BILL ANALYSIS
----------------------------------------------------------
|Hearing Date:April 22, 2002 |Bill No:SB |
| |1373 |
----------------------------------------------------------
SENATE COMMITTEE ON BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONS
Senator Liz Figueroa, Chair
Bill No: SB 1373Author:O'Connell
As Amended:April 16, 2002 Fiscal:Yes
SUBJECT: Dogs and cats: registration and microchipping.
SUMMARY: Requires breeder and pet dealers, as defined, to
register with the local animal control agency for each sale
of a dog or cat that is less than a year old, to provide
the registration number in their advertisements for the
sale of the dog or cat, and to ensure that the dog or cat
has been microchipped. There are fines and penalties for
not complying with these requirements.
Existing law:
1)Defines a dog breeder as any individual or organization
that sells, transfers, or gives away all or part of three
or more litters or 20 or more dogs in the preceding 12
months.
2)Defines a "pet dealer" as a person engaging in the
business of selling dogs and cats and "purchaser" as a
person who purchases a dog or cat from a pet dealer
without the intent to resell the animal.
3)Requires dog breeders and pet dealers to deliver to the
purchaser of each dog and cat at the time of sale a
written statement regarding where the dog or cat was
obtained, immunizations and treatments provided, and
whether there is a record of any known disease or
sickness.
4)Requires dog breeders and pet dealers to maintain a
SB 1373
Page 2
written record on the health, status and disposition of
each dog and each cat sold, and maintain records for at
least one year.
5)Requires any owner of an attack, guard or sentry dog that
operates or maintains a business to sell, rent, or train
such dog to obtain a permit from the local animal control
agency, and specifies that each animal control agency
shall adopt a permit program to implement this
requirement.
6)Allows the animal control agency to charge a fee for the
issuance or renewal of a permit and that the fee shall
not exceed the actual costs for the implementation of the
permit program.
7)Grants the animal control agency authority to suspend or
revoke the permit for specified reasons.
8)Requires the owner or trainer of any attack or guard dog
to ensure that the dog has been microchipped and the
owner's identification has been entered into a local or
national registry.
9)Specifies civil penalties and fines, as well as prohibits
the future sale, leasing, or training of guard or attack
dogs, for failure to obtain a permit or meet any of the
other requirements regarding the ownership and training
of guard or attack dogs.
10) Requires animal control agencies, during the holding
period of a dog
impounded at its facilities, to scan the dog for a
microchip that identifies the
owner of that dog and specifies that they should make
reasonable efforts to
contact the owner and notify him or her that his or her
dog is impounded and
is available for redemption.
This bill:
1)Prohibits a pet dealer or breeder, as defined, from
selling a dog or cat that is less than one year old
SB 1373
Page 3
unless a registration fee for the sale has been paid to
the local animal control agency.
2)Defines "pet dealer" as any person engaging in the
business of selling dogs or cats, or both, at retail.
3)Defines "breeder" as any person or organization that
sells dogs or cats that were bred and reared on the
premises.
4)Exempts from the definition of "breeder" publicly
operated pounds, humane societies, privately operated
rescue groups or organizations, or persons involved in
the rescue of dogs or cats.
5)Requires the local animal control agency to issue, upon
payment of a registration fee, a registration number or
numbers to the pet dealer or breeder, and requires then
to obtain their street address and telephone number and
the breed, sex, color and number of dogs or cats offered
for sale.
6)Requires the pet dealer or breeder to display the
registration number in any advertisement, as defined, for
the sale of the dog or cat.
7)Requires the pet dealer or breeder to ensure that the dog
or cat has been microchipped and the owner's
identification has been entered into a local registry
maintained by the local animal control agency or into a
national registry.
8)Authorizes the animal control agency to charge a fee to
administer the registration program and any excess
revenues received may be used for specified purposes,
such as for programs to spay and neuter dogs and cats or
to encourage adoption of dogs and cats.
