Download senate rules committee - senate floor analysis

SENATE RULES COMMITTEE
Office of Senate Floor Analyses
(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) 327-4478
AB 316
THIRD READING
Bill No:
Author:
Amended:
Vote:
AB 316
Maienschein (R)
9/1/15 in Senate
21
SENATE BUS, PROF. & ECON. DEV. COMMITTEE: 6-0, 7/6/15
AYES: Hill, Berryhill, Block, Galgiani, Jackson, Mendoza
NO VOTE RECORDED: Bates, Hernandez, Wieckowski
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: 6-0, 8/27/15
AYES: Lara, Beall, Hill, Leyva, Mendoza, Nielsen
NO VOTE RECORDED: Bates
ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 77-0, 5/18/15 - See last page for vote
SUBJECT: Veterinarians: cruelty incidents
SOURCE: American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals
DIGEST: This bill permits a veterinarian licensed in another state to be called to
California by law enforcement or animal control agency to attend to cases of
animal cruelty or animal fighting as requested, and permits the establishment of
temporary shelters for the purpose of caring for the animals involved in the
investigation.
ANALYSIS:
Existing law:
1) Establishes the Veterinary Medical Board (VMB) within the Department of
Consumer Affairs for the purpose of administering the Veterinary Practice Act
(Act). (Business and Professions Code (BPC) Section 4800 et seq.) States that
it is unlawful for any person to practice veterinary medicine in California
AB 316
Page 2
without a valid, unexpired or unrevoked license, as specified.
(BPC § 4825)
2) Specifies that the practice of veterinary medicine, surgery or dentistry occurs
when an individual does any of the following:
a) Represents himself or herself as engaged in the practice of veterinary
medicine, surgery or dentistry;
b) Diagnoses or prescribes a drug, medicine, appliance, application or
treatment for the prevention, cure, or relief of a wound, fracture, bodily
injury, or disease of animals;
c) Administers a drug, medicine or treatment, as specified;
d) Performs a surgical or dental operation upon an animal;
e) Performs any manual procedure for the diagnosis of pregnancy; sterility or
infertility upon livestock or Equidae; or,
f) Uses any words, letters or titles circumstances as to induce the belief that the
person using them is engaged in the practice of veterinary medicine, surgery
or dentistry. (BPC § 4826)
3) Requires all veterinarians, actually engaged and employed by the state, or a
county, city, corporation, firm or individual practicing veterinary medicine, to
secure a license issued by the VMB. (BPC Section 4828) Exempts the
following from the provisions of the Act:
a) Veterinarians while serving in any armed branch of the military service of
the United States or the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) while
actually engaged and employed in their official capacity;
b) Regularly licensed veterinarians in actual consultation from other states;
c) Regularly licensed veterinarians actually called from other states to attend
cases in this state, but do not open an office or appoint a place to do
business;
d) Veterinarians employed by the University of California, as specified;
e) Students in the school of veterinary medicine of the University of California
or the College of Western University of Health Sciences, as specified;
f) A veterinarian who is employed by the Meat and Poultry Inspection Branch
of the California Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA) while
actually engaged and employed in his or her official capacity; or,
g) Unlicensed personnel employed by the CDFA or the USDA, as specified.
(BPC § 4830)
4) Requires the VMB to establish a regular inspection program that will provide
for random, unannounced inspections and that the VMB shall make every effort
AB 316
Page 3
to inspect at least 20 percent of veterinary premises on an annual basis.
(BPC § 4809.7) Requires that all premises where veterinary medicine,
veterinary dentistry, veterinary surgery and the various branches thereof is
being practiced shall be registered with the VMB. (BPC § 4853 (a))
5) Defines “premises” as including a building, kennel, mobile unit or vehicle, as
specified. (BPC § 4853 (b)) Requires that all premises where veterinary
medicine, veterinary dentistry, or veterinary surgery is being practiced, and all
instruments, apparatus and apparel used in connection with those practices,
shall be kept clean and sanitary at all times, and shall conform to those
minimum standards established by the VMB.
