PIJAC Perspectives

Mandatory Spay/Neuter Bill No Longer "Intact"

By Marshall Meyers
Executive VP, PIJAC

Marshall Meyers

Legislation mandating statewide spaying or neutering of dogs and cats turned into one of the most controversial issues confronting Sacramento legislators in years. Assemblyman Lloyd Levine, following significant opposition during the Senate Local Government Committee’s July 11 hearing, chose not to pursue AB 1634 this year but vowed to bring it back with more amendments during the 2008 Session. Last ditch attempts to salvage the bill by narrowing its scope to remove its statewide mandate was not persuasive. Senator Dave Cox commented "If you're talking about taking amendments this morning on the fly, that's not acceptable to me." Levine wanted to amend the Bill during the hearing by requiring sterilization after a dog or cat was brought to the attention of animal control officers for being vicious, improperly kept or some other offense.

The Hearing was preceded by aggressive campaigns by supporters and opponents alike -- press conferences, TV ads, and massive letter writing campaign by diverse groups, resulted in more than 20,000 people contacting California legislators voicing their support or opposition. Both sides used TV ads, colorful websites and blogs as well as celebrities to get their messages across.

The proponents called on Bob Barker of The Price is Right and avid animal rights supporter to run ads and attend a Press Conference in Sacramento. Opponents held rallies on the Capitol lawn, press conferences, ran TV ads and were joined by Lassie at the State Capitol to attend a press conference and attend the hearing to hear his fate! He never had to growl! National media coverage joined both sides of the debate.

Recognizing the "interest" in the issue, the Committee scheduled a special 8 am hearing to allow both sides sufficient time to present their views. The hearing was attended by an overflow crowd that filled two large hearing rooms, the halls and the Capitol's two cafeterias.

The bill, first introduced in February 2007 and amended 8 times before the Hearing, would have required dogs and cats to be sterilized before they are 6 months old, unless they meet one of several exceptions in the bill that would allow pet owners the ability to obtain an "intact permit." Violators would be subject to the equivalent of a "fix-it ticket," requiring them to comply within 30 days or be fined $500.

The bill contained a number of exceptions for breeding various kinds of animals, such as purebreds that participate in shows, or animals used for police, service, guide or herding purposes. AB 1634 would have allowed local officials to issue “intact permits” allowing households to have one litter of mixed-breed puppies though the language was so poorly crafted that it was far from clear who fit within the one litter rule. Dogs and cats could be eligible for a health exemption if a veterinarian said their pet should not be sterilized because of age, illness or poor health.

Critics argued that AB 1634 stripped responsible pet owners of their rights to make a choice on managing their pets; show breeders as well as breeders of service dogs and police dogs could not meet the criteria for exemptions; that the law would be virtually unenforceable. As an unfunded mandate, local jurisdictions would have to set permit fees high enough to cover the cost of implementing the program. And each jurisdiction could adopt stricter restrictions!

The following detail is provided so that people can understand the issue more clearly:

All dogs or cats would have to be sterilized by the age of 6 months unless the proposed activity fits within one of several exemptions. The age could be increased to 12 months for “health reasons” if agreed to by a veterinarian. Only a few exceptions would be permitted.
One exception would apply to certain breeders (show animals, police dogs, service dogs) if they obtained an “annual intact permit” for each unaltered animal. Part of the problem – no owner would know by 6 months if their animal would meet the criteria.
Owners of mixed breed dogs would be allowed to breed one male and one female ONE time for ONE litter if before 2012 AND their local jurisdiction would allow such breeding. The July 3 amendment reversesa proposed prohibition on selling offspring.
USDA Animal Welfare Act licensees would be exempt.

While PIJAC obtained an exemption for Animal Welfare Act dealers, the most recent iteration created further restrictions raising serious issues involving discriminatory treatment by type of owner/activity.PIJAC advised Assemblyman Levine that while the 8th iteration of the bill addressed a number of PIJAC concerns, "the proposed language continues to adversely impact local, non-commercial breeders, both purebred and mix-breeds, who are a valuable source for the majority of puppies and kittens in California by establishing a very discriminatory permit system."

PIJAC questioned how AB 1634 would to reach its desired goals without adversely impacting the industry’s customers; without being discriminatory; and by stripping them of the right to sell or adopt for a fee the progeny allowed under the 1 litter rule.

Support slowly eroded as several governmental agencies and welfare groups "altered" their positions. The California Veterinary Medical Association, one of the initial sponsors, went neutral following significant opposition within their membership. To see the caliber of the pro-groups visit http://www.cahealthypets.com/home.htm and www.cahealthypets.com.

For groups opposing AB 1634, visit www.akc.org, www.cfa.org, www.naiaonline.org, http://saveourdogs.net/, www.noonab1634.com, www.ab1634.com, www.petpac.org and www.cdoca.org.

Historically, PIJAC has limited its governmental affairs initiatives to dealing with pet store and commercial breeder issues, not individual pet owner issues. PIJAC worked with several pet owner groups to help them understand various versions AB 1634. PIJAC has been somewhat reluctant to actively join in the battle to avoid anti-industry accusations of rank commercialism as the driving force behind industry's opposition. Other accused PIJAC of sitting in the sidelines to protect out-of-state commercial breeders who would be the future suppliers of puppies/kittens in California. And a number of PIJAC members avoided becoming embroiled either in opposition or support because of concerns that they would become targets of radical groups on either side of the debate.

Visit www.pijac.org to obtain a copy of PIJAC's PetAlert for far more detailed information on AB 1634, copies of the most recent version of the bill, PIJAC Opposition letter, and any updated news. If you would like to discuss this bill with PIJAC, please contact Marshall Meyers at meyers@pijac.org or call 1-202-452-1525.