Why Are California's Animal Shelters Killing So Many Pets?
Blame lingering pandemic-era restrictions that make it harder for people to find a dog or cat they'd like to adopt.

As I write this column, Marigold—my long-haired orange tabby who demands constant attention—is purring next to me. She's a delightful creature that I adopted at a local shelter's Five Dollar Fridays, where they adopt out vaccinated and spayed adult cats for that modest fee. I got her (and Fluffy) when my wife was out of town, so she's now forbidden me from visiting a shelter alone.
I don't blame my wife for setting some ground rules, given that I can't wander through the aisles of forlorn animals and not bring at least one home. So I've been filled with disgust at California's government-funded animal shelters, which claim to be models of compassion but really are killing fields that euthanize many healthy and adoptable animals.
In Orange County, critics complained that high euthanasia rates were the result of limited government resources. As a result, the county in 2018 opened a new $35-million Animal Care shelter in Tustin that includes all the cool features (dog runs, play areas) lacking at the decrepit former facility. One news report compared it to a five-star resort and noted that it had a paid staff of 140 plus 400 volunteers. That's quite the operation.
Yet The Orange County Register's Teri Sforza reported on data analyzed by a former volunteer and found the "kill rate for adult dogs…has nearly doubled since 2018, and the amount of time they spend behind bars has jumped 60 percent." During the pandemic, the shelter stopped walk-in visits and required appointments. That was understandable then, but even after the pandemic ended the shelter continued focusing on appointments and requiring accompanied visits.
Obviously, fewer people will fall in love with a purring or barking buddy if they can't wander through the kennels and see which animal pulls at their heartstrings. You can no more pick out a pet based on a shelter's photo than you can pick out a spouse solely on their dating website bio. Animal Care increased the number of walk-in visits amid criticism, but it's still absurdly limited and I gave up trying to get info after a really long wait on its phone line.
The bureaucrats who run the facility—the largest municipal "animal-care" operation in the West—depict these customer-unfriendly, animal-harming policies as a means to protect the critters from stress and protect the public from animal bites. In reality, it's just the latest instance of government putting the employees' convenience above the public good—like the way public schools and teachers' unions dragged their feet on school re-openings.
A county grand jury report this year pointed to "excessive euthanasia rates, poor leadership, inadequate numbers of animal care attendants, a lack of cooperation between staff departments, the exclusion of kennel staff from euthanasia decisions, the lack of proper assessment of animals chosen for euthanasia, and low morale negatively impacting operation of the shelter."
The problem isn't just in Orange County, of course. A recent investigation from the Los Angeles Times found that two Los Angeles County shelters (Palmdale and Lancaster) had dog kill rates that "have nearly doubled in recent years—from about 15 percent in 2018 to 28 percent through this August." Other county shelters have done a better job, but it's still discouraging.
In 2020, Gov. Gavin Newsom declared that, "We want to be a no-kill state." He allotted $50 million to the endeavor. But, as The Sacramento Bee reported in October, "Three years and tens of millions of taxpayer dollars later, California animal shelters are euthanizing more healthy, adoptable dogs and cats than ever." The newspaper noted most of the money ended up going to the UC Davis Koret Shelter Medicine Program, "to be spent on developing ways to reduce animal euthanasia."
That is sadly typical of the government and this governor in particular. Make some grandiose promise. Allocate tens of millions of dollars. Spend it studying the problem rather than reforming the agencies that are responsible for fulfilling the mission. Any animal lover can, for much less money, tell you how to reduce euthanasia.
For starters, get rid of unneeded pandemic policies and let people roam through the kennels again. "Animal shelters across the state continue to retain a pandemic mindset," according to the Bee's summary of a conversation with the head of an animal-advocacy group. "Those interested in taking an animal home must make an appointment first" and shelters "have also cut back on other programs, such as adoption outreach and foster care."
There's no excuse for these restrictions long after the pandemic ended. Meanwhile, animal-care officials make excuses about increased animal abandonments and strays, but they are well-funded to handle it. (This is their job, after all). But bureaucracy rarely results in creativity and compassion. That usually means wasted tax dollars and inefficient public services. It's so sad when it means more lovable cats like Marigold will simply be euthanized.
This column was first published in The Orange County Register.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
This is a pilot program. Full scale will be using citizens. q.v., see Canada.
“Why Are California's Animal Shelters Killing So Many Pets?”
It’s the democrat way. They’re the party of murder and mutilation. Look at how they view human infants.
Real people need to cleanse california then the nation of this bureaucratic hell.