(BPC § 4854)
This bill:
1) Exempts from licensure requirements, for purposes of allowing veterinarians in
good standing to be called from other states to attend cases in this state, a
regularly licensed veterinarian who is called from another state by a law
enforcement agency or animal control agency, as specified, to attend to cases
that are a part of an investigation of an alleged violation of federal or state
animal fighting or animal cruelty laws within a single geographic location when
the law enforcement agency or animal control agency determines that it is
necessary to call the veterinarian in order for the agency or officer to conduct
the investigation in a timely, efficient and effective manner.
2) Provides that when determining whether it is necessary to call a veterinarian
from another state, consideration must be given to the availability of
veterinarians in California to attend to these cases. Requires the agency,
department or officer that calls a veterinarian to this state to notify the VMB.
3) Permits a regularly licensed veterinarian in good standing who is called from
another state to attend to cases that are a part of investigation described in
Item 1 above, to provide veterinary medical care for animals that are affected
by the investigation within a temporary shelter facility, as specified.
4) Exempts a temporary shelter or facility from premise requirements if all of the
following conditions are met:
a) The temporary shelter facility is established solely for the purpose of
investigation;
b) The temporary shelter facility provides veterinary medical care, shelter, food
and water only to animals that are affected by the investigation;
AB 316
Page 4
c) The temporary shelter complies with specified sanitary requirements;
d) The temporary shelter exists for not more than 60 days, unless the law
enforcement agency or animal control agency determines that a longer
period of time is necessary to complete the investigation.
e) Within 30 days upon completion of the provision of veterinary health care
services at a temporary shelter the veterinarian called from another state to
attend to a case files a report with the VMB, as specified.
5) Provides that the VMB may inspect the temporary facility.
Background
Animal Cruelty Cases. Animal cruelty cases can take a variety of shapes and
forms, from small, one-animal incidents, such as a recent case in Sacramento,
where a man was accused of burning an animal alive in an animal carrier, to largescale dog fighting raids or hoarding incidents that involve a large number of
animals. The 2007 arrest and subsequent prosecution of Michael Vick, for his role
in a large-scale dog fighting ring, highlighted issues of cruelty but also raised the
issues about the resources needed to care for and treat animals when such events
occur.
Animal fighting is currently illegal in all 50 states. Specifically, dogfighting is a
felony offense in all 50 states, and it is also a felony offense under federal law.
Other cases of animal cruelty or animal hoarding occur closer to home. In
February 2015, it was reported that 191 dogs were found abandoned on a property
in San Bernardino County. Most likely, the case required a significant amount of
local resources to care for animals and properly investigate the situation. In the
San Bernardino case, the animals were taken to a local shelter for care.
According to the Humane Society of the United States, because there is no national
reporting requirement for animal abuse, there is no way to track the number of
animal cruelty cases that are filed or that make it to court each year. Although the
total number of cruelty cases is difficult to assess, in 2013-2014, there were more
than 13 seizure cases that the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to
Animals (ASPCA) was involved in assisting with across the nation.
According to other proponents of this measure, large-scale animal cruelty cases
can overwhelm the resources of the local authorities responding to these cases.
Animal cruelty cases such as animal abandonment issues or puppy mill raids can
happen rather quickly, which makes planning and budgeting difficult. This bill
aims to assist local authorities with options for veterinary care and assistance in the
AB 316
Page 5
event of a large-scale animal cruelty or animal fighting case. The resource
challenges are not strictly monetary but also become resource challenges related to
caring for the large number of animals that most likely have health concerns and
other issues. The proponents note that local veterinarians typically provide
services in these types of cases, but, at times, additional resources may be
necessary. According to the proponents, the average cruelty case lasts about 45-50
days and consists of an average of 461 animals at a cost of caring for the animals
close to $600,000. The ASPCA notes that the large cost and potential lack of
resources could be a deterrent in prosecuting such cases.
