Rescue

What’s Hot…. Oregon Legislation Targets Breeders for Licensing and Increases Fees for Shelters and Rescues

 

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.

Legislation – What’s Hot . . . . . . Illinois Pet Shop Law Amendments Signed; Horry County, South Carolina: Proposed Ordinance Revisions Include Pet Shop Sale Ban with Restricted Rescue Definition.

 

September 2021

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

Illinois – House Bill 1711

On August 27, 2021, Illinois Governor JB Pritzker signed House Bill 1711 into law, making Illinois the fifth state since 2017 to enact a version of the “pet shop bans.” Illinois amended its Animal Welfare Act that already contained definitions and a licensing scheme for pet stores and animal control facilities or animal shelters, including rescues, that will be the only authorized source of sales of cats and dogs to pet shops for resale to the public. The amendment included a new Section 3.9 of the pet shop provision containing the now common prohibitions on suppliers to pet shops having any association with breeders and new provisions to substantiate this. Pet shops are also allowed to “showcase” cats and dogs owned by animal control facilities and animal shelters for direct adoption to the public by these entities. When pet shops themselves sell to the public, the consumer and warranty requirements in the statute will apply to these sales in addition to these new provisions. What’s Hot, August 2021 covered HB 1711 in detail.

Horry County, South Carolina

Horry County (pronounced O’Ree,) at the Northeast corner of South Carolina has proposed an animal ordinance update being considered by Horry County Public Safety Committee and Horry County Council. At the August 17, 2021, County Council meeting where the proposed ordinance was to be introduced on the Consent Calendar, it was referred back to the Public Safety Committee for additional consideration. In response to community concerns, the County established a dedicated email inbox for the submission of animal ordinance-related feedback that was open through Friday, September 3. Among the proposed amendments were further regulation of commercial breeding by amending §4.12 (§4.10 in the proposed ordinance) on cat and dog breeding operations to include restrictions on the sale of animals. Under current law, breeding operations include anyone “that offers twenty-five (25) or more dogs or cats for sale during a 365-day period,” and this would remain unchanged.  Offer for sale would be defined to include all transactions, including giveaways. The proposal is a ban on pet stores selling cats and dogs. However, pet shops and commercial establishments could showcase the animals provided they have no ownership or financial interest in the activity. A commercial establishment is defined as an “establishment involving an activity with goods, merchandise, or services for sale or involving a rental fee.” Animals are goods under the law.

New in this Section’s definitions is “Animal Rescue Organization” with the exact language first seen in 2019 in North Myrtle Beach, a city within Horry County, where there had been no pet shops selling dogs and cats. Nevertheless, that revised ordinance included the rescue definition prohibiting relationships with breeders as the general definition of rescue not limited to the context of sales and pet shops as in this County draft:

“Animal Rescue Organization means any not-for–profit organization having tax-exempt status under Sections 501(c)(3) of the United States Internal Revenue Code, whose mission and practice is, in whole or significant part, the rescue and placement of animals into permanent homes, and which does not breed animals. Animal rescue organizations do not include any entity which:

a. Is located on the same premises as a person or entity that breeds dog or cats:

b. Has any personnel in common with such person or entity, including but not limited to, any employee, manager, ‘ or board member;

c. Obtains any dogs or cats from such person; or

d. Facilitates the sale of dogs or cats that were obtained from such a person.”

This distinctive and restrictive new definition of rescue was developed to prevent the unintended consequences of early pet store restriction laws in Chicago (2014) and California (2017) that allowed pet stores to buy animals from rescues for resale. Instead, commercial breeders created their own rescue organizations to pass through puppies for retail pet shop sales to consumers in the guise of rescue. However, these legislative efforts to curtail this limited practice appeared to be an overly broad restriction on traditional rescues for purebred dogs and pedigreed cats that might have some association with breeders through shared affiliation rather than commercial subterfuge.

