WeVote
Log In

Bill

Bill

AB 487

Relating to: meeting in closed session to consider information technology security issues.

2025-2026 Regular Session Introduced by Barbara Dittrich and 6 co-sponsors

directs a 2025–2026 interim study on how Nevada retail pet stores procure and treat cats and dogs, with findings to inform future legislative options.

Failed to pass pursuant to Senate Joint Resolution 1
0
WeVote Research Nonpartisan
Bill Summary · AB 487

AB 487 — Summary (2025 session; BDR S-1096)

Main purpose

AB 487 began as a bill to revise Nevada law governing the retail sale of cats and dogs. During the legislative process the bill was substantially amended: the enacted version directs the Joint Interim Standing Committee on Natural Resources to conduct a study during the 2025–2026 interim concerning the sale of cats and dogs by retail pet stores in Nevada. The study’s findings are to be included in the Committee’s report to the Legislature for consideration during the 84th Session.

Key provisions (final/operative)

  • Requires the Joint Interim Standing Committee on Natural Resources to conduct a study during the 2025–2026 interim on the sale of cats and dogs by retail pet stores in Nevada.
  • Study scope (minimum):
    • How retail pet stores acquire (procure) cats and dogs for resale in Nevada.
    • How retail pet stores treat cats and dogs after acquisition and prior to sale.
  • The Committee must include its findings in the report prepared under subsection 4 of NRS 218E.330 for transmittal to the 84th Session of the Legislature.

Earlier (deleted) provisions — context

Earlier versions of AB 487 would have:
- Replaced the statutory term “retailer” with “retail pet store” and revised related definitions.
- Prohibited retail pet stores from selling, offering to sell, auctioning, or otherwise transferring ownership of any dog or cat (with misdemeanor penalties for operators who violate the prohibition).
- Allowed pet stores to host adoption showcases for shelters/rescues (without compensation).
- Criminalized street/public sales of dogs/cats and contained other licensing/definition changes.

Those substantive ban and penalty provisions were removed by amendment and replaced with the committee study directive.

Who is affected

  • Retail pet stores and their operators (the original ban would have directly affected them; the study will examine their sourcing and care practices).
  • Animal breeders, dealers, shelters, and rescue organizations (both as subjects of the study and as stakeholders for any future policy changes).
  • Consumers and prospective pet owners (consumer protection, access, and fraud concerns were central during testimony).
  • Local governments and law enforcement (legal enforcement and any future regulatory changes could affect local operations).

Stakeholder input (recorded during hearings)

  • Support for a retail-sale ban and stronger restrictions came from animal-welfare organizations and some shelters citing welfare and shelter overcrowding concerns.
  • Opposition came from pet retailers, trade groups (Pet Advocacy Network), breeders, and the AKC, which raised concerns about consumer protection, unintended market shifts to unregulated sellers, and economic impacts on regulated businesses.
  • Proposed compromise amendments and definitions were submitted by interested parties (e.g., Humane World for Animals).

Procedural / timeline notes

  • Introduced February 2025; went through multiple committee hearings and amendments (Assembly Natural Resources, Appropriations, Senate committees).
  • Major amendments deleted the original ban and directed the interim study (Assembly and Senate amendments and reprints track this change).
  • The study must be completed in the 2025–2026 interim and findings included in the Committee’s report to the 84th Legislature, which positions the Legislature to consider policy options in the next session.

Potential impact

  • Rather than imposing immediate legal restrictions, the bill mandates fact‑finding designed to inform future legislation or regulatory action regarding sourcing, animal care practices in retail settings, and consumer protections.
  • The study could lead to legislative proposals tightening sourcing, inspection, warranty or disclosure requirements, or — depending on findings — to proposals reinstating sale restrictions.

Compiled from official sources — confirm details with the bill’s official record.

Sign in to ask a question.