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