The Karnataka Poultry Farmers and Breeders Association (KPFBA) has opposed the draft Prevention of Cruelty to Animal Act (Amendment Bill, 2022), which it believes, will harm the poultry sector as there is no distinction between commercial animals (poultry, turkey etc) and other types of animals.

In a letter to OP Chaudhary, Joint Secretary (Animal Welfare), Department of Animal Husbandry and Dairying, Government of India, the KPFBA President, Sushanth B Rai, said the proposed law is vague and would lead to confusion and litigation unless there is clarity about how animals are classified.

Clear differentiation

He said there should be a clear differentiation between the following: pet animals: birds, cats, dogs, rabbits, etc; draught animals: donkeys, mules, etc; commercial animals for food: poultry, turkey, aquaculture, etc; animals for performance and entertainment: horses, dogs, monkeys, etc.; and zoo animals: all wildlife in captive conditions.

Stating that one common law to address all the above different animals will create chaos and would be a disaster in nature, he said as every animal has different genetics, nutritional needs, bio-security requirements, housing needs, etc., each of them needs a different law as per their needs, which should be considered on priority.

Rai said similar to the Wild Life Protection Act, 1972 — a separate act for the wild animals living in the forests — the PCA Act should be bifurcated into two parts. “One Act that should take care of animals that are used for entertainment purposes and film shooting purposes, and the second Act should take care of animals/birds which are reared for human consumption or commercial reasons such as poultry, dairy, goat farming, etc,” he said.

Separate Act

The draft was not drafted by taking into consideration the views of the poultry sector, he said, adding it took into consideration only animals used for entertainment and film shooting purposes. The KPFBA has demanded a separate Act for poultry or other livestock that is consumed by humans.

As per the proposed amendment to Section 10 (1), the Animal Welfare Board has been empowered, while the KPFBA wants the State Department of Animal Husbandry to be the nodal agency.

The KPFBA has sought exclusion of amendment to Section 10 (2) which empowers the agencies to enter and inspect poultry farms. Entry should be allowed only after observing biosecurity protocols by a qualified veterinarian only, he said.

Misuse of law

The insertion of 11C (offence by poultry farms or livestock industry) is vague and will lead to unnecessary harassment of poultry farmers and misuse of law, he said.

On the amendment in Section 34 – which says “Provided the animals so seized shall be kept in the custody of the local SPCA or recognised animal welfare organisation, except the complaint, as per the order of the Jurisdictional Magistrate in accordance with the rules under this Act.” — he said it is not clarified who will take accountability in case of mortality of the seized flock/animals held by the local SPCA or animal welfare organisation.

Immediate changes

The government should look at these observations on priority as there are over 10 lakh poultry farmers and entrepreneurs and millions of workforce who are directly and indirectly dependent on the poultry sector, he said.

The KPFBA has sought immediate changes to the amendments in the PCA Act to accommodate the concerns of the poultry sector. Poultry farmers are food producers in India and this law (PCA Act 1960) should be amended considering the ground reality and financial condition of poultry farmers, he added.

comment COMMENT NOW