New Law In California

[Barry N.]

A new law was passed in California for shops selling pets and live animals that they must offer printed material on how to care for that pet. I think this is a great idea. Also feel that this person should have already done his research before buying.

Going to call and see if this law applies to saltwater animals as well. Just wanted to pass that on to you folks that may live in this state. Maybe Petco will do a better job

Barry

[icemark]

went into effect back in January...

I think its pretty lame... they had to give me a hand out on how to take care of ghost shrimp, that I was buying for feeders for my dwarf lion...

Like the ghost shrimp were going to live more than 3 minutes once they got home???

[Ninong]

Barry,

The most important part of the law is section (a) which concerns care while in custody of the pet shop and violation of which is a misdemeanor punishable by a fine of $1000 and/or 90 days in the pokey. Violation of the section you are referring to, (b), concerning handing out information to buyers is only an infraction punishable by a fine of $250. Check it out: (P.S. -- Looks like the link doesn't work because it involved a search feature. I have reprinted the full text below. )

It's interesting that Wal-Mart opposed this law all the way whereas Petco initially held a big press conference with Mickey Rooney announcing their support of the the legislation (SB 1357) but then almost immediately did an about face and hired a lobbyist to oppose it. They forgot to hold a press conference to announce their change of heart.

This should be interesting in places like San Francisco where the City Attorney has already filed suit in court to prohibit Petco from selling any live animals within The City because they repeatedly failed to heed warnings from the city and county of San Francisco's health inspectors who found their stores were repeat violators of all of San Francisco's ordnances concerning cruelty to animals. I don't know what is the current status of that suit to prohibit them from selling animals in San Francisco, but if Petco manages to defeat that, then they will still have to contend with the City of SF watching them very closely.

I would guess that both Wal-Mart and Petco will pull out of the live animal trade in California as soon as they are cited for violating 597l (a). Section (b) is not what they are concerned about, it's all about their concern that their untrained minimum wage employees will constantly be violating section (a).


BILL NUMBER: SB 1357 CHAPTERED 09/19/02

CHAPTER 710
FILED WITH SECRETARY OF STATE SEPTEMBER 19, 2002
APPROVED BY GOVERNOR SEPTEMBER 19, 2002
PASSED THE SENATE AUGUST 30, 2002
PASSED THE ASSEMBLY AUGUST 23, 2002
AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY AUGUST 16, 2002
AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY JUNE 12, 2002
AMENDED IN SENATE MAY 1, 2002
AMENDED IN SENATE APRIL 18, 2002

INTRODUCED BY Senator Vincent

FEBRUARY 6, 2002

An act to amend Section 597l of the Penal Code, relating to pet
shops.



LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST


SB 1357, Vincent. Pet shops.
Under existing law, a pet shop operator must carry out specified
duties with respect to the care, sale, trade, and adoption of pet
animals. A pet shop operator's failure to carry out these duties is
punishable by a fine of not to exceed $1,000, or by imprisonment in
the county jail for not more than 90 days, or by both the fine and
imprisonment.
This bill would require private or public retail sellers of pet
animals to provide buyers with written recommendations for the
generally accepted care of the class of pet animal sold. It would
specify that sellers shall not be liable for damages caused by
erroneous information in material provided by 3rd parties unless
sellers fail to exercise ordinary care. This bill would also provide
that charges brought against a seller of pet animals who violates
these provisions may be dismissed if proof of compliance is shown, as
specified. This bill would provide that second or subsequent
violations shall be infractions punishable by a fine. By creating a
new crime, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.
The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local
agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the
state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that
reimbursement.
This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this
act for a specified reason.


THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:


SECTION 1. Section 597l of the Penal Code is amended to read:
597l. (a) It shall be unlawful for any person who operates a pet
shop to fail to do all of the following:
(1) Maintain the facilities used for the keeping of pet animals in
a sanitary condition.
(2) Provide proper heating and ventilation for the facilities used
for the keeping of pet animals.
(3) Provide adequate nutrition for, and humane care and treatment
of, all pet animals under his or her care and control.
(4) Take reasonable care to release for sale, trade, or adoption
only those pet animals that are free of disease or injuries.
(5) Provide adequate space appropriate to the size, weight and
specie of pet animals.
(b) (1) Sellers of pet animals shall provide buyers of a pet
animal with general written recommendations for the generally
accepted care of the class of pet animal sold including
recommendations as to the housing, equipment, cleaning, environment,
and feeding of the animal. This written information shall be in a
form determined by the sellers of pet animals and may include
references to Web sites, books, pamphlets, videos, and compact discs.

