Proposition 6, an initiative measure approved by the electors at the November 3, 1998, general election, enacted the Prohibition of Horse Slaughter and Sale of Horsemeat for Human Consumption Act of 1998. The act makes it unlawful for any person to possess, to import into or export from the state, or to sell, buy, give away, hold, or accept any horse with the intent of killing, or having another kill, that horse, if that person knows or should have known that any part of that horse will be used for human consumption.

This bill would state the intent of the Legislature to enact legislation that would protect Californias wild and domestic horses.

CONCURRENCE IN SENATE AMENDMENTS

CSA1 Bill Id:AB 128

Author:(Gloria)

As Amended Ver:August 26, 2019

Majority vote

SUMMARY:

This bill requires the operator of an animal auction yard to determine and post online any identifying brand, tattoo, or implanted microchip an animal may have before being sold at auction. The operator is also required to maintain records of sales for one year and make such records available to specified officials and to post notice at an auction that the sale of horses in California for slaughter for human consumption is a felony. The bill also requires a purchaser of an animal at auction to sign a sworn statement, under penalty of perjury, agreeing to comply with provisions of the Penal Code relating to the slaughter and sale of horses or horsemeat for human consumption. The bill also establishes an additional civil penalty for any person who violates these provisions.

The Senate Amendments:

1. Require that the operator of an auction shall determine if an animal being sold has an implanted microchip or is branded or tattooed with an identifying mark and include such information on the internet website and social media the auction operator uses.
2. Require notice to buyers that the sale of horses in California for slaughter for human consumption is a felony.
3. Clarify that a person who purchases an animal at auction is required to sign a sworn statement agreeing to comply with California laws regarding slaughter of horses for human consumption under penalty of perjury.
4. Require an auction operator to maintain appropriate records of animal sales for one year and to make such records available to law enforcement, animal control, and humane officers.
5. Provide for, in addition to any other penalties, a civil penalty of $1,000 for the first offense and $2,000 for subsequent offenses to people who violate these provisions.

COMMENTS:

Horse Slaughter in California. In November 1998, Proposition 6 was approved by the California electorate. It created a crime for the slaughter of horses to sell for human consumption and prohibited the sale of horsemeat for human consumption. While California did not have any facilities being used to slaughter horses for human consumption at the time, several other states did.

With the various efforts by supporters, including federal legislation, all horse slaughter facilities have been either closed or have stopped processing horses. Several states including California, Texas, and Illinois have banned the sale of horsemeat for human consumption. Since 2006, with the exception of 2011-2014, there has also been a de facto ban on the commercial slaughtering of horses in the United States. Though not explicitly illegal, a provision in the yearly appropriations for the U.S. Department of Agriculture prohibits use of funds to inspect horse slaughtering facilities. Since then horses have been exported to Canada and Mexico for slaughter.

Horses on Federal Lands. The 1971 Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act made it a federal crime for anyone to kill wild horses or burros on federal land and required the development of management plans for wild herds. In recent years, the U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has been capturing excess wild horses and relocating them to short-term holding corrals and long-term holding ranches. This population control is designed to protect the natural ecosystem from damage and overgrazing, to maintain the health of the wild horses, and to prevent dramatic boom-bust cycles in the wild horse population.

Since 2004, the BLM has been prohibited from selling horses for slaughter by a provision in the federal appropriations for the BLM and it must seek adoption for these horses instead. However the demand for adoption is currently well below the number of horses available. Recent wild horse captures by the U.S. Forest Service (USFS), including roundups during the fall of 2018 in California's Modoc National Forest, have prompted concerns by supporters of a horse slaughter ban that these horses could be sold for slaughter since the USFS is not covered by the same BLM prohibitions.

According to the Author:

Californians have made it very clear that they oppose the slaughter of horses, but our majestic creatures are still being slaughtered for human consumption after leaving California. Horses in California should be treated humanely and wild horses should be able to live freely on our public lands. That is why I put forward this bill to implement stronger protections for California's wild and domestic horse population.

Arguments in Support:

Supporters argue that Californians are overwhelmingly opposed to the practice of horse slaughter, recognizing the aesthetic, ecological, economic, historical, and cultural importance of horses to the people of the state. Supporters state that it is all too common for horses sold at auction in California to known "killer buyers" purchasing at very low prices, loading horses on trailers, and then driving out of California. They argue this legislation will strengthen long-standing protection laws against slaughter of California's wild and domestic horses.

Arguments in Opposition:

The opponents of this bill, many of whom were the original proponents of Proposition 6 (Nov. 3, 1998, statewide general election), express concerns that this bill is weakening Proposition 6 by creating an alternative civil penalty that can be assessed in lieu of the felony provisions in Sections 598c and 598d of the Penal Code.

FISCAL COMMENTS:

Unknown, though according to the Assembly Appropriations Committee before the bill was amended in the Senate, the fiscal effects are minor, if any, additional state costs.

VOTES:

ASM WATER, PARKS, AND WILDLIFE: 10-1-3

YES: Chu, Friedman, Cristina Garcia, Robert Rivas, Gloria, Kalra, Luz Rivas, Blanca Rubio, Salas, Wood

NO: Dahle

ABS, ABST OR NV: Gallagher, Bigelow, Choi

ASM APPROPRIATIONS: 14-0-4

YES: Gonzalez, Bloom, Bonta, Calderon, Carrillo, Chau, Diep, Friedman, Gabriel, Eduardo Garcia, Maienschein, Petrie-Norris, Jones-Sawyer, Robert Rivas

ABS, ABST OR NV: Bigelow, Brough, Fong, Obernolte

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 70-0-10

YES: Aguiar-Curry, Bauer-Kahan, Berman, Bloom, Boerner Horvath, Bonta, Brough, Burke, Calderon, Carrillo, Cervantes, Chau, Chiu, Choi, Chu, Cooley, Cooper, Cunningham, Daly, Diep, Eggman, Flora, Frazier, Friedman, Gabriel, Cristina Garcia, Eduardo Garcia, Gipson, Gloria, Gonzalez, Gray, Grayson, Holden, Irwin, Jones-Sawyer, Kalra, Kamlager-Dove, Lackey, Levine, Limón, Low, Maienschein, Mathis, Mayes, Medina, Melendez, Mullin, Muratsuchi, Nazarian, O'Donnell, Petrie-Norris, Quirk, Quirk-Silva, Ramos, Reyes, Luz Rivas, Robert Rivas, Rodriguez, Blanca Rubio, Salas, Santiago, Smith, Mark Stone, Ting, Voepel, Waldron, Weber, Wicks, Wood, Rendon

ABS, ABST OR NV: Arambula, Bigelow, Chen, Dahle, Fong, Gallagher, Kiley, McCarty, Obernolte, Patterson

SENATE FLOOR: 33-5-2

YES: Allen, Archuleta, Atkins, Bates, Beall, Bradford, Caballero, Chang, Dodd, Durazo, Galgiani, Glazer, Lena Gonzalez, Grove, Hertzberg, Hill, Hueso, Hurtado, Jackson, Leyva, McGuire, Mitchell, Monning, Pan, Portantino, Roth, Rubio, Skinner, Stern, Umberg, Wieckowski, Wiener, Wilk

NO: Dahle, Jones, Morrell, Nielsen, Stone

ABS, ABST OR NV: Borgeas, Moorlach

UPDATED:

VERSION: August 26, 2019

CONSULTANT: Jared Ferguson / W., P., & W. / (916) 319-2096 FN: 0001743

 THIRD READING  

Bill No: AB 128

Author: Gloria (D), et al.

Amended: 8/26/19 in Senate

Vote: 21

SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE: 7-1, 7/9/19

AYES: Jackson, Durazo, Lena Gonzalez, Monning, Stern, Umberg, Wieckowski

NOES: Jones

NO VOTE RECORDED: Borgeas

SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: Senate Rule 28.8

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 70-0, 5/9/19 - See last page for vote

SUBJECT: Equines: protection

SOURCE: American Wild Horse Campaign

DIGEST:

This bill requires the operator of an auction yard to determine whether an animal has an implanted microchip or has been tattooed or branded with any identifying mark before the animal may be sold at auction and to post all identifying information on its Internet Web site and through any active social media in which the operator of the auction yard participates, as specified. This bill requires a person who purchases an animal at an auction to sign a sworn statement under the penalty of perjury agreeing to comply with provisions of the Penal Code relating to the slaughter and sale of horses or horsemeat for human consumption. The bill requires an operator of such an auction to maintain records that accurately document compliance with these provisions, as provided. This bill also makes changes to a required posting notice to be displayed at a public auction or sale where equines are sold.

Senate Floor Amendments of 8/26/19 clarify that a person who purchases an animal at an auction is required to sign a sworn statement under the penalty of perjury, that the auction yard it to post identifying marks of an animal on its Internet Web site or social media, and makes other conforming changes.

ANALYSIS:

Existing law:

1. Makes it unlawful for any person to possess, to import into, or export from the state, or to sell, buy, give away, hold, or accept any horse, pony, burro, or mule with the intent of killing, or having another kill, that horse, if that person knows or should have known that any part of that horse will be used for human consumption. Violations are a felony, punishable by imprisonment for up to three years. (Pen. Code § 598c.)
2. Prohibits the offering for sale of horsemeat for human consumption and makes it a misdemeanor violation punishable by a fine, or confinement in a jail, or both a fine and jail. (Pen. Code § 598d.)
3. Establishes the Equine Protection Act of 1991 creating a program of equine protection and identification in the Department of Food and Agriculture (DFA). (Food & Ag. Code §§ 24101 et. seq.)
   1. Prohibits a person from selling, purchasing, consigning, selling, or accepting the donation of an animal that is destined for slaughter unless the seller or donor of the animal provides, and the purchaser or donee receives, at the time of delivery, a written bill of sale or other written instrument that contains specified information, including, each brand or tattoo. (Food & Ag. Code § 24106.) An animal for these purposes is defined as a horse, pony, mule, or burro. (Food & Ag. Code § 24102(a).)
   2. Provides that any person that violate the Act is liable for a civil penalty not to exceed $500, and requires any money recovered to be paid to the DFA and recovered by the Attorney General, as provided. (Food & Ag. Code § 23091-23093.)
4. Requires the posting of a prescribed sign by management at any public auction or sale where equines are sold.
   1. The sign is to read “Warning: Horses sold on these premises may be purchased for slaughter. As a possible safeguard, seller can set minimum bid above current slaughter prices.”
   2. The management of the auction is required to post current slaughter prices or make them available upon request. (Civ. Code § 1834.8.)