CLEANSE
How did I know Greenhut was a cat guy.
Don't see what's wrong with that. Some of us here are cat guys as well.
Someone might dog you for that.
Does California succeed at anything?
Is there one governmental metric that says, "I want to live in California?"
They have the greatest number of welfare users.
https://wisevoter.com/state-rankings/welfare-recipients-by-state/
Believe they also led in false covid unemployment claims for people in prison.
You're a terrible salesman.
Depends on who I am selling to =)
Is there one governmental metric that says, “I want to live in California?”
It sounds like I'd make some decent bank killing cats for a living in CA, but then I'd have to put up with people like "Everybody deserves a unicorn" Greenhut and "No kill" Newsom.
Los Angeles is the nation's top city for Organized Retail Theft". That's got to be an inviting stat for anyone looking to get into a smash-and-grab gang, or go into a CVS or Walgreens with a trash bag and empty whatever shelves still don't have locking plexiglass enclosures installed.
Why can't they do that with illegals? It's not like they have papers or anything.
You should go back to drinking.
This assumes he actually stopped drinking.
The fact that you attack me in response to that tells me that you support treating illegals like animals and euthanizing them in shelters. You didn't deny it so it's true.
The fact that your ignorance on the issue has been so exposed you retreat to standard leftist tropes and bumper stickers shows you aren't worth arguing with. It also shows your continued ignoring of costs and negative externalities.
If you had an intelligent argument we could have a discussion. But youre not capable of one.
I mean now you even add euthanized illegals to your leftist attempt at an appeal to emotion. Lol.
Youre a clown. A living meme.
I'm surprised you aren't promoting assisted suicide as a final solution to The Immigrant Problem.
Because youre an idiot who relies on falsehoods and emotion instead of constructed arguments.
What? You don't like it when someone accuses you of supporting something you don't support and calls you a liar when you disagree? How cute!
You are ill.
If you can provide a word for word comment like I do for you, let me know.
Are you admitting your ignorance and lack of knowledge?
Sorry girlfriend, but unlike you I have a life.
How convenient you remember it just there instead a dozen comments ago.
You know who doesn't have a life? I'll give you a hint. Go to comments sections over the weekend. Do a CTRL-F and look for "sarc." While you may or man not come up with posts by me, you will certainly find posts about me. Take a look at the source. There's the guy with no life.
Passed out in a piss soaked alley in a puddle of your own vomit isn’t a life you gutless pussy.
I support euthanizing you and your fellow travelers.
I guess it's five o'clock somewhere. Sarc, that was dumb. All you did was post a comment that merely looks for a fight. You instigated it.
The only possible reason that could start a fight is that I'm correct, and that makes people angry. Because that's what some people really do think. They're just brown people without papers. Round them up and euthanize them like unwanted pets. That's what many people in these comments really and truly believe. Or they wouldn't be offended when I say it.
Dumbest argument ever.
When sarc does it, it's different.
I’ll start a fight with you because you threatened me months ago, and then hid like the cowardly pushy you are. Instead of manning up, or coming to me hat in hand to beg my forgiveness.
You’re a gutless piece of shit Sarc. You’re the town drunk of the commentariat, and everyone but the pedophile and the morbidly obese pedophile hate your guts. You contribute nothing, and just make mindless trouble.
Not a bad idea. Just set the cages up so they can be easily moved into the water for an hour or so, pulled out and the remains made into Soylent Veridians for sale in California.
A win win scenario.
Why Are California's Animal Shelters Killing So Many Pets?
Looks towards taco trucks
Yeah. Isn't it the police that are supposed to be killing pets?
They could use the excess shelter dogs for training.
Why Are California's Animal Shelters Killing So Many Pets?
Lemme guess. Much as I generally detest defending CA and the government there, the CA government isn't actually going into people's homes, absconding with their pets, and delivering them to shelters to be killed and this is really more of a "All the burdens of owning a pet imposed by the State of CA are causing fewer people to own pets and more pets to turn up in shelters."
All the burdens of owning a pet imposed by the State of CA are causing fewer people to own pets and more pets to turn up in shelters.
Oh Jesus, it's even worse than that. It's a fucking pity party from the same bullshit emotional support adult children that COVID panicked and caused the problem in the first place.
It's so sad when it means more lovable cats like Marigold will simply be euthanized.
