Animals

A new rule establishing general regulations for improving the traceability of U.S. livestock moving between states became final on December 20, 2012 and will become effective on March 11, 2013.  The USDA has established the animal disease traceability rule to help target when and where animal disease occurs and to facilitate a rapid response that should reduce the number of animals involved in a disease investigation.  According to USDA Secretary Tom Vilsack, “The United States now has a flexible, effective animal disease traceability system for livestock moving interstate, without undue burdens for ranchers and U.S. livestock businesses. The final rule meets the diverse needs of the countryside where states and tribes can develop systems for tracking animals that work best for them and their producers, while addressing any gaps in our overall disease response efforts.”

The animal disease traceability rule differs from the National Animal Identification System launched by the USDA in 2006 and later discontinued for lack of voluntary participation by producers.   An important guiding principle for the new rule is that it is state-driven. The traceability framework will be owned, led and administered by the States and Tribal Nations with federal support. The rule proposes to provide maximum flexibility for the States, Tribal Nations and producers to work together to find identification solutions that meet their local needs and to maintain traceability data at their discretion. The intent of the rule is to address only those animals moving interstate and to encourage the use of low-cost technology.

We will take a closer look at the rule in the next few months, but for now will share a few important notes about the rule:

  • Unless specifically exempted, livestock moved interstate must be officially identified and accompanied by an interstate certificate of veterinary inspection or other documentation, such as owner-shipper statements or brand certificates.
  • The use of brands, tattoos and brand registration will be accepted as official identification when accepted by the shipping and receiving States or Tribes.
  • Backtags remain an alternative to official eartags for cattle and bison moving directly to slaughter.
  • All livestock moved interstate to a custom slaughter facility are exempt from the regulations.
  • Chicks moved interstate from a hatchery are exempt from the official identification requirements.
  • Unless moved interstate for shows, exhibitions, rodeos, or recreational events, beef cattle under 18 months of age are exempt from the official identification requirement (traceability requirements for this group will be addressed in separate rulemaking)

USDA will work with states to implement the rule in the coming months.  For more information on the new rule, visit http://www.aphis.usda.gov/traceability/.

Bill establishes time limits for township and county infrastructure review

A bill approved by the Ohio General Assembly proposes limiting the amount of time county and township officials have for recommending local infrastructure needs for the operation or expansion of a Concentrated Animal Feeding Facility (CAFF).  Both the House and Senate have approved H.B. 22, sponsored by Rep. Buchy (R-77).  The bill now awaits action by Governor Kasich.

Recently introduced on May 17, 2011, H.B. 22 proposes a 75 day time limit for county commissioners and township trustees to provide final recommendations for improvements to local infrastructure that are needed to accomodate a CAFF.   Notification by the CAFF to the county and township is a required step in the Livestock Environmental Permitting Program (LEPP) permit application process.  Information on anticipated traffic routes and number and weights of vehicles must accompany the notification.  Under current law, the county and township must next provide initial recomendations to the CAFF for needed infrastructure improvements.  The CAFF may accept the recommendations or may propose an alternative, and the county and township must then render written final recommendations for infrastructure improvements.  The CAFF must submit the county and township's final recommendations in its LEPP permit application.

Under the language agreed to by the legislature in H.B. 22, if the county or township fails to provide the written final recommendations in 75 days, the CAFF may proceed with the permit application by submiting an affidavit in lieu of the written final recommendations.  The affidavit must state that the CAFF provided the required notification but did not receive written final recommendations from the county or township within 75 days of giving the notification.

The legislature's approval of H.B. 22 comes in the wake of a controversial denial of a LEPP permit application by Hi-Q for an egg laying facility in Union County.  ODA Director Zehringer denied Hi-Q's application because it did not contain the required final infrastructure recommendations from county and township officials.  Hi-Q and Union County had reached an impasse on infrastructure issues, and Hi-Q submitted the permit without any final recommendations by the county.  (See our earlier post on the Director's decision.)  Under H.B. 22's language, Hi-Q could have submitted an affidavit instead of the written final recommendations because more than 75 days had passed since Hi-Q's original notification to the county and township.    The Director thus would not have had to deny the permit application for lack of county and township written final recommendations for infrastructure improvements.

