This is from the Sacto. Bee news: When former Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger tried to repeal a state law requiring animal shelters to keep dogs and cats longer before euthanizing them, outrage from animal lovers was so overwhelming he was forced to drop the idea.
Eight years later, Gov. Jerry Brown is proposing to repeal provisions of the same law. But this time – owing to improved shelter conditions and to years of tough budget conditioning – hardly anyone has complained. [PD note: doubt there are really improved shelter conditions.. they built a new shelter that they couldn’t afford to run, had to lay off many workers, and hired the SPCA to run it from our understanding…new shelter doesn’t necessarily mean less killing or more adoptions…that isn’t how it works. Then we have H$U$ former person that was running the Sacto city shelter, but we believe she just moved to the Sacto county shelter…meaning a new director must be at city shelter.]
Here is info to call Governor and oppose the repeal:
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
The shelter requirement, temporarily suspended in 2009, is one of about 30 local government mandates Brown is proposing to repeal in state budget legislation, greatly reducing the number of directives for which local agencies may claim reimbursement from the state.
In many cases, the mandates have been suspended for years, and in most cases – including animal shelters, officials say – local agencies still provide the same services, anyway.
The law had been interpreted to reimburse agencies only in cases in which animals were euthanized, not when animals were adopted or reunited with their owners. In its analysis of the 2008-09 budget plan, the Legislative Analyst’s Office recommended the mandate’s repeal, finding no link between the mandate and programs that encourage animal adoption. PD note: The commission on Mandates stated “there are many more animals in shelters than there are households looking to adopt pets.” This is not a true statement. The truth is there are PLENTY of households wanting a PET and don’t mind adopting–IF the pet is suitable for the family. And if animals in shelters are “not” what people are actually looking for–they should not be dissuaded from buying or obtaining a pet elsewhere. BUT the holding time isn’t just about adoption, it also involves retrieval of owner animals.
The Commission then states that it gives the adopters more time to select an animal (and the animal is still alive), but then states “it does not necessarily mean that more households adopt pets.” While not every animal in a shelter might be what a family desires, It doesn’t mean such animals can’t be good or OK or great. In an effort to give more animals a chance at living, it was a simple choice to extend the time to show them. Note: the ONLY link there has ever been was to GIVE the animal an extra few days to FIND a home–NOT to purposely keep it in order to kill it 3 days later, and get more $$ for doing it… So if the animal FOUND a home, the shelter got paid LESS $$.
NOT finding a home actually benefited the shelter monetarily. Right now they don’t get paid the mandate $$ so what difference would it make? They would end up killing the animals several days earlier– with less time to find a home; that is the difference……animal activists were VERY adamant in the 90’s when they passed the Hayden law. Sacramento has MSN– they shouldn’t even have animals in the shelter eh? //
“That LAO analysis, it’s hard to overcome, because I agree,” said Jennifer Fearing, chief economist and California senior state director for the H$U$. (H$U$ is a “D” rated charity, meaning bad. Not good.) See Fearing’s statement in 2010 down below, where she was supposedly trying to save the mandate from being “repealed.” Apparently not now. This smacks heavily of political crap, in attempt to side with Governor.
While disappointed that the state does not provide more money for local animal shelters, she said “the mandate’s repeal is unlikely to affect shelter operations.” //PD note: In other words, they (shelters) were already broke and will still be broke, but H$U$ isn’t broke and Fearing gets paid to open her big mouth and talk crap?? Let’s face it.
Fearing is nothing but a loud mouthpiece for H$U$ which has normally used deception with the public, H$U$ exists to make money off the backs of shelter animals, claiming they want to save them, but in fact, shelter animals for H$U$ is nothing but a marketing tool, to raise $$$$ and always has been. H$U$ even published the how to kill animals book for shelters. (H$U$ is more like the funeral director for shelters. ) Come on. A book on killing. Go read it. Or check it out on this site. We even had to buy the book so we could review it.//
“The vast majority of shelters have adjusted to the new, longer holding periods, and they added space,” Fearing said. “Most of them are going to do those things anyway, because the paradigm has shifted.” //PD note: Uh–nope. Not so. “Going to do ‘those things’ anyway??? Keep animals without following the law? Add more space? Shifted paradigm? Meaning what–shelters are screwed and don’t need any money because it sure isn’t coming from H$U$? Pure RED HERRING propaganda……, except the part about $$ not coming from H$U$.
