Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Animal Welfare Enforcement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee advances cockfighting bill amid broad opposition from poultry hobbyists and breeders
Summary
AB 9 28, introduced by Assemblymember Rogers, was advanced to the Judiciary Committee with committee members expressing interest in narrowing language to avoid penalizing hobbyists and youth programs.
Assemblymember Rogers presented AB 9 28, described as the California Cockfighting Cruelty Act, to equip enforcement with tools to address gamefowl yards, trafficking and associated criminal activity. The committee voted to refer the bill to the Judiciary Committee.
Supporters, including Humane World for Animals' Adam Parascandola and Dr. Gail Hansen of the Humane Veterinary Medical Alliance, said cockfighting operations and unregulated gamefowl yards can spread avian influenza and other pathogens and are often linked to other criminal activity. Parascandola said the bill would impose limits and provide enforcement tools to disrupt the sale and trafficking of fighting birds, and Hansen argued the measure would mitigate risks to animal and public health.
The bill drew extensive public opposition from poultry hobbyists, youth 4‑H leaders, poultry show organizers and breed associations. Opponents argued the bill, as written, would sweep up legitimate breeders and small‑scale hobbyists, damage county fairs and youth projects, and impose burdensome certification requirements such as National Poultry Improvement Plan (NPIP) enrolment. Stacy Lane, a poultry owner, told the committee, "This bill is massive government overreach into private ownership of poultry, specifically roosters." Becky Colano (reading a letter from a poultry association) said the measure "will shut down these shows and most county fairs because people will not be able to acquire quality poultry." Many speakers urged stricter criminal penalties for criminal cockfighting (changing misdemeanors to felonies) rather than new civil or administrative burdens on hobbyists and breeders.
Committee members pressed the author on exemptions and implementation. The author said exemptions for 4‑H, FFA, hobbyists and commercial poultry are included in the bill and that staff will work on narrowing language and additional exemptions where needed; she also said the intent is to target illicit gamefowl yards rather than legitimate enthusiasts. The motion to pass AB 9 28 to the Judiciary Committee carried; recorded roll call votes were Soria (Aye), Alanis (Aye), Aguiar‑Curry (Aye), Connelly (Aye), Gonzales (No), Hadwick (Abstain), Ransom (Aye). The committee clerk recorded the outcome as do pass to Judiciary (mover: Assemblywoman Aguiar‑Curry; second: Assemblymember Conley).
Key contested elements included the proposed civil fines and thresholds for possession (the bill includes a provision creating civil penalties for maintaining more than three adult roosters per acre or 25 total on a parcel), exemptions tied to NPIP certification and how enforcement would be handled at the county level. The author agreed to continue consultations with breeders, county ag commissioners and hobbyist groups before further hearings.
