California Assembly Bill AB1482

California 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 2/21/25
• Refer: 3/13/25
• Report Pass: 4/22/25
• Refer: 4/23/25
• Report Pass: 4/29/25
• Refer: 5/1/25
• Refer: 5/21/25
• Failed: 2/2/26

Caption

An act to add Section 32005 to, and to add and repeal Section 32006 of, the Food and Agricultural Code, and to amend Sections 122045 and 122055 of, and to add Section 122111 to, the Health and Safety Code, relating to animals.

Summary

AB 1482, titled “Bowie’s Law,” would expand California’s animal welfare rules in two main areas: shelter transparency and dog breeding standards. First, it would require animal shelters, including public animal control agencies, humane societies, and SPCA shelters, to post on a website a conspicuous list of animals available for adoption or being held under specified impound laws, with limited exceptions for certain newborn animals, seriously ill or injured animals, and dogs with documented dangerous histories. It also directs the Department of Food and Agriculture to study shelter overcrowding, possible state responses, and the feasibility of a statewide dog-and-cat database, and to report its findings to the Legislature by January 1, 2028 before the study section sunsets in 2032. Second, the bill would tighten the Polanco-Lockyer Pet Breeder Warranty Act by lowering the threshold for who counts as a dog breeder from 3 litters or 20 dogs to 2 litters or 10 dogs in a 12-month period. It would require breeders to microchip dogs before eight weeks of age, register the new owner as the primary owner when the dog is sold or transferred, provide microchip and ownership-transfer information to the purchaser, and prohibit sale or transfer until the dog has age-appropriate vaccinations and a documented veterinary health check. The bill also clarifies that cities and counties may adopt or enforce more restrictive breed-specific ordinances. The bill’s impact on state law would be to create new website-posting obligations for shelters, establish a temporary state study and reporting program on shelter overcrowding, and expand the scope of state breeder regulation. It would affect local animal control agencies and shelters by imposing new operational duties that the digest identifies as a state-mandated local program, and it would affect dog breeders by broadening the class of regulated breeders and adding microchipping, vaccination, and veterinary documentation requirements. It also includes a reimbursement provision if the Commission on State Mandates determines the bill creates reimbursable local costs. Overall sentiment appears favorable. The bill passed the Assembly committee vote 17-0 on a do-pass motion, suggesting broad support at that stage. The absence of recorded opposition in the provided materials and the committee’s unanimous vote indicate the measure was viewed positively as an animal welfare and shelter transparency bill. The main points of contention are likely to involve implementation costs and regulatory burden rather than the bill’s goals. Shelter operators and local agencies may be concerned about the expense and staffing needed to maintain online animal listings and participate in any statewide database or study-related data collection. Dog breeders may object to the lower threshold for regulation and the added microchip, vaccination, and veterinary-check requirements, while local governments may note the bill’s recognition of more restrictive breed-specific ordinances and the possibility of state-mandated cost reimbursement.

Impact

AB 1482 would amend the Food and Agricultural Code and Health and Safety Code to impose new duties on animal shelters and dog breeders. It would require shelters to publish adoption and impound listings online, direct the Department of Food and Agriculture to study shelter overcrowding and statewide database options, and expand the definition of regulated dog breeder while adding microchipping, transfer-registration, vaccination, and veterinary-health-check requirements. The bill also preserves local authority to adopt more restrictive breed-specific ordinances and provides for state reimbursement if mandated local costs are found.

Sentiment

The available voting history suggests strong support for the bill, with a 17-0 committee vote to pass as amended and re-refer to Appropriations. No committee transcript opposition is provided, and the measure’s framing as animal welfare and shelter transparency legislation likely contributed to the favorable reception. The overall tone in the available materials is supportive, with attention focused on improving adoption access, reducing shelter overcrowding, and strengthening breeder accountability.

Contention

The likely areas of contention are operational and fiscal. Local shelters and animal control agencies may be concerned about the cost and administrative burden of maintaining online animal inventories and participating in any future statewide database or study-related reporting. Breeders may object to the expanded definition of “breeder” and the added requirements for microchipping, ownership transfer registration, vaccinations, and veterinary checks. Local governments may also watch the bill’s state-mandated local program implications and reimbursement language closely, since implementation costs could shift to counties, cities, or shelters.