This bill has people stirred up in California. I got a PetAlert from PIJAC today.
Mitch
Basics
Action Alert
California AB 2862...Sale of Animals At Pet Stores...
This bill specifically targets animal shows, marts, and temporary facilities.
California AB 2862, "Sale of animals at pet stores", was introduced by Assembly Member Mark Ridley-Thomas (D-48) of Los Angeles. Since the bill defines animal sales as being made "with the intent of making a profit", then any sale of an animal by anyone at any location could be defined as sale at a "pet store". The bill specifically includes animal shows, flea markets, and temporary facilities "...where the animals are intended as companions or household animals." This bill is a discriminatory measure that imposes excessive requirements on pet stores which in some cases are completely unrelated to the welfare of animals and in other cases would be impossible to comply with. However, this bill also presents privacy problems for animal breeders and brokers, because it requires that those sellers' contact information be posted in the pet store.
This legislation has been passed by the Assembly Appropriations Committee, and will now go to the floor for a vote. It is imperative that those concerned contact their legislators to voice their concerns about this bill immediately.
AB 2862 defines animal sales as being made "with the intent of making a profit". Therefore, any sale of an animal at any location could be defined as sale at a "pet store". This bill imposes excessive record keeping requirements on pet stores and mandates husbandry practices which will not improve the welfare of animals. AB 2862 creates privacy problems for animal breeders and brokers, because it requires that their contact information be posted in the pet store. Please take action on this bill!
The Animal Protection Institute (API) is widely promoting AB 2862, with unsubstantiated allegations about "abundant evidence of animal suffering" in California pet stores. This animal advocacy group claims that its "undercover investigation" revealed most pet stores failed to meet its view of adequate care standards, with nearly half of the stores having animals that were "sick, injured or showing signs of neglect. Yet, no supporting documents have been provided by the API to indicate that there are problems in retail pet stores. It is understood that the API's agenda is basically anti-pet, and aimed at restricting and controlling animal ownership, rather than to promote animal welfare.
Provisions of AB 2862 are drawn from a draft prepared by API. As amended, the bill applies to any pet store, defined as an establishment where animals are bought, sold, exchanged or offered for sale to the general public "with the intent of making a profit" and where the animals are intended as companion household animals. This broad definition could easily be argued to apply to anyone who sells an animal for profit from any location.
California law already establishes a number of requirements for pet store animals, rendering this bill completely unnecessary. Should it pass, however, AB 2862 would all but insure pet stores, as defined, are out of compliance with the law by imposing impractical and excessive mandates, especially in the area of record keeping. Several of the terms or provisions of the bill are subjective and ambiguous, meaning there is no way someone can be sure he or she is in compliance. Please contact your Assemblymember to voice your opinion.
For out-of-staters, please email the California Assembly Speaker, Fabian Nunez at [email protected] Thank you.
Take Action
1 Compose Message
Message Recipients:
Your State Lower Chamber Representatives
Delivery Method:
Email
Printed Letter
Subject:
Required text:
(this text will appear at the beginning of your message)
Please oppose AB 2862 as it will not improve animal care or welfare.
Editable text:
(edit or add your own text)
Tip: Cutting-and-pasting? Save as plain text first.
Talking Points
Click the red arrow to select any of the following text for inclusion in your message.
Please oppose AB2862. Although the aim and content of this bill sounds noble and good, the provisions are written without a clear understanding of the negative impact they will have on the animals in pet stores, or on the retail pet industry in the state of California, or on residents of our great state, most of whom keep pets.
I urge you to oppose AB2862 because it imposes an undue burden on pet store owners and it is an unwarranted criminalization of standard husbandry practices. Existing law is adequate for prosecution of harmful conduct regarding animal care.
The definition of "pet store" could include anyone who sells an animal with the intent to make a profit. This casts a huge net. Anyone who sells an animal could be considered a pet store since it is easily argued that any time a transaction involves money, there is intent to make a profit.
Section 122350 (a) 1 provides that retail animal outlets post the source of each animal. This is unreasonable. Sources of animals are proprietary information for retail establishments. Retail establishments must be allowed to protect their proprietary sources of animals from the general public and from competitors.
If the source of each animal is posted, this will allow the public to bypass the retail establishment and go direct to the supplier. This would create an invasion of privacy for animal suppliers who do not want to sell directly to the public. Wholesale suppliers often sell at wholesale because they do not have the infrastructure or interest in dealing directly with the public.
The record keeping requirements under section 122348 add overly burdensome paperwork to an already burdensome aspect of running a business. It would create a paperwork nightmare to track each individual animal in order to comply with this provision. The welfare of the animals will not be improved by knowing the name, address, phone number and drivers license or tax ID number of every person who purchases a mouse or parakeet from a retail pet store.
