Aiming to crack down on puppy mills where dogs are bred in cramped conditions, lawmakers expressed optimism Wednesday that a compromise to regulate pet stores could gain traction on Beacon Hill this session.
New pet stores in Massachusetts would be prohibited from selling dogs, cats and rabbits unless they come from shelters or rescue organizations under proposals by Sen. Patrick O’Connor and Reps. Natalie Higgins and Kimberly Ferguson (S 549 / H 826).
Alternatively, O’Connor has also refiled legislation (S 550) that would apply to all pet stores, including existing businesses where activists and lawmakers say animals are sourced from cruel commercial breeding facilities.
The Weymouth Republican, who said it’s his fourth time filing the pet store legislation, said both options are supported by a coalition of animal rights activists.
But some pet store owners and a pet industry lobbyist oppose the bills, warning that even the compromise restrictions could unleash a bevy of new animal welfare problems, including a rise in unregulated or unlicensed breeders.
“Commercial pet stores in Massachusetts source their animals from out-of-state USDA-licensed commercial breeding facilities, and USDA regulations governing the standard of care and breeding of commercially retailed pets are woefully inadequate — almost disgusting,” O’Connor told the Joint Committee on Environment and Natural Resources at a hearing Wednesday.
At these facilities, also known as puppy or kitten mills, O’Connor said animals receive inadequate veterinary care, live in cramped cages with little room to stand, and are exposed to sweltering or freezing temperatures. By the time the animals make it to pet stores, they may have serious medical or behavioral problems, which O’Connor said can result in high veterinary bills for unsuspecting consumers.
“Many of them are forced to surrender their pet to a shelter or rescue organization, devastating the family and further damaging the animal’s quality of life,” O’Connor said. “It’s time for us as a legislature to step up and rid our state of the last lifeline that puppy mills have.”
Alyssa Miller-Hurley, senior director of government affairs for the trade association Pet Advocacy Network, said the proposals fail to adequately target puppy mills and bad actors who do not meet breeding standards.
The proposals could also jeopardize protections for consumers who search for puppies online and may be subject to puppy scams due to a lack of in-person options at pet stores where employees can assist them, Miller-Hurley warned.
Miller-Hurley said her association has the same goal as the bill’s supporters to ensure that “animals are loved and cared for, and only the responsible people are the ones handling everything.”
“It’s not that we have a different goal – we just disagree on how to go about it,” she said. “We want to make sure that we’re not creating new problems, and we want to make sure that we’re not preventing people from being able to choose what animal is best for them by taking away one source, a highly regulated source, where they can go and get the animal that fits their lifestyle.”
Seven states have passed similar laws to restrict the retail sale of puppy mill pets, as have 11 Massachusetts municipalities, including Boston, Cambridge and Springfield, said Marie Claire Langlois, public policy specialist for a campaign to stop puppy mills that’s run by the Humane Society of the United States.
With these laws and other municipal restrictions in place, Langlois said there are now 32,000 fewer breeding dogs in USDA-licensed facilities compared to 10 years ago, and consumers have gained new protections against misleading advertising and potentially taking home sick puppies.
“Fortunately, no pet store is required to sell puppies, and the vast majority of pet stores in Massachusetts already thrive on a product and service model,” said Langlois, who added that about 40 pet stores in the Commonwealth support the pending compromise bills. “These bills strike a balance between supporting existing local businesses and protecting consumers from a real threat and additional bad actors.”
