What’s Hot … Mandatory Sterilization for Cats Proceeds to Hawaii Senate, while the Sterilization Requirements for Imported Dogs and Cats Bill Fails to Cross Over

 

Kelly Crouch, CFA Legislative Information Liaison

The mandatory cat sterilization requirement remains attached to the Hawaiian Spay and Neuter Special Fund Bill, HB 1736 HD2. After two amendments, the show cat exception was removed, only to be replaced by a mandate for intact cats over the age of five months to be covered by a $100 intact cat declaration filed with the applicable county animal control authority. The House passed the bill, and the Senate is now considering it. The bill was referred to the Agriculture and Environment, Energy and Intergovernmental Affairs, and Ways and Means Committees.

The Special Fund is a laudable method to provide counties with spaying and neutering funds to address the availability of affordable sterilization services to disadvantaged communities. Hawaii has several endangered species, and community cats and dogs are considered one of the dangers to ground-nesting birds, sea turtles, and Hawaiian Monk Seals (due to exposure to toxoplasmosis). Invasive species such as mongooses, rats, and mosquitoes also pose threats to native birds. The legislature should narrowly tailor any legislation to its purpose and address all threats to endangered species, including human activity. Piecemeal efforts will not save those endangered animals.

Yet, the bill unnecessarily ties punitive fees to owning intact cats. Not only are 80–90% of owned cats sterilized without such legislation, but generally, only two groups of people would own intact cats. This special fund helps low-income pet owners who cannot afford sterilization procedures. Punitive fees of $500 – $1,000 per cat do not help when people cannot afford the procedures in the first place. As intact cats exhibit unpleasant hormonal behaviors, making services available to this group will help reduce the number of unsterilized cats in these communities. Small in-home preservation breeders are the other people keeping intact cats. Breeders do not want their cats roaming the islands, mating with random-bred cats, and bringing home diseases that could destroy their breeding programs. Pedigreed cats make up only 3–5% of the cat population; they do not contribute to Hawaii’s community cat issues. Yet, this bill penalizes preservation breeders for a problem they do not cause. It also raises the question of whether local clubs could continue to produce cat shows, as the bill does not provide any exceptions for cats temporarily in the state.

In addition to penalizing pet owners, this bill puts the burden of enforcement on counties. Local governments are better positioned to assess their animal control needs than a one-size-fits-all plan that does more harm than good.

The Agriculture and Environment and Energy and Intergovernmental Affairs Committees have scheduled a hearing for House Bill 1736 HD2 on March 18, 2026, at 3:10 p.m. in Conference Room 224. Fanciers should oppose this bill as long as it contains the mandatory spay/neuter mandate. Testimony can be submitted online here.

Fortunately for cat and dog fanciers, Senate Bill 3012 failed to make the crossover deadline and is not expected to progress this legislative session. That bill mandated the sterilization of imported cats and dogs.

UPDATE 3/28/2026: After the Senate Agriculture and Environment Committee deferred HB 1736 HD2, proponents amended SB 1023 carried over from 2025. SB 1023 was replaced in its entirety by the language in HB 1736 HD2 and is now SB 1023 HD2. It has been referred to the House Finance Committee.

LEGIS ALERT AND UPDATE: Hawaii SB 3012, HB 1736-1, and HB 1594

 

Hawaiian fanciers need to speak up to avoid the creation of a breeder registry and mandatory spay/neuter for cats. The good news is that House Bill 1594 was deferred. Unfortunately, its companion bill, SB 3012,  has been scheduled for a hearing on Monday, February 9, 2026, at 4:00 p.m. The Hawaiian Humane Society has been pushing for anti-breeder legislation for several years in various ways. Fanciers need to help make sure the losing streak continues. Please OPPOSE both bills!

Senate Bill 3012 ( https://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/session/measure_indiv.aspx?billtype=SB&billnumber=3012&year=2026 ) would prohibit the importation of any intact cat or dog, and it shares the same objections as the deferred HB 1594. It includes an exception for cats and dogs imported by breeders registered with the Department of Agriculture and Biosecurity. The statute requires the agency to create a registry that, at a minimum, includes the breeder’s name, business address, and the species or breeds maintained. At first glance, that may not seem so bad; however, the agency could take it much farther. Bengals became illegal in Hawaii after that agency was given discretion to determine which animals would be prohibited in the state. This may not happen, but it is easier to amend an existing law or regulation than get a new one enacted. It is also a well-established strategy of animal rights groups to get anything passed and change it later to what they really want.

