Speak up- The Goverment is trying to regulate chicken owners

[RubelliteRose]

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!)

This is how I read the proposal as well. Currently, birds are a grey area- neither regulated nor excluded. Under the current AWA, farm animals used for food/fiber are excluded. Under the new proposal, poultry will be defined and excluded as a farm animal, but pet birds such as parrots and parakeets will be regulated.

 

[Beer can]

Are you saying you think most here keep 4 or fewer hens?

I think most here have very few chickens, hardly any, like they can count them easily and a "I'm not sure how many I have" is a rare comment.

 

[Iluveggers]

I think most here have very few chickens, hardly any, like they can count them easily and a "I'm not sure how many I have" is a rare comment.

4, not including breeding pairs, newly hatched chicks, roosters, young pullets, young cockerels, and egg layers.

 

[U_Stormcrow]

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)

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 1,000+ chickens each in them aren't covered by this, and that's precisely who they claim to seek to regulate (that, and breeders - but not the pet stores that sell their living product).

As I said, this is badly written.

 

[DParker75089]

Much as I appreciate your assurances, that's not what this says.

That's not what what says?

Nor, after Gonzalez v Raich, does the "non-business" defense have much sway.

Gonzalez v. Raich was about whether a state's legalization of a controlled substance prevented the federal government from enforcing federal laws banning/restricting the use of such substances, which are not particular to business vs non-business production/use. The regulations in question quite explicitly does not pertain to those engaged in keeping fowl or other animals as pets, for food and other personal use purposes. In fact they don't pertain to the keeping of farm animals at all.

 

[MysteryChicken]

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 1,000+ chickens each in them aren't covered by this, and that's precisely who they claim to seek to regulate (that, and breeders - but not the pet stores that sell their living product).

As I said, this is badly written.

Okay, sounds good.

 

[U_Stormcrow]

That's not what what says?

Gonzalez v. Raich was about whether a state's legalization of a controlled substance prevented the federal government from enforcing federal laws banning/restricting the use of such substances, which are not particular to business vs non-business production/use. The regulations in question quite explicitly does not pertain to those engaged in keeping fowl or other animals as pets, for food and other personal use purposes. In fact they don't pertain to the keeping of farm animals at all.

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 market in that commodity.

The similarities between this case and Wickard are striking. Like the farmer in Wickard, respondents are cultivating, for home consumption, a fungible commodity for which there is an established, albeit illegal, interstate market.[Footnote 28] Just as the Agricultural Adjustment Act was designed “to control the volume [of wheat] moving in interstate and foreign commerce in order to avoid surpluses …” and consequently control the market price, id., at 115, a primary purpose of the CSA is to control the supply and demand of controlled substances in both lawful and unlawful drug markets. See nn. 20–21, supra. In Wickard, we had no difficulty concluding that Congress had a rational basis for believing that, when viewed in the aggregate, leaving home-consumed wheat outside the regulatory scheme would have a substantial influence on price and market conditions. Here too, Congress had a rational basis for concluding that leaving home-consumed marijuana outside federal control would similarly affect price and market conditions.

[...]

Nonetheless, respondents suggest that Wickard differs from this case in three respects: (1) the Agricultural Adjustment Act, unlike the CSA, exempted small farming operations; (2) Wickard involved a “quintessential economic activity”—a commercial farm—whereas respondents do not sell marijuana; and (3) the Wickard record made it clear that the aggregate production of wheat for use on farms had a significant impact on market prices. Those differences, though factually accurate, do not diminish the precedential force of this Court’s reasoning.

The fact that Wickard’s own impact on the market was “trivial by itself ” was not a sufficient reason for removing him from the scope of federal regulation. 317 U. S., at 127. That the Secretary of Agriculture elected to exempt even smaller farms from regulation does not speak to his power to regulate all those whose aggregated production was significant, nor did that fact play any role in the Court’s analysis. Moreover, even though Wickard was indeed a commercial farmer, the activity he was engaged in—the cultivation of wheat for home consumption—was not treated by the Court as part of his commercial farming operation.[Footnote 30] And while it is true that the record in the Wickard case itself established the causal connection between the production for local use and the national market, we have before us findings by Congress to the same effect.

(from Gonzales v. Raich)

 

[RubelliteRose]

then the Tyson quonset huts up the road with 1,000+ checkins each in them aren't covered by this,

Actually, no, they aren't covered by the AWA. From the USDA website: It is important to note, however, that USDA’s regulatory authority under the AWA does not extend to animals used for food, fiber, or other agricultural purposes nor does it extend to privately owned pets. Authority for regulating the treatment of farm animals and pets rests with State and local governments. https://ask.usda.gov/s/article/Which-animals-are-covered-under-the-Animal-Welfare-Act

 

[DParker75089]

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 market in that commodity. (from G v R)

Well, that's correct...but irrelevant. I'm not saying that the regulation doesn't generally pertain to backyard chicken-keeping because fed.gov can't regulate it. I'm saying it doesn't pertain to that activity because it's quite explicitly exempt from the regulations in question.

 

[DParker75089]

The similarities between this case and Wickard are striking.

Quite the opposite. Wickard was about the federal government regulating the growing of wheat for consumption by one's own family. That bears little to no resemblance to the regulations under discussion here.