Author name: Kelly Crouch

What’s Hot … New York Bills Would Force Virtually Every Breeder to be State Licensed

 

Kelly Crouch, CFA Legislative Information Liaison

Introduced in 2025, identical bills AB 8653B and SB 8252B would require most small in-home breeders to obtain a pet breeder license, subject to commercial breeder requirements and consumer protection provisions. A single litter in a year could put someone over the threshold if it is large enough. Two litters would definitely be courting licensure requirements. The bills remove the twenty-five-animal sale exception and define a pet dealer as:

“‘Pet breeder’ shall mean any person who breeds animals and sells, or offers to sell, more than nine animals per year, born and  raised  on such person’s premises, directly to a consumer.”

The bills have been amended twice (hence the B in the number). Originally, the threshold was a lifetime one rather than a per-year one, but the born and raised problem remains. Most of the changes affecting breeders clean up the language changes required by the 2024 New York Puppy Mill Pipeline Act. The bills also add:

“Except as provided in subdivision two of this section, the transfer of a dog, cat, or rabbit for profit, including, but not limited to, the sale, offer for sale, lease, offer for lease, arrangement, or negotiation of such animals, is hereby prohibited No person, firm, corporation, partnership,  or other legal entity shall transfer such animals in violation of this section.

2. The prohibition on the transfer of dogs, cats, and rabbits prescribed in subdivision one of this section shall not apply to the following:

(a) pet breeders, as defined in section  seven  hundred  fifty-two  of this article; or

(b)  any other person who breeds and sells, or offers to sell, dogs, cats, or rabbits, born and raised on such person’s premises, directly to a consumer.”

Both bills have been recommitted to the agriculture committee in their respective houses, but neither has yet been assigned a public hearing. Senate Deputy Leader Gianaris, sponsor of the Senate bill, was recognized by ASPCA with the National “Champion for Animals” Award in 2022 and plans to retire at the end of 2026. Assemblywoman Linda Rosenthal is the primary sponsor for AB 8653 and AB 107, a bill recognizing animal sentience.

What’s Hot … Mandatory Sterilization for Cats Proceeds to Hawaii Senate, while the Sterilization Requirements for Imported Dogs and Cats Bill Fails to Cross Over

 

Kelly Crouch, CFA Legislative Information Liaison

The mandatory cat sterilization requirement remains attached to the Hawaiian Spay and Neuter Special Fund Bill, HB 1736 HD2. After two amendments, the show cat exception was removed, only to be replaced by a mandate for intact cats over the age of five months to be covered by a $100 intact cat declaration filed with the applicable county animal control authority. The House passed the bill, and the Senate is now considering it. The bill was referred to the Agriculture and Environment, Energy and Intergovernmental Affairs, and Ways and Means Committees.

The Special Fund is a laudable method to provide counties with spaying and neutering funds to address the availability of affordable sterilization services to disadvantaged communities. Hawaii has several endangered species, and community cats and dogs are considered one of the dangers to ground-nesting birds, sea turtles, and Hawaiian Monk Seals (due to exposure to toxoplasmosis). Invasive species such as mongooses, rats, and mosquitoes also pose threats to native birds. The legislature should narrowly tailor any legislation to its purpose and address all threats to endangered species, including human activity. Piecemeal efforts will not save those endangered animals.

Yet, the bill unnecessarily ties punitive fees to owning intact cats. Not only are 80–90% of owned cats sterilized without such legislation, but generally, only two groups of people would own intact cats. This special fund helps low-income pet owners who cannot afford sterilization procedures. Punitive fees of $500 – $1,000 per cat do not help when people cannot afford the procedures in the first place. As intact cats exhibit unpleasant hormonal behaviors, making services available to this group will help reduce the number of unsterilized cats in these communities. Small in-home preservation breeders are the other people keeping intact cats. Breeders do not want their cats roaming the islands, mating with random-bred cats, and bringing home diseases that could destroy their breeding programs. Pedigreed cats make up only 3–5% of the cat population; they do not contribute to Hawaii’s community cat issues. Yet, this bill penalizes preservation breeders for a problem they do not cause. It also raises the question of whether local clubs could continue to produce cat shows, as the bill does not provide any exceptions for cats temporarily in the state.

