BILL ANALYSIS
SB 1659
Page 1
Date of Hearing: June 23, 1998
Consultant: Dia S. Poole
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY
Don Perata, Chair
SB 1659 (Kopp) - As Proposed to be Amended in Committee
SUMMARY : Prohibits using carbon monoxide (CO) gas for dog or cat
euthanasia as of January 1, 2000. Specifically, this bill :
1) Prohibits CO use for killing dogs or cats as of January 1,
2000.
2) Prohibits using gas to kill any newborn dog or cat whose
eyes have not yet opened.
EXISTING LAW :
1) Requires that CO chambers be inspected semiannually to
determine whether the chambers meet imposed guidelines.
(Business and Professions Code Section 13201.)
2) Allows CO to be used for the purpose of killing dogs or cats
provided strict guidelines are followed. (Penal Code Section
597u.)
3) Allows only chloroform vapor, gas, or inoculation of
barbiturates to be used for the purpose of killing newborn dogs
or cats whose eyes have not yet opened. (Penal Code Section
597v.)
4) Prohibits the use of any high-altitude decompression chamber
or nitrogen gas to kill any dog or cat. (Penal Code Section
597w.)
5) Makes it a misdemeanor to use any unauthorized method for
the purpose of killing dogs or cats, punishable by up to six
months in county jail and/or a fine of up to $1,000. (Penal Code
Section 597y.)
6) Authorizes humane officers to enter any facility that
utilizes a CO gas chamber for the purpose of determining whether
the guidelines for the chamber's use are properly followed.
(Penal Code Section 597z.)
COMMENTS :
1) Author's Statement . According to the author, "The CO
chamber can potentially pose a health hazard to animal shelter
personnel, and it is not the most humane euthanasia method nor is
it suitable for all animals. In addition, according to the State
SB 1659
Page 2
Auditor, the Department of Food and Agriculture is not inspecting
CO chambers as required by law."
2) Dramatic CO Decrease . According to the sponsor, of
approximately 300 animal shelters, an estimated 16 still use CO
chambers for killing animals; the remainder perform animal
euthanasia by using lethal injections. CO use involves placing
the animals into a specially designed cage which holds one or
more animals depending on their size. The cage is then placed
into the chamber and the door latched. CO causes the animals to
lose consciousness as oxygen is replaced by the gas.
Improper CO administration may result in incomplete or
prolonged killing of animals, raising concerns over the
humaneness of CO chambers. Supporters of this bill argue
that animals that are sickly, very young, elderly, or
experience shallow breathing should not be euthanized by this
method; even healthy animals that do not expire after CO
administration are further traumatized by re-administration.
3) Dangers of CO Exposure to Humans . CO is an odorless,
tasteless, colorless, and explosive gas. As a result, CO gas is
hard to detect. Exposure to the gas, even at low levels, may
lead to a variety of health problems for veterinary personnel,
including, but are not limited to, headaches, dizziness, and
weakness. According to the 1993 Report of the American
Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) Panel on Euthanasia, as the
concentration of CO increases, humans may experience decreased
visual acuity, tinnitus, nausea, progressive depression,
confusion, and collapse. Unconsciousness may be accompanied by
convulsions and muscular spasms. Long-term effects may include
cancer and cardiovascular diseases.
4) CO Chamber Guidelines and Inspections .
a) Existing Guidelines . Because of the potential health
risks to humans and the possibility of inhumane disposal
of animals, existing law imposes specific CO chamber
guidelines in killing dogs or cats. Those guidelines,
imposed via inspections conducted by the Division of
Measurement Standards at the Department of Food and
Agriculture, ensure the safe and efficient use of CO
chambers. Existing law prohibits the use of a CO chamber
unless all the following requirements are satisfied:
i. The chamber must be equipped with internal lighting
and a viewport for direct viewing of animals within.
ii. The CO gas concentration must reach 5% within 20
minutes after the animal is placed inside.
iii. If sodium formate and sulfuric acid is used to
generate CO, it must be passed through a solution to
remove acid vapors before the CO enters the chamber.
SB 1659
Page 3
iv. If CO is generated by gasoline combustion in an
engine, additional requirements regarding the maintenance
and use of the engine must be met, i.e., temperature,
noise, filtration, vibration, animal containers, and
cleaning.
b) AVMA Recommendations . AVMA's Panel on Euthanasia
recommended in their 1993 report that commercially
compressed CO be used and further precautions taken:
i. Personnel using CO chambers must be thoroughly
instructed in its use and must understand its hazards and
limitations.
ii. The CO chamber and source are operated in a
well-ventilated environment, preferably located outdoors.
iii. Depending on the animal(s), a 6% CO concentration be
achieved after animals are placed in the chamber.
iv. If the chamber is placed indoors, the room should be
equipped with a CO monitor to warn personnel of hazardous
concentrations.
c) Inspections . Due to budget cuts, in 1992 the Division of
Measurement Standards started charging CO chamber
operators for inspections. As a result, some CO chambers
went uninspected for a number of years. In their August
1997 report, "Investigations of Improper Activities by
State Employees," the Bureau of State Audits "investigated
and substantiated" the allegation that the Department of
Food and Agriculture had failed to inspect CO chambers
(see attachment). On February 6, 1998, the Department of
Food and Agriculture announced that the Division of
Measurement Standards had resumed inspecting CO chambers.