Further, when you combine the facts that most cats and dogs are sterilized and that people who cannot afford to sterilize their animals most likely cannot afford to live in Hawaii, this law makes no sense. Also, no Hawaiian show breeder can maintain genetic diversity over the long term without introducing new animals. Eventually, those will have to come from outside Hawaii. The rationale for this bill is to address rabies control and pet overpopulation. An animal’s breeding status has nothing to do with rabies control. Also, a breeder registry will do little to help with stray or feral cats and dogs. Pedigreed cats make up 3-5% of the cat population. There are also far more random-bred dogs than purebred dogs. It is not to the benefit of any show breeder to allow their animals to roam at large or contribute to the random-bred animal population. Pets placed by show breeders are typically sterilized prior to placement or are required to be sterilized under their contracts. They are not contributing to the problem! Why punish responsible breeders and burden the state with unnecessary regulation? If the “solution” does little to address the issue, why subject breeders to the expense of breeder registration and the risks associated with a publicly available registry? Fanciers can submit written testimony at the bill link above.

House Bill 1736-1 ( https://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/session/measure_indiv.aspx?billtype=HB&billnumber=1736&year=2026 ) would establish a spay/neuter fund for cat sterilizations and mandatory spay/neuter for cats. There are studies that early sterilization can be detrimental to both cats and dogs. Also, with the veterinary shortage experienced throughout the country, people often have to wait long periods before sterilization can be performed. Sixty days may not be sufficient, particularly if the owner relies on low-cost alternatives. And, while it includes an exception for cats registered with a breed registry, that too is problematic and unnecessary. The amended version of the exception reads:

“(3)  The owner of the cat can provide verifiable proof upon request by the applicable county animal control authority that the cat is approved by and registered with a national or international breed registry or association that, at minimum, requires verification of:

          (A)  Breed;

          (B)  Date of birth;

          (C)  Name of the registered sire and dam;

          (D)  Name of the breeder; and

          (E)  Other information related to breeding, transfer or ownership, and death.

     (c)  Any person violating this section shall be fined no less than $500 and no more than $1,000 per violation per cat.

     (d)  This section shall not apply to cats brought into the state exclusively for the purpose of entering the cats in a cat show or exhibition and not allowed to run at large.”

The amended version removes the requirement to show the cat. Still, this provision burdens cat breeders unnecessarily, may hinder the development of new breeds, while doing nothing to reduce the number of community cats. It is wholly unnecessary to the creation of a spay/neuter fund, which most breeders would support if it did not also make participating in their hobby more difficult. Pedigreed cat and purebred dog breeders are frequently involved in rescue efforts, either directly or through contributions. This benefits the state. Establishing a spay/neuter fund is a laudable goal and will do far more to reduce the number of community cats (or feral dogs) than mandatory spay/neuter. The fund will help people who cannot afford today’s veterinary costs and who would ignore such a law out of financial necessity, as well as people involved in community cat programs. Burdening breeders will not.

The Committee on Judiciary & Hawaiian Affairs has scheduled a hearing for HB 1736-1 on Tuesday, 02/10/2026, at 2:00 p.m.

We need all Hawaii fanciers to oppose these bills, especially with the support of the Hawaiian Humane Society, the Kauaʻi Humane Society, the Department of Land and Natural Resources, and the Animal Legal Defense Fund. Fanciers can submit their testimony online at the links above. If you can, attend the public hearings as well.

Kelly Crouch

CFA Legislative Information Liaison

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

LEGIS ALERT: Hawaii Considers MSN for cats, any cats and dogs imported into the state, and a breeder registry

 

Please act now! Testimony can be submitted on the bill web pages included below until 9 a.m. on 2/3/2026. If you can, please attend the hearing to submit written or oral testimony. On Wednesday, February 4, at 9 a.m., the Hawaii House Committee on Agriculture and Food Systems will hear HB 1594 and HB 1736, both of which could have devastating consequences for local fanciers. These bills were introduced to address the pet overpopulation and community cat issues. Both are supported by the Hawaiian Humane Society.

HB 1594 ( https://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/session/measure_indiv.aspx?billtype=HB&billnumber=1594 ) would require that all dogs and cats brought into the state be sterilized unless they are too infirm, are in the state for less than 90 days, or the importer is registered as a breeder with the department. In essence, this is a breeder registry for all breeders, as few breeders (in any state) can maintain a breeding program without occasionally bringing in animals from another state. 

