BILL ANALYSIS
SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE
Adam B. Schiff, Chairman
1997-98 Regular Session
AB 1856 A
Assembly Member Vincent B
As Amended May 19, 1998
Hearing Date: June 23, 1998 1
Food and Agriculture Code 8
DBM:cjt 5
6
SUBJECT
Dog and Cat Overpopulation: Spaying and Neutering
DESCRIPTION
This bill would require all animal control agencies,
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. If a dog or cat is
injured or too sick to be spayed or neutered, it may be
released to a person who pays a sterilization deposit and
agrees in writing to have the animal sterilized.
For counties with populations under 100,000 (and cities
within those counties), the bill would prohibit the agency
or shelter from releasing a dog or cat that has not been
spayed or neutered, unless the party to whom the animal is
released pays a sterilization deposit and agrees in writing
to have the animal sterilized.
The bill would also impose new fines and penalties upon
owners of unspayed or unneutered dogs or cats which are
impounded by an animal control agency, shelter or society.
The bill would impose a $35 fine upon a first impoundment,
and a $50 fine upon a second impoundment. Upon a third
impoundment, the bill would require the sterilization of
the unspayed our unneutered dog or cat before the animal is
released back to the owner.
The bill would provide that no city, county, animal control
agency or shelter is civilly liable to the owner of a dog
or cat that is spayed or neutered pursuant to the bill.
(This analysis reflects author's amendments to be offered
in committee)
CHANGES TO EXISTING LAW
1. Existing law (Food and Agriculture Code Sections 30503
and 31751) provides that no public pound, society for the
prevention of cruelty to animals shelters, or humane
shelter may sell or give away an unspayed or unneutered
dog or cat, unless it collects a refundable spay or
neuter deposit. It provides that the deposit shall not
be returned unless the owner of the pet provides proof
that the dog or cat has been spayed or neutered within 60
days or six months, depending on the age of the animal.
It provides that the spay or neuter deposit shall not
exceed $40 for dogs and $30 for cats.
This bill would provide that all animal control agencies,
society for the prevention of cruelty to animals
shelters, humane shelters, and rescue groups in cities or
counties over 100,000 must spay or neuter any dog or cat
that it sells or gives away. If a dog or cat is injured
or too sick to be spayed or neutered, it may be released
to a person who pays a sterilization deposit of between
$40 and $75 and agrees in writing to have the animal
sterilized. Any animal so released would be required to
be sterilized within 14 days of the time a licensed
veterinarian determines that it is healthy enough to be
spayed or neutered.
For animal control agencies and animal shelters in
counties with populations under 100,000, and cities
within those counties, the bill would prohibit the
release of a dog or cat that has not been spayed or
neutered, unless the party to whom the animal is released
pays a sterilization deposit of between $40 and $75 and
agrees in writing to have the animal sterilized. Any
animal so released would be required to be sterilized
within 30 days. The bill would provide for civil
penalties of $50 and $100 for submitting false
information relating to sterilization or writing a check
for insufficient funds for a spay or neuter deposit, and
would authorize any animal control officer, humane
officer, police officer, or peace officer to write
citations for those penalties.
2. Existing law authorizes local animal control agencies
to impound free roaming animals under specified
circumstances.
This bill would provide that the owner of an unspayed or
neutered dog or cat that has been impounded must pay a
$35 fine upon a first impoundment and a $50 fine upon a
second impoundment. Upon a third impoundment, the bill
would require the sterilization of the unsterilized dog
or cat before it is released back to the owner. It would
provide that no city or county, society for the
prevention of cruelty to animals, or humane society is
subject to any civil action by the owner of a dog or cat
that is spayed or neutered in accordance with this
provision.
COMMENT
1. Stated purpose: to slow dog and cat overpopulation
This bill has been introduced as part of an effort to
curb dog and cat overpopulation. The author argues that
too many dogs and cats are produced in California, and as
a consequence a high number must be euthanized. He claims
that last year nearly 600,000 dogs and cats were
euthanized in California at an average cost to taxpayers
of $78.12 per animal. The author argues that by reducing
the number of dogs and cats that can reproduce, this bill
will reduce the number that must be killed and reduce the
burden on taxpayers.
The author cites three ways in which this bill will lower
the dog and cat population. By requiring that all
animals that are released by pounds, shelters and rescue
societies in counties with populations over 100,000 are
spayed and neutered, it will reduce the number of
released dogs and cats in those counties that are capable
of reproduction. By increasing sterilization deposits
and fines in counties with populations under 100,000, it
will encourage sterilization without imposing excessive
burdens on shelters in those counties. Lastly, by
sterilizing dogs and cats that are impounded three or
more times, the bill encourages owners not to let their
dogs and cats roam free, and allows for the sterilization
of dogs and cats that habitually roam.