The outlawing of the use of abrasive perches for birds in section 122345(c)2 may seem like a reasonable requirement without the background knowledge of their proper use. There is no factual data indicating the use of abrasive perches is harmful or rampant enough to warrant making it criminally outlawed. This sets a dangerous precedent for identifying specific husbandry practices as criminal when these husbandry practices do have beneficial applications when used appropriately. Decisions about husbandry practices are best left to animal specialists and veterinarians, not legislators and proponents of the anti-pet agenda.
AB 2862 is written as a detailed set of regulations regarding animal husbandry practices. The legislature lacks the necessary animal husbandry knowledge to properly determine the rationale and necessity for many of the detailed, prescriptive requirements of this measure.
The space requirements under section 122345. (c) 6 (D) for birds and 122345 (d) 4 (B-C) rodents are far too large for certain circumstances and were clearly written with little understanding of what husbandry requirements are suitable for these animals. Specific husbandry options should not be outlawed when they do have beneficial applications. Husbandry practices should be determined by animal specialists and veterinarians, not mandated by law.
The detailed nature of the animal husbandry requirements under AB2862 unnecessarily sets up the need for huge volumes of Engineering Standards for each and every type of animal. Researching and establishing these standards would be ill considered due to extreme costs to the state. This bill attempts to specify how birds and animals can and cannot be managed, which is an impossible task given the large and varied needs of the many types of animals it aims to cover.
California state law does not need to embark upon a road that will lead to massive volumes of regulations requiring extensive man hours to create, resulting in huge costs to the state and providing no direct improvement to the welfare of the animals in question.
Existing Performance Standards for animal care under Penal Code 597 are all that is necessary to apply to animal welfare in retail animal outlets. If the animal is unharmed and healthy then it is receiving adequate care. If an item in an enclosure is harming an animal, then it should be removed. Existing laws should be enforced instead of creating an additional, more confusing, and unnecessary layer of legal requirements on California businesses.
AB2862 is sponsored by the Animal Protection Institute, an organization that openly opposes pet ownership and regularly supports legislation to curtail the ability of retail pet stores to continue doing business. Please oppose their anti-pet agenda. Please oppose AB2862.
Your Closing:
Your Name:
2 Sender Information
This system requires that you provide your name and contact information. This information will not be used for any purpose other than to identify you to the recipient.
Your Contact Information:
Title (required by some officials)
Mr. Ms. Mrs. Miss Dr. Rev. Hon.
First*
Last*
Email*
Address*
City*
State*
California ZIP*
ZIP + 4
Phone
Remember Me! (what's this?)
Sign me up for the Action E-List.
A copy of your message will be sent to the e-mail address entered above.
Mitch
Basics
Action Alert
California AB 2862...Sale of Animals At Pet Stores...
This bill specifically targets animal shows, marts, and temporary facilities.
California AB 2862, "Sale of animals at pet stores", was introduced by Assembly Member Mark Ridley-Thomas (D-48) of Los Angeles. Since the bill defines animal sales as being made "with the intent of making a profit", then any sale of an animal by anyone at any location could be defined as sale at a "pet store". The bill specifically includes animal shows, flea markets, and temporary facilities "...where the animals are intended as companions or household animals." This bill is a discriminatory measure that imposes excessive requirements on pet stores which in some cases are completely unrelated to the welfare of animals and in other cases would be impossible to comply with. However, this bill also presents privacy problems for animal breeders and brokers, because it requires that those sellers' contact information be posted in the pet store.
This legislation has been passed by the Assembly Appropriations Committee, and will now go to the floor for a vote. It is imperative that those concerned contact their legislators to voice their concerns about this bill immediately.
AB 2862 defines animal sales as being made "with the intent of making a profit". Therefore, any sale of an animal at any location could be defined as sale at a "pet store". This bill imposes excessive record keeping requirements on pet stores and mandates husbandry practices which will not improve the welfare of animals. AB 2862 creates privacy problems for animal breeders and brokers, because it requires that their contact information be posted in the pet store. Please take action on this bill!
The Animal Protection Institute (API) is widely promoting AB 2862, with unsubstantiated allegations about "abundant evidence of animal suffering" in California pet stores. This animal advocacy group claims that its "undercover investigation" revealed most pet stores failed to meet its view of adequate care standards, with nearly half of the stores having animals that were "sick, injured or showing signs of neglect. Yet, no supporting documents have been provided by the API to indicate that there are problems in retail pet stores. It is understood that the API's agenda is basically anti-pet, and aimed at restricting and controlling animal ownership, rather than to promote animal welfare.
Provisions of AB 2862 are drawn from a draft prepared by API. As amended, the bill applies to any pet store, defined as an establishment where animals are bought, sold, exchanged or offered for sale to the general public "with the intent of making a profit" and where the animals are intended as companion household animals. This broad definition could easily be argued to apply to anyone who sells an animal for profit from any location.
