Turning Back the Clock in California

In 1997, the year before the Hayden Act was passed, 576,000 dogs and cats were killed in California shelters. In 1999, one year after passage, that number plummeted to 328,000. In just one year, almost 250,000 more animals were saved in California. Many of those gains will be a thing of the past if Governor Brown is successful in repealing the law.*

As I’ve written before, a vital law to protect animals in California shelters is under siege. Specifically, the Governor is asking the Legislature to repeal several provisions of the 1998 Animal Shelter Law that increased California’s holding period for dogs and cats in shelters from 72 hours to four days; required shelters to give other species such as rabbits the same protections as cats and dogs; mandated the posting of lost and found lists so that more animals get home to their families; and provided prompt and necessary veterinary care for sick and injured animals. (For a more detailed description of the provisions facing the ax, click here.) If the Governor succeeds in repealing it, animals will be sentenced to certain death in shelters.

Despite heavy opposition from animal lovers across the state, Governor Brown is digging in his heels. Moreover, he is acting more like the politician he is proving himself to be and less like the sober statesman he promised in his campaign. In his original announcement, Governor Brown said that repeal was necessary in order to help close the budget deficit, but in fact the provisions have been suspended since 2009 and have cost state coffers exactly nothing.

He then indicated that the law designed to protect animals from quick killing was no longer needed since shelters are doing everything they can to save animals already and would continue to do so even if the law was repealed.  When it was shown that the law was necessary precisely because the opposite was true and, in fact, some shelters simply refused to implement either the letter or spirit of the new law after it was enacted and had to be sued to do so, he switched gears again.

Now he says, there is “no evidence” and “little reason to believe” that longer holding periods result in increased adoptions. Once again, the facts get in the way of his latest rationale. In 1997, the year before the Hayden Act was passed, 576,000 dogs and cats were killed in California shelters. In 1999, one year after passage, that number plummeted to 328,000. Nearly 250,000 dogs and cats who are alive today because of that law in just one year would beg to differ. (Other species entering shelters also benefit from the Hayden Law’s rescue access provision, not just dogs and cats. While rabbits are the third most popular pet after dogs and cats, most shelters in California prior to the enactment of the Hayden Law did very little for them. The Hayden Law places cats, dogs, and small animals on the same footing. As a result, more rabbits and other small animals are getting out of shelters alive. Governor Brown is also threatening to undo that.)

Moreover, the longer holding periods were designed for reasons other than adoption as well. The modest increases would increase the number of owned animals reclaimed by their families since, for example, some cat owners do not start looking for their cats for several days and arrive at the shelter too late under the 72-hour rule. They also give rescue groups more time to find foster homes for their animals so they can take them into their own adoption programs.

In fact, what the Governor doesn’t say is that even with the longer holding periods, California is still far from generous. Only one state has a shorter holding period for stray animals. And despite economic challenges in other states, those states are working to increase their protections, not eviscerate them. New Jersey stopped a legislative effort to curtail holding periods in that state this August. And both New York and Florida are considering legislation to increase care and treatment of animals in shelters.

But does it matter if the provisions are repealed, if they have already been suspended? Yes. Of course, we would like to see the funding restored. But in the end, suspension is temporary, repeal is permanent. The latter would remove any chance that California’s sheltered animals would ever have of improved care and conditions even when the economy improves. Permanently removing the ability for animals to share in future brighter economic times in California is unconscionable.

Indeed, if the Governor succeeds, he will not only turn back the clock nearly 15 years, he will rob these animals of any hope for a brighter future. But we stopped it once before when the former Governor tried to do it and we can do so again. In 2004, then-Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger sought to repeal the provision, but was forced to relent when a united chorus of animal lovers across California convinced him to reverse himself. That is the power of the people.

Rise, Californians. Rise and be heard before it is too late. Because if you don’t, the animals won’t stand a chance.

CALL Governor Brown at (916) 445-2841 (9 am to 5 pm)

FAX your letter of opposition to (916) 558-3177

EMAIL the governor’s office at http://gov.ca.gov/m_contact.php (choose BUDGET as subject).

POST to his Facebook page at http://www.facebook.com/jerrybrown

CONTACT him through his Twitter page at @JerryBrownGov

———————

* Some, but not all of the gains, have been erased since the provisions at issue were suspended and total deaths now top 400,000.

