BILL ANALYSIS Ó
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
|Hearing Date:June 23, 2014 |Bill No:AB |
| |1809 |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SENATE COMMITTEE ON BUSINESS, PROFESSIONS
AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Senator Ted W. Lieu, Chair
Bill No: AB 1809Author:Maienschein
As Amended:June 9, 2014 Fiscal: Yes
SUBJECT: Dogs: health certificates.
SUMMARY: Requires a person seeking to bring a dog into California for
resale or change or ownership to obtain a health certificate from a
licensed veterinarian, dated within ten days prior to the dog's
arrival, and submit the certificate to the county health department as
specified.
Existing law:
1)Defines "dog breeder" or "breeder" as a person, firm, partnership,
corporation, or other association that has sold, transferred, or
given away all or part of three or more litters or 20 or more dogs
during the preceding 12 months that were bred and reared on the
premises of the person, firm, partnership, corporation, or other
association. (HSC § 122045(b))
2)Defines "purchaser" as a person who purchases a dog or cat from a
pet dealer without the intent to resell the animal. (HSC §§
122045(c), 122125(c))
3)Requires every breeder of dogs to deliver to each purchaser of a dog
a written disclosure containing specified information including any
information regarding the health, status and disposition of the dog.
(Health and Safety Code (HSC) § 122050)
4)Requires a breeder to maintain a written record on the health,
status, and disposition of each dog for a period of not less than
one year after disposition of the dog, as specified.
(HSC § 122055)
AB 1809
Page 2
5)Provides that if a licensed veterinarian states in writing that
within 15 days after the purchaser has taken physical possession of
a dog following the sale, the dog becomes ill, or, if within one
year after the purchaser has taken physical possession of the dog
after the sale by a breeder or dealer, a licensed veterinarian
states in writing that the dog has a congenital or hereditary
condition that adversely affects the health of the dog, or that
requires, or is likely to require, hospitalization or nonelective
surgical procedures, the dog shall be considered unfit for sale, and
a breeder or pet dealer must provide the purchaser with specified
remedies. (HSC §§ 122070, 122090, 122160)
6)Defines "pet dealer" as a person engaging in the business of selling
dogs or cats, or both, at retail, and by virtue of the sales of dogs
and cats is required to possess a permit, as specified, and does not
apply to breeders of dogs, nor to any person, firm, partnership,
corporation, or other association, that breeds or rears dogs on the
premises of the person, firm, partnership, corporation, or other
association, that has sold, transferred, or given away fewer than 50
dogs in the preceding year. (HSC § 122125)
7)Requires all dogs or cats received by a retail dealer, prior to
being placed with other dogs or cats, to be examined for sickness.
Any dog or cat found to be afflicted with a contagious disease shall
be kept caged separately from healthy animals. (HSC § 122135)
8)Requires pet dealers to provide to the purchaser of each dog and cat
at the time of sale a written statement in a standardized form
prescribed by the Department of Consumer Affairs, containing certain
information regarding the breeder, the animal, medical history, for
dogs a record of veterinarian treatment, a statement that the dog is
free from disease or a record of any known disease. (HSC § 122140)
9)Requires at the time of sale, the purchaser of a dog and the pet
dealer selling the dog, to sign a written statement acknowledging
receipt and accuracy of the information contained on the DCA form.
(Id.)
10)Requires a pet dealer to maintain a written record on the health,
status, and disposition of each dog and each cat for a period of not
less than one year after disposition of the dog or cat, as
specified, and requires the records to be available to humane
officers, animal control officers, and law enforcement officers for
inspection during normal business hours.
(HSC § 122145)
AB 1809
Page 3
This bill:
1)Requires a person bringing or importing a dog into California for
the purpose of resale or change of ownership, to obtain a health
certificate with respect to that dog, which has been completed by a
licensed veterinarian and is dated within ten days prior to the date
on which the dog is brought into the state.
