New Hampshire

Legislation – What’s Hot . . . . . . Illinois Pet Shop Ban and Proposed Animal Welfare Act Regulation Amendments. New Hampshire’s Animal Database Registry.

 

August 2021

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

Illinois

If signed by Illinois Governor JB Pritzker, House Bill 1711 would mark the 5th state to ban pet stores from selling cats and dogs. HB 1711 amends and adds to the Animal Welfare Act to limit pet stores to obtaining dogs and cats for resale only if the dog or cat is obtained from an animal control facility or animal shelter. Facilities supplying pet stores, whether in-state or out-of-state, must be in compliance with the newly added Section 3.9 prohibiting sources involving breeders. The Illinois Department of Agriculture is also proposing changes to its Animal Welfare Act Regulations.

Illinois House Bill 1711

The Illinois legislature passed House Bill 1711 to amend the state Animal Welfare Act by placing requirements on pet stores and the animal control facilities or animal shelters that supply them. The bill amends the definition of animal control facilities and animal shelters to require tax-exempt status under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code. The definition of animal shelters applies to “a facility operated, owned, or maintained by a duly incorporated humane society, animal welfare society, or other non-profit organization” that is broad enough to include those typically called “rescue” without using this word. On June 29, 2021, H.B.1711 was sent to the governor, who has 60 days to sign or veto it before it becomes law due to inaction. If the bill becomes law, pet shop operators may only offer for sale cats and dogs obtained from animal control facilities or animal shelters, wherever located, that comply with revisions to §3.8 as to the prohibitions on sourcing cats and dogs for resale and the new §3.9. Section 3.9 requires that animal facilities selling cats and dogs to pet shops not be breeders, obtain their animals from breeders, or sell animals at auction. Both pet shop operators and the animal control facilities and animal shelters that sell to them must maintain documentation that includes the ownership history of the animal, the circumstances leading to the shelter’s ownership of the animal, and any other information supporting compliance with §3.9. Consumer protection provisions of the Animal Welfare Act remain in effect. A pet shop operator who fails to comply with the new restrictions can no longer sell dogs and cats regardless of where the dog or cat involved was obtained. Pet shops can still provide space to showcase animals owned by animal welfare organizations.

EDITOR’S NOTE: On August 27, Illinois Governor JB Pritzker signed HB 1711, and it is now a Public Act.

Illinois Department of Agriculture Proposed Regulations

The Illinois Department of Agriculture has proposed rule changes to the regulations used to enforce the Animal Welfare Act that regulates cat and dog breeders and other entities. The state law defines a cat breeder as “a person who sells, offers to sell, exchanges, or offers for adoption with or without charge cats that he or she has produced and raised. A person who owns, has possession of, or harbors 5 or less females capable of reproduction shall not be considered a cat breeder.” Substitute dog for cat for the definition of a dog breeder. The new rules propose changes to indoor and outdoor enclosures, animal care, exercise, and veterinary care requirements. The proposed rules are available on pages 8-20 of the July 16, 2021 Illinois Register Rules of Government Agencies.

New Hampshire

New Hampshire enacted House Budget Bill 2 that creates an Animal Database Registry requiring certificates of transfer for cats, dogs, and ferrets that are transferred in the state.

This year in the New Hampshire Legislature, two competing bills to create a state electronic animal records database applicable to anyone transferring a cat, dog, or ferret in the state, SB 127 and HB 532, were advancing with the latter favored by dog fanciers. Through the House Ways and Means Committee, the HB 532 was included in the House Budget Bill, HB 2, then it also was included on the Senate side and through the conference committee on amended HB 2. After passing both houses, it was sent to the Governor who signed it into law on June 25, 2021.

Item 71 in the Budget Bill described the new program as:

“71. Creates a database for animal records; renames animal health certificates as certificates of transfer; authorizes the commissioner of the department of agriculture, markets, and food to transfer money to and from certain funds in order to establish the animal record database and to repay monies transferred from other funds; and establishes a position in the department of information technology for the building and management of the animal records database.”

This repeals Section 437:8 Health Certificates for Dogs, Cats, and Ferrets, originally enacted in 2017, with later amendments, and reenacts it as 437:8 Certificates of Transfer for Dogs, Cats, and Ferrets. It now contains revisions to conform with the new electronic database provisions enacted within Title 437: Sale Of Pets And Disposition Of Unclaimed Animals, immediately following Section 437.8 as the new 437:8-a Animal Records Database Established. Thus, the familiar “certificates” are preserved with the addition of a new waiver provisions for failing the veterinary examination for the health certificate for specified conditions, and the electronically submitted certificate of transfer shall be considered the official certificate of transfer.

