CFA LEGISLATIVE GROUP

In the year since the first post on pet leases and finance legislation, five additional states have enacted these laws — New York, Washington, Indiana, Connecticut and New Jersey. Of the total seven, only two have included express breeding lease exemptions as discussed in our first post. New Jersey did expressly exempt breeding leases for dogs as well as cats, but unfortunately Connecticut only included dogs, leaving uncertainty whether there was a legislative purpose for the omission or merely accommodation of a request to exempt dog breeding leases, perhaps not realizing that this is a practice of all pedigreed cat registries.

All five statutes without exemptions were narrowly drafted to focus on title to the pet not transferring to the lessee (person in possession who would typically be defined as “owner” under animal laws) until completion of all lease payments as well as the pet being security for performance of the lease and possible repossession by or on behalf of the lessor.  This is the simplest legislative drafting approach to avoid confusion about what might possibly be included rather than is actually prohibited.

Some proposed pet lease bills failed in 2019, so we would expect more efforts in 2020 and beyond. If breeding lease exemptions should be necessary, these should include BOTH purebred dogs AND PEDIGREED cats.

Legislation – What’s Hot, December 2019                                                                                    Kelly Crouch, CFA Legislative Information Liaison

Legislation – What’s Hot                                                                                                                      Kelly Crouch, CFA Legislative Information Liaison November 2019

Mandatory Microchipping Law Development: the Proposed Honolulu, HI Ordinance

Mandatory microchipping laws started as singular mandates to chip pets, but the Honolulu ordinance would add three more mandates and associated reporting requirements to the original formula. With these additional mandates come more issues for affected pet owners. While CFA supports voluntary microchipping, there are too many opportunities for failure in every aspect of the system to support the legislatively mandated use of the technology alone or with additional requirements.

The technology failures include reported health issues, failure or migration of the chip, an improper scan not revealing a microchip, universal scanners that are not really universal, and different countries require microchips of different frequencies which can be problematic along the border or in imported animals. Registering databases may not have up to date information, or the chip may not be registered at all. In the U.S., it can be something of a scavenger hunt to find registration information because of the large number of registries. There is also the misguided notion that registration of a chip is proof of ownership. By itself, the chip registration is only evidence, not proof, of ownership. Similarly, writing your name in a jacket found at the park only shows possession at some point, not ownership. The microchip system can be a valuable resource to pet owners, but it is in no means failsafe.

These weaknesses of the microchip system make expanding on the original formula of stand-alone microchipping mandates deceptively attractive to well-meaning lawmakers. Some of these developments include requiring shelters to chip pets before reuniting them with their owners or placing them in new homes, mandating registration with a private registry, and mandating registration with a local animal control agency. Although these issues have shown up in local ordinances and the occasional state bill, it may be premature to label these developments trends just yet.

Requiring public animal control agencies and shelters to microchip cats and dogs before releasing them to their owners or placing them in new homes was recently considered in California. Senate Bill 64 passed both houses of the legislature in 2019 but was vetoed by the governor. While supportive of the objective to reduce euthanasia, Governor Gavin Newson recognized the burden the legislation might cause for people struggling to meet the basic costs of pet care. A previous attempt to impose these requirements on shelters and rescues in 2011 with S.B. 701, was also vetoed by then Governor Edmund G. Brown Jr citing local authority to make such mandates and pay for them if the local jurisdiction chose to pass such a law.

Alternatively, combining the microchip mandate with the requirement that pet owners must register the chip with a private registry is the choice made by the San Antonio, Texas city council. This option introduces a different set of problems. New companies start-up, and others go out of business, possibly without notice to their clients. A single microchip number can be registered to multiple people which may be deliberate or the result of duplicated microchip numbers. Breeders often list themselves as the primary contact with the owner as the alternate contact. Also, with all the registration companies in the U.S., it is unrealistic to expect animal control to know and contact each of them for every lost pet.

