Contact Us

IAWA

Current Affairs

This is the page you should bookmark and visit any time you want to know what we are currently working on and where your membership money is being channeled. These are the projects we are dedicating the majority of our time and budget to.

We sincerely hope our members will read below and realize the tremendous amount of personal time and money the IAWA board members are dedicating on our industry’s behalf for the minimal financial support requested.

We welcome input from anyone regarding misinformation or further information on the following issues or more importantly, new ones. We respectfully ask that non-fact based opinions by those opposing the views of IAWA not be submitted.

* Blue text denotes most recent input.

It is important that we don’t loose focus and let the animal rights extremist groups get a foot up above us on the below mentioned issues. We can not afford to throw in the towel - ever! We must remain united, strong, and most important, funded. We are still battling USDA and F&G on several VERY important issues -  battles we expect to eventually find their way into court rooms.

The politicians who authored last year's bills (that we opposed) have had months to meet with their opposition and negotiate deals. They will edit the language in their revised bills that will exempt and/or remove their opposition which will allow them focus and go after the smaller private industry (us)! For years, they banked on the fact that we are not as well organized, known, or funded! Last year was the second year IAWA showed otherwise and we do not want our impact to lessen.

We are counting on the pledged money that everyone agreed to pay in order to finance our continuing battles and urge all to honor those pledges to allow us to do so.

If you need an updated pledge roster to remind you, please contact Barbara (see the Who we are/Our Board page ) for more information.

7/2010 The city of Sacramento is revisiting its permit process for performing animals that visit their city. Although the new proposed language being introduced by Sacramento Animal Services is aimed more at circus than any other industry, we felt it was detrimental to the entertainment industry also therefore after soliciting input from members and compiling the data,  IAWA opposed the language and made recommendations for changes that might allow us to support the effort. The second draft addressed many of our concerns but a few concerns still remained. At the city council meetings, it became very apparent that the Sacramento City Council has its fair share of activist on board, Sandy Sheedy being one of them who attacked Ringling Bros. specifically, showing PETA videos! The revised version one we can live with and after Ms Sheedy’s attempt to motion and vote on the original version being passed, the motion failed (barely) and the ordinance was pushed to the next meeting. We are currently supporting the amended version and awaiting an update on the matter.

• HR669  As many of you have hopefully already learned from receiving your IAWA Emails, HR 669 is an anti-animal bill that would without a doubt, have an extremely negative impact on any/all animals in entertainment. Current laws require studies and scientific proof to be accomplished prior to an animal being added to the list of prohibited species that can not be moved state to state or imported into the U.S.. HR669 was an attempt to turn that law upside down, placing ALL animals on that list and requiring the studies to be done after the fact to remove them from the list ~ then allowing them to be imported or transported state to state. HR669 has an extremist animal activist agenda written all over it!!! It is HARD TO BELIEVE that in these times, legislators would be so led astray to dedicate their time, reputations and tax payers money on such a biased, unnecessary and unrealistic bill!  As of today, 5/14/09, our information is as follows on this matter: There was a hearing on HR 669 last week and while it was not officially killed thanks to all the opposition the sponsor acknowledged that there were problems with the bill and that it would need to significantly amended. We’re Not sure if anything at all is going to happen but it will not move without big changes and it does not appear to be a priority for anyone. As always, we’ll keep our eyes on this one and keep you posted.

AB1122 - is a California bill to Ban Animals sold ourside of certain venues. It bans the display, sale, giving away etc... of any venue that is not a pet store or the like... The overall effect would have an extremely negative impact on bird shows, reptile shows, cat shows, aquarium shows and more. This is yet another stepping stone towards the wrong people having complete control over our animals and eventually, it will remove animals from our lives completely!!! It is over written, unnecessary, and riddled with hidden agenda therefore we are asking all to do as IAWA has done, oppopse this bill. Go to www.pijac.org for more info and to see how you can help.

 early in April so we had to respond asap. Although notice was sent out to all member soliciting comment, few were returned however those that were returned were forwarded to AHA on IAWA’s behalf as well as comments from our board. The final draft is forthcoming. Those wishing to see the proposed PDA should contact IAWA via email. 

