1. Call to Order and
Roll Call
5:40 PM
Present
Commissioners, Susanna Russo,
Sally Stephens, Pam Hemphill, Geneva Page, Philip Gerrie, Jack Aldrige DVM, Rebecca Katz – ACC
Absent
Commissioners, Andrea Brooks, Bob Palacio
Rec & Park
2. General Public Comment
Lisa Kekuewa-
Her pet cat of 18 years was euthanized
when it didn’t have to be. Was missing on July 27, 2010. Was held by a
neighbor and was picked up by ACC
at 2 AM on the 28th. By 3 AM he was euthanized. Had just been to the SF Veterinary
Specialists. Had been seen by Dr. Maretzki. On the 24th, diagnosed
with renal failure. Wonders what happened to the five day holding policy
mandated by the Hayden Act. Would like to see a way to monitor compliance. Was
not given a choice about her cat. ACC’s report states he was dying of renal or
kidney failure.
Dana Copeland –
Elliot’s report from ACC totally contradicts the report from Dr. Muretski.
Plays recording from phone message from Dr. Muretski of his diagnosis of being
stable. ACC didn’t wait the five days. If they had waited he would be alive
today.
Julian Lagos –
Neighbor of Lisa and Dana. SPCA feral cat feeder. Reads written statement. On
July 28th, ACC picked up Elliot and transported him to Pets
Unlimited Emergency Hospital. He was euthanized an hour after arriving without
justifiable cause in violation State’s Animal Cruelty Laws and the Hayden Act
and shelter protocols. Saddened by Elliot’s death. This should not happen
again. All parties responsible for Elliot’s death should be held accountable
and prosecuted to the full extent of the law. Elliot’s guardian’s should be
compensated for their tragic loss. Requests that ACWC order an immediate
investigation and report the findings publicly at the Sept. 10, 2010 meeting.
Recommends ACWC consider implementing a failsafe system to track all animals
picked up by ACC regardless of their physical condition and held until
reclaimed or adopted out. As overseers of City’s animal shelters, asked to do
the right thing and act on issues brought up tonight and adopt immediate policy
changes so this is not repeated.
3. Approval of Draft Minutes
for July 8, 2010
No Commission
nor public comment.
Minutes approved
unanimously.
4. Chairperson’s report and
opening remarks
Comr. Stephens –
The second Thursday in November is Veteran’s Day so we will not be able to have
our regular meeting that night. We can either try to reschedule another day and
time or cancel the meeting for November. Ask Commissioners to think about what
they want to do and decide at the September meeting. Sgt Herndon, who was a
member of this Commission, has retired from this Commission and the vicious and
dangerous dog unit on which he served
for many years. A new person has been appointed in his place and hope
that she will also serve on this Commission. Officially thanks Sgt. Herndon for
his work and service and behalf of all the animals in the City.
Richard Fong –
Suggests Commission give Bill Herndon the highest honors for this service.
5. Unfinished Business
A) Continuation of discussion and possible
action to recommend to the Board that they pass an ordinance prohibiting the
sale of dogs and cats from puppy mills and possibly other small animals
including birds from pet stores with the exemption of those animals from
shelters and rescue groups.
Comr. Gerrie –
Have invited three speakers tonight. Two will speak on the legality of the
proposed ban. A member of the public said last month that a ban is a violation
of the commerce clause. William Miller will speak to that first.
William Miller –
physician – Strong opposition to the ordinance. Alternatives have been proposed
to lower euthanasia rates in SF. They have been ignored. A ban would erode
civil liberties. The ban is about pet ownership. There is no problem with pet
stores beyond supplying pets. The ban’s intention is if the number of pets
bought in pet stores goes down, the number euthanized will go down. People
would still be able to buy pets outside the City so pets owned would remain the
same. This ban will only work if people do not go outside the City. The real
goal of this ban is to make it so onerous for people to get pets that they
won’t have pets. The ban hides the true intent by deception and cohesion.
People came to SF because the City was a harbor of liberty. We should not
surrender our liberty unless the reasons are justified and compelling. There is
insufficient evidence, too many unanswered questions, and ignored alternatives
to make this worth such a sacrifice. We must choose carefully our message to
the rest of the country. Please abandon this effort and consider alternatives
that do not impose constraints that undermine liberty. (Applause)
Comr. Stephens –
Asks audience not to applause so that those not in agreement with a speaker
will not feel intimidated to speak. Applauding is not fair to everyone.
Corey Evans –
Founding partner of Evans & Page, an animal-law office in SF. Helped pass
the foie-gras legislation. Teaches law at Santa Clara University of Law . Has
been an invited speaker on animal law around the country at law schools. Has
not been asked tonight to express personal opinion about the legality of such an ordinance. Start with basics. Animals are property
and can be bought/sold as any other property. Only difference is the need to obey
laws on animal cruelty and abide by laws of the Animal Welfare Act. There is no
greater civil liberty to buy or own an animal than any other type of property,
a computer, a pocket watch. The US Supreme Court has referred to companion
animals when looking at local
ordinances that regulate companion animals stating that ownership is of an
imperfect or qualified nature and subject to peculiar and drastic police
regulations by the State without depriving the owner of any Federal rights. The
Supreme Court has not held highly citizens rights to own companion animals over
owning any other object. The first question is if this ordinance would survive
legal review It would not matter if the question was just about dogs & cats
or fish, the same analysis would apply. Whoever may bring a lawsuit, can they
actually sue SF? The answer is yes. If a pet store that sells animals could no
longer sell animals, it would have standing individually. Also any
animal-related organization could also sue as its members have standing. How
would the courts deal with its merits from someone that does file a lawsuit?
Has looked to prior case law. They would be able to sue in Federal and State
Court because both Federal and State claims could be brought. First question
the courts would ask is the most obvious which is preemption. Which means if
there is already a Federal or State law that governs this area you are not
supposed to enact a law. For example, passing a law that would cut back on
protection for animals used in research that are currently provided would be
preempted by the Animal Welfare Act (AWA) that lays out regulations for animals
used in research. When cities try to regulate companion animal sales or
ownership any law is preempted by the Animal Welfare Act. Rulings in such cases
however invite local regulation rather than preempt local regulation. The most
recent case that touches on this is the American Canine Foundation vs. Sun DBM
concerning LA county passing a law for mandatory spay/neuter. The court said
that even in the sale or buying of animals the AWA does not preempt any local
regulations. On the first approach if this law would be overturned the answer
is ‘no’. The second major approach concerns the Commerce Clause which allows
the federal government to enact certain regulations. Inside the Commerce Clause
is the Dormant Commerce Clause
which says cities and states can’t enact regulations that discriminate
against out-of-state entities. The question was brought up at the ACWC meeting
in July that if we enact an ordinance that bans the sale of animals in pet
stores would that violate the Commerce Clause? The answer is “no”. The ruling
on the recent case cited above quotes, “Even if an ordinance burdens interstate
trade, if the goal of that ordinance is to control over population, reduce
euthanasia, reduce incidents of
public safety problems caused by stray animals, and reduce the cost of
impounding such animals, such a
burden on interstate commerce would be OK. First thing to look into is whether
is differentiates between in-state and out-of-state. This ordinance wouldn’t.