There are also issues with the requirement that owners must register their pet’s chip with animal control. By requiring a cat owner to register with animal control the mandate essentially becomes a cat licensing program. Cat owners may question the value of the program since cats do not benefit from licensing as much as dogs. According to a 2010 survey, only 2% of cats were reunited with their owners through a shelter. Instead, 75% of cats usually returned home on their own or were found in searches by their owners. (Weiss, Frequency of Lost Dogs and Cats in the United States and the Methods Used to Locate Them, https://www.mdpi.com/2076-2615/2/2/301)

The proposed Honolulu ordinance incorporates all three of these additional mandates. With all of these additional mandates and the associated reporting requirements, the ordinance introduces yet another issue. It subjects pet owners to overly complicated regulations that invite unintentional violations. The combination of all these issues should override any wellmeant intentions behind the proposed ordinance.

Recent CFA Legislative Group Blog Posts, October 2019, Legislation – What’s Hot . . . . New Hampshire: Pet Vendor Update Eureka (Humboldt County,) California: Limits, Cattery Licensing, and Irresponsible Pet Owner

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

Legislation – What’s Hot . . . . . . .

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

September 2019

City of Los Angeles Feral Cat Program Delayed Years by Bureaucracy, Now in Comment Period

The City of Los Angeles engaged in minimal Trap-Neuter-Return (TNR) efforts since the early 1990s. In 2005, recognizing that extermination of feral cats was neither humane nor cost-effective, the City started to develop an official policy for modest TNR efforts.  Environmental and bird groups¹ sought (2008) and in January 2010 obtained a permanent injunction against the City. The injunction prohibited the City from engaging in or facilitating others’ work in the TNR program until it meets the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Case No. BS115483. In March of 2010, the injunction was modified in two ways. The City was allowed to release feral cats to groups who agree in writing to not release the cats at the trapping location and its animal shelters were permitted to distribute publications that included information on TNR among the topics covered. In 2013 the City prepared a Mitigated Negative Declaration but modified that plan to the program proposed in the current Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR), Section 15082 of the State CEQA Guidelines. In 2017, the City approved the plan covered by the current City of Los Angeles DEIR now in the comment period in the fall of 2019.

In the original litigation, the City agreed that environmental review would be done eventually but its activities were so early in the planning stages and the review process stopped for budget reasons, this had not yet been accomplished. The City also contended that its activities to date did not constitute a TNR program, but the court rejected this argument. The final judgment and injunction prohibited the city from implementing a “trap, neuter, release” program until a CEQA environmental review was completed. Contemplating a lengthy, expensive process that could delay implementation for many years, in February 2010, two organizations attempted to intervene in the litigation. The No Kill Advocacy Center, a policy organization led by Nathan Winograd, and the Stray Cat Alliance, that operates in the County of Los Angeles and advocates for every cat’s “right to be safe, healthy and valued,” brought an ex parte motion to intervene claiming that a CEQA review is not required before implementing a TNR program.

The motion was denied and the denial affirmed on appeal, finding the issue moot and never a claim in contention. Rather the City claimed in the original litigation that its plan had not developed to the extent requiring a CEQA review, not that the City wanted to oppose the need for CEQA review.²

The question of whether CEQA review is required for this TNR program was acceded to by the original parties. The program has already been delayed by over a decade. Moneys that could have been spent for the welfare of cats have instead supported years of bureaucratic process and largely redundant documents. Now, the time has come for action. The plan evaluates the potential environmental effects of the proposed Citywide Cat Program and seeks input on the DEIR from public agencies, residents, and other interested project stakeholders. The DEIR and its separate Appendices are lengthy but contain information of interest to anyone concerned about cats and the environment and how the CEQA process works. Comments can be submitted in writing until October 28^th or at a public meeting on Monday, October 7, 2019, 6:00 p.m. at the Ramona Hall Community Center, 4580 N Figueroa St, Los Angeles.

The DEIR contains comments from the 2017 Public Scoping Meeting, an in-depth discussion of the Environmental Impact and Alternatives analysis, a discussion of the County of Los Angeles free-roaming cat policies, along with other information that contributed to the development of the Citywide Cat Program. The Program addresses funding issues, whether changes to applicable law would be required, how to implement the program, establishing collaborative relationships with TNR organizations, and public education. One item of particular interest to resident pet owners is that the City proposes to amend the Los Angeles Municipal Code to allow up to five cats per household. Before LA fanciers get too excited, that increased number would be subject to restrictions. Any household with more than three cats must keep them inside at all times, sterilize and microchip all the cats, and the household must register with the Department of Animal Services.

