BILL ANALYSIS
SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE
John L. Burton, Chairman
1997-98 Regular Session
SB 1785 S
Senator Hayden B
As Amended: April 14, 1998
Hearing Date: April 21, 1998 1
Civil Code, Food and Agriculture Code, Penal Code 7
DBM:cjt 85
SUBJECT
Stray Animals: Duties of Pounds and Shelters
DESCRIPTION
This bill would provide that public and private animal
shelters are subject to the same anti-cruelty statutes as
private citizens who take possession of a stray dog or cat.
It would also require that animal shelters:
keep animals for a minimum of three business days before
they are put up for adoption and a minimum of six
business days before they are euthanized;
make animals available to non-profit rescue societies or
adoption organizations free of charge, excluding
reasonable spay or neuter costs;
maintain accurate records of all animals turned over to
the shelter, from the time of possession;
keep and provide for any legally ownable pet;
make reasonable efforts to contact the owner of an animal
in its possession and to inform him or her of recovery
procedures.
In addition, this bill would provide that it is the policy
of the state that no adoptable animal should be euthanized.
CHANGES TO EXISTING LAW
1. Existing law (Penal Code Section 597, 597l, 597f,
597t) provides that any person having the charge or
custody of an animal is required to provide it with
adequate food, clean water, shelter, exercise and
veterinary care. It provides that no person shall
intentionally harm an animal. A violation of any of these
provisions is punishable as a misdemeanor or as a
wobbler, depending on the offense, and by a fine of not
more than $20,000.
This bill would clarify that public pounds, private
animal shelters, and private citizens who take possession
of a stray dog or cat are all subject to the provisions
listed above. A violation is punishable as a misdemeanor
or as a wobbler, depending on the offense, and by a fine
of not more than $20,000.
2. Existing law (Food and Agriculture Code Section 31108,
31752) provides that a stray dog or cat that is impounded
must be held for 72 hours before it may be killed.
This bill would provide that:
(a) any impounded animal that may be legally owned must
be held for six business days before it may be killed.
It would provide that an impounded animal would be
available for owner redemption during the first three
business days and for adoption or owner redemption during
the following three business days;
(b) it is the policy of the 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. It defines "adoptable" and "treatable";
(c) any impounded animal that may be legally owned must
be released without cost, excluding a reasonable spay or
neuter deposit, to a requesting nonprofit animal rescue
or adoption organization prior to the expiration of the
holding period.
3. Existing Law (Penal Code Section 597.1) provides that
an animal control agency must keep records of the
whereabouts of any animal in its possession for 72 hours
and must make those records available for inspection by
the public upon request.
This bill would provide that an animal control agency or
private animal shelter must keep accurate records on each
animal that is taken up, medically treated, euthanized,
or impounded. It would require that those records
include the circumstances under which the animal was
taken up, medically treated, euthanized, or impounded,
the names of the personnel who took up, medically
treated, euthanized, or impounded the animal, a
description of any medical treatment provided, the name
of the veterinarian of record, the final disposition of
the animal, (including the name of the person who
euthanized the animal or the names of parties who adopted
the animal). This bill would require the maintenance of
those records from the time the agency or shelter takes
possession of the animal.
4. Existing law (Food and Agriculture Code Section 32001)
provides that all animal control agencies and private
animal shelters must provide owners of lost animals and
those who find lost animals with a list of lost and found
animals maintained by the shelter. It also requires that
they provide the telephone numbers and addresses of other
animal control agencies and private animal shelters in
the area. These provisions carry neither civil nor
criminal penalties.
This bill would also require that animal control agencies
and private animal shelters make reasonable efforts to
contact the owner of an animal in its possession and to
inform him or her of recovery procedures. It would
require that animal shelters keep records of such
efforts. In addition, this bill would provide that
violations of the above cited existing law (Food and
Agriculture Code Section 32001) are a cause of action for
damages against a public entity, employee of a public
entity, or any other person.
5. Existing statute (Penal Code Section 597.1l) provides
that local governments may, but are not required to,
adopt statutory language requiring animal control centers
to conduct postseizure hearings to determine whether the
seizure or impounding of an animal was lawful. Existing
case law [Carrera v. Bertaini Civ. No. 2713. Fifth Dist.
Nov. 12, 1976.] provides that animal control centers must
conduct postseizure hearings.
