BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 147
Page 1
Date of Hearing: March 3, 2015
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON HIGHER EDUCATION
Medina, Chair
AB
147 (Dababneh) - As Introduced January 15, 2015
SUBJECT: Postsecondary education: animal research
SUMMARY: Requires any public postsecondary educational
institution, or independent institution of higher education as
defined, that confines dogs or cats for science or research
purposes and intends to destroy the dog or cat used for those
purposes, to first offer the dog or cat to an animal adoption or
rescue organization, as defined. Specifically, this bill:
1)Requires any public postsecondary educational institution or
independent institution of higher education, or employee or
student thereof, that confines dogs or cats for the purposes
of research (as defined in the Health and Safety Code Section
1650), to offer the dogs or cats to an animal adoption
organization or animal rescue organization for adoption prior
to euthanizing those animals, after the completion of any
testing or research where the animal's destruction is not
required and the animal is no longer needed.
2)Specifies that a public or independent institution of higher
education that is required to offer dogs or cats to an animal
adoption organization or animal rescue organization may enter
into an agreement with said entities.
3)Defines the following terms:
a) "Animal adoption organization" or "animal rescue
AB 147
Page 2
organization" to mean a not-for-profit entity that is
exempt from taxation pursuant to the Internal Revenue Code
Section 501(c)(3), or a collaboration of individuals with
at least one of its purposes being the sale or placement of
animals that have been removed from a public animal control
agency or shelter, society for the prevention of cruelty to
animals shelter, or humane shelter, or that have been
previously owned by any person;
b) "Independent institution of higher education" to mean a
nonpublic educational institution as defined; and,
c) "Public postsecondary educational institution" to mean
any campus of the University of California (UC), the
California State University (CSU), or the California
Community Colleges (CCC).
4)Specifies that animals that are irremediably suffering from a
serious illness or severe injury shall not be held for owner
redemption or adoption and that newborn animals that need
maternal care and have been impounded without their mothers
may be euthanized without being held for owner redemption or
adoption.
EXISTING LAW:
1)Specifies that public health and welfare depend on the humane
use of animals for scientific advancement in the diagnosis and
treatment of human and animal diseases, for education, for
research in the advancement of veterinary, dental, medical and
biologic sciences, for research in animal and human nutrition,
and improvement and standardization of laboratory procedures
of biologic products, pharmaceuticals, and drugs (Health and
Safety Code Section 1650).
2)Declares the following policies of the state:
a) No adoptable animal should be euthanized if it can be
adopted into a suitable home. Adoptable animals include
only those animals eight weeks of age or older that, at or
subsequent to the time the animal is impounded or otherwise
AB 147
Page 3
taken into possession, have manifested no sign of a
behavioral or temperamental defect that could pose a health
or safety risk or otherwise make the animal unsuitable for
placement as a pet, and have manifested no sign of disease,
injury, or congenital or hereditary condition that
adversely affects the health of the animal or that is
likely to adversely affect the animal's health in the
future; and,
b) No treatable animal should be euthanized. A treatable
animal shall include any animal that is not adoptable but
that could become adoptable with reasonable efforts (Civil
Code Section 1834.4 and Food and Agricultural Code (FAC)
Section 17005).
3)Specifies that animals that are irremediably suffering from a
serious illness or severe injury shall not be held for owner
redemption or adoption (FAC § 17006).
FISCAL EFFECT: Unknown
COMMENTS: Background. The Animal Welfare Act (AWA; 7 U.S.C.
2131 et seq.) is intended to ensure the humane treatment of
animals that are intended for research, bred for commercial
sale, exhibited to the public, or commercially transported.
Under the AWA, businesses and others with animals covered by the
law must be licensed or registered, and they must adhere to
minimum standards of care. The U.S. Department of Agriculture's
(USDA's) Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS)
administers the AWA.
