Fur flies over proposed change to animal shelter law State, National, International, posted by Editor, Danville Weekly Online, on Feb 8, 2012 at 9:43 am
Valley Humane Society would be negatively impacted if Gov. Jerry Brown's proposal to repeal the 1998 Hayden Law goes through. It mandates that public shelters must hold animals for four to six days before euthanizing.
Read the full story here Web Link posted Tuesday, February 7, 2012, 1:07 PM
Posted by San Ramon Oberver, a resident of the San Ramon neighborhood, on Feb 8, 2012 at 10:15 am San Ramon Oberver is a member (registered user) of Danville Express
The best way to cut the expense of housing and euthanizing stray pets is to order a Pet Lovers License plate Web Link and show you care. This program will pay for free or low cost spay and neuter programs to reduce the number of unplanned and unwanted litters of dogs, cats, rabbits, and other pet animals. This would reduce pet overpopulation and make it easier for older animals to be adopted.
CA Spay Plates needs another 3850 preorders by the end of this June, or they will not be accepted by the DMV and tens of thousands of innocent animals will continue to be killed in shelters. Please order one or two or one for every member of your family NOW.
Posted by Patty, a resident of the Danville neighborhood, on Feb 9, 2012 at 10:36 am
I just received this email from Alley Cat Allies. If you go on their website you'll see a printed letter/email that you can sent Gov Brown. Check it out !! Send it in! I volunteer for ARF and that 72hrs wouldn't give rescue places enough time!
Posted by Douglas, a resident of the Blackhawk neighborhood, on Feb 12, 2012 at 1:43 pm
Yes, cuts hurt, but they must be made in order for California to get back on the right track. Balancing the budget takes everyone and everything taking a hit in order for this runaway train to stop! If owners are made aware of the new change, they they obviously shouldn't wait to hope an animal comes back on its own. Would you wait for a child to come back on thier own? I think not, so why the difference for your so beloved pet? In my neighborhood there are quite a few irresponsible pet owners so why should my tax dollars go to help them. Something is very wrong with that.
Posted by Tom Cushing, a resident of the Danville neighborhood, on Feb 13, 2012 at 9:35 am
Douglas: I disagree with you for at least three reasons -- probably more, but I've got work to do.
First: as to irresponsible owners, life is just not so simple and pat as you describe. Even the most careful folks have lapses (that's why we all have insurance), which, at just the wrong time, can be tragic. I've worked at shelters, we'd get panicked influxes after the 4th of July, after any windstorm, etc. -- life happens, and animals can travel great distances under their own steam, or after being picked-up by a Good Sam. Those extra days are really important in raising the probability of redemption to the keeper.
Second: when we rush to Judgment (Day), the animal pays with its very Life. I believe your approach devalues that life, which I believe is intrinsically valuable -- a companion animal is not just a possession, but a sentient being worth saving for its own worth as one of Earth's creatures. Animals adopted into other homes bring to it -- and experience -- the great joy of living. That alone is worth the cost of my tax dollars -- are your that much more precious to you?
And third -- the claimed $23M "savings" Is.Completely.Illusory. Those state give-backs to the local shelters were suspended in 2009 and are Not being paid, anyway! What the Guvnah is proposing would have no real economic impact -- the cut was effectively made three years ago! ALL it does is fray this little portion of the only safety net pets get. Where (oh where...) is the taxpayer value in THAT? How does it "help get California back on the right track??"