Do you like this story?
New California Hayden law lacks funding
By David S. Greene
April 5, 2010
California does a superb job of passing progressive laws. However, if there’s no money to back anything up, great legislation is not much more than a pyrrhic victory, at best. The San Francisco Chronicle indicates that an updated state law requiring kill shelters to keep strays at least four days (instead of three) before putting them down won’t have the funding to be enforced until at least some time next year.
“The local shelters are free to hold the animals as long as they see fit, but the state simply cannot afford to provide funding for additional days,” she said. “These are not actions the governor would like to take, but he has a responsibility to ensure the state lives within its means.”
Without state funding, counties are required only to keep stray dogs three days before turning them over to new owners or putting them to death. The same three-day rule applies to stray cats.
What this really means is that across the state, especially in the Central Valley, high kill shelters will remain high kill shelters. (Thanks to intrepid reader Susan Fox for the heads up on the story)
Philly wises up, sort of: Effects of Sick Vick being in Philadelphia are becoming apparent: dogfighting ring investigations have gone up. Of course it may also be evident that the incidence of dogfighting is increasing. From an AP story highlighted by CBS:
In 2009, the SPCA investigated 903 cases of alleged animal fighting in Pennsylvania, most of them involving dogfighting in Philadelphia, [director of law enforcement for the Pennsylvania SPCA George] Bengal said. That’s more than three times the number of cases in 2008, when there were 245 investigations. Dogfighting investigations had been on the rise before the Eagles signed Vick in August, but not as dramatically as last year. In Philadelphia, Bengal said, there were 85 dogfighting complaints in 2004, 109 in 2005, 111 in 2006 and 157 in 2007.
“By hiring Michael Vick, the Eagles brought clear attention to a very awful thing that’s done to animals,” said Tom Hickey Sr., founder of the Pennsylvania advocacy group DogPAC. “But also by hiring him, they also said it’s OK to do this kind of stuff.”
Dear NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell and Eagles owner Jeffrey Lurie: We told you so.
Good puppy, bad man: The good news…I give you this morning’s gratuitous puppy picture from BadRap. That’s Elliot, a malute/husky puppy. I love those huge, pink paws. You can coo over him while I tell you about this week’s most obnoxious radio personality: Len Tillem on KGO in the Bay Area thinks it would be a hoot to poison a pit bull by lobbing poisoned meat toward him. Go for it, Len. I’ll call the police, since your suggestion is against the law, and would be a great way to get you off the air, especially after your non-apologetic apology.
Bunnies in Central Park? There used to be rabbits in New York’s Central Park, because they bred like, uh, rabbits. Now, for reasons that nobody seems to understand, the bunnies seem to be gone. Not a single wild cottontail has been seen within Central Park in four years. From the Washington Post,
Jeffrey Croft, of the watchdog group NYC Park Advocates, said at least two other New York City parks have seen rabbits disappear in recent years. The Eastern Cottontail used to be plentiful on Randall’s Island, between the Harlem and East rivers, but Croft said the population there vanished as its parkland was rehabilitated and redeveloped, and some natural fields were replaced with artificial turf.
Go Bulldogs and Huskies: Even though (perhaps because) they eliminated my beloved Syracuse Orange, I’m rooting for the Bulldogs of tiny Butler University to upset Duke for the NCAA men’s basketball tournament championship tonight. Meet Butler Blue II, the school’s mascot (thanks to ohmidog). Meanwhile, the astonishing run (77 consecutive wins and counting, including 38-0 this year) of the University of Connecticut Huskies women’s basketball team continues…
I always like to hear from readers, especially if you have tips, and links for interesting stories. Give me a shout in the comments, or better yet, send me an e-mail.
Photo credits: Shelter dogs, Lance Iversen, San Francisco Chronicle. Elliot, badrap.blogspot.com.
Share & Enjoy
|
Facebook
|
Twitter
|
Google Buzz
|
Digg
|
|
Technorati
|
StumbleUpon
|
Delicious
|
Email
|
Home
Animal advocates have worked very hard to get these laws passed. Passing new laws for animal safety (chaining) has been a hot topic in my area.
Unfortunately, the laws are passed but the annual budget for the shelter keeps decreasing each year. How are the ACO supposed to add the chaining law to their list when they already have taken on new districts because their coworkers were downsized?
I am proud of the community, shelter staff, and county government officials supporting such laws.
Sadly, I don’t think it will make a big difference for a log time.
Comment by Ericka Basile — April 5, 2010 @ 6:51 am
I emailed David about this, but thought I’d share more broadly.
This headline caught my eye as I wondered, “what *new* stray holding law in CA”?
