BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SENATE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY
Senator Loni Hancock, Chair
2015 - 2016 Regular
Bill No: AB 2505 Hearing Date: June 14, 2016
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Author: |Quirk |
|-----------+-----------------------------------------------------|
|Version: |February 19, 2016 |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Urgency: |No |Fiscal: |Yes |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Consultant:|ML |
| | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Animals: Euthanasia
HISTORY
Source: Fearless Advocacy; Humane Society of the United
States; San Francisco SPCA
Prior Legislation:AB 1426 (Liu) - Ch. 652, Stats. 2006
SB 1659 (Kopp) - Ch. 751, Stats. 1998
Support: American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to
Animals; Best Friends Animal Society; California
Animal Control Directors Association; California
Veterinary Medical Association; Humane Society
Veterinary Medical Association (HSVMA); LIUNA Locals
777 & 792; Los Angeles County District Attorney's
Office; San Diego Humane Society; State Humane
Association of California; Stockton Animal Shelter
Opposition:None known
Assembly Floor Vote: 79 - 0
PURPOSE
This purpose of this bill is to prohibit the use of carbon
AB 2505 (Quirk ) Page
2 of ?
dioxide to euthanize an animal.
Current law prohibits the killing of any animal by using a)
carbon monoxide gas (Pen. Code, § 597u, subd. (a)(1)) or b)
intracardiac injection of a euthanasia agent on a conscious
animal, unless the animal is heavily sedated or anesthetized in
a humane manner, or comatose, or unless, in light of all the
relevant circumstances, the procedure is justifiable. (Pen.
Code, § 597u, subd. (a)(2).)
Current law states that with respect to the killing of any dog
or cat, no person, peace officer, officer of a humane society,
or officer of a pound or animal regulation department of a
public agency shall use any of the methods specified in
subdivision (a) or any of the following methods:
a) High-altitude decompression chamber. (Pen. Code, § 597u,
subd. (b)(1).)
b) Nitrogen gas. (Pen. Code, § 597u, subd. (b)(2).)
Current law states that no person, peace officer, officer of a
humane society or officer of a pound or animal regulation
department of a public agency shall kill any dog or cat by the
use of any high-altitude decompression chamber or nitrogen gas.
(Penal Code Section 597w.)
Current law provides that it is unlawful for any person to sell,
attempt to sell, load or cause to be loaded, transport or
attempt to transport any live horse, mule, burro, or pony that
is disabled if the animal is intended to be sold, loaded, or
transported for commercial slaughter out of California. (Penal
Code Section 597x(a).)
Current law defines a "disabled animal" as including, but not
limited to, any animal that has broken limbs, is unable to stand
and balance itself without assistance, cannot walk, or is
severely injured. (Penal Code Section 597x(b).)
Current law states that a violation of the prohibitions on
methods of killing is a misdemeanor. (Penal Code Section 597y.)
This bill prohibits the use of carbon dioxide to euthanize an
AB 2505 (Quirk ) Page
3 of ?
animal.
RECEIVERSHIP/OVERCROWDING CRISIS AGGRAVATION
For the past several years this Committee has scrutinized
legislation referred to its jurisdiction for any potential
impact on prison overcrowding. Mindful of the United States
Supreme Court ruling and federal court orders relating to the
state's ability to provide a constitutional level of health care
to its inmate population and the related issue of prison
overcrowding, this Committee has applied its "ROCA" policy as a
content-neutral, provisional measure necessary to ensure that
the Legislature does not erode progress in reducing prison
overcrowding.
On February 10, 2014, the federal court ordered California to
reduce its in-state adult institution population to 137.5% of
design capacity by February 28, 2016, as follows:
143% of design bed capacity by June 30, 2014;
141.5% of design bed capacity by February 28, 2015; and,
137.5% of design bed capacity by February 28, 2016.
In December of 2015 the administration reported that as "of
December 9, 2015, 112,510 inmates were housed in the State's 34
adult institutions, which amounts to 136.0% of design bed
capacity, and 5,264 inmates were housed in out-of-state
facilities. The current population is 1,212 inmates below the
final court-ordered population benchmark of 137.5% of design bed
capacity, and has been under that benchmark since February
2015." (Defendants' December 2015 Status Report in Response to
February 10, 2014 Order, 2:90-cv-00520 KJM DAD PC, 3-Judge
Court, Coleman v. Brown, Plata v. Brown (fn. omitted).) One
year ago, 115,826 inmates were housed in the State's 34 adult
institutions, which amounted to 140.0% of design bed capacity,
and 8,864 inmates were housed in out-of-state facilities.
(Defendants' December 2014 Status Report in Response to February
10, 2014 Order, 2:90-cv-00520 KJM DAD PC, 3-Judge Court, Coleman
v. Brown, Plata v. Brown (fn. omitted).)
