BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SENATE COMMITTEE ON
BUSINESS, PROFESSIONS AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Senator Jerry Hill, Chair
2015 - 2016 Regular
Bill No: AB 316 Hearing Date: July 6,
2015
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Author: |Maienschein |
|----------+------------------------------------------------------|
|Version: |June 30, 2015 Amended |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------
|Urgency: |No |Fiscal: |Yes |
----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Consultant|Bill Gage |
|: | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Veterinarians: cruelty incidents.
SUMMARY: Exempts from state licensure veterinary health care
practitioners who are licensed or certified in good standing
from another state and who offer veterinary services in the
event of a "cruelty incident," as defined, and allows the
sponsoring entity to operate a temporary shelter in order to
provide care to animals seized as a result of a cruelty
incident.
Existing law, the Business and Professions Code (BPC):
1)Establishes the Veterinary Medical Board (VMB) within the
Department of Consumer Affairs for the purpose of
administering the Veterinary Practice Act (Act).
(BPC § 4800 et seq.)
2)States that it is unlawful for any person to practice
veterinary medicine in California without a valid, unexpired
or unrevoked license, as specified. (BPC § 4825)
3)Requires all veterinarians, actually engaged and employed by
the state, or a county, city, corporation, firm or individual
practicing veterinary medicine, to secure a license issued by
the VMB. (BPC § 4828)
AB 316 (Maienschein) Page 2
of ?
4)Exempts the following from the provisions of the Act:
a) Veterinarians while serving in any armed branch of the
military service of the United States or the U.S.
Department of Agriculture (USDA) while actually engaged and
employed in their official capacity;
b) Regularly licensed veterinarians in actual consultation
from other states;
c) Regularly licensed veterinarians actually called from
other states to attend cases in this state, but do not open
an office or appoint a place to do business;
d) Veterinarians employed by the University of California,
as specified;
e) Students in the school of veterinary medicine of the
University of California or the College of Western
University of Health Sciences, as specified;
f) A veterinarian who is employed by the Meat and Poultry
Inspection Branch of the California Department of Food and
Agriculture (CDFA) while actually engaged and employed in
his or her official capacity; or,
g) Unlicensed personnel employed by the CDFA or the USDA,
as specified. (BPC § 4830)
5)Requires the VMB to establish a regular inspection program that
will provide for random, unannounced inspections and that the
VMB shall make every effort to inspect at least 20 percent of
veterinary premises on an annual basis.
(BPC § 4809.7)
AB 316 (Maienschein) Page 3
of ?
6)Requires that all premises where veterinary medicine,
veterinary dentistry, veterinary surgery and the various
branches thereof is being practiced shall be registered with
the VMB. (BPC § 4853 (a))
7)Defines "premises" as including a building, kennel, mobile unit
or vehicle, as specified. (BPC § 4853 (b))
8)Requires that all premises where veterinary medicine,
veterinary dentistry, or veterinary surgery is being
practiced, and all instruments, apparatus and apparel used in
connection with those practices, shall be kept clean and
sanitary at all times, and shall conform to those minimum
standards established by the VMB.
(BPC § 4854)
9)Provides that the requirements of licensure for health care
practitioners in California shall not apply in a state of
emergency, as defined under Section 8558 of the Government
Code, for a health care practitioner licensed from another
state who offers or provides health care for which he or she
is licensed, if the emergency overwhelms the response
capabilities of California health care practitioners and only
upon the request of the Director of the Emergency Medical
Services Authority (Director). (BPC § 900 (a))
10) Specifies that the Director shall be the medical control and
shall designate the licensure and specialty health care
practitioners required for the specific emergency and shall
designate the areas to which they may be deployed. (BPC § 900
(b))
11)Requires health care practitioners from another state to
provide, upon request, a valid copy of a professional license
and a photographic identification issue by the state in which
the practitioner holds a license before being deployed by the
Director.
(BPC § 900 (c))
12)Requires health care practitioners from another state to also
provide to the appropriate California licensing authority
verification of licensure upon request.
(BPC § 900 (d))
AB 316 (Maienschein) Page 4
of ?