In addition to penalizing pet owners, this bill puts the burden of enforcement on counties. Local governments are better positioned to assess their animal control needs than a one-size-fits-all plan that does more harm than good.

The Agriculture and Environment and Energy and Intergovernmental Affairs Committees have scheduled a hearing for House Bill 1736 HD2 on March 18, 2026, at 3:10 p.m. in Conference Room 224. Fanciers should oppose this bill as long as it contains the mandatory spay/neuter mandate. Testimony can be submitted online here.

Fortunately for cat and dog fanciers, Senate Bill 3012 failed to make the crossover deadline and is not expected to progress this legislative session. That bill mandated the sterilization of imported cats and dogs.

UPDATE 3/28/2026: After the Senate Agriculture and Environment Committee deferred HB 1736 HD2, proponents amended SB 1023 carried over from 2025. SB 1023 was replaced in its entirety by the language in HB 1736 HD2 and is now SB 1023 HD2. It has been referred to the House Finance Committee.

LEGIS ALERT AND UPDATE: Hawaii SB 3012, HB 1736-1, and HB 1594

 

Hawaiian fanciers need to speak up to avoid the creation of a breeder registry and mandatory spay/neuter for cats. The good news is that House Bill 1594 was deferred. Unfortunately, its companion bill, SB 3012,  has been scheduled for a hearing on Monday, February 9, 2026, at 4:00 p.m. The Hawaiian Humane Society has been pushing for anti-breeder legislation for several years in various ways. Fanciers need to help make sure the losing streak continues. Please OPPOSE both bills!

Senate Bill 3012 ( https://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/session/measure_indiv.aspx?billtype=SB&billnumber=3012&year=2026 ) would prohibit the importation of any intact cat or dog, and it shares the same objections as the deferred HB 1594. It includes an exception for cats and dogs imported by breeders registered with the Department of Agriculture and Biosecurity. The statute requires the agency to create a registry that, at a minimum, includes the breeder’s name, business address, and the species or breeds maintained. At first glance, that may not seem so bad; however, the agency could take it much farther. Bengals became illegal in Hawaii after that agency was given discretion to determine which animals would be prohibited in the state. This may not happen, but it is easier to amend an existing law or regulation than get a new one enacted. It is also a well-established strategy of animal rights groups to get anything passed and change it later to what they really want.

Further, when you combine the facts that most cats and dogs are sterilized and that people who cannot afford to sterilize their animals most likely cannot afford to live in Hawaii, this law makes no sense. Also, no Hawaiian show breeder can maintain genetic diversity over the long term without introducing new animals. Eventually, those will have to come from outside Hawaii. The rationale for this bill is to address rabies control and pet overpopulation. An animal’s breeding status has nothing to do with rabies control. Also, a breeder registry will do little to help with stray or feral cats and dogs. Pedigreed cats make up 3-5% of the cat population. There are also far more random-bred dogs than purebred dogs. It is not to the benefit of any show breeder to allow their animals to roam at large or contribute to the random-bred animal population. Pets placed by show breeders are typically sterilized prior to placement or are required to be sterilized under their contracts. They are not contributing to the problem! Why punish responsible breeders and burden the state with unnecessary regulation? If the “solution” does little to address the issue, why subject breeders to the expense of breeder registration and the risks associated with a publicly available registry? Fanciers can submit written testimony at the bill link above.

House Bill 1736-1 ( https://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/session/measure_indiv.aspx?billtype=HB&billnumber=1736&year=2026 ) would establish a spay/neuter fund for cat sterilizations and mandatory spay/neuter for cats. There are studies that early sterilization can be detrimental to both cats and dogs. Also, with the veterinary shortage experienced throughout the country, people often have to wait long periods before sterilization can be performed. Sixty days may not be sufficient, particularly if the owner relies on low-cost alternatives. And, while it includes an exception for cats registered with a breed registry, that too is problematic and unnecessary. The amended version of the exception reads:

“(3)  The owner of the cat can provide verifiable proof upon request by the applicable county animal control authority that the cat is approved by and registered with a national or international breed registry or association that, at minimum, requires verification of:

          (A)  Breed;

          (B)  Date of birth;

          (C)  Name of the registered sire and dam;

          (D)  Name of the breeder; and

          (E)  Other information related to breeding, transfer or ownership, and death.

