String up Arnold Schwarzenegger; wants pets killed faster

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...

Arnold could become most unpopular gov. in Calif. history
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-animals25jun25,1,3609137.story?coll=la-home-headlines

Pet Lovers Irate About Governor's Idea for Strays
He wants to save money by making it easier for municipal shelters to put animals to death.
By Robert Salladay - Los Angeles Times Staff Writer

June 25, 2004

SACRAMENTO ?- In his brief political career, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has challenged powerful state unions, prison guards and wealthy American Indian tribes alike. But now he is up against a group with far greater numbers and a louder voice: animal lovers.

Schwarzenegger wants to repeal California's comprehensive law forcing animal shelters to hold stray cats and dogs up to six days before killing them, a budget-cutting move that has enraged pet adoption groups.

As a favor to the state's cash-poor counties and cities, Schwarzenegger has asked the state Legislature to reverse the 1998 law, which makes adoption of wayward pets the first priority of shelters instead of quickly putting them to death. The law is dubbed the Hayden Act, after former Santa Monica state senator and activist Tom Hayden.

"This is an issue that affects the care and protection of tens of thousands of stray animals, and will inflict heartbreak on a lot of owners and people in the animal adoption world," Hayden said Thursday.

The governor proposes a change in the law to allow birds, hamsters, potbellied pigs, rabbits, snakes, turtles and other animals that are not cats and dogs to be put to death immediately if the shelter favors that approach, animal rights groups said.

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.

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.

But animal rights activists believe cats and dogs should not be sacrificed in an effort to save money amid the state's budget shortfall.

"It's sad they would put a price tag on the animals," said Kathy Riordan, a member of the Los Angeles Animal Services Commission and daughter of Schwarzenegger advisor and former Mayor Richard Riordan.

There are signs that Schwarzenegger has a growing understanding of how volatile the issue of animal protection can be.

Amid complaints from animal rights groups, the Schwarzenegger administration said it has been working to keep portions of the Hayden Act that do not cost local shelters money, such as requiring pets to be offered to nonprofit rescue groups before they are killed.

Schwarzenegger's aides are expected to meet soon with animal rights groups and local governments to reach a compromise on the issue before the 2004-05 state budget is approved by the Legislature, perhaps as soon as this weekend.

H.D. Palmer, a spokesman for the state's Department of Finance, said the administration would like to cut costs for local governments but also fix an unintended consequence that local governments said came because of the Hayden Act: overcrowding because shelters must hold even vicious dogs for up to six days. Subsequently, Palmer said, shelters have been forced to kill animals to make room for new animals than come in every day.

"Because of space limitations, the shelters are being forced to euthanize animals who are otherwise highly adoptable immediately after the holding time," Palmer said, "whereas before that they could use some discretion and delay that."

Pet adoption and animal rights groups said repeal of the Hayden Act would sacrifice protections for animals in order to save cities and counties money, although exactly how much money is being disputed. But many also said they do not believe Schwarzenegger would purposely advocate killing animals sooner to save local budgets.

"They are attempting to cut this budget with a hatchet instead of a scalpel, and they are not thinking rationally," said Rich McLellan, director of the Animal Legislative Action Network in Los Angeles and a consultant on the 1998 legislation.

Jennifer Fearing, director of programs for United Animal Nations in Sacramento, said the Hayden Act managed to move California to fairly reasonable shelter standards ?- certainly not groundbreaking ?- and ending the law would set California back. "It wasn't like we revolutionized things," she said, "but we greatly improved the status of animals in shelters, and we focused on a policy of not killing animals. This undoes all of that."

Under the current law, animals at shelters must be held at least four business days before the shelter can consider killing them. A stray animal must be kept at least six days if the shelter is open only Monday through Friday and does not offer evening hours.

The optional evening and weekend hours often give owners time to search for lost pets after work and allow nonprofit rescue workers time to search for dogs and cats to offer for adoption themselves. Nonprofit rescue shelters also pay government-run shelters to take cats and dogs and save them from death.

Some lawmakers say Schwarzenegger should not repeal part of the law that requires people convicted of animal cruelty to pay the veterinary costs of the injured animal. That item is under discussion this week.

"If we repeal that, guess who has to pay for the cost? The taxpayers," said Assemblyman Lloyd Levine (D-Van Nuys). "We are overturning a policy I think most people would agree with and we are going to be costing the state money."

The state has been struggling with how to close a $15-billion shortfall, and counties and cities have been complaining that lawmakers continually put spending mandates on them without reimbursement. For counties, the requirement to hold cats and dogs has been a complaint since the Hayden Act passed.

Exactly how much local governments are being forced to spend because of the Hayden Act has been the subject of dispute for years. The Commission on State Mandates said two years ago that local governments are owed $79.2 million, a figure the state auditor later said was inflated. Who pays for state laws about animal shelters is now the subject of a lawsuit and a bill in the Legislature.

"I believe it's premature not only because of the pending court cases, but also premature because we don't have an assessment of how much is owed," said Taimie Bryant, a UCLA law professor who teaches a class on animal law and helped write the Hayden Act.

Lawmakers say repealing the Hayden Act has not been given a proper hearing in a policy committee and should not have been inserted into the proposed state budget without oversight. Now, some are threatening to withhold their vote on the budget until the Schwarzenegger administration withdraws or alters its plan.

"As far as I'm concerned, this throws a wrench in the budget negotiations," said Assemblyman Paul Koretz (D-West Hollywood). "I would not want to make this part of the budget vote. Why would we want to make it easier to kill adoptable animals?"

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


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.

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

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.