BILL ANALYSIS
SENATE LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMITTEE
Senator Gloria Negrete McLeod, Chair
BILL NO: AB 1634 HEARING: 6/25/08
AUTHOR: Levine FISCAL: Yes
VERSION: 6/18/08 CONSULTANT: Detwiler
DOGS AND CATS
Background and Existing Law
The Legislature has declared that the overpopulation of
dogs and cats is "a problem of great public concern,"
noting that overpopulation causes public health problems,
affects local animal control departments, and results in
euthanizing too many cats and dogs (AB 1856, Vincent,
1998).
Local animal shelters must care for stray and impounded
dogs and cats for six days before euthanizing them (SB
1785, Hayden, 1998). In 2008-09, local governments claimed
about $23 million for the costs of this state mandated
local program. The State Department of Public Health
tracks local shelter statistics by requiring local
officials to report rabies cases.
State law requires animal control agencies and shelters to
spay or neuter the dogs and cats that they sell or give
away. For dogs and cats that are injured or too sick to be
spayed or neutered, state law requires the adopter to agree
to have the animal sterilized at a later date and pay a
sterilization deposit. State law requires fines for the
owners of nonspayed or unneutered dogs and cats that are
impounded:
First occurrence: $35.
Second occurrence: $50.
Third and subsequent occurrences: $100.
The funds must be spent for humane education, spaying and
neutering, and administrative costs (AB 1856, Vincent,
1998; SB 1301, Vincent, 2004).
Officials regulate dogs and cats under a mix of state laws
and local ordinances. Some cities and counties have
ordinances that require owners to spay or neuter their cats
and dogs. State law allows cities and counties to adopt
programs to control dangerous dogs that are more
restrictive than state law, but these local ordinances
AB 1634 -- 6/18/08 -- Page 2
can't be breed-specific (SB 428, Torres, 1989). However,
local officials can adopt breed-specific ordinances for
their mandatory spay or neuter programs and breeding
requirements (SB 861, Speier, 2005).
Despite these regulations and despite the availability of
low-cost spay and neuter services, some groups believe that
legislators should do more to reduce the overpopulation of
dogs and cats.
Proposed Law
Assembly Bill 1634 requires the owner of a nonspayed or
unneutered dog or cat that is the subject of a complaint to
be cited and pay a civil penalty in addition to any other
fine, fee, or penalty.
For dogs, the bill specifies these civil penalties:
First occurrence: $50.
Second occurrence for the same dog: $100.
Third occurrence for the same dog: mandatory
spaying or neutering, with the owner paying for the
procedure's cost.
For cats, the bill specifies these civil penalties:
First occurrence: $50.
Second occurrence for the same cat: mandatory
spaying or neutering, with the owner paying for the
procedure's cost.
When issuing a citation, the local animal control agency
must give the animal's owner information about the
availability of spaying and neutering services. The owner
must pay the civil penalty within 30 business days. The
local animal control agency must waive the penalty if,
within 14 days, the animal's owner presents proof from a
veterinarian that the animal was spayed or neutered.
AB 1634 defines a "complaint" as an oral or written
complaint to the local animal control agency that the dog
or cat or its owner has violated state laws relating to
dogs or cats, or any local animal control ordinance. A
"complaint" also includes the observation by an employee or
officer of a local animal control agency of behavior by a
dog or cat or its owner that violates those state laws or
AB 1634 -- 6/18/08 -- Page 3
local ordinances. "Complaint" does not include excessive
noise by dogs or cats, and does not include excessive dog
barking.
The bill allows local officials to adopt more restrictive
ordinances or penalties.
For the owners of impounded nonspayed or unneutered dogs,
AB 1634 increases the existing fines from $35 to $50 on the
first occurrence, from $50 to $100 on the second
occurrence, and from $100 to mandatory spaying or neutering
on the third occurrence. For the owners of impounded
nonspayed or unneutered cats, the bill increases the
existing fines from $35 to $50 on the first occurrence, and
from $50 to mandatory spaying or neutering on the second
occurrence.
AB 1634 prohibits the State Controller from releasing
payments that reimburse local agencies for the state
mandated local costs of impounding stray and abandoned
animals until the Controller determines that the local
agency has complied with the State Department of Public
Health's rabies reporting regulations. The bill declares
that this provision modifies the payment methodology, but
does not suspend the state mandated local program.
