(1)Existing law regulates potentially dangerous and vicious dogs and requires the chief officer of the public animal shelter or animal control department, or the head of the local law enforcement agency, if probable cause exists to believe that a dog is potentially dangerous or vicious, to petition the superior court for a hearing in a limited civil proceeding to determine, upon a preponderance of the evidence, whether the dog should be declared potentially dangerous or vicious. Existing law also authorizes a city or county to establish an administrative hearing procedure to hear and dispose of petitions filed for these purposes. Existing law authorizes the owner or keeper of the dog to contest the determination through an appeal to the superior court, as specified, and requires the superior court to make its own determination, upon a preponderance of the evidence, as to the potential danger and viciousness of the dog. Existing law authorizes a dog determined to be a vicious dog to be destroyed by the animal control department when it is found, after one of those proceedings conducted by a court or other hearing entity, that the release of the dog would create a significant threat to the public health, safety, and welfare. For purposes of these provisions, existing law generally defines potentially dangerous dog and vicious dog as a dog that, when unprovoked, engages in specified conduct, as applicable.

This bill would require a court or other hearing entity in a proceeding on original jurisdiction, or a court in a proceeding on appeal, to determine whether a dog is vicious upon clear and convincing evidence and, when determining whether a dog is potentially dangerous or vicious, to make explicit factual findings to support the conclusion that each requirement for placement in that category has been met, including findings specific to whether the dog engaged in unprovoked conduct. was provoked. The bill would define the terms term provoke and unprovoked for purposes of these provisions.

The bill would require any order issued under these provisions to end a dogs life for reasons of public health, safety, and welfare to be supported by clear and convincing evidence that the jurisdictions requirements for the order are met and to include specified findings.

The bill would provide that provocation shall be a factor when considering whether and how a dog can be regulated to mitigate risk to public health, safety, and welfare, as specified.

(2)Existing law prohibits a dog from being declared potentially dangerous or vicious under the above-described proceedings under specified circumstances, including, among others, if any injury or damage is sustained by a person who, at the time the injury or damage was sustained, was teasing, tormenting, abusing, or assaulting the dog.

This bill would also prohibit a dog from being declared potentially dangerous or vicious under these provisions if any injury or damage is sustained by a person who, at the time the injury or damage was sustained, was provoking the dog, as specified.

(3)Under existing law, the above-described provisions regulating potentially dangerous and vicious dogs do not prevent a city or county from adopting or enforcing its own program for the control of potentially dangerous or vicious dogs if that program does not regulate these dogs in a manner that is specific as to breed, as specified.

This bill would require such a program adopted by a city or county to comply with certain requirements, including, among others, requirements to apply the clear and convincing evidence burden of proof in a hearing that could or will result in an order of death to protect public health, safety, and welfare and to apply the same requirements described above applicable to issuing an order to end a dogs life for reasons of public health, safety, and welfare.

(4)This bill would provide that the above-described provisions governing the regulation of potentially dangerous and vicious dogs apply only to governmental or judicial proceedings to evaluate and address a risk to public health, safety, and welfare posed by individual dogs and do not apply to any civil action for remedies.

(5)The bill would include findings that certain changes proposed by this bill address a matter of statewide concern rather than a municipal affair and apply to all counties and cities, including charter counties and charter cities.

(1)Existing law regulates potentially dangerous and vicious dogs and requires the chief officer of the public animal shelter or animal control department, or the head of the local law enforcement agency, if probable cause exists to believe that a dog is potentially dangerous or vicious, to petition the superior court for a hearing in a limited civil proceeding to determine, upon a preponderance of the evidence, whether the dog should be declared potentially dangerous or vicious. Existing law also authorizes a city or county to establish an administrative hearing procedure to hear and dispose of petitions filed for these purposes. Existing law authorizes the owner or keeper of the dog to contest the determination through an appeal to the superior court, as specified, and requires the superior court to make its own determination, upon a preponderance of the evidence, as to the potential danger and viciousness of the dog. Existing law authorizes a dog determined to be a vicious dog to be destroyed by the animal control department when it is found, after one of those proceedings conducted by a court or other hearing entity, that the release of the dog would create a significant threat to the public health, safety, and welfare. For purposes of these provisions provisions, existing law generally defines potentially dangerous dog and vicious dog as a dog that, when unprovoked, engages in specified conduct, as applicable.

This bill would require a court or other hearing entity in a proceeding on original jurisdiction, or a court in a proceeding on appeal, to determine whether a dog is vicious upon clear and convincing evidence and, when determining whether a dog is potentially dangerous or vicious, to make explicit findings to support the conclusion that each requirement for placement in that category has been met, including findings specific to whether the dog engaged in unprovoked conduct. The bill would define the terms provoke and unprovoked for purposes of these provisions.

The bill would require any order issued under these provisions to destroy a dog end a dogs life for reasons of public health, safety, and welfare to be supported by clear and convincing evidence the dog poses an irremediable threat to the public health, safety, and welfare and would define irremediable for these purposes. that the jurisdictions requirements for the order are met and to include specified findings.

(2)Existing law prohibits a dog from being declared potentially dangerous or vicious under the above-described proceedings under specified circumstances, including, among others, if any injury or damage is sustained by a person who, at the time the injury or damage was sustained, was teasing, tormenting, abusing, or assaulting the dog.

This bill would also prohibit a dog from being declared potentially dangerous or vicious under these provisions if any injury or damage is sustained by a person who, at the time the injury or damage was sustained, was provoking the dog. dog, as specified.

(3)Under existing law, the above-described provisions regulating potentially dangerous and vicious dogs do not prevent a city or county from adopting or enforcing its own program for the control of potentially dangerous or vicious dogs if that program does not regulate these dogs in a manner that is specific as to breed, as specified.

This bill would require such a program adopted by a city or county to comply with certain requirements requirements, including, among other things, the same burdens of proof and explicit findings described above others, requirements to apply the clear and convincing evidence burden of proof in a hearing that could or will result in an order to destroy a dog of death to protect public health, safety, and welfare and to apply the same standards requirements described above applicable to issuing an order to destroy a dog. end a dogs life for reasons of public health, safety, and welfare.

(4)This bill would provide that the above-described provisions governing the regulation of potentially dangerous and vicious dogs only apply only to governmental or judicial proceedings to evaluate and address public safety risks a risk to public health, safety, and welfare posed by individual dogs and do not apply to any civil action for remedies.

(5)The bill would include findings that certain changes proposed by this bill address a matter of statewide concern rather than a municipal affair and apply to all counties and cities, including charter counties and charter cities.

(1)Existing law regulates potentially dangerous and vicious dogs and requires the chief officer of the public animal shelter or animal control department, or the head of the local law enforcement agency, if probable cause exists to believe that a dog is potentially dangerous or vicious, to petition the superior court for a hearing in a limited civil proceeding to determine, upon a preponderance of the evidence, whether the dog should be declared potentially dangerous or vicious. Existing law also authorizes a city or county to establish an administrative hearing procedure to hear and dispose of petitions filed for these purposes. Existing law authorizes the owner or keeper of the dog to contest the determination through an appeal to the superior court, as specified, and requires the superior court to make its own determination, upon a preponderance of the evidence, as to the potential danger and viciousness of the dog. Existing law authorizes a dog determined to be a vicious dog to be destroyed by the animal control department when it is found, after one of those proceedings conducted by a court or other hearing entity, that the release of the dog would create a significant threat to the public health, safety, and welfare. For purposes of these provisions existing law generally defines potentially dangerous dog and vicious dog as a dog that, when unprovoked, engages in specified conduct, as applicable.

This bill would require a court or other hearing entity in a proceeding on original jurisdiction, or a court in a proceeding on appeal, to determine whether a dog is vicious upon clear and convincing evidence and, when determining whether a dog is potentially dangerous or vicious, to make explicit findings to support the conclusion that the dog engaged in unprovoked conduct. The bill would define the terms provoke and unprovoked for purposes of these provisions.

The bill would require any order issued under these provisions to destroy a dog to be supported by clear and convincing evidence the dog poses an irremediable threat to the public health, safety, and welfare and would define irremediable for these purposes.

(2)Existing law prohibits a dog from being declared potentially dangerous or vicious under the above-described proceedings under specified circumstances, including, among others, if any injury or damage is sustained by a person who, at the time the injury or damage was sustained, was teasing, tormenting, abusing, or assaulting the dog.

This bill would also prohibit a dog from being declared potentially dangerous or vicious under these provisions if any injury or damage is sustained by a person who, at the time the injury or damage was sustained, was provoking the dog.

(3)Under existing law, the above-described provisions regulating potentially dangerous and vicious dogs do not prevent a city or county from adopting or enforcing its own program for the control of potentially dangerous or vicious dogs if that program does not regulate these dogs in a manner that is specific as to breed, as specified.

This bill would require such a program adopted by a city or county to comply with certain requirements including, among other things, the same burdens of proof and explicit findings described above in a hearing that could result in an order to destroy a dog and the same standards described above applicable to issuing an order to destroy a dog.

(5)The bill would include findings that certain changes proposed by this bill address a matter of statewide concern rather than a municipal affair and apply to all counties and cities, including charter counties and charter cities.

(1)Existing law regulates potentially dangerous and vicious dogs and requires the chief officer of the public animal shelter or animal control department, or the head of the local law enforcement agency, if probable cause exists to believe that a dog is potentially dangerous or vicious, to petition the superior court for a hearing in a limited civil proceeding to determine, upon a preponderance of the evidence, whether the dog should be declared potentially dangerous or vicious. Existing law also authorizes a city or county to establish an administrative hearing procedure to hear and dispose of petitions filed for these purposes. Existing law authorizes the owner or keeper of the dog to contest the determination through an appeal to the superior court, as specified, and requires the superior court to make its own determination, upon a preponderance of the evidence, as to the potential danger and viciousness of the dog. Existing law authorizes a dog determined to be a vicious dog to be destroyed by the animal control department when it is found, after one of those proceedings conducted by a court or other hearing entity, that the release of the dog would create a significant threat to the public health, safety, and welfare. For purposes of these provisions existing law generally defines potentially dangerous dog and vicious dog as a dog that, when unprovoked, engages in specified conduct, as applicable.

This bill would require a court or other hearing entity in a proceeding on original jurisdiction, or a court in a proceeding on appeal, to determine whether a dog is vicious upon clear and convincing evidence and, when determining whether a dog is potentially dangerous or vicious, to make explicit findings to support the conclusion that the dog engaged in unprovoked conduct. The bill would define the terms provoke and unprovoked for purposes of these provisions.

The bill would instead require any order issued under these provisions to destroy a dog to be supported by clear and convincing evidence the dog poses an irremediable and unreasonable threat to the public health, safety, and welfare and would define irremediable for these purposes.

(2)Existing law prohibits a dog from being declared potentially dangerous or vicious under the above-described proceedings under specified circumstances, including, among others, if any injury or damage is sustained by a person who, at the time the injury or damage was sustained, was teasing, tormenting, abusing, or assaulting the dog.

This bill would also prohibit a dog from being declared potentially dangerous or vicious under these provisions if any injury or damage is sustained by a person who, at the time the injury or damage was sustained, was provoking the dog.

(3)Under existing law, the above-described provisions regulating potentially dangerous and vicious dogs do not prevent a city or county from adopting or enforcing its own program for the control of potentially dangerous or vicious dogs if that program does not regulate these dogs in a manner that is specific as to breed, as specified.

This bill would require such a program adopted by a city or county to comply with certain requirements including including, among other things, the same burdens of proof and explicit findings described above in a hearing that could result in an order to destroy a dog and the same standards described above applicable to issuing an order to destroy a dog.

(4)The bill would include findings that certain changes proposed by this bill address a matter of statewide concern rather than a municipal affair and, therefore, and apply to all counties and cities, including charter counties and charter cities.

(1)Existing law regulates potentially dangerous and vicious dogs and requires the chief officer of the public animal shelter or animal control department, or the head of the local law enforcement agency, if probable cause exists to believe that a dog is potentially dangerous or vicious, to petition the superior court for a hearing in a limited civil proceeding to determine, upon a preponderance of the evidence, whether the dog should be declared potentially dangerous or vicious. Existing law also authorizes a city or county to establish an administrative hearing procedure to hear and dispose of petitions filed for these purposes. Existing law authorizes the owner or keeper of the dog to contest the determination through an appeal to the superior court, as specified, and requires the superior court to make its own determination, upon a preponderance of the evidence, as to the potential danger and viciousness of the dog. Existing law authorizes a dog determined to be a vicious dog to be destroyed by the animal control department when it is found, after one of those proceedings conducted by a court or other hearing entity, that the release of the dog would create a significant threat to the public health, safety, and welfare. For purposes of these provisions existing law generally defines potentially dangerous dog and vicious dog as a dog that, when unprovoked, engages in specified conduct, as applicable.

