NAIS National Animal Identification System Analysis<\/span><\/strong><\/h2>\n![\"NoNAISBumperStickerMini.png\"](\"https:\/\/sandonspaldingstaging.com\/DirtDr\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/12\/NoNAISBumperStickerMini.png\" "\\"NoNAIS")
<\/a><\/p>\nThroughout history, humans have raised animals for food, transportation, and companionship. <\/span>This country has deep agricultural roots, and Texas has a proud history of independent livestock ranches. <\/span>In the last 60 years, however, our country and our state have become increasingly urbanized, with many people losing their connections to animals. <\/span>The livestock industry has become increasingly vertically integrated in the hands of a few large corporations. <\/span>Yet in the face of this increasing industrialization, there has been a growing movement back to the land and animals.
<\/span>
Third-generation ranchers have withstood the economic pressure and held on to their land and their independence; other people have moved away from the cities and begun farming for the first time in their lives; consumers increasingly demand food from these local producers. <\/span>This movement poses great promise for our rural communities and local economies throughout the state. <\/span>And the connection with animals can be seen outside of the context of food, whether it is children playing with baby chicks in their schoolroom or the intense love that horse owners have for their animals.<\/p>\nThe National Animal Identification System, and the Texas Animal Health Commission\u2019s intent to implement it, threatens to cripple or even destroy this essential connection between individuals and animals. <\/span>If fully adopted and implemented, the likely outcome is that animal ownership increasingly will be limited to large entities who can afford to comply and who are willing to accept the government intrusion. <\/span>Yet this program will do virtually nothing to safeguard animal health or human health and welfare.<\/p>\n <\/span>HB 1361, codified at \u00a7161.056 of the Texas Agricultural Code, provides that the Texas Animal Health Commission (\u201cTAHC\u201d) \u201cmay develop and implement an animal identification program that is consistent with the United States Department of Agriculture\u2019s National Animal Identification System.\u201d <\/span>In order to understand the situation, one must therefore begin with the USDA.<\/p>\nThe USDA\u2019s Proposed National Animal Identification System\n<\/p>\n
<\/span>The USDA has not yet adopted regulations for a national animal identification system (\u201cNAIS\u201d). <\/span>In 2005, it published a draft strategic plan and draft program standards for the NAIS. Based on these documents, the NAIS is to be implemented in 3 stages:<\/p>\n(1) Premises registration: every person who owns any livestock animal will have to register their premises with the state and be assigned a nationally unique, 7-character premises identification number.[1]<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/a> <\/span><\/p>\n(2) <\/span>Animal identification: There will be two levels of animal identification: individual animal and group or lot identification. <\/span>Group or lot identification can only be used where groups of animals are managed together from birth to death and not commingled with other animals.[2]<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/a> <\/span>Right now, only poultry and swine are being considered for group identification.[3]<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/a> <\/span>If animals do not meet the requirements for group identification, they will have to be individually identified. <\/span>Every animal will be assigned a unique 15-digit number. <\/span>Animals will be implanted with either a microchip or a radio frequency tag, or otherwise physically identified. <\/span>The tag will have to bear the entire 15-digit number, with the number easily read.[4]<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/a> <\/span>For at least some species, radio-frequency identification devices would be required.[5]<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/a> <\/p>\n <\/span>(3) <\/span>Animal tracking: <\/span>Every time a tag is applied, an animal is moved onto or off the premises, a tag is lost or replaced, an animal is killed or dies (whether at a slaughterhouse or on the farm\/ranch), or an animal is missing, the event will have to be reported to the government within 24 hours.[6]<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/a><\/p>\n <\/span>The USDA\u2019s draft plan notes that the program would initially be voluntary, but would be transitioned into a mandatory program.[7]<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/a> <\/span>The USDA\u2019s timeline indicates that premises registration and animal identification would become mandatory in January 2008, and animal tracking would become mandatory in January 2009.[8]<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/a> <\/span>The regulations currently being proposed by the TAHC, discussed next, are not consistent with this timeline.<\/p>\nProposed Texas Regulations\n<\/p>\n
