Colorado

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)

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

January 2022

Recap of 2021 Bills

Ringing in 2022, you may wonder what happened with the 2021 legislation we monitored. Before reviewing the updates, let’s look at the new year to help put those “end-results” in perspective. Unlike odd-numbered years, only 46 states will have regular sessions. Montana, Nevada, South Dakota, and Texas skip the even-numbered years. For the other states, many sessions will begin this month. Several states allow bills to carry over from 2021 to 2022. But not all legislation will have the momentum to leap across sessions. And for other bills the authors may still find it advantageous to file it under a new number instead. Thus, bills may not always die at the end of the session and appear unresolved. Click here to see an updated chart of 2021 legislation not previously updated. It includes legislation from Colorado, Connecticut, Hawaii, Illinois, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, Oklahoma, Tennessee, and Utah.

Where to find CFA’s Legislative News
In addition to the monthly What’s Hot pieces conveniently published in the CFA Newsletter, the CFA Legislative Group also has a Facebook news page and a WordPress blog site with useful features. The CFALegislativeNews Facebook page posts describe and link to information about new legislation, publications, and developments. You may always forward these to your own friends to expand our reach, and please send us news from your area to legislation@cfa.org. On the CFA Legislative Group Blog, we post chronologically the monthly What’s Hot pieces as blog entries. These are always available for reference and are handy and searchable as issues develop over time. There are also occasional topical discussions of developing issues that only appear on the blog, as well as additional pages on the site. These include the APHIS Exemptions Flow Charts in addition to a Resources page with articles authored by the CFA Legislative Group that have been published elsewhere, generally Cat Talk Magazine.

Recent CFA Legislative Group Blog Posts: Legislation – What’s Hot . . . . . . Federal and State Legislature Sites, Part 2, Nebraska – Wyoming

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

Scroll to Top