2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 March 12, 2009
5:35 PM
1. Call to Order and Roll Call
Present, Commissioners, Sally Stephens, Philip Gerrie, Pam Hemphill, Angela Padilla, Laurie Kennedy-Routhier, Andrea Brooks, Kat Brown ACC
Absent, Commissioners: David Gordon DVM, William Herndon – SF Police
2. General Public Comment
3. Approval of Draft Minutes for March 12, 2009
3. Public Comment
L’ Danielle Yacabucci – Wants clarification on her statement made concerning SPCA in 6A.
Richard Fong – Wants correction on his statement made in 6A.
Public Comment closed
Minutes approved unanimously with changes requested by the public
8. Unfinished Business
Discussion only of no-kill policies in SF. Invited speaker Nathan Winograd
Nathan Winograd – Speaks on following topics: 1. What is history of no-kill in SF? 2. What is happening nationally in other communities? 3. Is term “no-kill” misleading? 4. Is there pet overpopulation in SF? 5. Can SF reclaim national stature? If so, how?
1. History of no-kill in SF. In the 1980’s SF SPCA ran animal control under contract with the City. Impounding tens of thousands of animals annually. Euthanizing most of them. City was consistently underpaying/refusing to pay administrative costs. In 1989 SPCA relinquished contract, requiring City to build and run its own department. Animal Care & Control, ACC. SPCA began ramping up lifesaving efforts through adoption, spay/neuter and other lifesaving programs; offsite adoptions, foster care, behavior advice. Trap-Neuter-Release, TNR, for feral cats. Socialization and training. Behavior and medical rehabilitation. All collectively I call “no-kill equation”. Results dramatic. Decrease of intakes by half. Deaths of healthy animals fell significantly. SF ready to take next step: livesaving guarantee for all healthy dogs and cats in SF, no matter what. Under terms of agreement, SPCA would guarantee to take every healthy dog and cat ACC could not place and find them homes. SPCA would also take thousands of sick and injured animals to save them as well. SPCA would take on costs and responsibilities. ACC would not kill savable animals. But ACC roadblocked effort. ACC claimed adoption guarantee would lead to increased pet abandonment because “threat of death kept animals in their homes” and “people would think pet overpopulation was solved and would not spay/neuter their animals.” SPCA appeared before ACWC proposing an “Adoption Act” a law making it illegal for ACC to kill an animal if SPCA was willing to save it. Other Bay Area shelters opposed it. ACWC, unable to agree, told ACC & SPCA to work out an agreement. The agreement became known as the Adoption Pact. It required the SPCA to accept all animals ACC classified as healthy but unable to adopt out. Goal was reduce to zero healthy animals killed. Goal was achieved in first year. Animals killed as treatable, those sick, injured, or with behavioral problems, dropped 50%. SF became first city in U.S. to achieve this goal. Became safest community for homeless animals. Proving reality of no-kill philosophy and creating model for other communities. Stopped short of saving all savable animals, those sick or injured, all healthy and treatable feral cats.
2.What is happening in other communities? No-kill effort never realized. Richard Avanzino left as president of SPCA. Hopes for no-kill appeared lost. New SPCA leadership didn’t follow no-kill model. Save rates have climbed but no-kill remains out of reach. Left SPCA in 2000. Took SF model to rural community, Tompkins county, in upstate New York. Tompkin’s County became nation’s first no-kill community. Saved 93% of all animals using SF’s no-kill model. Other communities have had success adopting same model. Some communities are urban, some rural. Some public, some private. Diverse communities are using model created in SF. SF was first but does not currently follow it. National save rate average is 40% to 50%. No-kill model brings save rate up to 80% average. SF can do better. SF leads the way in other progressive legislation. Should also lead in animal welfare. Considers current save rate second rate. Room for improvement.
