Under existing law, the Veterinary Medicine Practice Act, the Veterinary Medical Board licenses and regulates veterinarians and the practice of veterinary medicine. It is unlawful for any person to practice veterinary medicine in this state unless he or she holds a valid, unexpired, and unrevoked license issued by the board, except under specified circumstances, including when regularly licensed veterinarians are actually called from other states to attend cases in this state and do not open an office or appoint a place to do business within the state.

This bill would further specify, for purposes of that provision, that a regularly licensed veterinarian in good standing who is called from another state by a law enforcement agency or animal control agency to attend to cases that are a part of an investigation of an alleged violation of federal or state animal fighting or animal cruelty laws within a single geographic location shall be exempt from specified licensing requirements if the agency determines that it is necessary to call the veterinarian in order to conduct the investigation, as specified. The bill would require an agency, department, or officer that calls a veterinarian pursuant to these provisions to notify the board of the investigation. The bill would also authorize a veterinarian who is called from another state to care for animals that are affected by an investigation with a temporary shelter facility established only for the purpose of the investigation, which would be exempt from specified registration requirements if it meets specified conditions.

Under existing law, the Veterinary Medicine Practice Act, the Veterinary Medical Board licenses and regulates veterinarians and the practice of veterinary medicine. It is unlawful for any person to practice veterinary medicine in this state unless he or she holds a valid, unexpired, and unrevoked license issued by the board, except under specified circumstances, including when regularly licensed veterinarians are actually called from other states to attend cases in this state and do not open an office or appoint a place to do business within the state.

This bill would further specify, for purposes of that provision, that a regularly licensed veterinarian in good standing who is called from another state by a law enforcement agency or animal control agency to attend to cases that are a part of an investigation of an alleged violation of federal or state animal fighting or animal cruelty laws within a single geographic location shall be exempt from specified licensing requirements if the agency determines that it is necessary to call the veterinarian in order to conduct the investigation, as specified. The bill would require an agency, department, or officer that calls a veterinarian pursuant to these provisions to notify the board of the investigation. The bill would also authorize a veterinarian who is called from another state to care for animals that are affected by an investigation with a temporary shelter facility established only for the purpose of the investigation, which would be exempt from specified registration requirements if it meets specified conditions.

Under existing law, the Veterinary Medicine Practice Act, the Veterinary Medical Board licenses and regulates veterinarians and the practice of veterinary medicine. It is unlawful for any person to practice veterinary medicine in this state unless he or she holds a valid, unexpired, and unrevoked license issued by the board, except under specified circumstances, including when regularly licensed veterinarians are actually called from other states to attend cases in this state and do not open an office or appoint a place to do business within the state.

(1)Under existing law, the Veterinary Medicine Practice Act, the Veterinary Medical Board licenses and regulates veterinarians and the practice of veterinary medicine. It is unlawful for any person to practice veterinary medicine in this state unless he or she holds a valid, unexpired, and unrevoked license issued by the board, except under specified circumstances, including when regularly licensed veterinarians are actually called from other states to attend cases in this state and do not open an office or appoint a place to do business within the state.

(2)The Veterinary Medicine Practice Act requires the registration of all premises where veterinary medicine, veterinary dentistry, or veterinary surgery is being practiced. Existing law That act also requires these premises, and all instruments, apparatus, and apparel used in connection with those practices to be kept clean and sanitary at all times, and to conform to those minimum standards established by the board. Existing law makes it a misdemeanor to violate these provisions regulating the practice of veterinary medicine.

This bill would authorize a regularly licensed veterinarian in good standing who is called from another state to attend to cases that are a part of the above described investigation to provide veterinary medical care to animals that are affected by the investigation within a temporary shelter facility and would exempt the temporary shelter facility from the exempt a temporary shelter from that registration requirement if the temporary shelter is established to provide care and shelter to animals seized as a result of a cruelty incident and other specified conditions are met.

Under existing law, the Veterinary Medical Board licenses and regulates veterinarians and the practice of veterinary medicine. It is unlawful for any person to practice veterinary medicine in this state unless he or she holds a valid, unexpired, and unrevoked license issued by the board, except under specified circumstances, including when regularly licensed veterinarians are actually called from other states to attend cases in this state and do not open an office or appoint a place to do business within the state.

This bill would specifically exempt from these licensing requirements a regularly licensed veterinarian in good standing who is called from another state by a law enforcement agency, animal control department, or a humane officer to attend to cases that are part of an investigation of an alleged violation of federal or state animal fighting or animal cruelty laws within a single geographic location when the law enforcement agency, animal control department, or humane officer determines that it is necessary to call the veterinarian to conduct the investigation in a timely, efficient, and effective manner.

Existing law requires the registration of all premises where veterinary medicine, veterinary dentistry, or veterinary surgery is being practiced. Existing law also requires these premises, and all instruments, apparatus, and apparel used in connection with those practices to be kept clean and sanitary at all times, and to conform to those minimum standards established by the board. Existing law makes it a misdemeanor to violate these provisions regulating the practice of veterinary medicine.

This bill would authorize a regularly licensed veterinarian in good standing who is called from another state to attend to cases that are a part of the above described investigation to provide veterinary medical care to animals that are affected by the investigation within a temporary shelter facility and would exempt the temporary shelter facility from the registration requirement if specified conditions are met.

Under existing law, the Veterinary Medical Board licenses and regulates veterinarians and the practice of veterinary medicine. It is unlawful for any person to practice veterinary medicine in this state unless he or she holds a valid, unexpired, and unrevoked license issued by the board, except under specified circumstances. circumstances, including when regularly licensed veterinarians are actually called from other states to attend cases in this state and do not open an office or appoint a place to do business within the state.

Under existing law, the Veterinary Medical Board licenses and regulates veterinarians and the practice of veterinary medicine. It is unlawful for any person to practice veterinary medicine in this state unless he or she holds a valid, unexpired, and unrevoked license issued by the board, except under specified circumstances.

This bill would make a technical, nonsubstantive change to these provisions.

CONCURRENCE IN SENATE AMENDMENTS

CSA1 Bill Id:AB 316

Author:(Maienschein)

As Amended Ver: September 1, 2015

Majority vote

Original Committee Reference: B. & P.

SUMMARY: Permits a veterinarian licensed in another state to be called to California by a law enforcement agency or animal control agency to attend to cases of animal cruelty or animal fighting as requested, and permits the establishment of temporary shelters for the purpose of assisting in the investigation. Specifically, this bill:

1. Exempts, from licensure requirements, a regularly licensed veterinarian who is called from another state by a law enforcement agency or animal control agency to attend to cases that are a part of an investigation of an alleged violation of federal or state animal fighting or animal cruelty laws within a single geographic location if the law enforcement agency or animal control agency determines that it is necessary to call the veterinarian in order for the agency or officer to conduct the investigation in a timely manner.

2. Provides that when determining whether it is necessary to call a veterinarian from another state, consideration must be given to the availability of veterinarians in California to attend to these cases.

3. Requires the agency, department or officer that calls a veterinarian to this state to notify the VMB (Veterinarian Medical Board).

4. Permits a regularly licensed veterinarian who is called from another state to attend to cases that are a part of investigation, described in 1) above, to provide veterinary medical care for animals that are affected by the investigation within a temporary shelter facility, as specified.

5. Exempts a temporary shelter or facility from premise requirements if all of the following conditions are met:

   1. The temporary shelter facility is established solely for the purpose of investigation;

   2. The temporary shelter facility provides veterinary medical care, shelter, food and water only to animals that are affected by the investigation;

   3. The temporary shelter complies with specified sanitary requirements;

   4. The temporary shelter exists for not more than 60 days, unless the law enforcement agency, or animal control agency determines a longer period of time is necessary to complete the investigation; and,

   5. Within 30 calendar days upon completion of the provision of veterinary health care services at a temporary shelter facility, the veterinarian called from another state by a law enforcement agency or animal control agency to attend to a case must file a report with the VMB containing the date, place, type, and general description of the care provided, along with a listing of the veterinary health care practitioners who participated in providing that care.

6. Permits the VMB to inspect temporary facilities.

The Senate amendments delete the requirement that a temporary shelter facility place a notice about the use of the facility, delete the authorization for a humane officer to call a veterinarian to California, require within 30 calendar days upon completion of providing veterinary care services at a temporary shelter, the veterinarian called in from another state to report specified information to the VMB, and make other technical and clarifying changes.

FISCAL EFFECT: According to the Senate Appropriations Committee, no significant fiscal impact is anticipated to the Board of Veterinary Medicine. The amendments delete the requirement for authorization from the Board, which eliminates the need for upgrades to the Board’s licensing system.

COMMENTS: This bill is sponsored by the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (ASPCA). According to the author, "Large scale animal cruelty cases like animal fighting busts, hoarding arrests and puppy mill raids can quickly overwhelm a local government’s resources. These cases are hard to predict and can occur in a diverse range of locations, making planning and budgeting very difficult. The average cruelty case lasts about 45 to 50 days and consists of an average of 461 animals at a cost of $28 per animal per day. At 45 days, the average cost of caring for these animals is nearly $600,000.

"Additionally, these cases can also overwhelm the local veterinary resources. Local veterinarians play a key role in assisting with the care of seized animals, but local veterinarians typically have paying jobs or practices that they must return to. This limits the amount of time they can commit to cases like these. The combination of huge costs of care for seized animals and the potential to deplete local veterinary resources can be a huge deterrent for agencies wishing to investigate a case of large scale animal cruelty in their community."

Background. Under current law, there are a limited number of persons who are exempt from California's veterinary licensure requirements when practicing veterinary services in California. Exempt individuals include persons such as veterinarians providing services in the military, licensed veterinarians who have been called in from out of state to assist with certain cases, veterinarians or persons employed at the University of California for teaching purposes or other education research and persons employed by federal and state agencies such as the United States Department of Agriculture and the California Department of Food and Agriculture. Without one of these specific exemptions, any other person practicing veterinary medicine in California is required to have a California-issued veterinary license. This bill seeks to add veterinarians licensed, in good standing, in another state who are called to California to assist in the event of a large-scale animal cruelty or animal fighting case to be exempt from California's licensure requirement. Only a law enforcement agency or an animal control agency would be permitted to call a veterinarian into California for these purposes. In addition, this bill would permit the veterinarian licensed outside of California to treat animals in a temporary shelter, as long as the shelter has only been established as a part of the investigation and abides by specific requirements.

