California

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.

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.

Legislation – What’s Hot…Ojai, California Bans So-called “Unethical Breeding” and Removes Spay/Neuter Exemptions for Exhibited Animals

 

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

Legislation – What’s Hot…City of Los Angeles, CA Adopts Extreme and Indefinite Dog Breeding Permit Moratorium Legislation

 

May 2024

Kelly Crouch, CFA Legislative Information Liaison

Already known to be unfriendly to cat and dog breeders with its complicated animal ordinance, the City of Los Angeles exacerbated things last month with a moratorium on issuing dog breeding permits in response to a shelter crisis. Cat breeding permits are not included in the moratorium ordinance. The ordinance allows lifting the “temporary“ moratorium if the three-month moving dog occupancy average equals 75% or less of total capacity. Should the dog breeding permit moratorium ever be lifted, the ordinance provides that a new intermittent moratorium shall be issued anytime the three-month dog occupancy running average exceeds 75% of capacity.

The shelter system’s excessive overcrowding, approximately 200% of dog kennel capacity, has been blamed on the housing crisis, veterinary shortage , and the rerouting of medical supplies to human hospitals during the pandemic. When people and their pets lose their homes, and affordable veterinary care and sterilization procedures are unavailable, the problem will not be solved by a moratorium on dog breeding permits. The ordinance is a scapegoat response that makes it appear the city is doing something when it cannot address the real issues. 

People who are losing their homes or do not have access to affordable veterinary care for their animals cannot afford the $235 breeding permit and cannot comply with the other requirements. These include microchipping the animal and its offspring, limiting it to one litter per year, and advertising, inspections, sales, and reporting requirements. The City of Los Angeles also has a pet limit law for dogs and cats over four months. The limit is three dogs and five cats, but all cats must be sterilized if there are over three. The limit law does not apply to permitted cat or dog kennels or pet stores.

When you give the government a yard, there is always a risk that it may return for the rest of the mile. The real issues causing shelter overcrowding gave the city an excuse to get closer to banning breeding altogether. Unfortunately, other governments may decide to copy it as many face similar issues.

ADDITIONAL RESOURCE: CFA LEGISLATIVE GROUP REFERENCE: Integrated text of “An ordinance adding Subsections (f) and (g) to Section 53.15.2 of Article 3, Chapter V of the Los Angeles Municipal Code to provide a temporary moratorium on the issuance of new dog breeding permits until the dog population in the City’s animal shelters is reduced and to add a severability clause,” including SEC. 53.15.2. BREEDING AND TRANSFER OF DOGS AND CATS. Other References to cat limits, cat kennels and permits therefor are included. May 2024

Legislation – What’s Hot………… California Bill Failures 2022: Lessons from the Past

 

September 2022

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

A distinctive type of cat and dog bill occasionally appears in the California legislature. These unique bills require local governments, animal agencies, humane organizations and, when applicable, rescue groups to implement entirely new measures without local consideration, adaptation, or adjustment. These local “mandates” offer a work-around, shifting state burdens to local responsibility and one-stop legislation quickly bypassing fifty-eight counties and 479 cities. The problematic range of topics have included breeder licensing, mandatory sterilization or microchipping, and even implementing a puppy licensing program. None were successful. Some never progressed, some failed on a floor vote or were vetoed. There must be a “bill blindness” that proponents misjudge, because California has just experienced two consecutive years, two bills by the same author.

This past California Legislative Session began in 2021. Assembly Member Miguel Santiago’s 2021 AB 702 would have mandated local jurisdictions to enact ordinances minimally consistent with the bill’s requirements for implementing and issuing cat and dog breeding permits. Some but far from all localities have their own varying versions enacted over the past 30 years. Despite some less than significant amendments, the author cancelled the first hearing, implying lack of votes for passage. This bill became a “2 year” bill, eligible for amendment in January when AB 702 was totally amended to a new, shocking topic – dog and cat “rights” – getting immediate attention. The window for passage was too tight, so AB 702 failed. Soon followed by 2022 AB 1881, “The Dog and Cat Bill of Rights” would create yet a new state mandate on local agencies and entities.

