Monday, September 29, 2014
SPORTSMEN ENDORSE BILL CASSIDY FOR U.S. SENATE
For Immediate Release
September 29, 2014
SPORTSMEN ENDORSE BILL CASSIDY FOR U.S. SENATE
The Sportsmen’s and Animal Owners’ Voting Alliance (SAOVA) today endorsed Bill Cassidy for U.S. Senate in Louisiana. SAOVA’s Director Susan Wolf stated, “We can rest assured that Bill Cassidy will stand strong to protect the values, rights and traditions of sportsmen in Louisiana and across the country from ever expanding federal regulation.”
Cassidy’s record in Congress has continually earned our strong endorsement. Responding to our non-incumbent candidate survey in 2008, he demonstrated even then his commitment to preserving all animal use sectors and his belief that states should manage their own wildlife populations.
Wolf continued, “Bill Cassidy is a proven leader who will protect and defend our sporting heritage and traditions. Vote for Bill Cassidy on November 4.”
* * *
The Sportsmen's and Animal Owners' Voting Alliance (SAOVA) is a nationwide, nonpartisan group of volunteers working to elect supportive legislators. Our members hunt, fish and own livestock, dogs, cats and other pets. For more information about SAOVA visit http://saova.org
Contact: Susan Wolf
saova@earthlink.net
Wednesday, September 24, 2014
SPECIAL REPORT-HSUS TAKING ACTION FOR ANIMALS 2014
SAOVA Friends,
The HSUS annual conference Taking Action
for Animals (TAFA) was held June 27-30, 2014 in Washington DC. HSUS describes the conference as one that
promotes “mainstream solutions” and provides attendees education to become a
better advocate for animals. In other
words, TAFA serves as a huge pep rally for animal rightists to connect, bolster
their morale, and in the words of HSUS: “recharge their batteries.” In his conference speech Wayne Pacelle told
the audience, “TAFA is an attempt to attract the elite in the animal protection
movement to help train you and educate you so then you can fan out all over the
country and spread these messages and heighten your own level of effectiveness
as an advocate.”
The various conference speakers included
many of the old guard from the animal rights industry: Gene Bauer and Bruce Friedrich (Farm
Sanctuary); Carole Baskin (Big Cat Rescue); Sara Amundson (Humane Society
Legislative Fund); Keith Dane (HSUS Equine Protection); Jonathan Lovvorn (HSUS VP Animal
Protection and Litigation); Nancy Perry (Sr. VP Government Relations, ASPCA).
Nick Cooney and Nathan Runkle from Mercy
for Animals (MFA) were also among the speakers.
MFA is probably best known for their undercover videos of animal
agriculture which Runkle calls the “lifeblood” of the organization. MFA
considers itself part of a “social justice” movement where portraying
production agriculture as harsh and cruel will move people toward a vegan diet.
Although not her first appearance, a
newer face at TAFA was Lisa Fletcher, host of “The Stream” on Al Jazeera
America and wife of Wayne Pacelle, who describes herself as a friend to all
animals and vegan food maniac. You may
remember reading recently that Fletcher provided a platform for longtime
radical activist Paul Shapiro, HSUS VP on Farm Animal Protection, on a segment
of her show covering new USDA regulations.
Other TAFA
scheduled speakers included, State Rep. Eddie Lucio III (TX); Jill Kline (Education and
Advocacy Manager, Wisconsin Humane Society); Christine Coughlin (Pres. Minnesota
Voters for Animal Protection); and Nicole Paquette (VP, HSUS Wildlife Protection/former Texas State Director).
TAFA also offered a series of workshops
for the attendees.
“Becoming
a Political Animal” workshop was moderated by HSUS director and former member
of Animal Liberation Front, John Goodwin. Presenters included former state
senator Roy Afflerbach (PA); Matt Dominguez, HSUS Public Policy Manager Farm Animal
Protection; and Wayne Pacelle. Workshop attendees were instructed on effective
lobbying at all levels of government from city council to Congress.
“Giving
Farm Animals a Voice” workshop presenters included Erica Meier, Executive
Director, Compassion Over Killing, and Kristie Middleton, Corporate Outreach
Manager, HSUS Farm Animal Protection who shared strategies for effectively
waging initiatives against farm animal cruelty.
Kelly
Peterson, HSUS Senior Vice President for State Affairs moderated a workshop
with former and current legislators to teach activists what “humane
legislators” need to hear in order to pass animal protection laws. The discussion panel included Delegate Eric
Luedtke (MD); Representative Diana Urban (CT); and former Tennessee state
Representative Eric Swafford, now HSUS Director for Rural Outreach and
Development. We will cover this portion of the conference in more detail in a
later article.
THE
HSUS PLAN AND PROGRAMS
When
Pacelle addressed the audience his speech centered on the four policy sections
that HSUS uses to break down the animal protection movement. They are: Public
Education and Awareness; Hands on Caring; Corporate Reform and Corporate
Policy; and Public Policy and Enforcement.
Pacelle
noted it is now a universal value in our society to oppose cruelty to
animals. With anti-cruelty statutes in
every state carrying felony penalties it reinforces the fact that people who
are cruel to animals are going to pay a price to society, either with
incarceration or fines. Pacelle
continued, “That is the meaningful sort of legal framework for us to build
upon.”
As part of the HSUS “hands-on” programs,
teams of staff and volunteers are assembled for disaster response, animal
rescue, and for animal fighting and puppy mill cases. According to Pacelle, HSUS can leverage
images from these programs to raise public awareness that animals are in crisis
situations every day across the country.
Pacelle
then covered the third portion which is Corporate Reform. Pacelle stated, “We live in a capitalist
society where corporations produce the products that so many of us consume.
They employ millions and millions of people. We want them as part of their
broader mission of social responsibility to include animal welfare. We ask them
to try to reach a higher standard. So this is where the anti-animal testing
policies come in and the no gestation crate policies. This is vital work for us
and we in HSUS spend a tremendous amount of time on it.”’
The
final segment of Pacelle’s speech, which focused on Public Policy and
Enforcement, should be a major wakeup call for everyone on how far the HSUS
tentacles continue to invade our communities pretending to dispense mainstream
values.
Pacelle
introduced this segment saying that laws in a civil society are not only
designed to keep order but to reflect the values which are basic to
society. The laws are not designed to change everybody; they are designed to deal
with those who are increasingly viewed as (moral) outliers in society. The law
addresses these outlier cases of people who are engaging in conduct that is no
longer acceptable. The conduct may have been acceptable at one point, but it is
no longer acceptable today. Pacelle
reminded listeners that it is up to them to advance social progress for animals
just like the other great causes of civil rights, anti-slavery, and women's
rights.
He then announced that HSUS now had
State Councils in place in half the states in order to expand the HSUS reach
and support HSUS state directors. The
councils cover equine and farm animal protection, law enforcement, faith, and
park animal protection and HSUS plans to have these councils in all 50
states. Pacelle informed the audience
that these structures were being created to empower those committed to the
animal rights industry and to advance the ideals of social reform. He reminded listeners that social reform is
not perfectly linear with consistent forward progress. Felony and increased animal cruelty
penalties, ending use of gestation crates, corporations enacting animal welfare
policies sometimes move a step or two forward toward progress and then a step
back. To quote Pacelle, “That's the
nature of a social movement -- especially when you've got big adversaries.”
We may be used to the animal rights
rhetoric and vegan agenda; however the really disturbing part of this new
“structure” plan is the HSUS District Leader Program now in place. This program is designed to engage people in
all 435 Congressional Districts and have those District Leaders lead political
efforts to advance federal legislation by concentrating on influencing members
of Congress.
Below is the ambitious position
description for a District Leader as posted on the HSUS website.