This bill:

1. Prohibits a person from selling, purchasing, consigning, selling, or accepting the donation of an animal at a public or private auction unless the seller or donor of the animal provides and the purchaser or donee receives, at the time of delivery, a written bill of sale or other written instrument that contains specified information, including, each brand or tattoo.
2. Requires a person who purchases an animal at an auction to sign a sworn statement under the penalty of perjury agreeing to comply with Sections 598c and 598d of the Penal Code.
3. Requires the operator of the auction yard to determine whether an animal has an implanted microchip or has been tattooed or branded with any identifying mark before the animal can be sold at auction. If the animal has an implanted microchip, tattoo, or a brand, the operator of the auction yard is required to post all identifying information, including any identification number contained in a microchip and a detailed description or picture of any tattoo or brand found on the animal, on its Internet Web site and on the page of any active social media in which the operator of the auction yard participates, as specified.
4. Requires the operator of the auction yard to maintain appropriate records for a minimum of one year following the date of sale and to provide access to these records upon the request of the DFA, a law enforcement officer, an animal control agency, or a humane officer, as provided.
5. Provides that a person who violates these provisions is subject to a civil penalty of $1,000 for the first offense and $2,000 for the second and each subsequent offense, in addition to any other penalties available under existing law.
6. Changes the language on the sign required to be posted by management at any public auction or sale where equines are sold to read, “Warning the sale of horses in California for slaughter for human consumption is a felony.”
7. Makes various findings and declarations of the Legislature.

Comments

In 1998, California voters enacted Proposition 6, which added Sections 598c and 598d to the Penal Code. (Nov. 3, 1998, statewide gen. elec.) Section 598c of the Penal Code makes it unlawful for any person to possess, to import into, or export from the state, or to sell, buy, give away, hold, or accept any horse with the intent of killing, or having another kill, that horse, if that person knows or should have known that any part of that horse will be used for human consumption, and makes a violation of its provisions punishable as a felony. Section 598d of the Penal Code prohibits the offering for sale of horsemeat for human consumption and makes a violation of its provisions a misdemeanor.

According to the Assembly Water, Parks, and Wildlife Committee analysis:

In 1971, Congress passed and President Nixon signed the Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act (Chapter 30 of Title 16 of the United States Code) to cover the management, protection, and study of "unbranded and unclaimed horses and burros on public lands in the United States." Among other things, the act made it a federal crime for anyone to kill wild horses or burros on federal land and required the development of management plans for wild herds to maintain a natural ecological balance and protect ranges from overpopulation of horses. Under the jurisdiction of the BLM [Bureau of Land Management] and the USFS, these wild herd management plans could permit the sale of excess horses at auctions, if the demand for adoption by individuals is not high enough. The BLM was also permitted to destroy excess horses if a herd was found to be dragging down the ecological balance on public land and there was no demand for adoption, meaning the BLM could slaughter horses or auction them for slaughter. This practice was done away with in 2004 by a provision in the appropriations for the BLM stating: “No funds may be used for destruction of healthy, unadopted, wild horses and burros in the care of the Bureau of Land Management or its contractors or for the sale of wild horses and burros that results in their destruction for processing into commercial products.” ^[1]

This year, the United States Forest Service (USFS) was planning to sell over 100 wild horses being held in California’s Modoc National Forest without any limitation on the future use of those horses. E&E News reported:

The wild horses were part of a large group rounded up and removed from the national forest in October and November [of 2018]. About 250 horses were then transferred to a newly built corral — called the Double Devil Wild Horse Corral — on the Modoc site, instead of to a nearby holding facility operated by the Bureau of Land Management [BLM].

The distinction is significant. That's because Congress for years has added provisions to Interior Department appropriations bills that forbid BLM from using euthanasia on healthy horses and burros and limit its ability to sell animals without limitations on their future use. But the appropriations language covers only Interior, and thus BLM; the Forest Service is under the Department of Agriculture.^[2]

A lawsuit was filed against the USFS by the Animal Legal Defense Fund, the American Wild Horse Campaign, and Carla Bowers, a Volcano, California resident.^[3] In response to the lawsuit, the USFS has temporarily reversed course. According to the American Wild Horse Campaign:

The Forest Service has abandoned a controversial proposal to sell wild horses rounded up at California's Modoc National Forest without first ensuring that the animals don't end up in slaughterhouses in Mexico and Canada.

However, a Forest Service spokeswoman told E&E News today that the decision is not final and is only in place while a federal lawsuit challenging so-called sales without limitation is resolved.^[4]

Though the reversal by USFS is promising, the agency could change course at any time. In response to the actions of USFS, this bill seeks to bolster existing protections against the slaughter of horses under California law. This bill updates language in the notice that is required to be posted at any public auction or sale where equines are sold to warn that the sale of horses in California for slaughter for human consumption is a felony. The bill requires a person who purchases an animal at an auction to sign a sworn statement under the penalty of perjury agreeing to comply with Sections 598c and 598d of the Penal Code. The bill requires the operator of the auction yard to determine whether an animal has an implanted microchip or has been tattooed or branded with any identifying mark before the animal can be sold at auction, and to post all identifying information on its Internet Web site and any social media in which the auction yard participates, such as Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, or other social media platforms. Lastly, an operator of the auction yard is required to maintain appropriate records to document compliance with these provisions for a minimum of one year following the date of sale and to provide access to the records upon request, as specified.

This bill makes a person who violates these provisions subject to a civil penalty of $1,000 for the first offense and $2,000 for the second and each subsequent offense. These penalties would be in addition to any other penalties available under existing law, such as the felony and misdemeanor provisions in Sections 598c and 598d of the Penal Code. This bill does not amend the criminal provisions of Sections 598c and 598d of the Penal Code, which were added by Proposition 6. (Nov. 3, 1998, statewide gen. elec.) The civil penalties provided for by this bill would be recoverable by the Attorney General in compliance with Sections 23092 and 23093 of the Food and Agriculture Code. The civil penalties provision does not apply to the required posting notice in Section 1834.8 of the Civil Code.

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

SUPPORT: (Verified 8/27/19)

American Wild Horse Campaign (source)

Animal Place

Animal Welfare Institute

Auction Horses Rescue

California Animal Welfare Association

Freedom Reigns Equine Sanctuary

Hanaeleh Horse Rescue and Advocacy

Kruse Control

Lifesavers Wild Horse Rescue

Marin Humane

Montgomery Creek Ranch

Return to Freedom

Safe Food Safe Horses

San Diego Humane Society

San Francisco SPCA

The Animals Voice

OPPOSITION: (Verified 8/27/19)

California Equine Council

California Horsemen’s Alliance

HoofPAC

Humane Farming Association

Political Animals

Save the Horses Foundation

Several individuals

ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: The author writes:

Californians have made it very clear that they oppose the slaughter of horses, but our majestic creatures are still being slaughtered for human consumption after leaving California. Horses in California should be treated humanely and wild horses should be able to live freely on our public lands. That is why I put forward AB 128 to implement stronger protections for California’s wild and domestic horse population.  

A coalition of supporters, including the sponsor of this bill, write:

We remain very concerned about the wild horse roundup in the Modoc National forest of 1,000 federally protected wild horses from the Devils Garden Wild Horse Territory in the Modoc National Forest near Alturas, California. But we also know that risks of California’s horses being sold and shipped to slaughter across state lines do not only come from such high-profile situations. Unfortunately, it’s all too common for horses sold at auction in California to known “killer buyers” purchasing at very low prices, loading horses on trailers and then driving out of California.

This bill’s provisions require anyone purchasing a horse at public or private auctions in California to sign a sworn statement acknowledging and agreeing to comply with the state’s laws prohibiting the sale or resale of horses for slaughter and require public and private auctions in California to post signage clearly warning buyers that the sale of horses for slaughter for human consumption is illegal under California law. These provisions are likely to improve protection for horses from the miserable fate of slaughter and suggested that the bill’s provisions also apply to public agencies in addition to public and private auctions.

ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION: The opponents of this bill, many of whom were the original proponents of Proposition 6 (Nov. 3, 1998, statewide gen. elec.), express concerns that this bill is weakening Proposition 6 (Nov. 3, 1998, statewide gen. elec.) by creating an alternative civil penalty that can be assessed in lieu of the criminal provisions in Sections 598c and 5968d of the Penal Code.

John Lovell, on behalf of Political Animals and other opponents of AB 128, writes:

Proposition 6 makes it a felony to be involved in the sale, transportation and slaughtering of horses for food for human consumption. AB 128 attempts to weaken proposition 6 by creating an alternate “civil fine” of $ 1,000.00. What California voters regarded as so serious so as to make the crime a felony, AB 128, in the dead of night, (Proposition 6 supporters were excluded from negotiations on AB 128) will reduce it to a sanction that will now be a simple cost of doing business for criminal horse slaughterers. Don’t be fooled, AB 128 will weaken Proposition 6. That’s why the entire Proposition 6 coalition is strongly in opposition to AB 128. (emphasis in original)

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 70-0, 5/9/19

AYES: Aguiar-Curry, Bauer-Kahan, Berman, Bloom, Boerner Horvath, Bonta, Brough, Burke, Calderon, Carrillo, Cervantes, Chau, Chiu, Choi, Chu, Cooley, Cooper, Cunningham, Daly, Diep, Eggman, Flora, Frazier, Friedman, Gabriel, Cristina Garcia, Eduardo Garcia, Gipson, Gloria, Gonzalez, Gray, Grayson, Holden, Irwin, Jones-Sawyer, Kalra, Kamlager-Dove, Lackey, Levine, Limón, Low, Maienschein, Mathis, Mayes, Medina, Melendez, Mullin, Muratsuchi, Nazarian, O'Donnell, Petrie-Norris, Quirk, Quirk-Silva, Ramos, Reyes, Luz Rivas, Robert Rivas, Rodriguez, Blanca Rubio, Salas, Santiago, Smith, Mark Stone, Ting, Voepel, Waldron, Weber, Wicks, Wood, Rendon

NO VOTE RECORDED: Arambula, Bigelow, Chen, Dahle, Fong, Gallagher, Kiley, McCarty, Obernolte, Patterson

Prepared by: Amanda Mattson / JUD. / (916) 651-4113

8/29/19 14:42:05

**** END ****

1. A.B. 128 (Gloria, 2019), Assembly Water, Parks, and Wildlife Committee, analysis at page 3. ↑

2. Streater, Scott, Forest Service mulls sales that could lead to slaughter, E&E News (Jan. 16, 2019), available at https://www.eenews.net/stories/1060116269 (as of Jun. 28, 2019). ↑

3. Id. ↑

4. American Wild Horse Campaign, Forest Service relents on protecting animals form slaughter (May 30, 2019), available at https://americanwildhorsecampaign.org/media/forest-service-relents-protecting-animals-slaughter (as of Jun. 28, 2019). ↑

 THIRD READING  

Bill No: AB 128

Author: Gloria (D), et al.

