CHARLOTTE LAWS - DREAM AND ACHIEVE TOGETHER
Proposal for Making
Oakland a “No Kill” Animal Shelter City
Charlotte presented her 54 page report to the City of Oakland at the end of May 2005.
propose that Oakland be transformed into a “no
kill” city, making it a nationwide leader
in animal welfare, lowering taxpayer costs
(it can cost up to $250 in the U.S. to hold a shelter animal for euthanasia and
dispose of the body) and saving animal lives.
kills approximately 50%
of its shelter animals annually. Of the 4623 dogs and cats who found
themselves at the facility last year, 2227 were euthanized. These deaths are
unnecessary: various cities, counties and states in the U.S. have
either achieved the “no kill” objective or are moving swiftly in
this direction. Tompkins County (in New York), Berkeley and San Francisco have
made amazing strides, while Phoenix, Arizona; New York City; the state of Utah
(as well as countless other localities) have embraced a strategy to realize what
I call the "93% no kill objective" within the next few years.
"93% no kill objective"* means saving the lives of all healthy and
medically/behaviorally treatable animals. This should be the initial objective
for Oakland. After this is accomplished, the effort should be to save all
shelter animals by establishing a hospice-type environment for the terminally
ill and a sanctuary for those deemed too dangerous for rehabilitation, as
Utah’s Best Friends currently provides. At that time, Oakland will be the
first "100% no kill" city in the country.
The 93% stems from the numbers supplied by Nathan Winograd at one of his
seminars in accordance with his success in Tompkins County, New York.
public wants the killing to end. Impediments to this are the bureaucratic
mindset of some animal services employees, a lack of creativity and the false
notion that "people are irresponsible" and "there are too many
animals and not enough homes." If the latter is really true, the why are
pet stores and breeders still in business?
volume, low cost spay/neuter is critical for the success of “no kill" as
are partnerships with the community; adversarial relationships between people
and the shelter are destructive on every level.
The first step would be to sever ties between
Oakland’s Animal Services (OAS) and the police department, although
the two organizations would still unite in their effort to combat animal cruelty
and for other purposes. Police officers are trained to focus on public safety,
yet animal services employees must both protect and care about animals in
addition to safeguarding people. A police officer should not be expected to
understand the significant weight that should be given to compassion towards
The Director of OAS should be a person who cares about animals and who will
embark upon strategies to make the city “no kill.” The job description
for the “Director” position should be altered to assure the
applicants understand that the desire and ability to protect animals and
eliminate the killing is a prerequisite for the job. I forwarded job
descriptions to you in March 2005, and I am glad to hear that Lupe Valdez was
able to incorporate some of these ideas into a final draft of the Stakeholder
Committee "job description."
Director’s salary should be raised to
approximately $90,000 - $125,000 per year (depending upon experience) to ensure
a talented pool of applicants. Los Angeles pays its new Director over $150,000.
To determine if a higher figure is necessary, Oakland should evaluate shelter
director salaries in cities with comparable housing/living expenses (in
accordance with the stakeholder committee's suggestion). Some excellent
candidates have expressed an inability to relocate to Oakland due to the high
cost of housing in the area unless the salary is commensurate. Alterations
should also be made with respect to union affiliation
so the city manager has control over this position.
city might also want to consider implementing Los
Angeles' method for selecting the Director of Animal Services: the Mayor would
make the appointment and the City Council would confirm it.
Two grassroots community programs should be
established: the first would create a Director
of Animal Welfare (DAW) for every district in Oakland in accordance
with the current council boundaries, and the other would establish a Humane
Officer program or task force.
DAW for each area would be appointed by the Councilmember for that district, and
the DAW would then be able to create a committee and recruit volunteers to
assist with projects and outreach. The DAW position would be
volunteer; this person would act as the eyes and ears for the animals in an
area. (I have recently started a DAW program in Los Angeles.) Members of a
community often reject outsiders coming into their area to implement change; yet
grassroots efforts by local people, such as DAWs, are more readily embraced.
