Expert veterinary care for every stage of your pet’s life.
Emergency: 617-522-7282
Poison Control: 888-426-4435
Bringing pets and people together.
Advocate for animals, volunteer, or get help for your pet with our compassionate community services.
MSPCA Position: Support Sponsors: Senate Ways and Means and House Ways and Means. Original bill sponsors include Senators Pavel Payano, Mark Montigny, Patrick O’Connor, and Jason Lewis & Representatives Brian Ashe, Sam Montaño, Dave Rogers, Tackey Chan, Ted Philips, Jack Patrick Lewis, Ryan Hamilton, and Dan Hunt. Status: Passed in the Senate on March 19, 2026. Passed the House on July 15, 2026. Awaiting concurrence from the Senate. If concurrence is not reached, the bill will likely head to conference committee.
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.
Both the House and Senate bills that passed address:
The Senate passed provisions to:
The House passed provisions relating to:
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%.
Both bills require 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.
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. Both bills prohibit the discrimination based on a pet’s size or appearance in state-funded housing.
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.
Promoting humane cosmetics and other household products by limiting the use of animal testing This provision 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.
This provision 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 provision 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.
Alternatives to having only a felony for animal cruelty
House version – This provision creates a civil process to allow for the removal of an animal or obtain orders to ameliorate specific types of neglect to ensure an animal is safe — and without requiring criminal charges. Massachusetts only has a felony animal cruelty offense. However, there are times when such a penalty may not be appropriate or helpful (when mental health may be an issue, for example) but animals are still suffering or otherwise kept in violation of the animal cruelty statute. The goal of this provision is to ensure animals are safe from cruel situations – allowing the need for animal cruelty charges to be evaluated depending on the situation and what would be most effective and just for both animals and people.
Senate version – 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. This provision would extend these same protections to other 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. By focusing on correction and prevention rather than punishment, Section 10 aligns with criminal justice reform principles while improving outcomes for animals. It empowers trained officers to act on their expertise, fills a critical gap in current law, and promotes fair, effective enforcement.
“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. This provision 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 Both bills would 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. Given that the Fund’s voucher program spends an average of $150 per spay or neuter surgery, including vaccinations, 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.
