Behind the Coops

Article reprinted on Washington Animal Watch with permission from the author. It does remain under copyright;  we can contact the author for you if you wish to obtain permission to reprint it elsewhere.

This was originally printed in a newsletter for a regional rabbit club. The author decided they would prefer not to have their name posted publicly on the blog. (Note: Due to technical difficulties, this was originally posted with a chunk of the article missing . . . it has been corrected now to include the full text.)

Behind the coops...
By: _________
OL Director and ARBA Judge

I just got home from an animal “abuse” case. This is the second trial I have sat in on just this year. I am sharing this information not only to try to help breeders from falling into the traps certain activists have laid, but also to help you to see how animal extremists’ minds work. I am a Veterinary Technician and have been a tech at a shelter for 5 years.

I will say that most animal control and rescues have the best of intentions. Often they have no farm experience and little or no training in livestock or rabbits. They rely on the expertise that Hollywood has given them and the pristine conditions in Disneyland movies.

The first case involved a small farm outside of Seattle. A farmer/rabbit breeder was accused of neglect. The whole farm had animals seized (I think the number was 132 animals; most of which were rabbits and poultry, with a handful of large animals). The most concerning part was that it was all done with a complete lack of due process.

The charges were dropped, but the damage had already been done. Most of the animals had been adopted out soon after they were seized. A few of the animals were eventually offered back to the owners for the adoption fee. However, even valuable rare livestock had all been sterilized shortly after seizure.

The Animal Control (AC) Officer didn’t like the fact the rabbits were in stacked cages (with trays) and stated that they were overcrowded, although a witness who checked out the situation reported that the cage sizes appeared to exceed Animal Welfare Act requirements for the size and number of rabbits, and the feed and water amounts the owner demonstrated were typical of standard rabbit care.

For example, probably the most "crowded" cage was a small or medium breed doe and six 3-week-old kits in a 24" x 36.5" cage. The fact that some of the rabbits did not have food in front of them was considered "starving" them (they were fed a heaping cup of standard rabbit pellets per day for dwarf to medium sized breeds not in production, along with hay--only the does with litters were free-fed). The animal control officers and prosecutors cited the fact that there was "only enough food on the premises for a few days" as evidence of neglect. For example, the owner only purchased 100 lbs. of commercial rabbit pellets at a time, and the animal control officer considered this insufficient for a small herd of rabbits, even though they lived near a feed store and bought more as needed.

Those are only a few of the rabbit specific examples of “why” the farmer's animals were seized. There were many other things that the Animal Control cited that would make you go wha....????

The next case I sat in on went to trial. Two extremely elderly horses were seized for being “dehydrated” and chronically “starved”. The officer who initiated the case was acting out of jurisdiction due to a personal connection with the reporting party, who contacted her privately. The horses had normal bloodwork at the time of surrender, but 5 weeks later were far thinner and had more abnormal bloodwork than when they left the owner's house. The evidence from after the horses had been out of her hands all that time was used to convict the owner. Both horses died in the rescue's care: one was euthanized because of colic and the other was euthanized due to an infection contracted many months later, that the rescue opted not to treat. The prosecutor told the jury that the horses were "doing just fine now," despite the fact that they were actually dead.

The veterinarian who acted as expert witness for the prosecution is a known animal rights activist who was employed by the rescue, had connections with the reporting party, and derived a substantial portion of her income caring for horses she diagnosed as neglected and in need of rehab at her "Equine Stewardship" facility. This veterinarian testified in court that the ideal way to feed a horse is to free-feed grain so that it never has an empty dish, and that these two approximately 900-lb. horses should each be getting upwards of 40 lbs. per day of feed in addition to pasture. She also made some very strange statements implying that the fact the horses didn't walk right up to a stranger and put their head into the halters without a food bribe showed neglect, and the fact that they were cooperative and allowed themselves to be examined once they were caught proved that they were in terrible condition.

In another case, some random visitors went into the rabbitry of a well known and reputable breeder. They then posted pictures of this rabbitry online, calling it a "rabbit mill."

All it takes is an invite onto your property. There is something called "Plain View Doctrine". This means that an officer of the law does not need probable cause for anything that is in plain sight. Anything they can see from a place they are invited or authorized to be can be the probable cause for a seizure without a warrant, or probable cause to get a warrant, depending on your local laws. If anyone sees “abuse,” animals can be seized and cruelty charges pressed (remember stacked cages have been called abuse; having wire floors in rabbit cages or not having water/food 24/7 could be called abuse).

The last one is the most worrisome because it is close to home. 22 rabbits were stolen from the Portland Meat Collective. The Portland Meat Collective offers classes on learning to butcher and preparing various livestock meat. These 22 rabbits showed up at a Rabbit Advocates (RA) house. After some struggle, the RA gave all but one rabbit back to the Portland Meat Collective. The RA finally gave this one rabbit back after much turmoil.

There are at least two more cases in the horizon just in the Pacific Northwest.

You ask, “Aren’t there laws to protect us breeders?”. Check the local laws in your area. In one case I am aware of, the AC/police were out of their jurisdiction. In some states, the laws are so vague and all-encompassing that virtually anything can be interpreted as abuse.

Laws or no laws, it is best to cover yourself. A lot of the times, the people that can seize animals get paid by the number of animals they find that are “abused” through grants, sob stories and general media. The rescues are motivated to “find” as many abuse cases they can. For example, the director of one WA humane society/animal control agency was quoted in a news article as saying that they were going to focus on abuse cases instead of things like dealing with stray dogs because barking dogs and picking up strays was not lucrative enough--they made far more money searching out abuse cases.

Do you think it still can’t happen to you? This is just one example on the internet:

The Legal disclaimer for the Animal Liberation Front (ALF),

“This guide is for your entertainment, information, and general interest only. It is not meant to encourage the activities described within. We're just writing this for the heck of it. We would never dream of encouraging someone to use the proven-effective methods presented within to free innocent beings from the depths of hell, or to destroy the tools used to torture, mutilate, and murder them. We'd much prefer you sit at home watching TV and remain apathetic”.

They go on and give detailed instructions on how to succeed at taking down breeders.

While ALF is extremely radical, they have put the ideas in people's heads of how to do undercover surveillance. People can be several states away, yet can “eyewitness” your place or barn, using online and other resources to make a convincing anonymous report about a location they have never even visited.

Several states and organizations have offered substantial monetary rewards for anyone who can provide information instrumental in taking down breeders and animal owners accused of neglect or of being a "mill." Does this scare you? It should.

In California, a rabbit rescue is monitoring the fairs and harassing 4-H members for not keeping food in front of the rabbit(s) 24 hours a day-- in one particular case they were upset because the rabbits had pellets but did not have 24/7 access to hay.

These are things to think about.

- You need to educate yourselves. Know the laws in your area.
- Try to stay under the wire. I.E Don’t advertise your address or phone number in connection with having rabbits. 

* Don’t get in over your head. Ask for help if needed, but be very cautious about who you ask. Several people have been raided after reaching out to rescues or other groups for help placing or caring for their animals. *

- Don’t list your physical address or land line phone # on the internet, business card or sign.

- Face book is the internet--be aware of privacy settings and check them often, as well as realizing that even your "friends only" posts are still on the internet and not 100% safe.

- Craigslist is the internet.