The only environmental impact concerns with the program include biological resources, public health, and water quality. Those who support euthanasia over TNR argue that free-roaming cats impact populations of birds, rodents, and other prey. There are public health concerns potentially affecting humans, such as fleas and parasites. Finally, there is the concern that cat feces may contaminate bodies of water. Researchers determined that the proposed project would result in no impact or less-than-significant impact for all resource areas.

The DEIR discusses a total of 13 possible alternatives to the recommended Citywide Cat Program. These include increased enforcement of the mandatory spay/neuter ordinance, cat licensing, enact a no-roaming ordinance for owned cats, and reduce the permissible number of cats per residence from the three cats currently permitted. None of the alternatives met all of the program objectives.

Additional documents on the proposed Citywide Cat Program, including the DEIR, its Appendices and how to provide written comments, are located at the City’s Bureau of Engineering website.

¹ Urban Wildlands Group, Endangered Habitats League, Los Angeles Audubon Society, Palos Verdes/South Bay Audubon Society, Santa Monica Bay Audubon Society, and American Bird Conservancy.

² https://www.leagle.com/decision/incaco20101206013#

Please report legislation happening in your area to the Legislative Group – legislation@cfa.org    Visit the CFALegislativeNews Facebook page and the CFA Legislative Group Blog to see the current legislative news.

By Kelly Crouch, CFA Legislative Information Liaison 

August 2019

Fort Smith, AR: $500 Breeder Licenses

By a vote of 6-1 on August 6, 2019, the Fort Smith Board of Directors approved multiple changes to its animal control ordinance (Talk Business & Politics, “Fort Smith Board approves new animal control measures, shelter contract.”  A major change is the $500 annual breeder license per animal for cats and dogs. Breeders must have a city business license, a state sales permit, and prove the animal has been microchipped to obtain a breeder license. There are other requirements as well. The breeder must license and microchip offspring over four months of age. They must display the license number on all advertising, receipts, or transfer documents, and the breeder must prominently display the license number to any person acquiring a cat or dog from them. A breeder may not sell, adopt, gift or otherwise transfer a cat or dog earlier than six weeks of age or that is not immunized against common diseases as directed by a licensed veterinarian. The breeder must provide the new owner information about city licensing and microchipping requirements. They must also supply the new owner’s information to the City Animal Control Department.

Furthermore, the ordinance mandates microchipping of cats and dogs and secondary identification, such as a collar with a tag. During the meeting, the ordinance was amended to include a lifetime $10 license for animals microchipped and sterilized per the article referenced above. The annual license fee for intact animals is $60. A zero dollar exemption to the licensing requirement is available to dogs actively trained and used by law enforcement and rescue activities, certified service dogs, and cats and dogs under four months of age, including those subject to a Breeder License. The ordinance also prohibits cat owners from allowing their cat to run at-large. The draft ordinance was attached to the August 6, 2019 Board agenda. There have been six related articles posted on the CFALegislativeNews Facebook page since September 21, 2018.

NOTE post publication news of possible amendments was published in the local news media as well as this informative action alert for the August 20, 2019 Board meeting from The American Kennel Club with links to additional information.

Tulsa, Oklahoma

As part of its eight-step Animal Welfare Reform Plan, Tulsa officials have proposed a 67-page animal ordinance, an addition of 30 pages to Title 2 which includes animal control, agricultural animals and other provisions often separated from animal control ordinances. Such an expansive ordinance invites inadvertent violations from residents as well as making it difficult for those enforcing the law to be experts, especially those not dedicated to animal control. Concerns include provisions about pet limits, due process provisions, fee appropriateness, at-large cats, and dangerous animals. The city is seeking input about the ordinance from residents via an online survey  through August 31, 2019.

