Search Menu

Legislative Successes

Legislative Successes

The following list highlights some of the AKC Government Relations’ (AKC GR) legislative successes through March 31,  2023.  These and other victories have been won in cooperation with AKC federations, clubs, and responsible dog owners and breeders around the country who continue to work tirelessly to promote positive canine legislation in their state and community.

To view all Legislative Alerts posted for your state in 2022, as well as the latest information on all bills being tracked by the AKC Government Relations Department, visit the AKC Legislative Action Center at


The City of Lafayette was considering a ban on all sales – including private sales – of dogs in the city.  AKC worked with local clubs and the Colorado Federation of Dog Clubs to coordinate verbal and written testimony in opposition.  The proposal was tabled with an agreement that the private sales ban would not be reintroduced.

The City of Colorado Springs proposed a ban on the retail sales of pets in the city.  AKC and the Colorado Federation of Dog Clubs joined local businesses and residents in testifying in opposition and encouraging the city to support the humane care of animals and pet choice.  The proposal was defeated by the council.


AKC opposed House Bill 849, which seeks to limit consumer choice by requiring pet stores to sell dogs obtained only from animal control or a shelter/rescue.  The House Committee on Agriculture and Food Systems considered the bill February 13, and deferred the measure.


 House Bill 103 sought to expand Kentucky’s animal cruelty provisions. Although HB 103 contained certain protective provisions, AKC GR joined sportsmen’s groups in expressing concerns about the bill as originally filed. As introduced, HB 103 would have provided that a dog with a parasite, such as a tick or flea, was suffering from “physical infirmity” that could result in a felony charge of “torture” against the owner. The definition of physical infirmity in the bill was amended to read in part, “mange or other skin disease or parasitic infestation that has been refused medical care.” HB 103, as amended, passed in the House, but did not advance in Senate committees and failed sine die.

House Bill 115 includes electronics detection dogs in the state’s definition of “service animal” and thereby extends protections under existing law that make assault on a service animal a felony. The bill also includes a definition of and protections for a “police dog.”  AKC monitored and supported this bill through its final form, which was signed by the Governor on 4/4/23.

House Bill 212 addressed dangerous dog law and sought to expand certain penalties, including prohibitions on owning dogs for five years. The bill did not advance during the 2023 session and failed sine die.

House Bill 321 attempted to problematically amend vicious dog law. It included a prohibition on the possession of dogs for certain offenses; an expansion of animal confiscation provisions; establishing cost of care requirements for confiscated animals and forfeiture of the dogs if not paid by the owner; and granting immunity for releasing a dog from a vehicle without consideration of consequences of such action. HB 321 failed sine die in the House Judiciary Committee.

Senate Bill 56 sought to prohibit pet stores from selling dogs, cats, and rabbits, but did not restrict pet stores from showcasing pets from animal shelters and nonprofit organizations that “adopt” animals. Showcasing of pets would have been prohibited for any entity affiliated with a breeder, thereby excluding many club-related volunteer dog-rehoming groups. SB 56 failed sine die in the Senate Agriculture Committee.

Senate Bill 92, as amended, would have included provisions regarding the definitions of assistant dog and emotional support animal; provided that a therapeutic relationship with a healthcare provider does not include transactions for documentation of disability in exchange for fee unless there has been a face-to-face in-office consultation with the health care provider; and made it a violation to misrepresent a dog as an assistance dog to gain accommodation. AKC GR supported the bill in principle, but was concerned that, as introduced, it contained certain provisions potentially in violation of federal law. A corrected committee substitute bill passed in the Senate but did not advance in the House.

Senate Bill 230 sought to create procedures for seizing agencies to petition a court to order payment of animal care costs by the owner. It failed sine die in the Senate Agriculture Committee.


HB 530 was an overreaching dangerous dog bill that sought to authorize confiscation of a dog following certain complaints. It also would have allowed a dog to be declared dangerous under loosely stated provisions. The bill included broad requirements regarding euthanasia of dogs declared dangerous and other problematic provisions. It died in the House Judiciary B Committee.
New Hampshire

In addition to defining biodiversity and requiring its inclusion in certain land use regulations, SB 164 would authorize entering into private contracts for “guardianship” appointments to preserve the rights of domestic animals and wild animals.  AKC issued an alert in opposition. AKC was joined by New Hampshire Dog Owners of the Granite State (NH DOGS) and multiple stakeholders testifying in opposition to the guardianship provisions of the bill. The Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee significantly amended the bill and removed all guardianship text before voting it ought to pass on February 15.


House Bill 359 as introduced would have required a permit for anyone who breeds and sells one dog in the state, with regulations to be developed by the Utah Department of Agriculture and Food.  After discussions with the sponsor, numerous amendments were added to remove the permit requirements, exempt hobbyists, and ensure that the regulation of pet breeding facilities do not include private homes.  The bill passed the House but did not receive a Senate vote before the end of session.  The sponsor has asked AKC to meet in the interim to discuss alternatives for next session.


HB 1984 as introduced sought to amend the definition of “adequate water” by specifying that for dogs, “adequate water” means water that is continuously available, unless restricted by a veterinarian, in a receptacle that is cleaned and sanitized before being used to provide water to a different dog or a different social grouping of dogs.  AKC expressed numerous questions on the impact of this on crating, events, transportation, grooming, and even walking dogs.  The sponsor discussed various amendments, but this bill was left in Committee.  Session ended on February 25, 2023.