This bill would require a court or other hearing entity in a proceeding on original jurisdiction, or a court in a proceeding on appeal, to determine whether a dog is vicious upon clear and convincing evidence and, when determining whether a dog is potentially dangerous or vicious, to make explicit findings to support the conclusion that the dog engaged in unprovoked conduct. The bill would define provoke and unprovoked for purposes of these provisions.

The bill would instead require any order issued under these provisions to destroy a dog to be supported by clear and convincing evidence the dog poses an irremediable and unreasonable threat to the public health, safety, and welfare and would define irremediable for these purposes.

(2)Existing law prohibits a dog from being declared potentially dangerous or vicious under the above-described proceedings under specified circumstances, including, among others, if any injury or damage is sustained by a person who, at the time the injury or damage was sustained, was teasing, tormenting, abusing, or assaulting the dog.

This bill would also prohibit a dog from being declared potentially dangerous or vicious under these provisions if any injury or damage is sustained by a person who, at the time the injury or damage was sustained, was provoking the dog.

(3)Under existing law, the above-described provisions regulating potentially dangerous and vicious dogs do not prevent a city or county from adopting or enforcing its own program for the control of potentially dangerous or vicious dogs if that program does not regulate these dogs in a manner that is specific as to breed, as specified.

This bill would require such a program adopted by a city or county to comply with certain requirements including the same burdens of proof and explicit findings described above in a hearing that could result in an order to destroy a dog and the same standards described above applicable to issuing an order to destroy a dog.

(4)The bill would include findings that changes proposed by this bill address a matter of statewide concern rather than a municipal affair and, therefore, apply to all cities, including charter cities.

SENATE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

Senator Anna Caballero, Chair

2025 - 2026 Regular Session

AB 793 (Schultz) - Potentially dangerous and vicious dogs: designation and disposition: burden of proof

Bill Summary:

AB 793 raises the burden of proof for determinations about whether a dog is vicious from a preponderance of the evidence standard to a clear and convincing evidence standard.

Fiscal Impact:

Unknown, potentially significant costs to the state funded trial court system (Trial Court Trust Fund, General Fund) to adjudicate civil actions. By raising the evidentiary standard for finding a dog vicious, this may lead to additional civil case filings challenging local hearing decisions, that otherwise would not have been commenced, which could lead to lengthier and more complex court proceedings with attendant workload and resource costs to the court. The fiscal impact of this bill to the courts will depend on many unknowns, including the number of cases filed and the factors unique to each case. An eight-hour court day costs approximately $10,500 in staff in workload. If court days exceed 10, costs to the trial courts could reach hundreds of thousands of dollars. While the courts are not funded on a workload basis, an increase in workload could result in delayed court services and would put pressure on the General Fund to fund additional staff and resources and to increase the amount appropriated to backfill for trial court operations.

Background:

Following a series of high profile incidents of dogs attacking humans, in 1989, the Legislature adopted the existing framework for evaluating whether or not a dog is vicious and for handling of the outcome of such decisions. SB 428 (Torres) Chapter 761, Statutes of 1989.

California's existing law for regulating potentially dangerous or vicious dogs provides a basic legal framework that outlines the hearing process and burden of proof, but most of the decision making regarding a dog's fate is made by local agencies.

Existing law provides that when an animal control or humane office possess probable cause to believe that a dog is potentially dangerous or vicious, the animal control officer must petition either local authorities or the superior court for a determination whether the dog is dangerous or vicious. In the event a dog is suspected of being potentially dangerous or vicious, the dog's owner is notified in writing and permitted to contest the determination at a hearing. A hearing officer must then determine, by a preponderance of the evidence whether or not the dog is dangerous or vicious. If a dog is determined to be vicious, it is likely to be euthanized by the local animal control agency. The owners of dogs deemed potentially dangerous, but not vicious, are frequently given plans for controlling the dog and securing their property that must be followed as a condition of recovering possession of the dog. Existing law allows a city or county to adopt and enforce its own program for the control of potentially dangerous or vicious dogs.

Proposed Law:

• Defines “provoke” to mean for a human or animal to behave intentionally or unintentionally in a way that a reasonable person would conclude is likely to harm, torment, agitate, scare, or confuse a dog such that the dog could or does bite, injure, or attack a human or animal, including a human trying to help the dog.
• Defines “provocation” to include any of the following circumstances:
  
  • The dog was protecting or defending a person within the immediate vicinity of the dog from an attack or assault;
    
  • The dog was responding to pain or injury;
    
  • The dog was protecting itself, its owner or family member, its custodian, its offspring, its kennels, or its home;
    
  • The person was committing a crime or offense upon the property of the owner, or custodian, of the dog; and,
    
  • The person had a history of harming, agitating, scaring, tormenting, or confusing the dog.
• Defines “public health, safety, and welfare” to include the health, safety, and welfare of both humans and animals.
• Defines “unprovoked” to mean that a dog was not provoked when it engaged in specified conduct.
• Requires a clear and convincing evidence standard to be used when making a finding that a dog is vicious and makes conforming changes.
• Requires the appropriate burden of proof to be used when making a determination under these provisions and requires explicit findings to support the conclusion that each requirement for placement in that category has been met, including findings specific to whether the dog engaged in unprovoked conduct in an initial determination and upon appeal.
• Requires any order to end a dog’s life for reasons of public health, safety, and welfare to be supported by clear and convincing evidence that the jurisdiction’s requirements for the order are met, and include explicit findings regarding all of the following:
  
  • That the dog was not provoked;
    
  • That reasonable, humane terms and conditions would not adequately protect public health, safety, and welfare;
    
  • That the release of the dog would create a significant threat to the public health, safety, and welfare; and,
    
  • That the dog cannot be safely maintained inside or outside the jurisdiction.
• Provides that a dog’s life may not be ended for the reason of public health, safety, and welfare before the exhaustion of all appeals or the time allowed for those appeals has elapsed.
• Establishes regulations of provoked dogs, as provided.
• Requires provocation to be a factor when considering whether and how a dog can be regulated to mitigate risk to public health, safety, and welfare.
• Provides that, depending on the nature of the provocation, reasonableness of the dog’s response, and reasonable prediction of the degree of risk to public health, safety, and welfare the dog poses, options are to include any of the following:
  
  • Dismissal of the complaint without further action;
    
  • Imposition of reasonable, humane conditions of ownership when doing so is necessary to mitigate risk of further incidents;
    
  • Humanely ending the dog’s life by the local governmental agency or by the owner’s veterinarian if it is determined by clear and convincing evidence, and reported in explicit findings, that all of the following are satisfied:
    
    • The provoked dog, in an aggressive manner, inflicted severe injury, as defined in Section 31604, which was significantly disproportionate to the provocative stimulus;
      
    • Release of the dog would create a significant threat to the public health, safety, and welfare;
      
    • The risk to public health, safety, and welfare cannot be addressed adequately by an order of reasonable, humane terms and conditions of ownership imposed on an owner; and,
      
    • A feasible alternative does not exist for the dog to live safely inside or outside the jurisdiction.
• Provides that severity of an injury is not determinative of whether a dog was provoked or whether the release of the dog would create a significant threat to public health, safety, and welfare.
• Provides that testimony of a certified applied behaviorist, board-certified veterinary behaviorist, or other recognized expert is relevant to a determination whether a dog’s behavior was provoked and the scope of regulating the dog, if regulation is considered. That testimony must still meet other standards for admission, such as credibility and authenticity.
• Provides that any program by a city or county adopted to impose more restrictive control must comply with certain requirements including:
  
  • Not be specific as to breed, except as provided in Section 122331 of the Health and Safety Code; and
    
  • Apply clear and convincing evidence and require explicit findings in any administrative hearing or limited civil case conducted to determine whether a dog poses a degree of risk to public health, safety, and welfare such that it should be placed in a category that could or will result in an order of death.
    

-- END --

SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE

Senator Thomas Umberg, Chair

2025-2026 Regular Session

Bill No: AB 793 (Author:Schultz)

Version: June 10, 2025

Hearing Date: July 15, 2025

Fiscal: No

Urgency: No

Consultant: AM

SUBJECT

Potentially dangerous and vicious dogs: designation and disposition: burden of proof

DIGEST

This bill revises the existing statutes regulating potentially dangerous or vicious dogs by, among other things, defining new terms, requiring determinations about whether a dog is vicious to be made by a clear and convincing evidence standard, requiring explicit findings on certain criteria, and establishing new statutory provisions for the regulation of provoked dogs.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Existing law provides a statutory scheme to determine if a dog is dangerous or vicious, as defined, by a preponderance of the evidence. A finding that a dog is vicious can lead to the dog being euthanized if it is determined that the release of the dog would create a significant threat to public health, safety, and welfare. However, beyond establishing provisions requiring a hearing by a court or administrative hearing entity and the evidentiary standard in the hearing, existing law largely defers to the rules and regulations for the care and ownership of dogs adopted by local jurisdictions, often by the local animal control departments.

The author and sponsors of the bill claim that the existing system leads to inconsistent decisions regarding the fate of dogs alleged to be dangerous or vicious. This bill seeks to establish heightened requirements for the hearings and determinations of these cases. The bill creates several new definitions in state law, applies those definitions to local animal control department’s hearing process, and increases the burden of proof for deeming a dog vicious to clear and convincing evidence. The bill also establishes a new framework for regulating provoked dogs. The bill is sponsored by Democrats for the Protection of Animals and Social Compassion in Legislation. The bill is supported by numerous animal rescue groups and approximately 650 individuals. The bill is opposed by CalAnimals and numerous animal shelters throughout the state and some local jurisdictions. Should this bill pass out of this Committee, it will next be heard in the Senate Appropriations Committee.

PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE LAW

Existing law:

1. Finds and declares that potentially dangerous and vicious dogs have become a serious and widespread threat to the safety and welfare of citizens of this state. In recent years, they have assaulted without provocation and seriously injured numerous individuals, particularly children, and have killed numerous dogs. (Food & Ag. Code § 31601(a).)^[1]
2. Defines a “potentially dangerous dog” as any of the following:
   1. Any dog which, when unprovoked, on two separate occasions within the prior 36-month period, engages in any behavior that requires a defensive action by any person to prevent bodily injury when the person and the dog are off the property of the owner or keeper of the dog;
   2. Any dog which, when unprovoked, bites a person causing a less severe injury than provided in 4), below; or
   3. Any dog which, when unprovoked, on two separate occasions within the prior 36-month period, has killed, seriously bitten, inflicted injury, or otherwise caused injury attacking a domestic animal off the property of the owner or keeper of the dog. (§ 31602.)
3. Defines “vicious dog” as either:
   1. Any dog that, when unprovoked, in an aggressive manner, inflicts severe injury on or kills a human being; or
   2. Any dog previously determined to be and currently listed as a potentially dangerous dog that, after its owner or keeper has been notified of this determination, continues the behavior described in 2). (§ 31603.)
4. Defines “severe injury” as any physical injury to a human being that results in muscle tears or disfiguring lacerations or requires multiple sutures or corrective or cosmetic surgery. (§ 31604.)
5. Requires that, if an animal control officer or a law enforcement officer has investigated and determined that there exists probable cause to believe that a dog is potentially dangerous or vicious, the chief officer of the public animal shelter or animal control department, or the chief officer’s immediate supervisor, or the head of the local law enforcement agency, or the agency head’s designee, is to petition the superior court of the county in which the dog is owned or kept for a hearing for the purpose of determining whether or not the dog should be declared potentially dangerous or vicious. (§ 31621.)
6. Provides that a hearing to make the determination required by 5), above, may be filed in limited civil court or may be held through an administrative hearing process established by a city or county. (Ibid.)
7. Provides that a hearing conducted pursuant to 6), above, must be open to the public, accept all relevant evidence, and that the ultimate decision regarding a dog’s status as a potentially dangerous or vicious dog is to be determined by a preponderance of the evidence. (Ibid.)
8. Provides that any appeal of the determination made in a hearing conducted pursuant to 6), above, is to be conducted de novo and a judge must make their own determination as to the potential danger and viciousness and make other orders, as specified. (§ 31622(b).)
9. Provides that, if a dog is determined to be a vicious dog, the dog may be destroyed by the animal control department when it is found, in the proceeding conducted pursuant to 6), above, that the release of the dog would create a significant threat to the public health, safety, and welfare. (§ 31645(a).)
10. Provides that, if a vicious dog is not ordered to be destroyed, then the officer conducting the hearing pursuant to 6), above, must impose conditions upon the ownership of the dog that protect the public health, safety, and welfare. (§ 31645(b).)