• 2/09 FYI!  PET OWNERS
• CA wants to legislate a 9% tax on all veterinary services, including meds. This is really reprehensible at a time when so much is being done to heighten awareness regarding caring for animals. Veterinarians, whose training and licensing is as rigorous as that of MDs will now have their care taxed as though they were dispensing canned goods. The cost of surgeries, neutering, etc. is high—an additional 9% will discouragge many from giving their pet care.
• Subject: No veterinary tax in California, please!
• This only takes 5 seconds - you can punch the numbers one after the other. Say NO to taxes on our vet services!
• (916) 445-2841: then, 1 - 5 - 1 - 2
• Please call the governors's office and make it known that balancing the budget at the expense of our pets' health is not acceptable!!! It only takes about 20 seconds because it's all automated.
  Call 916-445-2841. Press 1 for English.   Press 5 for the veterinary tax proposal.   It will ask you to press 1 if you're calling about the veterinary tax proposal, so press 1.  Then press 2 to oppose the tax.

10/08  Santa Clara County Animal Advisory Commision Ban on animals in circuses and rodeos in the unincorporated Santa Clara County and County owned property.

A public hearing is being held on Oct. 9th, at 6:30pm to hear the above matter. As far as the rodeo concerns, the activities the ordinance would make illegal are not typical activities that are practiced in American Rodeos today ( steer tailing, and horse tripping) but there is also a requirement for a veterinarian to be present for all other competitions ( team roping, steer wrestling, etc...) The concern here surrounds what is considered a “rodeo”. It could mean that all who enjoy such events at private gatherings or their homes could be required to have a veterinarian present for those events. We would obviously help oppose this requirement.

The ordinance also contains the typical boilerplate language prohibiting the use of a guide tool on elephants. Again, a transparent attack on the circus industry that would also destroy the use of elephants in film and television. We hope to attend this hearing and we have already sent in our written opposition. More on this later.

9/08 Request to ban exotics in Monterey County

It was brought to IAWA president, Charlie Sammut’s attention that a resident of Monterey County (his home) as requested that the County Board of Supervisors adopt a ban on exotics in the County. Upon researching the proposal, it has been discovered that it is a boilerplate copy of the same request being fought in L.A. County. In short, the same activist group is soliciting individuals to introduce the exact same ordinance in any/all counties in California. We are addressing the Monterey County issue but if anyone finds the same request being introduced in their county, they should let us know asap.

1/09 At the first hearing of this ordinance before the Dept. of Animal Services, a committee appointed by the Monterey Board of Supv. addressed Animal Services after which,  it was unanimously decided that the ordinance was redundant to existing law, unenforceable, and unnecessary based on a historical need for such an ordinance and the already taxed demands for funding in Monterey County. Both the appointed committee and Animal Services of Monterey Co. voted against the bill as well recognized the hidden agenda that the ordinance presented against circuses. Testimony by Charlie Sammut was secondary to that of the head Health Services in Monterey Co. who was most effective in enlightening all to the negative impact the bill would have on the County. Our sincere thanks to all for recognizing such and not being lulled into the smoke screen presented by the legislation’s author(s). As for the 10 page dissertation those activist authors have on line currently attacking the leaders of Monterey County and Charlie (and his family believe it or not), it just supports the allegations of those who cry out against them. We would encourage all to recognize their lack of professionalism and childish tactics before supporting such a group!

3/26/08 Los Angeles City Animal Services Amends Rules & Regs

We got wind of this earlier this Month but more and more of you are now receiving notice of the changes the L.A. Animal Services Dept. is implementing. To answer some FAQ: YES, we do question the legality in which the changes were made! NO, we can not find where they followed proper procedure or protocol. YES, we have our legal eagles on it due to the multitude of outrageous demands that this Dept. is making. It is clear and obvious to all they are under an extreme animal activist influence and want animals removed from entertainment in their city! No, it is not just aimed at elephants. So in short, we’re on it and we’ll keep you posted. This is a GOOD example of how such nightmares can spring up at any given moment and why it is SO IMPORTANT that you keep your pledges coming in so we can always afford to move on such matters swiftly and professionally.

10/08: Oct. 7th, a public hearing will be held before the L.A. City Council for the staff of the Animal Services Dept. to voice their “vote of no confidence” against their superior, Mr. Ed Boks. Evidently, we are not the only ones at odds with Mr. Bok’s behavior. Those interested should contact IAWA for more information. We’ll be sure to keep you posted on the outcome.

