In recent years the Farm Bill has become a popular vehicle for seeking to move pet trade legislation, as opposed to promoting such initiatives in stand-alone legislative bills. As a result, the pet industry has been required to closely monitor the extensive amendments that are always put forward for inclusion in this voluminous legislation. PIJAC was closely involved in provisions of this year’s Farm Bill (the Food, Conservation and Energy Act of 2008) with potential to impact the pet trade, and was successful in defending pet industry interests. Among the amendments that had been on the table was language that could dramatically impact the reptile trade and Animal Welfare Act (AWA) provisions barring puppy imports. Although President Bush’s opposition to the final version of the Farm Bill resulted in an executive veto, veto-proof majorities with which the bill passed in both houses of Congress held up, and the House of Representatives overrode the president’s veto 316 to 108, while the Senate delivered an even more convincing vote of 82 to 13 in rejecting the veto.

Because legislation this size is routinely amended with myriad provisions, PIJAC closely tracked the bill throughout the legislative process. As originally adopted by the House, the Farm Bill was free of onerous provisions impacting the pet trade. Amendments on the Senate side, however, threatened two segments of the industry: reptiles and puppies.

The Senate amendment mandating a determination as to the “prevalence of salmonella in each species of reptile and amphibian sold legally as a pet in the United States” was intended to counter the longstanding prohibition against the sale of turtles under 4 inches in the United States. Unfortunately, because of the manner in which this provision was crafted, it would have had the opposite effect, creating a ban against countless other reptile species without doing anything to further the legalization of pet turtles. As a result, PIJAC was compelled to aggressively oppose the amendment when the Farm Bill went to conference committee. Indeed, had the measure passed in the final version of the Farm Bill, the Food and Drug Administration may have been required by law to ban the sale of virtually every pet reptile species in the country. PIJAC was successful in having this amendment stricken from the conference report, and it was not part of the final version of the bill passed by Congress.

PIJAC was also aggressive in responding to an amendment to ban the import of all puppies less than 6 months of age for sale as pets. PIJAC opposed this proposal in principle because there is no evidence that the age of imported puppies (which are already required by law to be at least 8 weeks of age before transport) had any relation to the dog’s health or welfare. However, the amendment promised relatively little effect on the pet trade, except for the state of Hawaii, which is rabies-free and therefore cannot being puppies in from anywhere in the continental United States. Thus, the amendment would have had a devastating impact on pet stores selling puppies, as well as the pet-owning public who would have been deprived of a legitimate source for healthy pets.

As a result of extensive negotiations with Senator Richard Durbin (D-IL), the amendment’s sponsor, as well as intensive lobbying of members of Congress, an exemption for Hawaii imports was developed and inserted into the bill. This exemption survived the conference committee, and the ban in the final bill does not apply to the “lawful importation of a dog into the state of Hawaii from the British Isles, Australia, Guam, or New Zealand in compliance with the applicable regulations of the State of Hawaii and the other requirements of this section.”

Anyone interested in further information about these legislative efforts, or the Farm Bill in general, should contact PIJAC’s Michael Maddox via email at mmaddox@pijac.org or by phone at 202/452-1525.