HB 1716
In CommitteeHouse
Dog breeding
Modifying dog breeding regulations.
This status may be delayed. See Action History below for the latest updates.
How does a bill become law?
- Introduced: The bill is filed and assigned a number.
- Committee: A subject-matter committee holds hearings, takes public testimony, and decides whether to advance the bill.
- Floor Vote: The full chamber (House or Senate) debates and votes on the bill.
- Opposite Chamber: The bill repeats the committee and floor vote process in the other chamber.
- Governor: The Governor reviews the bill and decides whether to sign or veto it.
- Signed: The bill has been signed into law.
AI Analysis
This bill lowers the legal limit on how many intact (non-spayed/neutered) dogs a person can keep from 50 to 20, and imposes stricter standards for housing, exercise, and veterinary care for those who keep more than 4 intact dogs. It also bans certain breeding practices and sets penalties for violations.
- Limits the number of intact dogs (over 6 months old) a person can own or keep to 20, down from 50.
- Requires stricter housing standards for those keeping more than 4 intact dogs, including minimum space per dog, enclosure height, and floor safety.
- Mandates at least 2 hours of daily exercise per dog (e.g., leash walking or access to larger exercise area), with exceptions for medically documented needs.
- Requires daily cleaning of enclosures, proper ventilation, fire safety equipment, and protection from extreme weather.
- Prohibits breeding dogs under 12 months or over 8 years old, and requires veterinary approval before breeding.
- Sets penalties of gross misdemeanor for violations of the dog ownership or care rules.
Who is affected
- Commercial dog breeders — Must reduce number of intact breeding dogs to 20 or fewer and comply with new housing, care, and exercise standards if they currently operate a commercial dog breeding facility.
- Hobby breeders and individuals with multiple intact dogs — May need to adjust operations to comply with new space, exercise, and veterinary care requirements if they keep more than 20 intact dogs for breeding or other purposes.
- Dog buyers and pet owners — Will be protected by stricter standards on dog care and may benefit from reduced risk of neglect or poor conditions at large-scale breeding operations.
- Animal control officers and law enforcement — Will enforce the new limits and care standards, including inspections and penalties for violations.
Pro/Con Analysis
Stronger case for benefits
Potential Benefits (5)
Stricter space, cleaning, and veterinary care requirements significantly reduce the risk of animal neglect and cruelty, especially at large-scale operations that previously operated near the old 50-dog limit with minimal oversight. This improves animal welfare and reduces public health risks (e.g., zoonotic disease, unsanitary conditions) in communities near breeding facilities.
Public SafetyPeopleRef: Sec. 1(2)(a), (c)(vii), (e)Prohibiting breeding of dogs under 12 months or over 8 years—combined with mandatory veterinary approval—reduces health risks to breeding animals and decreases the number of puppies born with congenital defects or poor health, lowering future veterinary costs for owners and public shelter costs for treating preventable conditions.
HealthcarePeopleRef: Sec. 1(2)(e)Lowering the intact dog limit from 50 to 20 reduces the likelihood of large-scale, unregulated breeding operations that often contribute to public nuisance issues (e.g., odor, noise, stray dogs, public health hazards), thereby improving quality of life in residential neighborhoods.
Public SafetyPeopleRef: Sec. 1(1)Mandating daily exercise, weather protection, and injury-resistant flooring directly improves dog welfare and reduces injuries and behavioral problems that can lead to dog bites or aggression—protecting both the dogs and the public.
Public SafetyPeopleRef: Sec. 1(2)(b), (c)(iii), (c)(v)Exemptions for shelters, humane societies, and veterinary facilities ensure that legitimate rescue and medical operations are not burdened, allowing them to continue critical work without fear of unintended violation—supporting the bill’s public safety goals while preserving essential services.
Public SafetyLean peopleRef: Sec. 1(4)(a)-(g)
Potential Concerns (5)
Commercial dog breeders and large-scale hobby breeders must reduce their intact dog count by 60% (from 50 to 20), which may require significant operational restructuring, reduced output, or closure—especially for those operating near the prior limit. This could reduce income for owners and lead to job losses in small breeding enterprises.
Business & EmploymentRef: Sec. 1(1)New housing, exercise, and sanitation requirements (e.g., 2 hours daily exercise, 12-inch clearance, 5x enclosure size, daily cleaning) impose substantial fixed and variable costs on breeders, particularly those operating near the 20-dog threshold. These costs may be prohibitive for small operators with thin margins, potentially reducing supply of locally bred dogs and increasing prices for consumers.
Business & EmploymentRef: Sec. 1(2)(a)-(viii)The ban on breeding dogs under 12 months or over 8 years may reduce breeding efficiency and extend time-to-market for puppies, increasing per-puppy costs. This disproportionately affects small-scale breeders who rely on high reproductive output to remain viable, potentially reducing competition and increasing market concentration toward larger, more capitalized operations.
Business & EmploymentLean peopleRef: Sec. 1(2)(e)Enforcement of the new limits and standards relies on local law enforcement and animal control, but the bill provides no dedicated funding—potentially straining already limited resources, especially in rural counties with fewer inspectors. This may lead to inconsistent enforcement and reduced deterrence, undermining the bill’s goals.
Public SafetyRef: Sec. 1(3)The requirement for 2 hours of daily exercise per dog (e.g., leash walking or access to 4× larger enclosure) may be impractical for people living in apartments, multi-unit dwellings, or rural areas without safe outdoor space—effectively limiting dog ownership for low-income and urban residents who cannot meet the standard without significant time or cost investment.
HousingLean peopleRef: Sec. 1(2)(b)
Who Is Most Affected
Commercial breeders operating >20 intact dogs face major operational changes: must downsize, invest in facility upgrades, and comply with new veterinary protocols. Many small/mid-sized operations may exit the market, reducing supply but improving average welfare standards. Winners: large, well-capitalized breeders who can absorb costs; losers: small breeders with thin margins.
Hobby breeders with 5–20 intact dogs may be unaffected or only mildly impacted, but those with 21–50 must reduce numbers and upgrade facilities. Low-income hobbyists in rental housing may struggle to meet exercise/space requirements, potentially reducing access to locally bred dogs and increasing prices for buyers.
Dog buyers benefit from higher welfare standards and reduced risk of purchasing unhealthy or behaviorally problematic puppies from substandard operations. However, reduced supply and increased compliance costs may raise prices, disproportionately affecting low-income buyers seeking affordable pets.
Animal control officers and law enforcement gain clearer enforcement authority but face increased workload without new funding. Rural agencies may lack resources for consistent inspections, while urban departments may see reduced call volume from neglect complaints—net effect is mixed, with potential strain on budgets.
Local governments may see reduced long-term costs from fewer stray dogs and animal cruelty cases, but face short-term enforcement costs. The bill’s fiscal impact estimate of reduced shelter spending is plausible but unquantified—net effect depends on scale of enforcement and reduction in substandard operations.