Existing law provides for the designation and disposition of certain categories of dogs as potentially dangerous or vicious dogs pursuant to a specified judicial process, and requires that designation to be included in the registration records of the dog. Existing law defines the term vicious dog to include, among others, dogs seized pursuant to specified animal cruelty laws.

This bill would delete this category of dog from the above-specified definition of vicious dog.

Existing law provides for the designation and disposition of certain categories of dogs as potentially dangerous or vicious dogs pursuant to a specified judicial process, and requires that designation to be included in the registration records of the dog. Existing law defines the term vicious dog to include, among others, dogs seized pursuant to specified animal cruelty laws.

This bill would delete this category of dog from the above-specified definition of vicious dog.

Existing law provides for the designation and disposition of certain categories of dogs as potentially dangerous or vicious dogs pursuant to a specified judicial process, and requires that designation to be included in the registration records of the dog. Existing law defines the term vicious dog to include, among others, dogs seized pursuant to specified animal cruelty laws.

This bill would delete this category of dog from the above-specified definition of vicious dog.

 THIRD READING  

Bill No: AB 1825

Author:

:

Vote:

SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE: 7-0, 6/21/16

AYES: Jackson, Moorlach, Anderson, Hertzberg, Leno, Monning, Wieckowski

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 75-0, 5/9/16 - See last page for vote

SUBJECT:

SOURCE: Best Friends Animal Society

DIGEST: This bill deletes from the definition of vicious dog “a dog seized under criminal laws prohibiting dog-fighting whose owner has been convicted of a crime related to dog-fighting.”

ANALYSIS:

Existing law:

1. Provides legislative findings and declarations related to the statewide public health and safety problems of potentially dangerous and vicious dogs, which requires statewide regulation. (Food & Agr. Code sec. 31601.)
2. Defines a “vicious dog” to mean any of the following:

• A dog seized under criminal laws prohibiting dog-fighting whose owner has been convicted of a crime related to dog-fighting;
• Any dog which, when unprovoked, inflicts severe injury on or kills a human being in an aggressive manner; and
• 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. (Food & Agr. Code sec. 31601.)

1. Provides that cities and counties are authorized to create their own programs for the control of potentially dangerous or vicious dogs, and they are not required to incorporate any of the relevant chapter (including the provisions above) in that local program. (Food & Agr. Code sec. 31683.)

This bill deletes from the definition of vicious dog “a dog seized under criminal laws prohibiting dog-fighting whose owner has been convicted of a crime related to dog-fighting.”

Background

In 1987, two-year old James Soto was fatally mauled by a neighbor’s dog. One of the paramedics who arrived on the scene said that James was “unrecognizable as a human being.” When police searched the home of Michael Berry, the dog’s owner, they found both dog-fighting magazines and a treadmill used for training dogs for combat. In addition, they found 200 marijuana plants, which they suspected the dog had been tasked with protecting from poachers. In response to James’ death and a rise in the number and severity of dog attacks, the Legislature enacted SB 428 (Torres, Chapter 761, Statutes of 1989) which regulates potentially dangerous and vicious dogs.

Animal fighting was again brought to the forefront of the nation’s attention by the highly publicized conviction of National Football League star quarterback Michael Vick. Vick and his associates operated “Bad Newz Kennels,” which housed and trained over 50 pit bull dogs, staged dog fights, killed dogs, and ran a high stakes gambling ring with purses up to $26,000. A team of animal behavior experts selected by the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals analyzed the 49 seized dogs and recommended whether they were suitable to be adopted by families, trained as police dogs, placed in a sanctuary, or should be euthanized. Only one dog was recommended for euthanasia because of extreme aggression. The others were deemed suitable to go to sanctuaries or foster homes for socialization training.

This bill, seeking to ensure that dogs seized from dog-fighting operations are evaluated on a case-by-case basis, removes the provision of law that labels any dog seized from a fighting ring whose owner is convicted for felony dog fighting, as vicious.

FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: Fiscal Com.: Local:

SUPPORT: (Verified 6/23/16)

Best Friends Animal Society (source)

American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals

Bay Area Alliance for Animals

Beagle Freedom Project; California Animal Control Directors Association

California Police Chiefs Association

City and County of San Francisco

City of Sacramento

Dog Adoption and Welfare Group

Humane Society of the United States

Kitty Bungalow Charm School for Wayward Cats

Latino Alliance for Animal Care Coalition

LIUNA Locals 777 & 792

Living Free Animal Sanctuary

Los Angeles Animal Services

Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office

New Leash on Life

Old Yeller Ranch Rescue

Palm Springs Animal Shelter

San Diego Humane Society

San Francisco SPCA

San Luis Obispo County Health Agency, Animal Services Division

Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors

Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors

Sea World

Shadow’s Fund

Stockton Animal Services

The Pet Care Foundation

The Peter Zippi Fund for Animals

Ventura County Board of Supervisors

Woods Humane Society

OPPOSITION: (Verified 6/23/16)

Six individuals

ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: Best Friends Animal Society, sponsor, writes:

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.

As it now stands, no dogs admitted into a California shelter under the conditions of Food and Ag Code 31603(a) can be spared the arbitrary and capricious “vicious” label, regardless of their behavior, age or the judgment of shelter professionals. It doesn’t matter if the dog was a breeding mother, a pup or a stolen pet.

Stray dogs arriving at shelters without any known history are not presumed to pose a risk. They are evaluated individually using techniques developed over years by animal sheltering professionals. Victims of cruelty should receive the same evaluations.

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 75-0, 5/9/16

AYES: Achadjian, Alejo, Travis Allen, Arambula, Atkins, Baker, Bigelow, Bloom, Bonilla, Bonta, Brough, Brown, Burke, Calderon, Campos, Chang, Chau, Chávez, Chiu, Chu, Cooley, Cooper, Dababneh, Dahle, Daly, Dodd, Eggman, Frazier, Gallagher, Cristina Garcia, Gatto, Gipson, Gomez, Gonzalez, Gordon, Gray, Grove, Hadley, Harper, Roger Hernández, Holden, Irwin, Jones-Sawyer, Kim, Lackey, Levine, Linder, Lopez, Low, Maienschein, Mathis, Mayes, McCarty, Medina, Mullin, Nazarian, Obernolte, O'Donnell, Patterson, Quirk, Ridley-Thomas, Rodriguez, Salas, Santiago, Steinorth, Mark Stone, Thurmond, Ting, Wagner, Waldron, Weber, Wilk, Williams, Wood, Rendon

NO VOTE RECORDED: Beth Gaines, Eduardo Garcia, Jones, Melendez, Olsen

Prepared by:

6/24/16 14:33:45

**** END ****

ASSEMBLY THIRD READING

ATR Bill Id:AB 1825

Author:(Gordon and Maienschein)

As Introduced Ver:February 8, 2016

Majority vote

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 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 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."

1. 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 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.

1. 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."
2. Arguments in Opposition. None on file.

Analysis Prepared by: Angela Mapp / L. GOV. / (916) 319-3958 FN: 0002812

Date of Hearing: April 27, 2016

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON LOCAL GOVERNMENT

Susan Talamantes Eggman, Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:AB 1825 (

Author:Gordon and Maienschein) – As Introduced Ver:February 8, 2016

SUBJECT: Vicious dogs: definition.

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 dog, and places certain restrictions on dogs deemed potentially dangerous or vicious.
2. Defines “vicious dog” to mean any of the following:
   1. Any dog seized pursuant to existing laws governing dog fighting operations, as specified;
   2. Any dog which, when unprovoked, in an aggressive manner, inflicts severe injury on or kills a human being; or,
   3. 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 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."

1. 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 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.

1. 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."
2. Arguments in Opposition. None on file.

REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:

Support

Best Friends Animal Society [SPONSOR]

American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals

Bay Area Alliance for Animals

Beagle Freedom Project

California Animal Control Directors Association

California Police Chiefs Association

City and County of San Francisco

City of Sacramento

Human Society of the United States

Kitty Bungalow Charm School for Wayward Cats

Latino Alliance for Animal Care Coalition

LIUNA Locals 777 & 792

Living Free Animal Sanctuary

New Leash on Life

Old Yeller Ranch Rescue

Palm Springs Animal Shelter

San Diego Humane Society

San Francisco SPCA

San Luis Obispo County Health Agency, Animal Services Division

Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors

Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors

Sea World

Shadow's Fund

Stockton Animal Services

The Pet Care Foundation

The Peter Zippi Fund for Animals

Ventura County Board of Supervisors

Woods Humane Society

Opposition

None on file

Analysis Prepared by: Angela Mapp / L. GOV. / (916) 319-3958