H.B. 22 also proposes changing LEPP from a program to a Division of Livestock Environmental Permitting, and contains a number of other revisions to ODA programs and regulations.  See the analysis of H.B. 22 on the Ohio Legislature's website.

Current bill in House would yield different outcome for Hi-Q CAFF permit

In a unique and controversial case, the Ohio Department of Agriculture (ODA) has denied an application under its Livestock Environmental Permitting Program for Hi-Q Egg Products, LLC to establish an egg laying facility in Union County.   In denying the application, ODA Director Zehringer followed the recommendations made in April 2011 by the ODA hearing officer who reviewed the permit application (see our earlier post).  The hearing officer had recommended denial on the basis of an incomplete application, because  Hi-Q's application did not include a written statement from local officials certifying that final recommendations had been made for local infrastructure improvements and costs, as required by program regulations (OAC 901:10-1-02(A)(6)).  Hi-Q claimed that the county and township failed to provide the recommendations, while the county and township argued that there were no final recommendations because  Hi-Q refused to discuss an alternative transportation route.  In agreeing that the recommendations were not included in the application, Director Zehringer stated that there was "no other viable option but to deny the [permit] due to an incomplete application." 

Ohio's  Livestock Environmental Permitting Program (LEPP) regulates the installation and operation of  large Confined Animal Feeding Facilities (CAFFs).  Critics have long complained that the program fails to consider the potential impacts of CAFF development  upon the local community.  Those concerned about local impacts have used the public hearing process to voice opposition to CAFF permits, but have never successfully prevented approval of a permit.  Until now, the program's obscure requirement for county and township approval of infrastructure improvements has gone unnoticed as a prevention mechanism by such opponents.   

While the Hi-Q denial is a first, opponents of large livestock operations won't have cause to celebrate the decision for long if a current legislative proposal meets with success.  H.B. 229, introduced May 17, 2011 by Rep. Buchy, will place a time limit on the county and township officials who must consider local infrastructure improvements needed for a CAFF permit application.  According to the proposal,  local officials would have 75 days after receiving notice of the proposed facility to render a written statement on local infrastructure improvements and costs.  After 75 days, the permit applicant may submit a notarized affidavit stating that it had provided local officials with notice but did not receive any written final recommendations from the local government within the required timeframe.  Under the law as proposed by H.B. 229, ODA could not deny a permit application that lacks the written statement from local officials as long as 75 days have passed after giving notice and the permit applicant submits the notarized affidavit rather than the written statement from local officials. 

H.B. 229 is currently before the House Agriculture and Natural Resources committee.  Visit this link to view H.B. 229 and here for Director Zehringer's press release on the Hi-Q permit.

In an attempt to satisfy the animal welfare agreement negotiated last year with the Humane Society of the United States and various agricultural interests, Governor Strickland yesterday authorized an emergency rule that restricts the possession, sale and transfer of certain wild animals in Ohio.  The controversial animal welfare agreement, designed to prevent another Ohio ballot initiative on farm animal welfare,  provided that "[t]he Ohio Department of Agriculture and the Ohio Department of Natural Resources will coordinate and take action on wild and dangerous animals including the prohibition of the sale and/or possession of big cates, bears, primates, large constricting and venomous snakes and alligators and crocodiles.  Existing owners will be grandfathered in, but they could not breed or obtain new animals."  The Governor's action, however, is a week shy of the December 31, 2010 deadline included in the agreement, which stated that failure to implement the wild and dangerous animals provision by such date could void  the agreement. 

 "This action fulfills my responsibilities within the agreement that will keep Ohio's vital agriculture industry profitable while appropriately updating animal care standards," said Governor Strickland.  The Governor also cited public safety reasons for the new regulation, stating that "[t]his rule will help protect Ohioans from deaths and serious injuries caused by attacks from dangerous wild animals held in private ownership."

