S. 3028: An Act promoting pet equity, treatment and safety
MSPCA Position: Support
Sponsors: Senate Ways and Means. Original bill sponsors include Senators Pavel Payano, Mark Montigny, Patrick O’Connor, and Jason Lewis.
Status: Passed in the Senate on March 19, 2026. Referred to House Committee on Ways and Means.
This omnibus legislation represents a meaningful step toward a more humane, responsible, and forward-looking Massachusetts. Together, they demonstrate Massachusetts’ continued leadership in setting thoughtful, achievable standards that protect animals and people alike.
Take Action on the PETS Act
Click on a provision to learn more: Animals in Pet Shops, Civil Citations for Cruel Conditions, Alternatives to Animal Testing, Pet-Inclusive Housing, Beagle Bill Updates, Mass. Animal Fund
KEY PROVISIONS OF THE PETS ACT
Prohibit the sale of dogs and cats in pet shops
Section 4, 5, and 6 of the PETS Act would prevent the sale of dogs and cats in pet shops. This measure reflects the urgency of the problem and ensures that Massachusetts no longer participates in the puppy mill-to-pet shop pipeline.
Pet shops that rely on selling puppies from inhumane commercial breeding facilities pose serious risks to animal welfare, consumer protection, and public health. Section 6 would end the retail sale of commercially bred animals, while still allowing pet shops to operate and remain profitable by selling pet supplies and services and by partnering with shelters and rescues to showcase adoptable animals. This is the same model already used by most pet shops in Massachusetts.
Importantly, this provision has no impact on responsible breeders who sell directly to consumers. Reputable breeders do not sell to pet shops. Ethical breeding practices emphasize matching animals to appropriate owners, transparency about lineage and health, and ongoing support for new owners. In contrast, pet shops often purchase from brokers who acquire animals from large-scale commercial breeding facilities commonly known as puppy mills. This distribution system leaves pet stores and customers in the dark about the conditions in which the animals were bred and raised.
Puppy mills prioritize volume over welfare. Animals are confined in small wire cages, bred continuously, denied veterinary care, and deprived of exercise and socialization. Federal oversight provides little protection: commercial breeders selling to brokers or stores are regulated by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) under the Animal Welfare Act (AWA), but the AWA’s requirements are minimal survival standards—and even those are poorly enforced. In 2025, the USDA Inspector General found that 80% of previously noncompliant dog breeders continued to violate standards; that untimely, inconsistent inspections likely led to increased animal suffering; and that USDA failed to close 69% of complaints within required timeframes. This confirms that USDA licensure does not guarantee humane conditions or adequate care.
Beyond animal suffering, this system poses risks to human and animal health. In recent years, multiple outbreaks of multidrug-resistant Campylobacter have been linked to pet store puppies, including cases in Massachusetts. Investigations traced infections to dogs in the pet store supply chain but could not identify a single breeder or broker source, underscoring how opaque and unaccountable the system has become. Coupled with USDA’s documented enforcement failures, these outbreaks point to ongoing public health risks tied to the puppy-mill-to-pet-shop pipeline.
Animals bred and raised in such environments commonly arrive at stores with medical or behavioral problems stemming from poor genetics, overbreeding, maternal stress, and lack of care. Families who unknowingly purchase these animals often face devastating financial and emotional impacts, such as expensive veterinary bills or the loss of a pet within weeks or months. Many customers report being misled about the animals’ origins, sold on false assurances of humane sourcing or “USDA certification.”
USDA data confirms that laws banning the sale of puppies in pet shops are already making a measurable difference. An estimated 32,000 fewer breeding dogs are now caged in USDA-licensed facilities than a decade ago, with the average USDA puppy mill keeping about 87 breeding dogs in 2012 and about 57 dogs today. Since 2020, an estimated 550,000 fewer puppies have been born into the cruel conditions of USDA puppy mills, which is a 44% decrease. The total number of puppy mills licensed to sell to pet stores has declined by about 420 dealers, a 15% decrease since 2020. This data makes it clear that retail sales bans are not only humane, but they are also highly effective.
Ending the retail sale of dogs, cats, and rabbits enjoys strong public support in Massachusetts. More than 1.3 million residents live in communities that have already enacted local ordinances prohibiting such sales, including Arlington, Attleboro, Beverly, Boston, Brookline, Cambridge, Holliston, Lenox, Lexington, Marshfield, North Adams, North Andover, Pittsfield, Plymouth, Springfield, and Stoneham.
The vast majority of pet stores in Massachusetts already operate humanely. More than 40 pet stores across the Commonwealth have publicly endorsed this bill, proving that humane business models that are focused on products, grooming, and adoption partnerships are both viable and profitable. The American Pet Products Association no longer even tracks dog and cat sales in its industry reports, noting that companion animals are “typically obtained outside of the retail pet channel” and represent only a negligible portion of total pet industry revenue.
