|
The following ACTION ALERT
from JOAN MILLER, CFA Legislative Committee Chairperson, was sent
to various cat fancy lists 6/11/01 21:15:16 EDT
California AB 161 dramatically
changes the Polanco-Lockyer Pet Breeder Warranty
Act and is now set for a hearing at the State Capitol, Tuesday, June
26th, 1:30 p.m., room 4203.
We need brief letters from organizations with a specific
request to be listed on the Bill Analysis "IN OPPOSITION TO AB 161".
We need letters from individuals
expressing opposition to this bill using a few
points suggested below.
Fax or mail a letter to Michael
Yang, Senate Judiciary Committee Consultant, to
be RECEIVED BY Friday,
June 22 AT THE LATEST.
Send a copy of your letter to
the bill author, Ken Maddox, the co-authors and Senate Judiciary Committee
members listed below. This bill has already PASSED THE HOUSE and if it
gets through this committee
it could come to the Senate Floor quickly, so send a
copy of your letter to your
own Senator so they will be aware in advance of your
concerns. Brief, one page, handwritten letters are fine. Faxed
or mailed letters are
preferable to emails when issues are controversial and there
is high volume. This helps assure they are added to the stack.
AB 161 is the last of the
trilogy introduced this year by animal activists who
are determined to severely restrict the breeding and selling of dogs and
cats in California. This bill targets dog hobbyists. Lets
make it "three strikes
and you're out" in this 2001 session.
THE
CAT FANCY IS CONCERNED ABOUT A DETRIMENTAL DOG BILL:
The existing Warranty Act
applies to dogs only, but cats could be added in the
future. Our objections are fundamental. The existing Act gives
protection to buyers
from COMMERCIAL breeders of dogs. AB 161 completely changes
this by altering the definition of dog breeder from those who sell 50
or more dogs, bred on the
premises, in a single year. The new definition is "a
person, firm, partnership, corporation, or other association that has
sold, transferred,
or given away TWO OR MORE LITTERS during the preceding calendar
year that were bred and reared on the premises of the person...........".
This is contrary to the entire concept of the Warranty Act
because it would incorporate hobby breeders whereas currently it does
not.
The sponsor of AB 161 is
the Fund For Animals and the bill has strong support from
the very same groups who have actively pushed for two other bills in California
(SB 236, "sellers" permit/microchipping and AB 1336, mandated
spay/neuter of cats/dogs
sold by pet stores). Dog and cat fanciers with other
groups were able to derail the first two this session. AB 161 has
provisions to change
wire flooring standards, and there are some issues that the
dog fanciers are best prepared to address. The cat fancy can express
basic objection to
any amendment to the warranty bill that regulates hobby breeders
as if they were commercial breeders. We must support the dog fancy
and fight to keep this
bill from passing.
POINTS FOR CAT FANCY OPPOSITION:
Pick one or two and express
in your own words.
AB
161 broadens the Polanco-Lockyer Pet Breeder Warranty Act. This
law was written to
protect pet buyers of dogs from unscrupulous commercial breeders
and NOT to encompass all individual breeders of dogs. The "two
or more litter"
definition regulates hobby breeders who are not profit-motivated
businesses and do not profit from their activity. Breeding dogs
is actually an expensive
hobby for this group that has no way to control the risks of loss
or the costs to properly care for their animals, exhibit in shows and
continuously improve the genetics of their breed. There is no evidence
of a need for this
broadened regulation. There
are advantages to the public in encouraging hobby breeders who raise quality
animals well socialized in private homes. This bill will discourage
the best kinds of breeders in California. Responsibility and professionalism
in hobby animal breeding is achieved through the self regulation and educational
efforts of breed clubs and associations. No animal
is perfect. When hobby breeders are forced to contest an unreasonable/unfair
buyer demand for remedies for illnesses or inheritable flaws
the expense and burdens of defense can be extraordinary for a private
individual. AB 161 will drive away hobby breeder activity and this
fine source of animals,
encouraging an increase in commercial sellers to fill the public
demand. Small
dogs have small litters (Pomeranians may produce one or two puppies)
yet many of these breeds have strong demand from the public. A threshold
based on litter numbers will discriminate against these breeders. If
small dogs become overly expensive or not available within California
the amended Act will be counterproductive to the interests of many California
citizens who would lose their
opportunity to choose a pet to meet their expectations. We
question how AB 161 can be enforced. How can it be determined when
two litters have been
produced by a breeder? Why should local government or animal
services resources be diverted to this enforcement effort, especially
considering no need has been demonstrated? There are other much
more important and
productive programs for animals that need attention. According
to the author of AB 161 the bill will reduce the numbers of dogs
bred, make breeders responsible and help reduce the breeding of dogs prone
to vicious attacks. To the contrary, the most responsible breeders,
who ensure the socialization of dogs with both humans and other dogs,
are the hobby breeders dedicated to maintaining the best personality characteristics
of their breeds. Dogs
purchased from hobby breeders have a low risk for later
being relinquished to shelters. Hobby dog breeders are primary
supporters of scientific studies
to better understand congenital and heritable
diseases of dogs. This bill is short sighted and misdirected.
Joan Miller
The Cat Fanciers' Association
CFA Legislative Coordinator
|