3.Is term “no-kill” misleading? Many communities accept term. Only communities not practicing no-kill say it is misleading. They are failing to achieve it. It demands accountability so shelter leaders feel threatened. Try to divert from their failures by focusing on terminology. Real focus should be only saving as many lives as possible. Not what it is called. Shelters use misleading terms such as “putting them to sleep”, “euthanasia”, and “open admission” shelters are better. Webster’s definition of euthanasia is “ act or practice of killing or permitting the death of hopelessly sick or injured individuals relatively painlessly for reasons of mercy.” Four main points: hopelessly ill or injured, not savable, killing is painless, and motivated by mercy. Therefore, killing savable animals is not euthanasia. Euphemisms for killing make the task easier and obscure the gravity of it. Open admission shelters are viewed to be more ethical. Implication is no-kill shelters can’t be open admission. Not true, given many no-kill shelters are open admission. No-kill shelters, not open admission, are derelict because they refuse to kill animals. Most open admission shelters kill mainly out of convenience because they refuse to implement the SF model. SPCA’s website claims SF is safest city for homeless cats and dogs. Reno NV and Tompkins County each have a higher percentage rate than SF. SPCA falsely claims all animals that can be saved are being saved. The 1994 Adoption Pact focused on both healthy and sick but treatable animals. Richard Avanzino built departments to save treatable sick and injured animals. SPCA still makes that claim and justifies going “beyond SF” to save more animals. ACWC may want to discuss all misleading words. Not just “no-kill”. “No-kill” is a positive powerful word to define the movement. Would be a mistake to drop it. Hopes ACWC will focus on requiring shelters to reach their goal.
4.Is there pet overpopulation in SF? Question is a distraction. Real issue is “do SF shelters have to kill savable animals?” Answer is no. Importing animals outside of SF says that the problem is solved. Animals obtained outside SF means there are no savable animals in SF. SPCA appears to be killing healthy animals. ACC is killing healthy ferals. A shelter achieves no-kill when it is a saving 90% of all animals. This % comes from save rates of best performing shelters and from dog bite rates. ACC impounds apx. 6,000 dogs & cats annually. That’s 7.5 animals for every 1000 human residents. National average impound average is 15 animals for every 1000 residents. SF takes half national average. Several counties take in a higher % and have a higher save rate. Tompkins & Charlottesville take in 26 /1000. Washoe County NV takes in 39/1000. All with a 90% or higher save rate. Only conclusion is there is no overpopulation in SF. Could take in 5 times as many animals. Nationally, every year, apx. 4 million dogs & cats are killed. Twice that many people are looking to bring a new dog or cat into their homes. Not all animals entering shelters need adoption. Some are strays reclaimed by owners. Some are ferals. Others are too ill or injured to be adopted. There are 165 million animals in over 110 million households. And growing. Four million are killed, 3.6 million are “savable”. Only need an increase of 3% nationally to eliminate all killing in U.S. Human Society of the U.S. , HSUS, agrees.
5.Can SF reclaim its national stature? And if so, how? Answer is yes. ACWC can investigate bringing in animals from out of county while SF animals die, why ACC has low adoption numbers. ACC should not rely on SPCA and rescue groups to keep numbers up. Rescue transfers should be additive or supplemental. ACC uses SPCA and rescue groups as a crutch. ACC claims to focus on public safety not livesaving. Other counties doing better with less money per capita. ACC has refursed money from Maddie’s fund to publish their numbers in a specific format. If publishing format was agree to, ACC and others would share additional monies that can be used to bump up save rate to no-kill levels. ACWC should not accept that SF SPCA, as a private shelter, is out of its jurisdiction. City has right to regulate private animals shelters as it does private hospitals and private businesses. SF has proved viability of no-kill model. ACWC should stop debating semantics and focus on forcing shelters to save lives. SF’s shelters are paid for by SF citizens through taxes and donations. Shelters belong to the people. Not directors, staff or Board members. ACWC represents people of SF and should embrace and demand no-kill for SF.
ACWC should endorse reform legislation to force ACC to put “saving lives” on par with “public/health/safety”. Legislation would make no-kill possible. It would open up their operations to public scrutiny and give citizens a voice in their operation. Law would be first in the nation. Would restore SF as leader in no-kill. Would be consistent with SF’s progressive history.
