Legislative Report on the Prohibition of Retail Bird Sales in New York

SUMMARY

The Animal Law Committee (Martha Golar and Sherry Ramsey, Co-Chairs) issued a report in support of amendments to New York’s General Business Law (GBL) in relation to prohibiting the sale of certain birds at retail (A.8327). The proposed law would amend Section 753-F of the GBL to add birds to the existing ban on the sale of cats, dogs, and rabbits by a retail pet shop. The existing law has been known as “The Puppy Mill Pipeline law” since the original legislation intended, among other things, to stop large-scale dog breeding operations where dogs are mistreated and suffer from serious health issues. In light of the growing awareness of the similar mistreatment and neglect that birds also experience in retail markets, the proposed amendment aligns with New York’s current anti-cruelty and animal protection initiatives by extending those same welfare standards to birds. 

BILL INFORMATION

A.8327 (AM Rosenthal) – Prohibits the sale of birds at retail pet shops; provides exceptions for certain domesticated game birds and other birds including chickens, turkeys, guinea fowl, peafowl and pigeons. (NYS 2025-26)

REPORT

REPORT ON LEGISLATION BY THE ANIMAL LAW COMMITTEE

A.8327 (AM Rosenthal)

AN ACT to amend the general business law, in relation to prohibiting the sale of certain birds at retail.[1] The bill (“Proposed Law”) aims to apply to companion animal birds and provides exceptions for certain domesticated or game birds including chickens, turkeys, guinea fowl, peafowl and pigeons.

THIS BILL IS APPROVED

I. SUMMARY

The Proposed Law would amend Section 753-F of the New York General Business Law (“GBL”) to add birds to the existing ban on the sale of cats, dogs, and rabbits by a retail pet shop.[2] Under Section 753-F, a retail pet shop may not sell, lease, offer to lease, offer to sell, barter, auction, or otherwise transfer ownership of any dog, cat or rabbit.[3] Section 753-F of the GBL would be amended to add “bird” to the list of species which may not be sold by retail pet shops in New York.

This Section may not be construed to prohibit a retail pet shop from collaborating with the following entities to provide space to showcase the list of prohibited species owned by such entities for the purpose of adoption: any duly incorporated society for the prevention of cruelty  to  animals, duly incorporated humane society, duly incorporated animal protective association or other duly incorporated animal adoption or animal rescue organization that:

a. is exempt from taxes pursuant to paragraph (3) of subsection (c) of section 501 of the federal Internal Revenue Code, 26 U.S.C. 501, or any subsequent corresponding sections of the federal Internal Revenue Code, as from time to time amended;

b. is registered with the department pursuant to section four hundred eight of the agriculture and markets law;

c. is not affiliated with, or housed on the premises of a breeder or broker that does not obtain dogs, cats [or], rabbits OR BIRDS from a breeder or broker in exchange for payment or compensation; and

d. does not resell dogs, cats [or], rabbits OR BIRDS obtained from a breeder or broker or provide payment or compensation to such breeder or broker.”[4]

II. BACKGROUND

The existing law has been known as “The Puppy Mill Pipeline law” since the original legislation intended, among other things, to stop large-scale dog breeding operations where dogs are mistreated and suffer from serious health issues.[5] In light of the growing awareness of the similar mistreatment and neglect that birds also experience in retail markets,[6] the proposed amendment aligns with New York’s current anti-cruelty and animal protection initiatives by extending those same welfare standards to birds.

Although birds face exploitative breeding practices that mirror the cruelty found in puppy mills, the retail sale of birds presents additional complications. These additional concerns relate to (1) the trafficking of wild birds, (2) the suffering imposed by “chick mills”, which are analogous to puppy mills, which offer an impoverished and inhumane environment for birds, (3) the lack of consumer education as to the unique needs of birds which often leads subsequently to high rates of their relinquishment, with many birds ultimately rehomed multiple times, surrendered to shelters, or abandoned, and (4) ongoing sales run afoul of NYS Agriculture & Markets Law (“AML”) section 353, i.e., the state anti-cruelty law.

Legislators should consider a possible short, finite phase-out period for the effectiveness of the Proposed Law because too rapid implementation of retail bans may contribute to an unintended strain on local shelters which may be unable to absorb the number of birds requiring re-homing.