6/08: After bombing the L.A. Animal Services Commission as well as the Mayor’s office with complaints regarding the “new requirements” adopted by L. A. Animal Services in a fashion we felt was extremely underground, a public meeting was held on May 27th in L.A. that was not posted until the very last legal moment! Every attempt was made by the L.A. Animals Services Dept. to shelter the information from us but some of our members were there and a letter from our legal advisors was presented. To sum it up quickly, most agreed that the meeting could not have been run more poorly and unprofessionally or could not have accomplished less. At the very last moment prior to the meeting, the director of L.A. Animal Services revised the requirements leaving no time for anyone to respond to the revisions! Regardless, the revisions were still a list of undoable, unsafe, and unnecessary requirements that we still feel will be detrimental to the animals and the public! Once again, Mr. Boks, a clearly admitted activist against animals being used in entertainment, solicited NO input from anyone actually in the industry for which the requirements govern. He didn’t even solicit the input of American Humane!

At the end of the meeting, the Commission felt force to adopt the revised requirements at the bequest of Mr. Boks who explained to them that he now realized how the requirements he authored previously that they adopted were in fact, unworkable and unenforceable! But the commission clearly stated that the adoption of the revised requirements was a TEMPORARY arrangement until further input could be collected to address the many concerns of those affected by the requirements. So now, we are submitting yet another letter to those concerned reiterating our desire to participate in that process as the activist groups that Mr. Boks belongs to have been doing up to now! We advise our members to be VERY careful with even the current requirements for there are some serious legal and liability issues that are present and unanswered for those who meet the requirements as they are written! Rest assured, L.A.A.S. will not be in a courtroom to back you if a members of the public or one of your animals suffers from an poorly written or thought out requirement! We will keep you posted and we will not lie down on this one ~ we promise!

Special thanks to the few IAWA members who attended the meeting and/or sent in letters per our request.

3/09 - The L.A. Animal Services Dept. has recently issued a new draft of the proposed above described application/regulations they hope to have the city adopt. Unfortunately, there are still many issues that would make filming in L.A. with animals impossible. We are reviewing and sending comments now. We welcome any and all input prior to the meeting to be held in L.A. on April 6th. Please contact Charlie Sammut or Steve Martin for more info. Please try to attend the meeting.

5/09 - The L.A. City Mayor has announce the resignation of Mr. Ed Boks. So there you have it. Question is, who will take his place, will they have the same bias against animals in entertainment? Will they belong to the same activist groups who oppose animals in entertainment? I guess we’ll all find out soon and together. Our fingers are crossed.

3/26/08 : SB 1424    Some of you have contacted us regarding SB1424 introduced by  Assemblyman Machado recently regarding the modification of California F&G Code regarding wild animals... We’ve contacted our lobbyist they along with their other clients in the animal industry feel the bill as is today should have no impact on us. It is merely a clean-up bill to rid the code of language that doesn’t pertain to anything any longer. We’ll keep an eye on it regardless. 

As always, if you need any other information, please don’t hesitate to contact Charlie ASAP at (831)455-3180 or charlie@wildthinginc.com

3/08 : Many showed up for the meeting in Santa Clara, ourselves included. Rodeo supporters were by far the loudest and most numerous voices! By the end of the meeting, the Board of Supv. decided not to move the motion for the ban forward. It is unclear still as to whether of not the issue was killed or if further information is being formunated by the County Council but we are watching it either way.

H.R. 5909 / HR 1947 for 2008 : Haley’s Act

This is a federal bill that was introduced on July 26th, 2006 by Rep. Jim Ryun [R-KS]

The bill amends the Animal Welfare Act to eliminate ALL contact in ANY situation with big cats. Big cats are defined as lion, tiger, leopard, cheetah, cougar, jaguar or any hybrid of such species.

Obviously, Congressman Ryun has not considered the use of these animals in entertainment! He did however attempt to buffer the resistance to H.R. 5909 by exempting all AZA zoos from this legislation. For these reasons and many more, IAWA is opposing H.R.5909. Letters are being sent immediately by our attorney. This bill is currently in the first step of the legislative process. Last Action: Referred to the House Committee on Agriculture.

We will obviously watch the status of this bill carefully. Although we understand and agree with the underlying intent of the bill - to eliminate people with “pet” lions and tigers etc... and prosecute those who attempt to put them near the public - we can not support a bill the goes after the professionals / experts who can accomplish public contact safely and responsibly.

We have invited the author to discuss amendments with us which would allow us support his efforts.