Only the initial test is free. Any inspections beyond the
initial test must still be paid by operators at $50 per
hour plus transportation costs of $0.20 per mile.
5) Cost . Mr. Douglas Fakkema, an animal care and control
consultant, has prepared an analysis which assesses CO and sodium
pentobarbital (SPB) costs for animal euthanasia. The analysis
takes in consideration equipment, labor, and supply costs.
According to Mr. Fakkema, the annual cost of using CO is $530
more than using SPB.
However, according to the director of the El Dorado County
Animal Control, Pat Clarebout, the costs to each shelter
would vary because of factors such as CO chamber size and
animal arrangement inside the chamber. The State Humane
SB 1659
Page 4
Association of California estimates the cost per animal of
using CO at $1.53, with the cost for SPB at $0.71 per animal.
Despite Mr. Fakkema's conclusion that using SPB is less
costly than using CO, Calaveras, Del Norte, and Merced
Counties claim that because of the extra person needed for
SPB euthanasia, using SPB would be more costly. Merced
County calculated their actual cost per animal using CO at
$1.56, with the cost for SPB injections at $6.73.
6) Is SBP a "Better" Method ? The most often discussed CO
alternative is SPB. Usually, the animal to be euthanized is held
by one person while a vein is found and is then injected by
another person. Existing law allows for SPB to be administered
by a veterinary technician, without the presence of a licensed
veterinarian, as long as the technician is an employee of an
animal shelter and its agencies or humane society, and he or she
has received the proper SPB administration training. Further,
veterinary technicians are also allowed to register to purchase
SPB directly. SPB is already available to animal shelters as a
"back up" method to animal euthanasia.
Although both CO and SPB methods are traumatic for animal
care workers, many argue that injection is less traumatic in
that animals that are sickly or agitated may be given a
tranquilizer prior to SPB, enabling a single worker to
proceed.
7) Legislative History . SB 80 (Kopp), Chapter 380, Statutes of
1997, made SPB more readily available for animal euthanasia
procedures by allowing veterinary technicians to register to
directly purchase SPB.
8) Related Pending Legislation . SB 1785 (Hayden) makes
significant changes in animal shelter operations regarding stray
animals. Included are requirements that shelters keep an
impounded animal for six business days instead of the current
three days before it may be euthanized; no adoptable or treatable
animal is to be euthanized; and provisions applicable for dogs
and cats are also applicable for specified other animals,
including rabbits, hamsters, pot-bellied pigs, snakes, and
turtles. SB 1785 also creates civil and criminal penalties
against public entities or employees if the provisions are
violated. SB 1785 is pending in the Assembly Judiciary
Committee.
8) Further Amendment Needed . The latest amendments added a CO
use repeal for animal euthanasia as of January 1, 2000. The
requirements to continue CO chamber inspections (Government
Code Sections 13200 through 13206) and humane officers'
authority to enter facilities to inspect CO chambers (Penal
Code Section 597z) should also be retained in statute until
that date.
SB 1659
Page 5
9) Arguments in Support .
a) The Fund for Animals . The organization writes, "SB 1659
is a follow up to Senator Kopp's SB 80 which passed last
year. SB 80 made sodium
pentobarbital more available to shelters through veterinary
technicians who can also train
personnel in the proper administration
of the drug. The State Veterinary Board has passed
regulations on training requirements. The State Humane
Association and the California Animal Control Directors
Association (CACDA) put together a curriculum for training
that has been approved by the State Vet[erinary] Board. The
State Humane Association and CACDA are working in cooperation
to see that training is readily available and very economical
to any shelter that needs it.
"Carbon monoxide chambers are inhumane. Several animals
are put in the chambers at the same time commonly
resulting in fighting, stress, and agitation. Shallow
breathing animals, such as those under 16 weeks and sick
animals, can suffer horribly in the chambers because they
may still be fully conscious after the oxygen is gone and
replaced by the carbon monoxide. These animals slowly suffocate
to death....
"Carbon monoxide chambers have not been tested as required
by current law since 1991...untested chambers are
very inhumane if they develop leaks. Animals can regain
consciousness in refrigerators or in barrels of death
animals going for landfill or incineration. Untested
chambers are very dangerous to personnel who inadvertently
breathe in the carbon monoxide. Effects can be
cumulative. Even properly sealed and tested chambers can
expose personnel by the process of leaning into the
chamber to get the dead bodies out. Picking up the bodies
can cause carbon monoxide to be expelled....
