Albany council directs staff to draft ordinance to ban retail sale of live animals after extended public comment

After extensive public comment on May 4, the Albany City Council voted to direct city staff to develop an ordinance prohibiting the retail sale of live animals in Albany.

Mayor Peggy McQuaid introduced the recommendation and staff described the scope as including dogs, cats, rabbits, birds, reptiles, amphibians, fish, hermit crabs and arachnids, with exemptions for animals bred and reared on the premises, publicly operated animal-control facilities and nonprofit rescue organizations. Staff said there are currently no retailers selling live animals in Albany, making the proposal preemptive.

Public comment included dozens of residents and advocates. Speakers who supported the proposed draft said retail sales often rely on opaque supply chains and cruel breeding facilities, that many animals arrive sick or abandoned, and that a local ban would reduce demand and relieve pressure on rescues and shelters. Speakers in opposition, including representatives of specialty-animal groups and some rescue advocates, warned a ban could push sourcing to less-regulated online markets and make it harder for residents to find specialty animals that rarely appear in shelters.

Representative comments included:

- Neda, who runs a bird rescue in Walnut Creek, said many pet-store birds are sold without proper vetting and "3 to 8 out of 10 birds get rehomed within the first 3 years," contributing to shelter strain.

- Jacob Shaw of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) said investigations of commercial breeding facilities documented routine abuses and urged Albany to "lead with compassion."

Council Member (speaker 8) moved to direct staff to draft the ordinance and Council Member Lopez seconded. Council Member Mickey disclosed a conflict of interest, stating he raises and sells tropical fish from his house, and recused himself from deliberations and the vote. Council Member Jordan was absent. The motion carried by roll call (three yes votes, one recusal, one absence).

Council members said the referral is intended to let staff research ordinance language, exemptions and enforcement, and return with a draft ordinance for formal consideration at a future meeting. The council did not adopt the ordinance at this meeting; the vote directed staff to prepare the ordinance for a future agenda.

Next steps: staff will draft ordinance language, evaluate exemptions and enforcement mechanisms, and return to the council for deliberation and any potential vote.