The bill aims to prevent Vermont from becoming a place for puppy farms or mills — commercial dog breeding operations that raise animals in poor conditions.
Vermont could ban pet stores from selling dogs, cats and wolf hybrids under a bill in the House agriculture committee.
The legislation, H.567, is sponsored by Rep. Emilie Krasnow, D-South Burlington, who introduced it to committee members Jan. 31. The bill, Krasnow said, aims to prevent Vermont from becoming a place for puppy farms or mills — commercial dog breeding operations that raise animals in poor conditions.
“There are seven other states that have this bill now, and the Maine bill has been working since 2019,” she said in an interview. The Vermont bill is modeled after that state’s.
Multiple states in the Northeast are considering similar legislation: Massachusetts, New Hampshire and New Jersey.
“And why that’s so important is because we don’t want to be open for business for these puppy mills and pet stores to come to Vermont that would be pushed out of other states,” Krasnow said.
Similar concerns bubbled up in Connecticut after New York’s ban on pet sales. The New England state was seeing a rise in pet store openings last fall, according to the Hartford Courant.
References came up in committee to a lone pet store in Vermont that sells these animals, which through a grandfather clause in the bill would be able to stay in business.
“We are lucky that the puppy-selling pet store industry is small in Vermont, with only one known store selling puppies,” Krasnow told committee members Jan. 31. “That store will be able to continue to do so while we avoid an influx of bad actors who are looking for safe havens and who have track records of importing puppies from midwest puppy mills and bringing so many issues to the communities they sell puppies in.”
Krasnow assured committee members the bill would not impact stores that already do not sell puppies, “responsible breeders” or “the $136 billion pet retail industry that is focused on pet products and services.”
The bill has drawn criticism from groups that represent the pet industry and breeders, which say it will only make the black market boom.
Patti Strand, president of the National Animal Interest Alliance, wrote to committee members on Jan. 30, summarizing the organization’s “strong opposition to H.567 in its current form.”
The bill will fail to protect pets due to “the unintended consequences of shutting down one of the public’s remaining sources of pets,” Strand wrote.
Taylor Livelli, government affairs manager for the trade group Pet Advocacy Network, agrees with Strand’s sentiment. Until 2022, the group was called the Pet Industry Joint Advisory Council.
“While well-intentioned, retail pet sale bans will not stop bad breeders who are unregulated, unlicensed and are not held accountable to any animal care standards,” she wrote in a Jan. 31 letter to committee members.
Livelli said H.567 “will only boost the unregulated black market for pets.”
In her letter, Livelli discussed California’s experience with passing a similar bill, claiming the state saw an “over 350%” increase in reported puppy scams and a surge in sick dogs “acquired through unregulated sources.” Livelli cited what appeared to be an article title — but without a link or source name — and the website of the Better Business Bureau, which tracks reports of business scams.
Krasnow remains optimistic about H.567’s positive impact on the pet community.
“I’m not personally concerned that (the bill) would create an underground illicit dog and cat market here,” she said to committee members Jan. 31.
Krasnow said she has not received backlash in person and that the bill has gained support from local organizations, the Humane Society and state representatives.
“I personally did not hear any opposition from anyone on the committee. Everyone seemed really grateful and liked it,” she told Community News Service. “There’s a lot of support from animal advocacy folks in our state and in the surrounding areas for bills like this. So, I personally have received a good attitude towards this bill.”
If the bill doesn’t pass, she said she plans to reintroduce it next session.
The Community News Service is a program in which University of Vermont students work with professional editors to provide content for local news outlets at no cost.
Discover more from Vermont Daily Chronicle
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Categories: Legislation
will a farmer be able to sell a cow, or breed live stock//
Oh.
My.
Gawd.
Can we bury this in the litter box somewhere?
