Speak up- The Goverment is trying to regulate chicken owners

[DParker75089]

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 both free.

I don't know who reassured you on those grounds, but it wasn't me. I stated that they won't apply to us because the proposed changes explicitly spell out that they don't.

And you tell us we should be reassured in spite of the fact that this agency already refers to Backyard blocks as non poultry.

Well, no. You're paraphrasing what I've said, which I'm sure you know is not an honest rhetorical tactic. What I'm saying is that what this agency or any other classifies BYCs as for purposes of regulations that are NOT the ones being proposed is not relevant with regard to the classification of BYCs for purposes of the regulations that ARE being proposed, especially when the classification of BYCs is explicitly stated in the proposal itself.

This regulation doesn't substantially change the definitions of poultry. So I'm not certain we should draw the same confidence from their lack of agency actions thus far. It's hard, certainly not impossible, but hard for an agency to enforce a regulation which doesn't yet exist.

I'm not sure exactly what you're trying to say here, unless its that your concern about regulations that are being proposed is based on imaginary regulations that do not exist and are NOT being proposed?

 

[U_Stormcrow]

I don't know who reassured you on those grounds, but it wasn't me. I stated that they won't apply to us because the proposed changes explicitly spell out that they don't.

Well, no. You're paraphrasing what I've said, which I'm sure you know is not an honest rhetorical tactic. What I'm saying is that what this agency or any other classifies BYCs as for purposes of regulations that are NOT the ones being proposed is not relevant with regard to the classification of BYCs for purposes of the regulations that ARE being proposed, especially when the classification of BYCs is explicitly stated in the proposal itself.

I'm not sure exactly what you're trying to say here, unless its that your concern about regulations that are being proposed is based on imaginary regulations that do not exist and are NOT being proposed?

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 either isn't being seen by some of us, or arguments you think you have made have been understood as something else.

So, this last time, and go slowly for those of us who are tired, unusually emotional (my normal calm is absent here, though the OP's post I assumed was clickbait, the Agency summary did them no favors).

HERE you appeared to be saying that what another agency does is immaterial (I agree), and that definitions used in one statute may not inform the use of the same term in another statutue (again, I agree, with reservations likely not relevant here), and then seem to conclude with a sentence suggesting that because APHIS wasn't regulating BYCers under the existing statutory definition in this legislation/regulation, it would not do so under the revised regulations, absent a definitional change.

To which I attempted to respond that it is USDA APHIS (the same agency proposing these regulations, under the *existing definition* which is referring to BYCers as "non poultry", and that we can't rely on their lack of AWA enforcement actions against BYCers previously, as there were no AWA regulations applicable to avians of any sort, BYC or otherwise.

I sincerely apologize if I were unclear.

You have repeatedly stated that these regulations won't apply to BYCers, and I sincerely hope that to be the case. I had, in fact, convinced myself it was true, based on the (not substantially changing) existing definitions.

As the Agency itself says, "Poultry is not currently defined in the AWA regulations."

Some (including, I thought, you) were indicating that the AWA would continue to not be applicable to us because:

1) While Bird means any member of the class Aves (excluding eggs),
2) Poultry means any species of chickens, turkeys, swans, partridges, guinea fowl, and pea fowl; ducks, geese, pigeons, and doves; grouse, pheasants, and quail.

and poultry is part of
3) Farm animal means any domestic species of cattle, sheep, swine, goats, llamas, horses, or poultry, which are normally and have historically been kept and raised on farms in the United States and used or intended for use as food or fiber, or for improving animal nutrition, breeding, management, or production efficiency, or for improving the quality of food or fiber. This term also includes animals such as rabbits, mink, chinchilla, and ratites when they are used solely for purposes of meat, fur, feathers, or skins, and animals such as horses and llamas when used solely as work and pack animals.

and
4) (g) The term “animal” means any live or dead dog, cat, monkey (nonhuman primate mammal), guinea pig, hamster, rabbit, or such other warm-blooded animal, as the Secretary may determine is being used, or is intended for use, for research, testing, experimentation, or exhibition purposes, or as a pet; but such term excludes (1) birds, rats of the genus Rattus, and mice of the genus Mus, bred for use in research, (2) horses not used for research purposes, and (3) other farm animals, such as, but not limited to livestock or poultry, used or intended for use as food or fiber, or livestock or poultry used or intended for use for improving animal nutrition, breeding, management, or production efficiency, or for improving the quality of food or fiber. With respect to a dog, the term means all dogs including those used for hunting, security, or breeding purposes.

Since "Poultry" are specifically excluded from the definition of Animal, and are defined to include chickens, ducks, etc, then each reference to "Animals" in the regulations isn't talking about our flocks...

That's all well and good. I AGREE. **UNLESS** the agency is making a disinction with regard "and used or intended for use as food or fiber" not based on the species of animal in question, but rather based on the the way the specific animal in question is being used.

Normally, I'd say that's silly - sure, its a potential reading of the term, but not (in my view) the best or most common interpretation of the term. Except that it appears to be the way the agency is CURRENTLY using the term, in refering to backyard poultry chicken affected by AI as "non-poultry". And where an agency interprets a term, its given broad deference...

Sure, the other exemptions clarifiying de minimis situations (annual sales under $500), four or fewer breeding females, any person who buys animals solely for his or her own use or enjoyment and does not sell or exhibit animals is exempt from licensing if not otherwise required to obtain one will still exclude the majority (if not the vast majority) of BYCers.

