The Honorable Kevin de Leon

VIA FAX
Chair, Assembly Appropriations Committee
California State Assembly
State Capital
Sacramento, CA  95814

RE:  CALIFORNIA 250 – OPPOSED

Dear Chairman de Leon and Respected Members of the Appropriations Committee:

The American Rottweiler Club, Inc. (ARC), the parent club of the American Kennel Club (AKC) for the Rottweiler breed in the United States, representing thousands of dog owners, is writing to express our grave concern over California SB 250 – A Bill That Potentially Criminalizes Dog Ownership

Since its inception, the American Rottweiler Club has been deeply engaged in advancing animal welfare and the humane care and treatment of dogs.

ARC members and supporters devote significant time, effort and resources in educating the public on responsible dog ownership, dog bite prevention and safety around dogs, especially where children and the elderly are concerned, and supporting to scores of animal rescue and sheltering organizations across the United States through direct donations and grants and volunteer support.

The American Rottweiler Club is adamantly opposed to the cruel and inhumane treatment of dogs, the exploitation of innocent animals, and illegal, sub-standard breeding operations.

We therefore respectfully submit our official and unequivocal opposition to California SB 250 and to any other bill which makes criminals out of law-abiding, tax-paying citizens and home and hobby breeders, or anyone owning intact dogs.

California SB 250 is not only irresponsible, cruel and inhumane, it sets a dangerous precedent for the type and scope of legislation.

• CA SB 250 potentially makes criminals of responsible, tax-paying pet owners based on the reproductive status of the pet
• CA SB 250 will escalate costs for the state and municipalities already in financial crisis
• CA SB 250 will reduce licensing compliance
  
• CA SB 250 places arbitrary limits on animal ownership
• CA SB 250 kills or harms innocent animals

CA SB 250 – Criminalizing Dog Ownership

It is abundantly clear that the intent of this bill is to criminalize certain dog ownership – starting with the very title of the bill – and adding the language of this bill under the criminal code, as follows on Line 4:

To establish licensing requirements and standards of care of certain dog breeding kennels, dog intermediaries, and animal rescues for dogs.

We take exception to the very language of CA SB 250 which alludes to “possession of intact dogs” as if intact dogs were in nature a dangerous, illegal substance – and needing to be heavily regulated as illegal drugs.

We question whether the State of California truly intends to set a precedent of criminalizing the ownership of dogs, and the ownership of breeding dogs, and animal rescues as statute can and will be interpreted to criminalize the ownership and breeding of any animal.

CA SB 250 – Criminalizing Dog Breeding

CA SB 250 seems to take aim at anyone engaged in the breeding of dogs, and makes criminals out of vast majority of breeders who are responsible, law-abiding and caring individuals or establishments, deeply dedicated to the welfare of dogs.

This misguided bill seems to stem from a misrepresentation that owners of breeding stock, intact dogs, or multiple dogs are presented as de facto “puppy mills” – which is certainly not the case.

We respectfully point out that the term, “puppy mill” is highly inflammatory and deliberately misleading.

Most home and hobby breeders – as well as the vast majority of commercial kennels – operate under a set of standards set forth not just by the state, but by the very organizations to which we belong, concerning the care, treatment, feeding, and training of healthy dogs.

We would like to make very clear that any substandard and inhumane conditions at kennels – whether they be commercial operations or privately-owned home or hobby kennels – are still substandard and inhumane, and therefore subject to the strict enforcement of California’s anti-cruelty statutes.

Sadly, it is the lack of enforcement, and the lack of state or municipal funding for enforcement, combined with a lacking of understanding of basic animal husbandry, that often is to blame for allowing such conditions to exist.

We, therefore, recommend to the Committee that strong enforcement of the State’s animal cruelty laws are the correct remedy to such filthy and cruel establishments, but that criminalizing the ownership and breeding of dogs – or criminalizing the ownership or breeding of any animals for that matter – is not only a misguided approach, but may in fact constitute a serious violation of the 14th Amendment.

CA SB 250  – Substantially Increases Costs Through Unfunded Mandate

Already in a fiscal crisis, the State of California can ill-afford yet another unfunded mandate that will dramatically increase costs or the state, municipalities and pet owners.

The State of California’s Department of Finance strongly recommends AGAINST SB 250, in an analysis released on May 5, 2009, a copy of which is attached:

FISCAL SUMMARY

This bill would result in a substantial increase to the General Fund cost of the Animal Adoption mandate. The Animal Adoption mandate currently costs more than $24 million annually to reimburse local government shelters’ cost to care for impounded animals. Given the current economic climate, requiring the owners of dogs and cats to pay for sterilization procedures would result in more animals being abandoned or surrendered because of the owners’ inability to finance the sterilization procedure and pay additional fines.