This bill:

1. Defines “provoke” to mean for a human or animal to behave intentionally or unintentionally in a way that a reasonable person would conclude is likely to harm, torment, agitate, scare, or confuse a dog such that the dog could or does bite, injure, or attack a human or animal, including a human trying to help the dog.
2. Defines “provocation” to includes any of the following circumstances:
   1. The dog was protecting or defending a person within the immediate vicinity of the dog from an attack or assault.
   2. The dog was responding to pain or injury.
   3. The dog was protecting itself, its owner or family member, its custodian, its offspring, its kennels, or its home.
   4. The person was committing a crime or offense upon the property of the owner, or custodian, of the dog.
   5. The person had a history of harming, agitating, scaring, tormenting, or confusing the dog.
3. Defines “public health, safety, and welfare” to include the health, safety, and welfare of both humans and animals.
4. Defines “unprovoked” to mean that a dog was not provoked when it engaged in any of the conduct or circumstances described in Sections 31602 and 31603, or described in 1) and 2), above.
5. Requires a clear and convincing evidence standard to be used when making a finding that a dog is vicious and makes conforming changes.
6. Requires the appropriate burden of proof to be used when making a determination under these provisions and requires explicit findings to support the conclusion that each requirement for placement in that category has been met, including findings specific to whether the dog engaged in unprovoked conduct in an initial determination and upon appeal.
7. Requires any order to end a dog’s life for reasons of public health, safety, and welfare to be supported by clear and convincing evidence that the jurisdiction’s requirements for the order are met, and include explicit findings regarding all of the following:
   1. That the dog was not provoked.
   2. That reasonable, humane terms and conditions would not adequately protect public health, safety, and welfare.
   3. That the release of the dog would create a significant threat to the public health, safety, and welfare.
   4. That the dog cannot be safely maintained inside or outside the jurisdiction.
8. Provides that a dog’s life may not be ended for the reason of public health, safety, and welfare before the exhaustion of all appeals or the time allowed for those appeals has elapsed.
9. Establishes regulations of provoked dogs, as provided.
10. Requires provocation to be a factor when considering whether and how a dog can be regulated to mitigate risk to public health, safety, and welfare.
11. Provides that, depending on the nature of the provocation, reasonableness of the dog’s response, and reasonable prediction of the degree of risk to public health, safety, and welfare the dog poses, options are to include any of the following:
    1. Dismissal of the complaint without further action.
    2. Imposition of reasonable, humane conditions of ownership when doing so is necessary to mitigate risk of further incidents.
    3. Humanely ending the dog’s life by the local governmental agency or by the owner’s veterinarian if it is determined by clear and convincing evidence, and reported in explicit findings, that all of the following are satisfied:
       1. The provoked dog, in an aggressive manner, inflicted severe injury, as defined in Section 31604, which was significantly disproportionate to the provocative stimulus.
       2. Release of the dog would create a significant threat to the public health, safety, and welfare.
       3. The risk to public health, safety, and welfare cannot be addressed adequately by an order of reasonable, humane terms and conditions of ownership imposed on an owner.
       4. A feasible alternative does not exist for the dog to live safely inside or outside the jurisdiction.
12. Provides that severity of an injury is not determinative of whether a dog was provoked or whether the release of the dog would create a significant threat to public health, safety, and welfare.
13. Provides that testimony of a certified applied behaviorist, board-certified veterinary behaviorist, or other recognized expert is relevant to a determination whether a dog’s behavior was provoked and the scope of regulating the dog, if regulation is considered. That testimony must still meet other standards for admission, such as credibility and authenticity.
14. Provides that any program by a city or county adopted to impose more restrictive control must comply with certain requirements including:
    1. not be specific as to breed, except as provided in Section 122331 of the Health and Safety Code; and
    2. apply clear and convincing evidence and require explicit findings in any administrative hearing or limited civil case conducted to determine whether a dog poses a degree of risk to public health, safety, and welfare such that it should be placed in a category that could or will result in an order of death.
15. Provides that the Legislature finds and declares that ensuring dogs are designated in a uniform manner as posing or potentially posing a significant threat to human and animal safety and are destroyed only after adequate due process is a matter of statewide concern and is not a municipal affair as that term is used in Section 5 of Article XI of the California Constitution.
16. Makes various findings and declarations of the Legislature.

COMMENTS

1. Stated need for the bill

The author writes:

California’s current approach to potentially dangerous dog proceedings often leads to irreversible and life-altering decisions, such as ending a dog’s life, without the confidence of thorough and equitable processes. By introducing a “clear and convincing evidence” standard, recommended by the American Veterinary Medical Association, this bill ensures that decisions are made with greater care and accountability. This higher standard allows us to better protect families, communities, and the wellbeing of animals while ensuring that public safety remains a top priority.

Additionally, AB 793 brings much-needed consistency to these proceedings by defining key terms like “provocation” and requiring explicit findings before a dog can be classified as dangerous or euthanized. These provisions guarantee that dog owners receive fair treatment and provide critical clarity for appeals. AB 793 reflects a thoughtful, balanced approach—one that prioritizes humane outcomes while addressing public safety concerns with precision and respect for due process.

1. This bill seeks to establish enhanced requirements for the regulation of potentially vicious or dangerous dogs

The existing statutory framework regulating potentially dangerous or vicious dogs requires an animal control officer to petition either local authorities or the superior court for a determination whether the dog is dangerous or vicious when an animal control or humane office possesses probable cause to believe that a dog is potentially dangerous or vicious. This is generally based on public complaints made to local animal control agencies. Existing law authorizes a city or county to establish an administrative hearing procedure to hear and dispose of these petitions. The dog’s owner is required to be notified of the hearing in writing and is authorized to contest the determination at a hearing. A hearing officer must then determine, by a preponderance of the evidence, whether or not the dog is dangerous or vicious. If a dog is determined to be vicious, it is likely to be euthanized by the local animal control agency. The owners of dogs deemed potentially dangerous, but not vicious, are frequently given plans for controlling the dog and securing their property that must be followed as a condition of recovering possession of the dog. Section 31683 provides that these provisions are not to be “construed to prevent a city or county from adopting or enforcing its own program for the control of potentially dangerous or vicious dogs that may incorporate all, part, or none of this chapter, or that may punish a violation of this chapter as a misdemeanor or may impose a more restrictive program to control potentially dangerous or vicious dogs.”

The sponsors of the bill highlight a specific situation for the need or impetus of the bill. Social Compassion in Legislation, one of the sponsors of the bill, writes:

The need for AB 793 was illustrated by the case of Conan, a family dog who bit a neighbor in the City of Burbank. Burbank had adopted state law and found that Conan was “vicious,” saying that the injury associated with the single bite indicated to them that Conan was unprovoked when he bit the neighbor. The City reached this decision without a definition of “provocation,” and accordingly, without sufficient guidance for determining whether Conan was provoked by the neighbor. The City also lacked guidance for determining whether Conan could be safely maintained under terms and conditions of ownership and ordered that Conan be humanely destroyed.

Conan was known to be quite friendly, and perhaps because of his popularity on social media, his family was able to collect financial support with which to appeal the order in superior court. The court identified questions about the issue of provocation and found that Conan’s risk to public safety could be sufficiently mitigated through specified training and other terms and conditions applied to his family.

The proponents of the bill have also provided other examples to Committee staff of situations where, in their assessment, a higher standard of evidence, definitions for “provocation” and “provoked,” and explicit findings would have led to better outcomes for the dogs and owners involved and where the initial determination was challenged.

The bill does several things to provide more clarity and guidance under the existing framework. First, the bill raises the standard of proof that has to be met when making a determination that a dog is vicious and a determination that a vicious dog should be euthanized to clear and convincing evidence. The opposition to this bill does not have any concerns with this provision.

Second, the bill establishes definitions to guide those making determinations under existing law. The bill defines “provoke” to mean for a human or animal to behave intentionally or unintentionally in a way that a reasonable person would conclude is likely to harm, torment, agitate, scare, or confuse a dog such that the dog could or does bite, injure, or attack a human or animal, including a human trying to help the dog. Next, the bill specifies circumstances that include “provocation,” such as a person had a history of harming, agitating, scaring, tormenting, or confusing the dog. The bill provides “unprovoked” to mean a dog that is not provoked when engaged in circumstances provided under the definition of provocation.

In regards to the definitions described above, the opposition writes:

The bill’s treatment of “provocation” is similarly problematic. It creates a statutory definition that is internally inconsistent, legally vague, and duplicative of existing factors already considered in animal control determinations. Most concerning, the bill is unclear as to the legal consequences of a finding of provocation, while requiring that it be addressed in findings regardless. This risks prolonging hearings and creating conflicts between state and local interpretations without offering any new protections or clarity.

Next, the bill provides that explicit findings are required for any decision that results in dog a dog being euthanized. The determination is required to include explicit findings regarding all of the following:

• that the dog was not provoked;
• that reasonable, humane terms and conditions would not adequately protect public health, safety, and welfare;
• that the release of the dog would create a significant threat to the public health, safety, and welfare; and
• that the dog cannot be safely maintained inside or outside the jurisdiction.

In regards to this provision of the bill, the opposition writes:

AB 793 also mandates “explicit findings” for each element of designation. This level of specificity may sound beneficial in theory, but in practice it will increase litigation, create appealable technicalities, and burden administrative hearing officers beyond what is typical even in civil court. Hearing officers, many of whom are not attorneys, will face unreasonable legal drafting requirements that increase cost and delay without enhancing justice. […]

The bill specifies that a dog’s life may not be ended for the reason of public health, safety, and welfare before the exhaustion of all appeals or the time allowed for those appeals has elapsed. The opposition notes that delaying “until all possible appeals, including those outside the statutory process, are exhausted, could stretch cases over years and result in prolonged kennel stays with adverse welfare impacts on the animals involved.”

The bill establishes that provocation is required to be a factor when considering whether and how a dog can be regulated to mitigate risk to public health, safety, and welfare. Depending on the nature of the provocation, reasonableness of the dog’s response, and reasonable prediction of the degree of risk to public health, safety, and welfare the dog poses, options to regulate a dog include all of the following:

• dismissal of the complaint without further action;
• imposition of reasonable, humane conditions of ownership when doing so is necessary to mitigate risk of further incidents; and
• humanely ending the dog’s life by the local governmental agency or by the owner’s veterinarian if certain specified criteria are determined by clear and convincing evidence and reported in explicit findings.

The specified criteria to be determined by clear and convincing evidence and reported in explicit findings are that:

• the provoked dog, in an aggressive manner, inflicted severe injury, as defined, which was significantly disproportionate to the provocative stimulus;
• release of the dog would create a significant threat to the public health, safety, and welfare;
• the risk to public health, safety, and welfare cannot be addressed adequately by an order of reasonable, humane terms and conditions of ownership imposed on an owner; and
• a feasible alternative does not exist for the dog to live safely inside or outside the jurisdiction.

The opposition writes that “requiring jurisdictions to assess whether a dog can be ‘safely maintained inside or outside the jurisdiction’ is both impractical and unenforceable. Local agencies cannot reasonably investigate or opine on conditions in other counties or states, and such language creates a loophole that could encourage ‘jurisdiction shopping’ by dangerous dog owners.”

1. Amendments

In light of the various concerns raised above by the opposition, the author has agreed to make several amendments to address the concerns raised. A mock-up of these amendments can be found at the end of this analysis.

1. Statements in support

Social Compassion in Legislation, one of the sponsors of the bill, writes in support stating:

AB 793 will require the use of the “clear and convincing evidence” standard of proof when deciding if a dog should be classified in a way that could lead to euthanasia or be euthanized because the dog cannot be reasonably and safely maintained through other means. The bill also establishes clear definitions, such as “provoked” and “irremediable threat to public safety,” to ensure consistent and fair outcomes across the state in the application of these concepts in dangerous dog determinations.

Jurisdictions are responsible for assessing the extent of risk individual dogs pose to public safety, while also assessing the degree to which owners can and will safely maintain their dogs through responsible pet ownership practices. Among the tools jurisdictions use to address public safety risk are orders of humane euthanasia. Accurate and fair euthanasia decisions are essential to ensure actual benefit to the community and to protect families from unnecessarily losing dogs they consider family members, especially when terms and conditions would have provided sufficient public safety.

California would not be the first state to require the “clear and convincing evidence” standard. At least six other states use a higher standard than “preponderance of the evidence” in these situations. Additionally, the American Veterinary Medical Association recommends use of the “clear and convincing evidence” standard. AB 793 adopts this standard and language from the AVMA’s model dog legislation.