The law still provides that any out-of-state animal intended for transfer in-state must be held for at least 48 hours at a pet vendor or animal shelter facility licensed pursuant to RSA 437, Sale of Pets and Disposition of Unclaimed Animals. Alternatively, a facility operated by a licensed veterinarian could hold the animal provided it is kept away from other animals on the premises. However, Section 437:8 now has a new provision, “VI. No animal shelter shall transfer any dog, cat or ferret that is received from outside of the state until the quarantine requirements in 437:8, V have been met and without an official transfer certificate.” No one can offer for transfer or bring into the state for transfer any cat, dog, or ferret less than eight weeks of age.

The Department of Agriculture, Markets, and Food is responsible for implementing the database and creating the system for electronically transmitted records. The Department must remove records after four years. The law mandates that the Department implement procedures to “ensure the privacy and confidentiality of animal and animal owner information.” The information submitted is exempt from “public” disclosure and is “not subject to discovery, subpoena, or other means of legal compulsion for release.” This does not apply to information disclosures to government officials or de-identified information or information in the aggregate used for reports, analysis, and other authorized uses.

Recent CFA Legislative Group Blog Posts:

What’s Hot, July 2021…..From the Texas Sunset Commission Review to the End of the 2021 Legislative Session, What Happened with the Licensed Breeder Program?

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 . . . . . . . . Florida Pet Store Bans, Preemption, and Hobby Breeders; New Hampshire’s Pet Vendor Definition in the News Again

       

      Legislation – What’s Hot, February 2020

      Kelly S. Crouch, CFA Legislative Information Liaison

      Florida

      Pet stores in Florida seeking legislation that would give them access to legal sources of animals to purchase for resale without running afoul of local prohibitions have, perhaps inadvertently, brought fanciers into the debate and potentially subject to unnecessary regulation. In the introduced versions of companion bills, Senate Bill 1698 and House Bill 1237, hobby breeders are defined as “an establishment that: (a) sells no more than four puppies or adult dogs and no more than four kittens or adult cats in any calendar year: or (b) keeps, houses, and maintains in any location no more than three intact adult female dogs, one intact male adult dog, three intact female cats, and one intact male adult cat.” Both subsections create problems for the small scale home breeder. While cat litters average three to four offspring, a single litter may produce five or six kittens. Even twelve kittens in a single litter are known to happen. However, under subsection (a), a hobby breeder would only be able to sell up to four of the kittens. Also, this section in effect unreasonably restricts the number of litters the hobby breeder may have, thereby putting the reproductive health of all the females in the breeder’s possession at risk. In subsection (b), the limits on adult males and females maintained falls below the minimum necessary for closed catteries to maintain genetic diversity. Under the proposed bills, all pet stores located in the state would also be limited to sourcing cats and dogs from authorized sources, including hobby breeders and adhere to the other licensing, standards, and record-keeping mandates of the legislation. As is often the case with companion bills, they can progress at different speeds if at all. House Bill 1237 by Representative Brian Avila (R-111), is still in its original form. However, S.B. 1698, by Senator Manny Diaz (R-36), has been significantly amended although neither bill has been heard in committee. In the Senate Committee on Innovation, Industry, and Technology Amendment 706506 filed on January 31, 2020, everything after the enacting clause was deleted and replaced with new language. In this amendment, the pet store regulation provisions remained, and hobby breeders were removed. However, cat fanciers that are licensed as a Class A animal dealers by the United States Department of Agriculture may qualify to be a source for licensed pet stores under the amendment. If a cat fancier is unfamiliar with the USDA APHIS Pet Dealer exemptions, the Hobby Dealer Exemption Flowchart available on the CFA Legislative Group Blog will help with your analysis.

      New Hampshire

      Representative Howard Pearl (R-26) introduced House Bill 1630-FN on January 6, 2020, that would once again amend the definition of pet vendor. Fanciers may recall the legislative maneuverings relating to the definition of pet vendor from 2019 when legislators succeeded in expanding the definition of pet vendor by including the language in the budget bill H.B. 4 after efforts through regular procedural channels failed. With the budget bill, the Pet Vendor definition decreased the threshold for licensing to anyone who “transfers 25 or more dogs, 25 or more cats, 30 or more ferrets, or 50 or more birds customarily used as household pets, with or without a fee or donation required, and whether or not a physical facility is owned by the licensee in New Hampshire, between July 1 and June 30 of each year.” Representative Pearl’s bill would raise the threshold to 35 for dogs and 50 for cats. Pet Vendor also includes transferors of other live animals as described in the rules promulgated by the Department of Agriculture, Markets, and Food. The bill has been referred to the Committee on Environment and Agriculture. See more on the history of the 2019 legislation in the October 2019 What’s Hot article available here .

