**COMMENT**

This Comment is in response to the Animal and Plant Health Inspection
Service\'s (\"APHIS\") announced intention to request a revision and
extension of approval for the information collection requirements
associated with the Animal Welfare Act (\"AWA\"). This Comment is
comprised of 8 sections: (1) Recordkeeping Requirements and Online
Information Under the AWA; (2) Recordkeeping Requirements and the Use of
Standardized Forms; (3) Better Reporting and Public access to APHIS AWA
Information via the Internet; (4) Require Exhibitors to Submit Records
of Transportation; (5) Increase Reporting by Research Facilities; (6)
Eliminate the Exemption for Retail Pet Stores; (7) Remove Exemptions
which Promote Canned Hunts (8) Change \"Dealer\" and \"Exhibitor\" to
\"Animal Guardian.\" Each section examines the reporting requirements as
they currently stand and suggests improvements for collecting,
organizing, and accessing pertinent information.

**1. [Recordkeeping Requirements and Online Information under the
AWA.]{.underline}**

The Department would best effectuate the goals of the AWA by maintaining
an active link to proposed rules on its website, maintaining current
up-to-date information regarding all reports on its website, and by
creating standardized forms available online. The purpose of this
section is to determine (1) what information the Department of
Agriculture and the APHIS (collectively, the \"Department\") collect
under the AWA, (2) what information the Department makes accessible to
the public online, and (3) if the information provided online is
sufficient to promote the goals of the AWA.

In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (the \"PRA\"), the
Department requests public comment to continue its current information
collection practices regarding the regulation of \"the humane handling,
care, treatment, and transportation of certain animals by dealers,
research facilities, exhibitors, carriers, and intermediate handlers,\"
under the AWA. [See]{.underline} [Notice of Request for Revision and
Extension of Approval of an Information Collection]{.underline}, CFR,
Vol 73, No. 185, (Department of Agriculture, September 23, 2008). The
PRA requires that the Director of the Office of Management and Budget
periodically review information collected by a federal agency \"to
determine whether \[such information\] is necessary for the proper
performance of the functions of the agency.\" 44 U.S.C. § 3501 *et seq*.
Among other goals, the PRA seeks to \"ensure the greatest possible
public benefit from and maximize the utility of information created,
collected, maintained, used, shared and disseminated by or for the
Federal Government\" [Id.]{.underline}

The Department collects information on animals protected by the AWA from
dealers, research facilities, exhibitors, carriers and handlers. 7
U.S.C. § 2131. The AWA protects animals such as \"any live or dead dog,
cat, monkey (nonhuman primate mammal), guinea pig, hamster, rabbit, or
such other warm-blooded animal.\" 7 U.S.C. § 2132. The AWA specifically
excludes \"birds, rats . . . , and mice . . . bred for use in
research,\" \"horses not used for research purposes,\" and \"other farm
animals.\" [Id.]{.underline} According to the Department\'s Supporting
Statement, the Department would like to continue its current information
collections regarding guinea pigs, hamsters and rabbits.
[See]{.underline} [Supporting Statement, Animal Welfare, Part 3,
Subparts B and C]{.underline}, OMB No. 0579-0092 (July 2008).

Congress provides that, under the AWA, the regulation of animals in
interstate or foreign commerce is necessary to promote certain purposes.
7 U.S.C. § 2131. The Department is required to collect certain
information under the AWA to effectuate the following objectives:

(1) to insure that animals intended for use in research facilities or
    for exhibition purposes or for use as pets are provided humane care
    and treatment;

(2) to assure the humane treatment of animals during transportation in
    commerce; and

(3) to protect the owners of animals from the theft of their animals by
    preventing the sale or use of animals which have been stolen.

[Id.]{.underline} The AWA authorizes the Department to promulgate rules
that effectuate the purposes of the AWA. 7 U.S.C. § 2151.

The AWA requires those regulated by the AWA to obtain a license or
register with the Department, to maintain records concerning the
animals, including such information as origin, identification, and
destination, and to meet certain minimum standards to see to it that
animals are treated humanely. [See]{.underline} 9 C.F.R. §§ 2.35-36. In
addition to generally kept records, research facilities must submit a
certified annual report setting forth the common names of the animals
covered under the AWA, the total number of animals used, the number of
animals whose treatment involved no pain or use of pain-relieving drugs,
and the number of animals whose treatment involved pain and
pain-relieving drugs. [Id.]{.underline} Other than the submittal of an
annual report, the entities regulated under the AWA are only required to
maintain records onsite for a set period of time and to make such
records available to the Department upon its request. [Id.]{.underline}

The Department also requires that handlers and carriers collect certain
information. Handlers and carriers can only accept guinea pigs,
hamsters, and rabbits for transport that are housed in approved primary
enclosures, thus they may accept \"certificates of compliance\" to
demonstrate that animals that are transported in non-standard, homemade
shipping containers are treated humanely. Such certificates include
information concerning the name and address of the animal\'s consignor,
the number of animals within the enclosure, a certifying statement that
the enclosure complies with the Department\'s standards, and a dated
signature of the consignor. The Department uses Forms 7020 (\"Form
7020\") and 7020A (\"Form 7020A\"), Record of Acquisition, Disposition
or Transport of Animals, to verify compliance with enclosure
requirements.

