Home   • Welcome   • Latest News   Regional Info   • News   • Regional   Director's Corner   • Legislative   • Treasurer   Show Info   • Show Calendar   • Region 2 Clubs   • HHP Scoring   • Show Photos   • Vendors   Top Cats   • Kittens   • Championship   • Premiership   • HHPs   • DMs   • Veterans   • Agility   • Breed Winners   • Previous Winners   Contacts   • Officers &   Committees   Links   • Links		March 31, 2002 The Honorable Liz Figueroa Chair, Senate Committee on Business and Professions Senate Committee on Business & Professions State Capitol, Room 2053 Sacramento, CA 95814 Attention: Bill Gage, Chief Consultant                VIA Facsimile: 916-324-0917 Re:   SB 1373   Dogs and Cats:   registration and microchipping   -   OPPOSITION Dear Senator Figueroa; The Cat Fanciers' Association is a non-profit organization founded in 1906 with over 100 member clubs in the State of California. As the largest registry of pedigreed cats in the world our mission is to preserve and promote the pedigreed breeds of cats and to enhance the well-being of all cats. CFA is a positive force that helps to educate the general public about proper cat care, spay/neuter and responsible pet ownership. CFA's participants raise and show pedigreed cats of rare breeds that are highly desired by a segment of the pet owning public. I am writing on behalf of CFA to urge the defeat of SB 1373 and request that our organization be included on the list of those opposed in the Bill Analysis for the Committee. The intention behind SB 1373 is to force every person who sells a single cat or dog under one year of age to pay a registration fee (sales tax/surcharge ) for each animal and to further require all who sell cats/dogs to ensure that these animals are microchipped and registry enrolled. It is clear from several published proponents' statements that this bill is not directed toward helping animals find their way home if lost - it is intended as a means to single out, tax and track individuals who sell cats/dogs. The bill's supporters are primarily animal activists whose goals are to deter the selling of cats and dogs and eventually end all purposeful breeding. CFA considers SB 1373 to be unfairly punitive, as well as unrealistic and costly for animal control agencies to implement. We believe the bill would have serious negative consequences that are out of balance with any positive gain. Seller taxation is detrimental to the public's choice of their ideal pet: Adding a pet to one's life is a major step and it should involve choice - taking in a stray cat, selecting a cat from a shelter or rescue organization, answering an advertisement or going to a hobby breeder or pet store should be a personal decision. Some want to buy a predictable animal for their family or lifestyle and this option should not be only available for the very wealthy. Many families with children want a cat or dog that has been carefully raised in a home environment where the parents' temperaments are known rather than select an animal with unknown history from a shelter. SB 1373 authorizes local entities to add what we consider a "luxury tax" on kittens/puppies sold with every county and city establishing its own fees and there is no cap on the amount. In addition there is added expense of ensuring microchipping and enrollment ($40 to $75 at private veterinary offices) whether an owner prefers this type of identification or not, as well as high breeder permits or other fees already imposed through existing ordinances in some communities. There is no question that the desirable option for quality home-raised pets would be diminished in California by passage of this bill as conscientious breeders give up their participation in breeding and other cat fancy activities. Sellers are not responsible for surplus animal problems in California SB 1373 proponents have suggested that this bill's purpose is to provide data to "identify just who in the state is responsible for the large numbers of dogs and cats that enter the population and are unable to find permanent homes". Not only does this data collection scheme present an expensive bureaucratic requirement for our already strapped animal control agencies, but the results would also be skewed only to one source of animals and therefore not scientifically useful. Moreover well-known and valid studies have already enlightened those truly interested in dealing with problems associated with homeless animals in shelters. The various motives for SB 1373, as put forth by proponents, imply that sellers of cats/dogs are inordinately responsible for homeless animals, that they gain financially and therefore should be taxed to pay for programs related to surplus animals in community shelters. Animal control agencies would have to keep extensive records in order to track sellers for punishment and fines. This premise shows blatant disregard for published facts related to pet population dynamics and the actual sources of animals most likely to be in shelters. The largest number of cats in shelters are free-roaming/unowned/feral cats most of whom are not social enough for adoption - this is a broad community-wide problem, which is being greatly reduced in this state due to successful incentive-based programs. [note 1] The complex reasons for homeless cats and dogs in shelters are now better understood. Great progress has been made over the last 10 years and 85% to 87% of all owned cats are sterilized. The National Council on Pet Population Study and Policy, of which CFA is a member, has supported and published numerous studies to determine why animals are relinquished to shelters in the United States. Nearly a third of the dogs and cats that enter shelters are adults who did have homes and were once wanted pets. Those dogs and cats with the least risk of later relinquishment were obtained from breeders and pet stores. [note 2] A recently published study reveals that many dogs (24%) and cats (17%) are relinquished to shelters by their owners specifically for reasons related to serious illness, old age, and to a lesser degree for behavior problems that are serious enough to question whether such pets could successfully be placed in a home with humans or other animals. [note 3] Reducing the number of responsible cat and dog breeders in California who may not be able to continue because of onerous laws like SB 1373 will only make it harder to find animals selectively bred and raised to be highly social and adaptable. Shelters will always be faced with euthanasia of very old and sick animals brought to them by caring owners who may not be able to afford this service from private veterinarians. Selling cats/dogs should not be a reason for extra taxation to provide support for animal control. Animal control is a community wide service that needs funding like the police or fire services with cooperation among a broad network of volunteers and non-profit organizations to augment