13)Provides that health care practitioners from another state
providing health care shall have immunity from liability for
services rendered as provided in Section 8659 of the
Government Code. (BPC § 900 (e))
14)Exempts from state licensure, until January 1, 2018, health
care practitioners who are licensed or certified in good
standing from another state and who offer or provide health
care services in California at a "sponsored event," as
defined, and in connection with a "sponsoring entity," as
defined, on a voluntary basis if specific requirements are
met. (BPC § 901)
15)Defines "board" as the applicable healing arts board under the
BPC or under an initiative act responsible for the licensure
or regulation in this state of the representative health care
practitioners and defines a "health care practitioner" as any
person who engages in acts that are subject to licensure or
regulation under BPC or under any initiative act (this would
include veterinarians or registered veterinarian technicians).
(BPC § 901 (a) (1) and (2))
16)Defines "sponsored event" as an event, not to exceed 10
calendar days, administered by either a sponsoring entity or a
local government, or both, through which the health care is
provided without compensation to the health care practitioner
and defines a "sponsoring entity" as a nonprofit organization
organized pursuant to Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal
Revenue Code or a community-based organization. (BPC § 901
(a) (3) and (4))
17)Prior to providing the voluntary services, the health care
practitioner shall do all of the following:
a) He or she must submit to the appropriate licensing board
a valid copy of his or her license or certificate and a
photographic identification issued by the state in which he
or she holds licensure or certification. Requires the
board to notify the sponsoring entity within 20 calendar
days of receiving a request for authorization, whether that
request is approved or denied.
b) Satisfied the following requirements:
AB 316 (Maienschein) Page 5
of ?
i) Has not committed any act or been convicted of a
crime constituting grounds for denial or licensure or
registration as specified and is in good standing in each
state in which her or she holds licensure of
certification.
ii) Has the appropriate education and experience to
participate in the event as determined by the board.
iii) Shall agree to comply with all applicable
practice requirements set forth in the BPC (for the
particular practice) and regulations adopted by the
board.
c) Submits to the board a request for authorization to
practice without a California license and pay a fee to
cover the costs to the board for processing the request.
d) The services are provided only under all of the
following circumstances:
i) To uninsured or underinsured persons, as defined.
ii) On a short-term voluntary basis, not to exceed
a 10-day period per sponsored event.
iii) In association with a sponsoring entity, as
defined, that complies with specified requirements.
iv) Without charge to the recipient or to a third
party on behalf of the recipient.
(BPC § 901 (b))
18)Provides that the board may deny a health care practitioner
authorization to practice without a license if the health care
practitioner fails to comply with any of the aforementioned
requirements as specified. (BPC § 901 (c))
19)Requires the sponsoring entity seeking to provide, or arrange
for the provision of, health care services to do both of the
following: (BPC § 901 (d))
a) Register with the licensing board by completing a
registration form that includes the name of the sponsoring
AB 316 (Maienschein) Page 6
of ?
authority, its officers or organization officials,
specified contact information for the sponsoring entity and
its officers, and, any additional information required by
the licensing board.
b) Provide the information required above to the county
health department of the county in which the health care
services will be provided, along with any additional
information that may be required by that department.
20)Requires the sponsoring entity to notify in writing the
licensing board and the county health department of any change
in the information required within 30 days of the change and
additionally do the following: (BPC § 901 (e), (f) and (g))
a) Within 15 days of the provision of health care services,
it must file a report with the licensing board and the
county health department on the date, place, type, and
general description of the care provided, along with a
listing of the health care practitioners who participated
in providing that care.
b) Maintain a list of health care practitioners associated
with the provision of health care services under this bill.
Requires the sponsoring entity to maintain a copy of each
health care practitioner's current license or certification
and shall require each health care practitioner to attest
in writing that his or her license or certificate is not
suspended or revoked pursuant to disciplinary proceedings
in any jurisdiction. The sponsoring entity shall maintain
these records for a period of at least five years following
the provision of health care services and shall, upon
request, furnish those records to the licensing board or
any county health department.
