Hawaii

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 … Mid-session Updates: FL, GA, HI, IA, and MD

 

Kelly Crouch, CFA Legislative Information Liaison

Florida
There have been many attempts over the past 29 years to regulate dog breeders in the state. Once again, those efforts died when SB 1356 and HB 1521 failed to progress.
Senate Bill 1004 amends the consumer protection laws governing pet sales and animal cruelty. It has been enrolled and sent to the governor. If enacted, the pet dealer threshold is raised to selling more than three litters or 30 dogs or cats per year, record-
keeping requirements are added for all pet dealers, and best management practices are established for dog breeders. The bill was signed by the governor.

Georgia
Senate Bill 590 would have expanded regulations on dog breeders had it been enacted. Cat breeders would not have been impacted. Georgia has one of the most restrictive cat and dog breeder laws in the country. Fortunately, the bill died and will not carry over into 2027.

Hawaii
Several bills were introduced in Hawaii that would have burdened cat and dog breeders. House Bill
1594 and SB 3012 would prohibit intact cats and dogs from being imported unless the breeder was registered with the
Department of Agriculture and Biosecurity. House Bill 1736-2 would establish a spay/neuter fund at the cost of mandating the sterilization of all cats. Any free-roaming cats caught and sterilized could only be placed in sanctuaries. Fortunately, all these bills died and will not carry over to 2027. Fanciers should expect renewed efforts in 2027.

Iowa
Senate Bill 2306 would have subjected “commercial” breeders to inspection. It would have defined a commercial breeder as “a
person, engaged in the business of breeding dogs or cats, who sells, exchanges, or leases dogs or cats in return for consideration, or who offers to do so, whether or not the animals are raised, trained, groomed, or boarded by the person. A person who owns or harbors three or fewer breeding males or females is not a commercial breeder.” It died.

Maryland
House Bill 1551 died when the legislature adjourned. The bill would have established the Dog Breeder Accountability
Fund and imposed mandates on dog breeders, including requiring that every puppy be issued a birth certificate by the state.

What’s Hot … Mandatory Sterilization for Cats Proceeds to Hawaii Senate, while the Sterilization Requirements for Imported Dogs and Cats Bill Fails to Cross Over

 

Kelly Crouch, CFA Legislative Information Liaison

The mandatory cat sterilization requirement remains attached to the Hawaiian Spay and Neuter Special Fund Bill, HB 1736 HD2. After two amendments, the show cat exception was removed, only to be replaced by a mandate for intact cats over the age of five months to be covered by a $100 intact cat declaration filed with the applicable county animal control authority. The House passed the bill, and the Senate is now considering it. The bill was referred to the Agriculture and Environment, Energy and Intergovernmental Affairs, and Ways and Means Committees.

The Special Fund is a laudable method to provide counties with spaying and neutering funds to address the availability of affordable sterilization services to disadvantaged communities. Hawaii has several endangered species, and community cats and dogs are considered one of the dangers to ground-nesting birds, sea turtles, and Hawaiian Monk Seals (due to exposure to toxoplasmosis). Invasive species such as mongooses, rats, and mosquitoes also pose threats to native birds. The legislature should narrowly tailor any legislation to its purpose and address all threats to endangered species, including human activity. Piecemeal efforts will not save those endangered animals.

Yet, the bill unnecessarily ties punitive fees to owning intact cats. Not only are 80–90% of owned cats sterilized without such legislation, but generally, only two groups of people would own intact cats. This special fund helps low-income pet owners who cannot afford sterilization procedures. Punitive fees of $500 – $1,000 per cat do not help when people cannot afford the procedures in the first place. As intact cats exhibit unpleasant hormonal behaviors, making services available to this group will help reduce the number of unsterilized cats in these communities. Small in-home preservation breeders are the other people keeping intact cats. Breeders do not want their cats roaming the islands, mating with random-bred cats, and bringing home diseases that could destroy their breeding programs. Pedigreed cats make up only 3–5% of the cat population; they do not contribute to Hawaii’s community cat issues. Yet, this bill penalizes preservation breeders for a problem they do not cause. It also raises the question of whether local clubs could continue to produce cat shows, as the bill does not provide any exceptions for cats temporarily in the state.

In addition to penalizing pet owners, this bill puts the burden of enforcement on counties. Local governments are better positioned to assess their animal control needs than a one-size-fits-all plan that does more harm than good.

The Agriculture and Environment and Energy and Intergovernmental Affairs Committees have scheduled a hearing for House Bill 1736 HD2 on March 18, 2026, at 3:10 p.m. in Conference Room 224. Fanciers should oppose this bill as long as it contains the mandatory spay/neuter mandate. Testimony can be submitted online here.

Fortunately for cat and dog fanciers, Senate Bill 3012 failed to make the crossover deadline and is not expected to progress this legislative session. That bill mandated the sterilization of imported cats and dogs.

