1. Call to Order and Roll Call
5:30 PM
Present Commissioners; Jack Aldridge DVM, Geneva Page, Sally Stephens, Pam Hemphill, Ryan Young, John Denny SFPD, Susanna Russo, Lisa Wayne – Rec. & Park
Absent Commissioner; Rebecca Katz – ACC
2. General Public Comment
No public comment
3. Approval of Draft Minutes from the October 13, 2011 Meeting
No commission nor public comment
Minutes approved unanimously
4. Chairperson’s report and opening remarks
Comr. Stephens – Joint Zoo meetings are normally held on the fourth Thursday of the month which, this month, falls on Thanksgiving. JZ Meeting has therefore been changed to Dec 1 at 5 PM. The Arts Commission is likely to consider the issue of the Tom Otterness sculptures at their Nov. 16th meeting at 2PM.
No Commission nor public comment on Chairperson’s reports
5. New Business
A) Discussion only on whether the ACWC should start a “Humane Pet Store” program that would officially recognizes pet stores in SF that do not sell live animals. [Comr. Young]
Comr. Young – A recent newspaper article about this agenda item was misquoted from emails exchanged with the reporter. The intent of this is an intermediary proposal until the Humane Pet Acquisition proposal would take effect, whenever that might be. This proposal would acknowledge and honor those pet stores that adhere to the policies and practices that we would all like to see. Similar programs are the seafood watch program that provides signage and information in participating restaurants that adhere to sustainable seafood guidelines. In the pet industry the Humane Society has a puppy-friendly pledge. Pet stores can sign on to pledge that they will not sell puppies. Thirteen pet stores in SF have signed up. The idea is to allow pet stores in SF to advertise that they are a humane pet store.
Comr. Aldridge – What I like about this is it does not mandate legislation. I’m in favor of voluntary programs. One problem is if our Commission was to make these awards it violates our mandate to only advise the Board. We have no authority. The Board could approve a program and delegate us to implement it. I would hope that pet stores selling animals from shelters would qualify for this.
Comr. Stephens – One possible organizing entity could be ACC. We would first have to see if they had the resources. I wonder if another non-profit would want to take this on. Possibly IDA or the SPCA? They might be better at bearing the cost and the burden.
Comr. Young – Another thought was what other animals to include. Do you include fish-only stores for example? Would there be different levels in the program based on species? Would pet stores disclosing the source of their pets be a factor?
Comr. Stephens – What do you recommend?
Comr. Young – I would start out simply. Pet stores sell pets or they don’t and see how that goes. Then possibly dividing it.
Comr. Aldridge – What would be next steps?
Comr. Young – Would be to find an organization that is interested to take the lead. Or decide if we as the Commission would do it.
Comr. Aldridge – Has the Commission ever attempted to do anything outside of our mandate? Have we ever been reined in by the Board?
Comr. Stephens – We have only been mocked for some things we have said. We have just sent letters to other Commissions opposing their actions such as to the Arts Commission last month. I don’t know if this Commission has done anything beyond that.
Comr. Gerrie – We can speak as Commissioners but not for the Commission.
Comr. Hemphill – We are the eyes and ears for the animals. We are watchdogs for the animals. It falls to us to honor stores that are doing the right thing.
Comr. Young – Who manages resolutions that we recommend that the
Board passes such as the one for commending restaurants that stop selling foie gras?
Comr. Gerrie – The Board just passes it without following up. The State ban goes into effect in 2015.
Comr. Hemphill – Doesn’t that go into affect in 2012.?
Comr. Gerrie – Yes you are right. Prop 2 goes into effect in 2015. The ban on foie gras goes into effect six years after its passage.
Comr. Stephens – I suspect no one follows through.
Comr. Gerrie – I had been approached by an animal welfare group in San Diego about possibly banning foie gras. The resolution passed commending restaurants that stopped selling it and they were then able to use it in their campaign in other cities in California.
Comr. Aldrige - Could we ask our City Attorney what would happen if we appointed ourselves as standard bearers of this award? Would that question be an appropriate use of their time?
Comr. Stephens – If that was the general sense of this Commission then I would ask.
Comr. Russo – This would be an important way that we could follow up since we started as the Humane Pet Acquisition proposal. It is in front of the Supervisors but has not garnered any support so far. A positive step would be to recognize pet stores that do not sell pets. Leery of having an outside organization administering this. The proposal came from this Commission and should stand behind it.
Comr. Hemphill – The Board recognizes people and businesses with commendations. People come up and a plaque is presented. I wonder if this could be done by our Commission?
Comr. Denny – Is the idea to get rid of pet stores that sell pets completely?
