The Animal Welfare Institute, a national nonprofit animal advocacy organization with hundreds of members in Virginia, strongly supports HB1768 to prohibit the private possession of primates. Public Safety Over the past few decades, hundreds of US citizens have reported being injured by captive primates, although many more incidents likely go unreported. Often purchased as cute infants, primates tend to exhibit unpredictable behaviors after the age of two. As they reach sexual maturity, they become larger and more aggressive, and will bite to defend themselves and to establish dominance. Even the smallest primates are incredibly strong and pose a serious safety risk. Additionally, nonhuman primates can easily transmit a wide range of dangerous and potentially deadly viral, bacterial, parasitic, and fungal diseases to humans, including yellow fever, monkey pox, hepatitis, measles, herpes simian B, Ebola, Marburg, and simian immunodeficiency virus. There have been multiple attacks by primates kept as pets in Virginia. For instance, in Virginia Beach a pet monkey bit a 9-year-old girl. In Richmond, a teenager was bitten by a pet monkey in Byrd Park. There have been other incidents reported in Franklin, Chesapeake, and Spartanburg. Even one such dangerous occurrence is too many, and neither communities nor first responders should have to deal with strong and aggressive wild animals. Animal Welfare Pet primates suffer enormously in captivity. They are often torn from their mothers soon after birth, spend their lives confined to small cages, and endure unnecessary mutilation such as tooth extraction in an attempt to “tame” them. Unlike in the wild, where most live in large social groups, almost all pet primates are kept in relative isolation, devoid of social contact with others of their species, and in conditions detrimental to their health and well-being. Even the most well-meaning of owners cannot provide the special care, housing, diet, socialization, and maintenance that wild animals require. Attempts to mold them to fit the owner’s expectations—including that they act like “little humans”—almost always end in pain and suffering for the primate. While a small number of abused and neglected pet primates are fortunate enough to be rescued and placed in sanctuaries, the majority live a shortened, deprived, and unhappy existence. Community Resources Private ownership of primates can also strain the resources of the community and of rescue organizations. Local police departments and other first responders are not trained or equipped to respond to wild animals. When a dangerous primate escapes from someone’s home, however, they are the ones forced to make difficult decisions about how to handle unpredictable situations. Global Conservation The pet primate trade contributes to the illegal international wildlife trade. Demand for primates in the United States incentivizes the capture and trafficking of animals from the wild—many of them from threatened and endangered species. Primates are smuggled into the United States to meet the demand, with trafficked animals suffering immensely and often dying along the way. While some are detected and confiscated at the border, there is no way to know how many more slip through and are sold as pets. Laws at the state level are crucial to end this exploitation and to protect communities from dangerous pet primates. I hope the Committee will swiftly pass HB1768.

January 22, 2025 RE: HB 1768 To the Committee Chair and members: My name is Peggy Rice and I live on 49 Pine Street, Onancock, Virginia. I have a nonprofit organization called, American Primate Haven, Inc. which has been in effect since 2012. I have been working with others here in Virginia concerning responsible ownership for almost 25 years as an individual. I have helped in several situations of irresponsible ownership, here in Virginia as well as neighboring states. I have worked with health departments, police departments, animal control agencies and private individuals to help educate others as well as find solution to an animal issue. I would like to present my concerns about HB 1768 concerning ownership of non human primates. First and foremost, I do not believe that Virginia has a large problem with non human primate ownership. I do know that with ALL ANIMALS there are irresponsible owners and therefore rules are needed and created to protect the animals and the public. However, in every instance that a BAN is instituted concerning a specific animal an even larger problem will develop. As I stated, I have helped in many situations, and I have found in my experience that while the BAN effects responsible owners from owning an animal the people who we classify as “irresponsible owners” due to their negligence and care of an animal, will boldly break the laws and due to maintaining a “low profile” while hiding their crime hurt the owned animals. Time and time again, animals that are hidden are uncared for due to a BAN. By establishing better guidelines and “rules” instead of a BAN we could continue to help educate the public and private citizens according to proper animal husbandry guidelines. My concern is not for myself, I am 71 years old and I have a plan for all of my 17 non-human primates living on my 6.5 acres, my concern is for my home, Virginia. As a retired special education teacher, I pride myself on Virginia being open minded to life here and as a citizen have enjoyed living in a commonwealth state where everything is considered honestly. When I had a non human primate suffer a stroke here on the Eastern Shore of Virginia, I was overwhelmed with the outpouring from my community of help from physical therapist to the Wal-Mart pharmacy! These people did not judge what animal needed help; they just helped because we are a community. As we know the organizations such as PeTa and HSUS have promoted BANS. The agenda is to BAN animals from ownership. They have gone from state to state with their propaganda of problems with ownership. They use to use “disease” of an animal as their platform, but due to lack of evidence they use the “fear” tactic of dangerous animals. BANS are for the closed minded who are afraid of what tomorrow will bring, instead of educating ourselves to face whatever it brings. As Benjamin Franklin said. “Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety”. Please DO NOT ALLOW HB 1768 to become part of Virginia’s history. As always, I will continue to help, educate, work through anything to help Virginia just as I did while on the Workgroup of the Dangerous Animal Incentive several years ago. Sincerely, Peggy D. Rice President, American Primate Haven