Amended: 8/15/19 in Senate

Vote: 21

SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE: 7-1, 7/9/19

AYES: Jackson, Durazo, Lena Gonzalez, Monning, Stern, Umberg, Wieckowski

NOES: Jones

NO VOTE RECORDED: Borgeas

SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: Senate Rule 28.8

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 70-0, 5/9/19 - See last page for vote

SUBJECT: Horses: protection

SOURCE: American Wild Horse Campaign

DIGEST:

This bill requires the operator of an auction yard to determine whether a horse has an implanted microchip or has been tattooed or branded with any identifying mark before the horse may be sold at auction, and to post all identifying information on its Web site, as provided. This bill requires a person who purchases a horse at an auction to sign a sworn statement under the penalty of perjury agreeing to comply with provisions of the Penal Code relating to the slaughter and sale of horses or horsemeat for human consumption, and requires an operator of such an auction to maintain these statements, as provided. This bill also makes changes to a required posting notice to be displayed at a public auction or sale where equines are sold.

Senate Floor Amendments of 8/15/19 clarify that a person who purchases a horse at an auction is required to sign a sworn statement under the penalty of perjury agreeing to comply with specified provisions of the Penal Code relating to the slaughter and sale of horses or horsemeat for human consumption and make a technical, nonsubstantive change.

ANALYSIS:

Existing law:

1. Makes it unlawful for any person to possess, to import into, or export from the state, or to sell, buy, give away, hold, or accept any horse, pony, burro, or mule with the intent of killing, or having another kill, that horse, if that person knows or should have known that any part of that horse will be used for human consumption. Violations are a felony, punishable by imprisonment for up to three years. (Pen. Code § 598c.)
2. Prohibits the offering for sale of horsemeat for human consumption and makes it a misdemeanor violation punishable by a fine, or confinement in a jail, or both a fine and jail. (Pen. Code § 598d.)
3. Establishes the Equine Protection Act of 1991 creating a program of equine protection and identification in the Department of Food and Agriculture (DFA). (Food & Ag. Code §§ 24101 et. seq.)
   1. Prohibits a person from selling, purchasing, consigning, selling, or accepting the donation of an animal that is destined for slaughter unless the seller or donor of the animal provides, and the purchaser or donee receives, at the time of delivery, a written bill of sale or other written instrument that contains specified information, including, each brand or tattoo. (Food & Ag. Code § 24106.)
   2. Provides that any person that violate the Act is liable for a civil penalty not to exceed $500, and requires any money recovered to be paid to the DFA. (Food & Ag. Code § 23091)
   3. Requires the Attorney General, upon complaint by the Secretary of DFA, or upon the Attorney General’s own initiative, to bring an action for civil penalties to enforce the provisions of the Act, as provided. (Food & Ag. Code §§ 23092 & 23093.)
4. Requires the posting of a prescribed sign by management at any public auction or sale where equines are sold.
   1. The sign is to read “Warning: Horses sold on these premises may be purchased for slaughter. As a possible safeguard, seller can set minimum bid above current slaughter prices.”
   2. The management of the auction is required to post current slaughter prices or make them available upon request. (Civ. Code § 1834.8.)

This bill:

1. Prohibits a person from selling, purchasing, consigning, selling, or accepting the donation of an animal at a public or private auction unless the seller or donor of the animal provides, and the purchaser or donee receives, at the time of delivery, a written bill of sale or other written instrument that contains specified information, including, each brand or tattoo.
2. Requires a person who purchases a horse at an auction to sign a sworn statement under the penalty of perjury agreeing to comply with Sections 598c and 598d of the Penal Code.
   1. Requires the operator of the auction yard where the horse was sold to maintain copies of the sworn statements for a period of not less than two years.
   2. Requires the operator of the auction yard to provide access to these records upon the request of the DFA, a local animal control agency, or an animal shelter.
3. Requires the operator of the auction yard to determine whether a horse has an implanted microchip or has been tattooed or branded with any identifying mark before the horse can be sold at auction. If the horse has an implanted microchip, tattoo, or a brand, the operator of the auction yard is required to post all identifying information, including any identification number contained in a microchip and a detailed description or picture of any tattoo or brand found on the horse, on its Web site, as specified.
4. Requires the operator of the auction yard to maintain appropriate records for a minimum of one year following the date of sale, as provide, and to provide access to specified records upon the request of the DFA, a law enforcement officer, an animal control agency, or a humane officer, as specified.
5. Provides that a person who violates these provisions is subject to a civil penalty of $1,000 for the first offense and $2,000 for the second and each subsequent offense, in addition to any other penalties available under existing law.
6. Changes the language on the sign required to be posted by management at any public auction or sale where equines are sold to read, “Warning the sale of horses in California for slaughter for human consumption is a felony.”
7. Makes various findings and declarations of the Legislature.

Comments

In 1998, California voters enacted Proposition 6, which added Sections 598c and 598d to the Penal Code. (Nov. 3, 1998, statewide gen. elec.) Section 598c of the Penal Code makes it unlawful for any person to possess, to import into, or export from the state, or to sell, buy, give away, hold, or accept any horse with the intent of killing, or having another kill, that horse, if that person knows or should have known that any part of that horse will be used for human consumption, and makes a violation of its provisions punishable as a felony. Section 598d of the Penal Code prohibits the offering for sale of horsemeat for human consumption and makes a violation of its provisions a misdemeanor.

According to the Assembly Water, Parks, and Wildlife Committee analysis:

In 1971, Congress passed and President Nixon signed the Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act (Chapter 30 of Title 16 of the United States Code) to cover the management, protection, and study of "unbranded and unclaimed horses and burros on public lands in the United States." Among other things, the act made it a federal crime for anyone to kill wild horses or burros on federal land and required the development of management plans for wild herds to maintain a natural ecological balance and protect ranges from overpopulation of horses. Under the jurisdiction of the BLM [Bureau of Land Management] and the USFS, these wild herd management plans could permit the sale of excess horses at auctions, if the demand for adoption by individuals is not high enough. The BLM was also permitted to destroy excess horses if a herd was found to be dragging down the ecological balance on public land and there was no demand for adoption, meaning the BLM could slaughter horses or auction them for slaughter. This practice was done away with in 2004 by a provision in the appropriations for the BLM stating: “No funds may be used for destruction of healthy, unadopted, wild horses and burros in the care of the Bureau of Land Management or its contractors or for the sale of wild horses and burros that results in their destruction for processing into commercial products.” ^[1]

This year, the United States Forest Service (USFS) was planning to sell over 100 wild horses being held in California’s Modoc National Forest without any limitation on the future use of those horses. E&E News reported:

The wild horses were part of a large group rounded up and removed from the national forest in October and November [of 2018]. About 250 horses were then transferred to a newly built corral — called the Double Devil Wild Horse Corral — on the Modoc site, instead of to a nearby holding facility operated by the Bureau of Land Management [BLM].

The distinction is significant. That's because Congress for years has added provisions to Interior Department appropriations bills that forbid BLM from using euthanasia on healthy horses and burros and limit its ability to sell animals without limitations on their future use. But the appropriations language covers only Interior, and thus BLM; the Forest Service is under the Department of Agriculture.^[2]

A lawsuit was filed against the USFS by the Animal Legal Defense Fund, the American Wild Horse Campaign, and Carla Bowers, a Volcano, California resident.^[3] In response to the lawsuit, the USFS has temporarily reversed course. According to the American Wild Horse Campaign:

The Forest Service has abandoned a controversial proposal to sell wild horses rounded up at California's Modoc National Forest without first ensuring that the animals don't end up in slaughterhouses in Mexico and Canada.

However, a Forest Service spokeswoman told E&E News today that the decision is not final and is only in place while a federal lawsuit challenging so-called sales without limitation is resolved.^[4]

Though the reversal by USFS is promising, the agency could change course at any time. In response to the actions of USFS, this bill seeks to bolster existing protections against the slaughter of horses under California law. This bill updates language in the notice that is required to be posted at any public auction or sale where equines are sold to warn that the sale of horses in California for slaughter for human consumption is a felony. The bill requires a person who purchases a horse at an auction to sign a sworn statement under the penalty of perjury agreeing to comply with Sections 598c and 598d of the Penal Code. The bill requires the operator of the auction yard to determine whether a horse has an implanted microchip or has been tattooed or branded with any identifying mark before the horse can be sold at auction, and to post all identifying information on its Web site for at least 24 hours. Lastly, an operator of the auction yard is required to maintain appropriate records to document compliance with these provisions for a minimum of one year following the date of sale, and to provide access to the records upon the request, as specified. This bill does not amend Sections 598c and 598d of the Penal Code, which were added by Proposition 6. (Nov. 3, 1998, statewide gen. elec.)

This bill makes a person who violates these provisions subject to a civil penalty of $1,000 for the first offense and $2,000 for the second and each subsequent offense. These penalties would be in addition to any other penalties available under existing law, such as the felony and misdemeanor provisions in Sections 598c and 598d of the Penal Code. The civil penalties provided for by this bill would be recoverable by the Attorney General in compliance with Sections 23092 and 23093 of the Food and Agriculture Code. The civil penalties provision does not apply to the required posting notice in Section 1834.8 of the Civil Code.