It would be local. That doesn’t trigger the Dormant Commerce Clause so there
wouldn’t be a problem. Preemption, not a problem. Not preempted by State or
Federal law. Commerce Clause is not a problem because it doesn’t discriminate
between in or out-of-state sellers or buyers. The Commerce Clause doesn’t apply
to in-city or out-of-city sellers or buyers. If this is wrong. That it does
discriminate against out-of-state. In 2007 the Federal Court said that even if
a law did impede on inter-state trade it would be OK if a main reason was to
slow over-population. The last challenge of this type of ordinance would be
interfering with someone’s right to contract. A right of protection under the
State and Federal Constitution. They first look to whether there is an existing
contract. If a contract has been made and the State passes a law preventing collection of that contract
that is ex post facto. That law interferes with something already agreed to.
That wouldn’t apply to sale of animals. Animal sales are immediate. If a ban
was passed to go into effect months later, no existing contracts would be disrupted. Even if a long term contract was disrupted. The ruling is quoted from the
court “If a local ordinance is
enacted to increase public safety by ex., minimizing stray animals or
minimizing euthanasia then even if an ordinance infringes on the business of
selling animals the ordinance falls squarely in the county’s police powers.” To
recap, someone could sue bringing on an expensive legal battle, if an ordinance
was passed but would eventually be dismissed after at least six months until
the City made a motion to dismiss citing previous rulings mentioned.
Comr. Aldridge –
If a law was more narrow to, ex., prohibit sale of puppies from only Missouri.
That law would more likely be struck down?
Corey Evans –
Yes if the law is based on boundaries of certain states.
Comr. Hemphill –
What if the law just said no new businesses could sell animals in SF?
Corey Evans –
You could grandfather in all existing business. That would exclude possible
challenges talked about. There has been problems with grandfathering in and
cities enforcing what the original intentions were especially when an existing
business is sold and new owners want to retain that right. There is no equal
protection issue because you don’t have a fundamental right to sell animals.
People might feel differently emotionally but legally that is the case.
Comr. Stephens –
Would the Commerce Clause come into effect if the ban just applied to national
chains?
Corey Evans –
One thing it could trigger is in the first part of the Commerce Clause analysis
is if on its face it discriminates. Doesn’t see that as a problem. Could still
be sued but would not win under the Commerce Clause. Problem is in defining
‘national chain’. Many chains are owned by larger corporations. Becomes a
problem defining it.
Comr. Gerrie –
You said there is no ‘right’ to sell animals. So how does government make laws
on what can and cannot be sold? What right does the government have?
Corey Evans
– In cases similar to this the
courts have said. “The constitution reserves to a city or county the right to
make and enforce all local police, sanitary, and other ordinances and regulations
not in conflict with general State
or Federal laws. If the ordinance is focused on public safety by reducing
unwanted animals. The findings should focus on how an ordinance will affect
public safety, morality, sanitation, etc., funds and resources locally. It
would be good to look at previous Federal case cited of quoted sections of what
sort of things have been upheld as proper exercises of local police power.
Comr. Gerrie –
As to pet over population, we have heard public comment that there is and that
there isn’t. Is it necessary to prove that point?
Corey Evans – It
is not necessary that the weight of statistics be in your favor. A Commission
or Board does not have to vote in the direction of the weight of the evidence.
When it becomes
a problem is when cities are challenged on first amendment grounds such as
freedom of religion. The courts will go into the records and ask if this is a
farce? Is the law a cover for
discrimination? For a pet ban, you cannot challenge a law on that basis. You cannot
challenge a law for being illogical based on statistics.
Comr. Gerrie –
Our third speaker is Teresa Murphy of cavi spirit. She brings the only tangible
alternative we have heard to a ban. Pet store owners, rescues, and
Commissioners met last week to discuss the proposal. Quote from Alice Walker,
“The animals of the world were made for their own reasons. They were not made
for humans.”
Teresa Murphy –
Runs cavi spirit guinea pig rescue for ten years. Supports ban on sale of pets
in pet stores. Discourages people from obtaining pets from pet stores.
Encourages people to adopt. Has never been able to keep up with the demands for
help for guinea pig rescue. Number one reason for the ban is animals being put
down in shelters. Animals are also turned loose, out into the wild, owners
thinking that they are giving that animal a chance. Better to be free than euthanized at a shelter. However most
released animals die. Picked off by predators, starve to death, etc. Animals
also suffer in homes when not taken care of properly. Both wild-released
numbers and at-home abuse numbers cannot be counted. Animals would do better if
their owners were better educated on how to take care of them. Some pet guardians have significant vet
bills from unhealthy animals originating from pet mills. Another problem is
purchasing pregnant animals and mis-sexed animals. Another problem is impulse
buying that looks good at first only to turn into a situation six months later
when the owner wants to rehome that animal. Most pet stores purchase their
small animals from distributors. Distributors do they own breeding augmenting
their stock from other sources. Have spoken directly to some distributors. They
do have some requirements they have to maintain but USDA requirements are low. Enforcing
those requirements is difficult. In the breeding environments, guinea pigs, for
example, are bred until they die. The small animals are often not separated
correctly when going to the same-sex pet stores. Also, the animals often become
sick, showing symptoms after the 14 day holding period. Upper respiratory
problems can occur in guinea pigs that need to be treated with antibiotics
after 14 days. Statistics of animals that go directly to the rescues are not
being included as well as numbers of animals turned down by rescues due to lack
of space. Another issue is well-meaning rescuers turn into hoarding situations.
Rescues, due to financial problems, come and go. Has personally invested
$150,000 of own money over 10 years. Rescues also don’t have resources to staff
adoption fairs on a regular basis. Bottom line is the need to educate the
people that are buying the pets. Buying a pet is buying a product. Care
information when buying a pet is not what it should be. Much is inconsistent,
out of date, and tailored to fit the supplies being sold with the pet. Honesty
about level of care needed is glossed over. Vet care requirements, signs of ailments, and when to treat is
glossed over. People eventually find the rescues when seeking advise or seeking
to rehome their pets. Have come up with a new name for my plan. It was ‘SPARC’
Small Pet Adoption and Rescue Coalition’. This would be for any non cat &
dog pet. It is a certification program for the consumer with a twist. Pet
stores, that sell animals, would only sell animals to consumers that present their ‘Pet Ready’
certificate. Those pet stores would be ‘Pet Ready” certified stores. They would
be promoted as such. The education program for the certificate would be
developed by a coalition of rescues, shelters, veterinarians, and other animal
welfare advocates. The Pet Ready organization would be a 501 (c)(3). Each
species of animals would have the education tailored to its needs and
requirements. The education could be given by rescues, shelters, veterinarians,
pet stores that do not sell animals, and online. How could it be done online
and be viable? Obtaining the certificate should not be burdensome but along the
lines of online traffic school. Watch a video and answer some questions to make
sure you’ve understood it. Benefits of this program. Pet stores can still sell
animals. No ban. The impulse buy is thwarted. The consumer has a more positive
experience with their pet, spending more money at the pet stores. The supply
and demand flow would smooth out over time, eliminating the over population
problem. The deaths of thousands of pets would be spared. Not just those
euthanized in the shelters but every pet. Education and respect for pets is
improved over all. San Francisco would have a model that is business friendly
and could be repeated across the State and nation-wide. It is harder to argue
against education than a ban of the sale. Original vision was to start small,
start local. Grow it by public pressure. It was to grow by virile marketing,
grass root process. Saw it needing a significant advertising budget to get to
the consumers to educate them. It would gradually have a life of its own.
