Banning pet restrictions in public and private housing
In other news: Rescue rights becomes law in Utah. Massachusetts Senate unanimously passes comprehensive pet protection bill. Another state strengthens its animal neglect and cruelty laws. Do you have what it takes to save lives? Another week, more tainted and potentially tainted pet foods. Despite animal abuse and mass killing, people have more pedestrian concerns. Federal Appeals Court sides with companies that kill animals. Animals pay the price for the state of our politics.
These are some of the stories making headlines in animal protection:
Rescue rights becomes law in Utah
SB 201, a bill to make it illegal for Utah pounds to kill animals that rescue groups are willing to save, has passed the Utah House and Senate and was signed into law by the Governor.
The bill, modeled after The No Kill Advocacy Center’s Animal Rescue Act, requires “shelters” to notify qualified groups two days before killing animals and allow their rescue. It will save lives, save money, spare rescuer suffering, and bring in millions of dollars in tax revenue.
In California, for example, a similar law has been on the books since 1998. It has increased the number of animals transferred to rescue groups rather than killed from 12,526 a year to 99,783 — a nearly 700% increase, all at no cost to taxpayers. In fact, it resulted in a potential cost savings of over $4,000,000 statewide for killing and destruction of remains. Over 2,000,000 animals have been saved since the law’s inception.
Massachusetts Senate unanimously passes comprehensive pet protection bill
The Massachusetts Senate has passed legislation that:
Requires public housing projects that have received state funds to allow pets; prohibits breed discrimination; and prohibits declawing as a condition for having a cat;
Bans the retail sale of commercially-bred dogs and cats in pet stores, allowing those stores to partner with shelters and rescue groups to offer adoptions as an alternative;
Prohibits homeowner and renter insurance companies from discriminating based on a dog’s breed, including whether to issue a policy, charge more, refuse to renew, or cancel an existing policy;
Prohibits animal testing on consumer products when non-animal alternatives exist; and,
Expands neglect and cruelty laws.
It also funds a study on whether and how pet restrictions and pet deposits/rent impact relinquishment of animals.
Regarding the public housing pet ban and the study on landlord pet restrictions: