Board denies section request to lobby for bill to ban retail dog and cat pet sales
The Board of Governors, concerned about raising a potentially divisive issue, has voted to reject an Animal Law Section proposal to endorse a ban on retail pet sales.
At a December 3 meeting on Amelia Island, the board voted 22-12 to reject an Animal Law Section’s proposed legislative position.
President Michael Tanner said it isn’t always easy to interpret a mandate to avoid positions with a “potential for deep philosophical or emotional division among a substantial segment of Bar members.”
“There are no bright lines,” Tanner said. “Some cases are clearly below the bar, and some cases are clearly above it.”
Tanner said individual section members are still free to contact their lawmakers and advocate for the proposed legislation.
The section wanted to endorse HB 253 by Rep. Sam Killebrew, R-Winter Haven. The two-page bill, filed October 11, states that a “pet store may not offer for sale a domestic dog or cat.”
However, the bill would exempt “a person who sells or offers for sale directly to the public only animals that the person bred and raised.”
In its legislative position application, the Animal Law Section said the proposal is designed, among other things, to shut down the “puppy mills” that supply pet stores.
“There are a number of concerns about the puppy mill sources used by for-profit sellers, and the contribution additional animals [make] to pet overpopulation, which has led to a large number of local governments banning the sale of dogs and cats,” the application states.
The measure would preserve a local government’s authority to ban retail pet sales and could reduce the number of complaints from pet store customers who get stuck with sick animals, the section claimed.
Legislation Committee Chair Sandra Diamond said the committee voted 4-2 to recommend that the board reject the proposal.
The potential for divisiveness wasn’t the only concern, Diamond said.
“There was some comment that this might not be within the purview of the section,” Diamond said.
Diamond reminded the board that Animal Law Section bylaws prohibit animal rights advocacy.
Board member Jay Kim said he voted against the proposal in committee because he believes a statewide ban on the sale of any product could be divisive.
Several board members disagreed.
“I’m not seeing this as being divisive,” said board member Wayne Smith. “We should not confuse passion for divisiveness.”
HB 253 has yet to be heard and there is no Senate companion. The bill faces hearings in the Regulatory Reform, and Civil Justice and Property Rights subcommittees, as well as the Commerce Committee.
The 60-day legislative session convenes January 11.
In response to the board’s action, the Animal Law Section released the following statement:
“The section was pleased that the Legislative Committee and Board of Governors approved all but one of our requested legislative positions at its recent meeting. We were surprised and respectfully disagree with the stated reasons for denying our request to support HB 253. We are preparing a letter to the Legislative Committee with additional information about our position and a request for reconsideration.
“Our ability to support legislation is an important issue to our membership, who pay voluntary dues separate from fees paid to the Bar, to belong to our section. The ability to take legislative positions was one of the primary reasons we petitioned the Bar to become a section. This particular issue involves solving an ongoing problem with the sale of sick dogs and cats from out-of-state puppy mills. It is a consumer protection and animal welfare legal issue, which is entirely distinct from animal rights, and therefore not precluded by our section’s bylaws. Moreover, we believe that the request is not controversial and is simply an extension of a position that was previously approved and that we have lobbied on in recent years to prevent local sales bans from being overturned. Currently, more than 70 local governments in Florida have already banned the sale of dogs and cats in pet stores and more are considering taking these steps to address the out-of-state puppy mill problem. We are hopeful with additional information, the Legislative Committee and Board of Governors will agree to reconsider the decision.”
