By Tali Woodward

In December, Sausalito-based Genetic Savings and Clone delivered the first cat cloned for commercial purposes – that is, for someone willing to buy a genetic copy of a deceased pet – to a Texas woman named Julie. She paid $50,000 for Little Nicky.

Although no scientist in the world has yet successfully cloned a dog, GSC is planning to produce the first clonal canine sometime this year. And the company will culture and store DNA from a cat or dog for $895, plus a $100 annual storage fee.

The whole thing has some animal rights activists pretty worked up. Jennifer Fearing, who is president of animal rights group United Animal Nations, told the Bay Guardian, "We find the cloning of pets particularly egregious because there is absolutely no rational reason for it."

So Van Nuys state assemblymember Lloyd Levine has introduced bill A.B. 1428, which would ban the sale of any cloned or genetically modified pets within the state.

It's hard to argue that anyone needs a cloned pet when roughly a million unwanted cats and dogs are put to sleep in California every year. Besides, as Fearing pointed out, clonal animals have shown a tendency toward genetic defects, other health problems, and dying young. The cloning process requires additional animals to act as donors and surrogate mothers, but since the industry is unregulated, there is no way to monitor how those animals are treated. There's also the dicey issue of selling supposed replicas of well-loved companion animals.

But the pet cloners remain resolute.

"Given that Genetic Savings & Clone (GSC) is the only company in the world currently offering cloned pets, the bill is clearly designed to shut us down and deny pet owners and their animals the benefits only we can provide," the company said in a statement.

GSC argues it's odd to blame the cloners for the homeless-pet problem, when it has produced only six cats so far – and has paid more than $350,000 to spay clinics. (This isn't out of the goodness of its heart: GSC buys the clinics' medical waste – including cat and dog ova – to make clonal zygotes.)

Professor David Magnus, who is codirector of the Stanford Center for Biomedical Ethics, hasn't taken a position on Levine's bill but says pet cloning is morally problematic on several levels. "Number one, I think it's a rip-off," he told us. "People are interested because, essentially, they don't want their pet to die. As a dog person, I sympathize. But complex behavioral traits are very much dependent on experiences."

More important, Magnus said, cloned animals aren't as healthy as naturally conceived pets. "What's still unknown are the long-term effects. Given all of these issues, it's hard to see how this could be justified."

E-mail Tali Woodward