The Metro Richmond Zoo supports the intent of this bill; however, some wording needs to be changed. - Most primate sanctuaries are not licensed, regulated, or inspected and should not be exempt unless they are licensed, regulated, and inspected. - Does this bill prohibit zoological facilities not operating by July 1, 2026 from ever housing primates? If, in 5 years, a new zoological park is established in a different city or town and meets all the licensing and accrediting standards, it would still be barred from housing primates. This would negatively affect the future of zoos and conservation in our state. - When we do employee background checks, there is no national registry to determine if any individual has been fined or has broken a local law in any state. - Requiring zoos to carry insurance is a positive step, but we recommend not having a minimum deductible. For example, our facility maintains a multi million policy and having such a low deductible would significantly increase the cost of our insurance.

The Virginia Animal Control Association supports this bill with 1 amendment. We as board feel that under subsection 6 of section 3.2-6602 “exceptions”, “Zoological parks” and “circus’s” need to be removed from this bill. We agree to a Class C License being in the bill. The VACA Board believes this bill with, the amendment suggested, will provide our communities with enhanced public safety due to the risk of disease and danger non- human primates pose to the general public, the possession of such animals should be strictly regulated and reserved for highly experienced and capable individuals with extensive knowledge of these animals. Furthermore, most local animal control agencies receive little to no training on the handling of Non-human primates, Creating enhanced risks for not only the public but the citizens. For those reasons we believe this bill will benefit the Commonwealth of Virginia and its residents by promoting public safety and enhanced disease control. Respectfully Submitted, The Virginia Animal Control Association.

Mr. Chair and Members of the Committee, House Bill 1768 is unnecessary, because regulations are already in place regarding primates through the Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services. (https://law.lis.virginia.gov/admincode/title2/agency5/chapter141/section130/). The things that have been incorporated into this legislation are truly terrifying and people would be up in arms if this language was brought forward pertaining to their pet dogs and cats. By focusing on primates, the target is much smaller and thereby the opposition less fierce. However, this bill demands everyone's attention. Up until this point in time, Virginia law has not allowed companion animals to be impounded on-site. This piece of proposed legislation will change this with the language, "If there is no immediate threat to public safety or animal welfare, a law-enforcement officer may impound the primate in place." IN OTHER WORDS, THE GOVERNMENT WILL BE PERMITTED TO TAKE OVER A CITIZEN'S HOME. The timing of this bill is also alarming, given what is currently transpiring with the Mogensen family. The Animal Law Unit has argued in court that the giraffes at Natural Bridge Zoo are COMPANION animals. Yet, legally a companion animal cannot be impounded on-site. Furthermore, when an agricultural animal is impounded under current law, law enforcement is to provide care for the animals pending court (3.2-6569). The Virginia State Police were permitted to effectively abandon the giraffes at Natural Bridge Zoo and questions swirl over how the County of Rockbridge could order something the law does not allow. Over a year after their impoundment, the Mogensens are STILL paying for the food, heat, enrichment, and care staff FOR ANIMALS THEY DO NOT LEGALLY OWN. The Animal Law Unit has not contributed a dime towards the giraffes and even sent a letter with a host of demands regarding daily care, births, deaths, veterinarian exams, contracts, etc. The Mogensen family is working for the Attorney General's Office without ANY compensation. Their labors and services are being obtained by Jason Miyares against their will. House Bill 1768 is seeking to "legalize" and enshrine such treatment of citizens into Virginia code. Please vote against this harmful bill! Sincerely, Heidi Crosky, Virginia Animal Owners Alliance

My name is Dr. Kelly George and I am the Executive Director of the Zoological Association of America (ZAA) which consists of and represents zoological professionals including zoos, aquariums, conservation breeding facilities, and conservation education-based animal ambassador programs. With more than 70 accredited facilities across more than 30 states, ZAA is also one of the largest accrediting organizations in the zoological sector. All ZAA accredited zoos are licensed and inspected by the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) under the federal Animal Welfare Act. ZAA accredited facilities in Virginia include Metro Richmond Zoo, Nova Wild and Virginia Safari Park. You can learn more about ZAA at www.zooasssociation.org. ZAA opposes HB 1768 as introduced and submits this written testimony to be included in the Subommittee's review of the bill. ZAA agrees that non-human primates are not appropriate as personal pets, nor should they be in the hands of untrained and unqualified individuals. However, the bill as drafted would treat federally licensed animal exhibitors unfairly and impose limitations on them that it does not impose on other facilities, including unlicensed sanctuaries. The bill would make it unlawful for any person to possess, sell, transfer, or breed primates unless that person qualifies for one of the delineated exceptions. These include research facilities that are licensed and inspected by the USDA and at least one other federal agency, primate sanctuaries,which, unless they are open to the public and operate like a zoo, are NOT licensed or inspected by the USDA. The bill also exempts Class C license exhibitors but in doing so includes additional conditions that are not applicable to any other exemption category including the unlicensed sanctuaries. These conditions reflect a lack of understanding of the USDA inspection and enforcement process and would deny Virginia zoos the ability to house and care for primates without appropriate legal due process. They would also impose additional requirements, including liability insurance that may not be available, as well written escape plans, that are not applicable to any other category. ZAA supports the concept of ensuring that all primates are properly and safely cared for regardless of where they are found. However there is no justification for targeting federally licensed zoos that also hold state licenses with such special conditions and they should be removed from the bill. Thank you.

