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

  AYES:  Burton, O'Connell, Schiff
NOES:  Haynes, Leslie, Wright
NOT VOTING:  Calderon, Lockyer, Sher
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  5/26/98)

Allstate Insurance Companies
Amanda Foundation
Association of California Insurance Companies
California Academy of Family Physicians
Cats Are People Too
Cats In Need of Human Care
Doberman Pinscher Rescue - Animal Placement Center
Doberman Pinscher Rescue - Sun Valley
Friends for Pets Foundation
Humane Farming Association
Humane Society of the United States
Humane Task Force
Lassen Humane Society
Personal Insurance Federation
Rancho Cucamonga Friendship for Animals
Rottweiler Rescue - Southern California
Saddleback Valley Humane Society and SPCA
Town of Apple Valley
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
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
Bob Barker Productions, Inc.
South Bay In Defense of Animals
Feral Feline Feeders, Inc.
Orange County People for Animals

  OPPOSITION  :    (Verified  5/26/98)

Afghan Hound Club of California
Antelope Valley Kennel Club
Aztec Doberman Pinscher Club of San Diego
Bull Terrier Club of America
Cabrillo Kennel Club
California Canine Hikers
Channel City Kennel Club
Cocker Spaniel Club of San Diego
Diablo Valley German Shepherd Dog Club
Western Hound Association of Southern California
Golden Retriever Club of greater Los Angeles
Golden Gate Akita Club
Golden State Chow Chow Club
Golden State Rottweiller Club
Golden Gate Akita Club
Great Pyrenees Association of Southern California
Irish Setter Club of San Diego
Kennel Club of Riverside
Kennel Club of Palm Springs
Kern Valley Kennel Club
Lake Matthews Kennel Club
Mensona Kennel Club
Northern California Basset Hound Club
Orange Coast Rhodesian Ridgeback Club
Dalane Golden Retrievers
Samoyed Club of Los Angeles
San Joaquin Kennel Club
Santa Maria Kennel Club
Santa Clara Valley Kennel Club


Shoreline DFA
Southern California Beagle Club
Southland Weimaraner Club
St. Bernard Club of San Diego
Western Hound Association of Southern California
Western Fox Terrier Breeders Association
Ventura County Dog Fanciers
San Angeles Saluki Club
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
South West Dog Sports of California
South West Dog Sports, Inc.
Saint Bernard Club of Southern California
Saga Welsh Spring Spaniels
The Welsh Spring Club of America
The Art Network
Priscilla Eiden

  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  5/26/98  Senate Floor Analyses
                      ****  END  ****