Legislation – What’s Hot . . . . . . .
Kelly S. Crouch, CFA Legislative Information Liaison

New Hampshire: Pet Vendor Update
Eureka (Humboldt County,) California: Limits, Cattery Licensing, and Irresponsible Pet Owner

New Hampshire

Legislators determined to regulate more cat breeders as pet vendors without final passage of an individual bill by the Legislature succeeded when Governor Sununu signed the proposed budget bill, House Bill 4, on September 26, 2019. As with H. B. 2, the unsuccessful budget bill before it (see the July 2019 What’s Hot), lawmakers included provisions expanding the definition of Pet Vendor, deleting the definition of commercial kennel that is superseded by the Pet Vendor revision, expanding the health certificate requirements for Dogs, Cats, and Ferrets, and creating a cost of care reimbursement fund for local governments prosecuting animal cruelty cases. Previously New Hampshire hobby cat breeders were not subject to licensing; now, they are included by threshold in the newly revised Pet Vendor definition and will need to evaluate their breeding program practices accordingly. Section 297 of H.B. 4 redefines Pet Vendor as anyone who “transfers 25 or more dogs, 25 or more cats, 30 or more ferrets, or 50 or more birds customarily used as household pets, with or without a fee or donation required, and whether or not a physical facility is owned by the licensee in New Hampshire, between July 1 and June 30 of each year.” Pet Vendor also includes transferors of other live animals as described in the rules promulgated by the Department of Agriculture, Markets, and Food.

Eureka (Humboldt County,) California

The City Council for this rural port city in northern California, of approximately 27,000 people, is considering replacing their decades-old animal ordinance with one far more complex. The proposed ordinance includes new pet limits, new cattery licenses, and a new concept in animal ordinances – the irresponsible owner designation.

Currently there is a limit of three dogs to any lot, building, structure, or premises absent a kennel license. The draft ordinance would add a limit of three cats to any premises with the fourth cat triggering the requirement to obtain a cattery license. Both catteries and kennels would be subject to inspections. The Animal Control Officer, in this case a single person, is authorized to revoke the license if the premises are not maintained in a sanitary and proper manner. To the extent that violations are in the eye of the officer, applicable standards may vary with changes in personnel. The cattery threshold could also cause problems for community cat caregivers as any cat over four months of age that are kept, harbored or maintained on the premises would be included in the count. At least cats are exempted from the at-large provision for domestic animals, which would further compound the problem.

In addition, there are limits on pot-bellied pigs, miniature goats, chickens, ducks, rabbits, and small mammals, including a combined limit of six dogs, cats, pigs, and goats, as well as license requirements to own a potbelly pig or miniature goat.

Also proposed is a new irresponsible owner provision. This is a separate offense predicated on a conglomeration of specific offenses already designed to penalize irresponsible owners. A single dog attack may trigger the application of this section, or it may take several violations of minor offenses (i.e. animal at-large) to invoke it. Violations of any offense in the animal ordinance could result in a violation of this provision. The irresponsible owner penalty is unrelated to the other offenses and adds a new, harsher penalty to ordinance. This provision appears to be a watered-down version of the irresponsible owner law enacted in San Marcos, California, in 2018. Although the irresponsible pet owner section may initially seem like a good idea to deal with some scofflaws as a preventive tool, it penalizes infractions of varying severity equally. In the proposed Eureka ordinance the first two violations would be subject to fines. In addition to a fine, third time violators would be unable to obtain any City license or permit to own, harbor, or maintain any animal within the City for a period of five years.

The first reading of the ordinance was held on October 1, 2019. After receiving complaints from residents, including the lack of any grandfathering, the City Council decided to hold a study session to review the complaints before proceeding to a second reading. The study session will likely be held in November .

Recent CFA Legislative Group Blog Posts:  September, 2019 Legislation – What’s Hot . . . . . City of Los Angeles Feral Cat Program Delayed Years by Bureaucracy, Now in Comment Period