<\/span>On December 6, 2005, the TAHC proposed regulations to establish mandatory premises registration. <\/span>If adopted, these regulations would require anyone who owns any animals to register their premises with the state.[9]<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/a> <\/span>\u201cAnimal\u201d is defined so as to include essentially every animal except dogs, cats, and hamsters. <\/span>Specifically, \u201canimal\u201d includes \u201clivestock, exotic livestock, domestic fowl, poultry and exotic fowl.\u201d[10]<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/a> <\/span>Livestock, in turn, includes cattle, horses, mules, asses, sheep, goats, and hogs;[11]<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/a> exotic livestock means \u201cgrass-eating or plant-eating \u2026 mammals that are not indigenous to this state\u201d and include animals from the deer and antelope families;[12]<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/a> poultry includes chickens, turkeys, and gamebirds;[13]<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/a> and exotic fowl means any avian species that is not indigenous to this state. The premises registration includes the GPS coordinates.[14]<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/a><\/p>\n <\/span>While the proposed regulations address only premises registration, they are clearly intended to be simply the first part of the entire system. <\/span>Indeed, the TAHC has stated this fact: \u201cPremises registration is the foundation for all other components of the NAIS.\u201d[15]<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/a> <\/span>Moreover, the proposed regulations include definitions for the next phase of the program. <\/span>For example, the proposed regulations define animal identification numbers and group identification numbers.[16]<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/a> <\/span>The proposed regulations even include a definition for \u201cRadio Frequency Identification Device (RFID)\u201d: \u201cunique individual animal identification with an identification device that utilizes radio frequency technology.\u201d[17]<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/a> <\/span><\/p>\n <\/span>The TAHC\u2019s Fact Sheet that was released with the proposed premises registration regulations also reviews the \u201cbasics of the National Animal Identification System,\u201d including animal identification and animal tracking. <\/span><\/p>\nThe Flaws with the NAIS and the Proposed Texas Regulations\n<\/p>\n
I. <\/span>The TAHC\u2019s proposed regulations are premature\n<\/p>\n <\/span>The TAHC\u2019s proposed regulations establishing mandatory premises registration are premature. <\/span>The USDA\u2019s draft plan sets January 2008 as the goal for mandatory premises registration. <\/span>There is no basis in the national plan, which HB 1361 specifically references, for moving forward with mandatory requirements so quickly.<\/p>\n <\/span>Further, the USDA has not even published proposed regulations for premises registration or the rest of the animal identification system, much less adopted a final plan. <\/span>Yet the TAHC is moving ahead with laying the \u201cfoundation\u201d and defining the terms that will be critical to the second and third stages of the system. <\/span><\/p>\n <\/span>Notably, HB 1361 is entirely permissive. <\/span>The Legislature repeatedly used the word \u201cmay,\u201d and there are no directives to the TAHC to take any actions by any deadline.<\/p>\nII. <\/span>There is no statutory authority for the NAIS, which limits the TAHC\u2019s authority\n<\/p>\n <\/span>HB 1361 specifically limited the TAHC\u2019s authority: \u201cthe commission may develop and implement an animal identification program that is consistent with the United States Department of Agriculture\u2019s National Animal Identification System.\u201d[18]<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/a> <\/span>By using the word \u201cthat,\u201d the Legislature created a restrictive clause, one giving essential information about the preceding noun.[19]<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/a> <\/span>In other words, the TAHC\u2019s authority is inextricably tied to the national system.<\/p>\n <\/span>This raises two barriers to the TAHC\u2019s development of an animal identification plan. <\/span>First, as discussed above, the USDA has yet to adopt regulations. <\/span>With only a draft proposed plan, there is nothing for the TAHC to be consistent with. <\/span>TAHC cannot determine what the appropriate scope of premises registration should be when the rest of the program has yet to be fully developed and is subject to uncertainty.[20]<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/a><\/p>\n <\/span>Second, the USDA itself lacks statutory authority to adopt an animal identification plan. <\/span>The USDA has stated that the Animal Health Protection Act is the source of its authority.