BILL ANALYSIS
AB 2132
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 15, 2008
Counsel: Nicole J. Hanson
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY
Jose Solorio, Chair
AB 2132 (Houston) - As Amended: March 11, 2008
SUMMARY : Makes it unlawful for any person to remove any collar
from a dog without the permission of the dog's owner and with
the intent to prevent or hinder the owner from locating the dog.
Specifically, this bill :
1)Provides that it is unlawful for any person to remove any
collar, including an electronic or radio transmitting collar,
from a dog without the permission of the dog's owner and with
the intent to prevent or hinder the owner from locating the
dog. The court shall order any person convicted of violating
this section to pay the to the owner of any dog lost or killed
as a result of collar removal, as restitution, the actual
value of the dog. The court may also order any person
convicted of violating this section, as restitution, to pay to
the owner of the dog any lost breeding revenues.
2)Requires signs forbidding trespass for lands under cultivation
or enclosed by a fence, belonging to, or occupied by, another,
or to enter any uncultivated or unenclosed lands, including
lands temporarily inundated by waters flowing outside the
established banks of a river, stream, slough, or other
waterway, to be displayed at intervals not less than one per
one-third mile along all exterior boundaries and at all roads
and trails entering such lands. Said signs shall be at least
81/2 by 11 inches in size.
3)Allows the commission to consider adopting regulations that
permit, during archery season, the use of one dog per hunter
to aid in the recovery of deer.
EXISTING LAW :
1)Declares that dogs are personal property, and their value is
to be ascertained in the same manner as the value of other
property. (Penal Code Section 491.)
AB 2132
Page 2
2)Asserts every person who shall feloniously steal, take, carry,
lead, or drive away the personal property of another, or who
shall fraudulently appropriate property which has been
entrusted to him or her, or who shall knowingly and
designedly, by any false or fraudulent representation or
pretense, defraud any other person of personal property, is
guilty of theft. In determining the value of the property
obtained, the reasonable and fair market value shall be the
test, and in determining the value of services received the
contract price shall be the test. [Penal Code Section
484(a).]
3)Provides every person who feloniously steals, takes, or
carries away a dog of another which is of value exceeding $400
is guilty of grand theft. (Penal Code Section 487e.)
4)Punishes grand theft by imprisonment in the county jail no
exceeding one year or in the state prison for 16 months, 2 or
3 years. (Penal Code Section 489.)
5)Asserts that every person who feloniously steals, takes, or
carries away a dog of another which is of value not exceeding
$400 is guilty of petty theft. (Penal Code Section 487f.)
6)Punishes petty theft by a fine not exceeding $1,000; by
imprisonment in the county jail not exceeding six months; or
both. (Penal Code Section 490.)
7)Declares that it is a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment
in the county jail not exceeding six months or by a fine not
exceeding $1,000 to enter any lands under cultivation or
enclosed by fence, belonging to, or occupied by, another, or
entering upon uncultivated or unenclosed lands where signs
forbidding trespass are displayed at intervals not less than
three to the mile along all exterior boundaries and at all
roads and trails entering the lands without the written
permission of the owner of the land, the owner's agent or of
the person in lawful possession, and:
a) Refusing or failing to leave the lands immediately upon
being requested by the owner of the land, the owner's agent
or by the person in lawful possession to leave the lands;
b) Tearing down, mutilating, or destroying any sign,
AB 2132
Page 3
signboard, or notice forbidding trespass or hunting on the
lands;
c) Removing, injuring, unlocking, or tampering with any
lock on any gate on or leading into the lands; or,
d) Discharging any firearm. [Penal Code Section 602(l).]
8)States that is unlawful to enter any lands under cultivation
or enclosed by a fence, belonging to, or occupied by, another,
or to enter any uncultivated or unenclosed lands, including
lands temporarily inundated by waters flowing outside the
established banks of a river, stream, slough, or other
waterway, where signs forbidding trespass are displayed at
intervals not less than three to the mile along all exterior
boundaries and at all roads and trails entering such lands,
for the purpose of discharging any firearm or taking or
destroying any mammal or bird, including any waterfowl, on
such lands without having first obtained written permission
from the owner of such lands, or his agent, or the person in
lawful possession thereof. Such signs may be of any size and
wording, other than the wording required for signs under
existing law, which will fairly advise persons about to enter
the land that the use of such land is so restricted.
