What would it take for San Francisco to become no kill?

San Francisco has the opportunity to become the first major urban city to
achieve No Kill. It appears intent - and content - not to be.

The Commission of Animal Control & Welfare (Commission) has finished taking testimony from a wide range of organizations on whether to mandate a No Kill policy in San Francisco by enacting shelter oversight legislation that would require all San Francisco shelters, including the San Francisco Department of Animal Care & Control (ACC) and the San Francisco SPCA, to commit to saving San Francisco’s neediest animals. Representatives of animal protection groups from around the country were invited to testify as part of the Commission’s “exploration of a policy that would ensure that no adoptable animal (including those that need medical and behavioral intervention but would be adoptable after that) is [killed] in San Francisco shelters.” Testifying in favor of the proposal included the No Kill Advocacy Center, Best Friends Animal Society, Fix San Francisco, and a host of local rescue groups and animal lovers.

The effort is directed at saving the last of the savable animals still being killed in San Francisco’s animal control shelter—sick and injured but treatable animals, Pit Bulls, feral cats, older animals—and it is an achievement easily in reach given that San Francisco has the lowest per capita intake rate of any municipality in the nation. As a result, there is a growing consensus that the City can easily achieve this goal, even while importing thousands of out of county young and small dogs and cats to meet adoption demand, as the San Francisco SPCA is currently doing.

What would it take for San Francisco to become No Kill? Numerically speaking, it would mean bumping up the save rate a paltry 10%, or roughly 500 additional dogs and cats who are losing their lives at the hands of San Francisco Animal Care & Control (ACC) staff each year. That would amount to just over one additional animal saved per day: either through adoption, or reclaim, or neuter/release of a feral cat. It would mean ACC stops relying on the San Francisco SPCA for whether most animals live or die and takes some responsibility themselves to adopt out more animals, proactively work to reclaim more lost dogs or cats to their families, or undertakes its own TNR program. It would mean that the San Francisco SPCA, which changed the rationale for building its multi-million dollar hospital more times that President George W. Bush did for invading Iraq, adhere to its latest rationale: that it will help save the lives of sick, injured, unweaned, or traumatized animals at ACC and save just over one more per day.

To do that would require leadership at either ACC or the SPCA committed to doing so and doing so today. But they haven’t done it. In fact, they have enlisted the help of the large, regressive national organizations who have historically opposed No Kill to help them resist it. Testifying in front of the Commission, both the ASPCA and the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) testified against doing so, just as they historically opposed the efforts which brought the City’s lifesaving rate to where it is today. Former San Francisco SPCA President Ed Sayres, who now heads the ASPCA, sent representatives to testify against a mandate for a No Kill San Francisco. Despite personal knowledge of the City and an understanding that it is an achievement easily within reach, his representatives called it “radical” and told the Commission to take no action and thus maintain the status quo—a continuation of killing.

HSUS went so far as to suggest that saving these additional lives would lead to increased animal suffering—a hopelessly irreconcilable contradiction. Under HSUS’ muddled thinking, we shouldn’t have voting rights legislation because that will lead to disenfranchisement. We shouldn’t mandate civil rights laws because that will lead to discrimination. We shouldn’t pass environmental laws because that will lead to more pollution. It not only makes no sense a priori, it makes no sense in light of the tremendous success communities which have achieved No Kill experienced by committing to the endeavor whole-heartedly.

So if neither ACC nor the SPCA is willing to provide the leadership needed to cross the goal line, who will? For the last several months, animal lovers in San Francisco have pinned their homes on the Commission. Given a lack of leadership by the City’s two largest shelters, to achieve No Kill in San Francisco, the Commission would have to recommend a mandate to the Board of Supervisors to force these shelters to do so, a power they have but refuse to recognize or wield. The Commission’s enabling legislation specifically empowers them to "recommend requirements for the maintenance of animals in public, private, and commercial care." Instead, they are preparing to discuss a non-binding plan which critics correctly charge is little more than a distraction. In other words, a No Kill San Francisco would require leadership at the Commission. But they aren’t showing it, either.

The proffered plan under consideration falls short of a legal mandate and recommends the implementation of services already available in San Francisco. The plan appears to signal the Commission’s intent to avoid taking a strong stand on the issue, with Commissioners acting reticent about seeking shelter reform legislation over the objections of entrenched interests.

But the plan is more than a distraction. It is misleading, as well. The plan promotes as a “solution” to the killing programs and services which already exist, but do nothing to end the killing which has been the source of debate all along: the remaining 10% of savable animals who could be saved but are not. And so while most of the recommendations look good on paper and sound good on first read, a closer examination reveals how ineffective in reaching the goal the proposal actually is. For example, the plan calls for “low-cost or free” spay/neuter, a behavior helpline, and programs to increase adoptions. “Except for one or two controversial ones, no one seriously objects to these particular programs,” said Michael Baus, a former San Francisco SPCA Community Organizer. “But the reason San Francisco is not No Kill has nothing to do with the numbers of animals being impounded into city shelters annually, or the need to increase adoptions. San Francisco has the lowest intake rate of any major municipality in the United States. SPCA leadership already claims it has to import thousands of animals from outside the City to meet adoption demand. Why are we talking about reducing intakes or increasing adoptions?”

San Francisco ACC impounds roughly 6,000 dogs and cats annually. That’s 7.5 dogs and cats for every 1,000 human residents. Meanwhile, the national average is 15 dogs and cats for every 1,000 human residents. So San Francisco takes in half the national average. By contrast, Tompkins County (NY) takes in 26 per 1,000 and is saving over 90% and has been for seven years. Charlottesville (VA) also takes in 26 per 1,000 and is saving a greater percentage of animals than San Francisco. Washoe County (Reno, NV) takes in 39 per 1,000—that’s five times the rate of San Francisco. It also takes in almost three times the total number: 16,000 per year. Yet they are saving 93% of dogs and 90% of cats year-to-date, despite 11% unemployment and a foreclosure crisis.

“The bottom line,” said one rescue advocate who requested anonymity “is that San Francisco is not No Kill because neither the City shelter, nor the SPCA will save the last 10% of savable animals being killed at the pound, even though they could. Even though other communities across the country are doing so. The pound itself won’t because it is easy not to. And the SPCA won’t because they believe it is easier to adopt out small dogs and kittens they bring in from outside of San Francisco. So unless the Commission stands up and says, ‘This is intolerable’ and forces them to, San Francisco will never be No Kill.”

As critics correctly charge, the problem is that the proffered programs don’t address why the animals are being killed: ACC continues to downplay its lifesaving obligations, hiding behind their “public safety” mandate which is not at issue, and the SPCA keeps importing animals while needy San Francisco ones continue to die.

Ironically, Commissioners have suggested looking to New York City as a model for how to proceed. But San Francisco has been saving more animals than New York for years. In the 1990s, when San Francisco was the leader in the No Kill movement, New York City officials were calling No Kill a ‘hoax.’ Even today, New York is not No Kill and has never been No Kill, and lags behind San Francisco’s rate of lifesaving. As one local animal lover correctly asked, “Why is San Francisco pointing to New York City as a model of how to achieve No Kill when shelters there are still killing healthy animals? Really, what are they thinking?”

Instead, the plan signals the Commission’s intent to avoid taking a strong stand on issues relating to shelter killing, continuing a tragic legacy of failing to do so  going back to 1993. It was that year when then-SPCA President Richard Avanzino asked the Commission to embrace what he dubbed “The Adoption Act,” a law which would have made the killing of animals in San Francisco illegal if there was a rescue group or No Kill shelter willing to save them. Facing opposition from ACC, which was holding these animals hostage by threatening to kill them despite the SPCA’s desire and ability to save them, the Commission bowed to pressure and refused to endorse it.

As one critic of their current plan explains,

Now, they are again being asked to support greater lifesaving when it is far less controversial, and widely embraced around the country, and they still won’t do the right thing. Whenever the issue requires them to show courage, they back down. Instead they offer either a non-binding resolution or a meaningless statement that breaks no new ground, but is intended to give the illusion of substance and action. This proposed plan appears to be a continuation of that sad legacy.

Every social justice movement represents change, and the status quo always has its champions. In the end, progress depends on challenging the status quo, and that inevitably means challenging those who champion the status quo. This is unpleasant. This requires courage. It takes leadership. But success demands nothing less. And sadly, the Commission does not seem up to the task. Those who brought San Francisco rates of killing to where they are, are not those who run the SPCA today. They are those who had to stand up to the types of people running the agency today. But they had the strength to do in spite of their opposition and the fact that the Commission 16 years ago failed to summon the courage to tell ACC that it could not be allowed to kill San Francisco animals that the SPCA wanted to save. Yet the same forces at work then to undermine lifesaving in San Francisco are the same forces working to undermine it today.

