October 14, 2010
1. Call to order and Roll Call
5:40 PM
Present Commissioners, Susanna Russo, Pam Hemphill, Sally
Stephens, Geneva Page, Philip Gerrie, Andrea Brooks, Eric Zuercher – ACC
Absent Commissioners, Bob Palacio Rec & Park, Jack
Aldrige DVM, Sherry Hicks – SF Police
2. General Public Comment
L-Danyielle Yacabucci – Homeless Animal Coalition, HAC,
recently put together a free-spay day at the SPCA. Volunteers that collected
the ferals were the feral cat
volunteers. They deserve the credit.
Richard Fong – Looked into the Water Dept proposed project
at the west end of GG Park,
Supplying ground water to the park’s lakes will only be done by reverse osmosis
not micro-filtration. All the water will be from recycled sources. Recommend
aeration would help purify that water from chlorine. Encourage Commission to
look at the water issue as to how it affects wildlife that drink it.
General Public Comment closed
3. Approval of Draft Minutes for September 9, 2010
Public Comment
Richard Fong – Concern about lessening the problem of biting
dogs. Clarifies statement made last month
that if a dangerous dog case goes to Superior Court and the owner is
found to have been intoxicated that there be a multiplier of deterrence.
Minutes approved unanimously with correction by the public.
4. Chairperson’s report and opening remarks
Comr. Stephens – Next month’s meeting has been rescheduled
for Tuesday Nov. 16 at 5:30 PM in room 408 because Veteran’s Day falls on the
regular day that we meet. The cancellation and posting of the new date will be
on line.
No public comment.
5. Unfinished Business
A) Presentation by Teresa Murphy, on update of her recent work on the feasibility of
implementing the “Pet Ready” program. Program would require a certificate of
completion of a short course on care of the animal before a customer could buy
it. Program is a possible alternative to a ban on the sale of animals at pet
stores.
Teresa Murphy – We had a meeting on August 30th. Invited representatives from local pet
stores and local rescues as well as three ACWC Commissioners and a
representative from ACC. Meeting was to collaborate, discuss issues, and work
on the program. Pet store owners were unhappy with the Pet Ready program being
mandated so reworked it to make it acceptable to all sides. Solution was to
create two levels of participation by the pet stores in the program. The Pet
Ready Supporter level is for Pet Stores ready to participate in the program
voluntarily. They can offer discounts to customers that have the Pet Ready
certification. When they market the Pet Ready Program Pet Ready they can
promote/advertise their store and give discounts to attract consumers with pet
Ready certificates. The second level of participation is the Pet Ready
certified store that will only sell to customers with a certificate from the
course. This is a market driven
approach which would also involve, besides pet stores, pet supply stores,
rescues, shelters, vets, Being market driven, the City would not need to
mandate nor legislate. SF and the Bay Area will be the pilot area to launch the
program. At the August 30th meeting pet stores were more positive
when they learned it would be voluntary versus mandatory. It would be in their
interest rather than have the proposed pet ban move forward. The change was
needed to insure the program can happen on its own. Media will also be more
supportive rather than a forced solution.
Comr. Russo – Who was in attendance at the August 30th
meeting?
Teresa Murphy – Comrs. Hemphill, Stephens, and Gerrie,
Rebecca Katz from ACC, pet store owners, John Ito, Rick French, Kevin Whalen
and Lori Feazell from Petco, and John Chan from Pet Central. Next step is to
get the business plan done that can go out and get funding. Funding will come
from operations itself. Thinking of a $20 fee for the course. Customer would
get coupons worth around $100 in pet supplies once the course is completed.
Comr. Russo – The organization itself would be a 501(c)3.
How would that be formed and how would it fundraise?
Teresa Murphy – Once in production mode the need for funding
will taper off. Fundraising can be through wealthy individuals and grants.
