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
The Edmonds, Washington City Council, with a vote of 4:3, adopted a so-called backyard breeding ban on July 23, 2024, to reduce the number of dogs and cats in the city’s shelter. The ordinance, however, is intended to be a complete breeding ban for all, with two narrow exceptions that would not apply to hobby breeders. Councilwoman Nand, who proposed the ordinance (agenda packet p. 373 – 413 ), stated it would not apply to people merely gifting offspring intended for family and friends or if the owner was only charging a rehoming fee for the offspring of an accidental litter they could cure the fine by proving the bred animals were sterilized. The ordinance’s language states it is unlawful for any person to deliberately breed any dog, cat, or rabbit for profit. Violations of the breeding ban could result in a fine of not more than $1000 per deliberately bred litter. The advertisement and sale of companion animals by any person or corporation is also prohibited, and violations are punishable by a fine of $250 per animal per day.
The ordinances of two nearby cities were considered and rejected by Councilwoman Nand. The first was Bothell (which straddles the Snohomish and King County line), which adopted mandatory spay/neuter of cats and dogs without an unaltered license and hobby cattery or kennel licenses subject to limits on the allowed number of animals. The other city was Everett . It requires cattery and kennel licensing ( https://everett.municipal.codes/EMC/6.04.040 ), and containment of female animals in heat. She also said that less restrictive options would be too burdensome for the city to enforce with only two animal control officers, as cleaning up after an overwhelmed breeder was more of a burden than making the activity illegal. Council President Vivian Olsen commented that the animal laws in this city of about 43,000 residents were already restrictive, and the proposed ordinance was “too heavy-handed.”
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
The Council of the European Union negotiated animal legislation impacting breeders, sellers, exporters, and shelters that could become the first EU-wide animal law. To improve the welfare of cats and dogs “placed in the market,” consumer protection, and fighting illegal trade, the legislation would impose extensive “minimum standards” and inspections. The standards address the “five domains” – nutrition, environment, health, behavior, and mental state. Other components impacting breeders include traceability of commercially placed animals, pet buyer education, and animal caretaker training.
Despite recognizing that smaller breeders would be disproportionately affected by the provisions, the proposal still sets a low authorization threshold of producing or intending “to produce more than five litters per calendar year or that keeps more than five bitches or queens at any given time” for breeding establishments requiring approval. This is an increase from the original three bitches or queens and two litters or less language due to the veterinarian shortage. Partially exempt breeding establishments producing at most two litters per calendar year remain subject to many restrictions. Breeding restrictions include limits on frequency, age of the females, c-sections, inbreeding, bans on breeding hybrids, and “excessive conformational traits”. The last restriction prohibits breeding establishments from using animals with excessive conformational traits leading to a high risk of detrimental effects on the welfare of these animals. It mandates that breeding strategies minimize “the risk of producing dogs or cats with genotypes or phenotypes associated with detrimental effects on their welfare.” Some stakeholders wanted a total ban on breeding these animals. The European Commission rejected that suggestion because many of these breeds are linked to specific Member State traditions, such as the French Bulldog and Brussels Griffon.
Breeding and selling establishments are prohibited from using animals with “excessive conformational traits” or mutilations (i.e., docked tails) in aesthetic shows, exhibitions, and competitions. Show organizers must also exclude these animals from their shows.
The proposal requires EU-wide traceability of animals placed in the market via microchips and registration with a national database. Member States must ensure the interoperability of their databases with those of other Member States. Imports from outside the EU must also meet the traceability requirements and are subject to the same or equivalent standards contained in this legislation.
Member States are responsible for enforcement but can have more restrictive laws if they desire.
According to the press release linked above, “Negotiations between the Council presidency and the European Parliament will start once the Parliament has agreed on its position. The outcome of the negotiations will determine the final shape of the legislation.”
Fanciers can find more information on the legislation and the underlying research by following the links at the bottom of the press release.
New Hampshire Update
House Bill 1102-FN, which would have made selling or breeding with the intent to sell two or more cats or dogs with a defect that causes suffering an act of animal cruelty, officially died with the adjournment of the state’s legislative session.
