Updates on WA Animal Legislation

A few quick updates on several items of WA animal-related legislation:

There is a hearing on HB 5102, the veterinarian immunity law, scheduled on Wednesday, March 13th at 8am in the House Committee on Judiciary in Olympia. http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summary.aspx?bill=5102&year=2013

You may see the previous WA Animal Watch post about veterinary immunity laws here: http://waanimal.blogspot.com/2013/02/why-veterinarians-should-not-be-immune.html

HB 1202, "Animal Cruelty Prevention," has been placed on the House floor calendar, which makes it eligible for a vote by all members of the State House of Representatives. If it passes that, the next step would be the Senate. http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summary.aspx?bill=1202

SB 5202, the spay/neuter assistance bill, was moved on March 8th from the Senate Rules Committee to the Senate floor calendar. The next step would be a vote by all members of the Washington State Senate. An amendment and the substitute bill change the funding mechanism to donations rather than a tax on pet food or pet licensing. http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summary.aspx?bill=5202&year=2013

Two new animal-related laws were introduced in the WA state legislature on Feb. 8th:

HB 1786 would require registration of animal abusers (defined as anyone convicted of 1st or 2nd degree cruelty, animal fighting, or poisoning animals). http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summary.aspx?bill=1786&year=2013

See our previous post about animal abuser registry bills here: http://waanimal.blogspot.com/2011/12/animal-abuser-registry-bills.html

HB 1787 would ban the tail docking of dairy cows, outlawing both the act of docking and also essentially banning ownership of already-docked cows, in addition to forbidding bringing them into the state. http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summary.aspx?bill=1787&year=2013

Rep. Derek Stanford is the prime sponsor of HB 1786 and 1787.

A few more animal-related pieces of legislation in WA:

HB 1830 would change the crime of causing harm to a service animal or search and rescue animal from a gross misdemeanor to a Class C felony if done "with reckless disregard". In previously existing law, a Class C felony under this statute required intent to harm the animal. As of today, it has received a first reading and been referred to the Judiciary committee. http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summary.aspx?year=2013&bill=1830

  
HB 1024 and SB 5645 revise the language in WA statutes regarding service animals to more closely align with federal law.

HB 1024: http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summary.aspx?year=2013&bill=1024

SB 5645: http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summary.aspx?year=2013&bill=5645

HB 1886 adds data entry and processing expenses to the costs that can be recovered by the Dept. of Agriculture in disease control and traceability actions. http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summary.aspx?year=2013&bill=1886 

SHB 1010 expands the requirement to add an aversive agent to antifreeze/coolant to include wholesale containers of 55 gallons or more, and exempts spent antifreeze/coolant being stored/transported for disposal. http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summary.aspx?bill=1010&year=2013

Update on HB 1201, 1202. Judiciary committe executive session on 1202

The WA House Judiciary Committee did not take action on HB 1201 (the bill on selling animals) today.  They did take action on 1202, the bill making a number of changes to the animal cruelty statutes.

Rep. Roberts proposed a substitute bill for HB 1202 making fairly significant changes to the proposed bill, and this was passed out of committee with a vote of 8 yeas and 5 nays for a "do pass" recommendation.

The new version of the bill no longer creates a new infraction for animal cruelty, and takes out several of the proposed changes to the definitions section.

It does retain the addition of a section on leaving animals in vehicles, and the changes to add "injury" and "food and water" to the 2nd degree cruelty statutes, as well as the changes to the animal fighting statutes which would make it apply to all types and species of animals. It removes the word "knowingly" from section 3(1)(b) on animal fighting, but retains the word "knowingly" in section 3(1), which would cover 3(1)(b) as well, making the second instance of the word redundant.

The substitute bill adds "and condition" to the definition of necessary food, along with retaining the language "or as directed by a veterinarian for medical reasons" in the definitions of necessary food and necessary water, as follows:

(j) "Necessary food" means the provision at suitable intervals of wholesome foodstuff suitable for the animal's age ((and)), species, and condition, and that is sufficient to provide a reasonable level of nutrition for the animal and is easily accessible to the animal or as directed by a veterinarian for medical reasons.

The substitute bill leaves out the other suggested changes to the definitions section that were in in the original bill. It does still remove economic distress as an affirmative defense for 2nd degree animal cruelty, and retains several of the other changes to the wording of the laws as well.

The substitute bill is not yet available on the bill's homepage as of this writing, but you can read it from the committee meeting documents here: http://app.leg.wa.gov/m/cmd/main.htm?aid=18667#items_page

Click on Amd/Proposed Subs and then on 01 - PSHB 1202 With Effect Adopted (91k), and a PDF file of the substitute bill should open. Remember, in general the existing law is in regular font. Crossed-out portions in double parenthesis ((like this)) are the parts the current bill is proposing to remove, and underlined portions would be added in the proposed bill.

Here is the video of today's Judiciary Committee executive session, 1/14/2013 at 10AM.
http://www.tvw.org/index.php?option=com_tvwliveplayer&eventID=2013021100

And here is a rough transcript of the executive session from the video. The initial discussion is from near the beginning of the video, and the recommendations and voting are from about 28 minutes in. Again, this is not an official transcript; just notes taken by one of our volunteers.

WA Animal cruelty bills scheduled for executive session Feb 12th

The Washington House Judiciary Committee is scheduled to have an executive session on HB 1201 and HB 1202 on Feb 12, 2013, at 10:00AM. This is where they will be voting on whether to pass the bills out of committee to go on to the next step in the process of becoming a law or not.

