2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000
6:15 PM
1. Call to Order and roll Call
Present Commissioners, Sally Stephens, Philip Gerrie, Pam Hemphill, David Gordon – DVM, Vicky Guldbech – ACC, William Herndon – SF Police
Absent Commissioners, Laurie Kennedy-Routhier, Andrea Brooks, Angela Padilla, Bob Palacio – Rec & Park
2. General Public Comment – None
3. Approval of Draft Minutes for July 9, 2009
3. Public Comment – None
Minutes approved unanimously with no changes
4. Chairperson’s report and opening remarks
A) Update of rules Committee hearing to fill expired appointments to the Commission
Comr. Stephens – Rules Committee met on August 6th voted to recommend to the full Board that they reappoint the four Commissioners that had re-applied. Full Board will vote on it on the 18th. Thanks everyone who applied and spoke at the meeting.
Public comment - None
B) Update on Joint Zoo Operating Committee
Comr. Stephens – No meetings in August. Two meetings next month. September 11th and 29th, at the zoo. At last JZ meeting, passed out list of concerns that our Commission addressed last year. Waiting for reply as to status. Pursuing what ACWC had voted on last year.
Public comment - None
5. Status and tracking of letters of recommendation requesting action by the Board
A)Update commission’s recommendation of an ordinance banning declawing of cats in SF
Comr. Stephens – Passed out informational packets to all Supervisors. Supervisor Mirkarimi agreed to sponsor it. City Attorney is working on its language. Hopes to have in introduced at next Supervisor meeting next Tuesday because Supervisors do not meet for three weeks after. Explained to Mirkarimi’s aide on need to move on it. Aide felt that even if introduced in September, there would be enough time. If something is introduced that will have a significant change in public policy, there is a 30 day hold before it can have public hearings. If introduced Tuesday, the three week break will count. as part of the 30 days. Needs the Mayor to sign it by Thanksgiving as it takes 30 days to take effect.
Comr. Hemphill – Is there anything we can do to speed this up?
Comr. Stephens – Contact Mirkarimi’s office to support it being introduced. It’s with City Attorney now. Contacting Commission’s own City Attorney to be aware of the importance of timing.
5A. Public comment
Hope Johnson – Was responsible for getting Mirkarimi’s support. As many people as possible contacting his office will help.
6. Unfinished Business
A) Discussion on no-kill.
Comr. Stephens – Lead Commissioner on this is sick. The possible road map was introduced by Commissioners Padilla, Brooks, and Stephens. No changes to that since last month. Commissioner Brooks was going to talk with the Mayor’sAlliance in NYC to find out how they did the structure of the oversight body to coordinate private groups with government agencies. Comr. Padilla was going to talk with Gregory Castle about the structure of the No More Homeless Pets program. Have also been talking to a non-profit that might expand scope to do oversight for this coordination. Still working on a structure. Would like opinion on two issues. The question of behavioral testing by ACC & SPCA which rejects for behavior reasons. Rescue groups adopt them and do not find any behavior issues. How and who decides behavior testing standards? How do we integrate standards into a no-kill mandate or oversight group?
Comr. Herndon – Experience in vicious-dog hearings, hears two different versions of a dog’s behavior. Dog is sent to UC Davis for evaluation but is dependent on the doctor who evaluates, even there. When a behavior test is requested, sometimes it is helpful. Sometimes no help at all. A deciding Board would be difficult because people would just argue.
Comr. Stephens – Perhaps getting more than one opinion and averaging them out?
Comr. Herndon – Had a case where a dog was ordered to be destroyed. Case went to court and the court behaviorist said the SPCA’s behaviorist was ludicrous. But the court behaviorist never looked at the dog. Court had the dog reevaluated and was sent to UC Davis who had another different take on that dog. Thinks it best to have just one person establish criteria.
Comr. Stephens – How do you establish the criteria?
Comr. Herndon - Unsure. A Board? A panel? Criteria is different for vicious dogs versus assessing adoptability.
