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