BILL ANALYSIS
SENATE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY
Senator Mark Leno, Chair S
2009-2010 Regular Session B
1
3
5
SB 135 (Florez)
As Amended April 13, 2009
Hearing date: April 28, 2009
Penal Code
MK:br
ANIMAL ABUSE: CATTLE: TAIL DOCKING
HISTORY
Source: Humane Society of the United States
Prior Legislation: None
Support: Pew Commission on Industrial Farm Animal Production;
Born Free USA; Animal Protection and Rescue League; Paw
PAC; Farm Sanctuary; Food Empowerment Project; League
of Humane Voters; San Diego Animal Advocates; Humane
Farming Action Fund; Animal Place; United Animal
Nations; California Animal Association; ASPCA;
California Veterinary Medical Association
Opposition:None known
NOTE : THIS BILL REFLECTS AUTHOR'S AMENDMENTS TO BE TAKEN IN
COMMITTEE. SEE COMMENT #3.
KEY ISSUES
SHOULD THE EXISTING PROHIBITION ON "DOCKING" HORSES BE EXTENDED TO
(More)
SB 135 (Florez)
PageB
APPLY TO CATTLE?
SHOULD AN EXCEPTION BE MADE TO "DOCKING" PERFORMED BY A LICENSED
VETERNARIAN UNDER SPECIFIED CIRCUMSTANCES?
PURPOSE
The purpose of this bill is to prohibit the docking of cattle
and to provide an exception to the prohibition on docking of
horses or cattle under specified circumstances.
Existing law provides that any person who cuts the solid part
of the tail of any horse in the operation known as "docking,"
or in any other operation performed for the purpose of
shortening the tail of any horse, within the State of
California, or procures the same to be done, or imports or
brings into this state any docked horse, or horses, or drives,
works, uses, races, or deals in any unregistered docked horse,
or horses, within the State of California except as provided in
Section 597r, is guilty of a misdemeanor. (Penal Code 597n.)
This bill expands the prohibition on docking to include the
docking of cattle defined as any animal of the bovine species.
This bill , as proposed to be amended, provides that the
prohibition on docking shall not apply to "docking" where the
solid part of an animal's tail must be removed in an emergency
for the purpose of saving the animal's life or relieving the
animal's pain, provided that such emergency treatment is
performed by a veterinarian licensed in compliance with the
Veterinary Medicine Practice Act (commencing with Section 4811)
of Article 1 of Chapter 11 of Division 2 of the Business and
Professions Code.
RECEIVERSHIP/OVERCROWDING CRISIS AGGRAVATION
California continues to face a severe prison overcrowding
(More)
SB 135 (Florez)
PageC
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
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
----------------------
<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)
SB 135 (Florez)
PageD
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
period of two or three years.<2>
The final outcome of the panel's tentative decision, as well as
---------------------------
<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)
SB 135 (Florez)
PageE
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.N eed for This Bill
According to the author:
Developed in New Zealand in the early 1900s, tail
docking is the practice of removing part of the solid
portion of an animal's tail. In dairy cattle, tail
docking is alleged to improve milking personnel
comfort, cow utter cleanliness, and heightened milk
quality. Further, tail docking is alleged to promote
milking personnel health through the prevention of
leptospirosis a bacterial disease spread by urine
from infected animals via contact with skin abrasions
or wounds or contact with mucous membranes of the
eyes, nose, and mouth.
The practice of tail docking has varying restrictions
around the world. It is prohibited in Denmark,
Germany, Scotland, Sweden, and the United Kingdom.
Canada recommends that only competent personnel
perform the procedure, and Australia has varying
degrees of regulation from requiring that
veterinarians perform the procedure to outright
prohibition.
In the United States, cattle are docked near weaning,
most commonly by rubber band constriction. The
banded tail detaches after 3 to 7 weeks, removing
(More)
SB 135 (Florez)
PageF
one-third to two-thirds of the tail.
California law makes the practice of tail docking
horses or the importation of tail-docked horses a
misdemeanor.
(More)
2. Prohibition on "Docking" Cattle
Existing law currently prohibits the "docking" of horses. This
bill would add to that prohibition the "docking" of cattle. The
bill also creates an exception to the docking prohibition
allowing for if it is done in an emergency by a veterinarian for
the purposes of saving the animal's life or relieving the
animal's pain.
SHOULD THE LAW PROHIBIT THE DOCKING OF CATTLE AS WELL AS THE
DOCKING OF HORSES?
SHOULD THE LAW CREATE EXCEPTIONS FOR SPECIFIC EMERGENCY
SITUATIONS?
3. Author's Amendments
The author will be taking amendments to delete the current
section (b) and insert instead:
Subdivision (a) shall not apply to "docking" where
the solid part of an animal's tail must be removed in
an emergency for the purpose of saving the animal's
life or relieving the animal's pain, provided that
such emergency treatment is performed by a licensed
veterinarian and is performed consistently with the
Veterinary Medicine Practice Act (commencing with
Section 4811) of Article 1 of Chapter 11 of Division
2 of the Business and Professions Code.
4. Food and Agriculture Committee
This bill passed Senate Food and Agriculture Committee on April
21 with a 4-1 vote.
(More)
SB 135 (Florez)
PageH
***************