(1)Existing law requires a pound or animal regulation department of a public or private agency where animals are turned over dead or alive to a biological supply facility or a research facility to post a statement to this effect, as specified, and requires that this statement and other information also be included on owner surrender forms.

This bill would revise these provisions to apply them only to an animal shelter entity, as defined, where dead animals are turned over to a biological supply facility or a research facility for specified purposes. The bill would revise the posted statement and owner surrender forms to refer to euthanized animals. The bill would prohibit an animal shelter entity or other person 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. The bill would also prohibit 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. The bill would prohibit a person or animal shelter entity from euthanizing an animal for the purpose of transferring the carcass to a research facility or animal dealer. A violation of these provisions would be subject to a civil penalty of $1,000. By creating new conditions affecting the operations of local, public animal service entities, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

(2)The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.

This bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to these statutory provisions.

(1)Existing law requires a pound or animal regulation department of a public or private agency where animals are turned over dead or alive to a biological supply facility or a research facility to post a statement to this effect, as specified, and requires that this statement and other information also be included on owner surrender forms.

This bill would revise these provisions to apply them only to an animal shelter entity, as defined, where dead animals are turned over to a biological supply facility or a research facility for specified purposes. The bill would revise the posted statement and owner surrender forms to refer to euthanized animals. The bill would prohibit an animal shelter entity or other person 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. The bill would also prohibit 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. The bill would prohibit a person or animal shelter entity from euthanizing an animal for the purpose of transferring the carcass to a research facility or animal dealer. A violation of these provisions would be subject to a civil penalty of $1,000. By creating new conditions affecting the operations of local, public animal service entities, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

(2)The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.

This bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to these statutory provisions.

(1)Existing law requires a pound or animal regulation department of a public or private agency where animals are turned over dead or alive to a biological supply facility or a research facility to post a statement to this effect, as specified, and requires that this statement and other information also be included on owner surrender forms.

This bill would revise these provisions to apply them only to an animal shelter entity, as defined, where dead animals are turned over to a biological supply facility or a research facility. facility for specified purposes. The bill would revise the posted statement and owner surrender forms to refer to euthanized animals. The bill would prohibit a person or an animal shelter entity or other person 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 animal dealer. facility, animal dealer, or other person for the purpose of research, experimentation, or testing. The bill would also prohibit a research facility or animal dealer facility, animal dealer, or other person 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, or testing if that animal is transferred from, or received from, an animal shelter. shelter entity or other person that accepts animals from the public or takes in stray or unwanted animals. The bill would prohibit a person or animal shelter entity from euthanizing an animal for the purpose of transferring the carcass to a research facility or animal dealer. The bill would except from these prohibitions specified procedures performed by, or under the direct supervision of, a licensed veterinarian, subject to certain conditions. A violation of these provisions would be subject to a civil penalty of $1,000. By creating new conditions affecting the operations of local, public animal service entities, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

(2)The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.

This bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to these statutory provisions.

(1)Existing law requires a pound or animal regulation department of a public or private agency where animals are turned over dead or alive to a biological supply facility or a research facility to post a statement to this effect, as specified, and requires that this statement and other information also be included on owner surrender forms.

This bill would revise these provisions to apply them only to an animal shelter entity, as defined, where dead animals are turned over to a biological supply facility or a research facility. The bill would revise the posted statement and owner surrender forms to refer to euthanized animals. The bill would prohibit a 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 animal dealer. The bill would also prohibit 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. The bill would prohibit a person or animal shelter entity from euthanizing an animal for the purpose of transferring the carcass to a research facility or animal dealer. The bill would except from these prohibitions specified procedures performed by, or under the direct supervision of, a licensed veterinarian, subject to certain conditions. A violation of these provisions would be subject to a civil penalty of $1,000. By creating new conditions affecting the operations of local, public animal service entities, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

(2)The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.

This bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to these statutory provisions.

(1)Existing law requires a pound or animal regulation department of a public or private agency where animals are turned over dead or alive to a biological supply facility or a research facility to post a statement to this effect, as specified, and requires that this statement and other information also be included on owner surrender forms.

This bill would repeal these provisions. revise these provisions to apply them only to an animal shelter entity, as defined, where dead animals are turned over to a biological supply facility or a research facility. The bill would revise the posted statement and owner surrender forms to refer to euthanized animals. The bill would prohibit a 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 animal dealer, as specified. dealer. The bill would also prohibit 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. The bill would prohibit a person or animal shelter entity from euthanizing an animal for the purpose of transferring the carcass to a research facility or animal dealer. The bill would except from these prohibitions specified procedures performed by, or under the direct supervision of, a licensed veterinarian, subject to certain conditions. A violation of these provisions would be subject to a civil penalty of $1,000. By creating new conditions affecting the operations of local, public animal service entities, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

(2)The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.

This bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to these statutory provisions.

