The Council of the European Union negotiated animal legislation impacting breeders, sellers, exporters, and shelters that could become the first EU-wide animal law. To improve the welfare of cats and dogs “placed in the market,” consumer protection, and fighting illegal trade, the legislation would impose extensive “minimum standards” and inspections. The standards address the “five domains” – nutrition, environment, health, behavior, and mental state. Other components impacting breeders include traceability of commercially placed animals, pet buyer education, and animal caretaker training.
Despite recognizing that smaller breeders would be disproportionately affected by the provisions, the proposal still sets a low authorization threshold of producing or intending “to produce more than five litters per calendar year or that keeps more than five bitches or queens at any given time” for breeding establishments requiring approval. This is an increase from the original three bitches or queens and two litters or less language due to the veterinarian shortage. Partially exempt breeding establishments producing at most two litters per calendar year remain subject to many restrictions. Breeding restrictions include limits on frequency, age of the females, c-sections, inbreeding, bans on breeding hybrids, and “excessive conformational traits”. The last restriction prohibits breeding establishments from using animals with excessive conformational traits leading to a high risk of detrimental effects on the welfare of these animals. It mandates that breeding strategies minimize “the risk of producing dogs or cats with genotypes or phenotypes associated with detrimental effects on their welfare.” Some stakeholders wanted a total ban on breeding these animals. The European Commission rejected that suggestion because many of these breeds are linked to specific Member State traditions, such as the French Bulldog and Brussels Griffon.
Breeding and selling establishments are prohibited from using animals with “excessive conformational traits” or mutilations (i.e., docked tails) in aesthetic shows, exhibitions, and competitions. Show organizers must also exclude these animals from their shows.
The proposal requires EU-wide traceability of animals placed in the market via microchips and registration with a national database. Member States must ensure the interoperability of their databases with those of other Member States. Imports from outside the EU must also meet the traceability requirements and are subject to the same or equivalent standards contained in this legislation.
Member States are responsible for enforcement but can have more restrictive laws if they desire.
According to the press release linked above, “Negotiations between the Council presidency and the European Parliament will start once the Parliament has agreed on its position. The outcome of the negotiations will determine the final shape of the legislation.”
Fanciers can find more information on the legislation and the underlying research by following the links at the bottom of the press release.
New Hampshire Update
House Bill 1102-FN, which would have made selling or breeding with the intent to sell two or more cats or dogs with a defect that causes suffering an act of animal cruelty, officially died with the adjournment of the state’s legislative session.
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
Some in the animal welfare community argue that the U.S. Department of Agriculture is not sufficiently aggressive when applying penalties to violators of the Animal Welfare Act and hasn’t been for many years. They suggested that the Department of Justice (DOJ) may be better suited to deal with the enforcement of the AWA, but previous attempts to legislate DOJ’s involvement failed. Then, on September 27, 2023, Representative Reschenthaler introduced HR 5041, the Better CARE for Animals Act of 2023.
The bill would amend the AWA, allowing the DOJ to bring civil action against violators. The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) claims the bill’s introduction with bi-partisan support as one of its 2023 achievements. That is, if you can call a co-sponsor pool consisting of 172 Democrats and 18 Republicans truly bi-partisan.
Interestingly, on March 8, the USDA announced that it had worked with the DOJ and the Justice Department’s Environment and Natural Resources Division on enforcement for almost four years. It has recently formalized the arrangement in a Memorandum of Understanding. Since then, only three more co-sponsors have added their names as co-sponsors for HR 5041. The bill has not made it out of committee yet. An identical bill, S 2555, has 26 Democratic, two Republican, and one independent co-sponsor. It has not made it out of committee either.
New Hampshire HB 1102-FN Update: The House Environment and Agriculture Committee tabled HB 1102-FN in a 232-140 vote, which caused it to miss a calendar deadline. Despite this setback, the bill’s language, which would make selling or breeding with the intent to sell two or more cats or dogs with a defect that causes suffering an act of animal cruelty, could still find its way into the legislative landscape. Potentially, it could be added to another bill by amendment, as happened with the 2019 pet vendor bill.
Cat and dog fanciers presented a well-planned opposition to the New Hampshire Environment and Agriculture Committee during a public hearing held on March 5th on House Bill 1102-FN. It is a bill of first impression in the country that would amend the state’s animal cruelty statute to include:
“(h) Sells an animal that has a birth deformity that causes suffering, such as brachycephaly, or the intentional breeding with the intent to sell, 2 individual animals with the same birth deformity that causes suffering, such as brachycephaly”.
