BILL ANALYSIS ------------------------------------------------------------ |SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | AB 241| |Office of Senate Floor Analyses | | |1020 N Street, Suite 524 | | |(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | | |327-4478 | | ------------------------------------------------------------ THIRD READING Bill No: AB 241 Author: Nava (D), et al Amended: 7/23/09 in Senate Vote: 21 SENATE PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE : 3-3, 7/14/09 (FAIL) AYES: Leno, Cedillo, Hancock NOES: Benoit, Huff, Wright NO VOTE RECORDED: Steinberg SENATE PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE : 4-0, 07/16/09 AYES: Leno, Cedillo, Hancock, Steinberg NO VOTE RECORDED: Benoit, Huff, Wright SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE : Senate Rule 28.8 ASSEMBLY FLOOR : 60-14, 5/21/09 - See last page for vote SUBJECT : Dogs and cats: breeding for sale SOURCE : Humane Society of the United States American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Social Compassion in Legislation DIGEST : This bill prohibits any person from owning more than 50 adult unsterilized dogs or cats for the purposes of breeding them for pets. ANALYSIS : Existing law makes it a misdemeanor to permit CONTINUED AB 241 Page 2 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 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).) AB 241 Page 3 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 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 adult 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: AB 241 Page 4 1.A publicly operated animal control facility or duly incorporated private animal shelter. 2.A veterinary facility. 3.A research facility, as defined in Section 2132 (e) of Title 7 of the United States Code. FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes Local: Yes SUPPORT : (Verified 8/17/09) Humane Society of the United States (co-source) American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (co-source) Social Compassion in Legislation (co-source) Another Chance Animal Welfare League Best Friends Animal Society Born Free USA California Animal Association California Animal Control Directors Association California Federation for Animal Legislation California Peace Officers' Association California Police Chiefs Association City of Fresno City of Long Beach City of Stockton City of West Hollywood 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 Pet Overpopulation Task Force San Diego Animal Advocates Shasta Animal Welfare Foundation; The Paw Project The Pet Care Foundation United Animal Nations Voice for the Animals Foundation OPPOSITION : (Verified 8/17/09) AB 241 Page 5 American Herding Breed Association American Kennel Club California Federation of Dog Clubs California Outdoor Heritage Alliance; California Responsible Pet Owners Coalition Chow Fanciers Association of Southern California German Shepherd Dog Club of America Greyhound Club of Northern California Irish Wolfhound Club of America Miniature Schnauzer Club of Northern California Pet Industry Joint Advisory Council PetPAC The Animal Council The Irish Water Spaniel Club of America ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT : 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 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 AB 241 Page 6 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. ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION : 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 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 AB 241 Page 7 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. ASSEMBLY FLOOR : AYES: Adams, Ammiano, Arambula, Beall, Blakeslee, Block, Blumenfield, Brownley, Buchanan, Caballero, Charles Calderon, Carter, Chesbro, Coto, Davis, De La Torre, De Leon, Emmerson, Eng, Evans, Feuer, Fletcher, Fong, Fuentes, Furutani, Galgiani, Hall, Harkey, Hayashi, Hernandez, Hill, Huber, Huffman, Jeffries, Jones, Knight, Krekorian, Lieu, Bonnie Lowenthal, Ma, Mendoza, Monning, Nava, Nestande, John A. Perez, Portantino, Price, Ruskin, Salas, Skinner, Smyth, Solorio, Audra Strickland, Swanson, Torlakson, Torrico, Tran, Villines, Yamada, Bass NOES: Anderson, Bill Berryhill, Tom Berryhill, Conway, DeVore, Fuller, Gaines, Garrick, Gilmore, Hagman, Logue, Miller, Niello, Nielsen NO VOTE RECORDED: Cook, Duvall, V. Manuel Perez, Saldana, Silva, Torres RJG:nl 8/19/09 Senate Floor Analyses SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE AB 241 Page 8 **** END ****