It took 13 amendments to kill AB1634, so I guess we are making progress. SB250 has been amended yet again. Either someone is reading our analysis or is reaching some of the same conclusions. The bill is still ridiculously punitive, but the most ridiculous part has been deleted.

Under previous versions of the bill your intact licenses could be denied or revoked at any time, forever, at the whim of local animal control for just being cited for violation of an animal control law or “being neglectful” of your animals. Just get a ticket, even if you are later found not guilty, and you can never have an intact dog again. Under the latest amendments, you at least have to be found guilty and the vague “neglectful” clause has been struck.

Still, be found guilty even once and you can never confidently own an intact dog ever again. One violation and forever after your local animal control can deny or revoke your intact dog permits at any time. No one can have intact dogs under those conditions. Suppose your county unknowingly hires an animal rights whacko as head of animal control. The ARista revokes and denies all intact licenses, including yours. Maybe he/she is fired six months later but it’s too late, your dogs have already been surgically sterilized. It’s not possible to reattach the parts even if they decide to give you back your licenses.

This will cost local jurisdictions money. If you get a citation for some minor infraction, you won’t just pay the ticket. You’ll hire an attorney and appeal any adverse decision all the way to the Supreme Court. One ticket is a death sentence. Rather than pay the ticket and go on, you have to fight tooth and nail every step of the way. If you loose you either get out of dogs or leave the state.

Older dogs sometimes lose control of their anal sphincter and unknowingly have accidents. So you are taking your senior dog for a walk in the park. He accidentally poops without you seeing it. An animal control officer sees you walk away from a poop on the sidewalk and gives you a citation. Prior to SB250 you’d just pay the ticket. You are probably guilty. You didn’t actually see the dog poop so you don’t know for sure, but it’s $50 or whatever so you just pay. After SB250 you hire an attorney. If the county can’t prove via DNA testing that the poop came from your dog, you won’t pay and you’ll fight to show the DNA test was invalid. You will spend whatever it takes because the alternative is forever being at the mercy of whoever is in charge at animal control that day. One violation and your intact permits can be denied or revoked forever.

Instead of getting a check for $50 in the mail, the county will have to hold a hearing, and maybe an appeal hearing, and go to court, and appellate court, etc. In the end the county will pay thousands in staff costs to collect one $50 fine. It’s only $50 to the county, but it is your life with your dogs to you so you’ll do whatever it takes.

There is some language that partially exempts some hunting dogs. If you have a hunting license and you are using your dog to legally hunt mammals, your dog cannot be considered running at large under section (e). This is disappointing. It doesn’t cover all working dogs. It doesn’t even cover all hunting dogs. What is so special about dogs hunting mammals that makes it necessary to exempt them in this special way? We know a fair bit about hunting dogs and we can’t think of a thing that is unique to dogs hunting mammals. If this bill is bad for those dogs (and it is) then it is equally bad for many other dogs. Save Our Dogs opposes forced sterilization for all dogs. We speak from the perspective of working dogs but we do not seek and will not support exemptions for working dogs.

The hunting dog “exemption” is in practice meaningless because you are still subject to having their intact permits revoked for any animal control law violation. A dog running at large is a violation of various local animal control laws. The “exemption” only applies to section (e)(1)(A) of SB250. It does not apply to local leash laws. So you are out hunting mammals. Through a combination of circumstances your dog is picked up for running at large. Section (e)(1)(A) doesn’t exempt you from the local leash law so you are found guilty. You have violated a local animal control law so your local animal control agency revokes your intact permits under section (b)(2) and you must surgically sterilize your dogs.

Section (g) of previous versions of the bill specifically stated that the owner of an impounded dog had to pay all sorts of costs to get the dog back. These amendments try to disguise that dog killing provision with vague language.

The owner or custodian shall comply with any additional impoundment procedures.

Of course what this means in practice is that the owner must pay to get the dog back. Any law that impounds owned dogs or increases the cost of redeeming impounded dogs will kill dogs. Around 80% of owned dogs that are forcibly impounded are ultimately killed. Taking dogs from their owners is a death sentence. Increasing the costs to redeem a dog, especially with an 11% statewide unemployment rate, will kill dogs.

