Search results for query: *

The Title, and the Original Post, are basically click bait. As best I can determine, while this regulatory change would extend USDA Regulation to all Avians, it would specifically exclude "Poultry"* and other Farm Animals. *The only caveat would be if APHIS continues to use the term...

I've seen little from you I would describe as "libertarian", but you have been calm and patient, which I DO appreciate. I regret that you are struggling to keep up with responses to arguments you appear to be making. There's a comminication difficulty here - something you think is obvious...

Currently there are no regulations for them to enforce against backyard poultry owners. We are reassured that these regulations they propose won't apply to us because we are Poultry.. And you tell us we should be reassured in spite of the fact that this agency already refers to Backyard blocks...

It's usda-aphis who is currently using the non poultry designation to refer to any backyard not part of the commercial food supply. The proposed regulations govern Asus regulations a pond avians. If they choose to exclude backyard flocks as non poultry because they are part of the commercial...

While that answer is "yes", chances are, they already have a vet on staff, already have written facilities plans, etc etc so this wouldn't really impose new costs on them - certainly not the sort of costs it would impose on small poultry breeders if it applied to us - so it would have the effect...

^^^ Agree with this summary. Apologies to any whose stress levels increased (with mine) as I worked my way thru this. I remain at a loss as to why the AWA chooses to continue to exclude poultry, it seems pretty clear that they have the authority to regulate them, if they want to, under the...

I feel the same - and like I've shortened my life by at least a month with concern. I'll have a new white hair or two from this.

Yes, and my mistake was believing them when they porovided this summary (which I c/p'd on page three as I worked my way thru the text, so people could follow my thinking) "In a final rule published on June 4, 2004 in the Federal Register (69 FR 31513-31514, Docket No. 98-106-3), we amended the...

Was in response to someone making a "non-commercial" distinction. My point was that non-commercial isn't the shield that it once was.

https://www.regulations.gov/document/APHIS-2020-0068-8062 WAY down near the bottom is the proposed changes to the text. Search "Part 1 Definition of Terms 1. The authority citation for part 1 continues to read as follows:" to get there faster. While they altered a number of definitions, they...

Apologies, I had Wickard in mind. Wickard thus establishes that Congress can regulate purely intrastate activity that is not itself “commercial,” in that it is not produced for sale, if it concludes that failure to regulate that class of activity would undercut the regulation of the interstate...

No. I don't think so. I need to sit down with the actual text of the actual regulation, not the summary, and work my way thru. Like @NatJ 's interpretation above, if "used or intended for use as food or fiber..." is an exemption from regulation, then the Tyson quonset huts up the road with...

Much as I appreciate your assurances, that's not what this says. Nor, after Gonzalez v Raich, does the "non-business" defense have much sway. This is, as I've found to be quite typical, very poorly drafted in a number of ways. and since I've helped draft, revise, oppose, and expand legislation...

I've read and reread the section on exemptions several times. The language is contradictory, and unclear if you must qualify for "any" of the exemptions or "all" of the exemptions. I.e. Four (breeding female) birds or fewer is an exemption. Sales under $500 per year is an exemption. If you...

The more I read, the more these proposed regulations appear to have the effect of making it financially ruinous to have more than a vanity flock in a large secure house and run. and that birds will have to be permanently wing banded or leg banded for identification. It also appears that its...

Another Highlight: "In accordance with the Act, we include enclosure standards in each subpart of part 3 to ensure that captive animals are confined safely and humanely. For example, the general standards for primary enclosures for dogs and cats under subpart A require that they be constructed...

Continued: "The existing regulations require that dealers and exhibitors keep and maintain records which fully disclose certain identification and disposition information for animals other than dogs and cats that are purchased or otherwise acquired, owned, held, leased, or otherwise in their...

and if you keep reading... "Veterinary requirements applicable to all animals covered under the Act are located in § 2.40 of the regulations. These require that each facility maintain a program of veterinary care and have an attending veterinarian, as we acknowledge from commenter input to be...

Here's what's got me: "In a final rule published on June 4, 2004 in the Federal Register (69 FR 31513-31514, Docket No. 98-106-3), we amended the definition of animal in the AWA regulations to make it consistent with the revised definition of animal in the Act by limiting the exclusion to only...

I'm not posting an opinion for myself, either. Still mulling it over. With the Court's order, together with the perfectly normal and predictable desire of an Agency to increase its relevancy by increasing the things it has say over, it is virtually certain there will be *some* new regulations...