6/07 : This bill is awaiting executive comment requested from USDA. We are seeking meeting with our Congressman right now to ask for help opposing this bill. We URGE all our members to do the same. For more info., contact Charlie asap.

1/08 - The bill has now been reintroduced for the 07/08 legislative session as HR 1947 by Congresswoman Nancy Boyda. We will forward our correspondence that went to the original author, Jim Ryun, immediately. We will again invite the author to discuss amendments with us that will allow us to support her efforts. A letter is being sent to her as well as the long list of cosponsors (many of which are from California.) WE URGE ALL OF YOU TO DO THE SAME. Here’s a link for a list of those sponsors: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h110-1947 We understand and even agree with the need for similar legislation but the language currently in the Haley Act is yet another transparent attempt by animal activist groups to mislead the sponsor and eliminate animals from entertainment. As always, feel free to contact Charlie at any time for further info. prior to writing your letters. Currently, the status of this bill is still ironically awaiting executive comment from USDA.

3/1/08 As you can see, we’ve moved this issue to the top of the list for USDA has in fact sent their “executive comment” to the author and as predicted, they’ve recommended amplifying the proposed act to eliminate all contact for any human and a big cat. (contact Charlie via email for copy of that response) They recommended an end to the use of exotic cats in the film and entertainment industry completely making NO allowances for professional industry! They suggested that no such activity can be accomplished safely, professionally or responsibly. Unlike other activities that are inherently dangerous by nature (ie: skydiving, race car driving, shark diving, etc...), USDA truly feels they have the right to eliminate the rights of responsible professionals to take the risks we take with our animals regardless of a track record that is unblemished in our industry. Needless to say, we are focussing on this issue and have our legal/lobbying firm focussing on it with us. We will keep you very posted!!!

FYI - 3/26/08 - today I received a phone call from USDA responding to my FOIA REQUEST that I made in March of 2003!!! The woman said the request had just been assigned to her! This USDA dept. is a MESS!!!

animal control agencies to be responsible for enforcement and administration of this program. How the state can pass a law that forces a city or county to oversee a program it can not afford to oversee is beyone us. Aside from the obvious injustices and the negative impact this bill has on our need for some specialized mixed breeds in our industries, we are still going after this bill! Mr. Levine unfortunately makes it impossible to even consider alternative language or happy mediums in his bills.

3/27/07 Letters of opposition are currently going out from our attorney to all concerned. We are in a dialog with all major cat and dog and cat organizations opposing the bill. We are also seeking the support of the veterinary organizations to defeat this bill. 

6/07 - This bill is currently in the Senate for assignment to committee. We continue to help many others fight this bill. Its latest amendments still end up with an extremely vague and unnecessary piece of legislation that most professional feel will not work. It has extreme enforcement issues and extreme negative financial impacts on those charged with enforcing it. For more info on how you can help us, please email Charlie at charlie@wildthingsinc.com asap.

7/07 - Further hearing to be set - No action taken since.

1/2008 - We do have it on good authority that Levine does intend to keep this bill alive in 2008 therefore we keep the issue on this page.

These new interpretations shut down the use of big cats (what USDA is now calling cougars, cheetahs, leopards, lions, tigers, and hybrids thereof) in professional still photo shoots completely. If further shuts down the use of those species in live shows, fundraising efforts, education, training schools etc. Exemptions are trying to be made by some for film sets but the AWA has no definition of a film set.

Attempts to deal with the issue on a local level by many across the country, including IAWA, have met with negative results. On January 25th, 2006, IAWA board members along with a representative from an AZA institution met with USDA’s head of APHIS/Animal Care, Chester Gipson and the Western head of APHIS/Animal Care, Dr.Gibbens. Also present from USDA were Mike Smith (local inspector) and Kathy Garland (head of all inspectors).  We were given several hours to present a power point and overhead presentation prepared by IAWA board members. When all was said and done, Chester Gipson asked that we put all our views in writing and submit them with as much documentation and scientific evidence as possible.

 selective enforcement issues continue to pour in..  We are in the process of having our attorney draft a formal request for a response to our letter prior to the exploration of legal action against USDA for their activities. We have been informed that AZA is also exploring legal action and we are in a dialog with Ringling, sharing our supporting documents in the hope they will do the same. As unfortunate as it may be, many predicted USDA would not work with anyone out of court on this matter. Lastly, member Doc Antle has already filed suit against USDA on his own behalf. IAWA is supporting all efforts to require uniform and legal application of the Animal Welfare Act.