Again, HB 1201 (companion bill SB 5203) would make selling animals in public places or private places open to the public, with certain exceptions, an animal cruelty crime.

HB 1202 (companion bill SB 5204) adds a new animal cruelty infraction for issues not rising to the level of 2nd or 1st degree cruelty, and makes several other changes to the animal cruelty laws.

If you would like to make your opinion known and hopefully influence the way the committee members vote, please contact the judiciary committee members ASAP.


Contact Information for the WA House Judiciary Committee:
http://waanimal.blogspot.com/2013/02/2013-wa-house-judiciary-committee.html


See the following posts for more information:

Washington Animal Cruelty Legislation for 2013: HB 1201 and HB 1202 (This post contains a summary of the two bills and the changes they would be making to existing law):
http://waanimal.blogspot.com/2013/01/wa-animal-cruelty-legislation-for-2013.html

Unofficial Transcript of Public Hearings on HB 1201 and HB 1202, including a link to video of the hearing:
http://waanimal.blogspot.com/2013/02/unofficial-transcript-of-public.html

Why Veterinarians Should Not be Immune from Responsibility

The veterinary immunity bill passed out of committee in the Washington State Senate as well as the House, and is up for debate and discussion among those lawmakers who will be voting on it next. In the WA house it is HB 1186, where it was placed on 2nd reading Feb 7th, and in the senate it is SB 5102, where it passed the 3rd reading with unanimous yes votes. Links to the pages for these bills are at the bottom of this post.

This bill would hold veterinarians immune from all civil and criminal liability for "good-faith" reporting of animal cruelty in the course of their practice. It ignores the fact that someone can "in good faith" still be negligent or commit malpractice, and leaves owners with no recourse in these situations.

The WA legislative website is trialing a new option to allow people to leave comments directly on the bill's page. Look for the "comment on this bill" link at the top of the page.

You should also contact the bill's sponsors and your representatives and let them know that animal owners need to be able to take appropriate measures if veterinarians knowingly, maliciously or negligently make false reports of animal abuse; or make a diagnosis of abuse so careless and wrong that it would be equivalent to medical malpractice.

Washington laws about false and malicious reporting, slander, etc. already require that such actions be negligent, malicious, knowingly false, etc. in order to successfully pursue action against the person. We believe there are already adequate protections in place to protect veterinarians or anyone else who makes a good-faith report of animal cruelty with legitimate reason to believe cruelty is taking place, even if the accused is not convicted of cruelty.

If it becomes commonplace for people to be unfairly prosecuted for animal cruelty when they take an animal to the vet, this will only discourage people from seeking veterinary treatment for their animals.

We know of several cases in which veterinarians reported people for animal cruelty for not purchasing a product or service they were trying to sell, or for wanting to wait or get a second opinion instead of immediately euthanizing an animal or doing an invasive and unnecessary procedure the vet recommended.

Here is one example: http://bluedogstate.blogspot.com/2012/07/cat-killer-vet-drops-dime.html

The family adopted an FIV-positive cat. When veterinarian Holly Cheever recommended euthanizing it, they decided that since the cat did not seem to be suffering they would like to try to keep it comfortable at home a little longer. They might have sought a second opinion, but the veterinarian immediately called authorities who seized the cat and brought it back to Cheevers, who euthanized it that same day (removing the owners' right to get a second opinion, and the evidence they needed to defend themselves) and insisted that they (including a family member who did not even live with the cat, but helped transport it to the vet) be charged with animal cruelty for their refusal to immediately euthanize the cat based on her recommendation.

Several of our team have personally experienced veterinarians prescribing medications or procedures contraindicated for the condition or species of animal they were treating, making severe misdiagnoses, or doing things like prescribing blacklisted medications (unsafe for use in meat animals) for livestock that were being raised for human consumption.

Animal owners should not be prosecuted because they refused the recommended treatment or went for a second opinion when the vet made a mistake like that.

No type of malpractice should be immune from consequences. If a veterinarian makes a significantly negligent diagnosis of animal cruelty, the owner should have recourse to pursue appropriate civil or criminal remedies. A veterinarian who has a pattern of reporting people in retaliation for refusing something the veterinarian was trying to sell, or for seeking a second opinion from another vet, should be disciplined. Veterinarians should have no more freedom than anyone else to make an allegation of animal cruelty without good reason to believe cruelty is actually taking place.

In fact, veterinarians should know even better than the general public how to evaluate animals' health, and so should not be excused when they make a significantly stupid diagnosis that could rise to the level of malpractice. If they do not know how to evaluate and diagnose a species, they should refer the case to a vet who can instead of making a wild, uninformed guess that could lead to someone's conviction for a crime they did not commit.

A few potential examples of this sort of thing:

* Reporting an owner for starving an animal, in the absence of reason to believe they were withholding food and without considering or checking for any medical conditions that could be causing the animal to lose weight.

* Diagnosing neglect or abuse in a healthy animal because the vet did not know how to properly evaluate the species and were diagnosing a type of animal they did not normally treat or examine. For instance, using a horse-specific body scoring system to score a dairy cow and declaring it to be starving because it had normal bone structure visibility for a dairy cow but did not fit the normal ranges for the horse scoring system, misidentifying a healthy alpaca as a severely underweight llama, or diagnosing a common and harmless anomaly normal for a given type of animal as being caused by neglect or abuse.


