Breeding in BC? Probably not

Unlike the discussion later in the meeting Tuesday night in which the city council appeared determined to make sure no one was angry at them about the issue of off-leash dogs, they directed staff to take very strong action on the issue of pet breeding.

When staff comes back with a draft ordinance, if adopted, it would represent the most restrictive law on commercial breeding in the region and probably in the entire state and would also ban outright the practice of “hobby” breeding.

Like the leash law, this is another issue that has been debated for at least a couple of years.

After a resident went to the city in summer of 2023 seeking a license to breed dogs, City Attorney Brittany Walker brought the council a proposed combo ordinance that would both establish a procedure for getting that license as well as instituting a “fancier” permit that would allow the permit holder to have more than the statutory limit of three dogs or cats.

They were two separate issues. On breeding, the city was out of compliance with state law requiring a process for getting a breeding permit. City law made an exception to spay and neuter requirements if an animal owner had a “valid state breeding permit.” However, city code did not include any process for actually getting that permit.

The fancier permit was something that Councilwoman Cokie Booth was pushing. At the time, Booth was out of compliance with city law, as she then owned four dogs. Walker, according to Booth, told her that the city could not institute a fancier permit without also having an option for a breeder’s permit.

But the two issues were actually separated with the fancier permit passing last year. Meanwhile, after an inquiry from the Review asking if anyone in the city knew if state law required cities to allow breeding with a permit or if a permit was required only if a city were to allow the practice, Walker requested an official opinion from Nevada Attorney General Aaron Ford to clarify the issue.

That opinion was sought in October of last year and was only received by the city last month. When asked why it took almost eight months, a source in Ford’s office said that they did not want to get ahead of the Legislature, which was debating (and eventually adopted) an animal cruelty measure known as Reba’s Law. Reba’s Law does not address breeding at all, but the AG’s office was wary of a last minute amendment which might have done so.

“The attorney general’s office clarified that, while we cannot prohibit breeding, we can enact very stringent regulations to ensure that it takes place responsibly,” Walker told the council, explaining that the AG also said there was nothing in state law that would stop Boulder City from banning “hobby” breeding, defined as breeding for non-monetary purposes.

This is exactly what the council did. Walker will now work with staff to draft a proposed ordinance, which the council will vote on at a future meeting.

Even given the stringency of the proposed changes to city law, the council didn’t go quite as far as they appeared poised to go early in the discussion.

“The Boulder City draft is the most stringent of the jurisdictions,” Walker said referring to Las Vegas, Clark County, Henderson and North Las Vegas laws. “It is the highest age before an animal’s allowed to breed at two years. The limit is once every two years for a litter. And then, unlike the other ordinances, we would have minimum space requirements of 40 square feet for indoor and 1,000 square feet for outdoors and there is a proposal that it’s limited to the R1-20 zone or higher, and that’s the residential zoning district of the very large lots. There’s only, I think, one R1-20 in our city currently. And so that’s a requirement that the other jurisdictions do not have.”

That proposal for limiting breeding to only the largest housing lots in the city proved to be the sticking point and left the council very divided.

“Mayor, I’ve got a concern about that,” said Councilman Steve Walton. “If we have a space requirement of 40 square feet indoors per dog and 1,000 square feet outdoors, and that’s inspected and considered suitable, a 20,000-square-foot lot as the smallest is out of reach of all but about 75 lots in our entire community. So you’re, just by lot size, eliminating the ability to responsibly and appropriately have a breeder’s license, a commercial breeder’s license. And I think that’s unreasonably. If they meet the space requirement, why would we put a zoning requirement on them? I think that was artificially placed to just prohibit.”

But Booth, who had proposed the zoning restriction, was not backing down.

“I like R1-20 and 1-80, because that’s where the animals are, and that’s where animals are being bred. Chickens, rabbits, the things that we don’t control,” Booth said. “And I don’t want to see animal breeders all over the place. Are we going to limit how many licenses we put out then, if we’re going to do that? I just think keeping it to the zoning will limit how many breeders you have and make it more difficult so we don’t see as many animals being distributed throughout the world.”

It ended up being the only part of the proposal the council could not agree on with Walton, Mayor Joe Hardy and Councilwoman Sherri Jorgensen opposed to the zoning restriction and Councilwoman Denise Ashurst and Booth strongly supporting it.

After coming to broad agreement, the council got bogged down in exceptions and details. For example, an owner of a male “stud” or breeding dog who is taking the animal outside of Boulder City for breeding will be required to have a permit but will not be subject to the same space requirement as a breeder with puppy-bearing female dogs.

The council also declined to put the same restrictions on the breeding of cats, or rabbits. “Good luck controlling rabbits,” Hardy said with a chuckle.

And the proposed ordinance has teeth. A single complaint from a neighbor could be enough for their license to be vacated or denied for renewal and fines for breeding without a license start at $500 for the first offense and go up to $750 for the second offense and $1,000 for third and subsequent offenses.