Expands the definition of crops, livestock and livestock products to include purpose-bred animals raised for research, service animals, working dogs or any working animals in service on a farm.
This bill amends the Agriculture and Markets Law to expand the definition of “crops, livestock and livestock products” to include certain purpose-bred animals. The new category would cover working dogs, including law enforcement dogs, military dogs, detection dogs, protective security dogs, search dogs, service dogs, therapy dogs, guide dogs, hearing dogs, livestock- and wildlife-control dogs, other service animals, and research animals raised or maintained for regulated biomedical research.
The bill is framed as a definitional change within the agriculture statute rather than a direct regulatory program. By placing these animals within the statutory definition, it could affect how they are treated under provisions of agricultural law that reference crops, livestock, or livestock products, potentially extending agricultural protections, classifications, or program eligibility to these animals and the people or entities that breed, train, maintain, or use them.
The bill would amend section 301 of the Agriculture and Markets Law by adding a new paragraph defining purpose-bred animals as part of the statutory universe of crops, livestock, and livestock products. This could influence the application of existing agricultural laws, programs, and protections that rely on those definitions, particularly for breeders, trainers, farms, research facilities, and organizations using working dogs or service animals. Because the bill is definitional, its practical effect would depend on how other provisions of state law incorporate these terms.
There is no recorded committee transcript or vote history in the provided materials, so no formal debate or roll-call sentiment is available. Based on the bill’s caption and text, the measure appears to be a technical or supportive expansion intended to recognize purpose-bred animals used in service, agriculture, and research. The absence of opposition or recorded controversy suggests the proposal may be relatively straightforward, though that cannot be confirmed from the available record.
No specific points of contention are documented in the provided materials. Potential areas of concern, if raised in later discussion, could include whether the expanded definition would create unintended eligibility for agricultural benefits or protections, how broadly “purpose-bred animals” should be interpreted, and whether research animals and service animals should be grouped with livestock for legal purposes. However, no stakeholder positions or objections are recorded here.