Potentially dangerous and vicious dogs: designation and disposition: burden of proof.
The bill proposes changes that would affect how counties and cities can regulate dangerous dogs, ensuring any local programs must align with the standards set forth in AB793. Specifically, jurisdictions will be required to apply the same evidential standards and criteria as outlined by the bill, which aims to reduce arbitrary dog classifications and ensure humane treatment of animals. This legislation responds to concerns that previous statutes did not provide adequate safeguards against the potential destruction of dogs deemed dangerous without a thorough review of their actions, rights, and circumstances of provocation.
Assembly Bill 793, introduced by Assembly Member Schultz, aims to amend the Food and Agricultural Code pertaining to the designation and regulation of potentially dangerous and vicious dogs. The primary intention of this bill is to establish a more stringent burden of proof required for declaring a dog as potentially dangerous or vicious, shifting from a 'preponderance of the evidence' standard to a 'clear and convincing evidence' standard during hearings. It also emphasizes the necessity of explicit findings that justify the designation of a dog as dangerous, focusing on particular conduct criteria that the dog must meet before such a classification can be applied.
The overall sentiment towards AB793 appears supportive among advocates for both animal rights and public safety. Proponents argue that it balances the need for community safety with the rights of dog owners, guiding a more responsible approach towards dog management. Conversely, opponents may express concerns over the potential complexities added to the regulation process by requiring a heightened burden of proof, questioning whether such measures might delay interventions necessary to protect the public from genuinely dangerous animals.
A notable point of contention within legislative discussions has been the implications of defining 'provocation' and the conditions under which a dog may be deemed dangerous. Critics might argue that these definitions could create loopholes or inconsistent applications based on subjective interpretations of what constitutes adequate provocation. An additional concern is the provision that mandates all expected procedures to exhaust appeals prior to an order of dog destruction, which could result in extended periods of potential danger to the community in certain cases.