California 2019-2020 Regular Session

California Senate Bill SB573

Introduced
2/22/19  
Introduced
2/22/19  
Refer
3/7/19  
Refer
3/7/19  
Report Pass
4/3/19  
Refer
4/3/19  
Refer
4/3/19  
Report Pass
5/20/19  
Report Pass
5/20/19  
Engrossed
5/28/19  
Engrossed
5/28/19  
Refer
6/6/19  
Refer
6/6/19  
Refer
2/10/20  
Refer
2/24/20  
Refer
2/24/20  
Refer
6/18/20  
Refer
6/18/20  
Report Pass
8/11/20  
Report Pass
8/11/20  
Refer
8/11/20  
Report Pass
8/18/20  
Report Pass
8/18/20  
Enrolled
8/30/20  
Enrolled
8/30/20  
Chaptered
9/18/20  
Chaptered
9/18/20  

Caption

Dogs and cats: microchip implants.

Impact

The law stipulates that if an agency or shelter does not have the capability to microchip an animal on site, they must make a good faith attempt to assist the owner in locating regional services that offer free or discounted microchipping. The bill provides exceptions where an animal is medically unfit for the procedure or if microchipping imposes economic hardship on the owner. A failure to comply with the microchipping requirement results in a civil penalty of $100 against the agency or shelter after January 1, 2022.

Summary

Senate Bill 573, also known as the Microchip Implants for Dogs and Cats Act, mandates that public animal control agencies, shelters, and rescue organizations must ensure that any dog or cat being reclaimed by an owner or adopted out is microchipped. This legislation extends existing laws that provide a holding period for stray animals, which is currently set at six business days. The bill enhances traceability of pets, thus aiming to reduce the number of lost pets and improve the chances of reuniting them with their owners.

Sentiment

The sentiment surrounding SB 573 is generally positive among animal welfare advocates who argue that the bill enhances pet safety and responsible ownership. However, concerns have been raised regarding the burden it may place on public shelters and low-income owners who may struggle with the microchipping costs. Though the bill allows for certain exemptions, the requirement has received varied reactions, highlighting a balance between pet identification and financial considerations.

Contention

Noteworthy points of contention include the enforcement of the microchipping requirement and potential implications for shelters that lack the necessary resources for such measures. Critics argue that while the goal of reducing lost pets is commendable, the financial implications for shelters and the burden of compliance could impact their operations. Moreover, the bill does not mandate the registration of microchips, raising questions about the efficacy of tracking lost pets once they have been microchipped and potentially creating inefficiencies in reuniting them with their owners.

Companion Bills

No companion bills found.

Similar Bills

CA AB2723

Animals: microchips.

CA SB64

Dogs and cats: microchip implants.

CA AB1482

Bowie’s Law: animals: adoption, shelter overcrowding, and breeding.

CA AB2425

Bowie’s Law: animals: adoption, shelter overcrowding, and breeding.

CA AB702

Animal welfare: Dog and Cat Bill of Rights.

AZ HB2626

Animal handling; microchip scan

IL SB3537

ANIMAL ADOPTION-FEE WAIVER

VA SB412

Rabies clinics; animal vaccination and microchip services.