BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                    Ó



                                                                    AB 2269


                                                                    Page  1





          Date of Hearing:  March 29, 2016


                           ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY


                                  Mark Stone, Chair


          AB 2269  
          (Waldron) - As Introduced February 18, 2016


                              As Proposed to be Amended


          SUBJECT:  ANIMAL SHELTERS: RESEARCH ANIMALS: PROHIBITIONS


          KEY ISSUE:  should STATE LAW that PROHIBITs ANIMALS ABANDONED AT  
          VETERINARIAN HOSPITALS, GROOMING PARLORS, AND KENNELS FROM BEING  
          ACQUIRED AND USED IN EXPERIMENTATION BE updated TO ALSO apply to  
          ANIMALS IN POUNDS AND ANIMAL SHELTERS, given that many cities  
          and counties already prohibit this questionable practice?


                                      SYNOPSIS


          This noncontroversial bill expressly prohibits, for the first  
          time in California statute, the acquisition of live animals from  
          public or private animal shelters for use in scientific or other  
          experimentation-- a practice commonly known as "pound seizure."   
          According to the sponsor of the bill, the State Humane  
          Association of California, recent evaluation by the National  
          Academy of Sciences has concluded that pound seizure is an  
          outdated practice, and that animals taken from shelters for  
          research purposes do not make any crucial contribution to  
          biomedical research.  Supporters of the bill, primarily animal  








                                                                    AB 2269


                                                                    Page  2





          advocates, oppose pound seizure on the grounds that animal  
          experimentation is not only unnecessary, but also cruel to the  
          animals themselves and should therefore not be further  
          facilitated by the use of animals from pounds and shelters.


          Proponents contend that this bill will bring needed consistency  
          to state law that bans some, but not all, abandoned animals from  
          being sold into experimentation.  Current California law  
          prohibits animals that are abandoned at veterinarian hospitals,  
          kennels, pet grooming parlors, and animal hospitals from being  
          sold into any type of research, but inexplicably, this ban does  
          not apply to animals left in animal shelters or pounds, where  
          the practice is expressly allowed as long as certain signage and  
          notice requirements are met.  This discrepancy in California law  
          means that an abandoned animal could be acquired and sold into  
          experimentation if it was left at a local shelter, but the same  
          animal would not be subject to that fate if it was left at a  
          kennel or grooming parlor.  In addition, this bill will create  
          uniformity across the state with respect to pound seizure  
          because the practice is already prohibited by local ordinance in  
          many cities and counties, but is not prohibited or even  
          expressly allowed in others.


          As proposed to be amended, the bill prohibits a person or animal  
          shelter from euthanizing any animals for the purpose, in whole  
          or in part, of transferring their carcasses to research  
          facilities or animal dealers.  The proposed amendments are  
          intended to ensure that a shelter may not euthanize animals for  
          the purpose of selling or transferring their carcasses to an  
          animal dealer-animals that presumably may be otherwise  
          adoptable, as they were in a recent Bakersfield scandal-while  
          still allowing the sale or transfer of cadavers of animals that  
          were euthanized under more legitimate circumstances in the  
          ordinary operation of the shelter.  There is no known opposition  
          to this bill, and it will next be referred to Appropriations  
          Committee should it be approved by this Committee.









                                                                    AB 2269


                                                                    Page  3






          SUMMARY:  Prohibits the sale or transfer of live animals from  
          pounds and animal shelters to any animal dealer or research  
          facility for purposes of research or experimentation.   
          Specifically, this bill:   


          1)Defines "animal dealer" to mean any person who, in commerce,  
            for compensation or profit, delivers for transportation, or  
            transports, except as a carrier, or who buys, sells, or  
            negotiates the purchase or sale of any animal, whether alive  
            or dead, for research, teaching, exhibition, or biological  
            supply.


          2)Prohibits a person or animal shelter entity, as defined, that  
            accepts animals from the public or takes in stray or unwanted  
            animals from selling, giving, or otherwise transferring a  
            living animal to a research facility or to an animal dealer.


          3)Prohibits a research facility or animal dealer from procuring,  
            purchasing, receiving, accepting, or using a living animal for  
            the purpose of medical or biological teaching, research, or  
            study, or any other kind of experimentation, if that animal is  
            transferred from, or received from, an animal shelter entity.


          4)Prohibits a person or animal shelter from euthanizing any  
            animal for the purpose, in whole or in part, of transferring  
            the carcass to a research facility or animal dealer.


          5)Requires any animal shelter entity where dead animals are  
            turned over to a biological supply or research facility to  
            post a specified sign, in a clearly visible location, stating:  
             "Animals Euthanized at This Shelter May Be Used For Research  
            Purposes or to Supply Blood, Tissue, or Other Biological  
            Products."  Further requires this statement to be included in  








                                                                    AB 2269


                                                                    Page  4





            owner surrender forms used by the animal shelter.


