Skip to Main Content

How Many Animals Died For ‘No-Kill’ Law

Written by PETA | February 3, 2012

Lawmakers who are considering legislation based on the philosophy of the bogus “no-kill” movement should look closely at the disastrous results of California’s Hayden Law, as Phyllis M. Daugherty details in the first of a series of articles for Opposing Views about limited-admission (“no-kill”) shelters.

Dangerous overcrowding is a common
problem at no-kill shelters.

Making Matters Worse

As Daugherty makes clear, the Hayden Law was put together by lawyers and aides with no experience running animal shelters. And it shows: The bill did nothing to curb breeding (the real cause of the animal overpopulation crisis); instead, it took away shelters’ ability to make the critical decisions needed to keep the animals healthy by controlling the spread of contagious diseases and to give the most adoptable animals the best chance of finding a home through necessary means, including euthanasia of less adoptable animals.

Under the Hayden Law, shelters couldn’t euthanize the animals they took in unless the animals were already to the point of death—even if that meant enduring prolonged suffering from diseases or injuries that made them unlikely prospects for adoption. Fortunately, this constraint was recently suspended but not before wreaking havoc on animals, shelters (along with their staffers and volunteers), and state budgets.

California’s animal shelters continue to be required to surrender any animal scheduled for euthanasia—no matter how aggressive or otherwise unadoptable—to any group claiming to be a “rescue” organization upon request, which forces them to continue to house the animals until they are claimed (up to two weeks later) and puts adoptive guardians at risk from animals with a known tendency toward aggressive behavior. Daugherty describes how 20 percent of one animal shelter was occupied by pit bulls awaiting pickup by one such organization, leaving less room for animals who might have had a good chance of adoption but instead were euthanized because of a lack of space.

A Terrible Toll

It is tragic and ironic that the law cheered on by misguided “no-kill” advocates like Nathan Winograd ended up costing animals their lives; Daugherty reports that the North County Times, in an article titled, “Too Close for Comfort: New State Law Is Killing Animals,” explained how the law was “increasing the number of animals destroyed and reducing adoptions …”

While this is sad, it isn’t really surprising. As Daugherty notes, “no-kill” is a misnomer, since the refusal of limited-admission shelters to accept the responsibility of euthanasia means that they fill up quickly, leaving the turned-away animals to be taken to open-admission shelters (merely shifting the burden of euthanasia) or, worse, to be simply abandoned to face disease, traffic, starvation, predators, and other dangers.

Limited-admission shelters also tend to attract animal hoarders who take in far more animals than they can possibly care for. PETA’s undercover investigation of South Carolina’s now-defunct Sacred Vision Animal Sanctuary—which was really just a front for a hoarder—produced evidence that finally prompted authorities to rescue hundreds of caged cats who had been suffering through a living nightmare of constant filth, disease, and injuries.

Avoidance Won’t Fix the Problem

We all want to see the number of euthanized animals decreased, but the Hayden Law debacle shows that this goal can’t be accomplished just by making it nearly impossible for shelters to use euthanasia to address the current crisis. As one former shelter volunteer explained after visiting a shelter overburdened because of the restrictions imposed by the Hayden Law, “As I passed the kennels, each crammed with too many dogs and puppies, many of them sick or diseased, I was reminded again that euthanasia is not the worst thing that can happen.”

To become a truly no-kill nation, we must first become a no-birth nation by mandating spaying and neutering of dogs and cats to stop the flow of unwanted litters into our shelters. If you are concerned about euthanasia, you’ll do far more good by adopting a dog from an open-admission shelter or sponsoring a spay/neuter procedure for a cat than by supporting a limited-admission shelter. 

California Gov. Jerry Brown has announced plans to completely repeal the ill-advised Hayden Law, and let’s hope he succeeds—for the animals’ sake.

Related Posts

Respond

Comments

Post a Comment

If your comment doesn't appear right away, please be patient as it may take some time to publish or may require moderation.

By submitting this form, you are agreeing to our collection, storage, use, and disclosure of your personal info in accordance with our privacy policy as well as to receiving e-mails from us.

  • Jaloney says:

    PETA is for sensible pitbull regulations to stop the overbreeding of pitbulls and Stop them from clogging shelters nationwide where they will face euthanization. ASPCA has the sad song commercial with the pics of pets but they support pitbull rescue and rehabbing pitbulls that maul, and fight pitbull regulations that bring down the constant euthanization of the breed. Notice that they don’t put pics of pitbulls in their ad? They don’t want people to know the bulk of their dollars is not going for stray dogs and cats but pitbull causes. If you are going to give dollars. Give to PETA not Aspca!

  • HonestyHelps says:

    I’ve talked with shelter directors in California and learned that often up to 40% of their kennels have animals with a rescue hold. And that these rescues can take as long as a month to pick up. Even three days, which is a limit shelters are beginning to place on holds, means that others will have to die to hold that space open. Consider the case of Zephyr in LA County. How long did that “rescuer” leave that dog there? Almost a month on hold. The Hayden holds our shelters in CA hostage and it needs to stop.

  • cheap logo design says:

    The dog was 14-years-old and was cruelly withdrawn a peaceful dying with dignity since of someone claiming to be a “rescue” in need to “save animals from euthanasia.” Shame on them. For humiliation.

  • PhyllisMDaugherty says:

    Jeff, thank you so much for the great review of my article. My only regret is that we have to spend time writing on something that shouldn’t even be a consideration. I hope people will also go to http://www.youtube.com and look at the video, “No Kill, Hayden Bill,” which was filmed inside Los Angeles shelters after the Hayden Bill went into effect. it is abhorrent that there are those who want to capitalize on pet overpopulation, which is problem most of us want, more than anything, to resolve. I hope your readers will also read the second in the series on opposingviews.com, which is on animal hoarding. Thanks, again, to you and to PETA for never compromising your ethical position on the care and treatment of animals!

  • Bunnies2012 says:

    This is so important–thank you for exposing this terrible law and the nightmares it has caused for animals. A friend of mine found a dying Doberman laying on the concrete floor of a Los Angeles shelter–the shelter couldn’t put him down because a so-called “rescue” had put a hold on him! The dog was 14-years-old and was cruelly withheld a peaceful passing with dignity because of someone claiming to be a “rescue” wanting to “save animals from euthanasia.” Shame on them. For shame.

Connect With PETA

Subscribe