The Consequences Of SB 250

• In almost all cases, it will be illegal to own a dog or cat in California that is not spayed or neutered. In this economy, even many people who want to comply with this law could not afford to do so. In many places, sterilization can cost hundreds of dollars, and low-cost programs are not accessible to most low-income Californians. If people try to hide their pets from the law, they face the eventual probability of high fines and the possibility that their pets will be confiscated (they cannot be retrieved from an animal shelter without being in compliance, which is de facto confiscation). Many pets will be abandoned or taken to shelters, where they will die.

• Only dogs that have an “intact permit” would be exempted from sterilization, and counties would not be required to provide these permits. Thus, in some counties, all dogs and cats would have to be sterilized at the medically unsafe age of six months. Since communities that now require intact permits often charge more than $100 per dog, most poor and low-income people could not afford them, as well as many economically stressed people in higher income brackets who are suffering from the severe recession. In addition, the per-dog permit costs would add up to an insurmountable burden for anyone who raises dogs.

• Current law imposes fines for people whose intact animals are reclaimed from animal shelters. This fine revenue is used to pay for essential shelter expenses. SB 250 would take away much of this revenue from animal shelters, thus reducing needed services while increasing expenses, according to the Finance Department report.

• If you or your intact dog are in violation of any state or local animal law or ordinance, including sales tax laws, you will be forced to sterilize your pets or allow the shelter to confiscate them. In addition, it will be illegal to sell or even give away an intact dog without an intact permit and other documentation (including microchipping), and people who can’t pay the costs of sterilization, fines or other costs will be forced to either abandon their pets or take them to shelters.

• Mandating a medical procedure like sterilization as a punishment for breaking a law violates the professional integrity and Code of Ethics of veterinarians. Medical decisions should be a joint decision between veterinarians and pet owners. SB 250 also would make many people afraid to take their dog to a veterinarian for treatment of illnesses, injuries and parasites, or to get needed rabies and other vaccinations, because they fear being discovered by animal control authorities for owning an intact dog without a permit.

• Establishes the legally dangerous definition of a “custodian” of a dog, instead of the status of “owner.” Here is the definition: “ ‘Custodian’ means any person who undertakes the personal care and control of a dog, or any person who intentionally provides care, security, or sustenance for a dog on the person's property for any period exceeding 30 days.” This definition would entrap professional trainers, handlers and board kennel operators, people who help lost or abandoned dogs, and people who help feral cats. Good Samaritans who help abandoned or lost dogs, or who help feral cats, would become legally liable for them after 30 days, and thus forced to sterilize or abandon them. This would cause many people to be afraid to help these animals, further increase shelter admissions and euthanasia rates, and cause many lost animals to die from starvation or exposure to the elements.

• Nothing in the legislation would exclude or protect out-of-state residents who are visiting California for shows, field trials, hunting, events, vacations or business. Thus, it would be dangerous for a nonresident to bring an intact dog into California for any reason. This would destroy an important part of California’s economy, as nonresidents with dogs spend billions of dollars a year in the state.

• A reduction in the number of privately owned pets will do further harm the economy, as billions of dollars are spent every year on pet food, supplies, medicines, veterinary care, pet care services, building materials, printing and advertising, and pet-related travel. The California economy cannot afford to lose this business and the jobs that depend on them, and government revenues will decline from the loss of taxes on these products and services.

• The current bill requires sterilization for any dog that is found to be “roaming at large,” which is not defined, or if the dog or its owner has violated any state law, municipal ordinance, or “other local government provision” regarding animal control or care. It excludes dogs while actually hunting, but does not exclude dogs that are being used for herding or performance or working events, dogs that are participating in field trials, farm and ranch dogs, dogs that get lost while hunting or at a field trial, or dogs that are being trained for hunting. There are promises of an amendment to require sterilization after the second offense for roaming at large, and also an exclusion for herding and working dogs, but sterilization still would be required after the first offense for all dogs for any other animal-related law or ordinance. This is far short of adequate protection for dogs or their owners.

• And dog owners will be denied basic state and California constitutional rights about fair and equal treatment under the law. Orders and hearings would be handled administratively, and not through the court. There would be no appeal. This violates constitutional protections of due process under the law, and severely impacts the legal concept of private property.

What You Can Do About It