Comr. Guldbech – Persians don’t do well in shelter environment so difficult to place. Rescues are right in questioning behavior assessment. Open to suggestions to improve what ACC could or should be doing. Hears that ACC does not do things well nor right – making things up. Would like to hear from the public how to add to behavior programs.
Comr. Hemphill – Would be best to take two–of-the-three assessments.
Comr. Guldbech – We do that now. If assessed by a woman, asks for a man’s assessment or a person of a different size or height.
Comr. Stephens – Another issue is adopting SF’s animals first versus taken out-of-county. Would Nathan’s Companion Animal Protection Act, CAPA, which would mandate SF animals first or an idea of an out-of-county tariff work? Open to suggestions on that.
Comr. Gerrie – Had asked the SPCA that question. They said they bring outside-county animals in when numbers are low. That is during non-breeding season or winter months. They are not taking the place of adoptable SF animals. It can look a certain way but asking for an answer comes a different explanation that is not apparent.
Comr. Stephens – Rescue groups also take dogs from out of county. Do we address that as well?
Comr. Gerrie- We are a mobile society. People and their pets are moving in and out of the City all the time. The distinction of where an animal is from is a mute point. It is important to get animals adopted regardless of where they are from.
Comr Stephens – Hopes to get from tonight’s discussion some new ideas. Another concern is the Adoption Pact between ACC and the SPCA. What prevents that from being stopped? It is not formalized. It’s just an agreement between two organizations.
How do we insure that it continues? There is the issue of timely reporting and the issue of accuracy in numbers reported. Statistics can be manipulated to validate one’s views.
Comr. Guldbech – Any data from ACC can be requested from the website.
Comr. Stephens – Another question is how to apply no-kill for the “other” animals? Not as much resources in place for them. Biggest question before this Commission is whether or not to mandate no-kill or mandate SF-only animals. Or can everything short of mandating be done? Such as low-cost spay/neuter, behavior help line, etc. Would a mandate be enforceable? If not, why do it? How would it be enforced? Fines? Supporting group might be a new non-profit or an existing one that steps up to take the lead. That group could get grants to run the programs for no-kill.
6 A. Public Comment
Pat Laspich – FixSanfrancisco – Worked at SPCA for six years with behavioral cats. Now volunteers at ACC working with same. SPCA program used to individualize the cats and their adopters and worked well. Now discontinued. Current program is called felinicity, used in many shelters, has corporate sponsors. Cats are brought in from other counties while cats in SF are not adopted. SF cats must be adopted first.
Laura Fairbanks – Agrees with previous speaker. Volunteered at SPCA, working with cats, and now at ACC, socializing cats. Has seen cats at ACC provoked with a stick for behavior testing. Behavior testing should be things cats can expect at home, petting, being picked up, etc. Supports cat behaviorists setting guidelines. Behaviorists from SPCA, now called Feline Minds, would be good. Supports adopting SF animals first. Supports a mandate for this.
Lana Bajsel – Give Me Shelter Cat Rescue – Critical of ACC’s protocol for cat testing. In talks with Rebecca Katz. Current techniques archaic and aggressive. Has adopted cats rejected by ACC and SPCA. Doesn’t support bringing in out-of-county cats. SPCA donor base expects taking care of SF animals first. SPCA should help other counties shelters by starting spay/neuter clinics, foster programs, etc. Not bringing in their animals. Only enabling them.
Julene Johnson – ACC volunteer, fixsanfrancisco – Agrees with previous speakers about behavior and out-of-county issues. Issue with reporting of numbers. 2008 numbers just issued half way through 2009. ACC open to monthly reporting. Would like to see a reporting system for whole city, up-to-date, accurate, accessible and people know about it. Need better way to track animals from shelter to shelter. Do they go to no-kill shelters? Willing to help establish a database for ACC. Need standardized definitions. “Return” now changed to “Owner-surrender” if returned after 30 days from adoption. Statistics will not reflect change when out in 2010.
Nadine May – Cites several cats that failed behavior tests at ACC that were easily adopted out through other outlets.
