TheBakersfieldCalifornian.com

When animal control officers in Kern County find a severely injured animal on a city street, in the wilderness or on personal property, they decide whether to pick up a syringe, draw up a dose of poison -- a controlled substance -- and end the suffering.

But a recent California Attorney General opinion questions their authority to make that call.

And the opinion, which is advisory, not binding, could result in animal control officers watching a hurt animal suffer while the drug needed to end its pain is driven out to them, and a veterinarian is consulted to approve the drug's use.

"It would lead to more animals suffering longer times in the field, which is inhumane," said Julie Johnson, executive director of the Bakersfield Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. "While I don't believe in massive euthanasia in the field under any circumstances, this opinion certainly does not help an animal that is truly suffering and should be humanely euthanized immediately."

It could also delay attempts to tranquilize skittish or dangerous animals with dart guns some officers carry because the drugs in the dart are also controlled.

Or the opinion could be ignored.

DIFFERENT READS

The Attorney General's opinion says that because animal control officers are not medical practitioners, they cannot "possess or administer any controlled substances in the field" without direct consultation with a veterinarian.

"Though we acknowledge the vital role played by animal control officers and recognize the difficult circumstances under which they often function, we can find no statute or case law granting them the authority they need to purchase, secure, prescribe, possess, or administer controlled substances on their own," reads the December ruling by the office of Attorney General Kamala Harris.

Different attorneys have interpreted the opinion in different ways.

Rosa Tsongtaatarii, San Jose deputy city attorney, said her office reads it to mean animal control officers cannot carry euthanasia or tranquilizer drugs into the field or use them without consulting a vet.

That city's read has particular bearing because San Jose City Attorney Richard Doyle is the one who asked the Attorney General to rule. City lawyers worried the practice would put veterinarians and animal control officers in legal hot water.

"Our concern was these are controlled substances. We weren't sure the law would allow for it," Tsongtaatarii said.

The city of San Jose now doesn't allow controlled substances on its animal control trucks.

"if something does happen, they have someone drive the drugs out and they call a vet who is on call," Tsongtaatarii said.

But the city of Bakersfield, which has always allowed animal control officers to carry and use euthanasia drugs, has no plans to change its policies, said City Attorney Virginia Gennaro.

Bakersfield animal control officers put down 784 animals in the field in 2011, according to Kern County records that track city actions. That's about 70 percent of the total number of field euthanizations recorded by Kern County and agencies that contract with it.

But Gennero said the opinion doesn't affect that practice because euthanasia drugs are not specifically identified in the opinion -- it only refers generally to controlled substances.

City animal control officers don't use tranquilizer guns, so there is no impact to the city on that front, Gennaro said.

And, she said, "I don't think that euthanasia is covered by the opinion."

Kern County Animal Control officials, however, are preparing to comply with the strictures of Harris' decision -- as county attorneys understand it.

And Kern's attorneys understand the Harris opinion differently than both San Jose and Bakersfield.

Kern County Animal Control field-euthanized 325 animals in 2011. A verbal ruling from the county counsel's office, according to Public Health Director Matt Constantine, indicates that, "The animal control officers could carry the substances but prior to every use you physically had to call a veterinarian."

Constantine said the county will implement the policy once it has formal, written direction from Chief Deputy County Counsel Teri Bjorn. Bjorn said county animal control officers "are not to administer either of those substances until they contact a licensed veterinarian."

So county officers will call or physically contact a veterinarian, relay the status of the animal and other circumstances the officer is in, and get direction about the use of euthanasia or tranquillizer drugs.

"Then they are going to be required to document that consultation," Bjorn said.

She acknowledged the opinion states that animal control officers cannot even carry controlled substances in the field without consultation with a veterinarian.

But, she said, since possession of a controlled substance doesn't appear to be part of the formal question posed by San Jose, Kern County animal control officers will be allowed to carry them, Bjorn said.

A Harris spokesman said the opinion was designed to stand on its own and her office won't clarify or elaborate on it.

MORAL QUANDARY

Harris' opinion clearly acknowledges that its findings are problematic for animal control officers tasked with protecting the public from wild or aggressive animals.

But the law is the law, it states.

Tsongtaatarii, the deputy city attorney for San Jose, said that city's Animal Care and Services agency is exploring possible legislation that would allow animal control officers to carry and use controlled substances in the field.

But for now the law, and Harris' opinion, present a humane challenge to officials tasked with handling stray, wild and unwanted animals.

That challenge can be stark in Kern County, Bjorn said, where mountains and wide stretches of open desert can cut off the cell phone service officers need to ask veterinarians for authorization to euthanize or tranquilize in the field.

Without that contact, she said, an animal's pain could be extended indefinitely.

And, if presented with an aggressive animal, Kern County officers who can't get a veterinarian on the phone or don't have time to call may be forced to use the shotguns they are permitted to carry.

"I don't see this opinion trumping the right to self-defense or defense of others," Bjorn said. "If I've got an angry mountain lion coming toward me and I can't get the vet on the phone in time..."

Johnson, who once worked as an animal control officer in Chula Vista, remembers a situation in which a firearm might not have been an option.

"We had aggressive dogs that had escaped from a junk yard near a school. They were on school grounds," she said. "We had to tranquilize those dogs to protect those kids."