III. DISCUSSION

A. Birds are Subject to the Devastating Effects of Wildlife Trafficking

Millions of wild birds are stolen from their natural habitats each year to supply the global pet market.[7] Many do not survive the capture and transport process, which involves the use of mist and glue traps to capture the birds.[8] In some bird trades, it is expected that around 75% of the birds will die during transportation due to shipping conditions, disease, trauma, and stress, while others estimate that up to 90% of the birds do not survive transport.[9] The African Grey Parrot and Sun Conure are the most popular birds for sale in the United States, resulting in thousands of parrots being poached and trafficked from Africa and the Latin American region. As a result, both Sun Conure and African Grey Parrot populations are declining in catastrophic numbers. For example, in Ghana, the African Grey population is estimated to have declined by up to 99%.[10] For Sun Conures, there is a rough estimate of less than 2,500 mature adults remaining wild.[11] Separately, songbirds or canaries from Southeast Asia are also in high demand—so much so that several species are teetering on the brink of extinction due to relentless poaching.[12]

In addition to the significant impact on the communities and ecosystems where the birds are being captured and removed, it is noteworthy to mention that the worldwide trade and transport of wild birds pose a threat to human health, as the transport of birds is a gateway to the spread of zoonotic diseases. Birds have been found to carry avian chlamydiosis (psittacosis), avian influenza viruses, salmonella, and other respiratory or gastrointestinal agents.[13] For example, in 2007, the European Union banned the import of wild-caught birds due to concerns about the transmission of bird flu.[14]

B. Birds are Born into Captivity in Chick Mills and Funneled into the Retail Pipeline

Birds are bred in mills, which are captive breeding facilities often located in rural areas, sometimes disguised as unidentifiable warehouses or garages.[15] The birds within often live in rows of barren cages without proper stimulation.[16] Birds in captivity are routinely denied two of their most fundamental natural behaviors: flying and socialization, as they are often separated for breeding and have their wings clipped.[17] The reproductive habits of parrots are fairly complex and require a combination of conditions, including suitable food, exercise, and specific daily light cycles.[18] Mill operators will manipulate these behaviors in unfavorable ways that negatively impact the birds’ health, such as using cheap seed to yield higher profits or overfeeding with fattier seed to induce a breeding cycle, or leaving the birds in prolonged darkness.[19] Breeders will remove eggs or newly hatched birds from their parents, which encourages those parents to produce more offspring.[20] Overall, because the primary goal is to sell animals for profit, bird mill operations prioritize investing the least amount of money to achieve the highest yield of birds and profit, thereby incentivizing shortcuts in bird care, among other harms.

In that way, some chicks are removed fairly early and weaned by force.[21] Whereas fledglings often stay with their parents for months in the wild, the weeks-old weaning chicks of bird mills are refused formula with the assumption that when they get hungry enough, they will eat solid food.[22] This style of deprivation weaning can result in malnutrition, starvation, and permanent behavioral problems.[23] If weaning fails, the chicks could die from starvation or be further tube-fed and mishandled by uninterested workers, as the hand-feeding process is tricky and the birds can suffer serious injuries, such as crop burns, infections, and aspiration.[24]

If and when the juvenile birds survive the bird mill environment and subsequent transport to the retail market, the birds will be offered for sale in a pet store.[25] It would even be ideal for an unweaned chick to be offered to customers prematurely in order to promote “hand-fed, tame birds.”[26] However as noted above, hand feeding can be complicated.[27] It is often inexperienced pet store workers who are assigned to care for the birds until they are sold.[28] There are all kinds of stressful stimuli in a pet shop that can harm a bird’s health and mental stability e.g., loud noises, constant or inadequate light, poor nutrition, strange faces looming suddenly in front of them, and neglect/ignorance to meet the temperature requirements of different birds (amongst the other animals in their care). Birds are prey animals that are easily stressed and highly vigilant in their environment. Birds can have adverse reactions to objects, noises, or sudden movements that would not cause a dog to react.[29] Separately, neglect is inherent in small pet store cages, since birds are designed to fly; however, retail markets also usually clip their wings, or fail to offer a large enough cage, stimulating toys, and foraging materials. Denial of these activities can cause physical and behavioral abnormalities, including aggression, incessant screaming, pacing, head-bobbing, feather-plucking, and even self-mutilation.[30] Furthermore, because workers may be inexperienced and pet stores are interested in animals for profit, it may be unlikely that an avian veterinarian would be engaged to attend to a bird if it fell ill.