Dogs are our families. A 2023 Pew Research Center survey showed that 97% of Americans believe their pet is a part of their family, with over half saying they are as much a member as a human member. These figures are even higher among women and lower income communities. If a government authority is going to order a family dog to be euthanized, we believe all Californians would want the evidence supporting that decision to be clear and convincing – not merely a tad better than a flip of a coin, which is what the current “by a preponderance of the evidence” standard requires.[…]

Conan’s case attracted considerable attention and brought to light that ambiguity and lack of definitions in the Food and Agricultural code, as well as in many municipal codes, has resulted in similar cases throughout the State. These cases, where families often do not have legal representation and the proceedings occur quickly, call for an update to the law to ensure a more deliberative process in reaching decisions about whether humane euthanasia is necessary or if terms and conditions of ownership would be a reasonable and adequate protection of public safety.

1. Statements in opposition

CalAnimals and a coalition of hundreds of shelters and animal control agencies write in opposition unless amended. They note that they do not oppose raising the burden of proof under the bill to clear and convincing evidence, but have many issues and concerns with other provisions of the bill.

They write:

[…] While we support efforts to enhance clarity, consistency, and due process in these cases, AB 793 introduces unnecessary confusion, procedural instability, and operational burdens that will undermine effective enforcement and public safety.

We want to emphasize that we do not oppose raising the burden of proof to “clear and convincing evidence” for designations that may result in the euthanasia of a dog. However, the approach taken in this bill, requiring hearing officers to select a standard of proof on the record without clarity as to when each standard applies, creates legal uncertainty and invites appeals based solely on procedural missteps. This will complicate hearings, delay resolutions, and increase the potential for technical reversals, without improving fairness or safety.

Additionally, the bill introduces ambiguous, ideologically driven language, such as replacing “euthanize” with euphemisms like “end a dog’s life” which obscures statutory intent and is inappropriate for legal code. This language invites misinterpretation by the public, courts, and agencies, while undermining the seriousness of proceedings that often involve traumatic incidents and community risk.

[…] Finally, AB 793 undermines local authority by mandating statewide standards for hearings, findings, and terminology, even in jurisdictions with long-established programs tailored to local needs. While uniformity is a worthwhile goal in theory, this bill imposes a rigid and confusing framework that will disrupt effective local governance without meaningful benefit.

The designation of a dog as potentially dangerous or vicious is a critical tool for protecting public safety. These determinations allow animal control officers and courts to respond to serious threats posed by dogs that have demonstrated aggressive or violent behavior. When dogs that have caused significant injury or shown repeated aggression are returned to the community without appropriate safeguards, or worse, without designation at all, the risk to children, seniors, pets, and other vulnerable individuals increases significantly. The consequences of missteps in these cases are not theoretical; they can and have resulted in severe injury and even death.

A system that prioritizes procedural technicalities over effective, timely intervention undermines public trust and puts community members at unnecessary risk. It is essential that laws governing dangerous dog designations empower local agencies to act swiftly and decisively in the interest of public safety.

SUPPORT

Democrats for the Protection of Animals (sponsor)

Social Compassion in Legislation (sponsor)

Ace of Hearts Dog Rescue

Angel's Furry Friends

Angel's Furry Friends Rescue

Animal Protection and Rescue League

Animal Rescuers for Change

Animal Wellness Action

Berkeley Animal Rights Center

Better Together Forever

Born Again Animal Rescue and Adoption

Compassionate Bay

Concerned Citizens Animal Rescue

Decoding Dogs

Feline Lucky Adventures

Ghetto Rescue Foundation

GiantMecha Syndicate

Greater Los Angeles Animal Spay Neuter Collaborative

Hugs and Kisses Animal Fund

K9 Intuition LLC

Latino Alliance for Animal Care Coalition

Leaders for Ethics, Animals, and the Planet (LEAP)

Los Angeles Democrats for the Protection of Animals

Michelson Center for Public Policy

NorCal Bully Breed Rescue

NY 4 Whales

Paw Project, the

Pibbles N Kibbles Animal Rescue

Plant-based Advocates

Project Minnie

Real Good Rescue

Seeds 4 Change Now Animal Rescue

Seniors Citizens for Humane Education and Legislation

Southern California Pit Bull Rescue

Start Rescue

Students Against Animal Cruelty Club - Hueneme High School

The Animal Rescue Mission

The Canine Condition

The Pet Loss Support Group

The Spayce Project

Topline K9 Services

Underdog Heroes

Virginia Alliance for Animal Shelters

Women United for Animal Welfare

World Animal Protection
Over 600 individuals

OPPOSITION

ASAP CATS

Bakersfield SPCA

Barstow Humane Society

Butte Humane Society

Calaveras Humane Society

California Animal Welfare Association

California State Association of Counties

California Teamsters Public Affairs Council

Central California SPCA

City of Carpinteria

City of Elk Grove

City of Grand Terrace

City of Shasta Lake Animal Control

City of Stockton Animal Services

County Health Executives Association of California

County of Fresno

County of Los Angeles

County of San Luis Obispo, Division of Animal Services

County of Siskiyou

Front Street Animal Shelter - City of Sacramento

Haven Humane Society

Hayward Animal Services Bureau

Hesperia Animal Control

Humane Society of the Sierra Foothills

Humane Society of Truckee-Tahoe

Inland Valley Humane Society & SPCA

Joybound People & Pets

Lake County Animal Care and Control

Living Free Animal Sanctuary

Long Beach Animal Care Services

Los Angeles County Department of Animal Care and Control

Marin Humane Society

National Animal Care & Control Association

Oxnard Police Animal Safety

Paws for Life K9 Rescue

Peninsula Humane Society & SPCA

Pets in Need

Placer SPCA

Rural County Representatives of California

Sammie’s Friends

San Diego County Department of Animal Services

San Diego Humane Society

San Diego Humane Society and SPCS

San Francisco SPCA

Santa Barbara Humane Society

Santa Cruz County Animal Shelter

Siskiyou County Department of Animal Control

Sonoma County Animal Services

Southeast Area Animal Control Authority

SPCS Monterey County

SPCALA

Stray Cat Alliance

Town of Apple Valley Animal Services

Town of Paradise Animal Control and Shelter

Turlock Police Animal Services

Turlock Police Department

Urban Counties of California

Ventura County Animal Services

Woods Humane Society

RELATED LEGISLATION

Pending Legislation: None known.

Prior Legislation: None known.

PRIOR VOTES

Assembly Floor (Ayes 68, Noes 0)

Assembly Judiciary Committee (Ayes 12, Noes 0)

**************

MOCK-UP OF AMENDMENTS REFERENCED IN COMMENT 3), ABOVE

The people of the State of California do enact as follows:

SECTION 1. Section 31601 of the Food and Agricultural Code is amended to read:

31601. (a) The Legislature finds and declares all of the following:

(1) Potentially dangerous and vicious dogs can pose a serious threat to the safety and welfare of residents of this state. The necessity for the regulation and control of vicious and potentially dangerous dogs is a statewide problem that requires statewide regulation.

(2) The number and severity of these attacks are attributable to the failure of owners to register, confine, and properly control vicious and potentially dangerous dogs. Regulating dog ownership is an important tool for improving public health, safety, and welfare.

(3) Although dogs are legally classified as the property of their owners, societal understanding of dog companionship and ownership has moved toward viewing them as members of families. Dog owners in this state agree their individual interests and rights in owning and managing their dogs greatly exceed measurement in monetary terms.

(4) Dog ownersDogs in this state also agree that dogs subject to regulation and control should not unnecessarily lose their lives when they pose minimal or no threat to the public health, safety, and welfare, or when they can be safely maintained with terms and conditions of ownership.

(b) It is the intent of the Legislature to regulate dog ownership in a manner that reduces risk to the public health, safety, and welfare, while promoting responsible ownership and without unnecessarily ending dogs’ lives. As a matter of both protecting constitutional property rights and respecting the status of dogs as family members, government should use the least destructive means necessary to mitigate risk to public health, safety, and welfare. ownership.

SEC. 2. Section 31601.5 is added to the Food and Agricultural Code, to read:

31601.5. Unless the context requires otherwise, the definitions in this article govern the construction of this chapter.

SEC. 3. Section 31601.11 is added to the Food and Agricultural Code, to read:

31601.11. (a) “Provoke” means for a human or animal to behave intentionally or unintentionally in a way that a reasonable person would conclude is likely to harm, torment, agitate, scare, or confuse a dog such that the dog could or does bite, injure, or attack a human or animal, including a human trying to help the dog.

(b) “Provocation” includes any of the following circumstances:

(1) The dog was protecting or defending a person within the immediate vicinity of the dog from an attack or assault.

(2) The dog was responding to pain or injury.

(3) The dog was protecting itself, its owner or family member, its custodian, its offspring, its kennels, or its home.

(4) The person was committing a crime or offense upon the property of the owner, or custodian, of the dog.

(5) The person had a history of harming, agitating, scaring, tormenting, or confusing the dog.

SEC. 4. Section 31601.13 is added to the Food and Agricultural Code, to read:

31601.13. “Public health, safety, and welfare” includes the health, safety, and welfare of both humans and animals.

SEC. 5. Section 31601.15 is added to the Food and Agricultural Code, to read:

31601.15. “Unprovoked” means that a dog was not provoked when it engaged in any of the conduct or circumstances described in Section 31602, 31603, or 31601.11.

SEC. 6. Section 31609 of the Food and Agricultural Code is amended to read:

31609. (a) This chapter does not apply to licensed kennels, humane society shelters, animal control facilities, or veterinarians.

(b) This chapter does not apply to dogs while utilized by any police department or any law enforcement officer in the performance of police work.

(c) This chapter shall apply only to a governmental or judicial proceeding to evaluate and address a risk to public health, safety, and welfare posed by an individual dog and does not apply to any civil action for remedies such as damages, injunctive relief, or restraining orders arising from an alleged injury to a human or animal or damage to property.

SEC. 7. Section 31621 of the Food and Agricultural Code is amended to read:

31621. If an animal control officer or a law enforcement officer has investigated and determined that there exists probable cause to believe that a dog is potentially dangerous or vicious, the chief officer of the public animal shelter or animal control department, or the chief officer’s immediate supervisor, or the head of the local law enforcement agency, or the agency head’s designee, shall petition the superior court of the county in which the dog is owned or kept for a hearing for the purpose of determining whether or not the dog should be declared potentially dangerous or vicious. A proceeding under this section is a limited civil case. A city or county may establish an administrative hearing procedure to hear and dispose of petitions filed pursuant to this chapter. Whenever possible, any complaint received from a member of the public which serves as the evidentiary basis for the animal control officer or law enforcement officer to find probable cause shall be sworn to and verified by the complainant and shall be attached to the petition. The chief officer of the public animal shelter or animal control department or head of the local law enforcement agency shall notify the owner or keeper of the dog that a hearing will be held by the superior court or the hearing entity, as the case may be, at which time the owner or keeper of the dog may present evidence as to why the dog should not be declared potentially dangerous or vicious. The owner or keeper of the dog shall be served with notice of the hearing and a copy of the petition, either personally or by first-class mail with return receipt requested. The hearing shall be held promptly within no less than 5 working days nor more than 10 working days after service of notice upon the owner or keeper of the dog. The hearing shall be open to the public. The court or hearing entity may admit into evidence all relevant evidence, including incident reports and the affidavits of witnesses, limit the scope of discovery, and may shorten the time to produce records or witnesses. A jury shall not be available. The court or hearing entity may find, upon a preponderance of the evidence, that the dog is potentially dangerous, and shall apply the clear and convincing evidence standard of proof to find whether the dog is vicious. In making any finding on a potentially dangerous or vicious dog, the court or hearing entity shall apply the appropriate burden of proof and shall make explicit factual findings to support the conclusion that each requirement for placement in that category has been met, including findings specific to whether the dog engaged in unprovoked conduct. was provoked. The court or hearing entity may make other orders authorized by this chapter. A local jurisdiction may choose to use a higher evidentiary standard than the ones required under this section.

SEC. 8. Section 31622 of the Food and Agricultural Code is amended to read:

31622. (a) After the hearing conducted pursuant to Section 31621, the owner or keeper of the dog shall be notified in writing of the determination and orders issued, either personally or by first-class mail postage prepaid by the court or hearing entity. If a determination is made that the dog is potentially dangerous or vicious, the owner or keeper of the dog shall comply with Article 3 (commencing with Section 31641) in accordance with a time schedule established by the chief officer of the public animal shelter or animal control department or the head of the local law enforcement agency, but in no case more than 30 days after the date of the determination or 35 days if notice of the determination is mailed to the owner or keeper of the dog. If the petitioner or the owner or keeper of the dog contests the determination, they may, within five days of the receipt of the notice of determination, appeal the decision of the court or hearing entity of original jurisdiction. The fee for filing an appeal, payable to the clerk of the court, is as provided in subdivision (b) of Section 70626 of the Government Code. If the original hearing held pursuant to Section 31621 was before a hearing entity other than a court of the jurisdiction, appeal shall be to the superior court. If the original hearing was held in the superior court, appeal shall be to the superior court before a judge other than the judge who originally heard the petition. The petitioner or the owner or keeper of the dog shall serve personally or by first-class mail, postage prepaid, notice of the appeal upon the other party.

