A Call To Action California

MiKayla Poulson

A Call to Action

The Governor is asking the Legislature to repeal several provisions of the 1998 Animal Shelter Law. If the Governor succeeds in repealing it, he will not only turn back the clock nearly 15 years, he will rob these animals of any hope for a brighter future. But we stopped it once before when the former Governor tried to do it and we can do so again.

In 2004, then-Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger sought to repeal the provisions, but was forced to relent when a united chorus of animal lovers across California convinced him to reverse himself. That is the power of the people. Follow the links at the bottom to send a copy of the enclosed letter via e-mail to key legislators in both the Senate and Assembly.

Dear Senator/Assembly Member:

The Governor is asking the Legislature to repeal several provisions of the 1998 Animal Shelter Law that increased California’s holding period for dogs and cats in shelters from 72 hours to four days; required shelters to give other species such as rabbits the same protections as cats and dogs; mandated the posting of lost and found lists so that more animals get home to their families; and provided prompt and necessary veterinary care for sick and injured animals. If the Governor succeeds in repealing those provisions, animals will die and the costs associated with killing them will increase.

These provisions helped reduce the killing of dogs and cats by nearly 250,000 in just one year after the provisions went into effect. Since these provisions were suspended in 2009, the number of animals killed in California shelters has risen precipitously. This is not only inhumane, it is expensive. When animals die, shelters lose the revenues from adoption or owner-redemption and they incur the costs of killing and disposal.

The Governor claims that the state law created a perverse incentive because shelters are reimbursed for the longer holding period only if the animal is killed and not if the animal is adopted or reunited with his or her family. The reason the reimbursement formula works that way is that shelters have fee authority to capture costs when an animal is adopted or reunited with his/her family. In fact, it is never in the best interests of shelters to hold an animal, kill him or her, and then seek reimbursement for the longer holding period. The state does not reimburse the costs of killing, and the shelter has foregone the adoption and owner-redemption fees it could have obtained when saving the animal’s life. Therefore, shelters’ financial incentives are always aligned with saving animals’ lives.

Even with the longer holding periods, California is still far from generous. Only one state has a shorter holding period for stray animals. And despite economic challenges in other states, those states are working to increase their protections, not eviscerate them. New Jersey stopped a legislative effort to curtail holding periods in that state this August. And Minnesota, New York, Florida, and Georgia are considering legislation to increase care and treatment of animals in shelters.

We realize these are difficult economic times. And while we continue to believe that funding the provisions will save the lives of animals and save money for local governments, and therefore should be restored, we would rather see the provisions continue to be suspended, rather than repealed. The latter would remove any chance that California’s sheltered animals would ever have of improved care and conditions even when the economy improves. Permanently removing the ability for animals to share in future brighter economic times in California is simply unconscionable.

(Winograd, Nathan.2013 June)


Annotations

Questions

Understanding:1) How are some local and state governments trying to fight shelters?


2) Try to summarize the article.

Interpretation:1) How do you think the article could affect the people around you?

2) What is one statement or fact from the article?

Evaluation:1) What s your opinion of this article?

2) What would you do to make this situation better?

Answers

Understanding:1) They are fighting because the governors don't really want the shelters to keep animals and dogs there for very long.

2) it's about governors fighting against shelters because they Don't want to keep the animals or dogs.

Interpretation:1) It could affect the people Around me because people enjoy caring for animals and dogs.

2) Governors are repealing provisions.

Evaluation:1) My opinion is that governors need to stop making provisions

2) I would start keeping animals in shelters for longer periods of time.