Rescues could stop fighting the pets stores and could promote the pet stores
and send customers to buy supplies. The alternative to a long grass roots
ten-year process, a mandate would be needed to make pet stores comply. There
will be some administrative hurdles but they could be worked out. Think a
six-month ramp up would be a reasonable time frame to get things worked out.
Haven’t done this before because used up all extra money doing rescue. A SF
based program could have a more reasonable budget.
Comr. Gerrie –
Would there be a charge for this certificate?
Teresa Murphy –
Had debated that. Thinks a small charge of $5 or $10 would be good to generate
a revenue stream for pet stores that offer classes. That would encourage them
to participate.
Comr. Gerrie –
Could the fee be contingent on the price of the animal they want to buy?
Teresa Murphy –
Could be.
Comr. Gerrie- I
had thought of a similar program before hearing your more thought-out idea. I
saw the fee going to support the rescues. To separate the powers of Church and
State so to speak.
Teresa Murphy –
Yes, one key point is if your store sells guinea pigs, you could not give out
the certificate for that animal. A conflict of interest. Another key point is
that the level and quality of the education needs to start from the rescues
because the rescues are doing the highest quality education. See the Pet Ready
coalition including animal welfare advocates and being an inclusive
organization.
Comr. Stephens –
Would it include pet stores?
Teresa Murphy –
Would prefer that it not. Would not want to see the education derailed into
something that is too easy. But would consider inclusion of pet stores because
they also love animals.
Comr. Page – See
how this helps with impulse buys and people caring for their animals. How does
this program address the problem of animal mills?
Teresa Murphy –
This doesn’t directly address the puppy mill issue. What it does do is slow down the demand and, as the
market evens out, slows down the supply. It won’t do away with the mills at
all. However going through the education process, people will become aware what
it means to own or adopt an animal. Overall the consumer consciousness is
raised. That can possibly begin to improve conditions at the breeder
facilities. There isn’t any easy answer for that one. The mills won’t go away.
This is a step in the right direction and a repeatable model.
Comr. Hemphill –
I think any fees should go into the 501(c)(3). The information would come from
volunteers?
Teresa Murphy –
Yes we will need a lot of volunteers. It is a challenge worth doing.
Comr. Hemphill –
Would you take input from pet stores as well?
Teresa Murphy –
Absolutely. See this as a very collaborative process. It shouldn’t be too
hard to see if the program will be
effective by doing user testing.
Comr. Hemphill –
The education would be simpler for a smaller animal such as a mouse?
Teresa Murphy –
Exactly. Each animal would have its own education appropriate to their needs.
Buying a mouse would be much easier than buying a thousand dollar parrot. That
is why the rescue buy-in is essential
so that everyone agrees on the education that is put together.
Comr. Stephens –
One thing the rescues have is that they know what information the pet buyer didn’t
have when they bought the animal and then gave it to the rescues or to
the shelter. They know what people are missing. If part of the education were
videos online that could be a student project of SF State or USF media
departments. That could get a lot of work done for little or no money. Also a
marketing company might take it on pro bono.
Teresa Murphy –
Advertising will be the biggest cost. See a lot of potential working with many
groups because many people will have many contacts to bring to the table.
Comr. Stephens –
Another point is any material that you do have will have to be available in
different languages. Which also could be done at the language department at SF
State.
Teresa Murphy –
Had that issue with the pet store care sheet. Was hard to translate and was
challenging.
Comr. Russo –
What would motivate a consumer or a pet store to become certified?
Teresa Murphy –
It would be along the lines of not buying puppies from pet stores because they
come from puppy mills. It is what you don’t see at the pet stores. What you don’t
see at the distributors. What you don’t see at the mills. It’s raising
awareness that more is going on that is not seen. Not everyone takes good care
of their pets. This program would go a long way to insure a certain level of
education and care. It is
important that it be mandated for SF rather than relying on public pressure
that doesn’t exist yet.
Comr. Russo –
Mandate it for the pet store as well as the consumer?
Teresa Murphy
- Yes, before you can sell an
animal in SF you will need to be certified. That is how I see the alternative
solution rather than a ban.
Comr. Gerrie –
To the large chain pet stores, how would that work if their SF store had to be
certified but their San Mateo store didn’t?
Teresa Murphy –
It would only apply in SF. However, once this model is ironed out and work
through the kinks, it will be ultimately a positive experience for everyone.
Other counties will be quick to take up the challenge. The key is to make it a
good successful win-win program. Reduce numbers. Happier pet owners. Stores are
still selling animals. And now, rescues and stores are working together instead
of against each other. It will take some time and work to make it happen but
can see it happening.
Comr. Stephens –
This is along the lines of the result of our hearings on the no-kill issue. We
talked a long time whether to mandate no-kill legislation. Ultimately we came
to the conclusion that it was not something that could be mandated. Largely
because the shelters were opposed to the idea. A group of rescues, shelters and
other animal welfare groups called the SF Homeless Animal Coalition are
meeting, trying to come up with programs that will further the cause of
no-kill. It will have the effect, hopefully, to achieve no-kill without a
mandate. Groups that were opposed to each other are now working together,
especially with spay/neuter programs. It requires that people honestly talk out
issues and work through problems. If everyone buys into it, it can succeed
versus laws imposed on people.
Comr. Aldridge –
Pet Ready is a wonderful concept. Have always felt that dogs and cats didn’t
need licenses, people did. Requiring a license before one can own an animal is
a marvelous idea. Animal health and animal care is an unending challenge. Most
pet owners don’t have a clue as to the most common problems are. Is a great
grassroots plan. Getting government to buy into it is more complex. For
government to back it, the organization would need credentials and be an
objective evaluator. Rescues are the best source of information. Working with
veterinarians and universities would also be important.
Teresa Murphy –
Agree. Must have vets and other animal experts on board for it to be right,
real, current, and accurate. Wants to avoid the government stepping in and
setting standards. Should be a self-governing, self-policing organization. All
the people that care the most about animals should set the appropriate levels
of education. Should not be watered down by ongoing compromise and negotiation
until it becomes meaningless in the end.
Comr. Stephens –
Do you think this would work with dogs and cats too? Thinking beyond this,
would this apply to rescues?
Teresa Murphy –
Yes. That is why I changed the name from SPARC, Small Pet Adoption & Rescue
Coalition, because of the difficulty of defining ‘small pets’. Rescues should
also have the same minimum standards. As a rescue, I would feel more
comfortable when a new rescue pops up and not worry about their standards.
Tonight’s power point is on petready.org.
Comr. Gerrie –
This is new to several Commissioners. Would like to hear everyone’s thoughts.
Comr. Aldridge –
Thinks it would be easier for the Supervisors to pass a mandate for this rather
than out right ban. See the selling of this as a non radical idea. It would be well received
by the general population and across the activist spectrum. A ban is a divisive
approach from one political viewpoint. Can see how it could be appealing to
certain groups of people to make a strong statement to the nation. Teresa’s
idea will be more palatable to a larger segment of the population. I would
support it over a ban if I had to vote on it.
Comr. Page – To
have education on what it takes to care for different types of animals would be
amazing. Still concerned by where these animals are coming from. If they are
coming from pet mill situations, those situations are incredibly cruel. Then
that needs to be considered. The only way to deal with that would be a ban.
