April 10, 2024

The Honorable Marc Berman

Chair, Assembly Business & Professions Committee

PO Box 942849

Sacramento, CA 94249-0023

Re: AB 2265 – Animals, Spaying, Neutering, Euthanasia - OPPOSE

Dear Chair Berman and Committee Members,

On behalf of the California Animal Welfare Association (CalAnimals), representing more than 260 animal care and control agencies, SPCAs, humane societies, and other animal welfare organizations across the state, and joined specifically on this letter by 107 organizations, we are asking you to OPPOSE AB 2265 (McCarty).

Shelters in California are in crisis, with many facing extreme overcrowding, higher intake, longer lengths of stay, and lower reclaim and adoption rates. Since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, the entire animal welfare sector has faced a wave of related and compounding difficulties. Shelters are receiving more animals than our facilities are designed for, making it harder to manage the spread of contagious diseases and putting immense stress on staff and the animals. Rescue partners are transferring fewer animals as they experience the same challenges and this means that shelters are faced with making more difficult decisions, and in some areas, euthanasia is rising.

Now, more than ever, we need our partners in animal welfare pulling together to take a closer look at why – and that includes examining all of the factors contributing to root causes of why so many animals are ending up in the shelter in the first place.  That’s the only way we’ll collectively apply the right programs, policy interventions, and support for the shelters receiving more animals than they can re-home.

Government and contracted animal shelter staff use their best discretion to provide the highest level of care their resources allow. AB 2265 tries to fix today’s issues by assuming the overcrowding in shelters and increase in euthanasia is due to a problem within the sheltering system itself. While we are not claiming that every shelter is operationally perfect, what we are seeing today is a product of the environment outside of the shelters. Inflation, housing insecurity, a lack of pet-friendly housing, breed discrimination from insurance companies, and inaccessible or costly veterinary care are forcing families to make difficult decisions regarding their ability to keep pets. As a result, shelters are seeing overwhelming numbers of unwanted animals come through their doors. 

We know that animal lovers in California are frustrated seeing us struggle and we are working with a number of authors and bill sponsors this year to address some of the core themes that have surfaced including internal factors like operational transparency and external factors like soaring pet care costs, housing availability and pet restrictions, and a critical shortage of veterinary access in nearly every community. We understand what the proponents and author of AB 2265 are trying to accomplish, unfortunately, this bill will only exacerbate the difficulties facing shelters in nearly every imaginable way and will ultimately lead to even worse overcrowding and tragic outcomes both in and out of shelters. 

Public Safety

AB 2265 strips away a shelter's ability to make critical decisions in the best interest of animal welfare and public safety. This bill removes important industry-recognized definitions like adoptable and treatable and redefines state policy to say all animals should be released for adoption or rescue transfer except those suffering from the most extreme health or behavioral afflictions. Under AB 2265, to humanely euthanize for behavior, a dog must be declared under a rarely used state law on vicious dogs. Setting aside the fact that most municipalities rely instead on more comprehensive local ordinances for their designations of dangerous or vicious dogs, this provision ignores that, as with people, behavior is a spectrum.

There are many factors that go into making humane euthanasia decisions for behavior. A dog can have a multitude of dispositions that alone would not equate dangerous or vicious, but combined, would make placement in a home and community unsafe.

Further, it appears to only apply to dogs with an owner.  If a shelter dog attacks another animal, volunteer, visitor, or staff, humane euthanasia decisions are made without a declaration hearing. Shelter staff routinely and expertly balance decisions in both the best interest of animal welfare and public safety. Policies that demand the release of dangerous animals only serve to erode the public’s trust, their safety, and their interest in adopting shelter animals.

Foster Programs

Foster programs are the lifeblood of shelters. They are safe environments for animals to be housed that increases shelter capacity and decreases animal stress and mental and physical decline. Foster programs are utilized to support young animals who aren’t old enough for surgery, provide a loving home for animals recovering from a medical condition, extend shelter capacity to reduce overcrowding, or allow a soon-to-be-adopted animal to start living and bonding with their new family while they await their spay or neuter appointment. The caregiver may have the animal for short or long-term assignments. While in foster care, the animal is still the property of the shelter and laws related to spay/neuter prior to adoption or transfer to a new owner still apply. These programs have provided a wonderful lifeline for so many animals throughout the state.

