2025 OREGON SB 1076, reported in 4/4/25 WHAT’S HOT failed to meet this year’s legislative deadlines, i.e. died. Senate Bill 1076 Sections 3 and 4 directed the Oregon Department of Agriculture (“ODA”) to establish a licensing program for breeders of all these species, with enforcement to begin on January 1, 2028, if enacted. SB 1076 WILL NOT BE ENACTED.
April 4, 2025
Kelly Crouch, CFA Legislative Information Liaison
Oregon breeders of cats, dogs, birds, and small mammals are targeted in proposed legislation for state licensing. Senate Bill 1076 Sections 3 and 4 direct the Oregon Department of Agriculture (“ODA”) to establish a licensing program for breeders of all these species, with enforcement to begin on January 1, 2028, if enacted. The ODA must consider breeder size, regulatory costs, and staff funding needs when developing the licensing program requirements, inspections, standards of care, and licensing fees, which will be adjusted for inflation as necessary. Violators are subject to a maximum of six months imprisonment, a $2500 fine, or both. In addition to these penalties, a court may require a defendant convicted of violating any rules enacted under Section 3 to forfeit any rights in animals that are kept in violation of Section 3 and repay the reasonable costs of caring for such animals before judgment. Dog breeders would still be subject to Oregon Revised Statutes 167.374 and 167.376 requirements. In addition, licensing fees for Animal Rescue Entities (“ARE”) would be increased to $350 – $600, depending on the ARE’s classification. Furthermore, the bill has been classified as an emergency measure so that it would go into effect immediately rather than the customary 91st day after the legislative session.
The Natural Resources and Wildfire Committee heard testimony in opposition and support at the public hearing held on March 18, 2025. Not surprisingly, most of the testimony from AREs opposed the license fee increase and supported licensing all breeders, whom they blame for shelter overcrowding issues. Yet the vast majority of dogs and cats in shelters are random-bred animals, not purpose-bred animals. Pedigreed cats represent only 3-5% of the cat population. It is incredulous to claim pedigreed cat breeders are responsible for the homeless cat population. Purebred dogs also make up a minority of the dog population. Considering that most owned animals are sterilized, responsible owners and breeders are not contributing significantly to the homeless animal population. Shelter animals are generally the victims of home retention failures. Oregon breeders are not to blame for overcrowding caused by the common ARE practice of importing animals from other states and even other countries – a fact proponents like to ignore. Homelessness for animals is a community problem and should be addressed that way.
A solution that addresses the real causes of shelter overcrowding must consider multiple factors, including ARE imports, reductions in or failure of governments to provide sufficient shelter space, economic factors driving pet relinquishment and adoption trends, and other pet retention issues. The lack of sought-after animals in the local area often drives shelter animal imports. It is as much a marketing decision as one driven by altruism. Oregon breeders do not cause this. Neither do breeders drive government decisions that significantly limit available shelter spots for homeless animals. Pet retention issues that are driven by the economy, pet aggressiveness, lack of animal care resources for low-income areas, and many other reasons are rarely under the control of Oregon breeders. The fact that a minority of homeless cats and dogs are random-bred is evidence that trying to use SB 1076 as a solution to shelter overcrowding is like trying to play darts blindfolded and facing away from the dart board.
Oregon already has strict animal welfare laws. In 2024, the Animal Legal Defense Fund again ranked Oregon first in the country for having strong animal welfare laws. Does the state want to create expensive-to-enforce programs that will not solve the issue and only burden responsible breeders? Irresponsible breeders and pet owners will not comply and will likely only be found out from complaints. Meanwhile, the type of breeders that supply quality pets to Oregon residents, contribute to breed rescue efforts, and boost the economy through tourism dollars from shows, and who support many businesses through the care of their animals, are the very people burdened with an issue that affects animal owners and nonowners alike. Residents deserve a real solution; they do not need scapegoats.
The Natural Resources and Wildfire Committee is expected to hold a work session on April 3, 2025. The bill may be included in that work session. Fanciers wanting to oppose SB 1076 can contact the committee members. Contact information can be found here: https://olis.oregonlegislature.gov/liz/2025R1/Committees/SNRW/Overview
You are the eyes and ears of the cat fancy!Is detrimental legislation happening in your area? Please let us know. Contact the CFA Legislative Group at legislation@cfa.org
CFALegislativeNews: https://www.facebook.com/CFALegislativeNews
CFA Legislative Group Blog: https://legislative.cfa.org/
UPDATE 5/2025: In the April 8, 2025, work session, the Senate Committee on Natural Resources and Wildfire adopted the amended bill, SB 1076-1, in a 3- 2 vote. The amendments include changes to definitions and requirements in both the breeder licensing and animal welfare entities sections. For cat and dog fanciers, there is an important, if minuscule, carve-out for breeders to avoid licensing. The amendment requires licensing of cat and dog breeders who “during a 12-month period, sells or transfers or offers for sale or transfer more than two litters”. It also authorizes the department to define the number of birds or small mammals sold during a 12-month period necessary for licensing. The A-engrossed (fair final copy of the first amended version of the bill) SB 1076 has been assigned to the Joint Ways and Means Committee. Per the Legislative Fiscal Office report, “Fiscal Impact of Proposed Legislation”, the Joint Committee on Ways and Means will prepare a more complete fiscal analysis.