      Recent Legislative Group Blog Posts:

      Legislation – What’s Hot………… Anticipating Future Legislation, January 2020

      Legislation – What’s Hot . . . . . . New Hampshire: Pet Vendor Update Eureka, CA: Limits, Cattery Licensing, and Irresponsible Pet Owner

       

      Legislation – What’s Hot . . . . . . .
      Kelly S. Crouch, CFA Legislative Information Liaison

      New Hampshire: Pet Vendor Update
      Eureka (Humboldt County,) California: Limits, Cattery Licensing, and Irresponsible Pet Owner

      New Hampshire

      Legislators determined to regulate more cat breeders as pet vendors without final passage of an individual bill by the Legislature succeeded when Governor Sununu signed the proposed budget bill, House Bill 4, on September 26, 2019. As with H. B. 2, the unsuccessful budget bill before it (see the July 2019 What’s Hot), lawmakers included provisions expanding the definition of Pet Vendor, deleting the definition of commercial kennel that is superseded by the Pet Vendor revision, expanding the health certificate requirements for Dogs, Cats, and Ferrets, and creating a cost of care reimbursement fund for local governments prosecuting animal cruelty cases. Previously New Hampshire hobby cat breeders were not subject to licensing; now, they are included by threshold in the newly revised Pet Vendor definition and will need to evaluate their breeding program practices accordingly. Section 297 of H.B. 4 redefines Pet Vendor as anyone who “transfers 25 or more dogs, 25 or more cats, 30 or more ferrets, or 50 or more birds customarily used as household pets, with or without a fee or donation required, and whether or not a physical facility is owned by the licensee in New Hampshire, between July 1 and June 30 of each year.” Pet Vendor also includes transferors of other live animals as described in the rules promulgated by the Department of Agriculture, Markets, and Food.

      Eureka (Humboldt County,) California

      The City Council for this rural port city in northern California, of approximately 27,000 people, is considering replacing their decades-old animal ordinance with one far more complex. The proposed ordinance includes new pet limits, new cattery licenses, and a new concept in animal ordinances – the irresponsible owner designation.

      Currently there is a limit of three dogs to any lot, building, structure, or premises absent a kennel license. The draft ordinance would add a limit of three cats to any premises with the fourth cat triggering the requirement to obtain a cattery license. Both catteries and kennels would be subject to inspections. The Animal Control Officer, in this case a single person, is authorized to revoke the license if the premises are not maintained in a sanitary and proper manner. To the extent that violations are in the eye of the officer, applicable standards may vary with changes in personnel. The cattery threshold could also cause problems for community cat caregivers as any cat over four months of age that are kept, harbored or maintained on the premises would be included in the count. At least cats are exempted from the at-large provision for domestic animals, which would further compound the problem.

      In addition, there are limits on pot-bellied pigs, miniature goats, chickens, ducks, rabbits, and small mammals, including a combined limit of six dogs, cats, pigs, and goats, as well as license requirements to own a potbelly pig or miniature goat.

      Also proposed is a new irresponsible owner provision. This is a separate offense predicated on a conglomeration of specific offenses already designed to penalize irresponsible owners. A single dog attack may trigger the application of this section, or it may take several violations of minor offenses (i.e. animal at-large) to invoke it. Violations of any offense in the animal ordinance could result in a violation of this provision. The irresponsible owner penalty is unrelated to the other offenses and adds a new, harsher penalty to ordinance. This provision appears to be a watered-down version of the irresponsible owner law enacted in San Marcos, California, in 2018. Although the irresponsible pet owner section may initially seem like a good idea to deal with some scofflaws as a preventive tool, it penalizes infractions of varying severity equally. In the proposed Eureka ordinance the first two violations would be subject to fines. In addition to a fine, third time violators would be unable to obtain any City license or permit to own, harbor, or maintain any animal within the City for a period of five years.

      The first reading of the ordinance was held on October 1, 2019. After receiving complaints from residents, including the lack of any grandfathering, the City Council decided to hold a study session to review the complaints before proceeding to a second reading. The study session will likely be held in November .