California law already establishes a number of requirements for pet store animals, rendering this bill completely unnecessary. Should it pass, however, AB 2862 would all but insure pet stores, as defined, are out of compliance with the law by imposing impractical and excessive mandates, especially in the area of record keeping. Several of the terms or provisions of the bill are subjective and ambiguous, meaning there is no way someone can be sure he or she is in compliance. Please contact your Assemblymember to voice your opinion.
For out-of-staters, please email the California Assembly Speaker, Fabian Nunez at [email protected] Thank you.
Take Action
1 Compose Message
Message Recipients:
Your State Lower Chamber Representatives
Delivery Method:
Printed Letter
Subject:
Required text:
(this text will appear at the beginning of your message)
Please oppose AB 2862 as it will not improve animal care or welfare.
Editable text:
(edit or add your own text)
Tip: Cutting-and-pasting? Save as plain text first.
Talking Points
Click the red arrow to select any of the following text for inclusion in your message.
Please oppose AB2862. Although the aim and content of this bill sounds noble and good, the provisions are written without a clear understanding of the negative impact they will have on the animals in pet stores, or on the retail pet industry in the state of California, or on residents of our great state, most of whom keep pets.
I urge you to oppose AB2862 because it imposes an undue burden on pet store owners and it is an unwarranted criminalization of standard husbandry practices. Existing law is adequate for prosecution of harmful conduct regarding animal care.
The definition of "pet store" could include anyone who sells an animal with the intent to make a profit. This casts a huge net. Anyone who sells an animal could be considered a pet store since it is easily argued that any time a transaction involves money, there is intent to make a profit.
Section 122350 (a) 1 provides that retail animal outlets post the source of each animal. This is unreasonable. Sources of animals are proprietary information for retail establishments. Retail establishments must be allowed to protect their proprietary sources of animals from the general public and from competitors.
If the source of each animal is posted, this will allow the public to bypass the retail establishment and go direct to the supplier. This would create an invasion of privacy for animal suppliers who do not want to sell directly to the public. Wholesale suppliers often sell at wholesale because they do not have the infrastructure or interest in dealing directly with the public.
The record keeping requirements under section 122348 add overly burdensome paperwork to an already burdensome aspect of running a business. It would create a paperwork nightmare to track each individual animal in order to comply with this provision. The welfare of the animals will not be improved by knowing the name, address, phone number and drivers license or tax ID number of every person who purchases a mouse or parakeet from a retail pet store.
The outlawing of the use of abrasive perches for birds in section 122345(c)2 may seem like a reasonable requirement without the background knowledge of their proper use. There is no factual data indicating the use of abrasive perches is harmful or rampant enough to warrant making it criminally outlawed. This sets a dangerous precedent for identifying specific husbandry practices as criminal when these husbandry practices do have beneficial applications when used appropriately. Decisions about husbandry practices are best left to animal specialists and veterinarians, not legislators and proponents of the anti-pet agenda.
AB 2862 is written as a detailed set of regulations regarding animal husbandry practices. The legislature lacks the necessary animal husbandry knowledge to properly determine the rationale and necessity for many of the detailed, prescriptive requirements of this measure.
The space requirements under section 122345. (c) 6 (D) for birds and 122345 (d) 4 (B-C) rodents are far too large for certain circumstances and were clearly written with little understanding of what husbandry requirements are suitable for these animals. Specific husbandry options should not be outlawed when they do have beneficial applications. Husbandry practices should be determined by animal specialists and veterinarians, not mandated by law.
The detailed nature of the animal husbandry requirements under AB2862 unnecessarily sets up the need for huge volumes of Engineering Standards for each and every type of animal. Researching and establishing these standards would be ill considered due to extreme costs to the state. This bill attempts to specify how birds and animals can and cannot be managed, which is an impossible task given the large and varied needs of the many types of animals it aims to cover.
California state law does not need to embark upon a road that will lead to massive volumes of regulations requiring extensive man hours to create, resulting in huge costs to the state and providing no direct improvement to the welfare of the animals in question.
Existing Performance Standards for animal care under Penal Code 597 are all that is necessary to apply to animal welfare in retail animal outlets. If the animal is unharmed and healthy then it is receiving adequate care. If an item in an enclosure is harming an animal, then it should be removed. Existing laws should be enforced instead of creating an additional, more confusing, and unnecessary layer of legal requirements on California businesses.
AB2862 is sponsored by the Animal Protection Institute, an organization that openly opposes pet ownership and regularly supports legislation to curtail the ability of retail pet stores to continue doing business. Please oppose their anti-pet agenda. Please oppose AB2862.
Your Closing:
Your Name:
2 Sender Information
This system requires that you provide your name and contact information. This information will not be used for any purpose other than to identify you to the recipient.
Your Contact Information:
Title (required by some officials)
Mr. Ms. Mrs. Miss Dr. Rev. Hon.
First*
Last*
Email*
Address*
City*
State*
California ZIP*
ZIP + 4
Phone
Remember Me! (what's this?)
Sign me up for the Action E-List.
A copy of your message will be sent to the e-mail address entered above.
