BILL ANALYSIS �
-----------------------------------------------------------------
| |
| SENATE COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES AND WATER |
| Senator Fran Pavley, Chair |
| 2013-2014 Regular Session |
| |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
BILL NO: AB 789 HEARING DATE: June 11, 2013
AUTHOR: Williams URGENCY: No
VERSION: June 4, 2013 CONSULTANT: Katharine Moore
DUAL REFERRAL: No FISCAL: Yes
SUBJECT: Trapping
BACKGROUND AND EXISTING LAW
Exiting law and regulations govern the trapping of mammals in
California.
California, Tennessee and Texas are the only three states to
allow conibear traps to be used for trapping that are as large
as 10 inches by 10 inches. Conibear traps are illegal for fur
trappers, but nuisance wildlife trappers may use them. Conibear
traps are designed to kill animals instantly by snapping the
spinal column at the base of the neck. Anecdotal evidence from
contemporaneous accounts indicate that some dogs have suffocated
in the traps. Conibear traps are spring-loaded body-crushing
traps without teeth, and have a square frame with two rotating
jaws. Conibear traps are not selective and kill any animal that
comes in contact with them. Twelve states already either limit
the size of conibear traps used on land to six inches or less,
or prohibit the use of conibear traps on land entirely.
The 2013 American Veterinary Medical Association Guidelines for
the euthanasia of animals state that "stakeholders look to
veterinarians to provide leadership on how to care well for
animals, including how to relieve unnecessary pain and
suffering." The guidelines state that a key consideration when
euthanizing animals for any reason is the "use of humane
techniques to induce the most rapid and painless and
distress-free death possible." The guidelines continue that
"household chemicals, disinfectants, cleaning agents, and
pesticides are not acceptable for administration as euthanasia
agents. Other unacceptable approaches to euthanasia include
hypothermia and drowning." Thoracic compression is also not
considered humane.
1
In early 2011, Born Free USA (a bill co-sponsor) in
collaboration with Respect for Animals conducted a study of fur
trapping. The study found "archaic killing methods such as
suffocation, drowning and chest crushing are widely used today."
Born Free USA also reports that 134 non-target trapping
incidents across the country occurred since 1988 and that the
most common victims are family dogs and cats.
PROPOSED LAW
This bill would:
Reduced from 10 inches by 10 inches to 6 inches by 6
inches the maximum size of conibear traps that may be used
to trap mammals except where they are submerged or
partially submerged or set in a managed wetland area (as
defined).
Require signage of specified size and location on public
lands or lands open to public use that warn of traps in use
in order to prevent injury to pets and others
Require that mammals not be killed by certain methods -
intentional drowning, injection with any chemical not sold
for the purpose of euthanizing animals or chest crushing -
with the exception that certain traps set partially or
wholly submerged in water for beaver or muskrat in
specified locations are lawful
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT
According to the author, "AB 789 prohibits the most inhumane
methods of killing an animal [?] Notably, these methods have
been deemed unacceptable by the American Veterinary Medical
Association's guidelines on euthanasia and, under California
law, are considered cruelty to animals and could be tried as
felonies if inflicted intentionally upon domestic cats or dogs.
[?] Trappers use these methods despite the availability of more
humane alternatives such as gun shot, CO2 [carbon dioxide] gas
chambers, or euthanasia by licensed technicians."
"AB 789 will better align our treatment of wildlife with current
medical science and societal values for the humane treatment of
animals and is a strong step toward protecting domestic dogs and
their families from dangerous, hidden, kill-traps; a step a
number of other states have already taken."
ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION
In a May 6, 2013 letter to the author, the Department of Fish
and Wildlife expressed concerns about an earlier version of the
bill and took an "oppose unless amended" position. The
2
department stated that the use of the undefined "managed wetland
area" term might present enforcement difficulties.
Additionally, the department recommended changes in the signage
requirements in the vicinity of set traps to increase the
likelihood that the signs would be observed. The June 4, 2013
author's amendments to the bill are highly similar to the
department's proposal to address the issues raised in its
letter.
COMMENTS
A managed wetland area is now defined in the bill as "an
artificially irrigated and managed wetland habitat administered
primarily for the benefit of waterfowl or other
wetland-dependent species."
Related legislation
SB 1480 (Corbett, 2012). This bill would have provided
comprehensive reform to nuisance wildlife trapping law,
including special protections for bats. It would have changed
licensing for trapping and added consumer protection provisions.
Restrictions on the size of conibear traps as well as the
methods of killing trapped animals from this bill formed the
basis of AB 789. Governor Brown vetoed SB 1480 for reasons not
related to AB 789.
AB 449 (Strickland, 2007). This bill would have required that
nuisance wildlife control operators recommend the use of
non-lethal animal control means where possible and that animals
captured could only be euthanized using methods approved by the
American Veterinary Medical Association. Governor
Schwarzenegger vetoed AB 449.
AB 1477 (Soto, 2007). This bill would have required that
non-target animals found in traps (e.g. dogs and cats) would be
immediately released, or, if injured, receive treatment. The
bill included additional provisions related to continuing
education for nuisance wildlife control trappers. Governor
Schwarzenegger vetoed AB 1477.
SUPPORT
Born Free USA (co-sponsor)
The Humane Society of the United States (co-sponsor)
Action For Animals
American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals
Animal Place
3
California Animal Control Directors Association
Humane Society Veterinary Medical Association
PawPAC
PEACE
Project Coyote
Public Interest Coalition
RedRover
Sierra Club California
Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals - Los Angeles
Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals - Sacramento
State Humane Association of California
The Marin Humane Society
The Yolo County Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals
WildEarth Guardians
OPPOSITION
The California Department of Fish and Wildlife (unless amended)
4