21)Prohibits a contract of liability insurance issued, amended,
or renewed in this state on or after January 1, 2011, from
excluding coverage of a health care practitioner or a
sponsoring entity that provides, or arranges for the provision
of, health care services under this bill, provided that the
practitioner or entity complies with the requirements of this
bill. (BPC § 901 (h))
22)States that the exemption from licensure for health care
AB 316 (Maienschein) Page 7
of ?
practitioners shall not apply to a health care practitioner
who renders care outside the scope of practice authorized by
his or her license or certificate. (BPC § 901 (i))
23)Provides that the board may terminate authorization for a
health care practitioner to provide health services for
failure to comply with the requirements as specified, any
practice requirement as set forth in the BPC or pursuant to
regulations, or act that would be grounds for discipline if
done by a licensee of the board. However, it Provides for an
appeal by the health care practitioner of the decision to
terminate the authorization. (BPC § 901 (j))
Existing law, the Government Code (GC):
1)Specifies that any veterinarian or registered veterinary
technician who renders services during any state of war
emergency, a state of emergency, or a local emergency at the
express or implied request of any responsible state or local
official or agency shall have no liability for any injury
sustained by any animal by reason of those services,
regardless of how or under what circumstances or by what cause
those injuries are sustained; provided, however, that the
immunity herein granted shall not apply in the event of a
willful act or omission. (GC § 8659)
2)Defines a "state of war emergency" as a condition which exists
immediately, with or without a proclamation by the Governor,
whenever this state or nation is attacked by an enemy of the
U.S., or upon receipt by the state of a warning by the federal
government indicating that such an enemy attack is probable.
(GC § 8558 (a))
3)Defines "state of emergency" as a duly proclaimed existence of
conditions of disaster or extreme peril to the safety of
persons and property within the state caused by such
conditions as fire, flood, earthquake, drought, etc., which by
reasons of their magnitude are likely to be beyond the control
of services, personnel, equipment and facilities of any single
county, city, city and county and requires combined forces of
mutual aid region or regions to combat such emergency. (GC §
8558 (b))
4)Defines "local emergency" as a duly proclaimed existence of
AB 316 (Maienschein) Page 8
of ?
conditions or disaster or of extreme peril to the safety of
persons and property within the territorial limits of a
county, city, city and county caused by such conditions as
specified above. (GC § 8558 (c))
This bill:
1)Exempts from state licensure veterinary health care
practitioners who are licensed or certified in good standing
from another state and who offer veterinary services in the
event of a "cruelty incident," as defined, and in connection
with a "sponsoring entity," as defined, similar to the
exemption from state licensure for health care practitioners
from another state who offer or provide health care services
in California at a sponsored event, and in association with a
sponsoring entity, on a voluntary basis, and allows the
sponsoring entity to operate a temporary shelter in order to
provide care to animals seized as a result of a cruelty
incident.
2)Defines "board" as the VMB and "animal control" as the county
of city animal control department, and if the city or county
does not have an animal control department, if means whatever
entity performs animal control functions.
3)Defines "veterinary health care practitioner" as any person who
engages in acts that are subject to licensure or regulation
under the Act.
4)Defines "cruelty incident" as an alleged violation of federal
or state animal fighting or animal cruelty laws involving
numerous animals which overwhelms the response capabilities of
California veterinary health care practitioners.
5)Defines "sponsoring entity" as a nonprofit organization
organized pursuant to Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal
Revenue Code that employs licensed veterinarians.
6)Provides that in the event of a cruelty incident, a sponsoring
entity may deploy veterinary health care practitioners
licensed or certified in good standing in another state,
district or territory of the United States to California at
the request of animal control or federal law enforcement
agency to provide veterinary services and operate a temporary
AB 316 (Maienschein) Page 9
of ?
shelter in order to provide care to animals seized as a result
of a cruelty incident.
7)Provides that the veterinary health care practitioner is exempt
from the requirement for licensure if all of the following
requirements are met:
a) Prior to providing those services, he or she does the
following:
i) Obtains authorization from the VMB to be deployed by
a sponsoring entity after submitting to the VMB a copy of
his or her valid license or certificate from each state
in which he or she holds licensure or certification and a
photographic identification issued by one of the states
in which he or she holds licensure or certification.
