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