COMMENTARY: Proposed pet sale ban would be losing bet for Nevada

From the loyal Lab on morning walks to the tabby purring on a windowsill, pets are part of what make the Silver State shimmer. They enrich our lives in countless ways, offering joy, comfort and stability to Nevada homes. That’s why Assembly Bill 487, an anti-pet bill that proposes a sweeping ban on retail pet sales of dogs, cats and rabbits, should be buried in Yucca Mountain.

Like any proposed bill, AB487 comes with positive spin. Proponents say banning pet sales will fight puppy mills — or unlicensed and unregulated dog breeders. But dig just beneath the surface and it becomes clear that the reality is the opposite: AB487 will put Nevadans, pets and small businesses in the doghouse.

At face value, this legislation doesn’t make sense. Nevada pet stores source animals from licensed breeders who follow state and federal USDA animal welfare regulations and often exceed state standards. How does banning stores from selling dogs from licensed breeders help combat puppy mills — unlicensed, fly-by-night operations?

It doesn’t. But it does remove a safe, regulated avenue for Nevadans to get their next puppy.

Pet shops operate with consumer protections that provide families peace of mind. Strip away the regulated pet stores and you aren’t just removing puppies from storefront windows — you’re putting a muzzle on transparency and the very consumer protections Nevada’s families depend on.

The demand for pets will not vanish if AB487 passes. If legal, ethical pet stores stop selling animals, consumers will turn elsewhere. History shows us what happens when regulated avenues are closed: new back alleys open. Unsuspecting families are left devastated emotionally and financially by sick or poorly bred animals, while having no consumer protections or legal recourse because they were forced into getting dogs over the internet.

Just look west. When California rolled out its own “puppy prohibition,” the result wasn’t a parade of rescued pets gracing family homes. Rather, it was a spike in scams and a shadow market of resellers.

According to the Los Angeles Times, “a network of resellers — including ex-cons and schemers — replaced pet stores as middlemen.” Meanwhile, pet scams reported to the Better Business Bureau surged 350 percent following California’s law. Today, the BBB’s database has more than 23,000 pet scams. AB487 would add more Nevadans to this list.

While local shelters do good work, they alone cannot fill the need for pets. Not every family can find a perfect match at a shelter. Allergies, young children and housing restrictions mean some families need more options than what happens to be on hand at a local shelter.

What’s truly at stake isn’t just consumer choice. It’s public trust — and it’s the lifelong bond between pets and the people who love them. Each time a family welcomes a furry friend with confidence — knowing their new companion had proper care, documented health and legal protections — these cherished moments enrich Nevada communities.

With this retail ban, the Legislature would yank the rug out from under these responsible, locally owned businesses. At least 15 stores would close across the state, costing hundreds of Nevadans their jobs and millions in tax revenue. This proposal would punish ethical breeders and brokers while letting the real bad actors off their leashes.

Nevada does not need a ban — it needs better regulation. Nevada should work to strengthen existing regulations with tougher enforcement, more frequent inspections and stiffer penalties for violations to root out bad actors instead of outlawing ethical small businesses.

In fact, pet stores attempted to negotiate a compromise to do just that. This compromise would have made Nevada a gold standard in the nation for animal welfare while preserving consumer choice and local businesses. But the proponents of AB487’s extreme ban scoffed, saying that the closure of 15 businesses “doesn’t really matter.” Well, it certainly matters to those business owners and employees.

Let’s not gamble with the human-animal bond and hand the keys to our pet marketplace to scammers and unethical breeders. In Nevada, lawmakers should focus on paws-itively effective animal welfare measures instead.

Alyssa Miller-Hurley is vice president of government affairs at the Pet Advocacy Network, the policy voice of the responsible pet care community.