SB 250....No more pets/dog shows in California

[Mardelin]

Please read and sign


If you have friends, family or dog acquaintances living in California, please pass this information along to them. There is a very good analysis of this bill at the Save Our Dogs web site listed below.


******** PLEASE CROSS POST EVERYWHERE ********

It's now or never folks. SB 250 now moves to the full Assembly for a vote. We MUST flood the California state legislature with No on SB 250 letters, or else this draconian forced sterilization bill will become law.

Our SB 250 Easy Letter has been updated. You can find it here:

http://saveourdogs. net/

This takes less than 1 minute and is as easy to use as an online petition, but is a lot more effective since it is generating a real letter that we will send to your legislators. You don't need to do anything else to get your letter sent.

Spread the word -- ask your friends, family members, and colleagues to use our SB 250 Easy Letter.

We can kill this bill, but we need your help!
Thanks.

[cj125]

Mary, your link didn't work...

Save Our Dogs

[Mardelin]

Try this.

Save Our Dogs

Connie,

forward this to everyone you know.

You'll need to use a California zip try this one 91351

[Nancy1999]

I'm not sure why you title is listed no more pets or dog shows in California, and I hope you aren't listening to some of the propaganda put out by sporting dog enthusiasts or the or more appropriately called dog fighting fanatics.

SB 250 allows individuals and responsible breeders to get a license to leave a dog or indoor cat unaltered. Local authorities would have the right to revoke or refuse an unaltered license for violations of their animal-control ordinances.
There would be no “puppy police” going door to door seeking unaltered pets. If you own a pet, and care for and maintain control of that pet, you should never have a reason to hear from animal services.
On the other hand, this measure recognizes that people who allow their unaltered animals to run free, operate back yard puppy mills that dump their “excess inventory” on shelters, or are found guilty of animal abuse or neglect do contribute greatly to the pet overpopulation problem and should not be allowed to keep or obtain an unaltered license. SB 250 The Pet Responsibility Act - Official Website

Are responsible breeders allowing dogs to run free? Are responsible breeders filling up the shelters? According to the CDPH, in the last 5 years the total yearly number of dogs and cats entering California municipal shelters increased from 729,238 to 835,642, a 14.6% statewide increase. The increase in animals entering shelters and the tragic increase in euthanasia rates is due to:
· People abandoning their pets because of financial problems
· Accidental litters from unaltered pets
· Over-breeding of dogs and cats
· Stray dogs and cats reproducing
It underscores the need for spay and neuter laws like SB 250.


I urge everyone to watch this video. SB 250 The Pet Responsibility Act - Official Website We are killing too many dogs, something needs to be done. This will not hurt good breeders!

[Mardelin]

Sorry Nancy, I don't agree with you if you've read what is has been added to the bill. There will be no more dog shows in California, those that show coming from other states will not risk their dogs being confiscated and not returned. I'm working with PetPac people and YTCA. If you read the new bill.

This will put the small reputable breeder exhibitor out of commission.

The bill is being backed by PETA and HSUS.....

As far as listening dog fighting enthusists....No, I'm with the dog fancier.....

Do you know that Animal Control is now attending dog shows and purchasing catalogues for exhibitor addressess

[Mardelin]

BILL NUMBER: SB 250 AMENDED
BILL TEXT

AMENDED IN SENATE MAY 28, 2009
AMENDED IN SENATE MAY 5, 2009
AMENDED IN SENATE APRIL 21, 2009
AMENDED IN SENATE APRIL 2, 2009

INTRODUCED BY Senator Florez

FEBRUARY 24, 2009

An act to add Sections 30804.6 and 31751.4 to the Food and
Agricultural Code, relating to animals.

LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST

SB 250, as amended, Florez. Dogs and cats: spaying and neutering.
Existing law generally prohibits public pounds and private
shelters from selling or giving away any dog or cat that has not been
spayed or neutered; provides, under certain circumstances, for the
sale or giving away of a dog or cat that has not been spayed or
neutered upon the payment of a refundable deposit, as specified;
provides for the imposition of fines or civil penalties against the
owner of a nonspayed or unneutered dog or cat that is impounded by a
public pound or private shelter; and immunizes cities and counties,
societies for the prevention of cruelty to animals, and humane
societies from an action by the owner of a dog or cat for spaying or
neutering the dog or cat in accordance with the law. A violation of
any of these provisions is an infraction, punishable as specified.
This bill would provide, in addition, that every dog owner shall
secure a license for the dog, as required by state or local law, and
that no person shall own, keep, or harbor, except as specified, an
unsterilized dog, as defined. It would make it unlawful for any
person who owns, keeps, or harbors any unsterilized cat, as defined,
6 months of age or older to allow or permit that cat to roam at
large. It would require any owner or custodian, as defined, of an
unsterilized dog to have the animal sterilized at 6 months of age,
provide obtain a certificate of
sterility, or , if provided by local ordinance, obtain an
unaltered dog license. It would require an owner or custodian of an
unsterilized cat who permits that cat to roam at large to
have the cat sterilized or provide obtain
a certificate of sterility. It would allow an unaltered dog
license to be denied, revoked, and reapplied for, as specified, and
the licensing agency to utilize its existing procedures or to
establish new procedures for any appeal of a denial or revocation of
an unaltered dog license. The bill would authorize the licensing
agency to assess a fee for the procedures related to the issuance,
denial, or revocation of an unaltered dog license.
This bill would require an owner or custodian who offers any
unsterilized dog or cat for sale, trade, or adoption to meet
specified requirements. It would permit any authorized penalty for a
violation of certain provisions relating to dogs to be imposed only
if the owner or custodian is concurrently cited for violation of one
or more of other specified provisions. It would require, if an
unaltered dog or cat is impounded pursuant to state or local law, the
owner or custodian to meet specified requirements, including paying
the costs of impoundment. It would require all costs, fines, and fees
collected under the bill to be paid to the licensing agency for the
purpose of defraying the cost of the implementation and enforcement
of the bill. By creating new crimes and imposing new duties
on local animal control agencies , this bill would impose a
state-mandated local program upon local governments.
The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local
agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the
state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that
reimbursement.
This bill would provide that with regard to certain mandates no
reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.

[Mardelin]

With regard to any other mandates, this bill would provide that,
if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains
costs so mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall
be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above.

The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local
agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the
state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that
reimbursement.
This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this
act for a specified reason.
Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: yes.
State-mandated local program: yes.

[Mardelin]

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. Section 30804.6 is added to the Food and Agricultural
Code, to read:
30804.6. (a) (1) Every dog owner shall secure a license for the
dog pursuant to Section 121690 of the Health and Safety Code or as
required by the local licensing agency.
(2) No person shall own, keep, or harbor an
unsterilized dog in violation of this section.
(3) An owner or custodian of an unsterilized dog shall have the
dog sterilized by the age of six months, provide
obtain a certificate of sterility, or , if provided
for by ordinance of the responsible city, county, or city and county,
obtain an unaltered dog license in accordance with this
section.
(4) This subdivision shall not apply to a dog with a high
likelihood, due to age or infirmity, of suffering serious bodily harm
or death if surgically sterilized. The owner or custodian shall
obtain written confirmation of this fact from a veterinarian licensed
in this state. If the dog is able to be sterilized at a later date,
that date shall be stated in the written confirmation. If the date
for sterilization in the written confirmation is more than 30 days
after the date that the owner or custodian receives that
confirmation, the owner or custodian shall apply for an unaltered dog
license pursuant to any applicable city, city and county, or
county ordinance .
(b) An unaltered dog license may be denied or revoked for one or
more of the following reasons:
(b) The licensing agency shall utilize its existing procedures or
may establish procedures for the denial or revocation of an unaltered
dog license and may deny or revoke a license for one or more of the
following reasons:
(1) The owner, custodian, applicant or licensee is not in
compliance with all of the requirements of this section.
(2) The owner, custodian, applicant, or licensee has violated a
state law, or a city, county, or other local governmental provision
relating to the care and control of animals.
(3) Any unaltered dog license held by the applicant has been
revoked for violating a state law, or a city, county, or other local
government provision relating to the care or control of animals.
(4) The license application is discovered to contain a material
misrepresentation or omission of fact.
(c) The licensing agency shall utilize its existing procedures or
may establish procedures for any appeal of a denial or revocation of
an unaltered dog license, which appeal procedure may include written
notice of the denial or revocation and a reasonable opportunity for
the owner or custodian to respond.

