AB2427 seeks to overturn West Hollywood animal welfare ordinance banning declawing
AB 2427 is an attempt by the California Veterinary Medical Association (CVMA) to overturn the California Court of Appeal's decision that upheld the City of West Hollywood's ordinance banning the declawing of animals.
AB2427 was passed by the Senate Business, Professions, and Economic Development Committee on Monday, June 23, 2008.
AB2427 next goes to the Senate Appropriations Committee, then the Senate Floor, then Governor Schwarzenegger's desk.
Express your opposition to AB 2427 – Members of the Senate Appropriations Committee (see right column) must receive Faxes and Letters immediately. They carry more weight than emails and calls.
Tips on writing an effective letter:
- Use the sample letter opposing AB 2427 as a reference, but write in your own voice
- Write in a respectful tone
- Avoid frothy language – you will make a stronger case
- Be constructive – cite facts, make your statements concise
- Be sure to include your name and address
FACTS REGARDING AB 2427
Under current law, California Business & Professions Code §460 prohibits a local agency from imposing additional licensing requirements or Qualifications on state-licensed professions and occupations. It does not prohibit local governments from incidentallv regulating certain aspects of the manner in which professionals actually perform their business or profession.
Passage of AB 2427 will amend Section 460 of the State's Business and Professions Code to prevent city or county governments from enacting any legislation that would affect any aspect of the manner by which any state-licensed professional or occupation conducts its work, even if the purpose of the local legislation is different from the State's licensing goals.
AB 2427 will revoke West Hollywood's ordinance banning the declawing of animals.
The broad and over-reaching language of AB 2427 may prevent local governments from enacting local regulations affecting state-licensed businesses or professions operating in their counties and cities:
- People v. Mueller, 8 Cal. App. 3d 949 (1970). Redondo Beach enacted an ordinance prohibiting fishermen from "chumming," a practice used to attract fish that includes using dead fish as bait and throwing the dead fish into the water without hooks. The purpose of the ordinance was to prevent the pollution of the harbor and the coastal waters. Commercial fishermen claimed CA Business & Professions code §460 preempted the Redondo Beach ordinance because they were licensed by the State. The court disagreed, upholding the ordinance as an "incidental" regulation of a licensed occupation.
- Stacy & Whitbeck, Inc. v. City and County of San Francisco, 36 Cal. App. 4th 1074 (1995). The City and County of San Francisco barred contractors from bidding on City public works projects for a specified time period if the City found that the contractor had filed a false claim with the City or was otherwise irresponsible. A contractor sued, claiming that the City could not prevent him from submitting a bid because he is a state licensed contractor. The court disagreed with the contractor, holding that the City was not barred under §460 because it was not imposing a licensing requirement (and it was not preventing the contractor from otherwise doing business within San Francisco). The court concluded that the City was merely establishing its own rules as to with whom it wanted to do business.
- If AB 2427 becomes law, cities potentially may not be able to enforce noise ordinances that control when a state-licensed business or profession may begin and end its work, allowing these businesses, e.g. landscaper or construction contractors, to begin their work at any hour they choose (e.g. as early as 5:00 a.m.)
- If AB 2427 becomes law, cities potentially may not be able to adopt zoning ordinances that determine which state licensed businesses or professions are permissible in local neighborhoods, allowing, for example, a tattoo parlor to be situated near a school.
The City of West Hollywood strongly opposes AB 2427 (Eng) Business and Professions, which preempts local government authority from exercising its traditional authority to incidentally regulate businesses, occupations or professions licensed by the State.
Ethical considerations regarding declawing
Declawing involves removing not only the claw but also all or part of the last bone and connecting tendons and ligaments on a feline's paw. Animal advocates say the procedure is cruel and unnecessary. Declawing is classified as "mutilation" by the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons, the British counterpart of the AVMA.
In the 2007 California Appellate Court ruling upholding the West Hollywood ordinance banning declawing, Justice Dennis Perluss, writing for the majority, said that West Hollywood has the authority to "set minimum standards for the humane treatment of animals within its borders. He quoted Mahatma Gandhi's famous observation that "the moral progress of a nation can be judged by the way its animals are treated."
History of declawing legislation in California
2003–West Hollywood passes an ordinance banning declawing, which states, the "mere convenience (of declawing) to the pet's guardian does not justify the unnecessary pain, anguish and permanent disability caused (to) the animal." The measure makes it a crime to perform declawing within city limits, except for therapeutic purposes such as removal of infected or injured tissue. This landmark ordinance was authored in part by attorney Orly Degani who also headed the successful appeal.
November 2005–(CVMA) sued the City of West Hollywood on the grounds that the ordinance infringed on CVMA's State license and scope of practice; it asked the court to invalidate the ordinance. The CVMA contended that the City did not have jurisdiction to regulate veterinary practice because under the state's Veterinary Practice Act, only the state Veterinary Medical Board had that authority. The Los Angeles Superior Court found in favor of the plaintiff and overturned the City of West Hollywood's ordinance banning animal declawing.
June 22, 2007–The California Court of Appeal upheld the City's ordinance and further held that cities and counties have a certain amount of authority to regulate licensed professions and occupations in order to advance local values and interests (California Veterinary Medical Association v. City of West Hollywood, 152 Cal. App. 3d 536 (2007). The CMVA appealed the decision to the California Supreme Court, but the high court declined to review the decision, which leaves standing the California Court of Appeal published decision and the City's ordinance intact.
2008–AB 2427 is an attempt by the California Veterinary Medical Association (CVMA) to overturn the California Court of Appeal's decision that upheld the City of West Hollywood's ordinance banning the declawing of animals.
The California Court of Appeals 2007 ruling
The Court of Appeals decision is very narrow and has limited application to regulating business and professions in local jurisdictions. The decision has no bearing whatsoever on other state licensed professions or occupations, particularly where the State has made clear an intention to preempt local regulation.
Supporters of AB 2427 contend that without this legislation, localities may exercise unbridled discretion in the regulation of licensed professionals, creating a patchwork quilt of regulation around the State; however, factually and practically, local governments are extremely limited in their ability to regulate licensed professionals. The scope of local regulatory powers largely depends on the specific regulatory scheme governing each separate category of professionals and occupations.
The Court in the West Hollywood case concluded that neither Business nor Professions Code §460 nor the Veterinarians Medical Practice Act preempt the West Hollywood anti-declawing ordinance because "the ordinance is an anti-cruelty measure and it is not directed solely to veterinarians, but to any person who authorizes or performs such procedures." Therefore, the ordinance does not restrict the state license or scope of practice of veterinarians.