Sporadic DAW-like events have been successful in Alameda County in past years,
so it makes sense to expand these programs and make them permanent.
issues differ from one neighborhood to another. One area may have problems with
dog fighting or feral cats, while another has spay/neuter concerns. As a
stakeholder, the DAW will have a grasp of the concerns in the community. The DAW
might hold events, such as Animal Care Fairs in which free spay/neuter services
are provided as well as dog training, immunizations and humane education, or a
DAW might assist the shelter with regular adoptions at a nearby mall or flea
market. The DAW and his/her volunteers may be able to conduct outreach
activities via already-established local councils or groups, who often have
regular meetings, newsletters and websites. The DAW may be able to communicate
with stakeholders by way of emails or literature that are regularly sent to
constituents from the City Councilmember for that district. Each
DAW would decide how to best assist the animals in his/her community.
Creativity is encouraged.
A Humane Officer program has been started by a number of volunteers from Animal Crime Investigations Bureau (ACIB), who are in the midst of the completing the training (which costs approximately $200 for two-weeks of instruction). Go to www.animalcrime.org for further details.
Humane Officers’ purpose is to increase manpower so
as to assist with cruelty-related situations and to help enforce laws that are
meant to protect animals. For
example, they might check on neighbor complaints of animal abuse with the
assistance of OAS or the Oakland Police Department, or they might use newspaper
ads to trace and investigate illegal breeding (for example, some California
legislators have sought to pass a law that requires breeders to have a
registration number and report the number of animals sold in the previous year;
Humane Officers could help enforce such a law). Humane Officers could be
appointed by the City Councilmember for the district or instead by the
Neighborhood Crime Prevention Councils in their area.
Oakland should create an Animal Commission
(resembling the commissions in Los Angeles and
San Francisco), which would operate like a "Board of
Directors;" it would hold regular meetings, maintain a website and exert
policy control over the OAS. The Mayor would appoint individuals to serve, and
the city should provide funding to staff the Commission.
OAS employees must change their philosophy to one in which compassion
is rewarded and relationships are built with the community. They
should not enforce minor infractions of the law, such as when a jogger runs
through the park with his dog “off leash.” People should not be punished for
feeding and caring for feral cats. The public must view OAS as a partner in
solving the animal overpopulation problem, rather than as the enemy.
OAS must also be proactive, rather than passive. Most shelters merely tally the
number of animals each day and incorrectly assume that there are too many
animals and not enough homes.
OAS should cut programs and positions that do not
save lives. They must cut waste and decline to spend money on
programs that are ineffective. There is no evidence, for example, that humane
education (i.e. at schools) is beneficial. Humane Education and other
programs/efforts which do not directly correlate to saving animals’ lives
should only be undertaken by volunteers. They should cost OAS nothing.
should add programs that save lives. For
example, there should be a "Last
Litter Project" (with cat rescue groups). Programs that reduce the number
of "pit bull-type dogs" in the area should be implemented because
these breeds represent a large number of the deaths at the Oakland shelter.
Providing free spay/neuter vouchers for these animals is a good start.
The overall “no kill” strategy involves a
two-pronged process: implementing both low
cost or free spay/neuter and widespread animal adoptions. It would
probably take between two and five years for Oakland to realize the goal. Money
may be available. Maddie’s Fund is a nonprofit with
$200 million available for the sole
purpose of helping cities, counties and states become “no kill.”
Oakland has received limited funding from this organization in the past.
Mr. Richard Avanzino, the head of Maddie's Fund, has said he would be interested
in a proposal to help all of the shelter animals in Alameda County.
Fund money can go directly to pay for any service (i.e. spay/neuter,
advertisements for adoption, dog training). Maddie’s Fund typically requires
the local area to fundraise. The proportion of matching funds depends upon the
size of the project: New York City is receiving $20 million and must raise the
highest percentage of matching funds: 100 percent. Mr. Avanzino has verbally
indicated that he would make a similar deal with Los Angeles. It is unlikely
Oakland would be required to raise this large percentage, as the project would
be much smaller. Further details about the organization can be found at www.MaddiesFund.org
Fund money cannot be given directly to government; it must be funneled
through a nonprofit. Oakland should establish
a new nonprofit for
this purpose, which can continue to work in
partnership with the nonprofits and rescue groups in the area, so that when the
Oakland shelter becomes too crowded, animals are transferred to other facilities.
