BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 1939
Page 1
Date of Hearing: May 9, 2012
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Felipe Fuentes, Chair
AB 1939 (Pan) - As Amended: April 16, 2012
Policy Committee: Local
GovernmentVote:6-2
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program:
Yes Reimbursable: No
SUMMARY
This bill creates a pilot project in specified counties that
would require pet dealers, and others as specified, to submit a
report once a month to the city or county entity 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 a pilot program be set up in the counties of Los
Angeles, Orange, Sacramento, San Diego and Santa Clara and
allows any other county to enact a local ordinance
implementing a program, as specified.
2)For the jurisdictions participating in the pilot program,
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.
3)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.
4)Provides that a violation of the reporting requirements is
punishable by a civil fine, as determined by the local
jurisdiction, not exceeding fifty dollars ($50) for the first
offense and one hundred dollars ($100) for each subsequent
AB 1939
Page 2
offense.
5)Sunsets the pilot program and related provisions as of January
1, 2018.
6)Authorizes a licensing entity to issue a puppy license for any
dog under 12 months of age, as specified.
FISCAL EFFECT
Negligible fiscal impact.
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
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)Background. Since the mid-1950s, California has required that
dogs be licensed by the time they are four months of age.
Owners are also required 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 it results in lost dogs staying
longer in shelters or being euthanized because they cannot be
readily identified and returned promptly to their owners.
3)Opposition. The State Humane Association of California (SHAC)
opposes the requirement that humane societies and SPCAs submit
a monthly report to animal control. These lists are valuable
to the organizations as they contain donor information and as
such are considered a trade secret. They argue if SCPCAs and
humane societies are forced to surrender adopter lists to
local government, the information may be misappropriated.
AB 1939
Page 3
SHAC provides one example in which an SPCA that recently
provided its adopter list to its local animal control agency.
The animal control agency then used the list to solicit
donations on its own behalf. SHAC acknowledge there is a
prohibition in the bill against this behavior, but no penalty
is provided for violations. SHAC also oppose the fine for
failure to report, contending that burdening nonprofit rescue
groups with a penalty for doing rescue work that would
otherwise fall on the local governments is counterproductive
4)Previous legislation. 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."
Analysis Prepared by : Roger Dunstan / APPR. / (916) 319-2081