Advertising will also pull in money. And the course fee itself. Three primary
sources. Have been looking at groups like Petfinder.com and Best friends to see
where they get their funding. Want to be as real as possible by doing research
before going out and looking for funding.
Comr. Gerrie – As to the course itself, how long would it
be? Would it depend on the animal?
Teresa Murphy – For the smalls, an hour to an hour and a
half. A fair amount of the time would be video clips and a test at the end. It
will challenging to compact the information yet not be overwhelming. It should
be fun, educational , and informative at the same time. I look at how much time
it takes me to educate someone when adopting out a guinea pig. It would be
similar.
Comr. Gerrie – I am concerned about specifically the exotic
birds that can live for decades. I would want to make sure the education is acceptable
to the rescues and not too easy.
Teresa Murphy – Yes it’s up to them. Maybe dividing the
course into modules of two or more parts. It must not be too onerous. It must
be doable. It must be marketed and positioned so a consumer will want to do the
course and come out a more educated responsible consumer. It must also be
acceptable to the rescues and experts otherwise it won’t work.
Comr. Gerrie – That is what I’m wondering. In previous
meetings, accusations were made
from pet store owners to the rescues that their requirements to adopt
were excessive. So I’m wondering where the balance would be that both sides
will accept?
Teresa Murphy – See the course having levels above basic
consumer level. Trainer level classes. Expert classes. Additional modules that
will be more in depth in different topics.
Comr. Gerrie – Your comments bring to mind having ongoing
e-mails and updates for each animal group once certified.
Comr. Hemphill – This is a lot of work for one person to
take on. Do you have help?
Teresa Murphy – I’m an experienced web person in marketing and sales. I can get it to
a certain point but need to also pay my bills. I need to get it to that point
before I can go after the funding and move forward. Have spent many hours
editing the power point presentation on Petready.org. Next is the business
plan. If I can make the transition of
affording to do this
work I can make this happen. Have done guinea pig rescue for many years and am
burnt out. This is a way to change things. Rescue work is exhausting.
Comr. Page – In your research have you found anything in the
CA Penal Code section and the CA Health & Safety Code section that already
requires some of these things? Concerned that there might already be something requiring similar.
Teresa Murphy – As
to the Penal Code and pet care, been involved with ACC in animal abuse cases and seizure
cases. It is not working. The most atrocious animal abuse offenders just get a
slap on the wrist. Not much is legislated for in-home care of pets.
Comr. Page – Speaking specifically to legislation
requiring sellers of pets to
provide written recommendations for the animal’s housing, equipment,
cleaning, etc.
Teresa Murphy – I helped to get that bill passed. There is a
big difference. The Care Sheet Bill requires that a pet store hand out a care
sheet with the sale of every animal.
It doesn’t matter what is on the care sheet. I put together
a website called petstorecaresheets.com. A pet store can put in their address
and logo and print it out to look like it is their care sheet. Many pet stores
do their own. PIJAC has their own. So does Petco. Handing out a care sheet
doesn’t handle the impulse buy. It doesn’t educate the consumer before they
leave the pet store. It was a step in the right direction but didn’t do much.
It didn’t address the issue we are dealing with now. To educate the consumer before purchasing a pet in a way the rescues can support.
Rescues do not support the current care sheet because they are so minimal,
frequently inaccurate and sometimes detrimental to the health of the animal. It
does little and was very hard to pass.
Comr. Page – Have you looked at reasons for surrender? Have
found reasons are things like child has grown and moved away to college,
divorce, got married, had a baby. All non impulse-buys reasons. Will the
lowering of impulse buys be a large or small chunk of the surrenders?
Teresa Murphy – Reasons owners give for surrenders are
rationalized to make the owner feel good about the surrender. This especially
pertains to smalls. A small is bought for a child and the family quickly
realizes that it is more work than they thought. It is surrendered because it
is not fun anymore. If the animal
has the right size cage and the right environment everyone is happier. If the
owner spends more on a pet everyone is happier. The owner will, according to
testimonials, will buy more pets and more equipment. Owners discover their
animals have a personality. If the consumer sees a video of an animal behaving
normally they will be inspired to create a similar situation. The reasons for
surrenders are not what is given publicly.