We fail to see the point of this bill. There is no action that is currently legal that SB250 makes illegal. All it appears to accomplish is give local animal control the power to forcibly spay/neuter as many dogs as possible. What it does do is make responsible pet owners afraid of their local animal control agency. This will reduce licensing compliance. It will increase the cost of enforcement. Fewer dogs will be adopted because the public will avoid contact with the shelters. More dogs will be impounded. More dogs will be killed. SB250, The Pet Owner Punishment Act, just kills dogs.

SB250 was amended April 21, 2009. This version of the bill is not fundamentally different from the bill as introduced or as amended April 21. There is some minor rewording and reorganization but no important changes. The most notable change is that the language about dogs and the language about cats have been separated. The sections of the bill pertaining to cats is now consolidated at the end.

In the April 15 hearing, Senator Wiggins stated that there were serious problems with the bill and forced Senator Florez to accept some amendments. Those amendments are reflected in this new version of the bill. Unfortunately Senator Wiggins’s amendments did not make any meaningful changes in the impact of the bill if it becomes law. She (or her staff) did not recognize the enormous harm contained in section (c). The amendments changed section (e) (formerly section (g)) to restrict it to five specific offenses. This doesn’t matter as section (c) still gives Animal Control the power to force you to spay or neuter your dogs almost without limit.

The following is repeated from our analysis of the April 2 version of the bill.

In spite of the all the complex language, the bill is really very simple.

SB250 is the Pet Owner Punishment Act

There may be some odd corner cases, but overall no new infractions are imposed on dog owners. But the new penalties for existing infractions. Holy Cow! One misstep and for the rest of your life, your dogs are subject to mandatory spay/neuter at the whims of your local animal control agency. Get cited for a barking dog, even if you were out of town and the dog was with you, then for the rest of your life, at any time, AC can swoop in and force you to spay/neuter your dogs. You can’t even sell your dogs or give them away. You must shell out $300 plus to have each and every one spayed or neutered. Or turn them over to the pound to kill. The only new legal requirement is that an unlicensed intact dog that is impounded, must be spayed or neutered, at the owner’s expense, before the dog can be released. And of course that additional $300 plus cost of spay/neuter wouldn’t prevent anyone from reclaiming their dog would it? SB250 will kill dogs.

Here are the two critical points:

First: The bill requires that every dog be licensed “pursuant to Section 121690″ or as required by the local jurisdiction. That’s just the normal dog license you are already required to get. State law requires that the license for an intact dog cost at least twice as much as for a spayed or neutered dog.

Second:

(c) An unaltered dog license may be denied or revoked for one or more of the following reasons:
[omitted]
(c)(2) The licensing agency has issued one citation verified by the agency
pursuant to existing policies and procedures that the owner,
custodian, applicant, or licensee has allowed a dog to be stray or
run at large or has otherwise been found to be neglectful of his or
her or other animals.
(c)(3) The owner, custodian, applicant, or licensee has been
previously cited for violating a state law, or a city, county, or other
local governmental provision relating to the care and control of
animals.

That pretty much covers it. You have to have an intact license and if you have ever been cited for an animal violation or “been found to be neglectful of [your] other animals” your intact licenses can be denied or revoked. At any time. For all of your dogs. Forever.

If that weren’t bad enough here’s the real horror. You don’t even have to be found guilty of the violation you were cited for. Just receiving the citation alone is enough to drop the ax. Here’s the definition of “citation”.

citation

n. 1) a notice to appear in court due to the probable commission of a minor crime such as a traffic violation, drinking liquor in a park where prohibited, letting a dog loose without a leash, and in some states for possession of a small amount of marijuana. Failure to appear can result in a warrant for the citee’s arrest.

A citation is just a notice to appear in court. No requirement that you were ever found to have actually been in violation of any law. So even if you were found innocent of the charges in a citation, you are still guilty under SB250. And you have to have an intact license to sell or give away a dog. So your only choices are to pay to spay/neuter or dump the dog at the pound.

