BILL ANALYSIS Ó
------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | SB 702|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|1020 N Street, Suite 524 | |
|(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
------------------------------------------------------------
VETO
Bill No: SB 702
Author: Lieu (D)
Amended: 4/27/11
Vote: 21
SENATE BUSINESS, PROF. & ECON. DEV. COMMITTEE : 7-1, 5/2/11
AYES: Price, Emmerson, Corbett, Correa, Hernandez, Vargas,
Walters
NOES: Wyland
NO VOTE RECORDED: Negrete McLeod
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE : Senate Rule 28.8
SENATE FLOOR : 32-6, 5/31/11
AYES: Alquist, Blakeslee, Calderon, Corbett, Correa, De
León, DeSaulnier, Dutton, Emmerson, Evans, Gaines,
Hancock, Harman, Hernandez, Kehoe, Leno, Lieu, Liu,
Lowenthal, Padilla, Pavley, Price, Rubio, Simitian,
Steinberg, Strickland, Vargas, Walters, Wolk, Wright,
Wyland, Yee
NOES: Anderson, Cannella, Fuller, Huff, La Malfa, Runner
NO VOTE RECORDED: Berryhill, Negrete McLeod
ASSEMBLY FLOOR : 50-23, 8/25/11 - See last page for vote
SUBJECT : Dog licensing: microchip implants
SOURCE : Social Compassion in Legislation
DIGEST : This bill requires owners of an animal that is
CONTINUED
SB 702
Page
2
claimed or adopted from a shelter to implant a microchip in
their animal upon release.
ANALYSIS :
Existing law:
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.
2. Imposes fines or civil penalties against the owner of a
dog or cat that is impounded by a public pound or
private shelter.
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/her that his/her animal is
impounded and available for redemption during the
holding period and prior to adoption or euthanasia of an
impounded animal.
This bill:
1. 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.
2. States that if a microchip is not available for
implantation, the owner must do so within 30 days of
release of their animal from the shelter.
Background
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
CONTINUED
SB 702
Page
3
lifetime of the pet. According to the author's office,
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 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.
FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes
Local: Yes
SUPPORT : (Verified 5/17/11)
Social Compassion in Legislation (source)
Animal Legal Defense Fund
California Animal Control Directors Association
City of Long Beach
Human Society of the United States
Santa Cruz Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals
Take Me Home Animal Rescue
OPPOSITION : (Verified 5/16/11)
California Responsible Pet Owners' Coalition
CONTINUED
SB 702
Page
4
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT : Social Compassion in Legislation
supports this bill stating that microchipping is a safe and
effective way to ensure that animals are returned to their
owners.
In support, the bill's sponsor cites the American
Veterinary Medical Association's Web site, which gives
reasons why other methods of identifying lost animals are
not as effective. According to the Web site, "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 percent of
the time.
ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION : California Responsible Pet
Owners' Coalition 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.
GOVERNOR'S VETO MESSAGE:
"I am returning Senate Bill 702 without my signature.
This measure would prohibit any animal control agency,
animal shelter, or rescue group from releasing, selling,
or giving away a dog or cat that has not been
microchipped.
Under current law, local agencies and shelters can - and
should - require animals to be microchipped before being
released. There is no need for state law to mandate the
procedure, which would then require the state to pay for
CONTINUED
SB 702
Page
5
it."
ASSEMBLY FLOOR : 50-23, 8/25/11
AYES: Alejo, Allen, Ammiano, Atkins, Beall, Block,
Blumenfield, Bradford, Brownley, Buchanan, Butler,
Campos, Carter, Cedillo, Chesbro, Davis, Dickinson, Eng,
Feuer, Fong, Fuentes, Furutani, Galgiani, Gatto, Gordon,
Hagman, Hayashi, Roger Hernández, Hill, Huber, Hueso,
Huffman, Lara, Bonnie Lowenthal, Ma, Mendoza, Mitchell,
Monning, Pan, Perea, V. Manuel Pérez, Portantino,
Skinner, Smyth, Solorio, Swanson, Wieckowski, Williams,
Yamada, John A. Pérez
NOES: Achadjian, Bill Berryhill, Conway, Cook, Donnelly,
Fletcher, Beth Gaines, Garrick, Grove, Halderman, Jones,
Knight, Logue, Mansoor, Miller, Morrell, Nestande,
Nielsen, Norby, Olsen, Silva, Valadao, Wagner
NO VOTE RECORDED: Bonilla, Charles Calderon, Gorell, Hall,
Harkey, Jeffries, Torres
JJA:mw 1/4/12 Senate Floor Analyses
SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE
**** END ****
CONTINUED