Oklahoma

Legislation – What’s Hot…………….Oklahoma Updates on Bill of Rights and Breeder Reporting Bills; In Other News, North Dakota States Animals Are Not People

 

May 2023

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

Oklahoma proponents of the Dog and Cat Bill of Rights experienced the same disappointment as their California counterparts when the Rules Committee failed to vote House Bill 1992 out of committee – or hold a vote on it. As reported in What’s Hot March 2023, the bill would have required all animal control, animal shelters, and rescue groups to conspicuously post a copy of the Dog and Cat Bill of Rights. These rights ranged from being free from cruelty to the right to mental stimulation, sterilization to prevent unwanted litters, and veterinary care. Although the session doesn’t officially end until May 26, 2023, the bill has missed the Deadline to be considered by the House as a whole. 

Oklahoma SB 349/HB 2059 to repeal the annual reporting requirements in §30.11 of the Commercial Pet Breeders Act were amended as emergency bills, changing the effective date from 11/1/2023 to when passed and approved. HB 2059 was passed and approved on 4/21/2023.

In Other News….

North Dakota House Bill 1361, declared an emergency measure in Section 2, amends the definition of person in §1-01-49(8) to exclude artificial intelligence, animals, inanimate objects, and environmental elements. A closer look was necessary to determine why “animals” would be in a bill defining “Person.” In general, there are varying definitions of “person” in different legal contexts that include both humans and non-human legal entities, public and private. The actions list of HB 1361 reveals extensive amendment of the original bill that removed a section to be added, “Personhood” expressly stating individuals’ rights are “superior and not equal to” listed non-human categories. However, the amended bill, now enacted law, only added an exclusion from the existing “person” definition, “The term does not include environmental elements, artificial intelligence, an animal, or an inanimate object.” North Dakota Can explains the rationale for this policy at https://ndcan.org/house-bill-1361

Legislation – What’s Hot………………A Dog and Cat Bill of Rights and Commercial Pet Breeder Reporting Requirements Legislation Introduced in Oklahoma Legislature

 

March 2023

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

Oklahoma is considering a bill rejected twice by the California legislature – the Dog and Cat Bill of Rights. Like the earlier California bills, House Bill 1992 has a simple mandate. All animal control, animal shelters, and rescue groups would be required to conspicuously post a copy of the Dog and Cat Bill of Rights as specified in the bill. These rights range from being free from cruelty to the right to mental stimulation, sterilization to prevent unwanted litters, and veterinary care. The bill would cause an unnecessary burden as humane organizations already know to educate and screen potential adopters while existing anti-cruelty laws are critical for intentional malfeasance.

House Bill 1992, introduced by Rep. Micky Dollens (D-93), is a near match to California’s AB 1881 from 2022. Five amendments, including substituting “deserve” for “has a right to,” failed to save it. In 2021, the concept was a failed cut-and-paste amendment to the California bill AB 702.

Oklahoma is also considering SB 349, which would repeal the annual reporting requirements of Commercial Pet Breeders (4 Okl.St.Ann. §30.11). It passed the Senate in a 45:2 vote and is now in the House. 

In other news, Texas Representative Brian Harrison (R, District 10) has introduced HB 3081 that would repeal the Dog and Cat Breeder Law. The Sunset Advisory Commission recommended eliminating the Licensed Breeder Program in 2020. However, proponents of the law seek to increase the number of licensees with three identical bills: HB 274, HB 876, and HB 2238.

EDITOR’S NOTE 3/18/2023 Texas HB 2238 (Buckley) will be heard in The House Licensing and Administrative Procedures Committee on Wednesday, March 22 at 8:00am in room E2.010 of the State Capitol.

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 . . . . . . . August 2019: Fort Smith, AR: $500 Breeder Licenses; Tulsa, OK: Pet Limits and Exemption Permits

 

By Kelly Crouch, CFA Legislative Information Liaison 

August 2019

Fort Smith, AR: $500 Breeder Licenses

By a vote of 6-1 on August 6, 2019, the Fort Smith Board of Directors approved multiple changes to its animal control ordinance (Talk Business & Politics, “Fort Smith Board approves new animal control measures, shelter contract.”  A major change is the $500 annual breeder license per animal for cats and dogs. Breeders must have a city business license, a state sales permit, and prove the animal has been microchipped to obtain a breeder license. There are other requirements as well. The breeder must license and microchip offspring over four months of age. They must display the license number on all advertising, receipts, or transfer documents, and the breeder must prominently display the license number to any person acquiring a cat or dog from them. A breeder may not sell, adopt, gift or otherwise transfer a cat or dog earlier than six weeks of age or that is not immunized against common diseases as directed by a licensed veterinarian. The breeder must provide the new owner information about city licensing and microchipping requirements. They must also supply the new owner’s information to the City Animal Control Department.

