AB 1634

Update 4/14/07

CA AB 1634, the California, Healthy Pets Act, will be heard by the Assembly Appropriations Committee Wednesday May 16th. The hearing is scheduled in Sacramento at the State Capitol, Room # 4202 at 9AM.  Get there early to ensure you get in.

If you have not already done so, California residents should call, FAX and visit their own Assembly Members and aides NOW.  Urge Committee Members to VOTE NO on AB 1634.

You can find your legislator at http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/yourleg.html

TICA's letter to the Appropriations Committee can be found below.

The Honorable Mark Leno

Chair, Assembly Appropriations Committee

State Capitol, Room 2114

Sacramento, CA 95814

Attention: Chuck Nichol, Committee Consultant

RE: OPPOSITION to AB 1634, the California Healthy Pets Act, as amended April 30^th and revised in May

Dear Chairman Leno and Committee Members:

The International Cat Association opposes AB 1634 as amended 4/30 and revised in May. Please include TICA in the opposition list for the Bill Analysis in the Appropriations Committee.

TICA is the largest genetic registry of cats with members across the United States and worldwide. AB 1634 will not help animals in California shelters or on its streets and will likely be prohibitively expensive to administer and enforce in many jurisdictions.

TICA opposed AB 1634 in its original form and the amendments and revisions have not altered our objections to the bill. Surgical procedures should be an individual decision between a veterinarian and their client, not mandated by the state. Mandatory spay/neuter laws are proven failures for reducing shelter issues and costly to implement. Each jurisdiction should be entitled to determine what works in its locality and what the locality can afford. The “exemptions” in AB 1634 to obtain an intact license demonstrate a decided lack of understanding regarding hobby cat breeding and would be impossible for breeders to meet.

AB 1634 will require that all jurisdictions undergo the expense to review their local ordinances and then to change them to ensure they comply with state law. Each jurisdiction will have to spend money to administer and enforce the new regulations before they see any revenue. This also includes legal fees, staff resources, public hearings, and funds on hand to meet immediate demand for low cost spay/neuter clinics. Is the state willing to reimburse the local jurisdictions for these expenditures?

Even assuming enforcement will be complaint driven only, enforcement costs will likely outstrip revenue generated. License fees will have to be significantly less than the $500 penalty to encourage people to comply. Yet higher license fees in general result in lower compliance and therefore less revenue. For complaint investigations (which are likely to increase under AB 1634), multiple calls visits are frequently necessary. Follow-up on female cats will be necessary just to see if the cat has been spayed as a visual inspection will not reveal this information.  Additional people, trucks, and other equipment will be necessary for investigating complaints. With 86% to 92% of owned cats already spayed or neutered (as shown in multiple studies), the occasional $500 fine will represent a pittance of the funds necessary for enforcement.

It is often claimed that mandatory spay/neuter reduces euthanasia and shelter costs.  Reports of jurisdictions that have enacted mandatory spay/neuter, differential licensing or intact licensing laws demonstrate that euthanasia rates increase, license rates decrease and cost-per-animals increase. How can these results be considered successes by supporters of these types of laws?

Supporters have claimed that shelters will benefit from AB 1634. Despite the fact that shelter reporting is required by state law, many jurisdictions do not consistently provide reports. Without reliable shelter reporting, one wonders how that claim can be credibly made. Even if fewer animals are handled by shelters, it does not follow that costs will be lowered. Where more space is to be had, animals should be kept longer to improve their chances of finding a permanent home. More should be done for animals which are unhealthy but curable – animals which are currently euthanized as unadoptable. Other animal control costs will not be affected by AB 1634.

Furthermore, pedigreed cats and dogs generate revenue for the state and California businesses in the form of show venue costs, hotels, food, and taxes among other things. Pedigreed cat and dog organizations contribute to the state by providing space in their shows for rescues to help home animals, donate money to shelters and rescues, and educations programs. Passing AB 1634 will mean these resources will ultimately be lost to the state.

Nationwide the intake of animals by shelters have been decreasing for many years and doing so without this type of legislation. AB 1634 is not needed. Focusing on increasing education and outreach efforts is needed. Spend California’s money wisely – fund education and community outreach programs, low/no cost spay/neuter/wellness clinics, support feral cat management programs.

TICA urges you to reject AB 1634.

Regards,

Kelly Crouch

Chair, TICA Legislative Committee

Assembly Appropriations Committee Member Contact Information:

 
ATTN: Chuck Nicol, Committee Consultant
State Capitol, Room 2114
Sacramento, California 95814
FAX: (916) 319-2181

Assembly Member Anna M. Caballero (D)
State Capitol
P.O. Box 942849
Sacramento, CA 94249-0028
Phone: (916) 319-2028
Fax: (916) 319-2128
Assemblymember.Caballero@assembly.ca.gov

Once again attempts have been made to clarify AB 1634 and an amended version was released 4/17. All the original problems remains. Please keep sending you calling your committee members and sending your opposition letters via fax (preferable) or email.

The Assembly Committee on Business and Professions web site is:

http://www.assembly.ca.gov/acs/newcomframeset.asp?committee=129

Update 4/11/07

AB 1634 is going to be heard on Tuesday, April 10th, at the State Capitol Building, Room 447, in
Sacramento. The meeting starts at 9AM though the bill may be heard at any time during the meeting. If you can go, get there early as a large crowd is expected. If you get to speak, state your name, organization, that you oppose the bill and 2-3 reasons why. Listen to what other members of the opposition have said before you so different points can be made. Visitors are usually given a very  time to speak so be concise.

