BILL ANALYSIS AB 241 Page 1 Date of Hearing: April 14, 2009 Counsel: Kathleen Ragan ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY Jose Solorio, Chair AB 241 (Nava) - As Amended: April 13, 2009 REVISED SUMMARY : Makes it a misdemeanor for an individual or business that buys or sells dogs or cats to have more than a combined total of 50 unsterilized dogs and cats, as specified. Specifically, this bill : 1)Provides that no person shall own, possess, or otherwise have charge or custody of more than a combined total of 50 unsterilized dogs and cats at any time for purposes of breeding or raising such dogs and cats for sale as pets or for the purposes of producing offspring from such dogs and cats for sale as pets. 2)States that an individual or business that must reduce the number of intact dogs or cats in order to comply with this section shall spay or neuter the excess animals or sell, transfer, or relinquish the excess animals within 30 days of notification by authorities. 3)States that if necessary, any euthanasia procedures shall be performed by a licensed California veterinarian. 4)Provides that a peace officer, humane society officer, or animal control officer may lawfully take possession of an animal kept in violation of this section when necessary to protect the health or safety of the animal or the health or safety of others. Requires an officer that seizes an animal under this subdivision to provide the owner of the animal with the opportunity for a post-seizure hearing, as specified. 5)States that this section does not apply to a publicly owned animal control facility or animal shelter; to a veterinary facility, a retail pet store or a research institution. AB 241 Page 2 EXISTING LAW : 1)Makes it a misdemeanor to permit an animal to be in any building, enclosure, street, lot, or judicial district without proper care and attention. States that any peace officer, humane society officer, or animal control officer shall take possession of the stray or abandoned animal and shall provide proper care and treatment for the animal until the animal is deemed to be in a suitable condition to be returned to the owner. Provides that when the officer has reasonable grounds to believe that very prompt action is required to protect the health or safety of the animal, the officer shall immediately seize the animal and comply with specified opportunity for a pre-seizure or post-seizure hearing, as specified, to determine the validity of a seizure or impoundment of the animal(s). [Penal Code Section 597.1(a).] 2)Provides that the animal's failure to request to attend, or to attend a scheduled hearing shall result in a forfeiture of the animal(s) and the right to challenge the costs of the owner(s)' liability for any costs incurred. [Penal Code Section 597.1(f).] 3)Provides that where the need for the immediate seizure of the animal is not present and prior to the commencement of any criminal proceedings, the agency shall provide the owner or keeper of the animal with the opportunity for a hearing prior to the seizure of the animal, if ascertainable after reasonable investigation. [Penal Code Section 597.1(f).] 4)States that it is the policy of California that no adoptable animal should be euthanized if it can be adopted into a suitable home. Provides that adoptable animals include only those animals eight weeks of age or older that, at or subsequent to the time the animal is impounded have manifested no sign of behavioral or temperamental defect that could pose a health or safety risk or otherwise make the animal unsuitable for placement as a pet, and have manifested no sign of disease, injury, congenital or hereditary condition that adversely affects the health of the animal or that is likely to adversely affect the health of the animal in the future. [Penal Code Section 599d(a).] 5)Further states that it is the policy of California that no AB 241 Page 3 treatable animal should be euthanized. States that a treatable animal includes any animal that is not adoptable but that could become adoptable with reasonable efforts. [Penal Code Section 599d(b).] 6)Requires a notice with specified information to be posted to a conspicuous place where the animal was situated stating the grounds for believing the animal should be seized. [Penal Code Section 597.1(g)(1).] 7)Requires the notice to state that the cost of caring for and treating the animal is a lien on the animal and that any animal shall not be returned to the owner until the charged are paid. [Penal Code Section 597(g)(1).] FISCAL EFFECT : Unknown COMMENTS : 1)Author's Statement : According to the author, "A 'puppy mill' is a large-scale commercial breeding facility that mass-produces puppies for sale.' The World Animal Foundation explains that 'puppy mill kennels usually consist of small wood and wire-mesh cages, or even empty crates or trailer cabs, all kept outdoors, where female dogs are bred continuously, with no rest between heat cycles. The mothers and their litters often suffer from malnutrition, exposure, and lack of veterinary care. "Continuous breeding takes its toll on the females; they are killed at about age six or seven when their bodies give out, and they can no longer produce enough litters. The puppies are taken from their mothers at the age of four to eight weeks, and sold to brokers who pack them into crates for transport and resale to pet shops. Puppies being shipped from mill to broker