April 28, 2005

The Honorable Gloria Negrete McLeod
Chair, California State Assembly Committee
On Business and Professions
1020 N Street, Room 124
Sacramento, CA 95814

Attention: Tracy Rhine, Committee Consultant
Fax - 916-319-3306

RE: OPPOSITION - AB 1428 as amended - Cloned and Genetically Modified Pet Animals.

Dear Ms. Negrete McLeod and Committee Members;

I am writing on behalf of the Cat Fanciers' Association (CFA) to express our opposition to AB 1428. We request that the Cat Fanciers' Association be included on the list of organizations opposed to AB 1428 in the Bill Analysis for your committee.

Appropriate cloning techniques for pet animals have dramatically improved because of the opportunity for commercial development. The science is a form of assisted reproduction not unlike artificial insemination, which has long been well accepted in many animal species and humans.

There are numerous positive benefits to society from the science of DNA gene banking, genetic modification and cloning of pet animals. The technology funded through the sales of cloned pet animals can be applied to endangered species threatened by extinction. Cloning may provide alternatives to capture and transport of wild animals to zoos. Much can be learned about the inheritance of behavioral traits in animals when cloned pets and their development are observed. DNA banking will makes genetic material available to scientists who work to eliminate inherited diseases and disorders in cats. CFA and other animal registries will have the opportunity to apply this science to pedigree/parentage verification.

California needs to be receptive to scientific opportunity that makes it possible for those who wish to clone their pets work with sellers within the state rather than be forced to go out of state. CFA believes that adding a pet should be a well considered choice. Whether pet owners prefer to take in a stray cat, purchase a pedigreed cat, obtain a random-mix cat in a shelter or spend their money for a clone of a previous pet should remain a personal option. Those who enter into the decision to clone their pet cat know that there will be a "physical resemblance" rather than "an animal genetically identical to another" as stated in this bill. "Behavioral resemblance" may be close but not exact due to environmental influence. This is similar to the reasons why a person may prefer to purchase a pedigreed cat/purebred dog/thoroughbred horse.

The argument that cloning of pets will mean more homeless pets in shelters reflects an irrational bias as even pedigreed cats represent less than 1% of the cats in California shelters. Other factors such as improved shelter management will reduce the numbers of homeless cats and dogs. Pets who meet the expectations of their owners have a very low risk of relinquishment to shelters.

We are concerned with other aspects of this bill - including what constitutes a "pet animal"? Horses and pot bellied pigs are pets and both species have already been successfully cloned. The transfer of a person's cloned cat upon their death to a family member would constitute a violation and $500,000 penalty. The fact that anyone can file a complaint, without verification, would invite harassment by those who have moral objections to this science.

We urge you to vote NO on this bill or request that it be withdrawn.

Sincerely yours,
s/Joan Miller
CFA Legislative Coordinator