Another PIJAC Alert - not in GA yet but headed for TN...

jennm

Active Member
Lifetime
Messages
6,638
Reaction score
7
I read about this on the Industry Forum at RDO.

PIJAC is the Pet Industry Joint Advisory Council

http://www.pijac.org/files/public/CA_SB_1122.pdf">http://www.pijac.org/files/public/CA_SB_1122.pdf</a>

It's in California now but there is a similar legislation has already been introduced in Tennessee, and it is expected to spread.

This could adversely affect frag swaps and the like.

Jenn
 
OMG,

Clicked on that link, Adobe Acrobat started to open, then my PC locked up. I'm at work, so I don't think I'll try that again!
 
'Tis just a .pdf document. But it is</em> 5 pages long.

Let's see if it'll attach.
<fieldset class="gc-fieldset">
<legend> Attached files </legend>
fieldset>
 
That's odd. I tried the link myself in case I messed it up - but it works.

It's a clean site... not a joke. The alert is legit.

Jenn
 
I had no problem opening the link here @ work. Maybe Dak's filters are more severe than mine, but usually the County is pretty persnickity.

<span style="font-size: 11px">(and yes, I said *persnickity* -- everyone should use that word at least once today.)</span>
 
WoW, So I wonder what the definition of agricultural livestock under this act would be?
 
Well the alert says "live animal" not Agricultural.

This has not been introduced in Georgia (yet)... but it has in TN.

Since any pet dealer, kennel, aviary or farm falls under the jurisdiction of the Department of Agriculture, Animal Protection Division, if it comes here, that would include aquatics.

Pet stores IMO don't have anything to worry about in this particular piece of legislation, and I believe the intent of the bill is to protect animals (esp dogs and cats) being sold at flea markets and the like, it could spill over to include frag swaps and similar.

I've seen lots of folks buy/sell/trade aquatic livestock in LFS parking lots - this activity would be unlawful in CA if this legislation passes (and possibly in TN and beyond).

Here we go on the slippery slope again.

Jenn
 
It is just another infringement on our rights.


The bill states "These restrictions do not apply to the following: an event primarily for the auction or sale of Agricultural Livestock"
Which turns out there def is "sold for the purpose of human consumption"


There are a bunch more coming OUR way Jen.
 
JennM;331693 wrote: I've seen lots of folks buy/sell/trade aquatic livestock in LFS parking lots - this activity would be unlawful in CA if this legislation passes (and possibly in TN and beyond).

Here we go on the slippery slope again.

Jenn

Yep, we often can't take coolers (or sometimes even ziplock bags) into places where we meet, so we have to do our thing in the parking lot.

If nothing else, this could mean we'd have to take this into consideration when setting up the monthly ARC meetings.
 
Swapping in the parking lot is only illegal if you get caught :D geez.. i am for control of illegal animal trades and people buying animals they can't keep but sometimes the government goes a little over board with things like this... besides buying or trading corals from other people is sometimes easier especially if a LFS can't or is having a hard time getting a specimen.
 
Fish Scales2;331696 wrote: It is just another infringement on our rights.


The bill states "These restrictions do not apply to the following: an event primarily for the auction or sale of Agricultural Livestock"
Which turns out there def is "sold for the purpose of human consumption"


There are a bunch more coming OUR way Jen.

Yes, I know. HR669 is just the beginning. First hearing for that one is the 23rd I think.

I'll keep partisan politics out of it but I'm just shaking my head.

Jenn
 
(2) A tax-exempt nonprofit organization founded for the prevention of cruelty to animals.

Don't know if this would qualify the ARC? The home page says we promote conservation, which in turn could be preventing cruelty (illegal catching methods and reef destruction).

I'm sure there's plenty of loopholes.
 
dawgdude;331759 wrote: You are a member but you are not acting for the organization if that makes sense. Legally, no this would not apply.

Exactly. A Club-Sanctioned/Organized swap might be exempt, but the current practice of folks meeting up and exchanging stuff (which personally, I have no problem with) would become illegal.

While I surmise that the intent of the legislation would be to stop the sale of Red Eared Sliders (turtles) at flea markets, and backyard puppy mills selling at flea markets and the like - all of which should be addressed somehow - it is a bit too broad for my taste.

Since in most states, pet dealers and farmers and other businesses that deal in livestock fall under the inspection of the state's agriculture department or equivalent, it would prevent some questionable "businesses" from flying under the radar, and would hold them to the standards that we legitimate pet dealers must adhere to - like I said, to that end, I agree - however, once again, broad legislation tars everyone with the same brush.

