August 19, 2025

Kelly Crouch, CFA Legislative Information Liaison

Boulder City, Nevada, is considering a breeder permit ordinance (https://www.bcnv.org/1105/Proposed-Pet-Breeding-Ordinance) mandating permits for anyone who breeds a cat or dog in the city limits. Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) §574.353 requires all cities and counties, not limited by interlocal agreements, to adopt ordinances requiring annual breeder permits for commercial breeders. NRS §574.245 defines a breeder as “a dealer, operator or other person who is responsible for the operation of a commercial establishment engaged in the business of breeding dogs or cats for sale or trade. The term does not include a person who breeds dogs or cats as a hobby.” [Emphasis added.] It appears the city was unsure how restrictive it could be under state law.

The City Attorney requested an Opinion Letter (https://ag.nv.gov/uploadedFiles/agnvgov/Content/Publications/AGO%202025-02.pdf) about NRS 574.353 from the Office of the Nevada Attorney General. Specifically, the city Attorney asked if the law preempted city governments from banning breeding cats and dogs. If so, does the statute also preempt a city government from regulating hobby breeding of cats and dogs? The short answer is that while the city is preempted from prohibiting commercial animal breeding, there is no prohibition preventing a city government from banning or limiting animal breeding by hobby breeders in order to address a local concern. The Attorney General’s Opinion Letter goes on to say that a city is within its express statutory authority to regulate animal breeding to prevent animal cruelty. The Opinion Letter does not address whether there is a matter of local concern or animal cruelty that would enable Boulder City to institute such a ban consistent with its powers under state law.

As a result of that Opinion Letter, Boulder City is considering an amendment to its current animal control laws that would require every person who wishes to breed a cat or dog to obtain annual breeder permits and adhere to specified requirements, including but not limited to:

1. Meet zoning restrictions and, for dogs, space requirements;
2. Is subject to inspections and facility and care requirements;
3. Must have a business license and home occupation permit in addition to the breeder’s permit;
4. Keeps and maintains no more than three intact dogs or cats that are one year of age or older, provided the following conditions are met:
a. Each dog or cat is registered with a nationally recognized club or registry,
b. Each dog or cat being bred has a registered microchip and is up-to-date on its rabies vaccination, and
c. A dog or cat may not be bred until it is at least two years of age and may only have a litter every two years.

However, cats are not little dogs! Requiring that a cat be two years old and only have litters every two years endangers not only its reproductive capability but also its life. Deliberately endangering a cat runs counter to the animal welfare philosophy. Both cats and dogs are subject to reproductive problems due to repeated unbred heats. But while a female dog may have up to three cycles a year, some female cats may cycle as often as every three to four weeks. That’s up to 17 cycles per year and 34 cycles in two years, significantly increasing the risk of reproductive health issues in female cats.

Furthermore, the limitation of three intact animals does not allow the breeder to maintain a genetically diverse breeding program. Genetic diversity is crucial to a healthy population. This arbitrary cap guarantees hobby breeders will have difficulty maintaining adequate genetic diversity. This only hurts our pedigreed cats and purebred dogs and the people who buy them. It is hard to believe this is the intention of the city council.

As written, the proposed ordinance will require hobby breeders to meet all the requirements of commercial breeders. Breeding cats is not the primary full-time job for hobby breeders, most of whom work outside the home. It is not a livelihood; it is a passion that generally costs more money than it generates. Requiring a breeder’s permit, a business license, and a home occupation permit, along with all the other requirements for commercial breeders, is overkill for hobby breeders who dedicate time and money to producing and preserving healthy specimens of their chosen breed, and usually lose money doing it! Furthermore, pedigreed cats make up only three to five percent of the cat population in the country. Few pedigreed cats, or even mixes with pedigreed cats, will find themselves in local shelters. Treating hobby breeders the same as commercial breeders punishes the people who dedicate their time, knowledge, and bank accounts to producing quality cats. One-size legislation does not fit all!

