BILL ANALYSIS
SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE
Adam B.Schiff, Chairman
1997-98 Regular Session
SB 2102 S
Senator Rosenthal B
As Amended: May 6, 1998
Hearing Date: May 12, 1998 2
Health and Safety Code 1
DBM:lgp 0
2
SUBJECT
Dog Breeding and Sale
DESCRIPTION
This bill would designate any person who sells more than
one litter of dogs in any 36-month period as a "dog
breeder." It would provide that any dog breeder would be
subject to the provisions of the Polanco-Lockyer Pet
Breeder Warranty Act, which currently governs only those
persons or organizations that breed more than 50 dogs in a
calendar year. It would also increase the penalties for
knowingly selling a dog that is diseased, ill, or that has
a pre-existing condition.
BACKGROUND
The Polanco-Lockyer Pet Breeder Warranty Act provides
numerous consumer protections for persons who purchase dogs
from designated dog breeders (those persons, corporations,
or associations that breed more than 50 dogs in a calendar
year). Those protections include:
written disclosure by the breeder of information about
the dog being purchased that includes its veterinary
treatment history and any known, congenital or hereditary
condition;
penalties for the sale of ill or diseased dogs;
a purchaser's right to remedies for non-disclosure of a
dog's prior condition, including a refund for the
purchase price of the dog, sales tax, and any
veterinarian's fees paid;
a presumption that if a dog dies within 15 days of the
time it was purchased, that the dog was ill at the time
of sale;
written notice by the breeder to the purchaser of the
rights of purchasers.
In addition, the Polanco-Lockyer Pet Breeder Warranty Act
provides that designated breeders must maintain sanitary
breeding facilities, provide dogs with adequate food,
water, shelter, exercise, living space, opportunities for
socialization, and veterinary care.
CHANGES TO EXISTING LAW
1. Existing law designates any person or association that
sells, transfers or gives away 50 or more dogs in the
preceding calendar year as a "dog breeder." It
stipulates that all dog breeders are subject to the
provisions of the Polanco-Lockyer Pet Breeder Warranty
Act.
This bill would change the definition of "dog breeder"
for the purposes of the Polanco-Lockyer Pet Breeder
Warranty Act to include any person that sells more than
one litter of dogs in any three-year period.
2. Existing law provides that dog breeders who knowingly
sell dogs that are diseased or ill or have serious prior
conditions, shall be assessed a civil penalty of up to
$1,000 and be prohibited from selling dogs for up to 30
days for a first offense. A second offense carries a
civil penalty of up to $2,500 and a prohibition from
selling dogs for up to 90 days. A third offense carries a
civil penalty of up to $5,000 and a prohibition from
selling dogs for up to six months. A fourth offense
carries a civil penalty of up to $10,000 and a
prohibition from selling dogs for up to one year.
This bill would provide for the same monetary penalties,
but would provide for a prohibition against selling dogs
for up to six months, up to three years, up to five
years, and up to ten years for the first, second, third
and fourth offenses, respectively.
COMMENT
1. Stated need: to provide consumer protections for
individuals purchasing dogs, cut down on the breeding of
dogs with genetic problems
The author identifies two purposes of this bill. The
first is to provide consumer protections for individuals
who purchase dogs. The author claims that while the
Polanco-Lockyer Pet Breeder Warranty Act protects
consumers who purchase dogs from large scale breeders,
the majority of dog sales are made out of an individual's
home -- by backyard breeders, show breeders, or dog
fanciers. Since none of these breeders are subject to
the provisions of Polanco-Lockyer, purchasers of those
dogs are not protected against the possibility that they
are buying a dog that might be seriously ill or that
could pose a health risk to the purchaser or his or her
family.
The second purpose of this bill is to cut down on the
number of dogs that are bred despite known genetic
problems. The author argues that show dogs are commonly
bred for characteristics that allow a dog to do well in
competition, but that also make that dog a bad pet. He
claims that numerous breeds are affected by ailments
associated with breeding for show characteristics: 70
percent of Collies have genetic eye trouble, for example.
Allegedly, many dogs bred for show characteristics also
have severe allergy or breathing problems, as a result of
the desired show characteristic, e.g., a pushed-in nose.