 8/30/06 - We’ve now learned that USDA has again “reinterpreted” their own Animal Welfare Act to now realize that declawing and defanging is no longer an acceptable practice. Before you all pick up the phone to call, rest assure we are very much on top of this. We are currently (and finally) discussing a federal lawsuit against USDA for blatantly ignoring the proper procedures and running the dept. in an underground fashion that goes way beyond the scope of the Animal Welfare Act! How they can allow an activity for the past 50 years then decide today that it is no longer acceptable is a question we will demand an answer to!

We are working hand in hand with several other organizations this USDA issue in the hope of possibly uniformly approaching the problem. Obviously we will keep all members posted as we know more.

1/07 - This issue is still on the table. Our attorney received a response from USDA that he is currently working on a strategy for. In short, USDA is waiting for the results of federal legislation that is being introduced (Haley Act) that will do their dirty work for them... We are working on this issue and will continue to dedicate the time and funding necessary to hopefully arrive at a fair, safe and humane solution for all.

6/07 We continue to solicit any information anyone may have regarding what they might suspect as being underground or selective enforcement on the part of their inspectors or the USDA office. It is in fact painting a very clear picture of a questionable activity! Our battle is now going above USDA-APHIS itself and attempting to deal with the U.S. Secretary of Agriculture.

1/2008 - Probably due to the status of the Haley Act (see below), still no movement on this issue by USDA so we continue to monitor the activity closely.

Calif. Dept. of F &G - Regulation Issues:

As many of you know, due to a law suit filed by animal activists several years ago, Calif. Dept of F&G settled out of court by agreeing to the reassembly of the F&G Advisory Committee to revisit the language in Title 671, make recommendations to the Director of F&G at which time he would decide which recommendations he will accept. IAWA board members Charlie Sammut and Jackie Navarro were appointed to this committee as well as Barbara Dicely as an alternative.  We share this appointment with some of the loudest names in animal activism along with representatives from Ringling, AZA, and other private industry groups. Although we have gone on record voicing our concerns that the make up of the the committee is stacked in the activist direction, we attend all the meetings (held 2-3 times annually) and hash out the issues of Title 671 page by page only to vote at the end of the day on the issues and submit the numbers to the Director. As always, travel costs and time to represent IAWA is donated by the board members.

One of the more heated issues at the table is the inspection process for which we are all so familiar with. This activists no longer want veterinarians to be able to inspect our facilities. They feel their law suit settlement with the Dept. states that veterinarians will no longer have the ability to do this and that the Dept. must enter into private agreements with private agencies or individuals to accomplish these inspections. The Dept. awaits the committee’s recommendations. Based upon the Department’s budgetary problems today, it has instructed the committee to arrive at solutions that will not cost the Dept. more money. We have made it very clear to the Dept. that we feel veterinary inspections are still the most economical, professional and reasonable means of inspecting.

Unfortunately, a sad aspect that we are now realizing is that when the activists at the table see a vote go a direction they object to, they attempt to circumvent the committee’s work by finding a legislator to author legislation that will overwrite F&G regulations or they threaten additional law suits against the Dept. One such attempt was AB820, which would have forced the committee to finish their work in an unreasonable amount of time.

8/06: At one of the last meetings, we were interupted by an Animal Rights Activist Group who entered our meeting and started video taping us. After much debate and huge delays, they were escorted off the property by F&G officers. We were assured by F&G that our right to meet privately would be protected . Well, so much for that! F&G has once again caved into the threats of that activist group and now notified us that although they still question the legality of allowing these activist into our meeting, they are going to allow it. Should the committee itself refuse to let them in, we could be sued individually and F&G would not defend us - even though we are there at their request. It truly is a BAD JOKE! Those of us IAWA members on the committee have still to decide if we fill comfortable maintaining our position and being video taped while doing so. It only increases the size of the targets we currently wear on our backs. A meeting has not been scheduled since we received the notice. We will keep you informed as decisions are made. This committee is supposed to be ongoing for several more years.

1/07 - Our next Committee meeting was held on 1/25/07 in Sacramento. The Animal Rights Extremists who convinced F&G to allow them entrance into all these meetings as well as the ability to video tape the meetings were there to argue that our meeting was illegal per the “Bagley Keen Act”. Most of the meeting was spent attempting to clarify why F&G felt we were in compliance and little else was accomplished. Special thanks to memer, Rob Dicely who attended the meeting to support IAWA.