The Oakland Shelter already has this type of relationship with the
East Bay SPCA, Island Cat Resources, Fix Our Ferals, Hop-a-Long, Smiley Dog, Bad
Rap and others, but there are many nonparticipating, community-based
organizations that could partner with OAS. The goal is to find alternate facilities for the
animals when the Oakland shelter becomes full, while simultaneously reducing
animal births so that fewer and fewer animals need homes over time.
Oakland animal shelter nonprofit organization would be able to accept money
directly from Maddie’s Fund and other sources (such as private donors or
corporate sponsors) and make decisions about how best to utilize funds. A
“Special Fund” should be created for soliciting large donations.
Board of Directors for the nonprofit would be comprised of individuals who not
only care about animals, but also have the ability to either a) fundraise, or b)
donate something of major value to the shelter. A veterinarian who agrees to
frequent the facility and provide free veterinary assistance would be a welcome
addition to the board, as would a billboard company CEO who could offer no-cost
Specifics of the plan are as follows and
are broken down by category. This parallels the “no kill” strategies
embarked upon in an urban area (San Francisco) and in a rural area (Tompkins
County, NY); both found success with these methods.
Assistance at the shelter. Dozens of volunteers
should continually be recruited (as
Megan Webb currently does). When Ms. Webb (who is a valuable addition to OAS)
leaves to attend graduate school, an unpaid “volunteer coordinator”
(perhaps a retiree from a senior citizen home) might want to become the
"Community Outreach Program Director." Volunteers can perform many
tasks, such as medicating sick cats, training dogs with behavior problems,
walking and grooming dogs, doing routine office work and helping with adoptions.
In addition, union employees and volunteers must
cooperate. Any disputes at OAS between these two factions must be resolved.
should place announcements in the Oakland Tribune about monthly volunteer
orientations. OAS should be flexible with the volunteers; they should be
permitted to walk dogs or play with cats on their lunch hour or act as a foster
parent, even for a limited period of time. Volunteers can be kept informed by
weekly e-mails, which include recently published articles, information on
shelter animals and new Animal Services procedures.
should be a wildlife referral program (with
organizations such as the Wildlife Waystation) for skunks, raccoons, opossums
and other wild creatures who find themselves at the shelter. Creating
partnerships will save the shelter time, money, effort and space. OAS should
make a list of all partnerships and licensed rehabilitators and be sure all
employees know how to access the list.
Alliances should be created with vet schools (for free
or low cost veterinary assistance), local businesses and pet food companies.
Science Diet will provide free food to shelters; the shelter merely pays for the
shipping which works out to about $1 per animal per year.
Bayer will provide flea-related products at no cost. Pet-friendly
businesses can be promoted at the shelter in return for products or services.
Deals should be worked out with groomers. OAS should never pay retail.
should negotiate with vets to come to the shelter for
free or a small fee. They can be given PR in return for their
services; for example, when an animal is adopted, the adopter can be told that
this particular vet has the animal’s records and medical history. The person
will be likely to use the vet in the future. OAS should always seek competitive
bids from vets and vet schools for surgeries and major medical procedures.
Exercise and Socialization for the Animals. The animals
should not be sequestered in their kennels
all day. Dogs should be taken for walks by volunteers or given play time several
times per day, and the cats should get out twice. This keeps the animals calmer
(especially with respect to large dogs), thus making them happier and more
adoptable. The pubic is more likely to stay in the facility longer and therefore
adopt when the shelter is quiet; dozens of barking dogs is a deterrent. OAS
currently walks only the animals in the front who are available for adoption.
dog trainer should be on staff. I understand the current trainer is
Primarily Focus on Spay/Neuter. OAS must intensify the effort at high
volume, low or no cost spay/neuter. Spay/neuter
is cost-effective in the long run; of course, Maddie’s Fund and nonprofit
dollars can provide for this.
According to Winograd, if all cities and counties in this country had
municipally funded spay/neuter, the nation would be (93%) “no kill” today.