While significant gains have been made in reducing the prison
population, the state must stabilize these advances and
demonstrate to the federal court that California has in place
the "durable solution" to prison overcrowding "consistently
AB 2505 (Quirk ) Page
4 of ?
demanded" by the court. (Opinion Re: Order Granting in Part and
Denying in Part Defendants' Request For Extension of December
31, 2013 Deadline, NO. 2:90-cv-0520 LKK DAD (PC), 3-Judge Court,
Coleman v. Brown, Plata v. Brown (2-10-14). The Committee's
consideration of bills that may impact the prison population
therefore will be informed by the following questions:
Whether a proposal erodes a measure which has contributed
to reducing the prison population;
Whether a proposal addresses a major area of public safety
or criminal activity for which there is no other
reasonable, appropriate remedy;
Whether a proposal addresses a crime which is directly
dangerous to the physical safety of others for which there
is no other reasonably appropriate sanction;
Whether a proposal corrects a constitutional problem or
legislative drafting error; and
Whether a proposal proposes penalties which are
proportionate, and cannot be achieved through any other
reasonably appropriate remedy.
COMMENTS
1. Need for This Bill
According to the author:
The use of carbon dioxide (CO2) to euthanize dogs and
cats is cost prohibitive, inhumane, dangerous, and
unnecessary. However, due to a loophole in existing law,
it is still legal to continue this practice. AB 2505
will close the loophole in current law and prohibit the
use of CO2 when euthanizing dogs and cats in California.
In a CO2 chamber it can take minutes for dogs and cats to
lose consciousness, and sometimes as long as twenty-five
minutes for them to expire. Furthermore, some dogs and
cats are resistant to CO2, particularly the vulnerable
ones like the sick and elderly. In these cases it takes
longer to kill the animal using CO2 and sometimes death
is not even achieved. Exposure to CO2 is known to cause
animals pain and make them to feel like they are
suffocating. Sometimes dogs and cats experience organ
AB 2505 (Quirk ) Page
5 of ?
failure before losing consciousness. Furthermore, CO2 is
hazardous to animal personnel due to the risk of narcosis
and complications from faulty equipment.
No state agency is tasked with inspecting gas chambers.
This safety measure was eliminated in 1998 when the state
assumed this practice was banned. As such any shelter in
operation of one could be exposing staff and other
adoptable animals to hazardous chemicals.
The widely accepted humane standard for euthanasia is a
method called "euthanasia by injection." This method
typically causes dogs and cats to lose consciousness
within three to five seconds and die a pain-free death.
2. Background
CO2 euthanasia occurs by administration of the gas in a sealed
container. The gas produces unconsciousness and then death. A
pressurized cylinder of CO2 is now viewed by a number of
international animal research oversight authorities as the only
acceptable method. CO2 may be administered in a home cage or in
a specialized compartment and may be used to kill individuals or
small groups of animals.
Discussions of CO2 euthanasia with various people working in
laboratory animal medicine and care (e.g. veterinarians,
vivarium directors, technicians) reveal that there are
conflicting CO2 practices and recommendations within the animal
research community. For example, some institutions require that
the euthanasia chamber be prefilled with CO2, while others
prohibit the use of prefilled chambers because they appear to
cause animal distress. Similar discrepancies in practice have
also been noted in regards to concentration, flow rate and
presence of oxygen. (Laboratory Animals, Conlee et al. (2005),
p. 139.)
The American Veterinary Medical Association published their most
recent guidelines regarding animal euthanasia in 2013. The AVMA
laid out strict guidelines for the use of CO2, but did not
prohibit its use for euthanasia altogether. According to the
AVMA, "Unfortunately, there are still shelters and animal
control operations that do not have access to controlled
substances and/or the personnel authorized by the Drug
AB 2505 (Quirk ) Page
6 of ?
Enforcement Administration to administer them. This limits
these facilities' options for euthanizing animals."
(http://atwork.avma.org/2013/02/26/euthanasia-guidelines-the-gas-
chamber-debate/)
The AVMA Guidelines and Restrictions with respect to use of CO2
for animal euthanasia are as follows and use of CO2 is only
considered acceptable if all the following guidelines are met:
a) Personnel must be instructed thoroughly in the gas's use
and must understand its hazards and limitations;
b) The gas source and chamber must be located in a
well-ventilated environment, preferably outdoors;
c) The gas must be supplied in a precisely regulated and
purified form without contaminants or adulterants,
typically from a commercially supplied cylinder or tank;
d) The gas flow rate must allow operators to achieve known
and appropriate gas concentrations within the recommended
time;
e) The chamber must be of the highest-quality construction
and should allow for separation of individual animals. If
animals need to be combined, they should be of the same
species, and, if needed, restrained or separated so that
they will not hurt themselves or others. Chambers should
not be overloaded and need to be kept clean to minimize
odors that might distress animals that are subsequently
euthanized;
f) The chamber must be well lighted and must allow
personnel to directly observe the animals;
g) If the chamber is inside a room, monitors must be placed
in the room to warn personnel of hazardous concentrations
of gas; and
h) It is essential that the gas and the chamber be used in
compliance with state and federal occupational health and
safety regulations.
In the 2013 Guidelines, euthanasia by intravenous injection of
an approved euthanasia agent remains the preferred method for
euthanasia of dogs, cats, and other small companion animals. Gas
chambers are not recommended for routine euthanasia of cats and
dogs in shelters and animal control operations.
-- END -
AB 2505 (Quirk ) Page
7 of ?