[Mardelin]

(d) The licensing agency may assess a fee for the procedures
related to the issuance, denial, or revocation of an unaltered dog
license consistent with this chapter.
(d)
(e) An owner or custodian who offers any unsterilized
dog for sale, trade, or adoption at four months of age or older or
the age required by the licensing agency shall be required to include
a valid unaltered dog license number with the offer of sale, trade,
or adoption, or shall otherwise state and establish compliance with
this section. The unaltered dog's license number, and any existing
microchip number for the dog, shall appear on the document
transferring ownership of the dog to the new owner.
(e)
(f) (1) Any authorized penalty may be imposed upon an
owner or custodian of an unlicensed, unaltered dog for a violation of
this section only if the owner or custodian is concurrently cited
for one or more of the following:
(A) Permitting the subject dog to roam at large.
(B) Failure to provide adequate care for the subject dog in
violation of animal cruelty provisions.
(C) Rabies quarantine violations for the subject dog.
(D) Fighting dog activity in violation of Section 597.5 of the
Penal Code.
(E) Failure to comply with the local jurisdiction's requirements
for the keeping of a dog that has been adjudicated by a court or an
agency of appropriate jurisdiction to be potentially dangerous,
dangerous, or vicious.
(F) Failure to possess an unaltered dog license.
(2) Any owner or custodian of an unaltered dog who is found to be
subject to a penalty under paragraph (1) shall be required to
surgically sterilize the unaltered animal in accordance with this
section. The licensing agency shall utilize its existing
procedures may utilize procedures as they exist on the
effective date of this Section for any appeal of this
requirement.
(3) Any owner or custodian of an unaltered dog who is lawfully
using that dog for the pursuit or take taking
of mammals pursuant to Section 265 of Title 14 of the
California Code of Regulations or for the lawful pursuit or
taking of migratory game birds, game birds, ducks, and other
permitted water fowl and has lawfully purchased a hunting
license as provided in Section 3031 of the Fish and Game Code
is not shall not be in violation of
subparagraph (A) of paragraph (1).
(4) At the time a citation is issued pursuant to paragraph (1) or
(2), the licensing agency may provide the owner or custodian
information as to the availability of sterilization services for free
or at a reduced cost.
(f) If an unlicensed unaltered dog 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:

[Mardelin]

(1) Provide written proof of the dog's prior sterilization, if
conditions cannot or do not make this assessment obvious to the
licensing agency personnel.
(2) Have the dog surgically sterilized 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 surgically sterilized by another
veterinarian licensed in this state.
(4) At the discretion of the licensing agency, the dog may be
released to the owner or custodian if he or she pays a refundable
deposit consistent with existing practices and procedures, or signs a
statement under penalty of perjury representing that the dog will be
surgically sterilized and that he or she will submit a statement by
the deadline set by the licensing agency, but in no case less than 10
days after the release, signed by the veterinarian, confirming that
the dog has been surgically sterilized or is incapable of breeding,
or confirming that the veterinarian has scheduled the operation
within a reasonable time.
(g) The owner or custodian of the unaltered dog shall be
responsible for the established costs of impoundment, which shall
include daily board costs, vaccination, medication, and any other
diagnostic or therapeutic applications as required by this section.
The owner or custodian shall comply with any additional impoundment
procedures.
(h) All costs and fines collected under this section and the fees
collected under subdivision (g) shall be paid to the licensing agency
for the purpose of defraying the cost of the implementation and
enforcement of this section.
(i) Nothing in this section shall prohibit a local jurisdiction
from enforcing or enacting local measures that require the spaying or
neutering of all dogs, and this section shall not prohibit a local
jurisdiction from enacting or enforcing other local measures
pertaining to the obligations of a person owning or possessing a dog.

(j) For the purposes of this section, the following terms have the
following meanings:
(1) "Licensing agency" means the municipal city or county animal
control agency or other entity responsible for enforcing laws
relating to animals.
(2) "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. "Custodian" does not include a licensing
agency.
(3) "Sterilize" means to permanently eliminate the ability of a
dog to reproduce by removing the sex organs or prohibiting
their functions preventing them from functioning

[Mardelin]