(1)Existing law requires a pound or animal regulation department of a public or private agency where animals are turned over dead or alive to a biological supply facility or a research facility to post a statement to this effect, as specified, and requires that this statement and other information also be included on owner surrender forms.

This bill would repeal these provisions. The bill would prohibit a 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 animal dealer, as specified. The bill would also prohibit a research facility 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. The bill would except from these prohibitions specified procedures performed by, or under the direct supervision of, a licensed veterinarian, subject to certain conditions. A violation of these provisions would be subject to a civil penalty of $1,000. By creating new conditions affecting the operations of local, public animal service entities, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

(2)The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.

This bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to these statutory provisions.

CONCURRENCE IN SENATE AMENDMENTS

CSA1 Bill Id:AB 2269

Author:(Waldron)

As Amended Ver:August 2, 2016

Majority vote

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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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.

Analysis Prepared by: Anthony Lew / JUD. / (916) 319-2334 FN: 0004300

 THIRD READING  

Bill No: AB 2269

Author:

:

Vote:

SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE: 7-0, 6/28/16

AYES: Jackson, Moorlach, Anderson, Hertzberg, Leno, Monning, Wieckowski

SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: 7-0, 8/11/16

AYES: Lara, Bates, Beall, Hill, McGuire, Mendoza, Nielsen

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 77-0, 4/25/16 - See last page for vote

SUBJECT:

SOURCE: Cruelty Free International

State Humane Association of California

DIGEST: This bill prohibits a person or animal shelter from euthanizing an animal for the purpose of transferring the carcass to a research facility or animal dealer, prohibits the transferring of live animals to a research facility or animal dealer, as specified, and makes other conforming changes.

ANALYSIS:

Existing law:

1. Declares that it is the policy of this 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 if with treatment it could become adoptable with reasonable efforts. (Civ. Code Sec. 1834.4.)
2. Provides that whenever an animal is delivered to a veterinarian, dog kennel, cat kennel, pet-grooming parlor, animal hospital, or any other animal care facility, and the owner of the animal does not pick up the animal within 14 calendar days after the day the animal was initially due to be picked up, the animal shall be deemed to be abandoned. (Civ. Code Sec. 1834.5 (a).)
3. Requires the person into whose custody the animal is placed for care to try for at least 10 days to find a new owner for the animal, or turn the animal over to a public animal control agency or shelter, society for the prevention of cruelty to animals shelter, humane society shelter, or nonprofit animal rescue group, provided that the shelter or rescue group has been contacted and has agreed to take the animal. (Civ. Code Sec. 1834.5 (a).)
4. Authorizes the animal care facility to have the abandoned animal euthanized if it is unable to place the animal with a new owner, shelter, or rescue group as described above. Existing law further authorizes a veterinarian to euthanize an animal abandoned with the veterinarian or with a facility that has a veterinarian, if a new owner cannot be found after following the specified procedures for holding the animal described above. (Civ. Code Sec. 1834.5 (a) and (b).)
5. Prohibits any animals abandoned at veterinarian hospitals, kennels, pet grooming parlors, and animal hospitals from being used for scientific or any other type of experimentation. (Civ. Code Sec. 1834.5 (e).)
6. Requires any pound or animal regulation department of a public or private agency who turns over living or dead animals to biological supply facilities or research facilities to post a specified notice clearly visible to the public stating that animals turned in to the pound or department may be used for research purposes or to supply blood, tissue, or other biological products. (Civ. Code Sec. 1834.7 (a).)

This bill:

1. Prohibits a person or animal shelter from euthanizing an animal for the purpose of transferring the carcass to a research facility or animal dealer, as specified.
2. Prohibits a person or animal shelter 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.
3. Requires a posting of a specified notice only when an animal shelter entity transfers dead animals to a biological supply facility or a research facility.
4. Prohibits a research facility, animal dealer, or other person from receiving a living animal 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 or other person that accepts animals from the public or takes in stray or unwanted animals.
5. Provides that nothing in the bill’s provisions prohibit a research facility from working in collaboration with an animal shelter to investigate problems and provide services to shelter animals.
6. Establishes a civil penalty of $1,000 for a violation of the bill’s provisions, in an action to be brought by the district attorney or city attorney of the county or city where the violation occurred. When collected, the civil penalty shall be payable to the general fund of the governmental entity that brought the action to assess the penalty.
7. Defines “animal dealer” as a 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.
8. Defines “animal shelter entity” as including but limited to an animal regulation agency, humane society, society for the prevention of cruelty to animals, or other private or public animal shelter.
9. Defines “person” as an individual, partnership, firm, limited liability company, joint-stock company, corporation, association, trust, estate, governmental agency, or other legal entity.

Background

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.

