Agricultural animals; care by owner, penalty. (HB1541)

Introduced By

Del. Bobby Orrock (R-Thornburg)


Passed Committee
Passed House
Passed Senate
Signed by Governor
Became Law


Care of agricultural animals by owner; penalty.  Provides standards of care specifically for agricultural animals that ensure accommodation for customary farming activities. The bill also clarifies certain procedures for the seizure and impoundment of agricultural animals. Read the Bill »


Bill Has Passed


12/30/2010Prefiled and ordered printed; offered 01/12/11 11100322D
12/30/2010Referred to Committee on Agriculture, Chesapeake and Natural Resources
01/18/2011Assigned ACNRsub: #1 Agriculture
01/18/2011Impact statement from DPB (HB1541)
01/24/2011Subcommittee recommends reporting with amendment(s) (9-Y 0-N)
01/26/2011Reported from Agriculture, Chesapeake and Natural Resources with substitute (22-Y 0-N) (see vote tally)
01/26/2011Committee substitute printed 11104049D-H1
01/27/2011Read first time
01/28/2011Impact statement from DPB (HB1541H1)
01/28/2011Read second time
01/28/2011Committee substitute agreed to 11104049D-H1
01/28/2011Engrossed by House - committee substitute HB1541H1
01/31/2011Read third time and passed House BLOCK VOTE (98-Y 0-N)
01/31/2011VOTE: BLOCK VOTE PASSAGE (98-Y 0-N) (see vote tally)
02/01/2011Constitutional reading dispensed
02/01/2011Referred to Committee on Agriculture, Conservation and Natural Resources
02/14/2011Reported from Agriculture, Conservation and Natural Resources with amendments (14-Y 0-N) (see vote tally)
02/15/2011Constitutional reading dispensed (40-Y 0-N) (see vote tally)
02/16/2011Read third time
02/16/2011Reading of amendments waived
02/16/2011Committee amendments agreed to
02/16/2011Engrossed by Senate as amended
02/16/2011Passed Senate with amendments (40-Y 0-N) (see vote tally)
02/17/2011Placed on Calendar
02/18/2011Senate amendments agreed to by House (82-Y 12-N)
02/18/2011VOTE: ADOPTION (82-Y 12-N) (see vote tally)
02/24/2011Bill text as passed House and Senate (HB1541ER)
02/24/2011Impact statement from DPB (HB1541ER)
02/24/2011Signed by Speaker
02/24/2011Signed by President
02/26/2011Signed by President
03/28/2011G Approved by Governor-Chapter 754 (effective 7/1/11)
03/28/2011G Acts of Assembly Chapter text (CHAP0754)


This bill was discussed on the floor of the General Assembly. Below is all of the video that we have of that discussion, 3 clips in all, totaling 4 minutes.


robert legge writes:

The poultry industry will probably have a problem with this section "3. Veterinary treatment as needed to prevent impairment of health or bodily function when such impairment cannot be otherwise addressed through animal husbandry or humane destruction".

Jorg writes:

This is a dreadful amendment. Why should we require that livestock animals (including horses) seized for humane reasons be sold at auction (where many will be slaughtered), while denying localities the right to send them to humane organizations? This should not be the state's call, rather that decision should reside at the local level. This is yet another overreach by big government and one that is totally unnecessary.

Tim2011 writes:

A terrible bill that effectively weakens the already minimal laws protecting animals from cruelty. The only requirement for an agricultural animal to have a healthy life, according to this bill, is "adequate food and water." Wow -- we're really shooting for the stars here!

It's no wonder that the bill originated in the factory farming industry, which subjects pigs, chickens, and cows to horrific conditions in order to maximize their profits. It's supported by the VA Agribusiness Council and the Farm Bureau, so that should tell you all you need to know: this is all about protecting the economic interests of corporate "farms" and has NOTHING at all to do with animal welfare.

Tom writes:

It appears that Section B.3 will now require that the location (rather than disposition) of impounded animals be automatically provided. This has the potential to put humane organizations and shelters at risk and subject to harassment, and they would now have to guard their premises against owners intent on retrieving their animals. If the State Vet's office really needs this information, they can ask for it. It doesn't need to be automatically provided and thus available to the owner. This is putting humane facilities at risk unnecessarily.

Derick writes:

It appears that a lot folks are upset with these bills hb1541 and sb1026 Mmmm could it be that most of the folks that are upset are hsus people because as a animal/ fowl owner I'm all for it. I don't want these special intrest groups telling me how to feed or water my animals/ fowl. This is a good step in the removal of HSUS. I'm sorry did I say that.

Tom writes:

Nice try. I am a farmer who is proud of the care I take of my livestock. So, yes. I suppose I am part of a special interest group. But the only people who will benefit from these bills are bad guys who need legal protection from prosecution for being bad guys. I guess the "lot of folks" who are upset with these bills are just nice, normal people.