BILL ANALYSIS
SB 861
Page 1
Date of Hearing: June 29, 2005
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON LOCAL GOVERNMENT
Simon Salinas, Chair
SB 861 (Speier) - As Amended: June 21, 2005
SENATE VOTE : Not relevant
SUBJECT : Dangerous and vicious dogs.
SUMMARY : Allows cities and counties to pass breed-specific
legislation to address public safety and welfare issues in their
communities, but prohibits cities and counties from banning any
specific breed of dog.
EXISTING LAW :
1)Regulates potentially dangerous and vicious dogs, as
specified, and provides that nothing in these provisions shall
be construed to prevent a city or county from adopting or
enforcing its own program for the control of potentially
dangerous or vicious dogs that may incorporate all, part, or
none of these provisions, or that may punish a violation of
these provisions as a misdemeanor or may impose a more
restrictive program to control potentially dangerous or
vicious dogs.
2)Prohibits any program to control potentially dangerous or
vicious dogs from regulating these dogs in a manner that is
specific as to breed.
FISCAL EFFECT : None
COMMENTS :
1)On June 3, 2005, a12-year-old San Francisco boy was mauled to
death by his family's un-neutered pit bull. San Francisco
Mayor Gavin Newsom formed a task force to assess what the city
and county could do to protect the public from these kinds of
dog attacks. The task force made the following findings:
a) There are 120,000 dogs in San Francisco;
b) There is one dog bite per day in San Francisco(362 bites
per year);
SB 861
Page 2
c) There are about 150 vicious dog hearings annually in San
Francisco with 60% involving pit bulls;
d) 70% of dogs in Bay Area shelters are pit bulls and pit
bull mixes;
e) About 10 to 20 people die annually in the country from
dog bites;
f) 66 people died from pit bull attacks nationally in the
period 1978-1998;
g) California leads the nation in fatal dog attacks: 47 in
the period 1965-2001;
h) 70% of fatal attacks and bites involve children under
the age of 12, followed by senior citizens;
i) 77% of dog bite injuries are caused by dogs known to the
bitten person;
j) 94% of dog bites are unprovoked;
aa) Most bite incidents involve un-neutered males over 50
lbs in weight.
2)After pointing out that existing state law does not permit
breed-specific ordinances and regulations, the task force made
specific recommendations for the City and County of San
Francisco to follow if it was given the authority to do so by
the Legislature:
a) Institute a spaying and neutering program directed at
breeds of dogs most likely to engage in unprovoked attacks
on people;
b) Prohibit backyard breeding of these breeds and mixes;
c) Target the owners of dogs that pose a risk to public
safety with penalties commensurate with the harm and injury
potentially caused by vicious and dangerous dogs;
d) Increase fines for those that do not register their
dogs, and assess fees on owners of vicious and dangerous
SB 861
Page 3
dogs to help offset city regulation and enforcement costs;
e) Require owners of specified vicious and dangerous dogs
to obtain a minimum threshold of liability insurance not
traditionally covered by homeowners insurance to protect
dog bite victims against unsatisfied judgments.
3)The opponents of SB 861 state that deeds, not breeds, should
determine whether a dog is dangerous, and that they support
strong enforcement of California's current dangerous dog
statute. They contend that the problem lies with
irresponsible owners rather than with any innate
characteristics of a breed, and that strong enforcement of
existing law would resolve any dangerous dog issues that
exist. They contend that breed-specific legislation is hard
to enforce fairly and effectively because the task of breed
identification requires expert knowledge of the individual
breeds, and is compounded if the law includes mixed breeds.
They maintain that breed-specific legislation has been
ineffective and burdensome in the jurisdictions that have
enacted it. The opponents assert that many of the owners of
bull breeds and other potentially targeted breeds are
extremely responsible, and that breed-specific laws may
prevent these owners from freely interacting with, showing,
breeding, or performing pet therapy with their dogs as a
result of the abuse and irresponsibility of a minority of
owners. They foresee shelter costs and dog euthanasia
skyrocketing as a result of SB 861 as citizens abandon pets
that have been targeted due to breed, and successful legal
challenges because proper identification of what dogs would be
included would be difficult or impossible, and local
ordinances and regulations permitted under SB861 may be deemed
unconstitutionally vague.
4)The Committee may wish to consider whether the current
language of the bill, which allows all cities and counties to
pass breed-specific legislation to "address public safety and
welfare issues" with no further definition of what these may
be is excessively vague and prone to abuse. San Francisco has
been conscientious and thorough in its analysis of and
recommendations on the issue within its borders. The concern
is that jurisdictions that do not share San Francisco's stated
commitment to implement and fund progressive and well-reasoned
public education, regulation and enforcement policies could
implement relatively cheap and slapdash efforts to "address
SB 861
Page 4
public safety and welfare issues" that impose unfair
restrictions on people who own neutered, well-behaved dogs of
the targeted breeds, and that shelters will begin imposing
mass euthanasia and/or refuse to adopt out otherwise healthy
and safe animals who are of the "wrong" breed. Limiting the
authorization to specific areas, such as mandatory spaying and
neutering and breeding restrictions, would provide insurance
against sloppy or abusive implementation of the law.
5)The Committee may also wish to consider making some provision
for reporting from jurisdictions that choose to enact
breed-specific legislation in order to track the policy's
effectiveness. Even some advocates of SB 861 allow that it
may not work as well as they hope. Opponents say that
breed-specific laws don't work, and provide documentation to
prove it. Given the potential negative impacts on dogs and
owners if breed-specific legislation doesn't work, it seems
prudent to provide for some means for legislative review of
its efficacy.
6)PROPOSED AMENDMENTS : The Committee may wish to consider
requesting that the author amend SB 861 to:
a) Specify that it authorizes only breed-specific mandatory
spaying and neutering and breeding limitations; and
b) Provide for increased reporting of dog bite data and
other information by local jurisdictions that make use of
the authorization provided by SB 861.
SB 861
Page 5
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
City of Concord
League of CA Cities
Opposition
American Canine Foundation
American Dog Breeders Association
American Kennel Club
American Pit Bull Rescue Association
Animal Council
Association of Veterinarians for Animal Rights
Bay Area Doglovers Responsible About Pit Bulls (BADRAP)
CA Veterinary Medical Association
Caped Dog Services
Chako Rescue Association For the American Bull Terrier
Doberman Pinscher Club of America
Humane Society of the United States
Peninsula Humane Association & SPCA
Sacramento Council of Dog Clubs
SoCal BARF
PAWS For Change
United Animal Nations
West Los Angeles Responsible Dog Owners
107 individuals
Analysis Prepared by : J. Stacey Sullivan / L. GOV. / (916)
319-3958