Comr. Hemphill –
Would Pet Ready apply to Pets Unlimited, SPCA, and ACC also?
Comr. Stephens –
Don’t see why not,
Comr. Hemphill –
Then it would be universal?
Rebecca Katz – This should apply broadly. ACC
already does something similar. It would meet our goals of making sure animals
get into good homes and are well cared for by having education requirements
standardized.
Comr. Hemphill –
What about new stores that want to sell animals? Should we also consider
limitations on the number of stores?
It worries me that anyone can come in and sell animals before we could
get this up and going.
Comr. Gerrie –
The issue of breeders has concerned me. Breeders are throughout the State and
the nation. Legislation on a larger level would be needed as we are just one
outlet for them. Another intent of a ban was to pre-empt new pet stores from
moving into SF. These seem like loose ends.
Comr. Stephens –
Likes it when everyone works together and can do the same thing that a ban
would do. See the concern that while this is going on, nothing could stop a
national chain from moving in and selling puppy mill puppies. Look forward to
more discussions on the pet ready idea to see if people can really work together.
Comr. Gerrie –
We just had our first ever meeting of pet stores, rescues and activists last
week to begin to talk about these issues.
Comr. Stephens –
The Homeless Animal Coalition, once formed, began to work together immediately.
What took time was identifying the projects to work on.
5 A) Public Comment
L-Danyielle
Yacabucci – Had many kinds of animals 20 years ago that would not keep now.
Believes, now, no
animal should ever be in a cage. Can only stop the killing by a ban. Education is not enough.
Linda Fisher -
In Defense of Animals, captive bird director. Has been working on this campaign
for over 25 years. Brought pictures of some of the worst bird abuse cases.
Please do not exclude small pet shop retailers. Some of the worst cases across
the nation have been from small retailers. Large retailers are coming to realize that selling small animals
and birds does not pay off. One large retailer has removed 95% of the small
animal habitats across the US. Shelters receive many more calls from people
wanting to surrender their birds than they can handle. Challenge anyone to a
debate over whether there is a problem in the captive bird trade.
Lisa
Vittori -Like the Pet Ready
idea. It doesn’t deal with the mill
problem but does deal with the consumer problem. Had visited relatives recently
in Indiana. Had helped them with their pet issues. Found that the Petco-type
stores were the most helpful and knowledgeable. The relatives were not. Had
killed several fish. Had animals in too-small cages. A $5 or $10 is nothing to charge for a certificate. $25 is
also minimal. It is in the pet stores interest to have an educated public. We
are the clients of the pet stores and don’t want to fight them, but we will
remember what they say or do about this issue.
Mary Ellen
LePage - AFA – The American
Federation of Aviculture is a non-profit, non-salaried national bird
organization. Members include, bird clubs, rescues, pet owners, stores,
breeders, sanctuaries, etc. AFA is prepared to offer a detailed proposal for
rehoming exotic birds to experienced bird owners. It would be immoral to
euthanize exotic birds. Many are on the brink of extinction. Different species
of birds have different needs and should be cared for by experts. AFA’s plan is
simple, slick, and cheap. Get a bird in. Call us. We will have a list for that
particular species that has volunteered to rehome the bird. All participants in
this program will be required to take the online ‘Fundamentals of Aviculture’ course.
If people knew that people would take good care of their birds they would not
euthanize them or let them escape. AFA members are looking forward to
participating in this pilot program. There is no problem with excess birds. There is no reason for this pet ban. Urge
Commissioners not to vote for the ban and allow AFA to care for the exotic
birds.
Mike Taylor –
Pet Industry Joint Advisory Council, PIJAC – In prior testimony, PIJAC opposed
any ban on the sale of animals because it wouldn’t serve any purpose. In
proceedings and discussions since that time this reality has only become more
evident. This Commission has endorsed a pet store ban as a means to alleviate
euthanasia of small animals at ACC. The pet industry strongly endorses the adoption of shelter
animals. Pet retailers have stepped up to the plate offering to work with ACC
in offering to rehome all
adoptable small
animals. Eliminating euthanasia of any of these pets. Animals are relinquished
to ACC for many reasons. Although pet stores are not the cause, the pet
industry has offered a solution to permit the adoption of shelter animals
through retailers. Certain that a ban on the sale of pet store animals is no
solution. A ban of pet sales really targets pet ownership. If San Franciscans
can obtain pets in adjacent jurisdictions, a ban would have no impact on
shelter populations. The pet industry stands ready to help in any alternative
process to rehome shelter animals other than a ban. The pet industry supports
existing California mandates for pet stores to supply information on how to
properly take care of specific purchased animals. PIJAC urges this Commission
to abandon considering a ban on pets and is willing to work collaboratively to
find solutions for rehoming rather than euthanasia.
Roger Baranki –
Would not be here if it were not for small animals had when a child. Does not
see them as pets but as other beings. As a gay child took unwanted animals
local zoo was unable to take care of. Had up to 300 animals in the LA area. Have talked to many pet store owners,
that don’t sell pets, that know nothing about pets. Currently raises dwarf
hamsters and sells to a pet store
he trusts. Pet supply stores, in SF, sell cages that are too small for the pet.
That should be looked into. Should put pets from the shelters into schools.
Every class should have animals in it. Need education. Need to update outdated
information not ban pets.
Susan Tucker
- Petco Animal Services Manager
for Bay Area – Opposes a ban. Commission has admitted it won’t help the problem
because nothing will change the consumer’s behavior. People will just go a
little farther to buy animals out of the city. Historically, potential pet
buyers don’t think of ACC or a rescue when wanting a pet. This ban would not
change that. People that can no longer keep their animal will still take it to
ACC or let it run free. That will not change. What is needed is to make these relinquished animals more
available to people looking for pets. Petco is willing to provide dedicated
space to showcase these animals to find new homes. It works for dogs and cats.
It can work for other
animals as well. Though a ban may be well intentioned it will do nothing to
solve the problem which is to find new homes for these animals rather being put
to death needlessly.
David Jones –
Could not hear what was said by Commissioners. Thinks education is very
important. Grew up with animals in the classroom. Had white mice as pets. They
bred and sold babies back to pet stores.
Was very poor when growing up. Would not have been able to pay for a
certificate. Would not be able to obtain an exotic bird from a rescue because
they charge the same as a pet store. That is locking people, on limited income,
from getting rescues animals. Having pets helps with a better appreciation of
life. It also makes one a better person. If education is necessary to obtain
animals, people that want to get married should have to take a class on
parenting.
Jamie Yorck –
Last month opponents to this ban were at this Commission. At the beginning of
that meeting knew that the issue had already been decided. Our group had been
misinformed on how the meeting would be conducted. The group favoring the ban
had the floor for the first 2 1/2 hours. Sat in amazement as Commissioners
threw softball questions to the rescues yet through cannonballs to those
against the ban. The issue had already been decided. In a newspaper a
Commissioner was quoted as saying that she had been working on this ban for two years. The people pushing for a ban have
had the ear of the Commissioners for quite a while. Yet the public only knew
about it for two months. In the last month pet stores owners, rescues, and
Commissioners have met. Pet stores have offered solutions; make ACC and rescues
more user friendly, offer to rehome unwanted pets, a moratorium on new pet
stores. These suggestions were blown off. The Commissioners had already
decided. Commissioners are perhaps feeling a political push away from a ban.