The Governor's Executive Order suspended the regular rulemaking process and allowed the immediate adoption of Rule 1501:31-19-05 by the Department of Natural Resources Divison of Wildlife.  The new rule, which became effective January 6, 2011, does the following:

  • Prohibits the possession, sale and transport of "restricted species,"  which includes coyotes, timber and gray wolves, lions, tigers, jaguars, panthers, leopards, cheetahs, bobcats, lunx, cougars, pumas, mountain lions, bears, all primates except humans, alligators, crocodiles, caimans, gharials and numerous snake species, including pythons, cobras and rattlesnakes.
  • Creates an exception from the regulation for persons who possessed a restricted species prior to January 6, 2011, if the person meets all of the following criteria:
    • Does not acquire any new restricted species through purchase, gift, trade, barter, donation or breeding;
    • Has not been convicted of animal abuse or neglect;
    • Has not had any type of animal license or permit revoked or suspended;
    • Registers the animal by May 1, 2011 with the Ohio Department of Natural Resources and maintains the registration annually;
    • Does not allow the public to come into physical contact with the animal;
    • Does not sell or transfer the animal to anyone other than an accredited zoo or institution, a wildlife sanctuary, a family member approved by the division chief, or an out-of-state facility (until January 1, 2016) and notifies the division chief of the new recipient of the animal at least 72 hours prior to transfer.
    • Maintains a permanent transponder implant on the animal.
  • Creates an exception from the rule for certain facilities and organizations:
    • Institutions accredited by the association of zoos and aquariums and facilities under active contract for a species survival plan under the Endangered Species Act;
    • Circuses licensed by the U.S. Department of Agriculture that are in the state less than 45 days per year and do not allow the public to come into physical contact with the restricted species;
    • Institutions operating a mascot program licensed by the U.S. Department of Agriculture;
    • Non-profit wildlife sanctuaries that do not use restricted species for commercial or entertainment purposes, do not allow the public to come into contacted with the species, and do not breed the species.
    • Wildlife rehabilitation facilities engaged in the rehabilitation and reintroduction of native species and permitted by the division chief;
    • Education, research and scientific institutions or projects permitted by the division chief;
    • A person transporting a legally owned restricted animal through the state for less than 48 hours who does not exhibit the animal, keeps the animal enclosed and does not allow public contact with the animal.
  • Requires a person who possesses a restricted species to notify the division of wildlife if the animal escapes, in addition to complying with other reporting requirements in ORC 2927.21.

Emergency rules remain in effect in Ohio for 90 days, which should provide the agency sufficient time to extend the life of the rule through the regular rulemaking process.  Given the upcoming change of leadership in Ohio,  it will be interesting to see if the new administration follows Governor Strickland's lead and makes the new regulation permanent.

View the Governor's Executive Order and the new rule.

The Ohio Livestock Care Standards Board has proposed civil penalty provisions for violations of the livestock care standards currently under development by the Board.  The proposal addresses notification procedures for the Ohio Department of Agriculture (ODA), the agency responsible for enforcing the standards, and establishes two types of violations of the livestock care standards:  minor violations and major violations.  

A minor violation is one which violates the standards due to neglect or unintentional acts of substandard practices, but which does not place an animal’s life in imminent peril or cause protracted disfigurement, protracted impairment of health, or protracted loss or impairment of the function of a limb or bodily function.  For a minor violation, the ODA may fine the offender up to $500 for a first offense and up to $1,000 for a subsequent offense committed within 60 days of a previous offense. 

A major violation is one which does place an animal’s life in imminent peril or cause protracted disfigurement, protracted impairment of health, or protracted loss or impairment of the function of a limb or bodily function, or a violation that results in unjustifiable infliction of pain due to reckless or intentional acts.   The ODA may issue a penalty between $1,000 and $5,000 for a first major violation and between $5,000 and $10,000 for repeat violations committed within 60 days of a prior offense.    For major violations, the department may assist with the provision of care services for the animals and may assess the violator for the costs of providing proper care to the animals.