(b) The court hearing the appeal shall conduct a hearing de novo, without a jury, and make its own determination as to potential danger and viciousness and make other orders authorized by this chapter, based upon the evidence presented. The hearing shall be conducted in the same manner and within the time periods set forth in Section 31621 and subdivision (a). The court may admit all relevant evidence, including incident reports and the affidavits of witnesses, limit the scope of discovery, and may shorten the time to produce records or witnesses. The issue shall be decided upon the preponderance of the evidence, except that any finding that a dog is vicious shall be decided by clear and convincing evidence. In making any finding on a potentially dangerous or vicious dog, the court shall apply the appropriate burden of proof and shall make explicit factual findings to support the conclusion that each requirement for placement in that category has been met, including findings specific to whether the dog engaged in unprovoked conduct. was provoked. If the court rules the dog to be potentially dangerous or vicious, the court may establish a time schedule to ensure compliance with this chapter, but in no case more than 30 days subsequent to the date of the court’s determination or 35 days if the service of the judgment is by first-class mail.

SEC. 9. Section 31622.5 is added to the Food and Agricultural Code, to read:

31622.5. (a) Any order issued pursuant to this article to end a dog’s life for reasons of public health, safety, and welfare shall be supported by clear and convincing evidence that the jurisdiction’s requirements for the order are met, and shall include explicit factual findings regarding all of the following:

(1) That the dog was not provoked.

(2) That reasonable, humane terms and conditions would not adequately protect public health, safety, and welfare.

(3) That the release of the dog would create a significant threat to the public health, safety, and welfare.

(4) That the dog cannot be safely maintained inside or outside the jurisdiction.

(b) A dog’s life dog may not be ended euthanized for the reason of public health, safety, and welfare before the exhaustion of all appeals or the time allowed for those appeals has elapsed.

SEC. 10. Section 31626 of the Food and Agricultural Code is amended to read:

31626. (a) No dog may be declared potentially dangerous or vicious if any injury or damage is sustained by a person who, at the time the injury or damage was sustained, was committing a willful trespass or other tort upon premises occupied by the owner or keeper of the dog, or was teasing, tormenting, abusing, provoking, or assaulting the dog, or was committing or attempting to commit a crime. No dog may be declared potentially dangerous or vicious if the dog was protecting or defending a person within the immediate vicinity of the dog from an unjustified attack or assault. No dog may be declared potentially dangerous or vicious if an injury or damage was sustained by a domestic animal that at the time the injury or damage was sustained was teasing, tormenting, abusing, or assaulting the dog.

(b) No dog may be declared potentially dangerous or vicious if the injury or damage to a domestic animal was sustained while the dog was working as a hunting dog, herding dog, or predator control dog on the property of, or under the control of, its owner or keeper, and the damage or injury was to a species or type of domestic animal appropriate to the work of the dog.

SEC. 11. Section 31645 of the Food and Agricultural Code is amended to read:

31645. (a) The life of a A dog determined to be a vicious dog under this chapter, or subject to death in accordance with city or county law, may be ended euthanized by the animal control department only when it is found by clear and convincing evidence at proceedings conducted under Article 2 (commencing with Section 31621) that the requirements of Section 31622.5 are satisfied.

(b) If it is determined that the life of a dog found to be vicious shall not be ended, the judicial authority shall impose conditions upon the ownership of the dog that protect the public health, safety, and welfare.

(c) Any enclosure that is required pursuant to subdivision (b) shall meet the requirements of Section 31605.

SEC. 12. Article 3.5 (commencing with Section 31650) is added to Chapter 9 of Division 14 of the Food and Agricultural Code, to read:

Article  3.5. Regulation of Provoked Dogs

31650. (a) Provocation shall be a factor when considering whether and how a dog can be regulated to mitigate risk to public health, safety, and welfare. Depending on the nature of the provocation, reasonableness of the dog’s response, and reasonable prediction of the degree of risk to public health, safety, and welfare the dog poses, options shall include any of the following:

(1) Dismissal of the complaint without further action.

(2) Imposition of reasonable, humane conditions of ownership when doing so is necessary to mitigate risk of further incidents.

(3) Humanely ending the dog’s life Euthanizing the dog by the local governmental agency or by the owner’s veterinarian if it is determined by clear and convincing evidence, and reported in explicit factual findings, that all of the following are satisfied:

(A) The provoked dog, in an aggressive manner, inflicted severe injury, as defined in Section 31604, which was significantly disproportionate to the provocative stimulus.

(B) Release of the dog would create a significant threat to the public health, safety, and welfare.

(C) The risk to public health, safety, and welfare cannot be addressed adequately by an order of reasonable, humane terms and conditions of ownership imposed on an owner.

(D) A feasible alternative does not exist for the dog to live safely inside or outside the jurisdiction.

(b) Notwithstanding paragraphs (2) and (3) of subdivision (a), a dog may not be regulated with terms and conditions, and a dog’s life may not be ended, if the dog is found to have engaged in any of the conduct under the circumstances described in Section 31626.

(c) Severity of an injury is not determinative of whether a dog was provoked or whether the release of the dog would create a significant threat to public health, safety, and welfare.

(d) Testimony of a certified applied behaviorist, board-certified veterinary behaviorist, or other recognized expert shall be relevant to a determination whether a dog’s behavior was provoked and the scope of regulating the dog, if regulation is considered. That testimony shall still meet other standards for admission, such as credibility and authenticity.

(e) The life of a (c) A dog that was provoked may not be ended euthanized for the reason of public health, safety, and welfare before the exhaustion of all appeals or the time allowed for those appeals has elapsed.

SEC. 13. Section 31683 of the Food and Agricultural Code is amended to read:

31683. (a) Except as provided in subdivision (b), this chapter does not prevent a city or county from adopting or enforcing its own program for the control of potentially dangerous or vicious dogs that may incorporate all, part, or none of this chapter, or that may punish a violation of this chapter as a misdemeanor or may impose a more restrictive program to control potentially dangerous or vicious dogs.

(b) (1) (A) A program regulating any dog shall not be specific as to breed, except as provided in Section 122331 of the Health and Safety Code.

(B) In any administrative hearing or limited civil case conducted to determine whether a dog poses a degree of risk to public health, safety, and welfare such that it should be placed in a category that could or will result in an order of death to protect public health, safety, and welfare, a program described in subdivision (a) shall require at least all of the following:

(i) The application of the definition and provisions pertaining to provocation set forth in Section 31601.11 and Article 3.5 (commencing with Section 31650).

(ii) The application of the clear and convincing standard of proof.

(iii) Explicit Factual findings regarding each requirement for placement in that category showing that each of those requirements has been met, including findings specific to whether the dog engaged in unprovoked conduct. was provoked.

(C) A program described in subdivision (a) shall require the hearing entity to indicate, on the record, the jurisdiction’s standard rule of evidentiary proof of either preponderance of the evidence or clear and convincing evidence it applies to find whether a dog may be placed in a category that could or will result in the imposition of terms and conditions of ownership of the dog but not in a category that could or will result in an order of death to protect public health, safety, and welfare.

(D) A program described in subdivision (a) shall require the same evidentiary burden of proof that was used in the hearing on original jurisdiction to be used for a hearing on appeal.

(E)  A program described in subdivision (a) shall not authorize an order to be issued for ending the life of to euthanize a dog for public health, safety, and welfare reasons unless it is shown at any administrative hearing or any limited civil case that the requirements applicable to issuing an order pursuant to Section 31622.5 or the requirements of Article 3.5 (commencing with Section 31650), as applicable, are satisfied.

(F) A program described in subdivision (a) shall not authorize a dog’s life to be ended for the reason of public health, safety, and welfare before the exhaustion of all appeals or the time allowed for those appeals has elapsed.

(2) The Legislature finds and declares that ensuring dogs are designated in a uniform manner as posing or potentially posing a significant threat to human and animal safety and are destroyed only after adequate due process is a matter of statewide concern and is not a municipal affair as that term is used in Section 5 of Article XI of the California Constitution. This subdivision applies to all counties and cities, including charter counties and charter cities.

1. All further references are to the Food and Agriculture Code unless specified otherwise. ↑

ASSEMBLY THIRD READING

ATR Bill Id:AB 793

Author:(Schultz)

As Amended Ver:April 09, 2025

Majority vote

SUMMARY

Modifies the standard of proof to be utilized by hearing officers when determining if a dog is to be deemed vicious.

Major Provisions

1. Requires a court or hearing entity to find that a dog is vicious utilizing a clear and convincing evidence standard and make findings to support the conclusion that the dog engaged in unprovoked conduct to support the vicious dog determination.
2. Requires an appeal of a determination made by a court or hearing entity to utilize a de novo review and apply a clear and convincing evidence standard.
3. Clarifies, with the exception of the provisions of 4), nothing in this bill prevents a city or county from adopting or enforcing its own program for the control of potentially dangerous or vicious dogs that may incorporate all, part, or none of the state framework for adjudicating a determination of a potentially dangerous or vicious dog.
4. Adopts the following requirements for all local enforcement programs related to potentially dangerous or vicious dogs:
   1. A program regulating any dog cannot be breed specific;
   2. The local program must use state law definitions of provocation and irremediable threat, as provided in 5), 6), and 7), and apply the clear and convincing evidence standard required by 1);
   3. Prohibits the destruction of a dog unless it is deemed vicious.
5. Defines "irremediable" as an unreasonable threat to public health, safety, and welfare that cannot be reduced adequately through an order of conditions upon the ownership of the dog.
6. Defines "provoke" to mean a human or animal to behave in a way that a reasonable person would conclude is likely to harm, torment, agitate, scare, or confuse a dog such that the dog could or does reasonably bite, injure, or attack a human or animal, including a human trying to help the dog.
7. Defines "provocation" to include any of the following circumstances:
   1. The dog was protecting or defending a person within the immediate vicinity of the dog from an attack or assault;
   2. The dog was responding to pain or injury;
   3. The dog was protecting itself, its owner or family member, its custodian, its offspring, its kennels, or its home;
   4. The person was committing a crime or offense upon the property of the owner, or custodian, of the dog; or
   5. The person had a history of harming, agitating, scaring, tormenting, or confusing the dog.
8. Clarifies that provocation is a factor when considering whether and how a dog can be regulated to mitigate public safety risk and may, but need not, result in complete exoneration of the dog, as specified.
9. Defines "public health, safety, and welfare" to include the health, safety, and welfare of both humans and animals.
10. Defines "unprovoked" as a dog was not provoked when it engaged in any of the conduct or circumstances resulting in the dog being considered for a designation as a potentially dangerous or vicious dog.
11. Clarifies that the provisions of the bill only apply to governmental or judicial proceedings to evaluate and address public safety risk posed by individual dogs and does not apply to any civil action for remedies such as damages, injunctive relief, or restraining orders arising from alleged injuries to humans or animals or damage to property.
12. Makes various findings and declarations.

COMMENTS

Following a series of high profile incidents of dogs attacking humans, in 1989, the Legislature adopted the existing framework for evaluating whether or not a dog is vicious and for handling of the outcome of such decisions. SB 428 (Torres) Chapter 761, Statutes of 1989.

California's existing law for regulating potentially dangerous or vicious dogs provides a basic legal framework that outlines the hearing process and burden of proof, but leaves most of the decision making regarding a dog's fate to local agencies. (See Food and Agricultural Code Section 31601 et seq.) The present legal framework provides that when an animal control or humane office possess probable cause to believe that a dog is potentially dangerous or vicious, usually based on public complaints, the animal control officer must petition either local authorities or the superior court for a determination whether the dog is dangerous or vicious. In the event a dog is suspected of being potentially dangerous or vicious, the dog's owner is notified in writing and permitted to contest the determination at a hearing. A hearing officer must then determine, by a preponderance of the evidence whether or not the dog is dangerous or vicious. If a dog is determined to be vicious, it is likely to be euthanized by the local animal control agency. The owners of dogs deemed potentially dangerous, but not vicious, are frequently given plans for controlling the dog and securing their property that must be followed as a condition of recovering possession of the dog.