Handlers and carriers may not accept hamsters and rabbits for transport
if the animals\' holding and cargo areas fall below 45º Fahrenheit,
which is the minimum temperature requirement for transport. Handlers may
accept such animals in a facility that fails to meet this requirement,
provided that the animal is accompanied by an \"acclimation
certificate.\" The acclimation certificate includes the contact
information for the animal\'s consignor, the number of animals in the
shipment, a certifying statement providing that the animals are
acclimated to temperatures below the minimum required temperature, and a
dated signature of a USDA accredited veterinarian. The Department does
not provide a standard form for the acclimation certificate.

The Department makes available certain information to the public on its
website to help meet some of its objectives under the AWA, and provides
online access to the AWA and to its regulations. The Department provides
a link to proposed and final rules, but it does not directly lead to the
proposed and final rules created under the AWA. The Department also
provides online access to certain forms. [See]{.underline}
http://www.aphis.usda.gov/animal_welfare/forms.shtml. In particular,
parties regulated under the AWA have access to Form 7020, which ensures
that animals are being transported in humane shipping containers. Form
7020 has a small section for \"Remarks\" to document the condition of
the shipping container and requires the use of Form 2070A, the
Continuation Sheet, to document further comments; however, form 2070A is
not accessible online. The Department\'s website also provides access to
Forms 7005 and 7006. Forms 7005 and 7006 govern the information that
dealers and exhibitors must keep concerning the acquisition or
disposition of dogs and cats. [See]{.underline} 9 C.F.R. §2.75. Also,
the Department does not provide online access to forms governing
licensing or regulation, but provides a link to request such
information. [See]{.underline}
https://web01.aphis.usda.gov/ApplicationKit.nsf/application?OpenForm[.]{.underline}
Lastly, the Department does make some of its compliance reports
available on line. In particular, there is access to the Department\'s
inspection reports and lists of active licensed and registered entities.
[See]{.underline}
<http://www.aphis.usda.gov/animal_welfare/efoia/index.shtml>.
Nevertheless, there is no online access to the annual reports required
under the AWA.

The Department would best achieve the AWA\'s goals by instituting
certain procedures and practices regarding its collection of
information, particularly its online information. In general, the
Department could start by maintaining a current, up-to-date link of the
proposed rules up for review under the AWA. Currently, the Department
provides a link to www.regulation.gov, making it necessary to already
know specific, required information in order to navigate to the rules
proposed under the AWA. The Department should provide more user-friendly
access to proposed rules in order to give interested parties timely
opportunity to comment on proposed rules.

Next, the Department should provide current, up-to-date inspection
reports. The Department conducts random inspections; however, the most
recent inspection reports posted on its website are for the year 2006.
The Department has not posted inspections for the years 2007 or 2008.
The Department would best serve its goals under the AWA by maintaining
online access to information for the most-current year to insure that
violations against animals are addressed as soon as practicable after
the violation. The Department should also restructure its website to
make it easier for interested parties to determine if regulated entities
are acting in compliance with the AWA. For example, if the Department
posts all of its forms, compliance manuals, and licensing and
registration applications under one link, the parties governed by the
AWA could make certain they are complying with the AWA, treating animals
humanely, and efficiently providing the Department with information
necessary to protect the animals covered by the AWA. In turn, the
Department would be more accountable to the public by providing the most
current information regarding AWA regulation and compliance.

Lastly, concerning the information that the Department collects
regarding guinea pigs, hamsters, and rabbits, the Department should
create a standardized \"Acclimation Certificate\" and make the
certificate readily available online. By creating a standardized form,
the Department would guaranty that animals held in sub-climate
conditions are afforded the most humane treatment.

As of now, the information that the Department makes publicly available
online does not adequately promote the purposes of the AWA. In sum, the
Department would best-effectuate the goals of the AWA by maintaining an
active link to proposed rules on its website, maintaining current
up-to-date information regarding all reports on its website, and by
creating standardized forms available online.

**2. [Recordkeeping Requirements and the Use of Standardized
Forms]{.underline}**

This section addresses the need for recordkeeping requirements regarding
the "humane care and treatment" of animals, as well as the use of a
standardized form for recording such information. By mandating
recordkeeping with respect to the "humane care and treatment" of animals
and by providing a standardized form to do so, APHIS will be able to (1)
enhance the quality of information collected under the AWA and (2)
minimize the burden of collecting such information.