9)Specifies civil penalties and fines, as well as prohibits
the future selling of dogs or cats for failure to
register with the animal control agency or to meet other
requirements regarding the selling of dogs or cats.
FISCAL EFFECT: Unknown.
SB 1373
Page 4
COMMENTS:
1.Purpose. This measure is sponsored by the Animal
Legislative Action Network (ALAN). The ALAN is a
nationwide organization dedicated to establishment of
rights for animals through participation in the political
process. According to the sponsors, the bill is intended
to address the pet overpopulation problem. It is
intended that the registration program and registration
fee required for the sale of a dog or cat by a breeder or
pet dealer will allow animal control to establish a
database to track the source of animals it receives.
Requiring the registration number to be displayed when
advertising for the sale of the animal will allow animal
control to determine who may be legitimate and
illegitimate sellers of animals. The mandatory
microchipping requirement for breeders and pet dealers
will provide a permanent and supplementary identification
process so that animals can be tracked and returned to
their homes when possible. This will help to avoid
taxpayer expense for the caring of these animals by
animal control and also avoid unnecessary destroying of
these animals. Those who are in the business of caring
and rescuing these animals will be exempt from the
requirements of this bill.
2.Background. As indicated by the sponsors, California has
a significant pet overpopulation problem. Each year
approximately eight to twelve million unwanted dogs,
cats, puppies, and kittens end up in overcrowded shelters
and others suffer and die on the streets. More than half
of impounded animals end up being killed. In California,
a survey of 216 animal control agencies and humane
societies reported that approximately 600,000 dogs and
cats were killed in 1998; 68% of those impounded.
Approximately half were less than one year old and less
than 10% were more than five years old. Currently, there
is a lack of data relating to the specific source of
these animals. However, what is known, as explained by
the sponsors, is that unwanted animals in shelters is
costing taxpayers millions of dollars every year. In
1991, the Department of Health Services estimated that
the cost for these programs exceeded $100 million each
SB 1373
Page 5
year.
The sponsors believe that before California can address the
pet overpopulation problems, it is important to
understand the source of these pets, and that this bill
sets up a process to identify the source of the pets,
whether from backyard sellers (breeders) or pet stores.
This information will allow the state, counties and
cities to target future legislative remedies on its
causes and who should pay their fair share of costs to
animal control agencies, and provide local law
enforcement and animal control with important information
to track and stem the rampant breeding of dogs that are
trained for malicious purposes. The registration and fee
requirement, as claimed by the sponsors, would discourage
"backyard breeders," who are considered major
contributors to pet overpopulation, and from
irresponsible breeding. The penalty provisions in this
bill would allow animal control agencies to take
appropriate action against these type of breeders when
necessary.
Microchipping Proven Effective in Identification of Dogs.
In recognition of the effectiveness of microchipping and
identification of dogs, California law requires every
animal shelter to scan every dog that comes into its
facilities. As indicated by the sponsors, millions of
pets across the country have been implanted within the
last few years - at shelters, by humane groups and in the
offices of private veterinarians. The program has
resulted in the return of tens of thousands of lost pets
to their owners, often within hours of their
disappearance. There were initial problems with the
different types of microchips that were used and the
scanners designed by individual manufacturers, but it
appears that manufacturer's have now moved towards a
"universal" scanner that can detect and read all
microchips currently marketed in the United States. The
ability of universal scanners to read all brands of
microchips was assessed in a field study sponsored by the
American Humane Association. Each universal scanner had
an overall accuracy rate of 96 percent or higher, with no
scanner lower than 94 percent accurate in identifying any
single make of chip. Implanting chips in a
SB 1373
Page 6
veterinarian's office typically costs $25 to $45.
Shelter fees vary with some absorbing the cost and
providing microchips for free with adoptions. Some
critics, according to the sponsors, have expressed
concern that the animal ownership collected by
microchipping invades privacy. However, the data
collected by microchipping is no different than licensing
of dogs. Both have a number that corresponds with a
record of the owner's name, address, and phone number in
a database.