[21]<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/a> <\/span>But that statute addresses only import and export of animals, interstate travel, quarantines areas, and related programs.[22]<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/a> <\/span>The statute contains no provisions that mention registration of every livestock owner\u2019s farm or a nationwide or intrastate animal identification and tracking program, nor are there any provisions that would provide authority for such a program. <\/span>Indeed, there were multiple bills introduced in the 108th Congress to amend the statute to provide for an animal identification system and limit disclosures of the information collected under the Freedom of Information Act, and none were adopted.[23]<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/a> <\/span>There are three bills that have been introduced during the current Congressional session for the same reasons.[24]<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/a> <\/span>Congress clearly recognizes the USDA\u2019s lack of authority, even if the USDA has ignored that problem. <\/p>\nIII. <\/span>The animal identification system would violate the Constitution\n<\/p>\n <\/span>In addition to ignoring the lack of statutory authority, the USDA and TAHC appear to have ignored the Constitutional violations posed by the USDA\u2019s proposed plan. <\/p>\n <\/span>The proposed system violates the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments\u2019 protections of property and fundamental rights. <\/span>The plan would establish a huge, permanent database of individual citizen\u2019s real property (the homes and farms where animals are kept) and personal property (the animals themselves). <\/span>Until now, the only general systems of permanent registration of personal property in the United States have been for two items that are highly dangerous if misused: motor vehicles and guns. <\/span>The government has no basis to subject the owner of a sheep or a horse to more intrusive surveillance than the owner of a gun. <\/span>For example, while the owner of a gun can generally take that gun and go hunting on other properties without involving the government, the proposed system would require the animal owner to report, within 24 hours, any instance of the animal leaving or returning to the registered property. <\/span>Moreover, with respect to food animals, this plan would heavily burden individuals\u2019 ability to raise food for themselves and their families. <\/span>It is difficult to imagine a right more fundamental than the right to raise food to survive.<\/p>\n <\/span>Further, having collected information on people\u2019s private homes and property, the proposed premises registration regulations fail to protect this information. The TAHC\u2019s proposed regulations allow the information to be released to the attorney general\u2019s office, the USDA, the Department of Homeland Security, and the Department of State Health Services.[25]<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/a> <\/span>Moreover, the proposed regulations allow the TAHC\u2019s Executive Director to release information to any person the Director considers \u201cappropriate\u201d if the Director determines that livestock \u201cmay be threatened\u201d (not that they actually are threatened) and the release of information is \u201crelated to actions the commission may take under this section.\u201d[26]<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/a> <\/span>This broad, open-ended provision violates the rights of every person who is required to register his or her private residence under the proposed regulations.<\/p>\n <\/span>The proposed system may also violate the Fourth Amendment\u2019s protections against unreasonable searches and seizures, the equal protection clause, the First Amendment\u2019s freedom of religion clause, and constitutional restrictions on the taking of property.<\/p>\nIV. <\/span>The stated rationale \u2013 to track animal diseases \u2013 is flawed and does not support this <\/span>program\n<\/p>\n <\/span>First, it is critical to recognize that animal diseases, in both wild and domesticated animals, have been part of the human existence for thousands of years. <\/span>The excuse of disease cannot justify every intrusion into citizens\u2019 privacy and burdens on their property rights. <\/span>The 9\/11 hijackers used box blades to hijack the planes, but most citizens would object to regulations requiring every person to register their tools and report to the government whenever they took their tools off the property. <\/span><\/p>\n <\/span>Second, the TAHC has presented no evidence that diseases are not adequately addressed by the current programs. <\/span>Indeed, the State Auditor found that the current programs are sufficient:<\/p>\nTAHC has in place established systems and processes used for the surveillance of livestock and for the prevention, eradication, and control of livestock diseases. <\/span>Audit testing verified that the Agency has in place processes to test livestock for diseases, monitor the movement of livestock, and take action on diseased livestock.
