California is a state that loves its animals. In fact, there are groups dedicated to making the entire state “no-kill”. And then the Terminator (what an apt name) steps in:

I think this is horrible. Sure, California has budget problems, but should we really try to balance the budget by killing animals? Ugh!

Have to go along with you on this one, DaffyGrl. This is a state that spends millions to preserve the habitat of some stupid fish that nobody has ever heard about, much less BBQed, and prevents ranchers and farmers from using their land because of some stupid rodent that looks like every other stupid rodent, but we can't spend a few bucks to keep people's pets alive for 6 days? That is just flat wrong.

Arnold my man, you aren't looking hard enough if you think this is going to help solve California's mess.

I think the Terminator is taking his nick name just a little too far.

Oh I can just see the PETA people now..........

I had to get one of my dogs out of the pound just last week. God I am glad Arnie is not the Gov. or Oregon.

Did anyone expect "brilliant" ideas out of him?

No, this is one, wrong. Two, asinine. And three, NOT GOING ANYWHERE.

This "hurry up and kill" mentality has got to stop.

But I would like to say thanks Arnie. I needed a laugh.

I emailed the Best Friends Network (of which I am a member), but they had already been made aware by another member. Get this: this budget conference is taking place THIS WEEKEND! Seems a kind of sneaky move. If this measure is repealed:

The radio is advertising the phone number to call. See my signature line. I just heard the 72 hour hold would apply regardless of whether the shelter is open to the public.

Arnold: I am the PT-101, the Pet Terminator. I was sent back from da future to terminate YOUR pet. Hasta La Vista Baby!

Parent: (to crying Child) I'm sorry sweetie, your pet has been terminated.

Ok sorry, I just couldn't help myself there. I agree, I think Arnold is looking a little too hard for budget cuts here. I'm on board with him that we need to trim the CA government a bit, but this is ridiculous.

Kudo's to Arnie for admitting to and reversing his mistakes.


SF Gate

Mistake....mmm hmmm, suuuure it was.

I don't think Arnold thought that he was about to get caught in a major crapstorm, so the best thing to do is call it a "mistake".

Hate to be to lone decenter here but:

My home state has a short waiting period. We also have a few large "No-Kill" privately funded shelters and non-profit organizations. These shelters and groups regularly rescue "death-row" animals, take them into private "foster" homes and work to find good homes for them.

Why not return to the three day period. "No-Kill" groups (like Animal-Rescue, the local group my wife and I belong to) can step forward and save the animals through voluntarism and private funding / donations.

When states have a surplus in revenues that's one thing, but with the ever shrinking state revenues, I would rather see the money spent on programs that help the human citizens of the state then carry unwanted animals a few more days.

In many areas the private sector, though non-profit organizations and volunteers, have taken up this cause quite successfully without burdening the already overburdened states. Tough choices have to be made if we are going to have fiscally responsible government. Let those that oppose putting animals to death, in 3, 6 or more days (or even (with healthy animals) as in this case with our group)carry the financial burden themselves.

It's time for the idealists to start to put their money where there heart is. I do, and my family is just barely making it. I would think in California, the land of the hollywood elite, finding funding for such groups would be no problem.

There, I said it. Stepping back and awaiting the "you horrible, heartless man" replies.

I agree with you, but with some additions.

Yes, the waiting period should be 3 days. That's enough time for you to get to a shelter to find your lost loved-one if you want.

But I also think all of these shelters should also post pictures of the found animals on a web site along with information about height, weight, coloring, and where the animal was found. I live on the corner of three counties, each of which have their own animal shelters. What a great way to make sure I can easily find Fido... if I had a Fido.

Overlandsailor, you horrible and heartless man! Just kidding-had to do it.

Three days does sound like enough time to find your pet, but keep in mind that those 3 days include days the shelter might be closed. If you lost Rover on Friday and couldn't get to the shelter until Monday, Rover would be dead by then. Unfortunately, the private shelters don't pick up the strays - the county or city does. The private organizations do a heroic job of saving those animals they can, but they can't do everything.

Strays generally become strays because some irresponsible person made them that way. That is the crux of why I think the cities/counties should bear some of the burden. Individuals contribute to private organizations (not nearly enough), but like I said, they're overburdened as it is.

Until people become responsible and educated pet owners (spay/neuter, license, tags, chips, etc.), the problem will continue to grow. I believe education programs are the only effective way to reduce the number of abandoned pets, but even if a person does all the right things, reducing the kill time to 3 days could still result in that person losing their pet.

The only hard figures I could find for costs associated with shelters were in New Hampshire:

It seems to be a small price to pay, and most of the city/county shelters in the Los Angeles area offer low cost spay/neuter, and all shelter animals are altered before they are adopted. Sure would be hard to continue if the 3 day limit was put into effect.