They have come up with a pet owner education proposal. Instead of a ban to close pet stores, they intend
to strangle them to death. The Commissioners 15 minutes of fame are over. I’ll
be asking the mayor and the Board to dismiss this one-sided Commission and
replace them with citizens that are willing to be impartial and open- minded to
bring solutions that will work for all of us. (Applause)
Comr. Stephens –
Again ask that people not applaud because it can be intimidating to someone
that does not agree.
Ryan Young –
Applauds the Pet Ready proposal. It is creative and innovative but does not
affect the puppy mills and breeders. It forces the public to be educated. Reads
from the agenda that the ban is intended to stop the sale of dogs, cats and
other animals from puppy and other breeding mills and decrease euthanasia rates
in city shelters. The issue should not be what benefits us as human beings but
rather what benefits the animals. This isn’t an issue about pet ownership or
the right to own pets, this is about what is best for the animals. Selling
animals in SF while adoptable animals are being euthanized is an embarrassment.
How can anyone that puts animals first think that a ban is a bad idea? Supports
a ban. Thinks the animals would agree.
Karen Watkins –
Mickaboo – Affirms that there are bird mills. Education alone is not enough.
Important to talk afterwards to see if a potential pet owner understands. How
much did they understand? Mickaboo
also goes to people’s homes. Even with what Mickaboo does to insure good homes, problems still
come up. Important to have enforcement on existing or proposed rules. PIJAC has
standards but doubts if pet stores follow them. Need species-specific
certification and enforcement is a problem.
Nadine May –
SPCA cat rescue – Industries cannot self regulate. Look at BP. Talk tonight has
been about owners not guardians. Owners have property. Guardians have animals. They take good care of them. Intrigued that
AFA and pet stores have just now offered to take back or rehome unwanted birds.
Why hasn’t this come up earlier? In favor of working together also in favor of
a ban. People may go to Daly City to buy an animal. We don’t have to do what
the rest of the world is doing. We should do what’s right.
Olga –
psychiatrist – See benefits everyday in human-animal connections. Complicated relationship.
We say we all love and care about animals but on their terms. Not on our terms.
We love them in a way that is to their benefit. We don’t keep birds in cages.
Supports ban. Anything new will have opposition. This isn’t about us and our
civil liberties. This is about animals and their welfare. If people were truly educated to where these
animals come from and knew of the conditions at the breeders, they would make
better humane decisions when animals are homeless. They would think twice about
buying an animal from a pet store. Sometimes we need drastic decisions to make
changes in our culture, by education as well as by humane laws.
Jonathan Harris
– Mickaboo volunteer – Realize this is seen as a drastic action. The opposition
has raised three kinds of objections. Economic – people out of business – loss
of tax revenues. Personal choice – deprive people of freedom and variety in
their choice of birds and other animals -
ultimately depriving people of their right to have pets all together.
Welfare of birds themselves – survival of endangered species by breeding - overall denial that there is, indeed, a
problem. The opposition says if there is a problem it is with the exceptions
not with systemic and inherent issues of breeding and retailing of animals. The
economic arguments have no merit. This is a moral question. The issue of the
suffering and mistreatment of birds in breeding and ownership has been well
documented. As to freedom of choice, have no desire to stop people from having
birds in one’s home. Having a bird is an extremely enriching experience. Those
that do choose to have a bird should be informed as to what a bird needs. Don’t
want to deny children from having a pet but would like them to learn the right
lessons. Buying an inexpensive animal,
from a pet store, teaches that they are disposable. Adopting from a
rescue or shelter, they will see birds as complex beings that need love and
attention.
Dr. Elliot Katz
– founder IDA – Commission has lost its focus with the proposed compromise.
Last five speakers have redirected the discussion to what is the issue. Pet
store owners have said that they don’t really make any money on the sale of the
pets but the merchandise. Solution is for pet stores to host animals for
adoption, from shelters and rescues,
then people will buy supplies from those stores. Stay with that as the
solution.
Man – Lived in
SF for ten years. Has rescued many animals for ACC and SPCA. Has kept many
animals that are not adoptable. Supports education but also in favor of a ban.
Compares a ban to the health care system in this country, when a humane
solution goes up against corporations and lawyers. Doesn’t expect a ban to
solve over population crisis overnight. Doesn’t think a ban is a radical
measure. What is radical is putting a price tag on an animal.
Justin Pinkerton
– Supports a ban. Supports education also. Would like both to be in place.
People champion the ability to sell animals. Others champion the ability to
save animals. Not a valid debate. Commission should aim towards animal
welfare versus appeasing people
that are making money from animals.
Diane Amble –
California Animal Voters Alliance – When Commissioners, and others, use the
term ‘puppy mill’, they further hate crime. No reason to not use the term ‘bird
breeder’ or ‘puppy breeder’ and respect those people here tonight. It is a form
of hate that is generated by animal rights agenda. This happened in Nazi
Germany. They called the Jews names. Stop this anti-social behavior and refer
to breeders in the proper way. Asked to have three speakers from our side but
was refused. Gave plenty of time to the attorney and the rescue, who did not give his opinion but only educated. Not
protected by his legal opinion by what you do next. Under the Elevated Scrutiny Test of the Commerce Code, the
burden is on the local government to show both that the regulation shows
legitimate local purpose and there are no reasonable alternatives to serve that
purpose. Alternatives have been suggested. Shows report by Department on
Homeland Security of terrorism. Has first ten pages of 100 page report. One
report is called “Kill Capitalism” in order to free the animals. Terror support
groups include; In Defense of Animals, and HSUS.
Carol Stanley –
Against ban. Doesn’t like the words ‘puppy mill’ and ‘bird mill’. Rescues see
the bad side of things. SF has 200,000 pet households. If only had rescues, how
soon will supply of pets dry up?
Kelly McDougal –
Animal Connection – Disappointed that Commissioners have not come to the Animal
Connection. Resents the term ‘mills’. See two problems apathy and not enough
real information. Come and see what the opposite end of a ban is. Which is
education. Before making a decision, know what you are voting on. Don’t blanket
pet stores. Some pet stores don’t have clerks they have people that love
animals and are experts in their field.
Lisa – small
animal volunteer at ACC – Thanks everyone, especially pet stores, for coming
forward. Thinks pet stores should just focus on retailing products. Would be
more beneficial for the animals as well as the staff. Staff wouldn’t have to be
cleaning cages and taking care of their animals but focus on retail inventory.
Believes revenue for pet stores would increase if sale of small animals were
banned. Self and other volunteers would be more comfortable referring people
adopting at ACC to pet stores that do not sell live animals. Rescues would also
be willing to go to supply-only stores to adopt out their animals which would
bring in more business. Underground breeding does not make sense. Animals at
ACC are required to be spay/neutered while at pet stores they are not. As for
kids having pets, the Humane Education group from SPCA comes over every week.
They don’t come to adopt but to be better educated.
Robert Bonner –
This is an emotional issue. The term ‘mill’ is being thrown around without
being defined. The news reports things that are extreme. Such as people that
murder. By using the derogatory term ‘mill’ everyone that deals with pets is
painted with the same brush. That is not respectful. Focus is not on saving
animals but more on the moral issue that you feel compelled to address. You ask
us to respect you but you don’t respect us through your use of words like
“mills”.
