Friday, January 25, 2013

Does Your Dog Really Need A License In California?

Below is part of a letter sent to me by a friend named Gene who likes to look for unnecessary or unconstitutional laws and point them out so that we may challenge them. This one about dog licenses seems to be legit but it is also a bit of a pain to challenge. I think most people will just pay the $15.00 dollars rather than send letters the County Sheriff , Attorney General and Risk Management in their respective city. However, if you are so inclined and would rather use that money for the dog's rabies vaccination, here is how you go about it:

Believe it or not no dog owner needs a dog license in California and this law is found in of all places the Food and Agricultural Code. All codes can be found on the internet.

Here is the law:
Under the California Food and Agricultural Code Section 30951 collar and tag:
"It is unlawful for any person to own, harbor, or keep any dog over the age of four months, or to permit such a dog which is owned, harbored, or controlled by him to run at large, unless the dog has attached to its neck or leg a substantial collar which ONE OF THE FOLLOWING IS FASTENED:
a) A metallic tag which gives the name and post office address of the owner.
b) A metal license which is issued by the authority of a county, city and county, or any municipal corporation for the purpose of identifying the dog and designating the owner."

As you can clearly see if you pick Section 30951(a) and attach a metallic tag which gives the name and post office address of the owner you have fully complied with California State law.

Once the dog owner has complied with Section 30951(a) they are protected by F&A Code Section 30953 unlawful killing, injuring or impounding:
"Except as otherwise provided in this division, it unlawful for any person to kill, injure, or impound any dog, if the owner of the dog has complied with the provisions of this division."

The dog license has nothing to do with the rabies vaccination that is a different matter all together. The City might claim that Humboldt is an official rabies area and you must get a dog license; however, every county in California is "an official rabies area" and this fact does not nullify State law and the option to a dog license for every dog owner.
Willful withholding of a material fact, such as the option to a dog license is a crime under Title 18 Section 1001 of the U.S. Criminal Code.
If you have any questions let me know. Here is what I have discovered: every time you claim a right the public servant will say no you don't and then threaten to harm you in some way, by fine or whatever. You must send the public servants certified letters and send copies to the County Sheriff, the Attorney General and the Risk Management in Eureka. Every public servant is bonded under Joint Power Authority as long as they do not violate the peoples rights. When they violate rights they are on their own as far as liability goes.

Until next time


  1. "Henchman Of Justice" says,

    Interesting bit. It seems what was cited was a "state law" and that "local jurisdicitions through local ordinance structures" just want more money for the wastes they already commit (or perhaps, the actual size of local government making it such that more money is needed....usually a combination of both).

    Personally, dog owners must in some form be held accountable for their misconducts. The leash law is fair, but only when enforced. Then, the matter of poop and pee (not on the bank) on other citizen's property. Dog Owners should be treated in poop and pee situations just as they would for defacating in public as a human being. Dog poop and pee is no more or less "potent or an impact" than human poop and pee. It is rather disgusting as a walker to have to avoid dog crap, especially on the sidewalk.

    Personally too, it should be illegal to own, harbor, etc... any dogs within city limits unless it is for medical or law enforcement purposes. Dogs need to "stay on the farm" so to speak. Urban conflicts between Dog owners and non-Dog owners has increased over the years due to population growth, especially in more populated areas.

    Owning a dog for non-commercial purposes is not "freedom of expression" either. Split on the issue because dogs can be cool, but dog owners suck for the most part, thereby eliminating most excuses and reasons justifying the dog as a pet.

    As far as cats, great for rodent control....what do dogs do, jack shit.

    Finally, Americans enslave too many "so-called pets". As a country, too many pets causing taxpayers to have to pay more taxes for something quite possibly not their own manifestation. - HOJ

  2. Turns out tom, that's old law.
    Here is the current law:
    2011 California Code
    Food and Agricultural Code
    CHAPTER 3. Dog Tags
    Section 30801

    (a) A board of supervisors may provide for the issuance of serially numbered metallic dog licenses pursuant to this section. The dog licenses shall be stamped with the name of the county and the year of issue.

    (b) The board of supervisors or animal control department may authorize veterinarians to issue the licenses to owners of dogs who make application.

    (c) The licenses shall be issued for a period of not to exceed two years.

    (d) In addition to the authority provided in subdivisions (a), (b), and (c), a license may be issued, as provided by this section, by a board of supervisors for a period not to exceed three years for dogs that have attained the age of 12 months, or older, and who have been vaccinated against rabies. The person to whom the license is to be issued pursuant to this subdivision may choose a license period as established by the board of supervisors of up to one, two, or three years. However, when issuing a license pursuant to this subdivision, the license period shall not extend beyond the remaining period of validity for the current rabies vaccination.

    (Amended by Stats. 2006, Ch. 538, Sec. 202. Effective January 1, 2007.)

  3. Division 14 ( REGULATION AND LICENSING OF DOGS) is not new law it just gives the guidelines as to how the issuance of a dog license is handled. It is solely up to the owner as to weather he wants to utilize the service the country provides or get his own tags. Nowhere in either sections does it say that the dog owner shall or must purchase one from the county it is purely voluntary.


Nuclear Waste Water Fukusima From A Drone

G.W. Bush On Explosives At WTC

US Senator Joe Liberman, WTC 7 Did Not Occur