Schwarzenegger wants to repeal California's comprehensive law forcing animal shelters to hold stray cats and dogs up to six days before killing them, a budget-cutting move that has enraged pet adoption groups.
As a favor to the state's cash-poor counties and cities, Schwarzenegger has asked the state Legislature to reverse the 1998 law, which makes adoption of wayward pets the first priority of shelters instead of quickly putting them to death. The law is dubbed the Hayden Act, after former Santa Monica state senator and activist Tom Hayden.
"This is an issue that affects the care and protection of tens of thousands of stray animals, and will inflict heartbreak on a lot of owners and people in the animal adoption world," Hayden said Thursday.
Few issues can incite animal lovers more than the abuse or killing of pets. Los Angeles' animal services director, Jerry Greenwalt, retired in April after protesters vandalized his house and spray-painted "murderer" on his car. Claiming the city killed too many animals, protesters also picketed the San Pedro home of Mayor James K. Hahn (only to be targeted themselves by Hahn's neighbors, armed with squirt guns.)
Many experienced politicians say it is best to either be an advocate for animals or stay clear of the issue.
"There is no organized constituency of cats and dogs, but certainly the pet owners of America will find this reprehensible," said Barbara O'Connor, director of the Institute for the Study of Politics and Media at Cal State Sacramento.
"Cats and dogs are like mom and apple pie. Don't mess with the pets. Most people prefer them to other people."
Hahn, in fact, announced last year that the city would stop killing animals by 2008, but Los Angeles continues to put to death cats, dogs and other animals that are not adopted. The city handles more than 60,000 animals each year and kills about 34,000, or 54%. An estimated 600,000 dogs and cats are put to death each year statewide.
The Schwarzenegger administration said repealing the Hayden Act could save local governments up to $14 million. As proposed, shelters would be allowed to kill dogs and cats after holding them just 72 hours, regardless of whether the shelters are open to the public during those three days.
But animal rights activists believe cats and dogs should not be sacrificed in an effort to save money amid the state's budget shortfall.
"It's sad they would put a price tag on the animals," said Kathy Riordan, a member of the Los Angeles Animal Services Commission and daughter of Schwarzenegger advisor and former Mayor Richard Riordan.
Schwarzenegger has proposed a change in the law to allow birds, hamsters, potbellied pigs, rabbits, snakes, turtles and other animals that are not cats and dogs to be put to death immediately after capture if the shelter favors that approach, animal rights groups said. Currently, a minimum six-day window covers all animals, but the protections for everything but cats and dogs would be eliminated under the changes.
Schwarzenegger also would eliminate a requirement that people convicted of animal cruelty be prohibited from owning a pet for three years and be forced to pay for medical care for the animals they have mistreated.
Shelters no longer would be required to search for owners who have embedded microchips in their pets that store addresses and phone numbers.
There are signs that Schwarzenegger has a growing understanding of how volatile the issue of animal protection can be.
Amid complaints from animal rights groups, the Schwarzenegger administration said it has been working to keep portions of the Hayden Act that do not cost local shelters money, such as requiring pets to be offered to nonprofit rescue groups before they are killed.
Schwarzenegger's aides are expected to meet soon with animal rights groups and local governments to reach a compromise on the issue before the 2004-05 state budget is approved by the Legislature, perhaps as soon as this weekend.
H.D. Palmer, a spokesman for the state's Department of Finance, said the administration would like to cut costs for local governments but also fix an unintended consequence that local governments said came because of the Hayden Act: overcrowding because shelters must hold even vicious dogs for up to six days. Subsequently, Palmer said, shelters have been forced to kill animals to make room for new animals than come in every day.
"Because of space limitations, the shelters are being forced to euthanize animals who are otherwise highly adoptable immediately after the holding time," Palmer said, "whereas before that they could use some discretion and delay that."
Pet adoption and animal rights groups said repeal of the Hayden Act would sacrifice protections for animals in order to save cities and counties money, although exactly how much money is being disputed. But many also said they do not believe Schwarzenegger would purposely advocate killing animals sooner to save local budgets.
"They are attempting to cut this budget with a hatchet instead of a scalpel, and they are not thinking rationally," said Rich McLellan, director of the Animal Legislative Action Network in Los Angeles and a consultant on the 1998 legislation.
Jennifer Fearing, director of programs for United Animal Nations in Sacramento, said the Hayden Act managed to move California to fairly reasonable shelter standards — certainly not groundbreaking — and ending the law would set California back. "It wasn't like we revolutionized things," she said, "but we greatly improved the status of animals in shelters, and we focused on a policy of not killing animals. This undoes all of that."
