Vote Pushes California Spay-Neuter Bill to Assembly

Reconsideration vote approves measure that would require sterilization of dogs and cats.

Posted: June 4, 2009, 5 a.m. EDT

The California State Senate on Tuesday approved SB 250, a measure that seeks to require pet sterilization for most of the state’s cats and dogs. The 21-16 vote sent the bill to the Assembly for consideration.

SB 250, also known as the Pet Responsibility Act by Senate Majority Leader Dean Florez, failed in the Senate on Monday with a vote of 16-15. It needed 21 votes to pass. However, a second vote for “reconsideration” was taken and passed, allowing Senate members to revote on Tuesday.

The bill calls on cat owners to spay or neuter their cats at 6 months of age if the cats are allowed to roam at large. The bill also requires the sterilization of all dogs at 6 months of age, unless the owner gets an unaltered dog license.

SB 250 has been amended to authorize local governments to use existing procedures to issue the intact dog licenses or to charge a fee for procedures related to the issuance, denial or revocation of unaltered dog licenses.


4 of 14 Comments View All 14 Comments

Give us your opinion Give us your opinion on Vote Pushes California Spay-Neuter Bill to Assembly

User Avatar

Irish   Orinda, CA

7/1/2009 6:05:52 AM

This bill is simply a new tax, and potentially a very high tax, on pets. It is intended to reduce pet ownership by making ownership more expensive and complicated. Just a "small" tax... to start. Just let the camel get its nose into the tent a little

The impact on backyard breeders will be nil. The law will be ignored. Do you REALLY think this will have any significant impact on backyard breeders? Of course

But the state will have new tax revenues paid by law-abiding pet owners. And what will the state do with the money they collect? Use it to dream up more nanny laws that raise more taxes and further restrict individual

When un-neutered pets are criminalized, only criminals will have un-neutered pets.

User Avatar

lala   Salinas, CA

6/29/2009 11:22:35 AM

I am trying to understand this bill. I have read these commets and all I get out of it is money. What about all these pets that have to die. This is the fault of the back yard breeder I am so sick of seeing all these poor dogs having puppies just to be sold at an outrageus amount.

User Avatar

Ben   San Francisco, CA

6/8/2009 9:20:06 PM

If you can't pay the fee Hon, you shouldn't even have the dogs in the first place! You spend about $1,000 going to like two shows (gas, food, lodging, etc.) That really is NOT that much money. Also, PETA and the HSUS do NOT want to get rid of all pets- they want to improve the LIVING conditions of ALL PETS. DUH!

User Avatar

Mary   San Mateo, CA

6/5/2009 6:13:30 AM

For all of you people who think that all you have to do is pay a "small" fee to get an un-altered dog permit, you are sadly mistaken. The Hayden Act already mandates that an intact dog license be at least twice that of the license for an altered dog. I pay just shy of 3x the amount in my
What this bill does is make it possible for the local government to assess an additional unspecified fee for a person to submit an intact dog permit application. Then this bill makes it legal for the local government to turn down your application for an intact dog permit and keep the fee. It also makes it illegal for some one with an intact dog to sell or give away that intact dog without an intact dog license.

If you have an award winning show dog and this bill passes, it is very likely that the place where you live decides that an intact permit will be $1000.00 or more a year. Or they may decide that no such applications will even be approved no matter how much they can charge. That is what the bill says and allows. That is why so many people are upset about this bill.

I am scared because my intact show dogs are licensed, ie are known. If this bill passes, I believe that my vindictive neighbor will be calling AC on me because I have complained about HIS spayed and neutered dogs roaming the neighborhood and crapping in my yard. I can't even walk my own dogs in my own neighborhood because his spayed and neutered dogs maybe out there and they are dog aggressive. BTW, AC hasn't done a darn thing about his dogs. But the thought of fining me huge amounts on bogus claims and make me endanger the health of my dogs by requiring me to spay or neuter all of my dogs is going to be more then my cash strapped government is going to be able to resist.

The days that I can continue to have my intact show dogs are going to be limited to less then a week after this becomes law. I already pay huge amounts to license my dogs and that is without any services. My dogs are not a burden to the community, but this law will make punishment for not even wearing a license tag grounds for spay and neuter. Show dogs don't wear license tags at shows.

Login to get points for commenting or write your comment below

First Name : Email :
International :
City : State :

Captcha Image

Get New Captcha

Top Products