The other disaster in the bill is this:

(h) If an unlicensed unaltered dog or cat is impounded pursuant
to state or local law, in addition to satisfying applicable
requirements for the release of the animal, including, but not
limited to, payment of impound fees pursuant to this section, the
owner or custodian shall also do one of the following:
[omitted]
(2) Have the dog or cat spayed or neutered by a veterinarian
associated with the licensing agency at the expense of the owner
or custodian. That expense may include additional fees due to any
extraordinary care required.
(3) Arrange to have the dog or cat spayed or neutered by another
veterinarian licensed in this state.

So when an unlicensed, intact dog ends up in the shelter, and the owner comes to pick him up, not only does he get to pay all the existing fees. He must pay to have the dog spayed or neutered. In this economy a lot of people may not be able to afford that additional $300 plus. They might just tell the shelter to keep the dog. Now that’s another dog ripped from his home to either be adopted or killed.

This bill is just about punishing people and killing dogs. Nothing more. As dog trainers we know that rewards work far better than punishment. Too bad the backers of this bill are still in the jerk and choke era of training. Punishment builds resentment and fear. Rewards build cooperation and confidence. In both dogs and people.

For years, California’s supporters of mandatory spay/neuter laws have proclaimed that Santa Cruz County’s 1995 MSN ordinance  is the “model for the state”.  Yet they never compare Santa Cruz County’s shelter stats to neighboring jurisdictions, or to California’s leaders in reducing shelter killing.  That’s because on a per capita basis

• Santa Cruz County’s euthanasia rates are higher than those in nearby counties such as Santa Clara, Alameda, Contra Costa, and Marin — none of which have mandatory spay/neuter laws
• Santa Cruz County’s euthanasia rates are 44% higher than San Diego County’s, which does not have mandatory spay/neuter
• Santa Cruz County’s euthanasia rates are more than 4 times higher than Nevada County’s, which does not have mandatory spay/neuter
• Santa Cruz County’s euthanasia rates are 16 times higher than Calgary’s, the best animal control program in North America, where they also do not have mandatory spay/neuter

Sources: 2007 data from California Department of Public Health, Calgary Animal Services, US Census Bureau

Animal control costs in Santa Cruz County have doubled since they passed mandatory spay/neuter in 1995. More than 10 years after passing their MSN ordinance, “spiraling animal control costs” are causing cities within Santa Cruz County to cancel or threaten to cancel their animal control contracts with Santa Cruz County, according to an investigative report by the Santa Cruz Sentinel.

Santa Cruz County spends a very high $11.92 per citizen for animal control, 74% higher than for California as a whole. If all of California spent that much, the cost of animal control to the state taxpayers would skyrocket; from $249 million to $433 million. California cannot afford the high cost of mandatory spay/neuter.

This morning SB 250 was passed out of the Senate Local Government Committee on a party line 3 to 1 vote. Senator Aanestad was not present. Senator Cox provided the lone NO vote. He has been a reliable opponent of mandatory spay/neuter and we thank him for his continued opposition.

Senator Wolk expressed substantial reservations about the impact on working dogs and extracted a promise from Senator Florez to amend the bill to exempt working dogs. We thank Senator Wolk for her concern for working dogs, but we have our doubts about the approach she has taken.

Senator Kehoe also expressed substantial reservations. She asked for clarification of the actual impact of the spay/neuter law in Santa Cruz. NAIA will be involved in providing that analysis. She also expressed interest in Calgary and we will be working with CDOC to provide her with more information.

Chairwoman Wiggins rightly recognized that the bill is seriously flawed and forced Senator Florez to accept some amendments. Unfortunately those amendments do not in any way reduce the serious harm this bill will cause.

Although disappointing, the outcome was not surprising. Senator Florez is the Majority Leader and one of the most powerful members of the state legislature. As we discovered in the early days of AB 1634, the process is driven more by political horse trading than by the merits of the bill. Had the vote been on the merits of the bill, comments from the senators suggest it probably would have been defeated 3 to 1 or even 4 to nothing. Instead Senator Florez made several promises about future amendments and that was enough to get the Democrats to support their leader.

