California 2025-2026 Regular Session

California Senate Bill SB312

Introduced
2/10/25  
Refer
2/19/25  
Refer
3/26/25  
Report Pass
4/7/25  
Refer
4/7/25  
Report Pass
5/1/25  
Report Pass
4/7/25  
Refer
4/7/25  
Report Pass
5/1/25  
Refer
5/5/25  
Report Pass
5/1/25  
Report Pass
5/23/25  
Refer
5/5/25  
Refer
5/5/25  
Report Pass
5/23/25  
Engrossed
5/28/25  

Caption

Dog importation: health certificates.

Impact

The proposed changes in SB 312 would shift the compliance requirements towards the Department of Food and Agriculture, which will be responsible for maintaining an accessible public website containing all submitted health certificates. This reflects a broader move towards transparency and accountability in handling animal health certifications. By making these documents available to the public, the bill aims to enhance the oversight of dog importation processes while reinforcing the health regulations applicable to animal transport in California.

Summary

Senate Bill 312, introduced by Senator Umberg, aims to amend regulations surrounding the importation of dogs into California. The bill proposes the repeal of existing requirements that mandate health certificates to be submitted to county health departments. Instead, it stipulates that individuals selling, transporting, or importing dogs for respective purposes must obtain a health certificate from a licensed veterinarian, ensuring that it is dated no more than ten days prior to the dog's arrival in the state. The health certificate must contain essential information including details on vaccinations and the animal's health status, emphasizing the importance of preventing the spread of infectious diseases among dogs.

Sentiment

Discussions around SB 312 have generally featured positive sentiment among advocates for animal health and public safety, who applaud the clarity and accessibility of health records that the bill promotes. However, there exist concerns regarding the implications of creating a state-mandated local program, especially related to potential costs involved in compliance for local agencies. While supporters view increased oversight as a beneficial step in preventing animal diseases, detractors worry about the resources required to implement these changes and the feasibility of swift compliance.

Contention

The most significant contention surrounding SB 312 arises from the balance between state oversight and local administration of dog health regulations. Critics argue that transitioning from county health department oversight to state-level requirements could overburden local agencies with new mandates without necessary funding support, as the bill specifies that no reimbursement for associated costs is required under certain conditions of California's Constitution. This imbalance raises questions about the effectiveness and operational capacity of local government in managing these newly mandated duties.

Companion Bills

No companion bills found.

Similar Bills

CA AB1282

Veterinary medicine: blood banks for animals.

CA AB1953

Veterinary medicine: blood banks for animals.

CA AB1482

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

CA AB2425

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

CA SB202

Animal blood donors.

CA AB702

Animal welfare: Dog and Cat Bill of Rights.

CA SB64

Dogs and cats: microchip implants.

CA AB2723

Animals: microchips.