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: 8/24/09 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 or business
entity from owning more than 50 adult unsterilized dogs or
cats for the purposes of breeding them for pets.
Senate Floor Amendments of 8/24/09 amendments provide that
CONTINUED
AB 241
Page
2
in addition, no business entity may own more than 50 adult
unsterilized dogs or cats for breeding. These amendments
further provide that anyone who voluntarily aids and abets
in a violation of the section is also guilty of a
misdemeanor. Finally, these amendments provide that "adult
dog" means any dog 4 months of age or older.
ANALYSIS : 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 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
AB 241
Page
3
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 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 or business entity shall
own, possess, control, or otherwise have charge or custody
of more than a combined total of 50 adult unsterilized dogs
and cats in this state at any time used for the purpose of
breeding or raising dogs or cats for sale as pets.
This bill provides that any person or business entity that
must reduce the number of adult 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),
AB 241
Page
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 any person who voluntarily acts in
concert with another person by aiding, abetting,
counseling, commanding, inducing, soliciting, requesting,
or assisting that person in the violation of this section
shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. Any person who
voluntarily assists a business entity in the violation of
this section shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.
This bill provides that it does not apply to any of the
following:
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.
This bill states that "business entity" means any company,
firm, association, partnership, business trust,
corporation, limited liability company, or other legal
entity, and "adult dog" means any dog that is four months
of age or older.
FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes
Local: Yes
SUPPORT : (Verified 8/24/09)
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
AB 241
Page
5
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 8/24/09)
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
AB 241
Page
6
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
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
AB 241
Page
7
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
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.
AB 241
Page
8
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 8/25/09 Senate Floor Analyses
SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE
**** END ****