2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000
Draft Meeting Minutes
Thursday, March 9, 2006
1. Call to Order and Roll Call
Present: Commissioners Laurie Kennedy, Sherri Franklin, Mara Weiss DVM, J.R. Yeager, William Hamilton, Richard Schulke, Vicky Guldbech, and Bill Herndon
Absent with excuse: Commissioner Joanne Kipnis
2. Public Comment
L-Danyielle Yacobucci – wants as many reference documents to be posted on website as possible
Rex Reginald – Has legislation proposal and has been developing support for pet-friendly landlords to get tax breaks/credits. Would like commission to take up this issue. Also wants tougher legislation/reward money for dog-fighting.
3. Approval of Draft Minutes from the February 9, 2006 Meeting
Public Comment – none
Motion made by Commissioner Hamilton to accept the minutes as amended
Motion seconded by Commission Schulke
Passed unanimously
4. Chairperson’s report and opening remarks
5. Committee Reports/Commissioner’s Reports
6. Old Business
a. Discuss recommending that the Board of Supervisors support Assembly member Hancock’s bill, AB 21110, which would make rabbit coursing a crime throughout the state.
Commissioner Schulke -- asked the Commission advise SF Board of Supervisors to support and back Assemblyperson Hancock’s Bill 2110 that would make coursing of live animals illegal – has no place in this state or city. Many other states have banned this intensely cruel sport masquerading as dog training. The bill would mandate for other alternatives to using live animals. With our support, the support of the Supervisors, and support of citizens all over the state we can help Hancock’s bill make it past the powerful hunting industry’s lobbying efforts to kill this bill and criminalize this horrible activity as soon as possible. Channel 7 did a report that showed this activity.
Commission discussion about the bill, the sport, the opposition, the alternatives to using live-animals.
Commissioner Guldbech – This falls under 597B of the penal code and is not allowed in the state of California. The bill doesn’t outline this sport specifically but if it were to happen in SF it would be prosecuted as a crime. It falls under torturing and needless suffering of the rabbit.
Commissioner Schulke – There is a section of the state’s Fish and Game code that does allow it. Doesn’t know where in the code that is outlined.
Out of order – motion by Commissioner Franklin to hear item. Seconded by Commissioner Hamilton.
Public Comment:
Rex Reginald – Agrees that this is evil pastime that tortures animals and promotes the killing of animals by dogs. Supports Schulke’s recommendation.
Margery Cohen – Misinformation being presented. Hunting is protected by the California constitution and coursing is considered legal hunting under the Fish and Game code. Sight hounds are natural hunters. There is no open field coursing in SF. This bill would put her in same category as thieves. Upset by media’s portrayal of this activity.
Gary Ellis – The rabbits are jack rabbits and are wild. For most parts rabbits are not taken. Many breeds compete in open field coursing. Purpose of the coursing is not to kill but it is the natural instinct of the dogs to kill and the killing usually happens really quickly. Objective of this sport is to compete one’s dog against other dogs to see who has the best dog and to excite the dog. Nothing excites the dogs as much or is as competitive as using live game. Goal is to see the dogs run, see the dog do everything it can do, and to satisfy the dog. Luring coursing (using plastic bag) is very predictable and the dogs lose interest. This is hunting and game is taken. If you are against hunting, you’re against hunting. Carcasses are eaten by the dogs, people, or other predators. This doesn’t take place in SF, as lots of space is needed.
L-Danyielle Yacobucci – Does not like hunting. We do not need to breed dogs to hunt anymore. It terrorizes the rabbits. No guarantee of quick death. Jack rabbits are deserving of protection just as any other animal or human is. Carcasses may not be wasted but a life is. We wouldn’t do this to people so she would hope that we wouldn’t do it to an animal.
Susan Schroeder – A blood sport is a captured animal who has no chance, such as an animal in an arena. This is not a blood sport, it is hunting.
Ron Cole – Theodore Roosevelt participated in this sport. He has friends who do tracking and their dogs would go after rabbits. This would add new category of penal justice for something that has been around for years as a sport using animal against animal. More of a sport than using guns. This bill has a lot of unintended consequences. Wants fewer laws, not more laws. Board of Supervisors has more important things to deal with.
