BILL ANALYSIS SB 135 Page 1 Date of Hearing: June 23, 2009 Counsel: Kimberly A. Horiuchi ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY Juan Arambula, Chair SB 135 (Florez) - As Amended: May 4, 2009 SUMMARY : Prohibits tail "docking" of cattle, as specified. Specifically, this bill : 1)Provides the prohibition on tail "docking" of cattle shall not apply when 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 the emergency treatment is performed by a licensed veterinarian and is performed consistent with the Veterinary Medicine Practice Act, as specified. 2)Defines "cattle" as any animal of a bovine species. EXISTING LAW : 1)Provides that is a misdemeanor punishable by a maximum of one year in the county jail and a fine of not more than $20,000 to maim, mutilate, torture, or wound a living animal or maliciously or intentionally kill an animal. [Penal Code Section 597(a).] 2)States that every person having charge or custody of an animal who overdrives; overloads; overworks; tortures; torments; deprives of necessary sustenance, drink, or shelter; cruelly beats, mutilates, or cruelly kills; or causes or procures any animal to be so overdriven; overloaded; driven when overloaded; overworked; tortured; tormented; deprived of necessary sustenance, drink, shelter; or to be cruelly beaten, mutilated, or cruelly killed is, for every such offense, guilty of a crime punishable as an alternate misdemeanor/felony and by a fine of not more than $20,000. [Penal Code Section 597(b).] 3)States any person who cuts the solid part of the tail of any horse in the operation known as "docking," or in any other SB 135 Page 2 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, is guilty of a misdemeanor. (Penal Code Section 597n.) 4)Provides that any person or persons violating any of the provisions related to tail docking, however, shall not be applied to persons owning or possessing any docked purebred stallions and mares imported from foreign countries for breeding or exhibition purposes only, as provided by an act of Congress entitled "An Act Regulating the Importation of Breeding Animals" and approved March 3, 1903, and to docked native-bred stallions and mares brought into California and used for breeding or exhibition purposes only; and provided further, that a description of each such animal so brought into California, together with the date of importation and name and address of importer, be filed with the county clerk of the county where such animal is kept, within 30 days after the importation of such animal. (Penal Code Section 597r.) FISCAL EFFECT : Unknown COMMENTS : 1)Author's Statement : According to the author, "Scientific studies have shown that the mutilation of tail causes serious welfare problems for animals, including distress, pain, and increased fly attacks. SB 135 would ban the inhumane practice of tail docking. This practice is simply inhumane and unnecessary. Tail docking is performed on some dairy cattle in this State, and results in removing more than one-half of a dairy cow's tail without anesthesia. Even more troubling is the fact that there is no scientific justification for engaging in this inhuman practice. This practice is cruel, plain and simple. This is why California law already prohibits tail docking on horses." 2)Comment : 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 SB 135 Page 3 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. Tail docking 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 three to seven weeks, removing 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. 3)Proposed Amendments : Conceivably, there are instances where a farmer may have to dock a cow's tail in an emergency in order to relieve the animal's pain. The Committee has discussed the following amendment with the author to address instances where a veterinarian may not be immediately available to render aid to an injured cow: On Page 2, Line 20, include, "and where the procedure is not performed by a licensed veterinarian, a veterinarian must examine the 'docked' tail within a practicable period of time." According to the Western United Dairymen (WUD), "We understand the author's intent is to ensure California dairies refrain from the practice of tail docking dairy farm animals by way of SB 135. However, the bill itself can be portrayed as cruel to animals due to the restriction that all health practices caring for the animal must be performed by a licensed veterinarian. Our members object to this requirement as being inhumane to the animal, if during an emergency situation, a dairy operator must wait for their veterinarian to arrive on the ranch to perform health-related medical procedures. Many of our ranches are in remote areas of California; waiting long hours, or even days, for a veterinarian to arrive and care and treat livestock creates a serious concern for the comfort and well-being of the animal. WUD's membership joins with the California Farm Bureau in requesting the following amendments to the May 4, 2009 version of the bill: strike from line 16 SB 135 Page 4 and 17 on page 2, 'is performed by a licensed veterinarian and'. For these reasons, Western United Dairymen is opposed to SB 135 as long as the above language stays in this piece of legislation. WUD will remove their opposition if the author and sponsor accept the amendment." The California Farm Bureau Federation and the California Cattlemen's Association have also taken an "oppose unless amended" position to strike the words, "is performed by a licensed veterinarian and". 4)Arguments in Support : According to The Humane Society , "With approximately 1.8 million cows raised for milk on 2,200 farms, California is the nation's leading dairy state. Scientific research does not support claims that tail-docked cows have better hygiene or improved milk quality. And comprehensive research by California animal scientists and veterinarians found that 'the available data do not support claims that docking improves the dairy workers' comfort or safety or the health of cleanliness of the cow's udder'. The periodic trimming of long hairs of the tail is an effective and humane alternative. Scientific studies have shown that the mutilation causes serious welfare problems for animals, including distress, pain and increased fly attacks. The practices benefits neither animal nor human health. The American Veterinary Medical Association, Canadian Veterinary Medical Association, experts, scientists, and representatives of industry have all opposed and criticized tail docking of dairy cows and several European countries have banned the practice. With the recent overwhelming passage of Proposition 2, it is clear that Californians want to see an end to the most egregious practices used on factory farms." 5)Prior Legislation : a) AB 1857 (Koretz), Chapter 876, Statutes of 2004, made it is a misdemeanor, punishable by imprisonment in a county jail for a period not to exceed one year, by a fine of $10,000, or by both, to dewclaw any cat that is a member of an exotic or native wild cat species. b) AB 418 (Koretz) of the 2005-06 Legislative Session, would have made it a misdemeanor for any person to perform, or otherwise procure or arrange for the performance of, an ear cropping procedure on any dog within California, except as performed by a licensed veterinarian solely for a therapeutic purpose. SB 135 Page 5 REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION : Support American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Animal Place Animal Protection and Rescue League Born Free USA California Animal Association California Veterinary Medical Association Farm Sanctuary Food Empowerment Project Humane Farming Action Fund Humane Society League of Humane Voters Paw PAC Paw Project Pew Commission on Industrial Farm Animal Production San Diego Animal Advocates United Animal Nations California Federation for Animal Legislation Opposition None Analysis Prepared by : Kimberly Horiuchi / PUB. S. / (916) 319-3744