Message from TX-RPOA -FARM BILL and APHIS/USDA Final Ruling

[TX_RPOA_E-News] Farm Bill and APHIS/USDA Final Rule

Jan 30 at 10:34 AM

TX-RPOA E-News
> From Responsible Pet Owners Alliance Texas Outreach
Crossposting is encouraged.
January 30, 2014

Long but very important!
The federal Farm Bill is moving through the legislative process and nothing
is final at this point as Frank Losey cautions below. But stay tuned as the
new APHIS regulations are mentioned as recommended … so far!
“Exhibition” Animals defined by USDA are NOT show dogs/cats, etc., but
rather commercial exhibits with animals like the magician (with the rabbit
in his hat) who had to be licensed!  At least that’s the way we remember it.
USDA definitions are quite complex.  “Dealer” also has a USDA definition.
So hang tight and wait for our attorneys to interpret this legalese for us!
The Senate may also make changes.
………………………………………………
FROM FRANK LOSEY:
—– Original Message —–
From: <franklosey@twc.com>
To: <pet-law@yahoogroups.com>

CAUTION!

Yogi Berra once profoundly said: “It ain’t over till its over!”
And another profound line is that “We have miles to go before we sleep.”

And so it is with the “Legislative History” as set out in the Managers
Report in the Farm Bill.  Bear in mind that the language did not
specifically say for the Published, Final Rule to be rescinded. “The Devil
is always in the Details.” Having set out appropriation cautions to delay
any celebration, we need to see how this unfolds. Nevertheless, if all comes
to pass, we will have an even stronger basis to ask the Court to set aside
the
“Final Rule.” And the fact that the “Legislative History” Language raises
issues of uncertainty about several “specific” definitions will definitely
bolster our legal arguments that have been presented to the Court, which
assert that the Rule is flawed.
Frank
………………………………………………….
RPOA:  This is circulating the Internet …a House Document.
http://docs.house.gov/billsthisweek/20140127/CRPT-113hrpt-HR2642-SOM.pdf
http://tinyurl.com/mbh6kez

The Conference substitute amends the Animal Welfare Act by providing “that a
dealer or exhibitor shall not be required to obtain a license as a dealer or
exhibitor under this Act if the size of business is determined by the
Secretary to be de minimus.” By limiting the scope of dealers and exhibitors
who are required to obtain a license, the conference substitute allows the
Secretary of Agriculture to focus the U.S. Department of Agriculture Animal
and Plant Health
Inspection Service’s limited budget and inspection and enforcement staff
on entities that pose the greatest risks to animal welfare and public
safety. USDA has found that no license is required for small-scale breeders
of certain animals (i.e., those that maintain four or fewer breeding cats
and dogs and who sell only the offspring of those animals which were born
and raised on the premises for pets or exhibition) and the Conference
substitute codifies this exemption, allowing USDA to determine that animal
breeders who raise animals on their own premises need not obtain a license
if the number of animals they breed or sell, or the gross annual dollar
amounts earned from such activities, are so minor as to merit disregard. The
Managers continue to recognize the importance of ensuring that all animals
bred, transported, and sold in (or substantially affecting) interstate
commerce are humanely treated. The Conference substitute
also allows USDA to determine that certain exhibition businesses are de
minimus. An exhibitor’s business must not be considered de minimus merely
because the facility operates as a non-profit corporation, nor is the
exhibition of a small number of dangerous animals (including, but not
limited to, big cats, bears, wolves, nonhuman primates, or elephants) de
minimus.

The Managers expect APHIS to complete this rulemaking expeditiously and
would suggest a timeframe not to exceed one year from the date of enactment
in order that the agency begin receiving the benefit the policy provides
related to resource allocation. Furthermore, by freeing up resources and
more effectively focusing its regulatory program, the Managers observe that
this policy eliminates a direct obstacle to lifting the stay on the agency’s
contingency rule and issuance of the proposed rule to regulate bird dealers
and exhibitors, and expect action to be taken on these rules without delay.

The Animal Welfare Act (AWA or the Act, 7 U.S.C. 2131 et seq.) seeks to
ensure the humane handling, care, treatment, and transportation of certain
animals that are sold at wholesale and retail for use in research
facilities, for exhibition purposes, or for use as pets by means of federal
licensing and inspection. A revised definition of retail pet store included
in the Final Rule published by USDA on September 10, 2013, and effective
November 18, 2013, restored and amended the exemption in § 2.1(a)(3)(vii) so
that any person including, but not limited to, purebred dog or cat fanciers,
who maintains a total of four or fewer breeding female dogs, cats, and/or
small exotic or wild mammals, and who sells, at retail, only the offspring
of these dogs, cats, and/or small exotic or wild mammals, which were born
and raised on his or her premises, for pets or exhibition, and is not
otherwise required to obtain a license, is also considered a retail pet
store for regulatory purposes.