This bill would codify existing case law to provide that
animal control centers must conduct postseizure hearings.
COMMENT
1. Stated purpose: to hold shelters accountable to the
same standards as private individuals, to shift the focus
of animal shelters away from euthanization and towards
adoption, to require shelters to care for all legally
ownable pets
According to the author, the purpose of this bill is: (1)
to make it clear that animal shelters and private
individuals have the same responsibility to animals under
their care; (2) to reduce the number of adoptable animals
euthanized at shelters by shifting the focus of shelters
from killing to owner redemption and adoption; (3) to
give owner relinquished pets the same chance to live as
stray animals by providing for uniform holding periods;
(4) to establish clearer guidelines for the care and
treatment of animals in shelters; and (5) to require
shelters to care for all pets.
The author argues that too many adoptable animals are
euthanized by shelters and that the proposed changes will
decrease the frequency of this tragedy. Further, the
author argues that taxpayers who own legally allowed pets
other than cats and dogs should be treated the same as
taxpayers who own cats and dogs.
2. Opposition concerns: mandates placed upon shelters
would require additional facilities and staff and would
dramatically increase costs
The principal opponents of this bill, the California
Association of Animal Control Directors and The
California Agricultural Commissioners and Sealers
Association have expressed numerous concerns. These
include:
(a) Extension of 72-hour holding requirement to six
business days
Opponents argue that the provisions in this bill which
require that shelters keep animals for a minimum of six
business days would dramatically increase operating
costs. Pat Claerbout, Director of El Dorado County
Animal Control, points out that the six business day
requirement would necessitate the holding of animals for
a minimum of up to eight days, since weekends do not
constitute business days. During the holidays, shelters
could be required to hold animals for as long as eleven
or twelve days. Claerbout argues that in order to meet
this provision, most shelters would be forced to expand
their facilities and hire additional staff.
COULD, INSTEAD, THE BILL DISTINGUISH BETWEEN STRAY ANIMALS
AND IDENTIFIED ANIMALS AND PROVIDE THAT SHELTERS KEEP
ANIMALS WITH IDENTIFICATION TAGS FOR A MINIMUM OF FIVE
BUSINESS DAYS AND ALL OTHER ANIMALS FOR A MINIMUM OF THREE
BUSINESS DAYS, EXCLUDING THE DAY ON WHICH THE ANIMAL IS
IMPOUNDED?
(b) Requirement to keep all animals
Opponents argue that the requirement that shelters keep
animals other than stray dogs and cats would necessitate
that they accommodate for animals for which they are
currently incapable of accommodating.
SHOULD THIS BILL BE AMENDED TO REQUIRE THAT SHELTERS KEEP A
SPECIFIED LIST OF ANIMALS, RATHER THAN ANY LEGALLY OWNABLE
ANIMAL? SHOULD THAT LIST EXCLUDE WILD ANIMALS, EXOTIC
ANIMALS, AND LIVESTOCK?
(c) Provisions providing for release to rescue
societies
Opponents argue that the requirement that shelters
release animals to rescue societies as soon as they are
available for adoption will create a "cherry picking
problem" whereby rescue societies and adoption
organizations could frequently remove all easily adoptable
animals from the shelters, leaving only unadoptable
animals in the shelters. Claerbout argues that
shelters need to be able to retain some of the easily
adoptable animals so that they can entice the public to
visit shelters. Higher numbers of visitors results in more
frequent adoptions of less easily adoptable animals.
Further, opponents of the bill argue that the requirement
that shelters release animals to rescue societies and
adoption organizations for free will decrease their
revenues.
SHOULD THIS BILL BE AMENDED TO PROVIDE THAT A SHELTER MUST
MAKE AN ANIMAL AVAILABLE TO A RESCUE SOCIETY PRIOR TO THE
KILLING OF THAT ANIMAL? SHOULD IT ALSO PROVIDE THAT A
SHELTER MAY ASSESS A FEE FOR ANIMALS RELEASED TO A RESCUE
SOCIETY OR ADOPTION ORGANIZATION, BUT THAT THE FEE MAY NOT
EXCEED THE STANDARD ADOPTION FEE FOR THAT ANIMAL?
(d) Postseizure hearings
Opponents are concerned that the requirement that
animal control centers
conduct postseizure hearings will increase operating costs.