In addition to the restriction on sales of cats and dogs, the proposed amendments would place care requirements on all animal owners, including a requirement that animals have a constant supply of water without accounting for instances when a veterinarian may require water to be withheld. It also creates provisions for community cats.

Recent CFA Legislative Group Blog Posts:

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

Legislation –What’s Hot . . . . . . Chicago Lawmakers Contemplate Licensing All Breeders in Lieu of Better Solutions Just to Fix a Loophole in the 2014 Ordinance on Retail Pet Shops

 

April, 2021

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

Chicago’s lawmakers are once again considering licensing all cat, dog, and rabbit breeders in the city to close a loophole they created when requiring pet shops to acquire the animals they sold from so-called “humane sources.” As we reported in What’s Hot, issue June 2020, some “rescues” exploited the loophole allowing pet shops to continue selling purebred dogs as rescues for purebred prices (“Designer and purebred puppies from other states sold as rescue dogs in Chicago, outsmarting city ordinance.” The enacted 2014 ordinance also required licensing animal care facilities. Exempted from the definition of animal care facilities are those who own or have five or fewer female dogs or cats capable of reproduction and anyone with isolated sales of animals they produce and raise. Instead of licensing every single breeder, other aldermen support a different approach to rectifying the 2014 ordinance issue.

Proposed ordinance SO2020-2827, sponsored by Alderman Brian Hopkins, is the overkill approach of licensing all breeders. Another 21 of the 50 aldermen have joined Alderman Hopkins in sponsoring the ordinance, which is on the April 12, 2021 agenda of the Committee on Health and Human Relations. The multi-pronged approach to fixing the beleaguered 2014 ordinance includes classifying every cat or dog breeder in Chicago as “engaged in the business of breeding” and subject to licensing for the act of harboring a female cat or dog that reproduces. Licensees are subject to inspection to ensure compliance with the standards outlined in the 2014 ordinance. Anyone who breeds cats, dogs, or rabbits for the purpose of selling the offspring is classified as a “commercial producer.” The exemption for anyone with five or fewer female dogs or cats capable of reproduction is also removed from the pet shop and animal care facility definitions. These changes work in concert with the proposed amendments to Section 4-384-015 (b), restrictions on the retail sale of dogs, cats, and rabbits (currently called restrictions on the retail sale of animals). The proposal would gut the existing section and replace it with a total prohibition of sales of cats, dogs, and rabbits. Pet shops would be allowed to showcase animals from shelters or rescues with tax-exempt status under §501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code. The new definition of rescue organization would also preclude a laundry list of connections to commercial producers to prevent bogus rescues from selling animals through pet shops. In a final kick to the teeth of small in-home breeders, this proposal would allow breeders to avoid licensing by surrendering the offspring and the offspring’s mother to animal control, a humane society, or a rescue organization within 30 days of birth. Dog breeders have a second unappealing option. They can tender documentation from a state veterinarian that the female dog and its offspring have been microchipped and sterilized within three months of the birth of the offspring.

Aldermen Lopez, Coleman, and Sadlowski Garza sponsored an alternative proposal that eliminates the issues created by the 2014 ordinance while preserving the exemptions in the current pet shop and animal care facility definitions. Rather than loading a cannon with grapeshot and shooting everything in sight, proposed ordinance O2020-5717 takes a more reasonable approach to the issue by authorizing specific sources, including humane sources, for the retail sale of these animals. Retailers, defined as pet shops, humane societies, or rescuer organizations licensed under Chicago law, would be allowed to offer for sale cats, dogs, and rabbits obtained from facilities operated by any subdivision of local, states, or federal governments, humane societies, rescues, dealers or qualified commercial breeders. Dealers include, in part, any person who, “in commerce, for compensation or profit, delivers for transportation, or transports, except as a carrier, buys, or sells, or negotiates the purchase or sale of (1) any dog or other animal…to use as a pet”. A qualified commercial breeder is a USDA licensee meeting specified requirements. This proposal maintains the existing pet shop exemptions for people with five or fewer female cats or dogs capable of breeding and the occasional sale of animals produced and raised by the seller. It would also establish a consumer protection provision that will apply to any person, dealer, or retailer who sells, transfers, or adopts a cat, dog, or rabbit to consumers.