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
Fanciers in Tennessee survived yet another attempt by animal activists striving to re-establish a state breeder licensing law since the 2014 termination of the 2009 Tennessee Commercial Breeder Act. Failed House Bill 2938 and Senate Bill 2513 would have required the Department of Commerce and Insurance to establish a licensing process for commercial breeders. Any person possessing or controlling ten or more dogs or cats for the purpose of selling offspring would have to become licensed, inspected, and meet other requirements. The application fee for an annual license would be $15.00 for each female cat or dog, with renewal fees being no more than $150.00. Tennessee is unique among the states that have enacted breeder licensing laws. It terminated the previous breeder licensing, recognizing that implementing the law cost a lot of money and failed to achieve the claimed benefit of reducing animal cruelty.
A comparison of the bill’s Fiscal Note analysis with a study of the 2009 law demonstrates some differences between the approaches. The 2009 law affected anyone keeping 20 or more unsterilized female dogs or cats for breeding and selling offspring as companion animals. A study conducted on the program revealed that in Fiscal Year 2011-2012, the 500 licensed breeders only generated $70,200 in state revenues—approximately 6.6% of the predicted $1,056,000 revenue.
In comparison, the 2024 bills drastically reduced the licensing threshold, but even with that reduction, the number of anticipated licenses dropped over 90% from 500 to 30. Both the 2011-12 study and the 2024 Fiscal Analysis estimates show costs far outstrip revenue for either program.
While Tennessee recognizes that the costs of breeder licensing laws outstrip the returns, the battle is not over. Fanciers must remain vigilant, as the determined efforts to reinstate a breeder licensing program may persist in the state.
Already known to be unfriendly to cat and dog breeders with its complicated animal ordinance, the City of Los Angeles exacerbated things last month with a moratorium on issuing dog breeding permits in response to a shelter crisis. Cat breeding permits are not included in the moratorium ordinance. The ordinance allows lifting the “temporary“ moratorium if the three-month moving dog occupancy average equals 75% or less of total capacity. Should the dog breeding permit moratorium ever be lifted, the ordinance provides that a new intermittent moratorium shall be issued anytime the three-month dog occupancy running average exceeds 75% of capacity.
The shelter system’s excessive overcrowding, approximately 200% of dog kennel capacity, has been blamed on the housing crisis, veterinary shortage , and the rerouting of medical supplies to human hospitals during the pandemic. When people and their pets lose their homes, and affordable veterinary care and sterilization procedures are unavailable, the problem will not be solved by a moratorium on dog breeding permits. The ordinance is a scapegoat response that makes it appear the city is doing something when it cannot address the real issues.
People who are losing their homes or do not have access to affordable veterinary care for their animals cannot afford the $235 breeding permit and cannot comply with the other requirements. These include microchipping the animal and its offspring, limiting it to one litter per year, and advertising, inspections, sales, and reporting requirements. The City of Los Angeles also has a pet limit law for dogs and cats over four months. The limit is three dogs and five cats, but all cats must be sterilized if there are over three. The limit law does not apply to permitted cat or dog kennels or pet stores.
When you give the government a yard, there is always a risk that it may return for the rest of the mile. The real issues causing shelter overcrowding gave the city an excuse to get closer to banning breeding altogether. Unfortunately, other governments may decide to copy it as many face similar issues.
ADDITIONAL RESOURCE: CFA LEGISLATIVE GROUP REFERENCE: Integrated text of “An ordinance adding Subsections (f) and (g) to Section 53.15.2 of Article 3, Chapter V of the Los Angeles Municipal Code to provide a temporary moratorium on the issuance of new dog breeding permits until the dog population in the City’s animal shelters is reduced and to add a severability clause,” including SEC. 53.15.2. BREEDING AND TRANSFER OF DOGS AND CATS. Other References to cat limits, cat kennels and permits therefor are included. May 2024
Some in the animal welfare community argue that the U.S. Department of Agriculture is not sufficiently aggressive when applying penalties to violators of the Animal Welfare Act and hasn’t been for many years. They suggested that the Department of Justice (DOJ) may be better suited to deal with the enforcement of the AWA, but previous attempts to legislate DOJ’s involvement failed. Then, on September 27, 2023, Representative Reschenthaler introduced HR 5041, the Better CARE for Animals Act of 2023.