"All shelters who are using using carbon monoxide now
should be using sodium pentobarbital as a back-up
when they are euthanizing animals under 16 weeks
or who are sick...if the shelters do have a back-up system
it means that they already have a relationship with a
veterinarian who can get them sodium pentobarbital.
"It's incorrect to maintain that carbon monoxide is more
humane to the shelter workers because they can simply put
animals into the chambers and walk away. Any caring
worker is more distressed to know animals are suffering
and that they are the ones who put them there. While the
Regional Council of Rural Counties objects to SB 1659, it
should be noted that of their 27 member counties,
SB 1659
Page 6
two-thirds of them do not use carbon monoxide."
b) Association of Veterinarians for Animal Rights (AVAR) .
The AVAR writes, "Carbon monoxide is a cumulative poison and,
therefore, it can be hazardous for personnel. It is also
highly toxic and difficult to detect. Chronic exposure to
low concentrations of carbon monoxide may be a health hazard,
especially with regard to cardiovascular disease and
teratogenic effects. An efficient exhaust or ventilatory
system is essential to prevent accidental exposure of human
beings. According to the American Veterinary Medical
Association, the only possible recommendation for this method
is compressed CO in regulated chambers."
c) Educational Facilities Company (EFC) . The EFC writes,
"This bill is clearly 'Win-Win' situation. Animals
do not suffer needlessly, employees are not exposed
to carbon monoxide gas and the environment is not
polluted by exhausted carbon monoxide."
10) Arguments in Opposition .
a) Calaveras County, Agriculture and Environmental
Management Agency (AEMA) . The Calaveras County AEMA
writes, "SB 1659 would increase costs, increase
injury risk of injury to staff and provide no
reimbursement to the impacted agencies.
"As your committee considers this legislation please weigh
the risks associated with the use of barbiturates
versus carbon monoxide gas in your deliberations.
There is no scientific evidence to show that
Carbon Monoxide gas is any less humane than the products
available for euthanasia by injection. The barbiturates
however are controlled substances and as such, are
subject to far greater control than is carbon
monoxide gas. Barbiturates are heavily regulated by the
Federal Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and can only be
purchased and used under the supervision of a
licensed veterinarian. This requirement is of
particular concern in small counties such as
Calaveras where fiscal constraints do not permit having a
veterinarian on staff. As with any controlled substances,
euthanasia solution must be kept under double lock and key
when not in use and each milliliter administered must be
logged and is subject to audit by the FDA. These
additional security measures and record keeping
requirements all add to the cost of performing euthanasia
by injection versus the use of carbon monoxide gas....
"It makes no sense to mandate the use of controlled
substances with all of the associated public
safety concerns when there is a safe, viable
SB 1659
Page 7
alternative such as carbon monoxide gas in an air tight
chamber which is periodically tested and certified by the
California Division of Measurement Standards."
b) County of Del Norte, Department of Agriculture . The
County of Del Norte writes, "We do not have employees trained
or even available to do the injection method of euthanasia.
With a staff of two animal control officers and seven day
coverage, often we have only one person available. For those
cases of injured animals that need to be put down
immediately, we would have the added expense of paying a
vet to put the animal down as it takes two persons, one to
hold the animal while the other does the injection.
A restraint gate for a single person to do the
injection method advocated by the Marin Humane Society
euth[anasia] 'trainers' doesn't work. We installed one and
it still takes two persons, is stressful to the animal and to
the administrator. Other drugs recommended to be used in
conjunction with the actual euth drug for fractious dogs
(describes most of the stray dogs we have to deal with!) are
also heavily regulated by the Federal Food & Drug
Administration and will not be supplied or ordered for us by
any of our vets.
"Published reports by the American Veterinary Medical
Association regarding the use of carbon monoxide
for euthanasia indicate it to be a humane method,
i.e., the animals do not suffer. Any howling,
struggling, etc., cited as suffering by those opposed to
monoxide can be attributable to involuntary reflex actions
that occur after the animal has lost consciousness, much
the same as a chicken runs around for a while without its
head....
"Safety concerns can be alleviated with regular
maintenance, testing, gas detection warning devices and
adherence to proper procedures in using the carbon
monoxide chambers."
REGISTERED SUPPORT/OPPOSITION :
Support
The Fund for Animals, Inc. (Sponsor)
Animal Protection Institute
Association of Veterinarians for Animal Rights
California Animal Control Directors Association
Contra Costa Humane Society
Educational Facilities Company
Eldorado Animal Hospital
Humane Education Network
In Defense of Animals
Last Chance for Animals
SB 1659
Page 8
Pacific Veterinary Hospital
People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals
San Diego Animal Advocates
State Humane Association of California
California Veterinary Medical Board
United Animal Nations
Opposition
Calaveras County Office of Animal Control
Del Norte County Department of Agriculture
Merced County Department of Agriculture
Nevada County Animal Control (unless amended)
Regional Council of Rural Counties
Analysis prepared by : Dia S. Poole / apubs / (916) 319-3744