[Mardelin]

SUMMARY

This bill restricts the ownership of unsterilized dogs and cats
and requires surgical sterilization of the animal in specified
circumstances. Specifically, this bill:

1)Prohibits a person from owning, keeping, or harboring an
unsterilized dog, unless they have obtained an unaltered dog
license.

2)Prohibits a person from allowing their cat to roam at large
unless they have been sterilized or the individual has
obtained a certificate of sterility.

3)Requires an owner of an unsterilized dog to have the dog
sterilized by the age of six months, obtain a certificate of
sterility, or, if provided by an ordinance of the responsible
city, county, or city and county, obtain an unaltered dog
license.

4)Requires the owner of an unsterilized dog or cat that has been
impounded to have the animal sterilized or provide proof of
sterility when retrieving the animal.

5)Authorizes local governments to sterilize any unaltered cat or
dog that is picked up in violation of a local animal control
ordinance and to charge the owner of the pet for the cost of
the surgery.

6)Exempts from the requirements of this bill any dog or cat with
a high likelihood, due to age or infirmity, of suffering
serious bodily harm or death if surgically sterilized and the



SB 250
Page 2

owner or custodian shall obtain written confirmation of this
fact from a veterinarian licensed in this state.

7)Specifies that all costs and fines collected pursuant to this
bill shall be paid to the licensing agency for the purpose of
defraying the cost of the implementation and enforcement of
this bill.

FISCAL EFFECT

1)The state's animal adoption mandate currently costs more than
$20 million annually to reimburse local government shelters'
cost to care for impounded animals. Requiring owners of cats
and dogs to sterilize their animals or pay for a more
expensive unsterilized animal license, could result in more
animals being abandoned or surrendered because of the owner's
inability to afford sterilization or increased fees and fines.
Under the current mandate, the state only reimburses shelters
for the cost of caring for animals that are euthanized, not
for the cost of caring for animals that are ultimately
adopted. While exact figures are not available, studies show
that at least 60% of animals that enter shelters are
ultimately euthanized. A modest two percent increase in
shelter costs could result in $400,000 in additional GF costs.


2)To the extent conformance with the bill's requirements,
eventually reduces the number of cats and dogs impounded to
animal shelters, local governments could realize operational
savings and thus may reduce the GF reimbursement for the local
mandate over the long term.

3)It is assumed that enforcement of the bill's provisions will
be conducted by local animal control agencies in the course of
performing their existing enforcement duties, and generally on
a complaint-driven basis.

4)One of the items under discussion in the 2009-10 budget is
suspending the current animal adoption mandate which requires
local animal shelters to hold their pets for four to six days
before euthanizing them. If that mandate is suspended, there
would likely be no potential GF costs or savings associated
with this legislation for 2009-10.

COMMENTS