Consultants from Out-of-State. The exemption under Business and Professions Code Section 4830(a)(3) governing out-of-state veterinarians acting as consultants in California was designed to provide California-licensed veterinarians with the flexibility to utilize the experience of an out-of-state veterinarian with a particular skill. According to the VMB, the intent of the authorization to allow veterinarians from outside of California was to enhance the practice of veterinary medicine while limiting unlicensed practice. Veterinarians who are called into California are not permitted to establish a practice in state or practice on animals outside of the consultation request without obtaining the appropriate license to practice in California. This bill would specifically exempt from California licensure requirements veterinarians called in by a law enforcement agency or an animal control agency in the event of a large-scale animal cruelty or animal fighting case. However, this bill would require those entities to consider the availability of a local veterinarian when determining when outside assistance is warranted. In addition, if those entities called-in a veterinarian from another state, they would be required to notify the VMB.

Animal Cruelty Cases. According to the sponsor, large-scale animal cruelty cases can overwhelm the resources of the local authorities responding to these cases. Resource challenges are not strictly monetary but also become challenges related to caring for the large number of animals that most likely have health concerns and other issues.

Animal welfare organizations like the ASPCA, among others, have response teams in place, including veterinarians, to assist local agencies in cruelty cases or emergency disaster situations in other states, but often, the veterinarians are only licensed in their home state. This bill would provide a specific exemption to allow those veterinarians to be called to California in the event of a large-scale cruelty case to practice in California without a California-issued license.

Calling-in Veterinarians. In the event of an animal cruelty or abuse case, the entities responsible for handling these cases are local law enforcement, animal control directors and other local resources. These entities typically work together to determine the appropriate steps and process for dealing with animal cruelty or abuse cases. This bill proposes that only a law enforcement agency or an animal control agency would be permitted to call in veterinary assistance from out of state to assist with a cruelty or animal fighting case investigation.

Temporary Shelters. Under current law, Business and Professions Code Section 4853 requires all premises where veterinary medicine is being practiced to obtain a premises permit from the VMB. In order to obtain the premises permit, applicants must submit an application which needs to include the type of practice, the number of employees, the business model, and business owner information, along with a $200 registration fee. The VMB reports that the application process for a premises permit takes between three and four weeks. This bill will exempt temporary animal care shelter facilities from premises requirements as long as the shelter provides veterinary medical care, shelter, food and water only to the animals affected by the investigation, the temporary shelter complies with sanitary requirements, and the temporary shelter does not exist for longer than 60 days.

Analysis Prepared by: Elissa Silva / B. & P. / (916) 319-3301 FN: 0002003

 THIRD READING  

Bill No: AB 316

Author: Maienschein (R)

Amended: 9/1/15 in Senate

Vote: 21

SENATE BUS, PROF. & ECON. DEV. COMMITTEE: 6-0, 7/6/15

AYES: Hill, Berryhill, Block, Galgiani, Jackson, Mendoza

NO VOTE RECORDED: Bates, Hernandez, Wieckowski

SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: 6-0, 8/27/15

AYES: Lara, Beall, Hill, Leyva, Mendoza, Nielsen

NO VOTE RECORDED: Bates

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 77-0, 5/18/15 - See last page for vote

SUBJECT: Veterinarians: cruelty incidents

SOURCE: American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals

DIGEST: This bill permits a veterinarian licensed in another state to be called to California by law enforcement or animal control agency to attend to cases of animal cruelty or animal fighting as requested, and permits the establishment of temporary shelters for the purpose of caring for the animals involved in the investigation.

ANALYSIS:

Existing law:

1. Establishes the Veterinary Medical Board (VMB) within the Department of Consumer Affairs for the purpose of administering the Veterinary Practice Act (Act). (Business and Professions Code (BPC) Section 4800 et seq.) States that it is unlawful for any person to practice veterinary medicine in California without a valid, unexpired or unrevoked license, as specified.
   (BPC § 4825)

2. Specifies that the practice of veterinary medicine, surgery or dentistry occurs when an individual does any of the following:

1. Represents himself or herself as engaged in the practice of veterinary medicine, surgery or dentistry;

2. Diagnoses or prescribes a drug, medicine, appliance, application or treatment for the prevention, cure, or relief of a wound, fracture, bodily injury, or disease of animals;

3. Administers a drug, medicine or treatment, as specified;

4. Performs a surgical or dental operation upon an animal;

5. Performs any manual procedure for the diagnosis of pregnancy; sterility or infertility upon livestock or Equidae; or,

6. Uses any words, letters or titles circumstances as to induce the belief that the person using them is engaged in the practice of veterinary medicine, surgery or dentistry. (BPC § 4826)

3. Requires all veterinarians, actually engaged and employed by the state, or a county, city, corporation, firm or individual practicing veterinary medicine, to secure a license issued by the VMB. (BPC Section 4828) Exempts the following from the provisions of the Act:

1. Veterinarians while serving in any armed branch of the military service of the United States or the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) while actually engaged and employed in their official capacity;

2. Regularly licensed veterinarians in actual consultation from other states;

3. Regularly licensed veterinarians actually called from other states to attend cases in this state, but do not open an office or appoint a place to do business;

4. Veterinarians employed by the University of California, as specified;

5. Students in the school of veterinary medicine of the University of California or the College of Western University of Health Sciences, as specified;

6. A veterinarian who is employed by the Meat and Poultry Inspection Branch of the California Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA) while actually engaged and employed in his or her official capacity; or,

7. Unlicensed personnel employed by the CDFA or the USDA, as specified. (BPC § 4830)

4. Requires the VMB to establish a regular inspection program that will provide for random, unannounced inspections and that the VMB shall make every effort to inspect at least 20 percent of veterinary premises on an annual basis.
   (BPC § 4809.7) Requires that all premises where veterinary medicine, veterinary dentistry, veterinary surgery and the various branches thereof is being practiced shall be registered with the VMB. (BPC § 4853 (a))

5. Defines “premises” as including a building, kennel, mobile unit or vehicle, as specified. (BPC § 4853 (b)) Requires that all premises where veterinary medicine, veterinary dentistry, or veterinary surgery is being practiced, and all instruments, apparatus and apparel used in connection with those practices, shall be kept clean and sanitary at all times, and shall conform to those minimum standards established by the VMB.
   (BPC § 4854)
   
   

This bill:

1. Exempts from licensure requirements, for purposes of allowing veterinarians in good standing to be called from other states to attend cases in this state, a regularly licensed veterinarian who is called from another state by a law enforcement agency or animal control agency, as specified, to attend to cases that are a part of an investigation of an alleged violation of federal or state animal fighting or animal cruelty laws within a single geographic location when the law enforcement agency or animal control agency determines that it is necessary to call the veterinarian in order for the agency or officer to conduct the investigation in a timely, efficient and effective manner.

2. Provides that when determining whether it is necessary to call a veterinarian from another state, consideration must be given to the availability of veterinarians in California to attend to these cases. Requires the agency, department or officer that calls a veterinarian to this state to notify the VMB.

3. Permits a regularly licensed veterinarian in good standing who is called from another state to attend to cases that are a part of investigation described in
   Item 1 above, to provide veterinary medical care for animals that are affected by the investigation within a temporary shelter facility, as specified.

4. Exempts a temporary shelter or facility from premise requirements if all of the following conditions are met:

1. The temporary shelter facility is established solely for the purpose of investigation;

2. The temporary shelter facility provides veterinary medical care, shelter, food and water only to animals that are affected by the investigation;

3. The temporary shelter complies with specified sanitary requirements;

4. The temporary shelter exists for not more than 60 days, unless the law enforcement agency or animal control agency determines that a longer period of time is necessary to complete the investigation.

5. Within 30 days upon completion of the provision of veterinary health care services at a temporary shelter the veterinarian called from another state to attend to a case files a report with the VMB, as specified.

5. Provides that the VMB may inspect the temporary facility.

Background

Animal Cruelty Cases. Animal cruelty cases can take a variety of shapes and forms, from small, one-animal incidents, such as a recent case in Sacramento, where a man was accused of burning an animal alive in an animal carrier, to large-scale dog fighting raids or hoarding incidents that involve a large number of animals. The 2007 arrest and subsequent prosecution of Michael Vick, for his role in a large-scale dog fighting ring, highlighted issues of cruelty but also raised the issues about the resources needed to care for and treat animals when such events occur.

Animal fighting is currently illegal in all 50 states. Specifically, dogfighting is a felony offense in all 50 states, and it is also a felony offense under federal law. Other cases of animal cruelty or animal hoarding occur closer to home. In February 2015, it was reported that 191 dogs were found abandoned on a property in San Bernardino County. Most likely, the case required a significant amount of local resources to care for animals and properly investigate the situation. In the San Bernardino case, the animals were taken to a local shelter for care.

According to the Humane Society of the United States, because there is no national reporting requirement for animal abuse, there is no way to track the number of animal cruelty cases that are filed or that make it to court each year. Although the total number of cruelty cases is difficult to assess, in 2013-2014, there were more than 13 seizure cases that the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (ASPCA) was involved in assisting with across the nation.

According to other proponents of this measure, large-scale animal cruelty cases can overwhelm the resources of the local authorities responding to these cases. Animal cruelty cases such as animal abandonment issues or puppy mill raids can happen rather quickly, which makes planning and budgeting difficult. This bill aims to assist local authorities with options for veterinary care and assistance in the event of a large-scale animal cruelty or animal fighting case. The resource challenges are not strictly monetary but also become resource challenges related to caring for the large number of animals that most likely have health concerns and other issues. The proponents note that local veterinarians typically provide services in these types of cases, but, at times, additional resources may be necessary. According to the proponents, the average cruelty case lasts about 45-50 days and consists of an average of 461 animals at a cost of caring for the animals close to $600,000. The ASPCA notes that the large cost and potential lack of resources could be a deterrent in prosecuting such cases.

According to the proponents, animal welfare organizations like the ASPCA, among others, have response teams in place, including veterinarians, to assist local agencies in cruelty cases or emergency disaster situations in other states, but often, the veterinarians are only licensed in their home state. This bill would provide a specific exemption to allow those veterinarians to be called to California in the event of a large-scale cruelty case to practice in California without a California-issued license.

Calling- in Veterinarians from Other States. Current law does provide that licensed veterinarians from other states may be called in to attend to cases in this state as long as they do not open an office or appoint a place to do business in this state. Usually this would be in conjunction with another veterinarian in this state. This bill would allow animal control and federal law enforcement agencies to call in veterinary assistance of a licensed veterinarian from another state for the purpose of attending to cases that are part of an investigation of an alleged violation of federal or state animal fighting or animal cruelty laws. In the event of an animal cruelty or abuse case, the entities responsible for handling these cases are local law enforcement, animal control directors and other local resources. These entities typically work together to determine the appropriate steps and process for dealing with animal cruelty or abuse cases. It would also allow these out-of-state veterinarians to provide veterinary medical care to the animals that are involved with a cruelty or animal fighting case in a temporary shelter facility as long the shelter meets certain requirements.