The stray holding periods at issue in the lawsuit described in the SF Chron article were part of the so-called Hayden law, passed back in 1998. Along with a slew of other state mandates, this portion of the Hayden law was suspended last year and this year as part of the state budget.
I’d hazard to guess that many, many animals have benefitted over the past 10+ years that the longer holding periods have been on the books and as such I think it was more than a “pyrrhic” victory for the majority of its tenure.
Comment by Jennifer Fearing — April 5, 2010 @ 7:22 am
California does a superb job of passing progressive laws.
Uh, sure.
Oh wait. No.
My view as a watchful animal owner hoping to strangle ill-conceived ideas in their legislative bassinets, before they grow up and start rampaging on my streets, is that the CA assembly provides a dandy stage for all manner of grandstanding wingnuttery by political divas hoping to make a big splash before they have to find a new job. They may call their dog-and-pony shows “progressive,” but there is usually not the facility, and frequently not even the intent, to craft a sound law that actually has a chance of achieving whatever kneejerk feel-good sound-bitey label is appended to an apparently unrelated bit of whimsy that all-too-often ends up sliding through and backed by the force of law, actual results be damned.
For example, the “progressive” SB 861 — allowing towns to create a crazy quilt of unknowable breed-specific gotchas, in the name of “public safety.”
And there’s the annual zombie resurrection of AB 1634/SB 205/whatever it will be next time — so the assembly can waste the public’s time yowing about a “progressive” proposal that gives Bob Barker that old employee-diddling gleam in his eye while it will kill untold numbers of pets and destroy ethical breeding in the entire state — before it metastasizes to do so everywhere.
But congratulating itself for a shiny new “progressive” mandatory hold period that is SHORTER THAN WEST VIRGINIA’S, KENTUCKY’S, OR ALABAMA’S?
Well, that’s just speshul.
Comment by H. Houlahan — April 5, 2010 @ 8:43 am
Hi David,
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
“The [California State Legislature] provides a dandy stage for all manner of grandstanding wingnuttery by political divas hoping to make a big splash before they have to find a new job.
Comment by H. Houlahan — April 5, 2010”
Bingo.
And as we’ve discussed before, dancing to the tune of the animal rights lobby does not a progressive agenda make.
Comment by Gina Spadafori — April 5, 2010 @ 9:02 am
A bit of explanation is in order, Heather. I was talking about the broader background. California has a history of important legislation and regulations that have led the nation, including leading edge auto emissions rules which have pushed car manufacturers to move into positive directions, guidelines for cleaner air and water, and groundbreaking consumer protection laws which, again, have led other states to follow suit.
I acknowledge that it also lags in other important areas, but the truth remains that it does push the envelope in critical places. Still, you’re losing my central point, which is that no matter how good a piece of law is, if its enforcement is not funded, it’s not much of a victory at all. You can nitpick all you like about one bill vs. another, but it doesn’t mitigate the bigger picture: more days of protection are better than fewer, and without money, animals will be killed because the shelters can’t afford to protect them.
Comment by David S. Greene — April 5, 2010 @ 9:08 am
Having to see the word “pyrrhic” three times on a Monday morning is making my stomach lurch.
Just sayin’.
Comment by Gina Spadafori — April 5, 2010 @ 9:40 am
Re: Len The Psychopath Tillem
Send your comments to Mr. Farid Suleman, President & CEO of Citadel Broadcasting which owns KGO.
Las Vegas Office:
7201 W. Lake Mead Blvd.
Suite 400
Las Vegas, NV 89128
Phone: (702) 804-5200
Fax: (702) 804-8250
New York Office:
142 West 57th Street
11th Floor
New York, NY 10019
Phone (212) 887-1670
Fax (212) 887-1668
Comment by Social Mange — April 5, 2010 @ 5:33 pm
Two points of clarification:
1. It wasn’t Prop 13 that established a requirement that the state fund the costs to local government imposed by new state laws, but passage of Prop 4 in 1979.
2. 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 @ 3:03 am
LAO = Legislative Analyst’s Office, for those who don’t speak “Sacramento.” :)
And based on conversations with Jennifer at the time, I can confirm that she was indeed down at the statehouse every minute, trying to come up with ways to save and extend legislative gains for shelter animals.
Comment by Gina Spadafori — April 6, 2010 @ 6:18 am
I love what you and how your write! Thank you for being so supportive of these animals! Also am proud to say that BADRAP adopted Elliot from my small rescue and we love what they do on Saturday’s with Pit families to get their good citizenship! Awesome job all of you in CA! Keep working on everything good and I believe that things will change…….puppyprayers from Karen in Idaho
Comment by Karen Hertel — May 3, 2010 @ 8:23 pm