BILL ANALYSIS AB 243 Page 1 Date of Hearing: May 20, 2009 ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS Kevin De Leon, Chair AB 243 (Nava) - As Amended: May 13, 2009 Policy Committee: Public SafetyVote: 6-0 Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program: Yes Reimbursable: SUMMARY This bill: 1)Makes it a public offense, punishable by a fine of up to one year in county jail and/or a fine of up to $1,000 for a person to own, possess, reside, or care for any animal within five years of a misdemeanor conviction for specified animal cruelty offenses. 2)Makes it a public offense, punishable by a fine of up to one year in county jail and/or a fine of up to $1,000 for a person to own, possess, reside, or care for any animal within 10 years of a felony conviction for specified animal cruelty offenses. FISCAL EFFECT Unknown, likely minor, nonreimbursable costs for local law enforcement and incarceration, offset to a degree by increased fine revenue. For a point of reference, 35 persons were committed to state prison over the past two years for felony animal cruelty. COMMENTS 1)Rationale. According to the author, "Those who have neglected animals have demonstrated that they cannot be trusted to provide animals in their care with the basics required by law. In the case of overt cruelty, defendants convicted of purposely harming an animal have demonstrated that they are capable of violence toward an animal. And, in the case of AB 243 Page 2 animal fighting, those convicted of participating in dog or cockfighting have demonstrated a lack of regard for an animal's welfare and a lack of concern for the suffering that is associated with animal 'blood sports.' " "The recidivism rate of animal cruelty and neglect crimes is, according to most studies, virtually 100%. As with laws that prevent sex offenders from having contact with underage children, a law prohibiting abusers from contact with animals will separate offenders from potential new victims. "AB 243 will make it mandatory for a judge to prohibit a person convicted of specified animal-related crimes from owning or possessing, caring for, or having any contact with animals for a minimum period of time. The offenses referenced in this include maliciously wounding, tormenting, or killing an animal, and causing or training an animal to fight with another animal. 2)Support. According to the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, "Studies have documented a link between animal abuse and domestic violence with perpetrators often abusing animals in order to intimidate, harass, or silence their human victims. In addition, animal 'hoarders' have been known to collect too many animals than they can adequately care for, causing the animals to suffer and live in squalid conditions. The recidivism rate for hoarders is considered to be 100%." 3)Opposition . Several agricultural organizations oppose the reduction in judicial discretion that could prevent farmers and ranchers from possessing any livestock. For example, a dairy farmer convicted of training a rooster for cockfighting, would be stripped of his livelihood under this bill, with no recourse for the judge to amend the penalty. According to the Animal Council, "This (bill) would remove all judicial discretion as to these post-conviction issues? For these reasons, we oppose AB 243 as excessively punitive and removing judicial discretion to protect the rights of individuals." 4)The May 14 amendment is intended to address the concerns of agricultural organizations, by authorizing the court, in the AB 243 Page 3 interest of justice, to exempt a defendant from the animal ban on the basis of undue economic hardship. Analysis Prepared by : Geoff Long / APPR. / (916) 319-2081