BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                    



                                                          SB 2102  
                                                         Page 1

Date of Hearing:  June 30, 1998

            ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON CONSUMER PROTECTION,
         GOVERNMENTAL EFFICIENCY, AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
                        Susan Davis, Chair

         SB 2102 (Rosenthal) - As Amended:  June 25, 1998


  SUBJECT  :  Redefines the term "breeder" and increases penalties for  
violating specified breeding restrictions

  SUMMARY  :  Modifies the definition of "breeder" from the current 50  
dogs sold or transferred per year to more than 1 litter every 2  
years, and generally increases penalties for selling ill or  
diseased dogs.  Specifically,  this   bill  :

1) Redefines the terms "dog breeder" and "breeder" to mean a  
   person or entity that has sold or transferred for the purpose  
   of selling a litter or portion of a litter of dogs more than  
   once in a 24-month period.  The bill also expands the  
   definition to include third party breeders, as specified by a  
   contractual arrangement.

2) Redefines the term "purchaser" to include those who purchase a  
   dog from an individual acting on a breeder's behalf.

3) Modifies penalties against breeders that knowingly sell a dog  
   that is diseased, ill or has a condition, any one of which  
   requires hospitalization or nonelective surgical procedures.   
   The modified penalties are:

   1st offense - penalty up to $500 
   2nd offense - penalty up to $2,500, or 3 year sales  
   prohibition, or both
   3rd offense - penalty up to $5,000, or 5 year sales  
   prohibition, or both
   4th offense - penalty up to $10,000, or 10 year sales  
   prohibition, or both.

4) Allows the district attorney or city attorney to pursue a court  
   order enjoining a breeder from engaging in the sales of dogs at  
   both the retail and wholesale level.  Current law only allows  
   for restrictions of sales at the retail level.

5) Modifies an existing provision to provide for a refund of the  
   price of a dog, if the dog dies or must be destroyed within one  
   year after the purchaser has taken physical possession of the  
   dog after the sale by a breeder, as specified.

  EXISTING LAW  : 

1) Defines, in the Polanco-Lockyer Pet Breeder Warranty Act, the  
   terms "dog breeder" and "breeder" to mean a person or entity  
   that has sold, transferred, or given away 50 or more dogs  
   during the proceeding calendar year that were bred and reared  







                                                          SB 2102  
                                                         Page 2

   on the premises of the person or entity.

2) Defines the term "purchaser" as any person who purchases a dog  
   from a 
breeder.

3) Specifies penalties against breeders that knowingly sell a dog  
   that is diseased, ill or has a condition, any one of which  
   requires hospitalization or nonelective surgical procedures.   
   The penalties are:

   1st offense - penalty up to $1,000, or 30 day sales  
   prohibition, or both 2nd offense - penalty up to $2,500, or 60  
   day sales prohibition, or both
   3rd offense - penalty up to $5,000, or 6 month sales  
   prohibition, or both
   4th offense - penalty up to $10,000, or 1 year sales  
   prohibition, or both.

4) Provides remedies for a purchaser in cases where a breeder has  
   sold an ill or diseased dog, as specified.  If a dog dies,  
   regardless of the date of death of the dog, the purchaser shall  
   obtain a refund for the purchase price of the dog and other  
   expenses if certain conditions exist, as specified.

  FISCAL EFFECT  :  No direct state fiscal effect, as breeder  
violations are prosecuted by district attorneys and city  
attorneys.  Enforcement authority primarily is at the local level.

This bill is keyed as nonfiscal and will not be referred to the  
Assembly Appropriations Committee.

  COMMENTS  : 

1)   Need for Bill  

   According to the author's office, current law's definition of  
   dog breeder at 50 or more dogs sold, transferred or given away  
   per calendar year is too loose.  They state that "90% of those  
   individuals breeding puppies in California have no legal  
   obligation to produce a quality animal, as only 10% of more  
   than 2.5 million puppies sold each year in California come from  
   pet shops or commercial breeders."

   The author believes that this leads to undue increases in  
   genetic diseases in dogs, increasing veterinarian costs, and  
   consumer dissatisfaction causing more dogs to be abandoned or  
   given to shelters and rescue organizations.

   The author's office indicates that by redefining dog breeder as  
   more than one litter sold, etc., every 24 months, this will  
   "include dog fanciers and hobbyists who breed and sell puppies  
   on a regular basis."  The author believes that this will give  
   the vast majority of puppy buyers the one-year warranty  
   provided for in current law, thereby increasing consumer  
   satisfaction, as sick or genetically impaired puppies will be  







                                                          SB 2102  
                                                         Page 3

   subject to consumer remedies.