* Reporting an owner for animal cruelty because they refused to do immediate exploratory surgery on a dog that had a routine issue normally handled far less invasively. Since the owners were visiting family in another town and this wasn't their regular vet, they decided to instead immediately take the dog home to their regular vet for a second opinion. If the dog did need surgery, they would rather have their regular vet that they knew and trusted perform it. The first vet (who had never seen them before) tried to talk them out of this, saying that they were just trying to "save money" and that seeing another vet "wouldn't help."

Their normal vet treated it in the standard way, and the issue resolved just fine without surgery.

In making a report of animal cruelty on these clients, the vet reportedly stated that people should not be allowed to own any animals at all if they could not afford or were not willing to do any treatment recommended by this vet. Again, this was a routine issue very common to the breed, and exploratory surgery as a first resort would have been an inappropriate and unnecessarily dangerous and invasive treatment option. The owners didn't just refuse treatment and let the dog suffer; they were essentially reported for seeking a second opinion.

We love our veterinarians, and know that many are extremely competent and would not lightly or inappropriately report people for animal abuse. But veterinarians, just like anyone else, are not infallible, and there are situations where negligence or malpractice happen, or even where veterinarians commit crimes.

Do you have any stories of veterinarians making significantly negligent errors in diagnosis or treatment, or making clearly inappropriate reports of animal cruelty? We'd like to hear them, and we think our lawmakers should hear them too.

It is important to realize that these are not just situations where a person is making a report that is then going to be checked out and verified by experts--the vet IS the expert, and in multiple cases people have been convicted of cruelty based on a vet's word, when the veterinarian was not knowledgeable about the species and testified in court that something actually normal for a healthy animal of that type was proof of neglect or abuse.

Again, you can comment both by contacting your own representatives, the bill's sponsors and the committee members individually, by calling the legslative hotline, and by leaving a comment on the bill's homepage (links below).

We tried using the widget for leaving a comment on the bill's homepage, but kept getting an error message. Please let us know if you get it to work.

If you call the hotline or use the "contact" widget on the legislative hotline for individual legislators, they will request your home address to verify what district you are in and who your representatives are, but you can request that your message be sent to the bill's sponsors and the committee members working on it as well. You can tell the operator whether you oppose or support the bill, and they will also write down your comments to forward to the lawmakers.

On the actual homepage for each representative, you can generally email them directly without going through the legislative website widget.


Legislative Toll-free Hotline:
1-800-562-6000
1-800-635-9993 (TTY)

Here is the link to HB 1186: http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summary.aspx?bill=1186&year=2013

And here is the page for SB 5102: http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summary.aspx?bill=5102&year=2013

(If you are not from Washington, check to see if your own state is trying to pass or already has similar legislation, and contact your own legislators. Many states have or are trying to pass these types of laws.)

Unofficial Transcript of Public Hearings on Animal Cruelty Bills, Jan 31, 2013

Please note, this is not an official transcript of the 1/31 House Judiciary Committee Public Hearings. This is just notes taken by one of our volunteers, for those who need (or prefer) to read rather than listen to it. Please let us know if you notice any major errors and what the timestamp on the video was so we can double check it.

This post is extraordinarily long, so only the first several paragraphs will appear on the main blog page. Click on the "read more" link for the rest of the post.

The video is here: http://www.tvw.org/index.php?option=com_tvwplayer&eventID=2013010137

HB 1186 (27:55 on video)

Omeara Harrington, Counsel (staff):"House Bill 1186 provides legal immunity for licensed veterinarians who report animal cruelty. The animal cruelty statutes outlaw killing or harming animals or engaging in a number of practices that are hazardous to animals, including unsafe confinement, animal fighting and poisoning animals.

Veterinarians can be involved in animal cruelty investigations in a number of ways. The animal cruelty statutes specifically permit law enforcement officers to solicit the help of veterinarians in determining whether animal abuse or neglect has occurred to such a degree that would justify the law enforcement officer in removing the animal for care. Veterinarians may also be called on to advise and assist the law enforcement officers in the euthanasia of an animal that has been seriously injured and is suffering, and there is statutory immunity provided to veterinarians participating in these activities as long as they are carried out with reasonable prudence. Veterinarians may also encounter evidence of animal cruelty in the course of their practices.

State law does not require that animal cruelty is reported, and veterinarians are not provided with immunity from liability in statute if they do decide to voluntarily report.

House Bill 1186 would provide licensed veterinarians with immunity from criminal and civil liability for reporting suspected animal cruelty in good faith and in the normal course of business.

And I can answer questions.

Rep. Jamie Pedersen (D): Thank you, do you have any questions for staff? OK. Our resident veterinarian, the lady from the 35th, is not with us at this point. We'll give her a chance to testify if she comes a little bit later. In the mean time, Mr. Vice Chair, let's bring up the witnesses.

May we please hear from Mr. Greg Hanon and Dr. Mike Anderson?

2013 WA House Judiciary Committee

Contact Information for the WA House Judiciary Committee Members, as of Jan 2103
 http://www.leg.wa.gov/House/Committees/JUDI/Pages/MembersStaff.aspx

Legislative Toll-free Hotline:
1-800-562-6000
1-800-635-9993 (TTY)

Tara Weaver, Legislative Asst.     JLOB 204A     (360) 786-7122     tara.weaver@leg.wa.gov
(Ms. Weaver is the person who can put your testimony or comments into the case file for the law under consideration.)
Representative    Room    Phone    Email    FAX

Pedersen, Jamie (D) Chair     LEG 436B    (360) 786-7826    jamie.pedersen@leg.wa.gov

Hansen, Drew (D) Vice Chair     JLOB 369    (360) 786-7842     drew.hansen@leg.wa.gov

Rodne, Jay (R) *     JLOB 430    (360) 786-7852    jay.rodne@leg.wa.gov

O'Ban, Steve (R) **     JLOB 424    (360) 786-7890    steve.oban@leg.wa.gov

Goodman, Roger (D)     JLOB 328    (360) 786-7878    roger.goodman@leg.wa.gov

Hope, Mike (R)         JLOB 466    (360) 786-7892    mike.hope@leg.wa.gov

Jinkins, Laurie (D)     JLOB 311    (360) 786-7930    laurie.jinkins@leg.wa.gov

Kirby, Steve (D)     LEG 437B    (360) 786-7996    steve.kirby@leg.wa.gov

Klippert, Brad (R)     JLOB 410    (360) 786-7882    brad.klippert@leg.wa.gov

Nealey, Terry (R)     JLOB 404    (360) 786-7828    terry.nealey@leg.wa.gov

Orwall, Tina (D)     JLOB 326    (360) 786-7834    tina.orwall@leg.wa.gov

Roberts, Mary Helen (D)     JLOB 420    (360) 786-7950    maryhelen.roberts@leg.wa.gov

Shea, Matt (R)     JLOB 437    (360) 786-7984    matt.shea@leg.wa.gov

*Ranking Minority Member  **Asst. Ranking Minority Member

Video of Jan 31st Public Hearings in Olympia

Video footage of the proposed animal-related laws that had public hearings in the House Judiciary Committee on Jan 31, 2013 is now available, here:

http://www.tvw.org/index.php?option=com_tvwplayer&eventID=2013010137

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.**

WA Animal Cruelty Legislation for 2013: HB 1201 and HB 1202

As we begin the 2013 legislative session, there are several animal-related laws that have already begun the legislative process, and several more that are in working groups and committee meetings at present.

You can go to the Washington State Legislature website at http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/ and click on "bills by topic" to keep abreast of the latest legislation on any topic.

As of this writing, a number of laws have been introduced and are listed under the categories of "animals" and "livestock." Please be sure to check out the WA Legislature site to see all the proposed legislation for yourself. There are others besides these listed already, and new bills can be added at any time.

The links go to the home page for each bill--click on the links on that page to see the original text of each proposed law and any revisions and additional information as the law progresses through the legislative process. Each house bill will also gain a companion bill in the senate as it proceeds through the process, with additional sponsors for the companion bill. A link to the companion bill is added to the bill's home page on the legislature's website and to the search results as it reaches that point.

Only laws that have officially been introduced and have started the process of becoming law are listed on the WA Legislature site; laws that are still in the formation and discussion stage will not be posted yet. For instance, a new law about humane restraint is in the works, but has not yet been introduced for this session.

As a quick review, RCW 16.52, the section of the law on animal cruelty, defines animal this way for purposes of animal cruelty in RCW 16.52.011:

 (2)(b) "Animal" means any nonhuman mammal, bird, reptile, or amphibian.

This definition applies when the term "animal" is used in all of the RCW 16.52 animal cruelty laws unless there are specific changes to the definition within a given statute.

Also, remember that WA law imposes certain mandatory penalties for animal cruelty convictions, including a prohibition on "owning, caring for, or residing with any similar animals" for a period of two years for a first conviction of 2nd degree animal cruelty, or permanently for a first conviction of 1st degree animal cruelty or a second conviction of any degree of animal cruelty (in some circumstances, with the option to petition for reinstatement of the right to own animals after 5 years), as well as making anyone convicted responsible for all costs involved in the legal proceedings and the seizure and care of the animals in addition to any other fines or penalties imposed.

Some of the consequences for conviction under animal cruelty laws can be found in RCW 16.52.200 at  http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=16.52.200 as well as in the various sections outlining specific crimes and penalties under each statute.

It would be helpful to keep the possible penalties in mind as you consider whether these are reasonable consequences for any newly proposed laws falling under the category of animal cruelty. Keep in mind, also, that there has been a repeated push for measures such as mandatory registration on an offender list, including public publication of personal information, for anyone convicted of an animal cruelty offense.

Here are summaries of two proposed laws that we found to be of particular concern.

*** HB 1201, Preventing Animal Cruelty. This bill would make it a crime to "sell, offer for sale, barter, or auction an animal upon any public property or upon private property open to the public," with certain exceptions (please read the entire text of the bill for more details).

This law calls for this new section to be added under RCW 16.52, Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. This would define the unauthorized selling of animals as animal cruelty, even if no actual harm or risk came to any animal in the process.

The link to the HB 1201 homepage is http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summary.aspx?year=2013&bill=1201

*** HB 1202, Preventing Animal Cruelty. This bill covers a number of different topics, adds several entire new sections to the animal cruelty laws, and revises several others. 

Section 1 creates a new crime that people can be charged with, a "civil infraction," adding several new categories and milder severities of neglect to the law. Any law enforcement or animal control officer is empowered to issue the infraction.

"An owner who, under circumstances not amounting to animal cruelty in the first or second degree, fails to provide an animal with necessary food, water, shelter, ventilation, rest, sanitation, space, or medical attention has committed the civil infraction of failure to provide care."