Beyond this basic framework, most of the other legal guidelines for determining if a dog is potentially dangerous or vicious, including most potential provocation defenses, are left up to local rules and regulations. In fact, Food and Agricultural Code Section 31683 specifically states that, "nothing in this chapter shall be construed to prevent a city or county from adopting or enforcing its own program for the control of potentially dangerous or vicious dogs that may incorporate all, part, or none of this chapter, or that may punish a violation of this chapter as a misdemeanor or may impose a more restrictive program to control potentially dangerous or vicious dogs." The stakeholders weighing in on this bill, both supporting and opposing the measure, contend that the existing legal framework is resulting in inconsistent application of the law. In addition to inconsistent local rules, stakeholders note that the training and expertise of hearing officers vary widely. Without any formal state guidance on the qualifications for hearing officers, those deciding a dog's fate can range from former law enforcement officers, to law students seeking legal experience, to actual judicial officers. Additionally, in the absence of state mandates, unlike judicial officers, there is no formal training requirements for those adjudicating a dog's fate. This can increase the risk that the law is misapplied.

Beyond the lack of consistent or meaningful training for those adjudicating dangerous or vicious dog hearings, dog owners are rarely represented by legal counsel. Indeed, stakeholders note that when owners of dogs alleged to be dangerous or vicious are given the basic written notice required by state law, such notices rarely mention that a dog owner is entitled to be represented by legal counsel at the hearing. As a result, due to both the cost of retaining legal counsel and the general lack of awareness that hiring counsel would be prudent, too many Californians seek to defend their family pet without adequate legal representation. As a result, when an untrained hearing officer renders a legally suspect decision regarding a dog's fate, many dog owners do not realize the decision is legally suspect and are wholly unaware of their appellate rights. Thus, proponents of this bill contend the existing legal framework is inhumane and is resulting in too many dogs being euthanized without due process.

In order to standardize the local adjudication process for determining the status of a potentially dangerous or vicious dog, this bill adopts several new definitions to better guide local hearing officers. The most critical of the new definitions seeks to define "provocation" under the premise that a dog who bites a human after being provoked should not be euthanized. Accordingly, this bill defines provocation to include dogs protecting their humans and their property, a dog responding to an injury, and a dog responding to a person trying to harm or torment the dog. The bill also seeks to define "irremediable" to direct a hearing officer to consider whether or not the dog's behavior can be remedied and modified if the dog is not euthanized.

In addition to trying to better define the legal factors that must be considered when adjudicating if a dog is dangerous or vicious, this bill also increases the burden of proof that a local animal control department must meet before a dog is deemed vicious and is euthanized. The bill replaces the current "preponderance of the evidence" standard with a "clear and convincing evidence standard." According to Black's Law Dictionary a preponderance of the evidence standard requires the trier of fact to decide in favor of the side presenting "the greater weight of the evidence." Essentially, if the evidence is 51% in favor of one side, that side should prevail, or as applied to this bill if it is slight more likely than not that a dog is vicious that is the determination a trier of fact must make.

A clear and convincing evidence standard, according to Black's Dictionary, requires the finder of fact to determine that the evidence is strong enough that the matter to be proved is, "highly probable or reasonably certain." As it applies to this bill the new standard would require it to be proven that a dog's behavior demonstrates a high probability that the dog is vicious and a threat to public safety.

According to the Author

California's current approach to potentially dangerous dog proceedings often leads to irreversible and life-altering decisions, such as euthanasia, without the confidence of thorough and equitable processes. By introducing a "clear and convincing evidence" standard, recommended by the American Veterinary Medical Association, this bill ensures that decisions are made with greater care and accountability. This higher standard allows us to better protect families, communities, and the wellbeing of animals while ensuring that public safety remains a top priority.

Arguments in Support

In support of the bill, Social Compassion in Legislation writes:

AB 793 will require the use of the "clear and convincing evidence" standard of proof when deciding if a dog should be classified in a way that could lead to euthanasia or be euthanized because the dog cannot be reasonably and safely maintained through other means. The bill also establishes clear definitions, such as "provoked" and "irremediable threat to public safety," to ensure consistent and fair outcomes across the state in the application of these concepts in dangerous dog determinations.

Jurisdictions are responsible for assessing the extent of risk individual dogs pose to public safety, while also assessing the degree to which owners can and will safely maintain their dogs through responsible pet ownership practices. Among the tools jurisdictions use to address public safety risk are orders of humane euthanasia. Accurate and fair euthanasia decisions are essential to ensure actual benefit to the community and to protect families from unnecessarily losing dogs they consider family members, especially when terms and conditions would have provided sufficient public safety.

Arguments in Opposition

The bill is opposed, unless amended, by the California Animal Welfare Association on behalf of over 200 animal shelters in the state. In opposition to the bill they write:

Declaring a dog vicious and recommending euthanasia for that animal is a very serious matter, and an action that is taken in only the most egregious cases. As such, it is the position of CalAnimals that we can support the author's intent of this bill by accepting an elevation of the burden of proof for those determinations to "clear and convincing evidence."

We respectfully request that the author remove all other elements of this bill.

No evidence has been provided that dogs are being euthanized through unfair disposition in dangerous dog hearings. In fact, this bill is predicated on a case that was disposed in favor of allowing the owner to keep the dog with conditions, indicating that the existing process worked as intended. While we understand the intent of this bill may be to increase protections for dogs facing euthanasia after a biting incident, AB 793 introduces unnecessary confusion, lacks clarity of purpose, and puts community members at risk. CalAnimals members serve dual roles—similar to law enforcement—balancing public safety with animal advocacy. Our officers work every day to protect the community while also supporting and advocating for animals. This delicate balance relies on clear, effective, and locally adaptable legal standards. California has historically trusted local governments to set those standards. AB 793 undermines that local control and adds confusion to a process that is already working.

FISCAL COMMENTS

None

VOTES

ASM JUDICIARY: 12-0-0

YES: Kalra, Dixon, Wicks, Bryan, Connolly, Harabedian, Pacheco, Papan, Sanchez, Stefani, Zbur, Tangipa

UPDATED

VERSION: April 09, 2025

CONSULTANT: Nicholas Liedtke / JUD. / (916) 319-2334 FN: 0000216

ASSEMBLY THIRD READING

ATR Bill Id:AB 793

Author:(Schultz)

As Amended Ver:March 19, 2025

Majority vote

SUMMARY

Modifies the standard of proof to be utilized by hearing officers when determining if a dog is to be deemed vicious.

Major Provisions

1. Requires a court or hearing entity to find that a dog is vicious utilizing a clear and convincing evidence standard and make findings to support the conclusion that the dog engaged in unprovoked conduct to support the vicious dog determination.
2. Requires an appeal of a determination made by a court or hearing entity to utilize a de novo review and apply a clear and convincing evidence standard.
3. Clarifies, with the exception of the provisions of 4), nothing in this bill prevents a city or county from adopting or enforcing its own program for the control of potentially dangerous or vicious dogs that may incorporate all, part, or none of the state framework for adjudicating a determination of a potentially dangerous or vicious dog.
4. Adopts the following requirements for all local enforcement programs related to potentially dangerous or vicious dogs:
   1. A program regulating any dog cannot be breed specific;
   2. The local program must use state law definitions of provocation and irremediable threat, as provided in 5), 6), and 7), and apply the clear and convincing evidence standard required by 1);
   3. Prohibits the destruction of a dog unless it is deemed vicious.
5. Defines "irremediable" as an unreasonable threat to public health, safety, and welfare that cannot be reduced adequately through an order of conditions upon the ownership of the dog.
6. Defines "provoke" to mean a human or animal to behave in a way that a reasonable person would conclude is likely to harm, torment, agitate, scare, or confuse a dog such that the dog could or does reasonably bite, injure, or attack a human or animal, including a human trying to help the dog.
7. Defines "provocation" to include any of the following circumstances:
   1. The dog was protecting or defending a person within the immediate vicinity of the dog from an attack or assault;
   2. The dog was responding to pain or injury;
   3. The dog was protecting itself, its owner or family member, its custodian, its offspring, its kennels, or its home;
   4. The person was committing a crime or offense upon the property of the owner, or custodian, of the dog; or
   5. The person had a history of harming, agitating, scaring, tormenting, or confusing the dog.
8. Clarifies that provocation is a factor when considering whether and how a dog can be regulated to mitigate public safety risk and may, but need not, result in complete exoneration of the dog, as specified.
9. Defines "public health, safety, and welfare" to include the health, safety, and welfare of both humans and animals.
10. Defines "unprovoked" as a dog was not provoked when it engaged in any of the conduct or circumstances resulting in the dog being considered for a designation as a potentially dangerous or vicious dog.
11. Clarifies that the provisions of the bill only apply to governmental or judicial proceedings to evaluate and address public safety risk posed by individual dogs and does not apply to any civil action for remedies such as damages, injunctive relief, or restraining orders arising from alleged injuries to humans or animals or damage to property.
12. Makes various findings and declarations.

COMMENTS

Following a series of high profile incidents of dogs attacking humans, in 1989, the Legislature adopted the existing framework for evaluating whether or not a dog is vicious and for handling of the outcome of such decisions. SB 428 (Torres) Chapter 761, Statutes of 1989.

California's existing law for regulating potentially dangerous or vicious dogs provides a basic legal framework that outlines the hearing process and burden of proof, but leaves most of the decision making regarding a dog's fate to local agencies. (See Food and Agricultural Code Section 31601 et seq.) The present legal framework provides that when an animal control or humane office possess probable cause to believe that a dog is potentially dangerous or vicious, usually based on public complaints, the animal control officer must petition either local authorities or the superior court for a determination whether the dog is dangerous or vicious. In the event a dog is suspected of being potentially dangerous or vicious, the dog's owner is notified in writing and permitted to contest the determination at a hearing. A hearing officer must then determine, by a preponderance of the evidence whether or not the dog is dangerous or vicious. If a dog is determined to be vicious, it is likely to be euthanized by the local animal control agency. The owners of dogs deemed potentially dangerous, but not vicious, are frequently given plans for controlling the dog and securing their property that must be followed as a condition of recovering possession of the dog.

Beyond this basic framework, most of the other legal guidelines for determining if a dog is potentially dangerous or vicious, including most potential provocation defenses, are left up to local rules and regulations. In fact, Food and Agricultural Code Section 31683 specifically states that, "nothing in this chapter shall be construed to prevent a city or county from adopting or enforcing its own program for the control of potentially dangerous or vicious dogs that may incorporate all, part, or none of this chapter, or that may punish a violation of this chapter as a misdemeanor or may impose a more restrictive program to control potentially dangerous or vicious dogs." The stakeholders weighing in on this bill, both supporting and opposing the measure, contend that the existing legal framework is resulting in inconsistent application of the law. In addition to inconsistent local rules, stakeholders note that the training and expertise of hearing officers vary widely. Without any formal state guidance on the qualifications for hearing officers, those deciding a dog's fate can range from former law enforcement officers, to law students seeking legal experience, to actual judicial officers. Additionally, in the absence of state mandates, unlike judicial officers, there is no formal training requirements for those adjudicating a dog's fate. This can increase the risk that the law is misapplied.

Beyond the lack of consistent or meaningful training for those adjudicating dangerous or vicious dog hearings, dog owners are rarely represented by legal counsel. Indeed, stakeholders note that when owners of dogs alleged to be dangerous or vicious are given the basic written notice required by state law, such notices rarely mention that a dog owner is entitled to be represented by legal counsel at the hearing. As a result, due to both the cost of retaining legal counsel and the general lack of awareness that hiring counsel would be prudent, too many Californians seek to defend their family pet without adequate legal representation. As a result, when an untrained hearing officer renders a legally suspect decision regarding a dog's fate, many dog owners do not realize the decision is legally suspect and are wholly unaware of their appellate rights. Thus, proponents of this bill contend the existing legal framework is inhumane and is resulting in too many dogs being euthanized without due process.

In order to standardize the local adjudication process for determining the status of a potentially dangerous or vicious dog, this bill adopts several new definitions to better guide local hearing officers. The most critical of the new definitions seeks to define "provocation" under the premise that a dog who bites a human after being provoked should not be euthanized. Accordingly, this bill defines provocation to include dogs protecting their humans and their property, a dog responding to an injury, and a dog responding to a person trying to harm or torment the dog. The bill also seeks to define "irremediable" to direct a hearing officer to consider whether or not the dog's behavior can be remedied and modified if the dog is not euthanized.

In addition to trying to better define the legal factors that must be considered when adjudicating if a dog is dangerous or vicious, this bill also increases the burden of proof that a local animal control department must meet before a dog is deemed vicious and is euthanized. The bill replaces the current "preponderance of the evidence" standard with a "clear and convincing evidence standard." According to Black's Law Dictionary a preponderance of the evidence standard requires the trier of fact to decide in favor of the side presenting "the greater weight of the evidence." Essentially, if the evidence is 51% in favor of one side, that side should prevail, or as applied to this bill if it is slight more likely than not that a dog is vicious that is the determination a trier of fact must make.

A clear and convincing evidence standard, according to Black's Dictionary, requires the finder of fact to determine that the evidence is strong enough that the matter to be proved is, "highly probable or reasonably certain." As it applies to this bill the new standard would require it to be proven that a dog's behavior demonstrates a high probability that the dog is vicious and a threat to public safety.

