Putting Names to the Votes: The Two Las Vegas Politicians Who Opposed the Pet Store Animal Sales Ban

When election time rolls around, voters should remember which Las Vegas City Council members stood against protecting animals from puppy mill-sourced pet stores. On November 5, 2025, the Las Vegas City Council voted 5-2 to approve an ordinance banning the retail sale of dogs, cats, rabbits, guinea pigs, and potbellied pigs at pet stores. Here are the two council members voted against this measure.

Councilman Brian Knudsen

Councilman Brian Knudsen opposed the ordinance, citing concerns about existing pet store businesses in his district. His primary objection centered on the three-year sunset clause that would allow existing pet stores to continue operating before the full ban takes effect.

Knudsen said he “supported every part of the bill with the exception of limiting the sunset (clause).” In other words, he wanted existing pet stores to keep selling these animals indefinitely, rather than transitioning out of the business over three years. When colleagues pressed him to identify his veterinarian advisor who allegedly supported his position, he did not provide a response.

His argument prioritized business continuity over animal welfare protections, suggesting that allowing continued sales from existing shops indefinitely was more important than phasing out a system linked to puppy mills and animal suffering.

Councilwoman Francis Allen-Palenske

Councilwoman Francis Allen-Palenske opposed the ban on philosophical grounds about government’s role. She stated, “I don’t think it’s the proper role of government to unilaterally take business licenses away.”

While Allen-Palenske acknowledged she supported more stringent regulations on pet stores, she lamented the possible loss of jobs and argued against the government revoking business licenses. Her opposition centered on libertarian principles rather than support for the pet store industry itself, but the end result was the same — a vote against animal protection.

Her argument raises questions about priorities: Should concerns about government overreach take precedence over preventing the suffering of thousands of animals sourced from mills known for poor conditions?

The Bigger Picture

The other five council members voted in favor of this important animal welfare measure. Their support reflects growing recognition across the country that pet store sales perpetuate puppy mills and animal suffering. Cities and counties nationwide have passed similar bans, prioritizing consumer protection and animal welfare over the interests of a few pet retailers.

For voters in Las Vegas, this record matters. When Knudsen and Allen-Palenske run for reelection or other offices, constituents should remember where they stood on animal protection. These votes are indicators of how politicians prioritize business interests versus community values and animal welfare.

What This Ban Means

The new ordinance prohibits pet stores from selling live dogs, cats, rabbits, guinea pigs, and potbellied pigs. Newly licensed pet shops are prohibited from selling these animals immediately, while the city’s 13 existing pet stores have a three-year transition period — until November 6, 2028 — to stop such sales. The exemption ends sooner if a shop changes ownership, relocates, or loses its license.

Pet stores are not being forced to close. They can still provide other services such as grooming, training, boarding, and the sale of pet supplies. The ban simply ends the sale of live animals from commercial breeding operations often linked to puppy mills.

This measure aligns Las Vegas with other major cities like Los Angeles, San Francisco, and Chicago, which have adopted similar retail pet sale bans or adoption-only rules to combat puppy mills. The ordinance represents a meaningful step forward in reducing animal suffering and promoting responsible adoption across Southern Nevada.