The Politics of Pets

IN THE PAST TWO years, California legislators have introduced three bills that would regulate the pet industry. Only one of them--a bill backed by the million-dollar-a-year pet-store lobby--is still pending.

Assemblyman Sam Farr (D-Santa Cruz) introduced two measures that would have prohibited the importation and commercial sale of any puppy under 12 weeks of age. Supporters say the ban would have reduced the number of so-called puppy-mill dogs sold in pet stores, ensuring that consumers would receive older, and therefore stronger and healthier, puppies. Those in the humane field believe that mass breeders would have more of an economic interest in the health of their dogs if they had to keep them for 12 weeks before shipping them cross-country. After Farr’s first bill died in the Assembly in 1987, he introduced a similar one in March but added to it a “consumer pet-protection act.” This would have required pet dealers to give customers who purchased a sick or injured animal the choice of a refund or exchange in disputes that remained unresolved for more than 10 days after a veterinarian, designated by the dealer, examined the animal. Supported by every major humane and animal-rights organization, as well as many vets, the bill also would have allowed for reimbursement to the consumer of up to $2,000 in veterinary expenses.

Critics of Farr’s bill--which included the entire pet industry--complained that the 12-week minimum age was arbitrary and would have made it impossible for pet stores to sell puppies because they would be past the appealing “cute” stage, and that the bill would have given private breeders an unfair advantage.

“This bill didn’t present a level playing field,” says Doug Poindexter, owner of Doug’s Animal House in Hacienda Heights and president of the California Assn. of Pet Professionals. “It put the pet store at a disadvantage over anyone else selling dogs.”

The pet industry also says the $2,000 reimbursement limit would have put pet shops out of business. Thanks to its strong lobbying efforts, Farr’s second bill was defeated in the Assembly by one vote in June, 1988.

The pet industry took matters into its own hands by backing a bill introduced in February by Assemblyman Richard Polanco (D-Los Angeles). Sponsored by the California Pet Store Retailers & Groomers Assn., the measure would prohibit pet shops from selling puppies under 8 weeks old. It also provides that, before they are sold, pets must be examined by a veterinarian every 14 days. It also limits reimbursement for medical expenses to the purchase price of the animal and, in disputes between consumers and pet dealers, permits either party to take the other to court.

“We realized that there are a few bad stores out there, as there are in any business, and we felt (this bill) would force them to clean up their acts or get out,” says Poindexter. “We’re trying to make it impossible for a store to do business if they’re not going to practice good animal husbandry.”

Critics of the Polanco bill, which include humane and animal-rights organizations and consumer groups, maintain that it does nothing more than reword existing law. “The Polanco bill is ineffective. I don’t know what the agenda is, but it certainly isn’t animal protection,” maintains Sal Spinosa, supervising deputy district attorney of Sacramento County’s Consumer and Environmental Protection Division.

Polanco’s bill passed in the Assembly last June and will be considered by the Senate Judiciary Committee in January.

Meanwhile, Farr intends to pursue the issue, aides say. Earlier this year, he commissioned a survey of the state’s veterinarians aimed at finding out how many sick puppies from pet stores they treated in 1988, what the common ailments were, how much treatment cost and whether the puppies came from local or out-of-state breeders. The results have not yet been analyzed.