An act to amend Sections 31601, 31609, 31621, 31622, 31626, 31645, and 31683 of, to add Sections 31601.5, 31601.11, 31601.13, 31601.15, and 31622.5 to, and to add Article 3.5 (commencing with Section 31650) to Chapter 9 of Division 14 of, the Food and Agricultural Code, relating to dogs.
AB 793 revises California’s laws governing “potentially dangerous” and “vicious” dogs by raising the evidentiary standard in the most serious cases and requiring more detailed findings before a dog can be so designated or euthanized. Under the bill, a finding that a dog is vicious must be supported by clear and convincing evidence, rather than the lower preponderance standard used in existing law for some determinations. Courts or administrative hearing bodies would also have to make explicit factual findings showing that each statutory requirement has been met, including whether the dog’s conduct was provoked or unprovoked.
The bill adds new definitions for “provoke” and “unprovoked,” and it expands the list of circumstances that can bar a dog from being declared potentially dangerous or vicious, including situations where the injured person was provoking the dog. It also creates a new framework for “provoked dogs,” directing decisionmakers to consider provocation when choosing among dismissal, humane ownership conditions, or euthanasia. Euthanasia would be allowed only on clear and convincing evidence and only if the dog inflicted severe, disproportionate injury and no reasonable alternative can adequately protect public safety.
AB 793 would amend multiple sections of the Food and Agricultural Code to change how local governments, courts, and animal control agencies handle dangerous-dog proceedings. It would tighten procedural protections in original hearings and appeals, require the same burden of proof on appeal as in the initial proceeding, and limit euthanasia orders to cases meeting specific findings and evidentiary standards. The bill also clarifies that these rules apply only to governmental or judicial proceedings assessing public health and safety risks posed by individual dogs, not to civil actions for damages, injunctions, or restraining orders. In addition, it would constrain city and county dog-control programs by requiring them to follow the bill’s provocation definitions, proof standards, and due-process requirements when a case could result in an order of death, and it declares these changes a matter of statewide concern applicable to charter cities and counties.
The bill appears to have been received favorably in policy and floor votes, with unanimous or near-unanimous support in the recorded votes provided, including 12-0 in committee and 68-0 on Assembly Third Reading. The legislative findings emphasize responsible dog ownership, due process, and avoiding unnecessary euthanasia, suggesting the measure is framed as a balanced reform rather than a rollback of dangerous-dog regulation. At the same time, the bill’s later status as held under submission and placed on suspense file indicates that, despite broad support, it may have faced fiscal, procedural, or scheduling obstacles late in the process.
The main points of contention are likely to be the higher burden of proof for vicious-dog findings, the expanded role of provocation, and the limits placed on local discretion. Animal control agencies and local governments may view the clear-and-convincing standard and required factual findings as making it harder to remove truly dangerous dogs from the community, while supporters would argue these changes prevent unjust euthanasia and protect owners’ property interests and due process rights. Another potential dispute is the bill’s treatment of provocation, which broadens the circumstances under which a dog may not be labeled dangerous and may be seen by critics as too protective of dogs in incidents involving human conduct. The requirement that local programs conform to these statewide rules, including in charter cities and counties, also raises a home-rule issue.