2)Requires the person responsible for providing the health certificate
to submit it to the county health department by electronic
transmission, facsimile, or any other method accepted by the
receiving agency.
3)Provides that completion of a United States Department of
Agriculture Animal and Plant Inspection Service Form 7001 (APHIS
Form 7001), known as the United States Interstate and International
Certificate of Health Examination for Small Animals, may be used for
purposes of obtaining a health certificate or a different canine
health certificate form may be used as determined by the receiving
agency.
4)Provides that it is the responsibility of the person importing the
dog into California to send the health certificate to the county
health department where the dog is offered for sale, or to the
county of residence of the individual purchasing a dog directly from
a source outside of California.
5)Specifies that the receiving agency may use the information on the
health certificate as it deems appropriate.
6)States that these provisions shall not apply to a person who brings
a dog into the state that will not be offered for resale or if the
ownership of the dog is not expected to change.
7)States that these provisions shall not apply to the import of a dog
used for law enforcement or military work, a guide dog, as defined,
or a dog imported as a result of a declared emergency, as specified,
or an investigation by law enforcement of an alleged violation of
state or federal animal fighting or animal cruelty laws.
8)Provides that the agency that receives the form, as specified, may
charge a fee in a reasonable amount sufficient to cover the costs
associated with receiving and processing a health certificate.
9)Makes a violation of any of the provisions an infraction punishable
AB 1809
Page 4
by a fine not to exceed two hundred and fifty dollars ($250) for
each dog for which a violation has occurred, but that in lieu of
punishment, an authorized animal control personnel may issue a
correction warning to a person who violates any of the provisions,
unless the violation endangers the health or safety of the animal,
the animal has been wounded as a result of the violation, or a
correction warning has previously been issued to the individual.
Specifies that the correction warning shall require the person to
correct the violation.
FISCAL EFFECT: This measure has been keyed "fiscal" by Legislative
Counsel. According to the Assembly Appropriations Committee analysis
dated May 14, 2014, this bill has negligible state fiscal effect. The
bill does not require local agencies to do anything with the received
documents.
To the extent local agencies occur additional costs to analyze or
further investigate the documents, costs would not be reimbursable.
If costs were incurred, the bill allows local agencies to charge a fee
to cover their costs of receiving and processing documentation.
COMMENTS:
1.Purpose. This measure is sponsored by the American Society for the
Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (ASPCA). According to the
Sponsors, California is currently one of the only two states that do
not require dogs to be inspected and issue a "Certificate of
Veterinarian Inspection" (CVI) or its equivalent, prior to or upon
entry into the state.
The Sponsors further state that CVIs are legal documents signed by a
veterinarians who have evaluated the health of dogs and can attest
to the accuracy of the information. "These important documents help
protect consumers from purchasing sick dogs, and reduce the
likelihood that imported dogs bring contagious diseases into
California. With the increase of online sales of puppies direct to
consumers in California, there is no official document that notifies
local governments to the number of dogs entering their jurisdiction
from out of state. This makes the job of California's animal care
and control agencies even more challenging as they do not have a
complete picture of the number of dogs entering their municipality
from outside California."
AB 1809
Page 5
2.Background.
a) Problems with Animal Importation. In order to prevent the
spread of animal diseases across state lines, state departments
of agriculture and other state agencies have created rules and
regulations which govern the importation of livestock, companion
animals, equines, and other animals. While all states have set
forth stringent requirements for the importation and movement of
livestock, not all states have stringent requirements for the
importation of companion animals.
According to the American Veterinary Medical Association, the
majority of states require some type of "health certificate" be
provided for companion animals imported into the state, but some
exceptions are made for (1) animals passing through the state for
short periods of time, (2) being transferred to educational,
scientific, or research facilities,
(3) being transferred to veterinary care facilities, or (4)
entering the state for exhibitions, shows, or fairs. California
only requires that all domestic dogs be healthy, and those over
four months of age must have a certificate of current rabies
vaccination.