As bad as this bill is, and even with Senator Wiggins’s amendments it is very bad, we believe that we are better positioned than we were at the same point in the process with AB 1634. Several organizations that were just being formed at this time two years ago are well organized and experienced in the legislative process. Save Our Dogs is working closely with CDOC and NAIA. While we don’t agree on everything we have good working relationships with them. Together we form a much stronger opposition than we would separately. We would also like to acknowledge the AKC’s contribution. While AKC is not as active as they were on AB 1634, they have been helpful.

We estimate that opponents of SB 250 outnumbered supporters 10 to 1 at the hearing. For some reason the Committee chose not to acknowledge the public participation in any way. We are confident that the senators could readily see the overwhelming majority of “No on SB 250″ buttons. For those of you who made the trip, our thanks and your presence mattered. All of us are volunteers and your encouragement, thanks, and good wishes help keep us going.

SB250 was amended April 2, 2009. This version of the bill is not fundamentally different from the bill as introduced. There is some minor rewording but no important changes.

I originally wrote a long detailed analysis of the bill, but by the time I finished, I realized it wasn’t necessary. In spite of the all the complex language, the bill is really very simple.

SB250 is the Pet Owner Punishment Act

There may be some odd corner cases, but overall no new infractions are imposed on dog owners. But the new penalties for existing infractions. Holy Cow! One misstep and for the rest of your life, your dogs are subject to mandatory spay/neuter at the whims of your local animal control agency. Get cited for a barking dog, even if you were out of town and the dog was with you, then for the rest of your life, at any time, AC can swoop in and force you to spay/neuter your dogs. You can’t even sell your dogs or give them away. You must shell out $300 plus to have each and every one spayed or neutered. Or turn them over to the pound to kill. The only new legal requirement is that an unlicensed intact dog that is impounded, must be spayed or neutered, at the owner’s expense, before the dog can be released. And of course that additional $300 plus cost of spay/neuter wouldn’t prevent anyone from reclaiming their dog would it? SB250 will kill dogs.

Here are the two critical points:

First: The bill requires that every dog be licensed “pursuant to Section 121690″ or as required by the local jurisdiction. That’s just the normal dog license you are already required to get. State law requires that the license for an intact dog cost at least twice as much as for a spayed or neutered dog.

Second:

(c) An unaltered dog license may be denied or revoked for one or more of the following reasons:
[omitted]
(c)(2)  The licensing agency has issued one citation verified by the agency
pursuant to existing policies and procedures that the owner,
custodian, applicant, or licensee has allowed a dog to be stray or
run at large or has otherwise been found to be neglectful of his or
her or other animals.
(c)(3) The owner, custodian, applicant, or licensee has been
previously cited for violating a state law, or a city, county, or other
local governmental provision relating to the care and control of
animals.

That pretty much covers it. You have to have an intact license and if you have ever been cited for an animal violation or “been found to be neglectful of [your] other animals” your intact licenses can be denied or revoked. At any time. For all of your dogs. Forever.

If that weren’t bad enough here’s the real horror. You don’t even have to be found guilty of the violation you were cited for. Just receiving the citation alone is enough to drop the ax. Here’s the definition of “citation”.

citation

n. 1) a notice to appear in court due to the probable commission of a minor crime such as a traffic violation, drinking liquor in a park where prohibited, letting a dog loose without a leash, and in some states for possession of a small amount of marijuana. Failure to appear can result in a warrant for the citee’s arrest.

A citation is just a notice to appear in court. No requirement that you were ever found to have actually been in violation of any law. So even if you were found innocent of the charges in a citation, you are still guilty under SB250. And you have to have an intact license to sell or give away a dog. So your only choices are to pay to spay/neuter or dump the dog at the pound.

The other disaster in the bill is this:

(h)  If an unlicensed unaltered dog or cat is impounded pursuant
to state or local law, in addition to satisfying applicable
requirements for the release of the animal, including, but not
limited to, payment of impound fees pursuant to this section, the
owner or custodian shall also do one of the following:
[omitted]
(2)  Have the dog or cat spayed or neutered by a veterinarian
associated with the licensing agency at the expense of the owner
or custodian. That expense may include additional fees due to any
extraordinary care required.
(3)  Arrange to have the dog or cat spayed or neutered by another
veterinarian licensed in this state.