For both minor and major violations, the department may also seek recovery costs for investigations that result in penalties, including salary costs for employees directly involved in the investigation.  The rule also states that a violation affecting more than one animal may be considered one offense of the standards.

The Director of the Ohio Department of Agriculture has posted the proposed civil penalty provisions for public comment on ODA’s website.  The comment period runs until November 2.

Proposed rule addresses standards for farm animal euthanasia

The Ohio Livestock Care Standards Board has developed its first set of proposed standards regarding farm animal welfare, pursuant to the constitutional amendment passed last year by Ohio voters as Issue 2 (see our earlier posts on Issue 2).  The Livestock Care Standards Board unanimously approved standards regarding euthanasia of farm animals on October 5, 2010.   The ODA will now carry the Board's proposed standards through the administrative rulemaking process.

The proposed standards define acceptable methods of euthanasia, which includes inhalant agents, injectable agents, captive bolt guns, blunt force, gunshot, cervical dislocation, decapitation, electrocution, foam hypoxia, maceration and exsanguination.  The proposal establishes different acceptable methods and guidelines for different species, which includes equine, poultry, swine, cattle, goats, sheep, alpaca and llamas.  Provisions also address general considerations for performing euthansia, such as euthanization of animals unlikely to recover from illness or injury, determination of death, unsuccessful euthanasia, disposal of animals and mass euthanasia.  The rule references a civil penalty provision for violations, but the actual civil penalty provision is still under development by the Board.

Interesting to note is how the proposed euthanasia rule relates to the animal welfare agreement entered into last June by the State of Ohio, Humane Society of the United States, Ohio Farm Bureau and several other agricultural organizations.  Regarding euthanasia, the animal welfare agreement states:

"Recommendations will be made to The Ohio Livestock Care Standards Board (OLCSB) to take action on issues related to downer cattle and humane euthanasia using language consistent with the proposed ballot initiative."

The proposed ballot initiative referred to in the animal welfare agreement is the HSUS-led initiative that could have been on the upcoming November ballot, but was pulled as part of HSUS's compromise in the animal welfare agreement.  The ballot initiative proposed amending the Ohio Constitution to include this language on euthanasia:

"Require a farm owner or operator to  ensure that all on-farm killing of cows or pigs be performed in a humane manner using methods explicitly deemed “Acceptable” by the American Veterinary Medical  Association.  This standard shall also include a prohibition on strangulation of cows and pigs as a form of euthanasia."

Note that the animal welfare agreement does not require the adoption of the ballot initiative language in the euthanasia standards; it states only that "recommendations will be made" to the Board to take action using language consistent with the proposed ballot language.  A review of the record available on the Board's website does not indicate whether any party to the animal welfare agreement made such recommendations to the Board.  The Board had already begun working on the euthanasia standards prior to the announcement of the animal welfare agreement in June.  A review of the Board's proposal, however, indicates that the euthanasia standards do not precisely duplicate the HSUS's proposed ballot language.  The standards don't include a specific prohibition against strangulation of cows and pigs.  Instead, the standards do not list strangulation as an acceptable method of euthanasia.  Nor do the standards specifically reference the American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) acceptable standards; but many of the Board's acceptable standards are similar to AVMA acceptable standards.  Whether or not recommendations were made to the Board as promised in the animal welfare agreement, the Board's proposed euthanasia standards do appear to be "consistent with" the ballot initiative language on euthanasia.

ODA announced the Board's proposed euthanasia standards today and will accept comments on the standards until October 20, 2010.  Following review of comments, ODA will submit the package to the joint legislative committee that oversees the administrative rulemaking process.  To view the proposed euthanasia standards, visit the ODA website, here.

