BILL ANALYSIS
SB 250
Page 1
Date of Hearing: June 30, 2009
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONS
Mary Hayashi, Chair
SB 250 (Florez) - As Amended: May 28, 2009
SENATE VOTE : 21-16
SUBJECT : Dogs and cats. Spaying and neutering.
SUMMARY : Restricts the ownership of unsterilized dogs and cats
and requires surgical sterilization of the animal in specified
circumstances. Specifically, this bill :
1)Requires a dog owner to obtain a license for their dog
pursuant to current law or as required by the local licensing
agency.
2)Prohibits a person from owning, keeping, or harboring an
unsterilized dog in violation of this bill.
3)Requires an owner or custodian of an unsterilized dog to have
the dog sterilized by the age of six months, obtain a
certificate of sterility, or, if provided by an ordinance of
the responsible city, county, or city and county, obtain an
unaltered dog license in accordance with this bill.
4)Exempts from the requirements of this bill any dog with a high
likelihood, due to age or infirmity, of suffering serious
bodily harm or death if surgically sterilized and the owner or
custodian shall obtain written confirmation of this fact from
a veterinarian licensed in this state. Additionally, if the
dog is able to be sterilized at a later date, that date shall
be stated in the written confirmation; however, if the date is
more than 30 days after the date that the owner or custodian
receives that confirmation, the owner or custodian shall apply
for an unaltered dog license pursuant to any applicable city,
city and county, or county ordinance.
5)Authorizes the licensing agency to utilize its existing
procedures or establish procedures for the denial or
revocation of an unaltered dog license and may deny or revoke
a license for one or more of the following reasons:
a) The owner, custodian, applicant or licensee is not in
SB 250
Page 2
compliance with all of the requirements of this bill;
b) The owner, custodian, applicant, or licensee has
violated a state law, or city, county, or other local
governmental provisions relating to the care and control of
animals;
c) Any unaltered dog license held by the applicant has been
revoked for violating a state law, or a city, county, or
other local government provisions relating to the care or
control of animals; and,
d) The license application is discovered to contain a
material misrepresentation or omission of fact.
6)Authorizes the licensing agency to utilize its existing
procedures or establish procedures for any appeal of a denial
or revocation of an unaltered dog license, which appeal
procedure may include written notice of the denial or
revocation and a reasonable opportunity for the owner or
custodian to respond.
7)Authorizes the licensing agency to assess a fee for the
procedures related to the issuance, denial, or revocation of
an unaltered dog license consistent with this bill.
8)Requires an owner or custodian who offers any unsterilized dog
for sale, trade, or adoption at four months of age or older or
the age required by the licensing agency to include a valid
unaltered dog license number with the offer of sale, trade, or
adoption, or shall otherwise state and establish compliance
with this bill, as specified.
9)Specifies that any authorized penalty may be imposed upon an
owner or custodian of an unlicensed, unaltered dog for a
violation of this bill only if the owner or custodian is
concurrently cited for one or more of the following:
a) Permitting the subject dog to roam at large;
b) Failure to provide adequate care for the subject dog in
violation of animal cruelty provisions;
c) Rabies quarantine violations of the subject dog;
SB 250
Page 3
d) Fighting dog activity in violation of the Penal Code, as
specified;
e) Failure to comply with the local jurisdiction's
requirements for the keeping of a dog that has been
adjudicated by a court or an agency of appropriate
jurisdiction to be potentially dangerous, dangerous, or
vicious; and,
f) Failure to possess an unaltered dog license.
10)Requires any owner or custodian of an unaltered dog who is
found to be subject to one of the penalties above to
surgically sterilize the unaltered animal in accordance with
this bill; however, authorizes the licensing agency to utilize
existing procedures on the effective date of this bill for any
appeal of this requirement.
11)Exempts the owner or custodian of an unaltered hunting dog as
specified, and has purchased a hunting license, from being
subject to any authorized penalty for permitting the subject
dog to roam at large.
12)Authorizes the licensing agency to provide the owner or
custodian information as to the availability of sterilization
services for free or at a reduced cost, at the time a citation
is issued.
13)Specifies that if an unlicensed unaltered dog or cat is
impounded pursuant to state or local law, in addition to
satisfying applicable requirements of the release of the
animal, including, but not limited to, payment of impound
fees, the owner or custodian shall:
a) Provide written proof of the dog or cat's prior
sterilization, if conditions cannot or do not make this
assessment obvious to the licensing agency personnel;
b) Have the dog or cat surgically sterilized by a
veterinarian associated with the licensing agency at the
expense of the owner or custodian, which may include
additional fees due to any extraordinary care required;
c) Arrange to have the dog or cat surgically sterilized by
another veterinarian licensed in this state; or,
SB 250
Page 4
d) Pay a refundable deposit, or sign a statement under
penalty of perjury that the dog or cat will be surgically
sterilized within 10 days of the dog's or cat's release, at
the discretion of the licensing agency, as specified.
