Committee advances civil‑penalty bill aimed at gamefowl trafficking after testimony on 833‑rooster bust

Assemblymember Rogers presented AB 928, the Cockfighting Cruelty Act, telling the Senate Business, Professions and Economic Development Committee the bill focuses on trafficking and large‑scale breeding of birds used in cockfights and establishes civil penalties for properties that keep more than 25 individually tethered or caged roosters.

The bill’s author said the measure is intended to complement criminal laws against cockfighting by giving animal control new civil enforcement tools targeted at yards that show the typical signs of gamefowl operations. “This is a progressive enforcement model that’s done through animal control,” the author said, and the text includes exemptions for commercial poultry operations, backyard chickens, 4‑H, FFA and certain show birds.

Supporters described large, resource‑intensive enforcement incidents. Jenny Berg, California state director for Humane World for Animals, said AB 928 was tailored to target trafficking networks and noted the 25‑rooster threshold was chosen as an empirically useful enforcement marker. “Despite strong existing laws, cockfighting continues to flourish in California,” Berg said, urging the committee to back the bill.

Beth Wyatt, operations manager for Sonoma County Animal Services, described a multiagency investigation in which officers found 833 live roosters on a rural property; many showed fighting injuries, and the department said handling and disposition of the birds imposed major operational and public‑health burdens. “AB 928 would provide small departments like ours with the additional tools and flexibility to work proactively with bird owners to manage flocks humanely and help prevent the spread of disease,” Wyatt said.

Opponents warned of potential civil‑rights and enforcement risks. Noeep Adamo of the California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation testified that the bill could be used to profile or disproportionately target Latino and immigrant communities, arguing civil penalties enforced through a lower standard of proof and local code‑enforcement processes could produce fear and collateral immigration consequences for residents.

Committee members pressed the author on how enforcement would work in practice. The author described a progressive model beginning with a complaint and a written warning (a minimum cure period of 14 days), local discretion for counties, and delayed statewide implementation to allow education and outreach. The author said their office had added exemptions and language after stakeholder conversations to limit impacts on legitimate agricultural and hobby activities.

After public comment and committee questions, Senator Caballero moved the bill; the committee voted to advance AB 928 to the Senate Judiciary Committee for further consideration.

What happens next: AB 928 was referred to Senate Judiciary; proponents and opponents said they expect further amendment and stakeholder meetings before it reaches the floor.