New Hampshire legislators introduced three bills this session that would increase the number of fanciers subject to regulation as pet vendors or hobby breeders if any of the bills had been enacted. Senate Bill 161, House Bill 688, and House Bill 371 were all retained or tabled by the committee in the originating house. To circumvent the stalling of these bills, legislators amended the Conference Committee budget bill, H.B. 2 ( H.B. 2 FN-A-LOCAL-FINAL VERSION ), to include Sections 320 – 322 that would expand the existing Pet Vendor provisions. Section 320 defined Pet Vendor as anyone who transferred 25 or more dogs, 25 or more cats, 30 or more ferrets, or 50 or more birds customarily used as household pets, with or without a fee or donation required, between July 1 and June 30 of any year. The Pet Vendor need not own a physical facility in the state when the transfer to the final owner occurs within New Hampshire. In Section 321, there is an exception for dog breeders only who do not meet the definition of Pet Vendor. Section 322 would expand the requirements for health certificates for dogs, cats, and ferrets transferred in the state. Overall, H.B. 2 would classify many non-commercial hobby breeders as a Pet Vendor business forcing those breeders to give up their hobby under local zoning ordinances while increasing the regulatory burden on the state. Instituting such a major change in animal regulations without the benefit of a hearing on the issues leads to unintended consequences and denies fanciers a voice.

Of the three bills contributing to this evasive maneuver, the H.B. 2 amendment most resembles the amended S.B. 161. The only significant difference between H.B. 2 and S.B. 161 versions of Pet Vendor is the lower threshold of 20 for dogs and 20 for cats. In S.B. 161 there also remained an exception for dog breeders only who did not meet the definition of Pet Vendor and an expansion of existing health certificate requirements. Although not included in H.B. 2, Senate Bill 161 also established a position at the department of agriculture, markets and food for implementing the new Pet Vendor requirements.

House Bill 688 took a different approach to increase regulated breeders and reduce the threshold for Pet Vendors. This bill introduced the definition of Hobby Breeder as anyone who transferred 30 or fewer live animals or birds for a fee per year. Hobby Breeders of all categories of animals would be subject to regulation and a ten dollar annual registration. Also, dog breeders selling 31 or more puppies would be classified as a commercial breeding kennel. The bill did not, however, change the statutory definition of Pet Vendor (RSA Chapter 437.1). House Bill 688 would have also created a new companion animal welfare division in the department of agriculture, markets, and food to maintain a database of every transferor of dogs, cats, and ferrets, investigate, inspect, license, register and perform other duties.

Finally, H.B. 371 would have added catteries to the existing Commercial Kennel definition and would have added cat breeders not meeting the Commercial Kennel threshold to the Pet Vendor exception. The threshold for a Commercial kennel of dogs or cats would have been 10 or more litters or 50 or more puppies, cats or kittens.

These bills would change existing state law requiring the licensing of commercial kennels transferring 10 or more litters or 50 or more puppies in any 12-month period. Pet vendor licenses as currently issued by the Department of Agriculture, Markets, and Food, Division of Animal Industry are “to house, harbor, or display live animals and birds intended for transfer to the public” and cost $200.00 per year. The Pet Vendor license is not limited to pet stores or shelters, but covers all “engaged in the business of transferring live animals or birds customarily used as household pets to the public.”  However, cat hobby breeders have not been subject to state licensing or regulation. Nor is there a compelling reason to start if the real purpose of the legislation is animal welfare. Fewer than 1% of cats handled by animal agencies are identified as pedigreed; thus, regulating pedigreed cat breeders will do little to improve the welfare of cats in New Hampshire. It will, however, reduce the ability of pedigreed cat seekers to find a well socialized and healthy pet of their choice.

Fortunately, Governor Sununu vetoed H.B. 2 on June 28, 2019. His rationale for the veto was the budget bills would leave the state with a “massive fiscal deficit” reversing the recent fiscal success credited for returning jobs and a thriving economy. It is impossible to know if the Pet Vendor language contributed to the veto from Governor Sununu’s message, leaving open the possibility the Pet Vendor language may turn up in future budget efforts. Legislation that could not successfully traverse the normal process should not be railroaded through an alternate route in this manner as it allows too many important issues to be overlooked. If Pet Vendor licensing is not included in future budget bills, the stalled licensing bills could see new life in the second year of the legislative session.

Recent CFA Legislative Group Blog Post:

1. What’s Hot: Massachusetts House Bill 1444, Guardian Bill – Muddying the Waters for Pet Owners 6/18/2019
Please report legislation happening in your area to the Legislative Group – legislation@cfa.org Visit the CFALegislativeNews Facebook page and the CFA Legislative Group Blog to see the current legislative news.