Comr. Page – Have found the reasons I gave are the real
reasons. People divorce and have less money and have to move to an apartment.
They may have a screaming bird or a barking dog.
Teresa Murphy – Don’t want to say this will solve
everything. It won’t. There are still problems. Still issues. This will help
enough to significantly save lives. It will reduce the burden on the shelters
and rescues. It will be enough to make a difference. Up front education will
help to make informed choices.
Comr. Page – See across the country people losing their
homes and losing their pets to shelters when they couldn’t take them into an
apartment.
Teresa Murphy – Have dealt with surrenders for a decade.
Ultimately comes down to people just not wanting the animal anymore everything
else is an excuse. Own experience, only 10% of surrenders are legitimately hard
circumstances.
Comr. Stephens – Sounds like you will pursue your idea no
matter what this Commission does. Rescues are crucial as a source for the
course information because they hear the reasons why animals are turned in.
Giving information that people didn’t
know, that made them the turn the animals in, is crucially important. Concerned
with a solely market-driven approach is that it is a chicken-and-egg thing.
Until pet stores sign on people won’t do it. Pet stores won’t sign on until
people are asking for it. Seeing results in the shelter will be a much longer term
issue. Hard to see it happening without a mandate. Commend you for all the time
you have worked on this.
Teresa Murphy – Think it is doable if someone just spends
the time. Someone needs to do it. As for the mandate and the ban discussion
returning in January, the collaborative meeting with the pet stores I hope that
this is the right decision at the right time. Hope that pet stores will
cooperate now and leverage this to be a successful pilot.
Comr. Page – Your Cavi-spirit rescue was a non-profit?
Teresa Murphy – It was a not-for-profit. Never registered as
a 501(c)3 because felt that I would never get enough donation money to make it
worth the paperwork headache. Was doing a lot of lobbying as well and didn’t
want my 501(c)3 status to impact my lobbying efforts.
5 A) Public Comment
Richard Fong – Talked with Comr. Aldrige. He said it was
very difficult to do the altering on many of the smalls. Looked into other ways
to alter. Commission’s focus has been to gain control over breeding. One idea
was to sell only one sex in a store. Didn’t think that would work. Still need
to think about ideas for breeding control.
L-Danyielle Yacabucci – Thanks Teresa for her work. Would
like to see a buy-in from Pets Unlimited, SPCA, ACC, and PAWS. They have
statistics on why animals are being returned. They could also be a source of
funding. Was excited after adopting a pet rat to learn that there was a rat
club. Pet owners need to be that excited
about their animals. You don’t get animals to teach kids responsibility.
Shelters are full but animals are also being dumped in feral cat colonies and
in parks a lot because they don’t want to go to shelters and give excuses that
are not true. Says a lot about pet shops that they think rescue groups
evaluations are excessive. With a mandate possibility they will be persuaded to
take part in this. It will save animals lives. They would want to be part of
this great group. The killing has to stop. Teresa’s work has been amazing.
Corey Evans – Teresa’s business proposal sounds great and it
would be great to capitalize on the connection of treating animals better.
Concern is it doesn’t address the impulse buy. An impulse for something can last for weeks and people will
do what they need to get what they need to get. Don’t think animals are
surrendered two days after purchase. Parents will do the course on line for a
gift for their child but they won’t remember the information afterwards like
what happens in traffic school. Another concern is the different languages
spoken in SF. All course material would have to be available in several
languages. If courses are only available in one language that too will cause
problems. It doesn’t solve the problem because impulse buys are not the bulk of
the problem. It also doesn’t address the puppy or bird mill problem at all. Pet
Ready may be helpful but it won’t solve the problems discussed.
