BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 1939
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 25, 2012
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON LOCAL GOVERNMENT
Cameron Smyth, Chair
AB 1939 (Pan) - As Amended: April 16, 2012
SUBJECT : Dog licensing: issuance: puppy licenses.
SUMMARY : Creates a pilot project in specified counties which
would require pet dealers, and others as specified, to submit a
report once a month to the city or county responsible for
licensing dogs with information regarding dog sales and
adoptions; sunsets the pilot project provisions as of January 1,
2018; and, allows licensing agencies to issue puppy licenses, as
defined. Specifically, this bill :
1)Requires for the Counties of Los Angeles, Orange, Sacramento,
San Diego, and Santa Clara, the following to apply, and allows
any other county to enact a local ordinance implementing a
program consistent with the following:
a) Requires a pet dealer, humane society, rescue group,
society for the prevention of cruelty to animals, or pet
dealer, as defined, to submit once a month, 30 days after
the close of business for the previous month, a report to
the local governmental entity that is responsible for
licensing dogs in the city or county.
b) Requires that the report include the name, address, and
telephone number of the person who receives the dog, and
include descriptions about the dog, and requires that the
report not be used, distributed, or released for any
purpose, unless as specified.
c) Requires the reporting entity to retain copies of the
report for 12 months, and specifies that a report is not
required in any month that a dog was not adopted or sold.
d) Prohibits the information in the report from being used,
distributed or released for any purpose except as specified
and to ensure compliance with existing state and local law,
including applicable licensing requirements and
regulations.
e) Provides that a violation of the reporting requirements
AB 1939
Page 2
is punishable by a civil fine, as determined by the local
jurisdiction, and shall not exceed fifty dollars ($50) for
the first offense and one hundred dollars ($100) for each
subsequent offense.
f) Allows a local governmental entity to provide notice to
a person who receives a dog that was adopted or sold
regarding the laws requiring the person to obtain a license
for the dog.
g) Allows a local governmental entity to notify a different
local governmental entity that is responsible for licensing
dogs in the jurisdiction in which the person resides, that
the person has adopted or purchased a dog, if that person
does not reside within the jurisdiction of the local
governmental entity that is providing the notice.
h) Defines a "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.
2)Sunsets the provisions of 1) above as of January 1, 2018.
3)Authorizes a licensing entity to issue a "puppy license" for
any dog under 12 months of age, as follows:
a) Requires the license to expire when the puppy reaches
one year of age;
b) Requires a license to be issued for a puppy regardless
of whether the puppy has had an antirabies vaccination;
c) Provides that a puppy license shall expire 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, and specifies the following:
i) If the puppy license expires because of lack of
AB 1939
Page 3
acceptable proof, that the owner is not eligible to
obtain a second puppy license; or,
ii) If the owner has provided the issuing agency with
satisfactory evidence of the antirabies vaccination, the
puppy license shall expire when the puppy reaches one
year of age.
d) Provides, upon expiration of a puppy license, the owner
of the puppy shall obtain a dog license tag for a dog that
has been spayed or neutered and the fee shall be the same
as is contained in existing law, which provides for a fee
of fifty cents ($0.50) unless the fee is increased by the
board of supervisors;
e) Provides, upon expiration of a puppy license, if the
puppy has not been spayed or neutered, the owner of the
puppy shall obtain a dog license tag subject to the regular
fee for a dog that has not been spayed or neutered;
f) Provides that the fee for a puppy license is the same
fee for a dog that has been spayed or neutered (as is
specified in (d) above).
4)Provides for the responsible city, county, or city and county
to specify the means by which the dog owner is required to
provide proof that his/her dog has been spayed or neutered,
including, but not limited to, electronic transmission or
facsimile.
5)Declares that it is 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 to encourage all veterinarians to advise
their clients to license their dogs that are four months of
age or older.
6)Declares that no reimbursement is required because the act
creates a new crime or infraction to local agencies or school
districts under Section 6 of Article XIIIB of the California
Constitution and GOV Section 17556.
EXISTING LAW :
1)Provides for dog licensing requirements for cities and
AB 1939
Page 4
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
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 : This bill is keyed fiscal and contains a
state-mandated local program.
COMMENTS :
AB 1939
Page 5
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
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-1950s, 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)Recent amendments adopted on April 16, 2012, require pet
stores, non-profit animal shelters and rescue organizations,
and high-volume dog breeders in the Counties of Los Angeles,
Orange, Sacramento, San Diego, and Santa Clara to provide to
their local licensing agency a monthly list of licensing
information regarding dogs they have placed. The local
licensing agency may use the data to follow up with new dog
owners to complete the licensing process. This reporting
pilot program in the five counties will remain in effect until
January 1st, 2018. Provisions in the bill allow any other
county to enact a local ordinance implementing a similar
reporting program.
The Committee may wish to ask the author whether these
counties have agreed to participate in the pilot project.
4)Additionally, this bill would permit cities and counties to
offer puppy licenses for dogs under one year of age. If the
local agency opts to offer puppy licensing, then that city or
county would be required to follow the provisions of the bill,
AB 1939
Page 6
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).
5)This bill is similar to AB 1121 (Pan) which was heard by this
Committee in 2011. AB 1121 was vetoed by Governor Brown with
the following veto message:
"I am returning Assembly Bill 1121 without my signature.
Nothing in existing law prevents local governments from
issuing puppy licenses or imposing requirements on dog
sellers. In fact, some cities and counties have already
adopted excellent programs of the kind envisioned by this
bill. Licensing and tracking of dogs is quintessentially a
local function."
6)The State Humane Association of California (SHAC) has raised
concerns about several of the bill's provisions. First, SHAC
is opposed to the requirement that humane societies and SPCAs
submit a monthly report to animal control because for humane
societies and SPCAs, their adopter lists are a trade secret,
conferring independent economic value on the organizations.
SHAC writes that "if SCPCAs and humane societies are forced to
surrender adopter lists to local government, they face the
risk that the information will be misappropriated." SHAC
provides one example in which an SPCA that recently provided
its adopter list to its local animal control agency, was then
turned into an opportunity for the animal control agency to
solicit donations on its own behalf.
Second, SHAC is opposed to the fine for failure to report and
writes that "the reporting requirement amounts to a mandate
for SPCAs and humane societies for which they would receive no
reimbursement from local government?however, if they fail to
report, they would be subject to a fine."
7)Support arguments : Supporters 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
AB 1939
Page 7
puppies pursuant to the bill's provisions, which will allow
local governments to get dogs into their systems much earlier
in the process. Additionally, this gives those local
governments choosing to do puppy licensing the ability to
track dogs throughout their lifetime and send license renewals
with efficiency.
Opposition arguments : Opponents argue that increasing
reporting requirements on humane societies, rescue groups, and
other entities is burdensome and unnecessary, even in the
format of a pilot project affecting only five counties.
Opponents are concerned about the use of the information by
the local agency and would rather see the reporting provisions
in the bill be voluntary.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
Concerned Dog Owners of California ÝSPONSOR]
California Animal Control Directors Association
County of Sacramento
The Humane Society of the United States
Neutral
California Retailers Association
Pet Industry Joint Advisory Council
Opposition
California Federation of Dog Clubs
State Humane Association of California (unless amended)
The Animal Council
Analysis Prepared by : Debbie Michel / L. GOV. / (916)
319-3958