Hope Johnson – fixsanfrancisco – Issue of enforceability. City Attorney’s office would be responsible for investigating complaints against ACC and SPCA, like they do for foster homes for kids. They would also help to draft a mandate possibly recommended by ACWC. Mandate who help define numbers as well as words such as “empty cages”.
Lisa Vittori – Rocket Dog Rescue’s, Pali Boucher should come and speak as well. When Grateful dog was here, several months ago, they didn’t get a fair hearing. SPCA was challenging them. Pali has a lot of experience with behavior testing. ACC looks good because of us in the rescues. SPCA gets money a result of the rescues that doesn’t get shared. Behavioral testing not an accurate measure of an animal’s adoptability.
Cynthia Cox – fixsanfrancisco.org – Was volunteer at SPCA for 16 years. In that time was only one cat who’s behavior couldn’t be rehabilitated. Now volunteers at ACC with owner-surrendered cats. Has seen behavior testing shoving one cat in front of another. Cat always fails tests but turns out to be lovable when adopted and in a good home. Need a law to prevent adoptable animals from dying in city shelters. It is not enough to do the right thing. Laws must enforce what is right.
Kathleen McGarr – Failing cats that are saved by rescues will never end without legislation. A group to oversee and apply and distribute grants will not solve problem. Overburdened rescues cannot succeed.
Laura Beck – Was on Berkeley ’s Animal Care & Control temperament testing committee for two years. Wonders about dog-on-dog aggression versus dog-on-human aggression. Dog-on-dog is a lot more treatable. At the time, at Berkeley ACC, both aggressions were weighed the same. Suggests looking into making that a distinction is assessment. Was at Home At Last in Berkeley that received city funding. Was Berkeley ’s official rescue group. Suggest that as a possibility in SF. If cages were empty at ACC and SPCA, only then reaching out to other counties. Since SF/SPCA is a private non-profit can ACWC mandate that they take animals from ACC?
Public comment closed
Comr. Stephens – Is there any liability for ACC if, after behavior testing, an adopted dog bites someone?
Comr. Guldbech – Anyone can sue for anything. Yes. If the animal showed no aggression at the shelter, would be fine. If the animal did show aggression and was adopted out, ACC would be liable.
Comr. Gordon – That applies to anyone that takes a known aggressive dog from someone else and that dog bites, the original party is liable. There have been many judgements in favor of that.
Comr. Hemphill – How do you follow these adopted animals? Are they chipped? My cats are cat-reactive which seems normal.
Comr. Guldbech – If our testing includes holding a cat up to another cat to see if there is a reaction, some cats react. Some don’t. So that test is working although archaic. Hope. Has an adopted cat, that did not react at the shelter, that now beats up on the other cats. It is a crap shoot. Story of a pitbull-mastiff that had killed another dog. He failed every test. Was dog-aggressive but not people-aggressive. ACC would not consider adopting the dog so tried working with Pali from Rocket Dog Rescue. Personally got the court label of ‘vicious dog’ removed. Dog is now with someone who is safe and keeps the dog safe. Hopes that comments expressed tonight can be shared with Rebecca at ACC.
Comr. Hemphill – Spay/neuter is a big concern. Owning an animal has financial responsibilities. If you can’t afford to spay/neuter, can you afford to have a pet?
Comr. Guldbech – Mobil free spay/neuter comes once a month to ACC and once a month to Pet Camp. Hours have been extended from 4PM until 8PM. Have closed down one ward for after-care of the fixed animals so the mobil van can spay/neuter more animals. There is no consistency as to how many animals are brought in. The van can come more often but want to make sure enough people come. Increasing slowly.
7. New Business
A) Discussion and possible action to recommend to the Board that they encourage SF restaurants and retailers not to sell eggs from battery cages hens.
Comr. Gerrie – Apx. 95% of eggs produced in California come from hens in battery cages. Hens are packed so tightly they cannot turn around. California voters passed Prop 2 last fall, which will outlaw battery cages by 2015. Tying into no-kill, four to five million dog and cats are killed in U.S. shelters every year. Poultry that are killed or slaughtered for food are around 10 billion. That is about one dog or cat for 2,500 chickens or other birds. They deserve humane treatment as well as dogs and cats. San Franciscans can affect the lives of many animals by their food choices. Citizens have already been encouraged not to buy battery-caged hens. This resolution would encourage restaurants and other retailers to be in step with the public growing awareness of how our food is produced. This resolution has the potential to create significant change among SF businesses. Have invited one speaker from HSUS to speak on this issue.
