25 Jun 04
SACRAMENTO, California (AP) -- 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.
What do you guys think about this?
25 Jun 04
1 edit
Originally posted by Remora91I think it's messed up for soooo many reasons. Firstly, if 600,000 cats and dogs are put to death each year then there are naturally propogating on the streets (in which case a mass neutering campaign should be done, as has been successful in other countries) or that hundreds of thousands of pets are thrown out every year. Instead of addressing the problem of what to do with the strays, address why there are so many strays in the first place.
SACRAMENTO, California (AP) -- 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 ...[text shortened]... n the animal adoption world.
What do you guys think about this?
Also, I find it wrong that animals will basically be saved or condemned by their cuteness. Although there is logic behind it saying that those who are 'highly adoptable' should live doesn't sit right with me. Also, why should there be speciesation? WHy should a pig get zero time when they are as intelegent and as loved pets as dogs (and easier to keep in a pound!).
25 Jun 04
1 edit
Originally posted by belgianfreaki totally agree with your entire post! the move is purely a monetary effort as so many things are.
why should there be speciesation? WHy should a pig get zero time when they are as intelegent and as loved pets as dogs (and easier to keep in a pound!).
it is very difficult for the shelters though. they don't have the resources and even if they did, they cannot go on expanding like our universe.
it would be more productive to put the effort into
1. shutting down the pet industries (eg puppy mills etc)
2. legislating responsible pet ownership (eg sterilization)
3. initiating neutering programs for strays
the solution doesn't lie in just killing creatures off - you need to stop it at the source.
in friendship,
prad
25 Jun 04
Originally posted by ColettiI would but I have my own problems. At our local animal shelter 7 animals are put down every day. Thats 2000 animals per year. Plus we have a BIG road kill problem. Not to mention that 99.9% of the population hunts here.
It's a good idea. If the shelters want to extend that time, they cab raise funds through donations. That way only people who support keeping the animals alive longer need pay for it.
26 Jun 04
2 edits
Originally posted by Remora91I think California is too broke to be spending millions of dollars on "stray" animals. Now, before you call me Dr. Evil let me tell you that I am the loving owner of two miniature Dachsunds, or should I say that they own me...now, stray "pets" is different than stray animals...stray pets should be allowed time to be found by their owners, while stray "others" should be given a mandated time limit and euthanized...what else do you want to do with them?...I don't like the idea of euthanizing dogs and cats anymore than the next person, but let's face it...the state is broke!! Why do snakes and turtles get involved?...just take them to the woods and let the frickin' things go!!...unless they are some exotic species that may wreak havoc on the ecosystem, then in that case there should be laws against importing exotic breeds of animals..duh!! California is the most stupid state in the Union...the law was named after Tom Hayden?...you mean the boy toy of Hanoi Jane Fonda?...figures....look, California has to $hit or get off the pot and start saving $$ somehow...maybe shipping the 4 million illegal aliens back to Mexico and China would be a good start, but until then feeding mongrel dogs and feral cats for years just because nobody wants them is ludicrous....🙄
SACRAMENTO, California (AP) -- 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 ...[text shortened]... n the animal adoption world.
What do you guys think about this?
26 Jun 04
Originally posted by pradtfI agree with you..but...who's gonna pay for the neutering? Taxpayers?
i totally agree with your entire post! the move is purely a monetary effort as so many things are.
it is very difficult for the shelters though. they don't have the resources and even if they did, they cannot go on expanding like our universe.
it would be more productive to put the effort into
1. shutting down the pet industries (eg puppy mills etc) ...[text shortened]... t lie in just killing creatures off - you need to stop it at the source.
in friendship,
prad
26 Jun 04
Originally posted by chancremechanicWell, not all tax-payers, but all pet-owners. Why not make it illegal to have a pet without getting it spayed or nuetered? Those caught with pets that haven't been spayed or neutered would be subject to a fine, and have some set period of time within which to get their pet spayed or nuetered. For those who breed pure-bred animals, make them get a business license. The fees from these licenses would then help subsidize the spaying or neutering of pets whose owners are too poor to afford it themselves. Having the current law in place without addressing the problem of the creation of stray animals can only, in the long run, keep the death rate of strays fairly constant, rather than gradually decreasing.
