BILL ANALYSIS
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
|Hearing Date:June 29, 2009 |Bill No:AB |
| |490 |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SENATE COMMITTEE ON BUSINESS, PROFESSIONS
AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Senator Gloria Negrete McLeod, Chair
Bill No: AB 490Author:Smyth
As Amended:May 4, 2009 Fiscal: Yes
SUBJECT: Pet stores.
SUMMARY: Modifies the definition of pet store, and revises and
clarifies the guidelines and requirements for a pet store operator or
employee of a pet store to euthanize rodents and rabbits intended as
food for another animal.
Existing law:
1)Establishes the Pet Store Animal Care Act (ACT), which regulates the
care and maintenance of animals in the custody of a pet store
and provides limits on the sale or transfer of those animals.
2)Provides that the Legislature does not intend, by this Act, to
regulate the care or handling of animals in or on farms,
ranches, livestock or horse auctions, livestock markets,
slaughtering facilities, or any place other than pet stores.
3)Defines a "pet store" as any retail establishment open to the public
and selling or offering for sale animals.
4)Provides that a person who sells, exchanges, or otherwise transfers
only animals that were bred or raised, or both, by the person,
or sells or transfers only animals kept primarily for
reproduction, shall be considered a breeder and not a pet store.
5)Provides that an animal intended as food for another animal may be
destroyed using a method or methods of euthanasia that are
humane, involve painless loss of consciousness and immediate
death as specified in Appendix 2 of the American Veterinary
Medical Association (AVMA) 2000 Report of the AVMA Panel on
AB 490
Page 2
Euthanasia, and as authorized for the species in the documented
program as prescribed.
6)Requires that each employee who performs euthanasia shall receive
adequate training in the method or methods used and proof of
successful completion of that training shall be documented in
writing and retained by the pet store, and that all training
records shall be maintained for two years and be made available,
upon request, to appropriate law enforcement officers, as
specified.
This bill:
1)Changes the definition of "pet store" and provides that a pet store
is a retail establishment open to the public that sells or offers
for sale animals as pets, or animals intended as food for other
animals, but that a "pet store" does not include a retail
establishment selling or offering for sale animals to be used in
commercial or agricultural operations or for commercial or
agricultural purposes, for student or youth projects, or for
educational purposes.
2)Clarifies that an animal intended as food for another animal is a
rodent or rabbit.
3)Clarifies the requirements for a rodent or rabbit to be destroyed by
the pet store if it is to be used as food for another animal, by
requiring a pet store operator or an employee to euthanize the
animal by a method that is performed in a humane manner, appropriate
for the species, authorized by state law, and in compliance with the
American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) pursuant to
Guidelines on Euthanasia, dated June 2007, published by the AVMA.
4)Requires that in addition to a pet store operator or an employee of
a pet store who will perform euthanasia be properly trained and
proficient in performing the method of euthanasia on that particular
species, that they also be certified , in writing, by a
California-licensed veterinarian that they have received such
training and are proficient in providing euthanasia to the animal,
and that the certification shall be made available, upon request, to
the appropriate law enforcement officers, as specified.
5)No longer requires the pet store to maintain records of the training
AB 490
Page 3
of the pet store operator or employee in euthanasia for two years,
only the certification required by the veterinarian for a period of
three years.
6)Specifies that it is the responsibility of the pet store operator to
ensure that euthanasia is performed in compliance with the specified
requirements.
FISCAL EFFECT: According to the Assembly Appropriations analysis,
dated May 13, 2009, minor, if any, nonreimbursable local prosecution
costs, offset by fine revenue, as this bill expands an existing crime.
COMMENTS:
1.Purpose. The Sponsor of this measure is the Pet Industry Joint
Advisory Council . According to the Sponsor, this bill provides
for the minor clean-up of two issues in the Pet Store Animal
Care Act (PAC Act) which will go into effect on January 1, 2009,
pursuant to AB 1347 (Caballero, Chapter 703, Statutes of 2007).
The first area of clarification is made at the request of the
California Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA). They want
to ensure that agricultural establishments are not considered
pet stores for purposes of the Act. As the Sponsor indicates,
the PAC Act included this exemption in intent language, but it
did not include the agricultural exclusion in the text of the
law itself. As a condition of CDFA's support for AB 1347, it
was agreed that the agricultural exclusion language be placed in
the substantive text of the law itself. This measure takes care
of that issue by providing for an agricultural establishment
exclusion into the text of the law itself (as opposed to simply
the intent language) by exempting agricultural establishments
from the definition of a "pet store" and clarifies that
agricultural establishments were not intended to be considered
pet stores under the PAC Act.
The second clean-up issue is to clarify accepted euthanasia
practices for certain animals in pet stores. There has been
some confusion over the appropriate guidelines to be followed in
providing euthanasia, in particular those specified by the
American Veterinary Medical Association, and also the need to
clarify the training provided to those who may perform
euthanasia within the pet stores. Animal protection groups, pet
stores and the California Veterinary Association, according to
the Sponsor, are in agreement over the changes made in this
measure to those requirements.