According to the Author

California's current approach to potentially dangerous dog proceedings often leads to irreversible and life-altering decisions, such as euthanasia, without the confidence of thorough and equitable processes. By introducing a "clear and convincing evidence" standard, recommended by the American Veterinary Medical Association, this bill ensures that decisions are made with greater care and accountability. This higher standard allows us to better protect families, communities, and the wellbeing of animals while ensuring that public safety remains a top priority.

Arguments in Support

In support of the bill, Social Compassion in Legislation writes:

AB 793 will require the use of the "clear and convincing evidence" standard of proof when deciding if a dog should be classified in a way that could lead to euthanasia or be euthanized because the dog cannot be reasonably and safely maintained through other means. The bill also establishes clear definitions, such as "provoked" and "irremediable threat to public safety," to ensure consistent and fair outcomes across the state in the application of these concepts in dangerous dog determinations.

Jurisdictions are responsible for assessing the extent of risk individual dogs pose to public safety, while also assessing the degree to which owners can and will safely maintain their dogs through responsible pet ownership practices. Among the tools jurisdictions use to address public safety risk are orders of humane euthanasia. Accurate and fair euthanasia decisions are essential to ensure actual benefit to the community and to protect families from unnecessarily losing dogs they consider family members, especially when terms and conditions would have provided sufficient public safety.

Arguments in Opposition

The bill is opposed, unless amended, by the California Animal Welfare Association on behalf of over 200 animal shelters in the state. In opposition to the bill they write:

Declaring a dog vicious and recommending euthanasia for that animal is a very serious matter, and an action that is taken in only the most egregious cases. As such, it is the position of CalAnimals that we can support the author's intent of this bill by accepting an elevation of the burden of proof for those determinations to "clear and convincing evidence."

We respectfully request that the author remove all other elements of this bill.

No evidence has been provided that dogs are being euthanized through unfair disposition in dangerous dog hearings. In fact, this bill is predicated on a case that was disposed in favor of allowing the owner to keep the dog with conditions, indicating that the existing process worked as intended. While we understand the intent of this bill may be to increase protections for dogs facing euthanasia after a biting incident, AB 793 introduces unnecessary confusion, lacks clarity of purpose, and puts community members at risk. CalAnimals members serve dual roles—similar to law enforcement—balancing public safety with animal advocacy. Our officers work every day to protect the community while also supporting and advocating for animals. This delicate balance relies on clear, effective, and locally adaptable legal standards. California has historically trusted local governments to set those standards. AB 793 undermines that local control and adds confusion to a process that is already working.

FISCAL COMMENTS

None

VOTES

ASM JUDICIARY: 12-0-0

YES: Kalra, Dixon, Wicks, Bryan, Connolly, Harabedian, Pacheco, Papan, Sanchez, Stefani, Zbur, Tangipa

UPDATED

VERSION: March 19, 2025

CONSULTANT: Nicholas Liedtke / JUD. / (916) 319-2334 FN: 0000216

Date of Hearing: April 8, 2025

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY

Ash Kalra, Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:AB 793

Author:(Schultz) – As Amended Ver:March 19, 2025

As Proposed to be Amended

SUBJECT: Potentially dangerous and vicious dogs: designation and disposition: burden of proof

KEY ISSUE: should the burden of proof for deeming a dog vicious be increased from preponderance of the evidence to clear and convincing evidence?

SYNOPSIS

In the event a dog bites or otherwise injures a human, the dog may be subjected to proceedings to determine if the dog is potentially dangerous or vicious. If a dog is deemed vicious, then an animal welfare department may move to have the dog euthanized in order to protect public safety. Although existing state law provides a legal framework for adjudicating these matters, the law is largely optional and significantly defers to local rules and regulations. As a result of this legal framework, the proceedings to determine a dog’s status can vary widely between local jurisdictions. The inconsistent application of the law is further compounded by the fact that local hearing officers need not be judges, attorneys, or possess any legal training to assist in applying the law.

Seeking to add some consistency to the law, this bill would enhance the standard of proof necessary to deem a dog vicious from a preponderance of the evidence standard, to a clear and convincing evidence standard. The bill also adopts various definitions seeking to better guide hearing officers. The most discussed definition by stakeholders is the definition of “provocation” as the bill would ensure that provocation is a critical factor that a hearing officer must evaluate when determining a dog’s fate. The bill also requires the provocation evaluation and the new burden of proof to be utilized by all local hearing officers, regardless of the local laws of a given jurisdiction.

This measure is sponsored by Social Compassion in Legislation and is supported by dozens of animal rights groups and hundreds of concerned Californians. The proponents of the bill highlight the inconsistences plaguing the existing law and point to the experience of “Conan” a dog popular on social media who was nearly euthanized after biting a neighbor who allegedly provoked the dog. Proponents of the bill argue that Conan’s successful appeal to the superior court highlights the need for a more consistent and professionalized application of animal welfare laws. The bill is opposed, unless amended, by the California Animal Welfare Association on behalf of nearly 200 animal shelters statewide. The opposition concedes that they are fine with changing the burden of proof but argue the new definitions in this bill will only exacerbate the problem of inconsistent application of the law. Accordingly, the opposition requests the definition portions of the bill, as well as provisions overruling local control in some instances, be removed. Proposed amendments note that the legal standards and definitions adopted by this bill only apply to determinations regarding a dog’s status as dangerous or vicious and should not be applied in other civil actions, including those for personal injuries or damage to property.

SUMMARY: Modifies the standard of proof to be utilized by hearing officers when determining if a dog is to be deemed vicious. Specifically, this bill:

1. Requires a court or hearing entity to find that a dog is vicious utilizing a clear and convincing evidence standard and make findings to support the conclusion that the dog engaged in unprovoked conduct to support the vicious dog determination.
2. Requires an appeal of a determination made by a court or hearing entity to utilize a de novo review and apply a clear and convincing evidence standard.
3. Clarifies, with the exception of the provisions of 4), nothing in this bill prevents a city or county from adopting or enforcing its own program for the control of potentially dangerous or vicious dogs that may incorporate all, part, or none of the state framework for adjudicating a determination of a potentially dangerous or vicious dog.
4. Adopts the following requirements for all local enforcement programs related to potentially dangerous or vicious dogs:
   1. A program regulating any dog cannot be breed specific;
   2. The local program must use state law definitions of provocation and irremediable threat, as provided in 5), 6), and 7), and apply the clear and convincing evidence standard required by 1);
   3. Prohibits the destruction of a dog unless it is deemed vicious.
5. Defines “irremediable” as an unreasonable threat to public health, safety, and welfare that cannot be reduced adequately through an order of conditions upon the ownership of the dog.
6. Defines “provoke” to mean a human or animal to behave in a way that a reasonable person would conclude is likely to harm, torment, agitate, scare, or confuse a dog such that the dog could or does reasonably bite, injure, or attack a human or animal, including a human trying to help the dog.
7. Defines “provocation” to include any of the following circumstances:
   1. The dog was protecting or defending a person within the immediate vicinity of the dog from an attack or assault;
   2. The dog was responding to pain or injury;
   3. The dog was protecting itself, its owner or family member, its custodian, its offspring, its kennels, or its home;
   4. The person was committing a crime or offense upon the property of the owner, or custodian, of the dog; or
   5. The person had a history of harming, agitating, scaring, tormenting, or confusing the dog.
8. Clarifies that provocation is a factor when considering whether and how a dog can be regulated to mitigate public safety risk and may, but need not, result in complete exoneration of the dog, as specified.
9. Defines “public health, safety, and welfare” to include the health, safety, and welfare of both humans and animals.
10. Defines “unprovoked” as a dog was not provoked when it engaged in any of the conduct or circumstances resulting in the dog being considered for a designation as a potentially dangerous or vicious dog.
11. Clarifies that the provisions of the bill only apply to governmental or judicial proceedings to evaluate and address public safety risk posed by individual dogs and does not apply to any civil action for remedies such as damages, injunctive relief, or restraining orders arising from alleged injuries to humans or animals or damage to property.
12. Makes various findings and declarations.

EXISTING LAW:

1. Finds and declares that potentially dangerous and vicious dogs have become a serious and widespread threat to the safety and welfare of citizens of this state. In recent years, they have assaulted without provocation and seriously injured numerous individuals, particularly children, and have killed numerous dogs. (Food and Agricultural Code Section 31601 (a).)
2. Defines a “potentially dangerous dog” as any of the following:
   1. Any dog which, when unprovoked, on two separate occasions within the prior 36-month period, engages in any behavior that requires a defensive action by any person to prevent bodily injury when the person and the dog are off the property of the owner or keeper of the dog;
   2. Any dog which, when unprovoked, bites a person causing a less severe injury than provided in 4); or
   3. Any dog which, when unprovoked, on two separate occasions within the prior 36-month period, has killed, seriously bitten, inflicted injury, or otherwise caused injury attacking a domestic animal off the property of the owner or keeper of the dog. (Food and Agricultural Code Section 31602.)
3. Defines “vicious dog” as either:
   1. Any dog that, when unprovoked, in an aggressive manner, inflicts severe injury on or kills a human being; or
   2. Any dog previously determined to be and currently listed as a potentially dangerous dog that, after its owner or keeper has been notified of this determination, continues the behavior described in 2). (Food and Agricultural Code Section 31603.)
4. Defines “severe injury” as any physical injury to a human being that results in muscle tears or disfiguring lacerations or requires multiple sutures or corrective or cosmetic surgery. (Food and Agricultural Code Section 31604.)
5. Requires that if an animal control officer or a law enforcement officer has investigated and determined that there exists probable cause to believe that a dog is potentially dangerous or vicious, the chief officer of the public animal shelter or animal control department, or the chief officer’s immediate supervisor, or the head of the local law enforcement agency, or the agency head’s designee, to petition the superior court of the county in which the dog is owned or kept for a hearing for the purpose of determining whether or not the dog should be declared potentially dangerous or vicious. (Food and Agricultural Code Section 31621.)
6. Provides that a hearing to make the determination required by 5) may be filed in limited civil court or may be held through an administrative hearing process established by a city or county. (Ibid.)
7. Provides that a hearing conducted pursuant to 6) must be open to the public, accept all relevant evidence, and that the ultimate decision regarding a dog’s status as a potentially dangerous or vicious dog is to be determined by a preponderance of the evidence. (Ibid.)
8. Provides that any appeal of the determination made in a hearing conducted pursuant to 6) is to be conducted de novo and a judge must make their own determination as to the potential danger and viciousness and make other orders, as specified. (Food and Agricultural Code Section 31622 (b).)
9. Provides that if a dog is determined to be a vicious dog, the dog may be destroyed by the animal control department when it is found, in the proceeding conducted pursuant to 6) that the release of the dog would create a significant threat to the public health, safety, and welfare. (Food and Agricultural Code Section 31645 (a).)
10. Provides that if a vicious dog is not ordered to be destroyed then the officer conducting the hearing pursuant to 6) must impose conditions upon the ownership of the dog that protect the public health, safety, and welfare. (Food and Agricultural Code Section 31645 (b).)

FISCAL EFFECT: As currently in print this bill is keyed non-fiscal.

COMMENTS: Following a series of high profile incidents of dogs attacking humans, in 1989, the Legislature adopted the existing framework for evaluating whether or not a dog is vicious and for handling of the outcome of such decisions. (SB 428 (Torres) Chap. 761, Stats. 1989.) The existing statutory scheme requires a hearing officer to determine if a dog is potentially dangerous or vicious by a preponderance of the evidence. However, beyond establishing this basic standard of review, the existing law largely defers to the rules and regulations for the care and ownership of dogs adopted by local animal control departments. The proponents of this bill contend that the existing system of local control is resulting in highly inconsistent decisions regarding the fate of dogs alleged to be dangerous or vicious. Seeking to restore some degree of uniformity in the handling of cases involving potentially dangerous or vicious dogs, this bill would adopt several new definitions in state law, apply those definitions to all local animal control department’s hearing processes, and modify the burden of proof for deeming a dog vicious. In support of this ambitious measure, the author states:

California’s current approach to potentially dangerous dog proceedings often leads to irreversible and life-altering decisions, such as euthanasia, without the confidence of thorough and equitable processes. By introducing a “clear and convincing evidence” standard, recommended by the American Veterinary Medical Association, this bill ensures that decisions are made with greater care and accountability. This higher standard allows us to better protect families, communities, and the wellbeing of animals while ensuring that public safety remains a top priority.

Additionally, AB 793 brings much-needed consistency to these proceedings by defining key terms like “provocation” and requiring explicit findings before a dog can be classified as dangerous or euthanized. These provisions guarantee that dog owners receive fair treatment and provide critical clarity for appeals. AB 793 reflects a thoughtful, balanced approach—one that prioritizes humane outcomes while addressing public safety concerns with precision and respect for due process.

California law largely defers to local laws for dealing with potentially dangerous or vicious dogs. California’s existing law for regulating potentially dangerous or vicious dogs provides a basic legal framework that outlines the hearing process and burden of proof, but leaves most of the decision making regarding a dog’s fate to local agencies. (See Food and Agricultural Code Section 31601 et seq.) The present legal framework provides that when an animal control or humane office possess probable cause to believe that a dog is potentially dangerous or vicious, usually based on public complaints, the animal control officer must petition either local authorities or the superior court for a determination whether the dog is dangerous or vicious. In the event a dog is suspected of being potentially dangerous or vicious, the dog’s owner is notified in writing and permitted to contest the determination at a hearing. A hearing officer must then determine, by a preponderance of the evidence whether or not the dog is dangerous or vicious. If a dog is determined to be vicious, it is likely to be euthanized by the local animal control agency. The owners of dogs deemed potentially dangerous, but not vicious, are frequently given plans for controlling the dog and securing their property that must be followed as a condition of recovering possession of the dog.

Beyond this basic framework, most of the other legal guidelines for determining if a dog is potentially dangerous or vicious, including most potential provocation defenses, are left up to local rules and regulations. In fact, Food and Agricultural Code Section 31683 specifically states that, “nothing in this chapter shall be construed to prevent a city or county from adopting or enforcing its own program for the control of potentially dangerous or vicious dogs that may incorporate all, part, or none of this chapter, or that may punish a violation of this chapter as a misdemeanor or may impose a more restrictive program to control potentially dangerous or vicious dogs.” The stakeholders weighing in on this bill, both supporting and opposing the measure, contend that the existing legal framework is resulting in inconsistent application of the law.

In addition to inconsistent local rules, stakeholders note that the training and expertise of hearing officers vary widely. Without any formal state guidance on the qualifications for hearing officers, those deciding a dog’s fate can range from former law enforcement officers, to law students seeking legal experience, to actual judicial officers. Additionally, in the absence of state mandates, unlike judicial officers, there is no formal training requirements for those adjudicating a dog’s fate. This can increase the risk that the law is misapplied.

Beyond the lack of consistent or meaningful training for those adjudicating dangerous or vicious dog hearings, dog owners are rarely represented by legal counsel. Indeed, stakeholders note that when owners of dogs alleged to be dangerous or vicious are given the basic written notice required by state law, such notices rarely mention that a dog owner is entitled to be represented by legal counsel at the hearing. As a result, due to both the cost of retaining legal counsel and the general lack of awareness that hiring counsel would be prudent, too many Californians seek to defend their family pet without adequate legal representation. As a result, when an untrained hearing officer renders a legally suspect decision regarding a dog’s fate, many dog owners do not realize the decision is legally suspect and are wholly unaware of their appellate rights. Thus, proponents of this bill contend the existing legal framework is inhumane and is resulting in too many dogs being euthanized without due process.

Seeking to standardize some aspects of the process for deeming a dog potentially dangerous or vicious, this bill adopts a series of new definitions. In order to standardize the local adjudication process for determining the status of a potentially dangerous or vicious dog, this bill adopts several new definitions to better guide local hearing officers. The most critical of the new definitions seeks to define “provocation” under the premise that a dog who bites a human after being provoked should not be euthanized. Accordingly, this bill defines provocation to include dogs protecting their humans and their property, a dog responding to an injury, and a dog responding to a person trying to harm or torment the dog. The bill also seeks to define “irremediable” to direct a hearing officer to consider whether or not the dog’s behavior can be remedied and modified if the dog is not euthanized. While well intentioned, and clearly designed to better direct hearing officer’s decision making, it should be noted that given the current issues regarding most hearing officer’s minimal training and lack of legal education, it is unclear if these definitions are precise enough to actually make a difference in case outcomes. In fact, the additional definitions may unintentionally add further confusion to the already inconsistent local hearing process should different jurisdictions interpret the standards in the definitions differently. Accordingly, should this bill progress, the author is strongly encouraged to work with all stakeholders to ensure that these definitions are as clear and implementable as possible.

This bill would increase the burden of proof a local animal control agency must meet before a dog is deemed vicious. In addition to trying to better define the legal factors that must be considered when adjudicating if a dog is dangerous or vicious, this bill also increases the burden of proof that a local animal control department must meet before a dog is deemed vicious and is euthanized. The bill replaces the current “preponderance of the evidence” standard with a “clear and convincing evidence standard.” According to Black’s Law Dictionary a preponderance of the evidence standard requires the trier of fact to decide in favor of the side presenting “the greater weight of the evidence.” Essentially, if the evidence is 51 percent in favor of one side, that side should prevail, or as applied to this bill if it is slight more likely than not that a dog is vicious that is the determination a trier of fact must make.

A clear and convincing evidence standard, according to Black’s Dictionary, requires the finder of fact to determine that the evidence is strong enough that the matter to be proved is, “highly probable or reasonably certain.” As it applies to this bill the new standard would require it to be proven that a dog’s behavior demonstrates a high probability that the dog is vicious and a threat to public safety. While this new standard seems reasonable when making a decision as serious as euthanizing a living creature, when applied to actual cases, this new standard may not achieve the proponent’s goals. Whether the legal standard is a preponderance of the evidence or clear and convincing evidence, both the existing law and the law as it is proposed to be amended by this bill, still require persons who may not have legal training to apply the legal standard and evaluate the evidence. Simply changing the evidentiary standard, without additional reforms, may not resolve the inconsistent application of the law that the stakeholders contend currently plagues dangerous animal adjudications.

While well intentioned, based on the input from various stakeholders, this bill may not reduce the confusion and inconsistencies currently plaguing the process for deeming a dog potentially dangerous or vicious. As noted above, and expressed by the stakeholders both supporting and opposing this bill, the existing scheme for adjudicating the status of an allegedly dangerous or vicious dog is prone to inconsistent application by fact finders who frequently lack adequate training. As well intentioned as this measure may be, and the new burden of proof certainly could spare the lives of many pets, should this bill be signed, it would not necessarily result in more consistent application of the law. In fact, the opposition to this measure notes this point well, stating:

The majority of dog bite cases in California are handled through administrative hearings, where hearing officers—not judges and in most cases not even attorneys—preside, and most dog owners are told they do not need an attorney. The legal complexity introduced by AB 793, especially the simultaneous application of state and local codes only in euthanasia cases, will create confusion for dog owners and hearing officers alike. With no state mandated training for hearing officers, there will certainly be inconsistency in implementation.

Thus, it appears the enhanced training of local hearing officers may be a better remedy to the current inconsistencies plaguing local enforcement of animal laws. Accordingly, the author is strongly encouraged to consider amendments to standardize the training of local hearing officers in order to ensure more consistent application of animal safety and welfare laws.

Proposed amendments clarify that the standard adopted in this bill only applies to the disposition of determinations of a dog’s status, and is not applicable in tort cases. Although examining the degree to which a dog was provoked may be an acceptable standard when determining whether or not to euthanize a dog, it should not factor into other legal matters that may arise as a result of a dog bite. For example, if a dog is unlawfully off leash in a public park, it may be provoked into biting a person, and thus may not need to be euthanized. However, the owner could still be civilly liable to the person who was bitten as a result of the owner allowing their dog to be off leash in a setting in which a leash was required. Furthermore, given the ambiguity in the definitions proposed by this bill, those definitions are not well suited for determining any other legal matters. Accordingly, the author is prudently proposing to amend the bill to clarify that it only applies to the disposition of the dog’s status. As proposed to be amended, Section 31621 of the Food and Agricultural Code would read:

(a) This chapter does not apply to licensed kennels, humane society shelters, animal control facilities, or veterinarians.

(b) This chapter does not apply to dogs while utilized by any police department or any law enforcement officer in the performance of police work.

(c) This chapter shall apply only to governmental or judicial proceedings to evaluate and address public safety risk posed by individual dogs and does not apply to any civil action for remedies such as damages, injunctive relief, or restraining orders arising from alleged injuries to humans or animals or damage to property.

ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: This bill is sponsored by Social Compassion in Legislation and is supported by dozens of animal welfare organizations. In support of the bill, Social Compassion in Legislation writes:

AB 793 will require the use of the “clear and convincing evidence” standard of proof when deciding if a dog should be classified in a way that could lead to euthanasia or be euthanized because the dog cannot be reasonably and safely maintained through other means. The bill also establishes clear definitions, such as “provoked” and “irremediable threat to public safety,” to ensure consistent and fair outcomes across the state in the application of these concepts in dangerous dog determinations.

Jurisdictions are responsible for assessing the extent of risk individual dogs pose to public safety, while also assessing the degree to which owners can and will safely maintain their dogs through responsible pet ownership practices. Among the tools jurisdictions use to address public safety risk are orders of humane euthanasia. Accurate and fair euthanasia decisions are essential to ensure actual benefit to the community and to protect families from unnecessarily losing dogs they consider family members, especially when terms and conditions would have provided sufficient public safety.

California would not be the first state to require the “clear and convincing evidence” standard. At least six other states use a higher standard than “preponderance of the evidence” in these situations. Additionally, the American Veterinary Medical Association recommends use of the “clear and convincing evidence” standard. AB 793 adopts this standard and language from the AVMA’s model dog legislation.

Dogs are our families. A 2023 Pew Research Center survey showed that 97% of Americans believe their pet is a part of their family, with over half saying they are as much a member as a human member. These figures are even higher among women and lower income communities. If a government authority is going to order a family dog to be euthanized, we believe all Californians would want the evidence supporting that decision to be clear and convincing – not merely a tad better than a flip of a coin, which is what the current “by a preponderance of the evidence” standard requires.

ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION: The bill is opposed, unless amended, by the California Animal Welfare Association on behalf of over 200 animal shelters in the state. In opposition to the bill they write:

Declaring a dog vicious and recommending euthanasia for that animal is a very serious matter, and an action that is taken in only the most egregious cases. As such, it is the position of CalAnimals that we can support the author’s intent of this bill by accepting an elevation of the burden of proof for those determinations to “clear and convincing evidence.”

We respectfully request that the author remove all other elements of this bill.

No evidence has been provided that dogs are being euthanized through unfair disposition in dangerous dog hearings. In fact, this bill is predicated on a case that was disposed in favor of allowing the owner to keep the dog with conditions, indicating that the existing process worked as intended.

While we understand the intent of this bill may be to increase protections for dogs facing euthanasia after a biting incident, AB 793 introduces unnecessary confusion, lacks clarity of purpose, and puts community members at risk.

CalAnimals members serve dual roles—similar to law enforcement—balancing public safety with animal advocacy. Our officers work every day to protect the community while also supporting and advocating for animals. This delicate balance relies on clear, effective, and locally adaptable legal standards. California has historically trusted local governments to set those standards. AB 793 undermines that local control and adds confusion to a process that is already working.

REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:

Support

Social Compassion in Legislation (sponsor)

A Passion for Paws - Akita Rescue
Ace of Hearts Dog Rescue
Angel City Pit Bulls
Angel's Furry Friends
Animal Protection and Rescue League
Animal Rescuers for Change
Animal Wellness Action
Apex Protection Project
Berkeley Animal Rights Center
Better Together Forever
Born Again Animal Rescue and Adoption
Concerned Citizens Animal Rescue
Decoding Dogs
Democrats for The Protection of Animals
Doggie Business Dog Training
Expand Animal Rights Now
Feline Lucky Adventures
Fine Tuning Dog Training
Fix Our Shelters
Ghetto Rescue Foundation
Giantmecha Syndicate
Greater Los Angeles Animal Spay Neuter Collaborative
K9 Intuition LLC
Latino Alliance for Animal Care Coalition
Leaders for Ethics, Animals, and The Planet (LEAP)
Los Angeles County Bar Association Animal Law Section
Los Angeles Democrats for The Protection of Animals
Michelson Center for Public Policy
NY 4 Whales
Paws for Life K9 Rescue
Pibbles N Kibbles Animal Rescue
Possums Welcome
Project Minnie
Real Good Rescue
Rocket Dog Rescue
Sacramento Advisors, LLC
Seniors Citizens for Humane Education and Legislation
Sonas
Southern California Pit Bull Rescue
Start Rescue
Students Against Animal Cruelty Club - Hueneme High School
The Academy for Dog Trainers
The Animal Law Office
The Animal Rescue Mission
The Canine Condition
The Spayce Project
Topline K9 Services, INC
Wags and Walks
Women United for Animal Welfare

412 Individuals

Opposition

California Animal Welfare Association (unless amended)

Analysis Prepared by: Nicholas Liedtke / JUD. / (916) 319-2334