There are many humane and responsible ways for families to find a new pet. Massachusetts shelters and rescues are full of animals waiting for homes. For those seeking a specific breed, responsible breeders sell directly to consumers, allowing prospective owners to visit the facility, meet the parents, and ensure humane care, which is impossible when buying through a pet shop.
The time has come for Massachusetts to ensure our state is no longer a refuge for puppy mill retailers, especially for those seeking to relocate here because their own state or cities outlawed their cruel and deceptive business model. Massachusetts can join the growing number of states and over 500 municipalities that have acted decisively to protect animals, consumers and public health.
Alternatives to having only a felony for animal cruelty
Section 10 of the PETS Act which would take a long-overdue step to strengthen animal protection in Massachusetts by building on an existing, proven civil enforcement tool that has been in place for more than a decade. Sections 11, 12, and 13 also relate to this statute, containing technical edits.
Since 2012, M.G.L. c. 140, § 174E has allowed animal control officers and law enforcement to issue civil citations when dogs are kept in dangerous or inhumane conditions. This authority has proven effective in protecting animals, correcting harmful situations, and preventing cases from escalating into felony cruelty prosecutions. However, the statute currently applies only to dogs. Section 10 would extend these same protections to household pets, ensuring they are not left without recourse simply because of species.
Officers routinely encounter serious risks—such as excessive waste, contaminated water, noxious odors, or hazardous conditions—that threaten animal health but do not always justify criminal charges. This provision provides a practical middle ground, allowing officers to intervene earlier and require corrective action before conditions become life-threatening or prosecution becomes the only option.
Promoting humane cosmetics and other household products by limiting the use of animal testing
Section 14 would require manufacturers and testing laboratories in Massachusetts to use modern, non-animal scientific methods when they are available. This commonsense legislation will strengthen Massachusetts’ leadership in science and innovation while reducing unnecessary animal suffering. Each year, tens of thousands of animals are subjected to painful and outdated product tests. Harsh chemicals are rubbed into their eyes and skin, forced down their throats, or injected into their bodies. Most of these tests are conducted on mice and rats, species that make up roughly 95% of the animals used in laboratories but are excluded from even the minimal protections of the federal Animal Welfare Act. These animals suffer and die despite the fact that modern non-animal test methods that are based on human biology are already available in many cases, approved by regulatory agencies, and often scientifically superior in predicting human safety.
Section 14 would ensure that when approved non-animal test methods exist, they are used in place of traditional animal tests. These modern technologies, including three-dimensional tissue models, organ-chips, computer modeling, and human cell-based assays, are not only more humane but typically faster and less expensive. Unlike animal tests, they also provide data that is directly relevant to human health, eliminating the guesswork inherent in extrapolating results from other species.
This legislation applies to testing done for consumer products such as cosmetics, household cleaners, and industrial chemicals. It does not apply to medical research or testing related to pharmaceuticals or medical devices. It is a measured, balanced policy approach designed to promote innovation, public health, and ethical progress.
Federal agencies have been moving in this direction for years with recent actions highlighting the agencies’ ongoing commitment to replacing animal tests with human-relevant alternatives. In 2025, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) announced it will stop issuing funding calls that exclusively require animal models and will prioritize human-based research. The Food and Drug Administration published a Roadmap to Reducing Animal Testing in Preclinical Safety Studies, calling for targeted investment in “new approach methodologies” and even suggesting legislative reinforcement to establish deadlines for phasing out animal tests when alternatives exist. The Environmental Protection Agency has recommitted to phasing out reliance on mammal tests, ended certain internal animal testing programs and implemented an animal adoption policy for lab animals at their research facility, and the U.S. Navy recently terminated all dog and cat experiments. Meanwhile, the NIH closed its last in-house dog laboratory, marking a historic shift toward non-animal research across multiple federal agencies.
Massachusetts is already home to pioneering companies advancing non-animal methods, including MatTek (Ashland), Emulate and Xellar Biosystems (Boston), and Javelin Biotech (Woburn). These firms are developing cutting-edge technologies such as sophisticated organ-chips and 3D tissue models that offer faster, more reliable safety assessments while supporting the growth of an ethical and innovative life sciences sector.
Modern science has outgrown animal testing. Traditional animal models often fail to mimic human biology, leading to inaccurate results, wasted resources, and delays in bringing safer products to market. NIH itself has acknowledged that “Petri dish and animal models often fail to provide good ways to mimic disease or predict how drugs will work in humans,” and has invested heavily in developing human cell-based systems as superior alternatives.