A properly established recordkeeping scheme is necessary for the proper
performance of the agency administering the AWA. APHIS must be able to
sufficiently carry out the three goals of the AWA, which are:

> "(1) to insure that animals intended for use in research facilities or
> for exhibition purposes or for use as pets are provided humane care
> and treatment;

\(2\) to assure the humane treatment of animals during transportation in
commerce; and

> \(3\) to protect the owners of animals from the theft of their animals
> by preventing the sale or use of animals which have been stolen." 7
> U.S.C. § 2131

The problem with the recordkeeping requirements as they are now is that
they do not allow APHIS to properly achieve the three goals of the AWA.
The recordkeeping requirements are currently geared towards achieving
the third goal of the AWA---preventing the sale or use of stolen
animals.

The formal recordkeeping requirements are set out in §§ 2140 and 2142 of
the AWA. Under §2140 of the AWA, dealers and exhibitors of animals must
make and retain records with respect to the "purchase, sale,
transportation, identification, and previous ownership of animals as the
Secretary \[of Agriculture\] may prescribe." Animal research facilities
must make and retain such records only with respect to the "purchase,
sale, transportation, identification, and previous ownership of live
dogs and cats." Intermediate animal handlers and carriers are required
to make and retain records regarding "the transportation, receiving,
handling, and delivery of animals." Under section 2142 of the AWA, the
Secretary of Agriculture is authorized to promulgate recordkeeping
requirements governing "the purchase, handling, or sale of animals, in
commerce, by dealers, research facilities, and exhibitors at auction
sales and by the operators of such auction sales."

The current recordkeeping requirements are geared towards the third goal
of the AWA because both sections 2140 and 2142 mandate the recording of
information regarding the identification of the previous owner,
information regarding the purchase and sale of the animals, and
information regarding the transportation of the animals. All of the
information required to be kept is for the purposes of tracing the
acquisition of the animals so that APHIS can insure that the animals are
not stolen "property." There are no mandatory recordkeeping requirements
regarding the "humane care and treatment" of the animals during
research, exhibition, or transportation. Recordkeeping requirements do
not currently address the first and second goals of the AWA.

Currently, the only reporting requirement (distinct from formal
recordkeeping requirements described above) that addresses the "humane
care and treatment" of animals is the annual report requirement imposed
on research facilities. Research facilities are required to submit an
annual report assuring that "professionally acceptable standards
governing the care, treatment, and use of animals, including appropriate
use of anesthetic, analgesic, and tranquilizing drugs, prior to, during,
and following actual research, teaching, testing, surgery, or
experimentation were followed by the research facility\[.\]" 9 C.F.R. §
2.36. The annual report also requires the reporting of alternative
methods of testing, testing done on animals that involved pain, testing
on animals that involved pain but anesthetics were not used, etc. While
it is important for APHIS to know the nature and numbers of animals
tested on in research facilities, § 2.36 does nothing more that require
an assurance from the facility that the facility is "adhering to the
standards and regulations under the Act." [Id.]{.underline}

Rather than merely requiring a laundry list of experiments in the annual
report and a statement that "yes the facility is adhering to the
standards and regulations under the AWA," concrete reporting
requirements must be set on a standardized form that can be easily
submitted on a more frequent basis than annually. In addition, we
suggest to imposing these reporting and recordkeeping requirements on
every animal handler, not just research facilities. For instance, Title
9 sets forth requirements of shelter, exercise, lighting, handling,
watering, feeding, etc. for all animal handlers, including research
facilities, exhibitors, and transporters. A form that requires an
individual facility or exhibitor to specify that it is complying with
each and every requirement set forth under the AWA must be provided.
Requiring animal handler to go through a checklist of regulations
regarding the "humane care and treatment" of animals, not only allows
the handler to be aware of the regulations, but also allows the handler
to positively affirm compliance with all of the regulations.

Standardized forms are not unheard of when it comes to the reporting and
recordkeeping requirements under the AWA. APHIS publishes various forms
for use by research facilities, dealers and exhibitors, and
transporters. Specifically, APHIS Form 7001 and 7005 can be used by
research facilities to report the number of dogs or cats purchased, the
location of purchase, the method of transportation, the official USDA
tag number assigned to the dog or cat, and whether the dog or cat has
had any offspring. 9 C.F.R. § 2.35 APHIS Forms 7005 and 7006 are to be
used by dealers and exhibitors when reporting information regarding the
acquisition of dogs and cats, the transportation method, and the USDA
tag numbers assigned to the dogs and cats. 9 C.F.R. §2.75 All of the
APHIS Forms can be requested by the animal handler online.

Therefore, as easily as APHIS provides forms regarding the acquisition
of dogs and cats, APHIS can provide forms for the "humane care and
treatment" of animals. By requiring the reporting and recordkeeping of
information regarding the "humane care and treatment" of animals, APHIS
can more properly ensure that the first two goals of the AWA are being
met. APHIS can enhance the quality of information collected and decrease
the burden of collecting that information.