to pet shop can cover hundreds of miles by pickup truck, tractor trailer, and/or plane, often without adequate food, water, ventilation, or shelter. "Between unsanitary conditions at puppy mills and poor conditions in transport, only half of the dogs bred at mills survive to make it to market. Of those that eventually do make it to stores, thousands of puppies each year are often sold to 'impulse buyers' and ultimately end up in shelters. Nearly one million dogs and cats land in California shelters AB 241 Page 4 every year, of whom approximately one-half are ultimately euthanized. "A criminal bust of a single puppy mill can yield massive expenses to the state and local jurisdictions due to the cost of shelter, food, and veterinary care. A puppy mill bust last year in which 249 animals were rescued in Buxton, Maine cost the state $440,000. Humane organizations in the region raised approximately $70,000 in additional funds to assist with the rescue operation. "AB 241 will curb pet overpopulation, eliminate mass breeding efforts, and save state and local jurisdictions vital dollars during our ongoing economic crisis." 2)Background : According to background information supplied by the author, "The U.S. Department of Agriculture is tasked with monitoring and inspecting kennels to ensure that they are not violating the standards of the Animal Welfare Act (AWA.) Unfortunately, kennel inspections are a low priority. In the U.S. there are more than 1000 research facilities, more than 2,800 exhibitors, and 4,500 dealers that are supposed to be inspected each year. There are three Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service sector offices with a total of approximately 70 veterinary inspectors who are supposed to inspect, unannounced, the various types of facilities covered by the AWA. This means that 70 inspectors are expected to cover more than 8,300 facilities nationwide. "Two other states - Louisiana and Virginia - have laws that cap the number of animals a breeder mazy maintain. Twenty-nine other states are also currently considering animal cap legislation." 3)Other Facts Provided by the Sponsor : According to other background information provided by the author: a) The U.S. Department of Agriculture is tasked with monitoring and inspecting kennels to ensure that they are not violating the AWA standards. Unfortunately, kennel inspections are a low priority. In the U.S. there are more than 1,000 research facilities, more than 2,800 exhibitors and 4,500 dealers that are supposed to be inspected each year. There are three Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service sector offices with a total of a proximately 770 AB 241 Page 5 veterinary inspectors who are supposed to inspect, unannounced, the various types of facilities covered by the AWA. This means that 70 Inspectors are expected to cover more than 8,300 facilities nationwide annually. "Two other states - Louisiana and Virginia - have laws that cap the number of animals a breeder may maintain. Twenty-nine other states are also currently considering animal cap legislation. b) According to the sponsor, the U.S. Humane Society of the United States, "AB 241 addresses the problems puppy mills create by limiting the number of intact cats or dogs a seller can maintain. By limiting the number of animals who can produce, this legislation will improve enforcement of existing state law and enable animal control to more effectively and efficiently deal with complaints about dogs and cats living in squalid conditions and receiving inadequate care. This legislation also addresses pet overpopulation and the stress that large-scale breeders place on animal shelters and our communities. 4)Arguments in Support : a) According to the Humane Society of the United States , "AB 241 addresses the problems puppy mills create by limiting the number of intact cats or dogs a seller can maintain. By limiting the number of animals who can reproduce, this legislation will improve enforcement of existing state law and enable animal control to more effectively and efficiently deal with complaints about dogs and cats living in squalid conditions and receiving inadequate care. This legislation also addresses pet overpopulation and the stress that large-scale breeders place on animal shelters and our communities." b) According to the San Diego Animal Advocates , "[w]e have seen the cruel consequences and the huge financial costs to taxpayers of pet overpopulation. Puppy mills and kitten mills are not only a huge part of that problem but are inherently cruel in their practices. AB 241 is an important tool to curb this ugly business and stop the suffering of innocent animals." c) According to Last Chance for Animals , "Although the U.S. AB 241 Page 6 Department of Agriculture licenses and inspects large scale breeding operations, the current laws are insufficient in addressing the pet overpopulation problem that plagues this country. If implemented, AB 241 will help curb pet overpopulation, prevent animal cruelty and save taxpayer money by reducing the number of cats and dogs euthanized in local shelters. The law will reach these goals by limiting the number of intact cats and dogs a breeder may maintain to 50. By limiting the number of animals allowed in a breeding situation, AB 241 makes the enforcement of state animal welfare laws possible and efficient." d) According to Born Free , "Many animals sold in pet