Violation of this section is a misdemeanor punishable by a
fine of not more than $1,000; imprisonment in the county jail
for not more than six months; or both. (Fish and Game Code
Section 2016.)
FISCAL EFFECT : Unknown
COMMENTS :
1)Author's Statement : According to the author, "The purpose of
this bill is to better protect hunting dogs, reduce the number
of inadvertent trespass violations, and assist hunters with
the recovery of deer.
"Hunting Dogs: Information provided by the author indicates
that there have been several cases in other states where
members of the public have removed electronic collars of
hunting dogs while they are in the field in an effort to
prevent the owners of the dogs from locating them. In
response, some states have adopted laws making such action a
crime and imposing penalties, including West Virginia,
AB 2132
Page 4
Virginia, and North Carolina. This bill would make it
unlawful to remove a collar with the intent of preventing an
owner from locating the dog, and require payment of
restitution if the dog is lost.
"In addition, current Fish and Game Commission regulations allow
deer hunters during rifle season to use one hunting dog to
assist in hunting. However, this practice is prohibited
during archery season, which results in greater numbers of
un-retrieved deer. This bill would encourage the Fish and
Game Commission, through regulation, to consider allowing the
use of one dog per hunter to aid in the recovery of deer
during the archery season.
"No Trespassing Signs: The current law requires hunters to
obtain written permission from landowners to enter private
lands for the purpose of hunting, if the lands are under
cultivation, fenced or posted with signs forbidding trespass,
provided that the signs are displayed at intervals of at least
three to the mile. It can be difficult for hunters to
identify property that is posted, particularly in the early
morning hours, where private lands are adjacent to public
lands, and where the signs are posted too far apart. This
bill seeks to remedy that problem by requiring that the signs
be posted at least one every third mile, and that the signs be
at least 8 by 11 inches in size."
2)Virginia's Response : "Sheriff's deputy James Cooke[, in
Richmond, Virginia] will tell you there are some dogs that
just can't be replaced.
"He should know. Cooke says he's spent about $15,000 on the 19
fox hounds he owns in Southampton County and the electronic
collars he uses to track them while hunting. He's also one of
the many hunters whose dogs' collars have been removed while
in the woods either by pranksters or those who don't think
dogs should be used to hunt.
"Virginia lawmakers are trying to put some teeth in the state's
larceny laws by making it a crime to remove an electronic dog
collar and requiring those found guilty to pay restitution if
the dog is lost or killed.
" 'I don't think you can set a price,' Cooke said of his hounds.
'I've got some money can't buy.'
AB 2132
Page 5
"Cooke was one of the lucky ones. Acting on a tip, he pulled
over a van belonging to Norfolk-based People for the Ethical
Treatment of Animals and found his hound inside. Two PETA
employees were charged with larceny for stealing the dog and
the collar. They are due in court next month.
"Hunting enthusiasts say the law needs changed to make it easier
to prosecute those who remove dog collars. The problem has
been that usually the collars are not stolen but simply
removed and thrown aside, making it difficult to prosecute as
larceny, said Bob Kane, a lobbyist for the Virginia Hunting
Dog Owners' Association.
"Those found guilty of removing a collar would face up to a year
in jail and a $2,500 fine.
"One bill, introduced in the House by Del. Ed T. Scott,
R-Madison, would have made it a felony if the dog was killed
or lost after the collar was removed. A competing Senate
version required restitution, and a Senate committee stripped
the felony language out of Scott's proposal.
"The Senate unanimously passed Scott's bill on Feb. 14; the
House of Delegates has yet to act on the Senate version.
"Scott said he would keep working to get the felony provision
restored. It makes sense, he said, because Virginia law
already allows someone to be charged with a felony for
stealing or killing a dog or livestock.
" 'If the collar is lost, it's a financial loss to the owner,
but if the dog is lost or killed it's a financial loss, but
obviously it could be an emotional loss as well,' Scott said.
"Kane said it is important to keep the felony provision in the
bill as a deterrent to those who would remove the collars. He
documented nearly 60 cases that occurred over four years from
Suffolk in southeastern Virginia to Tazewell County in the
southwest mountains where a dog's collar was removed. In 37
of those cases, the dogs never were found or were killed.