Lawmakers have the option of painting all breeders with the same brush or adopting a solution more narrowly tailored to address the problem. As we have seen with the 2014 pet shop ordinance, what happens in Chicago likely will not stay in Chicago .Local governments that adopted Chicago’s ordinance for themselves will probably be keeping a close eye on what happens here.

EDITOR’S NOTE on Monday, April 12, 2021, a substitute ordinance advanced according to the Chicago Sun Times. Stay tuned…

EDITOR’S NOTE on April 21, 2021, the Chicago City Council passed a SUBSTITUTE ORDINANCE AS AMENDED that removed the breeder licensing provision but enacted the pet shop amendment previously proposed. For details, see

Recent CFA Legislative Group Blog Posts:

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

Legislation – What’s Hot …. The San Antonio, Texas Animal Ordinance Becomes More Restrictive Once Again

 

November 2020

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

San Antonio, Texas, is again intensifying restrictive animal ordinances already in place. The changes include punitive measures in the seller’s permit section, changing the definition for licensed rescues, and an unworkable plan restricting the cats and dogs a pet shop may sell. Considerable advance work included a slick campaign and a series of Animal Care Services (“ACS”) Animal Advisory Board meetings to get the ordinance drafted for quick staff briefing and discussion with the City Council’s Community Health and Equity Committee on September 24, 2020 by Heber Lefgren, Director, Animal Care Services and passage at the October 29, 2020 city council meeting. The over-the-top marketing campaign began in July 2019, with the first of two surveys. The second survey took place in February 2020.

As part of its promotion plan, ACS created its own 141 page “survey” consisting of its own five supporting questions and recruited its own respondents. Given that pedigreed cats and purebred dogs rarely contribute to the problem of unowned or free-roaming pets, the responses reported by ACS are surprising but for the self-serving questions. Per ACS, most survey respondents agreed that individuals and businesses breeding cats and dogs solely to sell pets contribute to the problem of too many unowned pets in the city. Also, a majority of respondents agreed that individuals and businesses should be prohibited from selling cats and dogs not sourced from a shelter or other “humane” source. Respondents were mostly white or Hispanic women. ACS also supported its proposal with extensive, supporting fact/fiction information document.

The concept that requiring individuals breeding cats and dogs solely to sell as pets should be mandated to sell only humanely sourced pets did not make it into the ordinance. Yet breeders did not come out unscathed. Al-ready subject to litter and seller’s permits, breeders will now be subject to punitive penalties for violating the seller’s permit ordinance. Any violation will require the seller to “sterilize all dogs and cats at the location of the sale within sixty (60) days of receiving a citation for violation of this section.” No warnings or fines for the first or second offense exist before proceeding directly to this egregious penalty.

Breeders involved with rescue will also want to take note of the new animal rescue organization definition. San Antonio already licenses rescues. But beginning in January 2021, an animal rescue organization will mean “any not-for-profit organization that has tax-exempt status under Section 501(c)(3) of the United States Internal Revenue Code, which rescues and places animals into permanent homes. Animal rescue organization does not include an entity that breeds animals; or in exchange for payment or compensation, obtains any dog or cat from a person who either breeds dogs or cats or facilitates the sale of dogs or cats that were obtained from a person who breeds dogs or cats.” The new definition may not affect a breeder’s involvement in rescue, but it could bring additional scrutiny to them.

