BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 1825
Page 1
ASSEMBLY THIRD READING
AB
1825 (Gordon and Maienschein)
As Introduced February 8, 2016
Majority vote
------------------------------------------------------------------
|Committee |Votes|Ayes |Noes |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
|----------------+-----+----------------------+--------------------|
|Local |9-0 |Eggman, Waldron, | |
|Government | |Alejo, Bonilla, Chiu, | |
| | |Cooley, Beth Gaines, | |
| | |Gordon, Linder | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Removes from the definition of "vicious dog" any dog
seized from a dog fighting operation.
EXISTING LAW:
1)Provides for the designation and disposition of certain
categories of dogs as "potentially dangerous" or "vicious"
pursuant to a specified judicial process, requires these
designations to be included in the registration records of the
AB 1825
Page 2
dog, and places certain restrictions on dogs deemed
potentially dangerous or vicious.
2)Defines "vicious dog" to mean a) any dog seized pursuant to
existing laws governing dog fighting operations, as specified;
b) any dog which, when unprovoked, in an aggressive manner,
inflicts severe injury on or kills a human being; or, c) any
dog previously determined to be and currently listed as a
"potentially dangerous" dog which, after its owner or keeper
has been notified of this determination, continues the
behavior of a potentially dangerous dog or is maintained in
violation of existing laws governing the requirements for
keeping a potentially dangerous dog, as specified.
FISCAL EFFECT: None
COMMENTS:
1)Bill Summary. This bill removes from the definition of
"vicious dog" any dog seized from a dog fighting operation.
This bill is sponsored by Best Friends Animal Society.
2)Author's Statement. According to the author, "Under existing
law (Food and Agricultural Code Section 31603), canines seized
in connection with criminal dog fighting convictions are
automatically deemed 'vicious' without any evaluation of the
dog's health, age, behavior, or demeanor before the dog is
labeled. These animals are thus considered legally vicious,
regardless of whether there is any evidence of unprovoked
attacks or infliction of severe injuries (the standards for a
designation for all other dogs). This is often a death
sentence for dogs?
AB 1825
Page 3
"AB 1825 would remove the requirement in existing law that
dogs seized in connection with animal fighting cases be
automatically labeled vicious. This will allow all dogs to be
judged by their own health and behavior, and provide
humanitarians and sanctuaries the opportunity to give a dog or
puppy seized as a victim of animal abuse an opportunity to
live a safe and cruelty-free life."
3)Background. Current laws governing potentially dangerous or
vicious dogs, which were established in 1989 following a spate
of dog attacks in California, outline the process for
designating a dog as either potentially dangerous or vicious.
These laws also set forth the requirements that owners must
follow if their dog has been determined to be potentially
dangerous or vicious, which cover matters such as licensure
and vaccination, special licensing or registration fees,
confinement, and notification of animal control departments if
the dog changes location.
In the case of a dog that has been labeled "vicious," existing
law authorizes animal control departments to destroy a vicious
dog under specified conditions, requires a judicial authority
to impose conditions upon ownership, and allows local
jurisdictions to place restrictions on an owner of a vicious
dog. Current law also allows cities or counties to impose
more restrictive programs to control potentially dangerous or
vicious dogs, provided they are not breed-specific (with an
exception for mandatory spay and neuter programs). Violations
of current law governing vicious dogs carry a penalty of up to
$1,000.
Current law automatically designates any dog seized under
penal code statutes related to dog fighting as a "vicious"
dog, without regard to behavior, background, age or any kind
of evaluation. Dogs seized in such operations often include
dogs kept exclusively for breeding, puppies, and pets that
AB 1825
Page 4
have been stolen and used as "bait" dogs.
Proponents of this measure note that a stray dog that arrives
at an animal shelter without any known history is not presumed
to pose a risk. The animal would be evaluated by shelter
staff members, who are trained in techniques developed by
animal sheltering professionals. Proponents argue that
victims of animal cruelty that are rescued from dog-fighting
rings should receive these same evaluations, instead of being
automatically labeled as vicious.
According to news reports about dog-fighting operations, many
dogs that are recovered from these conditions are found to be
suitable for adoption. According to proponents, the most
well-known animal fighting victims are the dogs seized on the
property of NFL player Michael Vick. After evaluation, only
one of those 49 dogs was found to be "vicious" and euthanized.
The remaining 48 dogs that were recovered were eventually
adopted or have been managed in sanctuaries. Some have even
become therapy or service dogs. In 2009, in a large-scale
seizure of more than 500 fighting dogs, individual evaluations
were performed and a majority of the dogs were found to be
suitable for placement.
4)Arguments in Support. Best Friends Animal Society, sponsor of
this bill, writes, "Many dogs seized in connection with animal
fighting do not pose any risk to other dogs or humans and go
on to live healthy, happy lives? California's statute is
inconsistent and outdated, and the mandate does not relate to
the behavior of the individual dogs themselves. AB 1825
repeals this provision and restores local government shelter
discretion for all victims of cruelty."
5)Arguments in Opposition. None on file.
AB 1825
Page 5
Analysis Prepared by:
Angela Mapp / L. GOV. / (916) 319-3958 FN:
0002812