Since January, the CFA Legislative Group collaborated with TICA, AKC, and local fanciers and submitted CFA’s opposition letter. The fanciers had a significant impact based on the comments from the work session the following day. Several members echoed Committee Chair Judy Aron’s sentiment that New Hampshire breeders do a great job of breeding ethically. Representative Barbara Comtois, who owned three breeds of brachycephalic dogs and is a former dog breeder, commented that New Hampshire already has excellent laws, so they don’t hear about these issues much. Representative Catherine Kenny has worked with several breeders over her career in the veterinary field and found them to be devoted to their animals and conscientious about their health. She also said breeders and veterinarians could address this issue better than legislation. Others commented that proving intent would be an issue, and more than one commented that they learned a lot, especially that brachycephaly alone was not a deformity.
Kudos to the local cat and dog fanciers for their efforts! Fanciers can watch the public hearing and the work session beginning at the time 1:51:15. The bill is due out of committee by March 21st but could be voted on in the executive session on March 13th, 2024.
UPDATE
On March 13, 2024, the House Environment and Agriculture Committee voted 14:6 to report HB 1102-FN as inexpedient to legislate. Many thanks to all who fought this bill! If the House votes to adopt the committee report, the bill will be officially killed, although the Sponsor may attempt to offer an amendment before this process is complete.
To all New Hampshire exhibitors, cat clubs, breeders, and pet lovers.
Hearing Date: Tuesday, March 5, 2024, 1:00 p.m. Eastern
New Hampshire House Environment and Agriculture Committee
NOTE: The deadline for submission of written comments is the end of Monday, March 4, 2024.
As you know, New Hampshire HB 1102-FN would amend their animal cruelty statute to criminalize anyone who “Sells an animal that has a birth deformity that causes suffering, such as brachycephaly, or the intentional breeding with the intent to sell, 2 individual animals with the same birth deformity that causes suffering, such as brachycephaly.” This would ban popular breeds such as Persians, Exotics, Burmese, etc.
PLEASE CONTACT the New Hampshire House Environment and Agriculture Committee. Contact information may be found on the CFA blog at: https://cfalegislativegroup.wordpress.com
SUGGESTED COMMENTS: CFA has sent a letter in OPPOSITION to the committee. The text of the CFA letter follows this alert. Additional suggestions may be found in our previous alert, or use points in opposition outlined in the AKC alerts modified to relate to cats as applicable.
If you have additional questions please contact me and copy the rest of the team working on this matter. Please copy each of us on your messages so that we can assist you more quickly. Please include Sharon A Coleman sharonacoleman@aol.com, Kelly Crouch kcrouch512@gmail.com, and Alene Shafnisky sinend.ta@gmail.com; along with myself.
Please forward this message to anyone who might help.
Re: HB 1102 “relative to the definition of animal cruelty”
Hearing date March 5, 2024 OPPOSE
Dear Committee Members:
I am writing on behalf of The Cat Fanciers’ Association, Inc. (CFA)[1] in opposition to HB 1102, “relative to the definition of animal cruelty”. We oppose the bill as written and submit the following in OPPOSITION.
The Cat Fancier’s Association supports the well-being of all cats and responsible breeding practices for cats. However, this bill seeks to criminalize the sale and breeding of brachycephalic cats, by defining them as suffering from a “birth deformity.” This bill not only creates criminal offenses but positions them within the animal cruelty offenses that are subject to additional consequences, both statutory and otherwise where convictions, in addition to incarceration and fines, may bar employment, licensing, or other benefits or eligibility for individuals who did no harm to animals or otherwise.
Other alleged deformities in cats and dogs are criminalized in the bill but are not defined. In humans or animals, brachycephaly refers only to the shape of the head and the ratio of the short length to longer distances of the head width. It is just a description of the heads of certain breeds of animals and can appear both pathologically or non-pathologically as a result of normal variation in skull shape. It is not, by itself, a “birth deformity.” Brachycephaly is perceived as a cosmetically desirable trait in some domesticated dog and cat breeds. While these breeds have unique physical characteristics, labeling brachycephaly as a “birth deformity that causes suffering” vastly oversimplifies the issue. Additionally, the word “suffering” is the keyword of European political radicals seeking to eliminate purebred cat breeding, leaving no doubt of eventual intention in New Hampshire.