The bill would amend the AWA, allowing the DOJ to bring civil action against violators. The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) claims the bill’s introduction with bi-partisan support as one of its 2023 achievements. That is, if you can call a co-sponsor pool consisting of 172 Democrats and 18 Republicans truly bi-partisan.
Interestingly, on March 8, the USDA announced that it had worked with the DOJ and the Justice Department’s Environment and Natural Resources Division on enforcement for almost four years. It has recently formalized the arrangement in a Memorandum of Understanding. Since then, only three more co-sponsors have added their names as co-sponsors for HR 5041. The bill has not made it out of committee yet. An identical bill, S 2555, has 26 Democratic, two Republican, and one independent co-sponsor. It has not made it out of committee either.
New Hampshire HB 1102-FN Update: The House Environment and Agriculture Committee tabled HB 1102-FN in a 232-140 vote, which caused it to miss a calendar deadline. Despite this setback, the bill’s language, which would make selling or breeding with the intent to sell two or more cats or dogs with a defect that causes suffering an act of animal cruelty, could still find its way into the legislative landscape. Potentially, it could be added to another bill by amendment, as happened with the 2019 pet vendor bill.
Cat and dog fanciers presented a well-planned opposition to the New Hampshire Environment and Agriculture Committee during a public hearing held on March 5th on House Bill 1102-FN. It is a bill of first impression in the country that would amend the state’s animal cruelty statute to include:
“(h) Sells an animal that has a birth deformity that causes suffering, such as brachycephaly, or the intentional breeding with the intent to sell, 2 individual animals with the same birth deformity that causes suffering, such as brachycephaly”.
Since January, the CFA Legislative Group collaborated with TICA, AKC, and local fanciers and submitted CFA’s opposition letter. The fanciers had a significant impact based on the comments from the work session the following day. Several members echoed Committee Chair Judy Aron’s sentiment that New Hampshire breeders do a great job of breeding ethically. Representative Barbara Comtois, who owned three breeds of brachycephalic dogs and is a former dog breeder, commented that New Hampshire already has excellent laws, so they don’t hear about these issues much. Representative Catherine Kenny has worked with several breeders over her career in the veterinary field and found them to be devoted to their animals and conscientious about their health. She also said breeders and veterinarians could address this issue better than legislation. Others commented that proving intent would be an issue, and more than one commented that they learned a lot, especially that brachycephaly alone was not a deformity.
Kudos to the local cat and dog fanciers for their efforts! Fanciers can watch the public hearing and the work session beginning at the time 1:51:15. The bill is due out of committee by March 21st but could be voted on in the executive session on March 13th, 2024.
UPDATE
On March 13, 2024, the House Environment and Agriculture Committee voted 14:6 to report HB 1102-FN as inexpedient to legislate. Many thanks to all who fought this bill! If the House votes to adopt the committee report, the bill will be officially killed, although the Sponsor may attempt to offer an amendment before this process is complete.
To all New Hampshire exhibitors, cat clubs, breeders, and pet lovers.
Hearing Date: Tuesday, March 5, 2024, 1:00 p.m. Eastern
New Hampshire House Environment and Agriculture Committee
NOTE: The deadline for submission of written comments is the end of Monday, March 4, 2024.
As you know, New Hampshire HB 1102-FN would amend their animal cruelty statute to criminalize anyone who “Sells an animal that has a birth deformity that causes suffering, such as brachycephaly, or the intentional breeding with the intent to sell, 2 individual animals with the same birth deformity that causes suffering, such as brachycephaly.” This would ban popular breeds such as Persians, Exotics, Burmese, etc.
