signif iqant savings. t,o Cd-ty ta.xpayers. . I. In the last f ive. .fears"l n-2,L62 dogs and cats wâ¬F⬠., transf,er
The San Franeiseo Soeietg ftrrtlre Prerruntionrlf Crueltg toAntmnls Response to the County of Lros Angeles Test Claim Chapter 752/98 A wn-Profitcorforation since1868
Test Claim No. 98-TC-11"Animal AdopLion" ,fuly 7, L999
OFFICERS RICHARD E. DIRICKSON Cluinnan ol lho Eurd JACQTJELINEL, YOTJNG Vie Chair F.ILLMOREC. MARKS fresurcr EDWIN J, SAYRES Frcsident DIRECTORS I
JATF{ERINEH, BLACK CAIIIERINE B. BROWN DONALD M. BROWN,M.D. JAN BUCKLEY RANSOM S. COOK AUSTIN E. HILLS WILUAM R. KALES BERNARDM. KRAMER,M.D, LUDWIG JAMESJ, 'IEPHANIE C, Mac€Otl LUAM LEE OLDS, JR. IANNE BOVEtr ROBERTS
REoEIM JUL0;9t999
ggyslgFioN oN Srnrr nt-A"nr"O,iidb
Test claimants and others opposed to Chapter 752/gB rely on misplaced. assumpt,ions and predictions that by shelter service providers and they will need larger, more costly facilities periods, holding funding for longer massive and longer hours of operations, and hiring '752/ of new staff . But Chapter 98 puts a training premium on adoption and get,t,ing lost pets back new shelters or home, not on building n e w s t a f f . C o m m o n - s e n s er e s p o n s e s hiring/training by shelters to the conimon-sense st,andards in '752/98 can accornplish this life-saving Chapter that, orr work through cost-effective strategies average, reduce a pet,.'s sg.ay in the shelter. tndeed, the actual erq>erience of The San Francisco SPCAand San Francisco's Department of. (SFACC) in using those Animal Care and Control strategies belies t,he speculative claims of the opponents of Chapter 752/98 and reinforces the humane basis of Chapt,er 752/98. cost-effective, fn April L994, The San Francisco SPCA and the partnership, in a life-saving SFACC collaborated which we call the Adoption Pact (See Adoption Pact, enclosed. as Exhibit A. ) Several of the key provisions of the Adoption Pact were written into '752/98 and are now state law, In Chapter addition, many of the practices in place in San Francisco are also written inLo the incentive structure of ChapEer 752/98. These include, for example, making owner-surrendered pets availabl-e for ad.option, the riqht of access to shelter dogs
:500 Sixteenth Sbreet San Francisco,CA 94703-4213 (415)s54,3000 www.sfsPca,'org e-mail
[email protected]
1109
1T'l dS
\lv
u"ao r.om RecyclcdPrper
and cats bJr rescue org-anizaLions, access sheiter hours. ; nl
and flexible
public
. r}.i;
I'the arguments advanced in opposi!.ion to Chapter +:+":1,"o'f 752/9fl were also made in San Francisco five years ago. The clainis abgut runaway costs, increased euthanasias, and the . . .',{.,.1 , the of efforts have not borne unwo.pf.ayers to private individuals. These efforts eliminated. the killing of adoptable animals, red.uced the pets by approximat.ely 50t, increased of treatable kilting adoptions, and reduced average shelter length of stay--all at substantial savings for municipalities. ff City and County shelters put effort into aggressive ad.option prograns and building relationships with rescue groups and humane organizations which exist throughout the all of the benefits of Chapter 752/98 State of California, can be accomplished without increased space allocations; and all can be accomplished on a revenue-neutral or revenue-positive basis f or ta>cpayers. Conclusion ability to implement humane, cost-effective San Francisco's responses is not unique to San Francisco or to its relationship with The San Francisco SPCA. The conunon-sense enough to st.rategies enacted in Chapter 752/98 are specific yet general enough provide incentives and give direction, to move forward in to allow each community and shelter saving lives and taxpayer do1lars.
1113
