Sponsors
Directly changes the Animal Welfare Act’s legal definition of “animal” so it explicitly covers both warm‑blooded and cold‑blooded species, calling out groups such as reptiles and fish. The text also spells out specific exclusions (for example, certain birds, laboratory-bred rats and mice, horses not used in research, and some farmed animals) and clarifies that the term “dog” includes all dogs regardless of use (hunting, security, breeding, etc.). The change broadens the statute’s coverage in ways that could bring additional species and regulated facilities under the Animal Welfare Act’s oversight, compliance, and enforcement requirements while leaving a set of named exclusions in place. The bill does not appropriate funds or create new programs or timelines in the text provided.
Amends Section 2(g) of the Animal Welfare Act to revise the statutory definition of the term “animal.”
Defines “animal” to mean any live or dead warm-blooded animal and gives examples including a dog, cat, monkey (nonhuman primate mammal), guinea pig, hamster, rabbit, or bird.
Defines “animal” to also include cold-blooded animals and gives examples including a reptile, amphibian, cephalopod, or fish.
Allows the Secretary to determine that other animals (not specifically listed) are included if they are being used, or are intended for use, for research, testing, experimentation, exhibition, or as a pet.
Excludes from the term “animal” birds, rats of the genus Rattus, and mice of the genus Mus that are bred for use in research.
Who is affected and how:
Research institutions and laboratories: Some institutions that work with cold‑blooded species (reptiles, fish) may now fall squarely under the Animal Welfare Act’s coverage unless those animals are within an exclusion. That can increase licensing, inspection, recordkeeping, and animal care obligations for facilities that previously were ambiguous in scope.
Exhibitors, dealers, and transporters: Zoos, aquariums, breeders, pet dealers, traveling exhibitors, and transport operators that handle reptiles or fish could face new or clearer AWA obligations, including inspections and compliance costs.
Dog owners and dog operations: The clarification that “dog” includes all dogs means hunting kennels, commercial breeders, security dog programs, and other dog operations cannot rely on a narrow interpretation of the term to avoid AWA coverage; this could affect licensing and operational practices.
Veterinary and animal care providers: Veterinarians, animal hospitals, and clinic staff working with newly covered species may face altered reporting or care standards tied to regulated facilities.
Animal agriculture and farm operators: The bill names certain farmed animals as exclusions, so many routine agricultural operations are likely unaffected; however, some borderline cases (e.g., aquaculture facilities or mixed‑use operations) may require legal review to determine coverage.
Federal agencies (USDA/APHIS): Agencies that implement and enforce the AWA may see an expanded enforcement workload and potential need to clarify regulations and guidance. The bill does not provide additional funding, so agencies might need to adjust priorities or propose future appropriations.
Animal welfare advocates and the public: The change provides clearer statutory protection for some species previously in a gray area, which advocates may welcome; regulated parties may push back due to increased compliance costs and administrative burdens.
Net effect: The amendment narrows legal ambiguity about which species the Animal Welfare Act reaches and likely extends regulatory oversight to some facilities and animal types that were previously uncertain, while maintaining explicit exclusions for several categories. Implementation details (rulemaking, guidance, and possible funding) will determine the full regulatory and fiscal impact.
Referred to the House Committee on Agriculture.
Last progress April 21, 2025 (9 months ago)
Introduced on April 21, 2025 by Betty McCollum