2. Support: bill will close spay and neuter loophole in
large counties; could help save endangered bird species
Numerous humane and animal rights organizations support
this bill. The Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to
Animals, Los Angeles argues that it is very difficult to
enforce spay and neuter deposit agreements and that over
70 percent of people who adopt animals from shelters do
not get their animals sterilized. Instead, they treat
the deposit as an adoption fee and simply absorb the
cost. SPCA, LA also points out that many humane
organizations already spay and neuter all animals prior
to adoption.
Animal Protection Institute claims an additional
consequence of dog and cat overpopulation is an increase
in the number of free roaming and homeless animals, which
heightens the potential for animal abuse. They claim
that "nuisance" animals are often mistreated by people
who lack empathy for their plight and suffering.
The American Bird Conservancy (ABC) claims that
free-roaming cats kill hundreds of millions of birds and
other wildlife each year. They also have a significant
negative impact on populations of endangered birds. ABC
argues that the bill would be a positive step towards the
preservation of those species.
3. Justification for asymmetrical laws for counties over
and under 100,000
This bill would impose two different sets of regulations
relating to the spaying and neutering of dogs and cats:
one for counties over 100,000 and one for counties under
100,000. The author claims that the separate regulations
are necessary because pounds and shelters with
populations under 100,000 generally do not have on-site
veterinarians who can perform sterilization operations.
It can also be difficult to find veterinarians in small
counties who are willing to contract to come on site to
do sterilization operations.
4. Opposition by dog clubs: bill denies due process
rights of dog owners, and is draconian
Numerous dog and cat clubs oppose this bill. They have
three primary concerns. The first is that the provision
requiring the sterilization of dogs and cats that are
impounded three times are too stringent. Sharon Coleman
of the Animal Council argues that some animals are "true
escape artists" and imposed sterilization for those who
are picked up three times is inappropriate. Moreover,
she argues, animals are impounded for a myriad of
reasons: in cases where an owner's house has burned down
or when a natural disaster has occurred, for instance.
The second concern is that the bill would deny the due
process rights of owners. Coleman points out that the
bill does not provide for an administrative hearing of
any kind, and gives civil immunity to shelters who
sterilize "third-strike" animals. Third, several clubs
have argued that statewide spay and neuter mandates are
inappropriate, and that citizens would be better served
if such matters were left to local jurisdictions.
The author responds that requiring sterilization after
the third time a dog or cat has been impounded provides
ample opportunity for owners to mend fences, fix
back-doors, or make other changes that will keep a dog or
cat from roaming free. He is concerned that providing
for an administrative hearing prior to a third offense
sterilization would be overly bureaucratic.
5. Governor's Office of Planing and Research opposition
The Governor's Office of Planing and Research has taken
an opposed unless amended position on this bill. It
argues that spaying and neutering is a policy that should
be emphasized as much as possible, but that the
provisions in this bill are overly restrictive. They
argue that by forcing animal control agencies to spay and
neuter dogs and cats themselves, the bill would be costly
and overly burdensome. They also argue that the decision
to sterilize should be left up to pet owners.
6. Findings and Declarations
This bill makes the following findings and declarations:
"(a) The Legislature finds and declares that
overpopulation of dogs and cats in California is a
problem of great public concern. The overpopulation
causes public health problems, adversely affects city and
county animal control departments, and results in
needlessly euthanized dogs and cats.
(b) It is the intent of the Legislature, by enacting this
act, to reduce the number of unwanted dogs and cats in
California. In order to reduce the number of stray dogs
and cats on the streets, and the number euthanized in
shelters each year, the birthrate must be reduced.
Although the point may seem obvious, humans generally
give birth to a single offspring, while dogs and cats
give birth to litters. Additionally, dogs and cats reach
sexual maturity relatively young and their gestation
periods are comparatively short. The single most
effective prevention of overpopulation among canine and
feline populations is spaying and neutering."