Requires the VMB to notify the veterinary health care
practitioner, within 20 days whether the request is
approved or denied and as otherwise specified. Provides
that the authorization shall expire 12 months from the
date of initial authorization unless the veterinary
health care practitioner has resubmitted the required
information for renewal at least 20 days prior to
expiration.
ii) Similar to the exemption for health care
practitioners who are providing health care services at a
sponsored event, the veterinary health care practitioner
must satisfy the same requirements such as not committing
any prior crimes, have the same education and experience,
agree to comply with all applicable requirements and
regulations of the VMB.
b) Provides services only under the following
circumstances:
i) To only animals seized as the result of the cruelty
incident.
ii) On a short-term voluntary basis, not to exceed
60-calendar-days period per cruelty incident. If the
animal control or federal law enforcement authority
determines that the cruelty incident will exceed the
initial 60 days, extensions shall be granted in
AB 316 (Maienschein) Page 10
of ?
30-calendar-day increments until the incident is
concluded.
iii) In association with a sponsoring entity.
iv) Without charge to the recipient or to a third
party on behalf of the recipient.
v) If determined necessary, within a temporary shelter
that is needed to house animals seized as a result of a
cruelty incident.
8)Provides that the temporary shelter utilized for the care and
housing of animals seized during a cruelty incident is exempt
from the requirement of a premise permit if all of the
following requirements are met:
a) The temporary shelter conforms to accepted minimum
standards of care as specified.
b) The temporary shelter does not exceed 60-calendar-days
period per cruelty incident and if animal control or law
enforcement determines that the cruelty incident will
exceed 60 days, then extensions for the shelter shall be
granted in 30-day increments until the incident is
concluded.
c) The temporary shelter only cares for and houses animals
seized from a cruelty incident.
9)Provides that, similar to the exemption for health care
practitioners who are providing health care services at a
sponsored event, the VMB may deny authorization for a
veterinary health care practitioner to practice without a
license if the practitioner fails to comply with any of the
aforementioned requirements as specified or any act that would
be grounds for denial of an application for licensure.
10)Provides that similar to the requirements for a sponsoring
entity providing health care services at a sponsored event, a
sponsoring entity seeking to be approved to deploy veterinary
health care practitioners to California in order to provide
veterinary services during a cruelty incident must register
with the VMB and provide specified information and any
AB 316 (Maienschein) Page 11
of ?
additional information as required by the VMB.
11)Requires that within 30 calendar days of the provision of
veterinary services pursuant to a cruelty incident, the
sponsoring entity shall file a report with the VMB with
specified information regarding the care and practitioners who
participated in providing the care.
12)Requires the sponsoring entity to maintain a list of the
veterinary health care practitioners associated with the
provision of the veterinary care services, a copy of their
license that is in good standing, and maintain records for
five years following the provision of those services to be
made available, upon request, to the VMB or any county health
department.
13)Sets forth other provisions, such as those dealing with a
contract of liability insurance, restrictions on the ability
of the veterinary health care practitioner to render care
outside their scope of practice and ability of the VMB to
terminate authorization for the practitioner to provide
veterinary services in California are similar to the
requirements for a sponsoring entity providing health care
services at a sponsored event.
FISCAL
EFFECT: This bill has been keyed "fiscal" by Legislative
Counsel. According to the Assembly Committee on Appropriations
analysis dated May 6, 2015, this bill will result in minor and
absorbable costs to the VMB.
COMMENTS:
1. Purpose. This bill is sponsored by the American Society for
the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (ASPCA). According to
the Sponsor, "from dog fights and cockfights, to hoarding and
other acts of cruelty, sheltering animals seized during
cruelty investigations can overwhelm local resources. Two
separate dog fighting busts in the last 7 years have resulted
in over 1000 dogs needing care, shelter, behavior
assessments, and possible adoption services. Under CA's
current seizure law, Penal Code 597.1, animals seized by a
responding agency must be cared for at the expense of the
seizing agency. Seizing agencies are authorized to place a
AB 316 (Maienschein) Page 12
of ?