**3. [Better Reporting and Public Access to APHIS AWA Information via
the Internet]{.underline}**

The Department of Agriculture requested comments on its information
gathering and collection relating to the AWA and how the information
collected can be better disseminated through electronic collection
activities. (Notice of Request for Revision and Extension of Approval of
an Information Collection, Fed. Reg. 54,784 (Sept. 23, 2008)). The APHIS
can improve the data collection and reporting methods that it currently
uses to increase the availability of the information and ease of use for
the public on their website. APHIS acknowledges that requests for
information pertaining to AWA cases, investigations, and enforcement are
increasing. (How to Obtain Information About Investigations or
Enforcement Documents from APHIS, (2006)
http://www.aphis.usda.gov/animal_welfare/efoia/downloads/ies_invest.pdf).
Likewise the agency has said it is committed to proving "timelier means
for the public to access AWA and Horse Protection Act enforcement
information and actions." (*Id.*)

Information on the APHIS website is currently very limited in the types
of information it can access and request on enforcement actions. At this
time, the information is hard to track down and requires several
searches. Although complaints or allegations of violations are available
online, they are only accessible through the Administrative Law
Decisions section of the USDA website. Similarly, the public can also
access Consent Decisions and Orders from the USDA website, but not
directly from the APHIS website. Unfortunately, these decisions can only
be searched if you know the name of the offender. A person must know not
only the licensee\'s name, but also know that an allegation has been
made, and then search for the licensee individually. This does not allow
the public ease of access to information on violations of breeders and
exhibitors. While allegations are public information accessible on the
Internet, Official Warning Letters and Stipulations require a Freedom of
Information Act request in order to be accessed. This adds another layer
of difficulty for a person who might wish to be informed as to the
practices of local organizations covered under the AWA. As of now, the
ease of access that APHIS is seeking simply does not exist for the
public, as far as trying to determine the status of licensees and AWA
enforcement actions.

One of APHIS\'s responsibilities under the AWA is to actively search out
unlicensed and unregulated facilities (APHIS, The Animal Welfare Act
Factsheet (Jan. 2002)). Likewise, APHIS encourages concerned individuals
to contact the agency to report unlicensed facilities. (USDA, The Animal
Welfare Act Overview (May 2006)). We suggest adding a search box in
order to search by state, city or zip code, and name to rectify this
difficulty. Under the current system this is easier said than done. The
APHIS website is not user-friendly for people wishing to determine if a
facility is even licensed in the first place. It takes clicking several
links and navigating many pages to get to a place where one can search
for licensees. Once a person has stumbled upon this link he is faced
with a non-searchable, alphabetic listing, by state, containing only the
licensee's name and location. A person must then go through the entire
list to find out if the facility in question is licensed. Furthermore,
the facility may also be doing business under a different name than the
facility\'s licensee name. Although the licensee\'s names are already
published in the federal register, they are not available on the APHIS
website for any year after 2005. Simply put, the current APHIS system
for locating licensees is outdated, cumbersome, and ineffectual in
facilitating the type of public participation the agency is seeking, and
a simplified search is much needed.

Seven U.S.C §2143 requires all research facilities submit an annual
report to APHIS, and 7 U.S.C §2133 requires that a licensee have an
inspection demonstrating their faculties meet AWA requirements. APHIS
lists the requirements for inspection, and these forms are signed off by
APHIS inspectors once they are completed (APHIS, Animal Care Factsheet
(June 2005)). Since this data is already being collected, this
information should be made available on the APHIS website. The
inspection reports online would allow the public to aid in the detection
of facilities that are ether missing from the list, unlicensed, or need
closer scrutiny.

We are not requesting APHIS collect any additional information other
than what is already required to under the AWA. We are only requesting
that APHIS allow effective, easy public access of the collected
information. Doing so is not extraordinary, as there are many government
websites with quicker and easier online searches and reporting sites
than that of the APHIS. What little information is available online is
disorganized, scattered throughout many different websites, and for this
reason, is difficult for the public to obtain. The data that is
available online is outdated\-- the most recent reports available are
from the year 2005. Information collection is only valuable if that
information can be easily disseminated. The ease of organization and
access through the technology of the Internet can fulfill the APHIS
stated desire to use electronic collection and make information
available to the public. The information APHIS gathers is important in
establishing in the public's mind that the AWA is doing what it was
envisioned to do -- protect animals from unnecessary pain and suffering.
Yet under the current system, it is very difficult for the public to
verify that this objective is being met. Modernization of reporting,
making annual reports and compliance actions available on the Internet,
in a convenient and user-friendly location on the APHIS website, would
go a long way to making the system more transparent and useful to the
public.

