1\. The proposed wording creates a conflict between parts 2 and 3. The
proposed part 2 designates \"big cats, bears, great apes, other nonhuman
primates, and wild or exotic canids\" as \"potentially dangerous
animals.\" The current part 3 designates \"large felines (e.g., lions,
tigers, leopards, cougars, etc.), bears, wolves, rhinoceros, and
elephants\" as \"potentially dangerous animals.\" (Note: In both cases,
APHIS is actually referring to animals of potentially dangerous SPECIES,
not strictly \"potentially dangerous animals\", and I believe this
distinction is important enough that the wording should be changed
accordingly.) The conflict leads to several problems.

Expanding the \"definition\" of \"potentially dangerous animals\" to
include nonhuman primates creates an apparent conflict between Subparts
D and F with regard to perimeter fence requirements (D \--\> 6\' for
primates, F \--\> 8\' for \"potentially dangerous animals\"). The
expansion also includes ALL nonhuman primates and wild or exotic canids
as \"potentially dangerous animals\", including tamarins and fennec
foxes. That may not have been what was intended, but it is what is said.

This issue will need careful clarification, because of the perimeter
fence conflicts. The wording of the proposed reg implies that 8\'
perimeter fences will now be required for all primates, including
tamarins, and for all wild or exotic canids, including fennec foxes.
While I agree that great apes are dangerous, they have historically not
been listed that way in Subpart F (since they have their own Subpart D,
which apparently does NOT consider them dangerous, because only a 6\'
fence is required). Clarification is also needed as to WHAT \"other
nonhuman primates\" are dangerous and whether \"potentially dangerous\"
primates will now require 8\' perimeter fences (and if not, why not, if
they are to be put in the same group as other \"potentially dangerous
animals\"?). Surely, ALL primates, including tamarins, will not be put
in that group. Additionally, clarification is needed as to WHAT wild and
exotic canids are dangerous. Surely, fennec foxes will not be put in
that group.

Also, since the proposed wording requires shift cages for movement of
\"potentially dangerous\" animals \"between enclosures and performance
areas\", the part 3 \"definition\" of \"potentially dangerous animals\"
means shift cages must be used to transport elephants, for example, to
ride areas or circus arenas (and to transport rhinoceroses, if they ever
become perfoming animals). I think that\'s unreasonable. See below for
further discussions of such problems.

Perhaps, a real definition of \"potentially dangerous animals\" is
needed (see #5 below). Trying to define it by \"such as\" terminology
that\'s different in different parts of the regs certainly isn\'t going
to work. If that\'s the way its done, though, at least Sections 2.131
and 3.127 should say the same thing. **If both shift cages and 8-foot
perimeter fences are required for \"potentially dangerous animals\",
there needs to be a clear definition of a \"potentially dangerous
animal\", an \"animal of a potentially dangerous species\", or
preferably, both terms.**

2\. Other than as noted above, the proposed wording doesn\'t actually
require the USE of shift cages \-\-- it just requires they be attached
in a way that prevents escape. It implies they must be used for transfer
between enclosures (by saying APHIS will consider alternative methods
for such transfer), but it is generally not at all clear when their USE
would and would not be required. The only clear requirement is that they
be used for transportation \"between enclosures and performance areas\",
which raises all kinds of questions. What about transportation between
enclosures and other areas? Is that exempt? If so, why? Is it more
dangerous to move an animal to a performance area than anywhere else? If
the intent is that shift cages be used for ALL transfers of an animal
from its enclosure, that needs to be stated explicitly. As written, the
intent is very nebulous. **The proposed wording needs to be clear as to
when the USE of shift cages is required.**

3\. Assuming the proposed reg intends that shift cages be used for ALL
transfers of animals from their enclosures, it will require an enormous
number of variances, as written. There are MANY perfectly good
alternatives currently in use (e.g., poles and chairs for primates at
research facilities \-\-- are variances going to be required for
practically every research facility with primates?!). Why cant the
inspectors be given the authority to determine what is and isn\'t a safe
transfer method?

Given the number of currently acceptable alternatives, requiring shift
cages for ALL movement of animals is indefensible, unless caging is
required at all other times as well. If an animal is allowed to be on a
leash (or loose) on a stage or movie set, why could it not be moved TO
the stage on a leash? What about ride and circus elephants? What about
infant cats, bears, wolves, monkeys, etc.? What about animals
transferred under anesthesia?