Comr. Young – Yes. Back in June we voted to recommend to the Board that they draft an ordinance to ban the sale of live animals as pets in SF. This would be an interim step in that process.
Comr. Denny – I see two issues. The puppy mills issue and the impulse buying. Why don’t we go after the puppy or kitten mills? Why not have a poster campaign to encourage people that know about puppy and other animal mills to call the animal cops? I’m in favor of going after the problem. If there are inhumane mill situations in SF we should have a hotline to call in and then be able to do something about it.
Comr. Young – The issue is not that there are puppy mills in SF but the pet stores in SF serve as distributors for those mills. The source is the issue but they are not sourced in SF.
Comr. Stephens – We already know which stores in SF sell animals. Why would we need to do anything?
Comr. Hemphill – A lot of people don’t even realize the issue. It is educational.
Comr. Stephens – People that patronize stores that sell puppies or rats will not know about the campaign because there will not be anything in their windows.
Most people just go to one store. They don’t shop around. Are you confirming something that people already know?
Comr. Hemphill – A lot of people do not have animals yet. This is directed at them.
Comr. Stephens – When would they see the sign? You would only see it if you are going into the pet store.
Comr. Young – You would see the sign in a pet store in your neighborhood. That might educate you to choose to adopt rather than buy.
Comr. Stephens – The sign isn’t saying anything about adopting.
Comr. Young – We could discuss what it would say. “Humane Pet acquisition supporter” or, “No pets sold here”
Comr. Stephens – How is that convincing people to adopt?
Comr. Young – It would raise questions as to why they see it certain stores and not others.
Comr. Aldridge – I can see in getting this award those issues would be addressed. There would be education in that. It could become a popular trend for pet stores that would increase their business by word-of-mouth.
Comr. Stephens – How many pet stores are in SF?
Comr. Gerrie – The Examiner article, I passed around, had some numbers.
Comr. Stephens – Thirty sell just pet products. Four sell dogs. Ten sell other animals.
Comr. Denny – Do we know how many are buying from puppy and kitten mills?
Comr. Young – I don’t know if we know exactly. Consensus in the pet trade is responsible breeders will not sell to pet stores. Those breeders want to know who the owners of their animals will be. Without documentation from pet stores of where they get their animals from we can only guess.
Comr. Denny – Then it is a matter of finding out where pet stores get their animals from.
Comr. Gerrie – It’s not that simple. I’ve talked with people at Petco that do those sourcing investigations. Animals are often bought from distributors and not directly from breeders. A lot die in transit along the way. We have a situation in that we have found and passed an ideal that it is inhumane to be breeding animals for the pet trade. Then we have the political situation with the Supervisors who may agree but their voters don’t see it that way. We passed this 5 to 2. We, on this Commission all love animals but we don’t have to answer to the public – to the voters. It has been a challenge.
Comr. Stephens – If you were talking about just dogs and cats, you wouldn’t have much trouble getting a ban through the Board. We got into controversy when we included goldfish.
Comr. Gerrie – That was the pet industry framing it that way. They found another angle last year. They made it appear funny but it is not funny it is serious. How do you find a policy that is right for the animals in a political climate?
Comr. Stephens – I have a procedural question. Would this program be ongoing or a one shot deal? Would the Commission do it every year? Or, when people felt like it?
We are volunteers here. Right now, we might be motivated to contact all the pet stores but next year maybe no one will be willing to do that. What happens if we start a program that can’t be sustained then what is the point? I like the idea of a Board-based commendation versus committing us to anything long term.
Comr. Young – We don’t want to be responsible for managing this on an ongoing basis. Maybe annually would be enough. Even though we are all volunteers we have a certain level of commitment. In the future we can put into place, just as we now have Chair, Vice-Chair, and Secretary, we would need someone to manage this program checking the list making additions or deletions.
Comr. Gerrie – I would be willing to look into this further with you.
Comr. Young – We would first need to contact our City Attorney to see if we can do it legally.
Comr. Aldridge – Unless we wanted to craft a recommendation for the Board that they create an award or a panel.
Comr. Young – One way is to have it self-funding with an application or registration fee each year. It then wouldn’t be a cost to the City.
Comr. Stephens – Then if you are a pet store that doesn’t sell animals you have a financial penalty to pay for the certificate.
Comr. Young – Hopefully business would increase as a result and from referrals from the rescue community. Some program fees are only $20.
Comr. Stephens – Do you think those sort of referrals are not happening now?
Comr. Young – Yes they probably are. The goal is to highlight the stores that are consistent with the practices that we passed in June.
Comr. Stephens – My main concern is not being able to get someone to manage this in a couple of years. We saw this with getting a new Secretary. I thank Philip for continuing as no one wanted to do it.