March 2021
Kelly Crouch, CFA Legislative Information Liaison
Sharon Coleman, CFA Legislative Legal Analyst
Legislative sessions continue to ramp up in most states, which means lawmakers are still introducing bills. Utah and Virginia have already ended their sessions. Only Louisiana’s legislature has yet to convene; its 2021 legislative session will begin on April 12, 2021. The other states are providing plenty of material to review. This month we cover two breeder licensing bills, two pet shop bans, and Oregon’s bill about animal traveling acts. There has been misinformation circulating about the Oregon bill that is clarified here. Both California and Tennessee are considering breeder bills but with different approaches. California’s bill would be a mandate on local governments to require breeding permits of all breeders, while Tennessee’s bill would be state-level licensing of dog breeders. The Colorado and Utah pet store legislation also took a couple of different approaches.
California
California Assembly Bill 702, after a lull of many years, is a new attempt at statewide permits for dog and cat breeders. As introduced, the bill would require anyone who might breed a dog or cat to first apply for and obtain a breeder permit from the local jurisdiction where the animal(s) is kept. The local jurisdiction must issue breeder permits as required by the bill and otherwise provide administration and enforcement. The application would include but not be limited to an extensive list of items requiring unusual express statements or evidence. Examples include a “statement by the applicant or applicants stating that at least one of the litter is intended to be offered for sale “and “evidence that the cats or dogs to be bred do not have the same sire or dam.” The local jurisdiction must determine whether an applicant’s responses are sufficient proof of the required information, documents, and statements. The applicant must also agree to comply with a list of permit holder requirements. Failure to adhere to these could result in revocation of the permit after notice and hearing. If the local jurisdiction determines that all the specified conditions have been met, it shall issue the breeder permit. For this permit, the fee “shall not exceed the reasonable costs of administering these provisions,” nor “be duplicative of any other local fee in that jurisdiction. Nothing would prohibit local governments “from adopting or enforcing more restrictive spay and neuter, unaltered, or breeding provisions” which many already have. Historically, state administered licensing and regulation of pet breeding and related businesses have not qualified for California Department of Consumer Affairs administration. Past legislative efforts focused on similar local mandates for either breeding or sales permits but all failed from 1997 through 2010. Elsewhere, a few states have this type of local mandates, but all have numerical thresholds for regulation. Alternatively, state laws can simply restrict breeding with no administrative regulatory mechanism other than civil or criminal enforcement. A.B.702 has been referred to the Assembly Committee on Business and Professions.
Tennessee
Tennessee lawmakers are again considering a breeder registration bill, H.B. 547. This bill applies only to dogs. However, it is notable because the state repealed a breeder licensing law applicable to both cats and dogs. Cat fanciers are familiar with how easy it is to slip “and cats” into some animal bills. This bill would require commercial dog breeders to register with the state every two years. Every dog breeder who “possesses or maintains ten (10) or more intact female adult dogs [six months or older] for the primary purpose of selling their offspring as household pets” during a twelve-month period must register. Applicants must provide their USDA license number or a letter of determination from the USDA that licensing is unnecessary, but it is unlikely such a letter would be forth coming. Such a letter would require individual investigation by the USDA. Rather than investigate a particular fact situation to meet a state law mandate on an individual, the federal agency would direct the applicant to their written, general purpose materials. Inspections are required before registrations are approved and at least biennially after that. The Commissioner of Commerce and Insurance is responsible for promulgating a fee schedule and other rules necessary to effectuate the bill’s purposes. Senate Bill 511, assigned to the Subcommittee on Agriculture & Natural Resources, is similar to H.B. 547.
Colorado
Colorado House Bill 21-1102, called the Pet Store Consumer Protection Act, is a pet store ban with a twist. The bill would prohibit Colorado pet stores not licensed before the bill’s effective date from selling or offering for sale cats and dogs if enacted. Pet stores licensed before the effective date could continue to sell cats and dogs with additional disclosure requirements. A sale does not include an adoption transaction between a shelter or rescue and the adopter. The bill is pending in the Senate Agricultural and Natural Resources Committee.
Utah
Utah’s H.B. 420, entitled Pet Stores and Companion Animals, would prohibit pet stores from selling domestic cats and dogs. The bill follows the recent trend of allowing pet stores to showcase adoptable animals, provided the store has no ownership interest in and receives no fee for showcasing the animal. Utah adjourned sine die on March 5, 2021,with this bill falling into the House file for bills not passed.
Oregon
House Bill 3008 would regulate traveling animal acts in Oregon. The bill would prohibit animals described in subsection (3) of the bill from being used in traveling animal acts with specified exceptions. The prohibition includes Canidae and Felidae in the prohibition except the species Felis catus (domestic cat) and the species Canis familiaris (domestic dogs). The bill is currently in the House Agriculture and Natural Resources Committee.
Recent CFA Legislative Group Blog Posts:
Legislation – What’s Hot, February 2021 – 2021’s Early Bill Issues Range from Breeders to Microchips in these States: CT, HI, NH, NY, OK, and TX
