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provisions relating to the care and control of animals; c) Any unaltered dog license held by the applicant has been revoked for violating a state law, or a city, county, or other local government provisions relating to the care or control of animals; and, d) The license application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