BILL ANALYSIS
AB 1634
Page 1
Date of Hearing: May 16, 2007
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Mark Leno, Chair
AB 1634 (Levine) - As Amended: May 9, 2007
Policy Committee: Business and
Professions Vote: 7-3
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program:
Yes Reimbursable: No
SUMMARY
This bill requires all cats and dogs to be spayed or neutered,
with specified exceptions, and establishes civil penalties for
non-compliance. Specifically, this bill:
1)Requires that all cats and dogs over four months of age be
spayed or neutered unless the owner obtains an annual permit
from a local jurisdiction or animal control agency.
2)Subjects a cat or dog owner to a civil penalty of $500 for
each animal in violation of (1), unless the owner provides a
letter from a licensed veterinarian that it is unsafe to spay
or neuter their animal and the animal will be spayed or
neutered within 75 days of reaching four months of age.
3)Requires the local enforcement agency to issue a permit, and
thus allow an owner to avoid spaying or neutering their cat or
dog, if the owner meets any of the following conditions:
a) Demonstrates they are licensed as a breeder within the
local jurisdiction.
b) Demonstrates that their cat or dog is a valid breed
recognized by an approved registry or association and
complies with at least one of the following:
i) The animal has been shown or competed in at least
one legitimate show or sporting competition hosted under
the approval of a recognized registry within the last two
years or is being trained to compete.
AB 1634
Page 2
ii) The animal has earned, or is in process of earning,
a conformation, obedience, agility, carting, herding,
protection, rally, sporting, working, or other title from
a purebred registry or association.
c) Provides proof that the dog is being trained for, or has
been trained as a guide dog, service dog, or signal dog, or
for law enforcement or rescue activities.
d) Provides a letter from a licensed veterinarian that it
is unsafe to spay or neuter due to age, poor health, or
illness.
4)Requires the amount of the permit fee to be determined by the
local enforcement agency as necessary to administer the permit
program. The fee must be waived for animals meeting the
requirements of (3)(c) and authorizes waiving all or part of
the fee for animals meeting the requirements of (3)(d).
5)Exempts a non-resident owner who brings their cat or dog into
the state from the permit requirements if they provide proof
that their animal is temporarily in California for training,
showing, or any other legitimate reason.
6)Requires the local animal control agency to conduct outreach
in connection with all of the above, and to the extent funding
is available, to establish free and low-cost spaying and
neutering programs for cats and dogs owned by low-income
persons.
7)Requires revenue from civil penalties to be used for
enforcement, administration, and program outreach, and
authorizes local animal control agencies to establish the free
and low-cost spaying and neutering programs.
FISCAL EFFECT
1)Costs . No direct state costs and any costs to local
governments would be nonreimbursable. Any additional costs to
local agencies will be supported by existing local resources
and by revenue from annual permits and from civil penalties.
It is assumed that enforcement of the bill's provisions will
be conducted by local animal control agencies in the course of
performing their existing enforcement duties, and generally on
AB 1634
Page 3
a complaint-driven basis.
2)Potential Savings . To the extent conformance with the bill's
requirements reduces the number of cats and dogs impounded to
animal shelters, local governments could realize operational
savings. Supporters provided information from Santa Cruz
County, which implemented a similar ordinance in 1995, showing
that by 2003, intake of cats and dogs into county shelters
declined by 60% and the number of euthanized animals declined
by 75%. Supporters also estimate that shelter operating costs
related to intake of cats and dogs totaled $250 million
statewide in 2005. Thus, if a statewide spay/neuter
requirement resulted in only a portion of the workload
reduction reported for Santa Cruz County, there would still be
significant statewide savings among local agencies. Given the
assumed, complaint-driven enforcement of a spay/neuter
requirement, however, it is likely that such results would
take several years. In the short-term, these costs could even
increase to the extent some people would surrender their
animals to a shelter rather than pay for a spay/neuter
procedure, which would somewhat increase shelter populations
and related costs.
3)Potential State Mandate Savings . SB 1785 (Hayden)/Chapter 752
of 1998, increased, from three to six, the number of days that
public and private animal shelters were required to keep
animals before they are euthanized. State reimbursable costs
for this mandate currently exceed $20 million annually. To the
extent AB 1634 reduces shelter costs as described above, the
state could realize a portion of the savings through reduced
claims for this mandate.
4)Potential Economic Impacts . The American Kennel Club (AKC)
indicates that, in 2006, about 160,000 competitors competed in
137 all-breed dog shows in California, including three of the
ten largest in the country, and that another 130,000
competitors participate in events such as agility, obedience,
and field trials. Some of these events, such as a large,
national show held recently in Long Beach, attract many
competitors from outside the state. Opponents assert that
enactment of this bill would have a chilling effect on
attendance at these shows and a resulting economic impact on
the state. (The bill was recently amended to clarify that cats
and dogs of out-of-state competitors at such shows would not
be subject to the spay/neuter requirements.) The AKC notes
AB 1634
Page 4
that, following enactment of an ordinance in Louisville,
Kentucky in part requiring all unaltered dogs to be kept on
four-foot leashes and increasing licensing fees for such dogs,
entries at a recent large national show in Louisville declined
about 20% from the prior year. Given the amount of economic
activity related to these shows in California, a similar
dampening effect stemming from enactment of AB 1634 would have
a negative impact, at least in the short-term, on state and
local revenues resulting from travel, hotel bookings, and
other related expenditures, particularly those associated with
out-of-state visitors. This impact cannot be quantified. On
the other hand, with the expected method of enforcement of
this bill, it is possible that such events could continue to
go forward without any adverse impact on attendance.