Mark Ennis – Pet Ready should not be mandated. If rescues
and shelters want to take it on that would be great. It doesn’t address the
issue which is the demand. It encourages stores to sell animals. Is not the
answer. Commission should work on a ban on the sale of all animals including
feeders. People will click on the boxes on line and won’t remember what was
taught. Pet Ready enables pet stores to keep selling and make money off of animals. Rescues spend money on animals. Have attended Commission meetings
on the ban. First began with addressing issue of the puppy mills and then was
sidetracked with euthanasia rates at the shelters. Most animals don’t make it
to shelters. They die from neglect. Commission should not try to please all the
parties but focus on just the welfare of the animals.
Public comment closed
5 B) Discussion only
on the update of the efforts made to protect trapped wildlife and feral
cats during the Outside Lands
Festival of 2010 in GG Park.
Comr. Hemphill – The Outside Lands Festival, OLF, was held
August 14th & 15th. This is the third year in a row
the festival was held in GG Park . The OLF was surrounded by a temporary 3-mile
long fence tied to the ground in most places. The fence traps wildlife and
feral cats from food and water. It has been necessary to attend to the trapped
animals needs. Rec & Park does not address the issue nor the festival
promoter. The contract with OLF’s organizers, Another Planet Entertainment, is
for 5 years so it will be ongoing.
This year the festival only lasted for two days versus three in the
previous two years. The fence was up longer this year but was not gated until
just before the concert. Unclear how helpful that was for the animals. OLF’s
organizers helped with parking permits and access to the feral cat feeders by informing security. Personally
helped with the feeding. Set up 7
feeding stations for ferals and wildlife in Speedway Meadow, with two other
dry-food-only stations. SPCA donated water bowls. All sites were heavily used,
except one, which was located near where people tried to jump the fence. Their
actions disturbed and degraded the habitat for wildlife. Another venue besides
GG Park would offer better security.
Comr. Stephens – The fencing was up for how long?
Comr. Hemphill – The fencing, without the gates, was up
several days before the concert.
Animals did not seem to know to follow the fencing to the
openings.
Comr. Stephens – How was working with Another Planet?
Comr. Hemphill – They were very cooperative and easier to
work with than Rec & Park.
Comr. Russo – Is there another park that would be better for
the concert?
Comr. Hemphill – Should be along someplace like the Embarcadero.
5 B) Public Comment
Martha Hoffman – Fencing was tight to the ground. No reason
for that. Some of the fencing was left up, down by 41st Ave., for a
week and half to two weeks after the concert. The fencing was up right next to
a wildlife-crossing sign. They took part of it down quickly but not all of it.
The passes were held up until the last day before the concert. Thanks Comr.
Hemphill for her work. The organizers need to do a better job.
Comr. Stephens – How were the passes distributed?
Comr. Hemphill – I distributed some of them. The rest went
to the SPCA but there was some confusion at the SPCA. They didn’t all get the
word.
L-Danyielle Yacabucci – Want to make sure that it is the
feral cat department at the SPCA which was responsible. It is the most
efficient department at the SPCA. Know Rec & Park is difficult. A lot of
their policies are inhumane. They could help wildlife with the fencing but they
don’t care. They just want the money. The organizers also just want the money
but they gave out passes because there would be a stink if they didn’t. Better
locations would be Candlestick Park or AT&T Park. A park should be for
wildlife. They don’t care about wildlife. I do. Would like to work with Rec
& Park. Also, where is the Commission’s representative from Rec & Park?
Thanks Comr. Hemphill for her work.
Richard Fong – ACWC Commission had sent a letter last year
of the concern about fencing. Received no reply. Should contact Denny Kern,
Director of Operations in GG Park. Something might be done through him. When
Comr. Herndon was on the Commission he had suggested that ACC be on the
check-off list for the permit.
