Alabama

Legislation – What’s Hot …Gadsden, Alabama: Commercial Breeder Permits and More

 

November 2023

Kelly Crouch, CFA Legislative Information Liaison

The City Council of Gadsden, Alabama, made owning an intact cat or dog more expensive to address the “unchecked reproduction” of animals in the city. On October 10, 2023, officials adopted an amendment to its animal ordinance that included a threefold plan: registration, licensing, and “commercial” breeder permits.

City registration for any cat and dog older than six months is now required. Owners, or the people in charge of the animal, must provide Information about the cat or dog, the owner, and valid proof of rabies vaccination to register it. They shall also obtain an annual or lifetime license (for sterilized animals only). Again, proof of rabies vaccination is required. An exception exists for a cat or dog “registered with the American Kennel Club (AKC) or similar registry recognized by the Division” that has been actively shown and competed in an event hosted by AKC within the past year. Other exemptions exist as well, such as if the animal’s health contraindicates sterilization. License fees range from $5.00 to $50.00.

Annual commercial breeder permits are also required for each unsterilized cat or dog over six months of age kept for commercial breeding in addition to the breeder’s regular business license. Anyone that “breeds one or more domestic cat(s) or dog(s) or offers one or more domestic cat(s) or dog(s) for breeding or stud purposes, producing three or more litters per year, or offers kittens or puppies that are a result of such breeding for sale” is a commercial breeder. The permits cost $200.00.

Gadsden is a small city of almost 34,000 people located about 60 miles northeast of Birmingham. It is the county seat of Etowah County.

Legislation – What’s Hot . . . . Delaware Considers Emotion-based Damages for Pets this Session

 

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

May 2022

Delaware is the second state this year to consider non-economic, or emotion-based, damages for pets. Maryland had considered expanding non-economic damages also. However, the author withdrew the Maryland bill, HB 1375, discussed in the March 2022 edition of What’s Hot. Also, the cross-filed Maryland SB 815 did not move out of committee, nor did the related HB 965 that would have increased the existing cap of $10,000 on compensatory damages to $25,000. As with the Maryland bill, Delaware’s SB 258 (cross-filed with SB 815) would have authorized emotion-based damages in cases for tortious injuries, including death, to a pet as well as compensatory and punitive damages. Senator Ernesto Lopez (R-SD 6) explains in the original bills synopsis that current law limits pet owners to the fair market value of the pet. Veterinary bills and other expenses related to treating the injuries arising from a tortious act are not recoverable. Senate Bill 258 would have authorized up to $15,000 for compensatory damages, and the same for emotion-based damages, for a combined maximum of $30,000. The bill does not limit punitive damages. After further consideration of policy issues, on May 11, 2022, the Senate Judiciary Committee  approved a substitute bill removing non-economic damages and the $15,000 cap on compensatory damages.

Of the three types of damages, compensatory damages are awarded to make the plaintiff whole for reasonable financial expenditures. The pet’s fair market value, veterinary expenses, equipment, and other special needs the pet may have short-term or long-term arising from the tortious act are examples of economic damages. In today’s economy, compensatory damages may sometimes rise above the original $15,000 cap. Punitive damages are designed to punish the tortfeasor and discourage them from committing future bad acts. Although paid to the plaintiff, these damages do not make the pet owner whole financially, nor are they designed to compensate them for any emotional distress. A court may award punitive damages when it deems an act egregious – as when a sanitation worker killed a miniature dachshund by throwing a just emptied garbage can at it, then laughs about the act (LaPorte v. Associated Independents, Inc., 163 So. 2d 267, 1 A.L.R.3d 992 (Fla. 1964)).

Non-economic damages, generally for emotional distress but sometimes related emotion-based claims such as pain and suffering may be awarded, if at all, to human plaintiffs who usually are physically injured. In some jurisdictions, these have been awarded to third parties, usually limited to either spouses or children and who may also be required to have been in the “zone of danger” themselves. These limited cases have inspired legislation to codify some acknowledgment of emotion-based damages based on the “pet member of the family” relationship along with economic or punitive damages for pet injuries and deaths. These two latter provisions are reasonable, especially with specific and modest caps. If emotion-based damages were allowed for tortious acts, breeders, and all pet owners, should expect costs of veterinary care, pet food, pet boarding, and other pet care items to increase in price as these costs are passed on to the consumer. Homeowners and automobile insurance premiums and other indirect expenses may also increase as claims would extend beyond service and care providers to anyone who kills or injures pets. Yet most pet owners will receive no value for the non-economic damages paid to just a few. In fact, in committee testimony on Delaware SB 258, the owner of the bill’s namesake “Izzy” the cat asked only for economic damages, in effect supporting the amendments that removed the cap from economic damages and deleted non-economic damages altogether to the advantage of pets and owners. To read further on this topic, go to “Harming Pets Through the Expansion of Emotion-Based Damages” on the CFA Legislative Group Blog.

EDITOR’S NOTE See the final result for SB 258, Substitute Bill SS1, signed into law on October 14, 2022.

In other news…

Governor Larry Hogan signed HB 22 into law making Maryland the second state to prohibit declawing a cat except when necessary for therapeutic purposes. New York was the first state to pass such a law.