Among our primary concerns with House Bill 1102 is its failure to acknowledge the complexity of feline genetics. Breeds are developed through selective breeding to emphasize certain traits, whether companionship, or aesthetics. Attempting to categorize an entire group of cats as suffering from a birth deformity trivializes the intricate genetic makeup that defines each breed.
It’s important to recognize that brachycephalic traits are not inherently harmful. Many brachycephalic cats, such as Persians, are among the most popular and these cats lead healthy and happy lives without any veterinary issues. Responsible breeding practices involve addressing potential health issues associated with certain traits, such as potential respiratory difficulties in brachycephalic cats. Instead of criminalizing an entire group of breeds, the focus should be on promoting responsible breeding and providing education on the specific needs of each breed.
The bill’s focus on criminalizing the sale and breeding of cats with perceived birth deformities may inadvertently penalize ethical breeders who actively work to eliminate genetic disorders within their breeding programs. Criminalizing the sale and breeding of cats, especially breeds sought by the public, would intentionally discourage these experienced breeders and encourage the proliferation of backyard breeders who lack the knowledge and commitment to animal welfare.
Moreover, eliminating the breeding and sale of brachycephalic cats overlooks the fact that many responsible breeders prioritize the health and welfare of their animals and actively work to address health concerns through selective breeding and health screening programs. These breeders collaborate closely with their veterinarians to ensure that their cats receive the appropriate care and attention throughout their lives. Rigid laws are not a substitute for the relationship between breeders and their veterinarians, which is essential for promoting responsible breeding practices and ensuring the welfare of the cats. Codifying prejudice against breeds of cats for cosmetic reasons is neither good governance nor animal protection.
We oppose HB 1102 “relative to the definition of animal cruelty” and ask it be rejected by the Committee.
Very truly yours,
George J. Eigenhauser, Jr.
CFA Legislative Coordinator
[FN1 The Cat Fanciers’ Association, Inc. (CFA) is a non-profit organization founded in 1906. As the largest registry of pedigreed cats in the world, CFA’s mission is to “preserve and promote the pedigreed breeds of cats and to enhance the well-being of all cats.” CFA participants, who breed and show pedigreed cats, are active in cat health promotion, cat breed rescue, shelter support, and other animal-related programs throughout the world. CFA is a positive force that has helped to educate the public about proper cat care, spay/neuter, and responsible pet ownership. CFA is proud of its self-regulation programs to encourage high standards of care for cats in multi-cat breeding environments. A voluntary “Cattery of Excellence” program and breeder mentoring program are part of ongoing efforts to ensure responsible breeding and good cattery environments.]
[1] The Cat Fanciers’ Association, Inc. (CFA) is a non-profit organization founded in 1906. As the largest registry of pedigreed cats in the world, CFA’s mission is to “preserve and promote the pedigreed breeds of cats and to enhance the well-being of all cats.” CFA participants, who breed and show pedigreed cats, are active in cat health promotion, cat breed rescue, shelter support, and other animal-related programs throughout the world. CFA is a positive force that has helped to educate the public about proper cat care, spay/neuter, and responsible pet ownership. CFA is proud of its self-regulation programs to encourage high standards of care for cats in multi-cat breeding environments. A voluntary “Cattery of Excellence” program and breeder mentoring program are part of ongoing efforts to ensure responsible breeding and good cattery environments.
To all New Hampshire exhibitors, cat clubs, breeders, and pet lovers.
Hearing Date: Tuesday, March 5, 2024, 1:00 p.m. Eastern
New Hampshire House Environment and Agriculture Committee
NOTE: The deadline for submission of written comments is the end of Monday, March 4, 2024.
New Hampshire HB 1102-FN would amend their animal cruelty statute to criminalize anyone who “Sells an animal that has a birth deformity that causes suffering, such as brachycephaly, or the intentional breeding with the intent to sell, 2 individual animals with the same birth deformity that causes suffering, such as brachycephaly.” This would ban popular breeds such as Persians, Exotics, Burmese, etc. It would also ban any cat with a “deformity that causes suffering” which has been used in other jurisdictions to target breeds such as Scottish Fold, Manx, Sphynx, or even white cats of any breed.
WHAT YOU CAN DO: We are asking New Hampshire cat breeders, exhibitors, fanciers, cat lovers, and clubs to contact their representatives and inform them of your opposition to HB 1102. Please forward this message to your friends, family, pet buyers, veterinarians, or anyone in New Hampshire who values choice in their breed of cats and ask them to submit comments in opposition too. The AKC alert (below) includes the contact information for the members of the New Hampshire House Environment and Agriculture Committee. There is also a link to the online platform to post your opposition. When submitting written comments please note that you are in OPPOSITION to the bill. Please include that in the header, opening sentence, and closing.