Rick French –
Animal Company – Against the ban. When a child, bought his first bird, a
parakeet named Jet. Jet stayed with the family for 14 years. Flash forward to
the present, a family with young children comes in looking for a pet. Child
asks mother why there are no pets in the store. Mother says they are not
allowed to sell pets in SF. Animal Company has been in SF for 35 years. Has
generation after generation of customers coming in to see the birds and get
advice. Staff is completely trained. Takes objection with those that say otherwise.
The few pet shops left in SF do a fabulous job. Makes connections daily with a
child and a baby bird. Connection will serve that child in a positive way by
compassion respect and responsibility. Ban started with pet stores because we
are the easy target. But we are the wrong target.
Doug Price – US
Association of Reptile Keepers (USARK) -
Many reptiles need to eat mice and small rodents. A ban would prohibit
their sale in SF causing reptile owners to drive further. The loss of feeder
animals would be a significant loss to a pet shop. A ban would also be a lost
opportunity for education. Buying an animal leads to greater appreciation of
nature, wildlife, and the environment. A child can go to a local pet shop and
learn about nature for free.
Susan Helpren –
Lived in SF since 1969. Used to be pet shops in every neighborhood. Surprised
that Commission is focusing on the handful that are left. Has obtained animals
from both rescues and pet shops. Has been better educated by the pet stores.
They make sure you know everything to know before selling a small animal.
Andrew Quinn –
Education Director for Zoo Med Laboratories – Largest reptile manufacturing
company in the world. Working on BMP, Best Management Practices, to distribute
to trade shows and retailers in the US. Goal is to raise the bar on animal care
focusing on reptiles and amphibians. The ban appears to target small business
owners who are Zoo Med’s customers. It’ll force people to go elsewhere. It
won’t address the problem. Originally Commission was going after just dogs and
cats and now it has spread to all pets.
John Ito – Owner
Animal Connection – Has owned it for over 25 years. As a store philosophy, the
educational component of the sale has always been important. Educate as to what
the animal is like, what are its needs with food and water, how it should be
caged or housed. That has been the most important part of the sale. To match
the family with the right pet. The part that is the problem is the commitment
of the customer to the animal. We can try to educate them but cannot assess
their commitment. As to the source of our animals, must have a good source to
have healthy animals. With the Pet Store Animal Care Act of 2009 there is so
much financial down side to
dealing with bad animals. So we deal with the best breeders.
Shirley
Dickinson – Native San Franciscan. Supports ban. Also supports a certification
program. Has five rescued pets. Spends lots of money on them in pet stores.
Jeff Peterson –
Fascinated, awed and inspired by the dialogue tonight. Reflects on
philosophical and ethical
questions behind this. The use of animals in our lives. Animals for the
handicapped. Work animals on farms. We use animals in laboratory testing. Had a
wonderful experience having a pet growing up. Hear things tonight about
the right to own a pet. About manufacturing reptiles. There are some fundamental key points to
focus on. Some ethical decisions. I eat meat. I understand how we use animals
for their work. Would not want to see future generations of children not having
the experience of caring for an animal. The idea of a ban is both magnificent
and polarizing. This isn’t just about a ban and pet stores as the bad guy.
Education is the key. This is a chance for SF to lead the nation on an
initiative focused on education that will improve the lives of the animals. It
is a powerful message to get behind. It is not about heroic stories or horror
stories. Regulation is to raise the standard overall.
Public comment
closed
Comr. Gerrie –
Impressed by the variety of comments by the public. Our focus is not human
welfare but animal welfare. We are attempting to cover a lot of area in the
proposal of a ban. It deserves careful consideration of all points. It has been very helpful
talking with concerned parties, together, outside of this meeting.
Uncomfortable with proposing anything at this time. Would like to explore the
Pet Ready idea. The educational approach is more amenable to the different
sides.
Comr. Aldridge –
Uncomfortable with putting this on indefinite hold. Commission should make a
decision tonight to either give a ban a rest to explore other opportunities or
pass this on tonight for Supervisor’s consideration so people know where they
stand.
Comr. Stephens –
Would like to explore Teresa’s idea and put the idea of a ban on hold for a
number of months to see if it can work. People have said they want to work
together. Let’s see if they actually can. AFA’s proposal should be explored as
well as PIJAC’s proposal. If those ideas prove unworkable
we can always revisit the idea of a ban.
Comr. Hemphill –
Supports considering the Pet Ready proposal. Concerned about the criticism
towards the rescues expressed tonight. If people are going to work together
they can’t be critical. Just as in musical chairs. There are only so many homes
or like the chairs in musical chairs for animals. Breeding animals, whether
they are called mills or not, creates more animals competing for only so many
chairs. The ones that don’t get a chair or a home, get euthanized, or released,
or don’t do well.
Rebecca Katz –
Even though the rhetoric sounds divisive, we are all here because we care about animals.
Working together and fleshing that out might be advantageous.
Comr. Stephens –
Comr. Hemphill’s comments about rhetoric is well taken. It doesn’t help when
you misrepresent what others say. It doesn’t make you look good. Comment that a
Commissioner said in a newspaper that we’d been working on this ban for two years is not correct. It refers
to a piece I wrote for the Chronicle in which I said the Commission had been
discussing no-kill solutions for two years. Not a ban on sale of animals in pet
stores. A meeting with rescues and pet stores last week also had a PR person
invited by a pet store. That wasn’t conducive to free and open communication.
Encourage all sides to work together to educate the consumer and a win-win for
everybody. The impulse buys. People not knowing what they are getting into.
Those animals end up in shelters.
Comr Russo –
Concerned about the Pet Ready proposal. Did not hear from local pet stores that
they would work with such a model. Unsure how that will work. Clear such a
proposal would need to be mandated which would create a lot of pushback. Would
like a report at each meeting to hear progress on how effective this could
potentially be. Uncomfortable with just tabling it and coming back in six
months to revisit it.
Comr. Stephens –
Could agendize an update of the discussions.
Comr. Gerrie –
Reminds everyone that this issue has not been discussed before in this format.
Democracy is not easy and often messy. We had 18 months of discussions on
no-kill legislation. Every month the public came and passionately advocated for legislation. That didn’t happen
but its fruit did result in an action that is actually doable. Said before,
that legislation is not my first choice. Like the idea of reporting back each
month. Also do not want to feel rushed. When I originally proposed this, I
thought it would take a year of discussions before we acted. However, want to
move through it versus rehashing it every month.
Comr. Hemphill –
Can we look at a module of the material for a pet ready alternative next month?
Comr. Stephens –
Don’t have any expertise to evaluate and material presented. Should we set some
goals to bring information here?
Comr. Russo –
Not so much concerned about the content but the process. How the people of SF
will get together and turn this into a viable solution.
Rebecca Katz – Referenced the Homeless Animal Coalition. Wasn’t
sure what that would look like. It was a matter of reaching out to
stakeholders. The rescues and the shelters agree on what needed to be done for
a solution-oriented process. ACC can work with the stakeholders, Teresa, pet
stores, rescues, and others, on starting off this process on looking to see how
we can do an educational program that makes sense for everyone. We can report back to the Commission on where
we are with that.
Comr. Gerrie-
Wanted to clarify what the meaning of ‘tabling’ meant. To ‘table’ something is
to put off making a decision to a future time. A ‘motion to table’, that is
voted on, is to agree to not look at the issue again. The two definitions were
easily interchanged in the local paper. My meaning was to just wait until the
next month to act on it. I would like to explore the Pet Ready proposal and
come back next month and see how we are doing.