The shift in the animal rescue organization definition probably derives from changing how city pet stores currently operate to a system similar to the original California pet shop ban model. As discussed in the June and August 2020 issues of What’s Hot, some jurisdictions are changing to their original pet store sourcing laws to deal with the efforts of a few to circumvent the bans. The ACS plan is an unworkable scheme requiring pet stores to sell cats and dogs sourced solely from government shelters and city licensed rescues under the theory that this would still be a profitable business model. The for-profit pet stores will also be responsible for sterilizing the animals, treating the animals for internal and external parasites, vaccinating and microchipping them, and meeting facilities, care, and record-keeping requirements. Another mandate is that pet stores must guarantee the animal’s good health for two weeks after the purchase. Yet shelter and rescue organizations would not be required to guarantee the same animals’ health if sold directly to the consumer.

The ordinance was placed on the Council’s consent agenda, usually reserved for noncontroversial items such as approving meeting minutes. The number of people speaking in opposition to the ordinance suggests that it was controversial, at least for the owners and employees of four pet stores whose businesses would likely be unsustainable, and should not have been rubber-stamped by the city council.

Recent CFA Legislative Group Blog Posts: What’s Hot……..Whatever happened to this Legislation? CA, CO, FL, GA, HI, IL, KS, and NH October 2020

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 . . . . Retail Pet Store Sales Bans, What’s New and What’s Old?

       

      Legislation – What’s Hot

      August 2020

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

      California may have been the first to enact a statewide retail pet store sales ban in 2017, but the legislatively created floodgates are a trickling and California needs fixing. So does Chicago as the recent June What’s Hot reported. As of this writing, Chicago’s proposed legislative fix is on hold. One of its problems included breeder licensing for local residents: a policy that seems counterproductive when these bans are supposed to stop animal abuse in the wholesale-to-retail supply chain. This issue has been the rationale for these laws going back to the 1992 founding of the single-issue advocacy national organization, the Massachusetts based Companion Animal Protection Society (“CAPS”). The CAPS mission statement is: “For the love of animals stand together against pet shops and puppy mills.”

      Many national and local animal protection organizations list this mission among their many issues. However, the persistent, laser focus of CAPS has given it an inside track and perspective to develop legislative opportunities. One of those occurred in the spring of 2013 in the City of San Diego. Then Joan Miller, now retired, CFA Legislative Group founder and Legislative Coordinator testified in opposition to a proposed ordinance before the City Council. Leading up to this effort and beyond, activists had been picketing and harassing personnel and customers of the small store, San Diego Puppy, including its owner David Salinas. The ordinance was enacted in the general form of the later California statute, no pet store sales “unless the dog, cat or rabbit was obtained from a city or county animal shelter or animal control agency, a humane society or a nonprofit rescue organization.” (City Council Makes Tentative Vote To Ban Retail Pet Shops, KBPS, July 9, 2013, https://www.kpbs.org/news/2013/jul/09/sd-pet-shops/ )

      Later campaigns in some cities and the state legislation also focused on demonizing David Salinas who had been a local family man trying to support his family and community with a legal business. Instead of moving out of state or finding a different business, Salinas dug his heels in and became one of those continuing to operate pet stores in conjunction with sham rescue organizations. He remained a high profile target of CAPS and the animal protection community (David Salinas Preliminary Injunction Minute Order 7-2020, June 24, 2020).

      During the 2017 California legislation (Assembly Bill 485,) proponents had realized that authorizing independent animal rescue groups – neither public agencies nor legal humane societies – to “showcase” in retail stores could lead to evasive shenanigans by pet store operators. Rather than fix the issue then, they preferred to get the first state bill enacted while there was a good chance to do so rather than slow down to work out practicalities. The disagreement among supporters went silent and stayed that way until 2019 when the enforcement problems became unavoidable. This year, each faction had its own state bill, one to just eliminate animal rescues and the other to re-define animal rescues for this purpose. With the shortened legislative season due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the factions joined forces in June agreeing on A.B. 2152 to revise the rescue definition. Unlike the 2017 bill, CAPS registered its support and wrote, “We are strongly in favor of the passage of this necessary amendment to The Pet Rescue and Adoption Act (AB 485). It is imperative that we close the loophole that is allowing pet shops to sell mill-bred puppies from fraudulent rescues – fronts for USDA-licensed dog brokers. The true purpose of The Pet Rescue and Adoption Act is [to] stop the sale of mill-bred animals and to provide space in pet shops for shelters and legitimate rescues to showcase homeless animals for adoption” (Assembly Committee on Business and Professions Policy Analysis, AB 2152, page 7, May 20, 2020, http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billAnalysisClient.xhtml?bill_id=201920200AB2152).