<\/a><\/p>\nThroughout history, humans have raised animals for food, transportation, and companionship. <\/span>This country has deep agricultural roots, and Texas has a proud history of independent livestock ranches. <\/span>In the last 60 years, however, our country and our state have become increasingly urbanized, with many people losing their connections to animals. <\/span>The livestock industry has become increasingly vertically integrated in the hands of a few large corporations. <\/span>Yet in the face of this increasing industrialization, there has been a growing movement back to the land and animals. The National Animal Identification System, and the Texas Animal Health Commission\u2019s intent to implement it, threatens to cripple or even destroy this essential connection between individuals and animals. <\/span>If fully adopted and implemented, the likely outcome is that animal ownership increasingly will be limited to large entities who can afford to comply and who are willing to accept the government intrusion. <\/span>Yet this program will do virtually nothing to safeguard animal health or human health and welfare.<\/p>\n <\/span>HB 1361, codified at \u00a7161.056 of the Texas Agricultural Code, provides that the Texas Animal Health Commission (\u201cTAHC\u201d) \u201cmay develop and implement an animal identification program that is consistent with the United States Department of Agriculture\u2019s National Animal Identification System.\u201d <\/span>In order to understand the situation, one must therefore begin with the USDA.<\/p>\n The USDA\u2019s Proposed National Animal Identification System\n<\/p>\n <\/span>The USDA has not yet adopted regulations for a national animal identification system (\u201cNAIS\u201d). <\/span>In 2005, it published a draft strategic plan and draft program standards for the NAIS. Based on these documents, the NAIS is to be implemented in 3 stages:<\/p>\n (1) Premises registration: every person who owns any livestock animal will have to register their premises with the state and be assigned a nationally unique, 7-character premises identification number.[1]<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/a> <\/span><\/p>\n (2) <\/span>Animal identification: There will be two levels of animal identification: individual animal and group or lot identification. <\/span>Group or lot identification can only be used where groups of animals are managed together from birth to death and not commingled with other animals.[2]<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/a> <\/span>Right now, only poultry and swine are being considered for group identification.[3]<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/a> <\/span>If animals do not meet the requirements for group identification, they will have to be individually identified. <\/span>Every animal will be assigned a unique 15-digit number. <\/span>Animals will be implanted with either a microchip or a radio frequency tag, or otherwise physically identified. <\/span>The tag will have to bear the entire 15-digit number, with the number easily read.[4]<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/a> <\/span>For at least some species, radio-frequency identification devices would be required.[5]<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/a> <\/p>\n <\/span>(3) <\/span>Animal tracking: <\/span>Every time a tag is applied, an animal is moved onto or off the premises, a tag is lost or replaced, an animal is killed or dies (whether at a slaughterhouse or on the farm\/ranch), or an animal is missing, the event will have to be reported to the government within 24 hours.[6]<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/a><\/p>\n <\/span>The USDA\u2019s draft plan notes that the program would initially be voluntary, but would be transitioned into a mandatory program.[7]<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/a> <\/span>The USDA\u2019s timeline indicates that premises registration and animal identification would become mandatory in January 2008, and animal tracking would become mandatory in January 2009.[8]<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/a> <\/span>The regulations currently being proposed by the TAHC, discussed next, are not consistent with this timeline.<\/p>\n Proposed Texas Regulations\n<\/p>\n <\/span>On December 6, 2005, the TAHC proposed regulations to establish mandatory premises registration. <\/span>If adopted, these regulations would require anyone who owns any animals to register their premises with the state.[9]<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/a> <\/span>\u201cAnimal\u201d is defined so as to include essentially every animal except dogs, cats, and hamsters. <\/span>Specifically, \u201canimal\u201d includes \u201clivestock, exotic livestock, domestic fowl, poultry and exotic fowl.\u201d[10]<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/a> <\/span>Livestock, in turn, includes cattle, horses, mules, asses, sheep, goats, and hogs;[11]<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/a> exotic livestock means \u201cgrass-eating or plant-eating \u2026 mammals that are not indigenous to this state\u201d and include animals from the deer and antelope families;[12]<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/a> poultry includes chickens, turkeys, and gamebirds;[13]<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/a> and exotic fowl means any avian species that is not indigenous to this state. The premises registration includes the GPS coordinates.[14]<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/a><\/p>\n <\/span>While the proposed regulations address only premises registration, they are clearly intended to be simply the first part of the entire system. <\/span>Indeed, the TAHC has stated this fact: \u201cPremises registration is the foundation for all other components of the NAIS.\u201d[15]<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/a> <\/span>Moreover, the proposed regulations include definitions for the next phase of the program. <\/span>For example, the proposed regulations define animal identification numbers and group identification numbers.[16]<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/a> <\/span>The proposed regulations even include a definition for \u201cRadio Frequency Identification Device (RFID)\u201d: \u201cunique individual animal identification with an identification device that utilizes radio frequency technology.\u201d[17]<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/a> <\/span><\/p>\n <\/span>The TAHC\u2019s Fact Sheet that was released with the proposed premises registration regulations also reviews the \u201cbasics of the National Animal Identification System,\u201d including animal identification and animal tracking. <\/span><\/p>\n The Flaws with the NAIS and the Proposed Texas Regulations\n<\/p>\n I. <\/span>The TAHC\u2019s proposed regulations are premature\n<\/p>\n <\/span>The TAHC\u2019s proposed regulations establishing mandatory premises registration are premature. <\/span>The USDA\u2019s draft plan sets January 2008 as the goal for mandatory premises registration. <\/span>There is no basis in the national plan, which HB 1361 specifically references, for moving forward with mandatory requirements so quickly.<\/p>\n <\/span>Further, the USDA has not even published proposed regulations for premises registration or the rest of the animal identification system, much less adopted a final plan. <\/span>Yet the TAHC is moving ahead with laying the \u201cfoundation\u201d and defining the terms that will be critical to the second and third stages of the system. <\/span><\/p>\n <\/span>Notably, HB 1361 is entirely permissive. <\/span>The Legislature repeatedly used the word \u201cmay,\u201d and there are no directives to the TAHC to take any actions by any deadline.<\/p>\n II. <\/span>There is no statutory authority for the NAIS, which limits the TAHC\u2019s authority\n<\/p>\n <\/span>HB 1361 specifically limited the TAHC\u2019s authority: \u201cthe commission may develop and implement an animal identification program that is consistent with the United States Department of Agriculture\u2019s National Animal Identification System.\u201d[18]<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/a> <\/span>By using the word \u201cthat,\u201d the Legislature created a restrictive clause, one giving essential information about the preceding noun.[19]<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/a> <\/span>In other words, the TAHC\u2019s authority is inextricably tied to the national system.<\/p>\n <\/span>This raises two barriers to the TAHC\u2019s development of an animal identification plan. <\/span>First, as discussed above, the USDA has yet to adopt regulations. <\/span>With only a draft proposed plan, there is nothing for the TAHC to be consistent with. <\/span>TAHC cannot determine what the appropriate scope of premises registration should be when the rest of the program has yet to be fully developed and is subject to uncertainty.[20]<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/a><\/p>\n <\/span>Second, the USDA itself lacks statutory authority to adopt an animal identification plan. <\/span>The USDA has stated that the Animal Health Protection Act is the source of its authority.[21]<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/a> <\/span>But that statute addresses only import and export of animals, interstate travel, quarantines areas, and related programs.[22]<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/a> <\/span>The statute contains no provisions that mention registration of every livestock owner\u2019s farm or a nationwide or intrastate animal identification and tracking program, nor are there any provisions that would provide authority for such a program. <\/span>Indeed, there were multiple bills introduced in the 108th Congress to amend the statute to provide for an animal identification system and limit disclosures of the information collected under the Freedom of Information Act, and none were adopted.[23]<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/a> <\/span>There are three bills that have been introduced during the current Congressional session for the same reasons.[24]<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/a> <\/span>Congress clearly recognizes the USDA\u2019s lack of authority, even if the USDA has ignored that problem. <\/p>\n III. <\/span>The animal identification system would violate the Constitution\n<\/p>\n <\/span>In addition to ignoring the lack of statutory authority, the USDA and TAHC appear to have ignored the Constitutional violations posed by the USDA\u2019s proposed plan. <\/p>\n <\/span>The proposed system violates the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments\u2019 protections of property and fundamental rights. <\/span>The plan would establish a huge, permanent database of individual citizen\u2019s real property (the homes and farms where animals are kept) and personal property (the animals themselves). <\/span>Until now, the only general systems of permanent registration of personal property in the United States have been for two items that are highly dangerous if misused: motor vehicles and guns. <\/span>The government has no basis to subject the owner of a sheep or a horse to more intrusive surveillance than the owner of a gun. <\/span>For example, while the owner of a gun can generally take that gun and go hunting on other properties without involving the government, the proposed system would require the animal owner to report, within 24 hours, any instance of the animal leaving or returning to the registered property. <\/span>Moreover, with respect to food animals, this plan would heavily burden individuals\u2019 ability to raise food for themselves and their families. <\/span>It is difficult to imagine a right more fundamental than the right to raise food to survive.<\/p>\n <\/span>Further, having collected information on people\u2019s private homes and property, the proposed premises registration regulations fail to protect this information. The TAHC\u2019s proposed regulations allow the information to be released to the attorney general\u2019s office, the USDA, the Department of Homeland Security, and the Department of State Health Services.[25]<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/a> <\/span>Moreover, the proposed regulations allow the TAHC\u2019s Executive Director to release information to any person the Director considers \u201cappropriate\u201d if the Director determines that livestock \u201cmay be threatened\u201d (not that they actually are threatened) and the release of information is \u201crelated to actions the commission may take under this section.\u201d[26]<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/a> <\/span>This broad, open-ended provision violates the rights of every person who is required to register his or her private residence under the proposed regulations.<\/p>\n <\/span>The proposed system may also violate the Fourth Amendment\u2019s protections against unreasonable searches and seizures, the equal protection clause, the First Amendment\u2019s freedom of religion clause, and constitutional restrictions on the taking of property.<\/p>\n IV. <\/span>The stated rationale \u2013 to track animal diseases \u2013 is flawed and does not support this <\/span>program\n<\/p>\n <\/span>First, it is critical to recognize that animal diseases, in both wild and domesticated animals, have been part of the human existence for thousands of years. <\/span>The excuse of disease cannot justify every intrusion into citizens\u2019 privacy and burdens on their property rights. <\/span>The 9\/11 hijackers used box blades to hijack the planes, but most citizens would object to regulations requiring every person to register their tools and report to the government whenever they took their tools off the property. <\/span><\/p>\n <\/span>Second, the TAHC has presented no evidence that diseases are not adequately addressed by the current programs. <\/span>Indeed, the State Auditor found that the current programs are sufficient:<\/p>\n TAHC has in place established systems and processes used for the surveillance of livestock and for the prevention, eradication, and control of livestock diseases. <\/span>Audit testing verified that the Agency has in place processes to test livestock for diseases, monitor the movement of livestock, and take action on diseased livestock.
<\/span>
Third-generation ranchers have withstood the economic pressure and held on to their land and their independence; other people have moved away from the cities and begun farming for the first time in their lives; consumers increasingly demand food from these local producers. <\/span>This movement poses great promise for our rural communities and local economies throughout the state. <\/span>And the connection with animals can be seen outside of the context of food, whether it is children playing with baby chicks in their schoolroom or the intense love that horse owners have for their animals.<\/p>\n