PLEASE CONTACT the New Hampshire House Environment and Agriculture Committee. Contact information may be found on the CFA blog at: https://cfalegislativegroup.wordpress.com
SUGGESTED COMMENTS: CFA has sent a letter in OPPOSITION to the committee. The text of the CFA letter follows this alert. Additional suggestions may be found in our previous alert, or use points in opposition outlined in the AKC alerts modified to relate to cats as applicable.
If you have additional questions please contact me and copy the rest of the team working on this matter. Please copy each of us on your messages so that we can assist you more quickly. Please include Sharon A Coleman sharonacoleman@aol.com, Kelly Crouch kcrouch512@gmail.com, and Alene Shafnisky sinend.ta@gmail.com; along with myself.
Please forward this message to anyone who might help.
Re: HB 1102 “relative to the definition of animal cruelty”
Hearing date March 5, 2024 OPPOSE
Dear Committee Members:
I am writing on behalf of The Cat Fanciers’ Association, Inc. (CFA)[1] in opposition to HB 1102, “relative to the definition of animal cruelty”. We oppose the bill as written and submit the following in OPPOSITION.
The Cat Fancier’s Association supports the well-being of all cats and responsible breeding practices for cats. However, this bill seeks to criminalize the sale and breeding of brachycephalic cats, by defining them as suffering from a “birth deformity.” This bill not only creates criminal offenses but positions them within the animal cruelty offenses that are subject to additional consequences, both statutory and otherwise where convictions, in addition to incarceration and fines, may bar employment, licensing, or other benefits or eligibility for individuals who did no harm to animals or otherwise.
Other alleged deformities in cats and dogs are criminalized in the bill but are not defined. In humans or animals, brachycephaly refers only to the shape of the head and the ratio of the short length to longer distances of the head width. It is just a description of the heads of certain breeds of animals and can appear both pathologically or non-pathologically as a result of normal variation in skull shape. It is not, by itself, a “birth deformity.” Brachycephaly is perceived as a cosmetically desirable trait in some domesticated dog and cat breeds. While these breeds have unique physical characteristics, labeling brachycephaly as a “birth deformity that causes suffering” vastly oversimplifies the issue. Additionally, the word “suffering” is the keyword of European political radicals seeking to eliminate purebred cat breeding, leaving no doubt of eventual intention in New Hampshire.
Among our primary concerns with House Bill 1102 is its failure to acknowledge the complexity of feline genetics. Breeds are developed through selective breeding to emphasize certain traits, whether companionship, or aesthetics. Attempting to categorize an entire group of cats as suffering from a birth deformity trivializes the intricate genetic makeup that defines each breed.
It’s important to recognize that brachycephalic traits are not inherently harmful. Many brachycephalic cats, such as Persians, are among the most popular and these cats lead healthy and happy lives without any veterinary issues. Responsible breeding practices involve addressing potential health issues associated with certain traits, such as potential respiratory difficulties in brachycephalic cats. Instead of criminalizing an entire group of breeds, the focus should be on promoting responsible breeding and providing education on the specific needs of each breed.
The bill’s focus on criminalizing the sale and breeding of cats with perceived birth deformities may inadvertently penalize ethical breeders who actively work to eliminate genetic disorders within their breeding programs. Criminalizing the sale and breeding of cats, especially breeds sought by the public, would intentionally discourage these experienced breeders and encourage the proliferation of backyard breeders who lack the knowledge and commitment to animal welfare.
Moreover, eliminating the breeding and sale of brachycephalic cats overlooks the fact that many responsible breeders prioritize the health and welfare of their animals and actively work to address health concerns through selective breeding and health screening programs. These breeders collaborate closely with their veterinarians to ensure that their cats receive the appropriate care and attention throughout their lives. Rigid laws are not a substitute for the relationship between breeders and their veterinarians, which is essential for promoting responsible breeding practices and ensuring the welfare of the cats. Codifying prejudice against breeds of cats for cosmetic reasons is neither good governance nor animal protection.
We oppose HB 1102 “relative to the definition of animal cruelty” and ask it be rejected by the Committee.
Very truly yours,
George J. Eigenhauser, Jr.
CFA Legislative Coordinator
[FN1 The Cat Fanciers’ Association, Inc. (CFA) is a non-profit organization founded in 1906. As the largest registry of pedigreed cats in the world, CFA’s mission is to “preserve and promote the pedigreed breeds of cats and to enhance the well-being of all cats.” CFA participants, who breed and show pedigreed cats, are active in cat health promotion, cat breed rescue, shelter support, and other animal-related programs throughout the world. CFA is a positive force that has helped to educate the public about proper cat care, spay/neuter, and responsible pet ownership. CFA is proud of its self-regulation programs to encourage high standards of care for cats in multi-cat breeding environments. A voluntary “Cattery of Excellence” program and breeder mentoring program are part of ongoing efforts to ensure responsible breeding and good cattery environments.]
[1] The Cat Fanciers’ Association, Inc. (CFA) is a non-profit organization founded in 1906. As the largest registry of pedigreed cats in the world, CFA’s mission is to “preserve and promote the pedigreed breeds of cats and to enhance the well-being of all cats.” CFA participants, who breed and show pedigreed cats, are active in cat health promotion, cat breed rescue, shelter support, and other animal-related programs throughout the world. CFA is a positive force that has helped to educate the public about proper cat care, spay/neuter, and responsible pet ownership. CFA is proud of its self-regulation programs to encourage high standards of care for cats in multi-cat breeding environments. A voluntary “Cattery of Excellence” program and breeder mentoring program are part of ongoing efforts to ensure responsible breeding and good cattery environments.
To all New Hampshire exhibitors, cat clubs, breeders, and pet lovers.
Hearing Date: Tuesday, March 5, 2024, 1:00 p.m. Eastern
New Hampshire House Environment and Agriculture Committee
NOTE: The deadline for submission of written comments is the end of Monday, March 4, 2024.
New Hampshire HB 1102-FN would amend their animal cruelty statute to criminalize anyone who “Sells an animal that has a birth deformity that causes suffering, such as brachycephaly, or the intentional breeding with the intent to sell, 2 individual animals with the same birth deformity that causes suffering, such as brachycephaly.” This would ban popular breeds such as Persians, Exotics, Burmese, etc. It would also ban any cat with a “deformity that causes suffering” which has been used in other jurisdictions to target breeds such as Scottish Fold, Manx, Sphynx, or even white cats of any breed.
WHAT YOU CAN DO: We are asking New Hampshire cat breeders, exhibitors, fanciers, cat lovers, and clubs to contact their representatives and inform them of your opposition to HB 1102. Please forward this message to your friends, family, pet buyers, veterinarians, or anyone in New Hampshire who values choice in their breed of cats and ask them to submit comments in opposition too. The AKC alert (below) includes the contact information for the members of the New Hampshire House Environment and Agriculture Committee. There is also a link to the online platform to post your opposition. When submitting written comments please note that you are in OPPOSITION to the bill. Please include that in the header, opening sentence, and closing.
SUGGESTED COMMENTS: Brachycephaly refers only to the shape of the head and the ratio of the short length to longer distances of the head width. It is not a “deformity” but a description of the heads of certain breeds of animals or in humans. Brachycephalic cats, such as Persians, are among the most popular and these cats lead healthy and happy lives without any veterinary issues. Responsible breeding practices involve addressing potential health issues associated with certain traits, such as potential respiratory difficulties in brachycephalic cats. Instead of criminalizing an entire group of breeds, the focus should be on promoting responsible breeding and providing education on the specific needs of each breed. You may wish to include pictures or links to videos of healthy Persians, Exotics, etc., living a happy and healthy life. It may help. You may also consider using comments similar to the ones in the AKC alert as they may be applicable to cats.
If you have additional questions please contact me and copy the rest of the team working on this matter. Please copy each of us on your messages so that we can assist you more quickly. Please include Sharon A Coleman sharonacoleman@aol.com, Kelly Crouch kcrouch512@gmail.com, and Alene Shafnisky sinend.ta@gmail.com; along with myself.
Please forward this message to anyone who might help.
From: AKC Government Relations <doglaw@akc.org>Sent: Thursday, February 29, 2024To:Subject: [EXTERNAL] Express Opposition Today to New Hampshire Bill that Seeks to Criminalize Breeders!
Please share this alert with Legislative Liaisons, Club Members, and Responsible Dog Owners in New Hampshire.
On Tuesday, March 5, at 1PM, the New Hampshire House Environment and Agriculture Committee is scheduled to consider HB 1102, “Defining Animal Cruelty,” in a public hearing. The American Kennel Club (AKC) and the New Hampshire Dogs Owners of the Granite State (NH DOGS) are in strong opposition to HB 1102, which describes brachycephaly as a “birth deformity that causes suffering” and would CRIMINALIZE the sale and breeding of brachycephalic dogs and any dog that could be claimed to have a birth deformity. While it may appear that this bill only targets a subset of breeders, its expansive language actually targets breeders of all dogs.
Talking Points in Opposition to HB 1102 (As Introduced):
HB 1102 will devastate New Hampshire’s ability to produce purebred dogs and will establish a dangerous precedent for radical legislative proposals around the country.
HB 1102 inaccurately concludes that all brachycephalic animals, including dogs, suffer from serious health issues. In reality, brachycephaly does not equal unhealthy. Across all dog types, multiple factors can contribute to differences in dogs’ breathing, including physical condition, environment, and genetics. Nevertheless, all breeding of brachycephalic breeds–regardless of respiratory quality, breeder background, fancier status, or club affiliation—will be a criminal act under HB 1102, which will have a chilling effect on all responsible dog breeding.
HB 1102 inaccurately implies that all who breed dogs do so without regard for the dogs’ welfare. Facts demonstrate that responsible purebred dog breeders are passionate about both preserving breed characteristics and producing healthier successive generations
Protecting and promoting responsible breeders and the puppies they produce is a better solution than threatening them with criminal prosecution based on inaccurate information that creates a perverse incentive for New Hampshire residents to buy puppies online that are not protected by New Hampshire consumer protection laws.
By banning intentional breeding when a “birth deformity causes suffering”, HB 1102 targets all breeds regardless of phenotype. Breeding dogs is part art and part science; and despite best efforts, chance plays a part when it comes to inherited disease or health conditions.
HB 1102 is unconstitutionally vague. There is no way to know for each breed type how the provisions of HB 1102 would be interpreted and enforced.
WHAT YOU CAN DO:
All breeders, owners, and residents, along with all AKC-affiliated clubs in New Hampshire are strongly encouraged to contact committee members by email prior to March 5 and, if possible, attend the public hearing in person to demonstrate opposition to HB 1102. Please share your experiences and concerns and feel free to use the talking points above in sharing your opposition to HB 1102.
For all: Use “Oppose HB 1102” in your email subject line.
New Hampshire residents: In your email, identify what city/town you’re emailing from.
Parent clubs: If you have not yet done so, send email with statement of opposition on club letterhead and share that your club is the national expert organization of your breed.
Committee members may be individually contacted as follows:
Anyone opposed can also register their opinion and upload/submit testimony to NH House Environment and Agriculture Committee via this online platform up until midnight on March 4, 2024. Please note that Information and testimony submitted on this form is entered into the public record for each piece of legislation and will be considered public records subject to disclosure under New Hampshire’s Right to Know Law. Do not submit any personal information you do not wish to disclose publicly.
Those in opposition to HB 1102 are strongly encouraged to appear alongside representatives of AKC and NH DOGS at the March 5 committee hearing to express their opposition. HB 1102 is scheduled to be considered at 1PM in Room 301-303 of the Legislative Office Building, 33 North State Street, Concord, New Hampshire 03301. When you arrive, sign in stating your opposition and fill out a pink card if you would like to speak.
FOR MORE INFORMATION:
AKC and NH DOGS strongly encourage you to join in the fight against this radical legislation. For more information on HB 1102 or how you can help in the fight against it, contact AKC Government Relations at doglaw@akc.org or NH DOGS at dogs.nh@gmail.com.
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.