This bill could create a new state-mandated local program by requiring local agencies to utilize existing procedures or establish new procedures for unaltered dog license denials and appeals, which would create additional pressures on the General Fund. The increased administrative costs of these new tasks are unknown.

Because fines for owning an unsterilized dog or cat would only be assessed if there were a concurrent citation for another violation, this bill would also limit local agencies’ ability to collect additional revenue to offset new costs associated with enforcing the bill’s new provisions.

COMMENTS

The Department of Finance is opposed to this measure because it would increase costs for an existing state-mandated local program, potentially create a new state mandated local program, and result in General Fund costs that are not included in the 2009-10 Budget Act.

For the members of the California Legislature to impose such a mandate is highly irresponsible and resulting in extreme harm to pets, pet owners and to the citizens of California.

CA SB 250 – Reduced Licensing Compliance & Loss of State Revenue

Punitive anti-pet laws like CA SB 250 actually reduce licensing compliance.  As reported by the National Animal Interest Alliance, only 17% of California’s pet owners license their pets.

This low compliance rate will dwindle even lower – resulting in the LOSS of state revenue, not a gain.

Proponents of CA SB 250 have relied on a punitive and permanently flawed “self-funding” revenue model which imposes high fees and has a dismal track record.

CA SB 250 – Increased Surrenders, Overburdened Shelters & Killing Innocent Animals

Shelters in cities where mandatory sterilization laws have been enacted have seen a sharp spike in owner surrenders, which in turn increases sheltering costs and euthanasia of formerly-owned dogs.

This is directly due to the fact that many dog owners become fearful of new, anti-dog, anti-breeding laws, and find it difficult, expensive to comply or cannot afford to move out of town or out of state with their dogs.

The impact of anti-dog laws such as CA SB 250 is the swelling of already overburdened shelter populations, budgets that quickly spiral out of control, and the unnecessary euthanasia of healthy dogs.  Instead of functioning life-saving stations, local shelters will become death camps for innocent dogs.

In short, mandatory sterilization laws are a proven failure and KILL innocent animals.

CA SB 250 – Government Interference In Practice Of Veterinary Medicine

Does the State wish to dictate the practice of veterinary medicine to veterinarians?

By mandating sterilization procedures for all pets, the State of California is creating government interference in the private practice of veterinary medicine.

The direct result of this will also be that veterinarians will find themselves constrained in their practice by what any state legislature deems to be a “mandatory practice”.

If such government interference is allowed to take hold, which veterinary procedures will next be mandated or outlawed, banned or restricted based on political correctness or the opinions of a small but vocal group of animal activists?

Will the practice of veterinary medicine then be subject to the whims of uninformed local or state legislators? Such policy is folly, and can only lead to great harm to animals, pet owners and to the veterinarians themselves.

CA SB 250 -  Interferes With Private Relationships With Veterinary Healthcare Providers & Pet-Owning Clients

As responsible and caring dog owners, we depend on our veterinarians to work with us to make wise decisions concerning health of our dogs.

CA SB 250 will significantly interfere with the private and protected relationship between an animal owner and his or her veterinary healthcare provider.

Decisions about surgeries that carry risks – are decisions that pet owners need to make in consultation with their veterinarians – not the state legislature.

CA SB 250 –  Negative Impact & Health Risks Mandatory Spay/Neuter Surgeries

The veterinary literature is overwhelmingly conclusive in finding that spay and neuter is not therapeutic in nature, but rather is extremely detrimental to the health and welfare of the dogs.

Spay/neuter surgeries cause some cancers, hormonal interruptions, aggressive behavior and other maladies attributed to the spaying or neutering of dogs.

In the May 15, 2009 edition of the Journal o the American Veterinary Medical Association, the AVMA wrote:
AVMA: Mandatory Spay/Neuter A Bad Idea

“Prevention of unexpected litters; reduced incidences of some cancers and reproductive diseases; and prevention and amelioration of certain undesirable behaviors have been documented as benefits to spaying/neutering dogs and cats. However, potential health problems associated with spaying and neutering have also been identified, including an increased risk of prostatic cancer in males; increased risks of bone cancer and hip dysplasia in large-breed dogs associated with sterilization before maturity; and increased incidences of obesity, diabetes, urinary tract infections, urinary incontinence, and hypothyroidism”.

http://www.avma.org/onlnews/javma/may09/090515j.asp

Animals undergoing mandatory spay/neuter surgeries:

• suffer pain
• are at increased risk of infection
• experience extended recovery times
• suffer a host of ill-effects

Furthermore, most spay/neuter surgeries are “for the benefit of humans” and the positive effects are outweighed by the impressive list of negative side effects.

CA SB 250: Threatens Food & Agriculture By Changes To Legal Status Of Animals

CA SB 250 further threatens California’s immense agricultural industry with a backdoor assault on the legal status of animals as property.