3.Previous Legislation by Author. SB 236 (O'Connell, 2001)
was introduced by the author last year and is somewhat
identical to this bill. It failed in Senate Judiciary
Committee. The primary difference was that it used the
term "seller" rather than breeder or pet dealer, it also
required animal control to maintain records regarding the
number and type of dogs and cats sold and the source of
the dogs and cats. The records would be open for public
inspection. It also required the owner of the dog to
notify animal control when he or she transfers the dog to
a new owner and to provide contact information for the
new owner of record.
4.Similar Legislation. AB 161 (Maddox, Chap. 35, Statutes
2001) changed the definition of "breeder" from a person,
business or organization that sells 50 or more dogs, to
any individual or organization that gives away all or
part of three or more litters or 20 or more dogs in the
preceding 12 months. As originally introduced, the
definition included "two or more liters."
SB 769 (Figueroa, Chap. 377, Statutes 2001) required any
person, business or organization that is selling or
training attack or guard dogs to get a permit from the
local animal control agency and required the
microchipping of the dog as well. Allowed animal control
to charge a fee for implementing the permit program and
provided for specified penalties and fines.
SB 2102 (Rosenthal, 1998) as introduced, this measure would
have changed the definition of dog breeder to any person
who sold more than one litter , or any portion of a
SB 1373
Page 7
litter, more than in a 36-month period, and required a
breeder of dogs to obtain a breeder permit number from
the Department of Consumer Affairs. It would have
imposed civil penalties for failure to obtain a permit.
This bill failed in Assembly Consumer Protection
Committee.
5.Arguments in Support. There are a number of animal
organizations and individuals in support of this measure.
As indicated by supporters, they believe this bill takes
an innovative approach to curbing the number of unwanted
cats and dogs in our state. They believe that part of
the problem of pet overpopulation stems from
irresponsible breeders, who not only make money from
animals they sell, but they also incur expenses for
animal control agencies when they cannot find homes for
those animals they cannot sell. This bill, they argue,
would provide funding to animal control agencies so that
they can identify which individuals are at the root of
the dumping problem and curtail "hobby breeders" who
significantly contribute to the pet overpopulation
problem. Supporters also believe that requiring
microchipping of these animals will significantly help to
reunite lost pets with their families and help to
alleviate the overcrowding in our shelters.
6. Arguments in Opposition. A number of breeder groups and
organizations and the Pet Industry Joint Advisory Council
(PIJAC) oppose this bill. They argue that requiring a
registration fee to be paid for the sale of each
individual dog and cat is in essence a "pet sales tax"
being imposed exclusively on those selling dogs and cats,
with no evidence of its need, nor any indication as to
why breeders and pet dealers should be subject to such a
tax. Other concerns and arguments regarding this bill
are as follows:
a) Developing and implementing the registration program
and requirements will add additional burdens to animal
control agencies that are already strapped with limited
resources. As argued, each of the animal control
jurisdictions throughout the state would have to change
its animal ordinance and set a registration fee to
implement this program. The implementation would carry
SB 1373
Page 8
many more costs including gathering required information,
processing checks, assigning registration numbers,
entering and maintaining information into their
computers, enforcement of this requirement, and efforts
to inform the public and answer questions. As stated by
one of the opponents, animal control shelters are already
understaffed and overworked and implementation of this
bill is not the best use of their time.
Animal control agencies need to enforce dangerous dog and
animal cruelty laws, not become registration clerks.
b) Requiring every individual to register, pay fees and
microchip an animal before they sell it is unrealistic.