After media accounts of family pets being stolen and sold by animal dealers in the 1960s, Congress passed the Animal Welfare Act in 1966 to regulate pound seizures and the theft and resale of animals into experimentation. Among other things, the Animal Welfare Act requires animal shelters and pounds to hold cats and dogs for a minimum of five days before they are sold to a dealer, and requires dealers to provide the recipient of the cat or dog with a certification containing certain information, such as a description of the animal and the name of the shelter it came from. (7 U.S.C. Sec. 2158.) According to Cruelty Free International, however, the Animal Welfare Act “fell short of its intended goals and public expectation.” Specifically, by making it slower and more cumbersome to obtain animals from pounds, some individuals began stealing more pets in order to sell them to research and biomedical institutes. In addition, it created a financial incentive for some animal shelters to sell animals to research institutes instead of making them available for adoption.

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, but condones the practice if the animal is transferred from an animal shelter entity, as long as appropriate signs at shelters inform the public of the practice. Seeking to bring consistency to state law, this bill prohibits the sale or transfer of live animals from pounds and animal shelters to any animal dealer or research facility, and prohibits the euthanizing of a shelter animal for the purpose of transferring the carcass to a research facility or animal dealer.

FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: Fiscal Com.: Local:

According to the Senate Appropriations Committee:

• 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 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.
• 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.
• 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.

SUPPORT: (Verified 8/12/16)

Cruelty Free International (co-source)

State Humane Association of California (co-source)

Beagle Freedom Project

County of Riverside

Cruelty Free International

Humane Society of the United States

Humane Society Veterinary Medical Association

League of California Cities

New England Anti-Vivisection Society

Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, Los Angeles

OPPOSITION: (Verified 8/12/16)

None received

ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: In support, the League of California Cities writes:

Current law already prohibits animals that are abandoned at veterinary hospitals, grooming parlors and kennels from being used for experimentation. AB 2269 would merely extend this prohibition to pounds and animal shelters. A number of cities have already banned this outdated practice, including West Hollywood, San Bernardino, Santa Barbara, Scotts Valley, Laguna Woods, Nevada City, and Paradise.

Additionally, leading medical research institutions have begun to question or prohibit the use of animals acquired from pounds or animal shelters for experimentation. In fact, according to a 2009 report commissioned by the National Academy of Sciences, demand for random sourced animals (a category of animals that includes those from pounds and animal shelters) has significantly fallen over the last 30 years. AB 2269 is a common sense measure that builds off local ordinances that have already prohibited this unnecessary practice.

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 77-0, 4/25/16

AYES: Achadjian, Alejo, Travis Allen, Arambula, Atkins, Baker, Bigelow, Bloom, Bonilla, Bonta, Brough, Brown, Burke, Calderon, Campos, Chau, Chávez, Chiu, Chu, Cooley, Cooper, Dababneh, Dahle, Daly, Dodd, Eggman, Frazier, Beth Gaines, Gallagher, Cristina Garcia, Eduardo Garcia, Gatto, Gipson, Gomez, Gonzalez, Gordon, Gray, Grove, Hadley, Harper, Roger Hernández, Holden, Irwin, Jones, Jones-Sawyer, Kim, Lackey, Levine, Linder, Lopez, Low, Maienschein, Mathis, Mayes, McCarty, Medina, Melendez, Mullin, Nazarian, Obernolte, O'Donnell, Patterson, Quirk, Ridley-Thomas, Rodriguez, Salas, Santiago, Steinorth, Mark Stone, Thurmond, Ting, Wagner, Waldron, Weber, Wilk, Wood, Rendon

NO VOTE RECORDED: Chang, Olsen, Williams

Prepared by:

8/16/16 9:15:10

**** END ****

SENATE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

Senator Ricardo Lara, Chair

2015 - 2016 Regular Session

AB 2269 (Waldron) - Animal shelters: research animals: prohibitions

This bill meets the criteria for referral to the Suspense File.

Bill Summary:

AB 2269 would prohibit a person or animal shelter from euthanizing an animal for the purpose of transferring the carcass to a research facility or animal dealer, as specified. This bill would prohibit a person or animal shelter 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.

Fiscal Impact:

• 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 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.
• 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.
• 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.

Background:

Existing law requires a pound or animal regulation department of a public or private agency where animals are turned over dead or alive to a biological supply facility or a research facility to post a specified notice clearly visible to the public stating that animals turned in to the pound or department may be used for research purposes or to supply blood, tissue, or other biological products. (Civil Code § 1834.7.)

Under existing law, whenever an animal is delivered to a veterinarian, dog kennel, cat kennel, pet-grooming parlor, animal hospital, or any other animal care facility, and the owner of the animal does not pick up the animal within 14 calendar days after the day the animal was initially due to be picked up, the animal is deemed to be abandoned. (Civil Code § 1834.5 (a).)