Karin Olson – Prop 2 banned three of the most cruel practices of factory farming, keeping veal calves, pregnant pigs, and egg-laying hens in cages so small they can’t turn around. It passed by a landslide in CA. Was most popular citizen initiative in CA. History with 72.4% voting for it in SF. Veal crates are no longer in CA. Gestation crates are being phased out. 95% of egg-laying hens are still confined in small cages denied any of their natural behaviors. 20 million birds are confined in this way in CA. Each hen has only about 67 square inches of space, less than a sheet of paper. We can speed the pace in SF. SF voters will not tolerate the practice. Restaurants and retailers can be in step as well. A resolution passed in 2008 urging consumers not to buy battery-caged eggs. Many SF restaurants, retailers and SF State are no longer using battery-cage eggs. Urge support.
Comr. Stephens – Did we pass a resolution asking Supervisors to not serve battery eggs in City facilities?
Comr. Gerrie – We first had to find out what city agencies were buying what type of eggs, for possible costs to the City, but were unsuccessful in gathering that information.
Comr. Stephens – Then it changed to supporting Prop 2?
Comr. Gerrie – No, this was before Prop 2. We passed a resolution asking consumers not to purchase battery-caged eggs. That would have no cost to the City. We were looking into asking the City not to buy battery-cage eggs at the same time but needed to find out costs first. Eggs come, already cracked, in large plastic bags, to the city’s hospitals and jails. Large companies supply eggs in that way. When I first came on the Commission, and was new to this, I was concerned about cost increase. I learned that the cost per egg might go up from 10 cents to 20 cents which is still cheap. At what price are we willing animals to suffer?
Comr. Stephens – What you are proposing is a voluntary measure as was the foie gras resolution before the statewide ban goes into effect?
Comr. Gerrie – Yes. It would be good publicity for markets or retailers to do so voluntarily.
Comr. Gordon – Has seen battery-cage operations that are horrible. Has also seen cage-free operations that are horrible. Chickens confined on the floor in large warehouse spaces with a small door to the outside through which they could theoretically use. This was ten years ago. Is cage-free actually better than battery cages? Are there other designations besides cage-free?
Karin Olson – A third party auditor, Humane Animal Care,HAC, that audits and certifies cage-free operations as to density, etc. Cage-free doesn’t always mean cruelty free. In the Bay Area, all cage-free operations are certified by HAC. Glaum eggs, in Santa Cruz , is certified and where SF restaurants get their cage-free eggs from.
Comr. Hemphill – Would that information be available to restaurants?
Comr. Gerrie – That can be done. Can work with Karin to supply that information.
Comr. Stephens – Shops at Andronico’s and would like to know if the cage-free eggs there are cruelty free.
Comr. Hemphill – The price issue will also come up. The more humane, the more prices go up.
Comr. Stephens – The point is well taken that animals suffer for us. The other point is some people cannot afford more expensive eggs.
Comr. Gerrie – Personally, before I knew about this, I ate six eggs a week. I now eat six eggs in three months. I eat less eggs because of this issue and a lot of eggs are not a healthy source of protein.
Karin Olson – As cage-free eggs become more common the costs are going down. Restaurants can expect to pay three cents more an egg, wholesale. A three-egg omelet would be 10 cents. Retail is a bit higher. Wal-mart has switched all their private label eggs to cage-free. It only costs producers only a penny more per egg to produce cage-free eggs.
Comr. Gerrie – Motion to recommend to Supervisors that they pass the resolution to encourage restaurants and retailers not to sell eggs from hens confined in battery cages.
Seconded by Comr. Gordon.
Comr. Gordon –Are all battery cages a certain size? Do all confined chickens have only 67 inches of space?