SHOULD ANIMAL CONTROL CENTERS BE REQUIRED TO CONDUCT
POSTSEIZURE HEARINGS?
(e) Further concerns
Opponents also argue that shelters currently maintain
adequate records of
impounded animals and that they are already subject to
anti-cruelty statutes.
3. Additional concerns: the possibility of increased
legal liability of animal shelters
This bill would make all shelters liable for civil
damages for failure to abide by existing anti-cruelty
laws, proposed statutes relating to the killing of
animals, and proposed statutes requiring additional
record keeping. Though shelters are currently liable for
failures to abide by anti-cruelty laws, the proposed
liability for euthanasia decisions and record keeping
would be new. Opponents of the bill are concerned that
passage of this bill in its existing form could result in
civil suits being filed against shelters that cannot find
homes for impounded pets, and that additional liability
would expose them to unknown financial risks.
SHOULD THIS BILL BE AMENDED TO STATE THAT NO NEW CAUSE OF
ACTION IS CREATED BY ANY OF ITS PROVISIONS OR,
ALTERNATIVELY, THAT INDIVIDUALS MAY NOT BRING SUIT AGAINST
SHELTERS FOR DECISIONS CONCERNING EUTHANASIA?
4. Declarations and findings
The bill makes the following declarations and findings:
(1) Public and private shelters and humane organizations
share a common purpose in saving animals' lives,
preventing animal suffering, and eliminating animal
abandonment.
(2) Public and private shelters and humane groups should
work together to end euthanasia of adoptable and
treatable animals by 2010.
(3) Redemption of owned pets and adoption of lost or
stray adoptable animals is preferable to incurring social
and economic costs of euthanasia.
(4) Shelters should be open during hours that permit
working pet owners to redeem pets during non-working
hours.
(5) Shelters should aggressively promote spay and neuter
programs to reduce pet overpopulation.
(6) Shelters should not adopt out animals that are not
spayed or neutered.
(7) Public shelters should work with humane animal
adoption organizations to the fullest extent possible to
promote the adoption of animals and to reduce the rate of
killing.
(8) The intent of this act is to do all of the following:
(a) Shift the focus of shelters from killing to owner
redemption and adoption by making record keeping
mandatory to aid in owner redemption, providing owner
relinquished pets the same holding period as stray
animals to allow for adoption, and providing for an
explicit adoption period.
(b) Consolidate and list clear guidelines for care and
treatment for animals held in shelters.
(c) Extend public shelter responsibilities from dogs and
cats to all legal pets.
(d) Make shelters accountable to pet owners and the
public for records and the care of animals in their
possession.
(e) Make clear shelter responsibilities are the same as
those legally assumed by a person who voluntarily picks
up an animal.
(9) Statutory law prescribes the type of treatment that
private citizens must extend to stray animals they
voluntarily pick up and that public and private animal
shelters should be held to the same legal duties as those
that exist for private citizens.
(10) It is better to have public and private shelters
pick up or take in animals
than private citizens. The Legislature further finds that
the taking in of animals is important for public health
and safety, to aid in the return of the animal to its
owner, and to prevent inhumane conditions for lost or
free roaming animals.
(11) Shelters should be required by law to take in lost
animals and properly care for them with prompt veterinary
care, adequate nutrition, shelter, exercise, and water.
(12) Shelters receiving animals that have identification
should make reasonable attempts to notify the owner of
the animal's location.
(13) The duties of shelters to properly care for an
animal do not cease if the owner of a lost animal does
not claim the animal; and the shelter should have the
duty to make the animal available for adoption for a
reasonable period of time and to care properly for the
animal during this period.
(14) The Legislature finds and declares that lost animals
should be held for a period of time to ensure that the
owner has proper access to redeem the animal.
Support: The Humane Society of the United States; Friends
of Animals; The Fund
for Animals, Inc.; In Defense of Animals; Animal
Emancipation, Inc.; Animal Legislative Action Network;
Orange County People for Animals; The Cat and Dog Rescue
Association; Cats at the Studios, Inc.; Doris Day Animal
League.
Opposition: California Animal Control
Directors Association; California
Agricultural Commissioners and Sealers Association.
HISTORY
Source: Author
Related Pending Legislation: None Known
Prior Legislation: None Known
**************