Comments
1. Responsible actions . Tackling the problems caused by
dog and cat overpopulation requires the combined efforts of
animal owners, pet breeders, veterinarians, private
organizations, local officials, and state leaders. Many
owners and breeders already control the number and sizes of
their animals' litters. Many veterinarians contribute
their services to free and low-cost spay and neuter
programs. Private organizations actively educate the
public about overpopulation problems and solutions. Local
officials have adopted local ordinances to curb dog and cat
overpopulation. Yet despite these efforts and some
successes, California still endures the problems caused by
overpopulation. AB 1634 confronts the problem of dog and
cat overpopulation by building on the 1998 law that
requires the owners of impounded animals to pay fines if
their pets aren't spayed or neutered. The bill complements
that 10-year old law by imposing civil penalties on owners
AB 1634 -- 6/18/08 -- Page 4
whose animals' behavior generates complaints.
2. Says who ? The 1998 Vincent bill was clear --- if you
dog or cat ended up impounded at the local animal shelter,
you must pay fines that increase with each occurrence.
Like the current law, AB 1634 applies penalties of
increasing severity, but the triggering mechanism is a much
vaguer "complaint" about a dog or cat's behavior. The
bill's definition of "complaint" excludes excessive noise
and barking, but a feuding neighbor's call could still send
the animal control officer to your door. In the real
world, it would be up to the local animal control officer's
discretion to cite the owner. The Committee may wish to
consider whether the bill gives too much discretion to
local animal control agencies over when to cite owners for
their dog or cat's bad behavior.
3. Personal responsibility, public regulation . Owning and
caring for dogs and cats is deeply emotional for many
people. Some pet owners resent even the existing state and
local government limits on how they treat their animals,
believing that these decisions are best left to the owners
themselves. Responsible pet owners and breeders want
what's best for their dogs and cats. Although many owners
acknowledge the public health and public finance problems
caused by unregulated pet overpopulation, they oppose
government requirements for spaying or neutering animals.
But not all animal owners are responsible. Uncontrolled
litters result in inappropriate cross-breeding, feral cats,
and unwanted dogs. Those who fail to take personal
responsibility for their animals create expensive problems
for all taxpayers. AB 1634 offers local officials the
state law they need to focus attention on the dogs and cats
that don't behave.
4. Three big problems . The 1989 Vincent bill identified
three public policy problems that result from uncontrolled
dog and cat overpopulation: public health, public costs,
and unnecessary euthanization. The Legislature declared
that the most effective solution is spaying and neutering.
Some cities and counties already have mandatory spay and
neuter ordinances. The earlier versions of AB 1634 would
have created uniform, statewide program that would have
relied on mandatory spaying and neutering of most dogs and
cats, with limited exceptions. The June 18, 2008 version
AB 1634 -- 6/18/08 -- Page 5
of the bill instead relies on local citations and gradually
increasing civil penalties. The Committee may wish to
consider whether AB 1634 really reduces the number of
unwanted dogs and cats. Will the bill work?
5. By the numbers . For at least 50 years, the State of
California has required local health departments to submit
regular reports on cases of rabies among animals. The
Veterinary Public Health Section of the California
Department of Public Health collects these data into
statewide reports. The state's reporting forms are so
detailed that state officials can track the population of
dogs and cats in local animal shelters. However, the
results are reliable only if all counties report on time.
To improve data collection, AB 1634 postpones paying local
officials for their costs of the state mandated longer
shelter stays until county health officials comply with the
long-standing reporting requirement. With better data, the
public can track the effectiveness of AB 1634.
6. Legislative history . When the Senate Local Government
Committee heard AB 1634 on July 11, 2007, the bill would
have prohibited the ownership of a cat or dog over six
months old unless the animal had been spayed or neutered,
or unless the owner had an "intact permit." Although it
reviewed the bill and took public testimony, the Committee
didn't vote. The June 18, 2008 amendments rewrote AB 1634
by deleting its prior contents and instead inserting the
current language. The Committee will consider the amended
bill at its June 25 hearing.
Assembly Actions
Not relevant to the June 18, 2008 version of the bill.
Support and Opposition (6/19/08)
Support : Infeasible to determine.
Opposition : Infeasible to determine.