BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                    Ó



                                                                    AB 2269


                                                                    Page  1





          ASSEMBLY THIRD READING


          AB  
          2269 (Waldron)


          As Amended  April 21, 2016


          Majority vote


           ------------------------------------------------------------------- 
          |Committee       |Votes|Ayes                  |Noes                 |
          |                |     |                      |                     |
          |                |     |                      |                     |
          |                |     |                      |                     |
          |----------------+-----+----------------------+---------------------|
          |Judiciary       |10-0 |Mark Stone, Wagner,   |                     |
          |                |     |Alejo, Chau, Chiu,    |                     |
          |                |     |Gallagher,            |                     |
          |                |     |                      |                     |
          |                |     |                      |                     |
          |                |     |Cristina Garcia,      |                     |
          |                |     |Holden, Maienschein,  |                     |
          |                |     |Ting                  |                     |
          |                |     |                      |                     |
          |----------------+-----+----------------------+---------------------|
          |Appropriations  |20-0 |Gonzalez, Bigelow,    |                     |
          |                |     |Bloom, Bonilla,       |                     |
          |                |     |Bonta, Calderon,      |                     |
          |                |     |Chang, Daly, Eggman,  |                     |
          |                |     |Gallagher, Eduardo    |                     |
          |                |     |Garcia, Roger         |                     |
          |                |     |Hernández, Holden,    |                     |
          |                |     |Jones, Obernolte,     |                     |
          |                |     |Quirk, Santiago,      |                     |
          |                |     |Wagner, Weber, Wood   |                     |








                                                                    AB 2269


                                                                    Page  2





          |                |     |                      |                     |
          |                |     |                      |                     |
           ------------------------------------------------------------------- 


          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  








                                                                    AB 2269


                                                                    Page  3





            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  
            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.


          FISCAL EFFECT:  According to the Assembly Appropriations  
          committee:


          1)Any costs to county animal facilities, while  
            state-reimbursable, should be minor and absorbable.


          2)Potential minor non-reimbursable costs to cities and counties  
            for enforcement, offset to some extent by fine revenue.


          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."  This bill also prohibits the euthanasia of  
          otherwise adoptable animals for the purpose of transferring the  
          animal carcasses to a research facility or animal dealer.   








                                                                    AB 2269


                                                                    Page  4





          According to the State Humane Association of California (SHAC),  
          this bill's sponsor, by prohibiting pound seizure, this bill  
          "will harmonize state law with local ordinances across  
          California and... 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." Recent amendments to this bill are technical and add  
          co-authors.


          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.  Congress passed the Animal Welfare Act in  
          1966 to try to regulate pound seizures and the theft and resale  
          of animals into experimentation.  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.  Although state  
          law does not prohibit pound seizure, many cities and counties in  
          California have enacted local ordinances to prohibit the  








                                                                    AB 2269


                                                                    Page  5





          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 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 30 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  








                                                                    AB 2269


                                                                    Page  6





          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 Civil Code Section 1834.7  
          specifically condones pound seizure, as a long as appropriate  
          signs at shelters inform 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.


          This bill prohibits 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  








                                                                    AB 2269


                                                                    Page  7





          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 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 un-adopted  
          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,  
          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.)  Recent amendments seek 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.








                                                                    AB 2269


                                                                    Page  8









          Finally, it is important to note that this bill retains 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 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


          Analysis Prepared by:                                             
          Anthony Lew / JUD. / (916) 319-2334  FN: 0002757