The proposed reg requires that ALL dangerous animal enclosures have
shift CAGE capabilities, and I think that\'s possibly also indefensible.
What about a zoo which never moves an animal from its enclosure? If it
has shift FACILITIES (e.g., it can shift the animal between the exhibit
enclosure and night quarters, for cage cleaning \-\-- see #5), why
should it need an attached or attachable shift cage? If the only
transfer of these animal out of their enclosures would be a rare and
unlikely possibility of a move or need for vet care, which could be done
under anesthesia if needed, is every zoo going to have to retrofit every
dangerous animal cage with shift cage capabilities that might never be
used? If not, will every zoo need a variance?

The wording needs to allow for case-by-case decisions on what is safe
transfer. The case-by-case decisions need to be made by the inspectors.
Why is APHIS so afraid to empower its employees? What effect does it
have on their morale to imply they\'re incapable of using their
judgement on safe transfer methods? If there\'s disagreement between an
inspector and a facility, the appeal process should suffice. Trying to
handle all the alternatives by making facilities request variances would
seem to be ridiculous. **Since there are many legitimate alternatives to
shift cages, the proposed wording needs to allow ANY safe method of
transfer, as determined by trained and capable inspectors \-\-- not
require a variance for every single facility using such an
alternative.**

4\. The narrative indicates that shift cages \"must safely and securely
enclose the animal\", but this requirement is not in the proposed
wording, which merely prohibits gaps between the shift cage and
enclosure. The narrative indicates APHIS will require that shift cages
\"be structurally sound and maintained in good repair\", but the
proposed wording only says \"must be kept in good working order.\" The
wording in the narrative is better than that in the proposal, from an
enforcement standpoint.

An element that was also omitted is the need for proper design. There
have been several incidents where animals were injured because of the
design of a shift gate. Also, although the narrative addresses the facts
that structural soundness of the cage and proper training of the
HANDLERS are necessary to prevent injury to animals or handlers, the
proposed wording has no mention of animal or handler safety or of
training of the ANIMALS to ensure such safety. These omissions, too,
could hamper enforcement efforts. **The proposed standard needs to
include wording addressing safety and security of the actual shift
caging, structural soundness, maintenance in good repair (e.g.,
significant rusting should be corrected even if the gate is still \"in
good working order\"), proper design (for safety\'s sake), necessary
training of animals, and, in general, prevention of injuries to animals
or handlers (or public).**

5\. One important need for shift facilities is to ensure that animals
can be enclosed somewhere to allow their cages to be safely cleaned
(since some cages arent cleaned because it isn\'t safe to do so). In
the proposed reg, the need to allow cage cleaning isn\'t even mentioned.
Also, the emphasis in the proposed reg on shift cages for transfer
ignores the fact that in many situations (e.g., zoos that dont remove
animals from their enclosures and have contiguous exhibit and night
quarters with shift gates between them), shift CAGES are not needed.

Another possible use for shift cages is for restraint to allow medical
care. That idea, too, is omitted in this document. If shift cages are
going to be required for animals that are never moved, the need for
restraint for medical reasons might be a justification for doing so.
Otherwise, the requirement is difficult to defend.

While these omissions may not be critical, the failure to have such
wording might hamper APHIS in dealing with future problems. If all the
bases are covered now in the proposed reg, APHIS can avoid such problems
later. The wording of this regulatory proposal should be carefully
considered from the standpoint of enforcement. For example, wording to
address some of these problems could be as follows:

When a primary enclosure houses an animal of a dangerous species and/or
with a history of attacking people, the enclosure must have facilities
(such as, but not limited to, shift cages) which permit employees to
access all parts of the enclosure in safety, without exposure to the
possibility of being attacked by the animal, as well as providing the
ability to handle the animal as needed to provide medical or other
necessary care. These facilities must operate so as to minimize the
possibility of an animals escape and to ensure that the animals
well-being is not at risk.

The phrase \"an animal of a dangerous species and/or with a history of
attacking people\" would allow APHIS to require shift cages for all
dangerous animals, even if they weren\'t of a \"potentially dangerous
species.\" The phrase \"such as, but not limited to, shift cages\"
(because there are many other acceptable alternatives) is badly needed
in the proposed reg. \"(T)o access all parts of the enclosure in
safety\" would ensure ALL parts of the primary enclosure could be
cleaned. This sample wording also addresses using shift cages for
medical purposes, minimizing escape possibilities, and ensuring the
animals safety. Wording such as this example **should be considered for
the proposed reg, to ensure that all dangerous situations and all uses
of shift cages are covered and that possible problems are avoided.**