Despite the efforts of former game show host Bob Barker, California’s Assembly Bill 1634 has been amended significantly and no longer mandates pet sterilization in most cases.

California Assembly Bill 1634, which would have essentially mandated dogs and cats in the state to be spayed or neutered, was significantly amended in the state’s Senate bill and no longer mandates pet sterilization.

Instead, the bill stiffens penalties for existing laws associated with nonspayed and unneutered dogs and cats. The amendment also strips the bill of its “California Healthy Pets Act” title and shifts the legislation from the Health and Safety Code to the Food and Agricultural Code.

Despite that major revision, opponents of the bill, including the Pet Industry Joint Advisory Council and PetPAC, remain against the legislations, citing concerns regarding due process.

Specifically, the bill would increase the fines to pet owners for intact cats and dogs impounded by animal control agencies from $35 to $50 for the first occurrence.

For dogs, that fine would increase from $50 to $100 for the second occurrence and require spaying or neutering of the dog, at the owner’s expense, on the third occurrence.

Cats would need to be spayed or neutered at the owner’s expense following the second occurrence.

In addition, the amended legislation calls for an additional fine for intact animals when the owner is cited for another animal-related complaint, except for excessive noise or barking. The fines, which would be in addition to fines associated with the original complaint, would be $50 for first occurrence for cats or dogs.

Then, just as with the impound fines, that fine for dogs would be $100 for the second occurrence and require spaying or neutering, at the owner’s expense, on the third occurrence.

Cats would need to be spayed or neutered at the owner’s expense following the second occurrence.

The fines can be waived if the pet owner can present written proof from a licensed veterinarian that the pet was spayed or neutered within 14 business days of the citation.

PIJAC is concerned that the legislation as written does not offer pet owners an opportunity for hearings nor does it provide any exceptions, such as a pregnant animal or other medical condition, to the spay/neuter for repeat offenses.

PIJAC also voices concerns that a mere complaint counts as a strike, and not an actual conviction of the complaint.

Further, PIJAC believes spay/neuter is “too severe” a penalty for a third or second impoundment or complaint.

PetPAC, which was formed last year to defeat the bill when introduced, also expressed concern that the legislation allows non-profit corporations such as humane societies to levy fines and to receive moneys from fines levied, without direct government involvement. Many local jurisdictions in California currently contract out animal control duties to such private organizations.

The amended legislation has been re-referred to the Senate Committee on Local Government, where it is scheduled for a hearing on Wednesday, June 25. PIJAC urges businesses with concerns about the legislation to attend the hearing or contact committee members. It has posted information about the legislation and the committee members on its website. <HOME>

Puppy University Slideshow