      In July, the bill was amended to substitute civil penalties for criminal and simplify the rescue definition in order to pass the Appropriations Committee. For purposes of this law only, “An “animal rescue group” is any not-for-profit organization that has tax-exempt status under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, whose mission and practice is, in whole or significant part, the rescue and placement of animals into permanent homes, and that meets the following requirements: (A) Does not breed animals. (B) Does not obtain animals in exchange for payment or compensation from any person that breeds or brokers animals.” Both the principal co-author, Assemblymember [sic] Todd Gloria of San Diego and the Sponsor, the San Diego Humane Society that is the local animal enforcement agency, thought this narrowed definition would be a workable solution for the “loophole” in the bill without criminalization and excessive restrictions. Then, the supporters of the other bill withdrew their support from AB 2152 and went silent – including CAPS and the sponsor of the other bill, Social Compassion in Legislation. The pet industry and retailers were the only registered opposition. The primary concern is store’s liability for acts of third parties, i.e. the rescue groups. As of this writing, AB 2152 is awaiting action on the Senate Floor where the deadline for further amendment is Monday, August 24.

      The more complex definition of rescue group was discussed in more detail in the June What’s Hot and is turning up in more parts of the country suggesting a national source. It is even more dangerous should it be expanded to apply to an entire animal law rather than limited to only retail showcasing provisions. Any changes or new definitions of animal rescue groups require scrutiny.

      Recent CFA Legislative Group Blog Posts:
      What’s Hot…………July 2020 Texas Sunset Commission Finds the Licensed Breeder Program Fails to Meaningfully Protect the Public

       

      Legislation – What’s Hot . . . . . .Chicago, IL Retail Pet Store Ordinance’s Troubled History with “Rescues” would Force Licensing of All Cat Breeders

       