          6)Clarifies that these provisions do not prohibit a procedure by  
            a licensed veterinarian to correct the animal's preexisting  
            medical condition, and under certain circumstances, do not  
            prohibit a procedure to spay or neuter the animal if the  
            procedure is performed by, or under the direct supervision of,  
            a licensed veterinarian.


          7)Provides for a $1000 civil penalty for any violation of these  
            provisions, in an action brought by the local district  
            attorney or city attorney.


          EXISTING LAW:   


          1)Declares that it is the policy of this state that no adoptable  
            animal should be euthanized if it can be adopted into a  
            suitable home, and that no treatable animal should be  
            euthanized if with treatment it could become adoptable with  
            reasonable efforts.  (Civil Code Section 1834.4.  All further  
            references are to this code, unless otherwise stated.)
          2)Provides that whenever an animal is delivered to a  
            veterinarian, dog kennel, cat kennel, pet-grooming parlor,  
            animal hospital, or any other animal care facility, and the  
            owner of the animal does not pick up the animal within 14  
            calendar days after the day the animal was initially due to be  
            picked up, the animal shall be deemed to be abandoned.   
            (Section 1834.5 (a).)


          3)Requires the person into whose custody the animal is placed  
            for care to try for at least 10 days to find a new owner for  
            the animal, or turn the animal over to a public animal control  
            agency or shelter, society for the prevention of cruelty to  
            animals shelter, humane society shelter, or nonprofit animal  








                                                                    AB 2269


                                                                    Page  5





            rescue group, provided that the shelter or rescue group has  
            been contacted and has agreed to take the animal. (Section  
            1834.5 (a).)


          4)Authorizes the animal care facility to have the abandoned  
            animal euthanized if it is unable to place the animal with a  
            new owner, shelter, or rescue group as described above.   
            Further authorizes a veterinarian to euthanize an animal  
            abandoned with the veterinarian or with a facility that has a  
            veterinarian, if a new owner cannot be found after following  
            the specified procedures for holding the animal described  
            above.  (Section 1834.5, subd. (a) and (b).)


          5)Prohibits any animals abandoned at veterinarian hospitals,  
            kennels, pet grooming parlors, and animal hospitals from being  
            used for scientific or any other type of experimentation.   
            (Section 1834.5 (e).)


          6)Requires any pound or animal regulation department of a public  
            or private agency who turns over living or dead animals to  
            biological supply facilities or research facilities to post a  
            specified notice clearly visible to the public stating that  
            animals turned in to the pound or department may be used for  
            research purposes or to supply blood, tissue, or other  
            biological products.  (Section 1834.7 (a).)


          FISCAL EFFECT:  As currently in print this bill is keyed fiscal.


          COMMENTS:  This non-controversial bill expressly prohibits, for  
          the first time in California statute, the acquisition of live  
          animals from public or private animal shelters for use in  
          scientific or other experimentation-- a practice commonly known  
          as "pound seizure."  As proposed to be amended, the bill also  
          prohibits the euthanasia of otherwise adoptable animals for the  








                                                                    AB 2269


                                                                    Page  6





          purpose of transferring the animal carcasses to a research  
          facility or animal dealer.  According to the State Humane  
          Association of California (SHAC), the bill's sponsor:


               This bill will eliminate inconsistencies in state law  
               concerning the disposition of abandoned animals and  
               will harmonize state law with local ordinances across  
               California by prohibiting [pound seizure].  AB 2269  
               will bring California law in line with 18 other states  
               that now prohibit pound seizure and will reflect the  
               growing scientific consensus that the use of random  
               source dogs and cats, which includes those acquired  
               from animal shelters, is unnecessary and may be  
               harmful.  Failing to address these issues creates  
               confusion for the public and shelter employees, and has  
               the potential to erode public trust in animal shelters  
               and the wellbeing of the animals entrusted to their  
               care.


          Background on pound seizures and current regulation of the  
          practice.  According to Cruelty Free International (CFI), an  
          animal protection and advocacy group opposed to animal  
          experimentation, pound seizure became common in the United  
          States in the 1940s, with the biomedical industry actually  
          spearheading legislation in several states to legally require  
          animal shelters to provide dogs and cats to research  
          laboratories either directly, or through animal dealers who  
          collect animals from shelters and other sources and sell them  
          into experimentation. 


