California Lawmaker Drops Tough Spay-Neuter Stance
Jim Sanders
Sacramento Bee
June 26, 2008
No stray, no spay.
A California assemblyman Wednesday officially abandoned a yearlong push to require nearly every dog and cat statewide to be spayed or neutered, opting to target problem pets instead.
Assemblyman Lloyd Levine narrowly won approval by the Senate Local Government Committee, 3-2, of a vastly different approach designed not to affect pets that stay home and behave themselves.
"It doesn't make a criminal out of law-abiding citizens," Levine, D-Van Nuys, said of his recrafted Assembly Bill 1634.
"I guess I would sum it up as 'three strikes' for dogs and cats," Levine said of his new proposal, which would require spaying or neutering only after multiple complaints of misbehavior.
Opponents argued that the state should kill AB 1634 and let cities and counties decide what restrictions, if any, to impose.
"This is a punishment looking for a crime," said Bill Hemby, leader of the Pet PAC, a coalition of animal owners and breeders.
Levine said his ultimate goal is to reduce the 300,000 euthanizations at public animal shelters each year by pushing owners to spay or neuter their pets.
Under AB 1634, animal control officers investigating a complaint of a separate offense could cite a pet owner for failure to spay or neuter as well.
First offenses for failure to spay or neuter would be punishable by a $50 fine, which would be waived for pets that subsequently undergo the procedure.
Penalties for second offenses would differ depending upon whether the animal were canine or feline.
For cats, a second citation would require mandatory spaying or neutering.
For dogs, a $100 fine would be imposed for a second offense and mandatory spaying or neutering for a third citation.
AB 1634 specifies that excessive noise or barking is not adequate to trigger the fines or mandatory surgery.
Though animal control officers could not issue a citation for failure to spay or neuter unless there were a complaint of misbehavior, the complaint would not have to be proved true to trigger the spay or neuter sanction.
Opponents argued that Levine's bill could open the door to frivolous complaints seeking to hurt someone by targeting pet ownership rights.
"What difference does it make whether or not the animal is spayed or neutered if the complaint is not true?" asked Sen. Dave Cox, R-Fair Oaks, who voted against AB 1634.
"This bill just runs roughshod over the rights of pet owners," Hemby said.
Levine agreed Wednesday to amend his bill so that animal control officers would have discretion in issuing citations.
Levine disagreed that AB 1634 would be exploited by troublemakers but said those cited could appeal to local authorities as they do for nuisance, building code or other violations.
"It's not as if we're suddenly going to see a flood of complaints," he said.
AB 1634 now goes to the Senate Appropriations Committee.
