Louisiana Senate Bill SB36

Louisiana 2010 Regular Session

• Introduced: 3/29/10
• Refer: 3/29/10
• Report Pass: 4/7/10
• Engrossed: 4/13/10
• Refer: 4/14/10
• Report Pass: 5/13/10
• Enrolled: 6/2/10
• Chaptered: 6/8/10
• Passed: 6/8/10

Caption

Requires the Louisiana Board of Animal Health to establish animal care standards for livestock and poultry. (gov sig)

Impact

The legislation explicitly prohibits local governments from enacting their own ordinances regarding the care of these animals, thereby centralizing the authority at the state level. This means that municipalities and parishes will not have the power to impose additional local regulations, which could potentially streamline compliance for farmers and ensure consistency across all regions. However, local entities may petition the Board for amendments to these standards if specific needs arise, thus ensuring that local concerns can still be addressed under a structured process.

Summary

Senate Bill 36 mandates the Louisiana Board of Animal Health to implement regulations governing the care and well-being of specific livestock, including bovine, equine, ovine, caprine, porcine, and poultry. The bill establishes the authority for the Board to develop and enforce standards that ensure the animals' health, care practices, and welfare are aligned with generally accepted agricultural practices and responsibilities. A primary goal of the bill is to enhance animal health standards across the state while ensuring uniformity in practices across various agricultural sectors.

Sentiment

The overall sentiment surrounding SB 36 reflects a supportive stance from agricultural stakeholders who view the bill as a necessary step towards improving animal welfare standards. However, there might be concerns regarding local governance and the removal of local regulatory authority. Supporters emphasize the importance of having standardized practices for animal care, while critics may argue that such statewide regulations could overlook unique local agricultural and environmental conditions.

Contention

Notable points of contention include the bill's restriction on local control of animal welfare standards, raising debates about the balance between state oversight and local governance. Opponents may argue that local governments understand their communities and agricultural practices better and should retain the authority to enact relevant standards. The requirement for local ordinances to be vetted and approved by the state could be viewed as a bureaucratic hurdle that may inhibit local efforts to enhance animal care based on localized needs.