Update Sept. 11:  S.B. 250, the California mandatory spay/neuter bill, failed to pass the Assembly on a third reading, but a motion to reconsider was granted. 

It is not known when the bill will be called up for another vote.

Update Sept. 4: S.B. 250, the California mandatory spay/neuter bill, has passed the Appropriations Committee and is expected to be voted on by the full Assembly on Sept. 10. 

Read Animal Law Coalition's earlier reports below for more on this bill.  

Update July 1: The California mandatory spay/neuter bill, S.B. 250, passed the Assembly Business and Professions Committee but was re-referred to the Appropriations Committee. 

Update June 2: The Senate has passed the California mandatory spay/neuter bill, S.B. 250, by a vote of 21-16. The first vote was too close - 16-15 and the bill failed to pass.

This after the bill, sponsored by California state Sen. Dean  Florez, was finally released from the Appropriations Committee after referral for more amendments. A summary of the current version of the bill, S.B. 250, is below.

The bill now goes to the House.

Information submitted during the committee process showed that for 2006-07, California cities reported  spending $131.6 million on animal control services;  counties reported spending $117.5 million on their pounds.

Failure to spay/neuter is viewed as a significant contributor to these costs as well as the state mandated holding period for strays. Some, however, noted many California jurisdictions including Los Angeles County and City have mandatory spay/neuter laws. It was suggested the legislature consider whether a mandatory spay/neuter law would really work to reduce shelter intake and euthanasia rates.

The legislative analyst office (LAO) suggested that the Legislature repeal the shelter holding period and "pilot an incentive program that gives funding to those shelters that  increase the number of animals successfully adopted....[T]he state could give local government shelters $30 for every dog or cat adopted for a total annual cost of about $12 million."  That price-tag is less  than the cost of paying for the ...holding period mandate."

Summary of the current version of S.B. 250: This bill would mandate all dog owners to obtain local licenses as required and spay/neuter their dogs when they reach 6 months of age and cats if they are allowed outdoors, obtain  a certificate of sterility, or, an unaltered dog license which the city or county must issue.

The bill would apply to feral cat caregivers feeding or providing for feral cats on their own property: "'Custodian' [of a cat] 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."

There would be exceptions for animals which a veterinarian certifies would be seriously harmed or die if they had the surgery. If the condition preventing a dog from having the surgery lasts longer than 30 days, the owner would be required to obtain an unaltered license.

The bill would allow the "licensing agency" to use existing procedures or 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: the owner is not in compliance with this law or has been cited for violation of other animal protection laws; an unaltered dog license has been revoked previously or the owner has made a material misstatement on an application for an unaltered dog license.  

In addition to sterilizing as required, any unaltered dog or cat that is impounded, an owner would be required to satisfy a lien for the costs of impoundment and care.

An owner or custodian who "offers any unaltered dog for sale, trade, or adoption must put the unaltered dog's license number, and any existing  microchip number for the dog on the document transferring ownership. 

A licensing agency in places that require cats to be licensed, would have to be notified of any transfer of ownership of unaltered cats and new owners would have to be given the microchip number, if any.

Though the dog or cat of owners in violation would be required to be spayed/neutered, the bill  would not allow a penalty to be imposed for not complying with spay/neuter requirements unless the owner or custodian has violated one of the following: 

Permitting the subject dog to roam at large, failure to provide adequate care for the dog in violation of animal cruelty provisions, rabies quarantine violations, fighting dog activity, 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; or failure to possess an unaltered dog license.

An unaltered dog license could not be revoked for a first offense or roaming at large.

This bill does not contain any provision for free or low cost spay/neuter.

Here is more on last year's Healthy Pets Act, an effort to impose mandatory spay/neuter throughout the state.

Go here for information on why broad mandatory spay/neuter laws don't necessarily work to lower shelter intake and euthanasia rates and what will help. 

Another bill found here would limit commercial dog and cat breeding in the state.