♦

Former Senator Tom Hayden, author of the Hayden Law, speaks out against repeal:

To keep up to date, join the Facebook community of animal lovers fighting against repeal: www.facebook.com/suttersfriends

I Love New York(ers)

When you read the Maddie’s Fund reports on their New York City project, you’ll find no mention of the rabbit who was picked up by infected ears and cruelly put to death a few weeks ago. You’ll not read about the puppy whose leg was recently broken by staff at Animal Care & Control of New York City (ACC) or the dog who was “mistakenly” killed because he looked like another dog they wanted to kill. There will be no mention of the cats in severe pain who are not afforded pain medication, the volunteers who are banned for trying to improve conditions, or the rescuers who are threatened for exercising their First Amendment rights. You won’t see any mention of animals lying in their own filth, chewing off their own tails, or going long periods without food or water. There will be no discussion of the telephones at ACC which do not get answered, costing animals their lives or that people who want to adopt animals actually have to wait as long as nine hours to do so. Nor will there be a mention of the witch hunt ACC director Julie Bank engages in when evidence of this systematic neglect, abuse, and killing is leaked; a hunt not to find the perpetrators of animal abuse, but to punish and ban the whistle blowers trying to improve conditions.

Even while ACC staff admits they kill healthy animals and even while healthy animals are put on the kill lists, and they subsequently cook the books to claim falsely that none are, Maddie’s Fund will remain content to look the other way. Instead, you’ll read that New York City is a national model; that those who lead the effort are lodestars of the movement; that no healthy animals are being killed; and that other communities should emulate their efforts.

If the seminar I attended last weekend in New York City is any indication, and I believe that it is, New York advocates aren’t buying it and the rescue and volunteer community care little for such self-serving, disingenuous works of fiction. When Priscilla Feral, head of the Connecticut-based animal rights group Friends of Animals, told attendees that things in New York City weren’t so bad, that the leadership of ACC (Bank) and Mayor’s Alliance (Jane Hoffman) should be embraced, and that people should stop criticizing and start volunteering, the 175 New Yorkers in attendance drowned her out. They “explained” (that is New York speak for stating in no uncertain terms in a tone designed to confer seriousness) that they do volunteer, but are prevented from helping many animals and are banned if they try to improve conditions. They explained that they rescue animals, but have to pay thousands of dollars because the animals get sick at the facility as a result of filth and being forced to languish with little care to the point that some of them do not survive. They explained that they have tried working with the leadership of those organizations, only to find them petty, vindictive, and hostile to their efforts. They let Ms. Feral know that simply because she found Bank and Hoffman “delightful” dinner guests is no reason to ignore the abuse and killing that goes on at ACC with their full knowledge and, in the case of Bank, consent. They told her that simply because she found Bank and Hoffman “nice” during a shared meal does not give her credibility to stand before a room of hard-working, dedicated animal rescuers who have suffered for years and who have watched animals suffer under their disastrous leadership, that Bank and Hoffman are the real victims, that animal advocates are the problem for criticizing them, and that they are the ones that need to change. Sadly, once again, companion animals were betrayed by a group who claims it won’t compromise its “ethics” when it comes to wolves, deer, chickens, or cows, but holds an entirely different standard when it comes to dogs and cats, and their most basic and fundamental right to live. But New Yorkers were having none of it.

The claims by Friends of Animals were more than foolish naivety. They were heartless, designed to wound people who have bled for the animal victims of ACC’s daily neglect and abuse. Day in and day out, these rescuers show tremendous courage and compassion—visiting what is often the one place on earth hardest for them to go as animal lovers: their local shelter. And yet they go back, again and again. They endure the hostile treatment. They endure the heartbreak of seeing the animals destined for the needle. They endure having to jump through unnecessary and arbitrary hurdles set by shelter directors who are holding the animals they want to save hostage. They endure having to look the other way at abuse of other animals, because if they don’t, if they speak out, they will be barred from saving any animals. And Friends of Animals had the audacity to tell them to shut up, to toe the line, and to work with those who perpetuate these conditions. But New Yorkers said “No” in no uncertain terms and I love them for it.

