CFLRanching
Songster
I know this was back a few months ago but I feel a need to clarify because there are a lot of clips from the article posted previously that don't apply to most that are on BYC (unless you've got non-poultry species).
So this is pretty much a SUMMARY of what happened with the proposal (for anyone interested in the outcome).
Okay so upon further research this is what I took away from the AWA (Animal Welfare Act - because you know how government loves Acronyms
) proposal after they received all comments. If you did read the proposal (like @DavidReaves said) they are exempting poultry and farm animals. This was because of a lawsuit against USDA from animal rights groups and organizations (go figure, we have PETA protesters on the corner @ every rodeo we put on) in 2013 (at least it taken them this long to go through court proceedings) wanting to know as to why birds weren't included in the AWA. While I'm very conservative politically, this whole welfare concern lawsuit(For Now) is geared more toward the pet trade birds (and pets like budgies or cockatiels,etc) , so yes while I don't agree with them putting any regulations into play, I think USDA was trying to wait and see how the lawsuit went. From the article:
As a result of one of those lawsuits,[2] on January 10, 2020, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit found that the AWA requires APHIS to issue standards applicable to birds not bred for use in research and that APHIS has not issued such standards. On remand, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia granted the parties' joint motion to stay the action and adopted the parties' proposed rulemaking schedule, ordering that USDA must publish a proposed rule establishing regulatory standards for birds not more than 18 months after publication (so they had til April of 2022) of a notice of listening sessions, and promulgate them in a final rule to be published in the Federal Register no later than 1 year from that proposed rule's publication date.
-So the judicial branch is more to blame for siding with the Animal Welfare Organizations (USDA should have had a better lawyer). While it stinks for the people that do have non-poultry birds as pets and sell them (or exhibit---again not poultry) they obviously lost the lawsuit and are required to do it. So far livestock (and poultry) is/are out of the woods (for now). Again I'm not saying this isn't going to be us one day (praying not though).
This is in the FAQ section (if you haven't taken the time to look at the site, this act was put into place in 1966 (Ah, the 60's and all the Rights) , so it's not new by any means, and has been amended several times). And relates more to dog breeding and pet trades. Looking at the handbooks (Jan 2020) exhibitors are commerce sellers for compensation (livestock again is exempt, as they aren't considered pets).
This is directly from their site
https://www.nal.usda.gov/animal-health-and-welfare/animal-welfare-act
Term excludes/exempts (always has from the beginning when originally introduced) (see #3 below) 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
This one is under (Q: WHO DO I CONTACT FOR INHUMANE TREATMENT OF LIVESTOCK)
A: While USDA considers the humane treatment of animals to be important, the USDA's regulatory authority does not extend to farm animals used for food, fiber, or other agricultural purposes. Typically, state and local laws govern the treatment of farm animals. Accordingly, you may wish to contact the appropriate state and local authorities such as Animal Control or your state's Department of Agriculture.
Most livestock production industries in the United States have developed and implemented science-based animal care guidelines. Assurances that animals are being raised according to these guidelines are provided through voluntary third-party audits rather than legislation. Visit AWIC's Animal Welfare Audit and Certification Programs page to learn more.
-My take - So basically your particular states Dept of Ag has the authority over all livestock (especially those for food use and fiber). Not USDA (which sounds ironic) but they are looking more into pet breeders/traders and research facilities with this act (started more with dog breeders). So it's almost like with NPIP, it's not required (yet) but most exhibitors do it because they take a lot of birds to shows and it's more convenient not to bleed every time.
So after the comments they're really just looking for precise clarification in verbage terms so it's clearly known what doesn't fall under this newly proposed amendment. Again. Not saying I support at all, just restating (for people that want the Cliffsnotes).
https://www.federalregister.gov/doc...-use-in-research-under-the-animal-welfare-act
Scroll down on document to Farm Animal; Poultry
https://www.federalregister.gov/d/2022-03565/p-121
Amendment section Farm Animals; Poultry:
We are proposing to make several changes to the definition of farm animal to ensure appropriate coverage for birds. Like cattle, sheep, and other farm animals, there are domestic species of poultry that have historically been kept and raised on farms in the United States and used for food or fiber or for improving animal nutrition, breeding, management, or production efficiency, or for improving the quality of food or fiber. Therefore, we are proposing to amend this term to include such poultry. This proposed amendment would also make the definition of farm animal consistent with the definition of animal, which lists poultry as a kind of farm animal that is exempt from coverage when used or intended for use as food or fiber, for improving animal nutrition, breeding, management, or production efficiency, or for improving the quality of food or fiber.
We are also proposing to revise farm animal to include animals when used solely for their feathers or skins. The proposed addition of feathers to the list accounts for morphological differences between birds and other animals and is the avian equivalent to the current inclusion of animals when used solely for the purposes of fur. The proposed addition of skins to the list reflects the common practice of using ostrich and other skins of birds for leathers. Further, we would add ratites ( e.g., ostrich, rhea, or emu) to the illustrative list of animals that are included in this term when used solely for purposes of meat, fur, feathers, or skins.
In addition to these changes to the definition of farm animal, we would also add a separate definition of poultry to the AWA regulations to clarify what birds are considered poultry. This term would be defined as any species of chickens, turkeys, swans, partridges, guinea fowl, and pea fowl; ducks, geese, pigeons, and doves; grouse, pheasants, and quail.
So again. This is more of a synopsis for anyone wondering what happened with this proposal (not a support of the proposal). If you do happen to have tiny nonpoultry feather babies, saying prayers. And prayers for everyone else that this isn't something we have to deal with in our lifetimes with our feather babies.