Mark Ennis – Also concerned about the Hardly Strictly
Bluegrass Festival. Both Festivals drive wildlife out of their homes for a
number of days with the loud music and human activity. It’s not right. Was told
that Rec & Park just don’t care. Legislation might be the way to go to
prohibit these sort of events. Other ideas might be splitting the concert into
smaller parks, that don’t have wildlife with a shuttle bus between them.
Commission could recommend to the Supervisors that GG Park is not appropriate,
as well as McClaren park, for these events.
Public comment closed
Comr. Hemphill –Worried that if a restriction on events was passed,
wildlife would just be removed from those parks. Present policy seems to
commercialize the parks and make as much money as they can. Has worked for two
years working with Dennis Kern and Phil Ginsburg, of Rec & Park, to get a
gap under the fencing and nothing happened.
Comr. Gerrie- Concerned that our Rec & Park
representative has not come to our meetings especially to meetings concerning
GG Park. What do we need to do to get a representative? It is obvious we don’t
have good communication with them.
Comr. Stephens – We can ask.
Comr. Brooks – Maybe if we met with them in person.
Comr. Gerrie – Asking is not working obviously. Who would we meet with?
Comr. Stephens – Either Phil Ginsburg or Denny Kern
probably.
Comr. Gerrie – We’ve expressed our concern about wildlife to
the Rec & Park Commission.
Comr. Stephens – We have written letters to them.
Comr. Stephens – They are non-voting members so they don’t
have an incentive to come. If they were voting they might come every month. ACC
and the Police Dept are also non-voting members but they do come almost every
month.
6. New Business
A) Discussion of the
high death rate of Western Gulls in the Pier 94 wetlands area. Necropsy
revealed some deaths were due to rodenticides and infectious diseases.
Comr. Hemphill – Richard Drechsler will speak on his
findings. My first exposure to the problem occurred 4 years ago when
accompanying a feral cat feeder on his rounds. His cat feeding included Amador
St. and the rendering plant there. Pier 94 is at the end of Amador. The
rendering plant processes waste, animal tissue, and carcasses . It comes from
slaughter houses, restaurant grease, butcher shop trimmings, Some of it is
cooked to become cat and dog food. Some becomes tallow for soap, candles, and bio
fuels. The rendering plant is called Darling International. It is the only
publicly traded rendering plant in the US. The odor of the processing can be
smelled on Pier 94. When feeding the ferals a nearby gull was running nearby
but could not fly. The Feral feeder said the birds were oiled by landing on and
in the open, uncovered rendering
plant trucks Western Gulls are
scavengers. The feeder had rescued many oiled gulls and taken them to Wildcare
in San Rafael. Since then some changes have been made but problems continue.
Richard Drechsler – Potrero Hill resident, birder, and
sometime feral cat feeder. Is concerned about wildlife in SF. In 2007 noticed
sick gulls on Amador St. Investigated by talking with people in the area. The
gulls are considered common and their welfare has not been a concern. Gulls
live normally 10 to 20 years. Sometimes up the 30 years. (Shows photos of dead
or dying young gulls in the area.) Cannot prove death was caused by toxic
conditions but statistically it is aberrant to have so many birds die at the
same time. Was able to capture some birds, not yet dead, and take them to
Wildcare for rehabilitation. Birds that did have necropsy, the following were
found, salmonella, cholera, rodenticide poisoning, oil-soaked feathers and broken
wings. Wondered, for some time, how to measure the mortality rate of gulls
there to other areas. This area is 3/4 of a mile north of Heron’s Head Park.
(Shows picture of the Darling rendering plant with an incoming truck load of
spoiled meat with gulls flying on around.) Compared gull mortality rate at Pier
94 with two other areas, Heron’s Head Park and Alcatraz Island. The two other
areas are breeding grounds for the gulls. They are high stress areas for the
birds. Aggressions are acted out. Pier 94 is not a breeding ground. At Heron’s
head, of 64 birds counted, two deaths were recorded. Both accidental. On
Alcatraz 244 pairs of birds were breeding. At the end of the breeding season 14
deaths were counted due to aggression in territory disputes. There’s an average
of 80 birds around Pier 94. There
were 25 adult and imatures death in a 4 month period. That is a 31% death rate
compared to a 5% and 6% at the other locations. These numbers are from 2006. This is not a new problem. In
2006/2007, 50 gulls were treated at Wildcare in San Rafael. 27 from Pier 94.
Have met with the Audubon society and the Port personal since 2007 to address
the problem. Have tried to embarrass them showing the pictures of dead and
dying birds. Have discovered there is no organization in SF that deals with
problems like this even though there are some Federal laws that protect these
birds. Believe this has been going on for sometime but before a few years ago
no one went down there and saw what was happening. Since Darling moved in 50
years ago, birds have been dying. What is their status today? The port of SF
has paid for the necropsy of these birds. Not sure what standard of proof will
be needed for their tenant to enclose their facility to protect the birds from
their cargo. Fish & Game said they would pick up a bird for necropsy at UC
Davis. Audubon has offered volunteers to monitor the site but few have
volunteered. The volunteer would have to spend many hours there. Pick up and
transfer to Wildcare, 50 miles away, dying birds that may have infectious
diseases. Risk being bitten. Preserve dead birds in one’s freezer until picked
up by Fish & Game. If 30 or 60 people signed up, each person could do it
once a month but that isn’t going to happen. Pier 94 needs professionals, not
just volunteers, there to assert their authority to make sure businesses are
behaving in a way to not compromise the wildlife. Sick and dead birds are
removed from the site to make it look like there is less of a problem. If no
one monitors on a regular basis the gulls suffering and dying will not be
known. It’s hard to know what to recommend except telling people about it. City
government is not interested. SF Ports is only interested in their rents.
Darling Int. is probably one of their better tenants. All I can suggest that
businesses must report dead and sick animals as part of their business license.
Recording sick and dying animals would raise the status of these animals for
the business owners. SF should also define the concept of an attractive hazard
for birds. If there was a database for these birds if would create a safer
environment for them.
Comr. Gerrie – Have you contacted Supervisor Maxwell?
Richard Drechsler – No. Have gone to all Bayview meetings
about Darlings request for a permit to build a fuel refinery. Told people
there. Raised questions about Darling’s capability to safely build a refinery
for fuel. Supervisor’s Maxwell’s focus is on jobs. if Darling gets the permit,
there will be six good-paying jobs created. The Port doesn’t have a sensitivity
to animals nor does the Board. The irony is that Pier 94 is being groomed as a
wetland luring wildlife there. One thing that would help is if they enclosed
their facility.
Comr. Stephens – Have you compared this area to other
industrial sites instead of comparing it to parks? What makes it endemic to
that location?
Richard Drechsler -
Birds are eating tainted and rancid meat. They are going into trucks
with large amounts of oil and grease. They develop diseases from this. I
haven’t gone to other industrial sites. I haven’t gone to garbage dumps either.
Statically and anecdotally there is a high number of bird deaths.
Comr. Stephens – Have you found similar deaths in the feral
cats there?
Richard Drechsler – No. I used to feed the ferals out there
and some would disappear. I never found out what happened to them. Rodenticides
are used heavily out there. Necropsies
have found rodenticides in the dead birds.
Comr. Stephens – You said they are removing sick and dead
birds before anyone can see them. How do you know that? Also, they still use
rodenticides at Darling?
Richard Drechsler – I mark the birds and photograph them.
When I come back later they are gone. No they stopped using reodenticides.
Comr. Hemphill – If they enclosed their building their
rodent problem would improve. Haven’t seen other dead birds out there. Gulls
are scavengers so they go after the dead animal material.