Commission Discussion
Bill Herndon – Is this issue before the commission because of a dislike of hunting or is it because it is hunting with dogs? Does not like cruelty. Some of the feelings here are that it is cruel to do this. Argument brought to us by Gary Ellis is that it isn’t any more cruel than to shoot a deer and have the deer run for a few minutes and then drop dead.
Richard Schulke – Understand people’s want to hunt and that some of the hunting license fees go toward conservation. However doesn’t see this as the kind thing that should be allowed in California anymore. A few years ago the UK has banned things like this, fox hunting and coursing with rabbits. Would like to see us follow that example – it is a cruel way to hunt. If you want to train your dogs, use a lure or a course. It may not have the same intensity that a live rabbit provides but this is very cruel and unnecessary. It likely is not something we see in SF but would like to see our board lend its support for this bill. A lot of groups oppose this law but it would end an intensely cruel sport. He would like to ask the board to pass a resolution supporting this bill.
Bill Herndon – Does not think this is something we should be doing because we are an advisory board to the Board of Supervisors for things that happen in SF. This will have no impact on the people or animals in SF.
JR Yeager – Agrees with Herndon and doesn’t know why this is on the agenda. It’s brought forth based on viewing a 60 minute video. More research needs to be done for us to comment on this further and it is not an SF issue.
Bill Hamilton – If this bill did get passed it would be challenged in court. Hunting groups have powerful lobbies.
Mara Weis – Agrees that this does not appear to be an SF issue.
Richard Schulke – This doesn’t have much commission support. Does think this is in the purview of this commission, to make animal recommendations to the board, so withdrawing the item.
b. Discussion regarding the development and web posting of a referral list of resources for the community to use to address animal related concerns or questions.
Motion by Sherri Franklin to discuss item, seconded by Bill Hamilton
Commissioner Discussion:
Commissioner Hamilton – Made changes since last month. It’s grown beyond original intention; helping people that come before commission who bring concerns to commission that are not under our jurisdiction. There are agencies and non-profits who can resolve their issues. Emergency resources should not be listed. But the website could have that extra info.
Laurie Kennedy – Recommended reviewing SF Dog’s website to see their formatting. Would like to see less wording up front but rather could link to a lot of the places. Need to run this info by the organizations listed to see if they are okay with it being posted on our website. Also need to ask our city webmaster what limitations there may be for how we populate our website.
Bill Hamilton – Friends of Animal Care and Control has a lot of this info already which was inspiration. You get a lot more people to read it if all the info is right up front as opposed to having click on the link to get the info.
Laurie Kennedy – Would like to cut down on the language and but still have enough language to be resourceful.
Public Comment:
Mary Ann Buxton, Feral Cat Program Coordinator at the SF/SPCA – The SPCA’s feral cat section needs some editing, shortening up, revision of the content regarding the Cat Assistance Team since they are volunteers. We do not want to mislead public and provide false expectations regarding the size of the feral cat staff.
Commissioner Discussion:
Laurie Kennedy – Suggests tightening formatting and language, check with webmaster, and check-in with those listed to ensure we are representing them the way they wish to be represented,
JR Yeager – Doesn’t think the feral cat reference should be included. It is on the SF/SPCA’s website and that link is already included. Not all animals are guaranteed life-long care. Thinks Mary Ann Buxton contradicted herself because it is called the Cat Assistance Team yet there is only one staff person. So it should be struck from our list.
Laurie Kennedy – We need to decide how much info to include. The point is to let people know who have questions or concerns regarding animals in the community where to go. Maybe we could have sections on services, such as feral cat resources and which organizations offer such services, etc. Or, we could break it out by organization.
Bill Hamilton – Could see someone new to the city coming to the commission saying “there are feral cats in my yard in need of care and what will your commission do about it?” This website would show people that there is a resource available. We will tighten this list up and correct any vagueness. Does not believe because something may be a little controversial that it should be struck completely.
Richard Schulke – Understands JR’s concerns about the language but would like to see this resource list be more inclusive, add more things, than take things off. The idea behind this is to help people who come to our website with a question. Maybe we should have a disclaimer that our commission doesn’t officially recommend or is not affiliated with anyone listed but are providing informational links.
