Bills We Support:
Companion Animals
S. 1022/H. 1559: An Act to maintain stable housing for families with pets
This legislation ensures that certain state-aided housing cannot discriminate against, or include language that limits, a tenant or resident’s ability to live in that type of housing based on the size, weight, or perceived breed of a dog owned by a tenant/resident. It also puts a cap on the amount for pet rent a landlord can charge and prevents insurance companies from discriminating based on dog breed. Housing is the number one reason dogs are surrendered and impacts the length of stay for dogs at shelters who spend more time waiting for homes.
Banning the retail sale of certain animals in pet shops
These bills will prohibit the sale of certain animals in pet shops unless the animals are from shelters or rescue organizations. Typically, pet shops obtain animals from substandard breeding facilities, which results in consumers unknowingly purchasing sick or genetically compromised pets. Massachusetts state records document such complaints from across the Commonwealth. State and federal records have also demonstrated that puppies from the worst “puppy mills” in the country have been sold to Massachusetts consumers via pet shops. These bills thus protects both animals and consumers, while having no impact on responsible breeders.
H. 1476: An Act to codify pet-friendly elderly housing policies and ensure pet parity across housing authorities
This legislation reinstates language about the existing elderly state-aided housing pet program, inadvertently removed when EOHLC was created, and updates the pet program to apply across all state-aided housing (of which elderly housing is already two-thirds), without restrictions on dog breed, size, or appearance. It also creates an advisory group to help implement pet-friendly policies in state-funded housing.
S. 1206/H. 1817: An Act standardizing consideration of pets in divorce and separation
This legislation provides a framework for judges to use in determining ownership of a pet when a couple is splitting up, using criteria such as what is in the best interest of the animal. Traditionally, in divorce or separation proceedings, animals are seen as nothing more than property to be divided up alongside the furniture, cars, and house.
S. 1458/H. 2253: An Act relative to updating animal health inspections
These bills would ensure that dog breeders, similar to other categories of entities that work with animals/provide them to the public — like shelters/rescues, pet shops, dog boarding kennels — have minimum regulations to protect animals and consumers.
S. 639: An Act to provide additional funding for animal welfare and safety programming
This bill would enable additional monies to be directed to the Mass Animal Fund for the purpose of spaying, neutering or vaccinating homeless dogs and cats, or those that live with low-income families, by stipulating that administrative fines, issued pursuant to Section 37 of Chapter 129 (“Enforcement actions; jurisdiction of commissioner of agriculture, district and superior courts”), would go to the Fund.
Cruelty Prevention – All Animals
S. 1190/H. 1938: An Act enhancing the issuance of citations for cruel conditions for animals
This legislation expands upon current law, found in Ch. 140 sec. 174E, which allows civil citations to be issued when dogs are kept in cruel conditions. This legislation extends this protection to all domestic animals. Broadening the current statute’s scope in this way allows an effective response to problematic situations before they escalate to criminal animal cruelty.
S. 1207/H. 1914: Protecting animals from convicted animal abusers
This legislation would prohibit a person who is convicted of animal cruelty from owning or possessing an animal for a period of time determined by the court. Fines would be directed to the Massachusetts Animal Fund for the purpose of spaying/neutering and vaccinating homeless dogs and cats or to help animals whose families could not otherwise afford those surgeries.
S. 1277/H. 1934: Preventing animal cruelty
These bills will create alternate pathways to ensure animals are safe without a felony charge. Massachusetts only has a felony animal cruelty penalty. 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 cruelty statute. The goal is to ensure animals are safe from cruel situations – allowing the need for cruelty charges to be evaluated depending on the situation and what would be most effective and just.
Animals Used in Testing
S. 640/H. 989: An Act promoting humane cosmetics and other household products by limiting the use of animal testing
This legislation requires the use of non-animal test methods when available. Alternatives provide information of equivalent or superior quality and relevance to humans in comparison to animal tests. This bill applies to products such as cosmetics, household cleaners, and industrial chemicals, like those in paint; it does not apply to testing done for medical research, including testing of drugs or medical devices.