Richard Drechsler – Other birds eat insects and seeds. Gulls
prefer to eat fresh food in breeding season. Struck by the lack of sensitivity
of the people there. Darling has been there, as it is today, since 1960. They
were the first company to boil carrion down to tallow. Darling is in many other
States. They have been reviled in 10 States for polluting the environment.
Comr. Russo – Have any other States been successful at
counteracting their activity?
Richard Drechsler – Massachusetts passed a law making it
illegal for anyone to allow a gull access to a dump on matter like this.
Comr. Stephens – Has Audubon talked to Sacramento about
that?
Richard Drechsler – No. They have a relationship with the
Port and they don’t want to compromise their relationship with them. Have been
working for a year with Audubon to get some attention about this issue. Doesn’t
seem that it would be hard but there is little interest.
Comr. Gerrie – Are there other Darling companies in
California?
Richard Drechsler – The closest one is in Fresno. Fresno has
a cohesive anti-Darling coalition. The Bayview Darling produces a putrid smell
from dissolving meat in sulphuric acid, lye, and bleach. People in the
neighborhood complain about it. It is known for its stench.
Comr. Gerrie – The solution would be to cover the facility
as has been done in other States so no birds or animals could get in?
Richard Drechsler – It would only need to be the part of the
facility where the carrion is unloaded. It wouldn’t be too expensive. You just
need chain link fencing that gulls can’t get through.
6 A) Public comment
L-Danyielle Yacabucci – Thanks Comr. Hemphill for bringing
the issue up. The Dept of the Environment could be helpful. So could ACC. It is
an ACC concern. Animals are dying. Surprised if Audubon helped. There are
animals they don’t care about called garbage animals such as feral cats. Some
animals Audubon will fight for. Many that they won’t fight for. Feral cat
people help to save wildlife. Learned that rodenticides are only illegal on
public land. Hope the Commission writes a letter to the company, to Sophie
Maxwell, or the new Supervisor.
Mark Ennis – Thanks Comr. Hemphill. Curious to know if ACC
knows about this or has done anything. Wonders if the City has any contracts
with Darling. Scraps or animal products from the schools, or ACC itself. Are
euthanized animals sent to Darling?
Eric Zuecher – ACC has a contract with another company that
cremates the remains The contract
is with Cofran.
Richard Fong – Wonders where the gulls are breeding and how
they get down to Pier 94. Did not hear how many birds remain at that site. Are
the animals healthy enough to be breeding?
Public comment closed
Comr. Gerrie – A point of clarification. Most Western gulls
breed on the Farrallon islands and disperse the length of California. They also
breed on Alcatraz Island.
6 B) Discussion and
possible action to send a quarterly report on Commission activities to the
Board. SF Health Code sec 41.3 states it is the Commission will send a written
report quarterly. Commission will discuss what to include in the Fall 2010
report.
Comr. Stephens – Have prepared a draft report for
discussion. Copies for the public are available on the table along with the
agenda and minutes.
Comr. Hemphill – What does quarterly mean? Some items in the
draft go back a long time. The report should also include tonight’s items.
Comr. Brooks – We had talked last month about this report
being more extensive and future reports being just for each quarter.
Comr. Gerrie – We couldn’t approve what Sally hasn’t yet
written from tonight.
Comr. Stephens – We need to cut it off at some point. The
issue is where to cut it off. Where does a quarter begin and end? We haven’t
done a report, that I know of, in at least 8 or 9 years. We were not aware that
we were supposed to be doing one. We could do our first quarterly report in
January and include all of 2010.
Comr. Hemphill – Or we could make a 2010 report and start
quarterly in 2011.
Comr. Stephens – Sure, we’ve been negligent in this
responsibility for so long, what’s two more months? No one was aware we had to
do it. We could vote on what we have so far then add an addendum for September
and November. Or table this and vote in November. Or, wait and do a report to be sent in January. Any of those three options.
Comr. Russo – We only have one more meeting next month. Suggest
we include next month and title it “2010”. From there on we can designate
future quarterly reports. Thanks Comr. Stephens for preparing the report.
