Commission proposal misses the mark, say no kill proponents

July 13, 11:54 AMSF Animal Shelters ExaminerNathan Winograd

Previous Next

3 comments Print Email RSS Subscribe

Subscribe

Get alerts when there is a new article from the SF Animal Shelters Examiner. Read Examiner.com's terms of use.

Email Address   Include other special offers from Examiner.com Terms of Use

Savable animals are still being killed at San Francisco's animal control shelter.
Critics charge that under a new proposal, those animals will still not be saved.
Others question the wisdom of following New York City as a model since it has
always lagged behind San Francisco's rate of lifesaving.

Proposed “road map” fails to support a legal mandate to save the city’s neediest homeless animals.

A No Kill San Francisco appears to be less likely if the San Francisco Commission of Animal Control and Welfare adopts a plan offered by one of its Commissioners. Even after months of testimony from experts across the nation, the plan presented to the community at its July 9, 2009 meeting, would do little to achieve success and shows a surprising lack of knowledge of the issues, according to critics.

The Commission of Animal Control and Welfare heard 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 Department of Animal Care & Control (ACC) and the San Francisco SPCA (SPCA), to commit to ending the killing of savable animals in shelters. 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 10 percent of 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 (five times less than that of Reno, Nevada, four times less than Los Angeles, and half the national average) because of a twenty-plus year history of high volume, low-cost spay/neuter. 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.

A proposed plan offered this month is being criticized by supporters of a No Kill San Francisco as misguided, at best. The proffered plan under consideration falls short of a legal mandate and either recommends the implementation of services already available in San Francisco or focuses on what critics charge are unneeded distractions. 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. 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?” said Michael Baus, a former San Francisco SPCA Community Organizer.

According to testimony received by the Commission:

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 takes in 26 per 1,000 and is saving over 90% and has been for seven years. Charlottesville also takes in 26 per 1,000 and is saving a greater percentage of animals than San Francisco. Washoe County, Nevada takes in 39/1,000—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 90% of dogs and 83% of cats and expect 90% save rates for both this year despite an 11% unemployment and a foreclosure crisis.

Critics also charge that increasing adoptions, while worthwhile, will do nothing to decrease killing of savable animals in San Francisco if the SPCA meets demand by importing more animals from outside the City. “That is good news for the animals which the SPCA saves from death row in neighboring communities. But if the goal is a No Kill San Francisco, how does bringing in more Chihuahuas and other small dogs from Alameda County accomplish that? How does bringing in kittens from Contra Costa County accomplish that? It doesn’t.” It also means that San Francisco will continue to fall short of the impressive lifesaving achievements of more successful communities.

Instead, the plan appears to signal the Commission’s intent to avoid taking a strong stand on the issue, with Commissioners acting reticent about asking the Board of Supervisors to pass shelter reform legislation which would mandate that all public and private shelters operating in the City commit themselves to a No Kill San Francisco. The proposed plan does not include such a mandate, which may stem both from what one long-time observer called the Commission’s failure to take a stand on issues in the face of opposition, as well as a misunderstanding of their role. “I’ve attended meetings of the Commission going back to 1993,” said Jennifer Holdt. “Back then, I testified as a representative of the Animal Legal Defense Fund asking the Commission to support greater rates of lifesaving in San Francisco. Back then, the SPCA asked for their support in forcing the entrenched leadership of animal control which was refusing to sign an agreement giving the SPCA full access to animals they were going to kill. The City shelter was holding these animals hostage by threatening to kill them despite the lifesaving alternative, but the Commission, bowing to pressure, refused to take a stand.

“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.”

In addition, some Commissioners keep repeating the statement that they do not believe they have the authority to bind the private SPCA. According to Kathleen McGarr of Fix San Francisco, one particular Commissioner has stated “more than once that she doesn't think they can ‘make’ an organization do what they want them to do.” But this is not true. Government has the authority to regulate shelters, the same way they regulate private businesses of all kinds. In fact, there are many laws in California that require private shelters to operate in certain ways including care for the animals.

“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.”

Others say the plan has great elements, but they too agree with the most vocal critics that they won’t achieve the stated goal. “Should we work together to achieve No Kill?” asks Baus. “Yes. Should we seek grant funding to save animals? Most certainly. Should we have spay/neuter? Pet retention programs? Offsite adoptions? Education and outreach? Yes, yes, yes, and yes. But we already have a lot of those things, and even with more, the plan ignores the elephant in the room. It’s ultimately short-sighted. A distraction really. Without a mandate to save the animals ACC won’t adopt and the SPCA won’t accept into their program, we’re no closer.” Critics charge that none of the proposed programs seriously address the remaining 10% of savable animals still being killed simply because San Francisco shelters refuse to commit to saving them.

Finally, others are questioning why the Commission is using New York City as a model as the proposed plan does. “We’ve been saving more animals than New York for years. In the 1990s, we were the leaders in this movement when New York City officials were calling No Kill a ‘hoax.’ Even today, New York is not No Kill and has never been No Kill. 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?”

Given what has come out of the Commission so far, and its historical actions, it is no wonder that supporters of a No Kill San Francisco have little faith the Commission will do “the right thing” and some are talking about going straight to the Board of Supervisors and taking their message directly to the people. “We are waiting for courage from a body that has never demonstrated it. The sad thing is we are a whisper away from No Kill and all we have to do is reach out and take it. That is the great irony and the even greater tragedy.”

For further reading:

Animal welfare commission debates no kill policy

San Francisco debates future while other communities lead quest