BILL ANALYSIS SB 250 Page 1 Date of Hearing: July 15, 2009 ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS Kevin De Leon, Chair SB 250 (Florez) - As Amended: May 28, 2009 Policy Committee: Business and Professions Vote: 6 - 4 Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program: Yes Reimbursable: No SUMMARY This bill restricts the ownership of unsterilized dogs and cats and requires surgical sterilization of the animal in specified circumstances. Specifically, this bill: 1)Prohibits a person from owning, keeping, or harboring an unsterilized dog, unless they have obtained an unaltered dog license. 2)Prohibits a person from allowing their cat to roam at large unless they have been sterilized or the individual has obtained a certificate of sterility. 3)Requires an owner 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. 4)Requires the owner of an unsterilized dog or cat that has been impounded to have the animal sterilized or provide proof of sterility when retrieving the animal. 5)Authorizes local governments to sterilize any unaltered cat or dog that is picked up in violation of a local animal control ordinance and to charge the owner of the pet for the cost of the surgery. 6)Exempts from the requirements of this bill any dog or cat with a high likelihood, due to age or infirmity, of suffering serious bodily harm or death if surgically sterilized and the SB 250 Page 2 owner or custodian shall obtain written confirmation of this fact from a veterinarian licensed in this state. 7)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. FISCAL EFFECT 1)The state's animal adoption mandate currently costs more than $20 million annually to reimburse local government shelters' cost to care for impounded animals. Requiring owners of cats and dogs to sterilize their animals or pay for a more expensive unsterilized animal license, could result in more animals being abandoned or surrendered because of the owner's inability to afford sterilization or increased fees and fines. Under the current mandate, the state only reimburses shelters for the cost of caring for animals that are euthanized, not for the cost of caring for animals that are ultimately adopted. While exact figures are not available, studies show that at least 60% of animals that enter shelters are ultimately euthanized. A modest two percent increase in shelter costs could result in $400,000 in additional GF costs. 2)To the extent conformance with the bill's requirements, eventually reduces the number of cats and dogs impounded to animal shelters, local governments could realize operational savings and thus may reduce the GF reimbursement for the local mandate over the long term. 3)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 a complaint-driven basis. 4)One of the items under discussion in the 2009-10 budget is suspending the current animal adoption mandate which requires local animal shelters to hold their pets for four to six days before euthanizing them. If that mandate is suspended, there would likely be no potential GF costs or savings associated with this legislation for 2009-10. COMMENTS SB 250 Page 3 1)Purpose . According to the author, it costs California taxpayers approximately $250 million each year to house and euthanize dogs and cats. The author contends that part of the problem is that there are few incentives for pet owners to license their animals - which would ensure fewer lost or roaming pets. In addition, local animal shelters are overwhelmed by the state's pet overpopulation problem (approximately one million dogs and 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. The author believes that SB 250 would help reduce the number of unwanted pets that roam the streets and end up in shelters, as well as encourage responsible pet ownership by requiring owners to license and sterilize their animals or purchase an unaltered license if they intend to keep their pets intact. 2)Existing Spay/Neuter Programs . In 1995, the county of Santa 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. Supporters of this bill provided information showing that by 2003, intake of cats and dogs into Santa Cruz county shelters declined by 60% and the number of euthanized animals declined by 75%. 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 SB 250 Page 4 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)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." 4)Arguments in Opposition . In opposition to the bill, the 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 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." 5)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. 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. That bill failed passage on the Senate Floor. SB 250 Page 5 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. Analysis Prepared by : Julie Salley-Gray / APPR. / (916) 319-2081