Existing law authorizes the animal care facility to have the abandoned animal euthanized if it is unable to place the animal with a new owner, shelter, or rescue group. Existing law further authorizes a veterinarian to euthanize an animal abandoned with the veterinarian or with a facility that has a veterinarian, if a new owner cannot be found after trying for at least 10 days to find a new owner, or is unable to turn the animal over to a public animal control agency, shelter, or animal rescue group. (Civil Code § 1834.5 (a), (b).)

Finally, existing law prohibits any animals abandoned at veterinarian hospitals, kennels, pet grooming parlors, and animal hospitals from being used for scientific or any other type of experimentation. (Civil Code § 1834.5 (e).)

Proposed Law:

This bill would prohibit a person or animal shelter from euthanizing an animal for the purpose of transferring the carcass to a research facility or animal dealer, as specified. Additionally, this bill:

• Prohibits a person or animal shelter 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.
• Require a posting of a specified notice only when an animal shelter entity transfers dead animals to a biological supply facility or a research facility.
• Prohibits a research facility, animal dealer, or other person from receiving a living animal 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 or other person that accepts animals from the public or takes in stray or unwanted animals.
• Provides that nothing in the bill’s provisions prohibit a research facility from working in collaboration with an animal shelter to investigate problems and provide services to shelter animals.
• Establishes a civil penalty of $1,000 for a violation of the bill’s provisions, in an action to be brought by the district attorney or city attorney of the county or city where the violation occurred. When collected, the civil penalty shall be payable to the general fund of the governmental entity that brought the action to assess the penalty.
• Defines “animal dealer” as a 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.
• Defines “animal shelter entity” as including but limited to an animal regulation agency, humane society, society for the prevention of cruelty to animals, or other private or public animal shelter.
• Defines “person” as an individual, partnership, firm, limited liability company, joint-stock company, corporation, association, trust, estate, governmental agency, or other legal entity.

Related Legislation:

AB 588 (Koretz) 2003 would have prohibited animal shelters from selling or transferring any live or dead animal for the purpose of education, testing, research, or biological supply, as specified. This bill was referred to the Assembly Judiciary Committee but was not provided a hearing.

Staff Comments: Based on the State Mandated Program Cost Report (AB 3000 report) issued on November 6, 2015, by the State Controller’s Office, prior to its suspension in the annual Budget Act, the CSM reimbursable mandate claim for Animal Adoption (98-TC-11) incurred program costs of $1.6 million in FY 2009-10, $21.4 million in FY 2008-09, $19.2 million in FY 2007-08, and $17.2 million in FY 2006-07.

-- END --

SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE

Senator Hannah-Beth Jackson, Chair

2015-2016 Regular Session

Bill No: AB 2269 (Author:Waldron)

Version: April 21, 2016

Hearing Date: June 28, 2016

Fiscal: Yes

Urgency: No

Consultant: NR

SUBJECT

Animal shelters: research animals: prohibitions

DESCRIPTION

This bill would prohibit a person or animal shelter entity from euthanizing an animal for the purpose of transferring the carcass to a research facility or animal dealer.

This bill would prohibit a 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 animal dealer, and would also prohibit a research facility or animal dealer from procuring, purchasing, receiving, accepting, or using a living shelter animal for the purpose of medical or biological teaching, research, or study, or any other kind of experimentation.

This bill would create a civil penalty of $1,000 for a violation of the above provisions, and make other conforming changes.

BACKGROUND

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.

After media accounts of family pets being stolen and sold by animal dealers in the 1960s, Congress passed the Animal Welfare Act in 1966 to regulate pound seizures and the theft and resale of animals into experimentation. Among other things, the Animal Welfare Act requires animal shelters and pounds to hold cats and dogs for a minimum of five days before they are sold to a dealer, and requires dealers to provide the recipient of the cat or dog with a certification containing certain information, such as a description of the animal and the name of the shelter it came from. (7 U.S.C. Sec. 2158.) According to Cruelty Free International, however, the Animal Welfare Act “fell short of its intended goals and public expectation.” Specifically, by making it slower and more cumbersome to obtain animals from pounds, some individuals began stealing more pets in order to sell them to research and biomedical institutes. In addition, it created a financial incentive for some animal shelters to sell animals to research institutes instead of making them available for adoption.

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, but condones the practice if the animal is transferred from an animal shelter entity, as long as appropriate signs at shelters inform the public of the practice. Seeking to bring consistency to state law, this bill would prohibit the sale or transfer of live animals from pounds and animal shelters to any animal dealer or research facility, and would prohibit the euthanizing of a shelter animal for the purpose of transferring the carcass to a research facility or animal dealer.

CHANGES TO EXISTING LAW

Existing law declares that it is the policy of this 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 if with treatment it could become adoptable with reasonable efforts. (Civ. Code Sec. 1834.4.)

Existing law provides that whenever an animal is delivered to a veterinarian, dog kennel, cat kennel, pet-grooming parlor, animal hospital, or any other animal care facility, and the owner of the animal does not pick up the animal within 14 calendar days after the day the animal was initially due to be picked up, the animal shall be deemed to be abandoned. (Civ. Code Sec. 1834.5 (a).)

