BILL ANALYSIS
SENATE LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMITTEE
Senator Christine Kehoe, Chair
BILL NO: SB 861 HEARING: 8/29/05
AUTHOR: Speier FISCAL: No
VERSION: 8/15/05 CONSULTANT: Detwiler
LOCAL SPAY, NEUTER, AND BREEDING ORDINANCES
Background and Existing Law
Local officials can formally identify "potentially
dangerous dogs" and "vicious dogs." A potentially
dangerous dog must be kept indoors or restrained by a
substantial leash. A dog that has been determined to be
vicious may be destroyed if its release would create a
significant threat to the public health, safety, and
welfare.
Cities and counties can adopt more restrictive programs to
control potentially dangerous dogs or vicious dogs.
However, those local programs cannot "regulate these dogs
in a manner that is specific as to breed" (SB 428, Torres,
1989).
After a dog killed a boy earlier this summer, San
Francisco's mayor appointed a Canine Response Working Group
to gather data, review the best practices for controlling
dogs, and recommend reforms. The Working Group recommended
that the Legislature should amend the state law to allow
cities and counties to adopt breed-specific regulations,
provided that they did not ban specific breeds.
The Working Group also recommended that San Francisco
officials should:
Require spaying and neutering pit bulls and pit
bull mixes.
Restrict the practice of dog breeding to licensed
persons.
Increase local fines for unregistered dogs.
Charge fees to the owners of vicious and dangerous
dogs.
Require vicious and dangerous dogs' owners to have
liability insurance.
Proposed Law
SB 861 -- 8/15/05 -- Page 2
Senate Bill 861 allows cities and counties to enact
breed-specific ordinances only for mandatory spay or neuter
programs and breeding requirements, provided that the local
ordinances do not declare specific dog breeds or mixed dog
breeds to be potentially dangerous or vicious.
If a city or county adopts such an ordinance, SB 861
requires local officials to measure the programs' effects
on dog bites. Local statistical information must include
the bite's severity, the dog's breed, whether the dog was
altered, and whether the breed was subject to the local
ordinance. Local officials must submit their statistics
quarterly to the State Public Health Veterinarian.
The bill makes legislative findings and declarations in
support of its provisions.
Comments
1. Framing the debate . The public regulation of pets
provokes strong emotional reactions. Painful or fatal dog
attacks trigger calls for new rules and stricter
enforcement of existing laws. Some dog owners oppose more
public regulations. These strong emotions can cloud
legislators' policy choices. In 1989, legislators adopted
a statewide statute regulating potentially dangerous and
vicious dogs, allowing stronger local controls that weren't
breed-specific. SB 861 allows breed-specific local
regulations on spaying, neutering, and breeding specific
breeds, provided that they don't ban those breeds. The
policy question posed by the bill is whether legislators
should give cities and counties a limited increase in their
authority to adopt local dog control programs. Legislators
will have to see beyond the obvious emotions to sort out
the policy debate.
2. State or local control ? Legislators continually
struggle with how to balance state control and local
control. State laws that preempt local control promote
uniformity. Local controls allow local officials to adapt
controls to fit their communities' circumstances.
Statewide statutes are important when individuals' rights
are at stake --- voter qualifications, equal justice, fair
SB 861 -- 8/15/05 -- Page 3
access to public accommodations, uniform tax rules. Local
controls are important when individual rights aren't at
risk and when there is general agreement that local elected
officials should respect community differences. Some
industries and interest groups favor statewide laws because
they don't have to deal with 58 counties and 478 cities.
Other groups prefer local regulations because they can
advance their policies and economic goals one community at
a time. SB 861 forces legislators to think about how they
balance state control and local control for dogs. Current
law preempts local breed-specific ordinances in the name of
uniform treatment of dogs and their owners. The bill
departs from that approach by allowing locally written,
breed-specific dog control ordinances, provided they don't
ban specific breeds.
3. Spay, neuter, breed . San Francisco's Working Group
recommended a local ordinance that would require spaying or
neutering pit bulls and pit bull mixes. Further, the
Working Group recommended a local ordinance restricting dog
breeding to licensed persons. SB 861 allows those kinds of
local, breed-specific ordinances. The Working Group also
recommended a local ordinance that would require the owners
of vicious and dangerous dogs "to obtain a minimum
threshold of liability insurance." San Francisco could
adopt that ordinance under current law, if it was not
breed-specific. However, neither current law nor SB 861
allows local officials to adopt a breed-specific ordinance
that requires liability coverage. A mandatory insurance
ordinance is acceptable only if it applies to individual
dogs that have been determined to be potentially dangerous
or vicious. In other words, a mandatory insurance
ordinance is allowed only if it's not breed-specific. SB
861 is not an insurance bill.
4. Committee's choices . When it passed the Senate in
June, SB 861 required the Medi-Cal program to update drug
prices. The Assembly amendments removed those provisions
and instead inserted the language relating to local spay,
neuter, and breeding ordinances. Under Senate Rule 29.10,
the Senate Rules Committee has referred the amended bill to
the Senate Local Government Committee for a hearing on the
Assembly's amendments. At its August 29 hearing, the
Committee has four choices:
Send the bill back to the Senate Floor,
SB 861 -- 8/15/05 -- Page 4
recommending concurrence.
Send the bill back to the Senate Floor,
recommending nonconcurrence.
Send the bill back to the Senate Floor, without
recommendation.
Hold the bill.
Assembly Actions
Not relevant to the August 15, 2005 version of the bill.
Support and Opposition (8/25/05)
Support : City and County of San Francisco, Counties of Los
Angeles, Napa, Tehama; Cities of Apple Valley, Concord,
Fremont, San Jos?, Santa Rosa, West Hollywood; Ace of
Hearts Dog Rescue, Action for Animals, Animal Defense
League, Animal Issues Movement, Animal Legislation Action
Network, Animal Place, Animal Switchboard, Association of
Veterinarians for Animal Rights, California Animal Control
Directors Association, California Association of Nurse
Anesthetists, California Lobby for Animal Welfare, Contra
Costa Humane Society, Doris Day Animal League, Friends of
Long Beach Animals, League of California Cities, Peninsula
Humane Society, PETA, United Activists for Animal Rights,
United Animal Nations; two individuals.
Opposition : American Dog Breeders Association, American
Kennel Club, American Rottweiler Club Legislation
Committee, Association for Responsible Pet Ownership,
California Veterinary Medical Association, Chako Rescue
Association, Doberman Pinscher Club of America, German
Shepherd Club of San Jos? Inc., German Shepherd Dog
Fanciers, Linda Blair's WorldHeart Foundation, My Dog
Votes, National Pet Alliance, Responsible Dog Owners of the
Western States, San Francisco Dog Training Club Inc.,
spcaLA, The Animal Council, West Los Angeles Responsible
Dog Owners; 38 individuals.