I loved the City when I lived and worked in Ithaca, New York and visited frequently. I loved the City when I visited it every year since I left. And now I love the City even more. New Yorkers were not willing to play games, mince words, or engage in the false promise of collaboration for collaboration’s sake. They were not willing to engage in an empty display of decorum in order to get through an awkward moment. They’ve been there and done that and the time for empty gestures and excusing complacency was over. I’ve never seen anything like it. It was a beautiful sight, the united chorus of hundreds of animal lovers speaking truth to power. I was witnessing the No Kill movement all grown up. No more talk of collaboration with people who refuse to collaborate. No more talk about all of us wanting the same things when the evidence proves otherwise. No more talk of empty gestures and grand pronouncements of No Kill by some date whose deadlines come and go without success. Are you listening Maddie’s Fund?

The message was clear: New York City officials—and, I might add, their enablers at the ASPCA, Mayor’s Alliance, and Maddie’s Fund—have not only failed to deliver, but conspired to keep the movement shrouded in darkness. Not only was that the conclusion of attendees, it was the conclusion of all the other speakers: Manhattan Borough President Scott Stringer who condemned the atrocities at ACC in the strongest possible terms, Assembly Member Micah Kellner and Linda Rosenthal who echoed the sentiment, and, of course, me. But, more importantly, it was the conclusion of 175 animal lovers who have come too far and have seen too much to believe otherwise.

Normally, when I go into a community, I talk about the history of No Kill. I start with the great Henry Bergh who founded the ASPCA, and who would be deeply hurt at what it has become. I discuss the “Great Experiment in Compassion” that occurred in San Francisco which pioneered most of the programs that create No Kill communities. I discuss the creation of the nation’s first No Kill community in Tompkins County, New York, over 10 years ago and how it came about. And I explain why the 19th Century model of animal control of “adopt some and kill the rest” which still reigns in too many communities across the U.S.—including New York City—is not appropriate in 21st Century America.

But I did not do that. The people there know clearly where the problem lies and who is to blame for it. We were in New York City:

• Home to the wealthiest animal protection organizations in the nation: The ASPCA which takes in over $140,000,000 per year, The Humane Society of the United States which has an office there and takes in over $130,000,000 a year, Best Friends Animal Society which also has an office in NYC and takes in over $40,000,000 a year, and of course, the Mayor’s Alliance, the beneficiary of Maddie’s Fund largesse, which has taken in over $20,000,000;
• Home to the single, largest adoption market in the nation;
• The center of the nation’s wealth;
• A community with a shelter per capita intake rate that is a fraction of the national average (1/8 that of communities which are No Kill).

But in a city where the animals should have everything going for them, they have this:

And this:

And this:

And this:

And still this:

The nation’s most cosmopolitan, sophisticated, wealthy, and animal loving city in the nation has a barbaric, regressive pound that can only be described one way: Medieval. And it is medieval by design. Medieval by mandate of Mayor Michael Bloomberg (and before him, Rudy Giuliani), Thomas Farley, the Health Commissioner, and Speaker of the City Council, Christine Quinn. In the end, the buck stops with them. Julie Bank is a creature, the Frankenstein monster who certainly deserves our wrath and condemnation, but who, as one commentator so forthrightly put, is merely the patsy brought on to toe the party line and, if need be, to take the fall for them.

And then we talked about how to change that. Not by the empty promise of collaboration that has never created a single, No Kill community and which has led to 11 years of failure from Maddie’s Fund despite over $100,000,000 in expenditures, but by learning from history. By not only speaking truth to power, but by becoming the power; by fighting and becoming a political force.

In short, by engaging not only in politics 101—personal relationships, campaigning, and lobbying—which is what the Mayor’s Alliance and ASPCA have done to enforce their own will at the expense of the animals; but by also engaging in what I call Politics 102.

The Mayor and the City Council Speaker are champions of the downtrodden, when the cameras are there. How do we know this? They take photographs of it, lots and lots of photographs.

But when it comes to the downtrodden in shelters; when ACC systematically neglects, abuses, and kills animals; when Bank threatens to fire volunteers and even sue people; when the New York Times isn’t there with a photographer, the concern doesn’t exist. The smiles disappear. The flag waving stops. The clapping ceases. And the heart hardens.

