BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 1939
Page 1
ASSEMBLY THIRD READING
AB 1939 (Pan)
As Amended April 16, 2012
Majority vote
LOCAL GOVERNMENT 6-2 APPROPRIATIONS 9-6
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Ayes:|Smyth, Alejo, Bradford, |Ayes:|Fuentes, Bradford, |
| |Campos, Davis, Hueso | |Charles Calderon, Campos, |
| | | |Davis, Hall, Hill, Lara, |
| | | |Mitchell |
| | | | |
|-----+--------------------------+-----+--------------------------|
|Nays:|Knight, Norby |Nays:|Harkey, Donnelly, Gatto, |
| | | |Nielsen, Norby, Wagner |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
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;
AB 1939
Page 2
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
is punishable by a civil fine, as determined by the local
jurisdiction, and shall not exceed $50 for the first
offense and $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; and,
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;
AB 1939
Page 3
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
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 $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; and,
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 or 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
AB 1939
Page 4
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 Government Code Section 17556.
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
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
AB 1939
Page 5
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 : According to the Assembly Appropriations
Committee, there is negligible fiscal impact.
COMMENTS : 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.
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.
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 1, 2018.
Provisions in the bill allow any other county to enact a local
AB 1939
Page 6
ordinance implementing a similar reporting program.
The Legislature may wish to ask the author whether these
counties have agreed to participate in the pilot project.
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,
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).
This bill is similar to AB 1121 (Pan) which was heard by the
Assembly Local Government 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."
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
AB 1939
Page 7
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."
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 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.
Analysis Prepared by : Debbie Michel / L. GOV. / (916)
319-3958
FN: 0003570