Comments Document

I am a constituent of your district, and I am writing to urge your support for wildlife crossing legislation in the upcoming General Assembly session. Wildlife crossings, such as overpasses, underpasses, and expanded culverts with fencing, are proven solutions for reducing wildlife-vehicle conflicts by up to 96% and ensuring safer roads for both wildlife and drivers. Virginia is currently ranked 9th highest in the nation for wildlife-vehicle conflicts, showing the urgent need for statewide improvements in our road and infrastructure design. As evidence of this need, I’ve included a screenshot from this interactive map (attached), which shows areas in our district where better infrastructure is essential to protect communities from flooding. This map highlights opportunity areas where flood-resilient structures could also facilitate safe aquatic and terrestrial wildlife passage. By supporting this wildlife crossing legislation this session, you can help bring impactful solutions to your district, protecting both biodiversity and community safety. This bill directly addresses Virginia's ranking as one of the top ten states for wildlife-vehicle collisions, which results in over 60,000 deer crashes annually, costing lives, taxpayer dollars, and biodiversity. Wildlife crossings can reduce collisions by up to 96%, providing a solution that protects drivers and wildlife alike. Delegate Simonds and Senator Marsden are championing a $460,000 budget amendment to provide essential resources for state agencies and localities to implement corridor and crossing projects. These funds will serve as a vital match for federal grants, a significant barrier for many localities.

I am writing as a concerned citizen in opposition to HB1768, regarding primate ownership in the state. My family has an animal petting zoo in the state, and I am opposed to additional state regulations governing animal ownership. The state has proved to be a malicious actor, raiding and harassing family run business and seizing private property without proper justification. I think these regulations only empower bad actors in the state, when we need to do the opposite. The Animal Law Unit needs to be disbanded and trust the responsible animal owners in the state. Please stop with the constant barrage of new legislation and restrictions on responsible animal ownership. Thank you for listening to our concerns! -Dale Johnson

I OPPOSE House Bill 1768. Why is this bill necessary? This isn't about animal welfare, but a push to further regulate and ultimately end private animal ownership and family-owned zoos. Virginia zoos are licensed by the USDA and are already heavily regulated. This bill states zoos are exempt, but if there has been ONE noncompliance issue in the past three years (which may not have anything to do with animal care), the state can seize or destroy your primates. That is ridiculous and makes it easy for the state to seize or kill perfectly happy and healthy animals. Please do not pass this bill, Virginia zoos and animal owners are already working hard to keep up with USDA regulations and this bill is unnecessary and overreaching.

Hello, I am writing to oppose this bill. My family owns and operates a small private zoo in Leesburg, Va. know as Leesburg Animal Park. We have been at this location since 2000 and prior to that, at another location in Fairfax County since the early 1980's. We are USDA licensed to exhibit animals. This bill should exclude zoological parks that are USDA licensed , period. It should not have all of the lengthy provisions that must exist in order to be excluded. The provisions are worded so that almost no one would be able to keep primates! We know that there are very radical animal groups such as PETA that are working to influence laws to abolish exotic animal ownership, and I think that is at play with this bill! Also, this bill, as it is written, would allow local animal control staff to be regulating and impounding zoo animals. They do not have people with the necessary expertise and animals will be harmed as a result. Allowing them to destroy the animal is ridiculous! Please do not pass this bill as it is written and allow for more time for input from animal owners. Thank you. Shirley Johnson Director

OPPOSE HB1768. The VFDCB stands in support of animal owners of all species from government overreach, "gotcha" laws and ordinances, and bills predicated on ignorance and extremist agendas. As outlined in other comments Virginia law enforcement has demonstrated a deadly lack of knowledge about how to manage primates. How is it deadly? See the examples of various seizures over the years by the AG office. But the most telling of how deadly HB 1768 will be is in the bill itself. Lines 113-115 Section D "The court may also order that the primate be humanely DESTROYED by a law-enforcement officer for any primate found to NOT BE PROPERLY CONFINED to protect the safety of the public." Lines 116 - 119 Section E. "Nothing in this section shall be construed to: 1. Prevent a law-enforcement officer from humanely DESTROYING a primate in compliance with federal and state law if, after reasonable efforts, no zoological or a primary sanctuary is willing and able to provide long-term care for the primate; " So basically - if the state cannot find a place to put a primate it does not like they can just kill it. Dogs can be labelled dangerous or even vicious and still be allowed to live. Social media, as well as VA court records, are full of accounts of bites and maulings by dogs. What is so threatening about primates that we must kill them? PLEASE, PLEASE OPPOSE HB 1768. Alice Harrington, VFDCB

I am writing to declare my OPPOSE to Bill 1768. Many aspects of this Bill 1769 appear driven by mis-information with disregard of professional organizations. There are aspects that should be reviewed and re-written to reflect and accurate account for what the state is trying to accomplish and not loop broad language with room for misinterpretation by state agencies or the like. Fair and judicial action with just cause in accordance with factual documentation needs to have space in our government policies. Please OPPOSE Bill 1768 and review for the sake of the animals listed.

