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
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: 6-0, 8/27/15
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
Animals
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.
ANALYSIS:
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
animals;
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
requirements;
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.
Background
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
license.
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
case.
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
system.
SUPPORT: (Verified8/28/15)
American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals
(sponsor)
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
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
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
shelter.
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 ****