July 15, 2026
via email

Joint Committee on Environment and Natural Resources

The 194th General Court of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts
24 Beacon Street
Boston, MA 02133

JointCommittee.Environment@malegislature.gov

Support for H.5137 – An Act Protecting Avian Rights and Restricting Ongoing Trade

To the Members of the Joint Committee:

On behalf of the American Anti-vivisection Society (AAVS), we respectfully submit this comment in strong support of H.5137, An Act Protecting Avian Rights and Restricting Ongoing Trade. The legislation represents a measured and thoughtful effort to reduce the commercial exploitation of parrots by prohibiting their sale and compensated transfer while preserving placement through animal rescue organizations and public shelters (H.5137 §§ 1–2). 

H.5137 reflects an important principle of animal welfare law.  Specifically, Congress designed the Animal Welfare Act (AWA), to establish minimum nationwide protections, not to occupy the entire field of animal welfare regulation.  Indeed, 7 U.S.C. § 2145(b) of the AWA specifically states the following:

The Secretary [of Agriculture] is authorized to cooperate with the officials of the various States or political subdivisions thereof in carrying out the purposes of this chapter and of any State, local, or municipal legislation or ordinance on the same subject. 

Federal minimum standards are only minimum standards. States are not only permitted, but where reality demonstrates persistent gaps in protection, are justified in adopting more protective and comprehensive measures.

H.5137 continues a tradition of filling in federal gaps for animals.

The Animal Welfare Act Establishes a Regulatory Floor, Not a Ceiling

The AWA provides a baseline for regulating commercial animal dealers and breeders. However, compliance with the Act should not be mistaken for a determination that animal welfare concerns have been fully addressed.

As stated above, federal law establishes minimum standards applicable nationwide. Indeed, animal welfare has historically remained an area in which states exercise broad police powers to reflect local policy judgments and evolving scientific understanding.

H.5137 does not conflict with federal law and is in fact complementary to the AWA’s specific authorization, and encouragement, of cooperation with state and local authorities to carry out the purposes of the Act.

Recent Investigations Demonstrate Continuing Welfare Concerns

Recent investigations demonstrate that serious welfare concerns continue to exist within portions of the commercial bird breeding industry.

A February 2026 exposé by Vox, in concert with a damning undercover investigation by World Animal Protection, documented industrial scale breeding operations where investigators observed overcrowded cages, poor sanitation, inadequate enrichment, and deceased birds within breeding facilities. The investigation further described conditions suggesting that commercial production frequently prioritizes efficiency over the complex behavioral and psychological needs of parrots (Torrella, Many of America’s Pet Parrots and Parakeets Come from Factory-Style “Bird Mills,” Vox, Feb. 6, 2026). 

As AAVS wrote in our regular feature “For the Birds” in the Spring 2026 issue, regarding one such Oklahoma-based breeder of parakeets, who would be covered under H.5137:

[The World Animal Protection undercover investigator] documented a “pile of dead parakeets and severed body parts in a trash can, including one dead bird placed headfirst into a red SOLO cup.” Vox called it a “parakeet mill.” The investigator said it was “factory farm-like.” 

These findings are particularly troubling because they occurred within an industry already subject to federal regulation.  Indeed, this is underscored by World Animal Protection’s undercover investigator Pete Paxton, as quoted by Vox:

“These bird mills I filmed are not outliers,” Paxton said in his investigation video. “All of the places that I went to are USDA-licensed, government regulated. Essentially, these places are operating legally and [largely] in compliance, so when it comes to bird mills…that’s as good as a place can get.”

The USDA’s Problematic History Regarding Enforcement of the Animal Welfare Act 

Every single presidential administration since George H.W. Bush in 1992 has featured a damning USDA Office of Inspector General audit criticizing the agency’s enforcement of the AWA. In August 2025, Science magazine reported that there were just 77 USDA inspectors, despite over 17,000 entities regulated under the AWA (David Grimm, Facing “Impossible” Workload, USDA Struggles to Oversee Lab Animal Welfare, Science, Aug. 19, 2025).  Science further reported that the almost complete absence of USDA fines since the Supreme Court decision in SEC v. Jarkesy in June 2024 has further crippled enforcement, quoting a high-ranking official at the USDA’s Animal Plant and Health Inspection Service, which enforces the AWA: 

“Jarkesy has hamstrung us the most” the APHIS manager says. “We have an inability to do anything, even when we see bad stuff. 

Moreover, Science quoted that same high-ranking USDA source as saying that the advent of the bird regulations in 2023 has had a “seismic” impact on the agency’s enforcement. 

Science further noted that the USDA has a problematic history of AWA enforcement: 

The agency was already under fire for alleged lax enforcement. Audits by USDA’s Office of the Inspector General over the years have chastised APHIS for failing to punish violations of the Animal Welfare Act and for not properly investigating repeat offenders. In a recent, high-profile case, the agency faced scathing criticism for taking no action against Envigo—a leading supplier of beagles for biomedical research—despite the documented suffering of thousands of animals at one of its breeding facilities. 