According to the proponents, animal welfare organizations like the ASPCA,
among others, have response teams in place, including veterinarians, to assist local
agencies in cruelty cases or emergency disaster situations in other states, but often,
the veterinarians are only licensed in their home state. This bill would provide a
specific exemption to allow those veterinarians to be called to California in the
event of a large-scale cruelty case to practice in California without a Californiaissued license.
Calling- in Veterinarians from Other States. Current law does provide that
licensed veterinarians from other states may be called in to attend to cases in this
state as long as they do not open an office or appoint a place to do business in this
state. Usually this would be in conjunction with another veterinarian in this state.
This bill would allow animal control and federal law enforcement agencies to call
in veterinary assistance of a licensed veterinarian from another state for the
purpose of attending to cases that are part of an investigation of an alleged
violation of federal or state animal fighting or animal cruelty laws. In the event of
an animal cruelty or abuse case, the entities responsible for handling these cases
are local law enforcement, animal control directors and other local resources.
These entities typically work together to determine the appropriate steps and
process for dealing with animal cruelty or abuse cases. It would also allow these
out-of-state veterinarians to provide veterinary medical care to the animals that are
involved with a cruelty or animal fighting case in a temporary shelter facility as
long the shelter meets certain requirements.
Use of Temporary Shelters. Section 4853 of the BPC requires that all premises
where veterinary medicine is being practiced obtain a premises permit from the
VMB. There are currently over 3,000 licensed premises in California. In order to
obtain the premises permit, applicants must submit an application which must
include the type of practice, the number of employees, the business model, and
business owner information, along with a $200 registration fee. The VMB reports
AB 316
Page 6
that the application process for a premises permit takes between three to four
weeks.
This bill will exempt temporary animal care shelter facilities from premises
requirements as long as the shelter provides veterinary medical care, shelter, food
and water only to the animals affected by the cruelty case and that the temporary
shelter complies with other requirements as specified. The temporary shelter shall
not be allowed to exist for longer than 60 days unless it is determined that a longer
period is necessary by animal control or the federal law enforcement agency. The
VMB would also be able to inspect the temporary shelter if determined necessary
and would receive a report from the veterinarian called in from another state to
attend to a case.
Related Legislation
AB 317 (Maienschein) This bill exempts a temporary shelter which is operated
either by a licensed veterinarian from another state, or a state licensed veterinarian,
that is providing care and shelter to animals during a declared state of emergency,
from having to obtain a premise registration from the Veterinary Medical Board.
FISCAL EFFECT:
Appropriation:
No
Fiscal Com.: Yes
Local:No
According to the Senate Appropriations Committee, there is no significant fiscal
impact anticipated to the VMB. Recent amendments delete the requirement for
authorization by the VMB, which eliminates the need for upgrades to the VMB’s
licensing system.
SUPPORT: (Verified 8/28/15)
American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (sponsor)
California Animal Control Directors Association
Humane Society of the United States
Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office
Tony La Russa’s Animal Rescue Foundation
OPPOSITION: (Verified 8/28/15)
California Veterinary Medical Association
California Veterinary Medical Board
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: According to the Sponsors, the ASPCA, this
measure seeks to equip animal cruelty investigators in California with the ability to
seek assistance from veterinary responders from other states when cases overshelm
AB 316
Page 7
local resources. Unlike most criminal cases where evidence can simply be stored in
a locker, animal cruelty cases require a significant financial investment to properly
provide the animals with shelter and care. “Based on our experience, a typical
cruelty deployment lasts about 45-50 days and costs about $28 per animal per day.
A dog fighting bust that produces 150 seized dogs that need sheltering and care for
50 days results in over $200,000 in expenses for the responsible agency. Existing
California law relative to cruelty investigations places the burden of paying for the
care of animal victims of cruelty on the seizing agency until a final outcome of a
case is decided.”