      Legislation – What’s Hot

      June 2020

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

      Licensing all cat, dog, and rabbit breeders is a problematic side effect of a proposed ordinance meant to fix problems arising from the 2014 Retail Pet Store Ordinance. Each breeder would be subject to license fees (currently $275), inspections, facilities and care requirements if enacted. To understand the rationale behind the proposed ordinance, presently assigned to the council’s Committee on Health and Human Relations, one must know the troubled history of the current law.
      In 2014, the city of Chicago was one of the early local governments to amend its Animal Care ordinance in hopes of curtailing the local market for “puppy mill” puppies as advocated by a growing national advocacy network. For good measure, cats and sometimes rabbits are included in these laws, and the newly enacted provisions were effective in 2015. Rather than simply prohibit retail pet stores from selling animals that they purchased as inventory for retail sale, the ordinance allowed stores to acquire, or “source” from animal rescues and resell these animals to the public. In 2017, the 10th Circuit Federal Court upheld the ordinance in a challenge by one of the local pet stores. Not to be deterred from satisfying local demand for puppies, USDA licensed commercial breeders created their own “rescue” organizations to channel selected puppies to the Chicago pet stores and others to pet stores where there were no restrictive laws. A 2018 investigative report in the Chicago Tribune exposed these practices as “outsmarting city ordinance.” (Designer and purebred puppies from other states sold as rescue dogs in Chicago, outsmarting city ordinance, Chicago Tribune 5/18/2018 . Fast forward two years, and proposed remedial amendments are in the legislative channel but raising new concerns.
      Last month, at a virtual City Council meeting, the proposed ordinance was explained as allowing “pet shops to provide space to an animal shelter or rescue organization to house and display dogs, cats and rabbits for adoption” and further:
      But it also states: “The pet shop shall not have any ownership or monetary interest in the animals displayed for adoption. The animals may only be transferred to an adopting individual for a nominal adoption fee.” (https://chicago.suntimes.com/city-hall/2020/5/20/21265137/puppy-mills-ordinance-loophole-chicago-city-council)
      Over the years of the “adopt don’t shop” campaign transitioning from outside advocacy to legislation, drafting approaches were like replacement windows that were often “stuck into” existing law with haphazard efforts to fit the local framework or consider future needs. Municipal attorneys vary in drafting standards that can avoid future problems by using narrow, clear prohibitions that help to avoid the kinds of unclear and unnecessary exemptions that lead to “loopholes.” The “stop puppy mills” objective has often trumped the realities of local consumer demand for puppies that could be filled with some modest restrictions on existing USDA licensed breeders and persists in the current efforts. There has never been a viable business model for stores to “acquire” their own inventory for resale, particularly when the traditional humane sources were unwilling to sell to stores for resale even if stores were willing to forego profit potential. Now, the “fix” is to prohibit stores from reselling but ensure that they can legally “showcase” for “adoption” from the “humane sources.” The critical issue is whether the humane source should continue to include rescues and, if so, how can these be defined to exclude de facto for-profit sales. The current effort involved redefining “rescue” with a list of exclusionary requirements and whether this new definition applies only in the pet store law context or across all the laws involving rescue and the newly added provisions. This effort not only includes “fixes” as in Chicago and currently amending California state law but also in newly enacted ordinances such as North Myrtle Beach, South Carolina, the first known local ordinance in the state enacted in August 2019 with the new type definition of animal rescue organization containing restrictive elements referring to breeders.
      For Chicago, divorcing “commercial producers” from rescue means redefining the rescue organization and animal care facility definitions terms. The proposed rescue organization definition would be changed by adding the following underlined language:
      “ any not-for-profit organization that has tax-exempt status under Section 501(c)(3) of the United States Internal Revenue Code, whose mission and practice is, in whole or in significant part, the rescue and placement of dogs, cats or rabbits. “Rescue organization” does not include any person that (i) is a commercial producer: (ii) obtains dogs, cats, or rabbits from a commercial producer: (iii) facilitates the sale for profit of a dog, cat, or rabbit for a commercial producer: (iv) has common personnel with a commercial producer, including, but not limited to, any employee, manager, or board member: or (v) is an “affiliated business.” as that term is defined by 44 111. Adm. Code § 20.540(b), of a commercial producer.”
      A commercial producer is defined as “a person that breeds dogs, cats, or rabbits for the purpose of selling the offspring” thereby excluding rescues in which breeders are involved.
      Redefining animal care facility as proposed eliminates the consistency with the state breeder licensing law that excludes from state cat or dog breeder definition anyone who “owns, has possession of, or harbors 5 or less females capable of reproduction”. The revised definition would be changed by striking the exemption for breeders with five or fewer females capable of reproduction and the one for those who had only occasional sales of animals they produced and raised. However, the definition would still include those who are engaged in the business of breeding (and other activities). But the proposal stipulates that “engaged in the business” of breeding means anyone who owns, possesses, or harbors a female cat or dog that reproduces. The only “breeders” exempted are those who surrender the offspring and mother to an approved animal shelter or rescue facility within 30 days of the birth of the litter, or provide documentation within three months of the birth to Chicago Animal Care and Control that the mother and the offspring have been sterilized and microchipped.
      The proposed ordinance not only removes the consistency with the state breeder licensing law, it deprives some legitimate rescues of an important adoption tool. Since all these “bans” are really about dogs and not cats (and rabbits where included), consideration should be given to local cat rescues that have for years had arrangements with local pet stores to display their own community cats for adoption and could be at risk from these “new” definitions, as well as risks to fanciers from poorly conceived amendments or even exclusion of private rescue organizations.
      Recent CFA Legislative Group Blog Posts:
      What’s Hot…………Legislative Hearings and Government “Lockdown” Orders
      Scroll to Top