Bill Hamilton – Will follow up and will edit on an on-going basis as needed once on website.
c. Discuss making a recommendation that all cats and dogs taken into custody at Animal Care and Control be spayed or neutered prior to being reclaimed and released to their owners/guardians.
Motion by Bill Hamilton to discuss item, seconded by Richard Schulke
Commissioner Discussion:
Sherri Franklin – In touch with Oakland SPCA and Oakland Animal Services. Oakland does not relinquish cats and dogs unless they are spayed/neutered. Some people become irate and don’t want their animal back if they need to be fixed. Alan Davis guesses that 50% of dog owners refuse to pick up their dog if it has to be S/N. People who refuse to have their animal S/N want to have litters and consider their animals property. Of those animals 50% go up for adoption and 50% are euthanized.
Vicky Guldbech – How is the appeals process working?
Sherri Franklin – More research needed.
Vicky Guldbech – We need more research to be done at ACC to see just how many dogs and cats come in unaltered. We can do that study but it will require time, such as 6-months to do a study. When an animal comes in now intact but leaves S/N, the computer will show it as being S/N – we lose original data. State law that says any at-large unfixed dog will require person to pay fine, $50 1st time, $75 2nd time, and $100 3rd time. We have a really good success rate. It approaches it slowly and gives people options. Since the fee is the same as S/N, often people will opt to S/N.
Laurie Kennedy – This idea for this item came from past discussions about local overpopulation of cats. Are people coming in and reclaiming their cats on a regular basis?
Vicky Guldbech – A very small percentage do – 3% of cats are reclaimed. Cats are not usually repeat offenders but there is overpopulation. Usually those cats who are reclaimed are already S/N.
Richard Schulke – Thinks this kind of law might run into trouble because of property laws and animal being considered property.
Sherri Franklin – Our city could write legislation that would override that to demand that all animals entering the shelter be S/N.
Richard Schulke – Supports this idea even though he worries about the legal issues. When discussing S/N for dogs we wanted mandatory S/N for all, not just pit bulls. This is a logical next step.
Vicky Guldbech – Whatever we decide we, as a city, have to be prepared to do it well. We need to be prepared for the volume of animals that may be affected by this and consider our euthanasia rate. It is a good idea; we just need to consider the timing. Right now we are working on the mandatory S/N of pit bulls. Let’s get through that a while and evaluate our successes and take this idea from there.
JR Yeager – Questioned Mr. Schulke, doesn’t recall voting for mandatory S/N of all dogs.
Commission confirmed that we did vote for mandatory S/N of all dogs, not breed specific.
JR Yeager – We don’t have an overpopulation problem for dogs. If people don’t want to take their dogs home we will find them better homes. People don’t come to ACC with boxes full of puppies; they come with boxes full of kittens. This is the area we need to be talking about when looking at mandatory S/N.
Vicky Guldbech – will check ACC’s statistics and will try to get some raw data about what we are doing now.
Laurie Kennedy – We need to think about our objectives of this legislation, what it would accomplish, what we would like it to accomplish.
Bill Herndon – Coming out of Mayor’s Working Group, most of the dogs that come in stray and unaltered are pit bulls. With new state law those dogs will not be leaving the shelter unaltered now. We are already doing a lot of this for our dog problem.
Bill Hamilton – When previously researching mandatory S/N laws for cats, in most places it wasn’t working. People aren’t following the law and the shelters aren’t enforcing them. Too much antagonism for the law.
Vicky Guldbech – Cats are free roaming in SF. When people come to our shelter for a cat, they leave altered. People coming to reclaim their cats are altered already. People don’t want unaltered cats – it is unpleasant. We don’t come across that – it is a little different than with dogs.
JR Yeager – Questioning the 3% reclaim rate for cats. The rate includes all cats coming into the shelter, cats, kittens, ferals, etc.
Laurie Kennedy – Vicky will be writing reports to collect date that may be relevant to the future development of legislation in this area. Now is not best time because of the work being done with the new mandatory S/N legislation for pit bulls.
Vicky Guldbech – We are learning something new everyday with regard to the pit bull legislation and learning what reports we need in place.
Public Comment:
Ron Cole – Shouldn’t be using Oakland as a comparative area. Dogs run loose in packs. Doesn’t advocate for any laws like this because law abiding people will be caught in it, such as someone who’s neighbor lets their dog out. You can’t write extenuating circumstances into laws.
