Breeder/Litter Licensing

What’s Hot … Hobby Breeder Restrictions in Palm Beach County, Florida, andSpay/Neuter in Monterey County, California and Honolulu, Hawaii

 

Kelly Crouch, CFA Legislative Information Liaison

Palm Beach County, Florida
The Palm Beach County, FL Board of Commissioners is considering amendments to the animal ordinance that would make its extremely restrictive hobby breeder ordinance even more restrictive. Currently, a hobby breeder is defined as “ any person who intentionally or unintentionally causes or allows the breeding or studding of a dog or cat or engages in the breeding of up to two (2) litters of dogs or cats or nineteen (19) dogs or cats per household or premises per one-year period.” Proposed changes would reduce the cap to one litter of dogs or cats and eliminate the language about 19 dogs or cats. The threshold for commercial breeders
would similarly be reduced to more than one litter. If adopted, hobby breeders will have to decide whether to reduce their activities accordingly or become commercial breeders. Prior to making that decision, the breeder will want to become familiar with the commercial breeder requirements, which are also subject to amendment. Maintaining a genetically diverse program with two litters per year is exceedingly difficult; trying to do that with one litter per year guarantees the number of commercial breeders in the county, adding to the unnecessary burden borne by the County and small home breeders alike.
The proposal also seeks to amend the animals-per-acreage section of the law. As it stands, a person could have ten Great Danes without obtaining an excessive animal permit, whereas on the same property, 12 cats would be a violation. The suggested amendments would also take into consideration the type of property. It also eliminates the excessive animal permit. Among
the other changes are amendments to the dog and cat sales requirements, hold times, and facility requirements.
The Department of Public Safety, Animal Care and Control Division will be holding another public comment session on the proposed ordinance on Saturday, July 11, 2026.


Monterey County, California
County officials are poised to adopt an ordinance requiring dogs and cats in the county’s unincorporated areas to be sterilized. Ordinance 26-008 has revised the sterilization exemptions in Ordinance 26-005, added unaltered animal certificates and breeder permits. Anyone who allows a dog or cat kept within the unincorporated areas of the county to breed “with the intent to sell, gift, or transfer the offspring for money” must first obtain an annual breeder permit. The Animal Control Officer will establish program procedures, including limiting the number of permits that can be issued in a given year. Permits will not be issued for animals
under one year of age or over seven years of age. Ordinance 26-008 was presented at the June 23rd County of Monterey Board meeting, with a motion to introduce the ordinance, waive the first reading, and place it on the July 7, 2026, meeting consent agenda for final approval (it may be removed from the consent agenda upon request). The Board unanimously adopted the motion.


Honolulu, Hawaii
Hawaiians faced several attempts to get a mandatory spay/neuter law enacted at the state level. One concern about making sterilization mandatory for all cat- and dog-owning residents was the high cost of sterilization surgery that pet owners are facing these days. Honolulu is developing rules and regulations for its spay/neuter program. Prices range from $100 to $450
for city residents. The fees may increase depending on the pet’s age and weight. The proposed rules also authorize much lower fees for homeless and low-income residents meeting certain conditions. As residents can anticipate future mandatory spay/neuter efforts, fanciers may want to monitor proposed rules for the city’s spay/neuter program and require transparency to evaluate the program’s effectiveness. Honolulu’s Department of Customer Service is seeking public input at an in-person public hearing on July 9, 2026. The draft rules and more information are available here.

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: Boulder City, NV, Considers a Breeder Permit Ordinance More Restrictive Than Nevada Law Requires

 

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).

EDITOR’S UPDATE – OREGON, APRIL 4, 2025 POST

 

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.

What’s Hot…. Rhode Island Legislation: Hobby Breeders, Sales Tax, and Emotion-based Damages

 

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/

What’s Hot…. Oregon Legislation Targets Breeders for Licensing and Increases Fees for Shelters and Rescues

 

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.

Legislation – What’s Hot…Texas to Review the Dog and Cat Breeders Program Rules

 

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

Legislation – What’s Hot…Dekalb County, Georgia, Commissioners Consider Litter Permits, Sales Restrictions, and Consumer Protection Provisions

 

September, 2024

Kelly Crouch, CFA Legislative Information Liaison

Georgia has a highly restrictive pet dealer statute, yet Dekalb County Commissioners are considering an even stricter ordinance. State regulations require any person that sells, exchanges, or adopts more than one litter or 30 adult animals in any 12-month period or is otherwise required to be licensed to get a pet dealer license. Dekalb County, with the fourth highest population in Georgia and containing the easternmost 10% of Atlanta, is considering regulating all breeders. The proposed ordinance would mandate companion animal litter permits without exception, consumer protection provisions, and restrictions on selling cats and dogs. According to the ordinance recitals, reducing a “serious pet overpopulation problem” is necessary due to uncontrolled breeding. Proponents of these ordinances sometimes argue that the direct and indirect costs of not regulating small breeders are too high. Those costs include unreported income and sales taxes, licensing violations, and support of criminal enterprise (i.e., dog fighting). 

If adopted, the ordinance would require owners of intact female companion animals to obtain a six-month Companion Animal Litter Permit prior to or within one week after the birth of a litter. The animal must have an intact animal permit and be permanently identified before a litter permit will be issued. Only one permit per female will be allowed in a 12-month period. The number of permits a household may obtain in a 12-month period is also limited, but it is currently silent as to the number allowed. It is also silent on the cost of the permits. The ordinance also includes other mandates, including vaccinations, identification of the offspring, advertising requirements, and record-keeping.

Although Dekalb County Animal Services may waive the permit fees for rescues and fosters, they are subject to all the other provisions. On August 27, the Board of Commissioners deferred consideration of the ordinance to the October 8, 2024 meeting.

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

Scroll to Top