Cash for Killing

The State of California PAYS FOR FAILURE - reimbursing shelters for animals that have been "euthanized" in shelters (i.e. KILLED) but NOT for animals that have gotten out of the shelter alive (returned to owners or adopted).

This is the fallout from the "Hayden law". A law that was meant to
support animal adoption is a disincentive to saving lives.


http://www.lao.ca.gov/analysis_2008/general_govt/gengov_anl08.pdf#page=103

"The commission found that the cost of caring for the animals that were
adopted or reunited with their owners was not a reimbursable mandate (because owners paid fees to offset these costs). In the case of animals
that were euthanized, however, the commission found that local government
shelters' cost to care for them for three additional days was a state-reimbursable mandate."


"In the case of this mandate, the commission created a methodology that
reimburses local government shelters for (1) their increased cost of caring
for the animals that they euthanize and (2) certain minor costs, such as
maintaining lost and found lists. In 2008-09, local governments are expected
to claim $23 million for this mandate."

"Our review finds no link between the funding provided under Chapter 752 and
programs that encourage animal adoption. Specifically, under the mandate's
reimbursement methodology, shelters do not get more state funds if more
households adopt animals. Rather, shelters that euthanize the most animals
receive the most state funds. Shelters that are the most successful in
promoting adoptions receive the least state funds."


http://www.lao.ca.gov/analysis_2008/general_govt/gengov_anl08.pdf#page=103

What incentive do shelters have to do a good job? As you can see, NONE. It's very quick and profitable to just kill and get paid by the state for doing it.