HB 1736 ( https://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/session/measure_indiv.aspx?billtype=HB&billnumber=1736 ) would mandate that all cats five months of age or older be sterilized and prohibit any unsterilized cat from being imported into Hawaii, subject to certain exceptions. One exception applies to cats that meet the cat association registry and exhibition requirements. The bill would not apply to cats temporarily entering the state for the purpose of exhibition and cat shows.

Pedigreed cats make up only 3-5% of the cat population. They do not contribute to the random-bred community cat issues that Hawaii may be experiencing. Not only will these bills not address the issue as the proponents argue, but they will also be unnecessarily burdensome for the state and breeders alike.

Remote testimony guidelines can be found at chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/docs/RemoteTestimonyHouseGuidelines.pdf

Hawaii has a very short legislative session, so things tend to move very quickly and with little notice. Please contact the CFA Legislative Committee if you want to help defeat misguided legislation. You are the eyes, ears, and voice of the fancy! 

What’s Hot: Hobby Breeders Targeted in Missouri Bill …. and, in other news, Florida Pet Dealer Requirements may be Subject to Change

 

Kelly Crouch, CFA Legislative Information Liaison

Missouri regulates breeders, shelters, dealers, and pet shops under the 1992 Animal Care Facilities Act (AFCA). The proposed HB 2567 aims to redefine commercial and hobby breeders and remove the exemption benefiting hobby breeders, which could significantly affect their breeding programs.

If enacted, the commercial breeder definition would no longer exclude hobby or show breeders. Hobby breeders would no longer be limited to noncommercial breeders. The critical change for hobby breeders would be the repeal of §273.342 (2). This section of AFCA requires that hobby or show breeders register annually, but are exempt from the licensure and inspection requirements of §§ 273.325 – 373.357. Should HB 2567 be enacted, the only breeders exempt from the AFCA licensing requirements are those who harbor three or less intact females.

The Missouri legislative session runs from January 7 through May 30, 2026. House Bill 2567 had its first reading on the first day of the session. The second reading was held the next day, on January 8. Currently, there are no cosponsors. Fanciers can review and monitor the bill’s progress here. As a member of the cat fancy, your voice is vital to protect your cats and hobby from restrictive anti-breeder legislation!

In other news… Florida Pet Dealer Requirements may be Subject to Change

Fanciers, wherever located, who place pets in Florida will want to monitor Florida Senate Bill 1356 and the related bill, SB 1004. Not only would SB 1356 affect dog breeders if this latest attempt for more restrictive legislation is enacted, but both bills would also change the record-keeping and financing requirements for pet dealers. In Florida,  a pet dealer “means any person, firm, partnership, corporation, or other association which, in the ordinary course of business, engages in the sale of more than two litters, or 20 dogs or cats, per year, whichever is greater, to the public. This definition includes breeders of animals who sell such animals directly to a consumer.”

What’s Hot: California 2025 Session Laws:  The State Enacts Laws Affecting Breeders Selling to California Purchasers and a Cat Declaw Prohibition

 

November 4, 2025

Kelly Crouch, CFA Legislative Information Liaison

California lawmakers enacted new legislation affecting all breeders, not just pet dealers, as part of their ongoing effort to block “puppy, kitten, or rabbit mill” sales into the state. The campaign began with the 2017 retail pet store prohibition, which proponents claimed would end the mill pipeline into the state by prohibiting retail pet stores from selling cats, dogs, and rabbits. As pet stores could showcase these animals for rescues, some organizations set themselves up as rescues to sell their animals, forcing the state to redefine what constitutes a rescue in 2021. After that, lawmakers focused on the new trend of bad actors importing animals to sell under the pretense that they are California-bred animals offered by small home breeders. This led to the latest round of legislation enacted in 2025. The new requirements apply to all persons, pet dealers, or businesses when the purchaser is located in California.

Assembly Bill 506 mandates that the seller must provide written notice of the original source of the animal, identify the breeder, including the USDA license number when applicable, and the state in which the animal was born. If any information is unknown, the seller must clearly state that fact. The seller must also provide a record of inoculations, worming treatments, and any veterinary treatment of the animal while in the possession of the seller.

