Sales Restrictions

Legislation – What’s Hot…Dekalb County, Georgia, Commissioners Consider Litter Permits, Sales Restrictions, and Consumer Protection Provisions

 

September, 2024

Kelly Crouch, CFA Legislative Information Liaison

Georgia has a highly restrictive pet dealer statute, yet Dekalb County Commissioners are considering an even stricter ordinance. State regulations require any person that sells, exchanges, or adopts more than one litter or 30 adult animals in any 12-month period or is otherwise required to be licensed to get a pet dealer license. Dekalb County, with the fourth highest population in Georgia and containing the easternmost 10% of Atlanta, is considering regulating all breeders. The proposed ordinance would mandate companion animal litter permits without exception, consumer protection provisions, and restrictions on selling cats and dogs. According to the ordinance recitals, reducing a “serious pet overpopulation problem” is necessary due to uncontrolled breeding. Proponents of these ordinances sometimes argue that the direct and indirect costs of not regulating small breeders are too high. Those costs include unreported income and sales taxes, licensing violations, and support of criminal enterprise (i.e., dog fighting). 

If adopted, the ordinance would require owners of intact female companion animals to obtain a six-month Companion Animal Litter Permit prior to or within one week after the birth of a litter. The animal must have an intact animal permit and be permanently identified before a litter permit will be issued. Only one permit per female will be allowed in a 12-month period. The number of permits a household may obtain in a 12-month period is also limited, but it is currently silent as to the number allowed. It is also silent on the cost of the permits. The ordinance also includes other mandates, including vaccinations, identification of the offspring, advertising requirements, and record-keeping.

Although Dekalb County Animal Services may waive the permit fees for rescues and fosters, they are subject to all the other provisions. On August 27, the Board of Commissioners deferred consideration of the ordinance to the October 8, 2024 meeting.

You are our eyes and ears! Is detrimental legislation happening in your area? Please let us know. Contact the CFA Legislative Group at legislation@cfa.org

Legislation – What’s Hot …Restricting Retail Pet Stores Animal Sales: HI, NH, VT, and IN

 

February 2024

Kelly Crouch, CFA Legislative Information Liaison

Retail pet store legislation prohibiting pet stores from selling cats, dogs, and other animals continues to be proposed, often as all-out bans – but not without some legislators trying a different approach. Hawaii, New Hampshire, and Vermont are considering a slow-death approach to retail pet store animal sales. At the same time, Indiana legislators seek to prevent local governments from passing bans reserving that power for the state.

In Hawaii’s SB 2120, stores not operating before January 1, 2025, would be prohibited from selling cats, dogs, guinea pigs, domesticated pigs, or caged birds. Existing stores selling these animals must retain the same ownership and location and meet new documentation requirements. New Hampshire’s Environment and Agriculture Committee deemed a similar approach in HB 1680-FN, “inexpedient to legislate”. It would have prohibited pet store sales of dogs and cats unless the store were a licensed pet vendor before July 1, 2024. But no pet store could have transferred more dogs and cats in any calendar year than the store did in 2023. Vermont’s HB 567 contains requirements for cats, dogs, and wolf-hybrids sold by pet stores similar to the New Hampshire bill.

However, not all state legislators appreciate the patchwork quilt of local government pet store restrictions or agree with curtailing responsible pet shop sales of legal pets. Instead, these legislators would preempt local governments from adopting ordinances restricting retail pet store animal sales. Indiana’s HB 1412 , now in the Senate, includes a preemptive provision with other amendments expanding the Board of Animal Health’s responsibilities regarding pet stores, commercial dog breeders, and hobby dog breeders. While the bill would prevent local governments from prohibiting retail pet store sales of dogs acquired from authorized breeders, they can adopt inspections, licenses, or other applicable ordinances. Cats are not included in the bill.

Preemption legislation may benefit some fanciers as local governments sometimes use retail pet store bans to restrict hobby breeding. Also, redefining rescue to exclude rescues with active breeder involvement, while not added to these bills, continues to be a problem for fanciers.

Legislation – What’s Hot ….. Norway’s Unethical Breeding Case and the Revision of Animal Ordinances in Houston, Texas

 

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

February 2022

Briefly Noted: Norway’s “Unethical Breeding” Case

In an “unethical breeding” case, Norway’s Oslo District Court has ruled the breeding of English Bulldogs and Cavalier King Charles Spaniels illegal under the country’s Animal Welfare Act 25. In an article from Belfast Live, the complaining party argued there were no healthy examples of these dogs in the country that could ethically be used for breeding. The Norwegian Kennel Club, the Norwegian Cavalier Club, the Norwegian Bulldog Club, and six breeders were defendants in the case. Cat and dog breeders in the European Union will be watching to see if this case is appealed.

Houston, TX

The Houston City Council quietly and unanimously passed the only revision since 2014 of its animal ordinances, including mandatory microchipping, hold time reductions, community cat provisions, and sourcing restrictions on pet stores. All accomplished with a single reading and vote! In a practice dating back more than six years, all proposed ordinances are considered on an emergency basis, allowing them to be passed with a single reading. As a result, an ordinance comes before the Council only once, eliminating a second opportunity for public comment within a formal hearing following which Council members can publicly address issues raised and confer with staff and legal counsel if needed. Furthermore, the draft ordinance along with a link to submit comments was linked under Proposed Ordinance Changes on the sidebar of the Administration and Regulatory Affairs Department web page, not the City Council’s web pages.

