Reply
Fri 25 Jun, 2004 08:58 am
Schwarzenegger Wants Strays Killed Faster
6/25/04
SACRAMENTO, Calif. - Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger wants to repeal a state law that requires animal shelters to hold stray dogs and cats for up to six days before killing them.
Instead, there would be a three-day requirement for strays. Other animals, including birds, hamsters, potbellied pigs, rabbits, snakes and turtles, could be killed immediately.
Schwarzenegger has told the state Legislature that the changes could save local governments that operate shelters up to $14 million.
An estimated 600,000 dogs and cats are put to death each year in California, including 34,000 in Los Angeles alone.
The waiting period has caused overcrowding and forced some shelters to kill off animals simply to make room for new ones, said H.D. Palmer, a spokesman for the state Department of Finance.
"Because of space limitations, the shelters are being forced to euthanize animals who are otherwise highly adoptable immediately after the holding time," Palmer said.
Despite Schwarzenegger's huge popularity, some political observers think the proposal will meet stiff resistance.
"There is no organized constituency of cats and dogs, but certainly the pet owners of America will find this reprehensible," said Barbara O'Connor, director of the Institute for the Study of Politics and Media at California State University, Sacramento.
"Cats and dogs are like mom and apple pie," she said. "Don't mess with the pets. Most people prefer them to other people."
The 1998 law is named for former state Sen. Tom Hayden, who said the governor's proposal "will inflict heartbreak on a lot of owners and people in the animal adoption world."
Here's the thing -- and this doesn't necessarily mean I support the policy change. I've spent a good deal of time at a financially strapped shelter, and there, on a day to day basis, it is hard to get around the economics of the situation: there is a limited amount of space for a less limited number of animals.
In Washington, it frequently meant that there was no room to bring the abundant animals from rural areas to urban areas where they might have been adopted because much of the space in urban shelters was filled by animals who were not going to be reclaimed (that is, who had clearly never been trained and probably never been cared for) while adoptable animals languished in rural shelters where nobody had any interest in them.
From what's posted there, I don't think this is a good solution (though a six-day holding period is significantly longer than the holding period in Washington -- the city of Forks often euthanized after 48 hours), but neither do I think it should be dismissed out of hand on emotional value alone. The sad fact of shelter life is that many animals will be killed and that shelter staff often have to make agonizing decisions about which animals will be killed and which ones might have a shot.
As an aside -- kind of a personal rant of mine -- people who lavishly praise "no-kill" shelters and decry the "Inhumane Society" or city shelters often ignore the fact that most "no-kill" shelters don't accept every animal that's brought to them. Sorry, not relevant, but something I encounter from soft-heart/soft-head types on occasion.
Caveat -- I don't know about the situation in California, but I have glanced at the euthanasia numbers for Sacramento, and they are staggering. Spay and neuter, folks...
Shelters no longer would be required to search for owners who have embedded microchips in their pets that store addresses and phone numbers.
Few issues can incite animal lovers more than the abuse or killing of pets. Los Angeles' animal services director, Jerry Greenwalt, retired in April after protesters vandalized his house and spray-painted "murderer" on his car. Claiming the city killed too many animals, protesters also picketed the San Pedro home of Mayor James K. Hahn (only to be targeted themselves by Hahn's neighbors, armed with squirt guns.)
Many experienced politicians say it is best to either be an advocate for animals or stay clear of the issue.
"There is no organized constituency of cats and dogs, but certainly the pet owners of America will find this reprehensible," said Barbara O'Connor, director of the Institute for the Study of Politics and Media at Cal State Sacramento.
"Cats and dogs are like mom and apple pie. Don't mess with the pets. Most people prefer them to other people."
Hahn, in fact, announced last year that the city would stop killing animals by 2008, but Los Angeles continues to put to death cats, dogs and other animals that are not adopted. The city handles more than 60,000 animals each year and kills about 34,000, or 54%. An estimated 600,000 dogs and cats are put to death each year statewide.
The Schwarzenegger administration said repealing the Hayden Act could save local governments up to $14 million. As proposed, shelters would be allowed to kill dogs and cats after holding them just 72 hours, regardless of whether the shelters are open to the public during those three days.
Quote:Schwarzenegger also would eliminate a requirement that people convicted of animal cruelty be prohibited from owning a pet for three years and be forced to pay for medical care for the animals they have mistreated.
Shelters no longer would be required to search for owners who have embedded microchips in their pets that store addresses and phone numbers.
Now
that is both reprehensible and stupid.
This is outrageous
Killing pets that are lost, not strays, before their owners can claim them is outrageous. And not fulfilling the promise to locate pet owners via the microship identification system can not be tolerated.
