Comment from Victoria A Windland

RE: DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service 9 CFR Part 2 [Docket No. APHIS-2005-0118] I am a firm believer in a double gated entry to prevent risk of escape of an animal to the public. Most responsible licensee's do provide some form of safety measures to reduce the possibility of animal escape and/or injury by an animal to the general public. That said, I do object to the cage to cage transfer which in essence prevents me from having contact with my animals and the ability to train sound husbandry behaviors. As a trainer and exhibitor of large felines, I have full contact with my animals and this amendment would encroach on my daily interactions and conditioning of behaviors that would promote safety and allow movement for possible emergencies as well as routine Vet care. My animals are lead trained within a secure compound, how would you then recommend training of animals, which is conducive to safety if contact is prevented during movement? This would only put animal handlers at greater risk and diminishes the whole concept of training. This would apply not only to carnivores but primates as well. I would also like to point out that the film and movie industry use animals on the set all the time. Those animals are taken out of their cage usually on lead to work on set. This would limit the entertainment industry altogether. The loss of revenue to the industry as a whole would be enormous. I would suggest omitting the cage to cage transfer. Respectfully Submitted, Victoria Windland