I tend to agree with overlandsailor on three days being sufficient time. I am sure there are exceptions. There must be statistics available to show how many animals are returned to owners on each day the animals are at the pounds. Not knowing those statistics makes it difficult to make any clear cut decisions.

On a side issue brought up by DaffyGrl, it is one of my pet peeves that low cost shelters are given tax exempt status to perform surgery while private veterinarians are taxed at a full rate for doing the same procedures. It should make no difference who does the procedures. It a spay is a benefit to the community, all parties who do it should be treated the same. It is another example of why tax exempt status should be ended. It is arbitrary and unfair.

The cost of animal control is not properly supported in my county. A large percentage (60 to 70 per cent) of the revenue is generated via taxing dog and cat owners who have neutered their dog or cat and have vaccinated them for rabies. These people should not be given an extra burden to support animal control. They are responsible pet owners who have prevented any chance their pet will contribute to overpopulation and they have protected the community from rabies by vaccinating their pets. The cost of animal control should be supported by general taxes and fines.

Let us assume for a second that going from 6 days to 3 is a problem. In my area, everything is figured on Business days, so at least here the friday to monday scenario would not be a problem.

Not to mention the fact that more and more people have the chips put in their animals so that they can be identified and returned home. Most cities require the animals to wear tags with contact information of the owners on them which also make sure the animal gets back home.

Most strays are strays not because they are lost, but because they are abandoned. So 3 days, 6 days, whatever, really isn't going to matter much as the original owner is not likely to come looking after dumping the dog on the side of the road on the way to work.

But let us assume, just for a second that is better to stay with 6 days.

Now, how do we pay for it? In CA. the state is in a financial crisis. What programs should be cut, or cut deeper in order to pay for the 6 days?

Or should we have new taxes? CA is one of the heaviest taxed states in the nation. Just how much will business and residents continue to take before the give up and move? I live in the midwest, are taxes are less then a 3rd of what they are on either coast and we are seeing a population explosion out here of business and people. I believe it is due to the dramatically lower cost of living and cost of doing business. If increased taxes cause some people and businesses to leave you could end up with a net loss for the budget.

The education program sounds interesting on the surface. However, that too will cost money. Money that CA, and most other states do not currently have. So how will these things be paid for? As for the need, well that is debatable. I don't know one person that has not heard that you should get your pets fixed because of pet over population. Some choose to ignore this information. Many choose to ignore it because they think they will make their fortune by breeding their animals. How will more education solve the problem?

As for the issue of fixing and fascinating the Animals. I have never looked into getting an animal from a shelter without them presenting me with a price on the animal based on the cost of these procedures being done before I pick up the animal. The same holds true for pet stores. Those that choose not to fix their animals either took the animal in off the street (which is free) and choose not to get the animal fixed, vacinated, chipped or examined, or they want to breed the animal.

The cold heard truth is that we can not continue to publically fund every pet project (pardon the pun). We have to look to private charities and the like. The money just simply isn't there.

Why don't we stop rounding up the helpless animals, and
start rounding up all the illegals (though I'm not advocating
putting the illegal aliens to sleep after three days.)

The governor needs to stop chasing red herrings, or in this case,
dogs and cats, and get to the real source of our deficit. He can
start by addressing the problem of illegal immigration.

Here in Michigan, Gov. Granholm signed into law a dove hunting season. It has been sought for years by the NRA, and hunters who feel that is is more sportsmanlike to shoot a dove than to purchase a pair of Cornish game hens at the grocery store. The legal hunting area amounts to a few counties along the Southern border. Hunters will, of course, need to find farmers willing to let them roam through their crops shooting these birds with voracious appetites that have done so much crop damage over the years...

On the local scene, the city council is trying to outlaw letting a cat outside. Under the proposed regulation, if your neighbors allows their cats to roam free, you would be allowed to set traps to capture them. They are also placing a city charter revision on the fall ballot that will enable them to double property taxes over a 12 year period. I suspect the next city council election will be taken quite seriously by voters.

Dogs and cats generally evoke more emotional responses than other animals. Even when a house was condemned locally, due to the damage done by 80 odd cats while its owner was on vacation; there were people willing to adopt all of the animals rather than having them destroyed. There was a story locally awhile back about someone who was paying $30,000 or so for a liver transplant in the hopes of keeping their dog alive a few more months.

I think this attempt by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, whether or not he shifted course, is likely to ensure that he will be at most a one term governor.

Schwarzenegger's iniative is apt to lead to more attempts by private organizations to keep unwanted pets alive, to get people to go to the pounds and adopt pets they might not otherwise have chosen to have, rearouse efforts to prevent animal research, etc. His efforts will also bring more pets into homes not well prepared to care for them. The vet bills, the licenses and shots, the necessary care, the damage to carpets and furniture, the fines for "allowing a dog to run at large," etc. can add up to large financial and emotional burdens. The result could be a short term increase in pet ownership, followed by an increase in pet population because people couldn't afford to have their pets neutered, resulting in more animals going to shelters...

