Gavin Newsom wants California to be a no-kill state. How would we end animal euthanasia?
Gov. Gavin Newsom wants the Golden State to become a “no-kill state,” ending the euthanasia of adoptable and treatable animals for good in shelters from Yreka to Chula Vista.
He’s dedicating $50 million in his 2020-21 state budget proposal to figure out how to achieve his goal.
The money, to be administered by the UC Davis Koret Shelter Medicine Program, is intended to pay for a grant program that over five years would “help local communities achieve the state’s policy goal that no adoptable or treatable dog or cat should be euthanized.” according to the budget summary.
California shelters for years have been working to lower their kill rates.
Sacramento County euthanized nearly 900 dogs and cats in 2019, according to county statistics, down from more than 4,000 in 2016.
That year, Fresno County euthanized more than 14,500 dogs and cats. That marked a downward trend for the county, which in 2012 euthanized more than 26,400 dogs and cats.
Stanislaus County decreased its euthanasia numbers as well. In fiscal year 2018-19, the county euthanized just under 2,300 animals, compared to more than 5,000 euthanized in fiscal year 2017-18.
Statewide, California euthanized more than 150,000 dogs and cats in 2016, the most recent year in which California Department of Public Health data for all counties is available.
Advocates believe they can get the numbers even lower.
“This is something that I’ve been thinking about nonstop for the last 20 years,” said Kate Hurley of UC Davis, who is expected to manage Newsom’s program.
“What is exciting is we do have a road map,” she added, citing reductions in euthanasia at animal shelters around the state. “This remains a heavy lift but it can be done.”
Before she became a veterinarian, Hurley worked as an animal control officer in Santa Cruz. She said the shelter she worked for didn’t have a vet on staff or an isolation ward.
“If a cat sneezed or a dog coughed, it was a death sentence,” she said.
Today, many shelters, especially in rural or economically struggling areas, struggle with the same problem. Lack of veterinarians and medical resources are a common cause of high euthanasia rates.
‘Not a trivial investment’
Hurley said reducing euthanasia at some shelters could be as simple as providing “an isolation ward so they can treat a kitten with ringworm.”
That would be an example of something Hurley’s program could address with the new grant funding, she said.
“$50 million is certainly not a trivial investment,” Hurley said. “I’m also not naive that this is all it’s going to take.”
By using that money to help ailing shelters, Hurley said that those shelters could turn around and attract new volunteers, grants and donations.
“People love to be on a winning team,” she said.
Jennifer Fearing, the president of the public relations firm Fearless Advocacy, was a champion of the budget appropriation and she agreed with Hurley’s assessment: $50 million in grants could attract a lot of philanthropic donations.
“I think we’ll have failed if we only get $50 million out of this,” Fearing said.
The Hayden Act
California has tried to phase out euthanasia before.
More than 20 years ago, California lawmakers passed the Hayden Act, a collection of laws designed “to move California’s animal shelters in the direction of saving more animals’ lives through consolidation of preexisting legal requirements pertaining to animal shelters and emphasis on adoption and owner-redemption of lost pets,” according to Taimie Bryant, a UCLA School of Law professor who helped write the bill.
The mandate behind the Hayden Act was de-funded during the budget crisis of 2009 and never restored. When that funding was cut, several parts of the law became unenforceable, including the mandate that shelters hold animals for four to six days before euthanizing. Today, shelters must hold an animal for at least 72 hours.
Nathan Winograd, executive director of the No Kill Center, said Newsom should restore that funding.
“If (Newsom) truly wants California to be a no-kill state ... then he needs to fully fund the 1998 animal shelter law,” Winograd said.
The de-funding has led to hardship for many animal shelters, said Jill Tucker, CEO of the California Animal Welfare Association, a group that represents shelters across the state.
“I just think there are a lot of responsibilities that shelters have that there really isn’t adequate funding to support right now,” Tucker said. “Shelters are generally doing the best they can.”
Legislative fixes
Tucker said lawmakers can help bring California closer to Newsom’s no-kill goal by passing a couple of new laws.
While pet owners can give their animals over-the-counter medications, state law prohibits non-veterinary medical shelter staff from being able to do the same.
This means that if an animal comes into the shelter with fleas, non-vet staff are legally empowered to euthanize it but not to give it a flea pill.
“We’re working on legislation that would ensure that shelters are able to provide vaccinations to animals in their care regardless of their ability to hire a veterinarian,” Tucker said.
Tucker estimated that a quarter of animal shelters in California do not have a veterinary premises permit, either because they cannot afford or they cannot recruit a veterinarian.
“In some cases, the nearest veterinarian is in the next county,” she said. “We definitely recognize that veterinary care is a major factor in putting shelters in a position where they can save all the healthy animals.”
Another way California could move closer to being a no-kill state, Winograd said, would be to pass legislation prohibiting landlords from refusing to rent to tenants that have pets.
This story was originally published January 22, 2020 at 12:44 PM.
