Dear Members of the Virginia General Assembly,I am writing to respectfully express opposition to HB112, SB344, and HB1238. While animal welfare is an important and shared priority, these bills raise serious concerns regarding regulatory overreach, economic impact, unequal treatment among organizations, and unintended harm to disabled veterans living with TBI and PTSD.Commerce and Small Business Impact. Virginia’s animal-related businesses, including breeders, pet retailers, and specialty operators,already function under significant federal, state, and local oversight. The additional restrictions and expanded enforcement authority proposed in these bills create increased compliance costs, operational uncertainty, and financial strain. Many of these businesses are small, family-run, veteran-owned enterprises. Layering new mandates on already regulated operations risks discouraging lawful commerce and reducing economic opportunity within the Virginia Excessive regulation does not automatically translate into better outcomes, particularly when responsible operators are already complying with existing standards. Over expansion of Local Authority (HB1238) would allow local governments to impose permitting requirements, fees, and potentially restrictive or inconsistent ordinances on pet shops and companion animal dealers that vary by locality, making it difficult for businesses to operate consistently across jurisdictions. Allowing local discretion increases the likelihood of uneven enforcement, duplicative standards, and administrative burdens that disproportionately affect small operators.These bills risk creating regulatory imbalance between commercial operators and other types of animal organizations. If entities are exempt from requirements imposed on licensed businesses, it places compliant, tax-paying enterprises at a competitive disadvantage.All organizations should be subject to consistent and standards. Legislation should not favor one over another without clear justification.Many disabled veterans with TBI annd PTSD involvement in animal care and animal-related business provide structure, therapeutic engagement, and economic independence. Individuals living with Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI) and Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) often benefit from: Routine and responsibility animal care,Reduced isolation through daily engagement,work environments,Meaningful purpose and community involvement. Restrictive legislation that threatens small animal enterprises may unintentionally remove both livelihood and therapeutic stability from veterans who rely on these operations. Policies should consider not only regulatory goals, but also the human impact on those who have served our nation. Conclusion HB112, SB344, and HB1238, as currently written, risk: Expanding regulatory authority beyond reasonable scope Creating inconsistent local enforcement,Placing disproportionate burdens on small businesses,unfair competitive conditions. Undermining veteran-owned enterprises and therapeutic engagement I respectfully urge you to reconsider these measures and work with stakeholders—including small business owners, veterinarians, veteran advocates, and responsible animal organizations—to balance solutions that protect animal welfare without harming lawful commerce or vulnerable communities. Thank you for your time and thoughtful consideration. Abbitt Aaron Hoffman, AFA Legislative Representative Retired U.S. Army Sergeant,Colonial Heights, Virginia

I am writing to ask you to vote against the passing of SB 344. I am a USDA licensed zoo owner and have over 30 years of experience working with wildlife. I have hand raised many different species and believe that this bill is not in the best interest of the animals it is supposed to protect. The base assumption for the bill is that the hand rearing of wild animals is a bad thing. While I agree that allowing animals to be raised by their parent(s) is important when they are going to be released into the wild, the majority of animals born in zoos will remain under human care for their entire lives. Hand rearing forms a bond with humans that can allow for improved care and decreased stress throughout their lives. An individual that has been raised by humans often learns to be comfortable with a wider range of experiences than a parent raised animal. The animal human bond that forms can allow for smoother and less stressful changes to routines and medical care. I have in my care an African crested porcupine we call Theo. He came to us as a baby and I hand raised him. When he was 2 years old, he developed a tooth infection. I was able to easily load him up, take him to the vet, and hold him while the vet examined him. When he needed a CT scan to assess the issue, he allowed me to hold him in my lap while the vet administered general anesthesia, and to comfort him as he came out of it. The treatment included more than 8 weeks of oral antibiotics. No matter how hard I tried to hide the medication in various foods, he refused to take it. I had to pick him up twice a day and squirt the liquid