Comr. Padilla – Struggles with whether legislation is the answer or whether there are other ways to achieve no-kill. She was at a no-kill shelter where a dog had been living there for three years. Dog was in bad condition, and was suffering. Pit Bulls at Peninsula Humane Society have been there for a year.
Nathan Winograd – Legislation requires shelters to be rigorous in implementing programs. Not talking about warehousing animals. At Tompkins County shelter, the average length of stay was 8 days. Legislation is a way to get around discretion. There are enough homes. If ask people to help, call on rescue groups to help, they will. Take discretion away from shelter directors who have abused that discretion.
Comr. Routhier – What’s the most effective way to place pit bulls?
Nathan Winograd – He has a CD with strategies about pit bulls. There was a conference on same subject.
Comr. Brooks – What is it that’s not being done in SF that should be done here?
Nathan Winograd – Happy to come back to address that issue. One big issue is the SF/SPCA importing animals from outside SF. Also, many programs are done for some animals (e.g., TNR for some feral cats), but not for all animals (e.g., all feral cats). ACC hired cops, not shelter staff.
Comr. Stephens – Everywhere you said no-kill is working, the shelter director was the one really pushing for it. Can you mandate no-kill if shelter directors don’t want it?
Nathan Winograd – Companion Animal Protection Act includes a provision that any citizen can sue shelter directors in a private right of action if the shelter doesn’t follow no-kill programs. Law is specific about what shelter directors have to do, specific steps, before they can kill and animal and requires that process be transparent.
Comr. Stephens – Is no-kill more effective in public or private shelters?
Nathan Winograd – Companion Animal Protection Act regulates shelters like we regulate banks. SF model of sheltering is not just for a private organization. It’s a key series of programs that both public and private shelters have to use. ACC cannot rely on SF/SPCA to be its TNR arm. The model refers to the programs, not the institutions.
Comr. Stephens – Do we need an umbrella of some kind to oversee ACC and SF/SPCA?
Nathan Winograd – If both ACC and SF/SPCA are transparent, don’t need an overseer; you can see what they’re doing. Don’t have to have redundancy in programs. What matters is that it gets done. Some of this is being done, but not to the extent that it could be. Wants SF to regain the lead in the movement.
Comr. Routhier – Doesn’t want to see SF sacrifice out-of-county animals. Get so many people at SF/SPCA, it shows people that shelters are good places to go to get animals. Doesn’t want to see that lost.
Nathan Winograd – Not suggesting that SF close its “borders”, but want to save SF animals first and supplement them with out-of-county animals. If SF/SPCA has changed Adoption Pact, they should be honest with community about what they’re doing.
Comr. Hemphill – When the economy goes down, puppy mills go up. Impact of that on no-kill?
Nathan Winograd – In other cities, rigorous implementation of programs can still work even if economy is bad.
Comr. Gerrie – Doesn’t like the fact that Nathan attacked other organizations. It is divisive.
Nathan Winograd – Look at the message, not the messenger. Double standard. When SF/SPCA started no-kill, HSUS attacked the SF/SPCA fiercely. Didn’t call that divisive.
Speakers from the ASPCA – Pam Burney, VP of Community Outreach ASPCA, and ASPCA Mission Orange to increase live release rate at shelters; Jill Buckley, Sen. Dir. Government Relations ASPCA; and Emily Weiss, Sen. Dir. Shelter Behavior Program ASPCA
Emily Weiss – She is a certified animal behaviorist, involved in selection of service animals from shelters, developed “Meet Your Match” program that matches people with compatible animals in shelters. Mission Orange – In over 10 partner communities nationwide, ASPCA goes in and looks at their shelter data in great detail, look at every animal that enters and every animal that leaves, no matter how it leaves. Bring money and expertise into the communities, since they want to be sure their shelter programs are effective. The bottom line is that a greater percentage of SF animals are leaving the system alive than ever before. In the 2007-2008 year, the percentage of ACC intake that was transferred to SF/SPCA was 37.5%, higher than in previous years. The save rate at ACC is 84%, higher than in previous years.