- In the shelter I was involved in, there were several volunteers constantly searching the internet and craigslist for animals that came from the shelter. If you think that doesn’t happen, you should think again. There are entire online communities dedicated just to targeting breeders who advertise on Craigslist.

*Never have strangers in your barn or on your land. *

- Google your name and see what other folks can see about you. Does that worry you?

- Friends of friends of friends could accidentally get information into the wrong hands.

Just do a search for various rabbit shelters across the country and you will see how much hatred and animosity of breeding most of them foster. Bunny World Foundation (BWF) feels this way,

“Since domestic rabbits are not the product of natural selection, but rather of human interference by means of breeding programs, and the product is a human-dependent animal that needs protection, it is therefore a human responsibility that these animals be cared for in a manner appropriate to their needs” and also “BWF does NOT support breeders. BWF would like to quote PET PARDONS view on "breeding"

...If you really want to know why so many pets end up on death row then it is really very simple & here it is:
Breeders & Puppy Mills

Despite the massive overpopulation of pets in America the breeders and the puppy mills churn out pets 24 hours a day to make a buck, or in many cases, a lot of bucks. The way to shut down the breeders and the puppy mills is simple, just Adopt from your local Shelter or Rescue instead of buying from a pet store or breeder.”

I have dealt first hand with a Rabbit Advocates (RA) person many years ago. She told me that I was the reason why she had to rescue rabbits and I should be ashamed of myself for being a breeder.

Right now the RA has a very extensive care sheet on how to care for rabbits on the internet. This pamphlet can be found at most feed stores. They offer at their meetings to groom or do nail trims. While this information is mostly true and educating pet owners, it is also teaching people that don’t know any better that rabbits must have food in front of them at all times and that breeders are bad. Every breeder is a hoarder, and has unkept cages with wire floors. In many cases wire flooring, in of itself, is considered harmful/abusive.

I say fight fire with fire. Educate anyone that will listen. Be an advocate at your fair, church, any youth program, feed store or any other venue you can think of. Keep yourself and your rabbitry safe.

I want to end by saying I am not a lawyer, nor am I giving legal advice. I just believe in being proactive in keeping our hobby alive.

***Note from Washington Animal Watch: For those who aren't familiar with animal husbandry for these species, the specifics mentioned here that were judged by authorities and activists to be "abuse" are standard husbandry practices, widely accepted as appropriate for these species based on both practical experience and clinical research.

Some breeders and animal owners feel it is best not to have strangers on their property, while others do it with certain precautions or freely allow it without concern. This is a choice that is up to the individual. WAW's position is that the decision whether to have strangers come to a person's home or not should be left up to each person and should not be dictated by law.

Public Hearings on Proposed WA Animal Cruelty Laws, Jan 31st

Three animal cruelty-related bills proposed in WA state are scheduled for public hearings on Jan 31st, 2013 in the House Committee on Judiciary at 1:30 PM.

Please note that these bills HAVE NOT yet become law; currently they are in the public hearing stage of the process and could be withdrawn or changed as a result of public feedback.

****
HB 1201/SB 5203 would make animal sales/barters/etc. illegal in most public places or private property open to the public, with certain exceptions. It defines unathorized sales as animal cruelty crimes.

This law would, for instance, make exchanging money/animal on the street or sidewalk in front of a buyer's home after a home check; or a member of the public selling animals at a Saturday market, at a swap meet, in a parking lot, or inside a store an animal cruelty crime--even if, for instance, a feed store gave a non-employee permission to sell animals there.

It does include exemptions for shelters, rescues, bona-fide exhibitors at sanctioned shows, fairs, 4-H/FFA activities, pet store sales by the store owner/operator, and licensed livestock auctions, among other things.

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summary.aspx?year=2013&bill=1201

****
HB 1202/SB 5204 makes numerous significant changes to the animal cruelty statutes, including the following:

adds a new civil infraction level of animal cruelty for issues that don't rise to the level of 2nd degree misdemeanor cruelty (2nd degree cruelty currently requires some negligence or knowing act/failure on the owner's part, and that the animal either has been abandoned or that it experience some sort of pain or suffering to rise to the level of cruelty ["mild discomfort" defined as sufficient pain for a conviction in precedent-setting rulings]); this new law does not appear to require any harm or risk to the animal (or negligence on the owner's part) for a law enforcement or animal control officer to issue an animal cruelty citation for care they consider inadequate;

adds the word "injury" to the 2nd degree cruelty statute so that allowing an animal to experience a minor injury that is not severe enough to cause pain or suffering could qualify as 2nd degree cruelty;

changes the animal fighting statutes to add "causing a minor" to the language and changes definitions to cover all animals rather than just dogs or roosters, but also removes the word "knowing" from the statute so that anyone involved in any way (such as a taxi or bus driver transporting someone to a location, or the owner of a building) could be guilty of felony animal cruelty even if they had no knowledge it had anything to do with fighting;

adds multiple new definitions to the animal cruelty statutes, and also adds several new terms to the animal cruelty laws that are left undefined and open to interpretation;

adds a requirement of "prompt and appropriate treatment of an animal's illness or injury," but leaves those definitions open to interpretation and does not clarify whether home treatment or monitoring for minor routine issues would be acceptable or not;

also adds a statute on leaving animals in vehicles, and makes a number of other changes.

It's a very long and involved bill, covering many different topics and editing many portions of existing animal cruelty law.

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summary.aspx?year=2013&bill=1202

****
HB 1186/SB 5102 removes any civil or criminal liability for a veterinarian reporting suspected animal cruelty.

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summary.aspx?year=2013&bill=1186


****
HB 1194, limiting a landowner's liability when their land is used for habitat projects on the official habitat project list, is also scheduled to be heard during this time slot.

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summary.aspx?year=2013&bill=1194

***

You can see a more detailed post about HB 1201 and HB 1202 on the Washington Animal Watch Blog here:

http://waanimal.blogspot.com/2013/01/wa-animal-cruelty-legislation-for-2013.html

****

House committee hearings are generally held in the John L. O'Brien next to the Legislative Building in Olympia, WA. You can call the legislative hotline at 1.800.562.6000 to verify when and where the hearings are.

The page on how to testify at these hearings is at: http://www.leg.wa.gov/legislature/Pages/Testify.aspx

It also says, "If you cannot appear before a committee, contact your legislator making your position on a bill known. You can do so by writing a letter, sending an e-mail, calling the legislator's Olympia office, or by calling the Legislative Hotline at 800.562.6000."

It is important to make your voice heard. Public feedback could have a huge influence on the final wording of these laws.

A summary of the various arguments and points of view on both sides is generally compiled from the public hearing process and posted on the bill's page of the legislative website, so this is a particularly good opportunity to make your input count.

~~ Washington Animal Watch ~~

**Forwarding or reposting of this message is permitted, but please leave the message and links intact.**

Time is running out

There are just a few hours left to comment on the proposed rule that would drastically expand the USDA/APHIS' authority over private pet breeders in their homes throughout the USA. Comments need to be in by 11:59PM Eastern time tonight, Wednesday August 15th, 2012, but don't try to cut it too close.

Please comment and tell them this rule needs to be withdrawn. Remember, you can make as many comments as often as you like, and substance is more important than number. But HSUS and other anti-breeding organizations are blitzing the comments in these last few hours, and we need to make sure they are outnumbered and we make our voices heard. It's important to use your own words, but here are some ideas for you to use if desired.