To find out when the Boulder City Council will consider the ordinance, residents can monitor the council meeting agendas here (https://bcnv.primegov.com/public/portal/) and submit comments online (https://www.bcnv.org/FormCenter/Contact-Forms-3/City-Council-Comment-Form-111).

2025 OREGON SB 1076, reported in 4/4/25 WHAT’S HOT failed to meet this year’s legislative deadlines, i.e. died. Senate Bill 1076 Sections 3 and 4 directed the Oregon Department of Agriculture (“ODA”) to establish a licensing program for breeders of all these species, with enforcement to begin on January 1, 2028, if enacted. SB 1076 WILL NOT BE ENACTED.

July 28, 2025

Kelly Crouch, CFA Legislative Information Liaison

In May 2025, two New York legislators introduced animal bills that would require virtually every breeder to become a licensed pet dealer or stop breeding. Assemblymember Linda Rosenthal (District 67) and Senator Michael Gianaris (District 12) introduced bills, AB 8653 and SB 8252. These bills would amend the definition of pet dealer, remove the exemption for hobby breeders, and add a definition for brokers that resell animals bred by others. The current definition of a pet dealer is:

“any person who engages in the sale or offering for sale of more than nine animals per year for profit to the public. Such definition shall include breeders who sell or offer to sell animals; provided that it shall not include the following:

(a) Any breeder who sells or offers to sell directly to the consumer fewer than twenty-five animals per year that are born and raised on the breeder’s residential premises”. Subsection (b), not included here, refers to municipal pounds or shelters.

However, as of December 15, 2024, the New York Puppy Mill Pipeline Act, also sponsored by Rosenthal and Gianaris, no longer allows pet stores or brokers to be licensed as pet dealers and prohibits them from selling dogs, cats, and rabbits, reducing in-state options for pet seekers. It also renders the business aspect of the pet dealer definition unnecessary for those selling pets to the public. Assembly Bill 8653 and SB 8252 would remove the commercial aspect of the pet dealer definition, but they would also remove the exception applying to small breeders, further reducing pet seeker options. Originally identical, these bills redefined a pet dealer as follows:

“any person who breeds animals and sells or offers to sell more than nine animals that are born and raised on such a person’s residential premises directly to a consumer, provided that it shall not include” specified municipal or private animal welfare organizations.

The proposed threshold of nine animals in a person’s lifetime places an undue burden on both breeders and the state. Senate Bill 8252 has since been amended to reinstate the “per year” qualification for the nine-animal threshold; however, this amendment does not significantly reduce the burden for breeders or the government.

A breeder, or a good Samaritan taking in a pregnant animal off the street, could exceed either threshold for licensing in a single litter! It would be virtually impossible for a breeder to maintain a breeding program that emphasizes genetic diversity and animal health while staying under the licensing threshold. They would have to meet the care and other requirements that were designed for pet dealers and commercial breeders. The state would have to enforce the law in the private home of nearly every hobby breeder in the state. Furthermore, municipalities that currently regulate exempt breeders may need to amend their local ordinances.

The 2025 part of the two-year session is over, but legislative rules allow the automatic reintroduction of many bills during the second year of the session. New York fanciers need to be prepared to fight these bills in 2026, accept the state’s intrusion into their homes, or choose to give up breeding should either of these bills be enacted as written. Assembly Bill 8653 remains in the Assembly Agriculture Committee unchanged. Senate Bill 8252 has been amended, discharged by the Senate Agriculture Committee, and committed to Rules.



You are the eyes and ears of the cat fancy! Is detrimental legislation happening in your area? Please let us know. Contact the CFA Legislative Group at legislation@cfa.org

CFALegislativeNews: https://www.facebook.com/CFALegislativeNews

CFA Legislative Group Blog: https://legislative.cfa.org/

Kelly Crouch, CFA Legislative Information Liaison

A proposed amendment to Rhode Island statutes regulating cat and dog breeders would increase the number of breeders subject to state licensing while eliminating the dog-only exemption. Senate Bill 325 amends the existing definition of hobby breeder but reduces the number of litters a breeder can sell and avoid classification as a breeder subject to licensing. Legislation on sales taxes and emotion-based damages that could impact fanciers was also introduced this year.