The mandate was simple, “Each public animal control agency or shelter, society for the prevention of cruelty to animals shelter, humane society shelter, or rescue group in the state shall make a copy of the notice specified” available – first by only posting in their facility but later expanded to options for their website or adoption application. “Rescue group” is undefined although in other sections in different Codes it varies significantly depending on context. The pet adopting public, statewide, would learn their responsibilities by reading the 7-bullet point notice. Five rounds of amendments did not reach consensus among multiple opposing stakeholders. The offending mandate remained untouched.

Once again, legislative common sense prevailed. For the first time since the Democrat super majority in the Senate, an animal bill, AB 1881, failed to obtain the 21 aye votes for passage with only 12 ayes, 11 noes and 17 “not voting” – the deliberate vote withholding.

Recent CFA Legislative Group Blog Posts:
What’s Hot………… Massachusetts Bill for Licensing Cat Breeders Fails in 2002

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

Legislation –What’s Hot . . . . . . . . California AB 702 – California Breeder Licensing Bill Update

 

May 2021

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

California Assembly Bill 702 by Assembly Member Miguel Santiago (D-53) of Los Angeles to require all cat and dog breeders to obtain breeding permits from local jurisdictions had been set for hearing in the Assembly Committee on Business and Professions on April 27 (click here). However, the hearing was canceled at the author’s request, and the bill did not meet its April 30 deadline to be reported to the Assembly Committee on Appropriations.

Before the scheduled hearing, George Eigenhauser, CFA Legislative Coordinator, submitted a Position Letter in opposition to the bill. CFA was included in the Registered Opposition list in the Committee Consultant’s Analysis which quoted from the letter as follows:

“This bill fails to recognize the practical and commercial differences between cats and dogs. While large scale breeding facilities for dogs exist, most commercial breeders have little or no interest in cats. Cats housed in large facilities are prone to the rapid spread of respiratory and other contagious illnesses. Instead, most cat breeders are hobbyists raising cats in their homes. Raising kittens in a home environment is the best possible way to provide healthy and well suited pets for the public. It allows the public to inspect the cats, and the home in which they were raised, prior to purchase. It would be impossible for many breeders who raise pedigreed cats to comply with this bill, even if they could get a business license, because of the many uncertainties – each jurisdiction can charge a different fee so it would be hard for breeders to anticipate annual costs. Since most cat breeders raise their pets at home, obtaining a business license is sometimes impossible because of zoning restrictions in residential areas. Inspections to assure compliance will require government intrusion into people’s homes, and even their bedrooms.”

For now, resident fanciers can relax. The Legislative Group will inform fanciers if any additional actions on AB 702 are needed.

EDITOR’S NOTE for more details and future reference about CA AB 702 (2021) see the Assembly policy committee analysis.

Recent CFA Legislative Group Blog Posts:
What’s Hot…. Chicago Lawmakers Contemplate Licensing All Breeders in Lieu of Better Solutions Just to Fix a Loophole in the 2014 Ordinance on Retail Pet Shops

EDITOR’S NOTE on April 21, 2021, the Chicago City Council passed a SUBSTITUTE ORDINANCE AS AMENDED that removed the breeder licensing provision but enacted the pet shop amendment previously proposed. For details, see

Legislation –What’s Hot . . . . . . . Legislative Sessions Gather Steam with State Breeder Licensing to Pet Shop Bans, and Traveling Circus Bills: CA, TN, CO, UT, and OR

 

March 2021

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

Legislative sessions continue to ramp up in most states, which means lawmakers are still introducing bills. Utah and Virginia have already ended their sessions. Only Louisiana’s legislature has yet to convene; its 2021 legislative session will begin on April 12, 2021. The other states are providing plenty of material to review. This month we cover two breeder licensing bills, two pet shop bans, and Oregon’s bill about animal traveling acts. There has been misinformation circulating about the Oregon bill that is clarified here. Both California and Tennessee are considering breeder bills but with different approaches. California’s bill would be a mandate on local governments to require breeding permits of all breeders, while Tennessee’s bill would be state-level licensing of dog breeders. The Colorado and Utah pet store legislation also took a couple of different approaches.