It am writing to oppose House Bill 1768. I am deeply disturbed by this proposed bill. This bill will strip away the little protection private individuals and zoos have in this state from the animal right extremist. This bill is not about animal welfare or safety it’s about the extreme animal rights activists getting one step closer to ending all family owned zoos and private animal ownership. In the state of Virginia zoos are permitted and regulated by the USDA and the Virginia Department of Wildlife Resourced the state does not need to waste resources or time on regulating animals for zoos that are already heavily regulated. In this bill its states zoos are exempt but if a zoo in the past three years has just one noncompliance violation for failure to allow a facility inspection or interference with inspection the state will seize the zoos primates. This in itself is not fair to zoos. Perhaps you are unaware what that means when a zoo has been cited for that. It means if for any reason the individual was not available when the inspector showed up for an unannounced , unscheduled visit they have to write it up. Meaning if the individual named on the USDA permit was running errands in town on a day there facility was closed and the inspector did not have time to wait for that individual to return to the zoo they then write them up for noncompliance failure to allow facility inspection. This has nothing to do with the care or welfare of the animals it simply means the person just happened to not be at the facility when the inspector showed up for an unscheduled inspection and the inspector did not have the time to wait for the person to return. This is not a just cause to steal those primates from that facility. Also where is the state planning on housing the confiscated primates? Sanctuaries? Sanctuaries that can be citied for the same noncompliance of failure to allow a facility inspection or interferences with an inspection but somehow are given special treatment. Or do you plan to use the overburdened animal shelters that have no knowledge of how to care for primates? Or is the plan just to euthanize healthy and happy animals? Forcing individuals and businesses to carry special liability insurance will hurt private individuals and businesses financially to where most private individuals will not be able to afford such insurance. Forcing this special liability insurance for an animal that has never once caused a death in the USA to a person and very rarely have ever attacked and harmed a human in the USA let alone in Virginia. All in all the wording and goal of this bill is to end primate ownership for individuals and zoos in the state of Virginia. It has nothing to do with safety of the public or animal welfare. It’s about stripping away the little protection citizens of Virginia have from the animal rights extremist that would rather have animals killed than kept as pets or in zoological facilities.The state of Virginia is under attack by animal rights extremist from private pet ownership, to farmers and zoos. Please help stop the lies of the animal rights extremist and protect the rights of the citizens and business owners of Virginia, but most of all protect the primates that will suffer the most from this unnecessary and harmful bill.

As a Virginia citizen and small business owner, I am asking you to oppose House Bill 1768. I own and operate Fort Chiswell Animal Park and we have two primates--Cindy and Gracie--who will be harmed if this legislation is passed. Cindy is in her 30's and Gracie is in her teens. Both were pets before they came to us. When you look at the "exemption" for zoos there are a host of scenarios of why an exhibitor WILL NOT be allowed to keep their primates. In October 2021 and February 2022, we were cited by our USDA inspector, because "A responsible adult was not available to accompany APHIS Officials during the inspection process..." We have ALWAYS operated seasonally. We live on the property. After Labor Day, we go to a reduced schedule of three days a week. Group visits of 20 or more are available by appointment Monday - Thursday. When our inspector visited in October 2021, it was during the week and we were in town running errands. These inspections are unannounced, surprise visits. We had no idea she was coming to the zoo. In February 2022, we were cited again for the same reason. After Thanksgiving weekend, we close the park down until April. We do this every winter and are still taking care of our animals. When the inspector visited this time--unplanned and unannounced--STAFF WERE ON THE PROPERTY. However, our property is approximately 70 acres with animals and barns spread throughout. The inspector did not wait on the property long enough for us to see her. We were cited again and appealed the citation to USDA. THIS WAS A COMMUNICATION ISSUE--NOT AN ANIMAL CARE ISSUE. Delegate Martinez now wants to strip us and other small businesses of our primates for this very reason! He would rather throw Cindy and Gracie into turmoil or have them "humanely destroyed" (killed) than live with us, because of a citation. No true animal lover would be so cruel. Please help us defeat this bill if you care anything about animals. Jeff Archer, Fort Chiswell Animal Park