An example of what can happen to beloved pets. Every 4th of July, thousands of dogs and cats are frightened by the sound of fireworks. They start running in panic and get lost. How will owners find their pets if Arnold has his way?
Shelters no longer would be required to search for owners who have embedded microchips in their pets that store addresses and phone numbers.
As proposed, shelters would be allowed to kill dogs and cats after holding them just 72 hours, regardless of whether the shelters are open to the public during those three days.
BBB
First, buy a leash and keep your animal indoors.
Secondly, it stands to save 14 million dollars+ a year. Arnold promised to get the budget under control. That means some sacrifices need to be made.
"Shelters no longer would be required to search for owners who have embedded microchips in their pets that store addresses and phone numbers."
Well, that's just stupid. Why bother with the microchips if the authorities aren't going to check for them?
McG
McG, I've always tried to find the good in you but your opinion goes too far. I wasn't talking about strays. Do you have pets? Have any of them accidently gotten outside? Have any ever been lost?
Sheeeesh!
BBB
Well, I wouldn't have my Pacco except for a shelter that could hold a dog fairly long. The whole system is stressed, of course, by the failure of people to spay and neuter, and, at least sometimes, take proper care.
I have been happy about having the reassurance of his microchip in case he ever was roaming and didn't have a collar. Not likely, he is almost always with me, and is on leash when outside of my house, back yard, or office, but still, one never knows.
Re: McG
BumbleBeeBoogie wrote:McG, I've always tried to find the good in you but your opinion goes too far. I wasn't talking about strays. Do you have pets? Have any of them accidently gotten outside? Have any ever been lost?
Sheeeesh!
BBB
Yup. I have a rather rambuncious shepard/husky mix ( a fine looking dog) who escapes at least every other week (small children leaving doors open). He has a tag on his collar with his name, my name, his address and phone number. Most of the time, a neighbor brings him home.
If he ended up in the pound (I would have notified them before he ever showed up there), I would expect a phone call because he has a tag. It's MY responsibility to make sure these things are taken care of. It is not the states responsibility.
joefromchicago wrote:"Shelters no longer would be required to search for owners who have embedded microchips in their pets that store addresses and phone numbers."
Well, that's just stupid. Why bother with the microchips if the authorities aren't going to check for them?
I agree with this. they should be forced to do this.
The thing is -- and I've already cited my strong objections to what I see here of the policy -- the thing is that it's not a requirement that an animal be put down after 72 hours, nor do I think they should be. But looking at the situation coldly and rationally, there are dogs who come in who are clearly not going to claimed, who have not been taken care of, who are poorly socialized, and who -- as much as I would like to see every animal be saved -- are not going to be adoptable without a huge input of often non-existent resources.
If such a policy were used judiciously, it could (not would, but could) open up space and time for animals who clearly are pets or who clearly do have a chance of being adopted out.
In an ideal world... well, it's far from an ideal world.
I'm with Patiodog. Some dogs and cats are feral--and not pet material.
While some sections of the proposed legislation are extremely shortsighted such as not checking for computer chips and allowing animal abusers financial immunity from their actions, I think it is possible that these sections were included to allow some wiggle room for the rest of the bill.
My last three dogs have been adopted from the pound. The present dog, a pit bull, is frequently reminded that only one out of six animals are adopted. She doesn't pay much attention, but facts are facts.
I'd like to think that throughout the state of California, outraged animal lovers are organizing fund raising events so that the draconian measures would not be necessary. Unfortunately, outrage is much easier than constructive change.
McG
I'm a very responsible dog owner. Maddy has his microchip number tag, his rabies shot tag, and a tag with my name and phone number on it---all attached to his neck collar. Maddy is a valuable Bichon Fries and a very cute dog who attracts a lot of attention. What if his collar is taken off by someone or it breaks, the microchip in his body is all that is left to ID him and return him to his loving home.
BBB
McGentrix wrote:First, buy a leash and keep your animal indoors.
Secondly, it stands to save 14 million dollars+ a year. Arnold promised to get the budget under control. That means some sacrifices need to be made.
Good idea!
Also stop all the breeding that's going on!
Miller
Miller, I discover, is another A2Ker I have to cross off my list as having a loving heart for animals.
And, Miller, would you apply your theory re breeding to the world's population, too?
BBB
I love animals. They're delicious.
I don't agree with the microchip change, but I do agree with the time limit.
I volunteer weekly at my local animal shelter, and I would really love to encourage people to get their pets spayed and neutered!
I've always supported Arnold, but I consider these proposals despicable, and a bit sociopathic.
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace