BILL ANALYSIS
SENATE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY
Senator Mark Leno, Chair A
2009-2010 Regular Session B
2
4
1
AB 241 (Nava)
As Amended June 23, 2009
Hearing date: July 2, 2009
Penal Code
MK:br
DOGS AND CATS: BREEDING FOR SALE
HISTORY
Source: The Humane Society of the United States
The American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to
Animals
Social Compassion in Legislation
Prior Legislation: None
Support: Best Friends Animal Society; California Animal Control
Directors Association; California Animal Association;
United Animal Nations; Pet Overpopulation Task Force;
Another Chance Animal Welfare League; City of West
Hollywood; The Paw Project; Voice for the Animals
Foundation; California Peace Officers' Association;
California Police Chiefs Association; California
Federation for Animal Legislation; Born Free USA; City
of Fresno; City of Stockton; City of Long Beach;
Compassion for Animals; Friends of Auburn/Tahoe Vista
Placer County Animal Shelter; Humane Society Veterinary
Medical Association; Last Chance for Animals; Madera
County Department of Animal Services; Paw Pac; The Pet
Care Foundation; San Diego Animal Advocates; Shasta
Animal Welfare Foundation; a number of individuals
(More)
AB 241 (Nava)
PageB
Opposition:American Kennel Club; Greyhound Club of Northern
California; German Shepherd Dog Club of America; Pet
Industry Joint Advisory Council; Chow Fanciers
Association of Southern California; California
Responsible Pet Owners Coalition; Miniature Schnauzer
Club of Northern California; PetPAC; Irish Wolfhound
Club of America; California Federation of Dog Clubs;
American Herding Breed Association; The Irish Water
Spaniel Club of America; The Animal Council; California
Outdoor Heritage Alliance; a number of individuals
Assembly Floor Vote: Ayes 60 - Noes 14
KEY ISSUE
SHOULD THE LAW PROVIDE THAT NO PERSON SHALL OWN, POSSESS, CONTROL OR
OTHERWISE HAVE CHARGE OR CUSTODY OF MORE THAN A COMBINED TOTAL OF 50
UNSTERILIZED DOGS AND CATS AT ANY TIME USED FOR THE PURPOSE OF
BREEDING OR RAISING DOGS OR CATS FOR SALE AS PETS, OR FOR THE
PURPOSE OF PRODUCING OFFSPRING FROM DOGS OR CATS FOR SALE AS PETS?
PURPOSE
The purpose of this bill is to prohibit any person from owning
more than 50 unsterilized dogs or cats for the purposes of
breeding them for pets.
Existing law makes it a misdemeanor to permit an animal to be in
any building, enclosure, street, lot, or judicial district
without proper care and attention. Existing law also 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. Existing law also 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
(More)
AB 241 (Nava)
PageC
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 597.1
(a).)
Existing law provides that the animal's owner'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 597.1 (f).)
Existing law 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
597.1 (f).)
Existing law 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
599d (a).)
Existing law further states that it is the policy of California
that no treatable animal should be euthanized and that a
treatable animal includes any animal that is not adoptable but
that could become adoptable with reasonable efforts. (Penal
Code 599d (b).)
Existing law requires a notice with specified information to be
posted to a conspicuous place where the animal was situated
(More)
AB 241 (Nava)
PageD
stating the grounds for believing the animal should be seized.
(Penal Code 597.1 (g)(1).)
Existing law 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
charges are paid. (Penal Code 597 (g)(1).)
This bill provides that no person shall own, possess, control,
or otherwise have charge or custody of more than a combined
total of 50 unsterilized dogs and cats at any time used for the
purpose of breeding or raising dogs or cats for sale as pets, or
for the purpose of producing offspring from dogs or cats for
sale as pets.
This bill provides that any person that must reduce the number
of unsterilized 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
following notification by authorities specified. If necessary,
any euthanasia procedures shall be performed by a California
licensed veterinarian.
This bill provides that a peace officer, humane 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. An officer that seizes an animal under this
subdivision shall comply with paragraphs (1) to (4), inclusive,
of subdivision (f) of Section 597.1.
This bill provides that a person who violates this section is
guilty of a misdemeanor.