The purpose is to help HSUS advance and
accelerate animal protection priorities for companion animals, farm animals,
and wildlife with legislation at the local, state, and federal levels. Under the guidance of HSUS staff, the Leader
is to develop an action plan for successful completion of one goal related to
Legislative Advocacy; one goal for protection of Companion Animals, Eating with
a Conscience, or Wildlife Protection; and one goal related to growing the
“movement.” The Leader is also expected
to participate in the state Humane Lobby Day.
The Leaders are expected to organize grassroots activities, attend
community events and meetings, and will be given a 'Toolkit' with program
ideas.
Qualifications for District Leader
positions include a commitment to the mission of HSUS; willingness to cultivate
strong relationships with elected officials and lawmakers; and willingness to
recruit new members, among other requirements and abilities. It should be noted that these are volunteer
positions and HSUS membership or greater philanthropic commitment is required.
Pacelle explained to listeners that this
new structure being developed for the District Leader program was very
important. It is not just
political. The Leaders will work with school
districts to establish Meatless Mondays; connect with small farmers to unite
them against “factory farms;” work with animal shelters on spay/neuter
initiatives in the community. The
program is designed to build an army in every community in the United States
and it is well underway.
In addition to the District Leaders,
HSUS plans to include within this framework County Leaders in all 3,100
counties across the U.S. Quoting
Pacelle, “Our ambition is to have thousands and thousands of people involved. If we get this done, we’re going to be hell
on wheels.”
PLEASE CROSS POST WIDELY
The world not only belongs to those who
show up, it's controlled by the best informed and most motivated. Cross posting
is encouraged.
Susan Wolf
Sportsmen's & Animal Owners' Voting
AllianceWorking to Identify and Elect Supportive Legislators
Sunday, September 21, 2014
SAOVA DONATION MATCH FOR PET RULE LAWSUIT
The Sportsmen’s & Animal Owners’ Voting Alliance (SAOVA) will accept donations earmarked for support of the Associated Dog Clubs of New York State (ADCNYS) lawsuit against the USDA and HSUS to block enforcement of the "retail pet store" rule that requires thousands of small-scale breeders to be licensed and inspected by the federal government. SAOVA will match donations received up to $500.
Donate here
Donate here
Tuesday, September 16, 2014
Vince Coakley Releases Statement on Endorsement of Sportsmen’s and Animal Owners’ Voting Alliance (SAOVA)
“I’m
both pleased and honored to have received the support and public endorsement of
the Sportsmen’s Alliance. I look forward to
representing the interests of SAOVA’s members while preserving the legal rights
of all animal owners, fishermen, hunters, and domestic livestock owners in the
spirit of their time-honored American traditions.”
Vince Coakley
Vince Coakley
Republican Nominee, North
Carolina's 12th Congressional District
Sportsmen Endorse Vince Coakley for Congress
The Sportsmen’s and Animal Owners’ Voting Alliance
(SAOVA) today endorsed Vince Coakley for North Carolina district 12
congressional race. SAOVA’s Director Susan Wolf stated that Coakley took the
time to complete and return SAOVA’s non-incumbent candidate questionnaire. Wolf continued, "We can be assured that
Coakley is a candidate who will represent our interests fairly and work to
protect our traditions and livelihoods from overzealous regulation.”
The Sportsmen's and
Animal Owners' Voting Alliance (SAOVA) is a nationwide, nonpartisan group of
volunteers working to elect supportive legislators. Our members hunt, fish and
own livestock, dogs, cats and other pets. For more information about SAOVA
visit http://saova.org
Contact: Susan Wolf saova@earthlink.net
Monday, August 25, 2014
Ex-ASPCA CEO Disowns ASPCA “Puppy Mill” Campaign
August 25, 2014 Humane Watch
We announced our skepticism last week over the appointment of Ed Sayres, former CEO of the ASPCA, as head of the Pet Industry Joint Advisory Council (PIJAC), the pet industry’s trade group. Notably, Sayres’ tenure at ASPCA and his statements about pet breeding were cause for concern. Given that the PIJAC board’s vote was 9-7 to offer him the job, there was a bit of concern among members of the industry, as well.