So when an unlicensed, intact dog ends up in the shelter, and the owner comes to pick him up, not only does he get to pay all the existing fees. He must pay to have the dog spayed or neutered. In this economy a lot of people may not be able to afford that additional $300 plus. They might just tell the shelter to keep the dog. Now that’s another dog ripped from his home to either be adopted or killed.

This bill is just about punishing people and killing dogs. Nothing more. As dog trainers we know that rewards work far better than punishment. Too bad the backers of this bill are still in the jerk and choke era of training. Punishment builds resentment and fear. Rewards build cooperation and confidence. In both dogs and people.

“No Senator, this is not about saving dogs and cats.”

—Ed Boks, General Manager of Los Angeles Animal Services, testifying before the California Senate in support of mandatory spay/neuter — admitting it doesn’t save lives

Leaders in the shelter reform movement have been saying for years that mandatory spay/neuter laws backfire. Instead of saving animals lives as advertised, these laws actually increase the killing.

Despite the warnings, the city of Los Angeles passed a draconian mandatory spay/neuter ordinance in early 2008. No Kill movement leader Nathan Winograd explains the tragic result here:

Los Angeles Animal Services (LAAS) General Manager Ed Boks made headlines in his support last year of Assembly Bill 1634, California’s mandatory spay/neuter bill when he admitted that the legislation was more about expanding the bureaucratic power of animal control than saving animals. During a legislative hearing, a Senator asked Ed Boks, the General Manager of Los Angeles Animal Services (LAAS) and one of the bill’s chief proponents: “Mr. Boks, this bill doesn’t even pretend to be about saving animals, does it?” To which Boks responded: “No Senator, this is not about saving dogs and cats.”

Not content to wait for the state (which did not pass the measure), Boks convinced the City of Los Angeles to pass its own version. He also demanded more officers to enforce it. The end result was predictable. Almost immediately, LAAS officers threatened poor people with citations if they did not turn over the pets to be killed at LAAS, and that is exactly what occurred. For the first time in a decade, impounds and killing increased—dog deaths increased 24%, while cat deaths increased 35%.

And here:

Since the Cardenas pet killer bill was passed, Los Angeles City shelters have increased the rate of animal killing, the first such increase in better than a decade. And killing is not only up, it is skyrocketing with 35% more cats and 24% more dogs losing their lives. In effect, Cardenas is asking for something that is not possible to do—there is no “success” to report. Instead, the law has been an abysmal failure, something that was not hard to predict.

Here’s the Los Angeles Animal Services – 2008 Statistical Report with the hard data.

This analysis is based on the language of the bill as introduced. We have seen some alternative language, but nothing official. If and when the bill is amended, we will provide an updated analysis.

This bill is very similar to the last amended version of AB1634. It is vague, poorly written, unworkable, will cost the state millions of dollars, and will cause the needless deaths of untold numbers of dogs. Make no mistake, this bill will increase the killing, just like every other mandatory spay/neuter law.

To the best of our understanding an “unaltered dog license” is the same as the license the owner of an intact dog currently gets when paying the state mandated differential license fee, however the bill does not clearly state this. If this is not the case then the state or the local jurisdictions will have to pay to administer another licensing program, further increasing costs.

The only exemption is for health. This means that every intact dog temporarily in the state is in violation, including dogs in transit at airports, dogs entered in dog events, and dogs traveling with out of state owners.

There is no exemption for young dogs. At the moment a puppy is whelped it is in violation. This bill mandates altering neonatal puppies which is arguably animal abuse and a violation of veterinary good practice.

A “custodian” of an intact dog must have an unaltered dog license. Is a boarding kennel a “custodian”? If the dog’s owner has an unaltered dog license for the dog, does that cover the “custodian”?  If not then no intact dog can be legally boarded. If the owner has a dog sitter come to his house, is the dog sitter a “custodian”? If so and if the owner’s license does not cover the dog sitter then dog owners can not travel without their dog.

The conditions under which a license can be denied are vague and inappropriate.

A license can be denied if the owner has two complaints “verified by the agency”. “Verified by the agency” could mean anything. It does not seem to require any process of law. It could mean only that the agency verified that someone complained rather than verified that the facts of the complaint were true and constituted a violation of law.