According to the Humane Society of the United States, while there
are no exact numbers on the amount of dogs purchased over the
internet or between states, tens of thousands of dogs are shipped
into the U.S. from "puppy mills" in foreign countries or
purchased by people over Internet sites. Many people who have
purchased puppies and kittens online find that these pets are
sick and often die from their health problems. Some consumers
never even knew they were dealing with someone outside of the
U.S., or that their puppy was born overseas before being sold to
a U.S. broker.
When dogs or other animals are exported outside of the state,
veterinarians in California typically complete the APHIS Form
7001. Under this bill, California consumers receiving a copy of
the certificate will be provided with more accurate information
about the health of animals acquired from out-of-state breeders,
private sale individuals, or animal re-homers. This bill will
also provide county health agencies with important animal-related
health data including a more accurate count of the number of
animals imported from other states.
This measure further allows local agencies to charge a reasonable
fee to cover the costs associated with receiving the
AB 1809
Page 6
documentation.
b) The United States Interstate and International Certificate of
Health Examination for Small Animals (APHIS Form 7001). The
APHIS Form 7001 is an official document issued and signed by a
licensed veterinarian providing verification that an animal, or
group of animals, was inspected and found to be healthy and
showing no signs of contagious or communicable disease on the
date of inspection. Information provided on the document
includes the type of animal, number of animals in the shipment,
breed, age, sex, color or distinctive marks, names, address and
license number of the signing veterinarian is required. Each
state determines the health requirements for animals being
transported into their state.
This information is considered an essential element in a disease
outbreak to identify the source of a disease and to locate
potentially exposed animals and people. The veterinary
certification section of the form contains specific statements of
regarding the veterinarian's examination, as well as the
veterinarian contact information, license number and signature.
Certificates are valid for use for 30 days after animal
examination.
c) This Measure Not in Conflict with Current Regulation of Animal
Sales. Under current law, the Polanco-Lockyer Pet Breeder
Warranty Act within the Health and Safety Code, requires all dog
breeders to provide a written disclosure upon the sale of any dog
with information such as the breeder's name and address, the
dog's birth date, breed, sex, color, a veterinarian record, and a
signed statement from the breeder that the dog has no known
diseases. Any breeder who knowingly sells a diseased dog faces a
civil penalty and purchasers of dogs with health conditions are
afforded the opportunity for remedies such as the return of the
dog, compensation or replacement if the dog passes away.
Additionally, the Lockyer-Polanco-Farr Pet Protection Act requires
pet dealers to have dogs examined by a licensed veterinarian
before they are offered for sale, and specifies that exams must
occur within five days of the dealer receiving the dog, and every
15 days thereafter until the dog is sold.
This measure does not impact California's current law with respect
to selling, breeding or reselling dogs inside of California.
This bill only requires that persons importing a dog into
California for resale or change of ownership file a health
AB 1809
Page 7
certificate prior to the dog's arrival to California. There is
no requirement that county health departments do anything with
the information, other than collect it.
Additionally, this bill does not require individuals who are
bringing dogs into California for an extended period or moving
into California to file a certificate as long as the dog is not
changing ownership.
3.Arguments in Support. The ASPCA as the sponsors of this measure
state that current law merely requires that imported dogs be healthy
and have a current rabies vaccination. They indicate that by
requiring a CVI of those individuals who are importing dogs into
California it will it will provide better data on the number of dogs
entering a municipality and more importantly help protect consumers
from purchasing sick dogs and reduce the likelihood that imported
dogs will bring any contagious diseases into this state.
The ASPCA notes that the completed CVI forms will be sent to local
governments, through electronic transmission or otherwise, so they
have information on the number of dogs imported entering their
jurisdictions from out of state and are authorized to reasonably
cover the costs of receiving these documents but are not required to
do anything further with the information received.
The ASPCA further states that this bill does not apply to family dogs
where ownership is not changing, dogs visiting California with their
families or dogs participating in dog shows. Nor does it apply to
dogs used for law enforcement purposes or military work, guide dogs
or dogs utilized for declared emergency situations.