Mr. Chair and Members of the Committee, The members of the Virginia Animal Owners Alliance ask that you strongly oppose HB 1768. Virginia already has a track record when it comes to primates and it isn't a pretty picture. As you may know, the Animal Law Unit raided the zoo in Winchester in August 2019. The memorandum from the game department that the VAOA obtained through a FOIA request reveals Shenandoah Animal Control asked a wildlife rehabilitator to take the zoo's macaques. However, the rehabilitator was concerned that she did not have the proper facility to house them. Ultimately, the macaques never left the property and were killed on-site. In December 2023 the Animal Law Unit raided the Natural Bridge Zoo. They decided to seize multiple primates. The raid team asked Lois Magill if she could take some of the primates to her horse farm. She told them she did not have a proper place for them. This is preserved in the court transcript. Where are all these primate sanctuaries that are being referenced in HB 1768? Why was the Animal Law Unit seizing primates FROM A USDA LICENSED FACILITY when they didn't even have a proper place to house them? While at Natural Bridge Zoo the Animal Law Unit decided to seize Ted the gibbon. Dr. Dominguez testified that he and Sgt. Erin Brogan caught him (Brogan works for the Shenandoah County Sheriff's Office). He also stated that he has training in capturing primates and that before a seizure happens he has to go step by step with Erin on how to capture them. In spite of his claim, it is obvious to everyone in the zoo community that he DOES NOT KNOW how to capture, handle, or transport a gibbon and neither does Sgt. Brogan. The day of the raid, Gretchen and Timmy heard Ted screaming in terror and walked calmly but quickly towards his exhibit so as not to cause alarm. They could see the raid members screaming at each other--they all seemed to be in a state of panic--before being confronted by Amy Taylor of the Animal Law Unit when they were still over 50 feet from Ted's enclosure. Amy grabbed Timmy's arm to stop him from walking any closer and had them escorted away by Virginia State Police. Gretchen and Timmy were told if they didn't go with the officer they were going to have a problem and it wouldn't go well for them. When Amy Taylor testified on the stand, she stated that two staff members were causing a disturbance and had to be escorted away. This was a lie. When Dr. Dominguez was asked under oath about Ted crying, he coolly stated the gibbon vocalized. Ted later died at Metro Richmond Zoo. Ted's treatment and death obviously had an effect on the jury. They awarded Ted back to the Mogensens, although he could never actually be returned. Ted was an innocent animal who was very content in his home. The greatest threat to his life, safety, and health was the Animal Law Unit when they appeared on the property under the blessing of PETA. THE STATE OF VIRGINIA HAS PROVEN OVER AND OVER AGAIN THEY DO NOT HAVE THE HEART, KNOWLEDGE, OR SKILL TO HANDLE PRIMATES. House Bill 1768 is already planning for the worst: "E. Nothing in this section shall be construed to: 1. Prevent a law-enforcement officer from humanely destroying a primate in compliance with federal and state law if, after reasonable efforts, no zoological or a primary sanctuary is willing and able to provide long-term care for the primate..." Please oppose and defeat this bill. Sincerely, Heidi Crosky Virginia Animal Owners Alliance

Hi There, We are looking for installation partners in your area. NO COST TO YOU. We sell PVC Marble Design Panels to homeowners and contractors. When a homeowner buys panels but is not handy enough to install them themselves, we want to be able to recommend a vetted installation company. Please check out our website to learn more and to apply for partnership: https://gpe-partners.com We are looking forward to working with you. Marc Wagner COO Great Products Enterprise

Hi There, We are looking for installation partners in your area. NO COST TO YOU. We sell PVC Marble Design Panels to homeowners and contractors. When a homeowner buys panels but is not handy enough to install them themselves, we want to be able to recommend a vetted installation company. Please check out our website to learn more and to apply for partnership: https://gpe-partners.com We are looking forward to working with you. Marc Wagner COO Great Products Enterprise

I am writing in support of HB2313 which pertains to annual inspections of boarding establishment. As the CEO of the Animal Welfare League of Alexandria, it was my team who conducted the investigation of the Petsmart at Potomac Yard, Alexandria after the passing who 3 dogs who had recently boarded at that facility. We would very much like to have the ability to inspect such facilities before a complaint of this magnitude with the hope that these tragedies could be prevented. We appreciate Delegate Lopez for championing this bill.

HB 2313: I have been operating a daycare and boarding facility for the last 11 years Why does Virginia need this bill? Who will pay for this inspection? What will be the criteria ? There are no published state standards to my knowledge. Will the “assistant”to the state veterinarian be allowed to be an animal rights activist from PETA or HSUS, since those organizations are likely to volunteer personnel? Any representative of the state should definitely be employed by and paid by the state for liability reasons if nothing else. What will be the process of dealing with unannounced inspections if they show up during times management is not present? For instance, on vacation or at lunch? What if there is no staff available to deal with showing them around at the moment they decide to come? The safety of my clients would be my number one concern, not showing around the inspectors. As an aside, new clients are always interested in inspecting my premises, and I am, of course, happy to accommodate them. No one is forced to utilize my facility. I see no particular need for burdening business owners with these inspections. Additionally, the bill does not specify commercial boarding establishments, so will you be inspecting everyone that signs up for rover.com? Will this bill also include horse boarding establishments and private kennels?

