Date of Hearing: August 10, 2020

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONS

Evan Low, Chair

SBPCA Bill Id:SB 573

Author:(Chang) – As Amended Ver:February 10, 2020

SENATE VOTE: 38-0

SUBJECT: Dogs and cats: microchip implants

SUMMARY: Requires a shelter or rescue group, as specified, to microchip a dog or cat with current information before releasing a dog or cat to an owner, or adopting out, selling, or giving away the dog or a cat to a new owner. Authorizes a shelter or rescue group that does not have microchipping capability on location to enter into an agreement with the owner or new owner to present proof, within 30 days, that the dog or cat is microchipped. Specifies an exemption from the microchipping requirement if the shelter or rescue group receives a signed form from the owner or new owner stating that the cost of microchipping would impose an economic hardship.

EXISTING LAW:

Governs the operation of animal shelters by, among other things, setting a minimum holding period for stray dogs, cats, and other specified animals, and requiring animal shelters to ensure that those animals, if adopted, are spayed or neutered. Food and Agriculture Code (FAC) Section 30501 et seq.; FAC Section 31751 et seq.; FAC Section 32000 et seq.)
Requires that during the holding period as indicated above, and before the adoption or euthanasia of a dog impounded pursuant to this law, a public or private shelter shall scan the dog for a microchip that identifies the owner of that dog and shall make reasonable efforts to contact the owner and notify him or her that his or her dog is impounded and is available for redemption. (FAC Section 31108 (c))
Requires that during the holding period as indicated above, and before the adoption or euthanasia of a cat impounded pursuant to this law, a public or private shelter shall scan the cat for a microchip that identifies the owner of that cat and shall make reasonable efforts to contact the owner and notify him or her that his or her cat is impounded and is available for redemption. (FAC Section 31752 (d))

THIS BILL:

Prohibits a public animal control agency or shelter, society for the prevention of cruelty to animals shelter, humane society shelter, or rescue group from releasing a dog or cat to an owner, or adopting out, selling, or giving away a dog or cat to a new owner, unless the dog or cat is microchipped with updated information.
Provides that if a shelter or rescue group does not have microchipping capability on location, the shelter or rescue group must obtain an agreement requiring the owner reclaiming the dog or cat, or the new owner receiving the dog or cat, to present to the shelter or rescue group, within the next 30 days, proof that the dog or cat is microchipped with updated information.
Requires that if the shelter or rescue group does not have microchipping capability on location, the agency, shelter, or group must make a good faith effort to locate available free or discounted regional microchipping services and provide that information to the owner or new owner of the dog or cat.
Specifies that a shelter or rescue group may require proof that the dog or cat is microchipped with current information on the owner reclaiming the dog or cat, or new owner receiving the dog or cat, before releasing, adopting out, selling or giving away the animal.
Specifies that an owner reclaiming the dog or cat, or new owner receiving the dog or cat, is not required to register the dog’s microchip number with a microchip registry company that will use, without the owner’s or new owner’s consent, the personal information of the owner or new owner for purposes other than to reunite the owner or new owner with the dog or cat.
Provides an exemption from the requirement that a dog or cat be microchipped, on the condition that the shelter or rescue group receives a signed form from the owner reclaiming the animal, or the new owner receiving the animal, stating that the cost of microchipping would impose an economic hardship for the owner or new owner.
Exempts from the requirement for a dog or cat to be microchipped if a licensed veterinarian certifies in writing that the dog or cat is medically unfit for the microchipping procedure because the dog or cat has a physical condition that would be substantially aggravated by the procedure.
Specifies that shelter or rescue group violating the bill’s provisions on or after January 1, 2022 is subject to a civil penalty of $100, unless it does not have microchipping capability on location and has obtained an agreement from the owner or new owner to provide proof of microchipping within 30 days, as specified.

FISCAL EFFECT: Unknown. This bill is keyed fiscal by Legislative Counsel.

