BILL ANALYSIS
AB 243
Page 1
Date of Hearing: May 20, 2009
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Kevin De Leon, Chair
AB 243 (Nava) - As Amended: May 13, 2009
Policy Committee: Public
SafetyVote: 6-0
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program:
Yes Reimbursable:
SUMMARY
This bill:
1)Makes it a public offense, punishable by a fine of up to one
year in county jail and/or a fine of up to $1,000 for a person
to own, possess, reside, or care for any animal within five
years of a misdemeanor conviction for specified animal cruelty
offenses.
2)Makes it a public offense, punishable by a fine of up to one
year in county jail and/or a fine of up to $1,000 for a person
to own, possess, reside, or care for any animal within 10
years of a felony conviction for specified animal cruelty
offenses.
FISCAL EFFECT
Unknown, likely minor, nonreimbursable costs for local law
enforcement and incarceration, offset to a degree by increased
fine revenue. For a point of reference, 35 persons were
committed to state prison over the past two years for felony
animal cruelty.
COMMENTS
1)Rationale. According to the author, "Those who have neglected
animals have demonstrated that they cannot be trusted to
provide animals in their care with the basics required by law.
In the case of overt cruelty, defendants convicted of
purposely harming an animal have demonstrated that they are
capable of violence toward an animal. And, in the case of
AB 243
Page 2
animal fighting, those convicted of participating in dog or
cockfighting have demonstrated a lack of regard for an
animal's welfare and a lack of concern for the suffering that
is associated with animal 'blood sports.' "
"The recidivism rate of animal cruelty and neglect crimes is,
according to most studies, virtually 100%. As with laws that
prevent sex offenders from having contact with underage
children, a law prohibiting abusers from contact with animals
will separate offenders from potential new victims.
"AB 243 will make it mandatory for a judge to prohibit a
person convicted of specified animal-related crimes from
owning or possessing, caring for, or having any contact with
animals for a minimum period of time.
The offenses referenced in this include maliciously wounding,
tormenting, or killing an animal, and causing or training an
animal to fight with another animal.
2)Support. According to the American Society for the Prevention
of Cruelty to Animals, "Studies have documented a link between
animal abuse and domestic violence with perpetrators often
abusing animals in order to intimidate, harass, or silence
their human victims. In addition, animal 'hoarders' have been
known to collect too many animals than they can adequately
care for, causing the animals to suffer and live in squalid
conditions. The recidivism rate for hoarders is considered to
be 100%."
3)Opposition . Several agricultural organizations oppose the
reduction in judicial discretion that could prevent farmers
and ranchers from possessing any livestock. For example, a
dairy farmer convicted of training a rooster for cockfighting,
would be stripped of his livelihood under this bill, with no
recourse for the judge to amend the penalty.
According to the Animal Council, "This (bill) would remove all
judicial discretion as to these post-conviction issues? For
these reasons, we oppose AB 243 as excessively punitive and
removing judicial discretion to protect the rights of
individuals."
4)The May 14 amendment is intended to address the concerns of
agricultural organizations, by authorizing the court, in the
AB 243
Page 3
interest of justice, to exempt a defendant from the animal ban
on the basis of undue economic hardship.
Analysis Prepared by : Geoff Long / APPR. / (916) 319-2081