Comr. Stephens –
Do we need a motion to take this up next month? And, do we need to take any
action as regards to a ban?
Comr. Gerrie –
My idea was to have Teresa present
her proposal before talking about the ban. To me, her idea is a possible
alternative to a ban.
Comr. Stephens –
As to Comr. Aldrige’s comments about people coming every month on this issue.
Comr. Gerrie –
The agenda must say what we will be discussing and/or acting on. The agenda
item might say “discussion on progress of the alternative”.
Comr. Stephens –
You are saying we will not be discussing a ban until we give this a
chance? Possibly to the first of
the year?
Comr. Gerrie –
Right.
6. New Business
A) Discussion
and possible action to send a letter to the Board to advise them of relatively
inexpensive improvements that would address animal welfare concerns at the SF
Zoo. 1) expand Baird’s tapir enclosure 2) relocate giant eland to a facility
that has a herd 3) expand black rhino exhibit into the giant eland exhibit 4)
expand black rhino exhibit into empty hippo enclosure 5) create full flight
aviaries 6) Commit to only taking rescue exotic birds in the future.
Comr. Gerrie –
Three months ago Deniz Bolbol presented recommendations for improvements for
some of the animals at the zoo. Comr. Hemphill, Russo, and myself, accompanied
Ms. Bolbol at the zoo. We visited the areas that she is recommending. I came
away in strong support of the recommended improvements. Especially for a full
flight aviary and for future bird acquisitions to come only from rescue
situations. The bird recommendations are similar to what pet birds need and to
where they should come from. Will read the report I would like to send to
Supervisors and others. Basically it says that the Commission has held three
public hearings to explore and develop these recommendations. The focus of the
meeting was to consider financial constraints of the zoo and identify creative,
out-of-the-box means to improve welfare for animals at the zoo who are under
the City’s care. The Commission understands that the SF Zoo is beset with
financial constraints and currently owes millions of dollars to the City. We
stress that the outlined recommendations in no way provides an ideal solution
for these animals. But they are realistic, cost-efficient improvements that
could be implemented in short time. In March 2008, this Commission provided
recommendations to the Board that outlined grave concerns for the future
direction of the Zoo, highlighting that animal welfare should be a priority.
The following identify specific actions that would improve animal welfare at
relatively low cost and could be implemented easily and quickly – yielding a
near-term, if not immediate, improvement to animal welfare at the zoo. 1)
Expand and improve Baird’s tapir exhibit into an adjoining empty exhibit and
access to a second pool. 2) Relocate the giant eland, a herd animal, to another
facility where he can join a herd social structure 3) Expand black rhino
exhibit into the giant eland’s, once relocated. 4) On the other side, expand
the black rhino into the vacant hippo enclosure, greatly increasing the space
of the black rhino. 5) Create full-flight aviaries for all birds at the zoo.
6) Commit to
taking in only rescue birds in the future. I propose sending this letter as a
recommendation not needing any action by the Board.
Comr. Stephens –
This is case where Sunshine worked
against us. Comrs. Gerrie, Hemphill and Russo visited the zoo on their own and
I could not talk about, nor know about what they were doing. Have been working
for several months to develop a forum between the zoo and animal welfare
advocates to exchange information about these issues. Joint Zoo is not a good
place for that. It is set up to be semi-confrontational. Not convinced if this
is the forum either. Proposing to have informal meeting about specific animals
to brainstorm solutions. What are the problems? What can be done? Are there low
cost solutions? Would like to have the actual zoo keepers involved. Members of
the Zoological Society and Tanya Peterson were interested. What may seem like a
great idea may not be. The vet that is on JZ, now, would also like to
participate. Could not discuss this with Comr. Gerrie. Hope that would be a
better forum, an ongoing working group. Same as the pet store sales, trying to
find a way to get people working together.
Comr. Aldrige –
Think creative solutions are great. Simple solutions often are a lot harder and
expensive to actually do. Hearing of the difficulties can be exasperating.
Would be helpful if the animal advocates could actually hear that, in one on
one talks.
Comr. Hemphill –
Would like to see actual numbers for these projects. Current Rec & Park
projects are coming in way less than originally bid due to more competition
now. Think an ongoing conversation is a great idea. Newcomers can see things
that longtime people may not.
Comr. Russo –
Agree it is good not to involve the Board.
Comr. Gerrie –
This is just a report of actual suggestions based on what we saw at the zoo.
Other exhibits have been done very well.
Comr. Stephens –
What do you think sending a letter to the Board would actually do? Unsure if
they want to be bombarded by us.
Comr. Gerrie –
We are actually supposed to be reporting to the Board quarterly, which we
haven’t done in recent years, of what we are up to. That is part of our
responsibility.
Comr. Stephens –
What do we actually accomplish by suggesting the zoo do these things?
Is this really
intended as a test so
that if the zoo doesn’t do them we’ll go to the Board and say the zoo is unresponsive? Is that really our function? To be micro-managing the zoo?
Would like it if the zoo did them. But what if they don’t? Could there be a
good reason not to do them?
Comr. Gerrie –
Maybe we can hear some public comment about this? It sounds to me like you are
over thinking this. It is just a possible recommendation from us, an advisory
Commission on animal welfare.
Comr. Stephens –
We advise the Board
about animal welfare.
Comr. Gerrie –
We have also advised others, Rec & Park, Arts Commission.
Comr. Stephens –
Unclear if we have the legal authority to advise those groups.
Comr. Gerrie –
We are not mandating. We have no authority.
Comr. Hemphill –
You had talked about setting up a group to talk about these issues at the zoo?
This could be an agenda that you
could take into that meeting. That could accomplish in a more direct way what a
letter may or may not accomplish.
Comr. Russo –
Addressing the issue in a less formal manner could be more productive.
6 A) Public Comment
Deniz Bolbol –
Had talked with Sally, well after the zoo tour with the three Commissioners,
about getting discussions going. Said she was more than willing to work with
the zoo. Sally had said that both sides did not listen to each other. Had asked
Sally if the zoo and Bob Jenkins didn’t know her recommendations for the
Baird’s tapir? Sally said he thinks he does know. Asked Sally if she thinks she
doesn’t know his excuses. Sally knows Bob’s excuses. The problem is not we
don’t hear each other is that we don’t agree with each other. There are fundamental
differences of what each side thinks is adequate conditions for animal welfare
at the zoo. When we lost the vote for the reforming the zoo two years ago,
Supervisor after Supervisor said that this Commission plays an important role.
You are their eyes and ears. They rely on you. You don’t need to go to them for
resolutions or a new law You can give them updates on what issues you are
addressing. And what
recommendations you are giving on a given issue. They know the zoo is an
ongoing problem. Believe it would be refreshing to get a report from you and
not a request on what you are working on. Zoo changes that are low cost and
easy to implement to improve animal welfare. Think the Supervisors would
welcome a status report. The meeting Sally is trying to establish, am totally
willing to participate in them. Can I rely on the zoo to come through? No. Same
people still in place that fought moving the elephants. As to cost of putting a
hole in the tapir’s wall, need to get three quotes. They can say that improving
the hippo exhibit for the tapir will costs 100’s of thousands of dollars but
they can’t get a quote for cutting a hole? They have cut holes previously for
other animals in the same structure. The Zoological Society bragged about doing
the Grizzly exhibit not using union labor not City funds and efficient and
quick work was done.
