September 2022

Kelly Crouch, CFA Legislative Information Liaison
Sharon Coleman, CFA Legislative Legal Analyst

A distinctive type of cat and dog bill occasionally appears in the California legislature. These unique bills require local governments, animal agencies, humane organizations and, when applicable, rescue groups to implement entirely new measures without local consideration, adaptation, or adjustment. These local “mandates” offer a work-around, shifting state burdens to local responsibility and one-stop legislation quickly bypassing fifty-eight counties and 479 cities. The problematic range of topics have included breeder licensing, mandatory sterilization or microchipping, and even implementing a puppy licensing program. None were successful. Some never progressed, some failed on a floor vote or were vetoed. There must be a “bill blindness” that proponents misjudge, because California has just experienced two consecutive years, two bills by the same author.

This past California Legislative Session began in 2021. Assembly Member Miguel Santiago’s 2021 AB 702 would have mandated local jurisdictions to enact ordinances minimally consistent with the bill’s requirements for implementing and issuing cat and dog breeding permits. Some but far from all localities have their own varying versions enacted over the past 30 years. Despite some less than significant amendments, the author cancelled the first hearing, implying lack of votes for passage. This bill became a “2 year” bill, eligible for amendment in January when AB 702 was totally amended to a new, shocking topic – dog and cat “rights” – getting immediate attention. The window for passage was too tight, so AB 702 failed. Soon followed by 2022 AB 1881, “The Dog and Cat Bill of Rights” would create yet a new state mandate on local agencies and entities.

The mandate was simple, “Each public animal control agency or shelter, society for the prevention of cruelty to animals shelter, humane society shelter, or rescue group in the state shall make a copy of the notice specified” available – first by only posting in their facility but later expanded to options for their website or adoption application. “Rescue group” is undefined although in other sections in different Codes it varies significantly depending on context. The pet adopting public, statewide, would learn their responsibilities by reading the 7-bullet point notice. Five rounds of amendments did not reach consensus among multiple opposing stakeholders. The offending mandate remained untouched.

Once again, legislative common sense prevailed. For the first time since the Democrat super majority in the Senate, an animal bill, AB 1881, failed to obtain the 21 aye votes for passage with only 12 ayes, 11 noes and 17 “not voting” – the deliberate vote withholding.

Recent CFA Legislative Group Blog Posts:
What’s Hot………… Massachusetts Bill for Licensing Cat Breeders Fails in 2002