Every dollar spent in spay/neuter saves the taxpayer $10 in costs later. At one
point, San Francisco paid people $5 for each animal they brought to be
Supplemental Shelter Services. OAS should establish a free
behavior hotline, free or low cost dog training, free pet friendly rental
referrals and other services which can be obtained at no cost via
partnerships with businesses in the community.
Adoptions. There must be a widespread effort
at increasing adoptions, which means linking with rescue groups,
establishing foster homes and increasing shelter adoptions. OAS must find
creative ways to compete with pet shops and “free to a good home” newspaper
ads, such as by offering incentives.
simple act of becoming “no kill,” should mean an increase in adoptions
because many people stay away from shelters due to the emotional pain of knowing
that animals die at the facility.
should establish at least one showcase facility on an
unused, but well-positioned city property. It should be located in a
busy area where the animals can be seen by the public. The outdoor mall area
near the City Center BART station would be an excellent choice; it would garner
the attention of shoppers, city hall visitors and commuters. This supplemental
facility could be manned by volunteers and funded by the nonprofit.
Adoption incentives should be offered, such as free veterinary care for
the first visit, free dog behavior advice, free pet food, discount on supplies,
and free goodies. OAS should partner with businesses for free products/services
Off-site Adoptions are crucial.
Animals must be
taken to where people live, work and shop, such as flea markets, fairs, parks,
church bazaars, special events and malls. Store windows at pet shops in busy
shopping centers could be used to display adoptable animals; partnerships with
these stores could prove advantageous. Instead of purchasing animals from puppy
mills, the business could obtain their animals from the shelter. (This is
becoming a popular alternative for many pet stores.)
Anytime there is an event in the Oakland area, the shelter director
should ask if animals could be adopted at the event.
The shelter could even assist with publicity, which will, of course, make the
coordinators anxious to have the shelter participate in future events.
Holiday adoptions are good as long as it is from one family member to
another; impulse decisions are not problematic.
A program called “Home for the Holidays” in which Santa brings the animal to
the new home has been successful in New York. A Valentine’s Day adoption event
might be called “Save a Sweetheart” or “Make a Love Connection.” Other
events might include: “Dog Days of Summer,” Cats for Cops,” “Wine,
Critters and Song,” “Feline Follies,” “Fur Ball” and “Seniors for
Seniors.” On these occasions, there may be a reduced cost for adoptions or
Advertisements and Public Relations. OAS should be innovative
with advertising and public relations. In Oregon, satellite images of
shelter animals are displayed on large screens at local malls. Animals can be
shown on websites, on TV news programs or in the newspaper as the “pet of the
week.” The media are usually willing to help at no cost. The media should be
inundated with press releases. Real estate agents make good shelter partners
because they advertise in the newspaper regularly. A Realtor in NY placed a
regular ad with a photo of an adoptable pet, which read, “Find your Spot.”
Realtors also typically give gifts to their clients at the close of escrow; they
could be convinced to give a voucher for a free animal from the OAS shelter to
should record numerous 30 and 60 second radio public service announcements for
public access television; a studio and cameraman are typically provided at no
cost. In Tomkins County, the shelter director did a regular show called
"Pets in Pajamas" in which adoptable animals were featured. There are
many ways to get the word out, such as with a pet advice column, speeches or a
regular spot on a local radio or television show. OAS must use persistence and
ingenuity to communicate, to bring people to the shelter. When
writing copy, the aim should be to get people to cry, to impact them
emotionally. Old, ugly and sick animals should be promoted, too; and each should
be given a personality.
studies show that people get their dogs from shelters only 15% of the time, and
less than 10% of the time for cats. The 2004 OAS numbers reveal that 15.8% of
dogs were adopted and 19.6% of cats were adopted. These numbers can be better.
Good advertising and public relations is necessary for success.
Promoting Animals at the Shelter. Give the animals friendly,
simple names like Buddy or Molly. Do not name a pitbull “Capone.”
Pitbulls and seemingly more frightening dogs should have sissy names, floral
collars and/or pink bows around their necks.
Dress the animals in different color collars/bows and keep them
Put the less desirable animals at the front,
so the public have to walk past them to get to the puppies and kittens in the
back. Make the kennel visually appealing by mixing animals by colors and breeds.