David Jones –
City tour guide – Takes people all over the City. But doesn’t take them to the
SF Zoo because it as an embarrassment the way the animals are treated.
Chimpanzees were kept away from visitors because they would throw feces at
them. They were miserable. Need to think about what are the needs of these
animals. We have to lean on the zoo who are living in the past. Have to look to
other zoos. Worked at the welcome center at Pier 39 for six years. Sent people
to the Oakland Zoo because it is a
better presentation. Animals are better cared for and they have more space. As
a tour leader in SF for 15 years, have never sent any one to the SF Zoo. Agrees with
previous speakers remarks. Get bids. Avoid unions.
Bob Jenkins – SF
Zoo – Doesn’t run the zoo. Tanya Peterson does. It is her position and her
philosophy we operate by. Contrary to what was said, we had a massive change in
philosophy and personnel two years ago. Deniz is correct is saying that there
are fundamental differences on what needs to be done. Disappointed with Comr.
Gerrie that reference was not made to June’s presentation that costs were done
for cutting a whole in the wall. Cutting the hole was $25,000. Also need an
engineer to make sure that remaining wall has a sufficient foundation. Also additional
engineering work to do. All the costs can add up to $100,000 which is what
renovating the hippo exhibit would cost to take the Baird’s tapir.
The Baird’s
tapir may not live however. He started bleeding, a month ago, from a spot, on the roof of his mouth.
He has a round-cell malignant cancer. Any changes to his environment now would
not be advisable because we have the ability to deal with him in that space. I
wish that was not the case and he was ready to move somewhere else. The zoo is
willing to sit down and talk with anyone in a
productive non-confrontational manner.
Linda Fisher -
Supports Deniz. Zoos get calls daily to take exotic birds. There is no need to
be buying birds keeping up the exotic bird trade going. Must try to discourage
that trade. One way is to take only rescue birds. Also encourages better
conditions for the birds already at the zoo.
Dr. Elliot Katz
– Pleased that Bob Jenkins is willing to sit and talk with anyone. Hope that he will talk with me. It is a
mandate of this Commission to look into issues brought up by the public. Seems
like the zoo and some of the pet stores have a habit of wanting to make their
own decisions. They push back when outside people make recommendations for
change. Those outside people are animal welfare, and animal rights people.
Deniz has come up with some sensible recommendations.
Public Comment
closed
Comr. Gerrie –
Make a motion to send the letter as written to the Board with copies sent to
Rec & Park and JZC. Seconded by Comr. Hemphill.
Comr. Stephens –
Would vote against the motion because doesn’t believe it is the proper format
for this. Does hope the zoo will look at all of these issues and discuss them
in the detail they need to be discussed.
Comr. Gerrie -
Would like to vote on it so it either passes or fails.
Comr. Hemphill –
The new information about the Baird’s tapir would change what would be done
anyway. Talking about these issues as a group would be preferable.
Comr. Aldridge –
Only problem with this letter is if I had done it, I would have word-smithed
differently to soften the language of what we feel about these recommendations.
Comr. Gerrie –
Would you be more comfortable with this if it was word-smithed in the way you
said?
Comr. Aldrige –
Yes. That would be more acceptable.
Comr, Hemphill –
If a meeting was held, this could be as a report-type letter to read and
discuss there.
Comr. Stephens –
Although the working group would not be an official function of this
Commission. Is the motion being amended to incorporate Comr. Aldrige’s changes?
Comr. Aldrige –
Can’t get it all reworded right now. The essence still being if there are
inexpensive solutions they should be looked at seriously.
Comr. Gerrie –
We should then table it and rework it until next month.
Comr. Aldrige –
Would be willing to do that.
Comr. Russo –
Would be more comfortable with a report that wasn’t this specific. More
general.
Comr. Gerrie –
Not sure what you mean by general.
Comr. Russo –
You could mention the different animals enclosure adding improvements but not
going into specifics.
Comr. Stephens –
You are suggesting to mention the animals involved but not the specific remedy.
Comr. Gerrie – I
support softening the language but not changing the recommendations.
Would like to
work with Jack and come back next month with the reworked letter.
7. General
Public Comment
Kathleen McGarr
– Fix San Francisco – ACC small animal volunteer – participant SF Homeless
Animal Coalition – Heartened by everyone working and talking together in the
Coalition. Concerned that Comr. Gerrie spoke and seemed to think that the
no-kill talks were done in the Commission. In the May minutes, Comr. Brooks
promised to put no-kill back on the agenda in three months time for the
September meeting.
Corey Evans – As
a resident of SF, unhappy with dogs being tethered outside stores such as
coffee shops. That is illegal by SF county code. Leash must be less than 10
feet with a pulley-like system. Tethered dogs block sidewalk. When try to talk
with dog owners, they take it as an insult. It is an obvious violation and has
never seen anyone cited for it. Like to request that businesses post a sign in
front of their store that this is not allowed. Maybe there are not enough ACC
officers to enforce this law. Other counties have programs for volunteer
reservists. A program for reservists in SF could let
volunteers pass out leaflets informing them of the code. As it is, people walk
by tethered dogs as the dogs grow irritable and upset. A situation waiting for
a bite to happen. It is enough to have to cross the street to avoid those dogs.
That is unfair. Request that is become an agenda item. That a reservist program
be explored.
Dr. Elliot Katz
– More concerned about the dog being hurt or taken or, if it bites someone,
becoming an aggressive dog. Flyers are good idea to alert people to the down
side of leaving their dog outside. Offers to work on a program to educate
stores and dog owners.
David Jones
- Lives in Noe Valley. Sees this
happening all the time on 24th St.. Should inform stores of this law
and make them put a sign in their
windows about this law. If a person disobeys the law, the police or someone
should be called to give them a warning. Can’t walk down the street without
dogs snarling, growling, and snapping. Commission should do something about
this.
Public Comment
Closed
Comr. Hemphill –
Wants to clarify the law. The leash must be at least 10 ft long? If so, people
would trip on the leash all the time. This law would make things worse. So many
dogs are tied up there.
Corey Evans –
This law shows the absurdity of the situation. The law was designed to keep
people from tying their dogs with too-short of a leash in their back yard. In
the SF. Health Code section 41-12,
section C, sub-section 4. “Though highly discouraged, tethering is only
acceptable if the tether is attached to a stake in the ground with a
pulley-like system and the tether is attached to the dog by a non-chock type
collar or body harness at least 10 ft in length.” This says the tether should
be long enough so it won’t get wrapped up and be at least 10 ft in length and
you have to have food, water, and shelter at the location. There is no possible
way for these tetherings are legal.
Comr. Hemphill –
It sounds like a law is needed just for the sidewalk versus the backyard.
Corey Evans –
Under this law you can stop those people from doing that. They are not going to
set up the food, water, etc, it won’t happen, so will be in violation of this
code.
Comr. Stephens –
This wasn’t an agendized item and can’t have extensive discussion. A question
or two is OK.
Public comment
closed
8. Calendar items and task
allotments
Comr. Stephens –
We’ll be discussing the Pet Ready idea next month. Will talk to Comr. Brooks
about the no-kill discussion. And a report on the Homeless Animal Coalition.
Continuation of the zoo letter proposal.
No Public
comment
9.
Adjournment 9:45 PM
Respectfully
submitted by
Philip Gerrie
Commission
Secretary
