BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 1121
Page 1
Date of Hearing: May 18, 2011
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Felipe Fuentes, Chair
AB 1121 (Pan) - As Amended: April 26, 2011
Policy Committee: Local
GovernmentVote:8-1
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program:
Yes Reimbursable: Yes
SUMMARY
This bill requires pet dealers, rescue groups and other
specified entities to submit monthly reports to local
governments with information about recently sold or adopted dogs
and allows cities and counties to issue puppy licenses, as
defined. 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, 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 and specified information about the dog.
3)Allows a violation of the requirement to report 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.
4)Allows a licensing entity to issue a puppy license pursuant to
the provisions of this bill.
FISCAL EFFECT
1)Local governments will incur reimbursable state mandated costs
for processing the reports filed by entities that sell or
AB 1121
Page 2
transfer a dog. These costs are estimated to be approximately
$300,000. There are approximately 10 million dogs in
California. This means that there is an estimated 350,000 dog
transfers that would be subject to complying with the bill's
provisions.
2)Possibility of revenues which could more than offset costs if
local governments are able to successfully use the data that
is reported.
COMMENTS
1)Purpose . 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)Dog licensing . 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, which means the state does not know
how many dogs are actually protected against rabies, and that
lost dogs stay longer in shelters because they cannot be
readily identified and returned promptly to their owners.
3)Local governments' use of the generated data. The bill
envisions that local governments will use the reports that are
generated by the entities that sell or transfer dogs.
However, many cities and counties already require
veterinarians to report on rabies vaccinations to local
governments. Local governments would already appear to have a
large data base of dog owners if they choose to contact them
AB 1121
Page 3
to obtain a dog license. Many do not pursue this option
because of lack of resources.
This bill does not require reporting of a sale or transfer to
the jurisdiction of the new owner of the dog, rather the
jurisdiction of the seller. It is unclear how this
requirement will increase the licensing of dogs in instances
where the new owner is in a different jurisdiction.
4)Opposition . 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.
Analysis Prepared by : Roger Dunstan / APPR. / (916) 319-2081