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?