Comr. Young – We’ll know within a year or two if the program is worth it. If it is helping animals, someone on the Commission would want to continue to do that.
Comr. Hemphill – This seems like a perfect project for volunteers. A grant might fund costs such as signage.
Comr. Stephens – My concern with that is that we are an official City Commission. I don’t know if I want volunteers doing our work. City staff are paid to do their work and are responsible for carrying it out.
Comr. Hemphill – Volunteers are heavily used in Rec & Park now.
Comr. Stephens – But they are not making that kind of decision. They are just gardening.
Comr. Hemphill – I wouldn’t have them making decisions just distributing signs.
Comr. Gerrie – How are we doing with our available time with our City Attorney?
Comr. Stephens – We’re pretty good. We go by a fiscal year, from July 1st to June 30th. We’re about half way through and haven’t used hardly any time yet.
Comr. Gerrie – Would Ryan do that?
Comr. Stephens – It usually goes through the Chair.
Comr. Aldridge – You would want to ask what are our limits on an issue like this. Is it possible for us to decide and vote to take some action on our own to make a commendation or an award? Or are we limited to making a recommendation to the Board? That would guide us to where we put our energy when we discuss this again.
Comr. Stephens – I will ask if we can do this on our own as a commendation or signage. I will also ask if we need to get the Board to say it is OK for us to do.
Comr. Wayne – Has anyone contacted the SPCA to see if they would be willing to help? It would potentially benefit them with adoptions. They have a recognizable name.
Comr. Denny – The SPCA could look into where pet stores are getting their animals.
Comr. Aldridge – I bring ACWC’s issues to the SPCA leadership such as the small pet ban proposal. The SPCA has gone through some changes on how much advocacy work they do. At one time they were advocating for all animals but then withdraw from doing that for a time. The Board is open again to looking at these issues and would be open to be involved in these discussions.
Comr. Page – I have, as a lawyer, been working on these issues for ten years. I know others who have been at it much longer and they are still working on puppy mill issues. They spend every day working on it and there is no end in sight. I hope to see an end to this practice in my lifetime but I am dubious.
Comr. Stephens – The approach would have to be national. If you outlaw it in one State they will just move somewhere else.
Comr. Page – Most are in the Midwest right now.
Comr. Stephens – Do you want to outreach to IDA, the SPCA, and similar programs while I ask the City Attorney?
Comr. Young – I can do that.
Comr. Stephens – When we meet again we’ll have more information.
5 A) Public Comment
Corey Evans – I have concerns about doing this. I am all for getting rid of puppy mills and stopping pet stores from selling animals. I am concerned about this Commission engaged in activities that may lower its esteem with the Board of Supervisors. This Commission should take this up – to not be foolish in front of the Board. How not to have our recommendations be laughed at or ignored. I feel this is one of them. You are running something back up that is not even halfway what you wanted to achieve and hoping that the capitalist system of having a little sticker in the window will do something. The reality is there a million stickers in the window. Visa. Yelp. This is the model for Pet Food Express. I don’t think this will be of any help that non-profits and the market aren’t already trying to do. Pet Food Express’s big pitch is that they do not sell animals and that is why you should come to us. Everyone that adopts animals shops there. Talking to the City Attorney is a waste. The ACWC’s charter specifically says that you can recommend and submit reports but you cannot give awards to the public. You cannot be doing things on your own. You’ll be burning your City Attorney time. You can tell by the language of your charter of what you can do. It is good to talk about these things but aren’t there more concrete things you can do? Aren’t there some direct changes you can recommend rather than a program that would promote a sticker? I don’t think this will achieve what you want to achieve. HSUS will not help you because they don’t want to support losing battles.
Public comment closed
Comr. Stephens – Do we want to go ahead and contact the City Attorney and groups like IDA & the SPCA?
Comr. Young – It would be helpful to know if we are limited in what we can do. Are we only able to make recommendations?
Comr. Hemphill – Or, we can just focus on cats and dogs for now.
Comr. Stephens – The consensus is that we should go ahead and get a legal opinion from the City Attorney on whether we can or cannot do this.
B) Discussion on how to possibly consolidate all SF animal related statistics in one place for the public to view. That would include, adoptions, zoo stats, and lab animal stats.
Comr. Young – This is about a trend towards transparency. Possibly ACC could post links to other sources of animal information on their website.
Comr. Aldridge – I brought this up at the SPCA. The consensus was ACC is pretty good at compiling and releasing statistics in a timely way for the SPCA. Unsure if ACC has the resources to get info from the zoo and the research labs. They may have the authority but not the will. A government agency should be the one to do the compiling.
Comr. Young – Want to start of simply. Just a link on ACC’s website pointing to sources of information. It would only take time to set it up.