Due to changes in leadership, the San Francisco SPCA is sadly on the other side of the issue this time around. When it was the leader of the No Kill movement, a market survey showed that 97% of San Franciscans said the SPCA was doing a good job. Yet even with that level of support from the public, the Commission bowed to pressure from the few entrenched interests that did not want progress to occur. If recent newspaper articles, as well as controversies and testimony before the Commission is any indication, the percentage of people who think the SPCA is doing a good job has slipped. But it shows that the people of San Francisco love animals and deserve a shelter system as progressive as they are, and a Commission that champions their desires. After all, as “the eyes and ears of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors with regard to animal issues within the City,” the Commission bears the tremendous responsibility of faithfully representing the great love of animals historically expressed by the people of San Francisco against the few, regressive voices intent on forestalling progress because of personal agendas. The City has the resources and ability to save the remaining 10%, which comprise the neediest of homeless animals. What it is lacking is shelter leadership with the will to do so. Which is why No Kill proponents correctly conclude that if the Commission doesn’t force San Francisco shelters to do so, these animals will continue to be killed—rather than be saved as they are in other, more progressive cities.

Ironically, San Francisco has never been shy about breaking new ground in other areas, and as a result, has achieved many firsts: in universal health care, in combating global warming, in gay rights. In 2000, San Francisco had the opportunity to become the first city in the nation to achieve No Kill. Then San Francisco SPCA President Ed Sayres chose not to, instead championing a multi-million dollar hospital that would cater to the City’s affluent pet owning population at the expense of using resources on saving the lives of homeless animals. Many of the departments and programs that catered to the latter were either curtailed or eliminated. Instead, that honor went to a community in Upstate New York.

Now, San Francisco has the opportunity to become the nation’s first major urban community to achieve No Kill, to lead the rest of the nation—as it has on so many other progressive issues—when it comes to saving the lives of dogs and cats.

It is 90% of the way there. ACC has one of the most generous budgets of any facility in California. The SPCA is arguing that its state-of-the-art hospital is needed precisely because it will help the neediest of homeless animals. Then why isn’t it being done? And why do both of these agencies oppose a mandate to do so? Ironically, Sayres, who is now President of the ASPCA, is also asking the City not to mandate a No Kill San Francisco. Tragically, it seems the Commission is listening.

But the public record will note—both for posterity and for future historians writing the history of the No Kill movement—how San Francisco was at one time poised to achieve the honor of being the nation’s first major city to become No Kill, but that, tragically, petty personal loyalties got in the way. As a result, the honor of being the first major urban No Kill community will likely go to some other city. San Francisco’s animals and San Francisco’s animal loving citizens deserve better.

What you can do:

• Write to the Board of Supervisors and tell them you want a fair and impartial Commission. Having representatives from agencies the Commission is supposed to oversee and regulate is a conflict of interest. Have them remove the seats held by SPCA, ACC, and other government agencies subject to the Commission’s jurisdiction.
• Write to the Board of Supervisors and ask them to champion a No Kill San Francisco irrespective of Commission inaction. Explain to them that other cities have surpassed San Francisco's rate of lifesaving, and that no added costs are needed to achieve it. San Francisco should not be second rate. Reno, NV is saving 93% of dogs and 90% of cats year-to-date, and they have half the population but three times the total dog and cat intake.
• Wage a very public campaign showing that needy animals are still being killed in the city, but need not be. Highlight the “Power of One”: All it would take is just slightly over one additional dog or cat adopted, reclaimed, neutered and released, or treated at the SPCA’s new hospital to achieve No Kill. Just over one per day. There is no legitimate reason why two of the largest, best funded agencies, with the lowest intake rates and the most modern infrastructure in the nation, cannot save just over one additional animal per day.
• And if all else fails, gather signatures, not for a petition that the Commission and the shelters will ignore, but as part of a public initiative to put shelter reform legislation on the ballot! It was the threat of a public initiative that forced ACC to back down in 1993, fearful that such a process would expose their regressive, anti-animal positions to all animal loving San Franciscans.

For more information: visit www.fixsanfrancisco.org.