Existing law requires the person into whose custody the animal is placed for care to try for at least 10 days to find a new owner for the animal, or turn the animal over to a public animal control agency or shelter, society for the prevention of cruelty to animals shelter, humane society shelter, or nonprofit animal rescue group, provided that the shelter or rescue group has been contacted and has agreed to take the animal. (Civ. Code Sec. 1834.5 (a).)

Existing law authorizes the animal care facility to have the abandoned animal euthanized if it is unable to place the animal with a new owner, shelter, or rescue group as described above. Existing law further authorizes a veterinarian to euthanize an animal abandoned with the veterinarian or with a facility that has a veterinarian, if a new owner cannot be found after following the specified procedures for holding the animal described above. (Civ. Code Sec. 1834.5 (a) and (b).)

Existing law prohibits any animals abandoned at veterinarian hospitals, kennels, pet grooming parlors, and animal hospitals from being used for scientific or any other type of experimentation. (Civ. Code Sec. 1834.5 (e).)

Existing law requires any pound or animal regulation department of a public or private agency who turns over living or dead animals to biological supply facilities or research facilities to post a specified notice clearly visible to the public stating that animals turned in to the pound or department may be used for research purposes or to supply blood, tissue, or other biological products. (Civ. Code Sec. 1834.7 (a).)

This bill would require the posting immediately above only when an animal shelter entity transfers dead animals to a biological supply facility or a research facility.

This bill would prohibit a person or animal shelter from euthanizing an animal for the purpose, in whole or in part, of transferring the carcass to a research facility or animal dealer.

This bill would prohibit a person or animal shelter that accepts animals from the public or takes in stray or unwanted animals from selling, giving, or transferring a living animal to a research facility, or to an animal dealer.

This bill would prohibit a research facility or animal dealer from receiving a living animal from a shelter the purpose of medical or biological teaching, research, or study, or any other kind of experimentation.

This bill would exempt from the above provisions a procedure by a licensed veterinarian to correct the animal’s preexisting medical condition, or a procedure to spay or neuter the animal as specified, if the animal is returned after the procedure, unless the animal is found to be suffering from a medical condition that requires the animal’s humane euthanasia to avoid imminent and prolonged pain and suffering.

This bill would create a civil penalty of $1,000 for a violation of its provisions, in an action to be brought by the district attorney or city attorney of the county or city where the violation occurred. When collected, the civil penalty shall be payable to the general fund of the governmental entity that brought the action to assess the penalty.

COMMENT

1. Stated need for the bill

According to the author:

State law is inconsistent in its protection of lost, stray and abandoned animals. In addition state law is out of step with local ordinances across California which prohibit pound seizure thus creating the potential for confusion for the public and law enforcement. California is also out of step with 17 states and the District of Colombia which now prohibit pound seizure, and out of step with 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.

A shelter that releases animals to dealers or laboratories loses the public trust. This is why animal shelters across the state have rejected pound seizure and most shelters do not sell the bodies of euthanized animals to commercial dealers. Conflicting state law on the issue creates confusion for the public and law enforcement.

[This bill] would prohibit 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. 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.

1. Teaching methods of California Veterinary Schools

The California Veterinary Medical Association (CVMA), representing the University of California at Davis School of Veterinary Medicine and the Western University of Health Sciences College of Veterinary Medicine in Pomona, argues that this bill would impact the veterinary educational programs in California. CVMA claims that animals obtained from shelters are an integral part of the educational curriculum at veterinary schools and veterinary technician programs. CVMA writes:

Young, energetic and undisciplined animals, which are unlikely to be adopted, are offered to the schools so that they can become part of their teaching programs. At UC Davis, for example, they utilize up to 20 shelter cats and 20 shelter dogs per year for their teaching program. The ownership of these animals is transferred to the University for teaching which includes animal handling, restraint techniques, physical examinations, blood draws, and ultrasound examinations. Each dog has a student companion who is assigned to exercise their animal daily and provide enrichment and obedience training. Many of these students also take the dogs home over the weekend to help socialize them. The cats are group housed in large rooms with added enrichment and students spend time interacting with them outside of scheduled teaching activities on a daily basis. The cats are adopted after five months and the dogs after eight months. These dogs and cats are adopted out to good homes – with many of the students actually choosing to adopt their animals and a waiting list for others.

CVMA further notes that UC Davis obtains cadavers from shelters for the teaching of medical, surgical, and clinical techniques, and that “many California shelters are the beneficiaries of free services by the university and registered veterinary technician programs – including spays and neuters, microchipping, dental procedures and vaccinations.” Accordingly, CVMA opposes this bill unless amended to ensure that the beneficial and humane practices employed by California’s veterinary educational programs will not be impacted by the legislation.