Ohio livetock farms have been a target of animal welfare organizations, evidenced by recent releases of undercover videos taken at  Buckeye Veal Services and Conklin Dairy Farm and the broadcast of the "Death on a Factory Farm" documentary.   The strategy is to gain employment or access to the farm, videotape without the knowledge or permission of the farm owner, and later release video suggesting that the farm mistreats its livestock.   This approach has heightened the visibility of farm animal welfare issues in Ohio, but the strategy and its impacts raise many legal issues.  A presentation I recently prepared for the Ohio Agricultural Law Symposium highlights research we're conducting at OSU to identify the legal issues and implications of the undercover video approach.  Below is synopsis of a few of the more controversial legal issues.

  • Ohio's penalty structure for animal cruelty.    At least one animal welfare organization claims that it has targeted Ohio for undercover investigations because Ohio is one of the few remaining states that limits animal cruelty punishment to misdemeanor penalties (with the exception of a repeated offense against "companion animals," which is a fifth degree felony).   Most states have adopted a felony penalty structure for acts of animal cruelty, which results in more severe punishment.  Ohio legislators have made nearly a dozen attempts to increase penalties for animal cruelty, most recently with H.B. 55 (see our earlier post).    The proposals always fail, allegedly due to an effective lobbying effort from groups who argue that penalties for cruelty to animals in Ohio should not be higher than those for abuse of humans.  While undercover video releases don't appear to be moving felony penalty legislation forward currently, they could be garnering public support for a future proposal.  Should Ohio adopt a felony penalty, and if it does, will undercover investigations find a new state target?
  • Duty to report animal abuse.   The videographer of the Conklin Dairy Farm video witnessed acts of mistreatment against animals by an employee for approximately one month before the organization released the videos.  Many argue that the videographer should have reported the abuse right away, but neither Ohio or any other state has a law requiring an ordinary person to report animal cruelty.  Fifteen states have laws mandating that veterinarians report suspected animal cruelty: Ohio does not.  Another 13 states have "voluntary" reporting laws for veterinarians, which grant a veterinarian immunity and a waiver of client confidentiality upon reporting abuse, but not Ohio.  Ohio does have several mechanisms a person could use to initiate an investigation of suspected animal cruelty through local law enforcement or the county humane society.  In a similar vein, should livestock farms have an employment policy requiring employees to report incidents of animal mismanagement and abuse by other employees?
  • Who's committing the crime?   The person committing the act against an animal is the obvious offender, but what about the videographer and the employer?  Circumstances may exist such that the videographer was a legal "accomplice" to the crime.  Under Ohio law, a person can be prosecuted as an accomplice  if the person solicited another to commit a criminal offense; aided, abetted or conspired with another in committing the offense;  or caused an innocent or irresponsible person to commit the offense, and also shared in the intent to commit the crime.    Likewise, it may be possible to prove that a videographer acted with "recklessness" by observing and taping the crime or by encouraging and interacting with the offender; recklessness is the required mental state for an animal cruelty violation.  As for the employer, Ohio's humane society law clarifies that a conviction of an employee for animal cruelty does not prevent the prosecution of the employer for "allowing a state of facts to exist which will induce cruelty to animals" by the employee. 

These are only a few of the issues surfacing from the undercover video strategy.  Given the current climate of continued attempts to "out" livestock farmers and push the farm animal welfare issue in Ohio, perhaps it's time we begin finding solutions to the issues.

 

 

 

Posted In: Animals
Tags: Animals, Farm animal welfare, livestock
Comments: 0

Bill modifies penalties for animal cruelty, with focus on companion animals

Months before the current controversy of alleged animal cruelty by employees of Conklin Dairy Farms, Rep. Williams and Combs introduced H.B. 55 to revise portions of Ohio's animal cruelty law.  Yesterday, the Ohio House passed the animal cruelty bill, which had been introduced last March.