SEC. 2. Section 31751.4 is added to the Food and Agricultural
Code, to read:
31751.4. (a) (1) It is unlawful for any person who owns, keeps,
or harbors any unsterilized cat six months of age or older to allow
or permit that unsterilized cat to roam at large.
(2) An owner or custodian of an unsterilized cat who permits
that cat to roam at large shall have the animal sterilized, or
provide obtain a certificate of
sterility.
(3) This subdivision shall not apply to a cat with a high
likelihood, due to age or infirmity, of suffering serious bodily harm
or death if sterilized. The owner or custodian shall obtain written
confirmation of this fact from a veterinarian licensed in this state.
If the cat is able to be sterilized at a later date, that date shall
be stated in the written confirmation.
(b) An owner or custodian who offers any unsterilized cat for
sale, trade, or adoption shall notify the licensing agency, if the
jurisdiction requires the licensing of cats, of the name and address
of the transferee within 10 days after the transfer. Any existing
microchip number for the cat shall appear on a document transferring
ownership of the cat to the new owner.
(c) If an unaltered 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:
(1) Provide written proof of the cat's prior sterilization, if
conditions cannot or do not make this assessment obvious to the
licensing agency personnel.
(2) Have the cat surgically sterilized 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 cat surgically sterilized by another
veterinarian licensed in this state.
(4) At the discretion of the licensing agency, the cat may be
released to the owner or custodian if he or she pays a refundable
deposit consistent with existing practices and procedures, or signs a
statement under penalty of perjury representing that the cat will be
surgically sterilized and that he or she will submit a statement by
the deadline set by the licensing agency, but in no case less than 10
days after the release, signed by the veterinarian, confirming that
the cat has been surgically sterilized or is incapable of breeding,
or confirming that the veterinarian has scheduled the operation
within a reasonable time.
(d) The owner or custodian of the unaltered cat shall be
responsible for the established costs of impoundment, which shall
include daily board costs, vaccination, medication, and any other
diagnostic or therapeutic applications as required by this section.
The owner or custodian shall comply with any additional impoundment
procedures.
(e) All costs and fines collected under this section and the fees
collected under subdivision (e) shall be paid to the licensing agency
for the purpose of defraying the cost of the implementation and
enforcement of this section.
(f) Nothing in this section shall prohibit a local jurisdiction
from enforcing or enacting local measures that require the spaying or
neutering of all cats, and this section shall not prohibit a local
jurisdiction from enacting or enforcing other local measures
pertaining to the obligations of a person owning or possessing a cat.

(g) For the purposes of this section, the following terms have the
following meanings:
(1) "Custodian" means any person who undertakes the personal care
and control of a cat, or any person who intentionally provides care,
security, or sustenance for a cat on the person's property for any
period exceeding 30 days. "Custodian" does not include a licensing
agency.
(2) "Licensing agency" means the municipal city or county animal
control agency or other entity responsible for enforcing laws
relating to animals.
(3) "Sterilize" means to permanently eliminate the ability of a
cat to reproduce by removing the sex organs or prohibiting
their functions preventing them from functioning
.
SEC. 3. No reimbursement is required by this
act pursuant to Section 6 of Article XIII B of the California
Constitution for certain costs that may be incurred by a local agency
or school district because, in that regard, this act creates a new
crime or infraction, eliminates a crime or infraction, or changes the
penalty for a crime or infraction, within the meaning of Section
17556 of the Government Code, or changes the definition of a crime
within the meaning of Section 6 of Article XIII B of the California
Constitution.
However, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that this
act contains other costs mandated by the state, reimbursement to
local agencies and school districts for those costs shall be made
pursuant to Part 7 (commencing with Section 17500) of Division 4 of
Title 2 of the Government Code.
SECTION 3. No reimbursement is required by this
act pursuant to Section 6 of Article XIII B of the California
Constitution because the only costs that may be incurred by a local
agency or school district will be incurred because this act creates a
new crime or infraction, eliminates a crime or infraction, or
changes the penalty for a crime or infraction, within the meaning of
Section 17556 of the Government Code, or changes the definition of a
crime within the meaning of Section 6 of Article XIII B of the
California Constitution.


BILL ANALYSIS

SB 250
Page 1

[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

[Mardelin]

SB 250
Page 3

1)Purpose . According to the author, it costs California
taxpayers approximately $250 million each year to house and
euthanize dogs and cats. The author contends that part of the
problem is that there are few incentives for pet owners to
license their animals - which would ensure fewer lost or
roaming pets. In addition, local animal shelters are
overwhelmed by the state's pet overpopulation problem
(approximately one million dogs and cats enter our shelters
each year) because there are few laws which discourage
over-breeding and no existing laws that encourage
sterilization of non-breeding animals.

