California Governor Schwartznegger’s proposed budget – a budget long overdue now -  includes reducing the mandatory stay length for strays in animal shelters from six to three days. The six-day period was won through the Hayden bill, adopted in 1997. The lengthier time period was intended to give these animals a better chance at adoption or recovery by owners. According to a legislative analyst’s report, the lengthier stay has had little effect on adoption rates. The rates of adoption and recovery had been rising steadily until the recent economic downturn, which caused an increase in the number of abandoned animals.

The Governor tried to make this change in 2004 and backed down after protests by many citizens and animal groups. This time around, the voices are still there but they appear to be quieter. The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) says the change would recover 0.1% of the 24 billion-dollar deficit faced by California, a pittance.  The HSUS, along with several other animal groups, is proposing alternatives, primarily what they call a one-year animal “safety net”. What this safety net actually would be is not clear. The HSUS statement is conciliatory, recommending that if this budget provision is retained that other animal protection measures be protected.

Too many shelters are killing too many animals already – unnecessarily. The budget cuts will undoubtedly result in an increase in the killings. Yet the HSUS and others, recognizing the serious state of California’s budget crisis, are saying, “all right, if it’s that bad, go ahead and reduce the mandatory stay length but don’t gut other important provisions in animal protection laws.”

Unfortunately, as with many other controversial topics, the alternatives offered do not include the best available. In this case, one of the most obvious is to encourage – or require – shelters to develop or support foster care programs. This is but one of many steps, including holding adoption clinics at malls and other high-traffic areas, that are not expensive but can have a dramatic effect on the number of animals killed. Foster programs can be a part of existing animal control volunteer programs, requiring little expense. Take a look at how Kansas City turned around its kill rates within six months.

It is disheartening when a problem that can be solved is misrepresented and the only solutions proposed are the worst.  It is more than disheartening when so many believe the problem cannot be solved or do not understand the real bases of the problem.

Here are a few facts to chew on:

* Shelter animals comprise a minority of the animal companions in this country. Most animals come from breeders or puppy mills.

* Loose animals do not represent the threat that animal control thinks they do. Very few of these animals are actually dangerous and those that are easily caught tend to be pets who have never threatened anyone.

It’s possible to end the killing, to make it so threats like the governor’s don’t have any power.  But we have to start with the real facts. A good start is the excellent book Redemption, which I reviewed for Vegan Soapbox.

Sections: Vegan News
Topics: animal rights, law, politics, veg