Use of Temporary Shelters. Section 4853 of the BPC requires that all premises where veterinary medicine is being practiced obtain a premises permit from the VMB. There are currently over 3,000 licensed premises in California. In order to obtain the premises permit, applicants must submit an application which must include the type of practice, the number of employees, the business model, and business owner information, along with a $200 registration fee. The VMB reports that the application process for a premises permit takes between three to four weeks.

This bill will exempt temporary animal care shelter facilities from premises requirements as long as the shelter provides veterinary medical care, shelter, food and water only to the animals affected by the cruelty case and that the temporary shelter complies with other requirements as specified. The temporary shelter shall not be allowed to exist for longer than 60 days unless it is determined that a longer period is necessary by animal control or the federal law enforcement agency. The VMB would also be able to inspect the temporary shelter if determined necessary and would receive a report from the veterinarian called in from another state to attend to a case.

Related Legislation

AB 317 (Maienschein) This bill exempts a temporary shelter which is operated either by a licensed veterinarian from another state, or a state licensed veterinarian, that is providing care and shelter to animals during a declared state of emergency, from having to obtain a premise registration from the Veterinary Medical Board.

FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes Local: No

According to the Senate Appropriations Committee, there is no significant fiscal impact anticipated to the VMB. Recent amendments delete the requirement for authorization by the VMB, which eliminates the need for upgrades to the VMB’s licensing system.

SUPPORT: (Verified 8/28/15)

American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (sponsor)

California Animal Control Directors Association

Humane Society of the United States

Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office

Tony La Russa’s Animal Rescue Foundation

OPPOSITION: (Verified 8/28/15)

California Veterinary Medical Association

California Veterinary Medical Board

ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: According to the Sponsors, the ASPCA, this measure seeks to equip animal cruelty investigators in California with the ability to seek assistance from veterinary responders from other states when cases overshelm local resources. Unlike most criminal cases where evidence can simply be stored in a locker, animal cruelty cases require a significant financial investment to properly provide the animals with shelter and care. “Based on our experience, a typical cruelty deployment lasts about 45-50 days and costs about $28 per animal per day. A dog fighting bust that produces 150 seized dogs that need sheltering and care for 50 days results in over $200,000 in expenses for the responsible agency. Existing California law relative to cruelty investigations places the burden of paying for the care of animal victims of cruelty on the seizing agency until a final outcome of a
case is decided.”

The California Animal Control Directors Association (CACDA) are in support of this bill and indicates that their membership includes most municipal animal shelters and local animal control agencies throughout the State and that they are on the front lines of enforcing state and local animal welfare laws every day and must manage these tragedies [animal cruelty cases] when they occur. Unfortunately, as stated by CACDA, there are situations in California where the number of animals involved in a cruelty, fighting, or hoarding case will overwhelm the local resources. Often, these animals must be seized and then housed by local animal control. Most animal shelter operate at or near capacity on a daily basis and are not equipped or designed to take in a large amount of animals at once. This may require the establishment of a temporary facility or an offsite location in order to process, care for, and rehabilitate these animals. The flexibility to engage out-of-state medical professionals is an important step in making sure the animals receive the best care and outcomes possibly.

ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION: The California Veterinary Medical Association (CVMA) is opposed to this measure and argues that the exemption from California licensure should only be used when there is no other alternative. “After careful deliberation and several meetings with the bill’s sponsors, the CVMA believes the need for out-of-state veterinarians, involved in these cases, has not been demonstrated. Further, we think AB 316 does not provide sufficient protection for animals and consumers by allowing veterinarians to come in from other states as, essentially, unlicensed individuals. “

The CVMA further indicates that there are more than 9,200 licensed veterinarians in California. “To our knowledge, animal cruelty case investigations in California have not been hindered by a shortage of veterinarians in this state. The proponents of the bill offer approximations of the number of cases that are investigated each year; the number of animals involved; and the cost of investigating these cases, but fail to provide definitive statistics that support the need for additional veterinary care. There is no evidence that calling in a veterinarian from out-of-state will reduce the investigating agencies costs associated with animal cruelty cases. The CVMA is also concerned that the bill would allow the out-of state [sponsoring entity] to set up a temporary shelter facility and provide veterinary care without a premises permit. “Again, there are no provisions for enforcement by the VMB for substandard facilities or veterinary care.”

The VMB is also opposed to this measure and argues that “AB 316 provides an avenue for unlicensed veterinarians to practice in the state, but does not explain of justify the need for the exemption. Since California licenses greater that 10% of the entire veterinary profession in the country, the necessity for bringing in out-of-state veterinarians to attend to cases that are part of an investigation and furthermore, exempting temporary facilities from registration and inspection poses a risk to California consumers and animals. Such exemptions should only be pursued if the needs cannot be met by California licensees.”

The VMB further argues that AB 316 would seriously limit the Board’s enforcement ability to respond to unprofessional conduct or negligence on the part of the veterinarian called in from another state. However, the recent amendments would seem to deal with this issue by providing broader oversight by the VMB of the veterinarians from another state. The VMB does continue to raise concerns about the use of a temporary shelter that is not registered with the Board and believes there would be little recourse is an animal be injured or harmed at an unregistered shelter.

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 77-0, 5/18/15

AYES: Achadjian, Alejo, Travis Allen, Baker, Bigelow, Bloom, Bonilla, Bonta, Brough, Brown, Burke, Calderon, Campos, Chang, 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, Lackey, Levine, Linder, Lopez, Low, Maienschein, Mayes, McCarty, Medina, Mullin, Nazarian, Obernolte, O'Donnell, Olsen, Patterson, Perea, Quirk, Rendon, Ridley-Thomas, Rodriguez, Salas, Santiago, Steinorth, Mark Stone, Thurmond, Ting, Wagner, Waldron, Weber, Wilk, Williams, Wood, Atkins

NO VOTE RECORDED: Kim, Mathis, Melendez

Prepared by: Bill Gage / B., P. & E.D. / (916) 651-4104

9/1/15 20:29:56

**** END ****

SENATE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

Senator Ricardo Lara, Chair

2015 - 2016 Regular Session

AB 316 (Maienschein) - Veterinarians: cruelty incidents

*********** ANALYSIS ADDENDUM – SUSPENSE FILE ***********

The following information is revised to reflect amendments

adopted by the committee on August 27, 2015

Bill Summary:

AB 316 would exempt veterinarians licensed in other states from state licensure requirements when offering temporary veterinary services in response to a “cruelty incident” and allow the operation of temporary animal shelters.

Fiscal Impact:

No significant fiscal impact is anticipated to the Board of Veterinary Medicine. The amendments delete the requirement for authorization from the Board, which eliminates the need for upgrades to the Board’s licensing system.

Author Amendments:

Revise the bill by moving the exemption from current licensing requirements to an existing provision of law granting specified exemptions. The amendments eliminate the requirement for out-of-state veterinarians to receive authorization from the Board of Veterinary Medicine.

-- END --

SENATE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

Senator Ricardo Lara, Chair

2015 - 2016 Regular Session

AB 316 (Maienschein) - Veterinarians: cruelty incidents

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

Bill Summary:

AB 316 would exempt veterinarians licensed in other states from state licensure requirements when offering temporary veterinary services in response to a “cruelty incident” and allow the operation of temporary animal shelters.

Fiscal Impact:

• One-time information technology costs of about $400,000 to create two new licensing categories to allow for the issuance of temporary licenses to out-of-state veterinarians and sponsoring entities (Veterinary Medical Board Contingent Fund). The Department of Consumer Affairs is currently in the process of implementing a new computerized system for managing license applications by its licensing boards and bureaus. The Department indicates that the bill would require that system to be modified to allow the Board of Veterinary Medicine to issue two new kinds of license and related fees.

• Minor ongoing costs by the Board of Veterinary Medicine to adopt regulations and provide oversight for any out-of-state veterinarians that use the authority under the bill.

Background:

Under current law, veterinarians are licensed by the Veterinary Medical Board. Veterinary clinics and hospitals and animal shelters must be registered with the Veterinary Medical Board.

Current law allows health care practitioners from other states (including veterinarians) to practice their profession in the state without a California license during a declared state of emergency.

Proposed Law:

AB 316 would exempt veterinarians licensed in other states who offer temporary veterinary services in response to a “cruelty incident” from state licensure requirements.

Specific provisions of the bill would:

• Authorize the operation of a temporary animal shelter in response to a “cruelty incident”;

• Define a cruelty incident to include a violation of animal fighting or animal cruelty laws involving numerous animals;

• At the request of an animal control department or law enforcement agency, authorize a sponsoring entity to operate a temporary animal shelter and deploy out-of-state veterinarians;

• Require an out-of-state veterinarian to receive authorization from the Board of Veterinary Medicine and meet specified requirements;

• Require a sponsoring entity to register with the Board, with specified requirements.

Related Legislation:

AB 317 (Maienschein) would exempt a temporary animal shelter from registration requirements, if it is operated by a California licensed veterinarian or a veterinarian licensed in another state during a state of emergency. That bill will be sent to the Senate Floor pursuant to Senate Rule 28.8.

Staff Comments:

The kind of cruelty incident addressed by the bill are not likely to occur frequently in the state. It does not seem a worthwhile use of fee revenues to modify the existing system for issuing licenses at significant cost only to issue a very small number of authorizations to set up temporary animal shelters and/or deploy out-of-state veterinarians.

-- END --

SENATE COMMITTEE ON

BUSINESS, PROFESSIONS AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

Senator Jerry Hill, Chair

2015 - 2016 Regular

Bill No: AB 316 Hearing Date: July 6, 2015

Subject: Veterinarians: cruelty incidents.

SUMMARY:

Exempts from state licensure veterinary health care practitioners who are licensed or certified in good standing from another state and who offer veterinary services in the event of a “cruelty incident,” as defined, and allows the sponsoring entity to operate a temporary shelter in order to provide care to animals seized as a result of a cruelty incident.

Existing law, the Business and Professions Code (BPC):

1. Establishes the Veterinary Medical Board (VMB) within the Department of Consumer Affairs for the purpose of administering the Veterinary Practice Act (Act).
   (BPC § 4800 et seq.)