Houston is also replacing physical license tags and the entire licensing requirement provision with a microchip and registration requirement, a new practice spreading among communities when not prohibited by state law. CFA maintains that microchipping is one of several valuable tools for pet identification. However, there are many ways the microchip system can fail, especially in the United States. The decision to insert a foreign object into an animal’s body is for the owner and their veterinarian, not one mandated by the government. To give people time to comply, the council said there would be an intensive education effort during the first year before enforcement.

Another change mandates that animals impounded for running at-large two or more times must be sterilized and have their unsterilized pet registration revoked (where applicable). Hold times for at-large unmicrochipped dogs are reduced from 72 to 48 hours.

Community cats will benefit from Houston’s recognition that its feral cat policies were archaic. Embracing the concept that the unowned community cats extend beyond feral cats to socialized but unowned cats, Houston replaced the city’s feral cat provisions in the prior municipal code with ones tailored for community cat programs.

Houston also jumped on the retail pet store ban by adding animal sourcing restrictions. Only sales of pets sourced from shelters and humane organizations will be allowed. Unfortunately, the city fell into the trap of adopting an overreaching definition of humane organization that excludes both 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.” Further, this definition is included with definitions of general applicability to the entire ordinance, creating unnecessary restrictions for humane organizations that do not supply pet stores, instead of limiting the restrictions to only those that do. The retail pet store sourcing restriction will become effective after one year allowing existing pet stores time to comply or cease sales.

Recent CFA Legislative Group Blog Posts: 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)

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

 

July 2021

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

Speculation about the future of the Texas Licensed Breeder Program began with the Sunset Advisory Commission recommended eliminating the Program in the June 2020 Staff Report for the Texas Department of Licensing and Regulation (TDLR). The Sunset Advisory Commission reviews Texas agencies every 12 years to evaluate the agency’s relevancy, efficiency, and effectiveness and the programs it oversees. In the Report, the Commission recommended elimination because the Program failed to achieve the self-funding mandate, did little to protect animals based on seizure statistics, had unenforceable provisions, and the agency lacked sufficient staff to enforce it. Despite these shortcomings, animal rights activists managed to convince the Commission to reject the recommendation. However, saving the Program from elimination does not rectify the deficiencies noted by the Commission, leaving people to anticipate what the 2021 legislative session might hold for the Program.

Only three bills were introduced in the legislative session related to licensed breeders. The first of these bills, S.B. 323, was the anticipated attempt to reduce the licensing threshold from the current 11 or more intact adult females with sales of (or offers to sell or transfer) not fewer than 20 animals in a calendar year. The bill would have reduced the licensing threshold to five breeding females with no minimum sales requirement. Fortunately, it never made it out of the Senate Water, Agriculture, and Rural Affairs Committee.

House Bill 3057, as introduced, would have required licensed breeders to provide copies of all these bills of sale to the state comptroller and the purchaser. The bill was later amended to remove the quarterly requirement to submit the bill of sales to the comptroller. If that section had remained, people could search for a wealth of information about a breeder’s sales activities – including the types of animals sold, the purchasers, and the amount paid to the breeder. This bill passed the House, but it never made it out of the Senate Business and Commerce Committee.

The last bill, H.B. 1818, was a pet store dog and cat sourcing bill that as introduced included Texas licensed dog and cat breeders as allowed sources for pet stores to obtain for sale along with the usual “humane” sources — animal control agencies, shelters, and rescues. The first Legislative Budget Board Fiscal Note stated:

“The bill would amend the Business and Commerce Code to require pet stores in certain counties to source cats and dogs for sale from only certain types of organizations or individuals. The bill would provide a civil penalty for noncompliance.”

Sometimes pet stores are allowed to source pets from USDA licensed pet dealers with some restrictions, but “individuals” was an intolerable red flag, followed by substitution of language restricted to the usual humane sources. However, the Senate amended the bill to again include “qualified” Texas breeders and passed it on third reading, with a bipartisan 26-5 vote. Then the House did not concur in the Senate version and appointed a conference committee to negotiate final language with conferees then appointed by the Senate on the final day when this could be done; it was not, and the bill died in the Legislature.

The so-called “pet store ban” laws can also have different types of overreaching provisions that ensnare fanciers in unexpected ways, so each proposal should be checked and monitored until final disposition for detrimental amendments. For example, an entirely new kind of definition of rescue has emerged that seeks to prohibit rescues being in any way associated with breeders to keep their rescues out of pet store sales or even showcasing (See What’s Hot July 2020). Or, “pet stores” may include locations other than brick and mortar stores, such as fanciers’ businesses or even homes that might be deemed commercial. Or, there can be more extensive restriction on breeders included. Lawmakers in Euless, TX adopted a cat and dog sales ordinance in April 2021 that reads: “A person commits an offense if the person exchanges a cat or dog for consideration, regardless of the age of the cat or dog, at a location other than where the cat or dog was born.” Only specified organizations are exempt from this ordinance.

None of the shortcomings outlined by the Sunset Review Committee were addressed this year, and everyone will have to wait until the 2023 legislative session to again try to expand the scope of licensing, repeal the statue or enact other breeder incentives such as selling to pet stores, a novel idea that killed this year’s pet store ban bill.

Recent CFA Legislative Group Blog Posts: What’s Hot ………….. Burke County, North Carolina — Animal Ordinance Reform Effort Adopted in Part, June 2021

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 . . . . . . . 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

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
      Scroll to Top