Note that this law does not require that the animal suffer any ill effect, injury, discomfort or risk from this failure in order for the owner to be convicted of animal cruelty under this statute, since it specifies conditions not rising to the level of 1st or 2nd degree animal cruelty. There is also no requirement of intent, knowledge or recklessness on the owner's part.

Many of the definitions about what qualifies as adequate or necessary care are left open to interpretation, with no real guidelines about what constitutes appropriate care, or whether ideal vs. adequate practices are being judged.

A person can attempt to contest the infraction as outlined in RCW 7.80.080, but with the law so vague and not requiring any actual risk or injury to the animal for an infraction to take place, it could be difficult to contest a difference of opinion regarding animal husbandry practices.

Section 2 is about leaving animals in vehicles, and says, in part:

"A person may not leave or confine any animal unattended in a motor vehicle or enclosed space in such a manner that places the animal in a life or health-threatening situation by exposure to excessive heat or cold or deprivation of ventilation.

It also authorizes "an animal control officer, law enforcement officer, or employee of a fire and rescue organization . . . to enter a vehicle or enclosed space to remove an animal by any means reasonable under the circumstances" and holds them free of liability in such circumstances.

It does not require that the animal be harmed by such confinement in order for a person to be charged with a civil infraction, and also clarifies that:

"In the event that an animal suffers physical pain, injury, or death from unsafe confinement in a vehicle or enclosed space, nothing in this section prevents the person who has confined the animal in the vehicle or enclosed space from being convicted of separate offenses for animal cruelty under RCW 16.52.205 or 16.52.207."

Section 3 revises the definitions in the animal cruelty statute under RCW 16.52.011.

It adds the phrase, "or as directed by a veterinarian for medical reasons" to the definitions of "necessary food" and "necessary water" in sections (j) and (k).

Then it adds sections (p) through (s) as follows:

(p) "Necessary medical attention" means prompt and appropriate treatment of an animal's illness or injury.

(q) "Necessary rest" means the provision of regular rest intervals sufficient to maintain an animal's health.

(r) "Necessary shelter" means a constructed or natural structure that provides adequate space, light, ventilation, protection from the elements and protection from heat and cold, suitable to the species, age, condition, size, and type of the animal, and that is sufficiently clean and safe to minimize the risk of injury, physical suffering, or impairment of the animal's health.

(s) "Necessary space" means space sufficient to allow an animal to move in a manner that does not cause injury, disfigurement, or impairment of the animal's health, suitable to the species, age, condition, size and type of animal, and that allows normal movements of the animal, such as sitting, standing, lying down, and turning around, except when confinement of an animal is necessary for medical treatment or transportation. "Necessary space" includes space sufficient to allow an animal to reasonably avoid injury by other animals in the same space.

Notice that it does not define several of the terms added in section 1, including ventilation, rest or sanitation. Many terns are left open to interpretation, such as what constitutes "adequate light" and how broadly or narrowly things like "prompt and appropriate treatment of an animal's illness or injury" could be defined.

For example, does prompt mean within minutes, hours, days? Is home treatment of routine injuries and illnesses considered to be appropriate, or not? Could the mere presence of even a minor issue such as a scratch, a missing chunk of fur, or evidence of a flea or tick be prosecuted as cruelty if the owner could not prove it had already been treated by a veterinarian, even if the injury or condition had just taken place or wasn't of a severity to require being seen by a veterinarian?

Since husbandry practices vary widely, not all law enforcement officers are thoroughly trained and knowledgeable in the appropriate care of every species, and the law does not establish specific standards in every aspect; this could leave the definition of appropriate care open to broadly varying opinions and standards.

Section 4 amends the animal fighting statutes to make it a crime to cause a minor to do any of the things listed in the law, but also makes several other quite major changes.

For example, it removes the word "knowingly" from the law, removing the requirement that a person's actions must be knowing or purposeful in order to be convicted of being involved in animal fighting.

It also removes all the clarifications and definitions as to type of animal (making it no longer apply to just dogs and roosters) and whether the animal is a stray or a pet or not.

This makes it a class D felony for any person, knowingly or not, who is involved or present in any way with any sort of animal fight, whether it be owning the property, transporting a person or animal, holding money, preparing the facility, or being present.

This proposed change to the law could make any transporter, carrier or person who cared for or handled an animal at any step in the process guilty of a felony even if they did not know the animal was intended to be used for animal fighting, training or baiting--for instance, making an airline and its employees guilty of a felony even if they had no idea the animal was being shipped to a location for the purpose of fighting. It also makes transporting any person to or being present at an animal fight a felony whether the person is aware of the situation or not--making a taxicab driver delivering a passenger or a pedestrian walking through the area guilty of a felony, even if they did not know about the fight. It could make the owner of a facility and anyone helping clean, prepare or maintain the facility guilty even if they do not know what the facility is being used for.

This law also makes the mere possession or handling of any animal with the apparent intent or purpose of animal fighting to be a felony, even if an actual fight never takes place.

Section 5 revises the definitions of animal cruelty in the first and second degree to add the word "injury" to the definitions as follows:

A person is guilty of animal cruelty in the second degree if, under circumstances not amounting to first degree animal cruelty, the person knowingly, recklessly, or with criminal negligence inflicts unnecessary injury, suffering, or pain upon an animal.

This could potentially make it a crime to allow an animal to become injured even if the injury is so mild that it does not cause suffering or pain, such as a minor scratch or broken toenail.