This problematic USDA enforcement record is common knowledge. As Vox reported in its February 2026 exposé: 

Federal action is needed, too. For decades, bird breeding operations were exempt from the Animal Welfare Act, which means they weren’t inspected by the USDA for potential welfare violations. That changed a couple years ago. The move represents progress, but the USDA’s enforcement of the Animal Welfare Act has long been terrible. Improving it would help, and so would congressional action that requires all bird breeders be subject to inspection. Currently, smaller operations — those that sell fewer than 200 small birds annually, or eight larger birds annually — are exempt. 

In fact, in June 2026, AAVS, along with co-plaintiffs the Avian Welfare Coalition and Humane World for Animals, sued the USDA, alleging that the agency’s exempting those above-referenced “smaller operations” that sell 200 or less small birds annually, was arbitrary and capricious (Humane World for Animals et al v. Rollins, No. 1:26-cv-02253 (D.D.C. filed June 25, 2026)).

Existing Federal Oversight Has Not Adequately Addressed These Problems

In addition to the problematic USDA enforcement history cited above, AAVS’s review of USDA inspection reports, specifically related to birds, raises significant questions regarding whether existing federal oversight has adequately protected parrots, and other birds within the commercial trade.

AAVS analyzed USDA inspections following implementation of the federal bird regulations and found numerous examples of bird breeders maintaining identical inventories across multiple inspections despite later investigations documenting disturbing welfare conditions. One breeder highlighted in the Vox investigation had USDA inspection report inventories of exactly 6,000 parakeets across three USDA inspections spanning nineteen months.  Moreover, USDA documented no citation classified as causing a “serious or severe adverse effect” on the birds’ health or well-being just three days before the Vox exposé was published. 

One example that exemplifies AAVS’s concerns regarding inspection report inventories is Nationwide Birds, a California based bird breeder. The facility reported completely identical inventories of 2,694 birds, with each of the 18 different species listed having the same exact number of birds—for inspections that took place 18 months apart. (AAVS, For the Birds, Spring 2026).

AAVS concluded that the available data suggests important limitations in the effectiveness of current federal oversight and questioned whether existing inspection and enforcement mechanisms adequately protect birds covered under the Animal Welfare Act (AAVS, For the Birds, Spring 2026). 

Similarly, in our Winter 2025 edition of the A-V Magazine, AAVS documented that Inotiv, the parent company of Envigo, continued to receive both federal and state government funding despite pleading guilty to the crime of conspiring to knowingly violate the AWA relating to its notorious beagle breeding facility in Cumberland, Virginia.  This illustrates broader concerns regarding reliance upon minimum regulatory standards and voluntary compliance as the principal mechanisms for protecting regulated animals (AAVS, Does Crime Pay?, Winter 2025). 

These reports do not suggest that every federally licensed breeder operates inhumanely, but they do demonstrate that compliance with minimum federal standards has not consistently prevented significant welfare concerns from occurring.

Massachusetts Has Already Recognized the Need for Stronger Protections

H.5137 also builds upon policies already adopted within the Commonwealth.

In 2016, the City of Cambridge enacted an ordinance restricting the commercial sale of animals in pet shops while permitting placement through animal shelters and rescue organizations. The ordinance recognized that many consumers are unaware that commercially sold animals often originate from large-scale breeding operations and observed that USDA licensing alone does not guarantee humane conditions. It further concluded that encouraging adoption through shelters and rescue organizations better serves both people and animals (City of Cambridge, Order #197, Restrictions on the Sale of Animals in Pet Shops, 2016). 

Additionally, outside of the pet trade, Cambridge has passed one of the only pieces of legislation in the U.S. that strengthens protection for animals used in research.  The legislation requires municipal oversight of laboratory animal research that extends beyond federal requirements.  This is accomplished through an independent Commissioner of Laboratory Animals which requires mandatory inspections, permitting, and institutional review procedures (Cambridge, Mass., Code of Ordinances ch. 6.12, Care and Use of Laboratory Animals, 1989). 

H.5137 reflects the same policy judgment on a statewide level. Rather than expanding commercial markets, it encourages adoption and permanent placement while reducing demand for birds bred for commercial sale.  Additionally, H.5137 furthers Massachusetts’s broader tradition of strengthening animal welfare when federal regulation has been insufficient.

Conclusion

Federal regulation has established minimum protections for birds in the pet trade.  However, recent investigations, USDA inspection analyses, and longstanding concerns regarding the commercial bird trade demonstrate that minimum federal standards alone have not adequately prevented significant welfare problems.

Massachusetts has both the authority and the opportunity to provide stronger protections. H.5137 does so in a measured manner that builds upon existing policy within the Commonwealth while advancing the humane treatment of parrots.

For these reasons, we urge the Committee to report H.5137 favorably.

Respectfully,