COMMENTS:

Purpose. This bill is sponsored by Social Compassion in Legislation. According to the author: “By requiring municipal shelters to microchip sheltered dogs and cats upon adoption, SB 573 will save California taxpayer funds from being spent on ending the lives of hundreds of thousands of dogs and cats across California. According to the American Humane Society, out of the over 6 million animals that are sheltered in the United States, approximately 1.5 million sheltered dogs and cats lose their lives to euthanasia. In California, hundreds of thousands of sheltered dogs and cats are euthanized every year. Only 15% of dogs and 2% of cats in shelters without identification are reunited with their owners. Ultimately this leads to hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars needlessly spent on sheltering and, sadly, euthanizing pets. According to the Journal of the American Veterinarian Medical Association almost three-fourths of lost, microchipped cats and dogs were located due to the presence of the microchip. Pet microchips have consistently been proven to be effective. Many dogs found hundreds of miles from their homes were reunited with their families due to microchips. Others were found years after they were lost through microchip technology.”

Background.

Animal Shelters and Lost Pets. According to the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, approximately 6.5 million companion animals become lost and are received by a shelter in the United States every year. Of this figure, approximately 3.3 million are dogs and 3.2 million are cats. Shelter animals that cannot be rehomed may be euthanized: according to the most recent data by the California Department of Public Health, California euthanized more than 150,000 dogs and cats that were not able to be adopted or treated in 2016. However, available data also points out that the number of euthanasia has been steadily declining, attributed to an increase in both animals that have been adopted and pets that have been successfully returned to their owners. This trend indicates the importance of identifying lost companion animals in order to avoid the possibility of euthanasia.

The issue of lost pets have been compounded in recent years due to the increase in frequency and severity of wildfires in California. In 2018 and 2019, several wildfires and sudden evacuation orders have forced individuals and families to flee their homes, often without warning, and causing dogs, cats, horses, and livestock to be left behind. When reporting on those events, the Washington Post noted that “often, pet owners affected by the sudden evacuation orders possess little identifying information for their animals, other than a name, location, and photo on their phone.” Following a disaster, local shelters, clinics and veterinary offices often become pet owners’ first stop when trying to locate lost animals.

Visible identification tags or implanted microchips can significantly increase the chances of lost companion animals being returned to their homes. A study published in the Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) showed that dogs without microchips were returned to their owners 21.9% of the time, whereas microchipped dogs were returned to their owners 52.2% of the time. Cats without microchips were reunited with their owners only 1.8% of the time, whereas microchipped cats went back home 38.5% of the time. The study notes that microchipped animals that weren't returned to their owners was due to incorrect or outdated owner information.

This bill aims to further increase the chances of lost companion animals being returned to their owners by requiring shelters and rescue groups to microchip dogs and cats with updated information on the owner or new owner before the animals are returned, adopted out, sold, or given away.

How a Microchip Works. A microchip is a small electronic chip enclosed in a glass cylinder, approximately the size of a grain of rice. The microchip itself does not have a battery, and is activated by a handheld scanner that is passed over the chip. Once activated, the microchip transmits an identification number to the scanner, which then displays the information on the scanner’s screen.

Animal shelters and veterinary offices typically use these scanners to read the chip’s identification number on a found animal. Each microchip contains a registration number and the phone number of the registry associated with the brand of the chip. In the early years of animal microchip technology, different chip companies maintained separate databases, unique frequencies, and proprietary scanners to display information, which created problems if an animal had a brand-specific microchip that a scanner could not read. These challenges have been largely addressed today, as microchip companies now produce universal scanners to read microchip information regardless of brand. In 2009, the American Animal Hospital Association (AAHA) created the AAHA Universal Pet Microchip Lookup Tool - a free, internet-based resource that assists with microchip identification by checking participating pet recovery services’ registries and help determine which registry should be contacted. The AAHA Microchip Lookup Tool can be accessed online at petmicrochiplookup.org. Additionally, organizations such as the American Microchip Advisory Council continue to work to develop a network of registry databases to streamline to process of obtaining registered information and returning pets to their homes.

