According to the article 4 of the bill, “To the extent that funding is available…a local animal control agency shall establish a free and low-cost spay and neuter program for low-income individuals. The agency shall undertake outreach efforts to inform qualified persons about these programs. The bill also specifies what is required for an animal owner to obtain a permit, requirements that have been referred to as ridiculous and expensive. Those conditions are; that an owner must provide information indicating that they are doing business as a licensed breeder. The owner must demonstrate, at the discretion of the local jurisdiction that their animal has: competed in legitimate shows, is a valid breed recognized by a purebred registry; or has earned a title from a purebred registry. A third condition is that the owner provide proof that their dog has been, or is being, appropriately trained and meets the definition of a guide dog, service dog, or signal dog. 

A similar condition is that the dog is being trained, or is documented as having been appropriately trained and actively used by law enforcement agencies,  for rescue activities. The final condition is that the owner of the cat or dog provide a letter “from (a) local animal control agency (or) a California licensed veterinarian stating that due to age, poor health, or illness, it is unsafe to spay or neuter the cat or dog.” The letter must be updated. Hopkins states that there is fear that this law could also lead to increased euthanasia for mixed breeds, or any cat, as ownership fees will deter owners from obtaining a permit. The big impacts is the impact on local jurisdictions, in our case the county. There is a shift, said Hopkins, to place the responsibility from the state to the public and the state is not providing any revenue for doing so. He said there are going to be increased costs at the county level for many reasons, including more animals in local animal shelters, enforcement, outreach programs, and free and low cost spay and neuter programs.

Hopkins then proceeded to go over who opposes and is in support of the bill. Those in opposition include: AKC, American Dog Breeders Association, United Kennel Club, International Cat Association, Sacramento Council of Dog Clubs, American Dog Owners Association, and the California Farm Bureau. In support of the bill is: The California Animal Control Directors Association, State Humane Association of California, California Veterinarian Medical Association, and the Centers for Disease Control. The Supervisors and members of the public that spoke were not in favor of the Assembly. Supervisor Richard Forster made his feelings clear when he said he’ll approve it if Levine was to step up and be the first person to do it. He then made a motion to send a letter opposing AB 1634 to the legislator and author with the strongest language possible.