California residents need to keep those calls and faxes going! Find your legislator here: http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/yourleg.html

The corrected revised bill became available after TICA's letter was sent, however, the objections are unchanged. Under the revised bill, absent a veterinarian's letter for medical necessity, an intact permit may be granted only if any of the following conditions are met:

    1. the owner is doing business and is licensed as a breeder by the local jurisdiction; or

    2. the owner can demonstrate to the local entity that the cat is used to show AND has competed in at least one show or competition in the past 2 years AND is a valid breed that is recognized by an approved registry AND has earned or is in the process of earning (if under 2 years old) a title from an approved purebred registry or association.

TICA's letter:

The Honorable Mike Eng

Chair, Assembly Committee on Business and Professions

1020 N. Street

Room 124

Sacramento, CA 95814

Attention: Tracy Rhine, Committee Consultant

RE: OPPOSE AB 1634 – California Healthy Pets Act revised draft 3/27/2007

Dear Chairman Eng:

The International Cat Association (“TICA”) opposes AB 1634, the California Healthy Pets Act, and we request that TICA be included in the listed opposition for the Bill Analysis in you committee.

TICA is the largest genetic cat registry worldwide with many clubs, members and fanciers in California. The organizations and individuals in the cat fancy are dedicated to preserving beautiful cats – pedigreed and domestic cats alike. Cat Fanciers can agree that reducing euthanasia rates is an admirable goal. Punitive legislation mandating spay/neuter which targets cat and dog owners, as AB 1634 does, is counter productive to that goal. 

Mandatory spay/neuter (“MSN”) laws are detrimental to pet welfare.  Several studies show that 85% to 92% of owned cats are altered. Intact cats simply do not make good house pets. The vast majority of cats euthanized in shelters generally are unowned cats and kittens. Of the remaining owned cats, most are surrendered because of behavior issues, job problems, housing problems, illness or old age. The primary reason for owned cats not being neutered is lack of personal or community resources. AB 1634 fails to address the real problems communities face.

Several cities that have enacted MSN laws are touted as being success stories. Let’s consider these “successes”. Fort Wayne, Indiana is still killing 75% of domestic animals. Euthanasia increased in the areas of San Mateo that passed MSN. The law passed in King County, Washington reduced the number of saved animals. Long Beach, California has had a breeding ban for over 30 years and still does not approach being a No Kill community.  Yet communities with a 91% and 92% save rate have no MSN or cat licensing laws – Tompkins County, NY and Charlottesville, Virginia. (Please see Mandatory Licensing and Neuter Laws, No Kill Sheltering Issue II 2007, www.nokilladvocacycenter.org ).

Exemption licensing on the basis of approved registering bodies is an expensive administrative and bureaucratic nightmare. Animal control agencies have neither the expertise nor bandwidth to approve existing animal registries or new registries that may develop for legitimate purposes or simply to circumvent MSN. Only 5% to 6% of cats are pedigreed cats, most of these are owned and altered, and thus they contribute virtually nothing to the euthanasia rates.

Another cost is the inherent requirement that every jurisdiction review and revise local ordinances to comply with state law.  A hidden cost is the effect on good Samaritans who, but for the fear of the penalties in AB 1634, might take in a pregnant stray cat. Such cats will remain in the streets contributing to the population of unowned cats and ultimately increasing the euthanasia rates.

Furthermore, all surgery involves risk including the mundane, every day surgeries. When to perform any surgery should be a decision made between the pet owner and their veterinarian. AB 1634 eliminates every pet owners right to decide on how to best proceed with their pet’s well being.

Eliminating local sources of quality, pedigreed cats will not eliminate the demand for pedigreed cats, it only moves the source outside the state or country boundaries. It will not increase demand for other cats. In some areas shelters are importing puppies and small dogs because they can not meet the demand for these dogs. The demand doesn’t shift to the large dogs left languishing in the shelters simply because only large dogs are available in the shelters.

The “There ought to be a law” lament often results in the proposal of bad, if well intended, legislation when there are better solutions. A complex community problem requires community involvement. California should consider free or low cost neuter programs for low income pet owners and rescuers, trap/neuter/return programs for feral cat communities, and improved shelter operations. AB 1634 alienates and eliminates pet lovers who have contributed 10 years of steady declines in California’s euthanasia rates. Please add TICA to the opposition list and withdraw or defeat AB 1634.

Sincerely,

Kelly Crouch

Chair, TICA Legislative Committee

Initial Review

AB 1634 requires the mandatory spay/neuter of all cats and dogs over the age of four months unless the owner possesses and intact permit or can provide a letter from a veterinarian that states due to age, poor health or illness it is unsafe to alter a particular animal. The permit fee is to be set locally and “shall be no more than what is reasonably necessary to fund the administration of the jurisdiction’s intact permit program.” Anyone violating the MSN requirements are subject to a $500 civil penalty for each animal and each applicable period of noncompliance (waivable upon proof of s/n. such fines will fund low/no cost s/n program for low income people and to fund local enforcement. Enforcement is the responsibility of the local Animal Control.

Local jurisdictions shall issue intact permits if all of the following conditions are met:

1.      The animal is registered as a purebred with a pedigree with the AKC, UKC, ADBA, TICA, and other registries approved by the local animal control agency.

2.      The dog is appropriately trained and meets the definition of guide dog, service dog, or signal dog.

3.      the dog is documented as having been appropriately trained and used by law enforcement for law enforcement and rescue activities.

4.      The owner provides a letter from a veterinarian as described above.

Kelly Crouch