BILL ANALYSIS Ó AB 1121 Page 1 Date of Hearing: May 4, 2011 ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON LOCAL GOVERNMENT Cameron Smyth, Chair AB 1121 (Pan) - As Amended: April 26, 2011 SUBJECT : Dog licensing: issuance: puppy licenses. SUMMARY : Allows cities and counties to issue puppy licenses, as defined, specifies provisions by which cities and counties can issue puppy licenses, and creates new reporting requirements for pet dealers, rescue groups and other specified entities to submit monthly reports to local governments with information about recently sold or adopted dogs. Specifically, this bill : 1)Requires each pet dealer, humane society, rescue group, society for the prevention of cruelty to animals, or other specified entity, to submit, once a month, 30 days after the close of business for the previous month, a report to the public entity that is responsible for licensing dogs in the city or county. 2)Requires the report to include the name, address, and telephone number of the person who receives the dog that was adopted or sold in the previous month by that entity submitting the report. 3)Requires the report to include the breed, age, microchip number and reproductive status of the dog. 4)States that a report is not required in any month in which a dog was not adopted or sold. 5)Requires the reporting entity to retain copies of the report for 12 months and specifies that the information contained in the report shall not be used, distributed, or released for any purpose except to ensure compliance with existing state and local law, including applicable licensing requirements and regulations. 6)Allows a violation of the requirement to report monthly to the local jurisdiction to be subject to a civil fine as determined by the local jurisdiction, and provides that the fine shall not exceed $50 for the first offense and $100 for each subsequent offense. AB 1121 Page 2 7)Defines "rescue group" as a for-profit or not-for-profit entity, or a collaboration of individuals with at least one of its purposes being the sale or placement of dogs that have been removed from a public animal control agency or shelter, society for the prevention of cruelty to animals shelter, or humane shelter or that have been previously owned by any person other than the original breeder of that dog. 8)Requires the responsible city, county or city and county to specify the means by which the dog owner is required to provide proof that his or her dog has been spayed or neutered, including, but not limited to, by electronic transmission or facsimile. 9)Defines "puppy license" to mean a dog license tag issued for a microchipped puppy. 10)Allows a licensing entity to issue a puppy license pursuant to the provisions of this bill, as follows: a) Provides that a puppy license shall expire when the puppy reaches one year of age. b) Provides that upon expiration of a puppy license, the owner shall obtain a dog license tag and provides that the fee of the tag shall be the same fee that is authorized pursuant to existing law for a dog that has been spayed or neutered. c) States, notwithstanding any other law or local ordinance, that a puppy license for a microchipped puppy shall, upon application of the owner, be issued regardless of whether the puppy has had an antirabies vaccination. d) Requires the expiration of a puppy license when the puppy reaches five months of age if the owner has not provided acceptable proof, on or before that date, to the entity that issued the license that the puppy has received an antirabies vaccination e) Provides that if the puppy license expires pursuant to d) above, the owner shall not be eligible to obtain a second puppy license. AB 1121 Page 3 f) Provides that the fee for a puppy license shall be the same fee that is authorized pursuant to existing law for a dog that has been spayed or neutered. 11)Defines "puppy" to mean any dog under 12 months of age. 12)Declares the intent of the Legislature to encourage anyone transferring ownership of a dog to advise the new owner that all dogs four months of age or older must be licensed under state law, and declares the intent of the Legislature to encourage all veterinarians to advise all dog owners to license all dogs that are four months of age or older. EXISTING LAW : 1)Provides for dog licensing requirements for cities and counties. 2)Requires that all dogs over the age of four months be vaccinated against rabies. 3)Prohibits any public pound, society for the prevention of cruelty to animals' shelter, or humane shelter from selling or giving away any dog that has not been spayed or neutered, unless a deposit for spaying or neutering the dog has been tendered to the pound or shelter. 4)Specifies provisions relating to requirements for spaying and neutering applicable to a county that has a population of less than 100,000 persons as of January 1, 2000, and to cities within that county. 5)Requires, for counties of less than 100,000 persons and cities within those counties, to issue a dog license tag for one-half or less of the fee required for a dog, if a certificate is presented from a licensed veterinarian that the dog has been spayed or neutered. 6)Allows a board of supervisors to provide for the issuance of serially numbered metallic dog licenses, and specifies that these licenses shall be issued for a period of not to exceed two years, or for three years for dogs that are 12 months, or older, and who have been vaccinated against rabies. 7)Allows the board of supervisors to increase the fee for the AB 1121 Page 4 issuance of dog licenses. 8)Requires dog license tags to be issued for one-half or less of the fee required for a dog, if a certificate is presented from a licensed veterinarian that the dog has been spayed or neutered. 