The author responds, “AB 2269 was introduced to ensure that shelter animals may not be used in painful laboratory experiments. I did not intend in any way to impact veterinary teaching that is benefiting animals. Originally my bill did allow for animals to be transferred from shelters or rescue groups to institutions for procedures that are beneficial to the animals such as spay and neuter surgeries or correction of medical conditions as long as the animals are returned to the shelter or rescued for adoption. Amends taken to address the oppositions concerns, later, caused greater need for clarification. I am glad the sponsors, the opposition and myself all worked together to ensure animals in shelters are not facing any harm.”

The following amendments (in mockup form) would address the opposition’s concerns by prohibiting the transfer of live animals for the purposes of research, experimentation, or testing, and would clarify that shelters only need to post a sign if transferring cadavers for research or biological supply, thereby allowing the transfer of animals for teaching. The amendments would also allow research facilities to work in collaboration with animal shelters to diagnose and treat shelter animals.   

Author’s amendments:

Section 1834.7 is added to the Civil Code to read: 

1834.7. (a) For purposes of this section:

(1) “Animal dealer” means a 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) “Animal shelter entity” includes, but is not limited to, an animal regulation agency, humane society, society for the prevention of cruelty to animals, or other private or public animal shelter.

(3) “Person” means an individual, partnership, firm, limited liability company, joint-stock company, corporation, association, trust, estate, governmental agency, or other legal entity.

(3) “Research facility” means a research facility as defined by Section 2132 of Title 7 of the United States Code, effective February 7, 2014.

(b) (1) An animal shelter entity where dead animals are turned over to a biological supply facility or a research facility for research purposes or to supply blood, tissue, or other biological products, shall post a sign as described by this paragraph in a place where it will be clearly visible to a majority of persons when turning animals over to the shelter. The sign shall measure a minimum of 28 x 21 cm— 11 x 8¹/₂ inches —with lettering of a minimum of 3.2 cm high and 1.2 cm wide— 1¹/₄ x ¹/₂ inch —(91 point) and shall state:

“Animals Euthanized at This Shelter May Be Used for Research Purposes or to Supply Blood, Tissue, or Other Biological Products”

(2) The statement in paragraph (1) shall also be included on owner surrender forms.

(3) A person or animal shelter entity shall not euthanize an animal for the purpose of transferring the carcass to a research facility or animal dealer.

(c) (1) An animal shelter entity or other person that accepts animals from the public or takes in stray or unwanted animals shall not transfer, sell, or give any living animal to a research facility, animal dealer, or other person for the purpose of research, experimentation or testing.

(2) A research facility, animal dealer or other person shall not procure, purchase, receive, accept, or use 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.

(d) Nothing in this section prohibits a research facility from working in collaboration with an animal shelter entity to investigate problems and provide services to shelter animals.

(e) A violation of this section is subject to a civil penalty of one thousand dollars ($1,000) in an action to be brought by the district attorney or city attorney of the county or city where the violation occurred. When collected, the civil penalty shall be payable to the general fund of the governmental entity that brought the action to assess the penalty.

1. Creates consistency in state law regarding the transfer of animals

Under existing law, pounds and animal regulation departments of public or private agencies who transfer animals, both carcasses and live animals, to a research institution or biological supply facility are required to post a sign with the following text: “Animals Turned In To This Shelter May Be Used For Research Purposes or to Supply Blood, Tissue, or Other Biological Products.” The sign is required to be posted in a place where the majority of people visiting the shelter will be able to see it.

As proposed to be amended, this bill would strike the above provision and create two distinct standards: a standard for the transferring of euthanized animals from shelter entities; and a standard for the transferring of live animals.

With regard to animals euthanized at a shelter, this bill would:

• if the shelter intends on transferring animals for research or biological supply, require the shelter to post a sign with that information so that individuals dropping animals off at that shelter would have notice of the animal’s potential fate;
• specify that the text of the sign also be included on owner surrender forms; and
• prohibit the euthanizing of an animal for the purpose of transferring the carcass to a research facility or animal dealer.

With regard to live animals, this bill, as proposed to be amended, would prohibit the transferring of a live animal to a research facility, animal dealer, or other person for the purpose of research, experimentation, or testing, and would prohibit these entities from receiving live animals for these purposes.

This distinction acknowledges that euthanasia of animals who have failed to be adopted is an unavoidable reality for many pounds and shelters, and recognizes that cadavers may have utility for research institutions and biological supply companies. Further, by allowing these animals to be transferred for the purpose of teaching or education, this bill will allow the training of future animal medical providers. In support, the League of California Cities writes:

Current law already prohibits animals that are abandoned at veterinary hospitals, grooming parlors and kennels from being used for experimentation. AB 2269 would merely extend this prohibition to pounds and animal shelters. A number of cities have already banned this outdated practice, including West Hollywood, San Bernardino, Santa Barbara, Scotts Valley, Laguna Woods, Nevada City, and Paradise.