Heck when I adopted my dog from a local rescue, I met up with the rescue owner in the parking lot of a restaurant to sign the paperwork and pick up the pooch - that would be illegal now. She was on her way to do an adoption at a local Petsmart, and I sneaked out of work for a few minutes instead of driving 10 miles to do our thing - we met a mile or two from the shop. That would be a big no-no anymore... even though we'd already had lengthy communication before the hand-off/paper signing was done.

Seems odd that suddenly there are all these animal-related bills coming up. As I mentioned in reference to HR669, I've seen this sort of thing come and go over the years, but people seem to be more aware, and more fired up this time around. I don't know if the proposed bills have more lobbyists behind them this time around, or what - but there's more fear that some of them will actually pass, than there has been in the last several years, and I'm not sure why that is.

In the past, in industry circles we'd see somebody mention some bill that was ridiculous, we'd all grumble and roll our eyes, some would probably make a phone call or write a letter, then the thing would die on the first reading and life went on. Not anymore. People are speaking out - which is a good thing, they are talking about it, and contacting the appropriate representatives about it. That too, IMO is a good thing. If we just sit back and put our heads in the sand, ludicrous stuff like this might pass, and it will affect us all one way or another.

Obviously for those of us directly involved in the pet trade, it can mean our livelihood, but even for hobbyists and enthusiasts, it can affect or even put you out of a hobby.

Jenn
 
I'm really baffled as to why these broad pieces of legislation are even written. It's like they want to cut off your arm for a small blister on your finger. How do we manage to elect these idiots?
 
Fish Scales2;331696 wrote: It is just another infringement on our rights.


The bill states "These restrictions do not apply to the following: an event primarily for the auction or sale of Agricultural Livestock"
Which turns out there def is "sold for the purpose of human consumption"


There are a bunch more coming OUR way Jen.

So, FishScales2, if you have an inside track to what's coming down the pipe, why don't you share the rest with us?

Jenn
 
molson;331773 wrote: I'm really baffled as to why these broad pieces of legislation are even written. It's like they want to cut off your arm for a small blister on your finger. How do we manage to elect these idiots?

LOL! That's a loaded question, now isn't it?!

Jenn
 
Anyone notice the carnival bit? At first I was pissed off that I can't sell my frags at the carnival, but then I thought about the goldfish prizes and figure that one is probably okay.

I have seen a number of pet sellers at flea markets that have worried me.

I highly doubt anyone trying to enforce this law would understand that a coral is an animal anyway.
 
LorenK;331784 wrote: I highly doubt anyone trying to enforce this law would understand that a coral is an animal anyway.

That depends, really. I've met a number of inspectors over the years for my 'annual inspection'. Some are knowledgeable, some aren't. The fellow that is (was?) the department head in the licensing division was very knowledgeable - he did my initial inspection when he was a field officer (he was later promoted and *may* be retired now).

Their primary thing is dogs, cats, fuzzies and farm animals, but we fall under their jurisdiction so they *should* at least be somewhat versed in what's what and husbandry - otherwise how can they tell if a facility is compliant?

Either way - if someone is selling live aquarium creatures it doesn't take a rocket scientist to tell if they are conducting their "business" in an appropriate way or not.

As to the carnival/goldfish thing - I'd be more than happy to see that go. Just because it's a cheap goldfish doesn't make it OK to do what they do with them. I'd rather see them fed to a bigger fish (the end comes relatively quickly) than have them abused such as they are in a carnival before somebody's little darling takes it home and kills it a few days later.

Jenn
 
Honestly, I don't have an issue with this legislation. It does not prevent people from coming to my house to by corals/fish/rock or me going to their house. It also doesn't prevent us from trading frags at the meetings (which occur on private property).

I do have an issue with people selling animals on the side of the road, parking lots, flea markets, etc. I don't see how they could create legislation that prevents this type of activity and not affect us.

If anything, I would expect pet stores to be happy because it clamps down on non-commercial sales.
 
LorenK;331836 wrote:

If anything, I would expect pet stores to be happy because it clamps down on non-commercial sales.

Yes and no. I'm just naturally opposed to anything that reduces people's rights or tells them what to do - but having said that we all have responsibilities too.

While yes, I'd be pleased about the "not selling things on the roadside" bit... it's one of those broad-brush things that leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

Jenn
 
Back
Top