California

California Assembly Bill 702, after a lull of many years, is a new attempt at statewide permits for dog and cat breeders. As introduced, the bill would require anyone who might breed a dog or cat to first apply for and obtain a breeder permit from the local jurisdiction where the animal(s) is kept. The local jurisdiction must issue breeder permits as required by the bill and otherwise provide administration and enforcement. The application would include but not be limited to an extensive list of items requiring unusual express statements or evidence. Examples include a “statement by the applicant or applicants stating that at least one of the litter is intended to be offered for sale “and “evidence that the cats or dogs to be bred do not have the same sire or dam.” The local jurisdiction must determine whether an applicant’s responses are sufficient proof of the required information, documents, and statements. The applicant must also agree to comply with a list of permit holder requirements. Failure to adhere to these could result in revocation of the permit after notice and hearing. If the local jurisdiction determines that all the specified conditions have been met, it shall issue the breeder permit. For this permit, the fee “shall not exceed the reasonable costs of administering these provisions,” nor “be duplicative of any other local fee in that jurisdiction. Nothing would prohibit local governments “from adopting or enforcing more restrictive spay and neuter, unaltered, or breeding provisions” which many already have. Historically, state administered licensing and regulation of pet breeding and related businesses have not qualified for California Department of Consumer Affairs administration. Past legislative efforts focused on similar local mandates for either breeding or sales permits but all failed from 1997 through 2010. Elsewhere, a few states have this type of local mandates, but all have numerical thresholds for regulation. Alternatively, state laws can simply restrict breeding with no administrative regulatory mechanism other than civil or criminal enforcement. A.B.702 has been referred to the Assembly Committee on Business and Professions.

Tennessee

Tennessee lawmakers are again considering a breeder registration bill, H.B. 547. This bill applies only to dogs. However, it is notable because the state repealed a breeder licensing law applicable to both cats and dogs. Cat fanciers are familiar with how easy it is to slip “and cats” into some animal bills. This bill would require commercial dog breeders to register with the state every two years. Every dog breeder who “possesses or maintains ten (10) or more intact female adult dogs [six months or older] for the primary purpose of selling their offspring as household pets” during a twelve-month period must register. Applicants must provide their USDA license number or a letter of determination from the USDA that licensing is unnecessary, but it is unlikely such a letter would be forth coming. Such a letter would require individual investigation by the USDA. Rather than investigate a particular fact situation to meet a state law mandate on an individual, the federal agency would direct the applicant to their written, general purpose materials. Inspections are required before registrations are approved and at least biennially after that. The Commissioner of Commerce and Insurance is responsible for promulgating a fee schedule and other rules necessary to effectuate the bill’s purposes. Senate Bill 511, assigned to the Subcommittee on Agriculture & Natural Resources, is similar to H.B. 547.

Colorado

Colorado House Bill 21-1102, called the Pet Store Consumer Protection Act, is a pet store ban with a twist. The bill would prohibit Colorado pet stores not licensed before the bill’s effective date from selling or offering for sale cats and dogs if enacted. Pet stores licensed before the effective date could continue to sell cats and dogs with additional disclosure requirements. A sale does not include an adoption transaction between a shelter or rescue and the adopter. The bill is pending in the Senate Agricultural and Natural Resources Committee.

Utah

Utah’s H.B. 420, entitled Pet Stores and Companion Animals, would prohibit pet stores from selling domestic cats and dogs. The bill follows the recent trend of allowing pet stores to showcase adoptable animals, provided the store has no ownership interest in and receives no fee for showcasing the animal. Utah adjourned sine die on March 5, 2021,with this bill falling into the House file for bills not passed.

Oregon

House Bill 3008 would regulate traveling animal acts in Oregon. The bill would prohibit animals described in subsection (3) of the bill from being used in traveling animal acts with specified exceptions. The prohibition includes Canidae and Felidae in the prohibition except the species Felis catus (domestic cat) and the species Canis familiaris (domestic dogs). The bill is currently in the House Agriculture and Natural Resources Committee.