C. The Retail Customer Is Often Uneducated and Unprepared to be a Guardian for Birds

Once birds are transferred to the retail setting, pet stores are understandably motivated more by profit than comprehensive consumer education. A for-profit worker may not inform the customer of all the practical requirements of bird ownership, including the frequency of cleaning, chewing tendencies that destroy cords and wires, temperature needs, financial resources needed for seed and toys, and risks of common fumes such as the use of sprays/candles/and fragrances in the home.[31] Pet store workers and impulsive buyers are often unaware that they are receiving an animal with the intellectual and emotional capacity of a three-year-old and a life expectancy ranging from 20 to 70 years. Pet stores may also not disclose the limited availability and high cost of avian veterinary care, or the fact that many bird species mask signs of illness until advanced stages, making routine examinations essential. While cats and dogs are encouraged and routinely receive booster shots and rabies vaccinations, birds are rarely given checkups. In addition, local pet stores frequently sell cages that are inadequate for an adult parrot, which requires significantly larger housing that allows sufficient flight and exercise. Muscle atrophy and weakness are common because birds should be in aviaries that allow them to exercise, for example, by flying at least five seconds at normal speed.[32]

Pet owners who want an exotic and exciting companion can quickly become overwhelmed by the care requirements of a wild animal. A customer often takes home a biting, screaming, traumatized bird from their first impressions of humans (who may not gently handle them in the time between transfers from the bird mill, the shop, and now a new home). Feather plucking is the most common affliction faced by parrots in a domestic setting, and it is a condition associated with domestic breeding.[33] Preening is necessary and denied by typical single parrot homes. The persistent condition of plumage mutilation leads to balding parrots who develop skin conditions, constant shivering, and stress from the nudity. Furthermore, some bird species are marketed for their ability to speak; however, the novelty can wear off after purchase, or the bird may not perform as expected and become a “nuisance.”[34] Many families will confine the bird to a closet, garage, or storage room so that they do not have to hear it.

The above factors contribute to high rates of relinquishment, with many birds ultimately rehomed multiple times, surrendered to shelters, or abandoned. In contrast, ethical breeders and bird sanctuaries generally provide more comprehensive screening and education for prospective adopters, ensuring that individuals understand the long-term commitments and environmental requirements associated with bird care. Reducing the availability of birds in high-traffic retail settings would shift potential owners toward these more informed avenues and promote outcomes more consistent with New York’s ongoing animal-welfare objectives.

D. The Retail Sale of Birds May Violate New York’s Anti-Cruelty Statute, AML §353

In addition to the foregoing considerations, the conditions associated with the retail sale of birds may fall under conduct that is prohibited under New York AML §353 since the law prohibits conduct that “unjustifiably injures” an animal, “deprives any animal of necessary sustenance, food or drink,” as well as “any act tending to produce such cruelty.”[35]

As described above, birds housed in pet stores are restricted from the ability to engage in natural biological functions, i.e. flight and normal exercise. The inadequate cage conditions result in physical deterioration and behavioral abnormalities such as aggression, pacing, feather-plucking, and self-mutilation.[36] In addition to inadequate cages constituting a potential violation, pet stores themselves tend to be high-stress environments, and birds are highly sensitive to environmental stressors; thus, the birds may also be psychologically harmed.[37] The physical and psychological damage resulting from retail practices may rise to the level of “permit[ting] any animal… to be… unjustifiably injured.” Therefore, pet stores participating in the sale of birds may be causing ongoing injury to birds in violation of §353.

Moreover, birds in retail settings are often cared for by individuals without avian-specific training, and access to avian veterinary care may be limited or absent.[38] Such inadequate care may constitute neglect and therefore also violate the statute, as it may amount to conduct that “deprives any animal of necessary sustenance” or “neglects or refuses to furnish it such sustenance.”[39]

Altogether, the retail sale of birds is inherently an “act tending to produce such cruelty,” as the structure of retail sales prioritizes profit and rapid turnover over the welfare of the animal. Because this business model leads to stress, deterioration, and behavioral harm, it likely violates §353’s prohibition on acts that tend to produce cruelty.