No, it's not sad. You know why? Because Marigold would otherwise be torn apart by a coyote, freeze to death covered in mange, or die of heart worms... and that's the good outcome where she doesn't bite someone and give them rabies or give a pregnant mother Toxoplamosis. Grow the fuck up. The reason the shelters exist is because of your inability to walk down an aisle of animals without seeing them as the unwanted living dregs and broken syringes of addicts like you looking for your dopamine hits that they are. The reason they are killed is because your emoting has to be kept in check by people like your wife and the animal shelter people who can actually behave like adults and control themselves beyond retarding their emotional development to their 4-yr.-old "Awww, cute!" self.
"Oh Jesus, it’s even worse than that. It’s a fucking pity party from the same bullshit emotional support adult children that COVID panicked and caused the problem in the first place."
That's about the size of it. The new "post-pandemic" increases to rules surrounding adoptions are very likely a reaction to the number of people who, two years after getting "lockdown pets" and more or less emptying many shelters in summer of 2020 then returned the animals when it came time to go back to something more like normal.
Another factor that's likely been disproportionately hitting "blue" governed areas and highly litigious jurisdictions (again, mostly "blue" areas since the left can't seem to call any lawsuit ever filed "frivolous" or even "unneccesary') is "breed discrimination" for dogs by local government and/or liability insurers; this was something that was highly visible in L.A. for a decade or more before Covid, but is likely being exacerbated by the exodus of insurers from the State. For a long time, something like 2/3 of the dogs in L.A. area shelters were "bully" breeds, possibly including a good number from families who found out after moving to the state that getting Homeowners insurance can be much more difficult (and is always made more expensive) for anyone owning a dog that's even partially one or more of the breeds of various companies' denial lists. Some insurers might allow for policies to exempt the dog, but others simply won't cover anyone with a prohibited breed dog in their home (and since the State prohibits insurers from offering "loyalty" or "continuous coverage" discounts based on duration of coverage with another company but allows them for staying with the same insurer over time, it can get to be very expensive to change carriers after a few years with one company). Combined with non pet-friendly rentals and the possibility of landlords imposing similar breed restrictions within their properties, this created a scenario for many years where most people looking to adopt couldn't consider most of the dogs in the local shelters, and all based on a misconception (which isn't part of leftist dogma, but does seem to overlap heavily with those who buy into "progressive" ideology).
Don’t euthanize animals. Euthanize democrats. Euthanization to be compulsory.
Give me enough warning to sell my house before the 70% reduction in L.A. County's population crashes prices....
Who pissed in your wheaties? I guess you think some f’ing dog or a cat…
I'm assuming they have a sheaf of paperwork you need to fill out, to the satisfaction of the goon-in-charge, before you're allowed to take a pet home.
50 years ago, you walked into the pound, wandered around, told them which dog you wanted, paid a nominal fee, and took the dog. If it didn't work out, at least the county hadn't been taking care of the dog for that period. But isn't just about any home better than being in Auschwitz waiting for your number to come up? Animal adoption has become the poster-child for the best being the enemy of the better.
^ This.
I know someone who adopted a cat in NYC and a home visit was required.
That's a lot of it. I'd probably have had 3 or 4 rescue pets by now if they didn't have so many nanny restrictions. Go ahead, charge for spaying and neutering and basic shots. But stop trying to vet me for being the right kind of pet owner, and stop pretending I'm worse than euthanizing them.
But stop trying to vet me for being the right kind of pet owner, and stop pretending I’m worse than euthanizing them.
I have killed cats and dogs... pets. I have adopted dogs and, in the distant past, cats. If asked, I would, honestly, refuse to commit to not killing a pet, but I've never been asked. The reason I've never been asked because it's got nothing to do with the pets.
It varies from shelter to shelter. Some not only require reams of paperwork, but insist on sending someone to "inspect" the living space that you're looking to take the animal to.
The "child welfare" system in some states isn't nearly as proactive about checking where they're sending kids; (the State of Washington DCFS faced a class-action lawsuit in the early 2000s for housing "system" children in gymnasiums and a number of other practices which were determined to have violated the civil rights of something like 250k children).
The “child welfare” system in some states isn’t nearly as proactive about checking where they’re sending kids;
But they might be if they were allowed to euthanized unwanted kids.
Hmm.
No kill, overcrowding, euthanasia because, unlike people, we don’t can’t and release (or refuse to catch) feral / abandoned cats and dogs to reduce the dangers of the cats and dogs to the public.
There’s a lesson to be learned somewhere.