Currently, two statutes address cat breeding. Title 4, Animals and Animal Husbandry, Chapter 24, Permit Program for Cats mandates local issuance and enforcement of breeding permits ONLY for cat breeders unless a local jurisdiction prohibits cat breeding. Enacted in 2006, the statute contains several recognizable requirements, including inspections, standards of care, and immunization. In 2017, a bill establishing comprehensive breeding licensing for cat and dog breeders was enacted, defining breeder and hobby breeder.  Under Rhode Island General Laws §4-19-2 (10), a breeder means:

“a person engaged in the propagation of purebred or crossbred dogs and/or cats for the purpose of improving and enhancing a breed recognized and registered by the American Kennel Club, American Field Stud Book, a registered cat breed association, or for sale at wholesale or retail, unless otherwise exempted as a hobby breeder as defined below.”

 A hobby breeder is defined as:

“those persons whose regular occupation is not the breeding and raising of dogs and cats and whose method of sale is at retail only. A hobby breeder shall not exceed the limits set forth in § 4-25-1(4). Any person who sells at retail a number  in excess of the limits in the aforementioned section shall be considered a breeder.”

The issue arises with the quantitative exemption contained in §4-25-1(4) in which the definition of seller refers solely to dogs. However, both dogs and cats are included in the definition of breeder. Senate Bill 325, if enacted, would amend the definition of hobby breeder to the following:

“those persons whose regular occupation is not the breeding and raising of dogs and cats and whose method of sale is at retail only. A hobby breeder shall not exceed the sale or offering for sale of greater than two (2) litters of dogs or cats, or combination of dogs or cats, in any three hundred and sixty-five (365) day period. Any person who exceeds these limits will be defined as a breeder.”

This would eliminate the §4-25-1(4) dog exemption for persons selling fewer than 20 dogs or three litters, whichever is greater, for the breeder licensing law. Instead, it would impose a two-litter restriction on hobby breeders to avoid being categorized as breeders. Senate Bill 325 has been referred to the Senate Environment and Agriculture Committee.

Another proposed bill, Senate Bill 340, could also have a significant impact on Rhode Island breeders. If enacted, it would add the purchase of animals from a breeder to the many things subject to sales tax. This bill has been referred to the Senate Finance Committee.

In other Rhode Island news, House Bill 5926, which would add authority for emotion-based damages to animal cruelty laws if enacted, has been referred for study. While that often means the end of a bill, the Speaker of the House can bring it back for consideration. It should be noted that the speaker is also the bill sponsor. Emotion-based, or noneconomic, damages increase the cost of pet care for all while benefitting the rare few pet owners.

You are the eyes and ears of the cat fancy!Is detrimental legislation happening in your area? Please let us know. Contact the CFA Legislative Group at legislation@cfa.org

CFALegislativeNews: https://www.facebook.com/CFALegislativeNews

CFA Legislative Group Blog:  https://legislative.cfa.org/

April 4, 2025

Kelly Crouch, CFA Legislative Information Liaison

Oregon breeders of cats, dogs, birds, and small mammals are targeted in proposed legislation for state licensing. Senate Bill 1076 Sections 3 and 4 direct the Oregon Department of Agriculture (“ODA”) to establish a licensing program for breeders of all these species, with enforcement to begin on January 1, 2028, if enacted. The ODA must consider breeder size, regulatory costs, and staff funding needs when developing the licensing program requirements, inspections, standards of care, and licensing fees, which will be adjusted for inflation as necessary. Violators are subject to a maximum of six months imprisonment, a $2500 fine, or both. In addition to these penalties, a court may require a defendant convicted of violating any rules enacted under Section 3 to forfeit any rights in animals that are kept in violation of Section 3 and repay the reasonable costs of caring for such animals before judgment. Dog breeders would still be subject to Oregon Revised Statutes 167.374 and 167.376 requirements. In addition, licensing fees for Animal Rescue Entities (“ARE”) would be increased to $350 – $600, depending on the ARE’s classification. Furthermore, the bill has been classified as an emergency measure so that it would go into effect immediately rather than the customary 91st day after the legislative session.