Comr. Gerrie – The Supervisors really want to know what we
are doing. It is good to consolidate what we doing. They don’t have time to
read the minutes.
Comr. Stephens – (Reads 41.3 of the SF Health Code) “The
Commission shall render a written report of its activities to the Board of
Supervisors quarterly. Such report shall include:(a) Recommendations to the
Board of Supervisors, the Mayor, and the Chief Administrative Officer for the
development of policies and procedures which will further the objectives of
animal welfare and control. (b) Recommendations to the Board of Supervisors,
the Mayor, and the Chief Administrative Officer of additional legislation
deemed by the Commission to be necessary for animal welfare and control. (c)
Recommendations of actions to be taken by any agency, board, officer of this
City and County for the purposes of furthering the objectives of animal welfare
and control.” When we have made a recommendation, in the past, we would just
sent it on versus pooling into one report.
Comr. Gerrie – Perhaps we should include contact
information in case a Supervisor wants to contact us about an item. For each
item we could include the person who sponsored it.
Comr. Stpehens – It will probably wind up being filed
and forgotten.
Comr. Gerrie – Hopefully not. The aides read it to
keep up on the issues.
6 B) Public
Comment
Corey Evans – Concerned that just giving journal
entries versus recommendations will lock this Commission into obscurity. The
quarterly report should include all recommendations. It should read, “ We
recommend in this past quarter of 20xx these actions. Could include background
information but have upfront recommendation bullet points. A lot of the report
is just discussion and not of
interest to the Supervisors. To build the prestige of the Commission it is
better to have less bulk and more recommendations. The report may be very short
if there aren’t many recommendations that quarter. To just report discussions
that did not lead to an action is pointless. If the Commission couldn’t
recommend an action what is a Supervisor going to do? If the Commission doesn’t
come to a recommendation in one quarter, report the item when it does.
Richard Fong – Approves of the quarterly report.
Public comment closed
Comr. Stephens – Corey’s point is well taken. Just to
report on what we have recommended versus what we’ve been discussing.
Comr. Gerrie – Would argue to include summaries of
our discussions. Supervisors sometimes receive e-mails for or against something
we’ve been discussing. A report would let them know what we’ve been talking
about. Besides, the aides would read the report, not the Supervisors. I read
this report in less than five minutes. I think it is helpful.
Comr. Hemphill – Think a good summary with bullet
points is good. If we don’t take a stand, explain the issues we are facing.
Comr. Stephens – We are deciding to put off sending
this report until January and it
will include the October and November’s meetings.
Comr. Russo – Perhaps the summaries could be separate
from the back round information. Page one could just have recommendations and
following pages could have an addendum to expand topics for further reading.
7. General Public Comment
L-Danyielle Yacabucci – Would like to see a
presentation from ACC on wildlife issues. If they can or cannot handle them.
What wildlife animals they are handling. When do they go to Peninsula Humane?
Wonder why ACC is not addressing these issues? Would like Commission to work on
its credibility. Perhaps visiting, in person, the Supervisors quarterly with
the report.
Mark Ennis – Surprised the tethering-of dogs issue
was not on the agenda. Looks like there is a law that is not being enforced.
Also the Commission said that the zoo would be on the agenda every month. A
working group met once. Think that is not enough. Think discussions should be
in a public forum specifically about the giant eland,the black rhino and the
empty hippo exhibit. Should not be bringing in more animals when the zoo can’t
take care of the ones it has. The zoo is in financial trouble yet they want to
bring in more animals. It seems that since the working group met the energy
from this Commission is gone. This Commission should write a letter to the
Supervisors to stop bringing more animals in. The animal activists position is
simply stop bringing in new animals and take care of the ones there.
Public comment closed
8. & 9. Calendar items and task allotments
None
No public comment
10. Adjournment 8:15
PM
Respectfully submitted by
Philip Gerrie
Commission
Secretary