Do not place 10 black labs in a row; mix them with other breeds.
should place cards on the kennel door which tells
about the animal (i.e.
Buddy likes to swim and play ball) An emotional story can be created for each
animal, if the actual history is not known. Shelter volunteers and staff can
start teaching “stupid pet tricks” to the animals that have been at the
shelter for a long time; knowing tricks make them more adoptable.
Volunteers can be planted at the shelter as
“agents.” They can get excited over a particular animal: when
members of the public see this attention, they are more likely to want to adopt
that particular dog or cat.
Behavior and Illness. OAS should always give
dogs the benefit of the doubt with respect to “aggressive” behavior.
Sometimes behavior problems have to do with painfully long nails or mattes;
seemingly severe problems can often be cured by training or placement in a
foster home environment. Food guarding is acceptable (animal should not be
killed for guarding their food), and cats should never be tested for behavior
No more than 2% - 4% of dogs should be found to be aggressive; if the
numbers are higher, the dogs are not being tested properly.
testing requires skill and training. A dog may growl at staff upon intake
because he has been ripped from his home; this growl should not automatically
move the dog into the “vicious” category.
Studies show that traditional kennel temperament testing does not
predict how an animal will behave in the home, and two employees administering
an "objective" test, will often find different results. A detailed
procedure for temperament testing can be provided upon request. (Nathan Winograd
has details on these procedures). The decision to end a dog’s life is a
serious one and should be treated as such.
A veterinarian who specializes in behavior medicine should evaluate
each dog who is deemed aggressive to determine whether the problem is medically
based or whether behavioral rehabilitation will prove successful Then, the
director and on-staff dog trainer should appraise the situation.
shelters use a “pass” vs. “fail” scale for dogs. With the “93% no
kill” model, the only time dogs would fail a test
for aggression is when the prognosis for rehabilitation is poor or grave.
The scale extends from excellent to good, fair, guarded, poor, and grave. In
addition, the shelter must ensure that shy, scared,
sick and injured dogs are not erroneously assumed to be aggressive and killed.
The screening process is crucial.
Temperament testing should be designed to look for dogs who are a direct and
immediate threat to public safety. “93% no kill” cannot be achieved be
re-categorizing dogs; it is achieved by not killing them.
should not agree to owner-requested killings. A person can leave an animal at
the shelter, but it is up to OAS to find a new home or determine the fate of the
and Sick Animals. OAS should work with vets for discounts and only those animals given a
poor or grave prognosis (again on a scale with gradations of excellent, good,
fair, guarded, poor and grave) would be considered “not treatable” in the
"93% no kill model." A broken leg is considered “fair” prognosis;
this animal would receive vet attention. As OAS becomes “100% no kill,” it
should look into placing animals with poor prognosis in foster care or creating
a hospice-type environment.
care. A sweeping
foster parent network should be created because it quickly expands
the capacity of the shelter. Oakland already has a pretty good foster program,
but it could be expanded to include, for example, students from local
universities. Students may not be ideal candidates to provide a permanent home,
but they can be excellent fosters. Some businesses could be persuaded to foster
animals. Fosters are great for animals who are under-socialized, going cage
crazy, underage (neonatals), sick or injured.
Flexibility is important; foster parents should be able to return animals
when necessary. They can also help find homes for their adoptees through
outreach and connections in the community; they have contacts (who may be
willing to adopt) at their workplace or social clubs. Fosters will often go to
off-site adoption events with their adoptees. The fosters normally pay for all
animal-related costs, except medical expenses.
should give the least desirable animal to a first-time foster parent because the
foster will usually permanently adopt the first animal they receive.
Feral Cats. OAS should continue and expand the Trap,
Neuter, Release program. They currently partner with Fix Our Ferals
on this endeavor. Many studies suggest this is the most
efficient way to deal with the feral cat problem. For example,
Stanford University instituted the Stanford Cat Network and went from 500 cats
down to 150 in four years. Programs that kill ferals have been unsuccessful.