Its SUCH a pressing issue…in Vermont…where you can ONLY get dogs and cats from breeders or pay nearly the same amount for a rescue (thereby guaranteeing high kill rate shelters) which supposedly weeds out those who hate animals but adopt them anyway…
PETA up in my bidness again…virtue signallers in the pet world…
If only we could see what the invisible ray are doing to our pets from our cell phones, laptops and cell towers that is killing pets at an alarming rate… highest cancer rates ever now in dogs and cats…
But lets not address THAT actual problem…that would be humane to do.
Just an anecdote “Sword of Truth”. My husband and I have had dogs for over 30 years. All were rescues except two who were from neighbors. We always have 4 dogs at a time, as we personally find this number to be a good fit for us. When our oldest of 17 years passed away this past June, we were of course heartbroken. As we always are. And by August we were feeling that our remaining boys needed a fourth and will likely be our last, considering our age. We went to over 13 rescue organizations online looking for a dog. In addition to local shelters. Considering this is our last dog, we had specific breeds in mind. Every single organization either misrepresented themselves online or the dog in question (bait and switch) and ALL of them insisted we have a fenced in yard. We live in the boonies. We don’t have fences. We have portable electric fences for our livestock, but nothing permanent. And because I could not lie, we told the truth and every single one of these organizations refused to let us rescue despite our many years of experience, the fact we never gave up a dog, had letters of recommendation etc.. They would not even consider it without a fence. Because clearly, having a fenced in yard where we could just stick the dogs out there all day, was better than ensuring we have them trained, under voice control before off leash, walked twice daily, played with by one or both of us in attendance several times daily. Clearly a fence made people better pet owners. Clearly what we did was irresponsible, and we were told that by several organizations.
So, we went to a breeder in the NEK. And it is the most we have ever paid for a dog in our lives. Shockingly expensive. But the breeder just wanted to make sure we were aware of the breeds needs and to contact her if it didn’t work out. We exchanged many emails awaiting her whelping and progress. She is now 7 months old.
Sorry, just had to get that off my chest.
I guess, in light of all the b!tching I do online here, I am just a grumpy old lady. ;0]
I know. “do not apply unless you are a surburbanite or live in Vermont, NH or Maine” and can afford 250-450 in adoption fees.
What is really sad is the rules prevent living a life of even a few years longer before death for these animals. No. CHANCE. At all.
Fascist control — no other words.
Its inhumane, and its mean, to both animal lovers, and the animals themselves.
I’m glad you found a new poopeydoo… four …I’d settle for just one…of the sort I need…knowing dogs will die before they are placed in loving homes without fences.
WHAT is our obsession with fences???
Why don’t we make it harder for drug dealers to do business instead??????
Why aren’t we doing something about our
porn problem?
drug problem?
affordability problem?
school problem?
high suicide rates?
depressed children?
Is this on the top of every vermonters mind?
Doubtful that this legislation, H.567 is important but to a handful of Vermonters.
It is however, important to the legislature- whether it stays in committee or actually reaches the floor, it’s purpose is far different from the stated goal. 2024 is an election year, with that comes the need of legislators to retain their position and power. The perception of ridding Vermont of dreaded “puppy mills” indeed will sway some voters come November- and ms. krasnow, following in her father’s political footsteps wants to retain that power. krasnow is one of dozens of current legislators that have chosen politics for their profession and maintaining that career path means offering the voter legislation such as H.567 to maintain the illusion- and retaining the power they desire. There are no easy answers to the problems you outline above, nor any great consensus in the legislature to actually tackle these problems- look to past action on the same batch of issues that have been virtually ignored for decades now. This bill is mere public relations and pretending disguised as “meaningful and important”.
Nope. Never once until today.
Like so many proposals it looks good on the surface but will likely, in practice, be disastrous.
Continued justification of existence. Again, they go to other states and find something they can import because they don’t have enough to do and are not really taking care of the real issues here, drugs, education runaway budgets, mental health, housing, infrastructure, economy and more. Vermont needs to GET REAL soon.
I think buying a puppy or kitten is getting the animal before it needs to be rescued.