BILL ANALYSIS
------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | SB 1373|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|1020 N Street, Suite 524 | |
|(916) 445-6614 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
------------------------------------------------------------
THIRD READING
Bill No: SB 1373
Author: O'Connell (D)
Amended: 5/14/02
Vote: 21
SENATE BUSINESS & PROFESSIONS COMMITTEE : 4-2, 4/22/02
AYES: Figueroa, Murray, O'Connell, Polanco
NOES: Johannessen, Morrow
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE : Senate Rule 28.8
SENATE FLOOR : 19-15, 5/29/02
AYES: Alarcon, Alpert, Bowen, Burton, Chesbro, Escutia,
Figueroa, Karnette, Kuehl, Murray, O'Connell, Peace,
Perata, Polanco, Romero, Sher, Soto, Speier, Torlakson
NOES: Ackerman, Battin, Brulte, Dunn, Haynes, Johannessen,
Johnson, Knight, Margett, McClintock, McPherson,
Monteith, Morrow, Oller, Poochigian
SUBJECT : Dogs and cats: registration and microchipping
SOURCE : Animal Legislative Action Network
DIGEST : This bill 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.
CONTINUED
SB 1373
Page
2
ANALYSIS : This bill:
1. Prohibits a pet dealer or breeder, as defined, from
selling a dog or cat that is less than one year old
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 the agency to
then 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
recover the cost of administering 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
SB 1373
Page
3
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.
10.Becomes operative January 1, 2004, however, provides
that a local agency may implement these provisions by
local ordinance at an earlier date.
Comments
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.
Prior legislation
SB 236 (O'Connell, 2001) was introduced by the author last
year and is similar 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
SB 1373
Page
4
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.
AB 161 (Maddox, Chapter 35, Statutes of 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, Chapter 377, Statutes of 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.
FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes
Local: Yes
SUPPORT : (Verified 5/31/02)
Animal Legislative Action Network (source)
Service Employees International Union (SEIU)
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
SB 1373
Page
5
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
The Fund for Animals Inc.
OPPOSITION : (Verified 5/31/02)
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
Contra Costa Humane Society
Pet Industry Joint Advisory Council (PIJAC)
The Cat Fanciers' Association, Inc.
The Animal Council
Antelope Valley Kennel Club, Inc.
Redwood Empire Kennel Club
California Federation of Dog Clubs
Santa Clara Valley Cat Fanciers
Various individuals and specific breed associations and
clubs
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT : Proponents 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,
SB 1373
Page
6
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.
According to the Animal Legislative Action Network, "There
are no costs associated with the bill to either local
government or the state. The system is funded through
registration fees determined by and paid to local animal
control agencies."
ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION : Opponents 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.
Opponents state that (a) developing and implementing the
registration program and requirements will add additional
burdens to animal control agencies that are already
strapped with limited resources; (b) requiring every
individual to register, pay fees and microchip an animal
before they sell it is unrealistic; (c) the implication
that breeders and pet dealers are inordinately responsible
for the pet overpopulation is an incorrect assumption; and
(d) microchip identification is still not perfect and 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.
CP:jk 6/4/02 Senate Floor Analyses
SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE
**** END ****