L-Danyielle Yacobucci – Agrees that this law wouldn’t accomplish anything. Vicky’s statistics will tell whether this is going to help or not.
Margery Cohen – Instead of looking into mandatory S/N laws we need training court. The city, commission, and dog panels need to address mandatory training when dogs are adopted from shelters. Has talked about it for years. The SPCA has a trainer’s academy. There has to be some way for the students of the academy to learn how to teach people how to work with their dogs. There has to be a way for people to learn the proper ways to care for their animals.
Laurie Kennedy – All dogs adopted at the SF/SPCA are required to go through training and that is included in the fee for adoption. Everybody goes through 6-week classes.
Jane Greenwald – Thought our discussion was intelligent and good points raised. Got an email from someone who did a statistical analysis of animals in San Mateo County . Would be happy to raise funds if any volunteer effort is needed here. Thinks this is a law in search of a problem.
Richard Fong – Mayor was hot under collar for the pit bull law. Saw beautiful Staffshire Terrier at ACC and saw it to be a waste to S/N it. There was a girl who couldn’t have a dog where she lives – she should have this Saffie. It was a great looking dog and sure wouldn’t want to see that dog in the S/N room. Cats can see in the dark, dogs can see in the dark, laws are blind.
Susan Schroeder – A more reasonable approach would make more sense for someone getting in a car accident getting out of the car. Has a dog with heart condition – she would die if she had to be spayed. There should be room for some consideration.
Vicky Guldbech – Note, for the pit bull legislation, if there is a medical concern people need only have their veterinarian write them a letter and their dog will be exempt.
Commissioner Discussion:
JR Yeager – We hear every meeting that there are laws that don’t work so why waste time making them. There are laws against murder and they don’t work, so do we want to make it legal to murder people? I don’t think it is a fair argument to say just because San Mateo isn’t successful in their efforts that we should assume we can’t be successful here. Maybe there is something SF can build on. Of course there are issues but that shouldn’t stop us from taking steps.
Laurie Kennedy – I’d like to see how we can successfully address the cat overpopulation issue.
Bill Hamilton – These laws aren’t working anywhere.
Vicky Guldbech – We have a handle on S/N for dogs because dogs are supposed to be confined, attached to their guardian. Cats are free-roaming and they are out procreating. People have cats living in their gardens, etc, which are having kittens.
Richard Schulke – There are some cities that have some type of “leash laws.” Something like that would give ACC leverage.
Vicky Guldbech – Although this opens a big can of worms, cats were required to be confined, wear a license on their collar, we could call the people when their cat is out and picked up. We could then advise S/N, like we do with dogs.
JR Yeager – If there were to be anti-free roaming laws, any cat being found free roaming and not sterilized…
Vicky Guldbech – That’s the big can of worms. Can we really make it so that cats not be free roaming anymore? It is huge and that is probably why we haven’t done that.
Sherri Franklin – what about a mandatory microchip law?
Vicky Guldbech – That would be a good start. Getting a better grip on the cats is a good start. If we try to get our arms all the way around it, we won’t succeed. We want to take little bits of it and see where our problems are and why there is such a big difference and what we can do. We can’t go so extreme to make leash laws because that won’t serve our city very well because then the feral cats lose out. So how do we take it piece by piece?
Sherrie Franklin – How are feral cat’s identified as being S/N
Mary Ann Buxton called up for questions – Feral cats have their ears tipped. Even if they were micro chipped they wouldn’t necessarily be scanned because it would be so difficult.
Vicky Guldbech – Who would we microchip feral cats to anyway?
Laurie Kennedy – All animals who go through the adoption programs at ACC and the SPCA are micro chipped and S/N.
Vicky Guldbech – cats being reclaimed are not the problem. It is not the cats coming into the shelter.
Laurie Kennedy – The goal is to reach more cats that are the ones procreating. That’s what we need to think about and this may not be the way to reach that goal.
Tape-recording ended…
8. Public Comment
9. Calendar Items
10. Closing Review of Task Allotment and Next Steps
11. Adjournment
Commissioner Schulke moved to adjourn meeting
Motion seconded by Commissioner Franklin.
Passed unanimously
Meeting Adjourned 8:00 pm