**4. [Require Exhibitors to Submit Records of Transportation
]{.underline}**

According to the current regulations found in Title 7 of the AWA Chapter
54, Section 2140, dealers and exhibitors "shall make and retain for such
reasonable period of time as the Secretary may prescribe, such records
with respect to the purchase, sale transportation, identification, and
previous ownership of animals as the Secretary may prescribe." 7 U.S.C.
§2140. The definition of "exhibitors" includes carnivals, circuses and
zoos, regardless of whether those entities operate for profit or not. 7
U.S.C. §2132(h). While the current regulations require that entities
like carnivals, circuses, and zoos maintain records of the animals they
handle, they do not require that such regulations be submitted to the
Secretary. The current regulations only mandate that carnivals,
circuses, and zoos have such records available in the event that the
Secretary wants to inspect them.

Section 2143 states that the Secretary will have the power to promulgate
standards to govern the humane handling, care, treatment, and
transportation of animals by dealers, research facilities, and
exhibitors. 7 U.S.C. §2143(a). More specifically, section 2143 bestows
upon the Secretary, the power to promulgate regulations to ensure the
"humane treatment of animals in the course of their transportation in
commerce." 7 U.S.C. §2143(a)(4). As mentioned earlier, exhibitors
include carnivals, circuses, and zoos, all of which engage heavily in
transportation of animals. Carnivals and circuses are known for
traveling the country, stopping in a certain town or city every couple
days or weeks, but never stopping permanently. It is part of their
business plan to constantly be on the move. As a result, the animals
they handle are also constantly moving. Zoos, on the other hand,
generally stay in one location. However, their animals do not. It is
common practice for zoos to trade or lend one of their animals for
another animal at a different zoo. These exchanges also require the use
of transportation.

In order to be more effective at regulating the humane handling of
animals during transportation, it is necessary for the Secretary to
require that carnivals, circuses, and zoos abide by the same rules that
research facilities are bound by. In the current regulations, only
research facilities are required to:

> \[s\]how upon inspection, and to report at least annually, that the
> provisions of this chapter are being followed and that professionally
> acceptable standards governing the care, treatment, and use of animals
> are being followed by the research facility during actual research or
> experimentation.

7 U.S.C. §2143(a)(7). Therefore, only research facilities, not
exhibitors, are required to report and present evidence demonstrating
compliance with the regulations promulgated by the Secretary according
to section 2143. As stated above, one such regulation provides for the
humane handling of animals in the course of their transportation in
commerce.

The businesses of carnivals, circuses, and to a lesser degree, zoos,
rely heavily upon transportation of the animals under their control. For
that reason, these entities, or "exhibitors" as the Act refers to them,
should also be required to report that the provisions of chapter 54 are
being met. Without the requirement of such reports, it will be nearly
impossible to make sure that these exhibitors are complying with the
provisions of chapter 54. Since carnivals, circuses, and zoos frequently
transport their animals, it is more likely for those animals to suffer
inhumane treatment in the course of their transportation. Reporting must
be required of these exhibitors in order for the Secretary to enforce
the provisions of chapter 54. If such exhibitors are required not only
to keep records of transportation pursuant to Section 2140 of Chapter
54, but also to submit those reports, there will be a greater
accountability required of those exhibitors. This greater accountability
will ensure that the animals under their control are being treated more
humanely and under the scope of chapter 54. And in the event that they
are not being treated humanely in the course of their transportation,
the Secretary will have notice and be able to reprimand the exhibitors
accordingly.

**5. [Increase Reporting by Research Facilities]{.underline}**

The current reporting requirements for research facilities under the AWA
are not stringent enough, and as a result, it can be difficult to trace
animals used in research to their origin. Research facilities should be
required to report additional information about the animals they use in
research. By requiring additional information be reported, it will be
easier to trace the origin of animals used in research and help prevent
stolen pets from being used for research purposes.

In 1990, the AWA was amended to prevent the use of stolen pets in
research and to provide owners the opportunity to locate their animals.
Under Title 9 section 2.35(b) each research facility is required to keep
records of the following:

> \(1\) The name and address of the person from whom a dog or cat was
> purchased or otherwise acquired, whether or not the person is required
> to be licensed or registered under the Act;
>
> \(2\) The USDA license or registration number of the person if he or
> she is licensed or registered under the Act;
>
> \(3\) The vehicle license number and State, and the driver's license
> number (or photographic identification card for nondrivers issues by a
> State) and State of the Person, if he or she is not licensed or
> registered under the Act;
>
> \(4\) The date of acquisition of each dog or cat;
>
> \(5\) The official USDA tag number or tattoo assigned to each dog or
> cat
>
> \(6\) A description of each dog or cat which shall include:
>
> \(i\) The species and breed or type of animal;
>
> \(ii\) The sex;
>
> \(iii\) The date of birth or approximate age; and
>
> \(iv\) The color and any distinctive markings;
>
> \(7\) Any identification number or mark assigned to each dog or cat by
> the research facility,
>
> \(8\) If dogs or cats are acquired from any person not licensed or
> registered under the Act and not a pound or shelter, the research
> facility must obtain a certification that the animals were born and
> raised on the person's premises and that the person has sold fewer
> than 25 dogs and/or cats that year.