This bill provides that it does not apply to any of the
following:
A publicly operated animal control facility or duly
incorporated private animal shelter.
A veterinary facility.
(More)
AB 241 (Nava)
PageE
A research facility, as defined in Section 2132 (e) of
Title 7 of the United States Code.
RECEIVERSHIP/OVERCROWDING CRISIS AGGRAVATION
California continues to face a severe prison overcrowding
crisis. The Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR)
currently has about 170,000 inmates under its jurisdiction. Due
to a lack of traditional housing space available, the department
houses roughly 15,000 inmates in gyms and dayrooms.
California's prison population has increased by 125% (an average
of 4% annually) over the past 20 years, growing from 76,000
inmates to 171,000 inmates, far outpacing the state's population
growth rate for the age cohort with the highest risk of
incarceration.<1>
In December of 2006 plaintiffs in two federal lawsuits against
CDCR sought a court-ordered limit on the prison population
pursuant to the federal Prison Litigation Reform Act. On
February 9, 2009, the three-judge federal court panel issued a
tentative ruling that included the following conclusions with
respect to overcrowding:
No party contests that California's prisons are
overcrowded, however measured, and whether considered
in comparison to prisons in other states or jails
within this state. There are simply too many
prisoners for the existing capacity. The Governor,
the principal defendant, declared a state of emergency
in 2006 because of the "severe overcrowding" in
California's prisons, which has caused "substantial
risk to the health and safety of the men and women who
work inside these prisons and the inmates housed in
----------------------
<1> "Between 1987 and 2007, California's population of ages 15
through 44 - the age cohort with the highest risk for
incarceration - grew by an average of less than 1% annually,
which is a pace much slower than the growth in prison
admissions." (2009-2010 Budget Analysis Series, Judicial and
Criminal Justice, Legislative Analyst's Office (January 30,
2009).)
(More)
AB 241 (Nava)
PageF
them." . . . A state appellate court upheld the
Governor's proclamation, holding that the evidence
supported the existence of conditions of "extreme
peril to the safety of persons and property."
(citation omitted) The Governor's declaration of the
state of emergency remains in effect to this day.
. . . the evidence is compelling that there is no
relief other than a prisoner release order that will
remedy the unconstitutional prison conditions.
. . .
Although the evidence may be less than perfectly
clear, it appears to the Court that in order to
alleviate the constitutional violations California's
inmate population must be reduced to at most 120% to
145% of design capacity, with some institutions or
clinical programs at or below 100%. We caution the
parties, however, that these are not firm figures and
that the Court reserves the right - until its final
ruling - to determine that a higher or lower figure is
appropriate in general or in particular types of
facilities.
. . .
Under the PLRA, any prisoner release order that we
issue will be narrowly drawn, extend no further than
necessary to correct the violation of constitutional
rights, and be the least intrusive means necessary to
correct the violation of those rights. For this
reason, it is our present intention to adopt an order
requiring the State to develop a plan to reduce the
prison population to 120% or 145% of the prison's
design capacity (or somewhere in between) within a
(More)
AB 241 (Nava)
PageG
period of two or three years.<2>
The final outcome of the panel's tentative decision, as well as
any appeal that may be in response to the panel's final
decision, is unknown at the time of this writing.
This bill does not appear to aggravate the prison overcrowding
crisis outlined above.
COMMENTS
1. Need for This Bill
According to the author:
According to The Humane Society of the United States, 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 adequate 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
------------------------
<2> Three Judge Court Tentative Ruling, Coleman v.
Schwarzenegger, Plata v. Schwarzenegger, in the United States
District Courts for the Eastern District of California and the
Northern District of California United States District Court
composed of three judges pursuant to Section 2284, Title 28
United States Code (Feb. 9, 2009).
(More)
AB 241 (Nava)
PageH
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
treatment 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 1 million dogs and cats land in
California shelters every year, of whom approximately half
are ultimately euthanized.
A criminal bust of a single puppy mill can yield massive
expenses to 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. Limit on the Number of Animals a Breeder Can Have
This bill caps at 50 the number of unsterilized dogs or cats a
person can have for the purpose of breeding them as pets.