So this is pretty much a SUMMARY of what happened with the proposal (for anyone interested in the outcome).
Okay so upon further research this is what I took away from the AWA (Animal Welfare Act - because you know how government loves Acronyms
) proposal after they received all comments. If you did read the proposal (like @DavidReaves said) they are exempting poultry and farm animals. This was because of a lawsuit against USDA from animal rights groups and organizations (go figure, we have PETA protesters on the corner @ every rodeo we put on) in 2013 (at least it taken them this long to go through court proceedings) wanting to know as to why birds weren't included in the AWA. While I'm very conservative politically, this whole welfare concern lawsuit(For Now) is geared more toward the pet trade birds (and pets like budgies or cockatiels,etc) , so yes while I don't agree with them putting any regulations into play, I think USDA was trying to wait and see how the lawsuit went. From the article:As a result of one of those lawsuits,[2] on January 10, 2020, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit found that the AWA requires APHIS to issue standards applicable to birds not bred for use in research and that APHIS has not issued such standards. On remand, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia granted the parties' joint motion to stay the action and adopted the parties' proposed rulemaking schedule, ordering that USDA must publish a proposed rule establishing regulatory standards for birds not more than 18 months after publication (so they had til April of 2022) of a notice of listening sessions, and promulgate them in a final rule to be published in the Federal Register no later than 1 year from that proposed rule's publication date.
-So the judicial branch is more to blame for siding with the Animal Welfare Organizations (USDA should have had a better lawyer). While it stinks for the people that do have non-poultry birds as pets and sell them (or exhibit---again not poultry) they obviously lost the lawsuit and are required to do it. So far livestock (and poultry) is/are out of the woods (for now). Again I'm not saying this isn't going to be us one day (praying not though).
This is in the FAQ section (if you haven't taken the time to look at the site, this act was put into place in 1966 (Ah, the 60's and all the Rights) , so it's not new by any means, and has been amended several times). And relates more to dog breeding and pet trades. Looking at the handbooks (Jan 2020) exhibitors are commerce sellers for compensation (livestock again is exempt, as they aren't considered pets).
This is directly from their site
https://www.nal.usda.gov/animal-health-and-welfare/animal-welfare-act
Term excludes/exempts (always has from the beginning when originally introduced) (see #3 below) 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
This one is under (Q: WHO DO I CONTACT FOR INHUMANE TREATMENT OF LIVESTOCK)
A: While USDA considers the humane treatment of animals to be important, the USDA's regulatory authority does not extend to farm animals used for food, fiber, or other agricultural purposes. Typically, state and local laws govern the treatment of farm animals. Accordingly, you may wish to contact the appropriate state and local authorities such as Animal Control or your state's Department of Agriculture.
Most livestock production industries in the United States have developed and implemented science-based animal care guidelines. Assurances that animals are being raised according to these guidelines are provided through voluntary third-party audits rather than legislation. Visit AWIC's Animal Welfare Audit and Certification Programs page to learn more.
-My take - So basically your particular states Dept of Ag has the authority over all livestock (especially those for food use and fiber). Not USDA (which sounds ironic) but they are looking more into pet breeders/traders and research facilities with this act (started more with dog breeders). So it's almost like with NPIP, it's not required (yet
) but most exhibitors do it because they take a lot of birds to shows and it's more convenient not to bleed every time.So after the comments they're really just looking for precise clarification in verbage terms so it's clearly known what doesn't fall under this newly proposed amendment. Again. Not saying I support at all, just restating (for people that want the Cliffsnotes).
https://www.federalregister.gov/doc...-use-in-research-under-the-animal-welfare-act
Scroll down on document to Farm Animal; Poultry
https://www.federalregister.gov/d/2022-03565/p-121
Amendment section Farm Animals; Poultry:
We are proposing to make several changes to the definition of farm animal to ensure appropriate coverage for birds. Like cattle, sheep, and other farm animals, there are domestic species of poultry that have historically been kept and raised on farms in the United States and used for food or fiber or for improving animal nutrition, breeding, management, or production efficiency, or for improving the quality of food or fiber. Therefore, we are proposing to amend this term to include such poultry. This proposed amendment would also make the definition of farm animal consistent with the definition of animal, which lists poultry as a kind of farm animal that is exempt from coverage when used or intended for use as food or fiber, for improving animal nutrition, breeding, management, or production efficiency, or for improving the quality of food or fiber.
We are also proposing to revise farm animal to include animals when used solely for their feathers or skins. The proposed addition of feathers to the list accounts for morphological differences between birds and other animals and is the avian equivalent to the current inclusion of animals when used solely for the purposes of fur. The proposed addition of skins to the list reflects the common practice of using ostrich and other skins of birds for leathers. Further, we would add ratites ( e.g., ostrich, rhea, or emu) to the illustrative list of animals that are included in this term when used solely for purposes of meat, fur, feathers, or skins.
In addition to these changes to the definition of farm animal, we would also add a separate definition of poultry to the AWA regulations to clarify what birds are considered poultry. This term would be defined as any species of chickens, turkeys, swans, partridges, guinea fowl, and pea fowl; ducks, geese, pigeons, and doves; grouse, pheasants, and quail.
So again. This is more of a synopsis for anyone wondering what happened with this proposal (not a support of the proposal). If you do happen to have tiny nonpoultry feather babies, saying prayers. And prayers for everyone else that this isn't something we have to deal with in our lifetimes with our feather babies.