Despite these provisions it is still possible for pets to be used for
research purposes. Class B dealers obtain animals from "random sources"
defined as "animal pounds or shelters, auction sales, or from any person
who did not breed and raise them on his or her premises." CFR §1.1.
Class B dealers often receive animals from unlicensed dealers, also
known as "bunchers". Some unlicensed dealers obtain animals that are
actually pets.
http://www.hsus.org/web-files/PDF/ARI/B_Dealer_Fact_Sheet.pdf. The
reporting requirements should include additional provisions to provide
owners a better opportunity to locate their animals.

We also suggest that certification requirements include a photo of the
animal. When the AWA was amended in the early 1990's it would have been
costly and burdensome for research facilities to include a photo of each
animal, however, this is no longer so. The use of a digital camera is a
low cost option because pictures can be stored electronically and do not
need to be developed like traditional film. Many animal shelters have
started using photos to identify animals when placing them for adoption.
Requiring a photograph of each animal, stored in an electronic database,
would make it easier to trace the animal. Therefore, the odds of pet
owners locating their animals would increase.

Research facilities are required to place a copy of the information
required under section 2.35(b) with an animal when it is sold or
otherwise disposed of. 9 CFR §2.35(e). Research facilities are not
required to include a copy of the information when transferring animals
to another research facility as long as ownership is not transferred. In
keeping with the goal of preventing the use of stolen pets in research,
and to provide owners with the opportunity to locate their pets,
research facilities should be required to provide a copy of the
certification with an animal that is being transferred to a different
facility. It is a small step and would not be a burden to the research
facilities, and it would provide pet owners a greater opportunity to
trace their stolen or lost pets.

**6. [Eliminate the Exemption for Retail Pet Stores]{.underline}**

The AWA set minimum standards for the health and wellbeing of various
domestic animals, including animals destined to become household pets,
such as cats, dogs, hamsters, gerbils, ferrets, and chinchillas. One of
the goals of the AWA is:

> "(1) to insure that animals intended for use in research facilities or
> for exhibition purposes or for use as pets are provided humane care
> and treatment" (7 U.S.C. § 2131).

By exempting retail pet stores, the AWA is failing to insure humane care
and treatment for a large number of companion animals in commerce at a
time when they are most vulnerable. Although some states have
requirements to help ensure the humane care and veterinary treatment of
animals in pet stores, these vary in their minimum standards, and many
states do not even have licensing requirements. Further, general housing
conditions are easily apparent to visitors and thus may be reported to
state regulatory agencies, while an unaddressed and unseen issue
critical for animal welfare is the health of the animals while in the
pet store, and their prompt veterinary care.

Due to consumer demand for the endearing visage of young animals, many
of these creatures arrive at pet stores shortly after weaning, and as
young as local law allows. For example, puppies delivered soon after
they have reached eight weeks of age, and are often caged and exposed to
many other breeds from multiple commercial breeders. This in turn
exposes these young animals to infectious agents can have severe
consequences. Of particular concern is canine parvovirus (\"parvo\"),
which is a highly contagious gastro intestinal virus which and can be
fatal and can persistent in the environment for months without proper
disinfection. Although puppies are vaccinated for parvo, according to
the American Veterinary Medical Association, full immunity against the
virus is not assured until the last vaccination once the puppies has
reached 16 weeks of age, and it is recommended that puppies not be
exposed to pet stores before this time. (What You Should Know About
Canine Parvovirus, AVMA, September 2008). Although some states require
health certificates and health guarantees for puppies when they are
purchased, only Nebraska and Kansas require a veterinary approved plan
for the prevention of diseases, parasitic infections and injuries of
animals in pet stores (The Current State of Pet Shop Laws, Born Free USA
united with the Animal Protection Institute, 2003-2008).

Although puppies and kittens garner more attention in the public eye,
many people do not realize that small animals in pet stores are also at
high risk of infection and death once they arrive. For example, one of
the most common ailments and cause of death of hamsters in retail pet
stores is from a malady known as 'wet tail'(proliferative ileitis). This
condition is caused by an intestinal infection of the bacteria Lawsonia
intracellularis, and is characterized by rampant diarrhea that can cause
death with in 24-48 hours. Although it can affect hamsters at any age,
the most susceptible hamsters are those aged 3-6 weeks, or those that
have that have undergone stress, such as recent transport, dietary
changes and overcrowded cage conditions-obvious stresses that can occur
in any retail pet store (Wet Tail in Hamsters, Drs. Foster & Smith
Educational Staff). There are retail products available for this
condition; however these products only treat the symptoms-- the proper
treatment is with antibiotics prescribed by a veterinarian.
Unfortunately, without the protective mandates of the AWA, many pet
stores would find it cost-prohibitive to seek veterinary care for a
small inexpensive animal that does not respond to products off their own
shelves. Additionally, when only a minority of states has regulations
which require training for staff concerning proper care and health of
the animals in pet stores, most employees and even owners do not realize
this disease require veterinary care.