We need to take the neglect and abuse out of the shadows and into the light. To make the systematic neglect, abuse, and killing they both condone and perpetuate an issue at all of their photo ops and one which will not go away. In short, we need to bring the fight to them.

The current ACC director has a history of killing, a history of poor care of animals, and a history of hostile relationships with rescuers and volunteers. That was true in Maricopa County, AZ where she was part of the team that drove the agency into financial ruin while lying to the community about its alleged success. That was also true in Escondido, California as well. And it is true in New York City. The current Mayor has chronically underfunded ACC and has appointed and retained cronies who look the other way at the neglect, abuse, and killing. The Health Commissioner who controls the ACC Board ignores—indeed is the cause—of immense suffering of animals. And the Speaker of the City Council has shown herself to be a two-faced, duplicitous politician who will betray the animals and stab animal loving New Yorkers in the back in order to promote herself as the heir-apparent to the small-minded, hard-hearted Bloomberg.

When people show you who and what they are over and over and over and over again, we must believe them. And we must respond accordingly, elevating experience above hope, reality above foolish sentimentality. The time for campaign promises by politicians, empty gestures by bureaucrats, misleading, glossy reports from Maddie’s Fund, and empty talk of collaboration by Friends of Animals is over. We fight. Because when we don’t, the animals pay the ultimate price.

For further reading:

The Banality of Evil

Hayden Fights for the Hayden Law

Former Senator Tom Hayden asks Governor Brown to think about his own dog before he proceeds with repealing parts of the Hayden law which will mean certain death for animals in California shelters indefinitely. Today, only one state has a holding period lower than California. Many animals are killed before their families have a chance to find them.

A vital law to protect animals in California shelters is under siege. When Governor Brown recently announced his intent to repeal parts of the Hayden Law, he claimed that the provisions designed to protect animals from quick killing were no longer needed, an ugly falsehood designed to mask his effort to set the clock back for California’s shelter animals 15 years.

Specifically, the Governor is asking the Legislature to repeal several provisions of the Hayden Law including the increase of California’s holding period from 72 hours to four days; the requirement that other species such as rabbits and guinea pigs be given the same protections as cats and dogs; the posting of lost and found lists so that more animals get home to their families; and the mandate to provide prompt and necessary veterinary care for sick and injured animals. If the Governor succeeds, he will rob these animals of any hope for a brighter future. That would be unconscionable.

But we stopped it once before when the former Governor tried to do it and we can do so again. In 2004, then Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger sought to repeal the provision, but was forced to relent. When the Los Angeles Times reported in 2004 that “The hectoring barks of animal lovers convinced Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger to reverse himself … and keep California’s law protecting stray dogs and cats at shelters,” they were reporting on the power of the people. We must teach the current Governor the same lesson. This is our state, these are our shelters, these are our values, and this is our will.

Rise, Californians. Rise and be heard before it is too late. Because if you don’t, the animals won’t stand a chance.

CALL Gov. Brown at (916) 445-2841 (9 am to 5 pm)

FAX your letter of opposition (916) 558-3177

EMAIL the governor’s office at http://gov.ca.gov/m_contact.php (choose BUDGET as subject).

POST to his Facebook page at http://www.facebook.com/jerrybrown

CONTACT him through his Twitter page at @JerryBrownGov

Building a No Kill Community

I’m off to New York City for a January 21 day-long seminar on Building a No Kill Community. Once again, I apologize to everyone who was not able to attend before it sold out. Although we also sold out in Tampa for February 4, the organizers have managed to secure a larger venue and more seats are now available. Please register soon by clicking here.

Here are additional dates and cities for 2012:

• Phoenix, AZ, February 18.
• Dallas, TX, March 10.
• Los Angeles, CA, March 13.
• Albuquerque, NM, March 24
• Toronto, Canada, April 14.
• Topeka, KS, May 5.
• Washington, D.C., August 11-12. (No Kill Conference)
• Cincinnati, OH, September 14.
• Lansing, MI, September 20.

For more information, click here.

Come to the seminar that has been called “a prerequisite for animal lovers, rescue groups and organizations that are serious about changing their communities to No Kill.”

