Missouri legislators have introduced two bills that would impose new requirements on pet dealers and dog breeders.

Senate Bill 690 would establish a pet warranty statute in which the buyers of cats and dogs would be entitled to a refund or other compensation from a pet dealer if the animal becomes ill or dies from a condition that existed at the time of purchase. A “pet dealer” is defined as any person, business or other entity, including pet breeder, that sells more than 20 dogs and cats or three litters in a 12-month period. A pet dealer does not include animal control agencies, humane societies or similar nonprofit organizations.

House Bill 1921, entitled the “Puppy Mill Cruelty Prevention Act,” would cap the number of dogs kept for breeding purposes at 50, and sets forth standards of care. The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) and other animal rights groups have started a petition drive in the state to get a similar “Puppy Mill Cruelty Prevention Act” on the November ballot.

No hearing for either bill has been set at this time.

Specifically, SB 690 would require a dealer to have a dog or cat examined by a veterinarian no more than 30 days prior to sale. Dealers must provide the buyer with a written statement ensuring that the animal has no known congenital or hereditary condition that adversely affects its health, or, if there is a known health problem, a disclosure of such condition. Pet dealers would not be permitted to sell an animal with any obvious clinical sign of infection, contagious disease or any condition that requires hospitalization or non-elective surgical procedures, under the measure.

Buyers would be entitled to a remedy if within 20 days after purchase, a veterinarian states in writing that the animal suffers from or has died from an illness, disease or other defect that existed at or before the time of sale. Buyers would also be entitled to a remedy if within 2 years, a veterinarian states in writing that animal possesses or has died from a congenital or hereditary condition adversely affecting the health of the animal or that required hospitalization or non-elective surgical procedures.

In such cases, buyers would be entitled to one of the following remedies:

• To exchange the animal for a comparable one (if a comparable one is available) plus be reimbursed for reasonable costs of diagnosing and treating the animal, up to the original purchase price;
  .
• To receive a full refund of the purchase price plus reasonable diagnosing and treatment costs; or
  .
• To keep the animal, but receive reimbursement of reasonable costs of diagnosing and treating the animal up to 150 percent of the original purchase price.

The bill provides the pet dealer the right to challenge a warranty claim if the pet dealer does not believe it meets the requirements of the law, in which case the buyer may initiate an action in court or the parties may agree to binding arbitration.

According to the Pet Industry Joint Advisory Council (PIJAC), the provisions in SB 690 are similar to those found in warranty statutes in other states. However, Missouri’s proposed bill is different in that it extends to breeders.

SB 690 has been referred to the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Food Production & Outdoor Resources. No hearing has been set.

Click here to view SB 690.

House Bill 1921 states that no person is allowed to keep a dog for purposes of breeding or raising for sale as a pet, or for purposes of producing offspring for sale as a pet, unless the dog is provided:

• Adequate housing;
  .
• Sufficient room for each dog to turn and stretch freely, lie down, and fully extend his or her limbs simultaneously with other dogs in the enclosure;
  .
• Adequate food and water;
  .
• Regular exercise;
  .
• Adequate veterinary care;
  .
• Adequate rest between breeding cycles; and
  .
• Adequate shelter from the elements.

The bill provides definitions for what is considered “adequate” in each case.

Under HB 1921, “no person may own, possess, control, or otherwise have charge or custody of more than 50 intact dogs over the age of four months at any time used for purposes of breeding or raising such dog for sale as a pet, or for the purposes of producing offspring from such dog for sale as a pet.”

The provisions of this bill do not apply during lawful examination, testing, operation, or other individual treatment for veterinary purposes; during transportation; to retail pet stores or to humane organizations or shelters.

Violators could be charged with a misdemeanor. If found guilty, the person would be subject to a fine of up to $1,000 or imprisonment for up to 180 days, or both.

HB 1921, which can be viewed here has not been assigned to a House committee.

PIJAC is urging Missouri’s breeders to read the bill and compare its requirements with those found in the federal Animal Welfare Act. According to PIJAC, a number of provisions in HB 1921 would place breeders licensed by the federal government under the Animal Welfare Act in a position of violating local and state animal cruelty statutes.

“While PIJAC is not opposed to establishing reasonable standards for those who commercially breed and sell dogs, PIJAC is opposed to having people subjected to state statutes which contradict federal standards,” the organization stated in a PetAlert.

PIJAC also found fault with the use of the term “puppy mill,” calling it a “derogatory term that has no meaning in law and is used to vilify anyone who breeds dogs.”

In general, PIJAC opposes breeder limits, because it says there is no correlation between the size of a kennel and the quality of care received by the dogs.

Missourians for the Protection of Dogs—a coalition comprised of the Humane Society of Missouri, Missouri Alliance for Animal Legislation, the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and HSUS—is in the process of collecting 130,000 signatures needed from the state’s registered voters in order to have its version of the Puppy Mill Cruelty Prevention Act placed on the November ballot.

Under the act, any person who owns more than 10 female dogs for the purpose of breeding would have to follow standards for feeding, veterinary care, housing, exercise and rest cycles between breeding. The standards are similar to those in HB 1921. The HSUS version prohibits a person from keeping more than 50 intact dogs over the age of six months for the purpose of breeding.

If Missouri’s voters approve the ballot question, then no further action would be needed to enact the measure, said Barbara Schmitz, the Missouri state director for HSUS. <HOME>