2)  Is There Any Basis for the Current or Proposed Definition of  
   Breeder  ?

   The bill seeks to shift the definition of breeder from one  
   based on the number of dogs sold, transferred, or given away  
   each year to one based on the number of litters sold or  
   transferred in a 24-month period.

   Proponents note that the current definition of 50 each year is  
   overly broad, and doesn't include many individuals who are more  
   than just casual breeders.  Opponents counter that the current  
   definition is sufficient, and that puppy mills are going to  
   largely ignore the law no matter the 
definition.

   The author should explain to the committee the basis for the  
   one litter in a 24-month period definition contained in the  
   bill.

3)  Are the Penalties in the Bill Too High  ?

   The bill, in addition to redefining breeders, also generally  
   increases penalties for those who knowingly sell a dog that is  
   diseased, ill or has a condition, any one of which requires  
   hospitalization or nonelective surgical procedures.  The bill  
   reduces the penalty for the first offense from a $1,000 penalty  
   to a $500 penalty, with no other punishment.  However, on the  
   second, third, and fourth offense the bill significantly  
   increases the time a breeder is barred from selling dogs.

   The bill leaves the financial penalties for multiple violations  
   the same as in current law, but states that a breeder in  
   violation may be prohibited from selling dogs for up to 3,5,  
   and 10 years, respectively for the second, third, and fourth  
   offense.

   These increases in penalties may be overzealous.  The committee  
   may wish to amend the bill such that the second, third, and  
   fourth violation would subject the offending breeder to a sales  
   prohibition of 9 months, 18 months, and 3 years, respectively.

4)  Brief Summary of Supporters Arguments  

   Supporters of the bill argue that the bill increases consumer  
   protections and will reduce indiscriminate breeding.  The  
   Animal Protection Institute writes that the bill "will serve to  
   minimize the risk to the public of purchasing an ill animal and  
   will also provide an incentive to breeders to improve the care  
   and treatment of their animals....[The bill] is essential to  
   address the tragedy of companion animal overpopulation in  
   California."

   Proponents additionally argue that the bill will make breeders  
   more accountable for the offspring they create, deter casual  







                                                          SB 2102  
                                                         Page 4

   breeders and promote an environment of care and concern for  
   both the breeder and potential owner.

5)  Brief Summary of Opponents Arguments  

   Opponents believe that the bill is overly broad and will not be  
   effective.  The American Kennel Club writes that while they  
   support "reasonable and enforceable laws which protect the  
   health and welfare of dogs", they believe that SB 2102  
   "restricts the rights of responsible breeders and owners who  
   take their responsibilities seriously".  Sandy Oak Chesapeakes  
   of Sebastopol writes that the bill "is not fair and reasonable  
   and will have no effect whatsoever on the Puppy Mills and/or  
   commercial breeders who do not comply" with current law.

   Opponents also argue that the bill is unenforceable,  
   unworkable, and may even work to the benefit of puppy mills.   
   They also dispute the supporters contention that genetic  
   defects and other problems are on the rise, and that such  
   problems are caused by negligent breeding.











































                                                          SB 2102  
                                                         Page 5


6)  Department of Consumer Affairs Opposes Bill  

   In a letter to the committee dated June 26, the Department of  
   Consumer Affairs officially opposed SB 2102.  The letter states  
   in part "SB 2102 would place a heavy burden on private parties  
   who choose to breed their dogs...This bill represents  
   unnecessary governmental involvement in the practices of  
   private parties."

  REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION  :

  Support  

A-Pal
Activists for Protective Animal Legislation
Actors and Others for Animals
Allstate Insurance Companies
Amanda Foundation
Animal Assistance League of Orange County
Animal Protection Institute
Animal Spay Hotline
Animals Issues Movement
The Ark Trust, Inc.
Association of California Insurance Companies
Bob Barker Productions, Inc.
Boxer Rescue Fund, Inc. of Los Angeles
California Academy of Family Physicians
California Federation for Animal Legislation
Cats Are People Too
Cats In Need of Human Care
Coalition for Humane Legislation
Coalition to Protect Animals in Entertainment
Concerned Animal Lovers Association
Contra Costa Humane Society
Doberman Pinscher Rescue - Animal Placement Center
Doberman Pinscher Rescue - Sun Valley
Doris Day Animal League
Feral Feline Feeders, Inc.
Friends for Pets Foundation
The Fund for Animals
German Shepherd Rescue
H.A.R.T. Muttmatchers
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
Law Offices of Lawrence Rose
Little Angels Pug Rescue
Mendocino Animal Hospital
Ohlone Humane Society
Orange County Coalition for Pet Population Control
Orange County People for Animals