Some talking points (Please use your own words when commenting, as duplicate comments are treated as one, even if posted multiple times):

* It's not APHIS' job to regulate private breeders in their homes. The Animal Welfare Act was never intended to regulate private retail sales, and the courts have affirmed that this is not USDA's job.

* People are perfectly capable of making their own decisions about how and where to buy a pet. We don't need the government regulating that.

* There is no evidence that animals purchased sight-unseen or shipped/transported to the buyer have a higher incidence of *anything* than animals purchased any other way, and APHIS themselves has admitted they have no data whatsoever on this. This makes this rule arbitrary, specious and capricious; based on anecdotal and emotional claims rather than on real data supported by evidence.

* We don't need more small hobbyist breeders forced to raise pets in sterile laboratory-style facilities, and AWA standards do not allow for home-raised pets. A small hobbyist breeder is not able to be home from 7AM to 7PM every weekday for inspections, and the requirement for sterile facilities with no impermeable surfaces, no animals raised with other types of animals, etc. makes it impossible for a home environment to meet AWA standards.

* Not being able to ship or transport breeding stock will destroy the genetic diversity of rare breeds and harm breeding programs, and will harm the production of working/service dogs, as well as preventing people from doing their own research and buying pets where and how they choose.

*  Animals have been purchased remotely and transported sight-unseen for thousands of years. The internet makes it easier, not harder, to research a breeder and make an informed purchasing decision.

* If they are going to pass this rule they need to make the "face to face" exemption clearly outlined in the text of the rule itself. Simply promising not to enforce the rule as written (as the current plan is) is not a good solution.

* Any problems can be dealt with simply by APHIS enforcing their own standards on existing licensed breeders, and by enforcing existing animal cruelty and mail fraud laws. All states already have laws with potentially severe penalties for dealing with animal cruelty.

* The USDA/APHIS is required to do an impact analysis when creating new rules. Their calculated cost of this rule both to breeders and to APHIS is severely underestimated to the point that it is laughable. Their data does not even attempt to include species other than dogs that will be impacted, and grossly underestimates even the number of dog breeders that will be impacted and the costs associated with that.

* The information given to the public and the way APHIS has described this rule during the comment period is grossly misleading and undermines transparency.

* $500 is an extremely low threshold for requiring breeders to be licensed, especially since it is calculated based on raw income rather than on profit.

The AWA says in Sec. 2133. Licensing of dealers and exhibitors,

"That any retail pet store or other person who derives less than a substantial portion of his income (as determined by the Secretary) from the breeding and raising of dogs or cats on his own premises and sells any such dog or cat to a dealer or research facility shall not be required to obtain a license as a dealer or exhibitor under this chapter."

$500 is no longer a substantial portion of the average person's income and this needs to be updated. If inflation continues at the same average rate as it has since the AWA was passed, by 2020 it will take about $5,000 to have the same buying power that $500 had in 1966. The exemptions for cats, dogs and exotic animals allow for the potential sale of many thousands of dollars worth of animals before licensing is required; it is unfair and capricious to have a so much lower threshold for other types of animals.

* Breeding females are not clearly defined, and several other definitions in the rule are not clearly defined either. 4 intact females is a very low threshold to reach, and owning them does not necessarily mean they are being bred. This threshold for determining licensing is also unfair, capricious and specious, as is the requirement that a breeder must never sell any animal that was not bred and raised by them in order to be exempt from licensing.

* This rule is being pushed by anti-breeder animal rights organizations such as HSUS that have the ultimate agenda of eliminating all existence and use of domestic animals. No amount of regulation will make them happy unless we do away with all breeding and animal ownership completely, and the U. S. Dept. of Agriculture should not be pandering to them.

Read and comment on the proposed rule here:
http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=APHIS-2011-0003-0001

Permission to repost granted; the original post is from Washington Animal Watch blog at http://waanimal.blogspot.com/2012/08/time-is-running-out.html and updates and any edits/corrections will be posted there.

New USDA rule would force small breeders to become licensed.

The proposed federal APHIS/USDA rule which is being falsely touted as an "anti-puppymill" rule actually applies to "Dogs, cats, rabbits, guinea pigs, hamsters, gerbils, rats, mice, gophers, chinchilla, domestic ferrets, domestic farm animals, birds, and cold-blooded species."

From the proposed rule:

In addition to retail pet stores, the proposed rule would exempt  from regulation anyone who sells or negotiates the sale or purchase of any animal, except wild or exotic animals, dogs, or cats, and who derives no more than $500 gross income from the sale of such animals. In addition, the proposed rule would increase from three to four the number of breeding female dogs, cats, and/or small exotic or wild mammals that a person may maintain on his or her premises and be exempt from licensing and inspection if he or she sells only the offspring of those animals born and raised on his or her premises for use as pets or exhibition, regardless of whether those animals are sold at retail or wholesale.

In other words, if you own or co-own more than 4 breedable females (of any combination of cats, dogs or exotic animals) and sell pets (or animals for exhibition--which can include something as simple as using an animal in a photo promoting a product--or any other USDA-regulated animals), sell any animals not born and raised on your premises as pets, sell more than $500 worth of AWA-regulated animals (gross, not profit), or sell even one animal as a pet in a transaction in which the buyer does not personally come to your home or place of business, you must be USDA licensed and conform to AWA standards.

Here is a handy chart to help you understand the exemptions (just substitute the word "females" for species other than dogs--it does apply to more than just dogs): http://www.virginiafederation.org/how-will-it-affect-you

This means that people will no longer be able to carefully choose the pet (or the prospective home for their animal) that is the best fit, but will instead be limited by geographic proximity.  

Without being USDA licensed, rescues can no longer adopt animals out of foster homes unless every prospective adopter goes to the foster family's house. It may affect chick hatcheries being able to ship chicks to people who want backyard chickens or ducks as pets. Sales can no longer take place at competitive shows where multiple knowledgeable second opinions about the health and quality of the animal are readily available.

Pets will not be able to be shipped or transported by either a third party or the seller themselves to the prospective buyer, no matter how carefully the buyer and seller (or rescue and adopter) have checked each other out or how well they know each other, or even whether they have already had previous dealings and this is a repeat transaction (and even though animals being shipped are already required to have a certificate from a veterinarian verifying that they are healthy and have had all required vaccines and testing). It will eliminate chains of volunteers forming a "train" to transport a rescue pet or a rare breed across the country.

For a small hobbyist breeder or rescue who keeps their animals in their home with their family, forcing them to bring every prospective buyer or adopter is dangerous for many reasons. 

Bringing all buyers into the home compromises biosecurity and puts the animals at risk from disease--things like parvo, mites, parasites and other issues can easily be carried on visitors' shoes, hands or clothing. It could also compromise the emotional well-being of the animals; as an animal recovering from surgery, giving birth, or in advanced old age could be easily stressed out by strangers coming into their space.

It also opens up both the animals and the homeowner to a substantial risk from thieves, animal rights activists, vandals, and others who may wish them harm.

Forcing a private citizen to bring customers into their home is far more dangerous than having customers come into a business. Farm homes are often remote from other people, out of view from the road or other public areas, and too far from neighbors for anyone to hear calls for help. Emergency services such as fire, medical and police help are farther away and will turn out in smaller force for a residential call than for a business call.

If this rule passes, it will make it far too easy for thieves, rapists, murderers, extremists and other dangerous people to gain access to private homes.

