Thursday, January 19, 2012


I just can't continue to call the "activists" by that descriptive name any more. Activist has always meant something positive to me and the current trend at Devore are more along the lines of pawns. Yes, I think that describes them perfectly so from now on, I will refer to the anti-Devore folks as pawns, pawns of "No Kill".

The Pawns have been lamenting lately about the possible repeal of the Hayden Bill. Prayers would be answered if this turns out to be true. This has just been released, the video that has been talked about for years. This video was taken a year AFTER the Hayden took effect. Now once you have seen the video, ask yourself this, is this humane or is this cruelty? Let's not even mention that the Hayden paid shelters to euthanize. So when these Pawns are screaming to keep the Hayden, does that mean they support killing? Appears so to me.

It is shocking that after the unconscionable suffering and painful injuries/deaths of animals crammed into overcrowded shelters and the dismal budgetary failure of former CA Senator Tom Hayden’s “No Kill” Bill in California, other states are now considering passing similar legislation without a close look at the Hayden Bill’s track record.

The video is graphic and was filmed a year after the Hayden took effect.



  2. What is appalling regarding the Hayden Bill, is it actually resulted in local governments being paid or compensated to “kill animals.” If animals were released to non-profit rescue organizations, the shelters were not rewarded for increasing their pet adoption rates. They were “rewarded” and compensated for the majority of animals euthanized or killed under Hayden. This fact is outlined in LAO report.

    In California, animal shelter systems are dependent upon government discretionary funds or “general funds.” These are tax dollars that are received through property and sales tax revenue. In recent years, this funding source has declined significantly, especially in poorer communities. Couple this with the lost funding government agencies have realized from Hayden’s suspension, many shelter systems find themselves being forced to reduce services, hours of operation, and care provided directly to the many animals that arrive at shelters daily. This will only increase the euthanasia rates at those under-funded, under-capacity facilities. Reinstating or funding Hayden will only result in increased “killing” due to the fact government agencies will be rewarded or compensated to kill. There is no financial incentive under Hayden to increase adoptions. NONE!

    Until there is a stable funding mechanism to support a consistent and quality level of animal control services throughout the State of California, many poorer jurisdictions will struggle with under-funded, under capacity shelters systems such as those shown in this video. Hayden will do nothing to correct this imbalance and will only reward shelters to euthanize animals once again.

    New legislation must be considered to correct this situation and until shelters and “No-Kill” proponents work together to find a solution, the problems of pet over-population, overcrowded and under-funded shelters systems will only continue to proliferate throughout the State.

  3. Hayden should be repealed. Who in their right mind would want the “Killers” to be paid to “KILL?” This is just another example of how unstable and irrational certain members of the “No-Kill” community have become.

  4. Just think, Winograd is pimping legislation that pays shelters to kill. What a hypocrite he is.


Remember no accusations without proof. Rant if you will, it won't be published.