Sayres has issued an “open letter” stating the following, in part:
The current [pet store] retail bans generate theatrics, but not solutions, about how more people can enjoy the benefits of dog ownership. If regulations are too stringent, they will drive breeding to the unregulated underground. If they are too lax, they will allow substandard operators to stay in business. I believe my professional experience makes me well qualified to lead the discussions around these issues and find common ground. […]
In retrospect, given the nature of the ASPCA’s mission, I had a rather limited view during my tenure as the organization’s CEO, responding in the field to horrific substandard operators who represent a small minority of breeders — not the majority. My view in light of those circumstances formed the basis for the statements I made during that period and campaigns that were developed under my leadership. I know now that I was misinformed about the majority of breeders who work diligently to raise puppies humanely and to find lifetime homes through retail channels. While many in the animal welfare field still want to paint all breeders with the same low standards brush, I look forward to opening their eyes to the true nature of the breeding business.
That’s a very telling comment. Sayres says the ASPCA campaign overstated the problem. (Probably for PR and fundraising purposes, we’d wager.) No doubt, he would have the same words for HSUS’s campaign.
Meanwhile, Bob Baker, formerly an ASPCA investigator and HSUS employee, is lashing out, calling Sayres a “fake animal welfare person” who wasn’t respected in the animal rights movement. Baker was a proponent of “Prop B” in Missouri in 2010, which sought to increase restrictions on dog breeders. It’s an entirely predictable reaction from the animal rights community.
Sayres has a choice. He’s not going to please the animal rights campaigners, who want to put the pet industry out of business and who Sayres now says operate with a skewed version of the facts.
If Sayres wants to be a good leader for the pet industry, then he has to prove himself and be proactive. If he is truly a convert then it will be obvious from his agenda, which should be shared with the industry. Goals will be a start but not enough to be convincing. Founders of both Greenpeace and MADD eventually broke with their organizations and have actively spoken out against their former organization agendas. Sayres has the same opportunity to lobby aggressively against HSUS and ASPCA and make his views known that they aren’t telling the full story. In particular, he also has to work to reverse the retail bans that have taken effect in some localities—not simply stop new bans.
Sayres has an “insider’s” perspective on animal-rights campaigns and could use it effectively, if he chooses to. We’ll be watching to see if he does. As Ronald Reagan said, “Trust, but verify.”
RELATED
What Were They Thinking?
What Were They Thinking? (Part Deux)
We announced our skepticism last week over the appointment of Ed Sayres, former CEO of the ASPCA, as head of the Pet Industry Joint Advisory Council (PIJAC), the pet industry’s trade group. Notably, Sayres’ tenure at ASPCA and his statements about pet breeding were cause for concern. Given that the PIJAC board’s vote was 9-7 to offer him the job, there was a bit of concern among members of the industry, as well.
Sayres has issued an “open letter” stating the following, in part:
The current [pet store] retail bans generate theatrics, but not solutions, about how more people can enjoy the benefits of dog ownership. If regulations are too stringent, they will drive breeding to the unregulated underground. If they are too lax, they will allow substandard operators to stay in business. I believe my professional experience makes me well qualified to lead the discussions around these issues and find common ground. […]
In retrospect, given the nature of the ASPCA’s mission, I had a rather limited view during my tenure as the organization’s CEO, responding in the field to horrific substandard operators who represent a small minority of breeders — not the majority. My view in light of those circumstances formed the basis for the statements I made during that period and campaigns that were developed under my leadership. I know now that I was misinformed about the majority of breeders who work diligently to raise puppies humanely and to find lifetime homes through retail channels. While many in the animal welfare field still want to paint all breeders with the same low standards brush, I look forward to opening their eyes to the true nature of the breeding business.
That’s a very telling comment. Sayres says the ASPCA campaign overstated the problem. (Probably for PR and fundraising purposes, we’d wager.) No doubt, he would have the same words for HSUS’s campaign.
