by residential retail breeder/sellers.
Revisiting Judge Randolph’s opinion regarding Congressional intent, he stated, “While the regulation's definition of ‘retail pet store’ does not exactly leap from the page, there is enough play in the language of the Act to preclude us from saying that Congress has spoken to the issue with clarity. From what we can make out, Congress has paid little attention to the question posed in this case. Still, it is true that in the years since passage of the Act and the Secretary's adoption of the regulation, Congress has not altered the regulatory definition of ‘retail pet store’ although it has amended the act three times. One line of Supreme Court cases holds that ‘when Congress revisits a statute giving rise to a longstanding administrative interpretation without pertinent change, the “congressional failure to revise or repeal the agency's interpretation is persuasive evidence that the interpretation is the one intended by Congress.”’ Commodity Futures Trading Comm'n v. Schor, 478 U.S. 833, 846 (1986) (quoting NLRB v. Bell Aerospace Co., 416 U.S. 267, 275 (1974)). The quotation fits this case perfectly.” http://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/A30825ECFA88D2C985256F82005F4853/$file/01-5351a.txt
We agree with the Court’s decision and do not think that several decades ago, Congress ever intended USDA to enforce the AWA inside people’s homes. However, now that the current APHIS administration has elected to make a determination granting themselves additional authority of such magnitude, we believe Congress is now obligated to review this issue, and should do so as quickly as possible.
APHIS issued the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking May 16, 2012. The final rule was published in the federal register September 18, 2013 and goes into effect November 18, 2013. This Rule would extend APHIS authority to include large segments of the retail pet trade as regulated under the Animal Welfare Act (AWA), including pet species as dogs, cats, guinea pigs, rabbits, and hamsters, among others. The overarching intent of the revision is to regulate sight unseen retail pet sales, which, without proof, APHIS claims have dramatically increased as a result of growing Internet usage.
In May, 2010, APHIS received severe criticism from the USDA Office of Inspector General (OIG) regarding lax enforcement of currently licensed dog breeders in the report, “Inspections of Problematic Dealers”. In June 2010 APHIS announced a plan to improve consistency in Animal Care inspectors’ approach for inspections, provide more complete guidance to its employees, and improve regulation of dog dealers particularly those who are repeat offenders. As part of the Longer Term Actions included in the original Enhanced Animal Welfare Act Enforcement Plan in May 2010 APHIS set the following goal: “Develop regulations regarding Internet sales. This will transpire once legislation is passed to close a loophole in the law and enable APHIS to regulate this area of the industry.”
http://www.usda.gov/oig/webdocs/33002-4-SF.pdf
It is very clear APHIS believed this measure was specifically dependent upon legislation; however, unwilling to wait for Congressional action and pressured by the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS), APHIS added the following comment to their enforcement plan in a report which was undated but, from text dates, obviously compiled after May 31, 2011: “USDA has determined that it has legislative authority to regulate Internet sales. A proposed rule will be submitted for departmental clearance in spring 2011 and published in the Federal Register for public comment in fall 2011.”
http://www.aphis.usda.gov/newsroom/content/2010/05/AWA_enforcement_plan.shtml
The retail pet store revision would not improve enforcement of substandard current license holders, the major focus of the original OIG report, but would instead regulate many retailers, hobbyists, rescues, and small business entities far above APHIS claims of closing a so-called “Internet loophole” and restoring the original intent of Congress for administration of the AWA.
It is our impression that the current APHIS administration finds it immaterial that the existing definition of retail pet store and method of enforcement has been upheld in a court of law. Decided January 14, 2003, Doris Day Animal League (DDAL) v. Ann M. Veneman (Secretary, USDA) provides compelling arguments for retaining the construct between wholesale and retail sellers. The issue at hand was to determine if the traditional exemption under pet retail store definition, which exempted breeders who sell dogs as pets from their residences, was valid. In his opinion, Circuit Judge Randolph noted “Hundreds of thousands of dog breeders throughout the United States raise and sell puppies from their homes. Still it is true that in the years since passage of the Act and the Secretary's adoption of the regulation, Congress has not altered the regulatory definition of ‘retail pet store’ although it has amended the act three times.” At that time USDA declined to amend the definition in light of the potential invasions of privacy that would result if federal inspectors began enforcing regulations in private homes. USDA also maintained if they were to regulate these dealers in addition to state and local officials, it would clearly not be the most efficient use of their resources.
