|
SCIL's Response to Opposition to AB 631
Some of you may have heard about opposition to this bill. We know many of you in the rescue community may not have been following the history of this issue over the past few years, so we’d like to explain why we are sponsoring AB 631.
The bill originally required both shelters and rescues to report their intake and outcome data. However, it has since been amended to only require shelters to report. For rescues, the bill now only encourages voluntary reporting—there is no mandate.
The California Department of Public Health (CDPH) had collected and published intake and outcome data from animal shelters for 21 years but stopped after 2016. We pursued legislation to require CDPH to resume this reporting, but the agency strongly opposed the effort. They argued the data exceeded their rabies-reporting focus and was burdensome. This opposition led to two previous bills failing in the Appropriations Committee in 2023 and 2024.
Because no agency was willing to take this on without at least a minimal state reimbursement (estimated at $100,000 annually), AB 631 was introduced to reduce costs by simply requiring shelters to post the data on their own websites. After consulting with stakeholders and the author's office, we initially included rescues in the reporting requirement to create a more complete picture of the state’s overpopulation crisis.
We recognize that shelters are mostly publicly funded while rescues are privately funded. However, the data requested is basic intake and outcome information that any well-run rescue already maintains in the normal course of operations. Complying would simply mean posting it online or making it available upon request.
It’s also important to note that California law already treats shelters and rescues equally in at least nine sections of code, with various rights and responsibilities. The rescues we contacted supported this approach because they recognized the value of contributing to a more accurate understanding of pet overpopulation.
In fact, more rescues supported the bill than opposed it. The bill passed the entire Assembly with zero opposition, and no legislator in either the Assembly or Senate has voted “no” on this bill.
Opponents have claimed that this requirement could expose rescues to legal and civil liability, would be onerous, and might enable shelters to retaliate against rescues—indirectly harming animals.
While we strongly disagree with that reasoning, we took their concerns seriously. After thoughtful discussions with Assemblymember Lee, he decided to amend the bill to remove the reporting requirement for rescues and instead simply encourage them to report. The word “encourage” appears in California law over 2,000 times. It's meaning is clear and leaves no room for ambiguity. The word carries no legal obligation.
Opponents are still pushing to include what they call “ghost animals”—those turned away by shelters. Unfortunately, we cannot include this for two key reasons:
- This bill only requires data that shelters are already mandated to collect under Section 32001 of the Food and Agricultural Code. Expanding those categories would trigger a costly state mandate, which would almost certainly cause the bill to die in Appropriations.
- Shelters are already legally required under California Penal Code 597.1 to accept all stray animals. Including language about turned-away animals could unintentionally legitimize a practice that is currently illegal.
In closing, AB 631 is a strong and necessary bill that should be signed by Governor Newsom this year. We cannot afford another year without tracking the fate of every animal brought into our shelter system. This bill absolutely does not do harm to animals directly or indirectly. It is unfortunate that opposition continues to make this claim, and to push for amendments that are non-starters.
| 