Karin Olson – In the EU they have furnished battery cages, which are larger. We don’t have those in the U.S. Right now, cages are much more expensive than chickens so it easier not to have cages.
Comr. Stephens – So the language should be to have eggs from chickens not confined in cages and are in cruelty-free conditions?
7 A. Public Comment
Lisa Vittori – Asks that item not be voted on tonight. Language needs to be tightened up and needs more teeth. Language tends to get diluted at the Board so needs to be stronger. Would like to take out comparison to other animal welfare issues. Everything is a piece of the whole and worth working on. Issue has been around for thirty years. Emphasize humane aspect.
Marcus Vicero – Volunteer at Wildcare. Supports resolution as is.
Allison Brody – Supports resolution.
Laura Beck – Was SF coordinator for Prop 2 campaign. Supports resolution.
Jennifer Jamison – Rocket Dog Rescue – Supports cage-free resolution.
Nadine May – Supported Prop 2 by gathering over 2000 signatures. Doesn’t see any difference between a dog, cat, or chicken. They’re all sentient. Urges support of resolution.
Virginia Hanley – PAWPAC - Supports resolution. Supports language of “cage-free’ versus “room to turn around”. AB 1437 would prohibit the importation into the State of eggs from battery-caged hens. Thought State egg-producers would support it as that was their concern during the Prop 2 campaign of outside competition. Egg industry opposes AB 1437, wanting specific regulations of what standards they are supposed to do for their chickens. Bill was dropped because of those complications.
Martha Hoffman – Feral Cat Program volunteer – Would like stronger worded resolution that people follow what is in Prop 2 sooner than six years from now. Surprised that Prop 2 didn’t go into until 2015.
Julene Johnson – Agrees with Martha Hoffman, would like more information to make it stronger before voting on it.
Public comment closed
Comr. Stephens - Motion to vote on is, ACWC urges the Board of Supervisors to encourage restaurants and other retailers in SF to only sell or use eggs from hens that are kept in cage-free, cruelty-free conditions. Should we vote on it tonight?
Comr. Gordon – We can endorse a stronger resolution in the future. Should we spend capital on supporting a weaker resolution now?
Comr. Gerrie – All of our recommendations, concerning this, have been voluntary. Anything stronger would meet opposition if it were an ordinance.
Comr. Gordon – Do you think this resolution will draw attention?
Comr. Stephens – After Prop 2 passed, Andronico’s went to cage-free.
Comr. Gerrie – This resolution is a powerful tool for HSUS to bring to retailers reminding them that SF backs cage-free.
Karin Olson – After passage of Prop 2, 15 restaurants in SF switched to cage-free. Will go to restaurants in SF to tell them about this resolution and Prop 2. Believes it will help them to switch.
Vote taken on the motion. Unanimously passes.
8. General Public Comment
Virginia Handley – PawPac – Report on legislation in Sacramento. AB 241, limits the number of unsterilized dogs and cats used for sale or breeding to 50,per person, to be heard in Senate Appropriations in August. Faces opposition, claiming more animals will wind up in shelters and cost State more money. SB 250, requires owners of dogs to spay/neuter them. Prohibits owners of unsprayed/unneutered cats to roam free. Will be heard in Assembly Appropriations in August. AB 243, mandates court to prohibit people convicted of animal cruelty, as part of their probation ,from caring for or having access to animals. If it doesn’t cost the State anything it is put on a 28.8 list, a consent list, so it isn’t heard in committee. AB 242 is also on the 28.8 list. It increases penalties for spectators at dog fights. AB 1122 will prohibit the sale of animals on any street or highway. Amended to no longer prohibit animals sales at flea markets. Budget cut backs are affecting the holding period of stray dogs & cats in animal shelters. AB 1 had suspended the holding period. AB 12 reinstates the holding period to 72 hours from 4 or 6 days.
Public comment closed
9 & 10 Items to put on the Calendar for future Commission Meetings and Task Allotments
Comr. Stephens – Continued talks on no-kill.
11. Adjournment 7:45 PM
Respectfully submitted by
Philip Gerrie
Commission Secretary