AR-News: RE: Important article on the Hayden Bill - SB 1785

[Lois Newman]

Lois
----- Original Message ----- 
From: Lois Newman 
To: Lois Newman 
Sent: Tuesday, June 29, 2004 12:19 PM
Subject: Dail Jouranl


DAILY JOURNAL NEWSWIRE ARTICLE 
http://www.dailyjournal.com 
© 2004 The Daily Journal Corporation. 
All rights reserved. 
------------------------------------------- 

June 29, 2004 

ANIMALS IN SHELTERS DESERVE SIMPLE PROTECTIONS PROVIDED BY LEGISLATION 

        Forum Column
        
        By Taimie Bryant and Vicki Steiner
        
        Six years ago, state Sen. Tom Hayden introduced a complex animal shelter-reform package that would shift our shelters in the direction of saving animals' lives through adoption and owner redemption.
        Although passed with overwhelming bipartisan support in both houses of the Legislature, the Hayden legislation has been under attack ever since. Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's "mistake" - his recent proposed repeal of that act, which he quickly disavowed in the face of public resistance - is only the most recent attack. Undoubtedly, it won't be the last.
        The legislation's opponents are, for the most part, local governments and traditional kill-oriented animal shelters. They claim that the Hayden legislation is too costly to implement and that the state owes them money to cover those costs.
        From local governments' perspective, the Hayden legislation is simply about holding animals longer, only to incur the costs of killing them at a later date. In fact, the legislation is not about holding and killing animals. It is about maximizing opportunities for shelter animals to make their way out of shelters - alive and in their old homes or in new, loving ones.
        At the heart of the Hayden legislation are three policy statutes that express the People's preference for adoption instead of euthanasia. Contrary to the claims advanced by opponents of the legislation, those provisions contain no obligations. In fact, the legislation establishes holding-period limitations. Ultimately, even an adoptable animal will be killed if the holding period ends without the animal having been adopted or reclaimed by the owner.
        Through increased access and collaboration, the Hayden legislation can save lives. Importantly, the policy preference of adoption interfaces with two provisions: first, the implementation of holding periods that provide for access at times when working people can visit shelters; and second, the right of rescue groups to adopt animals from shelters.
        Far more important than the duration of the holding period is the nature of the holding period - namely, the provision of public-access hours. Since most rescue-group volunteers, like most of us, are working individuals, they can go to the shelters only after work or on weekends. Accordingly, if each shelter animal is available for public access either one weekday evening until 7:00 p.m. or one weekend day, the holding period mandated by the Hayden legislation is four days. If the public cannot access the shelter during those times, only then is the holding period six days.
        By promoting alliances between shelters and rescue groups, the Hayden legislation offers a means not only to defray much of shelters' costs of care but also to give animals longer than the minimum holding time to be placed in new homes. If an animal is going to die (at our expense), why shouldn't a rescue group - which pays fees up to the amount of fees paid by any other adopting person - be able to take the animal for the purpose of extending foster care until a home can be found? Despite the soundness of this approach, some shelters insist on making it very difficult for rescue groups to take out animals.
        Shelters have many incentives to kill animals. Shelter employees are paid the same, regardless of whether animals are given proper care and regardless of whether animals are adopted or reunited with their families. They are paid the same whether cages are full or empty. They are paid the same whether or not they deal with the sometimes-aggravating public.
        Because shelter budgets are calculated by reference to how many animals the shelter states it needs to kill, shelter budget allocations actually may decrease if the shelter saves the money it would have expended on killing and brings in money from adoptions and owner-redemptions. Such is hardly reason to deny animals any meaningful opportunity to live, to find homes, and to be loved.
        Our shelters have been so zealous in their killing that they have killed owner-relinquished animals immediately, at taxpayer expense, without any mandate from the People to take in owner-relinquished animals at all, let alone to kill them immediately. Despite the fact that studies have shown that owner-relinquished animals are more adoptable than strays, such animals have been denied any chance of adoption in our shelters. In fact, it is not unusual for such animals to be killed even before their relinquishing owners pull out of the shelter parking lot! Hayden's legislation does not require shelters to take in these animals; however, if they do, it requires at a minimum that those animals be kept the same length of time as strays.
        Since 1872, Civil Code Section 1834 has required shelters to treat animals "kindly." Yet, when Hayden added the words "necessary and prompt veterinary care" and "nutrition" in 1998 to bring the century-old mandate to "treat them kindly" in accord with other extant code provisions, a furor arose from the shelter community. The drafters were dumbfounded then (and remain so now) to learn that necessary and prompt veterinary care is an "extra" that shelters shouldn't have to provide without extensive state funding.
        In short, for years we have used our resources to kill animals rather than to treat them kindly and to help them find new lives outside of our shelters. Hayden's legislation is a modest step in the direction of getting some of our shelter animals out alive and in good homes. Still, those who claim Hayden's legislation causes fiscal problems have plagued its provisions since its inception.
        It's time to accept the reality that the fiscal problems are rooted in shelter budgeting practices, not in the Hayden legislation. We need to use money for treating animals well and helping them to find homes. We need to reward shelter employees when they achieve those goals because they have saved us money and anguish. Until we implement such performance-based budgeting and rewards in line with the People's preference for adoption, we will have continued struggles over this legislation.
        And that will be a truly serious mistake.
        
        Taimie Bryant is a professor at UCLA School of Law and one of the principal drafters of the Hayden legislation. Vicki Steiner is a practicing Century City attorney with Novian & Novian whose professional interests include protection of animals and government accountability. 


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.envirolink.org/pipermail/ar-news/attachments/20040629/8c28d24f/attachment.html