2. States that it is unlawful for any person to practice veterinary medicine in California without a valid, unexpired or unrevoked license, as specified. (BPC § 4825)

3. Requires all veterinarians, actually engaged and employed by the state, or a county, city, corporation, firm or individual practicing veterinary medicine, to secure a license issued by the VMB. (BPC § 4828)

4. Exempts the following from the provisions of the Act:

   1. Veterinarians while serving in any armed branch of the military service of the United States or the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) while actually engaged and employed in their official capacity;

   2. Regularly licensed veterinarians in actual consultation from other states;

   3. Regularly licensed veterinarians actually called from other states to attend cases in this state, but do not open an office or appoint a place to do business;

   4. Veterinarians employed by the University of California, as specified;

   5. Students in the school of veterinary medicine of the University of California or the College of Western University of Health Sciences, as specified;

   6. A veterinarian who is employed by the Meat and Poultry Inspection Branch of the California Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA) while actually engaged and employed in his or her official capacity; or,

   7. Unlicensed personnel employed by the CDFA or the USDA, as specified. (BPC § 4830)

5. Requires the VMB to establish a regular inspection program that will provide for random, unannounced inspections and that the VMB shall make every effort to inspect at least 20 percent of veterinary premises on an annual basis.
   (BPC § 4809.7)
   
   

6. Requires that all premises where veterinary medicine, veterinary dentistry, veterinary surgery and the various branches thereof is being practiced shall be registered with the VMB. (BPC § 4853 (a))
   
   

7. Defines “premises” as including a building, kennel, mobile unit or vehicle, as specified. (BPC § 4853 (b))
   
   

8. Requires that all premises where veterinary medicine, veterinary dentistry, or veterinary surgery is being practiced, and all instruments, apparatus and apparel used in connection with those practices, shall be kept clean and sanitary at all times, and shall conform to those minimum standards established by the VMB.
   (BPC § 4854)
   
   

9. Provides that the requirements of licensure for health care practitioners in California shall not apply in a state of emergency, as defined under Section 8558 of the Government Code, for a health care practitioner licensed from another state who offers or provides health care for which he or she is licensed, if the emergency overwhelms the response capabilities of California health care practitioners and only upon the request of the Director of the Emergency Medical Services Authority (Director). (BPC § 900 (a))
   
   

10. Specifies that the Director shall be the medical control and shall designate the licensure and specialty health care practitioners required for the specific emergency and shall designate the areas to which they may be deployed. (BPC § 900 (b))
    
    

11. Requires health care practitioners from another state to provide, upon request, a valid copy of a professional license and a photographic identification issue by the state in which the practitioner holds a license before being deployed by the Director.
    (BPC § 900 (c))
    
    

12. Requires health care practitioners from another state to also provide to the appropriate California licensing authority verification of licensure upon request.
    (BPC § 900 (d))
    
    

13. Provides that health care practitioners from another state providing health care shall have immunity from liability for services rendered as provided in Section 8659 of the Government Code. (BPC § 900 (e))
    
    

14. Exempts from state licensure, until January 1, 2018, health care practitioners who are licensed or certified in good standing from another state and who offer or provide health care services in California at a “sponsored event,” as defined, and in connection with a “sponsoring entity,” as defined, on a voluntary basis if specific requirements are met. (BPC § 901)
    
    

15. Defines “board” as the applicable healing arts board under the BPC or under an initiative act responsible for the licensure or regulation in this state of the representative health care practitioners and defines a “health care practitioner” as any person who engages in acts that are subject to licensure or regulation under BPC or under any initiative act (this would include veterinarians or registered veterinarian technicians). (BPC § 901 (a) (1) and (2))
    
    

16. Defines “sponsored event” as an event, not to exceed 10 calendar days, administered by either a sponsoring entity or a local government, or both, through which the health care is provided without compensation to the health care practitioner and defines a “sponsoring entity” as a nonprofit organization organized pursuant to Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code or a community-based organization. (BPC § 901 (a) (3) and (4))
    
    

17. Prior to providing the voluntary services, the health care practitioner shall do all of the following:
    
    

    1. He or she must submit to the appropriate licensing board a valid copy of his or her license or certificate and a photographic identification issued by the state in which he or she holds licensure or certification. Requires the board to notify the sponsoring entity within 20 calendar days of receiving a request for authorization, whether that request is approved or denied.
       
       

    2. Satisfied the following requirements:
       
       

       1. Has not committed any act or been convicted of a crime constituting grounds for denial or licensure or registration as specified and is in good standing in each state in which her or she holds licensure of certification.
          
          

       2. Has the appropriate education and experience to participate in the event as determined by the board.
          
          

       3. Shall agree to comply with all applicable practice requirements set forth in the BPC (for the particular practice) and regulations adopted by the board.
          
          

    3. Submits to the board a request for authorization to practice without a California license and pay a fee to cover the costs to the board for processing the request.
       
       

    4. The services are provided only under all of the following circumstances:
       
       

       1. To uninsured or underinsured persons, as defined.
          
          

       2. On a short-term voluntary basis, not to exceed a 10-day period per sponsored event.
          
          

       3. In association with a sponsoring entity, as defined, that complies with specified requirements.
          
          

       4. Without charge to the recipient or to a third party on behalf of the recipient.

(BPC § 901 (b))

18. Provides that the board may deny a health care practitioner authorization to practice without a license if the health care practitioner fails to comply with any of the aforementioned requirements as specified. (BPC § 901 (c))
    
    

19. Requires the sponsoring entity seeking to provide, or arrange for the provision of, health care services to do both of the following: (BPC § 901 (d))
    
    

    1. Register with the licensing board by completing a registration form that includes the name of the sponsoring authority, its officers or organization officials, specified contact information for the sponsoring entity and its officers, and, any additional information required by the licensing board.
       
       

    2. Provide the information required above to the county health department of the county in which the health care services will be provided, along with any additional information that may be required by that department.
       
       

20. Requires the sponsoring entity to notify in writing the licensing board and the county health department of any change in the information required within 30 days of the change and additionally do the following: (BPC § 901 (e), (f) and (g))
    
    

    1. Within 15 days of the provision of health care services, it must file a report with the licensing board and the county health department on the date, place, type, and general description of the care provided, along with a listing of the health care practitioners who participated in providing that care.
       
       

    2. Maintain a list of health care practitioners associated with the provision of health care services under this bill. Requires the sponsoring entity to maintain a copy of each health care practitioner’s current license or certification and shall require each health care practitioner to attest in writing that his or her license or certificate is not suspended or revoked pursuant to disciplinary proceedings in any jurisdiction. The sponsoring entity shall maintain these records for a period of at least five years following the provision of health care services and shall, upon request, furnish those records to the licensing board or any county health department.
       
       

21. Prohibits a contract of liability insurance issued, amended, or renewed in this state on or after January 1, 2011, from excluding coverage of a health care practitioner or a sponsoring entity that provides, or arranges for the provision of, health care services under this bill, provided that the practitioner or entity complies with the requirements of this bill. (BPC § 901 (h))
    
    

22. States that the exemption from licensure for health care practitioners shall not apply to a health care practitioner who renders care outside the scope of practice authorized by his or her license or certificate. (BPC § 901 (i))
    
    

23. Provides that the board may terminate authorization for a health care practitioner to provide health services for failure to comply with the requirements as specified, any practice requirement as set forth in the BPC or pursuant to regulations, or act that would be grounds for discipline if done by a licensee of the board. However, it Provides for an appeal by the health care practitioner of the decision to terminate the authorization. (BPC § 901 (j))
    
    

Existing law, the Government Code (GC):

1. Specifies that any veterinarian or registered veterinary technician who renders services during any state of war emergency, a state of emergency, or a local emergency at the express or implied request of any responsible state or local official or agency shall have no liability for any injury sustained by any animal by reason of those services, regardless of how or under what circumstances or by what cause those injuries are sustained; provided, however, that the immunity herein granted shall not apply in the event of a willful act or omission. (GC § 8659)
   
   

2. Defines a “state of war emergency” as a condition which exists immediately, with or without a proclamation by the Governor, whenever this state or nation is attacked by an enemy of the U.S., or upon receipt by the state of a warning by the federal government indicating that such an enemy attack is probable. (GC § 8558 (a))
   
   

3. Defines “state of emergency” as a duly proclaimed existence of conditions of disaster or extreme peril to the safety of persons and property within the state caused by such conditions as fire, flood, earthquake, drought, etc., which by reasons of their magnitude are likely to be beyond the control of services, personnel, equipment and facilities of any single county, city, city and county and requires combined forces of mutual aid region or regions to combat such emergency. (GC § 8558 (b))

4. Defines “local emergency” as a duly proclaimed existence of conditions or disaster or of extreme peril to the safety of persons and property within the territorial limits of a county, city, city and county caused by such conditions as specified above. (GC § 8558 (c))

This bill:

1. Exempts from state licensure veterinary health care practitioners who are licensed or certified in good standing from another state and who offer veterinary services in the event of a “cruelty incident,” as defined, and in connection with a “sponsoring entity,” as defined, similar to the exemption from state licensure for health care practitioners from another state who offer or provide health care services in California at a sponsored event, and in association with a sponsoring entity, on a voluntary basis, and allows the sponsoring entity to operate a temporary shelter in order to provide care to animals seized as a result of a cruelty incident.
   
   

2. Defines “board” as the VMB and “animal control” as the county of city animal control department, and if the city or county does not have an animal control department, if means whatever entity performs animal control functions.
   
   

3. Defines “veterinary health care practitioner” as any person who engages in acts that are subject to licensure or regulation under the Act.
   
   

4. Defines “cruelty incident” as an alleged violation of federal or state animal fighting or animal cruelty laws involving numerous animals which overwhelms the response capabilities of California veterinary health care practitioners.
   
   

5. Defines “sponsoring entity” as a nonprofit organization organized pursuant to Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code that employs licensed veterinarians.
   
   

6. Provides that in the event of a cruelty incident, a sponsoring entity may deploy veterinary health care practitioners licensed or certified in good standing in another state, district or territory of the United States to California at the request of animal control or federal law enforcement agency to provide veterinary services and operate a temporary shelter in order to provide care to animals seized as a result of a cruelty incident.
   