The Act applies to any live or dead dog, cat, nonhuman primate,
guinea pig, hamster, rabbit, or other warm-blooded animal
determined by the Secretary of Agriculture to be for research or
exhibition, or used as a pet. Additionally, the AWA mandates
that all research facilities must be registered with the USDA's
APHIS. To note, research facilities include state and local
government-run research institutions, drug firms, universities,
diagnostic laboratories, and facilities that study marine
mammals. Lastly, all research universities in the state,
AB 147
Page 4
(public and private), are accredited by the Association for
Assessment and Accreditation of Laboratory Animal Care
International (AAALAC) and are subject to additional standards
that go above the regulatory requirements.
Purpose of this bill. According to the author, this measure
seeks to provide an opportunity for Californians to adopt dogs
and cats from tax-payer funded research, teaching, and
veterinary research laboratories in California's postsecondary
institutions of higher learning. The author contends that,
"Current federal, state, and most educational-institutional
policies and regulations covering animals in research provide
for every aspect of the animals life from bedding, water access,
enrichment, food, pain management, and method of euthanasia, but
there exists no guidelines on what to do with the animals once
the research has ended. When the research test, procedure, or
teaching exercise is over it is up to the discretion of the
individual laboratory as to whether they will attempt to place
the animal up for public adoption. Current law provides for no
standard in identifying opportunities to provide for a humane
post-research life and the mechanism to do so."
Research institutions' adoption policies. UC. On August 21,
2014, the UC issued systemwide guidance on the adoption of
research dogs and cats that each UC campus has adopted as their
individual campus policy for animal adoption. The UC Guidance
Memo, found here, http://www.ucop.edu/raohome/cgmemos/14-06.pdf
specifies, among others, that each UC campus should adopt
locally appropriate procedures under which research dogs and
cats that are property of the UC Regents may be transferred from
the campus to individuals or organizations for non-research
purposes.
CSU. To note, the CSU does not currently have any research
activities involving dogs and cats on any of its campuses, but
several of its campuses have adoption policies in place.
AB 147
Page 5
CCC. Most of the 112 CCCs that have animals on its campuses
are used for teaching, not researching purposes and have
adoption policies in place. The few CCCs that are involved in
animal research also have adoption policies in place and
adhere to the strict USDA guidelines.
Association of Independent California Colleges and
Universities (AICCU). The independent California institutions
of higher learning that have research dogs and cats (e. g.
Loma Linda University and University of Southern California
(USC), etc.) have individual adoption policies in place and
have been successful in their adoptions of approved dogs and
cats. To note, though Stanford University has no research
projects that use cats, and over the last decade, has had very
few dogs, it also has a very specific and followed adoption
protocol.
California statistics. Based on 2014 data from the USDA's
APHIS, presently, 97 percent of the dogs and 72 percent of the
cats involved in medical research in California would be covered
by this measure. According to the National Institutes of Health
(NIH), in 2014, California received 7,731 grants, more grant
funding from NIH (for animal research), than any other state.
California was awarded grants totaling more than $3.4 billion.
To note, four of the top 15 U.S.-wide NIH awardees in 2014 were
California universities: University of California, Stanford
University, USC, and Cal Tech.
Only 1.5 percent of dogs and 7 percent of cats involved in
medical research and teaching at California's institutions of
higher learning were euthanized in 2013 and 2014, as required by
the research protocol for scientific reasons.
According to the NIH, in 2014, 4,976 dogs and 1,946 cats were
involved in medical research in California. 1,583 (or 32
percent) dogs and 590 (or 30 percent) cats were located at
corporations, hospitals, and private research facilities and
therefore not covered under this measure. However, 3,393 (or 68
percent) dogs and 1,356 (or 70 percent) cats would be covered
AB 147
Page 6
under this measure.
