BILL ANALYSIS Ó
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
|Hearing Date:May 2, 2011 |Bill No:SB |
| |702 |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SENATE COMMITTEE ON BUSINESS, PROFESSIONS
AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Senator Curren D. Price, Jr., Chair
Bill No: SB 702Author:Lieu
As Amended:April 27, 2011 Fiscal:Yes
SUBJECT: Dog licensing: microchip implants.
SUMMARY: Requires owners of an animal that is claimed or adopted from
a shelter to implant a microchip in their animal upon release.
Existing law, Food and Agricultural Code (FAC):
1) Prohibits a public animal control agency or shelter, Society for
the Prevention of Cruelty to Animal's shelter, Humane Society
shelter or rescue group from selling or giving away a dog or cat
that has not been spayed or neutered. (FAC §§ 30503, 30520,
31751.3, 31760)
2) Imposes fines or civil penalties against the owner of a dog or cat
that is impounded by a public pound or private shelter. (FAC §§
30804.7, 31751.7).
3) Requires public and private shelters to scan a dog or cat for
microchips to identify the owner of the dog or cat. Where a
microchip is found, the public and private shelter shall make
reasonable efforts to contact the owner and notify him or her that
his or her animal is impounded and available for redemption during
the holding period and prior to adoption or euthanasia of an
impounded animal. (FAC § 31108).
This bill: Requires an owner of an animal that is adopted or
impounded and claimed by the owner from a local animal shelter to
implant an identifying microchip in the animal upon release, if a
microchip is available. If a microchip is not available for
implantation, the owner must do so within 30 days of release of their
SB 702
Page 2
animal from the shelter.
FISCAL EFFECT: Unknown. Legislative counsel has keyed this bill as
being "fiscal."
COMMENTS:
1. Purpose. This bill is sponsored by Social Compassion in
Legislation . According to the Author, every year over a million
dogs and cats enter municipal animal shelters costing taxpayers
over $300 million annually according to the Cities and Counties
Annual Reports submitted to the State Controller's office. Of
these animals, only 13% of them are returned to their owner and
over half are euthanized. The Author states that a "significant
source of the problem includes the lack of identification and
ability to reunite these animals with their owners."
2. How Does a Microchip Work? According to the American Animal
Welfare Society , a microchip is a computer chip that is programmed
with a unique identification number. The whole device is small
enough to fit into a hypodermic needle and is injected under the
skin of the animal, where it will stay for the lifetime of the pet.
According to the Author, implementing the microchip is essentially
the same as administering a vaccine. A pet may feel a little
pinch, and any pain should be over very quickly. Due to the simple
nature of implanting a microchip, a veterinarian is not required;
rather a veterinarian technician or a registered veterinarian
technician may perform the procedure.
When a pet is found by an animal shelter or a veterinarian, a
scanner is used to detect the pet's microchip. The scanner will
read the unique number associated with the chip which is linked to
the owner's contact information in a database. Opponents have
stated that the varying types of scanners make it difficult to
ensure that the microchip can be read when the pet is found. The
American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) states that there
are three different types of frequencies that are emitted by
microchips. However, international standards for microchips have
recently been implemented and universal scanners have been
developed which read all types of frequencies. The microchip is
not an active pet tracking device and therefore it is essential for
the owner to keep their contact information current with the
microchip's manufacturer.
3. Cost of Microchipping and the Role of Non-Profit Organizations.
According to the Author, the price of implanting a microchip can
SB 702
Page 3
vary from $5 - $75. Several local municipalities and non-profit
organizations are offering microchipping at no cost to the owner
and other local providers include low cost microchip resources.
Additionally, most, if not all veterinarians perform this procedure
as well. The varying costs are due to the fact that veterinarians
charge varying fees for microchipping based on the market they are
located in. Also, many municipal animal care facilities routinely
host microchipping clinics. An owner can call the facility that
services their area to see if this is offered. Another resource
are local pet suppliers, which often hold monthly microchip
clinics.