It is assumed that, by and large, other expenditures related
to cat and dog ownership represent discretionary spending, and
to the extent this bill, over the longer term, leads to any
reduction in this particular activity, the economic impact
would not be significant.
COMMENTS
1)Purpose . According to the author's office, each year almost
one million unwanted and abandoned cats and dogs are born in
California. The author states that "legislation requiring
spaying and neutering of cats and dogs is a reasonable,
proven-effective and necessary means to greatly reduce the
number of unwanted animals and the practice of euthanizing
healthy adoptable animals." According to the Animal Population
Control Study Commission, every dollar spent on spay and
neuter surgeries saves taxpayers $18.72 in future animal
control costs over a 10-year period. The author's office
states that, "Spaying and neutering also results in
significant public health and safety benefits, particularly in
the reduction of dangers caused by roaming stray animals, the
transmission of rabies and other communicable animal diseases
and the occurrences of dog bites."
This bill is cosponsored by the California Animal Control
Directors Association, the California Veterinary Medical
Association, Los Angeles Animal Services, Social Compassion in
Legislation, and the State Human Association of California.
2)Existing Spay/Neuter Programs . In 1995, the County of Santa
AB 1634
Page 5
Cruz implemented an ordinance requiring cats and dogs over six
months old to be spayed or neutered unless an unaltered animal
certificate is issued. This certificate is available to anyone
meeting specified criteria, such as not having any
animal-related convictions within a certain amount of time and
providing a proper environment for the animal. The ordinance
also requires these owners to furnish the director of animal
control services with a statement agreeing to have only one
litter per year unless expressly permitted by a veterinarian
to have up to two litters a year (cats only). The ordinance
also exempts from the certificate requirement service dogs,
law enforcement dogs, herding dogs, rescue dogs or animals
that can not be spayed or neutered due to health reasons.
Many state and local municipalities have implemented publicly
funded spay/neuter programs that include varying degrees of
increased licensure fees with mandatory spaying and neutering
of cats and dogs. New Hampshire implemented a statewide
publicly funded spay and neuter program in 1994. Between 1994
and 2000, the state's eight largest shelters admitted 31,000
fewer dogs and cats than in the six years preceding the
program--saving an estimated $2.2 million statewide. Over this
time period, that state's euthanasia rate dropped 75%. New
Hampshire's program targets cats and dogs living in low-income
households. Almost all funding for the program comes from a
small surcharge on dog licenses issued throughout the state
and revenue from a specialty license plate.
3)Opposition . The American Kennel Club (AKC) believes the bill
will put a damper on dog shows that attract out-of-state
participants and contribute to the state's economy. For
example, the AKC indicates that a national championship show
held in Long Beach in 2006 drew 28,000 visitors from all 50
states and several foreign countries. This show is scheduled
again in Long Beach for December 2007 and December 2008,
though the Club claims passage of AB 1634 would make these
events uncertain. The Club notes that three of the 10 largest
shows in the country are held in California. The AKC also
believes the permit fees would unfairly impact hobby breeders
of dogs.
Many opponents claim that it will promote the proliferation of
"puppy mills," out-of-state or country breeders, and
underground breeding. Landesverband DVG America, Inc., a
working dog organization, states in opposition to this bill
AB 1634
Page 6
that the provision allowing an intact permit for locally
licensed breeders does not allow for California hobby breeders
and others to be included. Landesverband states "Many, who
have been breeding dogs in California, don't meet these
criteria that are for USDA commercial dog breeders; i.e. those
who sell to brokers and from there on to pet stores.
Responsible breeders who carefully select homes for one or two
litters a year don't have business licenses of this sort."
Other opponents claim that current local mandatory spay and
neutering programs have proven themselves ineffective. The
Camino Real Siberian Husky Club wrote, "mandatory spay/neuter
laws have been tried in multiple jurisdictions and have
increased animal control costs, while decreasing licensing
compliance?In King County, Washington, after passage of a
mandatory spay/neuter ordinance in 1992, not only did the
Animal Control budget increase?but euthanasia rates fell at a
slower rate after the passage of the ordinance."
The analysis of AB 1634 by the Assembly Committee on Business
and Professions listed over 250 supporting organizations and
over 300 opposing organizations. This committee received
hundreds, if not thousands, of pieces of correspondence
regarding this issue.
4)San Francisco Animal Control-Suggested Amendment . The Director
of Animal Care and Control for the City and County of
Sacramento, while understanding the importance of this bill
for jurisdictions sheltering and euthanizing large numbers of
dogs and cats, notes that different jurisdictions may face
different types of dog and cat overpopulation problems. The
director indicates that San Francisco generally does not face
such problems, and has passed a local breed-specific
spay/neuter ordinance to address a particular problem. The
director suggests an amendment that would require locals to
either implement the provisions of AB 1634 or create their own
spay/neuter ordinance tailored to their specific needs. For
example, a jurisdiction that is able to easily place dogs but
is euthanizing many cats could enact a spay/neuter ordinance
only applying to cats, or if the problem is with a specific
breed, the ordinance could be directed at that breed.
The sponsors strongly believe, however, that such an amendment
would, to an unacceptable extent, preempt efforts for the more
stringent statewide standards of AB 1634.
AB 1634
Page 7
Analysis Prepared by : Chuck Nicol / APPR. / (916) 319-2081