A proposed District of Columbia ordinance dubbed the Animal Protection Amendment Act would impose unprecedented liability on those who sell pets and pet products, according to the Pet Industry Joint Advisory Council (Washington).

Several provisions of Bill 17-089 would dramatically change and expand existing law in several key areas—and reflect a national animal rights agenda that seeks to ultimately end pet ownership, said PIJAC.

For example, the measure inserts the term “guardian” everywhere animal owners are referenced. At the very least, creating a new category of “pseudo-property” would create legal confusion and lead to extensive litigation, said Mike Maddox, legislative director for PIJAC in testimony before the Committees on Health and Public Safety at a June hearing.

Among the questions that could wind up in court as a result of changing animals’ legal status to something more akin to that of humans is whether a jurisdiction has the authority to regulate reproductive rights of animals, such as by mandating spay/neuter, and whether a guardian has the legal right to euthanize a pet.

The bill also would give guardians/owners the right to recover monetary damages for “loss of society, companionship, comfort, protection, love, affection and services of the companion animal” if their pet were injured or killed intentionally or through gross negligence. Not only would this give pet owners a right of recovery not even available to parents and spouses who have lost loved ones, it could have severe consequences for persons selling pets and pet products, said PIJAC.

Also under the proposal, any nonprofit corporation “concerned with humane treatment of animals” may petition a court—withoutthe presence of, or notification to, other parties—for a temporary restraining order to prevent continued cruelty to animals. This could include the authority to legally enter private property and take temporary possession of the animals. Nongovernmental persons should not be extended this authority under any circumstances, testified Maddox, requesting that the provision be stricken outright.

Bill 17-089 further requires that all guardians/owners of a dog or cat 6 months or older have the animal spayed or neutered unless they can provide a veterinarian’s certification that the dog or cat is medically incapable of undergoing the procedure. But a mandatory spay/neuter provision is not only an unwarranted restriction of pet owners’ rights, it will not resolve the issue of unwanted animals, Maddox said. “It is true that there is an overpopulation of feral and unwanted animals; this is a distinct population from the dogs and cats purchased and kept by responsible pet owners. Studies show that shelter animals disproportionately come from sources other than pet stores.”

The bill, a project of the George Washington University Law School pro bono program, was sponsored by a council member who is a professor at the law school.