9)Requires local governments to fine owners of a nonspayed or unneutered dog that is impounded by a city or county animal control agency or shelter. FISCAL EFFECT : Unknown COMMENTS : 1)According to the sponsor, the Concerned Dog Owners of California, the purpose of this bill is to remove barriers that reduce compliance with the state laws that require dog licensing. The sponsor believes that removing these barriers and increasing licensing would have a number of beneficial effects. First, it would make it easier to get lost dogs back home to their owners which will result in lower kill rates in shelters. Second, increasing licensing would provide local government with access to additional revenues. And third, the bill will provide local governments with ways to recover costs more quickly. 2)Since the mid-1950's, California has required that dogs be licensed by the time they are four months of age and owners are obligated to provide proof of anti-rabies vaccination. Dog tag licenses are issued by local jurisdictions pursuant to provisions contained in the Food and Agriculture Code. According to the Humane Society, only one in five dogs in California is licensed. This low rate means that the state does not know how many dogs are actually protected against rabies, and may result in lost dogs staying longer in shelters because they cannot be readily identified and returned promptly to their owners. 3)This bill would require that pet stores, non-profit animal shelters, rescue organizations, and high-volume dog breeders compile and send to their local licensing agency a monthly list of licensing information regarding dogs they have placed, adopted, or sold. The author's intent with this monthly AB 1121 Page 5 reporting requirement is to provide this information to local governments which would then allow, if the local government wants to and has the resources, the local government to contact new owners in order to get the dogs licensed. Additionally, this bill would permit cities and counties to offer a puppy license to microchipped puppies under the age of four months. If the local agency opts to offer puppy licensing, then that city or county would be required to follow the provisions of the bill, which contain the process for the licensing. For cities and counties that choose to offer a puppy license, the bill requires the local government to offer it for the same fee charged to owners of altered dogs. A puppy license would be temporary and become permanent when the owners provide their local licensing agency with proof of proper rabies documentation (no later than five months of age). 4)The opposition argues that the monthly reporting requirement provisions in the bill are effectively meaningless, and instead, impose a new burden of data collection on pet stores, non-profit animal shelters, rescue organizations and high-volume dog breeders. There is no guarantee that this information will even be used by local governments in order to facilitate increased licensing of dogs, especially given the lack of resources faced by animal control offices. The Committee may wish to consider whether placing burdensome data collection requirements on these entities makes sense without some sort of guarantee that the information will be put to use by local governments. The Committee may also wish to consider whether local governments have the resources to increase their dog licensing efforts given the economic downturn. 5)Support arguments: Supporters of the bill argue that this bill will result in higher licensing rates for dogs in California and allow for better compliance in getting lost dogs home to their owners. Local governments may also choose to start licensing puppies pursuant to the bill's provisions, which will allows local governments to get dogs into their systems much earlier on in the process. This additionally gives the local governments choosing to do puppy licensing the AB 1121 Page 6 ability to track dogs throughout their lifetime and send licensing renewals with efficiency. Supporters argue that the monthly reporting requirement contained in the bill will provide local governments with another tool that they can use to get dogs properly licensed and into the system. Local governments are not mandated to use the information, but can choose to do so at their convenience. Opposition arguments: According to the California Federation of Dog Clubs, this bill improperly transfers reporting responsibilities to the sellers of dogs, including pet stores, breeders and rescue groups, and that these multiple layers of mandated reporting are unnecessary and costly to administer. Additionally, the Pet Industry Joint Advisory Council (PIJAC) notes that "under current economic conditions, already-strapped local governments are unlikely to expend funds and employ the resources necessary to compile reports submitted by multiple sources, cross-reference the data contained in such reports against dog licensing lists and then ensure application of licensing requirements on pet owners." Furthermore, PIJAC writes that "many pet owners obtain their dogs from pet dealers located in cities or counties other than where the pet owner resides, Ýmeaning that] localities will be receiving a significant amount of data that is completely useless?which will reduce the likelihood that such localities will opt to use the information at all." REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION : Support Concerned Dog Owners of California ÝSPONSOR] American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Golden Retriever Club of Greater Los Angeles The Humane Society of the United States Individual letters (2) AB 1121 Page 7 Opposition California Federation of Dog Clubs California Responsible Pet Owners' Coalition National Federation of Independent Business Pet Industry Joint Advisory Council The Animal Council Analysis Prepared by : Debbie Michel / L. GOV. / (916) 319-3958