Have to be sure you’re not comparing apples to oranges. ASPCA defines save rate as “out of shelter” or out of the system. For some, save rate means not dead (# intake minus # euthanized, divided by # intake). Live Release Rate means all live releases, including returns to owners, adoptions, transfers to rescues. Divide that number by total number intake for live release rate. Intake at ACC has decreased 34% in the past 10 years. In 1998-1999, intake was 8722 animals. In 2007-2008, intake was 5766. So safety net programs are happening. Types of animals coming into shelters now are different than 10 years ago, so may have to change programs to better serve current types of animals in shelters. Rescue groups are key. Now seeing animals that do not do well in shelter environment. In 2008, saw a drop in average length of stay for adult cats and an increase in the number of cats adopted. In 2006, average length of stay for adult cats was 39.7 days, in 2007 it was 35.8 days, in 2008 it was 24.7 days. In 2006, there were 1056 adult cat adoptions; in 2008, there were 1337. Collaborative activities in SF are working.
Comr. Padilla – Is there any other reason for greater adoption rate, e.g., lessening adoption standards?
Emily Weiss – Limiting choice is one reason. Don’t show every animal to prospective adopter, but talk to person first and figure out what they really want and only show them animals that fit their wants. When have too many choices, it’s harder to make a decision and people sometimes leave shelter without any animal. Limiting choices makes it easier to decide and more likely to adopt an animal while at shelter. Talking to potential adopters helps. Moving away from using set criteria to decide who gets pet to a conversation-based system, where you talk with potential adopter and base decision on the conversation.
Comr. Padilla – Are you saying that things at the SF/SPCA are okay now?
Emily Weiss – Things are going where we want them to go. Radical shift is not needed.
Comr. Gerrie – What do you mean by “radical shift”?
Emily Weiss – We need to take a good look at what animals are coming into ACC and figure out how we can best support them.
Comr. Stephens – How do people get information on Mission Orange and other information from ASPCA?
Emily Weiss – ASPCA has a website for shelter professionals.
Comr. Stephens – Does the SF/SPCA follow your ideas?
Emily Weiss – SF/SPCA is not part of Mission Orange program.
8A) Public Comment
Kin Tso – Is Ed Sayres still at ASPCA? Pointed out inconsistencies in statistics that SF/SPCA uses – sometimes use fiscal year and sometimes use calendar year. Wants raw data used.
Kay Hemishled – fosters shy ferals. SPCA goes to efforts to save kittens that others don’t. Gave example of 2-lb kitten for whom SF/SPCA did complicated surgery.
Don Voltal – Anyone who kills animals as part of what they do is under Animal Commission’s jurisdiction. Transparency is a big deal. Increasing rate of adoption at SF/SPCA is due to “sales”. Concerned that someone on the Commission works for organization that Commission might regulate.
Tina Ahn – SF/SPCA Director of Development and Communications. Have 98% live release rate. Committed to no-kill but not to a legislative mandate.
Kim Durney – SF/SPCA gives mixed signals. They want it both ways – say they’re no- kill to donors, but don’t want to have to do the programs for no-kill.
Julene Johnson – In 2006, 1402 animals euthanized. In 2007, 1411 animals euthanized. Only a 2.2% increase in animals taken from ACC by SF/SPCA. Live release rate only went up by 4%, which may not be statistically significant. Need to adopt standard guidelines for dealing with homeless animals
Lisa Vittori – What is “adoptable”? Definition can be manipulated. Dogs she fosters are not considered “adoptable”. Concerned about conflict of interest of a Commissioner who works for organization that the Commission might regulate. Live release rate is skewed if a lot of animals go to rescue groups. SF/SPCA gets a lot of money based on the work of rescue groups who take dogs, but doesn’t give money back to the rescue groups.
Judith Goodman – Administrator for Veterinary Services Dept at SF/SPCA. SF/SPCA is much more than adoption program. Also provide medical/behavioral services to keep animals in homes. Staff agonizes over decisions to euthanize. Total number of animals killed in Reno is higher than the total number of animals killed in SF. Don’t need a law.
