Community Cats

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! 

Legislation – What’s Hot ….. Norway’s Unethical Breeding Case and the Revision of Animal Ordinances in Houston, Texas

 

Kelly Crouch, CFA Legislative Information Liaison
Sharon Coleman, CFA Legislative Legal Analyst

February 2022

Briefly Noted: Norway’s “Unethical Breeding” Case

In an “unethical breeding” case, Norway’s Oslo District Court has ruled the breeding of English Bulldogs and Cavalier King Charles Spaniels illegal under the country’s Animal Welfare Act 25. In an article from Belfast Live, the complaining party argued there were no healthy examples of these dogs in the country that could ethically be used for breeding. The Norwegian Kennel Club, the Norwegian Cavalier Club, the Norwegian Bulldog Club, and six breeders were defendants in the case. Cat and dog breeders in the European Union will be watching to see if this case is appealed.

Houston, TX

The Houston City Council quietly and unanimously passed the only revision since 2014 of its animal ordinances, including mandatory microchipping, hold time reductions, community cat provisions, and sourcing restrictions on pet stores. All accomplished with a single reading and vote! In a practice dating back more than six years, all proposed ordinances are considered on an emergency basis, allowing them to be passed with a single reading. As a result, an ordinance comes before the Council only once, eliminating a second opportunity for public comment within a formal hearing following which Council members can publicly address issues raised and confer with staff and legal counsel if needed. Furthermore, the draft ordinance along with a link to submit comments was linked under Proposed Ordinance Changes on the sidebar of the Administration and Regulatory Affairs Department web page, not the City Council’s web pages.

Houston is also replacing physical license tags and the entire licensing requirement provision with a microchip and registration requirement, a new practice spreading among communities when not prohibited by state law. CFA maintains that microchipping is one of several valuable tools for pet identification. However, there are many ways the microchip system can fail, especially in the United States. The decision to insert a foreign object into an animal’s body is for the owner and their veterinarian, not one mandated by the government. To give people time to comply, the council said there would be an intensive education effort during the first year before enforcement.

Another change mandates that animals impounded for running at-large two or more times must be sterilized and have their unsterilized pet registration revoked (where applicable). Hold times for at-large unmicrochipped dogs are reduced from 72 to 48 hours.

Community cats will benefit from Houston’s recognition that its feral cat policies were archaic. Embracing the concept that the unowned community cats extend beyond feral cats to socialized but unowned cats, Houston replaced the city’s feral cat provisions in the prior municipal code with ones tailored for community cat programs.

Houston also jumped on the retail pet store ban by adding animal sourcing restrictions. Only sales of pets sourced from shelters and humane organizations will be allowed. Unfortunately, the city fell into the trap of adopting an overreaching definition of humane organization that excludes both an “entity that breeds animals” or “in exchange for payment or compensation, obtains any dog or cat from a person who either breeds dogs or cats or facilitates the sale of dogs or cats that were obtained from a person who breeds dogs or cats.” Further, this definition is included with definitions of general applicability to the entire ordinance, creating unnecessary restrictions for humane organizations that do not supply pet stores, instead of limiting the restrictions to only those that do. The retail pet store sourcing restriction will become effective after one year allowing existing pet stores time to comply or cease sales.

Recent CFA Legislative Group Blog Posts: Legislation – What’s Hot . . . . . . 2022 Ushers in the New and Out the Old: States in Session this Year and a Recap of 2021 Bills (CO, CT, HI, IL, MA, NH, NY, OK, TN, and UT)

Legislation – What’s Hot . . . . . . City of Los Angeles Feral Cat Program Delayed Years by Bureaucracy, Now in Comment Period

 

Legislation – What’s Hot . . . . . . .