   

7. Provides that the veterinary health care practitioner is exempt from the requirement for licensure if all of the following requirements are met:
   
   

   1. Prior to providing those services, he or she does the following:
      
      

      1. Obtains authorization from the VMB to be deployed by a sponsoring entity after submitting to the VMB a copy of his or her valid license or certificate from each state in which he or she holds licensure or certification and a photographic identification issued by one of the states in which he or she holds licensure or certification. Requires the VMB to notify the veterinary health care practitioner, within 20 days whether the request is approved or denied and as otherwise specified. Provides that the authorization shall expire 12 months from the date of initial authorization unless the veterinary health care practitioner has resubmitted the required information for renewal at least 20 days prior to expiration.
         
         

      2. Similar to the exemption for health care practitioners who are providing health care services at a sponsored event, the veterinary health care practitioner must satisfy the same requirements such as not committing any prior crimes, have the same education and experience, agree to comply with all applicable requirements and regulations of the VMB.
         
         

   2. Provides services only under the following circumstances:
      
      

      1. To only animals seized as the result of the cruelty incident.
         
         

      2. On a short-term voluntary basis, not to exceed 60-calendar-days period per cruelty incident. If the animal control or federal law enforcement authority determines that the cruelty incident will exceed the initial 60 days, extensions shall be granted in 30-calendar-day increments until the incident is concluded.
         
         

      3. In association with a sponsoring entity.
         
         

      4. Without charge to the recipient or to a third party on behalf of the recipient.
         
         

      5. If determined necessary, within a temporary shelter that is needed to house animals seized as a result of a cruelty incident.
         
         

8. Provides that the temporary shelter utilized for the care and housing of animals seized during a cruelty incident is exempt from the requirement of a premise permit if all of the following requirements are met:
   
   

   1. The temporary shelter conforms to accepted minimum standards of care as specified.
      
      

   2. The temporary shelter does not exceed 60-calendar-days period per cruelty incident and if animal control or law enforcement determines that the cruelty incident will exceed 60 days, then extensions for the shelter shall be granted in 30-day increments until the incident is concluded.
      
      

   3. The temporary shelter only cares for and houses animals seized from a cruelty incident.
      
      

9. Provides that, similar to the exemption for health care practitioners who are providing health care services at a sponsored event, the VMB may deny authorization for a veterinary health care practitioner to practice without a license if the practitioner fails to comply with any of the aforementioned requirements as specified or any act that would be grounds for denial of an application for licensure.
   
   

10. Provides that similar to the requirements for a sponsoring entity providing health care services at a sponsored event, a sponsoring entity seeking to be approved to deploy veterinary health care practitioners to California in order to provide veterinary services during a cruelty incident must register with the VMB and provide specified information and any additional information as required by the VMB.
    
    

11. Requires that within 30 calendar days of the provision of veterinary services pursuant to a cruelty incident, the sponsoring entity shall file a report with the VMB with specified information regarding the care and practitioners who participated in providing the care.
    
    

12. Requires the sponsoring entity to maintain a list of the veterinary health care practitioners associated with the provision of the veterinary care services, a copy of their license that is in good standing, and maintain records for five years following the provision of those services to be made available, upon request, to the VMB or any county health department.
    
    

13. Sets forth other provisions, such as those dealing with a contract of liability insurance, restrictions on the ability of the veterinary health care practitioner to render care outside their scope of practice and ability of the VMB to terminate authorization for the practitioner to provide veterinary services in California are similar to the requirements for a sponsoring entity providing health care services at a sponsored event.

FISCAL EFFECT:

This bill has been keyed “fiscal” by Legislative Counsel. According to the Assembly Committee on Appropriations analysis dated May 6, 2015, this bill will result in minor and absorbable costs to the VMB.

COMMENTS:

1. Purpose. This bill is sponsored by the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (ASPCA). According to the Sponsor, “from dog fights and cockfights, to hoarding and other acts of cruelty, sheltering animals seized during cruelty investigations can overwhelm local resources.  Two separate dog fighting busts in the last 7 years have resulted in over 1000 dogs needing care, shelter, behavior assessments, and possible adoption services.   Under CA’s current seizure law, Penal Code 597.1, animals seized by a responding agency must be cared for at the expense of the seizing agency.  Seizing agencies are authorized to place a lien on the animals that must be paid in order for the animals to be returned, but until and if that actually happens, the expense is squarely on the responding agency to care for and house potentially hundreds of animals.  For instance, in 2014 El Dorado County Animal Services seized nearly 100 horses and additional livestock from a rescue that went under and could no longer afford to care for the animals – the animals were all adopted out but the seizure created unplanned for budgetary pressures for the county.  As stated by the California Animal Control Directors Association (CACDA) in support of AB 316, Animal Control Officers (ACOs) are on the front lines of enforcing state and local animal welfare laws.  Often in cruelty cases, the number of animals involved can overwhelm local resources as local animal control must house seized animals, and according to CACDA, most animal shelters operate at or near capacity on a daily basis and are not equipped or designed to take in large amounts of animals at once.   AB 316 is not about bringing out of state veterinary responders to assist in every cruelty case imaginable, but rather it is designed to be utilized when local resources are overwhelmed and the need for assistance is great.  In those scenarios, AB 316 creates a mechanism for 501(c)(3)’s to deploy veterinarians from other states that have been pre-approved by the CA Vet Med Board on an annual basis to deploy to CA to assist.”

2. Background.

1. Limited Exemptions From Licensure For Those Who Practice Veterinary Medicine. Under current law, there are a limited number of persons who are exempt from California's veterinary licensure requirements when practicing veterinary services in California. Exempt individuals include persons such as veterinarians providing services in the military, licensed veterinarians who have been called in from out of state to assist with certain cases, veterinarians or persons employed at the University of California for teaching purposes or other education research and persons employed by federal and state agencies such as the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the California Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA). Without one of these specific exemptions, any other person practicing veterinary medicine in California is required to have a California-issued veterinary license.
   
   
   

However, veterinarians from another state could be allowed under current law to provide veterinary services if they met the requirement specified in Section 900 of the BPC when there was a declared state of emergency for California. Also, although Section 901 of the BPC allows for any licensed health care practitioner from another state to provide health care services in California if in association with sponsoring entity (nonprofit 501 (c)(3)) at a sponsored event in which health care was provided to the public without compensation, it does not appear as if it was meant to apply to veterinarian services since one of the requirements is that the health care services must be provided to uninsured or underinsured persons.

This measure seeks to replicate the requirements of Section 901of the BPC to allow licensed veterinarians from another state, who are associated with a sponsoring entity that employs veterinarians, to provide necessary veterinary services if requested by a local animal control or federal law enforcement agency to assist in the event of a large-scale animal cruelty or animal fighting-case and to be exempt from California's licensure requirement. Additionally, it would provide circumstances under which the sponsoring entity could treat animals in a temporary shelter, as long as the shelter has only been established as a part of the investigation and abides by specific requirements.

2. Animal Cruelty Cases. Animal cruelty cases can take a variety of shapes and forms, from small, one-animal incidents, such as a recent case in Sacramento, where a man was accused of burning an animal alive in an animal carrier, to large-scale dog fighting raids or hoarding incidents that involve a large number of animals. The 2007 arrest and subsequent prosecution of Michael Vick, for his role in a large-scale dog fighting ring, highlighted issues of cruelty but also raised the issues about the resources needed to care for and treat animals when such events occur.
   
   Animal fighting is currently illegal in all 50 states. Specifically, dogfighting is a felony offense in all 50 states, and it is also a felony offense under federal law. Other cases of animal cruelty or animal hoarding occur closer to home. In February 2015, it was reported that 191 dogs were found abandoned on a property in San Bernardino County. Most likely, the case required a significant amount of local resources to care for animals and properly investigate the situation. In the San Bernardino case, the animals were taken to a local shelter for care.
   
   According to the Humane Society of the United States, because there is no national reporting requirement for animal abuse, there is no way to track the number of animal cruelty cases that are filed or that make it to court each year. Although the total number of cruelty cases is difficult to assess, in 2013-2014, there were more than 13 seizure cases that the Sponsor of this bill was involved in assisting with across the nation.
   
   According to the proponents of this measure, large-scale animal cruelty cases can overwhelm the resources of the local authorities responding to these cases. Animal cruelty cases such as animal abandonment issues or puppy mill raids can happen rather quickly, which makes planning and budgeting difficult. This bill aims to assist local authorities with options for veterinary care and assistance in the event of a large-scale animal cruelty or animal fighting case. The resource challenges are not strictly monetary but also become resource challenges related to caring for the large number of animals that most likely have health concerns and other issues. The proponents note that local veterinarians typically provide services in these types of cases, but, at times, additional resources may be necessary. According to the proponents, the average cruelty case lasts about 45-50 days and consists of an average of 461 animals at a cost of caring for the animals close to $600,000. The Sponsor notes that the large cost and potential lack of resources could be a deterrent in prosecuting such cases.
   
   According to the proponents, animal welfare organizations like the ASPCA, among others, have response teams in place, including veterinarians, to assist local agencies in cruelty cases or emergency disaster situations in other states, but often, the veterinarians are only licensed in their home state. This bill would provide a specific exemption to allow those veterinarians to be called to California in the event of a large-scale cruelty case to practice in California without a California-issued license.
   
   

3. ASPCA Involvement and Response to Animal Cruelty Cases.

• Eight State Raid – Dog Fighting (2009): The ASPCA participated in a raid of a multi-state dog fighting operation that spanned MO, IL, IA, TX, OK, AR, NE and MS and resulted in the rescue of over 400 dogs and 27 initial arrests – all 27 individuals were subsequently convicted.  In total, over 100 arrests were made in connection to this raid. 
   

• Florida – Cockfighting Raid (2010): At the request of Lee County Sheriff’s Office and Lee County Domestic Animal Services, the ASPCA assisted with the removal and sheltering of more than 650 fighting roosters.  Two individuals were arrested and convicted of animal cruelty and other related charges. 
   

• Halifax, VA – Dog Fighting Raid (2011): The ASPCA assisted the ATF, local law enforcement and several other agencies in raiding a suspected dog fighting ring.  Over 40 dogs were confiscated and four suspects arrested – two of which were charged and convicted of dog fighting.
  
  

• Southeast, Multi-State – Dog Fighting Bust (2013):  At the request of the U.S. Attorney’s Office and the FBI, the ASPCA assisted in a multi-state dog fighting raid across the Southeast.   A total of 367 dogs were rescued from conditions where they were subjected to intense heat and sun, many without shelter or water.
   

• New York – Cockfighting Bust (2014): From a cockfight in Queens, to a pet store in Brooklyn, and a farm in upstate New York, over 3,000 fighting birds were seized in what became the largest cockfighting bust in NY history. New York State Police, the Dept. of Homeland Security and a local sheriff’s department were involved in the raid that stemmed from the NY AG’s Organized Crime Task Force.  The ASPCA recovered the 3,000 birds. 
  