(2) If a seller of pet animals distributes material prepared by a
third party, the seller shall not be liable for damages caused by any
erroneous information in that material unless a reasonable person
exercising ordinary care should have known of the error causing the
damage.
(3) This subdivision shall apply to any private or public retail
business that sells pet animals to the public and is required to
possess a permit pursuant to Section 6066 of the Revenue and Taxation
Code.
(4) Charges brought against a seller of pet animals for a first
violation of the provisions of this subdivision shall be dismissed if
the person charged produces in court satisfactory proof of
compliance. A second or subsequent violation is an infraction
punishable by a fine not to exceed two hundred fifty dollars ($250).

(c) As used in this section, the following terms have the
following meanings:
(1) "Pet animals" means dogs, cats, monkeys, and other primates,
rabbits, birds, guinea pigs, hamsters, mice, snakes, iguanas,
turtles, and any other species of animal sold or retained for the
purpose of being kept as a household pet.
(2) "Pet shop" means every place or premises where pet animals are
kept for the purpose of either wholesale or retail sale. "Pet shop"
does not include any place or premises where pet animals are
occasionally sold.
(d) Any person who violates any provision of subdivision (a) is
guilty of a misdemeanor and is punishable by a fine of not to exceed
one thousand dollars ($1,000), or by imprisonment in the county jail
for not more than 90 days, or by both that fine and imprisonment.
SEC. 2. No reimbursement is required by this act pursuant to
Section 6 of Article XIII B of the California Constitution because
the only costs that may be incurred by a local agency or school
district will be incurred because this act creates a new crime or
infraction, eliminates a crime or infraction, or changes the penalty
for a crime or infraction, within the meaning of Section 17556 of the
Government Code, or changes the definition of a crime within the
meaning of Section 6 of Article XIII B of the California
Constitution.

[Barry N.]

Ninong,

Thanks so much for taking the time to do all that research. You are getting like Gene, too much time on your hands.

You would be surprised of how many pet stores are aware of this law. Our local TV station went to several in the San Diego area and most was unaware of the law.

Off the subject a little but our base ball team ( Padres) are building a new baseball park as they have been using Qualcomm stadium for many years. I hesitake to tell you want they have named the park, PetCo Park.

Barry

[organicreefer]

but are fish pets?

what about corals?

is live rock a pet?

seems like a bit of a grey area there.what about the ghost shrimp icemark bought-those werent purchased as pets-they were purchased as food.....

i personally DONT consider fish as pets.

[zhenya]

I don't think many can touch Ninong in research and attention to details. My hat is off to you Sir.
Now Barry, I think the time thing doesn't help me much at all I think you should organize a protest against that name for the stadium;)

[Barry N.]

You know what they say Gene, it's all about money.

[zhenya]

Unfortunately, I do know. Money in itself is not a bad thing,it's the greed and last for it that scares me sometimes.

[dagnir]

The law which was put into effect on January 1st was a long way from what it originally said. I worked in a pet store in Central California for close to two years and we new about the impending law for almost 6 months before it was put into effect. The law requires that general written information be given to customers free of charge when they purchased a "household pet" and that a log was to be keeped with name both printed and signed and animal purchased. Everything but food (live or otherwise) must have a care sheet. Now the way I understand it is that the original bill required species specific information. i.e. Neon Tetra Info and Black Skirt Tetra info. PIJAC was not going to have any of that because of so much information that is the same for so many species. So they passed it as "general info" for freshwater and saltwater fish then species for rodents, birds, and reptiles. Luckily PIJAC went to the trouble of generating these care sheets, and have them available for the stores.

Now the rumors going through the industry are that PetCo (whom I unfortunatly worked for in the bay area, now at least I can say Ive seen the face of the devil, and it is corporate PetCo) got into some major trouble in the bay area because of their animal care. To give you an idea, back in '99 when I worked there, our region had a 2 million dollar loss in fish, in one quarter. Talk about improper care. Which I can see happening when you cant even order the stuff you need for the animal because it is not on their "Store Use Order Forms". Anyways, they got into trouble and to get out of it they put alot of money into getting this bill started. Now I did not know of their backing out eventually but it does not suprise me. They are double talkers the whole way.

So we in the mom and pop stores looked at the bill like it was another attempt of PetCo to drive out the little guy. I personally see a great deal of good in the handing out of info to the hobbiest, but I also see the good in teaching the employees properly and the employees teaching the hobbiest. Or at LEAST selling good books before animals. Having the info on paper makes it to easy for the employees to not have to learn the stuff themselves. And that is not good. So the concept has good and bad points.

When I worked in the hobby I tried as hard as I could to keep the welfare of the animals in my care first and formost in my mind, and sense I delt mostly with saltwater, and reptiles, it is good that I did. I was in the industry to educate the customers, not sell stuff. My bosses didnt like that to much. Even though in my education of the customers I still sold stuff. In retail I have learned that unfortunately it is not good to argue with the bosses to much even when you are management and have worked there for 2 years.

The thing I hate to see is that this law ever had to be passed in the first place. If things were doin right and so many pet stores did not give so many others bad names then this type of law would not be neccessary. I personally think that the full line pet stores are the problem and that specialty stores should be encouraged. It is to hard to do every thing correctly and cost effectively when you have to do it for such a large range of animals.

Sorry about the rant it got a little off subject. But I hate to see the way petstores are looked at as a whole. I know when I worked in them I did the best I could and feel I helped alot of people get interested then educated. I wish more people looked at it as education rather than a business. But when confronted most owners will say "I have to make a living." And I think that is the major issue that needs to be delt with but unfortunately its nieve to think that it will be.

[Barry N.]

Welcome dagnir to Reef Land.

By dagnir

I wish more people looked at it as education rather than a business. But when confronted most owners will say "I have to make a living." And I think that is the major issue that needs to be delt with but unfortunately its nieve to think that it will be.

I think it goes both ways. You can have a business and also try to educate the consumer as well. It is so refreshing to go into a LFS and the clerk asked the customer " what kind of tank do you have" and other related question before selling him just anything. But we all know that isn't the cases, most will sell what ever the customer want with no regard to what will happen when the animal leave their place of business. I agree, that if that sale person was to ask questions and educate that customer, I bet that customer would come back several time. Just good business. Also we all know too well that a lot of people will go out and buy animals without knowing anything about the animal and what care is needed to care for it. I get so upset when I see a post or thread that someone says, " bought this fish and what should I should I feed it" Duh, why didn't they find that out before hand.

I will get off my soap box now before I lose it

As far as that law is concerned, I can see it from two sides.

Barry

[fetidskunk]

I like the spirt of the law, but not the practice.

I see it as having two sections. The first pertaining to how the stores handle animals. I don't really have any problem with this part.

The other is handing out 'care sheets'. I think this part of the law was not put togeather very well, is too general, and puts a legal burden on pet stores that they shouldn't have.

[stang69]

Ive seen the face of the devil, and it is corporate PetCo


I could loose my job for this but I swear your right. We all know fighting corp business sucks. I was reciently resetting the planogram (rofl) you know what I mean. This was in the FW section and they were puting fish together because of color and not species which I fought for about 2 weeks and they finally seen my point after about 40 fish deaths but least I made it. Unfortunantly the fish had to die to make my point but least the mgr and DM seem to value my input now.
I have preached about read read read and some ppl just dont think that thats necesary. Pet Stores like PetCo get a bad rap but I can say that with most of my custoomers they value my oipinion and input because they know i know what I am talking about.(not tooting my own horn I dont mean I know it all) You do get that customer that thinks they know it all and will do what they want and they are the one who winds up failing and blaming the petstore wether it is PetCo Petsmart or any other Mom and Pop shop along the way.

now that Im off my soapbox I have to agree that sending the folks home withthe literature is a good idea. The papers inform them of care and maint. they are going to need. With this paperwork you can tell them look it says right here this fish snake or whatever it is requires this care.


JMO

Jeff

[dagnir]

Barry

I agree completely. There were always questions i asked everyone that I helped. What size Tank? What kind of fish? How many fish? When was the last water test? When was the last water change?
I asked those questions of everyone and helped them accordingly. Education has to be helped along and I saw that as my job. As i said in my last post I was not there to sell things. I was there to help people learn.
And as to the buisness aspect that is something I plan to take on head first in the near future. i believe that a buisness can be run successfuly without compromising the quality and correctness of the service and information. I am not going into buisness for the money although it will be my livelyhood, but I am going into it because I see an avenue to make a difference. There are no quality stores anywhere close to where I am and I want to change that.