Under the current law, animals at shelters must be held at least four business days before the shelter can consider killing them. A stray animal must be kept at least six days if the shelter is open only Monday through Friday and does not offer evening hours.
The optional evening and weekend hours often give owners time to search for lost pets after work and allow nonprofit rescue workers time to search for dogs and cats to offer for adoption themselves. Nonprofit rescue shelters also pay government-run shelters to take cats and dogs and save them from death.
Some lawmakers say Schwarzenegger should not repeal part of the law that requires people convicted of animal cruelty to pay the veterinary costs of the injured animal. That item is under discussion this week.
"If we repeal that, guess who has to pay for the cost? The taxpayers," said Assemblyman Lloyd Levine (D-Van Nuys). "We are overturning a policy I think most people would agree with and we are going to be costing the state money."
The state has been struggling with how to close a $15-billion shortfall, and counties and cities have been complaining that lawmakers continually put spending mandates on them without reimbursement. For counties, the requirement to hold cats and dogs has been a complaint since the Hayden Act passed.
Exactly how much local governments are being forced to spend because of the Hayden Act has been the subject of dispute for years. The Commission on State Mandates said two years ago that local governments are owed $79.2 million, a figure the state auditor later said was inflated. Who pays for state laws about animal shelters is now the subject of a lawsuit and a bill in the Legislature.
"I believe it's premature not only because of the pending court cases, but also premature because we don't have an assessment of how much is owed," said Taimie Bryant, a UCLA law professor who teaches a class on animal law and helped write the Hayden Act.
Lawmakers say repealing the Hayden Act has not been given a proper hearing in a policy committee and should not have been inserted into the proposed state budget without oversight. Now, some are threatening to withhold their vote on the budget until the Schwarzenegger administration withdraws or alters its plan.
"As far as I'm concerned, this throws a wrench in the budget negotiations," said Assemblyman Paul Koretz (D-West Hollywood). "I would not want to make this part of the budget vote. Why would we want to make it easier to kill adoptable animals?"
― Gear! (Gear!), Friday, 25 June 2004 17:47 (twenty-one years ago)
― Michael White (Hereward), Friday, 25 June 2004 17:50 (twenty-one years ago)
― AdamL :') (nordicskilla), Friday, 25 June 2004 17:51 (twenty-one years ago)
― GEORGE BUSH IS WORSE THAN HITLER (hstencil), Friday, 25 June 2004 17:52 (twenty-one years ago)
― Michael White (Hereward), Friday, 25 June 2004 17:53 (twenty-one years ago)
― PLANNED PARENTHOOD = GOEBBELS (hstencil), Friday, 25 June 2004 17:55 (twenty-one years ago)
― Jordan (Jordan), Friday, 25 June 2004 17:58 (twenty-one years ago)
― Je4nne ƒury (Jeanne Fury), Friday, 25 June 2004 18:03 (twenty-one years ago)
AMY DAVIDSON: Arnold Schwarzenegger’s path to the governorship was an unlikely one—he wasn’t a politician and he won office in a recall. What kind of governor has he proved to be?
CONNIE BRUCK: To the surprise of many Californians, he has proved to be a very skillful politician. As Schwarzenegger is fond of saying, it is fine with him that people have always underestimated him—it only works to his advantage. Indeed, he has sometimes encouraged it; in business negotiations in past years, for example, he has commented that he is just a dumb bodybuilder. Essentially, the traits that helped him to become a world-champion bodybuilder and a highly paid movie star have also served him well in his political incarnation. He is extraordinarily shrewd, monumentally ambitious, industrious, driven, astute about others’ strengths and weaknesses, and supremely artful in his manipulations. He is also a born salesman, who has been selling one brand of snake oil or another all his adult life; once, it was barbells, now it is workers’ comp.
Critical to his effectiveness, though, is the fact that he has harnessed this skill set to a moderate agenda, and embraced bipartisanship in a way that sets him, as a Republican, far apart from the Bush Administration, as well as from the more extreme elements in the California Republican Party. His appeal to Democrats, of course, is immeasurably enhanced by his wife, Maria Shriver.
The California legislators seem smitten. Is that a testament to his skills as a politician, or to the power of celebrity?