                                                          SB 2102  
                                                         Page 6

Personal Insurance Federation
The Pet Place
Rancho Cucamonga Friendship for Animals
Rottweiler Rescue - Southern California
Saddleback Valley Humane Society and SPCA
Santa Cruz SPCA
Sequoia Humane Society
South Bay In Defense of Animals
Spay and Neuter Action Project
SPCALA
St. Francis of Assisi Animal Rescue
State Humane Association of California
Town of Apple Valley
311 Individuals

  Opposition  

Afghan Hound Club of California
American Dog Owners Association
American Feed Industry Association
The American Kennel Club
American Staffordshire Terrier Club of Northern California
The Animal Council
Antelope Valley Kennel Club
Apple Valley Kennel Club
The Art Network
Associated Obedience Club of Northern California
Aztec Doberman Pinscher Club of San Diego
Bahia Sur Kennel Club
Barbary Coast Bull Terrier Club
BisSchips CB Schipperkes
Bull Terrier Club of America
Bulldog Club of Southern Califronia
Cabrillo Kennel Club
Cain Terrier Club of Northern California
California Canine Hikers
California Collie Fanciers, Inc.
California Federation of Dog Clubs
California Grain and Feed Association
California School of Dog Grooming
California Veterinary Medical Association
Cal-Tax
Central Valley Australian Shepherd Club of America
Channel City Kennel Club
Cocker Spaniel Club of San Diego
The Collie Club of America, Inc.
The Collie Club of Northern California
County-Wide Dog Training Club, Inc.
Coyote Hills Kennel Club
CRIS'S K9 Training
Custom Canines Obedience
Dal Things
Dalane Golden Retrievers
Dalmation Club of Southern California
Del Sur Kennel Club
Department of Consumer Affairs







                                                          SB 2102  
                                                         Page 7

Diablo Valley German Shepherd Dog Club
Fiddler's Green
The German Shepherd Dog Club, Inc.
Golden Empire Brittany Club
Golden Gate Akita Club
Golden Retriever Club of greater Los Angeles
Golden State Chow Chow Club
Golden State Rottweiller Club
Golden West Fox Terrier Association
Great Pyrenees Association of Southern California
Hartig Kennel
Human/Animal Bond in Society
Irish Setter Club of San Diego
JMC Services
K9 Rescue Ltd.
Kayra Kennel
Keeshond Club of Southern California
Kennel Club of Palm Springs
Kennel Club of Riverside
Kern Valley Kennel Club
Kerry Blue Terrier Club of Southern California
Killja Labradors
Lake Matthews Kennel Club
Mensona Kennel Club
National Animal Interest Alliance
National Animal Interest Alliance
Northern California Basset Hound Club
Northern California Flat-Coated Retriever Club
Orange Coast Rhodesian Ridgeback Club
Pasanita Obedience Club, Inc.
Pekingese Club of Central California 
Priscilla Eiden
Priscilla Eiden
Redwood Empire Kennel Club
Sacramento Council of Dog Clubs
Sacramento-Sierra Saint Bernard Club
Saga Welsh Spring Spaniels
Saga Welsh Springer Spaniels
Saint Bernard Club of Southern California
Saint Bernard Club of Southern California
Samoyed Club of Los Angeles
San Angeles Saluki Club
Sandy Oaks Chesapeakes
San Francisco Dog Training Club
San Gabriel Valley Collie Club
San Joaquin Kennel Club
Santa Clara Valley Kennel Club
Santa Maria Kennel Club
Shoreline DFA
Sierra Foothills Dalmatian Club
Silver Bay Kennel Club of San Diego
Society Collies
South Bay Collie Fanciers, Inc.
South West Dog Sports of California
South West Dog Sports, Inc.
Southern California Beagle Club







                                                          SB 2102  
                                                         Page 8

Southland Weimaraner Club
SouthWest Dog Sports of California
SouthWest Dog Sports, Inc.
St. Bernard Club of San Diego
Sundance Dalmatians
Tioka Norwegian Elkhounds
Two Cities Kennel Club
Vallejo Dog Training Club
Ventura County Dog Fanciers
The Welsh Springer Club of America
Western Fox Terrier Breeders Association
Western Hound Association of Southern California
Western Hound Association of Southern California
25 Individuals


  Analysis prepared by  :  Robert Herrell / aconpro / (916) 319-2089