Onward and Upward for Bowie's Law
Yesterday, AB 595 (Bowie's Law) unanimously passed the California Assembly Business & Professions Committee, despite opposition from nearly every shelter in the state, the National Animal Control Association, the ASPCA, Best Friends, the California State Association of Counties, the League of California Cities, and the Teamsters (a full list of opponents is below).
Named after Bowie, a shy 10-pound, 15-week-old puppy killed by a municipal shelter despite a rescue offer, AB 595 requires shelters to notify the public and rescuers 72 hours before killing an animal. Although AB 595 was amended to allow shelters to shorten the 72-hour notification requirement if they have space issues and to limit it to dogs, cats, and rabbits, none of the opposition budged. A spokesperson for the California Animal Welfare Association (CAWA), a lobbying organization for California pounds, testified (falsely) that all shelters already do outreach to rescue groups before killing animals. If that were true (it isn’t), why oppose it?
She also called the bill unfair because “no one wants to kill” and “everyone is working toward the same goal.” While those at the hearing gave lip service to those claims (which may be good politics), it was irrelevant as to the merits of AB 595 because the bill is not a referendum on whether people who work in shelters care about animals and want what is best for them, any more than a bill to regulate hospitals by establishing patient care standards would be a referendum on whether doctors and nurses care. But, as irrelevant as it is, is it even true?
The jury may still be out on that one — and I say “may” as I have my own opinions — but one thing is clear: many shelters certainly find killing easier than doing what is necessary to stop it. And not only do studies of shelter policies and management attitudes prove it, but so does the killing of Bowie (and over 20 other dogs killed that day without notice) and opposition to Bowie’s Law.
Finally, the CAWA lobbyist claimed that requiring shelters to work more proactively with rescue groups was burdensome and would (inexplicably) lead to more killing. But given that everyone is already connected online and such notifications are possible through shelter software already used by these shelters or available for free, complying would require nothing more than a stroke on a keyboard: one click to let the rescuers know that a life needs saving. How is that a burden?
In fact, AB 595 is such a simple, commonsense law, it is astonishing that expecting shelters to do so is considered by anyone to be controversial. Thankfully, the Assemblymembers unanimously agreed. One committee member stated that all he hears from shelters is “no,” “no,” and “no” to every proposal to reduce killing, so he asked their lobbyist for something — anything — proactive they would support. He was met with silence.
Similarly, the committee’s Vice-Chair responded that nothing the opposition could say could convince him that telling the public and rescuers that an animal needs help is a bad thing. It isn’t, and they deserve it.
Of course, we still have not seen the amended language, and the devil is in the details. Moreover, there is still a long way to go (another committee and the floor in the Assembly, two committees and the floor of the Senate, before it heads to the Governor). But with the recent vote, the road got a little less steep.
So onward to the Assembly Appropriations Committee — for Bowie and in the hope that other animals will not share his fate.
The following organizations and municipalities asked the Committee to vote NO on Bowie’s Law:
Amador County Animal Control
American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (ASPCA)
Animal Rescue Foundation
Animal Samaritans SPCA
Animal Shelter Assistance Program
Antioch Animal Services
Bakersfield SPCA
Barstow Humane Society
Berkeley - East Bay Humane Society
Best Friends Animal Society
Butte Humane Society
Calaveras County Animal Services
California Animal Welfare Association
California State Association of Counties
California Teamsters Public Affairs Council
Carmel Police Department Animal Control
Central California SPCA
Chula Vista Animal Services
City of Bakersfield Animal Control
City of Burbank Animal Shelter
City of Fontana
City of Gridley Animal Control Department
City of Lodi Animal Services
City of Norco Animal Control Services
City of Palo Alto Animal Services
City of Perris Animal Control
City of Rancho Cucamonga Animal Center
City of Roseville Police Department
City of Sacramento
City of San Jose
City of Shafter Animal Control Services
City of Shasta Lake Animal Shelter
City of Stockton Animal Services
Colusa County Sheriff’s Animal Control Services
County of Kern
County of Monterey Health Department
County of Napa
County of San Luis Obispo Division of Animal Services
East Bay SPCA
Fresno Humane Animal Services
Friends of Colusa County Animal Shelter
Friends of the Alameda Animal Shelter
Friends of Upland Animal Shelter
Front Street Animal Shelter - City of Sacramento
Gimme Love Animal Shelter
Haven Humane Society
Hayward Animal Services Bureau
Hayward Animal Shelter
Hollister Animal Shelter
Humane Society of Imperial County
Humane Society of Sonoma County
Humane Society of Truckee - Tahoe
Humane Society of Ventura County
Humane Society Silicon Valley
Inland Valley Humane Society & SPCA
Kern County Animal Services
Lake County Animal Care and Control
League of California Cities
Madera County Animal Services
Madera County Animal Shelter
Marin Humane
Mendocino County Animal Care Services
Michelson Center for Public Policy
Napa County Animal Shelter
National Animal Care & Control Association
Nevada County Animal Control
Newport Beach Animal Control
North Bay Animal Services
Oakland Animal Services
Palm Springs Animal Control
Palo Alto Humane Society
Pasadena Humane Society
Peninsula Humane Society & SPCA
Placer County Animal Services
Placer SPCA
Rancho Coastal Humane Society
Ridgecrest Animal Shelter
Rural County Representatives of California
San Diego County Department of Animal Services
San Diego Humane Society and SPCA
San Francisco Animal Care and Control
San Francisco SPCA
San Gabriel Valley Humane Society
Santa Barbara Humane Society
Santa Cruz SPCA
SEAACA Animal Control
Solano County Animal Care Services
SPCA Monterey County
SPCA Los Angeles
Tulare Animal Services
Tuolumne County Animal Control
Urban Counties of California
Valley Humane Society
Ventura County Animal Services
Visalia Animal Services
Woods Humane Society
Yolo County Sheriff’s Office Animal Services
So much for “no one wants to kill” and “everyone is working toward the same goal.”
The list of naysayers is mind-boggling. The fact that there even needs to be a law to do the right thing for animals is mind-boggling. Hopefully people will remember this list when these same agencies solicit for donations to their "cause".
What reasons / excuses did these entities give for opposing Bowie's Law? WHY?
I'm really surprised that Best Friends Animal Society opposed this law. They are the organization that pioneered No-Kill, and that sponsor the No-Kill conferences ((now called No More Homess Pets conferences). I spent a week working with cats at Best Friends Sanctuary in 1998 or 1999. Their opposition to save lives through opposing Bowie's Law is beyond my comprehension.