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		April 20, 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: Amended April 16, 2002   -   restate OPPOSITION Dear Senator Figueroa; I am writing again on behalf of the Cat Fanciers' Association (CFA) to restate our opposition to SB 1373. We request that our organization continue to be included on the list of those opposed in the Bill Analysis. Previously, in my letter dated March 31, 2002, I outlined many reasons why CFA believes this bill would have serious consequences for hobby breeders as well as for animal control agencies. And we do not see any positive gain for cats and dogs. Originally the bill was touted as being desirable for data acquisition through microchipping. As amended on April 16th the bill is further narrowed and more clearly reveals the proponents' primary intention to single out, tax and track only those who purposely breed and sell dogs and cats and to impose punitive penalties as a deterrent to this activity. We understand there may be further amendments concerning the definition of "breeder" and the charging of a registration fee. This bill is already confusing and the possible amendments add burdensome requirements for breeders and impose unnecessary bureaucracy upon animal control agencies. Should the definition of "breeder" be tied into the recently changed consumer protection law (the Polanco-Lockyer Dog Breeder Warranty Act was originally intended strictly for large commercial DOG businesses) this could extend that definition inappropriately to CAT breeders. There is no mention of "cat" in the Dog Breeder Warranty Act and definitions (Section 122045 of the Health and Safety Code). CFA would strongly object to the existing dog breeder warranty definition being extended to cover cat breeder. Whether the scheme of a registration/taxation means charging for every single kitten or puppy sold or, as has been discussed by proponents, will be changed to a "one-time-only" registration, we still maintain our basic objection to the need for this "registration". It is not clear if this newly proposed amendment intends a one-time registration for an entire litter, a one-time registration for each breeder, for breeder partners, or for a one-time-only registration depending on sales of dogs every 12 months (per the Dog Breeder Warranty Act definition of breeder)? SB 1373 remains a serious deterrent to hobby breeders of pedigreed cats who work to preserve their breeds. Breeders place kitten/cats with little to no opportunity for profit after their veterinary and other expenses. We see no rational purpose in "registering" cat hobby breeders. They are not in business and there is no public health and safety reason for "registering" them. To cover the risks, registration and private microchip costs required by SB 1373 the price for a pedigreed cat/purebred dog would increase in California and only the wealthy could afford a well-bred cat/dog of their choice. Many would turn to other states or the Internet to find their ideal pet. They will most likely not adopt from a shelter if they want predictable appearance and temperament. We reiterate our concern for the burden on animal control agencies to implement this law and keep ongoing records on breeders, the breed, sex, color of each and every cat/dog sold along with other information. This is needless bureaucracy. Animal control should remain focused on doing their job of protecting animals and protecting citizens from dangerous animals. SB 1373 would not provide extra funds for good programs but instead detract from the many worthy efforts underway in this State to reduce homeless cats/dogs in shelters and the unchecked reproduction of unowned/feral cats. CFA supports voluntary microchip identification for the purpose of recovering lost animals. It is a valuable backup to visible ID. Considering the cost and problems that exist with scanning, especially for cats in shelters, it seems ill advised to mandate this technology by law. The proposed penalties outlined in the amendments are entirely excessive and further reiterate the punitive intentions. We respectfully urge the Committee members to either withdraw or defeat SB 1373. Very truly yours, Joan Miller CFA Legislative Coordinator