|
The following ACTION ALERT from SHARON COLEMAN of THE ANIMAL COUNCIL,
is dated 8/31/01
August 31, 2001 (Last
publication date 8/28/01)
IN THIS ISSUE:
- GOOD NEWS -- WI
AB 278 PROVISIONS LINE ITEM VETOED BY WI GOVERNOR!
- BAD NEWS --
CA AB 161 PASSES ASSEMBLY AND NEEDS GOVERNOR'S VETO: REVIEW OF THE BILL;
ANALYSIS OF THE VOTE; VETO CONCERNS
WISCONSIN:
Our June 16 Update detailed WISCONSIN AB 278 to license and regulate "pet
dealers and set up licensing of pet dealers based on a threshold of selling
25 or more "mammals" other than livestock as pets in a year
and various other provisions. The bill's author, Representative
Marc C. Duff, (R-98) of New Berlin gave new meaning to political cunning
as this bill repeatedly bypassed typical legislative procedures and slipped
into the state budget bill. Fortunately, Wisconsin has a line item
veto provision, and we are pleased to post Governor Scott McCallum's veto
message as moral support for our final campaign against CA AB 161:
"4. Pet Regulation
and Inspection Positions Sections 395 [as it relates to s. 20.115 (2)
(j)], 2881b [as it relates to penalties], 2881d, 2881e [as it relates
to license taxes], 2881k and 2881LThese provisions relate to the regulation
of pet dealers, pet breeders, animal shelters and kennels. Section 395
[as it relates to s. 20.115 (2) (j)] provides $135,500 PR in fiscal year
2001-02 and $271,100 PR in fiscal year 2002-03 for 7.0 FTE PR positions
for licensing and inspection. Although there is no language in the budget
bill that authorizes this increase, the purpose of this funding was included
in a Joint Committee on Finance amendment to the bill. Section 2881b establishes
penalties for operation without a license and other violations. Sections
2881d, 2881e, 2881k and 2881L change dog license fees. I am vetoing sections
2881d, 2881k and 2881L and partially vetoing sections 395 [as it relates
to s. 20.115 (2) (j)], 2881b and 2881e because the prescribed penalties
and taxes are burdensome to pet owners and businesses."
CALIFORNIA:
To briefly review, AB 161 was authored by Assembly member Ken Maddox (R-68)
of Garden Grove and sponsored by Fund for Animals to expand the definition
of dog breeders subject to the Polanco-Lockyer Pet Breeder Warranty Act
(enacted in 1991 - see our July 15 update for detailed history) forcing
non-commercial breeders to deal with compliance requirements and investigative
inquiries to determine whether specific transactions should be subject
to the Warranty Act, and also prohibit covered breeders from "primarily"
using wire flooring and require these breeders' dogs to be "socialized"
with both dogs and humans.
The threshold for
"dog breeder" would be lowered from the original standard, transferring
50 or more dogs in a calendar year, to the Senate Floor amended trigger
"all or part of THREE OR MORE LITTERS OR 20 OR MORE DOGS in the PRECEDING
12 MONTHS that were bred and raised on the premises of the person or organization.
If this was supposed to broaden the original Assembly version "two
or more litters during the preceding calendar year that were bred and
reared on the premises of the person, firm, partnership, corporation,
or other association." the enrolled version is far more confusing
in its actual meaning, potential discriminatory impact and shortening
the look-back period, all with no evaluation at all as to practical interpretation.
Author Maddox claimed,
"With the tremendous number of animals being bred (including many
dogs prone to vicious attacks), it is important that people be responsible
breeders." However, this is a consumer protection law and the
issue involves which breeders must comply with the statutory warranty
provisions, originally designed for large scale breeders operating on
a consistent basis and capable of implementing the complex procedural
requirements. The warranty law has nothing to do with temperament
of dogs, although it sets forth- only incidentally -- minimum standards
for covered breeders. Enforcement - like other types of "lemon
law" bills, would be based on complaints of consumers who dissatisfied
with breeders' warranty compliance.
Lemon laws are intended
to balance the unequal bargaining power between consumers and mass producers
and retailers. Suppliers benefit by limiting their liability for
defective products in exchange for a self-enforcing, standardized and
convenient remedy for consumers. However, applied to small scale
dog breeders, lemon laws are a tool to discourage breeding by trapping
unwary breeders increasing unrecoverable costs. This year's proponents
did not even try to make a case for puppy purchasers where a statutory
warranty would have afforded a remedy where none other was available.