The bill also removes a tool many breeders use to ensure the buyer is committed to the purchase —the nonrefundable deposit. Section 122227 (a) makes a contract by a person, pet dealer, or business with a purchaser located in California that requires a nonrefundable deposit void under public policy. Breeders know that as a kitten ages, fewer buyers are available, which affects its price. A nonrefundable deposit not only indicates a commitment but also compensates the seller for a loss if the buyer backs out of the sale. The Lockyer-Polanco-Farr Pet Protection Act defines a pet dealer as “a person engaging in the business of selling dogs or cats, or both, at retail, and by virtue of the sales of dogs or cats is required to possess a permit pursuant to Section 6066 of the Revenue and Taxation Code.”

In addition to AB 506, lawmakers enacted AB 519, prohibiting brokers from making a dog under one year of age, a cat, or a rabbit for adoption or sale. A broker is defined as “a person or business that sells, arranges, negotiates, or processes, either in person or online, the sale of dogs, cats, or rabbits bred by another for profit. This includes facilitating the transfer of a dog, cat, or rabbit for profit.” [Emphasis added.] The term broker does not include an animal rescue group that meets the requirements of §122365 of that chapter.

Senate Bill 312 was also enacted to close gaps in the original Retail Pet store ban, but applies only to dogs. It requires persons importing dogs for resale or change of ownership to submit a health certificate completed by a licensed veterinarian to the California Department of Food and Agriculture.

Also enacted during the 2025 session was the cat declawing bill, AB 867. This law mandates that an onychectomy, tendonectomy, surgical claw removal, or declaw, or any procedure that alters a feline’s toes, claws, or paws, be performed for therapeutic purposes only. Nail trimming and “nonsurgical scratching mitigation solutions” are not prohibited.

What’s Hot: Boulder City, NV, Considers a Breeder Permit Ordinance More Restrictive Than Nevada Law Requires

 

August 19, 2025

Kelly Crouch, CFA Legislative Information Liaison

Boulder City, Nevada, is considering a breeder permit ordinance (https://www.bcnv.org/1105/Proposed-Pet-Breeding-Ordinance) mandating permits for anyone who breeds a cat or dog in the city limits. Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) §574.353 requires all cities and counties, not limited by interlocal agreements, to adopt ordinances requiring annual breeder permits for commercial breeders. NRS §574.245 defines a breeder as “a dealer, operator or other person who is responsible for the operation of a commercial establishment engaged in the business of breeding dogs or cats for sale or trade. The term does not include a person who breeds dogs or cats as a hobby.” [Emphasis added.] It appears the city was unsure how restrictive it could be under state law.

The City Attorney requested an Opinion Letter (https://ag.nv.gov/uploadedFiles/agnvgov/Content/Publications/AGO%202025-02.pdf) about NRS 574.353 from the Office of the Nevada Attorney General. Specifically, the city Attorney asked if the law preempted city governments from banning breeding cats and dogs. If so, does the statute also preempt a city government from regulating hobby breeding of cats and dogs? The short answer is that while the city is preempted from prohibiting commercial animal breeding, there is no prohibition preventing a city government from banning or limiting animal breeding by hobby breeders in order to address a local concern. The Attorney General’s Opinion Letter goes on to say that a city is within its express statutory authority to regulate animal breeding to prevent animal cruelty. The Opinion Letter does not address whether there is a matter of local concern or animal cruelty that would enable Boulder City to institute such a ban consistent with its powers under state law.

As a result of that Opinion Letter, Boulder City is considering an amendment to its current animal control laws that would require every person who wishes to breed a cat or dog to obtain annual breeder permits and adhere to specified requirements, including but not limited to:

1. Meet zoning restrictions and, for dogs, space requirements;
2. Is subject to inspections and facility and care requirements;
3. Must have a business license and home occupation permit in addition to the breeder’s permit;
4. Keeps and maintains no more than three intact dogs or cats that are one year of age or older, provided the following conditions are met:
a. Each dog or cat is registered with a nationally recognized club or registry,
b. Each dog or cat being bred has a registered microchip and is up-to-date on its rabies vaccination, and
c. A dog or cat may not be bred until it is at least two years of age and may only have a litter every two years.

However, cats are not little dogs! Requiring that a cat be two years old and only have litters every two years endangers not only its reproductive capability but also its life. Deliberately endangering a cat runs counter to the animal welfare philosophy. Both cats and dogs are subject to reproductive problems due to repeated unbred heats. But while a female dog may have up to three cycles a year, some female cats may cycle as often as every three to four weeks. That’s up to 17 cycles per year and 34 cycles in two years, significantly increasing the risk of reproductive health issues in female cats.