14)Specifies that the owner or custodian of the unaltered dog or
cat shall be responsible for the established costs of
impoundment, which shall include daily board costs,
vaccination, medication, and any other diagnostic or
therapeutic applications as required by this bill.
15)Specifies that all costs and fines collected pursuant to this
bill shall be paid to the licensing agency for the purpose of
defraying the cost of the implementation and enforcement of
this bill.
16)Specifies that this bill shall not prohibit a local
jurisdiction from enforcing or enacting local measures that
require the spaying or neutering of all dogs and cats, and
does not prohibit a local jurisdiction from enacting or
enforcing other local measures pertaining to the obligations
of a person owning or possessing a dog or cat.
17)Prohibits any person who owns, keeps, or harbors any
unsterilized cat six months of age or older to allow or permit
that unsterilized cat to roam at large.
18)Requires an owner or custodian of an unsterilized cat who
permits that cat to roam at large to have the animal
sterilized, or obtain a certificate of sterility.
19)Exempts these requirements from a cat with a high likelihood,
due to age or infirmity, of suffering serious bodily harm or
death if sterilized, if the owner or custodian obtains written
confirmation of this fact from a veterinarian licensed in this
state, as specified.
20)Requires an owner or custodian who offers any unsterilized
cat for sale, trade, or adoption to notify the licensing
agency, if the jurisdiction requires the licensing of cats, of
the name and address of the transferee within 10 days of the
transfer, including microchip information, as specified.
21)Defines the following terms:
SB 250
Page 5
a) "Licensing agency" means the municipal city or county
animal control agency or other entity responsible for
enforcing laws relating to animals.
b) "Custodian" means any person who undertakes the personal
care and control of a dog or cat, or any person who
intentionally provides care, security, or sustenance for a
dog or cat on the person's property for any period
exceeding 30 days, not including a licensing agency.
c) "Sterilize" means to permanently eliminate the ability
of a dog or cat to reproduce by removing the sex organs or
preventing them from functioning.
EXISTING LAW :
1)Prohibits public pounds and private shelters from selling or
giving away any dog or cat that has not been spayed or
neutered, as specified.
2)Provides, under certain circumstances, for the sale or giving
away of a dog or cat that has not been spayed or neutered upon
the payment of a refundable deposit, as specified.
3)Provides for the imposition of fines or civil penalties
against the owner of a nonspayed or unneutered dog or cat that
is impounded by a public pound or private shelter.
4)Immunizes cities and counties, societies for the prevention of
cruelty to animals, and humane societies from an action by the
owner of a dog or cat for spaying or neutering the dog or cat
in accordance with the law.
5)Makes a violation of any of these provisions an infraction,
punishable as specified.
FISCAL EFFECT : Unknown
COMMENTS :
Purpose of this bill . According to the author's office, "It
costs California taxpayers approximately $250 million each year
to house and euthanize dogs and cats. Part of the problem is
that there are few incentives for pet owners to license their
SB 250
Page 6
animals - which would ensure fewer lost or roaming pets. In
addition, local animal shelters are overwhelmed by the State's
pet overpopulation problem (approximately 1 million dogs & cats
enter our shelters each year) because there are few laws which
discourage over-breeding and no existing laws that encourage
sterilization of non-breeding animals.
"SB 250 would help reduce the amount of unwanted pets that roam
the streets and end up in our shelters and would encourage
responsible pet ownership by requiring owners to license,
sterilize their animals or purchase an unaltered license if they
intend to keep their pets intact."
Background . 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 tough ordinances to curb dog and
cat
overpopulation. Yet despite these efforts and some successes,
California still endures the problems caused by overpopulation.
Not all animal owners are responsible, however. 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.
This bill confronts the problem of dog and cat overpopulation by
imposing strict parameters on the owners of unaltered dogs and
cats..
As the lists of the bill's supporters and opponents shows,
owning and caring for dogs and cats is deeply emotional for many
people. Although most animal owners acknowledge the public
health and public finance problems caused by dog and cat
overpopulation, many oppose government requirements for spaying
or neutering. While there is support for altering abandoned
animals that will be released from public animal shelters, many
oppose the mandatory spaying and neutering of owned animals.
Some owners resent even the existing state and local limits on
how they treat their animals, believing that these decisions are
best left to the owners themselves.
SB 250
Page 7
Arguments in support . The City of Santa Rosa writes in support,
"One of the biggest issues that we face in animal control in
this county, as I am sure in others, is the number of animals
that we need to euthanize, particularly cats. We have tried a
number of voluntary programs and educational programs to
encourage spay/neuter. This bill would provide the City's
animal control contractor, the County of Sonoma, with additional
tools to address this issue."
The People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals writes,
"Allowing cats and dogs to breed and be born into a state
bursting at the seams with homeless animals - who are literally
dying for homes - is not only tragic but also irresponsible.
Overburdened government agencies are forced to respond to the
consequences of dog and cat overpopulation, including a steady
stream of calls about roaming animals, rabies, unwanted litters,
cruelty, neglect, and dangerous dogs. This crisis requires
municipal and county agencies to house, handle, feed, provide
veterinary care for, and eventually euthanize and dispose of
hundreds of thousands of unwanted animals."
Arguments in opposition . The California Outdoor Heritage
Alliance writes in opposition, "SB 250 was recently amended to
provide a limited exemption from its spay and neuter
requirements for unaltered dogs engaged in the lawful hunting of
mammals and certain game birds. While our Alliance appreciates
the efforts of the author to take into consideration the
significant impact for the bill on owners and breeders of
hunting dogs, we believe that the exemption provided is still
far too limited in scope because it only applies to hunting dogs
that are found to be 'at large'; for instance, failure to
purchase an unaltered dog license (for which there is no
monetary limit provided in the bill for the associate fee) could
still require the owner to spay/neuter his or her hunting dog
while subjecting the owner to other penalties."
California Farm Bureau Federation writes, "The specific
challenges created by SB 250 relate to the provision that allows
intact licenses to be denied for owners who have 'violated a
state law, or a city, county, or other local governmental
provisions relating to the care and control of animals.' For
example, a dog guarding livestock that chases away a predator
from the flock may leave the property in that chase and could be
found to be running at large. One violation would be grounds to
deny the dog owner from ever owning dogs for breeding and would
SB 250
Page 8
force the sterilization of dogs that may possess valuable
working traits. Farm Bureau is also concerned about the
potential for overzealous enforcement actions taken against our
members who may leave their dogs in the back of a pickup while
running errands."
Related legislation . AB 241 (Nava) of 2009 makes it a
misdemeanor for an individual or business that buys or sells
dogs or cats to have more than a combined total of 50
unsterilized dogs and cats, as specified. This bill is pending
in the Senate Public Safety Committee.
Previous legislation . AB 1634 (Levine) of 2008 would have
enacted the California Responsible Pet Ownership Act which
specifies that a person who owns a dog or cat that is not
licensed (or is improperly licensed) and that has not been
spayed or neutered may be cited and, if cited, must pay civil
penalties. This bill failed passage on the Senate Floor.
SB 861 (Speier), Chapter 668, Statutes of 2005 allows cities and
counties to enact breed-specific ordinances for mandatory
spaying and neutering and breeding restrictions. Additionally,
this bill provides for increased reporting to the State Public
Health Veterinarian of dog bite data and other information by
local jurisdictions that make use of the authorization provided
by the bill.
SB 1785 (Hayden), Chapter 752, Statutes of 1998 provides that
public and private animal shelters are subject to the same
anti-cruelty statutes as private citizens who take possession of
a stray dog or cat.
AB 1856 (Vincent), Chapter 747, Statutes of 1998 requires all
public animal control agencies or shelters, society for the
prevention of cruelty to animals shelters, humane shelters, and
rescue groups in counties over 100,000 (and cities within those
counties) to spay or neuter any dog or cat that it sells or
gives away.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
Social Compassion in Legislation (sponsor)
A Dog's Life Rescue
SB 250
Page 9
A New Hope Animal Foundation
A Passion for Paws Rescue, Inc.
All Creatures Animal Caring Society
American Tortoise Rescue
Angeldogs Foundation
Animal Advocates Alliance
Animal Alliance
Animal Birth Control Assistance
Animal Legal Defense Fund
Animal Shelter Assistance Program
Animal Shelter Relief Rescue
Animal Welfare Services for Atwater Village
Arf! We Go Pet Care
Bark Avenue Foundation
Basset Hound Rescue
Bay Area Bird Hospital
Bellflower Veterinary Hospital
Beverly Hills Police Department
Bichon Furkids Rescue
California Federation for Animal Legislation
Canine Canyon Ranch
Cat Cause Foundation
Cats at the Studio
Cats in Need
Central Valley Seekers
Chief of Police Richard J. Ehle, Jr., City of Capitola
City Attorney Rockard J. Delgadillo, City of Los Angeles
City of Bell Gardens
City of Fresno
City of Hayward Shelter Volunteers
City of Huntington Park
City of Lathrop, Animal Services Department
City of Long Beach Animal Care Services
City of Palm Desert
City of Richmond Police Department
City of Vallejo
City of Santa Rosa
City of Stockton Animal Control
City of West Hollywood
Community Concern for Cats in Contra Costa County
Contra Costa Animal Services - Volunteer
County of Lake, Department of Animal Care & Control
Delta Paws Animal Rescue
Dog Land Spay and Neuter
Dogs Run Free of Nevada County
SB 250
Page 10
Dogsindanger.com
East Bay Animal Advocates
Feral Cat Coalition
Fieldhaven Feline Rescue
Foundation for the Care of Indigent Animals
Friends of Auburn/Tahoe Vista, Placer County Animal Shelter
Friends of Long Beach Animals
Friends of Madera Animal Shelter
Furry Friends Rescue
Genesis Digital Art Studios
Golden State Humane Society
Happy Critters Guinea Pig Rescue
Happy Tails Pet Sanctuary
Haven of Hope Animal Sanctuary
Hayward Animal Services
Helping out Pets Everyday
Hits Magazine
Home at Last Animal Rescue
Husky Haven of LA
IAG Coffee Franchise, LLC
In Defense of Animals
It's the Pits Rescue
LA Yoga Ayurveda and Health Magazine
Lake Balboa Neighborhood Council
Lancaster Animal Shelter
League of Humane Voters
Long Beach Spay & Neuter Foundation
Madera County Animal Services
Mayor Antonio R. Villaraigosa, City of Los Angeles
Mayor Keith Bohr, City of Huntington Beach
Mayor Maggie Houlihan, City of Encinitas
Muttville
Norcal Boxer Rescue
North Bay Animal Advocates
North Coast Animal Welfare Advocacy Center
Northern California Animal Rescue Friends
OCPoundhounds Small Breed Rescue
Pacific Yoga and Ayurveda
Pact, Inc.
PAL Humane Society
Paw Parent
Pawed
People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals
Pet Rescue Center
Pet Sitters I.N.C.
SB 250
Page 11
Pet Welfare Proposition
Pets Lifeline, Inc.
Photo Research
Poinsie Pets
Pomeranian Rescue Group
Pooses & Pups Rescue
Positive Pet Parenting Saves Lives
Producers Guild of America
Propp Productions
Purrfect Partners Cat Adoptions
Re/Max Elite Team
Resqcats, Inc.
Resqpet Dog Rescue
Rosedale Animal Rescue
Safe Cat Foundation
Samson PR
San Diego Animal Support Foundation
San Diego House Rabbit Society
Santa Cruz SPCA
Save a Dog Today
Save Tehachapi's Orphaned Pets
Scooter's Pals
Seal Beach Animal Care Center
Seaside Realty
Second Chance Pet Adoptions
Self, Family and Furry Friends Rescue
Senior Citizens for Humane Legislation and Education
Sequoia Humane Society
Shelter Animal Advocacy Fund, LA
Shelter Pet Alliance
Silicon Valley Animal Control Authority
South County Animal Shelter Coalition
Southern California Golden Retriever Rescue
Southland Collie Rescue
Southwest Homes and Land
Stockton Police Department
Tails of the City
Take Me Home
The Catherine Fund
The Dog Squad Rescue, Inc.
The Pet Care Foundation
The Pet Place
The Reva Foundation
The Uncommon Canine, Inc.
Tooth Fairy Pet Care
SB 250
Page 12
UCLA People Animal Connection
United Action For Animals
Village Cat Club of Laguna Woods
Voice For the Animals Foundation
Weil Public Relations
Western University Vets for Spay and Neuter
What Animals Tell Us
Wildcare
Windansea Law
Yogafit Inc.
Opposition
Alaskan Malamute Club of America
American Herding Breed Association
American Saluki Association
American Shih Tzu Club, Inc.
American Sighthound Field Association
Bloodhounds West Breed Rescue, Inc., Northern Chapter
Butte County Kennel Club, Inc.
California Airedale Terrier Club Incorporated
California Animal Control Directors Association
California Cattlemen's Association
California Chamber of Commerce
California Farm Bureau Federation
California Outdoor Heritage Alliance
Concerned Dog Owners of California
Dog Judges Association of America
Gold Country English Setter Fanciers
Golden Retriever Club
Golden Retriever Club of Greater Los Angeles
Miniature Schnauzer Club of Northern California
Northern California Siberian Husky Club, Inc.
Peninsula Australian Shepherd Association
PetPAC
Poodle Club of Central California
Saluki Club of America
San Angeles Saluki Club, Inc.
Social Compassion League
Southern California Alaskan Malamute Club
Tally Ho Dawg Walkin' Club
The Animal Council
The Roseville Dog Owners' Group
The Staffordshire Bull Terrier Club of America
Ventura County Dog Fanciers Association
SB 250
Page 13
Vilenzo
West Highland White Terrier Club of California
West Los Angeles Obedience Training Club, Inc.
Yorkshire Terrier Club of America, Inc.
Yosemite Kennel Club
Analysis Prepared by : Rebecca May / B. & P. / (916) 319-3301