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 14, 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? ***************