The Natural Resources and Wildfire Committee heard testimony in opposition and support at the public hearing held on March 18, 2025. Not surprisingly, most of the testimony from AREs opposed the license fee increase and supported licensing all breeders, whom they blame for shelter overcrowding issues. Yet the vast majority of dogs and cats in shelters are random-bred animals, not purpose-bred animals. Pedigreed cats represent only 3-5% of the cat population. It is incredulous to claim pedigreed cat breeders are responsible for the homeless cat population. Purebred dogs also make up a minority of the dog population. Considering that most owned animals are sterilized, responsible owners and breeders are not contributing significantly to the homeless animal population. Shelter animals are generally the victims of home retention failures. Oregon breeders are not to blame for overcrowding caused by the common ARE practice of importing animals from other states and even other countries – a fact proponents like to ignore. Homelessness for animals is a community problem and should be addressed that way.

A solution that addresses the real causes of shelter overcrowding must consider multiple factors, including ARE imports, reductions in or failure of governments to provide sufficient shelter space, economic factors driving pet relinquishment and adoption trends, and other pet retention issues. The lack of sought-after animals in the local area often drives shelter animal imports. It is as much a marketing decision as one driven by altruism. Oregon breeders do not cause this. Neither do breeders drive government decisions that significantly limit available shelter spots for homeless animals. Pet retention issues that are driven by the economy, pet aggressiveness, lack of animal care resources for low-income areas, and many other reasons are rarely under the control of Oregon breeders. The fact that a minority of homeless cats and dogs are random-bred is evidence that trying to use SB 1076 as a solution to shelter overcrowding is like trying to play darts blindfolded and facing away from the dart board.

Oregon already has strict animal welfare laws. In 2024, the Animal Legal Defense Fund again ranked Oregon first in the country for having strong animal welfare laws. Does the state want to create expensive-to-enforce programs that will not solve the issue and only burden responsible breeders? Irresponsible breeders and pet owners will not comply and will likely only be found out from complaints. Meanwhile, the type of breeders that supply quality pets to Oregon residents, contribute to breed rescue efforts, and boost the economy through tourism dollars from shows, and who support many businesses through the care of their animals, are the very people burdened with an issue that affects animal owners and nonowners alike.  Residents deserve a real solution; they do not need scapegoats.

The Natural Resources and Wildfire Committee is expected to hold a work session on April 3, 2025. The bill may be included in that work session. Fanciers wanting to oppose SB 1076 can contact the committee members. Contact information can be found here: https://olis.oregonlegislature.gov/liz/2025R1/Committees/SNRW/Overview

You are the eyes and ears of the cat fancy!Is detrimental legislation happening in your area? Please let us know. Contact the CFA Legislative Group at legislation@cfa.org

CFALegislativeNews: https://www.facebook.com/CFALegislativeNews
CFA Legislative Group Blog: https://legislative.cfa.org/

UPDATE 5/2025: In the April 8, 2025, work session, the Senate Committee on Natural Resources and Wildfire adopted the amended bill, SB 1076-1, in a 3- 2 vote. The amendments include changes to definitions and requirements in both the breeder licensing and animal welfare entities sections. For cat and dog fanciers, there is an important, if minuscule, carve-out for breeders to avoid licensing. The amendment requires licensing of cat and dog breeders who “during a 12-month period, sells or transfers or offers for sale or transfer more than two litters”. It also authorizes the department to define the number of birds or small mammals sold during a 12-month period necessary for licensing. The A-engrossed (fair final copy of the first amended version of the bill) SB 1076 has been assigned to the Joint Ways and Means Committee. Per the Legislative Fiscal Office report, “Fiscal Impact of Proposed Legislation”, the Joint Committee on Ways and Means will prepare a more complete fiscal analysis.