S. 263/H. 426: An Act to protect consumers from contributing to inhumane animal testing for cosmetics
These bills would prohibit the sale of most cosmetics newly tested on animals. Twelve other states and more than 40 countries worldwide have already passed similar bans. It’s estimated that half a million animals, including rabbits, guinea pigs, and mice, suffer in cosmetics testing every year.
Wildlife
S. 644/H. 965: An Act restricting the use of rodenticides in the environment
These bills restrict the use of Anticoagulant Rodenticides (ARs). ARs are a particularly toxic group of poisons used as a form of rodent control. When ingested, ARs prevent the clotting of blood, and cause the animal who ingested it to sustain heavy internal bleeding, eventually causing death. The poison remains in the dead or dying rodent’s system for days. ARs impact non-targeted pets and wildlife populations, such as birds of prey, who rely on the poisoned rodents as a food source. As a result, the cats and dogs, hawks, eagles, owls, and bobcats who are exposed often suffer the same fatal hemorrhaging.
Home Rules relating to rodenticide use: S. 26/S. 552/H. 975/H. 995: An Act authorizing towns to prohibit or restrict the application of second-generation anticoagulant rodenticides (title varies by municipality)
These home rule petitions would prevent the use of second generation anticoagulant rodenticide from being used on public property in their respective towns (Brookline, Newton, Newbury, and Orleans). These petitions were passed by city/town government and need state approval to be implemented.
S. 616/H. 3935: An Act relative to ivory and rhinoceros horn trafficking
These bills clamp down on illegal ivory and rhino horn sales by restricting the sale, trade, and distribution of ivory and rhino horn in Massachusetts, ensuring that the Commonwealth no longer contributes to the unprecedented global poaching crisis.
Farmed Animals
S. 551/H. 990: An Act prohibiting the sale of newly farmed fur products
This legislation would prohibit the sale of new fur products sourced from factory farms. On fur factory farms, wild animals spend their entire lives in cramped cages, deprived of the ability to engage in natural behaviors. The stress from living in a tiny cage causes serious welfare problems, such as self-mutilation and infected wounds, and can increase pathogen shedding and the risk of zoonotic disease transmission, such as COVID-19.
Bills We Oppose:
H. 993/H. 1016/H. 1057/H. 941/H. 1065/S. 576: Sunday hunting legislation
These bills would, in various ways, end the statewide ban on Sunday hunting. 86% of Massachusetts residents want to maintain the ban on Sunday hunting while hunters represent just 1% of the Massachusetts population. These bills prioritize a small minority over an overwhelming majority of Massachusetts residents who rely on Sunday to be the one day of the week during hunting season when they can safely venture into the woods without fear of an accident. As the third most densely populated state, lifting our Sunday hunting ban would introduce unnecessary risk to the public, as well as to the companion animals with whom they spend time in the outdoors.
S. 634/H. 940: Trapping legislation
These bills would remove or weaken current restrictions on cruel body-gripping Conibear and leghold (sometimes called foothold) traps, which are used to capture fur-bearing animals, such as beaver and coyote. These changes would effectively allow a return to the days of recreational trapping with these inhumane and indiscriminate devices, something that 64% of Massachusetts voters rejected when they voted in favor of the Wildlife Protection Act ballot initiative.
S. 576/H. 1065: An Act relative to outdoor heritage
This legislation removes certain prohibitions on carrying firearms, making the enforcement of poaching laws more difficult; permits hunting with dogs of upland game or waterfowl, as opposed to hunting with dogs of only waterfowl and only in coastal waters and salt marshes; and permits bow hunting of deer on Sundays.
H. 1062: An Act relative to hunting with artificial light
This bill would expand an already-archaic Massachusetts state law that permits spotlighting, which involves shining a bright light at a target animal to temporarily blind and paralyze them, at which point they are shot. Most states ban spotlighting because it is considered unsporting as it provides an opportunity to shoot an animal without giving chase. Currently, only racoon and opossum can be hunted with artificial light, while this bill would include coyote as well. Spotlighting is also dangerous to public health because hunters often spotlight not far from dark roads and the concentrated bright light makes it difficult to see beyond the illuminated animal.
See what was filed last session
