Pet Legislation Triumphs Amid Divisive Climate

As ballot measures and candidates sprint toward Tuesday’s midterm election, we’re learning the extent of our divisions over a myriad of issues — including democracy itself. But these divisions haven’t thwarted collaborative legislative efforts on behalf of animal companions in 2022.

In September, California Governor, Gavin Newsom signed SB 879, the Prohibiting Extraneous Testing Act (PET) which prohibits toxicity testing on dogs and cats for pesticides, chemical substances and other products. Critics have long asserted that such research often does not advance scientific research on toxicity in humans. PET includes exemptions for tests related to products intended for use in dogs or cats, including medical treatments. Federally required testing is not impacted.

Animal Advocates hailed the landmark law: “Passing this bill shows California’s dedication to protecting animals from a life of suffering and isolation for the sake of unreliable tests,” said Kitty Block, President and CEO of the Humane Society of the United States.

Other California bills made headlines. AB 1648 requires kennel owners to create a natural disaster evacuation plan as a condition for obtaining a kennel license or permit. AB 1290 clarifies that stealing or taking someone else’s companion animal is theft. SB 774 streamlined the emotional support dog certification process for homeless individuals. AB 2723 expands microchip registration requirements for dogs and cats to support the return of lost pets to their owners and deter theft.

“I’m proud . . . to advance our state’s leadership on animal welfare by ending cruel and unnecessary testing on dogs and cats, among other measures to protect the health and safety of pets in California,” Newsome said in a statement.

Several others states have enacted laws protecting pets:

  • Since February 23, pet shops in Illinois can no longer legally sell puppies and kittens sourced from puppy mills. HB 1711 stipulates that pet shops may only adopt out cats and dogs received from shelters or animal control facilities. Moreover, pet purchase loans carrying exorbitant interest rates and hidden fees are prohibited.

  • Insurers in New York (S. 4254) and Nevada (SB 103) can no longer cancel, deny, refuse to issue a homeowners policy or increase premiums based solely on the breed of a homeowner’s dog. Exemptions remain for individual dogs formally declared to be dangerous or displaying a history of vicious behavior. Sweeping efforts are underway to end breed restrictions in housing insurance. Illinois (SB1672) now mandates that insurance companies report data over a 2-year period on all dog-related claims to help end breed restrictions for policyholders with dogs.

  • Lawmakers in Virginia (SB 1379) and Maryland (HB 611) have taken existing laws preventing cosmetic manufacturers from performing or contracting for cosmetic animal testing a step further. As of July 1, these states prohibit the sale of cosmetics products tested on animals. Illinois, Maine, Hawaii, Nevada, Maryland and New Jersey have enacted similar bans. State laws outlawing cruelty-based cosmetics are paving the way toward possible national legislation.

Political rallies in faraway states just blazed across my TV screen. A reporter interviewed a woman sporting a T-shirt shouting the name of a candidate I would not support. The woman cradled a miniature Pinscher in her arms.

I had to tell myself that she loves her fur child just as I love mine — and a host of bipartisan lawmakers love theirs.