shops have been bred in mills - outfits where animals are mass-produced in often appalling conditions. Puppy mills are most commonly known; they are breeding facilities that produce purebred puppies or trendy breed puppies such as the 'cockapoo' (cocker spaniel and poodle mix) in large numbers. The puppies are sold either directly to the public via the Internet, newspaper ads, at the mill itself, or are sold to brokers and pet shops across the country. "The documented problems of puppy mills include over-breeding, inbreeding, minimal veterinary care, overcrowding of cages, poor quality of food and shelter, lack of socialization with humans, and the killing of unwanted puppies or adult animals that can no longer reproduce. "In spite of these awful conditions as well as the millions of dogs put to death each year for lack of a home at local animal shelters, puppy mills continue to churn out puppies. By placing a cap in the number of animals that can be kept at a facility, AB 241 will help to improve conditions at these commercial breeding facilities, thereby helping animals and protecting consumers." e) According to Pet Overpopulation Task Force , "In the year 2008, the City of Stockton Animal Shelter took in 6,430 dogs and 6,547 cats. These numbers include puppies and kittens. Of the 12,997 dogs and cats taken in at our shelter, 3,868 and 5,837 cats were euthanized. The opponents of this bill will tell you that most of the dogs and cats killed at shelters are feral and not suitable for adoption. This simply is not true. Many of these animals AB 241 Page 7 were healthy and docile but there simply were not enough homes for them. [I]t is time to look at and address the facts of the pet overpopulation crisis and stop listening to special interest groups that are selfishly protecting their personal interests at the expense of mixed-breed animals that have the misfortune of being born in a state that is willing to spend a quarter of a billion dollars a year to destroy unwanted animals." 5)Arguments in Opposition : a) According to PetPAC , "While owning 50 intact dogs seems excessive, there are a number of toy and small breeds that rarely breed large numbers in their litters. In many instances, not all intact dogs are bred each year. This bill makes it a misdemeanor if one violates this provision. It allows the officer to investigate books and records . . . and allows the officer to confiscate animals. "Because this is a criminal investigation, PetPAC feels this section may be unconstitutional under self incrimination and the 5th Amendment Sections of the United States Constitution. This bill may even violate illegal search and seizure laws as well as Miranda warnings under statutes of the State of California." b) According to the Animal Council , "While this bill may be intended to criminalize puppy mills and animal hoarding, the proposed offense is only based on a person owning, possessing, controlling or otherwise having charge or custody of more than a combined total of 50 unsterilized dogs and cats at any time used for purposes of breeding or raising such dogs or cats for sale as pets, or for the purposes of producing offspring from such dogs or cats for sale as pets. Does this mean that all 50 must have actually been bred and produced offspring or that they are unsterilized and therefore potentially usable to do so? If the latter, then there is no maturity threshold so that younger animals being kept for evaluation as breeding stock or even awaiting placement as pets would be excluded from this cap. "In fact, commercial breeding of dogs based on a business model requires limiting mature animals kept and selling offspring at wholesale to contain economic risk of the cost AB 241 Page 8 of carrying 'inventory' beyond the minimum saleable age. This requires a USDA license and is rare in California for reasons not limited to cost of real estate, transportation and labor. Hoarding is not merely keeping a large number of animals but lacking the combined means - financial, physical, managerial or psychological to care for them adequately regardless of whether breeding is involved. "2009 is the first time we have ever seen legislative proposals to regulate dog or cat owners based on a cap of unaltered animals, so this is a novel and untried concept, particularly if applied to economically viable businesses conducted under satisfactory husbandry standards. Would we limit dairies the number of cows or factories the number of producing machines? No, because there are other ways to regulate business as to safety and quality standards. As to animals, California already has such statutes in addition to many local ordinances. AB 241 would create an unworkable, difficult to ascertain standard for a criminal offense that is not rationally linked to criminal activity or conduct of an economically viable business." c) According to California Responsible Pet Owners Coalition , "AB 241 is vague in intent, definition and application. It seeks to create a new misdemeanor and criminal offense prohibiting anyone who buys or sells dogs or cats from owning, possessing, controlling or otherwise having charge or custody of more than a combined total of 50 intact dogs and/or cats. The vagaries of the bill's language opens the door to potential abuse of power, invasive investigation, and arbitrary enforcement. "By adding to the Penal Code as proposed, AB 241 is taking an inappropriate