Of note, a microchip is not a GPS tracking device and cannot actively locate an animal if it is lost. As a result, it is recommended that pet owners keep contact information up to date with the microchip manufacturer at all times. The Humane Society also notes that although microchips are a good option for pet identification, physical collars and identification tags should be used as a primary form of identification for all companion animals.

How a Microchip is Implanted. A microchip is injected under an animal’s skin using a large-bore hypodermic needle. According to the AVMA, the procedure is no more painful that an injection, and generally does not require surgery or anesthesia. The animal’s subcutaneous tissue usually bonds to the chip within 24 hours, preventing the chip from moving or migrating to another part of the body. A veterinarian is not required for the procedure, as microchip implantation is not considered the practice of veterinary medicine. As a precaution, while the procedure may be performed by a veterinary assistant or a registered veterinary technician, supervision by a veterinarian is recommended.

Studies indicate that there are no major health risks associated with microchipping a pet. The British Small Animal Veterinary Association maintains a database of adverse reactions to microchips: since the database was started in 1996, over 4 million animals have been microchipped and only 391 adverse reactions have been reported. Of these reactions, migration of the microchip from its original implantation site is the most common problem reported.

The bill specifies that a dog or a cat may be exempted from microchipping if a licensed veterinarian certifies in writing that the animal is medically unfit for the procedure.

Cost of Microchipping. The cost of microchipping a dog or a cat may vary by region, microchip brand, and where the procedure is performed. Veterinary offices, clinics, and hospitals may provide this service between $5 and $75. However, shelters may be able to provide microchipping services at a much lower cost: according to the bill’s sponsor, the market rate for any shelters ranges between $4 to $8 per microchip. In addition, local municipalities and non-profit organizations may offer microchipping at low-to-no cost to pet owners, and pet suppliers may also offer monthly microchip clinics. With multiple avenues for microchipping an animal available, pet owners are encouraged to research options in their region. Depending on the microchip brand, additional fees may be charged: some microchip companies charge a one-time registration fee while others may charge an annual fee.

Cost Savings for Shelters. According to the author, the primary benefits for public animal control shelters is a strong potential for reduced costs for having to maintain large populations of lost, stolen, abandoned, or stray animals and a reduction in the number of animals which the shelter may have to euthanize. The costs to euthanize an animal can be anywhere from $25 to $150 depending on whether it is done at a shelter or in a veterinarian office. Other costs may be higher depending on the location for euthanasia and preferences for group cremation or individual cremation of the animal.

Economic Hardship Exemption. A prior version of this legislation was vetoed due to concerns of “creating a burden for those who may already be struggling with the basic costs of caring for their pets and thereby do not have the financial capacity to pay for the microchip implant and the annual fees.” The author has addressed this concern in this version of the bill by adding an economic hardship exemption. Under this exemption, a dog or a cat is not required to be microchipped if the shelter or rescue group receives a signed form stating that the cost of microchipping would impose an economic hardship from the owner or new owner of the animal.

Current Related Legislation.

None.

Prior Related Legislation.

SB 64 (Chang, 2019). Would have required a shelter or rescue group to microchip a dog or cat with current information before releasing a dog or cat to an owner seeking to reclaim it, or adopt out, sell, or give away to a new owner. Would have allowed a shelter or rescue group that does not have microchipping capability on location to enter into an agreement with the owner or new owner to present proof, within 30 days, that the dog or cat is microchipped. This bill was vetoed by the Governor, who provided the following veto message: “I am supportive of the important objective of this legislation to reunite more pets with their families and thereby decrease the number of euthanized animals in California. However, by requiring microchipping as a condition of reclaiming a pet, this bill has the unintended consequence of creating a burden for those who may already be struggling with the basic costs of caring for their pets and thereby do not have the financial capacity to pay for the microchip implant and the annual fees.”