It may also cause issues with city and county code compliance, as many counties allow home businesses in certain districts only as long as customers do not come to the home. Home insurance companies are also likely to drop people's policies or charge far more if customers are coming to the home.

If you're thinking that requiring more people to be licensed and inspected is a good thing, think again. Animal Welfare Act standards were written and intended for laboratories and large commercial enterprises, not small family businesses, rescues, service dog organizations or in-home breeders. A person CANNOT raise animals in a home with a family environment and meet AWA standards.

If someone is USDA licensed, they are required to keep their animals in a sterile commercial-type setting with myriad regulations about things like having impermeable services, specific sizes and types of enclosures, pristine like-new equipment and facilities (even a few hairs on the floor, a spot of rust on an enclosure or a cobweb on the ceiling can be a violation) and not having young animals around any other animal besides their mother. Not to mention the types of records required to be kept, excessive veterinary requirements, and other issues we go into more detail about in our previous post, Why not just apply for a USDA license? 

Remember, this is a federal rule, which means it will apply to all of the USA--not just one state.

--------------------




More information and sources:

Here is the link where you can make comments directly to APHIS (as many as you like; you're not limited to just one) on the proposed new rule which would drastically widen the pool of people required to be licensed: http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=APHIS-2011-0003-0001

The Cavalry Group has put up a website with a tool to make it easy to email your congressional representatives about this issue (this is important because the new rule must be approved by Congress). You can use their suggested wording, or (for more impact) revise and edit it to reflect your own situation and wording. (While you're at it, it would also be a good idea to write another note asking them NOT to support the PUPS (Puppy Uniform Protection and Safety) Act, another very similar law backed by the HSUS and other animal supremacy groups that some congressfolks are trying to pass.) http://the-cavalry-group.rallycongress.com/6980/urge-congress-take-action-to-support-cavalry-group-mission/

The AKC also has a petition going: http://www.akc.org/petition/


Here is the site where you can look up inspection reports. You can search by any term, including type of animal. http://acissearch.aphis.usda.gov/LPASearch/faces/CustomerSearch.jspx

And here are the published regulations pertaining to the Animal Welfare Act:
http://www.aphis.usda.gov/animal_welfare/downloads/awr/awr.pdf

Here are a lot of the forms and other info:
http://www.aphis.usda.gov/animal_welfare/pubs_reports.shtml

Washington Animal Watch Posts about the proposed USDA/APHIS rule:

New USDA rule would force small breeders to become licensed. http://waanimal.blogspot.com/2012/06/new-usda-rule-would-force-millions-of.html

Why not just apply for a USDA license? http://waanimal.blogspot.com/2012/06/why-not-just-apply-for-usda-license.html

Images Opposing PUPS and the APHIS proposal (for posting on your own site, Facebook page, etc.) http://waanimal.blogspot.com/2012/06/ads-opposing-pups-and-aphis-proposal.html

Buying Animals at Shows: http://waanimal.blogspot.com/2012/06/buying-animals-at-shows.html

Our thoughts on the APHIS fact sheet and ARBA/APHIS teleconference notes: http://waanimal.blogspot.com/2012/07/never-trust-lawmakers-who-say-they.html

What is a place of business? (be sure to read the comments, too):  http://waanimal.blogspot.com/2012/07/what-is-place-of-business.html


-----------------------

Copyright Washington Animal Watch, 2012




Please remember that all original works are copyrighted unless otherwise stated, even if they do not carry a copyright notice. You may freely share the link to this page, and brief excerpts (with credit and a link), but republishing an article elsewhere or copying and pasting it to share on newsgroups, websites, etc. is a copyright violation. More importantly, the hyperlinks may not be included and the unauthorized version will not include any more recent corrections or updates.

Information from WA State Veterinarian's Office About Health Certificate Requirements

A concerned citizen wrote to the Washington State Veterinarian's office with some questions about health certificates. Dr. Paul Kohrs, the assistant state veterinarian, was kind enough to reply, and to give his permission for his letters on the topic to be posted publicly. The citizen shared their emails with us and gave permission to reprint them, as well.

The citizen asked if health certificates were required for small animals with little to no health risk coming into the state for a brief visit. They also inquired whether a health check at an event such as a show would meet the requirements and substitute for a health certificate.

They also said,

I called every veterinarian in the phone book in [nearest city across a state line] and found that the average price for a health certificate is $100 for one animal. Most of the clinics would not even do CVIs for animals other than cats and dogs, period--especially small animals like pocket pets. Many also gave little to no discount for multiple animals getting veterinary certificates at once.

This fits with what others who have attempted to obtain health certificates for animals other than cats and dogs have shared with me, also. It is very difficult and expensive to obtain a veterinary certificate, especially for small animals other than cats and dogs, since finding a vet who will even see them is impossible in some locales.

The way the law is written, it appears that even an earthworm would require a health certificate to be brought into the state on a brief visit. (It's fairly common for earthworms to be raised for bait or for redworm composting, and quite possible they could be brought across state lines that way--and earthworms are not insects.)

For small animals like cavies, rabbits, hamsters or earthworms, what is the purpose of requiring a health certificate for things like a brief visit by private conveyance into the state, since there are no testing or vaccines required that need to be verified?

Are there any diseases that would be dangerous to humans or other types of animals that a rabbit, for instance, would be likely to carry? Or any reportable diseases that would not be apparent to a lay person but that a vet would find in a simple examination without running any tests?

I would like to better understand what benefit is gained by this requirement when it is so costly and difficult to fulfill.

How does the state calculate that the benefit/cost analysis works with these types of animals, when the cost of meeting requirements to bring one of these small animals into the state is higher than the cost of replacing a whole herd of them would be? Especially when there is little to no risk to any other species.

If it cost that many times the value of a cow every month just to meet the requirements to bring it across state lines, I imagine that would have a pretty significant impact on the cattle industry.

Thank you again,

---------

Dr. Kohrs' first reply:

Dear _______,

I have been asked to help clarify the meaning and reasoning in developing regulations for the importation of livestock and other animals into the State of Washington. To begin, allow me to repeat what Ms. Jones emphasized in an earlier note;
     The Mission of the Animal Health program is to:

• Protect and enhance animal health and animal well being.


• Promote the economic vitality of the livestock industry by minimizing exposure to animal diseases.
• Safeguard the citizens of Washington State by identifying and limiting the exposure to zoonotic diseases (transfer from animal to human).

To accomplish this mission, rules and regulations need to be developed and administered in what we feel is a fair and equitable manner. The law states that all animals as defined in Chapter 16.36 RCW are members of the animal kingdom, except humans, fish and insects. To develop regulations for each and every species and subspecies of these smaller animals is a monumental task, the scope of which our department has never had the funding or staff for such an endeavor.

In answer to your statement of these small pets being brought into our state by private conveyance for a brief visit, it is true that we do not require a health certificate (also known as a certificate of veterinary inspection; CVI). If, however, the animal is being imported to a fair or show in Washington, or sold, it must be examined by a licensed and accredited veterinarian to assure it is healthy. One must consider that these animals, although small and cuddly, can carry organisms that can cause disease in other animals and humans also.

For example:

• Cavies (gerbils) [sic] can have, carry and transmit mites, lice, ringworm, Salmonella, just to name a few
• Rabbits can have, carry and transmit Pasteurella sp, Bordetella sp, Rabbit diarrhea, Clostridium sp (enterotoxaemia), and Epizootic Rabbit Enteropathy.
• Hamsters can have, carry and transmit Campylobacter sp, Salmonella sp and ringworm.
• Earthworms can carry and transmit Histomonas meleagridis that affects turkeys, chickens and other breeds of poultry.

