SACRAMENTO, Calif. — Legislation to require mandatory sterilization of kittens and puppies in California has sparked grave concerns among lawmakers and is likely to be killed today by a Senate committee.
"I could probably say, yeah, it's in trouble," said state Sen. Gloria Negrete McLeod, D-Chino, who chairs the Senate Local Government Committee that will decide today whether the bill lives or dies.
The measure would require spaying or neutering of millions of California pets in an effort to reduce the burden on animal shelters that euthanize more than 400,000 dogs and cats annually.
All five members of the committee agreed that the legislation, Assembly Bill 1634, is on shaky ground for today's hearing.
Three votes would kill the measure - and no committee member expressed enthusiasm or support for it Tuesday. But most said they want to hear testimony before making a final decision.
"There's a lot of problems with the bill," said state Sen. Tom Harman, R-Huntington Beach.
"It's a very controversial issue and I want to listen to both sides. But right now, I'm tending to think that I'm going to be voting no on it."
Assemblyman Lloyd Levine, a Van Nuys Democrat who proposed AB 1634, said he is aware of the senators' misgivings. But he has not abandoned hope of passing the measure, he said.
"The bill has appeared to be in trouble in the past, and we have managed to overcome that trouble," Levine said.
"Once people get a chance to see my supporters and the opponents side by side, it's clear which side has logic and reason and fact on their side," he said.
AB 1634 has produced some of the year's most passionate, crowded and contentious legislative hearings, routinely attracting more than 400 supporters and opponents.
Roughly 20,000 people have sent letters or signed petitions to argue their case to members of the Senate Local Government Committee, according to a Senate analysis of AB 1634.
"They've broken my fax machine," said Negrete McLeod, smiling.
The campaign promoting AB 1634 received a blow last week when the California Veterinary Medical Association, a former co-sponsor, switched its position to neutral because of division within its ranks.
Another committee member, state Sen. Dave Cox, R-Fair Oaks, said outright Tuesday that he plans to vote no on the bill.
"My position is that this is a local issue, this is something that ought not be a mandate," Cox said of mandatory pet sterilization. "One size doesn't fit all."
Cox said he represents 12 counties with differing needs and "from that standpoint, this is not a bill I can support."
AB 1634 is designed to reduce the number of unwanted animals in California by making it impossible for most pets to reproduce.
Taxpayers spend more than $300 million annually to house, feed, euthanize and dispose of unwanted dogs and cats, Levine said.
AB 1634 would require puppies and kittens to be spayed or neutered by the age of 6 months. Owners could be fined $500 for ignoring the law.
Exceptions would be made for police dogs, guide dogs, signal dogs, service dogs and various other working canines.
Pets also would be excused if a veterinarian states that they should not be sterilized because of age, illness or poor health.
Permits could be purchased to possess an unaltered dog or cat under certain conditions, for example, if it is a purebred animal that competes in shows.
As a concession that helped win narrow passage of his bill in the Assembly, 41-38, Levine agreed to allow local officials to issue permits enabling households to have one litter of mixed-breed puppies. The provision would expire in January 2012.
AB 1634 is not meant to spark a door-to-door search for violators, but if a roaming dog or cat were impounded, a "fix-it ticket" could be issued.
Levine and others say it is inhumane to allow indiscriminate breeding of hordes of unwanted animals that are destined to be euthanized.
But opponents lambaste AB 1634 as largely unenforceable, and say spay and neuter decisions should be left to local government.
The two sides also disagree on whether mandating sterilization at a young age poses any significant risk to a pet's health.
Numerous hobbyist breeders claim that AB 1634 could put them out of business by charging for breeding permits and restricting the types of animals allowed to reproduce.
One member of the Senate Local Government Committee, state Sen. Christine Kehoe, D-San Diego, said she considers it relevant that the state veterinary association withdrew its support for AB 1634.
Records show that numerous other animal agencies continue to support the bill, including the California Animal Control Directors Association and the State Humane Association of California.
Kehoe said AB 1634 would impose an entirely new program on San Diego County, which she represents, because local government there does not currently license cats.
"The bill does appear to be in trouble," Kehoe said. "I'm going to listen to testimony. I never promise my vote ahead of time. But I do think that there's a lot of concern about whether the bill should continue to move."