According to a Book Review by Rob Hardy,

When the next election cycle rolls around, I predict that a large grass roots swell of pet and animal lovers will try to paint "The Terminator" as a man who, if he hates dogs and cats, musl also hate children. It was likely a pragmatic look at a line item in a state budget. The stories in the newspapers however, will predictably start to show that animals left in a pound too long are not "put to sleep;" but destroyed in gas chambers with Carbon Monoxide, or vacuum chambers. It is generally too costly to have a veterinarian and an assistant administer a prescription drug to kill the animals peacefully. Animals abandoned to "shelters," and not adopted, are slmost always killed by the cheapest means available, not the most humane.

The program has been in effect since 1998. No additional costs are being incurred; the proposal was to cut the program entirely.

Don’t forget that part of his proposal would have done away with ANY waiting period for animals other than dogs or cats. And read any of the articles: the 3-day waiting period would have INCLUDED TIMES THE SHELTER IS CLOSED.


If you read the figures I posted earlier, the average cost to the individual for sheltering animals is 3 dollars PER YEAR. Are you saying that you wouldn’t be willing to pony up 8/100 of a PENNY a day maintain the system the way it is now?

Animal hoarding is a whole 'nother thing. People that hoard animals have some serious psychological issues. As for the person paying $30K for their dog's liver transplant - it's their money - it's not costing the taxpayers anything.

That is a distinct possibility, but this is the first mistake he has really made in my opinion. Based on his performance so far it pains me to say that I'd vote for him during the next election. Yes, I'd vote for a Republican, I'm hoping there is some kind of twelve step program for that

I'm surprised to say, as a California lefty who didn't vote for him, that I find it hard to dislike the man. I think so far he's doing a decent job. I'd probably vote for him if he didn't seem so tied to Bush.

No additional cost yes. But the CA. budget is in the red and cuts have to be made to bring it back to the black. What would you propose they cut in it's place?



Seems like an easy fix to me. Make it 3 business days.




Personally I don't care. For one I don't live in CA, so this doesn't effect me at all. For two I am a responsible pet owner of 2 dogs, 2 cats, and 2 ferrets. The dogs and cats all have the micro chips and all my animals have tags that include their name, my name and my phone number.

The few times my dogs got out of the yard (until I found where the sneaky buggers where clipping though the fence) I was looking for them when we got a call from a neighbor because of the tag. THe tag cost me 1.50 or so I believe. Not a big cost if you are a responsible pet owner. And if they got to the shelter with the tag I would have gotten a call. If they lost their tags the micro chip would have resulted in a call (it is VERY unlikely the ferrets would have made it to the shelter, who would see them to call and who would track them until animal control got there?).

So yes, I would be willing to sacrifice that money. It is always "well this program only costs this little bit so why cut it?" Because all of those little programs add up. If you cut alot of those little bit of money programs you get a bigger amount off the books. California is in deep trouble, and the Feds won't let them address the biggest problem which is illegal immigration (remember prop 187) so CA has to cut where it can.

I'd love to see what the total cost savings projections are. But I would still like to hear where people who want to save these three days would cut the CA budget to do so.




Wow, as I have said many times before, I am NO Bush-Booster. However, are you suggesting that even if your Governor continues to do a great job for your state, takes it into the black again and continues to hold your high regard you would not vote for him simply because he is associated with President Bush? You would throw away a Governor of your own state that is doing a great job for you simply because you don't like the president? Isn't that cutting your nose of to spite your face?

It depends, if he does something stupid between now and election day I am going to be quicker to hold it against him because there is already that lack of trust due to his association with Bush. Also, if he is running against someone I like better I will likely vote for the other person.

But, I have to say he is doing a much better job than I predicted. I respect how he's handled himself in most situations. It's a compliment...but I'm still waiting to see how it all turns out.

I’ve got lots of suggestions. How about increasing the burden on those that can afford it, rather than those who can’t? Oops, that goes against Republican doctrine. My bad.

Or how about some of these ridiculous items?

Or how about cleaning up Worker’s Comp fraud? Or close the loophole that allows corporations to move headquarter offshore to avoid taxes? Or how about this:

No, instead, we should go after animal shelters???

I agree, however, are you suggesting the only proposed budget cut is to the animal shelters? I would imagine it is part of alot of different cuts.

As for taxing the wealthy, That is really for another thread. However, who do you define as wealthy? A household with an income of 90,000.00+ a year is considered wealthy by tax standards. Doubt that would go far in CA though.

[QUOTE+Overlandsailor]I agree, however, are you suggesting the only proposed budget cut is to the animal shelters?[/QUOTE]
No, of course not, they're going after state colleges, too.