Efficient use of resources is just as relevant today, if not more so, considering the agency’s current budget challenges and the general state of the nation’s economy. The proposed rule threatens to exponentially increase the number of entities requiring licensure. Without a corresponding increase in inspection staff, the ability of APHIS to effectively enforce the AWA will be compromised. Besides not being economically feasible, there are many state and local laws and ordinances already in place to monitor the welfare and housing for animals owned by residential retail breeder/sellers.
Revisiting Judge Randolph’s opinion regarding Congressional intent, he stated, “While the regulation's definition of ‘retail pet store’ does not exactly leap from the page, there is enough play in the language of the Act to preclude us from saying that Congress has spoken to the issue with clarity. From what we can make out, Congress has paid little attention to the question posed in this case. Still, it is true that in the years since passage of the Act and the Secretary's adoption of the regulation, Congress has not altered the regulatory definition of ‘retail pet store’ although it has amended the act three times. One line of Supreme Court cases holds that ‘when Congress revisits a statute giving rise to a longstanding administrative interpretation without pertinent change, the “congressional failure to revise or repeal the agency's interpretation is persuasive evidence that the interpretation is the one intended by Congress.”’ Commodity Futures Trading Comm'n v. Schor, 478 U.S. 833, 846 (1986) (quoting NLRB v. Bell Aerospace Co., 416 U.S. 267, 275 (1974)). The quotation fits this case perfectly.” http://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/A30825ECFA88D2C985256F82005F4853/$file/01-5351a.txt
We agree with the Court’s decision and do not think that several decades ago, Congress ever intended USDA to enforce the AWA inside people’s homes. However, now that the current APHIS administration has elected to make a determination granting themselves additional authority of such magnitude, we believe Congress is now obligated to review this issue, and should do so as quickly as possible.
Tuesday, October 15, 2013
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
Wednesday, September 25, 2013
Dear Congressman
We need everyone to write to Congress. As of this morning, the Final Pet Seller Rule is listed as the 5th most read on the Federal Register website among 2,133 notices and rules posted this month. Make sure your Congressman is aware of this rule. A short, easy letter is below for you to use. More examples will be posted in the coming week. Thank you.
Dear Congressman
I am writing today in opposition to the final rule issued by USDA/APHIS to revise the definition of retail pet store.
The rule changes the Animal Welfare Act (AWA) and USDA responsibility forever by granting authority for federal inspectors to invade the privacy of American homes in order to establish standards for pet care, sanitation, handling, and housing.
While the rule is promoted as closing an “Internet loophole” for unscrupulous puppy sellers, the rule’s dramatic expansion of the AWA would actually encompass many private citizens as well as multiple species of pets. The new rule centers on shipping pets sight unseen requiring certain sellers who do so to be federally licensed. This places unnecessary restrictions on the buyer by limiting the geographic area from which he can purchase a pet without excessive travel. Because the Internet has replaced many traditional advertising methods does not mean it should be used as an excuse to expand the agency's regulatory scope beyond its current enforcement capability.
Considering the agency’s current budget challenges and the general state of the nation’s economy, expansion of this magnitude is not only impractical but irresponsible and is not an efficient use of limited departmental resources.
Please intervene and help us stop this rule.
Sincerely,
Dear Congressman
I am writing today in opposition to the final rule issued by USDA/APHIS to revise the definition of retail pet store.
The rule changes the Animal Welfare Act (AWA) and USDA responsibility forever by granting authority for federal inspectors to invade the privacy of American homes in order to establish standards for pet care, sanitation, handling, and housing.
While the rule is promoted as closing an “Internet loophole” for unscrupulous puppy sellers, the rule’s dramatic expansion of the AWA would actually encompass many private citizens as well as multiple species of pets. The new rule centers on shipping pets sight unseen requiring certain sellers who do so to be federally licensed. This places unnecessary restrictions on the buyer by limiting the geographic area from which he can purchase a pet without excessive travel. Because the Internet has replaced many traditional advertising methods does not mean it should be used as an excuse to expand the agency's regulatory scope beyond its current enforcement capability.
Considering the agency’s current budget challenges and the general state of the nation’s economy, expansion of this magnitude is not only impractical but irresponsible and is not an efficient use of limited departmental resources.
Please intervene and help us stop this rule.
Sincerely,
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