The author believes that SB 250 would help reduce the number
of unwanted pets that roam the streets and end up in shelters,
as well as encourage responsible pet ownership by requiring
owners to license and sterilize their animals or purchase an
unaltered license if they intend to keep their pets intact.

2)Existing Spay/Neuter Programs . In 1995, the county of Santa
Cruz implemented an ordinance requiring cats and dogs over six
months old to be spayed or neutered unless an unaltered animal
certificate is issued. This certificate is available to anyone
meeting specified criteria, such as not having any
animal-related convictions within a certain amount of time and
providing a proper environment for the animal. The ordinance
also requires these owners to furnish the director of animal
control services with a statement agreeing to have only one
litter per year unless expressly permitted by a veterinarian
to have up to two litters a year (cats only). The ordinance
also exempts from the certificate requirement service dogs,
law enforcement dogs, herding dogs, rescue dogs or animals
that can not be spayed or neutered due to health reasons.
Supporters of this bill provided information showing that by
2003, intake of cats and dogs into Santa Cruz county shelters
declined by 60% and the number of euthanized animals declined
by 75%.

Many state and local municipalities have implemented publicly
funded spay/neuter programs that include varying degrees of
increased licensure fees with mandatory spaying and neutering
of cats and dogs. New Hampshire implemented a statewide
publicly funded spay and neuter program in 1994. Between 1994
and 2000, the state's eight largest shelters admitted 31,000
fewer dogs and cats than in the six years preceding the

[Mardelin]

SB 250
Page 4

program--saving an estimated $2.2 million statewide. Over this
time period, that state's euthanasia rate dropped 75%. New
Hampshire's program targets cats and dogs living in low-income
households. Almost all funding for the program comes from a
small surcharge on dog licenses issued throughout the state
and revenue from a specialty license plate.

3)Arguments in Support . The City of Santa Rosa writes in
support, "One of the biggest issues that we face in animal
control in this county, as I am sure in others, is the number
of animals that we need to euthanize, particularly cats. We
have tried a number of voluntary programs and educational
programs to encourage spay/neuter. This bill would provide
the City's animal control contractor, the County of Sonoma,
with additional tools to address this issue."

4)Arguments in Opposition . In opposition to the bill, the
California Farm Bureau Federation writes, "The specific
challenges created by SB 250 relate to the provision that
allows intact licenses to be denied for owners who have
'violated a state law, or a city, county, or other local
governmental provisions relating to the care and control of
animals.' For example, a dog guarding livestock that chases
away a predator from the flock may leave the property in that
chase and could be found to be running at large. One
violation would be grounds to deny the dog owner from ever
owning dogs for breeding and would force the sterilization of
dogs that may possess valuable working traits. Farm Bureau is
also concerned about the potential for overzealous enforcement
actions taken against our members who may leave their dogs in
the back of a pickup while running errands."

5)Related Legislation . AB 241 (Nava) of 2009 makes it a
misdemeanor for an individual or business that buys or sells
dogs or cats to have more than a combined total of 50
unsterilized dogs and cats, as specified. This bill is
pending in the Senate Public Safety Committee.

AB 1634 (Levine) of 2008 would have enacted the California
Responsible Pet Ownership Act which specifies that a person
who owns a dog or cat that is not licensed (or is improperly
licensed) and that has not been spayed or neutered may be
cited and, if cited, must pay civil penalties. That bill
failed passage on the Senate Floor.



SB 250
Page 5

SB 861 (Speier; Chapter 668, Statutes of 2005) allows cities
and counties to enact breed-specific ordinances for mandatory
spaying and neutering and breeding restrictions.
Additionally, this bill provides for increased reporting to
the State Public Health Veterinarian of dog bite data and
other information by local jurisdictions that make use of the
authorization provided by the bill.

[mscat]

You are absolutely correct, Mardelin. I have heard about this too, and it is Happening in California , only if it passess . In CA, they already do not adopt out dogs or cats that are not fixed . However, if the cat or dog is too young your required to get the animal fixed when it reaches a certain age .
I do not see how animal control is going to enforce the new law if it passess onto people who own unfixed animals, unless the animal does get out and is wandering.
I still know people who allow their animals to continue to breed and breed constantly . At home, inside, behind closed doors . then they just give away the pups to friends. Cats are so independent by nature, they breed anywhere, and have feral kittens all the time. Somehow those kittens survive , and the cycle just repeats itself. I do not see that changing , even if their are stricter laws.
This is a a hot Bill In CA !!!