As argued, it is highly unrealistic to think that people
with an accidental litter of kittens/puppies are going to
be willing to comply with this bill. There is real
concern that these requirements may actually deter people
from doing the responsible thing when having to find a
home for their animal by either giving their animal away
for free (which many believe is a bad practice), turn it
into animal control as a stray, or even worse, abandon
the animal. The time element involved in obtaining the
registration number before a sale can occur could also
have a very negative impact on pet shops and breeders
business.
c) The implication that breeders and pet dealers are
inordinately responsible for the pet overpopulation is an
incorrect assumption. As argued, the various motives for
this bill, as put forth by the proponents, is to imply
that breeders and pet dealers of cats and dogs are
inordinately responsible for homeless animals, that they
gain financially and therefore should be taxed to pay for
programs related to surplus animals in community
shelters. This is an incorrect assumption. The National
Council on Pet Population Study and Policy has published
numerous studies to determine why animals are
relinquished to shelters in the United States. A 1998
study indicated that nearly a third of the dogs and cats
that enter shelters are adults who did have homes and
once wanted pets. Those dogs and cats with the least
risk of later relinquishment were obtained from breeders
and pet stores.
SB 1373
Page 9
d) Microchip identification is still not perfect. As
argued, microchip identification will work only when all
the components of the system are in place, including
proper insertion of the chip, enrollment and updating of
owner information, proper scanning and a round-the-clock
recovery service. To provide anything less is a
disservice to the pet owner who will be required to spend
money for this type of identification and have
expectations that their animal would be easily returned.
Although California shelters are now required by law to
scan for microchips, there are still problems being
encountered in implementing this requirement and there
are still problems in maintaining and accessing
registries (since some manufacturers of microchips
establish their own).
7.Issues and Policy Concerns and Proposed Author's
Amendments.
a) Breeder definition in bill is different from current
definition in law.
The Author has indicated that he will be offering Author's
amendments in Committee to change the current definition
of "dog breeder" in this bill to reflect the current
definition in law under Section 122045 (b) of the Health
and Safety Code. However, this definition will also
include "breeder of cats" as well. By changing this
definition, only those persons or businesses that sell
three or more litters or 20 or more dogs or cats during
the preceding 12 months will be required to register with
the animal control agency.
b) Does a registration fee have to be paid for each sale
of a dog or cat by the breeder or pet dealer? The Author
has also indicated that he will be offering Author's
amendments in Committee to clarify that that the breeder
and the pet dealer will only be required to register one
time with animal
control to receive a registration number. However, the
Author may want to consider if there should be a renewal
of the registration on an annual basis.
SUPPORT AND OPPOSITION:
SB 1373
Page 10
Support : Animal Legislative Action Network (ALAN) (Sponsor)
San Luis Obispo County Sheriff's Department
Association of Veterinarians for Animal Rights
Animal Defense League
California Lobby for Animal Welfare
Animal Emancipation, Inc.
Animal Assistance League of Orange County
Humane America Animal Foundation
Last Chance for Animals
Doris Day Animal League
In Defense of Animals
People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals
Senior Citizens for Humane Legislation
The Elephant Alliance
Orange County People for Animals
Animal Defense League
Feral Cat Alliance
EarthSave Los Angeles
Forgotten Animals of Los Angeles
San Diego Animal Advocates
Laguna Beach Feline Rescue
Petaluma Pet Pals
Connect A Pet Rescue
Cat/Canine Assistance Referral and Education
Opposition :The American Kennel Club
American Dog Owners Association
National Pet Alliance
Animal Issues Movement
Associated Obedience Clubs of Northern California
Sacramento Council of Dog Clubs
Shasta Kennel Club
Barbary Coast Samoyed Club
Monterey Bay Dog Training Club, Inc.
California Brittany Club
San Francisco Dog Training Club, Inc.
Northern California Dog Training Club
Bay Area Boxer Rescue
California Biomedical Research Association
San Joaquin Dog Training Club
The Lake County Kennel Club of Northern California
The California Alliance for Consumer Protection
Pet Lovers Protective League
SB 1373
Page 11
The Fund for Animals Inc.
Contra Costa Humane Society
Pet Industry Joint Advisory Council (PIJAC)
The Cat Fanciers' Association, Inc.
The Animal Council
Consultant:Bill Gage