Its those of us with flocks of 10, 20, or more breeding females with the intent to sellchickens, ducks, etc which may become food or pets - who knows - that still harbor some doubt about whether these new regulations will apply to us.

What's keeping us from being regulated by this??? Is it the definition above, in spite of the way the Agency currently uses the term, or some other portion of the statute that I've missed?

 

[DParker75089]

I've seen little from you I would describe as "libertarian"

You also haven't seen anything from me that is anti-libertarian, so I'm not sure what your point is...unless your definition of "libertarian" is something like "prone to drawing baseless conclusions and seizing on every perceived opportunity to rail at government bogeymen."

I prefer to focus on the numerous and very real instances of government overreach rather than wasting time and effort on being distracted by imaginary ones.

 

[preciouschick]

Sooo....in a nutshell, what "laws" and restrictions would this put onto the homesteader/ backyard flock owners? All that writing and lingo is too much.

 

[NatJ]

Sooo....in a nutshell, what "laws" and restrictions would this put onto the homesteader/ backyard flock owners? All that writing and lingo is too much.

None at all, for people raising "poultry" (chickens, ducks, geese, etc.)

it only applies to birds that are NOT "poultry."
Here is their definition of poultry:

"Poultry means any species of chickens, turkeys, swans, partridges, guinea fowl, and pea fowl; ducks, geese, pigeons, and doves; grouse, pheasants, and quail."
https://www.federalregister.gov/doc...-use-in-research-under-the-animal-welfare-act

If your birds are on that list of "poultry," this will have no effect on you.

If you have birds that are NOT poultry, this might affect you (who needs a license, who does not need a license, what you must do to get a license, various rules about housing and identifying the birds, and so forth.) But if your only birds are poultry, you can ignore the entire thing.

 

[IdyllwildAcres]

The proposal would ensure each individual bird that is subject to the AWA is raised and maintained in conditions that ensure its good health and well-being and that its physical and behavioral needs are met.

Seems reasonable to me.

 

[NorthwoodsChick]

If you'll read the fine print, it also mentions licensing requirements,
and unannounced inspections. Are we all going to have to buy a
license with annual renewals, which means they'll know who and where you are, so they'll be able to basically "raid" your property and seize your birds, if you don't pay your per bird tax (license).
This is what they want to do with gun owners, and we're next.
Let's go Brandon !!

I have not yet read the proposed regulations so I reserve yea or nay until I have the time to read it all. I will point out that dog licenses are required by many state, county, twsp as local ordinance. I have never once heard of the gov coming for a dog or inspect property due to a dog without a complaint first, usually from someone that witnessed poor conditions or outright abuse.
If people keep birds in squalor, physically abuse them (punt the mean rooster), failing to provide basic needs in captivity and someone lodges a concern, then animal control should launch an investigation, same as for the dog *insert pet

 

[NatJ]

I have not yet read the proposed regulations so I reserve yea or nay until I have the time to read it all. I will point out that dog licenses are required by many state, county, twsp as local ordinance. I have never once heard of the gov coming for a dog or inspect property due to a dog without a complaint first, usually from someone that witnessed poor conditions or outright abuse.

This is not the same kind of license as a dog license.

https://www.aphis.usda.gov/aphis/ourfocus/animalwelfare/sa_awa/awa-inspection-and-annual-reports
"USDA Animal Care inspectors conduct routine, unannounced inspections of all entities licensed/registered under the Animal Welfare Act."

EVERYONE who needs a license under this act WOULD be getting inspected.

The question that matters to most of us here:
Who needs a license?
(Apparently not people raising "farm animals" or "poultry," as best I can tell from trying to read it. That means the title of this thread is wrong-- the government is not trying to regulate chicken owners with this particular piece of legislation.)

If people keep birds in squalor, physically abuse them (punt the mean rooster), failing to provide basic needs in captivity and someone lodges a concern, then animal control should launch an investigation, same as for the dog *insert pet

This thread has been talking about rules made & enforced by the USDA (United States Department of Agriculture.) That is not the same as the Animal Control that you would call with the kind of complaints you mention.

 

[U_Stormcrow]

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 "non-poultry" as it is currently doing to describe backyard flocks not part of the commercial food supply (as it is doing in announcements regarding the spread of Avian Influenza), see for example here and here. EVEN THEN, certain "de minimis" exemptions would exclude the majority of BYC owners from regulation under this measure.

• annual sales under $500
  four or fewer breeding females
  any person who buys animals solely for his or her own use or enjoyment and does not sell or exhibit** animals

** showing a chicken at the county faire, livestock show, rodeo, 4h club event, etc is, definitionally, not "exhibiting" in this regulation.

The only BYC people who **MAY** get wrapped up in this are breeders like myself (and larger, of course - I'm pretty small, and last year would still qualify for the de minimis exemption). That I'm not seeing an outcry (though I need to look further) from Cackle, Hoovers, Meyers, Ideal, Murray McMurray's etc suggests either they don't think this applies to them, or that they can easily eat the additional costs. I'm also not seeing an outcry from Greenfire, Bob's Biddies, Happy Feat, House of Raeford, Hilltop Farms, etc either, who might not be able to eat the costs as easily - which again suggests they don't think this will apply to them, as I can't believe they are all unaware of it.

When I'm done doing my taxes, I may write them to try and clarify - but for the very vast majoirty of BYCers, I think they can breathe easy.

 

[Brooks_]

IDK, I only skimmed it as even if I read it, would probably not grasp it. But it looked to me that they were looking to make the recent California welfare standards national.