SUGGESTED COMMENTS: Brachycephaly refers only to the shape of the head and the ratio of the short length to longer distances of the head width. It is not a “deformity” but a description of the heads of certain breeds of animals or in humans. Brachycephalic cats, such as Persians, are among the most popular and these cats lead healthy and happy lives without any veterinary issues. Responsible breeding practices involve addressing potential health issues associated with certain traits, such as potential respiratory difficulties in brachycephalic cats. Instead of criminalizing an entire group of breeds, the focus should be on promoting responsible breeding and providing education on the specific needs of each breed. You may wish to include pictures or links to videos of healthy Persians, Exotics, etc., living a happy and healthy life. It may help. You may also consider using comments similar to the ones in the AKC alert as they may be applicable to cats.
If you have additional questions please contact me and copy the rest of the team working on this matter. Please copy each of us on your messages so that we can assist you more quickly. Please include Sharon A Coleman sharonacoleman@aol.com, Kelly Crouch kcrouch512@gmail.com, and Alene Shafnisky sinend.ta@gmail.com; along with myself.
Please forward this message to anyone who might help.
From: AKC Government Relations <doglaw@akc.org>Sent: Thursday, February 29, 2024To:Subject: [EXTERNAL] Express Opposition Today to New Hampshire Bill that Seeks to Criminalize Breeders!
Please share this alert with Legislative Liaisons, Club Members, and Responsible Dog Owners in New Hampshire.
On Tuesday, March 5, at 1PM, the New Hampshire House Environment and Agriculture Committee is scheduled to consider HB 1102, “Defining Animal Cruelty,” in a public hearing. The American Kennel Club (AKC) and the New Hampshire Dogs Owners of the Granite State (NH DOGS) are in strong opposition to HB 1102, which describes brachycephaly as a “birth deformity that causes suffering” and would CRIMINALIZE the sale and breeding of brachycephalic dogs and any dog that could be claimed to have a birth deformity. While it may appear that this bill only targets a subset of breeders, its expansive language actually targets breeders of all dogs.
Talking Points in Opposition to HB 1102 (As Introduced):
HB 1102 will devastate New Hampshire’s ability to produce purebred dogs and will establish a dangerous precedent for radical legislative proposals around the country.
HB 1102 inaccurately concludes that all brachycephalic animals, including dogs, suffer from serious health issues. In reality, brachycephaly does not equal unhealthy. Across all dog types, multiple factors can contribute to differences in dogs’ breathing, including physical condition, environment, and genetics. Nevertheless, all breeding of brachycephalic breeds–regardless of respiratory quality, breeder background, fancier status, or club affiliation—will be a criminal act under HB 1102, which will have a chilling effect on all responsible dog breeding.
HB 1102 inaccurately implies that all who breed dogs do so without regard for the dogs’ welfare. Facts demonstrate that responsible purebred dog breeders are passionate about both preserving breed characteristics and producing healthier successive generations
Protecting and promoting responsible breeders and the puppies they produce is a better solution than threatening them with criminal prosecution based on inaccurate information that creates a perverse incentive for New Hampshire residents to buy puppies online that are not protected by New Hampshire consumer protection laws.
By banning intentional breeding when a “birth deformity causes suffering”, HB 1102 targets all breeds regardless of phenotype. Breeding dogs is part art and part science; and despite best efforts, chance plays a part when it comes to inherited disease or health conditions.
HB 1102 is unconstitutionally vague. There is no way to know for each breed type how the provisions of HB 1102 would be interpreted and enforced.
WHAT YOU CAN DO:
All breeders, owners, and residents, along with all AKC-affiliated clubs in New Hampshire are strongly encouraged to contact committee members by email prior to March 5 and, if possible, attend the public hearing in person to demonstrate opposition to HB 1102. Please share your experiences and concerns and feel free to use the talking points above in sharing your opposition to HB 1102.
For all: Use “Oppose HB 1102” in your email subject line.
New Hampshire residents: In your email, identify what city/town you’re emailing from.
Parent clubs: If you have not yet done so, send email with statement of opposition on club letterhead and share that your club is the national expert organization of your breed.
