Actually reading the latest version of SB 250 leads me to the conclusion that SB 250 can be used punatively against feral caretakers and feeders due to its definition of "custodian," as below. A custodian is defined as someone who "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.
"Care of a cat" clearly covers care of ferals by feeders and colony managers. The second half of the sentence applies to "non-owners," meaning, I guess, people who declare cats living on their property are not theirs, who take care of the cat for 30 days.
The penalty for not S/N such a cat and providing the licensing agency with proof of sterility is $100/day.
Based on this interpretation, I would have to conclude the legislation can be, and likely will be used against feral colony caretakers.
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.
THIS TOO SEEMS TO REFER TO FERAL CARE TAKERS WHO "KEEP" CATS.
(2) An owner or custodian of an unsterilized cat who permits that cat to roam at large shall have the animal sterilized, or obtain a certificate of sterility.
(c), the owner or custodian shall provide the licensing agency written verification from a licensed veterinarian that the subject cat has been sterilized. The licensing
agency may impose a penalty pursuant to Section 30804.7 not to
exceed one hundred dollars ($100) per day, in addition to any other
existing penalty which may be imposed consistent with this chapter,
against the owner or custodian if the owner or custodian fails to
provide the required sterilization information.
(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
I WOULD SUPPORT THE LEGISLATION IF IT SPECIFICALLY EXEMPTED PERSONS WHO MAINTAIN FERAL COLONIES.
You are exactly correct in that. And it affects the thousands of compassionate Californians who have an "arms-length" relationship with a feral cat. They may not be able to capture it, but they provide a modicum of food and shelter.
They are not the "owners" and are responsible for making the cat comply. If they happen to also own intact dogs they lose big as they are punished for the cat and have all their intact dog licenses cancelled and all their dogs, that have no violations, will be sterilized or seized.
Concerned Dog Owners of California
Supporting this legislation "if" it exempts "feral cat caregivers' only allows for more animals .. including feral cats to be killed.. any support of sb 250 in any form will cost millions ( see the fiscal analysis of the bill) and INCREASE death..of all pets and ferals in California. "Exemptions" in bad laws usually end up being INCLUDED somewhere down the line..once the law is enacted ( an we all hope it will not be0 changes are much easier to make...why is it that "certain grups " are ok with laws that 'exempt' them but are willing to throw other responsible
owners under the bus? NO ON SB 250
Post a Comment