H.B. 55 focuses largely on cruelty to "companion animals," which includes dogs, cats, and any animal kept inside a residential dwelling.  Changes to the companion animals provisions include authority to order child offenders to undergo counseling and psychological treatment, inclusion of companion animals in court protection orders, and requirements for the State to approve continuing education courses on animal abuse counseling for medical and social work professions. 

In regards to cruelty to animals other than companion animals, H.B. 55 adds a new penalty provision.  The penalty remains a second degree misdemeanor for first offenses, but increases to a first degree misdemeanor for subsequent violations of the law.  Current law addresses each offense as a second degree misdemeanor.   Under Ohio law, a first degree misdemeanor can result in a maximum penalty of 180 days in jail and a $1,000 fine, while a second degree misdemeanor violation carries a maximum of 90 days in jail and a $750 fine. 

What is cruelty to animals?  Ohio's animal cruelty law is Ohio Revised Code section 951.13, which states that "no person shall:

  • (1) Torture an animal, deprive one of necessary sustenance, unnecessarily or cruelly beat, needlessly mutilate or kill, or impound or confine an animal without supplying it during such confinement with a sufficient quantity of good wholesome food and water;
  • (2) Impound or confine an animal without affording it, during such confinement, access to shelter from wind, rain, snow, or excessive direct sunlight if it can reasonably be expected that the animals would otherwise become sick or in some other way suffer.  Division (A)(2) of this section does not apply to animals impounded or confined prior to slaughter. For the purpose of this section, shelter means a man-made enclosure, windbreak, sunshade, or natural windbreak or sunshade that is developed from the earth’s contour, tree development, or vegetation;
  • (3) Carry or convey an animal in a cruel or inhumane manner;
  • (4) Keep animals other than cattle, poultry or fowl, swine, sheep, or goats in an enclosure without wholesome exercise and change of air, nor or feed cows on food that produces impure or unwholesome milk;
  • (5) Detain livestock in railroad cars or compartments longer than twenty-eight hours after they are so placed without supplying them with necessary food, water, and attention, nor permit such stock to be so crowded as to overlie, crush, wound, or kill each other."

Before passing H.B. 55 yesterday, the House included floor amendments that make minor revisions to the dangerous and vicious dog provisions in Ohio Revised Code 955.11. 

The Ohio Senate has not introduced a similar animal cruelty bill, and has only a few more sessions until its summer recess begins in early June.  If the Senate doesn't pass the animal cruelty legislation before the end of the year, the bill will expire and must be reintroduced after January, in the next session of the Ohio General Assembly.

Animal rights groups have advocated around the country for stiffer penalties on animal cruelty offenses.   Most state animal cruelty laws contain both misdemeanor and felony penalties, with the more severe felony charges typically applying to acts that are intentional, heinous or involve mutilation.  Under Ohio law, felony charges apply to certain offenses against companion animals and some dog-fighting offenses.   For an overview of state animal cruelty laws, visit this publication by the Michigan Animal Legal and Historical Center.  View the entire chapter of Ohio law on offenses to domestic animals, which includes the animal cruelty law and various penalty provisions, here.

See Ohio H.B. 55 here.  The floor amendments to H.B. 55 are in the House Journal for May 27, 2010.

Posted In: Animals
Tags: Animals, Farm animal welfare
Comments: 0

Now that the Ohio legislature has enacted an implementation bill and Governor Strickland has announced board appointments, the Ohio Livestock Care Standards Board could soon begin developing standards for farm animal care in Ohio.  Voters approved Issue 2, the constiututional amendment creating the Ohio Livestock Care Standards Board, in November of 2009.

Last week, the governor signed Issue 2's implementation bill (House Bill 414) after legislators wrangled with two different implementation proposals for more than two months.  A primary point of contention was funding--H.B. 414 originally proposed an increase of the commercial seed and feed inspection fee and allowed the transfer of at least $500,000 annually from the commercial seed and feed fund to the livestock care standards fund.  A Senate proposed bill, S.B. 233, would have provided the livestock care standards fund with $162, 280 transferred from the School Employees Health Care Board.  Neither provision survived in the final enacted law, which instead requires the director of the Ohio Department of Agriculture to rely on existing funds within the department until the legislature appropriates money for the livestock care standards fund.