The Managers are aware of confusion among the regulated industry and request
clarification of two principles pertaining to the sale of pets: (1) Current
regulatory language uses the term “breeding female” which does not appear in
statute and thus lacks statutory direction.

The Managers urge APHIS to clarify that only those female animals capable of
reproduction and actively being used in a breeding program qualify as
breeding females. (2) The Managers also recommend clarifying that USDA
oversight of such sales pertains to those transactions in interstate
commerce as provided for under the Commerce Clause (U.S. Const. amend. I, §8. )
[and as referenced in §2132 (c) of the Animal Welfare Act and regulated
under authority of the United States department of Agriculture].
…………………………………………….
Donate with PayPal or mail in:
www.rpoatexasoutreach.org

______________________

My only comment to this is that APHIS was created to regulate warm bloodied mammals and now appears that they will be expanding to regulating birds which are cold blooded, same as reptiles are and therefore expanding beyond reason of why APHIS was created to begin with.

I am still wonder if so called ‘rescue animals’ will be regulated or not. I do not understand why so called ‘rescue animals’ entered into retail sales wouldn’t be regulated…One thing for sure, these animals should qualify under the current rule to be regulated the same as any animal listed as for sale no matter where they are sold…especially since the claim of abuse has supposedly laid it’s ugly hand on these animals and continually gone by unregulated as to the care they receive before they are sold in the hands of the so called rescuers…ah, ‘the guise of animal rescue’-HA!

Disclaimer connected to this blog…Things said are of my opinion and the opinion of others…Stay tuned  -B

Advertisements

~ by topcatsroar on February 1, 2014.

4 Responses to “Message from TX-RPOA -FARM BILL and APHIS/USDA Final Ruling”

  1. Under the current APHIS/USDA regulations, the way I understand it, the rescues and shelters are held to the same rules as hobby and commercial breeders all the same. Rules made to regulate internet sales??? Or sight unseen sales??? How can they(rescues and shelters) sell animals they do not have clear title to? They have been ALLOWED TO DO SO UNQUESTIONED UNTIL NOW…???… times are a changin’ I do believe!

    • They are not paying sales tax for they animals they SELL…All states and the IRS should be notified ah HELL, let’s get it right…MUST BE NOTIFIED!!!
      The USDA says a sale is a sale!!! Wonder if they will still be so interested in stealing animals once held accountable for the sales tax of the animals they sell!?! WOW!!! -B

  2. Being held ACCOUNTABLE is not something they have been or will be able to do. In my state, they do not even admit to having ANY RECORDS of animals they have or have ever had. In recent years, the state laws have changed to read the animals can not be taken across state lines prior to final court decisions. These so-called rescues are not accustomed to following any laws or regulations and have learned to lie or do anything else to forward THEIR cause which THEY deem is more important than destroying ONE FAMILY’S WORLD . SOME WILL ADMIT TO THIS when their FEET ARE HELD TO THE FIRE! I AGREE RETAIL Is
    RETAIL and if everyone else pays sales tax, THEY MUST PAT SALES TAX. The same NON PROFIT STATUS which says NILL TO MINIMUM LOBBYING allowed and an article I read yesterday for the state of TENNESSEE only, there were 6 LOBBYISTS FOR THE HUMANE SOCIETY of the UNITED STATES and SIX FIGURE AMOUNTS OF MONEY PAID OUT BY THE HSUS FOR LEGISLATIVE LOBBYING! I call that more than minimal! And the TAX FORMS THEY (THE HSUS)j filed proving these amounts WERE ALSO IN THE ARTICLE! These societies ARE BOLD AND WAY TOO OVER CONFIDENT WITH THEIR ILLEGAL ENDEAVORS!!!!! YES, THEY MUST BE HELD TO THE SAME LEVELS AS THE REST OF US!

    • Time and time again, so stated on this blog…These are retail sales of animals, specifically Retail Rescue Pets taken expressly to sell the animals, and animals illegally often taken across state lines!!! In the case of livestock, they are supposed to go to auction to cover court costs NOT given away to some NFP to sell or do whatever they please to the seized animals; such as euthanize a donkey because the Dallas SPCA can’t load it or because a house cats sneezed…
      Furthermore, animals given to a NFP without clear title makes the animals stolen property. Especially if there was no levy of the value of such animals before seizure and therefore violates jurisdiction of any court to take civil action without conviction.
      Texas is holding civil cases before any conviction trial (In our case, there were no charges and no conviction-mind you they had two years to do it!!!) and therefore, wrongfully, illegally and totally unconstitutional to have any hearing addressing ownership…Yet as animal owners, it is nearly impossible to get proper representation and therefore required to learn the laws and gather case law that applies to their circumstance.
      Many cases totally screwed up from the start with abuse of authority and discretion by law enforcement and the judicial system.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

 
%d bloggers like this: