BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                    



                                                                       


           ------------------------------------------------------------ 
          |SENATE RULES COMMITTEE            |                   AB 161|
          |Office of Senate Floor Analyses   |                         |
          |1020 N Street, Suite 524          |                         |
          |(916) 445-6614         Fax: (916) |                         |
          |327-4478                          |                         |
           ------------------------------------------------------------ 
           
                                         
                                 THIRD READING


          Bill No:  AB 161
          Author:   Maddox (R), et al
          Amended:  7/17/01 in Senate
          Vote:     21

           
           SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE  :  4-2, 7/10/01
          AYES:  Escutia, Kuehl, O'Connell, Sher
          NOES:  Ackerman, Haynes

           ASSEMBLY FLOOR  :  47-17, 4/5/01 - See last page for vote


           SUBJECT  :    Dog breeders

           SOURCE  :     Fund for Animals


           DIGEST  :    This bill defines a dog breeder as any  
          individual or organization that sells, transfers, or gives  
          away all or part of three or more litters or 20 or more  
          dogs in the preceding 12 months.  It would also add a  
          requirement that breeders socialize their dogs to humans  
          and would prohibit a breeder from primarily housing a dog  
          on wire flooring.

           ANALYSIS  :    Existing law defines a dog breeder as any  
          person, firm, partnership, corporation, or other  
          association that has sold, transferred, or given away 50 or  
          more dogs during the preceding calendar year.

          This bill would change the definition of a dog breeder to  
          any person, firm, partnership, corporation, or other  
          association that has sold, transferred, or given away all  
                                                           CONTINUED





                                                                AB 161
                                                                Page  
          2

          or part of three or more litters or 20 or more dogs in the  
          preceding 12 months.

          Existing law regulates the sale of dogs by dog breeders as  
          follows:

          1. Breeders must provide purchasers with written records  
             concerning the dog's medical history and other general  
             identifying information.

          2. Breeders who knowingly sell sick dogs are subject to  
             civil penalties and/or temporary prohibitions on  
             selling.

          3. If a dog sold by a breeder subsequently is found by a  
             veterinarian to be sick or unhealthy within certain  
             specified time periods after the sale, the purchaser is  
             entitled to a choice of remedies, including return,  
             exchange, or reimbursement of costs.

          4. Breeders must provide purchasers with a written notice  
             of their rights under existing law.

          5. Breeders must keep a written record on the health,  
             status, and disposition of the dog at least one year  
             after the disposition of the dog.

          This bill would not make any changes to the laws regarding  
          sales by dog breeders, but would extend those laws to any  
          person or private organization that sells or transfers all  
          or part of three or more litters or 20 or more dogs in the  
          preceding 12 months that were bred and raised on the  
          premises of the person or organization.

          Existing law requires breeders to meet the following  
          standards of care.  Breeders must:

          1. Maintain facilities where dogs are kept in a "sanitary  
             condition".

          2. Provide dogs with adequate nutrition and water.

          3. Provide dogs with adequate space.








                                                                AB 161
                                                                Page  
          3

          4. Provide dogs housed on wire flooring with a restboard,  
             floormat, or similar device.

          5. Provide dogs with adequate exercise and socialization,  
             including physical contact with other dogs or with human  
             beings.

          6. Provide necessary veterinary care.

          This bill would prohibit breeders from primarily housing  
          dogs on wire flooring and requires breeders to socialize  
          their dogs with human beings.  This bill would also extend  
          these requirements, as well as other requirements under  
          existing law, to the new definition of dog breeder.

          Existing law provides for civil penalties of up to $1,000  
          for violations of dog breeder laws.  Enforcement may be  
          brought by district attorneys or city attorneys.

          Existing law does not apply the breeder regulations to pet  
          stores.  Stores are separately regulated under different  
          provisions.
          
           FISCAL EFFECT  :    Appropriation:  No   Fiscal Com.:  No    
          Local:  No

           SUPPORT  :   (Verified  8/22/01)

          Fund for Animals (source)
          Humane Society of the United States
          Center for Animal Protection and Education
          California Federation for Animal Legislation
          Doris Day Animal League
          California Animal Control Directors' Association
          Action for Animals
          United Activists for Animal Rights
          Animal Protection Institute
          Animal Issues Movement
          Actors and Others for Animals
          Animal Legislative Action Network
          Pets in Need
          San Francisco SPCA
          State Humane Association of California
          Supervisor Illa Collin, Sacramento County







                                                                AB 161
                                                                Page  
          4