It should also be remembered that any warm blooded mammal can contract rabies, and although rare, it is still possible for a rabbit or cavy to have the disease.

In regards to what veterinarians charge for a CVI, we have no control of nor can we comment on that, as it is up to each individual veterinary practitioner, clinic or hospital.

If you have further comments, please feel free to contact our office.

Sincerely,

Paul Kohrs, DVM
Washington State Assistant State Veterinarian

The reply from the inquirer, asking for more clarification:

Dear Dr. Kohrs,

Thank you very much for your reply.

Your letter states,

"In answer to your statement of these small pets being brought into our state by private conveyance for a brief visit, it is true that we do not require a health certificate (also known as a certificate of veterinary inspection; CVI). If, however, the animal is being imported to a fair or show in Washington, or sold, it must be examined by a licensed and accredited veterinarian to assure it is healthy."

This states that a small animal being brought into WA by private conveyance for a brief visit does not require a CVI. I had been given to understand that a CVI was required to bring these animals into the state, so I appreciate the clarification.

I am not quite clear on whether you're saying small animals traveling with their owner by private conveyance to attend a show, etc. need a CVI, or if they just need to be examined by a veterinarian and appear healthy. Do they need to carry a CVI or proof of a veterinary exam with them at all times during their visit to WA, or does the animal just need to be healthy?

Does the animal always have to be examined before being brought into WA, or can it be examined by a veterinarian within WA, such as a situation where a show has a required veterinary exam at the show before the animal is allowed in?

Also, you mentioned several diseases such as Salmonella, Histomonas meleagridis, Clostridium, Pasteurella, Bordatella, etc. that are commonly found asymptomatically in the systems of healthy animals of these species.

Are animals required to be tested for these things? How would a veterinarian ascertain whether an earthworm is carrying Histomonas meleagridis or a hamster is carrying salmonella, for example?

I have connections with rescues also, and frequently animals being rescued do have minor issues like mites, fleas, intestinal parasites, etc.

If it is not a reportable or controlled disease, and is not something that requires vaccines or testing, would such issues prevent an animal from being brought into the state?

Thank you very much,

-----------

Dr. Kohrs' reply:

February 21, 2012

Dear ------,

I will try to add more clarity to my last missive. To repeat: all animals entering the State of Washington are required to have a Certificate of Veterinary Inspection (CVI) also known as a health certificate. The exception to this rule is in regards to a dog, cat or ferret coming into this state, being transported in the owner’s vehicle for a brief visit at a private residence, do not need a CVI; however, they are required to have a certificate of rabies vaccination. If there are other animals at this private residence and there is mixing of the animals’, that is a matter between the person importing the animals and the person being visited.

If, on the other hand the animal(s) are being brought into the State of Washington for exhibition/sale at a public arena, the animal(s) are required to be examined by a licensed and accredited veterinarian and be issued a CVI which must accompany the animal(s) being imported. So, to answer your question of the animal being examined by a veterinarian and be issued a CVI before coming to an exhibition/show/sale, the answer is, yes. Bear in mind that the Washington State CVI is valid for only 30 days.

You commented about testing for the organisms mentioned; this would be up to the examining veterinarian. If the animal is showing signs of illness, no matter what the cause, the veterinarian will not issue a CVI. If then the animal’s owner wishes to find out the cause of the illness, tests may then be done to establish a cause. If the animal is asymptomatic and the owner wants to make sure there is no infectious organism being harbored, samples can be taken and tests run to determine if the animal is carrying Salmonella, Clostridium, Bordetella or any or any other known organism. When importing livestock, certain tests for diseases are required before entry into Washington, but not for the animals discussed here. As for rescue animals, we require they have a CVI and be vaccinated against rabies. If dogs are from a heartworm endemic area, they are required to be tested for heartworm and we do the best we can to oversee the importation of these rescue animals. However, we do not have the staff or the funding to cover all the rescue operations and rely on the integrity of the people doing the rescue.

In answer to your lasts [sic] question, I believe it has been taken care of in the body of this letter.

Sincerely,

Paul H. Kohrs, DVM

Again, these letters are being published with both original authors' permission.

Urgent: New Animal Cruelty and Dog Tethering Bill Going to Session Today.

URGENT: This bill has already had a hearing and is scheduled for session TODAY, Jan 30.
This law would change the definitions of food, water, and shelter for all animals and put extreme restrictions on dog tethering.

House Bill 1755, AN ACT Relating to the humane treatment of dogs, scheduled for executive session in the House Committee on Judiciary at 1:30 PM January 30, 2012:
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summary.aspx?year=2011&bill=1755

Companion senate bill 5649, AN ACT Relating to the humane treatment of dogs:
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summary.aspx?year=2011&bill=5649

At this point, we recommend focusing on contacting the bill's sponsors, and the Jucidiary Committee members.

The bills' sponsors, and links to contact them, are on the above pages. The members of the House Juciciary Committee can be found here: http://www.leg.wa.gov/House/Committees/JUDI/Pages/MembersStaff.aspx

Their telephone numbers are provided, as well as links to email them.

When you contact lawmakers, be sure to mention the name of the bill as well as the number--they consider so many bills that a number is unlikely to stick in their mind. Try to be as concise and specific as possible.

Please be sure to read the bill in full, as the dog tethering portion is all new and is quite extensive. To briefly summarize, it puts such extreme restrictions on tethering (such as disallowing any possibility that the dog might ever become entangled in anything) that there is little likehood of any case (other than a few situations specifically exempted) in which it would actually *allow* tethering. It does specifically say that pulley and trolley systems are considered tethering.

It appears that this bill could even outlaw such activities as tying your dog to an object briefly while you use the restroom when out for a walk, as well as tying or chaining a dog to prevent its escape from a yard or enclosure.

The changes regarding food, water and shelter apply to all animals--not just dogs. Interestingly enough, in the bill digest and in the summary of the testimony for and against the bill at the January 10 hearing, the changes to these definitions are not mentioned at all.

Among other things, this bill would remove the phrases "at sufficient intervals" and "sufficient to provide a reasonable level of nutrition" from the definitions of adequate food, in conjunction with saying it must be "accessible." In counties with similar phrasing, this is being interpreted by law enforcement to mean that all animals must have food in front of them 24/7.

The words with a strike through them are being taken out, and the underlined words added

(h) "Necessary food and water" means ((the provision at suitable

21 intervals of wholesome foodstuff suitable for the animal's age and

22 species and sufficient to provide a reasonable level of nutrition for

23 the animal)) food or feed appropriate to the species for which it is

24 intended. Both food and water must be in sufficient quantity and

25 quality to sustain the animal and must be easily accessible to the

26 animal.

This is of concern because for many species of animals it is actually harmful to keep food accessible to them at all times. Even for species that benefit from or will not be harmed by having food available all day long, there are times such as walking, grooming, brief transport, etc. that the animal will not have food accessible to it in the course of routine daily activities. Reptiles are included in this law, and many snakes need to eat only once every few days.

The same goes for water. Even if you generally keep water available to animals, in many situations it is impossible to give access to water every moment of every day. Just picture trying to take your dog for a walk or your horse for a ride while keeping both food and water accessible to it every moment, and you'll start to understand the impracticality of such a law if interpreted to its logical extreme.