The final approved bill also establishes board member terms and vacancies, allows board member travel reimbursements but does not allow compensation, and requires the board to meet at least three times per year.  The law requires the director of ODA to assist the board by hiring employees, submitting the board's proposed rules for approval, enforcing the rules and investigating potential rule violations.  According to the law, the director must obtain permission to enter premises for inspection purposes.

Two provisions in the law address animal identification and organic production--these provisions were in the Senate's version and were added to the final bill .   The new law states that the Ohio Livestock Care Standards Board may not establish a statewide animal identification system and clarifies that standards of the USDA's national organic program will prevail if there is a conflict between the organic certification standards and the Ohio livestock care standards.

Despite recommendations to do so, the new law does not define the term "family farmer," but only reiterates the constitutional amendment's requirement that three of the board members shall be "family farmers."  Nor does the legislature guide the board on the meaning of the "well-being" of livestock, which the board must address in its standards and rules.  We hoped the new law would clarify whether "well-being" includes both physical and emotional well-being, an issue that could bring legal challenges in the future (see our earlier post on "Lessons from New Jersey").   The implementation law does define "livestock" as equine raised for any purpose and the following animals if raised for human food and fiber purposes:  porcine (hogs), bovine (cattle, oxen, buffalo), caprine (goats), ovine (sheep), poultry, alpaca and llamas. 

Soon after Govenor Strickland signed H.B. 414, he announced his appointments to the Ohio Livestock Care Standards Board.  Information on the board appointments is available here.  Once the speaker of the house of representatives and president of the senate each make one of the two final board appointments, the board can begin its work of developing standards for the care and well-being of livestock in Ohio.

Meanwhile, proponents of a second ballot initiative on farm animal welfare are currently circulating around the state seeking signatures to place another proposal on the November general election ballot.  The proponents hope to tell the board, through a second constitutional amendment, a few standards that it must adopt, which includes prohibitions on certain types of confinement, requirements for humane killing of cows and pigs and restrictions against the sale or transport of downer cows.  See our earlier post on "Ohio may see a second constitutional amendment on farm animal welfare."

Representatives Sayre and Bolon introduced the implementation legislation for State Issue 2's Ohio Livestock Care Standards Board on Tuesday, January 19.  H.B. 414 does the following:

  • Defines "livestock" as equine animals, regardless of the purpose for which the equine are raised; porcine, bovine, caprine and ovine animals; poultry; alpaca and llamas. 
  • Requires the appointment of the Ohio Livestock Care Standards Board within 45 days of the bill's effective date and establishes board member provisions such as terms of office, vacancies, meetings and compensation.
  • Reiterates Issue 2's language regarding the purpose of the board.
  • Directs the board to adopt rules regarding civil penalties for violating care standards.
  • Establishes duties of the director of the Ohio Department of Agriculture for assisting the board and grants authority to the director and his/her representative to enter property for inspection and investigation.
  • Prohibits anyone from providing false information in response to the livestock care standard requirements, or otherwise violating the rules developed by the board.
  • Creates an Ohio livestock care standards fund and authorizes the director of the Ohio Department of Agriculture to use the fund for program administration and enforcement.
  • Increases the commercial feed and seed inspection fee in ORC 923.44 by 15 cents over the next three years, in five cent increments per year--to 30, 35 and 40 cents per ton--and increases the minimum fee from 25 to 50 dollars.
  • Allows the director of ODA to request annual transfers of not less than $500,000 from the commercial feed and seed fund to the Ohio livestock care standards fund.
  • States that the law does not affect the authority of county humane societies or officials.
  • Clarifies that the law does not apply to food processing production activities regulated under ORC Chapter 1717.

View H.B. 414 here.

Pages

Subscribe to RSS - Animals