Utah

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 . . . . . . . Legislative Sessions Gather Steam with State Breeder Licensing to Pet Shop Bans, and Traveling Circus Bills: CA, TN, CO, UT, and OR

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

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

Scroll to Top