Furthermore, the ordinance mandates microchipping of cats and dogs and secondary identification, such as a collar with a tag. During the meeting, the ordinance was amended to include a lifetime $10 license for animals microchipped and sterilized per the article referenced above. The annual license fee for intact animals is $60. A zero dollar exemption to the licensing requirement is available to dogs actively trained and used by law enforcement and rescue activities, certified service dogs, and cats and dogs under four months of age, including those subject to a Breeder License. The ordinance also prohibits cat owners from allowing their cat to run at-large. The draft ordinance was attached to the August 6, 2019 Board agenda. There have been six related articles posted on the CFALegislativeNews Facebook page since September 21, 2018.

NOTE post publication news of possible amendments was published in the local news media as well as this informative action alert for the August 20, 2019 Board meeting from The American Kennel Club with links to additional information.

Tulsa, Oklahoma

As part of its eight-step Animal Welfare Reform Plan, Tulsa officials have proposed a 67-page animal ordinance, an addition of 30 pages to Title 2 which includes animal control, agricultural animals and other provisions often separated from animal control ordinances. Such an expansive ordinance invites inadvertent violations from residents as well as making it difficult for those enforcing the law to be experts, especially those not dedicated to animal control. Concerns include provisions about pet limits, due process provisions, fee appropriateness, at-large cats, and dangerous animals. The city is seeking input about the ordinance from residents via an online survey  through August 31, 2019.

The pet limits contained in new §101A.15 would prohibit the harboring, keeping, or possessing “in any one household more than a combined total of five (5) dogs and cats over the age of four (4) months”. Under current law, §101A.18 requires that dogs and cats be sterilized, other than police dogs or pets continuously licensed prior to January 1, 1998. There are three permitted exemptions to these restrictions in §117. The Animal Count Exemption Permit allows a person to own and keep up to a total of ten sterilized cats and dogs at a single-family dwelling per acre of land. For a cat fancier to obtain this permit, they cannot be a commercial breeder (undefined) and must be actively involved in a nationally recognized, organized sport or hobby for at least one year prior to the date of application. A cat or dog breeder would need an Intact Animal Exemption Permit, allowing a holder to own and keep up to a combined total of five intact cats and dogs at a single-family dwelling. The fees for both of these exemptions is $100 for the first animal and $50 for each subsequent animal. Fanciers involved in rescue need an Animal Rescue Permit for a fee of $25. A person violating §101A.15 or §101A.18 is subject to up to six months in jail, a fine of not more than $1200, or both. A person violating the permit requirements is subject to a fine up to $500. The exemptions are more complicated than discussed here. To fully understand them, fanciers are encouraged to study the ordinance (https://www.cityoftulsa.org/media/10481/animal-ordinancedraft06-26-19.pdf).

Another concern is in the completely new Chapter 9 where §902 authorizes the Director of Working in Neighborhoods Department or Chief of Police to enter premises to determine the health and well-being of, or to impound, an animal. Furthermore, it authorizes them to determine the terms and conditions under which the owner “may regain or maintain custody of the animal.” There is nothing in §902 indicating this authority is subject to the U.S. Constitution Fourth Amendment provisions of Chapter 1, §116. If it was intended that provisions in one chapter govern provisions in another chapter, it needs to be clarified. If this was not the intention, there is a Fourth Amendment issue in §902.

Also, looking at the penalties for violations of this ordinance leaves one wondering if they are appropriate. When assigning penalties, the severity of the violation should be considered in comparison to other violations with the same penalty throughout the entire municipal code. The maximum fine up to $500 applies to most violations including having an unlicensed or unvaccinated animal, abandoning an animal, unlawful number of dogs and cats, and the unlawful sale of a diseased animal. The table of pre-set fines, often $100, may be the minimum fine but this is unclear. Neither does the ordinance provide guidance on how the penalties escalate from minimum to maximum levels.

Two current dog only sections have also been expanded to include other animals. At-large now includes cats. While a dog may not be off-leash or not in the physical control of its owner, a cat must be in the physical control of the owner. Yet, cats are walked on leashes. Similarly, the dangerous dog section has been expanded to include cats and other animals necessitating a thorough review of whether the existing dangerous dog provisions should be applied to other animals.

 

Scroll to Top