BILL ANALYSIS
SB 135
Page 1
Date of Hearing: July 1, 2009
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE
Cathleen Galgiani, Chair
SB 135 (Florez) - As Amended: June 25, 2009
SENATE VOTE : 27-12
PUBLIC SAFETY 4-1
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Ayes:|Amminano, Furutani, Hill, | | |
| |Ma | | |
| | | | |
|-----+--------------------------+-----+--------------------------|
|Nays:|Gilmore | | |
| | | | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SUBJECT : Animal abuse: cattle: tail docking.
SUMMARY : Makes it a misdemeanor to cut the solid part of a
cattle's tail, except when it must be removed in an emergency
for the purpose of saving the animal's life or to relieve the
animal's pain, and it is done in accordance with the Veterinary
Medicine Practices Act (Act). Such actions are required to be
reported to the California Department of Food and Agriculture
(CDFA) within 30 days.
EXISTING LAW states 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. Any
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 for the above
acts, is guilty of a crime punishable as an alternate
misdemeanor/felony and by a fine of not more than $20,000 for
every such offense.
Statutes state 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 California, or procures the same to be
SB 135
Page 2
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 California, except
when registered with the county clerk, is guilty of a
misdemeanor. Unless stated otherwise, a misdemeanor is
punishable by a fine of up to $1,000 or up to six months in
county jail, or both, the fine and jail.
The Act provides guidelines and requirements for the recommended
treatment of animals and who may treat animals and under what
conditions animals may be treated.
FISCAL EFFECT : The Senate Appropriations Committee, pursuant to
Senate Rule 28.8, determined that this bill had no significant
additional state costs, will not require appropriation of state
funds, and will cause no significant reduction in revenues.
Subsequent to this Senate analysis, amendments have added a
reporting requirement.
COMMENTS : According to the author, the practice of cutting the
meaty portion of a cattle's tail, commonly known as "tail
docking," is arcane, and scientific studies have shown "that the
mutilation causes serious welfare problems for animals,
including distress, pain, and increased fly attacks." He
further states that the California Dairy Quality Assurance
Program's Dairy Welfare Evaluation Guide advises that there is
no benefit to tail docking normal healthy tails in dairy cattle
based upon peer-reviewed scientific studies and governmental
sponsored research.
The sponsor of this bill, The Humane Society of the United
States, states in a 2005-06 survey of 113 dairy facilities in
the northern, central, and northeastern United States, that
82.3% practice tail docking. Their support letter states that
California has approximately 1.7 million dairy animals on an
estimated 2,200 facilities, and recent industry estimates that
docking is practiced on 10% to 15% of those dairies.
According to the American Veterinarian Medical Association
(AVMA), tail docking is a management practice used within the
dairy industry. The dairy industry in New Zealand developed the
process during the early 1900s as an attempt to reduce the
incidence of leptospirosis in milking personnel. The stated
goals of tail docking include improved comfort for milking
personnel, enhanced udder cleanliness, reduced incidence of
SB 135
Page 3
mastitis, and improved milk quality and milk hygiene. Tail
docking is usually performed on young heifers or calves near
weaning age, removing 1/3 and 2/3 of the tail. A variety of
methods have been used to dock tails in dairy cattle, including
cauterizing docking irons, application of elastrator bands, use
of emasculators, and surgical excision. One study stated that
no differences were observed in the behavior of heifers docked
with, or without, epidural anesthesia, and concluded that tail
docking was associated with minimal discomfort in heifers, and
that use of epidural anesthesia provided no benefit. The
application of elastrator bands is the most commonly employed
method.
Tail docking is a relatively common procedure in dairies in New
Zealand, and regulations determine the minimum length for
docking. This practice has been increasing in the United
States, while in Denmark, Germany, Scotland, Sweden, the United
Kingdom, and some Australian states, tail docking is prohibited.
In Canada, national guidelines recommend that the procedure be
performed on young calves by trained personnel with the proper
equipment and attention to pain relief. The Canadian Veterinary
Medical Association opposes the practice of docking of dairy
cattle for management purposes. Current AVMA policy includes a
statement of opposition to tail docking of cattle.
In summary, AVMA states that anecdotal reports of the benefits
of tail docking are not currently supported by data in the
scientific literature. Tail docking has been experimentally
shown to cause minimal adverse physiologic effects; however, fly
avoidance behaviors are more frequent in docked cattle,
suggesting potential long-term adverse behavioral effects.
A University of California Cooperative Extension Dairy advisor
conducted a survey earlier this year of large animal
veterinarians regarding the practice of tail docking by central
valley dairies. Preliminary results provided by ten veterinary
practitioners in the San Joaquin Valley included 103 dairies
that average a herd size of 2,500 cows. Eleven dairies were
docking tails and four dairies used to dock tails but have
abandoned the practice. In this preliminary survey, 89.3% of
the dairies are not docking tails and 86.2% of the cows are in
dairy operations where tail docking is not practiced. The
advisor concluded that the results from this survey suggest tail
docking is an uncommon practice in California.
SB 135
Page 4
While this is an uncommon practice among California dairy
operations, it is not a practice in the California beef
industry. According to the California Cattlemen's Association,
the only instances of tail docking on beef animals occurs when
animals injure their tail. The Committee may wish to narrow
this bill to prohibit the tail docking practice on dairy animals
only.
Concerns have been raised over the tail docking report
requirement to CDFA, stating that it is not clear who is
required to do the reporting, and that it creates an unnecessary
bureaucracy, while providing no additional welfare to the
animals. As written, not reporting a tail docking incident
would be considered a crime punishable as a misdemeanor, with
each conviction being a fine of up to $1,000 and up to six
months in county jail, or both, the fine and jail. The
Committee may wish to consider if the severity of the penalty is
appropriate for not reporting.
Additionally, there is concern over the confidentiality for
dairy producers, cattle operators, and veterinarians who may
report tail docking incidents. Confidentially of veterinary
medical records was addressed by SB 490 (Kelly), Chapter 418,
Statutes of 1999. That bill provided that veterinarians would
own the records but the client would own the information,
thereby protecting these medical records in a similar fashion to
human medical records. This has prevented unauthorized access
to animal owners' information through other required reporting.
The Committee may wish to attach a confidentiality clause to the
reporting requirement.
Those with concerns with this bill have also stated that the
author indicated in the previous policy committee that he
intends to add fee language into the bill. The Committee may
wish to query the author regarding any additional amendments he
is considering.
Prior Legislation : AB 1857 (Koretz), Chapter 876, Statutes of
2004, made it 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 declaw any cat that is a member of an
exotic or native wild cat species.
AB 418 (Koretz) of 2005-06, would have made it a misdemeanor for
any person to perform, or otherwise procure or arrange for the
SB 135
Page 5
performance of, an ear cropping procedure on any dog within
California, except as performed by a licensed veterinarian
solely for a therapeutic purpose.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
The Humane Society of the United States (Sponsor)
American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals
Animal Place
Animal Protection and Rescue League
Born Free USA
California Animal Association
California Federation for Animal Legislation
Farm Sanctuary
Food Empowerment Project
League of Humane Voters
Paw Pac
San Diego Animal Advocates
The Paw Project
The Humane Farming Action Fund
United Animal Nations
Support If Amended
California Veterinary Medical Association
Opposition Unless Amended
California Cattlemen's Association
California Farm Bureau Federation
Western United Dairymen
Analysis Prepared by : Jim Collin / AGRI. / (916) 319-2084