Recent CFA Legislative Group Blog Posts:

Legislation – What’s Hot, February 2021 – 2021’s Early Bill Issues Range from Breeders to Microchips in these States: CT, HI, NH, NY, OK, and TX

Legislation – What’s Hot . . . . Whatever Happened to This Legislation? CA, CO, FL, GA, HI, IL, KS, and NH

 

October 2020

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

This unusual year made it easy to lose track of state bills and local ordinances. The usual procedures would change unexpectedly leaving everyone – from lawmakers to the public – scrambling to adjust to the monkey wrenches thrown at legislative processes. Legislative priorities quickly focused the limited time and resources on pandemic related legislation with animal bills largely limited to time-sensitive topics. Some measures were enacted while others were simply not heard regardless of need, merit, or improbability.

Many of the 2020 bills or ordinances were retail pet store proposals prohibiting or restricting the sale of cats, dogs, and rabbits on the theory of eliminating “inhumane” breeding. In California, these addressed specific problems that had arisen with enforcement of previously enacted legislation. California Assembly Bill 2152 was signed by the Governor and removes the option for stores to legally acquire “rescue” animals but added express provisions for “showcasing” by public agencies and shelters with a newly narrowed definition for “animal rescue” groups. The state of Colorado, as well as local jurisdictions located therein, Fairplay and Silverthorne, also considered the issue. There were also bills considered in Florida, Kansas, and Naperville, Illinois. The Naperville ordinance allows pet stores to only sell dogs and cats obtained from or displayed in cooperation with humane or welfare organizations or animal rescue groups and revised the rescue definition to exclude relationships with breeders or brokers to deter use of fraudulent rescue groups as happened in Chicago and California.

Evanston, Illinois went further than a pet shop ban by prohibiting sales of cats and dogs from all but USDA licensed breeders. There was no exemption for hobby breeders.

The New Hampshire pet vendor definition thresholds were once again the subject of legislation this year.

Georgia considered a bill that would have required surety bonds of up to $500,000 for all pet dealers. The March 2020 issue of What’s Hot explains why this would include anyone having a single litter.

Honolulu, Hawaii adopted a mandatory microchip ordinance.

As usual, there were bills relating to animal cruelty. One of these was the Florida Allie’s Law bill that would have mandated veterinarians report animal cruelty. Note that a number of states do mandate veterinarian reporting, some just allow it and some have no law at all.

To view all the legislation discussed above, click here to see the chart. https://cfalegislativegroup.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/whats-hot-chart-october-2020.pdf

Other states are still in session, and local legislation can happen at any time. Although many things are clamoring for your attention, please keep your eyes and ears open for legislation affecting you. If you have any concerns or questions about legislation, contact the CFA Legislative Group at the email below. We also have a Facebook page and blog for information of interest to you.

Recent CFA Legislative Group Blog Posts: What’s Hot………… Burke County, North Carolina –– From Animal Services Reform Efforts to Mandatory Sterilization with Breeder Permit Proposal

whats-hot-chart-october-2020-1Download
      whats-hot-chart-october-2020-1Download

      Legislation – What’s Hot . . . . Retail Pet Store Sales Bans, What’s New and What’s Old?

       

      Legislation – What’s Hot

      August 2020

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

      California may have been the first to enact a statewide retail pet store sales ban in 2017, but the legislatively created floodgates are a trickling and California needs fixing. So does Chicago as the recent June What’s Hot reported. As of this writing, Chicago’s proposed legislative fix is on hold. One of its problems included breeder licensing for local residents: a policy that seems counterproductive when these bans are supposed to stop animal abuse in the wholesale-to-retail supply chain. This issue has been the rationale for these laws going back to the 1992 founding of the single-issue advocacy national organization, the Massachusetts based Companion Animal Protection Society (“CAPS”). The CAPS mission statement is: “For the love of animals stand together against pet shops and puppy mills.”