As access to veterinary care issues become more and more acute in California, animals may await spay/neuter surgeries for weeks or even months. It is well documented that California, like other states, is experiencing a veterinary shortage and that shortage is felt significantly in less populated and already under-resourced areas of our state. While there is no evidence to suggest that animals in foster care are contributing to animal overpopulation, AB 2265 also ignores the current state of veterinary care. The restrictions this bill places on shelter and foster caregivers would essentially eliminate these lifesaving programs.

If a foster caregiver is unable to secure a spay/neuter appointment within the arbitrary and nearly impossible to meet timeframe outlined in AB 2265, animals being cared for in foster homes will be forced to re-enter an animal shelter. It is difficult to comprehend what this provision is attempting to solve for, as it will most certainly result in further congesting shelters and contributing to illness, stress, and poor outcomes.

Public Trust 

​

California animal shelters, along with our rescue partners, communities, volunteers, and donors, have made tremendous lifesaving progress. The number of dogs and cats entering our state’s shelters fell by more than 50% between 2001 and 2021 (800,000 to 366,000), with euthanasia falling from around 60 percent to under 15 percent.

These results would not be possible without healthy shelter and rescue group partnerships that comprise the safety net for animals in need throughout our state. Rescue groups with cooperative agreements with shelters can transfer animals any time after the initial hold period, and puppies and kittens are immediately available. The attempt to mandate a “hurry, this animal is about to die” promotion is misguided and does not improve overall live outcomes. We make real progress when we minimize the length of stay for animals, and don’t wait until euthanasia is imminent to do everything possible to adopt or foster that animal.

AB 2265 amends SEC. 11. Section 32004 of Food and Agriculture to require a 24-72 hour mandated hold period on animals scheduled for euthanasia. This requirement isn’t as easy as just “planning ahead” or being more transparent; it’s a one-size-fits-all mandate that will undoubtedly have negative consequences. Public shelters and contracted nonprofit shelters need to pivot quickly when intake outpaces space. To consistently meet the requirements under AB 2265, shelters will need to redefine what it means to be “full.” Currently, most shelters are operating at capacity and only make difficult humane euthanasia decisions when absolutely necessary.

Further, as this bill sets a new policy for the state that no animals shall be euthanized except in the most egregious circumstances; it appears to require that shelters unnecessarily extend animal suffering after a qualified professional determines that euthanasia is in the animal’s best interest for health or behavioral reasons. This is truly unconscionable and cruel.

These types of postings cause significant harm to the animal shelters and the communities they serve. What shelters need most are more families walking through their buildings to adopt their next pet. Employing strategies of desperate signage and internet postings, only continue to perpetuate the idea that shelters are sad, scary places where animals go to die. While hardworking staff and volunteers work diligently to ensure this is not the case, these postings result in harassment, bullying, and even death threats. This unquestionably limits the ability to attract and retain staff in these vitally important roles.

Public Hearings

Finally, AB 2265 will require government and government-contracted animal shelters to provide public notice and ultimately a public hearing if they want to change any policy, practice, or protocol specific to Food and Agriculture SEC. 12. Section 32005 (2).  As government entities, the very nature of their business is built around transparency with public information requests and the ability to voice one’s thoughts and opinions in public hearings like City Council or County Supervisor meetings.

The laws that govern the work done by government animal shelters span a variety of code sections. They are diverse, complicated, and can be hard for the public to understand. As a perfect example, this section of the bill references a variety of codes that are suspended annually due to a lack of state appropriated funding.

Animal lifesaving fundamentally depends on some level of flexibility and discretion.  As an industry, we are always looking for ways to improve care and positive outcomes. We support accountability and value public participation, but not at the expense of hamstringing our ability to quickly adjust to our current circumstances. Conversely, we do not support any animal shelter adopting policies in violation of operational state statutes. Providing a pathway for legally skirting California animal welfare laws seems completely counter to increasing lifesaving in our state.

Unfortunately, the provisions in AB 2265 show a profound lack of the most basic understanding of animal shelter operations, current law, and how the practical outcomes of this bill will unquestionably lead to more overcrowding, cause more harm, higher humane euthanasia, and reduced public safety.

We are in the shelters every day fighting for the animals in our care. We work tirelessly to see every cat and dog as an individual with independent needs.  Lifesaving is a collaboration and CalAnimals and our shelter members welcome opportunities to have productive conversations around solutions that help create positive outcomes and greater support for animals and their people in California.

We will continue to work openly with lawmakers and partners in animal welfare to reach the outcomes we all desire most, and while we do, we respectfully request your no vote on AB 2265.

Sincerely,

​

  Jill Tucker
 

Jill Tucker, CAWA

CEO