Pertains to confinement of animals for food producing purposes; prohibits any person to tether or confine any pig during pregnancy, calf raised for veal, or egg-laying hen who is kept on a farm for all or the majority of any day in a manner that prevents such animal from lying down, standing up and fully extending its limbs and turning around freely; establishes that commission of such crime shall constitute a class A misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment for a period not to exceed one year and/or fine not to exceed $1,000.
S05683 would add a new section to New York’s Agriculture and Markets Law establishing minimum confinement standards for certain farm animals kept for food production. The bill applies to three categories of “covered animals”: pigs during pregnancy, calves raised for veal, and egg-laying hens. It would make it unlawful to tether or confine those animals on a farm for all or most of a day in a way that prevents them from lying down, standing up, fully extending their limbs, and turning around freely.
The bill also defines key terms such as “farm,” “enclosure,” and “turning around freely,” and it specifies several exemptions, including transportation, rodeos and fairs, slaughter, research, veterinary care, and the seven days before a pig’s expected birth. A violation would be a class A misdemeanor, punishable by up to one year in jail, a fine of up to $1,000, or both. The measure would take effect 24 months after becoming law.
If enacted, the bill would expand New York animal welfare law by creating a specific statewide confinement standard for pregnant pigs, veal calves, and egg-laying hens, while preserving existing cruelty protections under other laws. It would authorize enforcement by the Department of Agriculture and Markets and by animal cruelty officers, and it would allow local governments to adopt stronger humane-treatment rules so long as they do not conflict with the state standard. The bill would directly affect livestock producers, egg producers, veal operations, and animal welfare enforcement agencies.
Based on the bill text and the absence of recorded committee debate or votes in the provided materials, the measure appears to be framed as an animal welfare and anti-cruelty proposal rather than a contested procedural change. Its structure suggests support for stronger humane treatment standards for farm animals, but the available record does not show formal voting outcomes or public testimony to indicate the level of legislative support or opposition. The inclusion of a delayed effective date also suggests an effort to give the agricultural sector time to adjust if the bill were enacted.
The main point of contention is likely to be the balance between animal welfare and agricultural production practices. Supporters would view the bill as preventing inhumane confinement systems such as gestation crates, veal crates, and battery cages, while opponents may argue that the restrictions impose compliance costs, interfere with standard farming methods, or create enforcement burdens. Another possible issue is the criminal penalty, since violations would be treated as misdemeanors, and the bill’s allowance for local laws may raise questions about how state preemption and local animal welfare ordinances would interact.