The California Animal Control Directors Association (CACDA) are in support of
this bill and indicates that their membership includes most municipal animal
shelters and local animal control agencies throughout the State and that they are on
the front lines of enforcing state and local animal welfare laws every day and must
manage these tragedies [animal cruelty cases] when they occur. Unfortunately, as
stated by CACDA, there are situations in California where the number of animals
involved in a cruelty, fighting, or hoarding case will overwhelm the local
resources. Often, these animals must be seized and then housed by local animal
control. Most animal shelter operate at or near capacity on a daily basis and are
not equipped or designed to take in a large amount of animals at once. This may
require the establishment of a temporary facility or an offsite location in order to
process, care for, and rehabilitate these animals. The flexibility to engage out-ofstate medical professionals is an important step in making sure the animals receive
the best care and outcomes possibly.
ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION: The California Veterinary Medical
Association (CVMA) is opposed to this measure and argues that the exemption
from California licensure should only be used when there is no other alternative.
“After careful deliberation and several meetings with the bill’s sponsors, the
CVMA believes the need for out-of-state veterinarians, involved in these cases, has
not been demonstrated. Further, we think AB 316 does not provide sufficient
protection for animals and consumers by allowing veterinarians to come in from
other states as, essentially, unlicensed individuals. “
The CVMA further indicates that there are more than 9,200 licensed veterinarians
in California. “To our knowledge, animal cruelty case investigations in California
have not been hindered by a shortage of veterinarians in this state. The proponents
of the bill offer approximations of the number of cases that are investigated each
year; the number of animals involved; and the cost of investigating these cases, but
fail to provide definitive statistics that support the need for additional veterinary
AB 316
Page 8
care. There is no evidence that calling in a veterinarian from out-of-state will
reduce the investigating agencies costs associated with animal cruelty cases. The
CVMA is also concerned that the bill would allow the out-of state [sponsoring
entity] to set up a temporary shelter facility and provide veterinary care without a
premises permit. “Again, there are no provisions for enforcement by the VMB for
substandard facilities or veterinary care.”
The VMB is also opposed to this measure and argues that “AB 316 provides an
avenue for unlicensed veterinarians to practice in the state, but does not explain of
justify the need for the exemption. Since California licenses greater that 10% of
the entire veterinary profession in the country, the necessity for bringing in out-ofstate veterinarians to attend to cases that are part of an investigation and
furthermore, exempting temporary facilities from registration and inspection poses
a risk to California consumers and animals. Such exemptions should only be
pursued if the needs cannot be met by California licensees.”
The VMB further argues that AB 316 would seriously limit the Board’s
enforcement ability to respond to unprofessional conduct or negligence on the part
of the veterinarian called in from another state. However, the recent amendments
would seem to deal with this issue by providing broader oversight by the VMB of
the veterinarians from another state. The VMB does continue to raise concerns
about the use of a temporary shelter that is not registered with the Board and
believes there would be little recourse is an animal be injured or harmed at an
unregistered shelter.
ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 77-0, 5/18/15
AYES: Achadjian, Alejo, Travis Allen, Baker, Bigelow, Bloom, Bonilla, Bonta,
Brough, Brown, Burke, Calderon, Campos, Chang, Chau, Chávez, Chiu, Chu,
Cooley, Cooper, Dababneh, Dahle, Daly, Dodd, Eggman, Frazier, Beth Gaines,
Gallagher, Cristina Garcia, Eduardo Garcia, Gatto, Gipson, Gomez, Gonzalez,
Gordon, Gray, Grove, Hadley, Harper, Roger Hernández, Holden, Irwin, Jones,
Jones-Sawyer, Lackey, Levine, Linder, Lopez, Low, Maienschein, Mayes,
McCarty, Medina, Mullin, Nazarian, Obernolte, O'Donnell, Olsen, Patterson,
Perea, Quirk, Rendon, Ridley-Thomas, Rodriguez, Salas, Santiago, Steinorth,
Mark Stone, Thurmond, Ting, Wagner, Waldron, Weber, Wilk, Williams,
Wood, Atkins
NO VOTE RECORDED: Kim, Mathis, Melendez
Prepared by: Bill Gage / B., P. & E.D. / (916) 651-4104
9/1/15 20:29:56
AB 316
Page 9
**** END ****