The pet limits contained in new §101A.15 would prohibit the harboring, keeping, or possessing “in any one household more than a combined total of five (5) dogs and cats over the age of four (4) months”. Under current law, §101A.18 requires that dogs and cats be sterilized, other than police dogs or pets continuously licensed prior to January 1, 1998. There are three permitted exemptions to these restrictions in §117. The Animal Count Exemption Permit allows a person to own and keep up to a total of ten sterilized cats and dogs at a single-family dwelling per acre of land. For a cat fancier to obtain this permit, they cannot be a commercial breeder (undefined) and must be actively involved in a nationally recognized, organized sport or hobby for at least one year prior to the date of application. A cat or dog breeder would need an Intact Animal Exemption Permit, allowing a holder to own and keep up to a combined total of five intact cats and dogs at a single-family dwelling. The fees for both of these exemptions is $100 for the first animal and $50 for each subsequent animal. Fanciers involved in rescue need an Animal Rescue Permit for a fee of $25. A person violating §101A.15 or §101A.18 is subject to up to six months in jail, a fine of not more than $1200, or both. A person violating the permit requirements is subject to a fine up to $500. The exemptions are more complicated than discussed here. To fully understand them, fanciers are encouraged to study the ordinance (https://www.cityoftulsa.org/media/10481/animal-ordinancedraft06-26-19.pdf).

Another concern is in the completely new Chapter 9 where §902 authorizes the Director of Working in Neighborhoods Department or Chief of Police to enter premises to determine the health and well-being of, or to impound, an animal. Furthermore, it authorizes them to determine the terms and conditions under which the owner “may regain or maintain custody of the animal.” There is nothing in §902 indicating this authority is subject to the U.S. Constitution Fourth Amendment provisions of Chapter 1, §116. If it was intended that provisions in one chapter govern provisions in another chapter, it needs to be clarified. If this was not the intention, there is a Fourth Amendment issue in §902.

Also, looking at the penalties for violations of this ordinance leaves one wondering if they are appropriate. When assigning penalties, the severity of the violation should be considered in comparison to other violations with the same penalty throughout the entire municipal code. The maximum fine up to $500 applies to most violations including having an unlicensed or unvaccinated animal, abandoning an animal, unlawful number of dogs and cats, and the unlawful sale of a diseased animal. The table of pre-set fines, often $100, may be the minimum fine but this is unclear. Neither does the ordinance provide guidance on how the penalties escalate from minimum to maximum levels.

Two current dog only sections have also been expanded to include other animals. At-large now includes cats. While a dog may not be off-leash or not in the physical control of its owner, a cat must be in the physical control of the owner. Yet, cats are walked on leashes. Similarly, the dangerous dog section has been expanded to include cats and other animals necessitating a thorough review of whether the existing dangerous dog provisions should be applied to other animals.

Massachusetts House Bill 1444, Guardian Bill  – Muddying the Waters for Pet Owners

Massachusetts Representative Steven S. Howitt (R-Seekonk) presented H. 1444 (web page including current status)  by petition – a short bill that on first glance doesn’t reveal its true purpose. As with H. 2290, an identical bill presented in 2017, a careful analysis exposes the intent behind the bill. The opening sentence of the bill does say, “An Act changing the legal status of “pets” from personal property to “companion animals”(emphasis added).” However, nothing in the actual language to be enacted mentions property, and the companion animal terminology has never been used for this purpose. Rather a trend of many years has been to draft special laws for “companion animals” with offense definitions, classifications and penalties different from those for livestock or other animals. This use was merely a way of differentiating different types of animals and was unrelated to the standard personal property status of all animals. A different petition bill for 2019, H.1815 (web page including current status,) is titled “An Act known as the companion animal protection act of Massachusetts, deals with impounded animals and never defines or uses “companion animals” in the provisions to be enacted. In current state law, there is only one use of companion animal, in veterinary law, Chapter 112, Section 58A1/2: Dispensing of compounded drugs to companion animals by veterinarians. Thus, it is unlikely the use of this term would achieve the drafter’s purpose of elevating the legal status of pets, so there must be other clues

The first clue to the drafter’s intent is the bill’s second paragraph to be enacted, “Caregivers of “companion animals” shall be considered “guardians”. The original 1999 “Guardian Campaign” of In Defense of Animals (IDA) founder, Dr. Elliot Katz, sought to elevate the status of animals by substituting guardian for owner as a step to eliminating the property status of animals. This would change the paradigm of ownership to a “fiduciary” relationship for care of animals. No detailed framework for a legal guardianship relationship was ever worked out to do this, and proponents had to settle for “guardian” as the legal equivalent and alternate usage for owner. With greater scrutiny, the realization that guardians only have obligations but no inherent rights, public skepticism increased. IDA has now revised their own terminology to “The Founder’s Guardian Initiative” although Guardians remains one of their organization campaigns. While the legislation fell out of favor, use of the term is always a red flag for determining drafter intention.