Also, many horse and livestock owners take their animals out to pasture during the day and only water the animals twice a day. Some species of animals rarely or never drink water, as they obtain all they need from their food or can store it in their bodies.

WSAW feels that appropriate levels and frequencies of food and water should be determined by the needs of the individual species and the health of the animal. Owners and their veterinarians need to have freedom to adjust feeding amounts and frequencies to the needs of the individual animals, rather than every animal having constant access to food and water dictated by state law.

We would like to ask that the phrase "at suitable intervals" or something similar, clarifying that this access need not be constant, be added back into the law.

The USDA has much more reasonable requirements for frequency of feeding and watering in their animal husbandry standards:

§ 3.129 Feeding.
. . . Animals shall be fed at least once a day except as dictated by hibernation, veterinary treatment, normal fasts, or other professionally accepted practices. . . .

§ 3.130 Watering.
If potable water is not accessible to the animals at all times, it must be provided as often as necessary for the health and comfort of the animal. Frequency of watering shall consider age, species, condition, size, and type of the animal. . .

The proposed new Washington State law also adds the following definition of necessary shelter:

27 (i) "Necessary shelter" means a structure that keeps the animal

28 clean, dry, and protected from the elements, allows the animal to turn

29 around freely, sit, stand, and lie without restriction, and does not

30 cause injury, disfigurement, or physical impairment to the animal.

While on the surface this sounds like a good thing, again this gives no exemption or wiggle room for standard practices or common everyday occurrences.

If interpreted strictly to the letter of the law, it could mean that if your cat gets its paws dirty while using the litterbox; your puppy poops on the floor, tips its water dish over, and rolls in the whole thing; or you want to give your pet duck a wading pool; you may be committing animal cruelty--no matter how quickly you clean it up, because the animal was not KEPT clean and dry at all times. A horse that defecates on the floor and then steps in it, or decides to roll in it, is not going to stay clean at all times even if the stall is cleaned daily.

Keeping any animal clean and dry at all times is an unattainable standard. Adding some qualifier such as "reasonably" to this section might go a log way toward helping make the standards more attainable. Or, better yet, just state that the shelter must be appropriate to the species of animal.

For some types of livestock, particularly in mild climates, a wind break or coat might be sufficient. For other animals, more protection is needed. Some types of animals may need shelters or roosts raised off the ground, while others do not. Some animals are much more tolerant of cold than others. Remember, reptiles and amphibians are defined in the WA cruelty statutes as animals. If you keep an amphibian dry, you kill it! Again, there is no one-size-fits-all standard.

Several states, including Michigan, state that "natural features such as trees or topography" can be adequate shelter for some species, or even that a windbreak alone is sufficient for some livestock. The Ontario Ministry of Agriculture's website states, in their factsheet on horses,

"In areas with low annual rainfall, a windbreak may be all that is needed for outdoor housing. Windbreaks are essential for all animals housed outdoors to slow the wind speed and, therefore, the wind chill. Many different objects can be used as windbreaks: large bales stacked two or three high and stored adjacent to a paddock, solid board fences, cedar hedging, a bush lot or snow fences of at least six feet in height. In some areas, material such as shade cloth, as used in the ginseng industry, is attached to tall fence posts to act as a windbreak."

Please note that the requirements regarding freedom of movement would potentially outlaw typical straight or tie stalls for horses, even though horses do fine backing out of a stall and rarely lie down. As long as a horse has access to pasture or regular exercise, a standard stall is fine.

Also, the freedom of movement requirements might potentially cause a problem with transport crates for animals, since in order to keep the animal safe during transport they must for some species be small enough to restrict movement--much like a child's car seat or a seatbelt.

Animals recovering from something like a spinal injury may need to be kept still as much as possible, requiring restraint.

We would suggest asking legislators to consider putting a specific exemption in for animals that need to be transported or confined for health or safety reasons, if they choose to leave this part of the bill intact.

As for "protected from the elements" we weren't sure exactly how that would be defined legally, so we ran some searches for the phrase as relating to animal cruelty.

How throughly does it have to keep out the elements? Does an enclosure which has part of the area protected from the elements, but the animal has freedom to go out into the elements when it wants to (and get wet and dirty) qualify? Is a dog house or chicken coop good enough, or not?

Without this phrase being specifically defined, animal owners may be at the mercy of the personal opinion of whatever law enforcement officer they happen to get.

Apparently, it depends on who is interpreting it. In many areas, the typical 3-sided loafing shed is fine for some types of animals. In others, heavy tree cover or a wind break is all that's required for some types of livestock. Some municipalities require structures with 4 walls and closable/lockable doors, or weather barriers covering the doorways of shelters. Others require raised floors. Still others require insulated housing with climate control. At least one, the town of Taos, interprets this phrase as requiring that animals be brought indoors during cold weather. Not all requirements are equally necessary and practical for all types of animals.

Adding a phrase clarifying that the protection of the elements need only be sufficent for the type of animal might help keep law enforcement from going overboard in requiring things like completely insulated, climate-controlled enclosed barns for animals for which this would be overkill.

We do not need more vague or excessively restrictive laws. We need laws that require the minimum basic care necessary for the health and wellbeing of the animal, and allow the flexibility to adjust husbandry practices to be appropriate for the species and the individual animal.

A sample letter can be found at
http://waanimal.blogspot.com/2012/01/sample-letter-regarding-dog-tethering.html


Please feel free to leave a comment with any other thoughts or suggestions.

Updated: WA Health Certificates for Rabbits and Other Animals

Apparently the Show Rabbit Protection society is researching entry requirements for rabbits in various states. Here is their report on WA.

An excerpt:

There is at this time, no exemption in place for rabbits traveling into Washington that has been obtained by any agency or group including the ARBA.

We spoke with the staff in Dr. Paul Kohr's office, the Wa. Assistant State Veterinarian concerning traveling into Washington with show or sale rabbits.

At this time, all rabbits entering Washington regardless of quantity are required to have a veterinary health certificate from their out of state veterinarian before entering Washington for show or sale stating the rabbit is healthy and free of communicable disease and meets all of Washington's health standards.

I would recommend that you read the entire post.

The way WA law is written, technically any animal down to the level of an earthworm is required to have a health certificate, unless it is specifically exempted.

WAC 16-54-030 "(1)(a) A certificate of veterinary inspection must accompany all animals entering Washington state, except where specifically exempted in this chapter. Certificates of veterinary inspection expire thirty days from the date of issuance."

RCW 16.36.005(1) "Animal" means all members of the animal kingdom except humans, fish, and insects. However, "animal" does not mean noncaptive wildlife as defined in RCW 77.08.010, except as used in RCW 16.36.050(1) and 16.36.080 (1), (2), (3), and (5).

The exemptions can be found in the WAC section on animal importation.

It is important to be informed.

Addendum to post January 7, 2012:

It has come to our attention that some were misinterpreting our previous post as saying that people are not required to have health certificates for small animals coming from one town to another across state lines. So we have revised that paragraph to be more clear, as follows:

"Of course they aren't sending out staff to stop every car and see if you are smuggling a mouse across state lines, and RCW 16:36:045 indicates that inspections are "with emphasis on livestock being brought in from outside the state." But they *do* legally have the right to stop your vehicle and check for animals that have inappropriately entered the state. The fines and consequences if you do get stopped and they verify that you have brought non-exempted animals into the state without a health certificate are outlined in the law. The animal can be quarantined and tested at your expense, can be euthanized under certain conditions, and you can be subject to fines or other penalties."