Laura Fairbanks – FixSF.- SF/SPCA does wonderful things. We just want them to do a better job at saving animals. How can a humane society oppose no-kill?
Jennifer Scarlett – Veterinarian at SF/SPCA. Divisiveness and finger pointing doesn’t help resolve issues. Don’t mandate things when animal population has changed and is changing. Mandate based on percentage numbers doesn’t work.
Barbara Icani – Statistics were misleading, especially the reason ACC’s save rate went up. May be partly because of work they’re doing socializing animals. Average rates of stays can be misleading. Median length of stay is more relevant. Don’t know what it is. Doing good things at ACC too.
Marty Watts – Animal Care Manager at SF/SPCA. Oversees animal housing. A lot of misinformation focusing advocates away from concerns for animals. Don’t mandate arbitrary number for save rate in a small community. Won’t work. Need collaborative work, working with lots of different groups. Don’t want to see geographic boundaries for where can get animals
Amelia Gordon – has a small humane society in Berkeley. Can’t mandate no-kill through legislation. Contact UC Davis and Cornell to see how they recommend using matrixes. Concerned that keeping animals in cages for months and months is not good for animals.
Sherry Franklin – Muttville.- ACC and SF/SPCA are easier to deal with than a lot of other shelters in the state. Energy better spent on making better programs, not divisiveness. Has seen warehousing of animals at shelters, where they get more and more unsociable and more unadoptable. Doesn’t agree with mandates.
Nadine May – FixSF. Feral cat worker. - Concerned about misinformation. For example, SF/SPCA would not have to take in every animals offered by ACC if mandate no-kill. Shelters like SF/SPCA should not take out of county. Adoption Pact means that they should focus on SF. Numbers can mislead. Open adoption is not good.
Laura Massa – SPCA Volunteer - Now at ACC. To address a problem, have to identify source of problem. It is not divisive. Doesn’t like hearing animals treated like consumer goods – get them in and out quickly
Carrissa – FixSF.- Reported drop in adoption rate in January is because it’s the end of kitten season. Shelter data should indicate if they use an odd definition of terms. Does live release include animals that goes to another shelter and is killed there?
Lara Basjel – Told story of a border collie that was killed after it was returned to ACC. Dog would still be alive today if there was a no-kill mandate.
Hope Johnson – Doesn’t accept some things as facts. Don’t take for granted that we’ll never get there. Call people Nathan mentioned to see their numbers for any mandates
L’Danyielle Yacobucci – This brings up how much we’re not working together. The city has a no-kill rate, not single organizations in the city. Work of saving animal lives in SF is not done. SF/SPCA has made it difficult to work with them. Volunteers are not called when an animal is about to be killed. Can we all work together?
Woman – trains dogs at SF/SPCA. A lot of training for staff. There is room for improvement but this seems divisive when we should all work together.
Holly Fish – Shelter service director at SF/SPCA. It is divisive, Have to make tough decisions every day. Other shelters can sometimes handle animals that we cannot. For example, problem cat that needs to live on a farm would be sent to a rural shelter that has farms available. Other shelters help us out. If we don’t help them out by taking some of their animals, they won’t help us out.
Brenda Tucker – wants solid community that supports SF/SPCA. No mandates. Friend of Dr. Scarlett and knows how hard she works
Marianne Braxton – Feral cat program coordinator at SF/SPCA - Painful to hear different opinions about SF/SPCA. Sees positive changes at SF/SPCA. Conflict seems to be a matter of wording.
Cynthia Cox – FixSF.- Wasn’t here to talk about statistics. Every animal that is killed when healthy is a failure.
Martha Hoffmann – Helped start the SF/SPCA feral cat program. We’re here to brainstorm how to make programs better.
Public Comment Closed
Comr. Padilla – Thanks speakers. Vet from UC Davis will speak next month, plus rescue groups.
