BILL ANALYSIS
AB 1634
Page 1
ASSEMBLY THIRD READING
AB 1634 (Levine)
As Amended May 15, 2007
Majority vote
BUSINESS & PROFESSIONS 7-3 APPROPRIATIONS 10-6
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Ayes:|Eng, Bass, Carter, |Ayes:|Leno, Davis, DeSaulnier, |
| |Hayashi, Hernandez, | |Huffman, Karnette, |
| |Price, Torrico | |Krekorian, Lieu, Nava, |
| | | |Solorio, Evans |
| | | | |
|-----+--------------------------+-----+--------------------------|
|Nays:|Emmerson, Horton, Maze |Nays:|Walters, Emmerson, La |
| | | |Malfa, Ma, Nakanishi, |
| | | |Sharon Runner |
| | | | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY : Requires all cats and dogs in the state over four
months old to be spayed or neutered unless the owner has been
issued an intact permit, as defined, allowing the animal to
remain unaltered. Specifically, this bill :
1)Prohibits a person from owning or possessing a cat or dog over
the age of four months that has not been spayed or neutered,
unless the person possesses an intact permit, as defined.
2)Defines an intact permit as a document that is issued annually
by local jurisdictions, as described, that authorizes a person
to own or possess within that locality an unaltered cat or dog
that meets the requirements set forth in this bill.
3)Defines spay or neuter as any procedure preformed by a
licensed veterinarian that permanently sterilizes an animal
and makes it incapable of reproduction.
4)Allows an intact permit to be issued if any of the following
conditions are met:
a) The owner demonstrates through specified means that he
or she is doing business and is licensed as a breeder by
the local jurisdiction;
AB 1634
Page 2
b) The owner sufficiently demonstrates, as determined in
the discretion of the local jurisdiction, that his or her
animal is a valid bred that is recognized by an approved
registry or association, and that the animal complies with
at least one of the following:
i) The animal is used to show or compete and has done
so in at least one legitimate show or sporting
competition, hosted by or under the approval of a
recognized registry or association within the last two
years, or is being trained to show or compete and is too
young to have competed; or,
ii) The animal has earned, or if under two years old, is
in the process of earning, a title from an approved
purebred registry or association.
c) The dog is being trained, or is appropriately trained,
and meets the definition of guide dog, service dog or
signal dog;
d) The dog is trained, or is being trained for use by law
enforcement agencies, and is currently used by those
agencies for law enforcement or rescue; or,
e) The owner provides a letter from a California licensed
veterinarian stating that due to age, poor health, or
illness, it is unsafe to spay or neuter the animal.
5)Allows a person up to 75 days from the date the cat or dog
reaches the age of four months to spay or neuter their animal
if a letter is provided from a California licensed
veterinarian indicating that due to age, poor health, or
illness, it is unsafe to spay or neuter the animal at the age
of four months.
6)Provides that if a person is found in violation of the
provisions of this bill, he/she shall be subject to a civil
penalty of $500 for each animal in violation.
7)Allows the civil penalties imposed for violating the
provisions of this bill to be waived if verification is
provided that the animal has been spayed or neutered.
AB 1634
Page 3
8)Requires that if a previously permitted intact animal no
longer meets the criteria for an intact permit, the animal
must be spayed or neutered.
9)Provides that any person in possession of any document issued
by a local jurisdiction that permits the owner to possess an
unaltered cat or dog shall be deemed in compliance with the
provisions of this bill until the document expires, or on
January 1, 2009, whichever occurs first.
10)Provides that the fee for an intact permit shall be
determined by the local jurisdiction and must be no more than
what is reasonably necessary to fund the administration of
that jurisdiction's intact permit program.
11)Requires a local jurisdiction to waive the intact permit fee
for an unaltered cat or dog that meets the requirements for a
service dog, as defined, and a law enforcement dog, as
defined, and allows the local jurisdiction to waive all or
part of the intact permit fee for an unaltered animal that is
unable to be safely spayed or neutered and has the specified
documentation from a veterinarian.
12)Provides that any civil penalties collected pursuant to the
provisions of this bill shall be used for funding the
administration, outreach and enforcement activities set forth
therein and that all permit fees collected shall be used for
funding the administration of the permit program in the local
jurisdiction in which the permits are issued.
13)Requires, to the extent that funding is available pursuant to
this bill, a local animal control agency to establish a free
and low-cost spay and neuter program for low-income
individuals, and requires the local animal control agency to
make outreach efforts to inform qualified persons about these
programs.
14)States that this bill shall not prohibit a local jurisdiction
from adopting and enforcing a more restrictive spay and neuter
program provided that the program allows for the temporary or
permanent exemption from the spay and neuter requirements for
law enforcement dogs, service dogs and animals that can not be
safely altered due to age, poor health or illness.
AB 1634
Page 4
15)Exempts from the provisions of this bill any owner of a cat
or dog that is not a resident of California if the owner
provides proof, as determined by the local jurisdiction, that
the animal is temporarily in California for training, showing,
or any other legitimate reason, as determined by the local
jurisdiction.