February 2025

Kelly Crouch, CFA Legislative Information Liaison

New Jersey Assembly Bill 5173 aims to establish a “Working Group on Responsible Animal Breeding” in the Department of Agriculture. Alarmingly, cat breeders are entirely excluded from this important forum, while dog breeders are granted two of the five available seats. The remaining seats will be filled by representatives from an animal rights organization, the New Coalition of Responsible Pet Stores, and the New Jersey Farm Bureau.  All members will be chosen by the Commissioner of Health and the Secretary of Agriculture.

The working group would develop a framework for legislative, administrative, and policy recommendations to uphold ethical breeding practices statewide, eliminate unethical breeding, and devise a plan to implement their recommendations. It is crucial to recognize that these groups often advocate for licensing schemes that can unfairly burden small, in-home hobby breeders, which could stifle our community. Moreover, since cats have distinct needs that differ from those of dogs, relying solely on dog breeders to represent us is inadequate—they simply do not possess the specialized knowledge necessary to advocate for feline interests.

Depending on how the bill progresses, New Jersey cat fanciers will face a pivotal choice. Following an adage, we can demand a seat at the table or risk being on the menu. If fanciers successfully advocate for an amendment giving us a seat at the table, it is imperative that we occupy it. Failing to do so risks our interests and the future of responsible cat breeding.

If you are passionate about representing the cat breeding community and want to step up if a seat becomes available, please get in touch with the CFA Legislative Group (details below) and reach out to your Regional Director, Doreann Nasin, at silverpurkat@prodigy.net

You are the eyes and ears of the cat fancy!Is detrimental legislation happening in your area? Please let us know. Contact the CFA Legislative Group at legislation@cfa.org

January 2025

Kelly Crouch, CFA Legislative Information Liaison

Cat and dog fanciers have borne the burden of anti-breeder and anti-pet legislation for years. Brick by legislative brick, that weight will continue getting heavier if we do not speak out loudly and effectively against bad laws. Nobody else can advocate for our hobby as well as we can, and failure to advocate for ourselves only invites the end of our hobby!  Those already in the trenches fighting for the fancy have our profound appreciation. But our hobby needs every fancier to get involved.

Last year, a European Union-style “unethical breeding” ordinance arbitrarily banning many popular cat and dog breeds for their traits or color grabbed a toehold in the U.S. via a small Californian town. Breeds with short snouts, hairlessness, and folded ears fall among the targeted animals. The first cat and dog fanciers heard of the ordinance was after it became law. Preventing legislation from becoming law is much easier than repealing it – but we cannot stop what we don’t know about, which is an animal rights strategy. Thus, Ojai’s unethical breeding ban became the first ordinance of its kind to become law in the United States, but not the first effort. New Hampshire has that dubious honor. Fortunately, a group of cat fanciers, dog fanciers, veterinarians, and others successfully prevented that bill from being passed. Elsewhere, a Texas dog breeder demonstrated what a single voice could accomplish with the dog exemptions added to the Texas Dog and Cat Breeder Law in 2021. However, history tells us animal rights activists will not be satisfied with a single tiny win in Ojai, California, just as they aren’t satisfied with winning over several EU countries. Rewriting animal legislation globally is necessary to achieve their ultimate goal – no animal use of any kind, including as pets. And they are willing to achieve it one little baby step at a time.

Mink farming, fur and leather clothing, trophy hunting, animal use in research, and veganism were well-known animal rights issues when I started exhibiting cats in the late 1990s. I did not realize there was also a war against pets until I was asked to join the legislative committee of another organization.  Over twenty years later, I am still working on the legislative front. Did I mention I passionately dislike politics? I do not do this because I love politics but because I love my cats and showing. A persistent offense requires a consistent defense.