      Many national and local animal protection organizations list this mission among their many issues. However, the persistent, laser focus of CAPS has given it an inside track and perspective to develop legislative opportunities. One of those occurred in the spring of 2013 in the City of San Diego. Then Joan Miller, now retired, CFA Legislative Group founder and Legislative Coordinator testified in opposition to a proposed ordinance before the City Council. Leading up to this effort and beyond, activists had been picketing and harassing personnel and customers of the small store, San Diego Puppy, including its owner David Salinas. The ordinance was enacted in the general form of the later California statute, no pet store sales “unless the dog, cat or rabbit was obtained from a city or county animal shelter or animal control agency, a humane society or a nonprofit rescue organization.” (City Council Makes Tentative Vote To Ban Retail Pet Shops, KBPS, July 9, 2013, https://www.kpbs.org/news/2013/jul/09/sd-pet-shops/ )

      Later campaigns in some cities and the state legislation also focused on demonizing David Salinas who had been a local family man trying to support his family and community with a legal business. Instead of moving out of state or finding a different business, Salinas dug his heels in and became one of those continuing to operate pet stores in conjunction with sham rescue organizations. He remained a high profile target of CAPS and the animal protection community (David Salinas Preliminary Injunction Minute Order 7-2020, June 24, 2020).

      During the 2017 California legislation (Assembly Bill 485,) proponents had realized that authorizing independent animal rescue groups – neither public agencies nor legal humane societies – to “showcase” in retail stores could lead to evasive shenanigans by pet store operators. Rather than fix the issue then, they preferred to get the first state bill enacted while there was a good chance to do so rather than slow down to work out practicalities. The disagreement among supporters went silent and stayed that way until 2019 when the enforcement problems became unavoidable. This year, each faction had its own state bill, one to just eliminate animal rescues and the other to re-define animal rescues for this purpose. With the shortened legislative season due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the factions joined forces in June agreeing on A.B. 2152 to revise the rescue definition. Unlike the 2017 bill, CAPS registered its support and wrote, “We are strongly in favor of the passage of this necessary amendment to The Pet Rescue and Adoption Act (AB 485). It is imperative that we close the loophole that is allowing pet shops to sell mill-bred puppies from fraudulent rescues – fronts for USDA-licensed dog brokers. The true purpose of The Pet Rescue and Adoption Act is [to] stop the sale of mill-bred animals and to provide space in pet shops for shelters and legitimate rescues to showcase homeless animals for adoption” (Assembly Committee on Business and Professions Policy Analysis, AB 2152, page 7, May 20, 2020, http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billAnalysisClient.xhtml?bill_id=201920200AB2152).

      In July, the bill was amended to substitute civil penalties for criminal and simplify the rescue definition in order to pass the Appropriations Committee. For purposes of this law only, “An “animal rescue group” is any not-for-profit organization that has tax-exempt status under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, whose mission and practice is, in whole or significant part, the rescue and placement of animals into permanent homes, and that meets the following requirements: (A) Does not breed animals. (B) Does not obtain animals in exchange for payment or compensation from any person that breeds or brokers animals.” Both the principal co-author, Assemblymember [sic] Todd Gloria of San Diego and the Sponsor, the San Diego Humane Society that is the local animal enforcement agency, thought this narrowed definition would be a workable solution for the “loophole” in the bill without criminalization and excessive restrictions. Then, the supporters of the other bill withdrew their support from AB 2152 and went silent – including CAPS and the sponsor of the other bill, Social Compassion in Legislation. The pet industry and retailers were the only registered opposition. The primary concern is store’s liability for acts of third parties, i.e. the rescue groups. As of this writing, AB 2152 is awaiting action on the Senate Floor where the deadline for further amendment is Monday, August 24.

      The more complex definition of rescue group was discussed in more detail in the June What’s Hot and is turning up in more parts of the country suggesting a national source. It is even more dangerous should it be expanded to apply to an entire animal law rather than limited to only retail showcasing provisions. Any changes or new definitions of animal rescue groups require scrutiny.

      Recent CFA Legislative Group Blog Posts:
      What’s Hot…………July 2020 Texas Sunset Commission Finds the Licensed Breeder Program Fails to Meaningfully Protect the Public

       

      Scroll to Top