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

SUPPORT: (Verified 8/19/19)

American Wild Horse Campaign (source)

Animal Place

Animal Welfare Institute

Auction Horses Rescue

California Animal Welfare Association

Freedom Reigns Equine Sanctuary

Hanaeleh Horse Rescue and Advocacy

Kruse Control

Lifesavers Wild Horse Rescue

Marin Humane

Montgomery Creek Ranch

Return to Freedom

Safe Food Safe Horses

San Diego Humane Society

San Francisco SPCA

The Animals Voice

OPPOSITION: (Verified 8/19/19)

California Equine Council

California Horsemen’s Alliance

HoofPAC

Humane Farming Association

Political Animals

Save the Horses Foundation

Several individuals

ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: The author writes:

Californians have made it very clear that they oppose the slaughter of horses, but our majestic creatures are still being slaughtered for human consumption after leaving California. Horses in California should be treated humanely and wild horses should be able to live freely on our public lands. That is why I put forward AB 128 to implement stronger protections for California’s wild and domestic horse population.  

A coalition of supporters, including the sponsor of this bill, write:

We remain very concerned about the wild horse roundup in the Modoc National forest of 1,000 federally protected wild horses from the Devils Garden Wild Horse Territory in the Modoc National Forest near Alturas, California. But we also know that risks of California’s horses being sold and shipped to slaughter across state lines do not only come from such high-profile situations. Unfortunately, it’s all too common for horses sold at auction in California to known “killer buyers” purchasing at very low prices, loading horses on trailers and then driving out of California.

This bill’s provisions require anyone purchasing a horse at public or private auctions in California to sign a sworn statement acknowledging and agreeing to comply with the state’s laws prohibiting the sale or resale of horses for slaughter and require public and private auctions in California to post signage clearly warning buyers that the sale of horses for slaughter for human consumption is illegal under California law. These provisions are likely to improve protection for horses from the miserable fate of slaughter and suggested that the bill’s provisions also apply to public agencies in addition to public and private auctions.

ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION: The opponents of this bill, many of whom were the original proponents of Proposition 6 (Nov. 3, 1998, statewide gen. elec.), express concerns that this bill is weakening Proposition 6 (Nov. 3, 1998, statewide gen. elec.) by creating an alternative civil penalty that can be assessed in lieu of the felony provisions in Sections 598c and 5968d of the Penal Code.

John Lovell, on behalf of Political Animals and other opponents of AB 128, writes:

Proposition 6 makes it a felony to be involved in the sale, transportation and slaughtering of horses for food for human consumption. AB 128 attempts to weaken proposition 6 by creating an alternate “civil fine” of $ 1,000.00. What California voters regarded as so serious so as to make the crime a felony, AB 128, in the dead of night, Proposition 6 supporters were excluded from negotiations on AB 128) will reduce it to a sanction that will now be a simple cost of doing business for criminal horse slaughterers. Don’t be fooled, AB 128 will weaken Proposition 6. That’s why the entire Proposition 6 coalition is strongly in opposition to AB 128. (emphasis in original)

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 70-0, 5/9/19

AYES: Aguiar-Curry, Bauer-Kahan, Berman, Bloom, Boerner Horvath, Bonta, Brough, Burke, Calderon, Carrillo, Cervantes, Chau, Chiu, Choi, Chu, Cooley, Cooper, Cunningham, Daly, Diep, Eggman, Flora, Frazier, Friedman, Gabriel, Cristina Garcia, Eduardo Garcia, Gipson, Gloria, Gonzalez, Gray, Grayson, Holden, Irwin, Jones-Sawyer, Kalra, Kamlager-Dove, Lackey, Levine, Limón, Low, Maienschein, Mathis, Mayes, Medina, Melendez, Mullin, Muratsuchi, Nazarian, O'Donnell, Petrie-Norris, Quirk, Quirk-Silva, Ramos, Reyes, Luz Rivas, Robert Rivas, Rodriguez, Blanca Rubio, Salas, Santiago, Smith, Mark Stone, Ting, Voepel, Waldron, Weber, Wicks, Wood, Rendon

NO VOTE RECORDED: Arambula, Bigelow, Chen, Dahle, Fong, Gallagher, Kiley, McCarty, Obernolte, Patterson

Prepared by: Amanda Mattson / JUD. / (916) 651-4113

8/21/19 9:55:11

**** END ****

1. A.B. 128 (Gloria, 2019), Assembly Water, Parks, and Wildlife Committee, analysis at page 3. ↑

2. Streater, Scott, Forest Service mulls sales that could lead to slaughter, E&E News (Jan. 16, 2019), available at https://www.eenews.net/stories/1060116269 (as of Jun. 28, 2019). ↑

3. Id. ↑

4. American Wild Horse Campaign, Forest Service relents on protecting animals form slaughter (May 30, 2019), available at https://americanwildhorsecampaign.org/media/forest-service-relents-protecting-animals-slaughter (as of Jun. 28, 2019). ↑

 THIRD READING  

Bill No: AB 128

Author: Gloria (D), et al.

Amended: 6/28/19 in Senate

Vote: 21

SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE: 7-1, 7/9/19

AYES: Jackson, Durazo, Lena Gonzalez, Monning, Stern, Umberg, Wieckowski

NOES: Jones

NO VOTE RECORDED: Borgeas

SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: Senate Rule 28.8

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 70-0, 5/9/19 - See last page for vote

SUBJECT: Horses: protection

SOURCE: American Wild Horse Campaign

DIGEST:

This bill requires the operator of an auction yard to determine whether a horse has an implanted microchip or has been tattooed or branded with any identifying mark before the horse may be sold at auction, and to post all identifying information on its Web site, as provided. This bill requires a person who purchases a horse at an auction to sign a sworn statement under the penalty of perjury agreeing to comply with specified provisions of the Penal Code relating to the slaughter and sale of horses or horsemeat for human consumption, and requires an operator of such an auction to maintain these statements, as provided. This bill also makes changes to a required posting notice to be displayed at a public auction or sale where equines are sold.

ANALYSIS:

Existing law:

1. Makes it unlawful for any person to possess, to import into, or export from the state, or to sell, buy, give away, hold, or accept any horse, pony, burro, or mule with the intent of killing, or having another kill, that horse, if that person knows or should have known that any part of that horse will be used for human consumption. Violations are a felony, punishable by imprisonment for up to three years. (Pen. Code § 598c.)
2. Prohibits the offering for sale of horsemeat for human consumption and makes it a misdemeanor violation punishable by a fine, or confinement in a jail, or both a fine and jail. (Pen. Code § 598d.)
3. Establishes the Equine Protection Act of 1991 creating a program of equine protection and identification in the Department of Food and Agriculture (DFA). (Food & Ag. Code §§ 24101 et. seq.)
   1. Prohibits a person from selling, purchasing, consigning, selling, or accepting the donation of an animal that is destined for slaughter unless the seller or donor of the animal provides, and the purchaser or donee receives, at the time of delivery, a written bill of sale or other written instrument that contains specified information, including, each brand or tattoo. (Food & Ag. Code § 24106.)
   2. Provides that any person that violate the Act is liable for a civil penalty not to exceed $500, and requires any money recovered to be paid to the DFA. (Food & Ag. Code § 23091)
   3. Requires the Attorney General, upon complaint by the Secretary of DFA, or upon the Attorney General’s own initiative, to bring an action for civil penalties to enforce the provisions of the Act, as provided. (Food & Ag. Code §§ 23092 & 23093.)
4. Requires the posting of a prescribed sign by management at any public auction or sale where equines are sold.
   1. The sign is to read “Warning: Horses sold on these premises may be purchased for slaughter. As a possible safeguard, seller can set minimum bid above current slaughter prices.”
   2. The management of the auction is required to post current slaughter prices or make them available upon request. (Civ. Code § 1834.8.)

This bill:

1. Prohibits a person from selling, purchasing, consigning, selling, or accepting the donation of an animal at a public or private auction unless the seller or donor of the animal provides, and the purchaser or donee receives, at the time of delivery, a written bill of sale or other written instrument that contains specified information, including, each brand or tattoo.
2. Requires a person who purchases an animal at an auction to sign a sworn statement under the penalty of perjury agreeing to comply with Sections 598c and 598d of the Penal Code.
   1. Requires the operator of the auction yard where the animal was sold to maintain copies of the sworn statements for a period of not less than two years.
   2. Requires the operator of the auction yard to provide access to these records upon the request of the DFA, a local animal control agency, or an animal shelter.
3. Requires the operator of the auction yard to determine whether a horse has an implanted microchip or has been tattooed or branded with any identifying mark before the horse can be sold at auction.
   1. If the horse has an implanted microchip, tattoo, or a brand, the operator of the auction yard is required to post all identifying information, including any identification number contained in a microchip and a detailed description or picture of any tattoo or brand found on the horse, on its Web site or Facebook page.
   2. Requires this information to remain on the auction operator’s Web site or Facebook page for at least 24 hours after initial posting.
4. Requires the operator of the auction yard to maintain appropriate records for a minimum of one year following the date of sale, as provided. Requires the operator of the auction yard to provide access to specified records upon the request of the DFA, a law enforcement officer, an animal control agency, or a humane officer, as specified.
5. Provides that a person who violates these provisions is subject to a civil penalty of $1,000 for the first offense and $2,000 for the second and each subsequent offense, in addition to any other penalties available under existing law.
6. Changes the language on the sign required to be posted by management at any public auction or sale where equines are sold to read, “Warning the sale of horses in California for slaughter for human consumption is a felony.”
7. Makes various findings and declarations of the Legislature.

Comments

In 1998, California voters enacted Proposition, which added Sections 598c and 598d to the Penal Code. (Nov. 3, 1998, statewide gen. elec.) Section 598c of the Penal Code makes it unlawful for any person to possess, to import into, or export from the state, or to sell, buy, give away, hold, or accept any horse with the intent of killing, or having another kill, that horse, if that person knows or should have known that any part of that horse will be used for human consumption, and makes a violation of its provisions punishable as a felony. Section 598d of the Penal Code prohibits the offering for sale of horsemeat for human consumption and makes a violation of its provisions a misdemeanor.