These are just some examples of the unseen and less publicized ways all
types of animals would benefit if retail pet stores were not excluded
from the AWA. By eliminating the exemption for retail pet stores under
the AWA, the stores would be required to provide adequate space,
enrichment and veterinary care critical for these young animals during
when they are both most vulnerable to infection, and also most at risk
through their contact with other animals. Further, by requiring
standardized reporting requirements for these establishments, owners and
managers would have federal incentives to ensure proper veterinary care
for the animals in their care as well as proper training of their staff
to recognize more subtle animal welfare issues.

**7. [Remove Exemptions which Promote Canned-Hunts]{.underline}**

The AWA does not regulate game preserves, hunting preserves, or
canned-hunts. Because private collectors, those who do not exhibit the
animals to the public, and those whose sale of animals is not their
primary source of income are exempt, the AWA enables overstock exotic
animals to be obtained for "sport" (i.e. canned-hunts). This section
encourages that the exemptions for private collectors and for those
whose principal income is not derived from the sale of animals be
amended so as to narrow the scope of who may claim these exemptions.
This change would not directly outlaw canned-hunts, but would remove the
incentive for zoos to over-breed and reduce the supply of exotic animals
which private collectors could obtain.

According to the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS),
canned-hunts provide a financial justification for breeding, exacerbate
the problem of over-breeding of captive exotic animals, and promote the
inhumane treatment of animals used in business. HSUS estimates that
there are more than 1,000 canned hunt operations in at least 28 states.
Baselessly, these are exempted from the AWA. Because the AWA does not
regulate the private breeders, animal dealers, hunting preserves or game
parks, the sale of exotic animals for canned-hunts has become an
alarmingly widespread business. Over-bred, captive animals may be sold,
traded, or otherwise disposed of to exhibitors, circuses, animal
dealers, game ranches, or individuals. Canned-hunt operators purchase
their prey directly from these sources or at animal auctions.

The AWA provides exemptions for private collections, hunting, fishing
and trapping, retail pet stores, animals used for K-12 education, and
animals associated with agricultural uses. Furthermore, the definition
of "animal" is restricted to "warm-blooded mammals\" and explicitly
excludes birds, rats, and mice. Animals classified as "game" or
"livestock" also fall outside of the scope of the AWA. The AWA prohibits
accredited zoos from directly selling surplus animal stock to hunting
ranches. However, zoos may sell to animal dealers. The ability to sell
animals to reduce overpopulation, combined with the demand for exhibits
of baby animals promotes over-breeding and subsequently canned-hunts.
The zoo sells the animals to animal dealers, who may in turn legally
sell the animals to private collectors, including hunting ranches. This
legal loop-hole promotes a steady stream of exotic animals to enter
canned-hunt operations. When resold, these animals may be reclassified
as "domestic livestock,\" effectively exempting them from the AWA.  Once
animals are dealt into hunt operations, the animals are reclassified as
"game" and are further exempt from both the AWA and other U.S.D.A.
regulations. These exceptions create loopholes for reclassification,
allowing the captive-hunting industry to work within the exemptions of
the requirements of the AWA.

Exemptions for private collectors and for those whose principal income
is not derived from the sale of animals must be amended limit those who
may claim these exemptions. While this change would not directly outlaw
canned hunts, it would help reduce the supply of exotic animals which
private collectors could obtain, and would remove the incentive for zoos
to over-breed by limiting the type of purchasers who may buy the
animals.

This change would promote two of the stated goals of the AWA:

\(1\) to insure that animals intended for use in research facilities or
for exhibition purposes or for use as pets are provided humane care and
treatment;

\(2\) to assure the humane treatment of animals during transportation in
commerce\[.\] 7 U.S.C. § 2131.

The exemptions create a chain of actions which leads to the
irresponsible practice over-breeding, inhumane treatment and conditions,
and canned-hunts. First, zoo over-breed to the demands of baby-animal
exhibitions, making rooms by selling the overpopulation of animals to
dealers. Then the dealers reclassify and sell the animals to game parks
that the AWA prohibits the zoos from selling to directly. The exemptions
create this loop-hole, allowing exotic animals to be used in a commerce
manner, creating an incentive for inhumane treatment and irresponsible
over-breeding. By exempting private collectors, the AWA fails to ensure
humane care and treatment for a large number of animals transported in
commerce for a clandestine, yet often legal, industry interested in
profiting from the inhumane sale, transport, and death of tame and
exotic animals.