Hip dysplasia also occurs in as high as 50 percent of the
dogs of some breeds. The author points out that nearly
all "show dogs" are bred by breeders too small to be
subject to the provisions of Polanco-Lockyer. By holding
these breeders financially responsible for irresponsibly
bred dogs, and by increasing the penalties for the sale
of irresponsibly bred dogs, the author argues that this
bill creates a disincentive to continue to breed
irresponsibly.
2. Opposition concerns: backyard breeding is a hobby,
not a business
Opponents of this bill argue that small scale dog
breeders breed dogs because they enjoy the activity, not
to make a profit. They claim that as "dog lovers" they
do not have the same motives as the large puppy mills
that Polanco-Lockyer was intended to regulate. They also
argue that dogs raised by small scale breeders are far
less likely to be "problem dogs" with illnesses or
genetic defects. Their principal concern is that this
bill would discourage small scale breeders from breeding
dogs, and could result in a higher percentage of the
state's dogs coming from puppy mills. This, they claim,
would be tragic, since large scale puppy mills do not
raise or socialize animals correctly, and often sell
inferior dogs.
3. Further opposition concerns: bill could subject
breeders to unknown liability
Opponents of this bill argue that the scope of
Lockyer-Polanco should not be expanded because it
subjects dog breeders to liability for outcomes that are
beyond their control. As an illustration, they argue
that some studies indicate that conditions once thought
to be exclusively hereditary -- hip dysplasia, for
instance -- are now being attributed to environmental
causes as well. Opponents fear that dog breeders will be
required to refund the cost of dogs and to pay for
expensive veterinary care because a veterinarian
misdiagnoses an environmentally caused ailment as
genetic.
4. Does the bill create inequities between dog owners and
other pet owners, or between owners of different breeds
Opponents argue that it is unfair to subject dogs
breeders to such strict regulations when the breeding of
other kinds of pets is only minimally regulated.
Further, they point out that the use of "litters per
36-month period" as the way of distinguishing breeders is
unfair, since some breeds of dogs have litters of one to
three dogs, while others have litters of 15-16.
Support: Animal Legislative Action Network; Actors and
Others for Animals; Amanda Foundation; Animal
Assistance League of Orange County; Animal Issues Movement;
Animal Protection Institute of America; The Ark Trust,
Inc.; Association of California Insurance Companies; Bob
Barker Productions, Inc.; Boxer Rescue Fund, Inc.;
California Federation for Animal Legislation; Coalition for
Humane Legislation; Coalition to Protect Animals in
Entertainment; Concerned Animal Lovers Association; Contra
Costa Humane Society; Doberman Pinscher Rescue, Sun Valley;
Doberman Pinscher Rescue, Animal Placement Center; Doris
Day Animal League; Feral Feline Feeders, Inc.;
Friends for Pets Foundation; Fund for Animals, Inc.; German
Shepherd Rescue, Burbank; Humane Animal Rescue Team; Haven
Humane Society;
Humane Farming Association; Humane Society of the United
States; Humane Task Force; In Defense of Animals; Lake
Tahoe Humane Society; Lassen Humane Society; Little
Angels Pug
Rescue; Los Angeles SPCA; Orange County Coalition for Pet
Population Control; Orange County People for Animals; The
Pet Place; Rancho Cucamonga Friendship for Animals;
Rottweiler Rescue; Saddleback Valley Humane Society; Santa
Cruz SPCA; Sequoia Humane Society; South Bay In Defense of
Animals; South Bay Pet Inns; State Humane Association of
California; St. Francis of Assisi Animal Rescue; Town of
Apple Valley; Vilalobos Rescue Center; Gray Panthers; The
California Academy of Family Physicians; Numerous
individuals.
Opposition: The Animal Council; The American Kennel
Club; Two Cities Kennel Club; California Federation of Dog
Clubs; Barbary Coast Bull Terrier Club;
Sacramento-Sierra Saint Bernard Club; San Francisco Dog
Training Club; Sierra Foothills Dalmatian Club; American
Dog Owners Association; Human/Animal Bond in Society;
Sacramento Council of Dog Clubs; K9 Rescue Ltd.; Del Sur
Kennel Club; Fiddler's Green.
HISTORY
Source: Author
Related Pending Legislation: None Known
Prior Legislation: SB 621 (Rosenthal) Withdrawn from
Senate Judiciary Committee, 1997
Prior Vote: Failed passage in Senate Judiciary Committee
3-3; reconsideration
granted
**************