According to the Assembly Water, Parks, and Wildlife Committee analysis:

In 1971, Congress passed and President Nixon signed the Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act (Chapter 30 of Title 16 of the United States Code) to cover the management, protection, and study of "unbranded and unclaimed horses and burros on public lands in the United States." Among other things, the act made it a federal crime for anyone to kill wild horses or burros on federal land and required the development of management plans for wild herds to maintain a natural ecological balance and protect ranges from overpopulation of horses. Under the jurisdiction of the BLM [Bureau of Land Management] and the USFS, these wild herd management plans could permit the sale of excess horses at auctions, if the demand for adoption by individuals is not high enough. The BLM was also permitted to destroy excess horses if a herd was found to be dragging down the ecological balance on public land and there was no demand for adoption, meaning the BLM could slaughter horses or auction them for slaughter. This practice was done away with in 2004 by a provision in the appropriations for the BLM stating: “No funds may be used for destruction of healthy, unadopted, wild horses and burros in the care of the Bureau of Land Management or its contractors or for the sale of wild horses and burros that results in their destruction for processing into commercial products.” ^[1]

This year, the United States Forest Service (USFS) was planning to sell over 100 wild horses being held in California’s Modoc National Forest without any limitation on the future use of those horses. E&E News reported:

The wild horses were part of a large group rounded up and removed from the national forest in October and November [of 2018]. About 250 horses were then transferred to a newly built corral — called the Double Devil Wild Horse Corral — on the Modoc site, instead of to a nearby holding facility operated by the Bureau of Land Management [BLM].

The distinction is significant. That's because Congress for years has added provisions to Interior Department appropriations bills that forbid BLM from using euthanasia on healthy horses and burros and limit its ability to sell animals without limitations on their future use. But the appropriations language covers only Interior, and thus BLM; the Forest Service is under the Department of Agriculture.^[2]

A lawsuit was filed against the USFS by the Animal Legal Defense Fund, the American Wild Horse Campaign, and Carla Bowers, a Volcano, California resident.^[3] In response to the lawsuit, the USFS has temporarily reversed course. According to the American Wild Horse Campaign:

The Forest Service has abandoned a controversial proposal to sell wild horses rounded up at California's Modoc National Forest without first ensuring that the animals don't end up in slaughterhouses in Mexico and Canada.

However, a Forest Service spokeswoman told E&E News today that the decision is not final and is only in place while a federal lawsuit challenging so-called sales without limitation is resolved.^[4]

Though the reversal by USFS is promising, the agency could change course at any time. In response to the actions of USFS, this bill seeks to bolster existing protections against the slaughter of horses under California law. This bill updates language in the notice that is required to be posted at any public auction or sale where equines are sold to warn that the sale of horses in California for slaughter for human consumption is a felony. Second, this bill requires a person who purchases an animal at an auction to sign a sworn statement under the penalty of perjury agreeing to comply with Sections 598c and 598d of the Penal Code. Third, it requires the operator of the auction yard to determine whether a horse has an implanted microchip or has been tattooed or branded with any identifying mark before the horse can be sold at auction. If the horse has an implanted microchip, tattoo, or a brand, the operator of the auction yard must post all identifying information on its Web site for at least 24 hours after the initial posting. Lastly, an operator of the auction yard would have to maintain appropriate records to document compliance with these provisions for a minimum of one year following the date of sale, and to provide access to the records upon the request of the DFA, a law enforcement officer, an animal control agency, or a humane officer appointed pursuant to Section 14502 of the Corporations Code. This bill does not amend Sections 598c and 598d of the Penal Code, which were added by Proposition 6 (Nov. 3, 1998, statewide gen. elec.).

This bill makes a person who violates these provisions subject to a civil penalty of $1,000 for the first offense and $2,000 for the second and each subsequent offense. These penalties would be in addition to any other penalties available under existing law, such as the felony and misdemeanor provisions in Sections 598c and 598d of the Penal Code. As these provisions are in the Equine Protection Act of 1991, the civil penalties provided for by this bill would be recoverable by the Attorney General in compliance with Sections 23092 and 23093 of the Food and Agriculture Code. The civil penalties provision does not apply to the required posting notice in Section 1834.8 of the Civil Code.

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

SUPPORT: (Verified 8/12/19)

American Wild Horse Campaign (source)

Animal Place

Animal Welfare Institute

Auction Horses Rescue

California Animal Welfare Association

Freedom Reigns Equine Sanctuary

Hanaeleh Horse Rescue and Advocacy

Kruse Control

Lifesavers Wild Horse Rescue

Marin Humane

Montgomery Creek Ranch

Return to Freedom

Safe Food Safe Horses

San Diego Humane Society

San Francisco SPCA

The Animals Voice

OPPOSITION: (Verified 8/12/19)

California Equine Council

California Horsemen’s Alliance

HoofPAC

Humane Farming Association

Political Animals

Save the Horses Foundation

Several individuals

ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: The author writes:

Californians have made it very clear that they oppose the slaughter of horses, but our majestic creatures are still being slaughtered for human consumption after leaving California. Horses in California should be treated humanely and wild horses should be able to live freely on our public lands. That is why I put forward AB 128 to implement stronger protections for California’s wild and domestic horse population.  

A coalition of supporters, including the sponsor of this bill the American Wild Horse Campaign, write:

We remain very concerned about the wild horse roundup in the Modoc National forest of 1,000 federally protected wild horses from the Devils Garden Wild Horse Territory in the Modoc National Forest near Alturas, California. But we also know that risks of California’s horses being sold and shipped to slaughter across state lines do not only come from such high-profile situations. Unfortunately, it’s all too common for horses sold at auction in California to known “killer buyers” purchasing at very low prices, loading horses on trailers and then driving out of California.

This bill’s provisions require anyone purchasing a horse at public or private auctions in California to sign a sworn statement acknowledging and agreeing to comply with the state’s laws prohibiting the sale or resale of horses for slaughter and require public and private auctions in California to post signage clearly warning buyers that the sale of horses for slaughter for human consumption is illegal under California law. These provisions are likely to improve protection for horses from the miserable fate of slaughter and suggested that the bill’s provisions also apply to public agencies in addition to public and private auctions.

ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION: The opponents of the bill, many of whom were the original proponents of Proposition 6 (Nov. 3, 1998, statewide gen. elec.), express concerns that the bill is weakening the provisions of Proposition 6 (Nov. 3, 1998, statewide gen. elec.) and pointed to an earlier version of the bill that made it a misdemeanor for a person to possess, sell, buy, give away, hold, or accept any horse, as defined, if that person knows or should know that the horse will be killed for any commercial purpose, or killed so that any part of the horse will be used for any commercial; however, that provision has been amended out of the bill. Opponents also raised concerns with enforcement and that the bill was not going far enough to protect horses from slaughter.

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 70-0, 5/9/19

AYES: Aguiar-Curry, Bauer-Kahan, Berman, Bloom, Boerner Horvath, Bonta, Brough, Burke, Calderon, Carrillo, Cervantes, Chau, Chiu, Choi, Chu, Cooley, Cooper, Cunningham, Daly, Diep, Eggman, Flora, Frazier, Friedman, Gabriel, Cristina Garcia, Eduardo Garcia, Gipson, Gloria, Gonzalez, Gray, Grayson, Holden, Irwin, Jones-Sawyer, Kalra, Kamlager-Dove, Lackey, Levine, Limón, Low, Maienschein, Mathis, Mayes, Medina, Melendez, Mullin, Muratsuchi, Nazarian, O'Donnell, Petrie-Norris, Quirk, Quirk-Silva, Ramos, Reyes, Luz Rivas, Robert Rivas, Rodriguez, Blanca Rubio, Salas, Santiago, Smith, Mark Stone, Ting, Voepel, Waldron, Weber, Wicks, Wood, Rendon

NO VOTE RECORDED: Arambula, Bigelow, Chen, Dahle, Fong, Gallagher, Kiley, McCarty, Obernolte, Patterson

Prepared by: Amanda Mattson / JUD. / (916) 651-4113

8/14/19 14:39:20

**** END ****

1. A.B. 128 (Gloria, 2019), Assembly Water, Parks, and Wildlife Committee, analysis at page 3. ↑

2. Streater, Scott, Forest Service mulls sales that could lead to slaughter, E&E News (Jan. 16, 2019), available at https://www.eenews.net/stories/1060116269 (as of Jun. 28, 2019). ↑

3. Id. ↑

4. American Wild Horse Campaign, Forest Service relents on protecting animals form slaughter (May 30, 2019), available at https://americanwildhorsecampaign.org/media/forest-service-relents-protecting-animals-slaughter (as of Jun. 28, 2019). ↑

SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE

Senator Hannah-Beth Jackson, Chair

2019-2020 Regular Session

Bill No: AB 128 (Author:Gloria)

Version: June 28, 2019

Hearing Date: July 9, 2019

Fiscal: Yes

Urgency: No

Consultant: AM

SUBJECT

Horses: protection

DIGEST

This bill requires the operator of an auction yard to determine whether a horse has an implanted microchip or has been tattooed or branded with any identifying mark before the horse may be sold at auction, and to post all identifying information on its website or Facebook page, as provided. The bill requires a person who purchases a horse at an auction to sign a sworn statement under the penalty of perjury agreeing to comply with specified provisions of the Penal Code relating to the slaughter and sale of horses or horsemeat for human consumption, and requires an operator of such an auction to maintain these statements, as provided. The bill also makes changes to a required posting notice to be displayed at a public auction or sale where equines are sold.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Existing California law makes it a crime to slaughter horses for the sale of horsemeat for human consumption. Recently, the United States Forest Service (USFS) was planning on auctioning off horses the agency is currently holding at California’s Modoc National Forest without any limitations on the future use of the animals, which means they could end up in slaughterhouses in places outside of California. This bill’s provisions seek to bolster existing California law relating to the prohibition of the slaughter of horses.

The bill is sponsored by the American Wild Horse Campaign. The bill is supported by a coalition a horse and animal rights organizations. The bill is opposed by the California Equine Council, California Horsemen’s Alliance, HoofPAC, Humane Farming Association, Political Animals, Save the Horses, and several individuals.

PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE LAW

Existing law:

1. Makes it unlawful for any person to possess, to import into, or export from the state, or to sell, buy, give away, hold, or accept any horse, pony, burro, or mule with the intent of killing, or having another kill, that horse, if that person knows or should have known that any part of that horse will be used for human consumption. Violations are a felony, punishable by imprisonment for up to three years. (Pen. Code § 598c.)
2. Prohibits the offering for sale of horsemeat for human consumption and makes it a misdemeanor violation punishable by a fine, or confinement in a jail, or both a fine and jail. (Pen. Code § 598d.)
3. Establishes the Equine Protection Act of 1991 creating a program of equine protection and identification in the Department of Food and Agriculture (DFA). (Food & Ag. Code §§ 24101 et. seq.)
   1. Prohibits a person from selling, purchasing, consigning, selling, or accepting the donation of an animal that is destined for slaughter unless the seller or donor of the animal provides, and the purchaser or donee receives, at the time of delivery, a written bill of sale or other written instrument that contains specified information, including, each brand or tattoo. (Food & Ag. Code § 24106.)
   2. An animal for these purposes is defined as a horse, pony, mule, or burro. (Food & Ag. Code § 24102(a).)
   3. Makes it a misdemeanor if any person does not keep the necessary written records with respect to these, refuses to show the records to a peace officer or to allow copies to be made of the record, or destroys the record within a specified period of time. (Food & Ag. Code § 24108.)
   4. Provides that any person that violate the Act is liable for a civil penalty not to exceed $500, and requires any money recovered to be paid to the DFA. (Food & Ag. Code § 23091)
   5. Requires the Attorney General, upon complaint by the Secretary of DFA, or upon the Attorney General’s own initiative, to bring an action for civil penalties to enforce the provisions of the Act, as provided. (Food & Ag. Code §§ 23092 & 23093.)
4. Requires the posting of a prescribed sign by management at any public auction or sale where equines are sold.
   1. The sign is to read “Warning: Horses sold on these premises may be purchased for slaughter. As a possible safeguard, seller can set minimum bid above current slaughter prices.”
   2. The management of the auction is required to post current slaughter prices or make them available upon request. (Civ. Code § 1834.8.)

This bill:

1. Prohibits a person from selling, purchasing, consigning, selling, or accepting the donation of an animal at a public or private auction unless the seller or donor of the animal provides, and the purchaser or donee receives, at the time of delivery, a written bill of sale or other written instrument that contains specified information, including, each brand or tattoo.
2. Requires a person who purchases an animal at an auction to sign a sworn statement under the penalty of perjury agreeing to comply with Sections 598c and 598d of the Penal Code.
   1. Requires the operator of the auction yard where the animal was sold to maintain copies of the sworn statements for a period of not less than two years.
   2. Requires the operator of the auction yard to provide access to these records upon the request of the DFA, a local animal control agency, or an animal shelter.
3. Requires the operator of the auction yard to determine whether a horse has an implanted microchip or has been tattooed or branded with any identifying mark before the horse can be sold at auction.
   1. If the horse has an implanted microchip, tattoo, or a brand, the operator of the auction yard is required to post all identifying information, including any identification number contained in a microchip and a detailed description or picture of any tattoo or brand found on the horse, on its website or Facebook page.
   2. Requires this information to remain on the auction operator’s website of Facebook page for at least 24 hours after initial posting.
4. Requires the operator of the auction yard to maintain appropriate records for a minimum of one year following the date of sale, as provided.
   1. Requires the operator of the auction yard to provide access to specified records upon the request of the DFA, a law enforcement officer, an animal control agency, or a humane officer, as specified.
5. Provides that a person who violates these provisions is subject to a civil penalty of $1,000 for the first offense and $2,000 for the second and each subsequent offense, in addition to any other penalties available under existing law.
6. Changes the language on the sign required to be posted by management at any public auction or sale where equines are sold to read, “Warning the sale of horses in California for slaughter for human consumption is a felony.”
7. Makes the following findings and declarations of the Legislature:
   1. The horse is part of California’s heritage, having played a major role in California’s historical growth and development. Horses contribute significantly to the enjoyment of generations of recreation enthusiasts in California.
   2. Wild free-roaming horses and burros are living symbols of the historic and pioneer spirit of the West and are protected as such under federal law mandating they be considered a part of the natural system of public lands where they are found.
   3. In recognition of the aesthetic, ecological, economic, historical, and cultural importance of horses to the people of the state, and the overwhelming opposition of Californians and Americans at large to the practice of horse slaughter, it is the intent of the Legislature to strengthen protections for California’s wild and domestic horses from slaughter.

COMMENTS

1. Stated need for the bill

The author writes:

Californians have made it very clear that they oppose the slaughter of horses, but our majestic creatures are still being slaughtered for human consumption after leaving California. Horses in California should be treated humanely and wild horses should be able to live freely on our public lands. That is why I put forward AB 128 to implement stronger protections for California’s wild and domestic horse population.  

2. Background

In 1998, California voters enacted Proposition 6 (Prop. 6), which added Sections 598c and 598d to the Penal Code. (Nov. 3, 1998, statewide gen. elec.) Section 598c of the Penal Code makes it unlawful for any person to possess, to import into, or export from the state, or to sell, buy, give away, hold, or accept any horse with the intent of killing, or having another kill, that horse, if that person knows or should have known that any part of that horse will be used for human consumption, and makes a violation of its provisions punishable as a felony. Section 598d of the Penal Code prohibits the offering for sale of horsemeat for human consumption and makes a violation of its provisions a misdemeanor.

According to the Assembly Water, Parks, and Wildlife Committee analysis:

In 1971, Congress passed and President Nixon signed the Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act (Chapter 30 of Title 16 of the United States Code) to cover the management, protection, and study of "unbranded and unclaimed horses and burros on public lands in the United States." Among other things, the act made it a federal crime for anyone to kill wild horses or burros on federal land and required the development of management plans for wild herds to maintain a natural ecological balance and protect ranges from overpopulation of horses. Under the jurisdiction of the BLM [Bureau of Land Management] and the USFS, these wild herd management plans could permit the sale of excess horses at auctions, if the demand for adoption by individuals is not high enough. The BLM was also permitted to destroy excess horses if a herd was found to be dragging down the ecological balance on public land and there was no demand for adoption, meaning the BLM could slaughter horses or auction them for slaughter. This practice was done away with in 2004 by a provision in the appropriations for the BLM stating: “No funds may be used for destruction of healthy, unadopted, wild horses and burros in the care of the Bureau of Land Management or its contractors or for the sale of wild horses and burros that results in their destruction for processing into commercial products.” ^[1]

This year, the USFS was planning to sell over 100 wild horses being held in California’s Modoc National Forest without any limitation on the future use of those horses. E&E News reported:

The wild horses were part of a large group rounded up and removed from the national forest in October and November [of 2018]. About 250 horses were then transferred to a newly built corral — called the Double Devil Wild Horse Corral — on the Modoc site, instead of to a nearby holding facility operated by the Bureau of Land Management [BLM].

The distinction is significant. That's because Congress for years has added provisions to Interior Department appropriations bills that forbid BLM from using euthanasia on healthy horses and burros and limit its ability to sell animals without limitations on their future use. But the appropriations language covers only Interior, and thus BLM; the Forest Service is under the Department of Agriculture.^[2]

A lawsuit was filed against the USFS by the Animal Legal Defense Fund, the American Wild Horse Campaign, and Carla Bowers, a Volcano, California resident.^[3] In response to the lawsuit, the USFS has temporarily reversed course. According to the American Wild Horse Campaign:

The Forest Service has abandoned a controversial proposal to sell wild horses rounded up at California's Modoc National Forest without first ensuring that the animals don't end up in slaughterhouses in Mexico and Canada.

However, a Forest Service spokeswoman told E&E News today that the decision is not final and is only in place while a federal lawsuit challenging so-called sales without limitation is resolved.

‘Until the current lawsuit filed by the wild horse advocate groups is resolved we have agreed to limit sales so any horses sold are not for human consumption, and we are only selling with limitations at this time,’ Babete Anderson, a Forest Service spokeswoman, said in an email.^[4]

3. Bolstering existing protections against the slaughter of horses

Though the reversal by USFS is promising, the agency could change course at any time. In response to the actions of USFS, this bill seeks to bolster existing protections against the slaughter of horses under California law. The bill would do several things. First, it updates language in the notice that is required to be posted at any public auction or sale where equines are sold to warn that the sale of horses in California for slaughter for human consumption is a felony. Second, it requires a person who purchases an animal at an auction to sign a sworn statement under the penalty of perjury agreeing to comply with Sections 598c and 598d of the Penal Code. Third, it requires the operator of the auction yard to determine whether a horse has an implanted microchip or has been tattooed or branded with any identifying mark before the horse can be sold at auction. If the horse has an implanted microchip, tattoo, or a brand, the operator of the auction yard must post all identifying information, including any identification number contained in a microchip and a detailed description or picture of any tattoo or brand found on the horse, on its website or Facebook page for at least 24 hours after the initial posting. Lastly, an operator of the auction yard would have to maintain appropriate records to document compliance with these provisions for a minimum of one year following the date of sale, and to provide access to the records upon the request of the DFA, a law enforcement officer, an animal control agency, or a humane officer appointed pursuant to Section 14502 of the Corporations Code.

4. Enforcement and civil penalties

The bill makes a person who violates these provisions subject to a civil penalty of $1,000 for the first offense and $2,000 for the second and each subsequent offense.^[5] These penalties would be in addition to any other penalties available under existing law, such as the felony and misdemeanor provisions in Sections 598c and 598d of the Penal Code. As these provisions are in the Equine Protection Act of 1991, the civil penalties provided for by the bill would be recoverable by the Attorney General in compliance with Sections 23092^[6] and 23093^[7] of the Food and Agriculture Code.

5. Statements in support

Supporters of the bill include various horse and animal rights organizations.

A coalition of supporters, including the sponsor of the bill American Wild Horse Campaign, writes:

We remain very concerned about the wild horse roundup in the Modoc National forest of 1,000 federally protected wild horses from the Devils Garden Wild Horse Territory in the Modoc National Forest near Alturas, California. But we also know that risks of California’s horses being sold and shipped to slaughter across state lines do not only come from such high-profile situations. Unfortunately, it’s all too common for horses sold at auction in California to known “killer buyers” purchasing at very low prices, loading horses on trailers and then driving out of California.

This bill’s provisions require anyone purchasing a horse at public or private auctions in California to sign a sworn statement acknowledging and agreeing to comply with the state’s laws prohibiting the sale or resale of horses for slaughter and require public and private auctions in California to post signage clearly warning buyers that the sale of horses for slaughter for human consumption is illegal under California law. These provisions are likely to improve protection for horses from the miserable fate of slaughter.