**8. [Change \"Dealer\" and \"Exhibitor\" to \"Animal
Guardian\"]{.underline}**

This section proposes to change the terms \"dealer\" and \"exhibitor\"
in the AWA to \"animal guardian.\" This redefinition is consistent with
two of the three stated goals of the AWA:

> \(1\) to insure that animals intended for use in research facilities
> or for exhibition purposes or for use as pets are provided humane care
> and treatment;
>
> \(2\) to assure the humane treatment of animals during transportation
> in commerce\[.\] 7 U.S.C. § 2131.

As currently drafted, the AWA defines \"dealers\" as those persons who,
for profit, deliver for transportation, transport, except as a carrier,
buy, sell, or negotiate the purchase or sale of animals.
[See]{.underline} Animal Welfare Act of 1966, 7 U.S.C. §§ 2131-59,
2132(f) (2007). The AWA defines \"exhibitors\" as those persons who
exhibit animals, including carnivals, circuses, and zoos, for profit or
not for profit. 7 U.S.C. § 2132(h). Renaming these terms to \"animal
guardian\" would promote a compassionate relationship between persons
and animals, and connote the responsibility that dealers and exhibitors
have for the care, welfare, treatment, and quality-of-life of the
animals in their charge. The Guardian Promise,
http://www.guardiancampaign.com/promise.html (last visited Oct. 30,
2008). Changing the terms \"exhibitor\" and \"dealer\" to \"animal
guardian\" would discourage mistreatment of animals through heightened
awareness of the guardian\'s responsibilities to the animals in his care
and the uniqueness of animals as a form of property.

The Guardian Campaign began in 1999 as a "nationwide platform to reflect
growing public support for a redefined public standard of relating to
animals." The Guardian Campaign,
http://www.guardiancampaign.com/campaign.html (last visited Oct. 30,
2008). Redefining the \"dealer\", or \"exhibitor\" of an animal as its
guardian does not change his or her legal status\-- an animal's guardian
has the same property rights as do those persons with titles of
\"dealer\" and \"exhibitor\". Rather, the shift in title reflects
changing public attitudes and the need to recognize that, although their
legal status is currently that of property, animals have interests that
must be protected. Heidi Stroh, *Puppy Love: Providing for the Legal
Protection of Animals When Their Owners Get Divorced*, 2 J. Animal L. &
Ethics 231, 241-42 (2007). Redefining \"dealer\" and \"exhibitor\" as
\"animal guardian\" would help these persons to understand that they
have greater responsibilities to the animals in their care than to their
inanimate property. Susan J. Hankin, *Not a Living Room Sofa: Changing
the Legal Status of Companion Animals*, 4 Rutgers J. L. & Pub. Pol\'y
314, 407 (2007).

The nominal shift from \"dealer\" or \"exhibitor\" to \"animal
guardian\" would promote greater care in the treatment, transportation,
and sale of animals without imposing a greater legal duty on these
professionals. Quite simply, the proposed change in definition offers
the benefit of increased awareness with no legal hindrance to those
currently defined as \"dealer\" and \"exhibitor\". Furthermore, its
success has been proven. The redefinition of pet \"owners\" as
\"guardians\" has been successfully adopted in dozens of cities, several
counties, and even the entire state of Rhode Island. Guardian Cities,
http://www.guardiancampaign.com/guardiancity.html (last visited Oct. 30,
2008).

The redefinition of \"dealer\" and \"exhibitor\" as \"animal guardian\"
is consistent with two of the three stated goals of the AWA:

> \(1\) to insure that animals intended for use in research facilities
> or for exhibition purposes or for use as pets are provided humane care
> and treatment;
>
> \(2\) to assure the humane treatment of animals during transportation
> in commerce\[.\]

7 U.S.C. § 2131. Although this definition change alone could not insure
that animals are treated humanely, it would promote those values of
compassion and responsibility that contribute to the humane treatment of
animals.

**Conclusion**

Each of the 8 sections above provides suggestions to improve collecting,
organizing and accessing information under the current reporting
requirements of the AWA. In summary, the Department would best
effectuate the goals of the AWA by maintaining an active link to
proposed rules on its website, maintaining current up-to-date
information, and creating standardized forms that are available online.
The APHIS can improve the data collection and reporting methods that it
currently uses to simplify submission of information and ease of public
access by adding webpage search boxes. Data which is already collected
should be made available on the APHIS website. Also, records that are
required to be kept should be submitted and available to the public.
Increasing research facility reporting, as well as eliminating pet store
exemptions will help to achieve an AWA\'s goal to maintain humane care
and treatment for animals. Amending the exemptions to narrow the
definition of private collectors would remove incentives zoos have to
over-breed and reduce the practice of canned hunt operations. Lastly,
changing the terminology \"dealer\" or \"exhibitor\" to \"animal
guardian\" would promote greater care in the treatment, transportation,
and sale of animals without imposing a greater legal duty on these
professionals.