Red Flag Warning expires at 11:00 PM on 5/25, issued at 3:15 PM Ridgecrest, CA

Gov. Brown proposes cuts to animal shelters

Set Text Size SmallSet Text Size MediumSet Text Size LargeSet Text Size X-Large
Share
Updated: 1/31 7:07 pm
Since 1998, animal shelters have been required by law to keep animals for six days, in most cases, before euthanizing them. In some cases, shelters can keep them for four or five days, but generally they have to stay open extra hours or remain open on some weekends.

In order to meet this state requirement, the state reimburses shelters for certain costs. Governor Jerry Brown wants to end that compensation.

Under his proposal, $23 million in state money paid to shelters to enable them to feed and house animals for four to six days, would be cut.

Additionally, instead of keeping the majority of animals for six days, shelters would be allowed to euthanize them after just half that time.

Kern County Animal Control spokesperson Maggie Kalar says that’s often not enough time for animals to be reclaimed by their owners or adopted by a new family. “If you think about it, if it happens during the middle of the week and your pet is missing, you may have to go to work. You may not be able to get that time off."

The proposal has already drawn criticism from former state senator Tom Hayden, who authored a 1998 law that introduced numerous protections for sheltered animals.

He released a video last week on YouTube, produced by an animal rights group. "I think governors including Jerry Brown have tried to, they say, save a few bucks,” Hayden says in the video. “But, the cost of that is to put countless dogs and cats to death."

Supporters of Governor Brown’s proposal point to a 2008 non-partisan study conducted by the Legislative Analyst’s Office that concluded extended stays in shelters do not significantly increase the demand for adoptions.

In fact, some argue that the extra funding the state provides shelters has the exact opposite effect it was intended to have.

"The way the counties are reimbursed for this mandate isn't based on the pets they get put up for adoption,” said H.D. Palmer, who works for the California Department of Finance. “It's actually based on the number they put down. So, counties actually get more money if they put down more strays. And, that seems to be a pretty perverse fiscal incentive."

Under Brown’s proposal, shelters would not be required to euthanize dogs after 72 hours. They are free to house and feed them as long as they possibly can.  They would just have to do it without the state’s help.

Kalar told 17 News that Kern County Animal Control does not plan to decrease the number of days it houses and feeds animals, even if Brown’s proposal eventually becomes law.
Share
7 Comment(s)
Comments: Show | Hide

Here are the most recent story comments.View All

The views expressed here do not necessarily represent those of KGET TV 17 - In the Spirit of the Golden Empire

nbentz1985 - 2/11/2012 4:05 PM
0 Votes
What makes the lives of innocent, helpless animals expendable when convicted serial killers, rapists, etc. can waste the tax payers' money sitting around on death row, or spending the rest of their useless lives in prison, all on the government dime??! If funding needs to be cut from some where, why doesn't the government stop wasting millions sustaining the lives of violent criminals, instead of consigning hundreds of thousands of completely innocent animals to undeserved deaths just because some douchey stooge governor doesn't think that animals are deserving enough of government funding to ensure their livelihood and well being - even though it only costs a FRACTION of what the prison system receives in annual funding. Better yet, if there is such a huge money shortage in the country, why don't all of the governors, and the rest of the politicians residing in mansions, take a pay cut and move in to more modest accommodations?? Or is that idea just too radical and socialist??!

Paranah - 2/1/2012 6:11 AM
0 Votes
Gov. Moonbeam wants to cut spending, but his #1 priority to cutting is services that bennifit the tax payers. Maybe Moonbeam should read the report from the Federation for Amercan Immigration Reform and cut ALL spending that bennifits illegal imigrants. According to a study conducted by the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) In California the additional cost of illegal immigration, $21.8 billion, is $8 billion more than the state’s current budget deficit of $13.8 billion; Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/07/02/immigration-costs-fair-amnesty-educations-costs-reform/

rontruth - 1/31/2012 11:43 PM
0 Votes
how about some of the BS "rob riener" first 5 taxes be used for something productive and send it to the animal shelters? old moonbeam is really showing his true colors.

thisperson - 1/31/2012 10:58 PM
1 Vote
http://www.change.org/petitions/the-governor-of-ca-do-not-repeal-any-provisions-of-the-hayden-law

thisperson - 1/31/2012 10:58 PM
1 Vote
http://www.change.org/petitions/the-governor-of-ca-do-not-repeal-any-provisions-of-the-hayden-law

jerry kapitza - 1/31/2012 8:22 PM
3 Votes
If the rich want to keep the boarder jumpers for help let them pay for everything. But to cut the FFA and animal shelters is a joke. the only two things that never hurt anyone and you are going to screw with that. that is just like everyone in jail gets better care then the people that have grown old doing the right things. this is a joke. maybe it is time for the people to take back our rites.

jerry kapitza - 1/31/2012 8:12 PM
3 Votes
I say we cut the welfair to all of the none working useless dicks and save the animals. And all of the boarder jumping river swimmers need to cut the free stuff that we give them.
Bakersfield Current Conditions
51° High: 75°  |  Low: 51°
Clear
Inergize Digital This site is hosted and managed by Inergize Digital.
Mobile advertising for this site is available on Local Ad Buy.