Additional studies can be provided upon request.
cats can live outside with ferals. OAS could even work directly with feral
caretakers and try to turn feeders into caretakers (or get feeders to work with
caretakers). These compassionate individuals provide a service that few people
will undertake. OAS should not punish feeders or
caretakers or indicate that they will confiscate their cats.
are probably about 60 – 100 million feral cats in the country. They will
always exist; and despite what some say, they live good lives.
show that any decline in songbird populations is principally due to drought,
human encroachment and poisons in the water and environment. Not cats.
Fundraise. The OAS nonprofit should plan
fundraising events throughout the year, such as concerts, golf
tournaments, wine tasting and telethons. Santa could take pictures with animals.
The “Phantom Ball” was a Halloween non-event in NY, but was a means for
obtaining donations. The shelter might celebrate a particular animal’s
birthday and invite the community for cake and lemonade.
Border’s Books will give 15% of profits to a 501 c (3) on a particular
weekend; OAS nonprofit could be a periodic beneficiary. Sponsors should cover
all costs for events.
Bookkeeping, Language and Shelter Policy. OAS should not
rely on the words “adoptable” and “treatable” when arriving at shelter
statistics. These words can be
manipulated by employees to justify deaths. For example, a shelter may decide a
dog is not adoptable because there is no more room at the facility or because
the animal needs grooming. OAS should only use the
actual number of animals received vs. the number killed. The records should also
be open and available to the public.
with most public shelters, OAS has always been pretty good about record-keeping.
However, lately there have been complaints about improper computer alterations
(made by employees). A computer program and/or
procedure should be established that will result in honest and accurate
should always try to talk people out of surrendering
their animals; sometimes it makes sense to give them money for
medication if lack of funds is the reason for surrender. This will often cost
OAS less money in the long-run. Volunteers can act as
Shelter Counselors at the front desk.
All animals should be vaccinated upon intake and the facility must be
kept clean so diseases do not spread to healthy animals and staff. Gloves and other
tools/equipment must be available and in working order. Kennels, cages
or rooms should be cleaned in this order: from the healthiest animals to the
least healthy, so as not to transfer
diseases to animals that enter in good condition. Walking all dogs (not just
those who are in the front and ready for adoption) also keeps them healthier;
otherwise they can become ill due to stress.
OAS has room for approximately 300 animals, yet only a handful are
in the front on display. The public are not allowed to view the animals in the
back unless they are in search of a missing pet. This gives these animals no
chance at adoption; many are simply killed. This policy must be changed. The public
must be allowed to see all of the animals.
As mentioned earlier, an adoption center for the OAS nonprofit
could be established at an abandoned city property in a location where people
live, work, and/or frequent. This facility could be run by volunteers. In some
parts of the country, space in shopping malls is being converted into display
areas for shelter animals.
Animals should be called “companion animals” rather than
Language is important because it creates reality. Studies show that it is easier
to relinquish a “pet” to the shelter for death as opposed to a “companion
OAS should not use misleading terms or words that obscure the
gravity of killing or confirm the age-old belief that animals are disposable
property. The word “euthanasia” should not be used
unless an act of killing is truly related to “mercy.” “Euthanasia” makes
the act of killing easier. Euphemisms distort the truth.
hours should coincide with when the public are available to adopt. OAS should
not limit operations to Tuesday through Saturday; weekends and early evening are
best for adoptions. Increasing shelter hours
is optimal, but if this is not practical, the hours should be adjusted.
should be run like a business with careful
attention to timely hiring practices, properly trained employees, program
monitoring, inventory and vendor contract control issues, regular cost analysis,
cash control processes, and spending issues.
Legislation and Other Tactics. More off-leash
dog parks should be established; the San Francisco Dog Owners'
Association found a correlation between a reduction in dog bites and a high
number of off-leash parks. Dogs are less likely to be aggressive when they are
able to socialize with people and each other.
Legislation should primarily (and at least initially) be directed towards the shelter rather than the community,
although there are exceptions, such as when it comes to abuse/cruelty issues.
should prosecute animal abuse cases. There
are an astounding number of people in Oakland who fight their pit bulls. The
Humane Officers can help with identifying these individuals.
