An ordinance to ban retail sales of puppies and kittens in the city of Durango died on Tuesday after a motion to consider the proposal failed to garner support from city councilors.

Councilor Olivier Bosmans proposed the ordinance. Resident Joyce Cohen, who provided the city with a model of a possible ordinance, encouraged Bosmans to put it before City Council.

City Attorney Mark Morgan said he substantially changed the ordinance from the model provided to focus on consumer protection, in contrast to what he described as a “puppy mill-critical ordinance.” He also noted there are currently no retail pet stores that sell dogs or cats in the city.

Morgan said the model ordinance was troubling because in banning retail pet sales, ethical breeders could also be prohibited from marketing their products and conducting business in Durango. He likened it to a “feel good” ordinance that, although written with good intentions, could cause legal trouble for the city later.

Erin Hyder, assistant city manager, said the city of Lafayette recently passed a similar ordinance and it appeared to mostly be “feel good” legislation.

Morgan’s refined ordinance presented to City Council stipulated consumers would not be prohibited from getting a dog or cat from an animal rescue, shelter or breeder who sells directly to the public.

Bosmans motioned to accept the revised ordinance, but his motion did not receive a second and it died.

The result drew mixed responses from two attendees who commented during a public participation segment of the meeting.

Cohen, who submitted the model ordinance to the city, said the ordinance is meant to preemptively disincentivize stores that would source their puppies and kittens from pet mills, and that once such a store sets up shop in the city it’s too late to ban it.

In an email to The Durango Herald, Cohen said puppy mills house thousands of dogs in “incredibly inhumane conditions.”

“If you have seen a dog that comes from a puppy mill, they are disgustingly dirty, unhealthy as they do not get proper veterinary care and most can't even walk because they have never been out of a cage,” she said. “So, is this a feel good ordinance? Maybe, but it's really a step in helping these animals who have no voice.”

Cohen said the more towns that pass ordinances aiming to disincentivize puppy and kitten mills by prohibiting retail pet stores, the louder the message is for statewide legislation.

Alyssa Miller-Hurley, senior director of governmental affairs with the Pet Advocacy Network, thanked City Council for discarding the ordinance and said there are better ways to legislate protection for pets and consumers alike.

“Although this puppy mill pet store ordinance has been dubbed a ‘feel good’ ordinance, I really thought you guys all had the wisdom and compassion to realize that it really was more than that,” Cohen said. “I know that we don’t like putting unnecessary restrictions on businesses, but there are some things that are just so morally reprehensible that they cross the line, and this is one of those things.”

She said puppy and kitten mills would have been eradicated long ago if the animals kept there in poor and inhumane conditions were able to speak, but they can’t.

She said similar ordinances were challenged in several cases in state and federal court and were found legal and constitutional each time.

“I know another concern was about breeders, and what if breeders want to sell their animals? I urge you to ask breeders you know if they would ever sell to a pet store. And I assure you that the answer is going to be ‘no,’” she said.

Miller-Hurley said the notion that American Kennel Club and independent breeders would never sell to pet stores is a myth. In consulting with American Kennel Club, she was told there are a wide variety of responsible breeders who work directly with store owners, and the Pet Advocacy Network encourages those partnerships.

The Pet Advocacy Network represents “folks that are expertise, hobbyists, retailers, suppliers, manufacturers, owners and veterinarians,” Miller-Hurley said.

“While we’re pleased to see the action taken this evening in not bringing the ordinance up, we were also pleased to see there is interest in wanting to put forth rules and regulations that do crack down on those bad actors,” she said.

She said the model ordinance was “extreme” and that similar laws passed in states like California have proven to not truly target unethical breeders. The most effective way to protect animals and consumers is to ensure proper sourcing of animals and to have store owners and breeders adhere to a set of standards, she said.

“Colorado has already taken phenomenal steps forward with the PACFA (Pet Animal Care and Facilities Act Program) regulations,” she said. “Building off of those great steps forward, we’ve worked with cities like Colorado City to enact additional rules and regulations that serve as guard rails that protect both pet choice, support small businesses and really target those bad actors.”

Miller-Hurley said the Pet Advocacy Network welcomes the opportunity to work with City Council and other entities to protect animals while supporting consumer pet choice and small businesses.

cburney@durangoherald.com