Monday, February 4, 2013
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
Saturday, February 2, 2013
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),
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,
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.
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.
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
http://www.tvw.org/index.php?option=com_tvwplayer&eventID=2013010137
Thursday, January 31, 2013
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.**
Wednesday, January 23, 2013
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:
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.
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:
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.
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:
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:
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:
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.
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.
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."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."
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.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.
(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.
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.
Wednesday, August 15, 2012
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.
Friday, July 13, 2012
What is a place of business?
In APHIS' fact sheet and in what is being reported by various people about what they have been told over the phone, in teleconferences, etc. the phrase "face to face transaction" has been repeated quite a bit.
The proposed rule states,
From what I understand from what several different people have said or reported from conversations with APHIS, the issue here may end up being how the term "place of business" is interpreted. This may be where the much-discussed "face to face" exemption comes in.
If the term "place of business" is interpreted to mean any place where you or your employees/representatives do business, then a showroom, parking lot, the buyer's home or another neutral location can become your "place of business" for the purposes of the rule. If that is the case, then wherever you or your authorized representative are present during the transaction becomes your "place of business."
We have been doing some research, and have not yet found a clear legal precedent for a place that the seller does not own, have control of, or use on a regular basis being considered their "place of business" for legal purposes. But this is definitely an interesting angle of thought. If anyone can point to resources, federal laws, or legal precedents that support this, please share them.
It seems it would be far more clear if APHIS simply wrote the law to state that transactions would be considered exempt direct retail sales if the buyer had the opportunity to refuse or return the animal upon seeing it, if that's what they're going for. But the angle of "place of business" being equivalent to a "face to face transaction" is interesting.
Hopefully APHIS will be clarifying that more thoroughly in the final rule. Asking in our comments to APHIS for the "face to face" exemption mentioned in their FAQ to be clarified very thoroughly in the actual rule would be good.
Of course, even the face-to-face exemption still leaves the issue of shipping animals or delivering them sight-unseen to a buyer. Leaving comments for APHIS explaining that sight-unseen transactions have been routine long before the advent of the internet, explaining how buyers can research to make informed purchasing decisions when buying animals in this type of situation, etc. would be very helpful.
It might also be useful to point out other potential ways of dealing with the stated problem of people purchasing animals sight-unseen and having them turn out to be ill or otherwise not as advertised, and what recourse and safety measures could be used to handle that situation.
The proposed rule: http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=APHIS-2011-0003-0001
APHIS FAQ sheet: http://www.arba.net/PDFs/APHIS_Fact_Sheet.pdf
The proposed rule states,
Retail pet store means a place of business or residence that each
buyer physically enters in order to personally observe the animals
available for sale prior to purchase and/or to take custody of the
animals after purchase
From what I understand from what several different people have said or reported from conversations with APHIS, the issue here may end up being how the term "place of business" is interpreted. This may be where the much-discussed "face to face" exemption comes in.
If the term "place of business" is interpreted to mean any place where you or your employees/representatives do business, then a showroom, parking lot, the buyer's home or another neutral location can become your "place of business" for the purposes of the rule. If that is the case, then wherever you or your authorized representative are present during the transaction becomes your "place of business."
We have been doing some research, and have not yet found a clear legal precedent for a place that the seller does not own, have control of, or use on a regular basis being considered their "place of business" for legal purposes. But this is definitely an interesting angle of thought. If anyone can point to resources, federal laws, or legal precedents that support this, please share them.
It seems it would be far more clear if APHIS simply wrote the law to state that transactions would be considered exempt direct retail sales if the buyer had the opportunity to refuse or return the animal upon seeing it, if that's what they're going for. But the angle of "place of business" being equivalent to a "face to face transaction" is interesting.
Hopefully APHIS will be clarifying that more thoroughly in the final rule. Asking in our comments to APHIS for the "face to face" exemption mentioned in their FAQ to be clarified very thoroughly in the actual rule would be good.
Of course, even the face-to-face exemption still leaves the issue of shipping animals or delivering them sight-unseen to a buyer. Leaving comments for APHIS explaining that sight-unseen transactions have been routine long before the advent of the internet, explaining how buyers can research to make informed purchasing decisions when buying animals in this type of situation, etc. would be very helpful.
It might also be useful to point out other potential ways of dealing with the stated problem of people purchasing animals sight-unseen and having them turn out to be ill or otherwise not as advertised, and what recourse and safety measures could be used to handle that situation.
The proposed rule: http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=APHIS-2011-0003-0001
APHIS FAQ sheet: http://www.arba.net/PDFs/APHIS_Fact_Sheet.pdf
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)