• Spokane, WA – Horses Abandoned (2014): At least 68 horses were abandoned by a property owner were left to starve slowly to death. Due to the large expense associated with caring for this number of emaciated horses, the local municipal county animal services agency requested the ASPCA’s assistance.  In addition to deploying our resources to assist the county, the ASPCA also gave a $5,000 grant to the agency to assist them with further care for the horses. 
  
  

• Wisconsin – Dog Hoarding Case (2014): The ASPCA responded to a request by the County Sheriff’s department and County Humane Investigator to assist in the removal and management of dogs living among feces, trash and rotting food in a poorly ventilated and overcrowded mobile home.

4. Calling in Veterinarians from Other States. In the event of an animal cruelty or abuse case, the entities responsible for handling these cases are local law enforcement, animal control directors and other local resources. These entities typically work together to determine the appropriate steps and process for dealing with animal cruelty or abuse cases.

This bill proposes that only local animal control and federal law enforcement agencies would be permitted to call in veterinary assistance from a sponsoring entity from out-of-state to assist with veterinary services and provide temporary shelter for the animals which were involved with a cruelty or animal fighting case.

5. Use of Temporary Shelters. Section 4853 of the BPC requires that all premises where veterinary medicine is being practiced obtain a premises permit from the VMB. There are currently over 3,000 licensed premises in California. In order to obtain the premises permit, applicants must submit an application which must include the type of practice, the number of employees, the business model, and business owner information, along with a $200 registration fee. The VMB reports that the application process for a premises permit takes between three to four weeks.

This bill will exempt temporary animal care shelter facilities from premises requirements as long as the shelter provides veterinary medical care, shelter, food and water only to the animals affected by the cruelty incident and that the temporary shelter complies with other requirements as specified. The temporary shelter shall not be allowed to exist for longer than 60 days unless it is determined that a longer period is necessary by animal control or the federal law enforcement agency, but the extension would only be for 30-day increments.

It should be noted, that any requirement for the VMB to inspect these temporary shelters would be difficult. Currently, the VMB can only inspect, or is required to make every effort to inspect, about 20 percent of veterinary premises on an annual basis. Also, during two of the major floods that hit Sacramento in the 1980’s and 1990’s, temporary shelters (many of them on city or county fairgrounds) were usually established overnight to house animals without any oversight considered necessary by the VMB, and were kept open for at least 60 to 90 days to allow animal owners the opportunity to claim their animals.

2. Related Legislation This Year. AB 317 (Maienschein) exempts an organization that establishes a temporary shelter facility for the purpose of providing veterinary medical care, shelter and food and water during a state emergency by a veterinarian licensed in another state, from a premise registration permit if certain conditions are met including: providing notice about the use of the temporary shelter; complying with sanitary standards and ceasing operation within 60 days of establishment. (Status: This bill is also set for a hearing before this Committee on July 6.)

3. Prior Related Legislation. AB 2699 (Bass, Chapter 270, Statutes of 2010), exempted from state licensure health care practitioners who are licensed or certified in other states and who in association with a sponsoring entity, at a sponsored event, provide health care services to uninsured or underinsured persons in California on a voluntary basis, if specific requirements are met.
   
   

AB 512 (Rendon, Chapter 111, Statutes of 2013), extended the sunset date, from January 2014 to January 2018, on the law that permits qualified, out-of-state health care practitioners to volunteer their services on a limited basis at health care events designed to provide free services for underinsured and uninsured individuals in California.

AB 2915 (Saldana, Chapter 823, Statutes of 2006) exempted from state veterinary licensure requirements veterinarians employed by a local government that met specified conditions, and provided that the exemption sunset on January 1, 2011.

SB 1263 (Soto, Chapter 131, Statutes of 2002) exempted faculty and students of the College of Veterinary Medicine at Western University of Health Sciences from the laws regulating the practice of veterinary medicine, and exempt veterinary medical students at the College of Veterinary Medicine at Western University of Health Science from having to take the VMB's law and regulations examination if the student completes certain coursework.

3. Arguments in Support. According to the Sponsors, the ASPCA, this measure seeks to equip animal cruelty investigators in California with the ability to seek assistance from veterinary responders from other states when local resources are overwhelmed. The language in AB 316 actually mirrors recently enacted BPC Section 901, which establishes a process for California’s licensing boards to approve out-of-state health practitioners wishing to participate in health fairs in California in order to provide health care to low income families. In the same way that these health fairs provide access to care for those without adequate health resources, AB 316 is designed to assist responders when cases overwhelm local resources. Unlike most criminal cases where evidence can simply be stored in a locker, animal cruelty cases require a significant financial investment to properly provide the animals with shelter and care. “Based on our experience, a typical cruelty deployment lasts about 45-50 days and costs about $28 per animal per day. A dog fighting bust that produces 150 seized dogs that need sheltering and care for 50 days results in over $200,000 in expenses for the responsible agency. Existing California law relative to cruelty investigations places the burden of paying for the care of animal victims of cruelty on the seizing agency until a final outcome of a case is decided.”
   
   The Tony La Russa’s Animal Rescue Foundation (ARF) is in support of this measure and indicates that large scale animal cruelty cases like animal fighting busts, hoarding arrests and puppy mill raids can quickly overwhelm a local government’s resources. “Additionally, these cases can also overwhelm the local veterinary resources. Local veterinarians play a key role in assisting with the care of seized animals, but local veterinarians typically have paying jobs or practices that they must return to. This limits the amount of time they can commit to cases like these. The combination of huge costs of care for seized animals and the potential to deplete local veterinary resources can be a huge deterrent for agencies wishing to investigate a case of large animal cruelty in their community.
   
   The ARF further states that “animal response teams consisting of veterinary practitioners exist to assist law enforcement agencies to ensure that animals receive top-notch preventive care, medical diagnosis and veterinary treatment. However, veterinary professionals that are part of animal response teams typically hold a license to practice in only their home state, making it difficult to deploy to another state in these cases.”
   
   The California Animal Control Directors Association (CACDA) is in support of this measure and indicates that their membership includes most municipal animal shelters and local animal control agencies throughout the State and that they are on the front lines of enforcing state and local animal welfare laws every day and must manage these tragedies [animal cruelty cases] when they occur. Unfortunately, as stated by CACDA, there are situations in California where the number of animals involved in a cruelty, fighting, or hoarding case will overwhelm the local resources. Often, these animals must be seized and then housed by local animal control. Most animal shelter operate at or near capacity on a daily basis and are not equipped or designed to take in a large amount of animals at once. This may require the establishment of a temporary facility or an offsite location in order to process, care for, and rehabilitate these animals. The flexibility to engage out-of-state medical professionals is an important step in making sure the animals receive the best care and outcomes possibly.

4. Arguments in Opposition. The California Veterinary Medical Association (CVMA) is opposed to this measure and argues that the exemption from California licensure should only be used when there is no other alternative. “After careful deliberation and several meetings with the bill’s sponsors, the CVMA believes the need for out-of-state veterinarians, involved in these cases, has not been demonstrated. Further, we think AB 316 does not provide sufficient protection for animals and consumers by allowing veterinarians to come in from other states as, essentially, unlicensed individuals. “
   
   The CVMA further indicates that there are more than 9,200 licensed veterinarians in California. “To our knowledge, animal cruelty case investigations in California have not been hindered by a shortage of veterinarians in this state. The proponents of the bill offer approximations of the number of cases that are investigated each year; the number of animals involved; and the cost of investigating these cases, but fail to provide definitive statistics that support the need for additional veterinary care. There is no evidence that calling in a veterinarian from out-of-state will reduce the investigating agencies costs associated with animal cruelty cases. The CVMA is also concerned that the bill would allow the out-of state [sponsoring entity] to set up a temporary shelter facility and provide veterinary care without a premises permit. “Again, there are no provisions for enforcement by the VMB for substandard facilities or veterinary care.”
   
   The VMB is also opposed to this measure and argues that “AB 316 provides an avenue for unlicensed veterinarians to practice in the state, but does not explain of justify the need for the exemption. Since California licenses greater that 10% of the entire veterinary profession in the country, the necessity for bringing in out-of-state veterinarians to attend to cases that are part of an investigation and furthermore, exempting temporary facilities from registration and inspection poses a risk to California consumers and animals. Such exemptions should only be pursued if the needs cannot be met by California licensees.”
   
   The VMB further argues that AB 316 would seriously limit the Board’s enforcement ability to respond to unprofessional conduct or negligence on the part of the veterinarian called in from another state. However, the recent amendments would seem to deal with this issue by providing broader oversight by the VMB of the veterinarians from another state. The VMB does continue to raise concerns about the use of a temporary shelter that is not registered with the Board and believes there would be little recourse is an animal be injured or harmed at an unregistered shelter.

SUPPORT AND OPPOSITION:

Support:

American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Sponsor)

California Animal Control Directors Association

Tony La Russa’s Animal Rescue Foundation

Opposition:

California Veterinary Medical Association

California Veterinary Medical Board

-- END --

ASSEMBLY THIRD READING

ATR Bill Id:AB 316

Author:(Maienschein)

As Amended Ver:April 23, 2015

Majority vote

SUMMARY: Permits a veterinarian licensed in another state to be called to California by law enforcement, animal control, or a humane officer, to attend to cases of animal cruelty or animal fighting as requested, and permits the establishment of temporary shelters for the purpose of assisting in the investigation. Specifically, this bill:

1. Exempts, from licensure requirements, a regularly licensed veterinarian who is called from another state by a law enforcement agency, animal control department, as specified, or a humane officer to attend to cases that are a part of an investigation of an alleged violation of federal or state animal fighting or animal cruelty laws within a single geographic location when the law enforcement agency, animal control department, or humane officer determines that it is necessary to call the veterinarian in order for the agency or officer to conduct the investigation in a timely manner.

2. Provides that when determining whether it is necessary to call a veterinarian from another state, consideration must be given to the availability of veterinarians in California to attend to these cases.

3. Requires the agency, department or officer that calls a veterinarian to this state to notify the VMB (Veterinarian Medical Board).

4. Permits a regularly licensed veterinarian who is called from another state to attend to cases that are a part of investigation, described in 1) above, to provide veterinary medical care for animals that are affected by the investigation within a temporary shelter facility, as specified.