"While collars cost about $150 each and the receivers to pick up
the tracking signal run at least $900, the dogs themselves can
cost thousands, Kane said, adding that he once had $20,000 in
AB 2132
Page 6
one champion dog.
" 'Had someone stolen that dog, there would have been a felony
involved somewhere,' Kane said.
"Kane said in the rare instance someone is arrested for removing
a collar, the cases are extremely difficult to prosecute
because there often isn't much evidence and the crimes occur
in the woods far from witnesses.
"North Carolina passed a similar law in 2005, and West Virginia
lawmakers have toyed with the idea for several years and are
considering it again this year.
"In North Carolina, violators face a $200 fine the first time
and up to a $1,000 fine for subsequent convictions. A handful
of people are prosecuted each year, said Major Keith
Templeton, an enforcement officer with the North Carolina
Resources Commission.
" 'As far as I'm concerned, there's a substantial number of
people who are taking these collars because they don't like
hunting dogs and they don't like hunters,' Kane said.
"PETA opposes hunting, but the group also frowns upon those who
would remove a collar and cause a dog to be lost or killed,
said Daphna Nachminovitch, director of the organization's
domestic animal department.
"Nachminovitch said many people who see the devices probably
think they are electronic shock collars that people use to
train dogs. Still, she said making the crime a felony would
be going too far.
" 'They look very scary and they're heavy, and I would hesitate
to make a felon out of anybody who has good intentions and
just wants to keep an animal from suffering,' Nachminovitch
said.
"Allan Bishop of Hanover County has all but quit running his
dogs after one was lost in 2004 while deer hunting. Someone
removed both its electronic tracking collar and identification
collar and threw them in a ditch. Today, his 14 hounds
compete in simulated hunts in enclosed areas.
AB 2132
Page 7
"Bishop isn't alone. The number of Virginia hunters fell by
100,000 over the past decade, according to the state
Department of Game and Inland Fisheries. Subdivisions and
other development now sit on land once used to hunt.
"'The problem is, as I see it, a lot of folks moving out into
the rural areas that have lived in the city and don't
understand hunting,' Bishop said." [Potter, Bill Bites Down
on Dog Collar Laws, Daily Press- Newport News, VA (Feb. 19,
2007) p. C3.]
3)Argument in Support : According to the California Outdoor
Heritage Alliance , this bill "would make it a crime to remove
the collar of a hunting dog with the intent to prevent the
owner of the dog from recovering it. There have been several
recent cases in California, as well as in other states, of
members of the public removing the collars of hunting dogs
while they are in the field without the dog owners'
authorization, which has threatened the safety and well being
of the dogs. In response, several states, including West
Virginia, Virginia and North Carolina, have passed laws making
such action a crime. This bill would adopt language very
similar to the recently passed Virginia law.
"Further, this bill seeks to clarify Fish and Game Code Section
2016, which requires hunters to receive written permission
from landowners in order to hunt their property if the
property is under cultivation, fenced or posted with at least
three signs (of any size) per mile along all exterior
boundaries. While it is relatively easy for hunters to
identify property that is either farmed or enclosed by a
fence, it can be more difficult for them to determine which
non-agricultural or unfenced lands are so restricted. This
bill would help prevent trespass by requiring non-agricultural
or unfenced lands to be posted with one sign at least 8 by
11 inches in size per one-third mile along all exterior
boundaries so that hunters can better identify restricted
land.
"And, finally, this bill would require the Fish and Game
Commission to consider adopting regulations permitting the use
of one dog per hunter during archery deer season to aid in the
recovery of deer. This provision is very similar to current
Fish and Game Commission regulations that allow deer hunters
during rifle season to use one dog while hunting. This bill
AB 2132
Page 8
merely seeks to provide bow hunters with the same
consideration practice as afforded other deer hunters."
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
California Deer Association
California Houndsmen for Conservation
California Outdoor Heritage Alliance
California Waterfowl Association
Delta Waterfowl Foundation
Lower Sherman Island Duck Hunters Association
Mule Deer Foundation
PetPAC
3 Private Individuals
Opposition
None
Analysis Prepared by : Nicole J. Hanson / PUB. S. / (916)
319-3744