UPDATE 3/28/2026: After the Senate Agriculture and Environment Committee deferred HB 1736 HD2, proponents amended SB 1023 carried over from 2025. SB 1023 was replaced in its entirety by the language in HB 1736 HD2 and is now SB 1023 HD2. It has been referred to the House Finance Committee.

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! 

Legislation – What’s Hot …Restricting Retail Pet Stores Animal Sales: HI, NH, VT, and IN

 

February 2024

Kelly Crouch, CFA Legislative Information Liaison

Retail pet store legislation prohibiting pet stores from selling cats, dogs, and other animals continues to be proposed, often as all-out bans – but not without some legislators trying a different approach. Hawaii, New Hampshire, and Vermont are considering a slow-death approach to retail pet store animal sales. At the same time, Indiana legislators seek to prevent local governments from passing bans reserving that power for the state.

In Hawaii’s SB 2120, stores not operating before January 1, 2025, would be prohibited from selling cats, dogs, guinea pigs, domesticated pigs, or caged birds. Existing stores selling these animals must retain the same ownership and location and meet new documentation requirements. New Hampshire’s Environment and Agriculture Committee deemed a similar approach in HB 1680-FN, “inexpedient to legislate”. It would have prohibited pet store sales of dogs and cats unless the store were a licensed pet vendor before July 1, 2024. But no pet store could have transferred more dogs and cats in any calendar year than the store did in 2023. Vermont’s HB 567 contains requirements for cats, dogs, and wolf-hybrids sold by pet stores similar to the New Hampshire bill.

However, not all state legislators appreciate the patchwork quilt of local government pet store restrictions or agree with curtailing responsible pet shop sales of legal pets. Instead, these legislators would preempt local governments from adopting ordinances restricting retail pet store animal sales. Indiana’s HB 1412 , now in the Senate, includes a preemptive provision with other amendments expanding the Board of Animal Health’s responsibilities regarding pet stores, commercial dog breeders, and hobby dog breeders. While the bill would prevent local governments from prohibiting retail pet store sales of dogs acquired from authorized breeders, they can adopt inspections, licenses, or other applicable ordinances. Cats are not included in the bill.

Preemption legislation may benefit some fanciers as local governments sometimes use retail pet store bans to restrict hobby breeding. Also, redefining rescue to exclude rescues with active breeder involvement, while not added to these bills, continues to be a problem for fanciers.

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 . . . . 2021’s Early Bill Issues Range from Breeders to Microchips in these States: CT, HI, NH, NY, OK,and TX

 

February 2021

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

Legislators are introducing legislation as state sessions are getting started. A few of these bills, discussed below, involve pet breeders, dealers, mandatory microchipping, and pet store source restrictions. Even this early in the year, the CFA Legislative Group is tracking more state bills than we can report on in What’s Hot, the CFALegislativeNews Facebook page, or the CFA Legislative Group blog. Some of these bills are dog only bills–at the moment. Others involve topics like animal abuse, taxation, and non-economic damages. We watch this legislation, because changes during the session could make them significant to cat fanciers. The bills summarized below come from Connecticut, Hawaii, New Hampshire, New York, Oklahoma, and Texas.

The bills of note this month include:

CT S.B. 458: This bill would establish a companion animal breeder license. The fee would be set on a per animal basis and used by the Department of Agriculture for spaying and neutering programs.

HI H.B. 1287: The proposed House Bill 1287 includes a new section requiring mandatory microchipping of dogs and cats, registration, and registration information maintenance. It also amends the state licensing requirement to include “or has been implanted with a microchip” if counties “by ordinance, dispense with or modify” the state licensing requirements. The amendment also adds cats to this section. The companion bill is S.B. 1387.

NH H.B. 250: This bill would increase the licensing threshold for a pet vendor to to 35 dogs and 50 cats sold. There was another unsuccessful attempt to raise them in 2020. The thresholds were reduced in the budget bill of 2019.

NY A.B. 2601: If enacted, this bill would require anyone who breeds three or more cats or dogs for sale for profit to obtain an annual breeder license. Such breeders would be subject to the inspection, facilities, care, and record-keeping mandates included in the bill. Current law defines pet dealers as any person who engages in the sale or offers to sell more than nine (9) dogs and/or cats per year to the public or any person who engages in the sale of more than twenty-five (25) dogs and/or cats, (born and raised on their premise) per year to the public.

OK H.B. 1581: House Bill 1581 would restrict the sources of cats and dogs sold by a pet store. Unlike some other bills of this type, it would not limit sources to so-called “humane sources” only. The sale of cats and dogs from shelters and rescues would be allowed, as are cats and dogs from specified wholesalers and qualified breeders.