I agree with you..but...who's gonna pay for the neutering? Taxpayers?
26 Jun 04
Originally posted by chancremechanichey, you're right, all these strays are costing money and Ca hasn't got much, and the whole ecosystem is another thorny matter. But if they lan to 'solve' the problem simply by halving holding times then they are not trying to find creative solutions. Maybe if 5 million were spent on neutering now is would save the 14 million in a few years time? Increase tax on pets and making people have to pay licence fees to keep breeding pets would reduce the number of impulse buys that end up on the street and could go towards funding both such schemes and the pounds themselves.
I think California is too broke to be spending millions of dollars on "stray" animals. Now, before you call me Dr. Evil let me tell you that I am the loving owner of two miniature Dachsunds, or should I say that they own me...now, stray "pets" is different than stray animals...stray pets should be allowed time to be found by their owners, while ...[text shortened]... feeding mongrel dogs and feral cats for years just because nobody wants them is ludicrous....🙄
I don't want to hijack this thread so lets continue this elsewhere if you want, but you seem to be implying that illegal imigrants are a drain on theeconomy? Sure, they may not pay tax, but they don't use the welfare systems either (or do they???)? DO you have data to back up that illegal immigration = drain on the economy? I have seen studies that have amazingly shown the exact reverse to be true.
26 Jun 04
Originally posted by bbarrWhy should just pet owners have to pay for this. I don't have children, but I pay taxes to send other peoples' children to school, I pay for damages (from taxes) to schools incurred by these heathens, and so on...I agree with you about spaying and neutering in order to own a pet (my dogs were de-balled years ago). Making breeders pay for a business license makes sense...It's a problem that has to be fixed at the source as you mentioned....a difficult but possible task...
Well, not all tax-payers, but all pet-owners. Why not make it illegal to have a pet without getting it spayed or nuetered? Those caught with pets that haven't been spayed or neutered would be subject to a fine, and have some set period of time within which to get their pet spayed or nuetered. For those who breed pure-bred animals, make them get a business l ...[text shortened]... n the long run, keep the death rate of strays fairly constant, rather than gradually decreasing.
26 Jun 04
2 edits
Originally posted by belgianfreakI'll address the illegal immigrant problem here only once..then if you want to start a thread elsewhere....
hey, you're right, all these strays are costing money and Ca hasn't got much, and the whole ecosystem is another thorny matter. But if they lan to 'solve' the problem simply by halving holding times then they are not trying to find ...[text shortened]... en studies that have amazingly shown the exact reverse to be true.
My brother lives in El Paso, Texas where the illegal alien problem has just about bankrupted every major hospital in the region...they come across the border, have their baby and skip town...baby is now an American citizen and the taxpayers of Texas just paid for a free delivery...thousands do this EVERY DAY from Texas to California. Thousands of illegals with minimal carpentry, framing, electrical skills have lowered the earning wage of life-long carpenters, electricians, etc... who used to make a decent living...now they can't make much more than a decent living wage...sure, Illegals pay taxes but it's not enough to offset their drain on the nations services...there are too many studies to name, so if you're interested in statisctics do a Google search...
26 Jun 04
Originally posted by chancremechanicIf a law like this would pass with all taxpayers willing to chip in (with a special tax, perhaps, for pet-owners), then all the better. I was just operating under the assumption that many non-pet-owners would resent a a tax to solve a problem that they would consider not of their making.
Why should just pet owners have to pay for this?
26 Jun 04
3 edits
Originally posted by chancremechanictaxpayers pay for everything and euthanasia isn't free either.
I agree with you..but...who's gonna pay for the neutering? Taxpayers?
in fact, according to this article euthanization may be more expensive:
The cost of spaying or neutering a pet is certainly less than the cost involved in raising litter after litter. It also costs the community more dollars for animal control and euthanization than it would to offer low-cost spay and neuter programs.
from the same article this hits at the source of the problem to some extent:
If people who wish to share their home with companion animals adopted them from shelters, and spayed and neutered them, pet overpopulation would decrease and eventually cease. The production of pets for profit would eventually decrease and cease, too, as consumer demand declines.