Kelly Crouch, CFA Legislative Information Liaison                                                                      Sharon A. Coleman, CFA Legislative Legal Analyst                                                               

September 2019

City of Los Angeles Feral Cat Program Delayed Years by Bureaucracy, Now in Comment Period

The City of Los Angeles engaged in minimal Trap-Neuter-Return (TNR) efforts since the early 1990s. In 2005, recognizing that extermination of feral cats was neither humane nor cost-effective, the City started to develop an official policy for modest TNR efforts.  Environmental and bird groups1 sought (2008) and in January 2010 obtained a permanent injunction against the City. The injunction prohibited the City from engaging in or facilitating others’ work in the TNR program until it meets the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Case No. BS115483. In March of 2010, the injunction was modified in two ways. The City was allowed to release feral cats to groups who agree in writing to not release the cats at the trapping location and its animal shelters were permitted to distribute publications that included information on TNR among the topics covered. In 2013 the City prepared a Mitigated Negative Declaration but modified that plan to the program proposed in the current Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR), Section 15082 of the State CEQA Guidelines. In 2017, the City approved the plan covered by the current City of Los Angeles DEIR now in the comment period in the fall of 2019.

In the original litigation, the City agreed that environmental review would be done eventually but its activities were so early in the planning stages and the review process stopped for budget reasons, this had not yet been accomplished. The City also contended that its activities to date did not constitute a TNR program, but the court rejected this argument. The final judgment and injunction prohibited the city from implementing a “trap, neuter, release” program until a CEQA environmental review was completed. Contemplating a lengthy, expensive process that could delay implementation for many years, in February 2010, two organizations attempted to intervene in the litigation. The No Kill Advocacy Center, a policy organization led by Nathan Winograd, and the Stray Cat Alliance, that operates in the County of Los Angeles and advocates for every cat’s “right to be safe, healthy and valued,” brought an ex parte motion to intervene claiming that a CEQA review is not required before implementing a TNR program.

The motion was denied and the denial affirmed on appeal, finding the issue moot and never a claim in contention. Rather the City claimed in the original litigation that its plan had not developed to the extent requiring a CEQA review, not that the City wanted to oppose the need for CEQA review.2

The question of whether CEQA review is required for this TNR program was acceded to by the original parties. The program has already been delayed by over a decade. Moneys that could have been spent for the welfare of cats have instead supported years of bureaucratic process and largely redundant documents. Now, the time has come for action. The plan evaluates the potential environmental effects of the proposed Citywide Cat Program and seeks input on the DEIR from public agencies, residents, and other interested project stakeholders. The DEIR and its separate Appendices are lengthy but contain information of interest to anyone concerned about cats and the environment and how the CEQA process works. Comments can be submitted in writing until October 28th or at a public meeting on Monday, October 7, 2019, 6:00 p.m. at the Ramona Hall Community Center, 4580 N Figueroa St, Los Angeles.

The DEIR contains comments from the 2017 Public Scoping Meeting, an in-depth discussion of the Environmental Impact and Alternatives analysis, a discussion of the County of Los Angeles free-roaming cat policies, along with other information that contributed to the development of the Citywide Cat Program. The Program addresses funding issues, whether changes to applicable law would be required, how to implement the program, establishing collaborative relationships with TNR organizations, and public education. One item of particular interest to resident pet owners is that the City proposes to amend the Los Angeles Municipal Code to allow up to five cats per household. Before LA fanciers get too excited, that increased number would be subject to restrictions. Any household with more than three cats must keep them inside at all times, sterilize and microchip all the cats, and the household must register with the Department of Animal Services.

The only environmental impact concerns with the program include biological resources, public health, and water quality. Those who support euthanasia over TNR argue that free-roaming cats impact populations of birds, rodents, and other prey. There are public health concerns potentially affecting humans, such as fleas and parasites. Finally, there is the concern that cat feces may contaminate bodies of water. Researchers determined that the proposed project would result in no impact or less-than-significant impact for all resource areas.

The DEIR discusses a total of 13 possible alternatives to the recommended Citywide Cat Program. These include increased enforcement of the mandatory spay/neuter ordinance, cat licensing, enact a no-roaming ordinance for owned cats, and reduce the permissible number of cats per residence from the three cats currently permitted. None of the alternatives met all of the program objectives.

Additional documents on the proposed Citywide Cat Program, including the DEIR, its Appendices and how to provide written comments, are located at the City’s Bureau of Engineering website.

 

1 Urban Wildlands Group, Endangered Habitats League, Los Angeles Audubon Society, Palos Verdes/South Bay Audubon Society, Santa Monica Bay Audubon Society, and American Bird Conservancy.

2 https://www.leagle.com/decision/incaco20101206013#

 

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.

Scroll to Top