5. Exempts a temporary shelter or facility from premise requirements if all of the following conditions are met:

   1. The temporary shelter facility is established solely for the purpose of investigation;

   2. The temporary shelter facility provides veterinary medical care, shelter, food and water only to animals that are affected by the investigation;

   3. The temporary shelter complies with specified sanitary requirements;

   4. A notice is posted in a conspicuous location near the temporary shelter facility to indicate that the facility is in use for the veterinary medical care of animals affected by an investigation into alleged violations of federal or state laws; and,

   5. The temporary shelter exists for not more than 60 days, unless the law enforcement agency, animal control agency, or humane officer determines a longer period of time is necessary to complete the investigation.

FISCAL EFFECT: According to the Assembly Appropriations Committee, any costs to the VMB are minor and absorbable.

COMMENTS:

Purpose. This bill is sponsored by the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (ASPCA). According to the author, "Large scale animal cruelty cases like animal fighting busts, hoarding arrests and puppy mill raids can quickly overwhelm a local government’s resources. These cases are hard to predict and can occur in a diverse range of locations, making planning and budgeting very difficult. The average cruelty case lasts about 45 to 50 days and consists of an average of 461 animals at a cost of $28 per animal per day. At 45 days, the average cost of caring for these animals is nearly $600,000.

"Additionally, these cases can also overwhelm the local veterinary resources. Local veterinarians play a key role in assisting with the care of seized animals, but local veterinarians typically have paying jobs or practices that they must return to. This limits the amount of time they can commit to cases like these. The combination of huge costs of care for seized animals and the potential to deplete local veterinary resources can be a huge deterrent for agencies wishing to investigate a case of large scale animal cruelty in their community."

Background. Under current law, there are a limited number of persons who are exempt from California's veterinary licensure requirements when practicing veterinary services in California. Exempt individuals include persons such as veterinarians providing services in the military, licensed veterinarians who have been called in from out of state to assist with certain cases, veterinarians or persons employed at the University of California for teaching purposes or other education research and persons employed by federal and state agencies such as the United States Department of Agriculture and the California Department of Food and Agriculture. Without one of these specific exemptions, any other person practicing veterinary medicine in California is required to have a California-issued veterinary license. This bill seeks to add veterinarians licensed in another state who are called to California to assist in the event of a large-scale animal cruelty or animal fighting case to be exempt from California's licensure requirement. Only law enforcement, an animal control department or a humane officer would be permitted to call a veterinarian into California for these purposes. In addition, this bill would permit the veterinarian licensed outside of California to treat animals in a temporary shelter, as long as the shelter has only been established as a part of the investigation and abides by specific requirements.

Consultants from Out-of-State. The exemption under Business and Professions Code Section 4830(a)(3) governing out-of-state veterinarians acting as consultants in California was designed to provide California-licensed veterinarians with the flexibility to utilize the experience of an out-of-state veterinarian with a particular skill. According to the VMB, the intent of the authorization to allow veterinarians from outside of California was to enhance the practice of veterinary medicine while limiting unlicensed practice. Veterinarians who are called into California are not permitted to establish a practice in state or practice on animals outside of the consultation request without obtaining the appropriate license to practice in California. This bill would specifically exempt from California licensure requirements veterinarians called in by a law enforcement agency, an animal control department, or a humane officer in the event of a large-scale animal cruelty or animal fighting case. However, this bill would require those entities to consider the availability of a local veterinarian when determining when outside assistance is warranted. In addition, if those entities called-in a veterinarian from another state, they would be required to notify the VMB.

Animal Cruelty Cases. Animal cruelty cases can take a variety of shapes and forms, from small, one-animal incidents, such as a recent case in Sacramento, where a man was accused of burning an animal alive in an animal carrier, to large-scale dog fighting raids or hoarding incidents that involve a large number of animals. The 2007 arrest and subsequent prosecution of Michael Vick, for his role in a large-scale dog fighting ring, highlighted issues of cruelty but also raised the issues about the resources needed to care for and treat animals when such events occur.

According to the sponsor, large-scale animal cruelty cases can overwhelm the resources of the local authorities responding to these cases. The resource challenges are not strictly monetary but also become resource challenges related to caring for the large number of animals that most likely have health concerns and other issues. The sponsors note that local veterinarians typically provide services in these types of cases, but, at times, additional resources may be necessary. According to the ASPCA, the average cruelty case lasts about 45 to 50 days and consists of an average of 461 animals at a cost of caring for the animals close to $600,000. The sponsor notes that the large cost and potential lack of resources could be a deterrent in prosecuting such cases.

In addition, animal welfare organizations like the ASPCA, among others, have response teams in place, including veterinarians, to assist local agencies in cruelty cases or emergency disaster situations in other states, but often, the veterinarians are only licensed in their home state. This bill would provide a specific exemption to allow those veterinarians to be called to California in the event of a large-scale cruelty case to practice in California without a California-issued license.

Calling-in Veterinarians. In the event of an animal cruelty or abuse case, the entities responsible for handling these cases are local law enforcement, animal control directors and other local resources. These entities typically work together to determine the appropriate steps and process for dealing with animal cruelty or abuse cases. This bill proposes that only law enforcement, a humane officer or an animal control department would be permitted to call in veterinary assistance from out of state to assist with a cruelty or animal fighting case investigation.

Temporary Shelters. Under current law, Business and Professions Code Section 4853 requires all premises where veterinary medicine is being practiced to obtain a premises permit from the VMB. There are currently over 3,000 licensed premises in California. In order to obtain the premises permit, applicants must submit an application which needs to include the type of practice, the number of employees, the business model, and business owner information, along with a $200 registration fee. The VMB reports that the application process for a premises permit takes between three and four weeks. This bill will exempt temporary animal care shelter facilities from premises requirements as long as the shelter provides veterinary medical care, shelter, food and water only to the animals affected by the investigation, the temporary shelter complies with sanitary requirements, a notice is posted about the purpose and use of the shelter and the temporary shelter does not exist for longer than 60 days unless law enforcement, animal control or a humane officer determines a longer period is necessary.

The sponsor notes that animal cruelty cases such as animal abandonment issues or puppy mill raids can happen rather quickly which makes planning and budgeting difficult. This bill aims to assist local authorities with options for veterinary care and assistance in the event of a large-scale animal cruelty or animal fighting case by allowing law enforcement, a humane officer or an animal control department to call a veterinarian licensed in another state for assistance with veterinary animal care as part of an investigation.

Policy Issues: As currently drafted, this bill requires the agency responsible for calling a veterinarian to California, for the purpose of assisting with a large-scale cruelty or abuse case, to report to the VMB that they have called in a veterinarian from another state to assist with veterinary care or services as a result of the investigation. In the event of such a case, local resources may be so consumed with the case they are unable to report the event to the VMB. The author may wish to require the organization or veterinarian that has been called to California to also notify the VMB to ensure that the information is relayed to the appropriate regulatory authority.

Analysis Prepared by: Elissa Silva / B. & P. / (916) 319-3301 FN: 0000422

Date of Hearing: May 6, 2015

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

Jimmy Gomez, Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:AB 316

Author:(Maienschein) – As Amended Ver:April 23, 2015

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

SUMMARY:

This bill permits veterinarians licensed outside California to attend to cases of animal cruelty or animal fighting in the state, as requested, and permits the establishment of temporary shelters for the purpose of assisting in the investigation.

FISCAL EFFECT:

Any costs to the Veterinary Medical Board are minor and absorbable.

COMMENTS:

1. Purpose. This bill intends to augment the state's capacity for veterinarians to care for animals in the case of large-scale animal cruelty cases that can quickly overwhelm a local government’s resources. The author cites animal fighting busts, hoarding arrests and puppy mill raids as examples. Allowing out-of-state veterinarians to assist under a limited exemption will help ensure resources are available to care for animals. This bill is sponsored by the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (ASPCA).

2. Related Legislation. AB 317 (Maienschein) allows an organization that meets certain conditions to establish a temporary shelter facility, for the purpose of providing veterinary medical care, shelter and food and water during a state of emergency..

Analysis Prepared by: Lisa Murawski / APPR. / (916) 319-2081

Date of Hearing: April 21, 2015

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONS

Susan Bonilla, Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:AB 316

Author:(Maienschein) – As Amended Ver:March 26, 2015

SUBJECT: Veterinarians.

SUMMARY: Permits a veterinarian licensed in another state to be called to California by law enforcement, animal control, or a humane officer, to attend to cases of animal cruelty or animal fighting as requested, and permits the establishment of temporary shelters for the purpose of assisting in the investigation.

EXISTING LAW:

1. Establishes the Veterinary Medical Board (VMB) within the Department of Consumer Affairs for the purpose of administering the Veterinary Practice Act (Act). (Business and Professions Code (BPC) Section 4800 et seq.)

2. States that it is unlawful for any person to practice veterinary medicine in California without a valid, unexpired or unrevoked license, as specified. (BPC Section 4825)

3. Specifies that the practice of veterinary medicine, surgery or dentistry occurs when an individual does any of the following: (BPC Section 4826)

   1. Represents himself or herself as engaged in the practice of veterinary medicine, surgery or dentistry;

   2. Diagnoses or prescribes a drug, medicine, appliance, application or treatment for the prevention, cure, or relief of a wound, fracture, bodily injury, or disease of animals;

   3. Administers a drug, medicine or treatment, as specified;

   4. Performs a surgical or dental operation upon an animal;

   5. Performs any manual procedure for the diagnosis of pregnancy; sterility or infertility upon livestock or Equidae; or,

   6. Uses any words, letters or titles circumstances as to induce the belief that the person using them is engaged in the practice of veterinary medicine, surgery or dentistry.

4. Requires all veterinarians, actually engaged and employed by the state, or a county, city, corporation, firm or individual practicing veterinary medicine, to secure a license issued by the VMB. (BPC Section 4828)

5. Exempts the following from the provisions of the Act: (BPC Section 4830)

   1. Veterinarians while serving in any armed branch of the military service of the United States or the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) while actually engaged and employed in their official capacity;

   2. Regularly licensed veterinarians in actual consultation from other states;

   3. Regularly licensed veterinarians actually called from other states to attend cases in this state, but do not open an office or appoint a place to do business;

   4. Veterinarians employed by the University of California, as specified;

   5. Students in the school of veterinary medicine of the University of California or the College of Western University of Health Sciences, as specified;

   6. A veterinarian who is employed by the Meat and Poultry Inspection Branch of the California Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA) while actually engaged and employed in his or her official capacity; or,

   7. Unlicensed personnel employed by the CDFA or the USDA, as specified.

THIS BILL:

1. Exempts, from licensure requirements, a regularly licensed veterinarian who is called from another state by a law enforcement agency, animal control department, as specified, or a humane officer to attend to cases that are a part of an investigation of an alleged violation of federal or state animal fighting or animal cruelty laws within a single geographic location when the law enforcement agency, animal control department, or humane officer determines that it is necessary to call the veterinarian in order for the agency or officer to conduct the investigation in a timely manner.