Note that each individual animal is apparently considered a separate violation even if they are all traveling together. Each day it occurs is also considered a separate violation.

The bottom line is, the law clearly states that *all* animals not otherwise exempted need to have a health certificate when entering Washington. Communications from the state department have verified that this does include brief visits for shows.

According to the SRPS research, you are not required to have a health certificate when re-entering Washington with an animal that originated in Washington and is returning to the state within 30 days of when it left. Health certificates are only required for animals from out of state, not for animals being transported in Washington that originated in Washington.

Here are some of the relevant laws. Please click through each link to read the rest of the law--we are only posting excerpts on the blog for most of them.

RCW 16.36.050

(1) It is unlawful for a person to bring an animal into Washington state without first securing a certificate of veterinary inspection, reviewed by the state veterinarian of the state of origin, verifying that the animal meets the Washington state animal health requirements. This subsection does not apply to:

(a) Those animals that qualify for an exemption in RCW 16.36.140; or

(b) Other animals exempted by the director by rule.

RCW 16.36.110: Violations, gross misdemeanor

(1) Any person who violates any provision of this chapter or the rules adopted under this chapter shall be guilty of a gross misdemeanor. Each day upon which a violation occurs constitutes a separate violation.

RCW 16.36.113
Violations of chapter or rules — Civil penalty — Moneys collected — Time and mileage fee.

(1) Any person in violation of this chapter or its rules may be subject to a civil penalty in an amount of not more than one thousand dollars for each violation. Each violation is a separate and distinct offense. Every person who, through an act of commission or omission, procures, aids, or abets in the violation is in violation of this chapter or its rules and may be subject to the civil penalty provided in this section. Moneys collected under this section must be deposited in the state general fund.

(2) The department may charge a time and mileage fee for the cost of an investigation including inspecting animals and related records during an investigation of a proven violation of this chapter. The fee may be up to eighty-five dollars per hour and the current mileage rate set by the office of financial management. The director may increase the hourly fee by rule as necessary to cover costs of investigations. All fees collected pursuant to this subsection shall be deposited in an account in the agricultural local fund and used to carry out the purposes of this chapter.

[2011 c 204 § 11; 2007 c 71 § 4.]

The law on checkpoints and stopping vehicles for inspection:

RCW 16.36.045
Transporting of animals — Requirements — Vehicle inspection — Authorization by director or appointed officers.

The director may establish points of inspection for vehicles transporting animals on the public roads of this state to determine if the animals being transported are accompanied by valid health certificates, permits, or other documents as required by this chapter or its rules. Vehicles transporting animals on the public roads of this state are subject to inspection and must stop at any posted inspection point established by the director, with emphasis on livestock being brought in from outside the state. The director or appointed officers are authorized to stop a vehicle transporting animals upon the public roads of this state at a place other than an inspection point if there is reasonable cause to believe the animals are being transported in violation of this chapter or its rules.

[2007 c 71 § 1.]

This law addresses animals being transported without required documentation even within the state (i.e. not just while crossing the border). Our understanding is that this only applies to animals that were required to have a health certificate (CVI) in the first place (i.e. animals from outside WA). It does not apply to transporting an animal *from* Washington within the state, since a CVI is not required for them.

RCW 16.36.116 states,

"(1) Any person found transporting animals on the public roads of this state that are not accompanied by valid health certificates, permits, or other documents as required by this chapter or its rules has committed a class 1 civil infraction."

There is a fee schedule for fines here: WAC 16-92-020: Penalty schedule for notices of infraction. It's currently $100 per violation for the first offense.


The law also gives them the right to search your home or other property if they have reason to believe you have animals that were brought in illegally:

RCW 16.36.060
Tests, examinations, inspections, samples, examine and copy records — Entry onto property — Unlawful conduct — Seizure of property — Search warrant.

(1) The director has the authority to enter a property at any reasonable time to:

(b) Determine, when there is reasonable cause to investigate, whether animals on the property have been imported into Washington state in violation of requirements of this chapter, and to conduct tests, examinations, and inspections, take samples, and examine and copy records during such investigations.

(3) If the director is denied access to a property or animals for purposes of this chapter, or a person fails to comply with an order of the director, the director may apply to a court of competent jurisdiction for a search warrant. To show that access is denied, the director shall file with the court an affidavit or declaration containing a description of all attempts to notify and locate the owner or owner's agent and secure consent. The court may issue a search warrant authorizing access to any animal or property at reasonable times to conduct investigations, tests, inspections, or examinations of any animal or property, or to take samples, and examine and copy records, and may authorize seizure or destruction of property.

Hola the Llama

The case of Hola the llama in Washington State vs. Smith is an interesting one. It is a case in which an animal owner was convicted of 1st degree animal cruelty for attempting to treat an llama's illness at home instead of hiring a veterinarian to treat him.

Mr. Smith was convicted in spite of the fact that the llama did not improve even in animal control hands while receiving veterinary care, and the vet was unable to do anything to help him or ascertain the cause of his illness.

The story, in brief, is this: Hola the llama came to Mr. Smith in 2003 through a rescue, in very poor condition. Mr. Smith successfully nursed him back to health and the llama recovered very well.

Several years later, in 2007, the llama began to lose weight and appear ill. Mr. Smith was concerned and took steps to address the issue.

Mr. Smith moved Hola to where he could receive more personalized care, and was actively treating Hola's issues by giving him extra food, special weight-gain supplements, treating for parasites, etc. to help him gain weight. Feed store employees testified that he asked for advice in treating the llama and was quite concerned about him.

The llama at times seemed to be improving with treatment, and Mr. Smith apparently thought that since he had been able to nurse him back to health this way in the past, he would be able to do it again. Hola had times when he seemed to be improving, but then would get worse again.

When animal control was called by a neighbor, Hola was in a "downer" position. Animal Control confiscated both Hola and the other llama on the property, even though the other llama was perfectly healthy. By the time the veterinarian examined him after he was confiscated, Hola was up on his feet with normal responsiveness and vital signs.

Hola was confiscated on December 7th, 2007, and spent 6 and 1/2 weeks in animal control custody and under veterinary treatment, which still was unable to find a clear cause for the weight loss or illness and did essentially the same things Mr. Smith had been doing to treat him.

Hola had ups and downs, just as he had in Mr. Smith's care. He improved, became "downer" again in late December 2007, and them seemed to improve again. When he became "downer" yet again on January 20th, 2008, they finally decided to euthanize him.

Even though the llama did not improve with veterinary care and the
veterinarian was unable to treat the illness or find a cause of the illness, the veterinarian used essentially the same approach to treat the llama as what Mr. Smith had already been doing with the same results, and the llama did not die while in the owner's custody, Mr. Smith was still convicted of 1st degree animal cruelty in the death of Hola the llama.

Mr. Smith appealed on the basis of ineffective counsel. The court found that 2nd degree animal cruelty would have been a more appropriate conviction and reversed and remanded the case, based on a finding of ineffective counsel because the jury was not instructed about the possibility of finding Mr. Smith guilty of 2nd degree cruelty.