AB 490
Page 4
2.Background.
a) The Pet Store Animal Care Act (PAC Act). The PAC Act
established criteria and procedures for the care and maintenance
of animals in California pet stores. It also established a new
infraction process which would require enforcement officers to
clearly indicate the nature of the alleged infractions, identify
the corrective action to be taken, and include the timeframe in
which corrections be completed. The PAC Act came about as a
joint effort on the part of animal protection groups and the pet
industry to provide clearer guidelines on the care and handling
of animals sold within pet stores.
b) Previous Similar Legislation. This measure is similar to SB
986 (Ridley-Thomas) of 2008, which the Governor vetoed. This is
one of many measures that the Governor vetoed with the message
that, due to the delay in passing the 2008-09 State Budget, he
would only sign bills that were "the highest priority for
California." SB 986 was vetoed for this reason.
c) American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) Guidelines on
Euthanasia. The AVMA is a not-for-profit association
representing more than 76,000 veterinarians working in private
and corporate practice, government, industry, academia, and
uniformed services. The AVMA asserts that whenever it becomes
necessary to kill any animal for any reason whatsoever, death
should be induced as painlessly and quickly as possible.
In 2006, the AVMA convened a panel of scientists to produce the
AVMA Guidelines on Euthanasia. These guidelines summarize
contemporary scientific knowledge on euthanasia in animals and
call attention to the lack of scientific reports assessing pain,
discomfort, and distress in animals being euthanized, and are
intended for use by members of the veterinary profession who
carry out or oversee the euthanasia of animals. They also
include instructions on proper euthanasia techniques.
3.Support if Amended. Born Free USA has strong concerns regarding
language in this measure, as amended. According to Born Free, the
definition of "pet store" as amended in the Assembly Agriculture
Committee is now vague and largely unenforceable. It has the
potential to completely undermine existing pet shop laws under AB
1347.
AB 490
Page 5
Specifically, the concerns of Born Free are:
a) The exemption for agriculture is so broad that it swallows up
the entire pet store definition. It is so broadly written that a
pet store selling traditional pet animals could avoid existing
laws under AB 1347 by simply offering for sale one or two
chickens. This part of the definition essentially guts AB 1347
and, as such, is very problematic to them. Born Free strongly
urges that it be significantly tightened. As stated by Born
Free, "This exemption was the subject of detailed negotiations
and the revision of the agreed-upon language is of great concern
to us."
b) The language added in the first sentence of the definition
referencing animals "as pets or intended as food for other
animals" is vague and confusing. It triggers questions as to
which animals would be considered "pets" and which would not.
This was not the intent of AB 1347 and this new language raises
enforcement issues as it is unclear to whom the existing laws
apply.
c) The language exempting facilities that sell animals "for
student or youth projects, or for educational purposes" is
something that never was discussed amongst stakeholders. It is
new language and presents enforcement problems. Who determines
what an "educational purpose" is? How is it defined? And why
are these animals to be subjected to less humane conditions than
other animals under existing law? What exactly are "student or
youth projects" and who determines the buyer's intent in making
such purposes?
Born Free suggests the following amendment to the definition of "pet
store":
"Pet store" means a retail establishment open to the public and
selling or offering for sale animals, including animals as pets or a
animals intended as food for other animals. "Pet store" does not
include a retail establishment open to the public and selling or
offering for sale only animals to be used directly in commercial or
agricultural operations for the raising of livestock or poultry on a
farm or a ranch . or for commercial or agricultural purposes, for
student or youth projects, or for educational purposes . A person who
sells, exchanges, or otherwise transfers only animals that were bred
or raised, or both, by the person, or sells or otherwise transfers
only animals kept primarily for reproduction, shall be considered a
AB 490
Page 6
breeder and not a pet store.
4.Technical and Clarifying Amendments Needed. This measure defines
"pet store" as "a retail establishment open to the public and
selling or offering for sale animals as pets or animals intended as
food for other animals." As indicated, this change in the current
definition provides uncertainty in what animals may or may not be
considered as "pets," such as fish, reptiles or other exotic
species, and establishments which may or may not be covered by the
PAC Acts. The original intent of the PAC Act was to cover all types
of animals whether considered pets or otherwise. The addition to
the definition of what a "pet store" does not include, "Those
establishments offering for sale animals used in commercial or
agricultural operations or purposes, or for student or youth
projects, or for educational purposes," is also problematic. The
intent of PAC Act again was to cover any establishment which as part
of its business may be providing animals for sale, however, those
establishments which are only in the business to provide animals for
agricultural operations were to be excluded. By stating
establishments involved in "commercial or agricultural operations or
purposes" and or providing animals "for student or youth projects or
for educational purposes" now causes confusion to what
establishments may be covered under the PAC Act, especially since a
commercial venture in selling animals could be separate and apart
from an agricultural business. The following amendments should be
made to this definition:
On page 3, lines 30 to 36, make the following changes:
"Pet store" means a retail establishment open to the public and
selling or offering for sale animals, including animals as pets or a
animals intended as food for other animals. "Pet store" does not
include a retail establishment open to the public and selling or
offering for sale animals for purposes that are directly related to
an agricultural operation for the raising of livestock or poultry on
a farm or a ranch to be used in commercial or agricultural
operations or for commercial or agricultural purposes, for student
or youth projects, or for educational purposes. A person who sells,
exchanges, or otherwise transfers only animals that were bred or
raised, or both, by the person, or sells or otherwise transfers only
animals kept primarily for reproduction, shall be considered a
breeder and not a pet store.
SUPPORT AND OPPOSITION:
AB 490
Page 7
Support:
Pet Industry Joint Advisory Council (Sponsor)
California Veterinary Medical Association (CVMA)
City of West Hollywood
Support if Amended :
Born Free USA
Opposition:
None on file as of June 24, 2009.
Consultant:Bill Gage