6. Statements in opposition

The opponents of the bill, many of whom were the original proponents of Prop. 6, expressed concerns that the bill was weakening the provisions of Prop. 6 and pointed to an earlier version of the bill that made it unlawful for any person to possess, sell, buy, give away, hold, or accept any horse, as defined, if that person knows or should know that the horse will be killed for any commercial purpose, or killed so that any part of the horse will be used for any commercial purpose and made a violation of this provision a misdemeanor. That provision however, has been amended out of the bill. In addition, the prohibitions on horse slaughter for human consumption and the sale of horsemeat for human consumption as enacted by Prop. 6 remain existing law. Opponents also raised concerns with enforcement and that the bill was not going far enough to protect horses from slaughter and suggested that the bill’s provisions also apply to public agencies in addition to public and private auctions.

SUPPORT

American Wild Horse Campaign (Sponsor)

Animal Welfare Institute

Auction Horses Rescue

Animal Place

California Animal Welfare Association

Freedom Reigns Equine Sanctuary

Hanaeleh Horse Rescue and Advocacy

Kruse Control

Lifesavers Wild Horse Rescue

Marin Humane

Montgomery Creek Ranch

Return to Freedom

Safe Food Safe Horses

San Diego Humane Society

San Francisco SPCA

The Animals Voice

OPPOSITION

California Equine Council

California Horsemen’s Alliance

HoofPAC

Humane Farming Association

Political Animals

Save the Horses Foundation

Several individuals

RELATED LEGISLATION

Pending Legislation:

H.R. 961 (Rep. Titus, D-NV, 2019), the Safeguard American Food Exports Act, would prohibit horse slaughter in the U.S. and prohibit the export of American horses abroad for slaughter. The bill is pending in the House Subcommittee on Livestock and Foreign Agriculture.

Prior Legislation:

The federal Consolidated Appropriations Act 2019 (Public Law 116-6), among other things, bans appropriations to the BLM from being used for the destruction of healthy, unadopted, wild horses and burros or for the sale of wild horses and burros that result in their destruction for processing into commercial products. The act also prohibits funds going to the inspection of horse slaughter facilities.

SJR 22 (Florez, Ch. 135, Stats. 2010), urged Congress to support federal legislation to protect American horses from slaughter for human consumption.

AB 222 (Emmerson, Ch. 128, Stats. 2007), added an exception to the law banning the killing, capturing, or possessing of any undomesticated burros for a local animal control agency in certain public safety situations.

Prop. 6 (Nov. 3, 1998, statewide gen. elec.) made it unlawful for any person to possess, to import into, or export from the state, or to sell, buy, give away, hold, or accept any horse, pony, burro, or mule with the intent of killing, or having another kill, that horse, if that person knows or should have known that any part of that horse will be used for human consumption and made a violation punishable as a felony. Prop. 6 also prohibited the offering for sale of horsemeat for human consumption and made a violation a misdemeanor.

PRIOR VOTES:

Assembly Floor (Ayes 70, Noes 0)

Assembly Appropriations Committee (Ayes 14, Noes 0)

Assembly Water, Parks, and Wildlife Committee (Ayes 10, Noes 1)

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

1. A.B. 128 (Gloria, 2019), Assembly Water, Parks, and Wildlife Committee, analysis at page 3. ↑

2. Streater, Scott, Forest Service mulls sales that could lead to slaughter, E&E News (Jan. 16, 2019), available at https://www.eenews.net/stories/1060116269 (as of Jun. 28, 2019). ↑

3. Id. ↑

4. American Wild Horse Campaign, Forest Service relents on protecting animals form slaughter (May 30, 2019), available at https://americanwildhorsecampaign.org/media/forest-service-relents-protecting-animals-slaughter (as of Jun. 28, 2019). ↑

5. The civil penalties provision does not apply to the required posting notice in Section 1834.8 of the Civil Code. ↑

6. “The Attorney General shall, upon complaint by the director, or may upon his own initiative, if after examination of the complaint and evidence he believes a violation has occurred, bring an action for civil penalties in the name of the people of this state in any court of competent jurisdiction in this state against any person violating any provision of this division.” (Food & Ag. Code § 23092.) ↑

7. “The Attorney General shall, upon complaint by the director, or may upon his own initiative, if after examination of the complaint and evidence he believes a violation has occurred, bring an action in the name of the people of this state in the superior court for an injunction against any person violating any provision of this division or any regulation duly issued by the director pursuant to it. Any proceedings pursuant to this section shall conform to the requirements of Chapter 3 (commencing with Section 525), Title 7, Part 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The director shall not, however, be required to allege facts necessary to show or tending to show lack of adequate remedy at law or to show or tending to show irreparable damage or loss.” (Food & Ag. Code § 23093.) ↑

ASSEMBLY THIRD READING

ATR Bill Id:AB 128

Author:(Gloria)

As Amended Ver:April 24, 2019

Majority vote

SUMMARY:

This bill modifies provisions of laws that protect horses, burros, and other equine animals from slaughter for human consumption.

Major Provisions

This bill requires posted notice or consignment agreements at public auctions or anywhere equines are sold to warn that the sale of horses in California for slaughter for human consumption is prohibited by law and as a safeguard, a seller can set the minimum bid above current slaughter prices. This bill also requires anyone who purchases an equine at a public or private auction to sign a sworn statement acknowledging and agreeing to comply with provisions prohibiting the slaughter of equines. It also requires the auction operator to maintain copies of the statements for two years, providing access to these records upon request.

COMMENTS:

Horse Slaughter in California. In 1998, Proposition 6 was approved by the California electorate. It created a crime for the slaughter of horses to sell for human consumption and prohibited the sale of horsemeat for human consumption. While California did not have any facilities being used to slaughter horses for human consumption at the time, several other states did.

With the various efforts by supporters, including federal legislation, all horse slaughter facilities have been either closed or have stopped processing horses. Several states including California, Texas, and Illinois have banned the sale of horsemeat for human consumption. Since 2006, with the exception of 2011-2014, there has also been a de facto ban on the commercial slaughtering of horses in the United States (U.S.). Though not explicitly illegal, a provision in the yearly appropriations for the U.S. Department of Agriculture prohibits use of funds to inspect horse slaughtering facilities. Since then horses have been exported to Canada and Mexico for slaughter.

Horses on Federal Lands. The 1971 Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act made it a federal crime for anyone to kill wild horses or burros on federal land and required the development of management plans for wild herds. In recent years, the U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has been capturing excess wild horses and relocating them to short-term holding corrals and long-term holding ranches. This population control is designed to protect the natural ecosystem from damage and overgrazing, to maintain the health of the wild horses, and to prevent dramatic boom-bust cycles in the wild horse population.

Since 2004, the BLM has been prohibited from selling horses for slaughter by a provision in the federal appropriations for the BLM and it must seek adoption for these horses instead. However the demand for adoption is currently well below the number of horses available. Recent wild horse captures by the U.S. Forest Service (USFS), including roundups during the fall of 2018 in California’s Modoc National Forest, have prompted concerns by supporters of a horse slaughter ban that these horses could be sold for slaughter since the USFS is not covered by the same BLM prohibitions.

According to the Author:

Californians have made it very clear that they oppose the slaughter of horses, but our majestic creatures are still being slaughtered for human consumption after leaving California. Horses in California should be treated humanely and wild horses should be able to live freely on our public lands. That is why I put forward AB 128 to implement stronger protections for California’s wild and domestic horse population.

Arguments in Support:

Supporters argue that Californians are overwhelmingly opposed to the practice of horse slaughter, recognizing the aesthetic, ecological, economic, historical, and cultural importance of horses to the people of the state. Supporters state that this legislation will strengthen long-standing protection laws against slaughter of California’s wild and domestic horses.

Arguments in Opposition:

Opponents contend that this bill only makes minor amendments to existing code and does not do enough to protect horses. They recommend several amendments including expanding who is required to keep records of sworn statements and who may be allowed to request to view them

FISCAL COMMENTS:

According the Assembly Appropriations Committee, minor, if any, additional state costs.

VOTES:

ASM WATER, PARKS, AND WILDLIFE: 10-1-3

YES: Chu, Friedman, Cristina Garcia, Robert Rivas, Gloria, Kalra, Luz Rivas, Blanca Rubio, Salas, Wood

NO: Dahle

ABS, ABST OR NV: Gallagher, Bigelow, Choi

ASM APPROPRIATIONS: 14-0-4

YES: Gonzalez, Bloom, Bonta, Calderon, Carrillo, Chau, Diep, Friedman, Gabriel, Eduardo Garcia, Maienschein, Petrie-Norris, Jones-Sawyer, Robert Rivas

ABS, ABST OR NV: Bigelow, Brough, Fong, Obernolte

UPDATED:

VERSION: April 24, 2019

CONSULTANT: Jared Ferguson / W., P., & W. / (916) 319-2096 FN: 0000342

Date of Hearing: May 1, 2019

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

Lorena Gonzalez, Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:AB 128

Author:(Gloria) – As Amended Ver:April 24, 2019

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

SUMMARY:

This bill modifies provisions of laws that protect horses, burros and other equine animals. Specifically, this bill:

1. Requires the posted notice or consignment agreement at public auctions or anywhere equines are sold to read: WARNING The sale of horses in California for slaughter for human consumption is prohibited by law. As a possible safeguard, seller can set the minimum bid above current slaughter prices.
2. Requires anyone who purchases an animal at a public or private auction to sign a sworn statement acknowledging and agreeing to comply with provisions prohibiting the slaughter of equines.
3. Requires the operator of the auction to maintain copies of sworn statements for two years and provide access to these records upon request, as specified.

FISCAL EFFECT:

Minor, if any additional state costs.

COMMENTS:

1. Purpose. According to the author:

Californians have made it very clear that they oppose the slaughter of horses, but our majestic creatures are still being slaughtered for human consumption after leaving California. That is why I put forward AB 128 to implement stronger protections for California’s wild and domestic horse population.

1. Background. In 1998, voters approved Proposition 6, which established a crime for the slaughter of horses to sell for human consumption. While California did not have any facilities being used to slaughter horses for horsemeat at the time, several other states did. Since 1998, all horse slaughter facilities either closed or have stopped processing horses. Several states including California, Texas and Illinois have banned the sale of horsemeat for human consumption.