lien on the animals that must be paid in order for the
animals to be returned, but until and if that actually
happens, the expense is squarely on the responding agency to
care for and house potentially hundreds of animals. For
instance, in 2014 El Dorado County Animal Services seized
nearly 100 horses and additional livestock from a rescue that
went under and could no longer afford to care for the animals
- the animals were all adopted out but the seizure created
unplanned for budgetary pressures for the county. As stated
by the California Animal Control Directors Association
(CACDA) in support of AB 316, Animal Control Officers (ACOs)
are on the front lines of enforcing state and local animal
welfare laws. Often in cruelty cases, the number of animals
involved can overwhelm local resources as local animal
control must house seized animals, and according to CACDA,
most animal shelters operate at or near capacity on a daily
basis and are not equipped or designed to take in large
amounts of animals at once. AB 316 is not about bringing
out of state veterinary responders to assist in every cruelty
case imaginable, but rather it is designed to be utilized
when local resources are overwhelmed and the need for
assistance is great. In those scenarios, AB 316 creates a
mechanism for 501(c)(3)'s to deploy veterinarians from other
states that have been pre-approved by the CA Vet Med Board on
an annual basis to deploy to CA to assist."
2. Background.
a) Limited Exemptions From Licensure For Those
Who Practice Veterinary Medicine. Under current law,
there are a limited number of persons who are exempt
from California's veterinary licensure requirements
when practicing veterinary services in California.
Exempt individuals include persons such as
veterinarians providing services in the military,
licensed veterinarians who have been called in from
out of state to assist with certain cases,
veterinarians or persons employed at the University of
California for teaching purposes or other education
research and persons employed by federal and state
agencies such as the United States Department of
Agriculture (USDA) and the California Department of
Food and Agriculture (CDFA). Without one of these
specific exemptions, any other person practicing
AB 316 (Maienschein) Page 13
of ?
veterinary medicine in California is required to have
a California-issued veterinary license.
However, veterinarians from another state could be allowed
under current law to provide veterinary services if they
met the requirement specified in Section 900 of the BPC
when there was a declared state of emergency for
California. Also, although Section 901 of the BPC allows
for any licensed health care practitioner from another
state to provide health care services in California if in
association with sponsoring entity (nonprofit 501 (c)(3))
at a sponsored event in which health care was provided to
the public without compensation, it does not appear as if
it was meant to apply to veterinarian services since one of
the requirements is that the health care services must be
provided to uninsured or underinsured persons.
This measure seeks to replicate the requirements of Section
901of the BPC to allow licensed veterinarians from another
state, who are associated with a sponsoring entity that
employs veterinarians, to provide necessary veterinary
services if requested by a local animal control or federal
law enforcement agency to assist in the event of a
large-scale animal cruelty or animal fighting-case and to
be exempt from California's licensure requirement.
Additionally, it would provide circumstances under which
the sponsoring entity could treat animals in a temporary
shelter, as long as the shelter has only been established
as a part of the investigation and abides by specific
requirements.
b) Animal Cruelty Cases. Animal cruelty cases
can take a variety of shapes and forms, from small,
one-animal incidents, such as a recent case in
Sacramento, where a man was accused of burning an
animal alive in an animal carrier, to large-scale dog
fighting raids or hoarding incidents that involve a
large number of animals. The 2007 arrest and
subsequent prosecution of Michael Vick, for his role
in a large-scale dog fighting ring, highlighted issues
of cruelty but also raised the issues about the
resources needed to care for and treat animals when
such events occur.
AB 316 (Maienschein) Page 14
of ?
Animal fighting is currently illegal in all 50 states.
Specifically, dogfighting is a felony offense in all
50 states, and it is also a felony offense under
federal law. Other cases of animal cruelty or animal
hoarding occur closer to home. In February 2015, it
was reported that 191 dogs were found abandoned on a
property in San Bernardino County. Most likely, the
case required a significant amount of local resources
to care for animals and properly investigate the
situation. In the San Bernardino case, the animals
were taken to a local shelter for care.
According to the Humane Society of the United States,
because there is no national reporting requirement for
animal abuse, there is no way to track the number of
animal cruelty cases that are filed or that make it to
court each year. Although the total number of cruelty
cases is difficult to assess, in 2013-2014, there were
more than 13 seizure cases that the Sponsor of this
bill was involved in assisting with across the nation.
According to the proponents of this measure, large-scale
animal cruelty cases can overwhelm the resources of
the local authorities responding to these cases.
