BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                    Ó

          |SENATE RULES COMMITTEE            |                        AB 316|
          |Office of Senate Floor Analyses   |                              |
          |(916) 651-1520    Fax: (916)      |                              |
          |327-4478                          |                              |

                                   THIRD READING 

          Bill No:  AB 316
          Author:   Maienschein (R)
          Amended:  9/1/15 in Senate
          Vote:     21  

           SENATE BUS, PROF. & ECON. DEV. COMMITTEE:  6-0, 7/6/15
           AYES:  Hill, Berryhill, Block, Galgiani, Jackson, Mendoza
           NO VOTE RECORDED:  Bates, Hernandez, Wieckowski

           AYES:  Lara, Beall, Hill, Leyva, Mendoza, Nielsen
           NO VOTE RECORDED:  Bates

           ASSEMBLY FLOOR:  77-0, 5/18/15 - See last page for vote

           SUBJECT:   Veterinarians: cruelty incidents

          SOURCE:    American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to  
          DIGEST:   This bill permits a veterinarian licensed in another  
          state to be called to California by law enforcement or animal  
          control agency to attend to cases of animal cruelty or animal  
          fighting as requested, and permits the establishment of  
          temporary shelters for the purpose of caring for the animals  
          involved in the investigation.  

          Existing law:

          1)Establishes the Veterinary Medical Board (VMB) within the  


                                                                     AB 316  
                                                                    Page  2

            Department of Consumer Affairs for the purpose of  
            administering the Veterinary Practice Act (Act).  (Business  
            and Professions Code (BPC) Section 4800 et seq.)  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)

          2)Specifies that the practice of veterinary medicine, surgery or  
            dentistry occurs when an individual does any of the following:  

             a)   Represents himself or herself as engaged in the practice  
               of veterinary medicine, surgery or dentistry;
             b)   Diagnoses or prescribes a drug, medicine, appliance,  
               application or treatment for the prevention, cure, or  
               relief of a wound, fracture, bodily injury, or disease of  
             c)   Administers a drug, medicine or treatment, as specified;
             d)   Performs a surgical or dental operation upon an animal; 
             e)   Performs any manual procedure for the diagnosis of  
               pregnancy; sterility or infertility upon livestock or  
               Equidae; or,
             f)   Uses any words, letters or titles circumstances as to  
               induce the belief that the person using them is engaged in  
               the practice of veterinary medicine, surgery or dentistry.   
               (BPC § 4826)

          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 Section 4828)  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,  


                                                                     AB 316  
                                                                    Page  3

               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)

          4)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)  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))

          5)Defines "premises" as including a building, kennel, mobile  
            unit or vehicle, as specified.  (BPC § 4853 (b))  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)

          This bill:  

          1)Exempts from licensure requirements, for purposes of allowing  
            veterinarians in good standing to be called from other states  
            to attend cases in this state, a regularly licensed  
            veterinarian who is called from another state by a law  
            enforcement agency or animal control agency, as specified, to  
            attend to cases that are a part of an investigation of an  
            alleged violation of federal or state animal fighting or  
            animal cruelty laws within a single geographic location when  
            the law enforcement agency or animal control agency determines  
            that it is necessary to call the veterinarian in order for the  
            agency or officer to conduct the investigation in a timely,  
            efficient and effective manner.


                                                                     AB 316  
                                                                    Page  4

          2)Provides that when determining whether it is necessary to call  
            a veterinarian from another state, consideration must be given  
            to the availability of veterinarians in California to attend  
            to these cases.  Requires the agency, department or officer  
            that calls a veterinarian to this state to notify the VMB.  

          3)Permits a regularly licensed veterinarian in good standing who  
            is called from another state to attend to cases that are a  
            part of investigation described in 
          Item 1 above, to provide veterinary medical care for animals  
            that are affected by the investigation within a temporary  
            shelter facility, as specified.

          4)Exempts a temporary shelter or facility from premise  
            requirements if all of the following conditions are met:

             a)   The temporary shelter facility is established solely for  
               the purpose of investigation;
             b)   The temporary shelter facility provides veterinary  
               medical care, shelter, food and water only to animals that  
               are affected by the investigation;
             c)   The temporary shelter complies with specified sanitary  
             d)   The temporary shelter exists for not more than 60 days,  
               unless the law enforcement agency or animal control agency  
               determines that a longer period of time is necessary to  
               complete the investigation. 
             e)   Within 30 days upon completion of the provision of  
               veterinary health care services at a temporary shelter the  
               veterinarian called from another state to attend to a case  
               files a report with the VMB, as specified.

