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