     (c)  Any person violating this section shall be fined no less than $500 and no more than $1,000 per violation per cat.

     (d)  This section shall not apply to cats brought into the state exclusively for the purpose of entering the cats in a cat show or exhibition and not allowed to run at large.”

The amended version removes the requirement to show the cat. Still, this provision burdens cat breeders unnecessarily, may hinder the development of new breeds, while doing nothing to reduce the number of community cats. It is wholly unnecessary to the creation of a spay/neuter fund, which most breeders would support if it did not also make participating in their hobby more difficult. Pedigreed cat and purebred dog breeders are frequently involved in rescue efforts, either directly or through contributions. This benefits the state. Establishing a spay/neuter fund is a laudable goal and will do far more to reduce the number of community cats (or feral dogs) than mandatory spay/neuter. The fund will help people who cannot afford today’s veterinary costs and who would ignore such a law out of financial necessity, as well as people involved in community cat programs. Burdening breeders will not.

The Committee on Judiciary & Hawaiian Affairs has scheduled a hearing for HB 1736-1 on Tuesday, 02/10/2026, at 2:00 p.m.

We need all Hawaii fanciers to oppose these bills, especially with the support of the Hawaiian Humane Society, the Kauaʻi Humane Society, the Department of Land and Natural Resources, and the Animal Legal Defense Fund. Fanciers can submit their testimony online at the links above. If you can, attend the public hearings as well.

Kelly Crouch

CFA Legislative Information Liaison

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

LEGIS ALERT: Hawaii Considers MSN for cats, any cats and dogs imported into the state, and a breeder registry

 

Please act now! Testimony can be submitted on the bill web pages included below until 9 a.m. on 2/3/2026. If you can, please attend the hearing to submit written or oral testimony. On Wednesday, February 4, at 9 a.m., the Hawaii House Committee on Agriculture and Food Systems will hear HB 1594 and HB 1736, both of which could have devastating consequences for local fanciers. These bills were introduced to address the pet overpopulation and community cat issues. Both are supported by the Hawaiian Humane Society.

HB 1594 ( https://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/session/measure_indiv.aspx?billtype=HB&billnumber=1594 ) would require that all dogs and cats brought into the state be sterilized unless they are too infirm, are in the state for less than 90 days, or the importer is registered as a breeder with the department. In essence, this is a breeder registry for all breeders, as few breeders (in any state) can maintain a breeding program without occasionally bringing in animals from another state. 

HB 1736 ( https://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/session/measure_indiv.aspx?billtype=HB&billnumber=1736 ) would mandate that all cats five months of age or older be sterilized and prohibit any unsterilized cat from being imported into Hawaii, subject to certain exceptions. One exception applies to cats that meet the cat association registry and exhibition requirements. The bill would not apply to cats temporarily entering the state for the purpose of exhibition and cat shows.

Pedigreed cats make up only 3-5% of the cat population. They do not contribute to the random-bred community cat issues that Hawaii may be experiencing. Not only will these bills not address the issue as the proponents argue, but they will also be unnecessarily burdensome for the state and breeders alike.

Remote testimony guidelines can be found at chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/docs/RemoteTestimonyHouseGuidelines.pdf

Hawaii has a very short legislative session, so things tend to move very quickly and with little notice. Please contact the CFA Legislative Committee if you want to help defeat misguided legislation. You are the eyes, ears, and voice of the fancy! 

What’s Hot: Hobby Breeders Targeted in Missouri Bill …. and, in other news, Florida Pet Dealer Requirements may be Subject to Change

 

Kelly Crouch, CFA Legislative Information Liaison

Missouri regulates breeders, shelters, dealers, and pet shops under the 1992 Animal Care Facilities Act (AFCA). The proposed HB 2567 aims to redefine commercial and hobby breeders and remove the exemption benefiting hobby breeders, which could significantly affect their breeding programs.

If enacted, the commercial breeder definition would no longer exclude hobby or show breeders. Hobby breeders would no longer be limited to noncommercial breeders. The critical change for hobby breeders would be the repeal of §273.342 (2). This section of AFCA requires that hobby or show breeders register annually, but are exempt from the licensure and inspection requirements of §§ 273.325 – 373.357. Should HB 2567 be enacted, the only breeders exempt from the AFCA licensing requirements are those who harbor three or less intact females.