programs. Those who raise and sell pedigreed cats are dedicated to preserving their breeds and are not motivated by profits. Few are able to cover the expenses of breeding cats. Conscientious breeders provide not only fine animals for whom there is strong demand but also donate funds and time to feline health, animal welfare and disaster relief that benefits all cats. It is an insult to these breeders/sellers to read statements from supporters of SB 1373 such as, "The bill burdens primarily parties who stand to profit from trafficking in the lives of companion animals." SB 1373 would be an extreme burden on local animal control agencies to implement and educate. Every single jurisdiction in the entire state would have to revise its animal ordinance and establish fees and fine amounts. When it has taken years to encourage animal control agencies to keep even the most basic data on animal intakes and dispositions the expectation of achieving the data collection required by SB 1373 is unrealistic. The monumental task of keeping records on age, sex, color, breed of animals sold (even out of state or out of the country), addresses and telephone numbers of sellers, transfer information, etc. is inconceivable and cannot be reasonably updated. Any enforcement would be expensive or impossible. Even dog licensing compliance is commonly only 12% to 25% in any community without expensive door to door canvassing. Animal control agencies must keep focused on their primary job which is to protect animals and the community from dangerous animals. Registration processing would have to be efficient and timely since breeders/sellers want to advertise at the optimum age for placing a kitten. Breeders of pedigreed cats "advertise" with "oral offers" commonly before animals are even bred, much less before kittens are born. The decision on whether the animal will actually be sold and to whom may not be made until much later if at all depending on meeting a new owner or a desire to keep the kitten. It would be impossible to monitor breeder advertising in magazines, books, at shows, on the Internet - and for what good purpose is this harassment? Private party occasional sellers, who may place ads for even stray cats/kittens they kindly take in, cannot know about this law without continuous and expensive educational programs. "Free-to-good-home" ads would become prevalent - something all animal lovers abhor, knowing the fate of some of these cats/dogs. Free animals are more likely to end up in shelters. This perpetuates the idea that cats and dogs are valueless creatures. This bill will lead to more abandonment of animals or relinquishment to shelters. Some may see no other recourse when they cannot afford the registration/taxation, costs of microchipping in addition to advertising in order to place/sell a litter that may have been from a stray cat or an accidental mating. This will further add to shelter costs and it lessens individuals taking responsibility. The costs of this undertaking would not generate funds for the purposes outlined in SB 1373. Instead we believe it would be expensive for jurisdictions and detract from worthy programs. Microchip identification is a promising technology with advantages for some animals. Government mandated microchipping is a bad concept that could back-fire. Microchip identification is still not perfect. It will work successfully only when all the components of a complex system are in place, including proper insertion of the chip so it will not migrate, enrollment and updating of owner information, proper scanning with universal scanners widely available and a professional national round-the-clock recovery service. Anything less than this is a disservice to the pet owner who spends money for this type of identification and expects that their animal, should it ever be lost or wander, will be easily returned. Without the owners' desire for microchip identification enrollment information is not updated and the chip becomes no more effective than an implanted grain of rice. It is extremely time consuming or impossible to trace animals based on lot numbers. Government mandating of microchipping could hinder the progress made by national registries and some shelters to gain the pet owning public's confidence in this emerging but still flawed technology. For most situations of lost dogs or wandering cats the low-tech inexpensive collar/tag is entirely adequate and gets the pet home as quickly. Microchip recovery services are highly specialized and should be available on a 24 hour basis with a professional trained staff. This is best provided by a dedicated national service. One of the strong advantages of a good national service is the protection of privacy. California shelters are now required by law to scan for microchips, which is a good start, but occasionally one will be missed or it is impossible to trace with outdated registry information and an animal is sadly euthanized. SB 1373 will give a misleading sense of security to pet owners when some shelters have difficulty spending the time needed to properly and thoroughly scan each animal. It can be difficult to find a microchip in a terrified hard to handle cat in the shelter environment. Many cat owners never let their cats outdoors. Why should they be forced to microchip unless they want this added protection? SB1373 is a scheme to deter the selling of cats and dogs, to establish databases only for those who sell cats and dogs with no data keeping related to other methods of dog/cat transfers, such as shelters, rescue groups or "give-aways". The requirements are impractical for communities to implement and would establish a morass of bureaucratic data keeping that is skewed and has no worthy purpose. There is nothing inherently wrong with providing desirable pets and being compensated for the costs of raising and placing them in selected homes. Shelters and rescue groups are exempted from this burdensome law yet they also "sell" animals, but call the compensation "adoption fees". CFA believes this is a badly misdirected proposal and we respectfully request your committee to entirely reject SB 1373 or ask for its withdrawal. Very truly yours, Joan Miller CFA Legislative Coordinator cc. Committee members [note 1]: A 3.2 million dollar grant from the Maddie's Fund to the California Veterinary Medical Association to spay/neuter over 150,000 feral cats in the state in two years so far. [note 2]: Cats purchased from breeders (3.4%) and; 4.8% of cats purchased from pet stores were later relinquished to shelters, while 14.3% of cats obtained from shelters were relinquished. Dogs whose owners paid $100 or more were less likely to be relinquished. Salman et al, "Human and Animal Factors Related to the Relinquishment of Dogs and Cats" JAAWS 1(3) 98. [note 3]: Understanding Animal Companion Surplus in the US - "Relinquishment of Nonadoptables to Animal shelters for Euthanasia",Kass et al, JAAWS,4(4)2001.