Supporters argue this bill is necessary to address the problem
of "puppy mills" where dogs are kept in unsafe conditions, or
breeding or inbreeding may occur. Specifically the California
Animal Association argues:
Puppy mills are the source of many genetically
inferior diseased animals sold to California
consumers. Puppy mills are usually sold in pet shops
but increasingly over the Internet. They are vehicles
for impulse purchases which are often regretted later
resulting in an increased number of abandoned dogs in
(More)
AB 241 (Nava)
PageI
our public animal shelters. Lowering the number of
animals that can be bred at a single facility is a
beginning at controlling the large number of pets
destroyed in this state at public expense.
(More)
Furthermore, the APCA states:
The U.S. Department of Agriculture licenses and
inspects large-scale commercial breeding operations to
a certain extent and California law requires basic
humane standards. However, there are loopholes and a
lack of enforcement at both the federal and state
level. There are no federal or state laws that
address the negative impact of large-scale breeding
operations on pet overpopulation. The Responsible
Breeder Act of 2009 helps curb pet overpopulation.
The Responsible Breeder Act of 2009 helps curb pet
overpopulation, prevents the inherent cruelty and poor
welfare associated with high-volume breeding, and will
save the state money by limiting the number of intact
dogs and cats a seller can maintain.
SHOULD THE LAW LIMIT THE NUMBER OF UNSTERILIZED DOGS OR CATS A
BREEDER CAN MAINTAIN?
3. The Oppositions Concerns about the Bill
The opponents of this bill argue that existing animal cruelty
laws already address the problems with animals that are not
cared for appropriately and that limiting the number of
unsterilized animals merely hurts legitimate breeders. For
example the Irish Water Spaniel Club of America states:
AB 241 is well meaning but unnecessary. California
already has animal cruelty laws that address bad
facilities, but we need to enforce them rather than
merely adding another layer of difficult-to-enforce
laws. Similar bills with arbitrary numerical caps
have been introduced and rejected in several states
so far this year. The two states that passed this
type of "model" legislation last year are now
finding it unenforceable.
If this bill's aim is to create minimum standards of
(More)
AB 241 (Nava)
PageK
animal care, why shouldn't those standards also
apply to shelters, pet stores, and any other
facility that houses and places pets with the
public?
Our responsible breeders should be treated as
partners in helping to improve standards and
eliminate substandard kennels, but this misguided
bill will alienate the very community that can help
most.
When it comes to proper animal care, it is the
quality of care and the conditions that matters, not
quantity. Limit laws have a little to do with the
quality of care. One lazy person with a single
animal may be negligent, while another with many
animals may provide excellent care.
People who maintain dogs and cats responsibility and
humanely and do not present a nuisance to their
neighbors or to their communities should not be
prevented from keeping them because other animal
owners might not be as responsible.
During this time of fiscal crisis the need is to
focus on more immediate priorities. Please don't
waste precious time on misguided and unnecessary
legislation that localities won't have the resources
to properly enforce.
Existing law already punishes animal neglect, impounding an
animal without sufficient food and water, mistreating confined
animals, the sale of puppies under eight weeks of age, keeping
an animal without proper care and regulates pet shops and live
animal markets. (Penal Code 597e, 597f, 597l, 597t, 597z,
597.1; 597.3) Some of these offenses could apply to the
behavior intended to be prohibited by this bill. Is the
problem that the existing law is not adequate or that it is not
being enforced? Are the opponents correct that the number of
dogs or cats does not in and of itself mean that the breeder is
AB 241 (Nava)
PageL
substandard? Could the limitation have any unintended
consequences for example the proponents raise concerns
regarding inbreeding as well as not giving the females a rest
between litters? Does limiting the number of dogs or cats a
person have solve this issue or encourage more of the undesired
behavior?
DOES EXISTING LAW ADEQUATELY PROHIBIT THE BEHAVIOR SOUGHT TO BE
PROHIBITED BY THIS BILL?
DOES THE FACT THAT A BREEDER HAS A LARGE NUMBER OF DOGS IN AND
OF ITSELF MEAN THAT THE BREEDER IS SUBSTANDARD?
***************