The Missouri legislative session runs from January 7 through May 30, 2026. House Bill 2567 had its first reading on the first day of the session. The second reading was held the next day, on January 8. Currently, there are no cosponsors. Fanciers can review and monitor the bill’s progress here. As a member of the cat fancy, your voice is vital to protect your cats and hobby from restrictive anti-breeder legislation!

In other news… Florida Pet Dealer Requirements may be Subject to Change

Fanciers, wherever located, who place pets in Florida will want to monitor Florida Senate Bill 1356 and the related bill, SB 1004. Not only would SB 1356 affect dog breeders if this latest attempt for more restrictive legislation is enacted, but both bills would also change the record-keeping and financing requirements for pet dealers. In Florida,  a pet dealer “means any person, firm, partnership, corporation, or other association which, in the ordinary course of business, engages in the sale of more than two litters, or 20 dogs or cats, per year, whichever is greater, to the public. This definition includes breeders of animals who sell such animals directly to a consumer.”

What’s Hot: California 2025 Session Laws:  The State Enacts Laws Affecting Breeders Selling to California Purchasers and a Cat Declaw Prohibition

 

November 4, 2025

Kelly Crouch, CFA Legislative Information Liaison

California lawmakers enacted new legislation affecting all breeders, not just pet dealers, as part of their ongoing effort to block “puppy, kitten, or rabbit mill” sales into the state. The campaign began with the 2017 retail pet store prohibition, which proponents claimed would end the mill pipeline into the state by prohibiting retail pet stores from selling cats, dogs, and rabbits. As pet stores could showcase these animals for rescues, some organizations set themselves up as rescues to sell their animals, forcing the state to redefine what constitutes a rescue in 2021. After that, lawmakers focused on the new trend of bad actors importing animals to sell under the pretense that they are California-bred animals offered by small home breeders. This led to the latest round of legislation enacted in 2025. The new requirements apply to all persons, pet dealers, or businesses when the purchaser is located in California.

Assembly Bill 506 mandates that the seller must provide written notice of the original source of the animal, identify the breeder, including the USDA license number when applicable, and the state in which the animal was born. If any information is unknown, the seller must clearly state that fact. The seller must also provide a record of inoculations, worming treatments, and any veterinary treatment of the animal while in the possession of the seller.

The bill also removes a tool many breeders use to ensure the buyer is committed to the purchase —the nonrefundable deposit. Section 122227 (a) makes a contract by a person, pet dealer, or business with a purchaser located in California that requires a nonrefundable deposit void under public policy. Breeders know that as a kitten ages, fewer buyers are available, which affects its price. A nonrefundable deposit not only indicates a commitment but also compensates the seller for a loss if the buyer backs out of the sale. The Lockyer-Polanco-Farr Pet Protection Act defines a pet dealer as “a person engaging in the business of selling dogs or cats, or both, at retail, and by virtue of the sales of dogs or cats is required to possess a permit pursuant to Section 6066 of the Revenue and Taxation Code.”

In addition to AB 506, lawmakers enacted AB 519, prohibiting brokers from making a dog under one year of age, a cat, or a rabbit for adoption or sale. A broker is defined as “a person or business that sells, arranges, negotiates, or processes, either in person or online, the sale of dogs, cats, or rabbits bred by another for profit. This includes facilitating the transfer of a dog, cat, or rabbit for profit.” [Emphasis added.] The term broker does not include an animal rescue group that meets the requirements of §122365 of that chapter.

Senate Bill 312 was also enacted to close gaps in the original Retail Pet store ban, but applies only to dogs. It requires persons importing dogs for resale or change of ownership to submit a health certificate completed by a licensed veterinarian to the California Department of Food and Agriculture.

Also enacted during the 2025 session was the cat declawing bill, AB 867. This law mandates that an onychectomy, tendonectomy, surgical claw removal, or declaw, or any procedure that alters a feline’s toes, claws, or paws, be performed for therapeutic purposes only. Nail trimming and “nonsurgical scratching mitigation solutions” are not prohibited.

Scroll to Top