4.Related Legislation This Session. AB 1810 (Maienschein) of 2014,
permits a veterinarian or animal care facility to turn over an
abandoned animal to a public animal control agency or shelter rather
than euthanize it, as long as the shelter has not refused to take
the animal, and
deletes the requirement that an abandoned animal be euthanized 10 days
after abandonment. ( Status : This bill is pending a hearing in
Senate Judiciary Committee.
5.Previous Legislation. AB 1939 (Pan) of 2012, would have created
a pilot project in specified counties which would have required
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
AB 1809
Page 8
agencies to issue puppy licenses, as defined.
( Status : This measure was referred to the Senate Business,
Professions and Economic Development Committee but the hearing
of the measure was cancelled by the Author.)
SB 702 (Lieu) of 2011, would have prohibited any public animal
control agency or shelter, society for the prevention of cruelty
to animals shelter, humane society shelter, or rescue group from
releasing to an owner seeking to reclaim his or her dog or cat,
or selling or giving away to a new owner, a dog or cat that has
not been microchipped, except under a specified circumstance.
( Status : This measure was vetoed by the Governor.)
SB 861 (Speier, Chapter 668, Statutes of 2005) allows cities and
counties to pass specified breed-specific legislation for
mandatory spaying and neutering and breeding restrictions.
Provides for increased reporting to the State Public Health
Veterinarian of dog bite data and other information by local
jurisdictions that make use of the authorization provided by
this bill.
SB 1347 (Cabellero, Chapter 703, Statutes of 2007) enacted the Pet
Store Animal Care Act (Act) that establishes procedures for the
care and maintenance of animals in the custody of a pet store
and details the responsibilities of the pet shop, the standards
for enclosures, animal care requirements, record keeping,
standards keeping the animals healthy including veterinary care,
euthanasia standards and disclosures that must be made to a
person who purchases a pet. Provides for a "notice to correct"
and monetary misdemeanor penalties for specified violations of
this Act.
SB 914 (Kehoe, Chapter 669, Statutes of 2005) provides that the
selling of a dog under the age of eight weeks, unless approved
in writing by a licensed California veterinarian, is an
infraction or a misdemeanor. Exempts those providing public or
nonprofit animal sheltering services, rescue groups and a "pet
dealer" as defined.
SB 934 (Vincent) of 2005, would have required an entity selling or
giving away of an unspayed or unneutered dog or cat to require
the adopter or purchaser to execute a written agreement
acknowledging that the dog or cat is not spayed or neutered and
agreeing that the adopter or purchaser shall be responsible for
ensuring that the dog or cat will be spayed or neutered, as
specified. ( Status : This measure was referred to the Senate
AB 1809
Page 9
Business, Professions and Economic Development Committee but the
hearing of the measure was cancelled by the Author.)
AB 1336 (Koretz, Chapter 181, Statutes of 2002) requires pet
dealers to provide purchasers of dogs and cats written material
explaining the benefits of spay and neutering their animals, as
well as other user information regarding use of a veterinarian
and licensing their dog.
6.Suggested Technical Amendments. In Section 121720 (a) (2), it
is unclear if under all circumstances that the health
certificate must either go to where the dog is offered for sale
or to the county of residence of the individual purchasing or
receiving a dog directly from a source outside of California.
It is also unclear which individual is required to send the
health certificate to the county health department; the person
who is importing dogs or the licensed veterinarian. Suggest the
following two technical amendments to clarify which county
should receive the health certificate and the person responsible
for sending the health certificate:
On Page 2, line 13, strike "Except as provided in subdivision
(c)", and insert on line 15, " as provided in subdivision (c) "
On Page 2, line 13, insert after "person" the following: " who is
reselling or changing ownership as "
SUPPORT AND OPPOSITION:
Support: American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals
(Sponsor)
Opposition: None on file as of June 18, 2014.
Consultant:Bill Gage