Furthermore, the limitation of three intact animals does not allow the breeder to maintain a genetically diverse breeding program. Genetic diversity is crucial to a healthy population. This arbitrary cap guarantees hobby breeders will have difficulty maintaining adequate genetic diversity. This only hurts our pedigreed cats and purebred dogs and the people who buy them. It is hard to believe this is the intention of the city council.

As written, the proposed ordinance will require hobby breeders to meet all the requirements of commercial breeders. Breeding cats is not the primary full-time job for hobby breeders, most of whom work outside the home. It is not a livelihood; it is a passion that generally costs more money than it generates. Requiring a breeder’s permit, a business license, and a home occupation permit, along with all the other requirements for commercial breeders, is overkill for hobby breeders who dedicate time and money to producing and preserving healthy specimens of their chosen breed, and usually lose money doing it! Furthermore, pedigreed cats make up only three to five percent of the cat population in the country. Few pedigreed cats, or even mixes with pedigreed cats, will find themselves in local shelters. Treating hobby breeders the same as commercial breeders punishes the people who dedicate their time, knowledge, and bank accounts to producing quality cats. One-size legislation does not fit all!

To find out when the Boulder City Council will consider the ordinance, residents can monitor the council meeting agendas here (https://bcnv.primegov.com/public/portal/) and submit comments online (https://www.bcnv.org/FormCenter/Contact-Forms-3/City-Council-Comment-Form-111).

EDITOR’S UPDATE – OREGON, APRIL 4, 2025 POST

 

2025 OREGON SB 1076, reported in 4/4/25 WHAT’S HOT failed to meet this year’s legislative deadlines, i.e. died. Senate Bill 1076 Sections 3 and 4 directed the Oregon Department of Agriculture (“ODA”) to establish a licensing program for breeders of all these species, with enforcement to begin on January 1, 2028, if enacted. SB 1076 WILL NOT BE ENACTED.

What’s Hot in Legislation New York Legislators Target Hobby Breeders Again in Proposed Pet Dealer Legislation

 

July 28, 2025

Kelly Crouch, CFA Legislative Information Liaison

In May 2025, two New York legislators introduced animal bills that would require virtually every breeder to become a licensed pet dealer or stop breeding. Assemblymember Linda Rosenthal (District 67) and Senator Michael Gianaris (District 12) introduced bills, AB 8653 and SB 8252. These bills would amend the definition of pet dealer, remove the exemption for hobby breeders, and add a definition for brokers that resell animals bred by others. The current definition of a pet dealer is:

“any person who engages in the sale or offering for sale of more than nine animals per year for profit to the public. Such definition shall include breeders who sell or offer to sell animals; provided that it shall not include the following:

(a) Any breeder who sells or offers to sell directly to the consumer fewer than twenty-five animals per year that are born and raised on the breeder’s residential premises”. Subsection (b), not included here, refers to municipal pounds or shelters.

However, as of December 15, 2024, the New York Puppy Mill Pipeline Act, also sponsored by Rosenthal and Gianaris, no longer allows pet stores or brokers to be licensed as pet dealers and prohibits them from selling dogs, cats, and rabbits, reducing in-state options for pet seekers. It also renders the business aspect of the pet dealer definition unnecessary for those selling pets to the public. Assembly Bill 8653 and SB 8252 would remove the commercial aspect of the pet dealer definition, but they would also remove the exception applying to small breeders, further reducing pet seeker options. Originally identical, these bills redefined a pet dealer as follows:

“any person who breeds animals and sells or offers to sell more than nine animals that are born and raised on such a person’s residential premises directly to a consumer, provided that it shall not include” specified municipal or private animal welfare organizations.

The proposed threshold of nine animals in a person’s lifetime places an undue burden on both breeders and the state. Senate Bill 8252 has since been amended to reinstate the “per year” qualification for the nine-animal threshold; however, this amendment does not significantly reduce the burden for breeders or the government.

A breeder, or a good Samaritan taking in a pregnant animal off the street, could exceed either threshold for licensing in a single litter! It would be virtually impossible for a breeder to maintain a breeding program that emphasizes genetic diversity and animal health while staying under the licensing threshold. They would have to meet the care and other requirements that were designed for pet dealers and commercial breeders. The state would have to enforce the law in the private home of nearly every hobby breeder in the state. Furthermore, municipalities that currently regulate exempt breeders may need to amend their local ordinances.