Cameras can be installed in the shelter
(not just the hallways as I understand is currently the case) so as to monitor
employees; this would greatly combat mistreatment of animals or improper
procedures. Many shelters around the country are fraught with allegations of
Oakland "Citizen's Survey" should ask
stakeholders whether "making the Oakland shelter no kill" should be a
financial priority. When this item is omitted from the questionnaire,
the city council and mayor do not know how people feel about this issue. In the
2004 Mayor's Budget Survey for Los Angeles, Mayor Jim Hahn made the mistake of
placing animal issues under the section titled "public safety," thus
giving the people a false impression that the only animal-related concern
involved the protection of people. This did nothing to determine how people felt
about the "no kill" goal, which Mayor Hahn claimed to embrace.
Suggestions to consider at some point in the future:
Oakland could consider passing a local ordinance that
requires landlords to accept tenants with pets (perhaps with an
increase in security deposit and a 10% higher rent if the owner requires this).
Those with nuisance animals could, of course, be evicted.
Oakland should train police officers on how to deal
with animal-related encounters. Before he left for Vacaville, Chief
Word asked me to help him locate someone who could provide this type of training
for his officers.
Down the road, Oakland could consider mandatory
spay/neuter (in the direction Berkeley has been going) if the
procedures outlined in this proposal do not take it achieve the ”no kill”
objective; however, it should be understood that Maddie's Fund has a libertarian
view of government and will not provide money for Oakland if such an ordinance
Permanent standards of care should be created for the treatment of Oakland’s
domesticated animals (i.e, backyard dog ordinance being discussed in Berkeley).
Ordinances limiting the number of animals on a property can lead to fewer homes.
There is talk in Los Angeles about overturning the three dogs per property rule
for this very reason. It would probably not serve the animals to limit the
number of animals per property; there are other ways to identify and deter
people from allowing inhumane conditions or breeding mills to exist in their
backyards or at their homes.
conclusion, Oakland can become the first city to
become “100% no kill.” If only the first phase of the above
policy—the "93% no kill plan"-- had been in place last year, over
4500 of the 4623 dogs and cats taken into the Oakland animal shelter would be
alive. If it had been in place nationwide, most of the five million dogs and
cats--who are destroyed at public shelters each year--would be saved.
June 2004 until July 2005, OAS will spend a total of $1,583,632.
Taxpayer-related shelter costs can be reduced with "no kill."
Eventually the shelter should be a place where lost animals are reunited with
their human families, rather than a place where animals lose their lives.
hope you find these ideas helpful and embrace this effort. If you have
questions, please feel free to contact me at (818) 781-5280. Thank you.
Member of the Greater Valley Glen Council
President of the League for Earth and Animal Protection (LEAP)
14320 Ventura Blvd., Suite 408, Sherman Oaks, CA 91423
(818) 781-5280 phone or (818) 781-5380 fax
firstname.lastname@example.org or www.ValleyGlen.net
Many of the suggestions in this proposal come from Nathan Winograd's "no
kill solutions." Further information can be found as his website
www.nokillsolutions.com. For a fee, he will create a detailed action plan for
Back to Oakland
"No Kill" Animal Shelter Outline
Back to Oakland Humane Officer Information
Back to Oakland DAW Flyer
Back to OAS Statistics
Back to L.A. Animal Task Force Information
Back to First Oakland Job Description
Back to Second Oakland Job Description
Back to Why "No Kill" Should be the Vision for Oakland
The above proposal (as well as the one I wrote for Los Angeles) could serve as a prototype for city and county shelters around the country. I hope you will encourage your government and public shelters to adopt the above ideas to end the deaths of our homeless nonhuman friends.
In addition, I hope you will encourage the Governor and other elected officials of your state to appoint a State Animal Commission. The Commission could begin with the "no kill" shelter vision and later expand to protect animals in other ways. Governor Schwarzenegger's Cabinet Office (which is currently considering the idea for California) can be contacted at (916)445-6131.
If you have any comments or suggestions, please post them on one of my blogs: http://charlottelaws.typepad.com or http://charlottelaws.blogspot.com - A public discussion of these matters is needed.
* This proposal was completed in Spring 2005. Some of the details associated with the Oakland situation may have changed.