4.Chairperson’s Report
None given
5.Committee Reports/Commissioner Reports
A) Discussion of how to store recordings of Commission meetings made using an MP3 Recorder to allow for public access to recordings
Comr. Gerrie – City webmaster said there is no way to store MP3 files (audio record) of Commission meetings on the city’s website.
Comr. Hemphill – We can link from the city’s website to another website with only the MP3 files on it, but there would be a fee for webhosting. Would Commissioners be willing to pay for that?
Kat Brown – Capt. Vicky Guldbech takes MP3 recordings of Vicious and Dangerous Dog Hearings and puts them on a CD to give to public who want them. There may be a way to put MP3 files on ACC website, and then link from the Commission website to ACC’s website for the public to access the files.
Comr. Gerrie – Will contact Capt. Guldbech and see if ACC can host MP3 files of Commission meetings.
5A) Public Comment
Tom Volman – Look at InternetArchive.org. They might be glad to host MP3 files. Brewster Kahle is co-founder of it.
Barbara Icahn – Talk to Board of Supervisors. They have MP3s on their website.
Public comment closed.
6) Status and Tracking of letters of recommendation approved by the Commission, requesting action by the Board of Supervisors
A) Recommendation that Supervisors commend restaurants that have stopped selling foie gras before the California statewide ban on foie gras goes into effect in 2012 and to encourage San Franciscans to avoid supporting this extreme form of cruelty
Comr. Gerrie – Got a positive response from Supervisor Mirkarimi who will introduce the resolution at next week’s meeting.
No public comment
7) New Business
A) Presentation by Virginia Handley, from the Animal Switchboard, with details of legislation relevant to animal welfare that has been introduced in the current session of the California State Assembly and State Senate
Virginia Handley – Handed out the latest PawPAC voting chart for state legislators. Also handed out a list of all legislation relevant to animal welfare proposed for debate in the current session. She especially highlighted:
AB 233 –Deduction of pet adoption fees up to $300 on state income taxes when adopted from shelters and rescue groups; may have problems in revenue committees.
AB 241 – Limits number of intact dogs and cats to a total of 50 for one person, and allows the inspection of records by law enforcement officers and to take possession of animals in violation.
AB 242 – Increases penalty for spectators at dog fights from a misdemeanor to a felony; may have problems because of overcrowding of jails.
AB 243 – Allows courts to say if you are convicted of animal abuse, you can’t even reside in a place with animals as part of probation.
AB 490 – Requires pet store operators or employees to be trained by a veterinarian in approved methods of destruction of rodents or rabbits used as food for other animals.
AB 1122 – Prohibits selling animals on a street, highway, parking lot, flea market, swap meet, or carnival.
Comr. Padilla – Is there an exemption for bona fide rescue groups in AB 1122, who often have adoption fairs in public places?
Kat Brown – met with Assembly member who is sponsoring this and he said he’d add an exemption for rescue groups
Virginia Handley AB 1224 – will fine people who hit animals and leave without attempting to notify the owners or local authorities to render aid; bill is not written yet, but there is some concern that it might effect people trying to render aid to injured animals
SB 203 – increases penalty for child pornography, including sex with animals
SB 250 – spay/neuter bill
Kat Brown – Why this spay/neuter bill might pass this year is that mandatory spay/neuter is triggered only as a secondary offense, that is, it is only triggered if there is some other violation, e.g., no dog license; also addresses cats
Virginia Handley:
SB 318 – Dog fighting forfeitures
Mark Leno is chair of Senate Public Safety Committee; any bill about animals will go through his committee. Is willing to come back in a few months to update the Commission on these bills.
Comr. Hemphill – Also noticed SB 481 which exempts airports who “take” wildlife for public safety from violating state wildlife laws; thinks bill is in response to recent airplane crash into Hudson River.
Virginia Handley – All airports do some kind of hazing now
9. General Public Comment
None
10 & 11. Future Commission Meetings and Task Allotments
Comr. Brooks – No Kill will continue next month. Philip will look into MP3 issues.
No public comment.
Adjournment 9:25 PM
Respectfully submitted by
Philip Gerrie based on notes taken by Sally Stephens
Commission Secretary