New Hampshire Senate Bill 368 FN would increase fines for pet vendors to $1,000 for the first offense and up to $5,000 for subsequent offenses. The bill has passed both houses.

The Montgomery, Alabama City Council has adopted changes to the animal ordinances in Chapter 4 of its municipal code. The substitute ordinance that was adopted still includes special permits for breeders.

Recent CFA Legislative Group Blog Posts:

What’s Hot ………… Montgomery, AL Considers Breeder Licensing and Other Animal Code Changes

Legislation – What’s Hot . . . . Montgomery, AL Considers Breeder Licensing and Other Animal Code Changes; California AB 1881 – “Dog and Cats Bill of Rights”

 

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

April 2022

During the April 5, 2022, Montgomery, Alabama City Council meeting, voting was postponed on amendments to the animal ordinance, including breeder licensing and mandatory microchipping, until the April 19, 2022 council meeting. The postponement allows concerned residents time to provide additional comments and lawmakers to modify the draft. The revised ordinance and meeting agenda are expected to be available the Friday before the meeting.

In May 2015, shortly after amending the ordinance to authorize independent contracting, the city entered into a contract for the Montgomery Humane Society to enforce the animal ordinance, according to the Montgomery Advisor. Conforming parts of the existing ordinance from the internal Police Department enforcement to independent contractor status presents opportunities as well as risks to amend other substantive provisions that easily introduce new questions and unintended consequences. In the definitions, the proposed ordinance also designates the Montgomery Humane Society as the Animal Control Unit.

One concerning amendment would make extensive changes to the simple existing Sec. 4-181 – “Keeping large numbers of animals; special permit” in Chapter 4, Article VI – Breeding, Training, Boarding. This section covers obtaining a permit from the City through the Police Chief before engaging in the “business of breeding, buying, selling, trading, training, or boarding” animals with no further mention of “large numbers.” Permits are limited to one per residence with a $20.00 fee. With the Montgomery Humane Society issuing permits under its contract with the City, this section invites revision whether sensible or not. The existing use of “residence” and low fee suggests that the intention had been to include residential hobbyist activities or small operations without excessive definition of these terms while avoiding intrusive requirements.

The proposal calls all levels of breeding, buying, selling, trading, training, or boarding a “business venture” and “residence” is removed entirely. Additionally, to obtain an “Animal Business” permit the applicant must have a current and valid business license, liability insurance, proof of rabies vaccinations as required, provide “veterinarian records for all animals that enter or leave their care within the 12 months prior to the date of application,” and comply with all local, state and federal laws. The initial permit and annual renewal applications increase by 750% to $150.00. Inspections are required before approval of any applications or renewal is granted. Hobby breeders or other small-scale operators need to know whether there is a minimum threshold for determining what is a “business venture” requiring the special permit and adherence to all these requirements.

Montgomery is also poised to follow in the footsteps of Honolulu, Hawaii, and other cities in requiring mandatory microchipping and registration rather than licensing. Unlike cities that have substituted microchipping and registration for licensing, the city does not currently license dogs or cats. If this ordinance is adopted, all cats and dogs over four months of age (with few exemptions) kept in the city would have to be microchipped and registered with the Montgomery Humane Society (the city’s animal control contractor) and the issuing microchip company. Not only does this limit consumer choice to microchip companies that offer a registration service, but there are too many opportunities for failure in the microchip system to be mandated legislatively. Chips can fail or migrate. There may also be multiple microchips inserted in the animal. Some health problems have also been reported with the use of microchips. In addition, universal scanners cannot read all chips. The scanner may verify a chip’s presence but not any other information if the chip is encrypted. Registration databases may not be up-to-date. And owners may not be comfortable with the humane society having access to all their personal information for animals that do not enter the shelter system. There is also a misconception that microchips are proof of ownership rather than just evidence of ownership. Microchips are a good option for people, but the system is not robust enough to be forced on pet owners.

Among the many changes to existing law, this ordinance would amend the ¬very brief animal cruelty section. The proposed changes would divide the section into, “It shall be unlawful if the owner of or any person having custody or direct control of any dog” and “it shall be unlawful for any person” offenses, the former including typical standard of care requirements that normally are not defined as cruelty. All offenses are classified as misdemeanors. As currently drafted, there are no express provisions for cats.

In Other News….California AB 1881

The Los Angeles City Council is considering adopting a resolution to support California Assembly Bill 1881 by Assembly Member Miguel Santiago of Los Angeles, also known as the Dog and Cat Bill of Rights. These seven rights range from being free from cruelty to the right to mental stimulation, sterilization to prevent unwanted litters, and veterinary care. All animal control, animal shelters, and rescue groups would be required to post a copy of the Dog and Cat Bill of Rights in a conspicuous place accessible to public view. Assigned to the Assembly Committee on Business and Professions, the bill is set for hearing on April 26, 2022.

Recent CFA Legislative Group Blog Posts:
What’s Hot………… Maryland’s Noneconomic Damages Legislation and Missouri’s Pet Breeders Week Bill

Scroll to Top