approach to attempt to address issues of care and husbandry. This proposal mandates new regulations to state and/or local agencies yet denies reimbursement by the state for implementation. "Limit laws like the 50-dog limit contained in AB 241 are based on arbitrary numbers and have been found to be unenforceable as well as vulnerable to court challenges. "Responsible pet and hobby breeders should be treated as partners in helping to improve kennel standards and to eliminate negligent breeders. Instead, this bill threatens AB 241 Page 9 to alienate the very community that can help most. "What is needed is appropriate enforcement of existing cruelty and nuisance laws to crack down on those who disobey the law, not more regulation for reasonable law-abiding citizens." d) According to the Cat Fanciers' Association, Inc., (CFA), "This criminal bill is based on a cap on owning 50 unaltered cats. It is virtually impossible to breed pedigreed cats as an economically viable business; i.e., a 'kitty mill' so this bill would more likely ensnare citizens trying to care for unaltered feral or neighborhood cats, criminalizing a labor of love. Capping unaltered animals is a new policy concept and the likelihood of lowering a cap will be a liability to both our constituent hobby breeders as well as community cat caretakers. Finally, creating a new misdemeanor crime adds unfunded costs to the criminal justice system without offsetting benefits. "CFA is a non-profit organization founded in 1906. Part of CFA's mission is to enhance the well-being of all cats. CFA participants, who breed and show pedigreed cats, are active in cat health promotion, cat breed rescue, shelter support and other animal related programs throughout the world." e) According to the German Shepherd Dog Club of America , "AB 241, the Responsible Breeder Act of 2009 is attempting to bypass the inherent financial problems by adding it to the Penal Code. Nevertheless, this does mandate new regulations to a state or local agency, probable budget shortfalls and future requests for reimbursement by the state. "AB 241 creates a new misdemeanor offense prohibiting anyone who buys or sells dogs or cats from owning, possessing, controlling or otherwise having charge or custody of more than a combined total of 50 dogs and cats with intact sexual organs. This would incur abuse of power, invasive investigation and arbitrary enforcement. The bill is vague in intent and in definition. "Limit laws, like the 50-dog limit contained in AB 241 are AB 241 Page 10 based on an arbitrary number and have been found to be unenforceable and vulnerable to court challenges. "Responsible breeders should be treated as partners in helping to improve kennel standards and eliminate negligent breeders, but this bill threatens to alienate the very community that can be of the most help. "What is needed is greater enforcement of existing cruelty and nuisance laws to find those who disobey the law, not more regulation for law-abiding citizens. Please be fair and thoughtful as you consider this bill." f) Peggy Ruchter states "this bill omits to address the age of such animals. Consequently, an owner of a boarding and training kennel which nay have charge or custody of 30 adult animals could also have one litter of 14 puppies under one week of age and one litter of 10 kittens and be in violation of this law. A training facility for dogs such as military working dogs or service dogs would also be in violation. Rescues funded other than through the public would be in violation. This has the unintended penalty for those whose animals are not contributing to shelter populations and there is no benefit to the public in so restricting them. "[O]ne has to wonder if the intent is to simply force all ownership of intact animals to either Government-run shelters or commercial Pet stores who obtain their animals from out of state . . . . " g) Oneta Cox states, "This week a TV news report showed about 2,000 people standing in front of the Capitol picketing against cuts to education and school funding across the State. And State Legislators are proposing law after law about . . . whether cats and dogs get to keep their sexual organs?" REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION : Support American Society for the Protection of Cruelty Against Animals (Co-Sponsor) Humane Society of the United States (Co-Sponsor) AB 241 Page 11 Social Compassion in Legislation (Co-Sponsor) Born Free California Peace Officers' Association California Police Chiefs Association Compassion for Animals Henry T. Perea, Council Member, 7th District, City of Fresno Humane Society Veterinary Medical Association Last Chance for Animals Madera County Animal Services PawPAC Pet Care Foundation Pet Overpopulation Task Force of Stockton Placer County Animal Shelter San Diego Animal Advocates San Diego Animal Advocates Shasta Animal Welfare Foundation Stockton Police Department United Animal Nations 14 private individuals Opposition Animal Council American Kennel Club California Federation of Dog Clubs Cat Fanciers' Association Feline Friends International German Shepherd Dog Club of America Golden Retriever Club of Greater Los Angeles Miniature Schnauzer Club of Northern California PetPAC We the People for Pets United States Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Others Five private individuals Analysis Prepared by : Kathleen Ragan / PUB. S. / (916) 319-3744