Committee members may be individually contacted as follows:
Anyone opposed can also register their opinion and upload/submit testimony to NH House Environment and Agriculture Committee via this online platform up until midnight on March 4, 2024. Please note that Information and testimony submitted on this form is entered into the public record for each piece of legislation and will be considered public records subject to disclosure under New Hampshire’s Right to Know Law. Do not submit any personal information you do not wish to disclose publicly.
Those in opposition to HB 1102 are strongly encouraged to appear alongside representatives of AKC and NH DOGS at the March 5 committee hearing to express their opposition. HB 1102 is scheduled to be considered at 1PM in Room 301-303 of the Legislative Office Building, 33 North State Street, Concord, New Hampshire 03301. When you arrive, sign in stating your opposition and fill out a pink card if you would like to speak.
FOR MORE INFORMATION:
AKC and NH DOGS strongly encourage you to join in the fight against this radical legislation. For more information on HB 1102 or how you can help in the fight against it, contact AKC Government Relations at doglaw@akc.org or NH DOGS at dogs.nh@gmail.com.
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.
As Father Time ushers in 2024, fanciers and legislators prepare for new legislative sessions. Thirty state sessions convene this month alone. Montana, Nevada, North Dakota, and Texas fanciers will have a small break as those legislatures have no sessions this year. Still, fanciers in all states will have local ordinances, state rulemaking efforts, and federal bills and regulations to monitor. Several states and the federal government allow bills to carry over from 2023 to 2024, though not all legislation will have the momentum to leap from one session to another. Even when bills do not cross over, the authors may find it advantageous to reintroduce it under a new bill number instead. Usually, legislation proposing new laws or amending existing ones is readily found, but all animal legislation must be monitored for fancier impact. For example, New Hampshire’s HB 1102-FN, (See Editor’s Note for alternate URL) would add an animal cruelty violation of selling animals, with a “deformity that causes suffering, such as [but not necessarily limited to] brachycephaly”. Breeding with the intent to sell two individuals would also be a violation. This legislation could impact a number of breeds including Persians, Burmese, Manx, and others.
Fanciers can use local media and government websites to monitor this and other legislation affecting them. The CFA Legislative Group also provides information on legislative matters. What’s Hot articles are published in the monthly CFA Newsletter for “hot” news. These articles are then republished on the CFA Legislative Group’s WordPress blog site for easy access. In addition, the blog has other helpful reference information, such as each state’s legislative website and APHIS flowcharts. The CFA LegislativeNews Facebook page features links to legislative or regulatory articles of interest to fanciers. It is a quick check for things that may affect you. Unfortunately, with over 30,000 local governments, not all issues are found through media searches. That is why we say you are the eyes and ears of the CFA Legislative Group. If you see something of interest, please share it with the group at legislation@cfa.org
EDITOR’S NOTE: New Hampshire is restricting hours of access to certain bill URLS. For alternate access to HB 1102 information, see the Legiscan link. This also has a link back to the New Hampshire bill page.
Fanciers sometimes wonder why the CFA Legislative Group monitors bills that often have no direct effect on them, such as animal cruelty bills. The New Hampshire House Bill 1102-FN is a prime example of why we must monitor these bills. Representative Ellen Read (District 10-D) has pre-filed a bill expected to be introduced on January 3, 2024. If enacted, that bill would add a breeding deformities section to the state animal cruelty law (RSA 644:8, III ) as follows:
“(h) Sells an animal that has a birth deformity that causes suffering, such as brachycephaly, or the intentional breeding with the intent to sell, 2 individual animals with the same birth deformity that causes suffering, such as brachycephaly”.
In §644.8, animal means a “domestic animal, a household pet or a wild animal in captivity.” Thus, it would apply to cats and dogs with brachycephaly, causing a shortened skull. This law might include Persians, Exotics, Burmese, and other breeds. A short (and unscientific!) Google search revealed up to ten cat breeds were included in various lists of affected cat breeds. The American Kennel Club identifies 16 brachycephalic dog breeds. However, “birth deformities causing suffering” is not limited to brachycephaly. Other organizations include more breeds. House Bill 1102-FN is in pre-filed status and listed as being referred to the House Committee on Environment and Agriculture.
Texas
The proposed Texas Department of Licensing and Regulation rules implementing the changes enacted in Senate Bill 876 were approved as final on December 1, 2023, by the Texas Commission of Licensing and Regulation. Additional rulemaking is expected to bring the Texas rules up to date with changes in federal regulations as required by the state Dog and Cat Breeder Act.
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.
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.
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.