Extremists in the animal rights movement see the elimination of the legal status of animals as property, and the subsequent elimination of animals in the food supply chain, and indeed all animal use as the end goal.

In is analysis of CA SB 250, the California Department of Finance calls attention to this issue in the following statement:

This bill would add the term “custodian” to the Food and Agricultural Code, which would have far-reaching implications. Specifically, the term “custodian” may reduce the legal status and value of dogs and cats and restrict the rights of owners, veterinarians, and government agencies to protect and care for animals.

Clearly, CA SB 250 could have deep and devastating consequences for the future of animal agriculture in California.

CA SB 250:  Eliminating Presumption Of Innocence

CA SB 250 eliminates the presumption of innocence making all dog owners of “intact dogs” guilty and without recourse.

Under the rules of our judiciary, it is unimaginable to think that a state government would create a reverse onus – thus shifting the burden of proof from the state to the accused.

This bill is counter to the very principles upon which our democracy stands.

Our response is to respectfully remind the Committee Members that our judicial system operates upon the presumption that all citizens in the United States are innocent until proven guilty, not the reverse.

Furthermore, there is no hearing or an appeals process by which may defend themselves against charges.

Closing Thoughts

In closing, the American Rottweiler Club rejects the criminalization of responsible dog ownership, the flawed concept of outlawing or eliminating through heavy-handed regulation the lawful breeding, ownership, and custody of dogs – or ANY animals.

We formally oppose the erosion by proxy laws of the civil rights and liberties guaranteed to all citizens of the United States under the guise of animal protection.

The American Rottweiler Club, having conducted a thorough analysis of this bill, concludes that California SB 250 would:

• Criminalize dog ownership
• Fail to protect the welfare of ALL dogs
• Threaten animal agriculture and food production
• Waste valuable tax-payer dollars

CA SB 250:  In Summary

The American Rottweiler Club urges the State Of California and the Esteemed Members Committee to act appropriately and responsibly by voting NO on California SB 250.

We urge the Committee Members to reject CA SB 250 in its entirety, and not allow this dangerous and misguided piece of legislation, no matter how well- intentioned, to bring about the destruction of innocent dogs, eliminate the responsible and ethical ownership of dogs, discriminate against owners of intact dogs, and deprive people of their civil rights.

We thank you for your attention to this very important matter and remain committed to providing the State of California with expert advice in matters of animal husbandry and the humane care and treatment of dogs.  We would be honored to be called upon to serve.

Very truly yours,

Jeff Shaver
President
American Rottweiler Club, Inc.
jshaver522@yahoo.com
(web site) www.AmRottClub.org

cc: American Rottweiler Club Board, Peter Piusz, Delegate

Tell your legislators that SB 250 is a bad idea.

CA SB 250  will result in a reduction of dog licenses, cost the taxpayers millions in increased shelter and enforcement costs and result in more dogs being euthanized!

Visit PetPac today to sign the petition: www.PetPac.net

Hurry – you pets are in danger!

ARC Bill Summary:

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

SENATE BILL No. 250
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.

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.

The people of the State of California do enact as follows:
1 SECTION 1. Section 30804.6 is added to the Food and
2 Agricultural Code, to read:
3 30804.6. (a) (1) Every dog owner shall secure a license for
4 the dog pursuant to Section 121690 of the Health and Safety Code
5 or as required by the local licensing agency.
6 (2) No person shall own, keep, or harbor an unsterilized dog in
7 violation of this section.
8 (3) An owner or custodian of an unsterilized dog shall have the
9 dog sterilized by the age of six months, provide obtain a certificate
10 of sterility, or, if provided for by ordinance of the responsible city,
11 county, or city and county, obtain an unaltered dog license in
12 accordance with this section.
13 (4) This subdivision shall not apply to a dog with a high
14 likelihood, due to age or infirmity, of suffering serious bodily harm
15 or death if surgically sterilized. The owner or custodian shall obtain
16 written confirmation of this fact from a veterinarian licensed in
17 this state. If the dog is able to be sterilized at a later date, that date
18 shall be stated in the written confirmation. If the date for
19 sterilization in the written confirmation is more than 30 days after
20 the date that the owner or custodian receives that confirmation,
21 the owner or custodian shall apply for an unaltered dog license
22 pursuant to any applicable city, city and county, or county
23 ordinance.
24 (b) An unaltered dog license may be denied or revoked for one
25 or more of the following reasons:
26 (b) The licensing agency shall utilize its existing procedures or
27 may establish procedures for the denial or revocation of an
28 unaltered dog license and may deny or revoke a license for one
29 or more of the following reasons:
30 (1) The owner, custodian, applicant or licensee is not in
31 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.

(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:

(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.

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 XIIIB 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.

123456789

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.

O