Grassroots advocacy is the backbone of our fight. While legislative advocacy does not come naturally to many people, we frequently advocate for things without giving them a second thought. When we describe to a potential pet buyer how great our breeds are, we are advocating. The CFA Legislative Group can help you apply those skills to the many roles in grassroots advocacy. Silence is the antithesis of advocacy—individuals must speak up. The alternative is more bricks.

Almost all U.S. state legislatures will be in session by the end of January. Add in the U.S. Congress, other nations, and local governments, and legislation is happening year-round. If you become aware of bad legislation in your area and want to break some bricks in 2025, contact us at legislation@cfa.org.

You are our eyes and ears! Is detrimental legislation happening in your area? Please let us know. Contact the CFA Legislative Group at legislation@cfa.org

December 2024

Kelly Crouch, CFA Legislative Information Liaison

The Texas Department of Licensing and Regulation announced its intent to review the Dog and Cat Breeders Program Rules to determine if they need re-adoption, revision, or repeal. This is a regular housekeeping review, a process required every four years. The Notice of Intent to Review was published in the Texas Register on November 22, 2024. People have until December 23, 2024, to submit written comments on Chapter 91 at TDLR’s site.

Comments should focus on administrative rules already adopted and the purpose
of the review. The rules will be assessed according to the following criteria:

1. whether it is obsolete,
2. whether it reflects current legal and policy considerations, and
3. whether it is in alignment with current TDLR procedures.

The Department is not proposing any rule changes at this time, but if it determines that changes are necessary, the changes will undergo a separate rulemaking process. They will be published in the Proposed Rules section of the Texas Register and open for public comment before final adoption. The Texas Legislature, through statutes, defines what discretion TDLR has regarding its rule making efforts.

The Dog and Cat Breeders Act requires TDLR to adopt only those rules necessary to explain the law and how it will be enforced. However, the department cannot change the exemptions benefitting dog breeders the legislature approved during the 2023 legislative session. During that session, while CFA and TICA worked with AKC and RPOA to kill the threshold reduction bill, an individual dog breeder convinced legislators to add exemptions for her interests. At that point, killing the bill was unlikely, and the cat registries submitted letters requesting cat breeders also receive those exemptions as applicable. Legislators refused to make that change then, and any effort to make that change now must go through the legislative process. If a Texas cat breeder wishes to help amend the law to include exemptions during the 2025 legislative session, please contact the CFA Legislative Group at legislation@cfa.org

You are our eyes and ears! Is detrimental legislation happening in your area? Please let us know. Contact the CFA Legislative Group at legislation@cfa.org

November 2024

Kelly Crouch, CFA Legislative Information Liaison

On October 22, 2024, Ojai, California, became the first U.S. city to adopt a draconian “unethical breeding” ban for many breeds of cats and dogs exhibiting particular physical traits, similar to those found in Europe. This decision, which affects more than Persians and Burmese, sets a precedent and provides a platform for animal rights groups to spread similar legislation nationwide. Although the city did not use the deceptive and manipulative term “torture breeding” employed by animal rights extremists to describe breeding for traits like short muzzles or folded ears, the Ojai Companion Animal Protection Ordinance prohibits breeding animals likely to produce identified traits. 

In addition to Persians and Burmese, the ordinance targets Scottish Folds, Manx, and any breeds the city identifies as being “predisposed to produce offspring with physical features adverse to the offspring’s welfare.” The ordinance outlines 19 categories of congenital anatomical features likely to cause “pain, deformity, or difficulty expressing natural behaviors, difficulty breathing, difficulty with physical exertion or exercise, or difficulty breeding as a consequence of genetic selection”. This non-exhaustive list of features includes, but is not limited to, snout length, abnormal breathing, body shape, unnatural posture, skin folds, lack of tails, lameness, and neurological disorders. Violations will be classified as either an infraction with fines ranging from $50 to $250 per violation or a misdemeanor with fines up to $500 and/or jail time up to six months.