Animal cruelty cases such as animal abandonment issues
or puppy mill raids can happen rather quickly, which
makes planning and budgeting difficult. This bill
aims to assist local authorities with options for
veterinary care and assistance in the event of a
large-scale animal cruelty or animal fighting case.
The resource challenges are not strictly monetary but
also become resource challenges related to caring for
the large number of animals that most likely have
health concerns and other issues. The proponents note
that local veterinarians typically provide services in
these types of cases, but, at times, additional
resources may be necessary. According to the
proponents, the average cruelty case lasts about 45-50
days and consists of an average of 461 animals at a
cost of caring for the animals close to $600,000. The
Sponsor notes that the large cost and potential lack
of resources could be a deterrent in prosecuting such
AB 316 (Maienschein) Page 15
of ?
cases.
According to the proponents, animal welfare
organizations like the ASPCA, among others, have
response teams in place, including veterinarians, to
assist local agencies in cruelty cases or emergency
disaster situations in other states, but often, the
veterinarians are only licensed in their home state.
This bill would provide a specific exemption to allow
those veterinarians to be called to California in the
event of a large-scale cruelty case to practice in
California without a California-issued license.
c) ASPCA Involvement and Response to Animal
Cruelty Cases.
Eight State Raid - Dog Fighting (2009): The ASPCA
participated in a raid of a multi-state dog fighting
operation that spanned MO, IL, IA, TX, OK, AR, NE and MS
and resulted in the rescue of over 400 dogs and 27
initial arrests - all 27 individuals were subsequently
convicted. In total, over 100 arrests were made in
connection to this raid.
Florida - Cockfighting Raid (2010): At the request
of Lee County Sheriff's Office and Lee County Domestic
Animal Services, the ASPCA assisted with the removal and
sheltering of more than 650 fighting roosters. Two
individuals were arrested and convicted of animal cruelty
and other related charges.
Halifax, VA - Dog Fighting Raid (2011): The ASPCA
assisted the ATF, local law enforcement and several other
agencies in raiding a suspected dog fighting ring. Over
40 dogs were confiscated and four suspects arrested - two
of which were charged and convicted of dog fighting.
Southeast, Multi-State - Dog Fighting Bust (2013):
At the request of the U.S. Attorney's Office and the FBI,
the ASPCA assisted in a multi-state dog fighting raid
across the Southeast. A total of 367 dogs were rescued
from conditions where they were subjected to intense heat
and sun, many without shelter or water.
New York - Cockfighting Bust (2014): From a
AB 316 (Maienschein) Page 16
of ?
cockfight in Queens, to a pet store in Brooklyn, and a
farm in upstate New York, over 3,000 fighting birds were
seized in what became the largest cockfighting bust in NY
history. New York State Police, the Dept. of Homeland
Security and a local sheriff's department were involved
in the raid that stemmed from the NY AG's Organized Crime
Task Force. The ASPCA recovered the 3,000 birds.
Spokane, WA - Horses Abandoned (2014): At least 68
horses were abandoned by a property owner were left to
starve slowly to death. Due to the large expense
associated with caring for this number of emaciated
horses, the local municipal county animal services agency
requested the ASPCA's assistance. In addition to
deploying our resources to assist the county, the ASPCA
also gave a $5,000 grant to the agency to assist them
with further care for the horses.
Wisconsin - Dog Hoarding Case (2014): The ASPCA
responded to a request by the County Sheriff's department
and County Humane Investigator to assist in the removal
and management of dogs living among feces, trash and
rotting food in a poorly ventilated and overcrowded
mobile home.
a) Calling in Veterinarians from Other States.
In the event of an animal cruelty or abuse case, the
entities responsible for handling these cases are
local law enforcement, animal control directors and
other local resources. These entities typically work
together to determine the appropriate steps and
process for dealing with animal cruelty or abuse
cases.
This bill proposes that only local animal control and
federal law enforcement agencies would be permitted to call
in veterinary assistance from a sponsoring entity from
out-of-state to assist with veterinary services and provide
temporary shelter for the animals which were involved with
a cruelty or animal fighting case.
b) Use of Temporary Shelters. Section 4853 of
the BPC requires that all premises where veterinary
medicine is being practiced obtain a premises permit
AB 316 (Maienschein) Page 17
of ?
from the VMB. There are currently over 3,000 licensed
premises in California. In order to obtain the
premises permit, applicants must submit an application
which must include the type of practice, the number of
employees, the business model, and business owner
information, along with a $200 registration fee. The
VMB reports that the application process for a
premises permit takes between three to four weeks.