HB 2313: I have been operating a daycare and boarding facility for the last 11 years Why does Virginia need this bill? Who will pay for this inspection? What will be the criteria ? There are no published state standards to my knowledge. Will the “assistant”to the state veterinarian be allowed to be an animal rights activist from PETA or HSUS, since those organizations are likely to volunteer personnel? Any representative of the state should definitely be employed by and paid by the state for liability reasons if nothing else. What will be the process of dealing with unannounced inspections if they show up during times management is not present? For instance, on vacation or at lunch? What if there is no staff available to deal with showing them around at the moment they decide to come? The safety of my clients would be my number one concern, not showing around the inspectors. As an aside, new clients are always interested in inspecting my premises, and I am, of course, happy to accommodate them. No one is forced to utilize my facility. I see no particular need for burdening business owners with these inspections.

What is the purpose of this bill? What are you trying to accomplish? Being that there is a CONSUMPTION WARNING regarding eating these fish and From VDH a "DO NOT EAT" warning on any catfish over 32" I do not support this bill , please vote no

Bill HB1907, HB2335 I FEEL LIKE REMOVING THE ONE 32 INCH RULE WILL HURT THE Trophy blue cat population. There are lots of us that not only enjoy the SPORT of Trophy catfishing, but also make a living guiding for these awesome fish. I feel efforts to remove smaller blue Cats and leave the Trophy fish alone would help in controlling the population. I would hate for future generations to miss out on being able to catch Trophy Blue Cats. I am not in favor of this Bill.

I strongly urge you to vote no on this bill! Trophy catfishing is a passion of mine and many others. These fish bring in a lot of revenue through out of state fisherman like myself and tournaments. It’s truly the biggest thrill to hook into a freshwater giant that could weigh in excess of 100 pounds. There is plenty of small fish for the table leave the 32 inch limit in place to protect the trophy’s!

I don't think it fair to us

I live in Staunton,VA and I want to say to the representatives that read this and the other comments, please vote NO on this bill 2335 that give a free fishing license and incentives to catch blue catfish. This will cause over harvest of these fish that can grow to trophy size. I like many other anglers travel to these body's of water for one reason only, and that is a chance to catch a real trophy catfish. I myself make the journey 12 to 18 times a year for the opportunity. For nearly 20 years I have patronized business,hotel, restaurants, Bed n Breakfasts in the area. Not to mention Buying fishing gear, boats and gas etc.. in the effort to catch a giant blue catfish. If the chance of a catching a true trophy disappears so do all the anglers that visit the area from all over the country. I have talked to anglers from Texas, Mississippi, Alabama, Pennsylvania and they all come to the James river and Gaston and Kerr for the same reason .The trophy sized fish is a very very small percentage of the biomass in the large scheme of things. Say No to the bill and save these trophy fish and the tourism they create.

I stand in opposition to HB 2335 from Simonds. Though I see benefit socially to increasing the availability of fishing, this language is vague and leaves much to interpretation in regards to enforcement, as well as opposition to the fiscal summary as language used can be interpreted as biased and coded. I do not feel it gives an accurate summary of realistic fiscal impact, as enforcement and regulations are not clearly defined. I also believe that this bill leaves opportunities for poaching of other species. Based off of the progression, especially during a winter storm warning covering much of the area affected, limiting access to public comment, as well as the timing it was sent to be heard, I lack confidence in the motives of the sponsor of this bill, as well as the due diligence required in creating it. It does not build trust in legislation, nor do I feel like it addresses the interests and concerns of the public. I feel as though an expanded opportunity to encourage fishing for certain demographics of this species is beneficial, this bill does not accurately address the issue, and places unnecessary burden financially and physically on resources in place to try and enforce such a bill. I see this bill and its progress as unethical and not based in data and science. You do not build confidence and trust pushing something through so secretively, and it has damaged public trust in delegation, despite the apparent “benefit”. The public had less than 24 hours to prepare for this hearing, and the good, hard working taxpayers who voted delegates into office are not being respected as many cannot make adequate plans in such a limited amount of time. This also has the potential for large ecological impacts to these waterways which are already struggling due to the potential of litter, affect on local wildlife and bycatch potential to the native species it is supposedly enacted to protect, as well as the potential impacts it may cause on the grant recipients of the flash freezing programs, also located in these compromised areas.

I am writing in on concern of a bill that is not in best intrest to the sportsman as well as the communities and towns around the Virginia waters that have trophy blue catfish. This should not be passed for the 3 reasons. One, most of the rivers and resivour can not sustain Commercial fishing with no limits on size. Two, The economic impact will be devastating to the towns and communities that depend on many fisherman coming near and far to have a chance at a trophy blue catfish. Commercial fishing and over harvesting will leave an economic devastation for many years to come. The ecosystem in many of the lakes and rivers are balanced and have trophy size in most all species. One Lake I can specifically speak on is Kerr Lake. Removing them will have a negative impact. Finally, This bill opens up Commercial fishing to a extremely negative and in humane starvation and organized gambling at paylakes that will not benefit Virginia in anyway. Paylakes in other states will flock in to take these fish to be caught over and over and eventually die from starvation and stress as these ponds are stagnant shallow water ponds. Please reconsider this bill as of the long term negative economic impacts to many towns and communities as well as the sportsman as these trophy fish take 25 to 30 years to reach the trophy size that so many enjoy catching.