          After media accounts of family pets being stolen and sold into  
          research by animal dealers generated public outcry in the 1960s,  
          including a famous Life magazine exposé on the practice,  
          Congress passed the Animal Welfare Act in 1966 to try to  
          regulate pound seizures and the theft and resale of animals into  
          experimentation.  Among other things, the Animal Welfare Act  








                                                                    AB 2269


                                                                    Page  7





          requires animal shelters and pounds to hold cats and dogs for a  
          minimum of five days before they are sold to a dealer, and  
          requires dealers to provide the recipient of the cat or dog with  
          a certification containing certain information, such as a  
          description of the animal and the name of the shelter it came  
          from.  (7 U.S.C. § 2158.)  According to CFI, however, the Animal  
          Welfare Act "fell short of its intended goals and public  
          expectation" and unfortunately produced some unintended  
          consequences.  First, by making it slower and more cumbersome to  
          obtain animals from pounds, unscrupulous individuals began  
          stealing more pets in order to sell them to research and  
          biomedical institutes.  Second, it created a perverse financial  
          incentive for some animal shelters to sell animals to research  
          institutes instead of making them available for adoption. 


          Without effective federal protections, several states, beginning  
          with Massachusetts in 1983, began to enact laws to prohibit  
          pound seizure. Although 18 states currently have laws banning  
          pound seizure, California is not one of them.  In fact, under  
          Section 1834.7 of the Civil Code, the practice is expressly  
          allowed, as long as a specified notice is posted at the pound or  
          shelter informing the public that "Animals Turned Into This  
          Shelter May Be Used For Research or to Supply Blood, Tissue or  
          Other Biological Products."  


          Although state law does not prohibit pound seizure, many cities  
          and counties in California have enacted local ordinances to  
          prohibit the practice. Among the localities that have passed  
          such ordinances are the cities of West Hollywood, San  
          Bernardino, Santa Barbara, Scotts Valley, Laguna Woods, Nevada  
          City, and Paradise, as well as the counties of Santa Cruz and  
          San Francisco.  Some cities, like the state, have laws expressly  
          allowing pound seizure, including Big Bear Lake and Grand  
          Terrace, while others do not address pound seizure at all.   
          Animal advocates contend that the lack of uniformity between the  
          state and municipalities (and even among neighboring cities)  
          fosters unnecessary confusion for the public and animal shelter  








                                                                    AB 2269


                                                                    Page  8





          personnel.


          Pound seizure is an increasingly outdated practice and is not  
          crucial for biomedical research.  According to a 2009 report  
          commissioned by the National Academy of Sciences, "random  
          source" cats and dogs (a category that includes animals obtained  
          from animal shelters) are not critical for biomedical research.   
          (National Research Council, "Scientific and Humane Issues in the  
          Use of Random Source Dogs and Cats in Research" (2009) Available  
          at:  https://grants.nih.gov/grants/olaw/  
          Random_Source_Dog_and_Cat_Report.pdf  .)  The authors of the  
          report state, "Because random source animals come from various  
          sources, they are more likely to be associated with undesirable  
          aspects such as infectious disease, occupational health hazards,  
          and inconsistent health and welfare standards.  These  
          undesirable aspects may limit their value for research purposes  
          and place an additional burden on institutions."  The study also  
          notes that the demand for random source animals has fallen  
          significantly over the last thirty years, along with the number  
          of Americans who support the use of animals in biomedical  
          research.  According to proponents of the bill, the National  
          Institutes of Health recently stopped funding research using  
          random source dogs and cats because of the conclusions in the  
          National Academy of Sciences report.  For all of these reasons,  
          it is difficult to justify pound seizure when evidence shows  
          that it does not make any crucial contribution to biomedical  
          research.


          This bill brings needed consistency to state law that bans some  
          but not all abandoned animals from being sold into  
          experimentation.  Currently, California law prohibits the sale  
          of animals that are abandoned at veterinarian hospitals,  
          kennels, pet grooming parlors, and animal hospitals into any  
          type of research.  (Civil Code Section 1834.5.)  Inexplicably,  
          however, this ban does not apply to animals left in animal  
          shelters or pounds because Section 1834.7 specifically condones  
          pound seizure, as a long as appropriate signs at shelters inform  








                                                                    AB 2269


                                                                    Page  9





          the public of the practice.  This discrepancy in the state law  
          means that an abandoned animal could be acquired and sold into  
          experimentation if it was left at a local shelter, but the same  
          animal would not be subject to such a fate if it were left at a  
          kennel or grooming parlor.  


          In order to facilitate a consistent public policy that protects  
          all animals from being sold into experimentation, regardless of  
          where they were abandoned, this bill prohibits any person or  
          animal shelter entity that accepts animals from the public or  
          takes in stray or unwanted animals from selling, giving, or  
          otherwise transferring a living animal to a research facility or  
          an animal dealer.  In addition, the bill also prohibits a  
          research facility or animal dealer from procuring, purchasing,  
          receiving, accepting, or using a living animal for the purpose  
          of medical or biological teaching, research, or study, or any  
          other kind of experimentation, if that animal is transferred  
          from, or received from, an animal shelter entity.  An "animal  
          shelter entity" covered by this bill includes, but is not  
          limited to, an animal regulation agency, humane society, SPCA,  
          rescue group, or other private or public animal shelter.