Comr. Aldridge – Our ACC rep is not here tonight so we don’t know what their thoughts are.
Comr. Stephens – Talked with Rebecca today about this. Her response was she didn’t have the staff to take it on. She would prefer that ACC not be responsible. I feel this would be perfect for a non-profit to do versus the City. Zoo animal dispositions are in the agenda of the Joint Zoo meetings. It is already fairly simple to find this info for people that want to know.
Comr. Gerrie – In previous meetings our discussions focused on the no-kill statistics which were primarily for dogs and cats. We have one of the highest save rates in the country. ACC would be a good place to have the links. It would also be good for ACC as it would promote awareness of their animals.
Comr. Young – Are there any other sources of animal statistics that I have not covered. SPCA, ACC, the zoo, UCSF?
Comr. Hemphill – Is it a law that the USDA must provide those statistics? Animals acquired? Animals that die?
Comr. Page – It is the law we are continually litigating.
Comr. Stephens – Next step would be to contact ACC? Could we do it on our website as well?
Comr. Young – First step is to see if ACC will do it then, if not, do it on our website.
Comr. Stephens – The City webmaster would need to do that. It would require a new page.
Comr. Young – I’ll check into it. At our next meeting I’ll come back with the actual links to be approved. Over time providing links would promote more awareness and interest leading to requesting better data.
5 B) Public Comment
Jamie Yorck – ACC is way behind. They don’t have this year’s figures yet. They also have the smalls and the wilds together. Would be willing to help compile the figures.
Public comment closed
Comr. Young – I’ll pursue this.
5 C) Discussion and possible action to change the starting time for Commission meetings from 5:30 to 6:30. Starting the Meetings at 6:30 would make it easier for Commissioners and the public to attend.
Comr. Gerrie – The agenda item is self explanatory. I would like to hear from other Commissioners. It is a logical thing to do.
Comr. Aldridge – Some of our meetings are long, up to four hours, and starting later would extend them further into the evening. I get up early so getting out later would be a problem.
Comr. Gerrie – We have had one meeting that went four hours. People have also left early when they couldn’t stay for the whole meeting. We do try to structure our meetings so we don’t have too many things on our agenda as well.
Comr. Hemphill – Would prefer it stay at 5:30. We can have controversial items later on the agenda. Not first up. It is also hard to park later on. Don’t think many people miss meetings for that reason.
Comr. Page – Have spoken to people, concerned about animals issues, have had to miss meetings due to the time issue. I also don’t like to stay late. I am torn on this one.
Comr. Aldridge – Is there an issue about picking up keys by a certain time?
Comr. Stephens – Need to pick them up by 5:30.
Comr. Wayne – I have children, so getting out earlier is better to get them to bed etc.
When there are items on the agenda that are important to them, people come.
No public comment
Comr. Aldridge - I make a motion to move the starting time to 6:30.
Seconded by Comr. Gerrie
Vote no; Aldridge, Stephens, Hemphill, Young, & Russo
Vote yes; Gerrie, Page
Motion defeated
5 D) Discussion and possible action to consider holding the Commission meetings in December every year.
Comr. Young - Wanted to bring it up for consideration. Not attached either way.
Comr. Aldrige – What is the history on this?
Comr. Stephens – We have never met in December as far as I know. A lot of Commissions take a month off.
Comr. Aldridge – Our meetings have been low key the last few months but during more contentious times everyone appreciated a cooling off time.
Comr. Hemphill – I do not mind meeting in December.
Comr. Stephens – I like having a month off.
Comr. Gerrie – I like having a month off as well. If there was something pressing we just get it done by November.
Comr. Stephens – We can always schedule a special meeting if there is a deadline such as for the cat declaw.
Comr. Gerrie – We have only had one special meeting in December. That was for the zoo.
Comr. Stephens – That special meeting was during the day as all the rooms were full in the evenings.
No public comment
Comr. Young – I move to have a meeting in December.
Seconded by Comr. Hemphill
Vote no; Gerrie, Aldridge, Page, Stephens, & Russo
Vote yes; Young, Hemphill
Motion fails 5 to 2.
6. General Public Comment
No public comment
7 & 8 Calendar items and task allotments
Comr. Stephens – I will talk with the City Attorney about the pet store program. Comr . Young will contact non-profits about support for the program. He will also contact ACC about providing a central site for animal statistics.
Comr. Aldridge – Commends Comr. Young for bringing issues to the meeting.
Comr. Hemphill – Seconds the commendation for Comr. Young. Also commends Comrs. Gerrie and Stephens for working hard enough to need a holiday.
No public comment
Adjournment 6:45 PM
Respectfully submitted by Philip Gerrie
Commission Secretary