SB 702 (Lieu, 2011). Would have required an owner of an animal that is adopted or impounded and claimed by the owner from a local animal shelter to implant an identifying microchip in the animal upon release, if a microchip is available. If not available for implantation, the owner must do so within 30 days of release of their animal from the shelter. This bill was vetoed by the Governor, who provided the following veto message: “This measure would prohibit any animal control agency, animal shelter, or rescue group from releasing, selling, or giving away a dog or cat that has not been microchipped. Under current law, local agencies and shelters can - and should - require animals to be microchipped before being released. There is no need for state law to mandate the procedure, which would then require the state to pay for it.”

ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT:

Social Compassion in Legislation and several animal welfare organizations collectively write in support: “While microchips are an incredibly reliable form of identification for pets, microchipping requirements vary with each California municipality. By requiring municipal shelters to microchip sheltered dogs and cats upon adoption or reclamation, SB-573 will save California taxpayers funds from being spent on euthanizing hundreds of thousands of dogs and cats across California while reducing shelter populations.”

Mars, Incorporated writes in support: “We supported your SB 64 which was unfortunately vetoed by the Governor due to concerns of an unintended consequence of creating a financial burden. SB 573 addresses this concern by not requiring a dog or cat to be microchipped if the agency, shelter, or group receives a signed form from the owner reclaiming the dog or cat, or new owner receiving the dog or cat that states that the cost of microchipping would impose an economic hardship for the owner or new owner.”

The City of Chino Hills writes in support: “By requiring dogs and cats to be microchipped at the time of adoption or upon being returned to their owner, SB 573 will help in reducing the population at animal shelters and save the taxpayers hundreds of thousands of dollars that are currently being spent on euthanizing animals.”

12 animal welfare organizations collectively write in support: “Microchipping is a safe and effective way to get the animals back home or even prevent them from entering the shelter system. Many lost pets are scanned at veterinarian offices or in the field by animal control and returned to their owners without ever being impounded.”

490 private individuals have submitted letters of support, writing on the effectiveness of microchips and the cost-saving benefits of avoiding the euthanasia of dogs and cats in shelters.

ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION:

None on file.

REGISTERED SUPPORT:

Social Compassion in Legislation (Sponsor)

A Purposeful Rescue

Action for Animals

Adamant Media

American Bird Conservancy

Animal Legal Defense Fund

Animal Wellness Action

Animal Wellness Foundation

Ashley & Hobie Animal Welfare

Bear League

Berkeley Animal Rights Center

Born Free USA

Capitol Kitty Catios

City of Chino Hills

Coalition for Pets and Public Safety

Communities, Legislation, and Animal Welfare

Community Concern for Cats

Compassionate Bay

CreatureKind

Delfina Saddlery

Direct Action Everywhere

EPIC

Fix Long Beach

Friends of the Animals in the Redwood Empire

Global March for Elephants and Rhinos

Hanaeleh

Hector Hill Animal Sanctuary

Humane Decisions

Humane Wildlife Control

In Defense of Animals

Lady Freethinker

Lockwood Animal Rescue Center

Long Beach Spay and Neuter Foundation

Love Leo Rescue

Mars Incorporated

Oceanic Preservation Society

Orange County Animal Save

PeaCe

People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals

Plant-based Advocates - Los Gatos

PlantDiego

Point Reyes Safaris

Poison Free Calabasas

Poison Free Malibu

Project Coyote

Santa Barbara Humane Society

Sarah Killingsworth Photography

Save the Frogs

Saving Gentle Hearts

Sierra Wildlife Coalition

SPCA Fiji

St. John Creative

Starfish Animal Rescue

Tails of the City Animal Rescue

Take Me Home

The Paw Project

The Tiger Frances Foundation

Voice for the Animals

What’s Up Dog LA

Wildcare of SoCal

Wildlife Emergency Services

Wildlife Generation

Women United for Animal Welfare

REGISTERED OPPOSITION:

None on File.

Analysis Prepared by: Patrick Le / B. & P. / (916) 319-3301

SB 573: Dogs and cats: microchip implants.

News Coverage: