Speak up- The Goverment is trying to regulate chicken owners

[U_Stormcrow]

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 possession or under their control, or that they transport, sell, euthanize, or otherwise dispose of. Among other things, the records must include any offspring born of any animal while in the dealer's or exhibitor's possession or under his or her control. Similarly, operators of auction sales and brokers are required to maintain records for any animal consigned for auction or sold, whether or not a fee or commission is charged.

We propose to apply the existing recordkeeping requirements to persons engaging in these AWA-covered activities involving birds, unless otherwise exempt. We consider an accounting of each covered animal important for the purposes of ensuring adequate health and welfare, even for high-volume produced birds. If, for example, an individual bird moved to or from a premises is diagnosed with a serious, communicable disease, a record of that bird's movement is necessary to protect other birds from potential exposure and harm."

How the (F) do I maintain individualized breeding records in a free-range flock???

 

[U_Stormcrow]

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 and maintained so as to contain the animals securely, protect them against injury, and provide sufficient space commensurate with the animal species confined. The standards we propose for birds include similar requirements that are performance-based and allow flexibility to meet the wide diversity of needs among bird species cited by commenters.

[...]

We note that the standards we propose for enclosures mirror to a large degree those submitted by commenters, the objective being to provide an environment that ensures humane treatment of animals as required by the Act. The standard in proposed § 3.153(b) requires that the space in all primary enclosures housing birds be adequate and allow for normal postural and social adjustments, such as dust-bathing and foraging, with adequate freedom of movement and freedom to escape from aggression demonstrated by other animals in the enclosure according to the program of veterinary care developed, documented in writing, and signed by the attending veterinarian.

[...] "

So if I free range, my birds must be securely contained (arguably, a 4' tall electric fence isn't adequate to that task), and if I cage them, depending upon their definition of "enclosure", it needs to be big enough for the birds to dustbathe in it. I sense a potential for mischief there. I do wonder how those of us blessed with space are to "protect them from injury" if that includes the risk of aerial predation. I can't net my acres.

Regardless, the poultry vet that isn't available within an hour of me needs to sign off on my (written) plans, and likely inspect for performance as well.

 

[U_Stormcrow]

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 VERY late to get in on comments about this.

 

[NatJ]

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.

It also appears that its VERY late to get in on comments about this.

I thought I saw an exception for livestock, and they were adding "poultry" to the definition of livestock.

 

[MysteryChicken]

I found this petition, that's a against a certain Act that's similar.

https://www.change.org/p/u-s-senate-stop-the-ban-on-pets-in-the-united-states

 

[DParker75089]

I'm generally keep-government-out-of-our-homes sort myself. But the proposal in question has nothing to do with licensing or otherwise regulating the private backyard non-business raising of fowl or any other animals.

 

[U_Stormcrow]

I thought I saw an exception for livestock, and they were adding "poultry" to the definition of livestock.

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 have a rare breed that commands high prices, do you need to qualify for both 4 breeders AND sales under $500, or is it enough that you only have four breeders?

When I get to the actual regulation, I'll have a better feel - the summary is badly worded.

 

[U_Stormcrow]

I'm generally keep-government-out-of-our-homes sort myself. But the proposal in question has nothing to do with licensing or otherwise regulating the private backyard non-business raising of fowl or any other animals.

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 on a subject (not poultry ownership) in most of the States in the US (some several times), plus two foreign nations, I actually have some basis for comparison.

Even if "non-business" did have sway, we who (legally) sell eggs to our neighbors, or who sell hatchlings/eggs as NPIP voluntary participants don't have that fig leaf to hide behind. My FL Limited Poultry and Egg license allows me to sell up to 30 dozen eggs AND 384 dressed poultry in a single week (obviously, I don't) - while this proposes to regulate me as soon as I cross a $500 in sales per year threshold. $500 a year doesn't cover my license to operate, and my state-mandated business filings to maintain my LLC.

I sell cheap - $6 a flat. At just two flats (60 eggs) a week (well below my actual production), I fall under this regime. I don't sell hatching eggs, or live chicks (though I am licensed to do), or I'd hit the regulatory minimums even sooner. The apparent effect of these regs will be to squeeze small producers like myself out. Choices will be either a vanity flock in the backyard for one's own consumption with a very small number of birds, or large scale commercial operations with a vet on retainer. The costs of compliance make anything smaller unable to compete. There are already dozens of abandoned poultry operations around me, it was never a high margin business (I operate at a small annual loss) - if this rule goes thru, I will have no choice but to wind down the business and abandon it - to the detriment of my neighbors and regular buyers.

Even maintaining a small number of birds for showing seems to put you under these regulations.

 

[NatJ]

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.

That's not the part I meant.

Here's the old version:
https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-9/chapter-I/subchapter-A/part-1

Definitions (emphasis mine):

"Animal means any live or dead dog, cat, nonhuman primate, guinea pig, hamster, rabbit, or any other warmblooded animal, which is being used, or is intended for use for research, teaching, testing, experimentation, or exhibition purposes, or as a pet. This term excludes birds, rats of the genus Rattus, and mice of the genus Mus, bred for use in research; horses not used for research purposes; and 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."

So an "animal" currently DOES NOT INCLUDE farm animals (such as poultry).

The additions are way down the page here:
https://www.federalregister.gov/doc...-use-in-research-under-the-animal-welfare-act

They're adding a 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."

So chickens, being poultry, which are farm animals, are not being regulated at all.
(Yes, it said something about "used or intended for use as food or fiber..." but anyone who has female chickens and eats any of their eggs might reasonably be using them for food, and that would cover the vast majority of pet owners!)

 

[MysteryChicken]

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 on a subject (not poultry ownership) in most of the States in the US (some several times), plus two foreign nations, I actually have some basis for comparison.

Even if "non-business" did have sway, we who (legally) sell eggs to our neighbors, or who sell hatchlings/eggs as NPIP voluntary participants don't have that fig leaf to hide behind. My FL Limited Poultry and Egg license allows me to sell up to 30 dozen eggs AND 384 dressed poultry in a single week (obviously, I don't) - while this proposes to regulate me as soon as I cross a $500 in sales per year threshold. $500 a year doesn't cover my license to operate, and my state-mandated business filings to maintain my LLC.

I sell cheap - $6 a flat. At just two flats (60 eggs) a week (well below my actual production), I fall under this regime. I don't sell hatching eggs, or live chicks (though I am licensed to do), or I'd hit the regulatory minimums even sooner. The apparent effect of these regs will be to squeeze small producers like myself out. Choices will be either a vanity flock in the backyard for one's own consumption with a very small number of birds, or large scale commercial operations with a vet on retainer. The costs of compliance make anything smaller unable to compete. There are already dozens of abandoned poultry operations around me, it was never a high margin business (I operate at a small annual loss) - if this rule goes thru, I will have no choice but to wind down the business and abandon it - to the detriment of my neighbors and regular buyers.

Even maintaining a small number of birds for showing seems to put you under these regulations.

So, does this mean I'll have to downsize my flocks down to only 4 hens, no roosters, even though I live out in rural country side? If so, I'll be very devastated to lose so many birds that I've raised with care.(Non-Business, wise)