4. Updating Contact Information. Once a microchip has been implanted,
it is important for the pet owner to keep the contact information
associated with microchip up to date. Currently, once a pet owner
signs up with the manufacturer to implant a microchip, he or she
also agrees to pay a fee to update that information. Some people
do not stay up to date with this information, which may account for
the 74.1% success rate in reuniting lost animals with their owners.
5. Public Safety. Last week in the Los Angeles Times, a story was
published about a man in Santa Ana who tortured his dog with a
machete. When the injured dog was discovered, the man stated that
the dog was a stray that had been fighting with another dog.
Investigators then took the dog to a veterinarian who discovered
that the dog had a microchip implanted in it. The microchip showed
that the man who stated that the dog was a stray was actually the
owner. The ability to identify the owner of an adopted animal may
be useful in other situations, such as dog fighting, to prevent and
penalize animal abuse.
6. Backyard Breeding. According to the ASPCA a backyard breeder is an
individual whose pet either gets bred by accident, or who breeds on
purpose for a variety of reasons such as a desire to make extra
money, for example. In California, most jurisdictions have pet
limit laws which only permit a specific number of pets on one's
property. Therefore, some concerns have been raised that those
opposed to microchip implantation are against the practice solely
because this could result in alerting animal control of the number
of animals that are being kept at a specific property. While this
practice is illegal, discovering illegal conduct is not the purpose
of this bill. Rather, it is to ensure that scarce shelter
resources are not overwhelmed and result in high numbers of
euthanized animals.
SB 702
Page 4
7. Previous Legislation. In 2001, SB 236 (O'Connell) was introduced
in the Senate which would have required, among other provisions,
that the seller of any dog or cat ensure that their dog or cat had
been microchipped and that the owner's identification had been
entered into a registry maintained by a county, city or city and
county agency providing animal control services, or a national
registry. This bill was never set for a hearing in this Committee.
In 2007, AB 1634 (Levine), was amended on the Senate Floor and
would have required, among other provisions, the same microchip
requirement in SB 236. This bill failed passage on the Senate
Floor and was granted reconsideration but was placed on the Senate
inactive file.
8. Arguments in Support. Social Compassion in Legislation (SCIL)
supports this bill. SCIL states that microchipping is a safe and
effective way to ensure that animals are returned to their owners.
In support, the Sponsor cites the AVMA's Website, which gives
reasons why other methods of identifying lost animals are not as
effective. According to the Website, "tattooing animals is
undesirable because it can produce discomfort and also fade with
time or can be altered. Ear tags are effective and visible means
of identification, but can be removed intentionally or by trauma.
Hot branding provides permanent identification of livestock, but it
elicits a marked pain response followed by local inflammation and
increased skin sensitivity for one week." Additionally, studies
have shown that where an animal was microchipped, it was
successfully returned to its owner 74.1 % of the time.
Other supporters agree that microchipping is a safe and effective
way to get the animals back home, or even prevent them from ever
even entering the shelter system in the first place. Additionally,
they believe that this requirement will help cities and counties
save their dwindling resources through reduced costs resulting from
lower euthanasia and faster reunification rates.
9. Arguments in Opposition. California Responsible Pet Owners'
Coalition (CaRPOC) opposes this bill. CaRPOC states that owners
are reluctant to microchip their dogs because studies have shown,
"When a dog is mircochipped, the site of implantation may become
swollen or infected; the chip may fail or migrate in the animal's
body; and tumors and cancers have developed at the site of
implanted chips, necessitating amputation or worse." Additionally,
they state that competitors often make their own scanners, which
will not read another competitor's chips.
SB 702
Page 5
SUPPORT AND OPPOSITION:
Support:
Social Compassion in Legislation (SCIL) (Sponsor)
Animal Legal Defense Fund
Human Society of the United States
Long Beach, City of
Santa Cruz Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals
Social Compassion in Legislation (SCIL) (Sponsor)
Take Me Home Animal Rescue
Opposition:
California Responsible Pet Owners' Coalition (CaRPOC)
Consultant:Bill Gage/Candace Choe