16)Provides that the provisions of this bill shall go into
effect April 1, 2008.
EXISTING LAW :
1)Establishes that it is the policy of the state that no
adoptable animal should be euthanized if it can be adopted
into a suitable home and that no treatable animal, as defined,
should be euthanized.
2)Allows cities and counties to enact dog breed-specific
ordinances pertaining only to mandatory spay and neuter
programs and breeding requirements, provided that no specific
dog breed, or mixed dog breed, shall be declared potentially
dangerous or vicious under those ordinances.
3)Requires counties that have a population exceeding 100,000
persons, and cities within those counties, to prohibit the
sale or give away of any dog from specified animal control
agencies and shelters that has not been spayed or neutered.
FISCAL EFFECT : According to the Assembly Appropriations
Committee:
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 this bill's provisions will be
conducted by local animal control agencies in the course of
performing their existing enforcement duties, and generally on
a complaint-driven basis.
2)Potential savings: To the extent conformance with this bill's
requirements reduces the number of cats and dogs impounded to
animal shelters, local governments could realize operational
AB 1634
Page 5
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, Statutes of 1998, increases, 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
10 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. (This 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.) AKC notes
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
AB 1634
Page 6
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 this bill 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 of this bill: According to the author's office, each
year almost one million unwanted and abandoned cats and dogs
are born in California. Local governments spend more than
$250 million each year to intake, care for, and ultimately
kill over half of those animals. The author states that
"legislation requiring spay 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 author, "reducing the number of births of
unwanted animals in the state of California will necessarily
reduce the state's costs associated with caring for and
euthanizing those same 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 ten-year period. 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."
2)Support: According to the Southeast Area Animal Control
Authority, this bill "provides a reasonable solution to
AB 1634
Page 7
California's pet overpopulation problem by targeting the
biggest contributors to pet overpopulation: irresponsible
breeders. It will not, as many opponents have declared, put
an end to purebred dogs and cats. Rather, it will ensure that
only those people who have a legitimate reason for having an
intact dog or cat - purebred or not - will be exempt from the
spay/neuter requirement."
The Executive Director from the Silicon Valley Animal Control
Authority writes in support that as a former employee of the
Santa Cruz SPCA, he saw first hand the success local
spay/neuter ordinances can have in reducing the euthanasia
rate. In regards to the Santa Cruz ordinance he writes, "The
ordinance allowed us to 'get tough' with backyard breeders and
force them to alter their animals and thereby reduce the
numbers entering our shelter. Without this ordinance, some
people would have continued to irresponsibly breed unwanted
animals. Without this tool the animals would have ultimately
become a euthanasia statistic."
The Coalition for Cats and Dogs in a letter of support states,
"?a breeding permit is no more difficult to comply with than a
license or proof of rabies vaccination. If any dog or cat
breeder claims to be a 'responsible' breeder, ask them to
prove no puppy or kitten they have sold has ever accidentally
bred, and if so how many of those offspring went on to bred,
and so on. Ask the breeders if they pay income taxes on the
animals they sell, ask them if they collect sales tax. Ask
hunters why there are so many Labrador Retrievers and lab
mixes being killed in shelters. Ask the ranchers why there
are so many cattle dogs being killed in shelters."
3)Opposition: Many opponents of this bill 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 that the provision allowing an intact
permit for locally licensed breeders does not allow for
California hobby breeders and others to be included.
Landesverband DVG America, Inc., 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
AB 1634
Page 8
have business licenses of this sort.
The Northern California Pug Club writes, "?these regulations are
targeted at responsible animal owners - those who license
their pets and comply with local laws. San Mateo County found
that punitive intact animal license fees actually resulted in
a reduction in revenue, as fewer pet owners complied with
licensing laws." The Las Flores Cat club continues, "Hobby
cat and dog breeders of California are not the cause of the
overpopulation problem in shelters or stray cats on the
street?We believe this will have negative consequences for pet
owners, breeders and local jurisdictions in the state ?[and]
will actually increase specifically the current 'unowned cat'
problem that most of our shelters suffer from. More animals
will be turned into shelters or left abandoned. Who will take
in a pregnant cat if there is a $500 fine for not possessing
an intact permit?"
North American Police Work Dog Association (NAPWDA) states that
the current exemption in this bill for law enforcement
officers in inadequate. NAPWDA explains, "Most of the
breeding dogs that create working police dogs are not
themselves police dogs, but are bred and used in the
protection dog sports where their working abilities are
tested. These dogs are pet dogs under the law. Because they
themselves are not police dogs they would not be eligible for
an intact permit under this exemption." NAPWDA continues,
"Nearly all working dogs were once somebody's pet dog. They
were bought as a young pup, raised, but were rehoused as young
adults. If they pass all the working and health tests,
eventually they may end up with a police department. Few of
these dogs come with registration papers. Because working
police dogs spent their first year or two of life as
somebody's pet dog, there is no way to create a bright line in
the law between the future supply of police dogs and other pet
dogs."
Analysis Prepared by : Tracy Rhine / B. & P. / (916) 319-3301
FN: 0000730