          5)Provides that the VMB may inspect the temporary facility.


          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,  


                                                                     AB 316  
                                                                    Page  5

          highlighted issues of cruelty but also raised the issues about  
          the resources needed to care for and treat animals when such  
          events occur.

          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  
          American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals  
          (ASPCA) was involved in assisting with across the nation.  

          According to other 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 ASPCA notes that the large cost and potential lack of  
          resources could be a deterrent in prosecuting such cases.

          According to the proponents, animal welfare organizations like  


                                                                     AB 316  
                                                                    Page  6

          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  
          Calling- in Veterinarians from Other States.  Current law does  
          provide that licensed veterinarians from other states may be  
          called in to attend to cases in this state as long as they do  
          not open an office or appoint a place to do business in this  
          state.  Usually this would be in conjunction with another  
          veterinarian in this state.  This bill would allow animal  
          control and federal law enforcement agencies to call in  
          veterinary assistance of a licensed veterinarian from another  
          state for the purpose of attending to cases that are part of an  
          investigation of an alleged violation of federal or state animal  
          fighting or animal cruelty laws.   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.  It would also allow  
          these out-of-state veterinarians to provide veterinary medical  
          care to the animals that are involved with a cruelty or animal  
          fighting case in a temporary shelter facility as long the  
          shelter meets certain requirements.   
          Use of Temporary Shelters.  Section 4853 of the BPC requires  
          that all premises where veterinary medicine is being practiced  
          obtain a premises permit 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  


                                                                     AB 316  
                                                                    Page  7

          animals affected by the cruelty case 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.  The VMB would also be able to inspect the temporary  
          shelter if determined necessary and would receive a report from  
          the veterinarian called in from another state to attend to a  

          Related Legislation
          AB 317 (Maienschein) This bill exempts a temporary shelter which  
          is operated either by a licensed veterinarian from another  
          state, or a state licensed veterinarian, that is providing care  
          and shelter to animals during a declared state of emergency,  
          from having to obtain a premise registration from the Veterinary  
          Medical Board.

          FISCAL EFFECT:                Appropriation:      No   Fiscal  
          Com.:          Yes            Local:         No

          According to the Senate Appropriations Committee, there is no  
          significant fiscal impact anticipated to the VMB.  Recent  
          amendments delete the requirement for authorization by the VMB,  
          which eliminates the need for upgrades to the VMB's licensing  

          SUPPORT:   (Verified8/28/15)

          American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals  
          California Animal Control Directors Association
          Humane Society of the United States
          Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office
          Tony La Russa's Animal Rescue Foundation

          OPPOSITION:   (Verified8/28/15)


                                                                     AB 316  
                                                                    Page  8

          California Veterinary Medical Association
          California Veterinary Medical Board

          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 cases overshelm 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 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 California Animal Control Directors Association (CACDA) are  
          in support of this bill 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, 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.

          ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION:The California Veterinary Medical  
          Association (CVMA) is opposed to this measure and argues that  


                                                                     AB 316  
                                                                    Page  9

          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 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  

          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  


                                                                     AB 316  
                                                                    Page  10

          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  

          ASSEMBLY FLOOR:  77-0, 5/18/15
          AYES:  Achadjian, Alejo, Travis Allen, Baker, Bigelow, Bloom,  
            Bonilla, Bonta, Brough, Brown, Burke, Calderon, Campos, Chang,  
            Chau, Chávez, Chiu, Chu, Cooley, Cooper, Dababneh, Dahle,  
            Daly, Dodd, Eggman, Frazier, Beth Gaines, Gallagher, Cristina  
            Garcia, Eduardo Garcia, Gatto, Gipson, Gomez, Gonzalez,  
            Gordon, Gray, Grove, Hadley, Harper, Roger Hernández, Holden,  
            Irwin, Jones, Jones-Sawyer, Lackey, Levine, Linder, Lopez,  
            Low, Maienschein, Mayes, McCarty, Medina, Mullin, Nazarian,  
            Obernolte, O'Donnell, Olsen, Patterson, Perea, Quirk, Rendon,  
            Ridley-Thomas, Rodriguez, Salas, Santiago, Steinorth, Mark  
            Stone, Thurmond, Ting, Wagner, Waldron, Weber, Wilk, Williams,  
            Wood, Atkins
          NO VOTE RECORDED:  Kim, Mathis, Melendez

          Prepared by:Bill Gage / B., P. & E.D. / (916) 651-4104
          9/1/15 20:29:56

                                   ****  END  ****