PROPOSED LEGISLATION/BACKGROUND
PURPOSE OF BILL
The purpose of this bill is to remove barriers that reduce compliance with the state laws that requires dog licensing (which is to be done at the local level). Removing these barriers and increasing licensing would
- get lost dogs home to their owners which results in lower kill rates in the shelters
- provide local government with access to additional revenues
- provide local governments with ways to recover costs more quickly
As state and local general revenues have declined, local animal care and regulation agencies have seen a significant loss of funding – with many agencies losing fifty percent or more of their revenue and associated staff. The same economic conditions which have resulted in reduced revenues have also increased the demand for public services, resulting in higher intakes. These agencies – if they are to meet the public’s demand to produce better outcomes (more animals leaving alive) – must find ways to improve other revenue sources to recover their costs.
Since the mid-1950s, California has required that dogs be licensed by the time they are four months of age and owners are obligated to provide proof of anti-rabies vaccination and they require that the licenses be issued by the local cities and counties. However, only one in five dogs in California is licensed. This low rate means that: (a) the state does not know how many dogs are actually protected against rabies; (b) all taxpayers – as opposed to pet owners – are subsidizing costs for animal care and regulation activities, and, (c) costly stays in shelters, which are longer because dogs cannot be readily identified and returned promptly to their owners, often then end in euthanasia.
Two of the barriers that now exist are: (1) limited information as to which residents own dogs and (2) the inability to license dogs under the age of four months – which is when most are acquired.
This bill would address both of these barriers in an effort to help local agencies access much-needed licensing funds, to improve reporting of rabies compliance to the state, and to reduce costs by being able to readily identify lost dogs and return them promptly to their owners (as contrasted with housing, caring and feeding until they can be re-united, re-homed or euthanized).
This bill would require that pet stores, non-profit animal shelters and rescue organizations, and high-volume dog breeders who are already subject to the requirements of the Polanco bill due to the numbers of dogs/litters to provide to their local licensing agency a monthly list of licensing information regarding dogs they have placed. This information can then be utilized by the local licensing authority to follow up with new owners to complete the licensing process.
This would bill would permit cities and counties to offer a puppy license to microchipped puppies. For cities and counties that choose to offer a puppy license, they shall offer it for the same fee charged to owners of altered dogs. A puppy license would be temporary and become permanent when the owners provide their local licensing agency with proof of proper rabies documentation (no later than five months of age). This puppy license would expire when the puppy was 12 months of age.
The last year for which complete information is available is 2009. In 2009, using the AVMA’s widely accepted methodology for determining animal populations, California has about 9.4 million dogs. We know from the Department of Health Services, Veterinary Public Health Unit Shelter Data Reports – 2009 – that only 1,549,941 licenses were issued in 2009.
One of the most important metrics is what is happening to the dogs in California. For the last four years the legislature has been bombarded with proposed legislation from people who had recommendations for ways to reduce the killing in our shelters. But California’s own data shows the only nexus that can be demonstrated with regard to euthanasia, is that when dogs are licensed, euthanasia is reduced.
Look at what Sacramento is facing. The state funding that is being lost are the Hayden Act reimbursements (SB1785-Shelter Reform Act of 1998). This state mandate reimbursed shelters on a per dog basis for the dogs they housed longer and still had to euthanize. So the more crowded the shelter, the worse the financial impact is now that these reimbursements have been suspended.
In 2006, Congress passed the Pet Evacuation and Transportation Standards Act. This Act (Public Law 109-308) requires that in order to qualify for FEMA funding, pets be rescued along with their owners and that state and local emergency preparedness authorities include how they will accommodate this requirement. While it is obviously a positive step, it also puts rescue and disaster workers at more risk since animals during a disaster are likely to be more agitated and dogs are more likely to bite. Without a robust licensing system we have no way to (a) know whether a dog that bites a worker has been vaccinated against rabies and (b) no way to get the animals home to their owners. This can have an impact on FEMA reimbursements,
FISCAL IMPACT
This bill should be revenue positive to all local governments.
The local governments are already required to license the dogs in their jurisdiction. By providing local animal licensing agencies with a monthly report of licensing information, the bill provides a tool the local agencies can use to find and contact new dog owners and inform them of their legal responsibility to license their dogs. This process will increase licensing compliance, providing the local agencies with funding with which they can better serve residents.
For those agencies that adopt puppy licensing, they will be able to immediately license all dogs on the reports they receive. The puppy license would give agencies that elect to offer it an opportunity to collect revenue from dog owners, including those who become known to them through the reporting mechanism required in the bill as well as future revenue from license renewals.
Typically statistics on number of puppies licensed versus adult dogs are not maintained. However a 2008 study by John Forland of the City of Los Angeles Dog Licensing program showed licensing of dogs under 12 months of age to be .00317%. We probably have, at any given time, more than 750,000 puppies which could be licensed in California using the puppy licensing as described in this ordinance.
This bill should be revenue positive to all local governments.
The local governments are already required to license the dogs in their jurisdiction. By providing local animal licensing agencies with a monthly report of licensing information, the bill provides a tool the local agencies can use to find and contact new dog owners and inform them of their legal responsibility to license their dogs. This process will increase licensing compliance, providing the local agencies with funding with which they can better serve residents.
For those agencies that adopt puppy licensing, they will be able to immediately license all dogs on the reports they receive. The puppy license would give agencies that elect to offer it an opportunity to collect revenue from dog owners, including those who become known to them through the reporting mechanism required in the bill as well as future revenue from license renewals.
Typically statistics on number of puppies licensed versus adult dogs are not maintained. However a 2008 study by John Forland of the City of Los Angeles Dog Licensing program showed licensing of dogs under 12 months of age to be .00317%. We probably have, at any given time, more than 750,000 puppies which could be licensed in California using the puppy licensing as described in this ordinance.
URGENCY
In these tough economic times, local animal control agencies are receiving more unlicensed dogs with less funding to take care of them. By promoting more licensing of dogs, this bill will help reduce the number of unlicensed dogs in shelters, which usually have longer, costlier stays and are more likely to be euthanized. Quick passage of AB 1121 will generate revenue, while saving on costs – and most importantly, saving dogs’ lives.