It also makes the abandoning of any animal to be 2nd degree animal cruelty, cleaning up the language in 2 (b) and removing the clause saying that the animal must suffer or be at risk of suffering substantial harm from being abandoned in order for the crime to rise to the level of 2nd degree cruelty.

Finally, this section removes the possibility of taking the person's financial situation into consideration in convicting them of 2nd degree cruelty, deleting the following paragraph:

(((4) In any prosecution of animal cruelty in the second degree under subsection (1) or (2)(a) of this section, it shall be an affirmative defense, if established by the defendant by a preponderance of the evidence, that the defendant's failure was due to economic distress beyond the defendant's control.))

Section 6 changes the wording to refer to animals instead of livestock in making it a crime to harm or kill someone else's animals.

Section 7 changes the amount from two to seven hundred dollars in the threshold below which stealing an animal qualifies as a misdemeanor under RCW 9.08.070 and 2003 c 53 s 9 ., and adds "or under chapter 16.52 RCW for animal cruelty" to the section starting, "Nothing in this section shall prohibit a person from also being convicted of separate offenses under" a list of various laws.

The link to HB 1202 is http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summary.aspx?year=2013&bill=1202

You can take action on anything that concerns you in these proposed laws by contacting the sponsors initially. As they progress through the lawmaking process, you may contact committee members as the bills go through various committees, and then the lawmakers who will be voting on them at different stages.

Particularly in the early stages, there is still time and opportunity to push for changes and revisions to the law, or even for the sponsors to withdraw them.

Each law's home page on the WA Legislature website will have information about things like sponsors and committees that are working on the law.

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.

Buying animals at shows

[To understand a bit about ARBA shows, see the trailer for the movie Rabbit Fever here: http://www.rabbitfever.com/trailer/ ]

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

Rabbits and cavies are often sold at sanctioned ARBA shows.

This has many advantages for both buyer and the seller: It's a safe environment with many people around; it doesn't bring strangers to the breeder's home to endanger their family, possessions and animals; and it doesn't compromise herd biosecurity.

Most importantly, it allows the buyer an opportunity to get  expert second opinions on the health and quality of the animal. Other breeders and judges routinely look over rabbits/cavies for potential buyers. It's common to see multiple breeders and/or judges helping a buyer make a purchasing decision at a show. It's also quite common for someone who lives a long distance away or can't make it to the show to ask a trusted friend to inspect and choose animals for them. This would no longer be allowed if the new USDA rule passes, unless the seller was USDA licensed.

(Remember, the AWA standards for licensed breeders require that animals be raised in a sterile environment with restrictions designed for laboratories and large commercial facilities--impossible for hobby breeders or family farms to meet, and preventing animals from being raised in a typical home/family environment.)

An unhealthy or poorly cared for rabbit/cavy is readily apparent by examining the animal itself; with a careful and knowledgeable inspection one does not need to see where they were raised. Most breeders also guarantee the health of the rabbit for at least a few days after purchase. Since the show world is a very small and tight-knit community, simply asking around about a breeder's reputation will quickly tell you who to buy from or avoid.

This rule would remove a very important safeguard for buyers.

Please allow consumers to choose shows, competitions and other offsite ways to buy animals, without forcing USDA licensing. We do not need a nanny government to protect us from the freedom to make our own informed purchasing decisions. We're perfectly capable of thinking for ourselves.

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

This is the comment we submitted today. 

Animal Welfare; Retail Pet Stores and Licensing Exemptions


Agency: APHIS 
Document ID: APHIS-2011-0003-0001
Your Comment Tracking Number: 8105dab3




Submit your comment to APHIS here: http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=APHIS-2011-0003-0001

Don't forget to also contact your congressional representatives!

You can also call Jerry Rushing, the staff vet for the Animal Care Department. His phone number is (301) 851-3735.

Images Opposing PUPS and the APHIS proposal

These images are free to repost on your own site, provided that you do not edit or change them (making the file size smaller without altering the image itself is fine). You must leave the text intact.

Check back; more images will be added to this post over the next few days.

We also wish to clarify that we are not against commercial facilities for raising animals. We are against taking away the CHOICE for breeders to use any humane method of animal husbandry, including raising animals in a home environment.

You can click on any of these photos to view and download a larger version. To post on Facebook, just go to our page at http://www.facebook.com/waanimal to find the image you like, and click "share."

Suggested text to publish alongside, for the ones that don't include as many details in the image itself:

The proposed new USDA/APHIS rule and PUPS law would prevent most animals from being raised in a home and family setting. The Animal Welfare Act limits licensed breeders to only commercial/laboratory style settings. 


Allow farmers, breeders, show competitors, hatcheries, working/service animal producers, shelters and rescues to choose any humane method that works for them, their animals and their goals. Please oppose PUPS legislation and the APHIS-2011-0003-0001 proposed rule, "Animal Welfare; Retail Pet Stores and Licensing Exemptions."  

For more information, see http://waanimal.weebly.com/aphis.html 

or, 

APHIS 2011-0003 applies to "Dogs, cats, rabbits, guinea pigs, hamsters, gerbils, rats, mice, gophers, chinchilla, domestic ferrets, domestic farm animals, birds, and cold-blooded species." PUPS applies to dogs.

Both would greatly restrict the ability to raise pets in home and family farm settings. 