The second clue within the bill is less apparent to readers unfamiliar with criminal sentencing guidelines. In particular, the Federal criminal “sentencing guidelines” of mandatory minimum sentences for specific drug offenses, chiefly those involving small amounts of inexpensive but illegal drugs trafficked by low level offenders. The three offenses described in H. 1440 involve allowing “companion animals” to be outside in extreme weather “which poses an adverse risk to the health and safety of“ the animals. The bill then imposes mandatory minimum sentences of confinement. Unlike “guardian,” this is a new kind of red flag to watch for in animal laws.

Massachusetts has a long list of animal cruelty statutes, but none provide mandatory minimum sentencing. Nor does the 2016 Animal Cruelty And Protection Task Force report make any reference to this idea. Rather, each offense that includes confinement in the penalty, provides only that it be for “not more than” whatever period of years. At the state level, the Massachusetts Sentencing Commission has ”concluded that for certain mandatory offenses — e.g., OUI, firearms offenses — the mandatory minimum sentence was fair and proportionate. The Commission didn’t reach the same conclusion upon its examination of mandatory drug offenses” and further noted, “Current research on mandatory minimum drug sentencing supports alternatives to mandatory sentences.” Use of mandatory minimum sentences for any animal offense would be a major policy departure for Massachusetts criminal sentencing, so that offhand inclusion in H.1444 is a serious concern.

There are no precedents or obvious reasons for using mandatory minimum sentences in these low level animal offenses, except for a 2008 Comment in the Penn State Law Review., “Justice For Dusty: Implementing Mandatory Minimum Sentences For Animal Abusers.” Similar to the hope that “guardian” would lead to better treatment of animals generally, this Comment, written by a law student, argues for creative use of mandatory minimum sentencing for animal abusers so that society takes these crimes more seriously.

The Massachusetts petition bill process probably facilitates aspirational bills that advance policy ideals rather than practical approaches, but sometimes political quirks lead to enactment of unlikely bills or copycats elsewhere. While these are challenging to identify, it is important to understand them.

Recent CFA Legislative Group Blog Posts:

1. Massachusetts: Senate Bill 114 Creating Breeder Licensing for Cat Fanciers and Rescue Regulations Proposed by MDAR. 5/16/2019
2. Docket No. APHIS-2017-0062 – Proposed Rule Comment Period Ends May 21, 2019. 5/19/2019
3. APHIS Extends Comment Period for Docket No. APHIS-2017-0062 – proposed Rule Comment Period Ends June 5, 2019. 5/21/2019

Please report legislation happening in your area to the Legislative Group – legislation@cfa.org  Visit the CFALegislativeNews Facebook page and the CFA Legislative Group Blog to see the current legislative news.

As of today, May 21, 2019, the comment period for Docket No. APHIS-2017-0062 as described in the previous May 19 post, has been EXTENDED to Wednesday, June 5, 2019 at 11:59 p.m. EST. The docket page has been updated to reflect this change. As of this morning, the comment counter shows 27,653 comments received. For more information:

Animal Welfare; Amendments to Licensing Provisions and to Requirements for Dogs

In March, APHIS published for comment a new Proposed Rule based on information gathered through a 2017 advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPR) to solicit comment on a number of topics under consideration for revisions to the Animal Welfare Act Regulations.  The comment period for the current Proposed Rule closes on May 21 2019, at 11:59 PM ET.  For all documents on “Animal Welfare; Amendments to Licensing Provisions and to Requirements for Dogs” or to submit a comment, see https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=APHIS-2017-0062-47066

