ARs have done this con job in several ways. One, they make everyone ‘think’ you can-must adopt your way into owning a dog. Two, they make everyone ‘think’ that buying an animal is morally reprehensible. Three, shelters get paid more to kill than to save, or to give animals to rescue–and the ARs made up the law, not us.
ARs don’t tell you about these 3 facts. Last but not least, only about 15% of owned animals are from rescue, rehomed or shelters. Therefore 85% are NOT rehomed, rescued or shelter animals. That means people like to buy PUPPIES. Can you blame them? FORCING people into BUYING shelter dogs they don’t want is not going to work. Sure, they can have less animals going to shelters. BUT they won’t force everyone to get a shelter dog. Won’t happen.
As we have long said, the ARs story about “saving those shelter dogs” is NONSENSE . ARs actually don’t want ANY animals sold because they believe ANIMALS ARE NOT PROPERTY AND SHOULDN’T BE SOLD, PERIOD. That one fact clearly explains how SB917 functions, claiming it is illegal to “sell” but not illegal to “adopt.” Come on people. How stupid can we be????
IN OTHER WORDS, HSUS NOW HAS TO MAKE LAWS OUTLAWING SELLING, CALLING “SELLING” ANIMAL ABUSE, IN ORDER TO FORCE PEOPLE INTO ADOPTING. Close down pet stores, stop sales of animals, stop animals in public, stop displays of animals, stop advertising animal sales, stop breeders, stop everything unless it’s “adoption.” We ain’t that dumb, people. We all KNOW that the VERY animals HSUS doesn’t want us to OBTAIN are almost NEVER in the shelter to begin with.
Below is the State Mandate (shortened version) of how and why California is broke and how the “rule” of mandating $$ to shelters by the State has caused the State a ton of $$$ but State can’t pay it anymore.
Essentially it says that although more time, effort and $$ has gone into forcing people into “adoption” statewide,,,, the fact remains that it is not working. The state can’t pay back the mandates and the shelters are not getting the $$$.
PD note: In fact– the study even ADMITS that shelters GET PAID MORE IF THEY KILL MORE ANIMALS. It’s not that we hate the Hayden law, however, ARs that wrote it, got shelters to get more $$ if they killed more animals, and if they ADOPTED more out, they got LESS money. Again, ARs designed the law, not us. Now that the law has backfired, and the State can’t pay the mandates, who knows when they will ever pay it.
When the Legislature considered Chapter 752, it was advised that the measure would not impose a state–reimbursable mandate because shelters would receive increased adoption and owner–redemption fees. These fees would offset shelter costs to care for the animals for the longer period. http://www.lao.ca.gov/analysis_2008/general_govt/gen_anl08018.aspx
Shortly after Chapter 752 was enacted, local governments filed a mandate test claim with the commission. The commission found that the cost of caring for the animals that were adopted or reunited with their owners was not a reimbursable mandate (because owners paid fees to offset these costs). In the case of animals that were euthanized, however, the commission found that local government shelters’ cost to care for them for three additional days was a state–reimbursable mandate.
Whenever the commission finds a mandate, its next task is to adopt a methodology that local governments use to file reimbursement claims. While mandate law gives the commission flexibility as to the form this methodology takes, the focus must be on reimbursing the specific elements of legislation found to be a mandate, not promoting the legislation’s policy objectives.
In the case of this mandate, the commission created a methodology that reimburses local government shelters for (1) their increased cost of caring for the animals that they euthanize and (2) certain minor costs, such as maintaining lost and found lists. In 2008–09, local governments are expected to claim $23 million for this mandate. Almost all of the cost is for the food, medical care, and space needed to keep animals alive for the longer period. Private shelters are not eligible for the mandate reimbursements.
Given the state’s interest in promoting animal adoptions, we examined whether Chapter 752’s longer holding period results in increased adoptions—either directly due to its requirement or indirectly through the mandate funding provided. Our review indicates that there is little reason to believe it does.
Direct Impact of Longer Holding Period. Throughout the United States, there are many more animals in shelters than there are households looking to adopt pets.
PD note: //This is NOT true at all. There are always many more people wanting animals than there are in shelters, HOWEVER the simple fact is that most people do NOT want dogs of unknown breeds, or ones with unknown behaviors, or those with bad behaviors, excessive barking, not friendly, bad with kids, skittish, you name it. People/parents with children who do not know much about dogs should NOT get a rescued or shelter dog.//
Partly because of this imbalance between supply and demand, roughly one–half of the animals entering shelters are euthanized. Chapter 752’s requirement that shelters keep animals alive longer increases the supply of animals in shelters on any specific day. It also gives animal rescue organizations more time to transfer animals to their facilities. This increased supply of adoptable animals (at shelters and rescue facilities) can give households greater choice in selecting a pet to adopt. It does not necessarily mean, however, that more households adopt pets. That is, the mandate does nothing to increase the “demand” for these animals.
Indirect Effect of Shelter Funding. To increase the number of pets adopted, more households need to adopt pets rather than buy them from stores or breeders. Especially over the last decade, as concern regarding the treatment of animals has grown, many shelters, animal rescue, and humane groups have taken significant steps towards promoting animal adoption. Does the funding provided under Chapter 752 support these efforts? Our review finds no link between the funding provided under Chapter 752 and programs that encourage animal adoption.
Specifically, under the mandate’s reimbursement methodology, (1) shelters do not get more state funds if more households adopt animals.
(2) Rather, shelters that euthanize the most animals receive the most state funds.
(3) Shelters that are the most successful in promoting adoptions receive the least state funds.
This gap between Chapter 752’s policy goals and mandate reimbursements stems from the requirements of mandate law. Specifically, the California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local governments for the cost of required activities—without regard to local success in achieving the desired outcomes.
As we have long said, the ARs story about “saving those shelter dogs” is NONSENSE . ARs actually don’t want ANY animals sold because they believe ANIMALS ARE NOT PROPERTY AND SHOULDN’T BE SOLD, PERIOD. That one fact clearly explains how SB917 functions, claiming it is illegal to sell but not illegal to adopt. Come on people. How stupid can we be????
IN OTHER WORDS, HSUS NOW HAS TO MAKE LAWS OUTLAWING SELLING, CALLING “SELLING” ANIMAL ABUSE, IN ORDER TO FORCE PEOPLE INTO ADOPTING. We ain’t that dumb people. Yes, we purposely put the last 2 paragraphs in twice. They might get less animals going into shelters, but they will NEVER turn the shelter into a pet store. It is impossible. They could outlaw petstores across the USA and it would still never happen. All that would happen is to drive up the cost of a puppy.
and then maybe OWNING a puppy will become “animal abuse” as well.