Sb186 is the companion bill to Hb 322 Truth in Labeling and public transparency for food--We ask you to support the bill so that consumers know what they are buying and eating. This bill was passed by this committee and both the House and Senate. Please support Sb 186 to insure truth in labeling meat and poultry. Thank you. Virginia Cattlemen's Association Jim Riddell

Vote to help our community!

Please oppose SB344 as it does not include exemptions for USDA licensed zoos. Only accredited zoos are exempted and this is discriminatory.

Please oppose SB344 as it does not include exemptions for USDA licensed zoos. Only accredited zoos are exempted and this is discriminatory.

Mr. Chair and Members of the Committee, The members and supporters of the Virginia Animal Owners Alliance urge you to AMEND SB 344. According to the Virginia Department of Wildlife Resources, there are 127 current/active wildlife exhibitor permittees in the Commonwealth. At this time, the language of SB 344 does not recognize or provide an exemption for wildlife exhibitor permittees to hand-raise and trade their young animals. The General Assembly gave DWR the authority to issue these permits and annual reports are submitted by licensees every year. In spite of this very established system, certain legislative offices are completely unaware. These individuals/facilities have a working relationship with the Department and their personal veterinarians. An exemption for wildlife exhibitors must be added to the language of these bills. Without it, the legislation remains highly and obviously prejudiced towards law-abiding citizens. The wording on hybridization should be struck from this bill. It is built on the misinformation of PETA. Crossbreeding is a natural occurrence and a form of “genetic exchange.” It can play an important role in fortifying species and enables adaptations. It can promote disease resistance and has the potential to form new species. PETA is using a hybrid lemur that used to live at Natural Bridge Zoo as the basis for this proposed ban. This is completely ridiculous. If you do a little research into lemurs, you will discover that hybrid lemurs have been documented in the wild. These animals in particular are known to form hybrid zones and hybridization has been an important driver of their diversity. It is one reason that the island of Madagascar is so special. Lemurs are a prime example of why hybrids matter. Please amend this bill. The VAOA urges you to oppose SB 707. This legislative effort is attempting to criminalize veterinarians and dictate the every action of the pet owner. Whether you like the idea of bark softening or not, there are legitimate reasons that some owners make this decision for themselves and their pet. Supporters of this legislation argue that it is unnatural—but it is also unnatural to spay and neuter. In spite of this, most of us choose to have our pets fixed and they go on to lead very contented lives. The State is already scrutinizing owners for their decisions regarding their animal’s water, diet, vet care, and the choice of if/when to euthanize. These decisions should be carefully made between an owner and their veterinarian. This is no place for the government. The issue of bark softening is no different. Deciding to deem something illegal should never be taken lightly. Some prohibitions simply open up Pandora’s box and ultimately do more harm than good. They can also lead to a lot of unnecessary confusion. What kind of mechanism will be in place to ensure that those who have already chosen to have this procedure performed on their pets will not face prosecution? How will the State protect these owners so they do not face harassment by neighbors and animal control? This law could easily be applied in ways the sponsor does not intend. It is vulnerable to abuse. Please reject this bill. Heidi Crosky, Virginia Animal Owners Alliance

Dear Delegates, I own Fort Chiswell Animal Park in Wythe County. We are licensed through the game department. If SB 344 passes, we need it to be amended to include an exemption for all DWR exhibitors. We do not understand why the legislature would segregate a small amount of animal owners for criminal charges unless it is to get rid of us. The entire section of the hybrid language must be removed. This is just another scheme to get rid of small zoos who house multiple species together. Jeff Archer Fort Chiswell Animal Park

Mr. Chair and Members of the Committee, the Exotic Wildlife Association (EWA) writes in support of the members and supporters of the Virginia Animal Owners Alliance and respectfully urges you to vote NO on House Bill 112/Senate Bill 344. EWA is a national association of alternative livestock owners and breeders dedicated to wildlife conservation, protecting the exotic wildlife industry, and promoting responsible animal stewardship. While we support reasonable regulation, HB 112 is unethical, arbitrary, and harmful to both animal welfare and responsible small businesses for the following reasons: Animal Welfare Concerns The bill’s premature separation provision fails to recognize that bottle-raising is often necessary to save offspring rejected, injured, or orphaned. Requiring a prior written veterinary order creates an impractical barrier that could result in preventable animal deaths. Responsible caretakers regularly provide this lifesaving care. In addition, the bill assigns the Department of Wildlife Resources sole authority to determine the “natural time of weaning” without species-specific standards, creating vague requirements that invite inconsistent and arbitrary enforcement. Scientifically Unfounded Hybridization Ban The prohibition on hybridization ignores well-established genetic principles, including hybrid vigor, which can improve health, adaptability, and conservation outcomes. Hybrid breeding programs are an important conservation and livestock management tool. The bill also assumes different mammalian species cannot be housed together, which is impractical and unsupported, and would impose unnecessary financial and operational burdens on responsible owners. Harm to Small Businesses and Farmers HB 112 disproportionately harms small farmers, breeders, and wildlife professionals who ethically manage alternative livestock. Its vague and restrictive language creates legal uncertainty, threatens livelihoods, and undermines sustainable agriculture and conservation. Vague and Overreaching Language Key terms, including “natural time of weaning” and housing restrictions, lack clear scientific definitions or due process protections, exposing responsible animal owners to arbitrary enforcement. Recommended Amendments At a minimum, we recommend: • Removing the hybridization clause. • Allowing emergency neonatal care, including temporary separation for up to 72 hours until a licensed veterinarian can assess the animal. Conclusion HB 112 is misguided, impractical, and harmful to animal welfare, conservation, and responsible small businesses. We respectfully urge you to reject this bill and instead pursue balanced legislation that protects animals while supporting responsible caretakers. Thank you for your time and consideration.

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

Data Centers take up vast tracts of land (197 - over 400 acres) and consume hundreds of gallons of water and thousands of megawatts in electrical consumption. Data centers will severely tax and lower water tables especially during periods of drought and extended drought through excessive consumption. These Data centers will overburden electric grids and substations as well especially during peak consumption periods. Why can't Data centers use public water systems from water treatment plants or desalination water from the Atlantic or the Chesapeake Bay? Why can't they use retention ponds and recycle water they are using through specialized cooling systems much like a radiator, cooling coils or other modern cooling systems? Who is going to pay for the higher demand? Are these Dta centers going to be given tax breaks? Are consumers going to pay the higher utility bills because of these data centers?

Nature Forward strongly supports SB553. This is a reporting bill which would provide transparency on how much water municipal suppliers are providing to data centers. Knowledge is power! Virginia’s Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) is in the process of creating Regional Water Supply Plans and this data is critical to the success of those plans given the fact that Virginia, namely NOVA, has a higher concentration of data centers than anywhere else in the world. For data centers using water cooling, this information is critical. Please vote “yes” in support of SB553.