The 2025 part of the two-year session is over, but legislative rules allow the automatic reintroduction of many bills during the second year of the session. New York fanciers need to be prepared to fight these bills in 2026, accept the state’s intrusion into their homes, or choose to give up breeding should either of these bills be enacted as written. Assembly Bill 8653 remains in the Assembly Agriculture Committee unchanged. Senate Bill 8252 has been amended, discharged by the Senate Agriculture Committee, and committed to Rules.



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

CFALegislativeNews: https://www.facebook.com/CFALegislativeNews

CFA Legislative Group Blog: https://legislative.cfa.org/

What’s Hot…. Rhode Island Legislation: Hobby Breeders, Sales Tax, and Emotion-based Damages

 

Kelly Crouch, CFA Legislative Information Liaison

A proposed amendment to Rhode Island statutes regulating cat and dog breeders would increase the number of breeders subject to state licensing while eliminating the dog-only exemption. Senate Bill 325 amends the existing definition of hobby breeder but reduces the number of litters a breeder can sell and avoid classification as a breeder subject to licensing. Legislation on sales taxes and emotion-based damages that could impact fanciers was also introduced this year.

Currently, two statutes address cat breeding. Title 4, Animals and Animal Husbandry, Chapter 24, Permit Program for Cats mandates local issuance and enforcement of breeding permits ONLY for cat breeders unless a local jurisdiction prohibits cat breeding. Enacted in 2006, the statute contains several recognizable requirements, including inspections, standards of care, and immunization. In 2017, a bill establishing comprehensive breeding licensing for cat and dog breeders was enacted, defining breeder and hobby breeder.  Under Rhode Island General Laws §4-19-2 (10), a breeder means:

“a person engaged in the propagation of purebred or crossbred dogs and/or cats for the purpose of improving and enhancing a breed recognized and registered by the American Kennel Club, American Field Stud Book, a registered cat breed association, or for sale at wholesale or retail, unless otherwise exempted as a hobby breeder as defined below.”

 A hobby breeder is defined as:

“those persons whose regular occupation is not the breeding and raising of dogs and cats and whose method of sale is at retail only. A hobby breeder shall not exceed the limits set forth in § 4-25-1(4). Any person who sells at retail a number  in excess of the limits in the aforementioned section shall be considered a breeder.”

The issue arises with the quantitative exemption contained in §4-25-1(4) in which the definition of seller refers solely to dogs. However, both dogs and cats are included in the definition of breeder. Senate Bill 325, if enacted, would amend the definition of hobby breeder to the following:

“those persons whose regular occupation is not the breeding and raising of dogs and cats and whose method of sale is at retail only. A hobby breeder shall not exceed the sale or offering for sale of greater than two (2) litters of dogs or cats, or combination of dogs or cats, in any three hundred and sixty-five (365) day period. Any person who exceeds these limits will be defined as a breeder.”

This would eliminate the §4-25-1(4) dog exemption for persons selling fewer than 20 dogs or three litters, whichever is greater, for the breeder licensing law. Instead, it would impose a two-litter restriction on hobby breeders to avoid being categorized as breeders. Senate Bill 325 has been referred to the Senate Environment and Agriculture Committee.

Another proposed bill, Senate Bill 340, could also have a significant impact on Rhode Island breeders. If enacted, it would add the purchase of animals from a breeder to the many things subject to sales tax. This bill has been referred to the Senate Finance Committee.

In other Rhode Island news, House Bill 5926, which would add authority for emotion-based damages to animal cruelty laws if enacted, has been referred for study. While that often means the end of a bill, the Speaker of the House can bring it back for consideration. It should be noted that the speaker is also the bill sponsor. Emotion-based, or noneconomic, damages increase the cost of pet care for all while benefitting the rare few pet owners.

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

CFALegislativeNews: https://www.facebook.com/CFALegislativeNews

CFA Legislative Group Blog:  https://legislative.cfa.org/

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

 

April 4, 2025

Kelly Crouch, CFA Legislative Information Liaison

Oregon breeders of cats, dogs, birds, and small mammals are targeted in proposed legislation for state licensing. Senate Bill 1076 Sections 3 and 4 direct the Oregon Department of Agriculture (“ODA”) to establish a licensing program for breeders of all these species, with enforcement to begin on January 1, 2028, if enacted. The ODA must consider breeder size, regulatory costs, and staff funding needs when developing the licensing program requirements, inspections, standards of care, and licensing fees, which will be adjusted for inflation as necessary. Violators are subject to a maximum of six months imprisonment, a $2500 fine, or both. In addition to these penalties, a court may require a defendant convicted of violating any rules enacted under Section 3 to forfeit any rights in animals that are kept in violation of Section 3 and repay the reasonable costs of caring for such animals before judgment. Dog breeders would still be subject to Oregon Revised Statutes 167.374 and 167.376 requirements. In addition, licensing fees for Animal Rescue Entities (“ARE”) would be increased to $350 – $600, depending on the ARE’s classification. Furthermore, the bill has been classified as an emergency measure so that it would go into effect immediately rather than the customary 91st day after the legislative session.

The Natural Resources and Wildfire Committee heard testimony in opposition and support at the public hearing held on March 18, 2025. Not surprisingly, most of the testimony from AREs opposed the license fee increase and supported licensing all breeders, whom they blame for shelter overcrowding issues. Yet the vast majority of dogs and cats in shelters are random-bred animals, not purpose-bred animals. Pedigreed cats represent only 3-5% of the cat population. It is incredulous to claim pedigreed cat breeders are responsible for the homeless cat population. Purebred dogs also make up a minority of the dog population. Considering that most owned animals are sterilized, responsible owners and breeders are not contributing significantly to the homeless animal population. Shelter animals are generally the victims of home retention failures. Oregon breeders are not to blame for overcrowding caused by the common ARE practice of importing animals from other states and even other countries – a fact proponents like to ignore. Homelessness for animals is a community problem and should be addressed that way.

A solution that addresses the real causes of shelter overcrowding must consider multiple factors, including ARE imports, reductions in or failure of governments to provide sufficient shelter space, economic factors driving pet relinquishment and adoption trends, and other pet retention issues. The lack of sought-after animals in the local area often drives shelter animal imports. It is as much a marketing decision as one driven by altruism. Oregon breeders do not cause this. Neither do breeders drive government decisions that significantly limit available shelter spots for homeless animals. Pet retention issues that are driven by the economy, pet aggressiveness, lack of animal care resources for low-income areas, and many other reasons are rarely under the control of Oregon breeders. The fact that a minority of homeless cats and dogs are random-bred is evidence that trying to use SB 1076 as a solution to shelter overcrowding is like trying to play darts blindfolded and facing away from the dart board.

Oregon already has strict animal welfare laws. In 2024, the Animal Legal Defense Fund again ranked Oregon first in the country for having strong animal welfare laws. Does the state want to create expensive-to-enforce programs that will not solve the issue and only burden responsible breeders? Irresponsible breeders and pet owners will not comply and will likely only be found out from complaints. Meanwhile, the type of breeders that supply quality pets to Oregon residents, contribute to breed rescue efforts, and boost the economy through tourism dollars from shows, and who support many businesses through the care of their animals, are the very people burdened with an issue that affects animal owners and nonowners alike.  Residents deserve a real solution; they do not need scapegoats.

The Natural Resources and Wildfire Committee is expected to hold a work session on April 3, 2025. The bill may be included in that work session. Fanciers wanting to oppose SB 1076 can contact the committee members. Contact information can be found here: https://olis.oregonlegislature.gov/liz/2025R1/Committees/SNRW/Overview

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

CFALegislativeNews: https://www.facebook.com/CFALegislativeNews
CFA Legislative Group Blog: https://legislative.cfa.org/

UPDATE 5/2025: In the April 8, 2025, work session, the Senate Committee on Natural Resources and Wildfire adopted the amended bill, SB 1076-1, in a 3- 2 vote. The amendments include changes to definitions and requirements in both the breeder licensing and animal welfare entities sections. For cat and dog fanciers, there is an important, if minuscule, carve-out for breeders to avoid licensing. The amendment requires licensing of cat and dog breeders who “during a 12-month period, sells or transfers or offers for sale or transfer more than two litters”. It also authorizes the department to define the number of birds or small mammals sold during a 12-month period necessary for licensing. The A-engrossed (fair final copy of the first amended version of the bill) SB 1076 has been assigned to the Joint Ways and Means Committee. Per the Legislative Fiscal Office report, “Fiscal Impact of Proposed Legislation”, the Joint Committee on Ways and Means will prepare a more complete fiscal analysis.

Scroll to Top