in his mouth. Even though he didn’t like it, he trusted me enough to let me give him the medication. I truly believe, and my vets agree with me, that Theo would not have survived that infection if he had not been hand raised. Had we had to capture and restrain him for every examination and treatment, the stress, alone, could have caused death from capture myopathy. While it is, of course, possible to build a bond with animals without hand raising them, nothing replaces the bond of hand rearing. I have numerous other examples of hand raised animals allowing medical care that other animals wouldn’t tolerate. In stressful situations, wild animals will move away from people out of instinct. Our hand raised animals often actively seek us out when they are stressed or hurt. When we can decrease their stress and quickly address medical concerns we can provide better lives for the animals we care for. While I understand that hand rearing may not be the best option for all species or for all individuals (such as those being raised to return to the wild), I feel that the ones best suited to make that decision are the people who care for the animals on a daily basis. As our facility is not open to the public and only provides off site educational visits, we are not currently eligible for, nor can we afford, accreditation. For the very reason that we are a small facility, with a limited number of species, we are able to work more closely and spend more time with each individual animal than some larger facilities. Due to our experience, we have been asked to hand raise animals for accredited facilities in the past. Under this bill, we would no longer be able to help raise these animals nor could make the decision to raise our own. I believe that this bill is not in the best interest of the animals and ask you to vote no to SB344.

Dear Members of the Virginia House Committee on Agriculture, Conservation and Natural Resources, I am writing to respectfully express strong opposition to SB344. While I appreciate the intent to promote responsible wildlife management, this legislation creates significant unintended consequences for Virginia’s veterans, small businesses, and the very standards of animal welfare it seeks to protect. First, the bill’s restrictions on captive mammalian wildlife separation timelines and commercial hybridization will disproportionately affect small-scale breeders, licensed exhibitors, agricultural operations, and specialty animal businesses throughout the Commonwealth. It is unfair to NOT Exempt Facilities because they don’t have membership in Certain organizations. Many of these operations are veteran-owned. Veterans frequently transition into agriculture, animal husbandry, and wildlife-related enterprises as a means of rehabilitation, entrepreneurship, and financial stability. By imposing rigid separation mandates and commercial prohibitions without adequate flexibility for species-specific husbandry practices, SB344 risks eliminating legitimate income streams and discouraging veteran entrepreneurship in Virginia. Second, the commercial impact extends beyond individual breeders. Feed suppliers, veterinary practices, equipment manufacturers, educational facilities, transport providers, and rural tourism operations all form part of an interconnected economic ecosystem. Restricting lawful breeding and commerce will reduce economic activity in rural communities, increase regulatory burdens, and potentially drive responsible operators out of state. Virginia should be fostering responsible commerce, not creating regulatory uncertainty that harms compliant businesses. Third, from an animal welfare standpoint, the bill’s rigid four-month separation requirement does not adequately account for species-specific developmental timelines. In many cases, earlier separation—when conducted under established husbandry standards and veterinary guidance—is essential for proper socialization, disease prevention, and behavioral management. Overly prescriptive mandates can unintentionally compromise animal welfare by preventing best-practice interventions tailored to individual animals. Good welfare policy should be science-driven, flexible, and developed in consultation with licensed veterinarians and experienced animal professionals—not structured around blanket timelines. Furthermore, responsible breeders and animal professionals already operate under existing state and federal regulations. Rather than enhancing welfare, SB344 risks penalizing compliant operators while doing little to address bad actors who already disregard the law. Virginia has long balanced conservation, commerce, and animal stewardship. This legislation disrupts that balance without clear evidence that current regulatory frameworks are insufficient. For these reasons, I respectfully urge the Committee to vote NO on SB344 or substantially amend it to protect responsible commerce, veteran-owned businesses, and practical, science-based animal care standards. Thank you for your time and consideration. Respectfully, Abbitt Aaron Hoffman Legislative Representative American Federation of Aviculture