My name is Zakk Royce and I have fished for Blue Catfish on Lake Gaston, Kerr Lake, and the James river my whole life. I grew up targeting these fish with my father, and I have to say they are some of the best memories of my childhood and something that means a lot to me. As time went on the blue catfish in these bodies of water have become more and more popular to fish for. As well as several state record blue catfish being caught, and even a world record blue catfish caught. This has resulted in a lot of anglers from all over the country and even other countries, traveling here to fish for the blue catfish for a chance at one of these trophy fish. With that being said, I have seen what unlimited commercial fishing can do to these fisheries. Before we had the regulation on blue catfish here on Lake Gaston, I personally witnessed major overfishing from out of state commercial fishermen, those of whom also ended up being arrested and charged with multiple offenses before it was all over. North Carolina Wildlife biologists noted major declines in larger blue catfish shortly after. I feel that approving this bill and taking regulations off the larger blue catfish on these bodies of water would be a huge mistake. Not only would it greatly hurt the trophy fishery, but it would also result in a huge loss of revenue in the long run for the local economy around these lakes and rivers. As I mentioned previously many people travel from all over to come here and have a chance at catching one of these trophy fish. These same people spend a lot of money with local fishing guides, lodging, restaurants, etc. Catfishing in general, especially for these trophy blue catfish over 32” has greatly grown in popularity and is steadily growing day by day. There are also multiple major tournaments for large blue catfish that bring in a lot of anglers from all over and a lot of revenue for local communities. Thank you all for your time and consideration in this matter!

I would like to express my support for this bill and applaud its clarification of the Right to Farm Act's protections for small farmers. I am a small farmer in Henrico County with a 10-acre farm. Under Henrico County's ordinances, I should not be able to have a single chicken on my ten acres because I am surrounded on three sides by properties zoned residential. It should not be possible for rezonings off my property to affect use of my property, especially when this place has been a farm for over 200 years. Urban and suburban farms all over Virginia are suffering from overzealous localities trying to ban all livestock, but with no basis for such prohibitions that have any relationship to health, safety, or welfare. In many places, someone could have a parrot, but not a chicken. They could have a pony-sized Great Dane, but not a pony. These ordinances are arbitrary and prejudiced against the farming traditions that have been a part of Virginia's history for millennia. I support this bill and thank the committee for its attention.

Comments Document

Please see attached.

The Virginia Animal Control Association supports this bill as written. We believe an enhanced civil fine for this offense will have a more far reaching impact and act as deterrence to citizen’s who may violate this law.

In Favor of Increasing Free Fishing Days in Virginia: Promoting Outdoor Recreation: Increased Participation: By expanding from three to six free fishing days, more people, including those who might not otherwise fish due to cost, can enjoy this recreational activity. This could lead to a surge in interest in fishing, particularly among families, children, and newcomers to the sport. Health Benefits: Fishing is an outdoor activity that promotes physical health through exercise and mental health through nature therapy. More free days could encourage a healthier lifestyle among Virginians. Economic and Community Benefits: Boost to Local Economies: More fishing days could lead to increased tourism in fishing-centric communities. Local businesses like bait shops, tackle stores, and restaurants would likely see an uptick in visitors on these days. Community Engagement: Free fishing days can serve as community events, fostering social connections and community pride. They could be part of local festivals or conservation days, enhancing community involvement in environmental stewardship. Conservation and Education: Education Opportunities: These days can be used for educational purposes, teaching new anglers about conservation, fishing ethics, and the importance of aquatic ecosystems. It's an opportunity to promote sustainable fishing practices. Conservation Awareness: By making fishing accessible, people might become more invested in the conservation of local water bodies, leading to greater public support for environmental policies and initiatives. Fair Access to Resources: Equity in Access: Fishing licenses can be a barrier for some, particularly for low-income individuals or families. More free days mean more equitable access to natural resources, aligning with principles of fair use of public lands and waters. Youth and Beginners: Free fishing days are particularly beneficial for introducing youth and beginners to fishing without the initial cost, potentially creating a lifelong interest in fishing and conservation. Administrative and Regulatory Balance: Minimal Impact on Revenue: While there might be a slight decrease in license fee revenue, the increase in participation could lead to long-term benefits like more license sales in the future as people get hooked on fishing. Regulatory Flexibility: The proposal still allows regulatory bodies like the Board of Wildlife Resources and the Commissioner of Marine Resources to manage these days strategically, ensuring they align with conservation goals and do not adversely affect fish populations. Conclusion: The expansion of free fishing days is a positive step towards greater public engagement with Virginia's natural resources, promoting both economic and health benefits while fostering a culture of conservation. It democratizes access to one of nature's most enjoyable activities, potentially leading to a more informed, engaged, and environmentally conscious community.