If another politician had the same skills that Schwarzenegger does, he would not have the same power. Schwarzenegger’s celebrity unquestionably adds power to his talents. It is amazing how many of the legislators respond to him. I’m told that some of them go home to their districts and eagerly show off pictures of themselves posing with Arnold. This is not a universal condition—a couple of the legislators to whom I spoke were aghast at their colleagues’ behavior. One of them commented to me that Schwarzenegger is squandering his celebrity—that he is so empowered by it that he could persuade the people of California to accept the kind of tough remedies that would put the state’s fiscal house in order. Instead, he has taken the easy way out, with half-fixes that are not so different from what his predecessor, Gray Davis, tried to achieve—but the difference is that Schwarzenegger, with his show-biz props, markets them as stunning victories.
Not every celebrity, no matter how popular, could have pulled this off. What is it about the image that Schwarzenegger cultivated that made him seem credible to voters?
It’s not the image itself, I think, but Schwarzenegger’s masterful exploitation of it that sets him apart. Still, I did wonder, in the course of reporting this piece, whether Schwarzenegger long ago realized that his image as an action hero would be uniquely useful to him in his political life, and I actually think he did. It was one of those neat confluences. A consultant who is close to the Schwarzenegger team told me that some of his people thought that once he was elected he should leave the bodybuilding and action-hero references behind him—they might seem a little tacky, now that he was governor. But no! Schwarzenegger laces practically every speech with some reference to his past lives—he obviously is convinced that he knows more about what works in the real world than his political-junkie advisers do.
There have been times when he has almost lost control of his image, though—with allegations of sexual harassment and admiring comments about Hitler. Has he put those behind him, or might they become an issue again?
I doubt that the Hitler comments will trouble him anymore. I think he has inoculated himself effectively, through his long-standing relationship with Rabbi Marvin Hier, of the Simon Wiesenthal Center, and through the Museum of Tolerance and his charitable contributions there. It was also not accidental that his first major trip as governor was to Israel. In Schwarzenegger’s offices in Sacramento, there is a photograph, prominently displayed, of Schwarzenegger at Yad Vashem. While it is, I suppose, possible that further details about his father’s activities as a Nazi might emerge, that should not damage Schwarzenegger.
The issue of his relations with women is, in my view, more of a possible minefield.
Schwarzenegger told you that his background as a bodybuilder and actor was good preparation for politics—better than, say, an apprenticeship in Sacramento would have been. Does he have a point?
Well, it’s hard to say, because Schwarzenegger, being Schwarzenegger, could not have been one of many in the state Assembly or Senate. In thinking about politics, I’m told, he felt that the only two offices he would be suited for were governor or President—because he had to be in an executive position. Even the U.S. Senate was not seen as something that would offer him sufficient autonomy.
Also, it’s true that his background as a bodybuilder and actor prepared him well—in bodybuilding, he honed his talent for what he called “psychological warfare,” and in acting he raised the art of marketing himself to new heights.
Schwarzenegger, you write, has positioned himself as a “moderate.” What does that mean, in terms of American politics today?
I don’t think we know yet just what Schwarzenegger’s political philosophy will be. All we know is that he is a fiscal conservative, moderate on social issues. Maria told me that she sees him as a kind of reversion to what the Republican Party used to be—in the mold of, say, a moderate like Nelson Rockefeller. But I think it is plain that Schwarzenegger believes that the kind of bipartisanship he has been practicing in Sacramento is going to gather more and more political strength nationally. As George Butler, who has known Schwarzenegger since the early seventies, points out, “Arnold always rides a wave.”
One fascinating part of your piece has to do with Maria Shriver, Schwarzenegger’s wife. What role has she played in his career?
I think she has played a major role. When he was in movies, she was always overseeing, trying to make sure he was being presented in his best light, trying to get him to be taken more seriously, watching out for his interest in numerous ways. And, as one person who knew her then told me, she is doing the same thing, essentially, in Sacramento today. I’m sure that she, and her parents, have had a moderating influence on Arnold. In my conversation with Maria, she seemed to suggest that Arnold and she are not so far apart on issues—she said that some of her friends have said, somewhat jokingly, “Why can’t he just become a Democrat?” But she said that it’s very important to Arnold to be his own man; it’s important to him in this family of Kennedys that he is a Republican. And, mainly, it was very plain, in talking to her, how excited she is about Arnold as a bipartisan politician. She thinks that this is the grand opportunity. And whatever reluctance she may have had about his political career has clearly evaporated. A friend of hers told me that Maria now loves that they are in political life, and that she has realized that she can have a greater impact as First Lady (of California, for now) than she ever did as a television reporter.
You interviewed Schwarzenegger. What struck you about him? How does he deal with questions?