For more information, see http://waanimal.weebly.com/aphis.html 

With any of these images, you may also wish to include a link to our post, "Why not just apply for a USDA license?" http://waanimal.blogspot.com/2012/06/why-not-just-apply-for-usda-license.html


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



Or, here is an excellent site which combines all the most important links in one place: STOP the proposed APHIS RULE in 3 Easy Steps! http://www.icontact-archive.com/sRszqmyZGmERhv5PQPZvnX-eSvbsTRM0?w=2



* Note: All photos are either royalty-free pictures from online libraries that are labeled free to use for this type of purpose, are purchased with a license that allows this type of use, or are used by permission of the owners.

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.

Why not just apply for a USDA license?

Note: This post is about a FEDERAL rule that will affect all of the USA. See our post giving more information about the rule itself and who it will apply to: New USDA rule would force small breeders to become licensed. 

With the current APHIS rule up for comment which would make almost every breeder, rescue and farmer subject to Animal Welfare Act (AWA) requirements and USDA licensing, many are asking, "Why not just get a USDA license?"

The AWA requirements may make sense for laboratories and large commercial facilities. The problem is that the license requirements are so extensive, costly and restrictive that virtually no small hobby breeder, rescue, service dog raiser or family farmer will be able to comply with them.

While I believe people should have the option to become USDA licensed if they wish, I do not feel it is appropriate to force small breeders, hobbyists, show competitors and family farmers to become USDA licensed and inspected. 

Many people don't realize that AWA standards require that all animals be raised in a sterile commercial-style facility. The rules are designed for laboratories, commercial facilities and large scale operations--not for a family farm, small rescue, foster home or hobbyist breeder.


You CANNOT raise animals in your home in a family environment and meet USDA licensing requirements. For instance, all surfaces in contact with animals must be impermeable and sterilizable. That means no carpeting, no unsealed wood, no soft bedding, no sofa or bed in the area your animals are raised.

No more well-socialized puppies or kittens being raised in a home with a family and routine exposure to various people, pets, appliances and other normal household goings-on. No more young animals learning manners from or learning to interact with other animals in the household, because generally baby animals in USDA licensed facilities must be kept apart from all animals other than their mother and littermates.

If you go to the USDA website you can read inspection reports. Here is the link. http://acissearch.aphis.usda.gov/LPASearch/faces/CustomerSearch.jspx

A violation can result in consequences including warnings, having your license suspended or revoked, and/or a monetary fine of up to $10,000 per animal per day. This isn't necessarily determined by the severity of the offense. For instance, the Dollarhite family faced extreme penalties (a more than $90,000 fine, which was a "discounted" penalty from the nearly 4 million dollars calculated to be the maximum possible penalty) because they did not have the required license to sell more than $500 gross in rabbits and cavies to a pet store. This was not about animal welfare violations, but simply about the lack of a USDA license.

Another family was told that they would be fined $10,000 because they were leaving for a family funeral when the APHIS inspector arrived, and it was cited as an Animal Welfare Act violation when they wouldn't skip the funeral to accommodate the surprise inspection.


Not only does USDA licensing open you up to violations of your privacy and your 4th Amendment rights with inspectors in your home, but also in the public sector.

Inspection reports are posted online. This means that your name, address, number and type of animals, and other details about your operation are posted online in publicly accessible locations. Especially for people who raise animals at their residence, this can put breeders at risk from thieves, animal rights activists, and others who might wish to steal from or harm them.

In order to have a USDA license, you must:

1. Have a responsible adult who can explain your operations available every weekday during business hours (defined as 7AM to 7PM) to accommodate surprise USDA inspections. If they come for an inspection while you are gone due to an errand or emergency, you will be written up for a violation. This means you must hire someone to be present EVERY TIME you must leave home during business hours. This is completely impractical for small farms, hobby breeders, and rescues that use foster homes.

2. Obtain animals only from USDA licensed facilities or those that can prove they are exempt. The records you must maintain are extensive, including the name, address, driver's license number, and make/model/license plate of vehicle of people you obtain animals from; as well as detailed records about the animals themselves. These records must be kept on the premises and available for inspection at all times. See the form here: http://www.aphis.usda.gov/animal_welfare/downloads/forms/aph7020.pdf
(The form makes it sound like you only have to get the vehicle/DL info. on commercial drivers, but if you read the inspection reports they expect you to maintain this information for anyone who is not USDA licensed).

3. Have pristine laboratory-style equipment and facilities in essentially brand new, perfect condition. No animals in your home, as previously mentioned--homes have permeable surfaces like carpeting and wood.

All surfaces must be impermeable, flawless and able to be completely and regularly sterilized. Nothing that could conceivably injure an animal under any stretch of the imagination. Nothing that could conceivably attract or harbor pests. Lighting, climate control, water and electrical access, and wash facilities and methods all must meet specific requirements.

Depending on the inspector you happen to get, the slightest amount of dirt or soiling may be unacceptable. Something that one inspector deems acceptable, the next inspector may write up as a violation. The guidelines are vague and extensive enough that an inspector can always find a violation of some sort if they want to, no matter how well kept your animals and how clean your facility.

Sample citations on record in this category, from actual inspection reports:


• A barn with no sink installed. Lack of climate control, and/or the temperature, humidity, etc. being outside the required narrow range. Cracks, rough edges or gaps on surfaces, even surfaces not directly in contact with animals. Wood surfaces, especially if unsealed or showing any signs of wear or chewing. Unsealed concrete, even if not in contact with animals. Rust on any surface, including the outsides of animal enclosures.