This bill will exempt temporary animal care shelter
facilities from premises requirements as long as the
shelter provides veterinary medical care, shelter, food and
water only to the animals affected by the cruelty incident
and that the temporary shelter complies with other
requirements as specified. The temporary shelter shall not
be allowed to exist for longer than 60 days unless it is
determined that a longer period is necessary by animal
control or the federal law enforcement agency, but the
extension would only be for 30-day increments.
It should be noted, that any requirement for the VMB to
inspect these temporary shelters would be difficult.
Currently, the VMB can only inspect, or is required to make
every effort to inspect, about 20 percent of veterinary
premises on an annual basis. Also, during two of the major
floods that hit Sacramento in the 1980's and 1990's,
temporary shelters (many of them on city or county
fairgrounds) were usually established overnight to house
animals without any oversight considered necessary by the
VMB, and were kept open for at least 60 to 90 days to allow
animal owners the opportunity to claim their animals.
1. Related Legislation This Year. AB 317 (Maienschein) exempts
an organization that establishes a temporary shelter facility
for the purpose of providing veterinary medical care, shelter
and food and water during a state emergency by a veterinarian
licensed in another state, from a premise registration permit
if certain conditions are met including: providing notice
about the use of the temporary shelter; complying with
sanitary standards and ceasing operation within 60 days of
establishment. ( Status : This bill is also set for a hearing
before this Committee on July 6.)
AB 316 (Maienschein) Page 18
of ?
2. Prior Related Legislation. AB 2699 (Bass, Chapter 270,
Statutes of 2010), exempted from state licensure health care
practitioners who are licensed or certified in other states
and who in association with a sponsoring entity, at a
sponsored event, provide health care services to uninsured or
underinsured persons in California on a voluntary basis, if
specific requirements are met.
AB 512 (Rendon, Chapter 111, Statutes of 2013), extended the
sunset date, from January 2014 to January 2018, on the law
that permits qualified, out-of-state health care practitioners
to volunteer their services on a limited basis at health care
events designed to provide free services for underinsured and
uninsured individuals in California.
AB 2915 (Saldana, Chapter 823, Statutes of 2006) exempted from
state veterinary licensure requirements veterinarians employed
by a local government that met specified conditions, and
provided that the exemption sunset on January 1, 2011.
SB 1263 (Soto, Chapter 131, Statutes of 2002) exempted faculty
and students of the College of Veterinary Medicine at Western
University of Health Sciences from the laws regulating the
practice of veterinary medicine, and exempt veterinary medical
students at the College of Veterinary Medicine at Western
University of Health Science from having to take the VMB's law
and regulations examination if the student completes certain
coursework.
3. Arguments in Support. According to the Sponsors, the ASPCA ,
this measure seeks to equip animal cruelty investigators in
California with the ability to seek assistance from
veterinary responders from other states when local resources
are overwhelmed. The language in AB 316 actually mirrors
recently enacted BPC Section 901, which establishes a process
for California's licensing boards to approve out-of-state
health practitioners wishing to participate in health fairs
in California in order to provide health care to low income
families. In the same way that these health fairs provide
access to care for those without adequate health resources,
AB 316 is designed to assist responders when cases overwhelm
local resources. Unlike most criminal cases where evidence
can simply be stored in a locker, animal cruelty cases
require a significant financial investment to properly
AB 316 (Maienschein) Page 19
of ?
provide the animals with shelter and care. "Based on our
experience, a typical cruelty deployment lasts about 45-50
days and costs about $28 per animal per day. A dog fighting
bust that produces 150 seized dogs that need sheltering and
care for 50 days results in over $200,000 in expenses for the
responsible agency. Existing California law relative to
cruelty investigations places the burden of paying for the
care of animal victims of cruelty on the seizing agency until
a final outcome of a case is decided."
The Tony La Russa's Animal Rescue Foundation (ARF) is in support
of this measure and indicates that large scale animal cruelty
cases like animal fighting busts, hoarding arrests and puppy
mill raids can quickly overwhelm a local government's
resources. "Additionally, these cases can also overwhelm the
local veterinary resources. Local veterinarians play a key
role in assisting with the care of seized animals, but local
veterinarians typically have paying jobs or practices that
they must return to. This limits the amount of time they can
commit to cases like these. The combination of huge costs of
care for seized animals and the potential to deplete local
veterinary resources can be a huge deterrent for agencies
wishing to investigate a case of large animal cruelty in
their community.
The ARF further states that "animal response teams consisting of
veterinary practitioners exist to assist law enforcement
agencies to ensure that animals receive top-notch preventive
care, medical diagnosis and veterinary treatment. However,
veterinary professionals that are part of animal response
teams typically hold a license to practice in only their home
state, making it difficult to deploy to another state in
these cases."
The California Animal Control Directors Association (CACDA) is
in support of this measure and indicates that their
membership includes most municipal animal shelters and local
animal control agencies throughout the State and that they
are on the front lines of enforcing state and local animal
welfare laws every day and must manage these tragedies
[animal cruelty cases] when they occur. Unfortunately, as
stated by CACDA, there are situations in California where the
number of animals involved in a cruelty, fighting, or
hoarding case will overwhelm the local resources. Often,
AB 316 (Maienschein) Page 20
of ?
these animals must be seized and then housed by local animal
control. Most animal shelter operate at or near capacity on
a daily basis and are not equipped or designed to take in a
large amount of animals at once. This may require the
establishment of a temporary facility or an offsite location
in order to process, care for, and rehabilitate these
animals. The flexibility to engage out-of-state medical
professionals is an important step in making sure the animals
receive the best care and outcomes possibly.
4. Arguments in Opposition. The California Veterinary Medical
Association (CVMA) is opposed to this measure and argues that
the exemption from California licensure should only be used
when there is no other alternative. "After careful
deliberation and several meetings with the bill's sponsors,
the CVMA believes the need for out-of-state veterinarians,
involved in these cases, has not been demonstrated. Further,
we think AB 316 does not provide sufficient protection for
animals and consumers by allowing veterinarians to come in
from other states as, essentially, unlicensed individuals. "
The CVMA further indicates that there are more than 9,200
licensed veterinarians in California. "To our knowledge,
animal cruelty case investigations in California have not
been hindered by a shortage of veterinarians in this state.
The proponents of the bill offer approximations of the number
of cases that are investigated each year; the number of
animals involved; and the cost of investigating these cases,
but fail to provide definitive statistics that support the
need for additional veterinary care. There is no evidence
that calling in a veterinarian from out-of-state will reduce
the investigating agencies costs associated with animal
cruelty cases. The CVMA is also concerned that the bill
would allow the out-of state [sponsoring entity] to set up a
temporary shelter facility and provide veterinary care
without a premises permit. "Again, there are no provisions
for enforcement by the VMB for substandard facilities or
veterinary care."
The VMB is also opposed to this measure and argues that "AB 316
provides an avenue for unlicensed veterinarians to practice
in the state, but does not explain of justify the need for
the exemption. Since California licenses greater that 10% of
the entire veterinary profession in the country, the
AB 316 (Maienschein) Page 21
of ?
necessity for bringing in out-of-state veterinarians to
attend to cases that are part of an investigation and
furthermore, exempting temporary facilities from registration
and inspection poses a risk to California consumers and
animals. Such exemptions should only be pursued if the needs
cannot be met by California licensees."
The VMB further argues that AB 316 would seriously limit the
Board's enforcement ability to respond to unprofessional
conduct or negligence on the part of the veterinarian called
in from another state. However, the recent amendments would
seem to deal with this issue by providing broader oversight
by the VMB of the veterinarians from another state. The VMB
does continue to raise concerns about the use of a temporary
shelter that is not registered with the Board and believes
there would be little recourse is an animal be injured or
harmed at an unregistered shelter.
SUPPORT AND OPPOSITION:
Support:
American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals
(Sponsor)
California Animal Control Directors Association
Tony La Russa's Animal Rescue Foundation
Opposition:
California Veterinary Medical Association
California Veterinary Medical Board
-- END --