Analysis Prepared by: Jennifer Galehouse / APPR. / (916) 319-2081

Date of Hearing: April 9, 2019

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON WATER, PARKS, AND WILDLIFE

Eduardo Garcia, Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:AB 128 (

Author:Gloria) – As Amended Ver:March 28, 2019

SUBJECT: Horses: protection

SUMMARY: Prohibits the sale of horses, burros, and other equine animals for slaughter. Specifically, this bill:

1. Makes it unlawful for any person to possess, sell, buy, give away, hold, or accept any horse, burro, pony, or mule if that person knows or should know that the animal will be killed for any commercial purpose. Violation of this would by a misdemeanor punishable by a fine.
2. Requires a person who transports an equine from an auction in a vehicle to meet specified standards, including notifying a humane officer 72 hours before loading the equine so that the humane officer may inspect the vehicle.
3. Requires a written bill of sale to be provided when any person purchases, consigns, sells, or accepts the donation of an equine at a public or private auction. The person purchasing or receiving the equine would also be required to sign a sworn statement acknowledging and agreeing to comply with the provisions prohibiting the slaughter of the equine. The operator of the auction would be required to maintain copies of the bill of sale and statement for two years.
4. Prohibits a state agency or any political subdivision of the state selling an animal at a public auction, or a person who sells an animal at a private auction to sell an equine below the current slaughter price of the animal.
5. Requires that notice or agreement to warn buyers that the sale of horses in California for slaughter is prohibited by law and that sellers must set the minimum bid above current slaughter prices and that these prices be posted or included in the consignment agreement by the management of the auction.
6. Repeals several sections of the Food and Agricultural Code that regulated the slaughter of horses and other equine.
7. States that no reimbursement is required to local agencies or school districts.

EXISTING LAW:

1. Makes it unlawful for any person to possess, to import into, or export from the state, or to sell, buy, give away, hold, or accept any horse, pony, burro, or mule with the intent of killing, or having another kill, that horse, if that person knows or should have known that any part of that horse will be used for human consumption. Violations are a felony, punishable by imprisonment for up to three years. [Penal Code (PEN) §598c]
2. Prohibits the offering for sale of horsemeat for human consumption and makes it a misdemeanor violation punishable by a fine, or confinement in a jail, or both a fine and jail. (PEN §597d)
3. Requires any person transporting an equine in a vehicle to slaughter to meet multiple requirements regarding the construction of the vehicle and stalls for transporting, the conditions within the vehicle, the health and safety of animals being transported, and inspection by a humane officer before transporting. (PEN § 597o)
4. Makes it unlawful for any person to sell, attempt to sell, load, cause to be loaded, transport, or attempt to transport any live horse, mule, burro, or pony that is disabled, if the animal is intended to be sold, loaded, or transported for commercial slaughter out of the state. (PEN §597x)
5. Makes it unlawful to import into the state for commercial purpose, to possess with intent to sell, or to sell within the state, the dead body, or any part or product thereof, of a free-roaming feral horse. (PEN §653o)
6. Prohibits the killing, wounding, capturing, or possessing any undomesticated burro except by a local animal control agency to remove burros from private land or public roadways or to provide medical care or treatment, including euthanasia, to a burro that is seriously ill or injured. [Fish and Game Code (FGC) § 4600 and Government Code (GOV) § 53074.5]
7. Provides regulations, standards, and reporting requirements for the slaughter of horses and for use of horsemeat in pet food.

FISCAL EFFECT: Unknown, this bill is keyed fiscal

COMMENTS: This bill bans the buying, selling, giving away, or possessing of any horse or burro if it is know that the animal will be killed for any commercial purpose. The bill also puts additional regulations on transporting to auction and the auction or sale of horses and burros including a minimum price above slaughter prices.

Author’s Statement:

Californians have made it very clear that they oppose the slaughter of horses, but our majestic creatures are still being slaughtered for human consumption after leaving California. Horses in California should be treated humanely and wild horses should be able to live freely on our public lands. That is why I put forward AB 128 to implement stronger protections for California’s wild and domestic horse population.

Background: In 1998, Initiative Statute, Proposition 6, was placed on the ballot and approved by the California electorate. It created a crime for the slaughter of horses for the sale of horsemeat for human consumption. While California did not have any facilities being used to slaughter horses for human consumption at the time, several other states did. Since 1998, and with the various efforts by supporters, including federal legislation, all horse slaughter facilities have been either closed or have stopped processing horses. Horsemeat consumption by humans is a culinary tradition in many countries of Europe, Asia, and South America. In some countries like France, Belgium, and Japan it is considered a sought after delicacy. In the U.S., it is considered a social taboo but it has not been explicitly banned federally, though several states including California, Texas, and Illinois have banned the sale of horsemeat for human consumption.

In order to maintain federal lands and protect wild horse herds from over population in recent years, the U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has been capturing excess wild horses and relocating them to short-term holding corrals and long-term holding ranches. This population control is designed to protect the natural ecosystem from overgrazing, to maintain the health of the wild horses and to prevent dramatic boom-bust cycles in the wild horse population. The BLM is currently prohibited from selling the horses for slaughter and must seek adoption for these horses, however the demand for adoption is well below the number of horses available for adoption. Recent wild horse captures by the US Forest Service (USFS), including roundups during the fall of 2018 in California’s Modoc National Forest, have prompted concerns by supporters of a horse slaughter ban that these horses could be sold for slaughter since the USFS is not covered by the same BLM prohibitions.

Current Federal Rules. In 1971, Congress passed and President Nixon signed the Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act (Chapter 30 of Title 16 of the United States Code) to cover the management, protection, and study of "unbranded and unclaimed horses and burros on public lands in the United States." Among other things, the act made it a federal crime for anyone to kill wild horses or burros on federal land and required the development of management plans for wild herds to maintain a natural ecological balance and protect ranges from overpopulation of horses. Under the jurisdiction of the BLM and the USFS, these wild herd management plans could permit the sale of excess horses at auctions, if the demand for adoption by individuals is not high enough. The BLM was also permitted to destroy excess horses if a herd was found to be dragging down the ecological balance on public land and there was no demand for adoption, meaning the BLM could slaughter horses or auction them for slaughter. This practice was done away with in 2004 by a provision in the appropriations for the BLM stating:

No funds may be used for destruction of healthy, unadopted, wild horses and burros in the care of the Bureau of Land Management or its contractors or for the sale of wild horses and burros that results in their destruction for processing into commercial products.

This provision has been included in every appropriation to the BLM since then, but it only applies to the BLM not to other government agencies. Since 2006, with the exception of 2011-2014, there has also been a de facto ban on the commercial slaughtering of horses in the US. Though not explicitly illegal, a provision in the yearly appropriations for the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits use of funds to inspect horse slaughtering facilities. Since then horses have been exported to Canada and Mexico for slaughter.

Horse Slaughter Statistics. Following the closing of the last three horse slaughter facilities in the US in 2007, horses have been exported to Canada and Mexico for slaughter. From 2010 to 2016, horses exported for slaughter from the US to Mexico averaged approximately 86,000 a year and approximately 46,000 a year from the US to Canada based on data from USDA’s market news service and Statistics Canada. In 2015, a European Union (EU) ban on horsemeat from Mexico resulted in lower US exports to Mexico, and following new EU regulations on horsemeat in 2017, exports to Canada fell significantly. In 2018, approximately 10,600 horses were exported to Canada for slaughter and 70,000 were exported to Mexico. The USDA reports on livestock trade through California-Mexico border crossings show no horses for slaughter were exported directly from California to Mexico in the last six years. California horses could still be exported through other border crossings to Mexico and to Canada, but such data is not readily available.

Additional Considerations. This bill would require any horse sold at an auction to be sold at a price above the current slaughter price. It is unclear what a slaughter price is and how such a price would be determined. Unlike cattle there is no publicized data regarding the prices at which horses going to slaughter are being sold. Such a requirement is also in Section 597.2 of California’s Penal Code, which requires any equine sold at a private or public auction or sale by a pound, humane society, or animal regulation department of a public agency to be above slaughter price. The authors may want to consider clearly defining slaughter price, how that price is set, and if all equine sales must adhere to the same price.

Committee Amendments: The committee may wish to consider an amendment to strike from the bill Section 16 (starting on page 8, line 17, ending on page 9, line 29). Section 16 makes changes to PEN § 597(o) that would require anyone transporting an equine in a vehicle from an auction to meet several requirements including notifying a humane officer 72 hours prior to transporting a horse so that the officer may inspect the vehicle and requiring the vehicle to be registered as a motor carrier. By striking Section 16, the code section would remain unchanged, with the requirements only applying to people transporting an equine to slaughter.

Prior and Related Legislation:

SJR 22 (Florez), Res. Chapter 135, Statutes of 2010, urged Congress to support federal legislation to protect American horses from slaughter for human consumption.

AB 222 (Emmerson), Chapter 128, Statues of 2007, added an exception to the law banning the killing, capturing, or possessing of any undomesticated burros for a local animal control agency in certain public safety situations.

The federal Consolidated Appropriations Act 2019 (Public Law 116-6) bans appropriations to the BLM from being used for the destruction of healthy, unadopted, wild horses and burros or for the sale of wild horses and burros that result in their destruction for processing into commercial products. The Act also prohibits funds going to the inspection of horse slaughter facilities.

H.R. 961 (Rep. Titus, D-NV, 2019), the Safeguard American Food Exports Act, would prohibit horse slaughter in the U.S. and prohibit the export of American horses abroad for slaughter.

Supporting Arguments: Supporters argue that polls show Californians overwhelmingly opposed to the practice of horse slaughter and recognize the aesthetic, ecological, economic, historical, and cultural importance of horses to the people of the state. They state that Californian voters made the slaughter of horses for human consumption and the sale of horsemeat for human consumption illegal and that the U.S. Congress has prohibited the sale of federally-protected wild horses for slaughter via a provision in annual appropriations legislation for the Department of Interior. Supporters contend that despite clear congressional intent and existing state law, horses in California, including wild horses removed from federal land, continue to be acquired at auction or through sales and end up in the slaughter pipeline.

REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:

Support

American Wild Horse Campaign
Auction Horses Rescue
San Diego Humane Society and SPCA
San Francisco SPCA

Opposition

None on file

Analysis Prepared by: Jared Ferguson / W., P., & W. / (916) 319-2096