Legislation Affecting Aviculture
A Brief Report - November, 2007
BY LAURELLA DESBOROUGH
Copyright Laurella Desbrough (eclectusbreeder.com).
All rights reserved by the author.
From time to
time,
legislators
propose laws
at the state
and federal
level which
will have an
effect on
aviculture.
In addition,
from time to
time, the
animal
rights
groups bring
sit against
a government
agency to
force them
to take some
action under
a particular
law which is
not what we
bird keepers
and breeders
might want.
Following
are two
recent
instances of
such events:
a proposed
law,
H.R.5360 and
the lawsuit
brought
against the
USDA/APHIS
to force the
USDA to
inspect
facilities
dealing with
birds, rats
and mice
under the
Animal
Welfare Act.
First, the
Animal
Welfare Act
in its
original
form does
include
phrases
which
include
dealers...("any
person in
commerce who
buys, sells,
negotiates
sales, or
transports...").
The
definition
of dealer
includes the
definition
of breeder
("breeding
for the
wholesale
pet
trade"..."for
use as a
pet"). For
many years
the USDA did
not regulate
or inspect
rats, mice
and birds.
In the
eighties,
animal
rights
groups sued
in court to
force the
USDA to
regulate
those
creatures.
The lawsuit
failed.
Recently, a
more well
prepared
lawsuit was
successfully
conducted
against the
USDA to
force them
to regulate
birds, rats
and mice
under the
Animal
Welfare Act
(AWA). The
settlement
included the
agreement
that USDA
would define
the word
animal to
include
birds, rats
and mice.
This action
would
require
staff and
funding to
complete.
The
biomedical
research
community
successfully
prevailed
upon
Congress to
gain their
support in
NOT
providing an
appropriation
for funding
that
definition
in the
present
budget
appropriations
package. The
budget has
been
approved by
the House
and the
Senate and
awaits the
President's
signature.
When signed
into law,
the budget
will provide
no funds to
fulfill the
lawsuit
agreement,
and thus,
next year
there will
be no work
put forward
on redoing
the
definition
of animal,
which is the
first step
to
restructuring
the
regulations
under the
AWA to
include
rats, mice
and birds.
We are safe
for one more
year.
If a new
Congress
decides to
fund the
work of the
USDA to
define
animal to
include
rats, mice
and birds,
that will be
the
beginning of
a long road
toward
having
aviary
inspections
by USDA
veterinarians
for everyone
with
anything
other than a
very small
aviary. The
USDA would
then rewrite
the
definition
of animal
and write a
proposed
regulation
regarding
research
facilities
handling
rats, mice
and birds.
Eventually,
regulations
would be
proposed for
the
standards
expected in
aviaries and
for the
inspection
of aviaries.
When the
USDA
publishes
proposed
regulations
regarding
birds in the
Federal
Register,
there will
be a comment
period. At
that time
bird
breeders can
bring
forward
information
which would
be of
relevance to
those
regulations.
By law, the
USDA must
take into
account the
information
provided in
the
comments.
This means
they must
modify the
regulations
or they must
present the
reasons why
they will
not modify
them.
(Note: When
the animal
rights
groups do
not achieve
what they
want in the
way of a
specific
law, they
then go to
the courts
and sue to
gain their
desired
ends. When
the Wild
Bird
Conservation
Act was
passed in
1992, CITES
level III
birds were
excluded
from the
regulations
prohibiting
import (most
parrots are
on CITES II
or I). This
was in
accordance
with what
Congress had
in mind, as
level III
birds are
not
considered
to be rare
or
endangered
in the wild.
However, the
animal
rights
groups do
not want any
birds
imported for
any reason
and brought
suit against
U.S. Fish
and Wildlife
service. The
lawsuit was
settled in
their favor
and all
CITES III
birds are
now
prohibited
from import.
These people
will not
stop until
they have us
totally
surrounded
by
regulations
and
prohibitions.)
H.R.5360 was
introduced
into the
House of
Representatives
on October
3, 2000, by
Congressman
Pombo and
Congressman
Lantos. This
simple
straightforward
bill may be
viewed on
line. The
purpose of
the bill is
to fund a
comprehensive
survey at
all state
and federal
laws that
regulate
private
ownership of
exotic
animals (the
word animals
always
includes
birds unless
they are
specifically
omitted).
Furthermore,
the bill
directs that
recommendations
will be made
on the basis
of what the
survey
reveals.
Congressman
Lantos is
well liked
by the
animal
rights
groups as he
has
supported
many of
their
issues.
The bill
itself is
not a
problem.
What can
come out of
the
evaluation
could be a
very serious
problem. For
example, if
the survey
reveals that
whole
segments of
the exotic
animal
breeding
industry are
not
presently
regulated
(read bird
breeders
here), we
can be sure
that our
helpful
animal
rights
groups will
be proposing
legislation
to do that
very thing.
As the
Humane
Society of
the United
States
representatives
have stated
... "We want
our agenda
on the desks
of every
Congressman!"
With a full
time team of
10 lobbyists
in
Washington,
I am sure
they will go
far in this
effort.
What can we
do about
this bill?
Each one of
us can read
it...note
the
committees
it will be
heard in,
communicate
with those
committee
members,
most
especially
if we happen
to be a
constituent
of the
Congressman
on the
committee,
and ask some
questions
about the
purpose of
this bill
and its
usefulness,
always
politely, of
course.