APHIS summarizes the changes as “PROMOTE COMPLIANCE, REDUCE FEES, STRENGTHEN SAFEGUARDS, PREVENT PERSONS/BUSINESSES WITH NONCOMPLIANCE HISTORY FROM OBTAINING LIC/WORKING W/REGULATED ANIMALS, and STRENGTHEN VET CARE/WATERING FOR REGULATED DOGS

One reason for these proposals is response to inadequately rigorous license procedures and care standards for “puppy mills” – either alleged by activists or recognized by APHIS. These make it more difficult to reference USDA licensing as a standard for other purposes such as allowing retail stores to sell puppies to the public. Thus, the revisions emphasize licensing and dog care. However, the licensing changes impact ALL licensees.

There are some related concerns that could impact breeders who sell at retail and would not have been licensed before the 2013 Retail Pet Store Rule where the licensee’s “business model” information will now be required in order to demonstrate compliance.  Here is the explanation:

“Proposed paragraph (b)(2) would state that licenses authorize increments of 50 animals on hand at any single point in time during the period of licensure, and that licensees must obtain a new license before any change resulting in more than the authorized number of animals on hand at any single point in time. For example, a dog breeder with 30-40 breeding female dogs should apply for a license to hold 100 dogs and demonstrate compliance to house 100 dogs (adults and puppies) to accommodate anticipated births from the dogs. Since the breeder business model is predicated on selling puppies at or shortly after 8-weeks of age, the applicant would have to demonstrate the ability to safely handle, house, and care for up to 100 dogs (adult and puppies) at the time of pre-license inspection. The pre-license demonstration of compliance would take into account the species of dog, the number of breeding female dogs, the projected litter size, and the facility’s business model for selling and placing puppies and adult dogs who are no longer used for breeding purposes. Paragraph (b)(2) would also state that licenses authorize the use of animals by subpart A through F in part 3, except that, for subparts D and F, licenses separately authorize the use of each of the following groups of animals: (1) Group 5 and 6 nonhuman primates, (2) big cats or large felids (lions, tigers, leopards, cheetahs, jaguars, cougars, and any hybrid cross thereof), (3) wolves, (4) bears, and (5) mega-herbivores (elephants, rhinoceroses, hippopotamuses, and giraffes). These groups of animals would have to be separately authorized because these animals are dangerous and have unique regulatory and care needs. Licensees would also be required to obtain a new license before using any animals beyond those animals authorized for use under the existing license for activities for which a license is required. For example, if an applicant obtained a 3-year license after demonstrating compliance with the regulations in part 2 and the standards pertaining to dogs and cats (subpart A of part 3), but later decides that he or she wishes to also acquire and use rabbits for activities that require a license, that person would need to apply for a new license and demonstrate compliance with all applicable regulations and standards, including the standards pertaining to dogs, cats, and rabbits (subparts A and C of part 3), and obtain a new license, before using the rabbits for such activities.”

As CFA explained since 1997, the original licensing threshold based on the wholesale business model allowed licensed breeders to send offspring to retail sellers at predictable ages so as to control overhead and typically limit breeding stock to animals used for breeding. As this standard changed, licensed breeders can be retaining offspring for direct sale to brokers or pet buyers for unpredictable periods at increased overhead costs and use of the facilities’ space and resources. These practices could result in more animals than anticipated and less predictable revenues and cash flow to cover overhead costs, resulting in greater risks to animals at the licensee’s facility. The Proposed Rule would require more careful evaluation and attention to compliance details for some persons.

The new water and care provisions apply to dogs only, and cat requirements are distinguished as follows:

“32. Section 3.10 is revised to read as follows:

 3.10

Watering.

(a) Potable water must be continually available to the dogs, unless restricted by the attending veterinarian.

(b) If potable water is not continually available to the cats, it must be offered to the cats as often as necessary to ensure their health and well-being, but not less than twice daily for at least 1 hour each time, unless restricted by the attending veterinarian.

(c) Water receptacles must be kept clean and sanitized in accordance with § 3.11(b) and before being used to water a different dog or cat or social grouping of dogs or cats.”

When a Final Rule is eventually published, we will again provide reference material for its use.