In CA they'll deal with stray dogs, but the most that animal control will do about feral cats is to loan traps to individuals who are willing to put in the work to trap feral cats themselves, then bring the cats to the County facility for sterilization and marking (they notch the cat's ear apparently) and then the citizen is expected to take the cat back to wherever they caught it and release it back to live out its feral life.
"Why Are California's Animal Shelters Killing So Many Pets?"
Because there are more pets available than people want. That's even why there are animal shelters.
I didn't read the article, but that's what it should have said.
Because there are more pets available than people
wantcan afford, but never more than they could possibly want. That’s even why there are animal shelters.FIFY.
And because there are many irresponsible pet owners who dispose of them when they become inconvenient.
Did you not read the article? They make it a PITA to go to a shelter.
OK, as detestable as we might think this, try to keep an open mind.
Central Africa, India, Central America, and large parts of South America and South Asia are moderately to severely undernourished. (And heck, even Americans these days are pretending that "food insecurity" is a thing.) We, on the other hand, have a glut of unwanted domesticated animals who we're literally just killing anyway. Why not address both problems simultaneously?
Yes, I'm 100% serious. We might find the idea loathsome according to our first world sensibilities - but do you think a starving family in Ethiopia would turn down dog meat? When our oh-so-better elites of the world are unsubtly trying to steer the first world into eating bugs, why is offering a surplus of animal flesh (and pelts!), which we literally can't do anything meaningful with, to needier nations who already eat bugs (because they don't have a CHOICE like we do) such a terrible idea?
It's like GMOs. Our huffy first world resistance to them and their research, production, and dissemination is a cruelty to the third world. If we can genetically cultivate plants that are more suited to hostile environments and produce higher yields; or manipulate the genomes of farmable species like fish or livestock such that they produce higher quality and quantity proteins for people of nations that have little to nothing - why is it so wrong to do so?
When individual shelters are taking in hundreds, if not thousands, of animals each year to the point that they're overwhelmed by the lack of demand - why not do something good and useful with them? And don't give me excuses like "there's not enough nutritional value" in a lapdog to be worth it - you think a starving person would rather have some nutritional value, or no nutritional value; or "the cost of getting them to these third-world nations is too high a burden" when we're literally throwing obscene amounts of money in foreign aid and charity that doesn't ultimately help anyone (but the slush fund recipients).
We might scoff at the notion of eating man's best friend - but that comes from a position of arrogance and luxury. We have a supply we don't want, and there's a demand that we can fill with very little effort. Will it solve the problem of world hunger? No. But will it feed some hungry people? You bet.
And doesn't that alone make it worth it?
If it saves one child then it's worthwhile.
Top 10 US states by highest shelter kill rate: (1) Mississippi, (2) North Carolina, (3) Alabama, (4) Arkansas, (5) Hawaii, (6) Maryland, (7) Texas, (8) Oklahoma, (9) New Mexico, (10) California and Georgia
https://www.veterinarians.org/animal-shelter-statistics/
It's simply not economically feasible to provide lifetime care for thousands of unwanted dogs and cats. This is life. If you don't like it, you're free to throw as much of your own money at the problem as you want, but I object to having my tax money going to fund no-kill shelters.
Let people who love pets fund these shelters like volunteer fire departments get money. Throw pancake suppers, get big donors, put names on bricks... all that stuff. Stop demanding taxpayers pick up the tab for your tabby.
Its Kalifornia, meat costs money, so shelters have found a ew profit stream.
To the tune of Cats in the Cradle.
Did you ever think when you eat Chinese,
It ain’t pork or chicken but a fat siamese?
Yet the food tastes great, so you don’t complain.
But that’s not chicken in your chicken chow mein.
Seems to me I ordered sweet-and-sour pork
But Garfield’s on my fork.
He’s purrin’ here on my fork.
There’s a cat in the kettle at the Peking Moon,
The place that I eat every day at noon.
They can feed you cat and you’ll never know,
Once they wrap it up in dough, boy.
They fry it real crisp in dough.
Chou Lin asked if I wanted more
As he was dialin’ up his buddy at the old pet store.
I said "Not today. I lost my appetite.
There’s two cats in my belly and they want to fight."
I was suckin’ on a Rolaid and a Tums or two,
When I swear I heard it mew, boy.
And that is when I knew,
There’s a cat in the kettle at the Peking Moon
I think I gotta stop eatin’ there at noon.
They say that it’s beef or fish or pork
But it’s purrin’ there on my fork.
There’s a hair-ball on my fork.
It's because our government is filled with unholy clerics intent on requiring you to live their way. It's mob philosophy, mob rule.