BILL ANALYSIS SENATE RULES COMMITTEE SB 2102 Office of Senate Floor Analyses 1020 N Street, Suite 524 (916) 445-6614 Fax: (916) 327-4478 . THIRD READING . Bill No: SB 2102 Author: Rosenthal (D) Amended: 5/18/98 Vote: 21 . SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE : 3-3, 4/28/98 AYES: Burton, O'Connell, Schiff NOES: Haynes, Leslie, Wright NOT VOTING: Calderon, Lockyer, Sher SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE : 5-1, 5/19/98 AYES: Burton, Haynes, Lockyer, O'Connell, Schiff NOES: Wright NOT VOTING: Calderon, Leslie, Sher . SUBJECT : Dog breeding and sales SOURCE : Author . DIGEST : This bill designates any person who sells or transfers for the purpose of sale more than one litter of dogs in any 36-month period as a "dog breeder." It provides 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 also increases the penalties for knowingly selling a dog that is diseased, ill, or that has a pre-existing condition. ANALYSIS : 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 or transfers for the purpose of selling more than one litter of dogs in any three-year period. 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. Background : The Polanco-Lockyer Pet Breeder Warranty Act provides numerous consumer protections for persons who acquire dogs from designated dog breeders (those persons, corporations, or associations that breed more than 50 dogs in a calendar year). Those protections include: 1. 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; 2. Penalties for the sale of ill or diseased dogs; 3. 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; 4. 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; 5. 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. FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: No Local: No SUPPORT : (Verified 5/20/98) Ohlone Humane Society Activists for Protective Animal Legislation Coalition to Protect Animals in Entertainment Animal Protection Institute Contra Costa Humane Society Haven Humane Society Spay and Neuter Action Project Orange County Coalition for Pet Population Control Doris Day Animal League The Ark Trust, Inc. Animal Assistance League of Orange County Sequoia Humane Society Coalition for Humane Legislation St. Francis of Assisi Animal Rescue Animal Spay Hotline A-Pal Concerned Animal Lovers Association H.A.R.T. Muttmatchers Santa Cruz SPCA The Pet Place Actors and Others for Animals In Defense of Animals The Fund for Animals Little Angels Pug Rescue Boxer Rescue Fund, Inc. of Los Angeles Animals Issues Movement Lake Tahoe Humane Society State Humane Association of California California Federation for Animal Legislation German Shepherd Rescue SPCALA Bob Barker Productions, Inc. South Bay In Defense of Animals Feral Feline Feeders, Inc. Orange County People for Animals OPPOSITION : (Verified 5/20/98) 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 Sundance Dalmatians Dal Things National Animal Interest Alliance Pasanita Obedience Club, Inc. California Veterinary Medical Association Society Collies Keeshond Club of Southern California National Animal Interest Alliance South Bay Collie Fanciers, Inc. Collie Club of America, Inc. San Gabriel Valley Collie Club ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT : 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. ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION : 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. Opponents also 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. Opponents argue that it is unfair to subject dog 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. RJG:jk 5/20/98 Senate Floor Analyses SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE **** END ****