With very few fanciers challenging the activists’ claims about the alleged widespread issues of producing inherently unhealthy animals by selectively breeding animals with specific phenotypical characteristics, the ordinance was adopted with a 4:1 vote. The City Council also made the unethical breeding ban unnecessary when it eliminated the exemption for animals that compete or are titled from the mandatory spay/neuter ordinance. However, they did add a time-limited exemption for large breed dogs because of health issues associated with early sterilization.

Unlike the unsuccessful New Hampshire bill, HB 1102-FN, which sought to criminalize the sale of, and breeding with the intent to sell, animals with “birth deformities” that cause suffering, there was no organized opposition to the Ojai ordinance. Organized resistance can work; unfortunately, neither CFA nor its allies learned of this bill before it was adopted! Animal rights activists often target locations where they have influence and little opposition to push their anti-breeder agenda. Once successful, they use these jurisdictions as a model to spread similar legislation to other jurisdictions.  

Fanciers are encouraged to monitor their communities and advocate against detrimental legislation as it arises to prevent these laws from being adopted. With over 30,000 local governments in the U.S. alone, the involvement of fanciers is crucial in combating these harmful laws. YOU ARE THE EYES AND EARS OF THE FANCY! Please contact the CFA Legislative Group if you find it. It is easier to stop legislation than overturn it!

You are our eyes and ears! Is detrimental legislation happening in your area? Please let us know. Contact the CFA Legislative Group at legislation@cfa.org

October 2024

Kelly Crouch, CFA Legislative Information Liaison

When our pets suffer due to the negligent, reckless, or intentional acts of others, it is natural to be angry and seek compensation for those harmful acts. Legislatures often limit that redress to reasonable economic losses – the animal’s fair market value and out-of-pocket expenses. Courts may also award punitive damages to punish the tortfeasor. However, for many years, some groups have sought to expand damages to include emotion-based damages. This year, courts in Idaho, California, and New York, along with the Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and New York legislatures, have all considered this question. Why is awarding emotion-based (non-economic) damages a bad thing in these cases? 

The first part of the answer is easy. Every business defendant will try to recoup the costs of any award. Thus, when the tortfeasor is a business, the ultimate onus falls on all animal owners as the cost of the damages trickles down through increased prices of pet food and supplies, veterinary and other services, and indirect costs such as insurance. A tiny number of owners benefit, but every animal owner pays.

The second part of the answer relates to the purpose of damages in civil suits for accidental or intentional infliction of harm. Economic damage awards are intended to make the plaintiff financially whole. The cost of veterinary care related to the incident is an example of economic damage. Punitive damages are meant to discourage repeat offenses. Recompense for pain, suffering, emotional distress, and the loss of companionship is the role of emotion-based damages, but legislatures strictly limit who may seek such damages. Often, it is limited to the person injured. However, some states have narrowly expanded the class of plaintiffs who may seek non-economic damages, including parents, children, and those with a reasonable expectation of harm to themselves. Siblings, fiancés, and best friends need not apply. While we may consider our animals part of the family, raising their legal status to that of (or above) a human child does not make sense. Pets are already treated differently under the law than other types of personal property with anti-cruelty and minimum standards of care laws. Allowing such more damages brings us back to reason one – increased liability equals increased costs for all animal owners.

State laws specify when emotion-based damages may be awarded. Nonetheless, some advocates try to change the law through litigation as well as legislation. They ask the courts to expand the damages recoverable for injury to a pet, often without any clear limitation. For these reasons, the CFA Board of Directors allowed CFA to join the Animal Health Institute coalition on amicus curiae (friend of the court) briefs opposing non-economic damages for animal injury cases in New York and California this year. For more information about the issue of non-economic damages, an article published previously in Cat Talk, “Harming Pets Through the Expansion of Emotion-Based Damages” is located on the CFA Legislative Group blog Resources page here.

You are our eyes and ears! Is detrimental legislation happening in your area? Please let us know. Contact the CFA Legislative Group at legislation@cfa.org