06-22-2012, 12:11 PM
|
#6
|
|
|
Since people want to parse the exact meaning of the statement....we can look at the exact defninition of what is actually covered by the act to see that it clearly does not mean reptiles or amphibians.
Taken from http://www.animallaw.info/statutes/stusawa.htm#2132
Quote:
|
(g) The term "animal" means any live or dead dog, cat, monkey (nonhuman primate mammal), guinea pig, hamster, rabbit, or such other warm-blooded animal, as the Secretary may determine is being used, or is intended for use, for research, testing, experimentation, or exhibition purposes, or as a pet; but such term excludes (1) birds, rats of the genus Rattus, and mice of the genus Mus, bred for use in research, (2) horses not used for research purposes, and (3) other farm animals, such as, but not limited to livestock or poultry, used or intended for use as food or fiber, or livestock or poultry used or intended for use for improving animal nutrition, breeding, management, or production efficiency, or for improving the quality of food or fiber. With respect to a dog, the term means all dogs including those used for hunting, security, or breeding purposes;
|
Reptiles and amphibians are clearly not included in the definition of animals covered under the act which supports the exemption I quoted before. The language in the proposal does not have anything that changes the above definition of animal covered by the act.
Some comments,
Ed
|
|
|
|