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outdated practice, and that animals taken from shelters for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