Instead they tried to connect this bill to recent dog attack cases where
no consumer issues would have ever been relevant.
AB 161 is not about
consumer protection but about discouraging dog breeding. Assembly
Business & Professions Committee Chair Lou Correa, D-69 Santa Ana
understood this and voted against the bill in his own committee AND WAS
THE LONE DEMOCRAT VOTING NO yesterday on the Assembly Floor. In
contrast to the Senate Floor where the bill attained only the minimum
21 of 40 votes, the Assembly vote was 59 YES, 7 NO, 14 not voting, absent
or abstaining. Remember, Author Maddox is a Republican so he picked
up some support from Republican colleagues:
YES - 17 REPUBLICANS:
Aanestad, Alquist, Ashburn, Bates, Cox, Harman, Kelley, La Suer, Leslie,
Maddox, Maldonado, Robert Pacheco, Rod Pacheco, Richman, Strickland, Wyland,
and Zettel
YES - 42 DEMOCRATS:
Aroner, Calderon, Canciamilla, Cardenas, Cedillo, Chan, Chavez, Chu, Cohn,
Corbett, Diaz, Dutra, Firebaugh, Florez, Frommer, Goldberg, Havice, Horton,
Jackson, Keeley, Koretz, Leach, Liu, Longville, Lowenthal, Migden, Nakano,
Nation, Papan, Pavley, Salinas, Shelley, Simitian, Steinberg, Strom-Martin,
Thomson, Vargas, Washington, Wayne, Wesson, Wiggins, Wright
NOES 6 Republicans:
Briggs, John Campbell, Hollingsworth, Leonard, Mountjoy, Runner; and 1
Democrat, Correa
ABSENT, ABSTAINING,
OR NOT VOTING 7 Republicans: Bogh, Bill Campbell, Cogdill, Daucher, Dickerson,
Pescetti, Wyman 8 Democrats: Cardoza, Kehoe, Matthews, Negrete, McLeod,
Oropeza, Reyes, Hertzberg
The last chance to
stop AB 161 is a veto by California Governor Gray Davis, a Democrat.
There are some factors in our favor. This is officially a Republican
bill.
- The Senate Floor
amendments were not carefully scrutinized as to clarity and impact.
- There was no demonstrated
need expressed by or on behalf of actual dog buyers.
- The bill supporters
are all animal rights advocates who know nothing and care less about
dog breeding or the public demand for quality dogs bred in California.
- The author made
no effort to acknowledge opponents' concerns or practical realities.
As an example, last
year Governor Davis did veto AB 1096, authored by a pack of Democrats
to repeal the existing private certification program for interior designers
and instead establish a new state program, the Board of Interior Design,
to administer a title act that would limit the use of the term "registered
interior designer." In his veto message, the Governor stressed
the lack of consumer harm: "This bill creates a new regulatory program
for an industry where there is no demonstrated consumer harmAdditionally,
this bill is unclear as to what, if any, consumer protection would be
served. Government intervention in a marketplace should be reserved
for cases where there is consumer harm."
The occasional disgruntled client of a decorator typically sues in Small
Claims Court as can a dog buyer. In greater contrast decorators
are actually in a business that can support the operator. California
dog breeders are already operating on a very small scale -- so small that
they have not been subject to the existing law, because it is virtually
impossible to do on a profitable business model. The costs of compliance
would be personal expenses intended to discourage dog breeding among breeders
with sufficient knowledge and quality to breed consistently.
Tell the Governor
that there is no consumer harm to be addressed by AB 161 but much harm
to be caused by is. Ask him to veto AB 161. Write, fax, call,
email -- just one, simple letter! The deadline for vetoes
is October 14, but he could act much sooner so please ACT AS SOON AS POSSIBLE.
California Governor
Gray Davis
State Capitol Building
Sacramento, CA 95814
Phone: 916-445-2841
Fax: 916-445-4633
emailto: governor@governor.ca.gov
Home page <http://www.governor.ca.gov/state/govsite/gov_homepage.jsp>
*****
*a service of THE ANIMAL COUNCIL, P.O. BOX 168, MILLBRAE CA
94030
Published sporadically since 1997. Appropriate forwarding is encouraged.
To be removed from the original distribution list only or change address,
reply to the message.
Recent issues are archived at <http://www.internationalstafford.com>
Legislative tracking is subject to continual change.
CA information, bill subscriptions and law are available at: <http://www.leginfo.ca.gov>
|