      Recent CFA Legislative Group Blog Posts:  September, 2019 Legislation – What’s Hot . . . . . City of Los Angeles Feral Cat Program Delayed Years by Bureaucracy, Now in Comment Period

       

      What’s Hot, July 2019: Using the New Hampshire Budget Bill as a Backdoor to the Governor’s Desk for Tabled Licensing Bills

       
      Kelly S. Crouch, CFA Legislative Information Liaison
      Using the New Hampshire Budget Bill as a Backdoor to the Governor’s Desk for Tabled Licensing Bills, July 15, 2019  
      New Hampshire legislators introduced three bills this session that would increase the number of fanciers subject to regulation as pet vendors or hobby breeders if any of the bills had been enacted. Senate Bill 161, House Bill 688, and House Bill 371 were all retained or tabled by the committee in the originating house. To circumvent the stalling of these bills, legislators amended the Conference Committee budget bill, H.B. 2 ( H.B. 2 FN-A-LOCAL-FINAL VERSION ), to include Sections 320 – 322 that would expand the existing Pet Vendor provisions. Section 320 defined Pet Vendor as anyone who transferred 25 or more dogs, 25 or more cats, 30 or more ferrets, or 50 or more birds customarily used as household pets, with or without a fee or donation required, between July 1 and June 30 of any year. The Pet Vendor need not own a physical facility in the state when the transfer to the final owner occurs within New Hampshire. In Section 321, there is an exception for dog breeders only who do not meet the definition of Pet Vendor. Section 322 would expand the requirements for health certificates for dogs, cats, and ferrets transferred in the state. Overall, H.B. 2 would classify many non-commercial hobby breeders as a Pet Vendor business forcing those breeders to give up their hobby under local zoning ordinances while increasing the regulatory burden on the state. Instituting such a major change in animal regulations without the benefit of a hearing on the issues leads to unintended consequences and denies fanciers a voice.
      Of the three bills contributing to this evasive maneuver, the H.B. 2 amendment most resembles the amended S.B. 161. The only significant difference between H.B. 2 and S.B. 161 versions of Pet Vendor is the lower threshold of 20 for dogs and 20 for cats. In S.B. 161 there also remained an exception for dog breeders only who did not meet the definition of Pet Vendor and an expansion of existing health certificate requirements. Although not included in H.B. 2, Senate Bill 161 also established a position at the department of agriculture, markets and food for implementing the new Pet Vendor requirements.
      House Bill 688 took a different approach to increase regulated breeders and reduce the threshold for Pet Vendors. This bill introduced the definition of Hobby Breeder as anyone who transferred 30 or fewer live animals or birds for a fee per year. Hobby Breeders of all categories of animals would be subject to regulation and a ten dollar annual registration. Also, dog breeders selling 31 or more puppies would be classified as a commercial breeding kennel. The bill did not, however, change the statutory definition of Pet Vendor (RSA Chapter 437.1). House Bill 688 would have also created a new companion animal welfare division in the department of agriculture, markets, and food to maintain a database of every transferor of dogs, cats, and ferrets, investigate, inspect, license, register and perform other duties.
      Finally, H.B. 371 would have added catteries to the existing Commercial Kennel definition and would have added cat breeders not meeting the Commercial Kennel threshold to the Pet Vendor exception. The threshold for a Commercial kennel of dogs or cats would have been 10 or more litters or 50 or more puppies, cats or kittens.
      These bills would change existing state law requiring the licensing of commercial kennels transferring 10 or more litters or 50 or more puppies in any 12-month period. Pet vendor licenses as currently issued by the Department of Agriculture, Markets, and Food, Division of Animal Industry are “to house, harbor, or display live animals and birds intended for transfer to the public” and cost $200.00 per year. The Pet Vendor license is not limited to pet stores or shelters, but covers all “engaged in the business of transferring live animals or birds customarily used as household pets to the public.”  However, cat hobby breeders have not been subject to state licensing or regulation. Nor is there a compelling reason to start if the real purpose of the legislation is animal welfare. Fewer than 1% of cats handled by animal agencies are identified as pedigreed; thus, regulating pedigreed cat breeders will do little to improve the welfare of cats in New Hampshire. It will, however, reduce the ability of pedigreed cat seekers to find a well socialized and healthy pet of their choice.
      Fortunately, Governor Sununu vetoed H.B. 2 on June 28, 2019. His rationale for the veto was the budget bills would leave the state with a “massive fiscal deficit” reversing the recent fiscal success credited for returning jobs and a thriving economy. It is impossible to know if the Pet Vendor language contributed to the veto from Governor Sununu’s message, leaving open the possibility the Pet Vendor language may turn up in future budget efforts. Legislation that could not successfully traverse the normal process should not be railroaded through an alternate route in this manner as it allows too many important issues to be overlooked. If Pet Vendor licensing is not included in future budget bills, the stalled licensing bills could see new life in the second year of the legislative session.

      Recent CFA Legislative Group Blog Post:

      1. What’s Hot: Massachusetts House Bill 1444, Guardian Bill – Muddying the Waters for Pet Owners 6/18/2019
      Please report legislation happening in your area to the Legislative Group – legislation@cfa.org Visit the CFALegislativeNews Facebook page and the CFA Legislative Group Blog to see the current legislative news.

       

      Scroll to Top