by Michelle C. Pardo<\/p>\n
On February 8, 2022, California Assemblyman Miguel Santiago (D-Los Angeles) introduced Assembly Bill 1881<\/a>, referred to as the Dog and Cat Bill of Rights.\u00a0 The purported purpose of the bill is to inform potential adopters of the care needed to create a healthy environment for their adopted pets.<\/p>\n While recognizing that existing animal welfare laws address animal abuse and neglect, the pet-centric Bill of Rights seeks to codify dog and cats fundamental rights and impose new duties on local public officials and organizations to post these rights so that adoptive families can be informed of pet ownership responsibilities.<\/p>\n If enacted, the law would codify the following rights for dogs and cats in California:<\/p>\n –Dogs and cats have the right to be free from exploitation, cruelty, neglect, and abuse.<\/p>\n –Dogs and cats have the right to a life of comfort, free or fear and anxiety.<\/p>\n –Dogs and cats have the right to daily mental stimulation and appropriate exercise.<\/p>\n –Dogs and cats have the right to nutritious food, sanitary water, and shelter in an appropriate and safe environment.<\/p>\n –Dogs and cats have the right to preventive and therapeutic health care.<\/p>\n –Dogs and cats have the right to be properly identified through tags, microchips, or other humane means.<\/p>\n –Dogs and cats have the right to be spayed and neutered to prevent unwanted litters.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Significantly, the preamble to the bill of rights states the Legislature\u2019s intention to declare that dogs and cats have the right to be \u201crespected as sentient beings,\u201d emphasizes the importance of sterilization to reduce overpopulations, and recognizes and prioritizes dogs\u2019 and cats emotional and \u201cmental well-being.\u201d<\/p>\n As written, the law would require every public animal control agency or shelter, humane society shelter or rescue group to post<\/em> the Dog and Cat Bill of rights \u201cin a conspicuous place accessible to public view\u201d in their facilities.\u00a0 The bill would create a state-mandated local program, which according to the California Constitution, requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for such mandated costs. After the first offense, violations of the section would result in a fine not to exceed $250.<\/p>\n The bill was sponsored by Social Compassion in Legislation, an animal activist group whose founder and president was reported to be \u201cthrilled to be codifying this into law.\u201d\u00a0 The group\u2019s legislative campaigns included support for a ban on traveling animal exhibits, aiding farmers to transition from animal agriculture to plant-based agriculture, and increasing the fines to owners of impounded, non-spayed and unneutered dogs.<\/p>\n As far as legislative muscle goes, on its face, the passive posting of a list of animal care responsibilities seems relatively inconsequential.\u00a0 It imposes no liabilities on pet owners who fail to comply with the pets\u2019 fundamental rights.\u00a0 A duty to \u201cpost\u201d does not guarantee that any adoptive owner would even read the sign.\u00a0 The bill also states that it would \u201cnot create or imply a private right of action for a violation of this division.\u201d\u00a0 \u00a0The casual reader may be left wondering: what exactly is the point of this legislation and why is the sponsoring animal activist organization viewing this as a great legislative victory?<\/p>\n The answer may lie in two familiar activist legal strategies: California\u2019s Unfair Competition Law (UCL), Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code \u00a7\u00a717200 et seq.<\/em>, and the movement to seek legal status for nonhuman animals.<\/p>\n California\u2019s UCL (often paired with its False Advertising Law (FAL) and Consumer Legal Remedies Act (CLRA)) is a powerful tool to turn any violation of any law or regulation, federal or state, into the basis of an \u201cunlawful\u201d UCL claim, provided that the violation of the underlying law or regulation is in connection with a business act or practice.\u00a0 If the Dog and Cat Bill of Rights becomes law, theoretically a violation of the law \u2013 if an aggrieved person or organization can prove standing and economic injury \u2013 could be the vehicle by which an animal activist or organization could litigate the Dog and Cat Bill of Rights in court.\u00a0 The fact that the Legislature did not intend to provide a private right of action would not prevent it serving as the foundation for a UCL \u201cunlawful\u201d claim.<\/p>\n For example, if your cat activist neighbor thought you were not providing your cat with the \u201cdaily mental stimulation\u201d that the Dog and Cat Bill of Rights required, and spent money buying USB sticks to save videos of your cat and use in an anti-cat ownership campaign, you may find yourself in court as a defendant of a UCL claim.\u00a0 One could imagine an organization that advocates for mandatory spay and neuter laws targeting owners that let their pets have \u201cunwanted litters\u201d bringing a lawsuit to recover for expenses spent on tasks that frustrated their mission.\u00a0 All of these are scenarios that the expansive UCL could encompass if the Dog and Cat Bill of Rights becomes law.<\/p>\n But it is codifying dogs and cats as \u201csentient beings\u201d that likely is the reason why animal activist groups are celebrating this legislation.\u00a0 For years, a movement of animal activists have advocated, through a variety of unsuccessful lawsuits, that animals in this country should have the same legal and constitutional rights as humans.\u00a0 (We’ve blogged about these efforts: click here<\/a>, here<\/a>, here<\/a>, and here<\/a>).\u00a0 While these cases have been unsuccessful in getting a court to recognize this to date, the press for any legislative body to enact something to this effect is growing.\u00a0 If the Dog and Cat Bill of Rights becomes law, it may well be the Trojan Horse \u2013 delivering a victory that advocates for nonhuman rights have been waiting for.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" by Michelle C. Pardo On February 8, 2022, California Assemblyman Miguel Santiago (D-Los Angeles) introduced Assembly Bill 1881, referred to as the Dog and Cat Bill of Rights.\u00a0 The purported purpose of the bill is to inform potential adopters of the care needed to create a healthy environment for their adopted pets. While recognizing that … <\/p>\n