2. Provides that when determining whether it is necessary to call a veterinarian from another state, consideration must be given to the availability of veterinarians in California to attend to these cases.

3. Requires the agency, department or officer that calls a veterinarian to this state to notify the VMB.

4. Permits a regularly licensed veterinarian who is called from another state to attend to cases that are a part of investigation, described in 1) above, to provide veterinary medical care for animals that are affected by the investigation within a temporary shelter facility, as specified.

5. Exempts a temporary shelter or facility from premise requirements if all of the following conditions are met:

   1. The temporary shelter facility is established solely for the purpose of investigation;

   2. The temporary shelter facility provides veterinary medical care, shelter, food and water only to animals that are affected by the investigation;

   3. The temporary shelter complies with specified sanitary requirements;

   4. A notice is posted in a conspicuous location near the temporary shelter facility to indicate that the facility is in use for the veterinary medical care of animals affected by an investigation into alleged violations of federal or state laws; and,

   5. The temporary shelter exists for not more than 60 days, unless the law enforcement agency, animal control agency, or humane officer determines a longer period of time is necessary to complete the investigation.

FISCAL EFFECT: Unknown. This bill is keyed fiscal by the Legislative Counsel.

COMMENTS:

1. Purpose. This bill is sponsored by the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (ASPCA). According to the author, "Large scale animal cruelty cases like animal fighting busts, hoarding arrests and puppy mill raids can quickly overwhelm a local government’s resources. These cases are hard to predict and can occur in a diverse range of locations, making planning and budgeting very difficult. The average cruelty case lasts about 45-50 days and consists of an average of 461 animals at a cost of $28 per animal per day. At 45 days, the average cost of caring for these animals is nearly $600,000."

"Additionally, these cases can also overwhelm the local veterinary resources. Local veterinarians play a key role in assisting with the care of seized animals, but local veterinarians typically have paying jobs or practices that they must return to. This limits the amount of time they can commit to cases like these. The combination of huge costs of care for seized animals and the potential to deplete local veterinary resources can be a huge deterrent for agencies wishing to investigate a case of large scale animal cruelty in their community."

2. Background. Under current law, there are a limited number of persons who are exempt from California's veterinary licensure requirements when practicing veterinary services in California. Exempt individuals include persons such as veterinarians providing services in the military, licensed veterinarians who have been called in from out of state to assist with certain cases, veterinarians or persons employed at the University of California for teaching purposes or other education research and persons employed by federal and state agencies such as the USDA and the CDFA. Without one of these specific exemptions, any other person practicing veterinary medicine in California is required to have a California-issued veterinary license.

This bill seeks to add veterinarians licensed in another state who are called to California to assist in the event of a large-scale animal cruelty or animal fighting case to be exempt from California's licensure requirement. Only law enforcement, an animal control department or a humane officer would be permitted to call a veterinarian into California for these purposes. In addition, this bill would permit the veterinarian licensed outside of California to treat animals in a temporary shelter, as long as the shelter has only been established as a part of the investigation and abides by specific requirements.

Consultants from Out-of-State. The exemption under BPC Section 4830(a)(3) governing out-of-state veterinarians acting as consultants in California was designed to provide California-licensed veterinarians with the flexibility to utilize the experience of an out-of-state veterinarian with a particular skill. According to the VMB, the intent of the authorization to allow veterinarians from outside of California was to enhance the practice of veterinary medicine while limiting unlicensed practice. Veterinarians who are called into California are not permitted to establish a practice in state or practice on animals outside of the consultation request without obtaining the appropriate license to practice in California. This bill would specifically exempt from California licensure requirements veterinarians called in by a law enforcement agency, an animal control department, or a humane officer in the event of a large-scale animal cruelty or animal fighting case. However, this bill would require those entities to consider the availability of a local veterinarian when determining when outside assistance is warranted. In addition, if those entities called-in a veterinarian from another state, they would be required to notify the VMB.

Animal Cruelty Cases. Animal cruelty cases can take a variety of shapes and forms, from small, one-animal incidents, such as a recent case in Sacramento, where a man was accused of burning an animal alive in an animal carrier, to large-scale dog fighting raids or hoarding incidents that involve a large number of animals. The 2007 arrest and subsequent prosecution of Michael Vick, for his role in a large-scale dog fighting ring, highlighted issues of cruelty but also raised the issues about the resources needed to care for and treat animals when such events occur.

Animal fighting is currently illegal in all 50 states. Specifically dogfighting is a felony offense in all 50 states, and it is also a felony offense under federal law. Other cases of animal cruelty or animal hoarding occur closer to home. In February 2015, it was reported that 191 dogs were found abandoned on a property in San Bernardino County. Most likely, the case required a significant amount of local resources to care for animals and properly investigate the situation. In the San Bernardino case, the animals were taken to a local shelter for care.

According to the sponsor, large-scale animal cruelty cases can overwhelm the resources of the local authorities responding to these cases. The resource challenges are not strictly monetary but also become resource challenges related to caring for the large number of animals that most likely have health concerns and other issues. The sponsors note that local veterinarians typically provide services in these types of cases, but, at times, additional resources may be necessary. According to the ASPCA, the average cruelty case lasts about 45-50 days and consists of an average of 461 animals at a cost of caring for the animals close to $600,000. The sponsor notes that the large cost and potential lack of resources could be a deterrent in prosecuting such cases.

According to the sponsor, animal welfare organizations like the ASPCA, among others, have response teams in place, including veterinarians, to assist local agencies in cruelty cases or emergency disaster situations in other states, but often, the veterinarians are only licensed in their home state. This bill would provide a specific exemption to allow those veterinarians to be called to California in the event of a large-scale cruelty case to practice in California without a California-issued license.

According to the Humane Society of the United States, because there is no national reporting requirement for animal abuse, there is no way to track the number of animal cruelty cases that are filed or that make it to court each year. Although the total number of cruelty cases is difficult to assess, in 2013-2014, there were more than 13 seizure cases that the sponsor of this bill was involved in assisting with across the nation.

Calling in Veterinarians. In the event of an animal cruelty or abuse case, the entities responsible for handling these cases are local law enforcement, animal control directors and other local resources. These entities typically work together to determine the appropriate steps and process for dealing with animal cruelty or abuse cases. This bill proposes that only law enforcement, a humane officer or an animal control department would be permitted to call in veterinary assistance from out of state to assist with a cruelty or animal fighting case investigation.

Temporary Shelters. Under current law, BPC Section 4853 requires all premises where veterinary medicine is being practiced to obtain a premises permit from the VMB. There are currently over 3,000 licensed premises in California. In order to obtain the premises permit, applicants must submit an application which needs to include the type of practice, the number of employees, the business model, and business owner information, along with a $200 registration fee. The VMB reports that the application process for a premises permit takes between three and four weeks. This bill will exempt temporary animal care shelter facilities from premises requirements as long as the shelter provides veterinary medical care, shelter, food and water only to the animals affected by the investigation, the temporary shelter complies with sanitary requirements, a notice is posted about the purpose and use of the shelter and the temporary shelter does not exist for longer than 60 days unless law enforcement, animal control or a humane officer determines a longer period is necessary.

The sponsor notes that animal cruelty cases such as animal abandonment issues or puppy mill raids can happen rather quickly which makes planning and budgeting difficult. This bill aims to assist local authorities with options for veterinary care and assistance in the event of a large-scale animal cruelty or animal fighting case by allowing law enforcement, a humane officer or an animal control department to call a veterinarian licensed in another state for assistance with veterinary animal care as part of an investigation.

3. Current Related Legislation. AB 317 (Maienschein) of the current legislative session, exempts an organization that establishes a temporary shelter facility for the purpose of providing veterinary medical care, shelter and food and water during a state emergency by a veterinarian licensed in another state, from a premise registration permit if certain conditions are met including: providing notice about the use of the temporary shelter; complying with sanitary standards and ceasing operation within 60 days of establishment. STATUS: This bill is pending in the Assembly Committee on Business and Professions.

4. Prior Related Legislation. AB 2915 (Saldana), Chapter 823, Statutes of 2006, exempted from state veterinary licensure requirements veterinarians employed by a local government that met specified conditions, and provided that the exemption sunset on January 1, 2011.

SB 1263 (Soto), Chapter 131, Statutes of 2002, exempted faculty and students of the College of Veterinary Medicine at Western University of Health Sciences from the laws regulating the practice of veterinary medicine, and exempt veterinary medical students at the College of Veterinary Medicine at Western University of Health Science from having to take the VMB's law and regulations examination if the student completes certain coursework.

ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT:

The sponsor, the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals writes in support, "[This bill] authorizes law enforcement agencies, animal control agencies and SPCA's who request veterinarians licensed in another state to assist them with animal cruelty cases under the existing exemption in [BPC Section 4830(a)(3)] to establish a temporary facility to house animals rescued as a result of the case. Large scale animal cruelty cases like animal fighting busts, hoarding arrests, and puppy mill raids can quickly overwhelm a local government's resources. These care are hard to predict and can occur in a diverse range of location, making planning and budgeting very difficult."

ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION:

None on file.

POLICY ISSUES:

As currently drafted, this bill requires the agency responsible for calling a veterinarian to California, for the purpose of assisting with a large-scale cruelty or abuse case, to report to the VMB that they have called in a veterinarian from another state to assist with veterinary care or services as a result of the investigation. In the event of such a case, local resources may be so consumed with the case they are unable to report the event to the VMB. The author may wish to require the organization or veterinarian that has been called to California to also notify the VMB to ensure that the information is relayed to the appropriate regulatory authority.

AMENDMENTS:

In order to make it clear that the veterinarian practicing from another state has an active license which has not been disciplined, the author should include the requirement that the veterinary license be in good standing and not be subject to disciplinary actions in another state.

On page 3, line 25, after "veterinarian" insert: in good standing

On page 4, line 4, after "veterinarian" insert: in good standing

REGISTERED SUPPORT:

American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (sponsor)

Contra Costa Humane Society

RedRover

Tony La Russa's Animal Rescue Foundation

REGISTERED OPPOSITION:

None on file.

Analysis Prepared by: Elissa Silva / B. & P. / (916) 319-3301