PIJAC Poised for Growth - Pet Industry Joint Advisory Council

Legislative & regulatory News
fEDErAL NEWs
Congress. In late June PIJAC testified before
a subcommittee of the House Committee
on Natural Resources in opposition to HR
6311. The Nonnative Wildlife Invasion
Prevention Act is intended to address real
concerns about species imported into the
US that then have the potential to threaten
native ecosystems if released into the wild.
The manner in which this bill is crafted,
however, would result in an outright ban of
all nonnative species unless and until they
are shown not to have invasive potential.
PIJAC noted that this was the resurrection
of a failed approach initiated three decades
ago when PIJAC successfully battled to stop
implementation of a “low risk” wildlife list.
The testimony further emphasized that the
US Fish and Wildlife Service would be confronted
with an impossible task of conducting
“risk assessments on more than 10,000
species currently in trade, many of which are
not even scientifically identified to the species
level let alone extensively studied” and
the law would, pending completion of such
assessments, “shut down a number of industries
dependent upon nonnative species.”
PIJAC urged the subcommittee to take
into consideration the findings and recommendations
of the National Invasive
Species Management Plan and the Aquatic
Nuisance Species Task Force, which,
among other things, relied heavily on the
input of stakeholder groups to develop
a rational system for addressing imports.
Any such rational process, PIJAC testified,
must ensure that screening or risk
analysis is “carefully constructed to ensure
that the analysis is science-based, credible,
transparent, involves stakeholders, and
evaluates and promotes viable management
policies.” This analysis must also take
into account socio-economic and other
benefits as well as harm. The proposed
legislation doesn’t do that, argued PIJAC,
and should be redrafted to take a more
practical and effective approach to dealing
with potential invasive species that
won’t unnecessarily harm significant sectors
of the economy. Saying that “the bill
assigns such an impossible task to an agency
woefully bereft of resources for the job,
and holds hostage several vital sectors of
a challenged economy,” PIJAC concluded
that “the bill as currently crafted sets the
USFWS up for failure [and] would not
visit upon the public the beneficial results
to which it aspires.” The testimony called
instead for creation of a working group
involving various stakeholders whose recommendations
could result in feasible legislation.
There is no scheduled action for
the bill at this time.
UsDA. A proposed rulemaking by USDA
would amend Animal Welfare Act regulations
to incorporate a minimum age
requirement for transport of all animals
covered by the act (except birds). Currently
the regulations place an age restriction on
certain animals, such as dogs and cats, but
there is no all-encompassing rule. Although
the rule is being justified as ensuring that
animals are properly weaned prior to transport,
the minimum eight-week restriction
proposed by the Department would mean
that the time restriction would exceed the
normal weaning age for a number of species
covered under the act. Limited exemptions
would apply for transport to research
facilities for specified purposes, and for
unweaned animals transported with their
mother for routine medical care. The agency
“speculates” that the proposed rule would
have negligible economic impact on dealers
and breeders, notwithstanding the fact that
breeders would be compelled to keep some
animals well past the time when they could
otherwise be shipped without risk to their
health. The Department set a deadline of
July 8, 2008 for submission of comments
from the public in response to the proposal.
PIJAC submitted testimony on behalf of the
pet industry.
sTATE NEWs
California. Legislation that would mandate
the spaying or neutering of dogs and
cats was again amended, producing a 9th
iteration of the bill since its initial introduction.
AB 1634 no longer establishes a general
requirement to sterilize pets, but
does include mandatory sterilization
for dogs or cats that have been
impounded or received complaints
on multiple occasions.
The current version
provides fines for owners
of impounded unspayed/unneutered dogs
and cats, as well as provisions that would
compel sterilization of the animal under
specified circumstances, which could include
unsubstantiated complaints. And there is
no opportunity to have a hearing or otherwise
challenge the outcome. Due process
is not part of the process. PIJAC opposed
the mandatory sterilization requirements of
earlier versions of the bill, but still has concerns
about due process deficiencies of the
amended bill, which was heard at a June
25th hearing before the Senate Committee
on Local Government. The Local Government
Committee passed the bill, and it was
re-referred to the Senate Appropriations
Committee on July 1. The bill passed the
Senate Appropriations Committee on July
14th and is on its second reading in the Senate.
Please check the Breaking News page at
www.pijac.org for updates.
California Senate Bill 986 amends the
California Pet Store Animal Care Act
by clarifying the definition of “pet store” as
well as euthanasia of feeder animals. The
bill is currently in the Assembly, where it
is going through its third reading. It will
most likely be voted on in the Assembly,
and then sent back to the Senate for concurrence
in the Assembly amendments.
Updates will be posted on the Breaking
News page at www.pijac.org.
Colorado. A bill that would have allowed
for both economic and noneconomic damages
for the “loss of companionship” of a companion
animal, with a $25,000 cap on recovery,
was stripped of those offending provisions
before being passed into law. An
early version of HB 1308 found
that “harm to companion or
assistance animals is an increasing
problem for Colorado pet owners” and
that “current laws do not adequately address
the recovery of damages for harm caused” to
companion animals. PIJAC opposes noneconomic
damages for pets because such damages
typically aren’t even available in wrongful
death for people, and establishment of this
type of damage award in law would substantially
increase the cost of veterinary care and
pet products for all pet owners.
Georgia. Proposed pet warranty legislation
died in the House Committee on Agriculture
and Consumer Affairs. HB 1194
6 PetLetter/Summer 2008