Meanwhile, Bob Baker, formerly an ASPCA investigator and HSUS employee, is lashing out, calling Sayres a “fake animal welfare person” who wasn’t respected in the animal rights movement. Baker was a proponent of “Prop B” in Missouri in 2010, which sought to increase restrictions on dog breeders. It’s an entirely predictable reaction from the animal rights community.
Sayres has a choice. He’s not going to please the animal rights campaigners, who want to put the pet industry out of business and who Sayres now says operate with a skewed version of the facts.
If Sayres wants to be a good leader for the pet industry, then he has to prove himself and be proactive. If he is truly a convert then it will be obvious from his agenda, which should be shared with the industry. Goals will be a start but not enough to be convincing. Founders of both Greenpeace and MADD eventually broke with their organizations and have actively spoken out against their former organization agendas. Sayres has the same opportunity to lobby aggressively against HSUS and ASPCA and make his views known that they aren’t telling the full story. In particular, he also has to work to reverse the retail bans that have taken effect in some localities—not simply stop new bans.
Sayres has an “insider’s” perspective on animal-rights campaigns and could use it effectively, if he chooses to. We’ll be watching to see if he does. As Ronald Reagan said, “Trust, but verify.”
RELATED
What Were They Thinking?
What Were They Thinking? (Part Deux)
Friday, August 22, 2014
PETA video relied on fear-mongering tactics
Aug 17, 2014. The Mountaineer
The PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) video taken at a small Haywood County dairy farm and released last week is the latest prop being used to advance the animal rights organization’s agenda.
It is an agenda that is pretty clear and prominently displayed on the organization website: “Animals are not ours to eat, wear, experiment on, use for entertainment, or abuse in any other way.”
While it is to be expected that promotional events and materials would illustrate points that underscore its mission, it shouldn’t be expected that misinformation would be widely circulated.
That appears to be the case with the dairy video released by the organization last week.
PETA claimed the cattle were emaciated and forced to remain in a several-inch deep pool of their own waste. However, the Haywood County Animal Control department found that cattle were pastured in a clean area next to the barn and a pasture across the road when they weren’t being milked. There was no evidence the cattle were either emaciated or in poor health, said animal control officer Jean Hazzard, a county official who has come down hard on those who abuse animals in the past.
In an email Hazzard wrote, “I have responded to the dairy and met with the owner and reviewed the alleged deplorable confinement and living conditions, which were unfounded.”
The news release also claimed that regional grocer Harris Teeter was receiving milk from the dairy — a fact the grocer denied and demanded to be retracted.
Full article at link
The PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) video taken at a small Haywood County dairy farm and released last week is the latest prop being used to advance the animal rights organization’s agenda.
It is an agenda that is pretty clear and prominently displayed on the organization website: “Animals are not ours to eat, wear, experiment on, use for entertainment, or abuse in any other way.”
While it is to be expected that promotional events and materials would illustrate points that underscore its mission, it shouldn’t be expected that misinformation would be widely circulated.
That appears to be the case with the dairy video released by the organization last week.
PETA claimed the cattle were emaciated and forced to remain in a several-inch deep pool of their own waste. However, the Haywood County Animal Control department found that cattle were pastured in a clean area next to the barn and a pasture across the road when they weren’t being milked. There was no evidence the cattle were either emaciated or in poor health, said animal control officer Jean Hazzard, a county official who has come down hard on those who abuse animals in the past.
In an email Hazzard wrote, “I have responded to the dairy and met with the owner and reviewed the alleged deplorable confinement and living conditions, which were unfounded.”
The news release also claimed that regional grocer Harris Teeter was receiving milk from the dairy — a fact the grocer denied and demanded to be retracted.
Full article at link
Tuesday, August 19, 2014
New Agency Rules Published August 2014
SAOVA friends,
Two new agency rules are now in effect. It is important for you to review the rules
and determine any potential impact on your breeding program or business.
The rule currently gathering the most publicity is the
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) regulation for importing
young dogs. HSUS CEO Wayne Pacelle is
boasting that this rule is a blow against puppy mills abroad. It is not surprising that he would work this
to his advantage for publicity without mentioning the same rule also impacts
rescue imports. The new rule will slow the
importation of foreign strays and street dogs for resale in U.S. shelters.
We find it interesting that after Congress directed this
import rule in 2008 APHIS spent six years finalizing it. In 2006 Congress enacted the PETS Act which directed State and local emergency preparedness plans to include household pets
and service animals. In response, APHIS initiated a rule making process for licensed entities to also develop emergency contingency plans. APHIS issued a final rule December 2012;
however in July 2013 USDA issued a stay of the Animal Welfare Act Contingency
Plan Regulation. Moving forward to 2012,
HSUS submitted a petition to APHIS requesting revision of the retail pet rule
to include licensing small breeders inside their homes and all sight-unseen
sales. APHIS managed to accomplish the
entire rule making process between May 2012 and September 2013.
Thanks for reading. Cross posting is encouraged.
Sportsmen's & Animal Owners' Voting Alliance
IMPORTATION OF LIVE DOGS, Docket No. APHIS-2009-0053
Monday, August 18,
2014 Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) issued a final rule
for Importation of Live Dogs which goes into effect November 17, 2014. In the 2008 Farm Bill Congress added a
section to the Animal Welfare Act (AWA) which would restrict the importation of
certain live dogs. APHIS began the rule
making process in September 2011 and received over 74,000 comments.
The rule prohibits the importation of dogs, with
limited exceptions, from any part of the world into the continental United
States or Hawaii for purposes of resale, research, or veterinary treatment,
unless the dogs are in good health, have received all necessary vaccinations,
and are at least 6 months of age.
The term ‘‘resale’’ includes, but is not
limited to, any transfer of ownership or control of imported dogs to another
person, for more than de
minimis consideration. The term de minimis has
the standard dictionary meaning, which, according to Merriam-Webster, is
“lacking significance or importance; so minor as to merit disregard.” The term ‘‘consideration’’ has the standard
dictionary meaning, which is defined by Merriam-Webster as ‘‘the inducement to
a contract or other legal transaction; specifically: an act or forbearance or the promise thereof
done or given by one party in return for the act or promise of another.” The rule does not consider an “adoption fee”
to be de minimis consideration and therefore there is no
exemption for dogs rescued in other countries and brought to the U.S. for
resale.
This rule does not apply when there is no
transfer of ownership or control of a dog to another person after the dog’s
importation into the United States. Therefore, dogs imported by a person who
will use the dog as a personal pet, for sport, for shows or competitions,
breeding or for training as working dogs do not fall under this rule.
Under this rule, dogs may be imported for
veterinary treatment without meeting all of the age, health, and vaccination
requirements only if a licensed veterinarian in the country of export certifies
that the dog is in need of veterinary treatment that cannot be obtained in the
country of export.
Dogs imported for use in research, tests,
or experiments at a research facility are exempt provided that satisfactory
evidence has been submitted to APHIS along with import permit application.
RULE REQUIREMENTS
Dogs must be accompanied by an import permit issued by APHIS and imported into the continental United States or Hawaii within 30 days after the proposed date of arrival stated in the import permit.
Dogs must be accompanied by an import permit issued by APHIS and imported into the continental United States or Hawaii within 30 days after the proposed date of arrival stated in the import permit.
Each dog must be accompanied by an original
health certificate issued in English by a licensed veterinarian with a valid
license to practice veterinary medicine in the country of export stating that
the dog is at least 6 months of age and has been vaccinated in the past 12
months for distemper, hepatitis, leptospirosis, parvovirus, and parainfluenza
virus at a frequency that provides
continuous protection of the dog from those diseases and is in
accordance with currently accepted practices as cited in veterinary medicine
reference guides. The health certificate
must also state that the dog is free of infectious disease that would endanger
the dog or public health. Each dog must also be accompanied by a valid rabies
vaccination certificate.
Any dog may be refused entry for
noncompliance with the requirements of the rule or may be seized and the person
intending to import the dog will be required to provide care at his or her
expense. The AWA provides for both criminal and civil penalties for violations,
including civil penalties of up to $10,000 for each violation. Any person who
violates the regulations will be subject to these penalties.
All dogs imported into the U.S. may be
subject to other laws and regulations. The Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention (CDC) also has requirements for imported dogs that must be met.
The complete rule may be viewed at the
Federal Register: http://tinyurl.com/nsd7zf2
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION ANIMAL
INCIDENT REPORTING, Docket DOT–OST–2010–0211
The Department of Transportation (USDOT)
issued a final rule to amend the requirement for air carriers to report
incidents involving the loss, injury, or death of an animal during air
transport. The final rule will expand the reporting requirement to U.S.
carriers that operate scheduled service with at least one aircraft with a
design capacity of more than 60 seats. The rule also expands the definition of
animal to include all cats and dogs transported by covered carriers, regardless
of whether the cat or dog is transported as a pet by its owner or as part of a
commercial shipment shipped by a breeder, trainer, or handler. This rule goes
into effect January 1, 2015.
Carrier reports will include carrier and
flight number; date; time; description of the animal; name and contact
information of owner, representative, or shipper of the animal; and a narrative
of the incident and action taken.
Carriers must file monthly and annual reports and report “0” if there
were no reportable incidents.
In August 2010, the Department received a
petition for rulemaking from the Animal Legal Defense Fund (ALDF) requesting
the reporting of loss, injury, or death of animals in air transport be revised
to require airlines to report any such incident involving any animal they
carry. ALDF maintained that whether an
animal is shipped as a pet or as an item of commerce has no bearing on its
ability to suffer.
HSUS, ASPCA, Humane Society Veterinary
Medical Association (HSVMA), Animal Welfare Institute, and other animal rights
groups requested the airlines account for incidents involving all species of
animals regardless of intended use.
Senator Richard Durbin and former Senators Bob Menendez and Joe
Lieberman supported the ALDF petition and requested that the Department
consider pursuing a comprehensive study on what animals are traveling in plane cargo holds and how the
Department could further expand the definition of "animal" without placing
undue burden on air carriers.
USDOT received 5,414 comments including
airlines, six animal rights organizations, The Association of Zoos and
Aquariums (AZA) and the National Association for Biomedical Research (NABR).
USDOT also received 5,403individual comments. While the individual comments
also urged expanding the definition of animal to all species, the majority
appeared to be form letters from members of the animal rights advocacy groups.
Airlines for America (A4A) opposed
expanding the definition of animal on the basis that doing so would conflict
with Congressional intent that the term animal in the original regulations
meant pets.
AZA also commented that the Congressional intent of the underlying authorizing legislation was to focus on the loss, injury or death of family pets and that the proposed rule could not effectively and efficiently be applied to the entire animal kingdom. AZA further noted that if the definition of animal were expanded to include all species, it is conceivable that the burden placed upon the airlines could effectively force air carriers to completely discontinue the transport of all animals. This would create catastrophic consequences for the AZA zoo and aquarium community and the sustainability of the animal collections in their care.
AZA also commented that the Congressional intent of the underlying authorizing legislation was to focus on the loss, injury or death of family pets and that the proposed rule could not effectively and efficiently be applied to the entire animal kingdom. AZA further noted that if the definition of animal were expanded to include all species, it is conceivable that the burden placed upon the airlines could effectively force air carriers to completely discontinue the transport of all animals. This would create catastrophic consequences for the AZA zoo and aquarium community and the sustainability of the animal collections in their care.
USDOT declined to expand the definition of
animal to cover all species of animals stating, “We believe it would be unduly burdensome to require covered carriers to report the death,
loss, or injury of all species of animals because there potentially could be
thousands of individual animals such as fish, rodents, and insects that are
transported by air carriers in a single commercial shipment.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)