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