I was struck by how much he has changed, in a relatively short time. I had, of course, read many pieces about Schwarzenegger, and, as recently as 2003, before he ran for governor, he gave an interview (to Esquire) in which he was quite open, going on and on in an interminable monologue, and, in the course of it, said things that were striking in their, well, vulgarity. He apparently does not do that anymore. He is far more controlled, keeping himself on a relatively short leash, and he is very deft in handling questions. One of his consultants, who has worked with him for several years, told me that he is amazed at how much better Schwarzenegger has become in handling press questions in just the past six months. I mean, he’s an unusual person, with an unusual frame of reference, and that still comes through—but it is all much more heavily censored.
Schwarzenegger has said that Ronald Reagan is a role model for him. Beyond the obvious—both are actors who became governor of California—how do they compare?
I think that Schwarzenegger most wants to model himself after Reagan in terms of being a great communicator. Schwarzenegger admired the way Reagan was able to inspire people with his optimism, and Schwarzenegger is trying to do much the same thing. Reagan invoked the city on the hill; Schwarzenegger, the golden dream by the sea. He even has a former Reagan speechwriter, Landon Parvin. And he exudes optimism. As Maria says, “Arnold is in the optimism business.”
Will Schwarzenegger be good for Bush this November?
I don’t think he is going to do much for Bush. I think he will appear at the Republican Convention, but that will be for him, not for Bush. Schwarzenegger suggested to me that just by virtue of his doing a good job in California he would help Bush—but I think that is a reach.
Schwarzenegger often jokes about a constitutional amendment to remove the restriction on non-native-born citizens becoming President. Is it really a joke?
He says it is—but he can’t even say it convincingly. No, incredibly enough, it is the culmination of his master plan, set many years ago. Franco Columbu, a former bodybuilder who has been Schwarzenegger’s closest friend since the sixties, says that the Presidency is, indeed, Schwarzenegger’s long-term goal.
― KENNEDYS + NAZIS + KNIGHTS OF MALTA + CIA (hstencil), Friday, 25 June 2004 18:04 (twenty-one years ago)
― autovac (autovac), Friday, 25 June 2004 18:06 (twenty-one years ago)
I know he's Jewish hstencil and I regret the puerile joke I made on this thread, though mostly because it's not funny enough. Ahnold's accent brings out the worst in me and I generally find his politics loathsome. My kitty was saved by the SF Animal Control from a pound in Modesto that did not have a 'no kill' policy and on this one issue I'm liable to be slightly sentimental so to counter the self-righteousness and bile that were welling up I made a stupid joke. Please don't turn this into a fight 'cause I'm really tired and hangedover.
― Michael White (Hereward), Friday, 25 June 2004 18:07 (twenty-one years ago)
― I ONLY FIGHT THE PAPISTS (hstencil), Friday, 25 June 2004 18:11 (twenty-one years ago)
― Colin Meeder (Mert), Friday, 25 June 2004 18:19 (twenty-one years ago)
― Layna Andersen (Layna Andersen), Friday, 25 June 2004 18:40 (twenty-one years ago)
So true.
― Jordan (Jordan), Friday, 25 June 2004 18:43 (twenty-one years ago)
― Michael White (Hereward), Friday, 25 June 2004 18:46 (twenty-one years ago)
― luna (luna.c), Friday, 25 June 2004 20:25 (twenty-one years ago)
― Gear! (Gear!), Friday, 25 June 2004 20:28 (twenty-one years ago)
― luna (luna.c), Friday, 25 June 2004 20:32 (twenty-one years ago)
― Je4nne ƒury (Jeanne Fury), Friday, 25 June 2004 20:35 (twenty-one years ago)
― adam (adam), Friday, 25 June 2004 20:36 (twenty-one years ago)
Proven by science!
― Elvis Telecom (Chris Barrus), Friday, 25 June 2004 20:37 (twenty-one years ago)
But what about his pets?
Did I just blow your mind?
― St. Nicholas (Nick A.), Friday, 25 June 2004 20:38 (twenty-one years ago)
http://in.yimg.com/xp/reuters_ids_new/20031011/2147491852.jpg
― Gear! (Gear!), Friday, 25 June 2004 20:39 (twenty-one years ago)
I wish them greater understanding and more compassion. If this doesn't work, I plan on bitch-slapping him with a dirty pooper-scooper.
We will give them to Ned for re-neducation.
― Michael White (Hereward), Friday, 25 June 2004 20:40 (twenty-one years ago)