….Well, we read both the 2001 Stmt of Decision before the Commission on State Mandates, and the excerpts from same in 2008-09, and the July 2011 analysis of Leg Counsel re Chpt. 752. It’s a rather unclear picture but Nathan Winograd (Stanford grad and former District Atty) explains it here:
and as we figured, Nathan also agrees that Jennifer Fearing and H$U$ are just engaging in the same bull that they always do. It is pretty clear that H$U$ is VERY used to making $$$ off the backs of the shelter animals, and as we have stated over and over and over, it “ain’t about those shelter animals!” Not for H$U$ anyway. Here is an excerpt from Nathan:
…[T]ragically 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?” and see what Nathan had to say in 2010, which we found online :
“I have to disagree with the analysis of the Hayden law in this post. When the law was passed—which both the state’s killing shelters and HSUS opposed (though the latter switched to “neutral” due to a public flogging)—a state dept. of finance analysis determined that the law would be revenue neutral at best, and revenue positive if implemented with rigor. That is because any increase in holding time for strays would be offset by an increase in adoptions and owner-reclaims (bringing in revenue) and a decrease in killing (saving money). This is a bit more complex than space here allows, and I am happy to expand if you want to pursue this via e-mail, but basically it was due to the incentive structures built into this portion of the Hayden Law: requiring shelters to maintain lost and found lists (which many did not), public access working hours (evening/weekend) when families with children and working people could go to the shelter, to put animals up for adoption rather than hide them in the back and then kill them, etc. The law also included the right of shelter access to animals on death row by rescue groups (among other things).”
“As soon as it was passed, groups like HSUS began to (dishonestly) attack it, saying it was unfair to ask shelters to hold animals any longer than 72 hours because it would lead to overcrowding. What groups like HSUS did not say is that at the time, there was only one state with a lower holding period than California—Hawaii at 48 hours. They also did not say that the marginal increase to 4 days (not including the day of impoundment) put California in the bottom six states in the nation. And they did not say that the four days was shorter than their own recommendation of 5 days for shelters.”
“Shortly after it was passed, some of these kill shelters, supported by HSUS and other national groups, filed a claim with the Commission on State Mandates, which ruled that despite the Dept. of Finance analysis, the holding period portion of Hayden (for strays only) was a reimbursable mandate per Proposition 13. The state has been paying every year, helping to save the lives of animals local shelters refused to do willingly.”
“So, more than a pyrrhic victory, it—and other sections of the law—has saved countless lives over the years until that portion of the law (stray holding period) was suspended by the Governor and Legislature during the current budget crisis. So right now, they are not enforceable although they are still the law. And rogue shelters can violate them without recourse in some cases. In others, there is recourse, but again that is a far larger topic than space allows.”
“In California, then, during this budget crisis, shelters are required to hold strays and owner surrendered animals, 72 hours from the time of impoundment. That will cause animals to be needlessly killed and puts us back as the state with the lowest holding period in the nation, with the exception of Hawaii. Two steps forward, one step backward, thanks to lack of leadership by the very agencies and organizations pledged to protect animals.”
Thank you for allowing me to share this perspective.
Comment by Nathan J. Winograd — April 5, 2010 @ 8:57 am
AND– look at this comment by Jennifer Fearing herself:
“In my role at The HSUS, I worked incredibly hard last year to try to save this funding and thus the longer holding periods. Unfortunately, like so many deserving programs that have been slashed in these trying times, it proved impossible. I’m grateful the relevant laws were suspended, and not repealed, as was being recommended by the LAO. Comment by Jennifer Fearing — April 6, 2010
Well, now it’s 2012, and Fearing is saying she AGREES with repealing the mandate???????????
IF H$U$ really wanted animals to be adopted rather than killed, H$U$ would not be telling people to kill all of Vick’s dogs, and then using Vick as the poster child, or raiding owners and killing all their dogs, or performing raids on older people or others who have animals. Instead, they would be working to cut down on animal killing, not making anti-pet laws. They would be donating huge amounts of money to inner city programs so kids could learn responsible animal ownership. Instead, HSU$ lobbies Congress and state legislators to pass bad laws, criminalizing “selling” and “giving away” of animals, while at same time, exempting “non profits” LIKE THEMSELVES. PAYING NO TAXES.