          Proposed author's amendments would prohibit euthanasia of  
          shelter animals for the purpose of selling or transferring their  
          carcasses to research or biological supply companies.  By  
          prohibiting pound seizure, this bill seeks to eliminate any  
          possibility that an animal pound or shelter would choose to sell  
          abandoned animals in their care to research institutions rather  
          than making them available for adoption.  However, existing law  
          does not address the possibility that an animal pound or shelter  
          might choose to sell dead animals to research labs or animal  
          dealers who might profit from their resale to a biological  
          supply company.  In fact, this very real possibility was  
          highlighted by a recent animal cruelty prosecution in central  
          California.  In 2007, several employees at an animal shelter in  
          Bakersfield were charged with animal cruelty after it was  
          discovered that they were euthanizing otherwise adoptable  








                                                                    AB 2269


                                                                    Page  10





          animals and participating in an off-the-books arrangement to  
          sell the cadavers to a biological supply dealer for  
          compensation.  (See, e.g. "Ex-Shelter Manager Found Guilty",  
          Visalia Times Delta, Sept. 25, 2008.)  


          Recognizing that euthanasia of non-adoptable and unadopted  
          animals is an unavoidable fact of life for many pounds or  
          shelters, and recognizing that animal cadavers may have utility  
          to researchers or biological supply companies for legitimate  
          purposes, this bill does not contain a blanket prohibition  
          against the acquisition of animal cadavers from pounds or  
          shelters by animal dealers or research institutions.  Instead,  
          as proposed to be amended, the bill prohibits a person or animal  
          shelter from euthanizing any animals for the purpose, in whole  
          or in part, of transferring their carcasses to research  
          facilities or animal dealers.  In other words, if animals are  
          being euthanized for a legitimate reason (i.e. for reasons other  
          than to sell their carcass to an animal dealer), then the pound  
          or shelter may sell or donate the cadavers of those animals to  
          an animal dealer without violating the provisions of this bill.   
          These provisions are necessary, of course, because the bill's  
          prohibition on pound seizure only prevents the acquisition of  
          live animals for experimentation or research, not the  
          acquisition or sale of dead animal cadavers for research or  
          other purposes (i.e. biological supply.)  The proposed  
          amendments are intended to ensure that a shelter may not  
          euthanize animals for the purpose of selling or transferring  
          their carcasses to an animal dealer-animals that presumably may  
          be otherwise adoptable, as they were in the Bakersfield  
          case-while still allowing the sale or transfer of cadavers of  
          animals that were euthanized under more legitimate circumstances  
          in the ordinary operation of the shelter.


          Finally, it is important to note that the proposed amendments  
          retain the existing sign and notice requirements, in a slightly  
          modified format, to ensure that even when animals are euthanized  
          at a shelter under legitimate circumstances, members of the  








                                                                    AB 2269


                                                                    Page  11





          public are informed through posted notice and the owner  
          surrender forms that the cadavers of those animals so euthanized  
          may ultimately be used for research or biological supply  
          purposes.


          Miscellaneous provisions.  The bill also contains language to  
          clarify that nothing in these provisions shall prohibit a  
          procedure by a licensed veterinarian to spay, neuter, or correct  
          an animal's preexisting medical condition, as long as the animal  
          is returned to the person or animal shelter after the procedure,  
          except as specified.  Finally, the bill authorizes a $1000 civil  
          penalty for any violation of these provisions, to be brought by  
          a local district attorney or city attorney, with the penalty to  
          be paid to the entity that brought the action to assess the  
          penalty.


          ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT:  In support of the bill, the Beagle  
          Freedom Project writes:


               The practice of 'pound seizure' is universally frowned  
               upon and banned in many others States.  This bill  
               addresses a real deficiency of law and rightfully adds  
               a necessary layer of protection of lost animal  
               companions that wind up in shelters, or stray or  
               homeless dogs and cats that deserve every chance at  
               adoption.  There have been countless examples over the  
               years of a family dog or cat going missing only to be  
               later found used and euthanized in a research facility.  
                It is a fear no California family should ever have to  
               consider while anxiously looking for their lost loved  
               one.


          REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:










                                                                    AB 2269


                                                                    Page  12







          Support


          State Humane Association of California (sponsor)


          The Beagle Freedom Project


          Cruelty Free International


          Humane Society of the United States


          Humane Society Veterinary Medical Association


          Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, Los Angeles




          Opposition


          None on file




          Analysis Prepared by:Anthony Lew and Navnit Bhandal / JUD. /  
          (916) 319-2334












                                                                    AB 2269


                                                                    Page  13