——————

Join the conversation on Facebook at facebook.com/nathanwinograd:

California Shelter Animals Under Attack

A vital law to protect animals in California shelters is under siege. If the Governor succeeds in repealing parts of the Hayden Law, animals will be sentenced to certain death in shelters. But we can do something about it. We succeeded once before when the former Governor tried to repeal the law and we can do so again. Please contact the Governor’s Office and tell him, that as a California taxpayer and animal lover, you do not want the Hayden Law provisions to be repealed. (Contact information at the bottom of the post.)

If there was any doubt that the Humane Society of the United States has a singular mission when it comes to animals shelters, the Governor’s proposal to repeal part of California’s Hayden Law, shelter reform provisions to orient shelters toward lifesaving, should bring that doubt to an end. Its position on the Governor’s proposal is merely a continuation of a decades-long effort to defend poorly performing shelters and make the task of killing easier.

Whether it was helping shelters “construct and use a simple and inexpensive cabinet for [killing] dogs and cats with carbon monoxide,” telling shelters not to work with rescue groups, arguing that “being dead is not cruelty to animals,” fighting shelter reform in communities across the country, calling for the killing of two-week old puppies, legitimizing the killing of animals in “shelters,” lobbying to have the victims of abuse killed, or coordinating the defeat of state legislation that would have banned the gas chamber and outlawed discrimination against pit bulls and older animals, HSUS has been no friend to animals in shelters. And given that they opposed the initial enactment of the Hayden Law in 1998, it is no surprise that they are celebrating the repeal of some of its provisions.

When Governor Brown recently announced his intent to do so, he claimed that the provisions designed to protect animals from quick killing were no longer needed since shelters are doing everything they can to save animals already and would continue to do so even if the law mandating some of these things were repealed. And while he was offering that false rationale, there was HSUS, as they always are, applauding in agreement, embracing the Governor’s effort to set the clock back for California’s shelter animals 15 years.

Specifically, the Governor is asking the Legislature to repeal several provisions of the Hayden Law including the increase of California’s holding period from 72 hours to four days; the requirement that other species such as rabbits and guinea pigs be given the same protections as cats and dogs; the posting of lost and found lists so that more animals get home to their families; and the mandate to provide prompt and necessary veterinary care for sick and injured animals.

According to Jennifer Fearing, California coordinator for HSUS, these laws are not needed. She told the Sacramento Bee that, “The vast majority of shelters have adjusted to the new, longer holding periods, and they added space. Most of them are going to do those things anyway, because the paradigm has shifted.” Anyone who has ever visited the shelter in, say, Devore, California, the Central Valley which boasts some of the highest killing rates in the nation, or any of the other California shelters that kill animals before they can be reclaimed by their families or adopted into new homes, would know this is nonsense. And, I suspect, so does Fearing. But, in the end, whether she does or she doesn’t matters little. Regardless of whether her motivation is uncaring or ignorance, the fact remains that she has offered the Governor the political cover he needs to ensure that progress for shelter animals will never occur in California. By contrast, when former Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger tried to repeal the provisions in 2004, animal lovers across the state flooded his office with telephone calls, shutting down the switchboard until he relented.

Perhaps Fearing is trying to win him over for her own California bill, AB 1279, which would do nothing more than change California’s animal shelter laws to replace the word “pound” to “animal shelter,” “poundkeeper” to “animal shelter director,” and “destroy” to “humanely euthanize.” She is fighting for that law even though it wasn’t designed to help animals at all. In fact, it has the opposite intent: to excuse and exonerate those who harm them by codifying euphemisms that are designed to obscure the gravity of what we are doing to animals as a society, and thus make the task of killing easier. That bill has been held since last year. Whether that figures into her calculations or not, her position on the Hayden Law is unconscionable. And, once again, where HSUS refuses to protect shelter animals, California’s animal lovers must step up to the plate in their place. (See the call to action below.)