(http://articles.animalconcerns.org/ar-voices/teresa/overpopulation.html)
below is the overview of the No More Homeless Pets in Utah Campaign and it is rather interesting because it shows what can happen if people agree to a large scale goal, rather than facilitate a short term convenience. again, while euthanization will appear to solve a problem, it really doesn't touch the problem.
in friendship,
prad
(http://216.239.57.104/search?q=cache😲WRK6-txHxgJ:www.bestfriends.org/nmhp/pdf/WhatWorked02.pdf+euthanization+vs+neutering&hl=en)
No More Homeless Pets (NMHP) in Utah began in July 2000, with an aim
of reducing the number of homeless pets destroyed in Utah?s shelters by
15,000 over five years.
This document provides an overview of each element of the program, and,
for each of those elements, lists specifically the things that worked, those
that didn't, and what's next.
Overall, the program has so far been dramatically successful in Utah. Many
of its elements are experimental, even pioneering. They have worked in
Utah. They may or may not work in your community.
Some results of the first two years:
- The number of animals destroyed is down 11% over the baseline
year (1999).
- 10,238 dogs and cats have been spared from euthanization.
- Adoptions are up 31% statewide. Those done by no-kill agencies are
up 91%.
- 10,789 additional dogs and cats have found homes.
- The first Super Adoption attracted 9,000 people, and adopted out
397 dogs and cats in three days. The fourth, held last May, attracted
13,000 and adopted out 510.
- 20,964 discount spay/neuter vouchers have been used.
- The Big Fix (mobile clinic) has performed 8,697 surgeries.
While we recognize that these results are remarkable, we nevertheless find
ourselves questioning and re-questioning our progress: Are we doing
enough? Are we doing it right? Are we doing it as efficiently as possible?
Because if we're not, we're letting down the very creatures we're here for.
In short, we are so invested in the outcome of this program that we're never
quite satisfied with our accomplishments and are always seeking better,
smarter, more targeted ways of doing things.
And, in truth, we did hit both major and minor bumps in the road in Year
Two. We met our overall adoption goals with the combined numbers of the
shelters and no-kill partners, but fell short in the no-kill adoptions category,
which is the major measure of our Maddie's Fund grant. We experienced
some growing pains with the addition of new staff and, as with anything
new, experienced trials with pilot programming.
The biggest challenge that we face on an ongoing basis is the balance we
strike between focusing on adoptions and focusing on spay/neuter. We rec-
ognize the need to help, through rescue and adoption, the animals who have
already been born, and we are honored to have this duty, but we know that
without aggressive spay/neuter programs, we are not effecting a permanent
change.
The Utah Veterinary Medical Association has begun recently a two-pronged
effort, sponsored by Maddie's Fund, which focuses both on feral cats and
Medicaid recipients. While we have high hopes that both of these programs
will succeed (and are supporting them any way we can, given our limited
promotional funds for spay/neuter), it is somewhat frustrating not to be at
the helm of these programs, especially in light of our conviction that
spay/neuter is the only viable long-term solution to this problem.
Despite the challenges, we are very excited to be working toward the first
no-kill state, and know that we have been given the chance of a lifetime. We
are so thankful for the resources provided to us by both Maddie's Fund and
Best Friends Animal Sanctuary. They are partners in making our dreams
into reality, and every day we get a little closer. We hope that you will find
some help in the following pages, and that you, too, will keep fighting the
good fight so that in the not-too-distant future, we will all live in a world
with no more homeless pets.
27 Jun 04
Originally posted by pradtfI would have thought keeping pets is animal abuse.
taxpayers pay for everything and euthanasia isn't free either.
in fact, according to this article euthanization may be more expensive:
[i]The cost of spaying or neutering a pet is certainly less than the cost involved in raising litter after litter. It also costs the community more dollars for animal control and euthanization than it would to offer low ...[text shortened]... o that in the not-too-distant future, we will all live in a world
with no more homeless pets.
Look at all the suffering pets have to endure. Many are mistreated - there are well reported examaples of savage cruelty. Most animal welfare organsiations are concerned mainly with pet cruelty.
Dogs, which are intelligent socailable creatures, are often kept alone, and chained all day. Rabbits and other small animals are caged - confined within metal bars. Many have behavioural problems.
Surely you should be working towards a pet-free state?