To note, of the dogs and cats covered under this measure, 3,333
(or 98 percent) dogs and 1,071 (or 79 percent) cats were adopted
out after involvement in a medical research program in 2014;
3,280 of the dogs and 1,059 of the cats were involved in active
adoption programs by existing and on-going arrangements with
local animal shelters. Additionally, 53 dogs and 12 cats were
adopted out by universities after the conclusion of scientific
protocols via their adoption programs. Eighteen dogs and 219
cats remained at the research facility in on-going protocols,
and were not eligible for adoption. Forty-five dogs and 64 cats
were euthanized as a required and scientifically necessary part
of the research protocol. A full tabulation of the 2014 numbers
shows that of all the dogs and cats covered under this measure,
one dog and four cats were euthanized after the conclusion of a
research protocol whereby the research protocol did not require
euthanasia. Said animals were euthanized because they were
determined to be unadoptable for health and behavioral reasons
by trained laboratory animal veterinarians.
Efforts by other states. House File 3172 (State of Minnesota)
(Chapter 312, Statutes of 2014) is similar in nature to this
measure. Additionally, the states of Nevada and Connecticut
introduced legislation similar to this measure during their 2014
Legislative Sessions and the state of New York may potentially
introduce similar legislation this year.
Arguments in support. According to the Beagle Freedom Project,
"Giving dogs and cats, if healthy and no longer needed for
research or post-research purposes, a chance at a family life,
should not be discretionary for tax-payer funded institutions.
The fact that some of these research facilities state that they
have an internal policy in place does not negate the need for a
unified, standard and permanent model."
According to the Sacramento SPCA, this measure demonstrates
California's commitment to a high standard for the humane
AB 147
Page 7
treatment of animals.
Arguments in opposition. According to the AICCU, the California
Biomedical Research Association, Stanford University, and the
USC, "The federal government has established an extensive
regulatory framework, administered by the USDA that highly
regulates the use and role of animals in research. Furthermore,
all the institutions covered by this bill have policies and
practices in place regarding animal care, research, euthanasia,
and the adoption of healthy dogs and cats when appropriate and
after an expert evaluation."
Committee considerations. Who adopts? According to many of the
California universities that conduct research on dogs and cats,
a standard process for faculty, staff, and students to adopt
approved research dogs and cats exists; however, as drafted, it
is unclear if this measure will prevent faculty, staff, and
students from adopting these animals.
Should this measure pass of out this Committee, the author may
wish to amend the bill to clarify that public postsecondary
research educational institutions may allow for faculty, staff,
and students to adopt approved research dogs and cats.
Civil liability? California universities that conduct research
on dogs and cats have researchers and laboratory veterinarians
that use their best judgment in determining if a dog or cat is
adoptable. If the research universities are required to adopt
research dogs and cats, that may take away the institutions'
ability to use their best judgment, and, therefore create a
liability risk for their researchers and universities.
Should this measure pass out of this Committee, staff recommends
that the author consider amending the measure to address
liability concerns. The author may wish to specify in the
measure that a research university that is required to attempt
to adopt out research dogs or cats to an animal adoption or
AB 147
Page 8
rescue organization, shall be immune from any civil liability
that otherwise might result from its actions, provided that the
institution is acting in good faith.
Previous legislation. AB 2431 (Dababneh, 2014), which died in
Assembly Appropriations Committee, was very similar to this
measure.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:
Support
American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees,
AFL-CIO
American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals
Animal Humane Society of Minnesota
Barks of Love Animal Rescue
Beagle Freedom Bill
Best Friends Animal Society
Molly's Mutts & Meows
Pasadena Humane Society & Society for the Prevention of Cruelty
to Animals
Pine Animal Hospital, Inc.
Priceless Pets
RedRover
Sacramento Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals
San Francisco Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals
Sonoma Humane Society
Tails of the City Animal Rescue
The Amanda Foundation
The Rescue Train
7922 Individuals
Opposition
Association of Independent California Colleges and Universities
California Biomedical Research Association
Stanford University
University of California
AB 147
Page 9
University of Southern California
Analysis Prepared
by: Jeanice Warden/HIGHER ED./(916) 319-3960