• Metal urine guards in cages. Wire floors with gaps large enough for toes or baby animal feet to go through at all (basically all wire floors could fall into this category, even for species such as rabbits where wire floors are standard and supported by scientific research as appropriate). One to six inches of feces on the ground underneath hanging rabbit cages, despite noted lack of odor. Bags of manure outside a barn.


• Sterilizing equipment with a bleach solution (bleach alone is not an approved method).


• Weeds or tall grass in the yard outside the building. Dust on an object that was not inside any animal enclosure. Cobwebs on a ceiling. Exposed nail heads and/or insulation in the building. Anything not immediately needed for the care of the animals anywhere in the general area (even if not inside animal enclosures). Animal hair on the floor.
  


• Open containers of hay, lime or feed. Staining, soiling or holes on/in walls behind (not in) cages. Unlabeled containers. A door (not to enclosures confining animals, but to the building) left ajar. Open garbage cans. Empty feed bags. Full feed bags, opened or unopened, stored in the area.

Those are just a few examples. I recommend that you read through the reports with cited violations to get a fuller picture.

The takeaway for me is that the vast majority of "AWA violations" cited are not the type of thing most people would think of when they consider animal abuse and neglect--at least not in isolation as a minor occurrence. And yet each item listed here could potentially carry a penalty of up to $10,000 per day for each animal affected.


4. Have a veterinarian on staff or on call and regularly attending the animals in your facility. Not just as needed or for occasional checks, but the veterinarian is required to be supervising and having authority over everything. The vet does not have to be the one doing daily inspections, but is supposed to be in charge of the animals' health in your facility.

My vet charges a $30 farm call fee, on top of his normal fee which is a $75 minimum for up to the first half hour and then I think it was $130 per hour after that. That is not including any supplies, procedures, etc. So I'm at a minimum of over $100 every time the vet is called in.

One of the violations cited in an APHIS facility inspection was that there was a rabbit with what sounded like wry neck when the inspector arrived. The employee was waiting for someone with more authority to arrive to tell them what to do. When the USDA inspector informed them that waiting a short time to do something was not an option and they needed to call the vet, they euthanized the rabbit--something most breeders would agree was an appropriate action for wry neck, as the prognosis for this disease is very poor and it puts other animals at risk. They were then cited for putting the rabbit down without first consulting the vet.

A number of facilities were cited for using standard over-the-counter or home treatments for routine parasite treatment, minor wound care and common non-serious ailments, because the vet hadn't been called in on it--particularly if the specific use was off-label, even if commonly used that way by veterinarians and animal caretakers.

 Minor issues that were being treated with over-the-counter remedies (or that had just occurred and had not yet had time for treatment) were cited as violations, as were issues such as tartar on dog's teeth and a red spot on an animal's paw.

Having expired ointments or medications on the premises--even if you're not actually using them to treat an animal--is a veterinary care violation. Using medications off-label without a prescription is another, even if they are standard treatments for that issue (i.e. using a topical antibiotic cream on a wound for a type of animal not specifically listed on the label, even if a similar type of animal is listed and it is known to be an appropriate treatment for the animal you are dealing with).

So, not only do you have to have normal routine vet checks, you basically have to call the vet in for every little thing, even if all you plan to do is immediately euthanize the sick animal.

Many vets are going to recommend extensive treatments for many things that most breeders would cull a small animal, livestock or meat animal for.

These treatments can be prohibitively expensive and can also interfere with the intended use of the animal. For instance, Baytril, a commonly prescribed antibiotic, is very expensive. I believe it costs about $50 for enough to treat one small (i.e. 4 lb.) critter for one week. Like most medications, it is not approved for use in some types of meat animals, and there is a withdrawl time for others. Other medications are blacklisted so that if that medication is ever used during the life of the animal, it can never be used as meat. It makes no sense to spend thousands of dollars to do surgery on an animal that was intended for slaughter in a few days anyway--most would opt to put the animal down rather than treating it in such a situation.

But if a facility is USDA licensed, you now have a situation where the breeder is no longer free to make decisions about whether to treat or cull based on cost effectiveness or the greater good of the herd, or can vet the animals themselves for standard things every good farmer knows how to treat. The USDA licensed facility must call in the vet for everything.

If the treatment the vet recommends is too expensive and complicated, or you don't feel the prognosis is good enough, or it's a meat animal and you plan to butcher it soon anyway so you opt to slaughter it early rather than dealing with treatments and medication residues, what then? Are you now out of compliance for failing to follow the veterinarian's recommendations?

It's also a complicating factor that for some types of animals, it's very difficult to find a veterinarian that is knowledgeable about the species--and even more so a vet that is familiar with herd or flock management. Veterinarians have been known to do things like prescribe oral amoxicillin for a rabbit with enteritis, despite the owner's protests that it was an inappropriate medication choice for rabbits. Another common occurrence is for vets accustomed to treating pet animals to prescribe medications not appropriate for food animals.

So what are your options then? You're either going to have to pay ANOTHER vet for a second opinion, be out of compliance by not following the vet's advice, or be out of compliance or at least doing something terribly unethical and possibly killing the animal by giving it a medication known to be contraindicated for that species or situation.

Not only could the veterinary requirements alone easily end up costing hundreds or thousands of dollars per month, it could also significantly hamper a breeder's ability to make appropriate decisions for themselves, their business and their animals.


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

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

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

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.