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.)

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

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.

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.

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

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

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

They also said,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you again,

---------

Dr. Kohrs' first reply:

Dear _______,

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

• Protect and enhance animal health and animal well being.


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

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

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

For example:

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

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

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

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

Sincerely,

Paul Kohrs, DVM
Washington State Assistant State Veterinarian

The reply from the inquirer, asking for more clarification:

Dear Dr. Kohrs,

Thank you very much for your reply.

Your letter states,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you very much,

-----------

Dr. Kohrs' reply:

February 21, 2012

Dear ------,

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

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

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

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

Sincerely,

Paul H. Kohrs, DVM

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

A Veterinarian's Perspective on Health Certificate Laws

 (Posted with permission from Dr. Hreiz)

Dear ________,

Eric forwarded me your e-mail regarding concern over the requirement of a health certificate for rabbits crossing into the state.  As a veterinarian that routinely writes health certificates, I thought I would share my perspective with you over this requirement.

Believe it or not, this law is in place in almost every single US state requiring all companion animals and a myriad of exotic species to have a health certificate when crossing state lines.  Is this law strictly enforced?  Not at all.  I live in North Carolina and work right over the border in South Carolina.  There are many mornings I bring my retired racing Greyhound to the clinic for the day.  Do I prepare a health certificate for this 25 minute journey?  Absolutely not.  So from a legal standpoint I've broken this law at least 25 times.  The average rabbit breeder breaks this law every single weekend when driving to a show in another [state].  The typical family traveling home for Thanksgiving breaks this law multiple times as they cross over into each state on the way.  Simply put, there is virtually no way to enforce this law the way it is written.  The law is broken probably a million times per day.  

These laws are in place primarily for shipment of animals via air.  I routinely write health certificates for stray dogs in South Carolina that are being shipped via air to the northeast and placed into adoption homes.  So while I think the law looks alarming upon first inspection, it is important to realize the the enforcement of this law is not done.  Most US states do not have an inspection station when you're crossing state lines.  The only caveat to this would be a toll booth I guess - but even there a toll worker is clearly not interested if your beloved dog is in the back seat with the kids.

I hope this helps!

Sincerely,

Jay Hreiz
Chair, ARBA Rabbit & Cavy Health Committee

Updated: WA Health Certificates for Rabbits and Other Animals

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

An excerpt:

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

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

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

I would recommend that you read the entire post.

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

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

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

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

It is important to be informed.

Addendum to post January 7, 2012:

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

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

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

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

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

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

RCW 16.36.050

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

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

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

RCW 16.36.110: Violations, gross misdemeanor

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

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

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

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

[2011 c 204 § 11; 2007 c 71 § 4.]

The law on checkpoints and stopping vehicles for inspection:

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

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

[2007 c 71 § 1.]

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

RCW 16.36.116 states,

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

Hola the Llama

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

As summarized in the court's decision,

RCW 16.52.205(2) provides:

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

RCW 16.52.207(2) provides in pertinent part:

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

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

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

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

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