On 4/25/07,

Our next meeting is scheduled for 4/25 We urge and invite any and all IAWA members to attend, as the animal activists intend to do. Please contact Charlie (See our board page) for more information if you can help.

On 2/5/08,

Our next meeting is schedule for 2/5/08. We urge and invite any and all IAWA members to attend, as the animal activists intend to do. Please contact Charlie (See our board page) for more information if you can help.

2/2010 F&G released yet again, new regulations for title 671. We reviewed the changes and several IAWA member attended the public hearings and although the outcome of the meetings were extremely confusing, it appears as though the changes even if adopted would have little impact on us but we are still attempting to get clarification on all of it.

This one doesn’t even have a name other than USDA’s most current injustice:

USDA has arbitrarily decided to make declawing and de-fanging illegal across the board. Now regardless of how many of our members feel about these activities, our objection once again is USDA’s blatant disregard for public process by just deciding to and announcing a change with absolutely no input from those it will affect! Yet another brick thrown through our window with a note attached that says, “compliments of the extreme animal rights influence currently infecting the USDA”!

Our attorneys have written a letter to USDA informing them that IAWA members will not adhere to this new rule until it goes through due process as well as requesting a meeting with them to discuss the rule’s impact on our industry. We also mentioned how our meeting in January with USDA in S.F. and our efforts to complete a detailed report on our concerns went unanswered and ignored. This letter went above the heads of those we attempted to deal with in S.F. .

As always, we’ll keep you posted on this matter along with all the rest.

No further information available yet for 2008

More recently, on tiger job in L.A., Officers from L.A. Animal Services voiced their opposition to talent being allowed to work in close proximity to the tiger on set stating that this is a new policy that they felt should have been in effect a long time ago...

A strong letter has been authored by our IAWA attorney and forwarded to the L.A. City Attorney and we are awaiting a response on this matter.

We keep this issue on our current Affair page for we never received a response from the L.A. City Attorney and we are not convinced the issue has gone away. We welcome any and all to call with information about further incidents with Mr. Boks or the L.A. Animal Services Dept.

1/07 AZA takes a stand against animals in Entertainment...

Recently, AZA has informed us that they will no longer allow entertainment companies to advertise employment opportunities on the AZA website. They do not feel such activities coincide with their mission statements regardless of their members who compete against us and participate in the same activities. Although we are extremely disappointed with this decision, we continue to solicit a dialog with the powers to be in AZA in an attempt to persuade them to reconsider. We feel our animals are every bit as deserving of the best quality of care we can find. We’ve asked AZA to simply place a disclaimer on their site explaining their position to all who visit the site but they did not feel that was enough. Many of us have worked on projects that have benefited and propagated AZA facilities - to include fundraising and advertising for zoos. That was also discounted and ignored in their reasoning. Although AZA guidelines discourage entertainment type activities with the animals, many of their members still do so ~ many competing against private industry for such commercial work. We’ll continue to reopen the dialog and hope to resolve the matter in the near future but to date, they stand firm. For those familiar with AZA, you know that they are currently as divided with each other as they are now with us. The organization is unfortunately weakening because of it and we hope the realize it soon.

Again, we keep this issue on our current affair page for we feel AZA’s activities will play an important roll in the future of our industries. 

1/2008 - S.F. Zoo Tiger Escape Incident - this is a good example of how AZA’s activities will effect us. California Law exempts facilities from the minimum standards  set forth in California Fish and Game Code Title 671 if they are: ... accredited by and meet the “REQUIREMENTS” of AZA. This is basically how the exemption is written in the law! After the tiger escaped from the S. F. Zoo and killed a spectator in December of 2007, AZA issued a letter stating that they have NO “REQUIREMENTS” for a tiger enclosure, just a “RECOMMENDATION” from one of their subcommittees. So in essence, the law is written to exempt AZA facilities provided they have something that in fact, doesn’t even exist! We realize that AZA must protect itself for having accredited S.F. Zoo with it’s 12-1/2ft. barrier wall (which would not meet Calif. F&G regulation without a top on the enclosure and did not meet the AZA 16ft. “recommended” height) but it did bring to light that AZA’s exemption from Title 671 as well as their exemption from other legislation leaves AZA facilities ungoverned and without minimum standards! For this reason, the exemption needs to be revisited immediately. We would hope AZA would support this action to protect their organization, visitors and most important, the animals.