Public support for this policy is strong and consistent. A 2022 Massachusetts survey found that three in four voters support legislation to require alternatives to animal testing when available. By passing this, lawmakers would be acting squarely in line with public values, advancing humane science while maintaining Massachusetts’ standing as a global leader in research and innovation.
Maintaining stable housing for families with pets
The housing shortage crisis affecting every community in Massachusetts is exacerbated for families with pets. Based on survey data in Massachusetts, we’ve found the majority of people surrendering pets to animal shelters in Massachusetts are people currently looking for rental housing. When searching for rental housing in Massachusetts, only about 39% of rental units will accept dogs. Often these modest numbers shrink even further when looking at exclusively pet-inclusive properties, meaning properties accepting pets without breed or weight restrictions. In Massachusetts, that figure then drops to about 7%.
SECTION 2: Requires the EOHLC to establish a program of pet ownership for residents of state-aided housing, including reasonable requirements for the care of animals by tenants.
The elderly program has been in place, but was removed in statute when EOHLC was reorganized. The program re-institutes and builds on the success of that program.
SECTION 15: Prevents homeowners and renters insurance from taking dog breed or mixture of breed in consideration when deciding whether to provide, renew or cancel a policy, or when establishing the premium.
SECTION 17: Creates a study and requires recommendations regarding the prevalence and effects of pet-related fees charged to residents in rental housing.
And according to survey research, 14% of polled tenants reported that pet-friendly housing, when available, is unaffordable due to restrictions. Pet-related fees are a major contributor to pet relinquishment. When fees are charged, 69% report that monthly pet rent is a barrier to housing.
Our animal shelters across the state see this problem from an intake perspective. Approximately 30% of animal surrenders to the MSPCA are due to housing and it’s not just dogs; cats are impacted too — 60% of the animals surrendered to the MSPCA due to housing issues are cats.
Pet relinquishments due to housing-related issues are more likely to come from more socially vulnerable parts of the state. Pet-inclusive housing is concentrated in less-vulnerable communities, leaving fewer options for tenants with pets who are facing economic challenges. Moreover, 22% of housing-related relinquishments are from households living in subsidized housing. Additionally, some responsible Massachusetts dog owners are not welcome in certain housing markets because they own medium or larger dogs or certain dog breeds (or a dog that looks like one of these breeds). This discrimination occurs in some publicly-funded housing, making this a particularly pernicious practice. An increasing number of homeowners and renters have been denied insurance because their dog’s breed has been targeted by their insurance company as a high risk. Insurance can be denied for many breeds of dogs regardless of the dog’s lack of any bite history.
In 2012, the legislature recognized the irrelevance of dog breed in assessing the risk posed by dogs when it passed a comprehensive law that strengthened the state’s dangerous dog law and prohibited municipalities from discriminating against dogs based on breed because no such legislation has ever proven effective at reducing dog bites. In 2024, the legislature again acted when it allowed all families (including those with dog breeds/mixes that had been prohibited) from being considered for an adoptive or foster home for a child. It is time for the same standard to be applied to the housing and insurance industry.
Many other states have addressed the issue and are working to ensure families — including the family pet — can stay together.
“Beagle Bill” updates
Chapter 149 of the Acts of 2022 (an Act Protecting Research Animals) was signed on August 4; however, the Governor requested a few changes. Instead of sending the bill back to the legislature, he signed it with the understanding changes would be made. Sections 7-9 would: 1) redefine animal rescue organization to be consistent with MDAR’s regulations; 2) redefine research facility to research institution to make consistent with existing law and redefine product testing facility to be more descriptive; 3) require a collaborative agreement between animal rescue organization and the research institution unless the research institution is licensed as an animal rescue organization by MDAR. It would also require record keeping.
Mass Animal Fund
Sections 1 and 3 direct administrative fines issued under Section 37 of Chapter 129 to the Massachusetts Animal Fund administered by the Mass. Dept. of Agricultural Resources. Based on historical enforcement data, this change is expected to generate approximately $30,000-$40,000 annually. This additional revenue would allow MDAR to serve 200 to 270 additional dogs and cats each year––animals that would otherwise go without care.
Despite its proven value, the Fund is currently in one of the most precarious positions it has faced since its creation in 2012. Due to insufficient funding, MDAR was forced to place a hold on animal spay and neuter voucher requests for owner animals in early 2025. Families who submitted vouchers before the hold remain on a waitlist that can stretch for years. While the funding generated by this provision would not meet the full scope of need, it would provide meaningful relief and help stabilize the program.
All Massachusetts residents benefit when fewer animals enter shelters or municipal animal control facilities, reducing the burden on cities and towns and lowering associated costs. Spaying and neutering also has well-documented public safety benefits.