Additionally, leading medical research institutions have begun to question or prohibit the use of animals acquired from pounds or animal shelters for experimentation. In fact, according to a 2009 report commissioned by the National Academy of Sciences, demand for random sourced animals (a category of animals that includes those from pounds and animal shelters) has significantly fallen over the last 30 years. AB 2269 is a common sense measure that builds off local ordinances that have already prohibited this unnecessary practice.

Support: The Beagle Freedom Project; County of Riverside; Cruelty Free International; Humane Society of the United States; Humane Society Veterinary Medical Association; League of California Cities; New England Anti-Vivisection Society; Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, Los Angeles; one individual

Opposition: California Veterinary Medical Association

HISTORY

Source: Cruelty Free International; State Humane Association of California

Related Pending Legislation: None Known

Prior Legislation: AB 588 (Koretz, 2003) would have prohibited animal shelters from selling or transferring any live or dead animal for the purpose of education, testing, research, or biological supply, as specified. This bill was never heard in the Assembly Judiciary Committee.

Prior Vote:

Assembly Floor (Ayes 77, Noes 0)

Assembly Appropriations Committee (Ayes 20, Noes 0)

Assembly Judiciary Committee (Ayes 10, Noes 0)

**************

ASSEMBLY THIRD READING

ATR Bill Id:AB 2269

Author:(Waldron)

As Amended Ver:April 21, 2016

Majority vote

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 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. 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 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 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 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.

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

ASSEMBLY THIRD READING

ATR Bill Id:AB 2269

Author:(Waldron)

As Amended Ver:March 30, 2016

Majority vote

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 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. According to the State Humane Association of California (SHAC), the 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."

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 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 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 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, September 25, 2008.)

Recognizing that euthanasia of non-adoptable and unadopted 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, 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.

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: 0002750

Date of Hearing: April 13, 2016

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

Lorena Gonzalez, Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:AB 2269

Author:(Waldron) – As Amended Ver:March 30, 2016

Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program: Yes Reimbursable: Yes

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. Prohibits a person or animal shelter 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, and prohibits the research facility or animal dealer from procuring or otherwise accepting such animals.
2. 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.
3. Establishes a $1,000 civil penalty for any violation of these provisions, in an action brought by a local prosecutor.

FISCAL EFFECT:

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:

Purpose. This bill, sponsored by the State Humane Association of California, expressly prohibits, 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." Current law already prohibits animals that are abandoned at veterinarian hospitals, kennels, pet grooming parlors, and animal hospitals from being sold into any type of research, but this ban does not apply to animals left in animal shelters or pounds, where the practice is expressly allowed as long as certain signage and notice requirements are met. This bill will create uniformity across the state with respect to pound seizure, because the practice is already prohibited by local ordinance in many cities and counties.

The bill also prohibits a shelter from euthanizing 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 a recent Bakersfield scandal—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. There is no known opposition to this bill.

Analysis Prepared by: Chuck Nicol / APPR. / (916) 319-2081

Date of Hearing: March 29, 2016

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY

Mark Stone, Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:AB 2269

Author:(Waldron) – As Introduced Ver:February 18, 2016

As Proposed to be Amended

SUBJECT: ANIMAL SHELTERS: RESEARCH ANIMALS: PROHIBITIONS

KEY ISSUE: should STATE LAW that PROHIBITs ANIMALS ABANDONED AT VETERINARIAN HOSPITALS, GROOMING PARLORS, AND KENNELS FROM BEING ACQUIRED AND USED IN EXPERIMENTATION BE updated TO ALSO apply to ANIMALS IN POUNDS AND ANIMAL SHELTERS, given that many cities and counties already prohibit this questionable practice?

SYNOPSIS

This noncontroversial 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." According to the sponsor of the bill, the State Humane Association of California, recent evaluation by the National Academy of Sciences has concluded that pound seizure is an outdated practice, and that animals taken from shelters for research purposes do not make any crucial contribution to biomedical research. Supporters of the bill, primarily animal advocates, oppose pound seizure on the grounds that animal experimentation is not only unnecessary, but also cruel to the animals themselves and should therefore not be further facilitated by the use of animals from pounds and shelters.

Proponents contend that this bill will bring needed consistency to state law that bans some, but not all, abandoned animals from being sold into experimentation. Current California law prohibits animals that are abandoned at veterinarian hospitals, kennels, pet grooming parlors, and animal hospitals from being sold into any type of research, but inexplicably, this ban does not apply to animals left in animal shelters or pounds, where the practice is expressly allowed as long as certain signage and notice requirements are met. This discrepancy in California 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 that fate if it was left at a kennel or grooming parlor. In addition, this bill will create uniformity across the state with respect to pound seizure because the practice is already prohibited by local ordinance in many cities and counties, but is not prohibited or even expressly allowed in others.

