BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 2269
Page 1
CONCURRENCE IN SENATE AMENDMENTS
AB
2269 (Waldron)
As Amended August 2, 2016
Majority vote
--------------------------------------------------------------------
|ASSEMBLY: |77-0 |(April 25, |SENATE: |38-0 |(August 16, |
| | |2016) | | |2016) |
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | |
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Original Committee Reference: JUD.
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, testing, 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
AB 2269
Page 2
animals from selling, giving, or otherwise transferring a
living animal to a research facility, animal dealer or other
person for the purpose of research, experimentation, or
testing.
3)Prohibits a research facility, animal dealer, or other person
from procuring, purchasing, receiving, accepting, or using a
living animal for the purpose of research, experimentation, or
testing if that animal is transferred from, or received from,
an animal shelter entity or other person that accepts animals
from the public or takes in stray or unwanted animals.
4)Prohibits a person or animal shelter from euthanizing any
animal for the purpose 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 for
research purposes or to supply blood, tissue, or other
biological products 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 owner surrender forms used by the
animal shelter.
6)Provides for a $1000 civil penalty for any violation of these
provisions, in an action brought by the local district
attorney or city attorney.
The Senate amendments:
1)Define "person" to mean an individual, partnership, firm,
limited liability company, joint-stock company, corporation,
association, trust, estate, governmental agency, or other
legal entity, and extends specified requirements to such
AB 2269
Page 3
persons.
2)Clarify that the requirement to post signage applies to an
animal shelter entity where dead animals are turned over to a
biological supply facility or research facility for certain
purposes-specifically, when turned over for research purposes
or to supply blood, tissue, or other biological products.
3)Clarify that the prohibition on selling, giving, or
transferring a living animal to a research facility or animal
dealer applies when the purpose of that act is for research,
experimentation, or testing of the animal.
4)Clarify that the prohibition on procurement, purchase, or
receipt of a living animal in 3) above, applies when the
purpose of that act is for research, experimentation, or
testing of the animal.
5)Delete provisions clarifying that this bill does not prohibit
licensed veterinarians from correcting a preexisting medical
condition or spaying or neutering the animal under certain
conditions.
FISCAL EFFECT: According to the Senate Appropriations
Committee:
1)Local agency animal shelters: Significant ongoing care and
treatment costs, potentially state-reimbursable (General Fund)
to local agency animal shelters that accept and care for stray
and abandoned animals that will be prohibited from selling,
giving, or otherwise transferring living animals to research
facilities or animal dealers, as well as prohibited from
euthanizing animals for the purpose of transferring to a
research facility or animal dealer. The Commission on State
Mandates (CSM) in its decision on the claim Animal Adoption
98-TC-11, determined that only local agencies are mandated by
AB 2269
Page 4
the state to accept and care for stray and abandoned animals.
As a result, despite the fact that the imposition of specified
activities is imposed upon both public and private animal
shelters, private shelters are not required to take in stray
and abandoned animals whereas local agency shelters are
required to do so. Therefore, to the extent the provisions of
this bill constitute a higher level of service imposed on
local agency public shelters to provide care and treatment for
stray and abandoned animals for an extended period of time due
to the prohibition on selling, giving, or transferring
animals, local agencies could potentially be eligible for
reimbursement for the increased costs. Staff notes the
reimbursable mandate Animal Adoption has been suspended in the
annual Budget Act. Thus, any additional activities mandated on
local agencies that accept stray or abandoned animals
potentially may not be subject to reimbursement during the
period the mandate is suspended should the CSM make that
determination.
2)University of California (UC): The UC has indicated no
significant fiscal impact based on the latest amendments to
the bill that clarify under what circumstances an animal may
be transferred to a research facility.
3)New civil penalty: Potential minor increase in civil penalty
revenues (Local Funds) to the extent district attorneys or
city attorneys bring forth actions for violations of this
section.
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
research, testing, or 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.
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
AB 2269
Page 5
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
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
AB 2269
Page 6
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
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 (CIV) 1834.5.)
Inexplicably, however, this ban does not apply to animals left
in animal shelters or pounds because CIV 1834.7 specifically
condones pound seizure, as a long as appropriate signs at
shelters inform the public of the practice. This discrepancy in
AB 2269
Page 7
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,
animal dealer, or other person for the purpose of research,
experimentation, or testing. In addition, the bill also
prohibits a research facility, animal dealer, or other person
from procuring, purchasing, receiving, accepting, or using a
living animal for the purpose of research, experimentation, or
testing if that animal is transferred from, or received from, an
animal shelter entity or other person that accepts animals from
the public or takes in stray or unwanted animals. An "animal
shelter entity" covered by this bill includes, but is not
limited to, an animal regulation agency, humane society, SPCA,
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
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
AB 2269
Page 8
Found Guilty", Visalia Times Delta, September 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,
this bill prohibits a person or animal shelter from euthanizing
any animals for the purpose 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.
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.
AB 2269
Page 9
Analysis Prepared by:
Anthony Lew / JUD. / (916) 319-2334 FN: 0004300