Hi There, We are looking for installation partners in your area. NO COST TO YOU. We sell PVC Marble Design Panels to homeowners and contractors. When a homeowner buys panels but is not handy enough to install them themselves, we want to be able to recommend a vetted installation company. Please check out our website to learn more and to apply for partnership: https://gpe-partners.com We are looking forward to working with you. Marc Wagner COO Great Products Enterprise

In Favor of Increasing Free Fishing Days in Virginia: Promoting Outdoor Recreation: Increased Participation: By expanding from three to six free fishing days, more people, including those who might not otherwise fish due to cost, can enjoy this recreational activity. This could lead to a surge in interest in fishing, particularly among families, children, and newcomers to the sport. Health Benefits: Fishing is an outdoor activity that promotes physical health through exercise and mental health through nature therapy. More free days could encourage a healthier lifestyle among Virginians. Economic and Community Benefits: Boost to Local Economies: More fishing days could lead to increased tourism in fishing-centric communities. Local businesses like bait shops, tackle stores, and restaurants would likely see an uptick in visitors on these days. Community Engagement: Free fishing days can serve as community events, fostering social connections and community pride. They could be part of local festivals or conservation days, enhancing community involvement in environmental stewardship. Conservation and Education: Education Opportunities: These days can be used for educational purposes, teaching new anglers about conservation, fishing ethics, and the importance of aquatic ecosystems. It's an opportunity to promote sustainable fishing practices. Conservation Awareness: By making fishing accessible, people might become more invested in the conservation of local water bodies, leading to greater public support for environmental policies and initiatives. Fair Access to Resources: Equity in Access: Fishing licenses can be a barrier for some, particularly for low-income individuals or families. More free days mean more equitable access to natural resources, aligning with principles of fair use of public lands and waters. Youth and Beginners: Free fishing days are particularly beneficial for introducing youth and beginners to fishing without the initial cost, potentially creating a lifelong interest in fishing and conservation. Administrative and Regulatory Balance: Minimal Impact on Revenue: While there might be a slight decrease in license fee revenue, the increase in participation could lead to long-term benefits like more license sales in the future as people get hooked on fishing. Regulatory Flexibility: The proposal still allows regulatory bodies like the Board of Wildlife Resources and the Commissioner of Marine Resources to manage these days strategically, ensuring they align with conservation goals and do not adversely affect fish populations. Conclusion: The expansion of free fishing days is a positive step towards greater public engagement with Virginia's natural resources, promoting both economic and health benefits while fostering a culture of conservation. It democratizes access to one of nature's most enjoyable activities, potentially leading to a more informed, engaged, and environmentally conscious community.

Comments Document

The Alliance for Plant Based Inclusion (APBI) is opposed to SB 2633. APBI is a coalition of well-known companies that advocates for plant-based food policies that afford consumers the greatest choice, clarity, and flexibility in the marketplace. Our members include ADM, ConAgra Brands, Kellanova, and Kraft-Heinz. Members of the Alliance offer both traditional and plant-based food products appealing to a variety of consumers. APBI’s focus is limited to plant-based foods and doesn’t include cell cultured products or those made with fermentation, insects or fungi. We believe that the bill may hinder consumer choice and clarity, and stifle innovation in the food industry. SB 2633 might prevent makers of plant-based alternatives from providing accurate consumer information as they have been doing for decades. It presupposes shoppers are being misled using traditional terminology when traditional meat terms help them understand the uses and occasions for the plant-based alternative. APBI opposes proposals that would restrict the ability to label and market plant-based products in a truthful way that makes it easy for consumers to understand what they are—and are not—purchasing. These proposals presuppose those consumers are being misled by the use of traditional meat terminology when, in reality, the use of traditional meat terms helps consumers understand the uses and occasions for the plant-based alternative. Misguided attempts to limit communication between companies and their customers are unnecessary, unfair, and in some cases unconstitutional. • Unnecessary: Studies prove that consumers are not misled by labels. • Unfair: These restrictive proposals would unfairly penalize a well-established food category for no reason other than to promote another industry. There is room in the market for everyone, and governments should not be in the position of picking winners and losers. • Unconstitutional: Bills restricting the use of traditional terminology raise legal concerns. Attempts to impose new restrictions run afoul of First Amendment protections that allow companies to label their foods with clear, non-misleading terms. APBI is dedicated to clear and accurate labeling for plant-based foods. Members use terms familiar to consumers not to deceive, but to accurately describe the texture, use, and nature of plant-based products. This approach works to enhance, not diminish, consumer understanding. Labels on our products explicitly indicate their plant-based nature. Today's consumers are increasingly aware and seeking plant-based options for a variety of reasons – health, environmental concerns, and ethical considerations. Consumers are not misled by our labels; on the contrary, they depend on them to make informed decisions aligned with their personal values. The Alliance for Plant Based Inclusion urges you to oppose SB 2633 as it applies to plant-based products. While the goal of ensuring clear and honest labeling is one we share and support, the bill could lead to greater consumer confusion.