Here is what is at stake: Over ten years ago, then-Senator Tom Hayden, from the greater Los Angeles area, wanted to reform animal control shelters around the state, particularly those shelters in his home district of Los Angeles. His legislation had the potential to become the most significant piece of companion animal protection legislation in years. As one of its supporters noted:

With some notable exceptions, shelters have failed to provide hours the working public can visit the shelters for adoptions or redemptions of their companion animals. They have failed to provide adequate lost/found services. They have failed to keep records adequate to find pets within the system. They have failed to use freely offered microchip scanning services. They have failed to provide adequate veterinary health care for many animals. They have resisted working with the rescue/adoption community. They have failed to raise funds aggressively to promote lifesaving methods to spare the lives of placeable companion animals. They have used tax dollars to kill animals they didn’t have to accept in the first place (“owner-relinquished” pets) and to kill animals whose companion humans never even had a chance to locate them.

 

Our shelters have a very bad track record when it comes to adoption. In California in 1997 with a statewide human population of close to 33 million, only 142,385 cats and dogs were adopted from our shelters. The vast majority—576,097—were killed.

The legislation required, among other things, that animal control shelters in California give animals to rescue groups and No Kill shelters instead of killing them; provided incentives for shelters to remain open at least some evening or weekend hours so that working people and families with children in school could get to the shelters to reclaim lost pets or adopt new ones; set a statewide preference for adoption rather than killing; and sought to end the practice where animals surrendered by their “owners,” including healthy and highly adoptable kittens and puppies, were killed within minutes of arriving. It also modestly increased the time shelters were required to hold stray animals before killing them so that lost animals had an opportunity to be reunited with their families.

Shelters mired in killing, afraid of public scrutiny, and unwilling to work with rescue groups predictably opposed the measure. In addition to their desire to avoid being held accountable, their main objection was that the law made it illegal to kill an animal if a rescue group or No Kill shelter was willing to guarantee that animal a home through its own adoption program. This threatened to open up shelter killing and other atrocities to public scrutiny. As frequent visitors to the shelters, rescuers saw systemic problems and inhumane treatment of animals, but their access to animals was tenuous and many times hinged on not publicly disclosing concerns. Under the 1998 Animal Shelter Law, their right to take these animals is no longer legally premised on silence as to shelter practices and violations of the law.

Despite the opposition of shelters and their allies like HSUS, it made no sense to state legislators that taxpayers were spending money on killing animals when No Kill shelters and other private rescue agencies were willing to spend their own money to save them. Legislators also found that public shelters did not reflect the humane values of their constituents. And with holding periods among the lowest in the nation, too many animals were needlessly being killed before their families had a chance to reclaim them. Not surprisingly, the proposed bill passed the legislature with overwhelmingly bipartisan support—ninety-six to twelve—and the state’s Republican governor signed the measure into law.

The reaction was strong and swift. The County of Los Angeles fought the measure through a regulatory challenge, replete with bloated figures and misleading claims. The County claimed the law would be too expensive to implement, a claim debunked by the California Department of Finance. In fact, financial analyses by the California State Legislature, the Governor’s Office, and the California Department of Finance showed that implementation of the Hayden Law would reduce sheltering costs because of cost-savings attributable to increased adoption and reduced killing.

Nonetheless, kill shelters claimed that the “longer” holding periods, which would give people a chance to find their lost pets or for the pets to be adopted into new homes, would lead to the increased killing of other animals. That argument was also a red herring: the law did increase the holding period from a paltry seventy-two hours from the time of impound to four days if the shelter was open one evening a week or one weekend day.

When California’s holding period was 72 hours, there was only one state with a shorter holding period—Hawaii—with a 48-hour holding period. When California increased the holding period, it joined the bottom six states in the country in terms of holding period. By national standards, California’s new holding period was far from generous. Nonetheless, HSUS joined the chorus of killing shelters against the longer periods, even though the four day holding period was less than their own recommendation of five days it had long suggested shelters voluntary follow.

Tragically and illegally, some shelters simply refused to implement either the letter or spirit of the new law. Kern County’s municipal animal control shelter, an agency tasked with enforcing animal-related laws, for example, chose to ignore and violate the law. There, killing illegally continued until a local activist filed a lawsuit to stop it in 2004, six years after passage of the 1998 Animal Shelter Law. Unfortunately, Kern County does not appear to be an isolated incident. Sacramento County animal control was also the target of a lawsuit for illegally killing animals before their caretakers could find them, for not making them available for adoption, and for failing to keep records on thousands of others. And the County of Los Angeles signed a stipulation in a lawsuit against it that it would no longer thwart it. Since some shelters had to be sued to follow the provisions when they had the force of law, how can HSUS claim that shelters will continue to follow them even if they are repealed?

But it was the regulatory challenge filed by Los Angeles that may prove the law’s death knell. In California, the State Legislature cannot impose an unfunded mandate. Despite the analyses by the Legislature, Governor, and Department of Finance, the Commission on State Mandates ruled that some provisions of the law were not enforceable unless the State paid for them. While some of the provisions of Hayden survived the challenge (the provision making it illegal to kill animals if rescue groups are willing to save them is not at risk because it was found to be revenue-positive), other provisions did not.

And until the recent budget crisis, those provisions have been funded by the state, even though local shelters have been submitting bloated figures as part of a feeding frenzy of the public treasury for years. In 2009, the State suspended payments, making the provisions unenforceable during the current budget crisis. Citing a report from the Legislative Analyst’s Office recommending repeal, those are the provisions which the Governor now seeks to actually repeal, and do so with HSUS’ blessing.

But the LAO analysis favoring repeal is based on a fundamentally flawed premise. It says the provisions relating to the increased holding period are not necessary because holding animals longer does not lead to increased adoption because of pet overpopulation. Specifically, it says “Throughout the United States, there are many more animals in shelters than there are households looking to adopt pets. Partly because of this imbalance between supply and demand, roughly one–half of the animals entering shelters are euthanized.” Why hold animals if there are no homes available to adopt them?

The problem, of course, is that the opposite is true. Over 23 million people are looking to adopt pets, while three million are killed but for a home. If there is a supply-demand imbalance, it runs in the other direction. Moreover, even if the LAO analysis was right, the longer holding periods were designed for other reasons as well. The modest increases would increase the number of owned animals reclaimed by their families since, for example, some cat owners do not start looking for their cats for several days and arrive at the shelter too late under the 72 hour rule. The lost and found lists would do the same. They also give rescue groups more time to find foster homes for their animals so they can take them into their own adoption programs. And, in practice, the LAO analysis is wrong notwithstanding their erroneous assumption. Longer holding periods do lead to more adoptions, as evidenced by a sample of over 1,000 shelters nationwide. (Moreover, medical care for sick and injured animals is basic decency for suffering animals and meet a shelter’s obligation to return animals to their families in reasonable condition. In fact, California shelters have been required to provide basic medical care to animals since 1969.) Nonetheless, there was HSUS again citing the analysis as incontrovertible proof that the law is not needed. Fearing also told the Sacramento Bee, “That LAO analysis, it’s hard to overcome, because I agree.” She could not be more wrong.

But what does it matter if the provisions are repealed, if they have been suspended since 2010 and are unenforceable? Quite simply, as Professor Taimie L. Byrant of UCLA Law School stated, “permanently removing the ability for animals to share in future brighter economic times in California is unconscionable.” In other words, suspension is temporary, repeal is permanent. The latter would remove any chance that California’s sheltered animals would ever have of improved care and conditions even when the economy improves. When things do get better, shouldn’t animals share in that? Why should the blood bath continue indefinitely?

If the Governor succeeds, he will rob these animals of any hope for a brighter future. That would be unconscionable. That HSUS is nodding in agreement on the sidelines is also unconscionable. But we can do something about it. While HSUS champions the demise of Hayden, we can stand up and be the animals’ voice they now only pretend to be. We succeeded once before when the former Governor tried to do it and we can do so again.

In 2004, then Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger sought to repeal the provision, but was forced to relent. When the Los Angeles Times reported in 2004 that “The hectoring barks of animal lovers convinced Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger to reverse himself … and keep California’s law protecting stray dogs and cats at shelters,” they were reporting on the power of the people. We must teach the current Governor the same lesson. This is our state, these are our shelters, these are our values, and this is our will.

Rise, Californians. Rise and be heard before it is too late. Because if you don’t, the animals won’t stand a chance.

CALL Governor Brown at (916) 445-2841 (9 am to 5 pm)

FAX your letter of opposition (916) 558-3177

EMAIL the governor’s office at http://gov.ca.gov/m_contact.php (choose BUDGET as subject).

POST to his Facebook page at http://www.facebook.com/jerrybrown

CONTACT him through his Twitter page at @JerryBrownGov

Next Page »