HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 07122005 - C27 TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Contra��... =--�.�,,��
r'J - •
FROM: MARK DESAULNIER, p Su ervisor, District IV
Costa
GLENN HOWELL, Animal Services Director ~ :^
• V'
O�y'�_COV1'��
DATE: July 12, 2005
;7 C�ounty
SUBJECT: Support SB 861 (Speier) -- Regulation of specific Breeds of Dogs
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S)OR RECOMMENDATION(S)&BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMENDATIONS:
SUPPORT SB 861 (Speier), which would allow local jurisdictions to adopt breed-specific regulations on
dangerous and vicious dogs.
BACKGROUND/REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATION
The Contra Costa County 2005 Legislative Platform includes the following policy positions:
• Support efforts to protect or increase local control and flexibility over the scope and level of
animal services
• Support efforts to protect and/or increase County flexibility to provide animal services consistent
with.local needs and priorities
Current law prohibits local jurisdictions from adopting programs for the control of potentially dangerous
or vicious dogs that are specific to a breed. This prohibition does not allow local jurisdictions to address
the increasing number of dangerous and fatal dog attacks by pit bull-type dogs, including the recent
death of a 12 year old in San Francisco. The California Animal Control Directors' Association has
reported that pit bull-type dogs are straining animal control resources and constitute up to 50% of the
dogs in many urban animal shelters. In addition, pit bull-type dogs are responsible for many serious dog
attacks and can inflict more damage than most other dog breeds. They have called for stronger
regulation of pit bull-type dogs, such as mandatory spay/neutering and microchipping (not a ban on pit
bull-type dogs). SB 861 (Speier) would address the concerns of the association by allowing local
jurisdictions to adopt breed-specific regulations on dangerous and vicious dogs, such as pit bull-type
dogs.
Contra Costa County's Animal Services Director, Glenn Howell, is currently President of the California
Animal Control Directors' Association and recommends that the Board of Supervisors take a position of
support for SB 861.
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: X YES SIGNATURE:
✓"RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD MITTEE
,..:�PROVE OTHER
SIGNATURE(S). '—
ACTION OF BO RD N APPROVE AS RECOMMENDED -- OTHER
t hereby certify that anis is a true and correct
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS copy of an action taken and entered on the
mrtutep of the Board of Supervisors on the
UNANIMOUS(ABSENT } da# shown.
AYES: NOES: ACTED.
ABSENT: ABSTAIN: JOHN R, SWEETEN, Clerk of the Board
of Supervisors and County.Adrninistrator
CONTACT: Glenn Howell,335-8370 _ Daputy
CC: Nielsen Merksamer(via CAO)
CAO `
Animal Services
d'Y
s f t
J r
,.r
n
.....t Thr .r..
l
AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY JUKE 219 2005
AMENDED IN SENATE APRIL 20,2005
SENATE BILL No. 861
Introduced by Senator Speier
February 22,2005
An act to amend Sectio
31683 of the Food and Agricultural Code,relating W edi-�dogs.
LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST
SB 861, as amended, Speier.
Dangerous and vicious dogs.
Existing law regulates potentially dangerous and vicious dogs, as
specified, and provides that nothing in these provisions 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 these provisions, or that
may punish a violation of these provisions as a misdemeanor or may
impose a more restrictive program to control potentially dangerous or
vicious dogs,provided that no program shall regulate these dogs in a
manner that is specific as to breed.
This bill would no longer prohibit local governments from adopting
a program regulating dangerous and vicious dogs that is specific as to
breed, but instead would authorize cities and counties to pass breed
specific legislation to address public safety and we fare concerns in
their communities, provided that no program shall institute a ban
specific as to breed.
97
SB 861 Z
*thin:1 Asaws acreeerM
kra -
Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: ono.
State-mandated local program: no.
The people of the State of California do enact as follows:
1 SECTION 1. Section 31683 of the Food and Agricultural
2 Code is amended to read:
3 31683. (a) Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to
4 prevent a city or county from adopting or enforcing its own
5 program for the control of potentially dangerous or vicious dogs
6 that may incorporate all,part,or none of this chapter,or that may
7 punish a violation of this chapter as a misdemeanor or may
8 impose a more restrictive program to control potentially
9 dangerous or vicious dogs,
10 - ,
11 (b) Cities and counties may pass breed specific legislation to
12 address public safety and welfare concerns in their communities,
13 provided that no program shall institute a ban speck as to
14 breed.
15 '
16
17 '
. .
18
19 .
20 MY 04 rMleelialvi. .
21 '
22 '
23 .
24 '
25 5 .
26 '
27 A LAMA LRAM MR AItA„�-A __w* I�A 14 SLA
v
28 . UM the All-P P w went or AP Ase
29 '
97
9641
1
1
3 '
4 '
7
9
91