“Otherwise been found to be neglectful of his or her or other animals” could mean anything. It does not seem to require any violation of law. This imposes altering a dog as punishment for an infraction that has no relationship to the intact status of the dog. If the state considers altering a dog as a punishment, then how can the state expect owners to voluntarily alter their dogs. There is a relationship between repeatedly running at large and altering the dog, but not unspecified “neglectful” actions.

“violating a state law, or a city, county, or other local governmental provision relating to the care and control of animals” again uses altering the dog as a punishment. We cannot support any bill which treats altering the dog as a punishment for an offense unrelated to the animal’s intact status.

“The unaltered dog has been adjudicated by a court or an agency of appropriate jurisdiction to be potentially dangerous, dangerous, or vicious, or to be a nuisance.” The scientific literature on altering aggressive dogs is mixed, however there is no nexus between unspecified “nuisance” behavior and the dog’s intact status. Again this is using altering the dog as a punishment.

“Any unaltered dog license held by the applicant has been revoked.” What if the license was revoked improperly and was later reinstated. It is still grounds to deny a subsequent license.

“the applicant may re-apply for a license upon changed circumstances” The fact that a license has been revoked, that the owner has violated animal control law, or has been complained about twice is a circumstance that cannot change. Once any of these happens that owner has no recourse and should expect to have every future license application denied. This is extreme.

There are no limitations on the conditions under which a license can be revoked. Once revoked the owner is forever subject to having future requests denied.

If the owner cannot get an unaltered dog license, they cannot sell the unaltered dog since an unaltered dog license is required to sell an unaltered dog. This requires that even someone selling an eight week old puppy apply for and receive an unaltered dog license.

Section (i)(1) attempts to mitigate the above by stating that an owner can be punished for not have the required unaltered dog license only if “cited” for any of a list of other violations. This does not change the fact that it is against state law to have an intact dog without an unaltered dog license. The original state seat belt law made it a secondary offense to drive without a seat belt. Although drivers could not be stopped for not wearing a seat belt, it was still illegal. Any suggestion that the excesses of this law are mitigated by this provision is a statement that the law intends dog owners to violate the law. That is bad law and insulting to dog owners.

Many of the specified violations that lead to invoking the license law are unrelated to a dogs intact status. Again this is using the threat of altering the dog or getting an unaltered dog license as a punishment.

Section (j) requires that any owner redeeming an impounded dog must have the dog altered or already have an unaltered dog license. This will result in more dogs remaining in the pound as many owners will not or cannot pay to have their dog altered. As we have seen even successful free/low cost spay/neuter programs are frequently cut back and eliminated. This will result in a disparate impact on low income dog owners.

Section (k) imposes the full cost of impounding an unaltered dog on the owner, again reducing the number of dogs redeemed by their owners due to cost.

The bill is vague. It treats altering a dog as a punishment. Unaltered dog licenses can be forever denied after even one unrelated violation or two “verified” complaints. This punishment is disproportionate to the offense. The owner is not protected by appropriate legal process.

The law seems to expect that many dog owners will be forced to violate it as a matter of course: e.g. travelers visiting the state, owners of newly whelped puppies, etc. This is bad law and only encourages disrespect for the law. It is insulting to dog owners as it implies that they are law breakers who will casually disregard state law.

Most dramatically it will greatly increase the number of dogs surrendered to shelters. Owners who cannot get unaltered dog licenses cannot sell or give away unaltered dogs and if they cannot pay to alter the dog they have no choice but to surrender the dog to the shelter*. Owners of unaltered, unlicensed dogs that are impounded must pay substantial fees and costs to recover the dog. This will result in more dogs being relinquished to the shelter rather than reunited with their owner. There is no exception for dogs impounded through no fault of their owner. In a recent case in NY a man’s car was broken into releasing the intact dog inside. The dog was impounded through no fault of his owner.

[* It is not even clear that an owner can surrender an unaltered dog to a shelter without an unaltered dog license. If shelters are the owners or custodians of the dogs, then perhaps shelters must have unaltered dog licenses for all of the dogs under their control.]

Given the appalling rate at which Kern County shelters kill dogs, this bill will undoubtedly result in many more dogs being killed in Senator Florez’s district.