TXS.B. 323: In the July 2020 issue of What’s Hot, we reported that the Texas Sunset Commission recommended eliminating the Licensed Breeders Program. Since then, the Commission rejected the recommendation. Now Senator Royce West (D-23) has authored Senate Bill 323 that would, if enacted, reduce the threshold to require licensing to five breeding females and eliminating the cats or dogs sold threshold altogether.

Lawmakers will add more bills of interest to fanciers as the sessions continue. Though only a few state legislatures meet year-round, local lawmakers do meet all year. Keeping track of fifty states is one thing, but add in all the local governments, and there are over 30,000 jurisdictions in the U.S.to monitor. The CFA Legislative group needs your help in this endeavor. We call you the eyes and ears of the cat fancy for a reason. If you discover concerning legislation affecting this hobby -at any level –please contact us at legislation@cfa.org

Recent CFA Legislative Group Blog Posts:

Legislation –What’s Hot, January 2021 – PIJAC’s Letter on Essential Businesses, Legislative Sessions, and an Update on Burke County, North Carolina

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 ……Mandatory Microchipping Law Development: the Proposed Honolulu, Hawaii Ordinance

       

      Legislation – What’s Hot                                                                                                                      Kelly Crouch, CFA Legislative Information Liaison November 2019

      Mandatory Microchipping Law Development: the Proposed Honolulu, HI Ordinance

      Mandatory microchipping laws started as singular mandates to chip pets, but the Honolulu ordinance would add three more mandates and associated reporting requirements to the original formula. With these additional mandates come more issues for affected pet owners. While CFA supports voluntary microchipping, there are too many opportunities for failure in every aspect of the system to support the legislatively mandated use of the technology alone or with additional requirements.

      The technology failures include reported health issues, failure or migration of the chip, an improper scan not revealing a microchip, universal scanners that are not really universal, and different countries require microchips of different frequencies which can be problematic along the border or in imported animals. Registering databases may not have up to date information, or the chip may not be registered at all. In the U.S., it can be something of a scavenger hunt to find registration information because of the large number of registries. There is also the misguided notion that registration of a chip is proof of ownership. By itself, the chip registration is only evidence, not proof, of ownership. Similarly, writing your name in a jacket found at the park only shows possession at some point, not ownership. The microchip system can be a valuable resource to pet owners, but it is in no means failsafe.

      These weaknesses of the microchip system make expanding on the original formula of stand-alone microchipping mandates deceptively attractive to well-meaning lawmakers. Some of these developments include requiring shelters to chip pets before reuniting them with their owners or placing them in new homes, mandating registration with a private registry, and mandating registration with a local animal control agency. Although these issues have shown up in local ordinances and the occasional state bill, it may be premature to label these developments trends just yet.

      Requiring public animal control agencies and shelters to microchip cats and dogs before releasing them to their owners or placing them in new homes was recently considered in California. Senate Bill 64 passed both houses of the legislature in 2019 but was vetoed by the governor. While supportive of the objective to reduce euthanasia, Governor Gavin Newson recognized the burden the legislation might cause for people struggling to meet the basic costs of pet care. A previous attempt to impose these requirements on shelters and rescues in 2011 with S.B. 701, was also vetoed by then Governor Edmund G. Brown Jr citing local authority to make such mandates and pay for them if the local jurisdiction chose to pass such a law.

      Alternatively, combining the microchip mandate with the requirement that pet owners must register the chip with a private registry is the choice made by the San Antonio, Texas city council. This option introduces a different set of problems. New companies start-up, and others go out of business, possibly without notice to their clients. A single microchip number can be registered to multiple people which may be deliberate or the result of duplicated microchip numbers. Breeders often list themselves as the primary contact with the owner as the alternate contact. Also, with all the registration companies in the U.S., it is unrealistic to expect animal control to know and contact each of them for every lost pet.

      There are also issues with the requirement that owners must register their pet’s chip with animal control. By requiring a cat owner to register with animal control the mandate essentially becomes a cat licensing program. Cat owners may question the value of the program since cats do not benefit from licensing as much as dogs. According to a 2010 survey, only 2% of cats were reunited with their owners through a shelter. Instead, 75% of cats usually returned home on their own or were found in searches by their owners. (Weiss, Frequency of Lost Dogs and Cats in the United States and the Methods Used to Locate Them, https://www.mdpi.com/2076-2615/2/2/301)

      The proposed Honolulu ordinance incorporates all three of these additional mandates. With all of these additional mandates and the associated reporting requirements, the ordinance introduces yet another issue. It subjects pet owners to overly complicated regulations that invite unintentional violations. The combination of all these issues should override any wellmeant intentions behind the proposed ordinance.

       

      Recent CFA Legislative Group Blog Posts, October 2019, Legislation – What’s Hot . . . . New Hampshire: Pet Vendor Update Eureka (Humboldt County,) California: Limits, Cattery Licensing, and Irresponsible Pet Owner

       

      Scroll to Top