Support: Animal Protection Institute; T Minus 30 Films;
Orange County
Coalition for Pet Population Control; Physicians for Social
Responsibility, LA; SPCALA; A-PAL; County of
Calaveras; State Humane Association of California;
Association of Veterinarians for Animal
Rights; Bob Barker Productions; Coalition to Protect
Animals in Entertainment; In Defense of Animals; Feral Cat
Coalition; United Activists for Animal Rights; Peninsula
Pet Rescue and
Placement League; American Bird Conservancy; Asians for
Humans, Animals and Nature; International Aid for Korean
Animals; Benevolent Animal Rescue Committee; Peninsula Pet
Rescue and Placement League; Spay and Neuter Action
Project; Education and Action for Animals; Pet Adoption
Fund; The
Humane Society of San Bernardino Valley; Lake Elsinore
Animal Friends; Animal Legislative Action Network; Orange
County People for Animals; Animal Emancipation, Inc.;
Actors and Others for Animals; numerous individuals
Opposition: The American Kennel Club; American
Staffordshire Terrier Club;
Irish Setter Club of San Diego; Samoyed Club of America;
Associated Obedience Clubs of Northern California; Golden
Gate Labrador Retriever Club, Inc.; Irish Setter Club of
Southern California; Pet Lovers Protective League; South
Bay Collie Fanciers, Inc.; California Federation of Dog
Clubs; Afghan Hound Club of
California; Antelope Valley Kennel Club; Aztec Doberman
Pinscher Club of San Diego; Bull Terrier Club of
California; Cabrillo Club of California; California Canine
Hikers; Channel City Kennel Club;
Cocker Spaniel Club of San Diego; Diablo Valley German
Shepherd Dog Club; Western Hound Association of Southern
California; Golden Retriever Club of Greater Los Angeles;
Golden Gate Akita Club; Golden State Chow Chow Club;
Golden State Rottweiler
Club; Great Pyrnees Association of Southern California;
Kennel Club of Riverside; Kennel Club of Palm Springs; Kern
Valley Kennel Club; Lake Matthews Kennel Club; Mensona
Kennel Club; Orange Coast Rhodesian Ridgeback Club; Dalane
Golden
Retrievers; Samoyed Club of Los Angeles; San Angeles Saluki
Club; San Joaquin Kennel Club; Santa Maria Kennel Club;
Santa Clara Valley
Kennel Club; Shoreline Dog Fanciers Association; Southern
California Beagle Club; Southland Weimaraner Club; St.
Bernard Club of San Diego; St. Bernard Club of
Southern California;
Western Fox Terrier Breeders Association; Ventura County
Dog Fanciers; Society Collies; Keeshound Club of Southern
California; National
Animal Interest Alliance; Collie Club of America, Inc.; San
Gabriel Valley Collie Club; Simply Corgis; South West
Dog Sports of California; Saga Welsh Springer
Spaniels; The Welsh Springer Club
of America; The Art Network; Pricilla Eiden, Inc.; Balua
Sur Kennel Club; Kayra Kennel; Killija
Labradors; Dalmatian Club of
Southern California; Golden West Fox Terrier Association;
Custom Canines Obedience; Tioka Norwegian Elkhounds;
Bulldog Club of Southern California; BisSchips CB
Schipperkes; JMC Service; CRIS'S K9
Training; Coyote Hills Kennel Club; American Dog Owners
Association, Inc.; ASTRO; The Animal Council; Animal House,
Inc.; Animal Lovers Unlimited, Inc.; Authentic
Bengal Cat League; Bahia Sur
Kennel Club of Chula Vista; Barbary Coast Bull Terrier
Club;Bear County Cattery; Bijou Bleu Cattery; Borzoi Club
of California; The Cat
Care Clinic; The Cat Fanciers Association, Inc.; Del Sur
Kennel Club; Embergain Golden Retrievers; Feather River Dog
Training Club; Fresh Start Victorian Cat Shelter;
Golden Empire Brittany Club; Great Companions Dog
Training; High Desert Cat
Club; Human/ Animal Bond in Society; International Bengal
Cat Club; Just Persians Cat Club; Malibu Cat Club; Mother
Lode Bulldog Club; Nakota Siberians; National Pet Alliance;
Northern California Alaskan Malamute Association; Pet
Pantry; Pups are Us Pet Store; Rowe's La Mesa Pet Hotel;
Sacramento Council of Dog
Clubs; Saluki Club of Greater San Francisco; San Diego Cat
Fanciers; San Francisco Dog Training Club; Sandy Oak
Chesapeakes; Santa Clara Cat Fanciers Association; Sierra
Foothills Dalmatian
Club; Tahoe Bengals; Two Cities Kennel Club; Western
Abyssinian Cat Club; West Shore Shorthair Cat Club
HISTORY
Source: Author
Related Pending Legislation: None Known
Prior Legislation: None Known
Prior Vote: Assembly Committee on Consumer Protection: 9-2;
Assembly Committee on Appropriations: 11-8; Assembly Floor:
43-31
**************