As summarized in the court's decision,

RCW 16.52.205(2) provides:

"A person is guilty of animal cruelty in the first degree when, except as authorized by law, he or she, with criminal negligence, starves, dehydrates, or suffocates an animal and as a result causes: (a) Substantial and unjustifiable physical pain that extends for a period sufficient to cause considerable suffering; or (b) death."

RCW 16.52.207(2) provides in pertinent part:

"(2) An owner of an animal is guilty of animal cruelty in the second degree if, under circumstances not amounting to first degree animal cruelty, the owner knowingly, recklessly, or with criminal negligence:
(a) Fails to provide the animal with necessary shelter, rest, sanitation, space, or medical attention and the animal suffers unnecessary or unjustifiable physical pain as a result of the failure. "

Here are the documents I was able to find in the case:

The court's decision remanding and reversing the case: PDF format or plain text on a webpage.

Appellant Brief (Smith's side of the story, giving his appeal): PDF format

Respondent's Brief (Washington State's statement giving the reasons why they feel Mr. Smith should not win the appeal): PDF format.

Bills Pertaining to Livestock and Water Quality

There are two bills going through the WA legislative process currently that pertain to livestock and water quality. One is in the state Senate, the other is in the House.

1. HB 1152: Providing technical assistance to achieve voluntary compliance with water pollution control statutes.

This bill would require that the State Department verify the livestock are actually causing a water quality problem and give the owner assistance and time to voluntarily resolve it before penalizing them for a water quality violation related to livestock.

The Bill Summary says, "For lands on which livestock graze or seek feed in pastures, fields, or rangeland, the Department must first make a determination that a water quality problem exists and a pollution violation has occurred due to the presence of livestock. This determination must be made before a notice of violation or a penalty may be assessed. When the Department determines that a pollution violation has occurred or is about to occur, it must first attempt to achieve voluntary compliance by offering information and technical assistance in writing. If education and technical assistance fail to remedy the problem, the Department may then issue a notice of violation."

2. SSB 5723: Addressing water quality issues associated with livestock operations.

This bill directs the Commission to examine the livestock and water quality issue, and requires that authorities do fecal coliform and DNA testing to verify that the water quality problems are actually coming from the livestock on the property and not from other sources such as wildlife before penalizing a livestock operation for a water quality violation.

The senate bill report has some interesting discussion on both sides of the issue, including one example given of a farm that was fined $6,000 for the "potential to pollute" the water, although he was taking significant voluntary steps to prevent a violation and there appears to have been no actual violation.

It is worth noting that current law allows for fines of $10,000 per individual violation per day on top of other penalties for water quality violations.

Both of these bills require the state to actually prove that a farmer's livestock is causing a water quality issue before penalizing them for a violation.

It looks like neither of these bills has made a lot of progress, but they have been "reintroduced and retained" several times so far. Neither has a companion bill yet. You can contact the relevant lawmakers and ask them to take action on these bills at this link.

I am no expert, but to me the first bill (HB1152) looks the most promising. It gives more leeway in how exactly a problem is determined (rather than limiting it to or requiring two specific tests), and also requires that the owner be given a chance to fix the problem. Either one seems like a potential step in the right direction, though.

What do you think?

Report on WSDA Health Certificates Hearing

**Note: The deadline for written comments submitted to WSDA to be included in this hearing is 5PM Pacific Time today, Dec 12, 2011.**

One of our community members attended the hearing in Olympia today. Here is their report:

I appreciated the opportunity to attend the hearing today to ask questions, listen, learn, and give testimony. I shared the concerns laid out in the previous blog post, and was able to get answers to some of my questions from Dr. Eldridge, the state veterinarian with the WSDA.

First, regarding the question of what address should go on the health certificate if an animal is being sold at a show, farmer's market, or other location where the buyer and final destination may or may not be known. I was told that in this situation, the address of the show, market, etc would be what would be put on the health certificate.

More than one address can be put on a health certificate, so if you are attending several different shows or other events in a given month, you would have the veterinarian writing the health certificate put all the locations you intended to take the animal in the next 30 days on one health certificate. I am not sure how this would work for someone who had a pet being used for animal assisted therapy or going with them to visit family, when all the destinations were not known 30 days in advance.

There are some situations where animals such as large livestock require entry permits (different from a health certificate), especially if they are in a class that meets exemptions from some entry requirements.

I asked how long an animal has to remain at the destination on the health certificate, and was told that basically as long as the entry requirements (any required vaccines, inspections, etc) have been met, where the animal goes or what happens to it after it arrives at the destination on the health certificate is not of concern. It can immediately be sold or transferred elsewhere as long as it is healthy and has entered the state properly.

So theoretically an animal could be delivered to a temporary location on the health certificate, and then taken to a different location not on the health certificate that same day, as long as they have met entry requirements such as any required vaccines, testing, etc.

Regarding the concerns about giving one's home address to a stranger when purchasing, being given or rescuing an animal, Dr. Eldridge had an interesting suggestion for handling that. He said that if your veterinarian is willing, they might allow your veterinarian's address to be given as the destination address, as long as the veterinarian knows how to get hold of you. Or, if you have a specific situation or concern come up, you can contact the WSDA and they will help you figure out how to handle it, or may allow an exception to some rules depending on the situation.

He reiterated several times that their goal is to prevent people from circumventing entry requirements such as required vaccines and testing. As long as any applicable entry requirements have been met, they aren't as concerned about what happens to the animal after it has entered the state.

There was some conversation about how requiring destination addresses on health certificates would assist in quickly tracking down animals after it was discovered they had been exposed to a contagious disease. However, if they had been sold or given to someone else after entering Washington, or moved to another location, they may not be able to be tracked farther.

I asked what would be gained from having the buyer's physical address over simply having the contact information of the veterinarian issuing the health certificate, who would have the contact information for the seller and would likely be able to help track down the buyer if needed. I had a bit of a difficult time understanding the reply, but I think the gist of it was that in a disease outbreak, speed is of the essence, and having the destination address would facilitate faster location of animals that may have been exposed.

The state vet reiterated that the goal of these rules was to help ensure safe, healthy animals and not to make life difficult for people.

++ Of course they aren't sending out staff to stop every car and see if you are smuggling a mouse across state lines, and they are most concerned about livestock and other animals that require testing and vaccines. RCW 16:36:045 indicates that inspections are "with emphasis on livestock being brought in from outside the state." But they *do* legally have the right to stop your vehicle and check for animals that have inappropriately entered the state. The fines and consequences if you do get stopped and they verify that you have brought non-exempted animals into the state without a health certificate are outlined in the law. The animal can be quarantined and tested at your expense, can be euthanized under certain conditions, and you can be subject to fines or other penalties. ++

Basically, they said that this law was enacted to prevent situations like people circumventing entry requirements (i.e. required testing, vaccinations and health certificates) by saying the animals were going to slaughter or a feedlot, but then diverting the shipment so that the animals were not actually sent there. They don't want animals that were exempted from entry requirements because they were supposedly going to slaughter, ending up in production or in situations where they might come into contact with or infect other animals within the state without having gone through appropriate channels for entry into the state.

I sent in a comment suggesting that they focus their rule-making on requiring that animals couldn't be diverted from shipment to circumstances that would require a greater level of entry requirements than the destination on the health certificate, or something like that. Such an approach might effectively keep it limited in scope to what was necessary to achieve the goal of the law.

The deadline for written comments is 5PM today, Pacific Time.

(This post was updated Jan. 7th, 2012 to add/edit the paragraph surrounded by plus symbols ++.)