In fact, the cruelty that birds in the pet trade endure in breeding mills is so extreme that it has resulted in complaints to, and citations by, the US Department of Agriculture (USDA). Such cruelty has included filthy, crowded cages; dead baby birds; birds suffocated to death in plastic bags; and even birds killed with car exhaust (e.g., “utilizing carbon monoxide delivered via automobile exhaust then there was a batch of birds to be euthanized”).^[40]

In one such inspection, the USDA cited the mill for keeping birds in extremely crowded cages and for poor sanitation. In the room where young birds were kept, the inspector noted that multiple birds were forced to stand on the floor because there was no room to perch. Perching is a critical behavior for budgies. The inspector also noted an accumulation of debris, feces, feathers, and other matter on the wooden nesting boxes.[41]

IV. THERE IS WIDESPREAD SUPPORT FOR THE PROPOSED LAW

The proposed prohibition on the retail sale of birds affects a range of stakeholders, and many are in support of the legislation. For example, the president of the organization Voters for Animal Rights explains that “(b)irds will still be available to adopt at an animal shelter or rescue center… birds tend to be released into the wild or die at home at the hands of unprepared owners.”[42] “Many of these birds are separated from their families at a young age and can spend a lifetime confined to small cages, which is detrimental to their mental and physical health,” said Susan Martinez, director of the Avian Welfare Coalition.[43] “By reducing demand for pet birds, New York City can help disrupt the illegal wildlife market while setting an example for humane policy nationwide,” in the opinion of John Reynolds, policy specialist at World Animal Protection US.[44]

V. RETAIL BIRD BANS IN OTHER JURISDICTIONS

Other jurisdictions have instituted bird sale bans and even total retail pet bans. By way of example, Easton, PA is the first City in Pennsylvania to ban the sale of most animals in pet stores. Their legislation applies to mammals, birds, reptiles, and amphibians.[45] In addition, West Hollywood, CA passed an ordinance prohibiting the sale of rabbits, amphibians, arachnids, birds, fish, reptiles, and hermit crabs beginning on May 1, 2026. The ordinance expands upon an existing 2010 law that prohibits stores from selling dogs and cats in that city. “West Hollywood has taken a stand against an abusive industry that sees thinking, feeling beings as nothing more than commodities and condemns them to a lifetime of misery,” said PETA president Tracy Reiman.[46]

VI. RECOMMENDED CONSIDERATION OF A SHORT, PHASE-OUT PERIOD FOR EFFECTIVENESS OF THE PROPOSED LAW

The Committee supports a prohibition of the retail sale of birds for the reasons stated above. This is consistent with the City Bar’s past support of legislation to prohibit harmful, inhumane or abusive practices involving wildlife notwithstanding that a proposal may face opposition that may be grounded in economic self-interest  (e.g., ban on circuses using wildlife in the face of arguments that vendors’ income may be impacted; ban on horse carriage operations in the face of arguments that drivers will lose jobs; prohibition of elephants in captivity in the face of arguments that zoo customers will not get to see the lone elephants from the zoo monorail).[47] However, legislators may want to consider a short, finite phase-out period in implementing the Proposed Law because a total implementation of a retail ban as of a single date may contribute to unintended strain on bird shelters.

Historically, while banning the retail sales of dogs and cats was intended to lower shelter intake, shelters still experienced increased and sustained overcrowding, a challenge that intensified following the pandemic.[48] Thus, it is reasonable to anticipate a rise in surrendered or abandoned birds as retail stores divest existing inventory or cease operations. A phase-out period would provide shelters, sanctuaries, and rescue organizations time to plan for potential intake increases, coordinate transfers, build facilities, and secure additional resources or foster networks.[49] This would prevent the displacement of birds during the transition period.

We recommend that any phase-out should apply only to the existing retail inventory of birds as of the effective date of the Proposed Law, while an immediate and total retail ban should apply to the acquisition and sale of any new birds.

VII. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Committee supports the Proposed Law with a recommendation for a timed phase-out period.

Animal Law Committee
Martha Golar, Co-Chair
Sherry Ramsey, Co-Chair

May 2026