This increases the fines already imposed under existing law, and adds the provision for compulsory spay or neuter on the third impoundment.

It is natrual to assume that impoundment was a result of the animal running free. However, that is not always the case. Impoundment could occur because the owner was injured in a car accident, protection during a disaster, a caretaker is arrested, or other scenarios where the animal is taken into custody but was not free roaming or in any way in violation of the law. The correction for that problem need not be overly complicated. Provision for a hearing and the ability to waive or abate the penalty or the violation would allow room for just results.

One significant issue whether the owner of a female dog can prove it is spayed. Dogs are frequently acquired at an age where it is common for spaying to have already been done. Evidence of spay is not always easily deterimned by physical examination. An owner willing to adopt a dog of unknown history should not be required to subject the dog to unnecessary surgery merely because they are unable to conclusively prove that the dog has already been spayed.

A very serious issue is the limited time provided. If the owner of the dog desires to challenge the validity of the citation it is inevitable that more than 14 days will pass before a hearing. A dog owner should not be penalized for making use of their legal right to due process, making the goverment prove the validity of its actions.

This is far more open to abuse and injustice than will seem obvious at first. For example, dog owners frequently carry their dog license rather than having it attached to the collar as the law requires. Often cited reasons include that the tag gets caught on things endangering the dog. Yet this is a violation that could subject a dog to compulsory sterilzation. There is no requirement for the passage of time between complaints. A single incident could result in the required number of complaints. Nor is there any forgiveness for the passage of time. An incident occurs when the dog is one, again when it is three and then again when it is twelve. There is nothing here that allows a local agency to set aside imposing mandatory sterilization regardless of the health o fthe dog.

Note also that this provision rests on a complaint being made. It does not specify that the owner be adjudged liable or accept liabilty for that complaint. The mere filing of a complaint is not the same as a finding that the complaint was valid or that an actual violation of the law has occurred.