As proposed to be amended, 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. The proposed amendments are intended 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 a recent Bakersfield scandal—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. There is no known opposition to this bill, and it will next be referred to Appropriations Committee should it be approved by this Committee.

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 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.

EXISTING LAW:

1. Declares that it is the policy of this 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 if with treatment it could become adoptable with reasonable efforts. (Civil Code Section 1834.4. All further references are to this code, unless otherwise stated.)
2. Provides that whenever an animal is delivered to a veterinarian, dog kennel, cat kennel, pet-grooming parlor, animal hospital, or any other animal care facility, and the owner of the animal does not pick up the animal within 14 calendar days after the day the animal was initially due to be picked up, the animal shall be deemed to be abandoned. (Section 1834.5 (a).)
3. Requires the person into whose custody the animal is placed for care to try for at least 10 days to find a new owner for the animal, or turn the animal over to a public animal control agency or shelter, society for the prevention of cruelty to animals shelter, humane society shelter, or nonprofit animal rescue group, provided that the shelter or rescue group has been contacted and has agreed to take the animal. (Section 1834.5 (a).)
4. Authorizes the animal care facility to have the abandoned animal euthanized if it is unable to place the animal with a new owner, shelter, or rescue group as described above. Further authorizes a veterinarian to euthanize an animal abandoned with the veterinarian or with a facility that has a veterinarian, if a new owner cannot be found after following the specified procedures for holding the animal described above. (Section 1834.5, subd. (a) and (b).)
5. Prohibits any animals abandoned at veterinarian hospitals, kennels, pet grooming parlors, and animal hospitals from being used for scientific or any other type of experimentation. (Section 1834.5 (e).)
6. Requires any pound or animal regulation department of a public or private agency who turns over living or dead animals to biological supply facilities or research facilities to post a specified notice clearly visible to the public stating that animals turned in to the pound or department may be used for research purposes or to supply blood, tissue, or other biological products. (Section 1834.7 (a).)

FISCAL EFFECT: As currently in print this bill is keyed fiscal.

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." As proposed to be amended, the 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), the bill's sponsor:

This bill will eliminate inconsistencies in state law concerning the disposition of abandoned animals and will harmonize state law with local ordinances across California by prohibiting [pound seizure]. AB 2269 will bring California law in line with 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. Failing to address these issues creates confusion for the public and shelter employees, and has the potential to erode public trust in animal shelters and the wellbeing of the animals entrusted to their care.

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.

After media accounts of family pets being stolen and sold into research by animal dealers generated public outcry in the 1960s, including a famous Life magazine exposé on the practice, Congress passed the Animal Welfare Act in 1966 to try to regulate pound seizures and the theft and resale of animals into experimentation. Among other things, the Animal Welfare Act requires animal shelters and pounds to hold cats and dogs for a minimum of five days before they are sold to a dealer, and requires dealers to provide the recipient of the cat or dog with a certification containing certain information, such as a description of the animal and the name of the shelter it came from. (7 U.S.C. § 2158.) 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. In fact, under Section 1834.7 of the Civil Code, the practice is expressly allowed, as long as a specified notice is posted at the pound or shelter informing the public that "Animals Turned Into This Shelter May Be Used For Research or to Supply Blood, Tissue or Other Biological Products."

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 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 thirty 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 1834.5.) Inexplicably, however, this ban does not apply to animals left in animal shelters or pounds because 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.

Proposed author's amendments would prohibit 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 Found Guilty", Visalia Times Delta, Sept. 25, 2008.)

Recognizing that euthanasia of non-adoptable and unadopted 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, as proposed to be amended, 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.) The proposed amendments are intended 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 the proposed amendments retain 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.

Miscellaneous provisions. The bill also contains language to clarify that nothing in these provisions shall prohibit a procedure by a licensed veterinarian to spay, neuter, or correct an animal's preexisting medical condition, as long as the animal is returned to the person or animal shelter after the procedure, except as specified. Finally, the bill authorizes a $1000 civil penalty for any violation of these provisions, to be brought by a local district attorney or city attorney, with the penalty to be paid to the entity that brought the action to assess the penalty.

ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: In support of the bill, the Beagle Freedom Project writes:

The practice of ‘pound seizure’ is universally frowned upon and banned in many others States. This bill addresses a real deficiency of law and rightfully adds a necessary layer of protection of lost animal companions that wind up in shelters, or stray or homeless dogs and cats that deserve every chance at adoption. There have been countless examples over the years of a family dog or cat going missing only to be later found used and euthanized in a research facility. It is a fear no California family should ever have to consider while anxiously looking for their lost loved one.

REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:

Support

State Humane Association of California (sponsor)

The Beagle Freedom Project

Cruelty Free International

Humane Society of the United States

Humane Society Veterinary Medical Association

Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, Los Angeles

Opposition

None on file

Analysis Prepared by: Anthony Lew and Navnit Bhandal / JUD. / (916) 319-2334