          Many other organizations and concerned citizens

           OPPOSITION  :    (Verified  8/24/01)

          American Kennel Club
          American Pet Products Manufacturers Association
          American Dog Owners Association
          Board of Governors of the Bulldog Club of America Division  
          III
          California Federation of Dog Clubs
          The Animal Council
          The Cat Fanciers' Association
          Contra Costa Kennel Club
          Coyote Hills Kennel Club
          Dalmation Club of Northern California
          National Pet Alliance
          Plum-Perfect Airedales
          San Francisco Dog Training Club, Inc.
          Santa Ana Valley Kennel Club
          Santa Clara Valley Kennel Club
          Smooth Fox Terrier Assoc. of Northern California
          Shiba Inu Fanciers of Northern California
          Sacramento Dog Training Club
          United Kennel Club
          Urban Pet Coalition
          Washington Animal Foundation
          The Cat and Dog Rescue Association
          German Shepherd Dog Club
          German Shepherd Dog Fanciers of Northern California, Inc.
          Diablo Valley German Shepherd Dog Club, Inc.
          The American Staffordshire Terrier Club of Northern  
          California
          Association of Responsible Pet Ownership, Inc.
          Many other organizations and concerned citizens

           ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT  :    The bill's supporters argue that  
          the current definition of a dog breeder (as any individual  
          or organization that sells or transfers 50 or more dogs in  
          a calendar year) is flawed for two major reasons.  First,  
          they argue that it is unworkable because it is difficult to  
          determine the number of dogs an individual has transferred  
          in a calendar year.  Second, they argue that the 50-dog  
          threshold is too high and is not covering individuals who  
          are engaging in the business of dog breeding.







                                                                AB 161
                                                                Page  
          5


          The bill's supporters argue that the three-litter or 20-dog  
          standard proposed by the bill would be easier to enforce.   
          The bill's supporters also argue that there are a  
          significant number of consumers purchasing dogs from  
          individuals not covered by existing laws who would benefit  
          from the expansion of the law's purchaser protections.

          Supporters argue that even if show breeders and hobbyists  
          are treating dogs well, the threshold set in current law is  
          not reaching many for-profit dog breeders.  As an example,  
          they cite pit bull breeders who, due to the small number of  
          pups in a litter, can breed pit bulls for profit without  
          ever reaching the 50-dog threshold.

           ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION  :    The bill's opponents argue that  
          the bill would unnecessarily extend the law's requirements  
          to hobbyists, show breeders, and other individuals who may  
          sell dogs, but not at a scale that justifies regulation.   
          They argue that for many of these individuals, the sale of  
          dogs is incidental to their primary motivation for breeding  
          dogs, such as hobby breeding or show breeding.  Opponents  
          argue that the bill would impose significant costs and  
          obligations on these individuals that would make it  
          difficult for them to continue their primary activity, such  
          as hobby or show breeding.  Opponents also argue that the  
          bill's language is too expansive and would cover many  
          individuals who are not engaged in the business of selling  
          dogs.

          Opponents further argue that individuals such as hobbyists  
          and show breeders generally are complying with the animal  
          care standards applicable to dog breeders.  As a result,  
          they argue, the cost of extending the laws concerning sale  
          of dogs to these individuals will produce little benefit in  
          animal welfare.  
           
           ASSEMBLY FLOOR  :
          AYES:  Aanestad, Alquist, Aroner, Calderon, Cardenas,  
            Cedillo, Chan, Chavez, Corbett, Cox, Diaz, Dutra,  
            Goldberg, Harman, Havice, Horton, Jackson, Keeley, Kehoe,  
            Koretz, Leach, Liu, Longville, Lowenthal, Maddox,  
            Maldonado, Migden, Mountjoy, Nakano, Negrete McLeod,  
            Oropeza, Robert Pacheco, Pavley, Richman, Salinas,  







                                                                AB 161
                                                                Page  
          6

            Shelley, Simitian, Steinberg, Strickland, Strom-Martin,  
            Thomson, Vargas, Washington, Wayne, Wesson, Wiggins,  
            Zettel
          NOES:  Ashburn, Briggs, Bill Campbell, John Campbell,  
            Cardoza, Cohn, Correa, Florez, Frommer, Hollingsworth,  
            Kelley, Leonard, Leslie, Matthews, Rod Pacheco, Reyes,  
            Runner


          RJG:sl  8/27/01   Senate Floor Analyses 

                         SUPPORT/OPPOSITION:  SEE ABOVE

                                ****  END  ****