CHARLOTTE LAWS - DREAM AND ACHIEVE TOGETHER
California we spend $140 million to house and kill animals. In the U.S. the
figure is $2 billion.
are 6 shelters in L.A. and 60% of shelter animals are killed or 34,000 per year
(93 per day). L.A. Animal Services budget was $14 million in 2003 and $13
million went to salaries.
Angeles, we are building two new shelters and renovating five at a cost of
between $150 million - $250 million; we are simply warehousing more animals. . If
we could make L.A. no-kill, we could save taxpayers money and save animals
Mayor Hahn needs to appoint Director of Animal Services who embraces the goal
of making L.A. a no-kill shelter city. Oakland is a good model to follow;
animal control works with hand in hand with nonprofits. They are almost a
million in nonprofit money is available from Maddie's Fund to turn
cities into no-kill shelter cities. Probably L.A. would get about $20 million
from the fund, but it depends on the proposal made (in other words, what we
from Los Angeles has ever approached Maddie's fund. The following areas have put
no-kill structures in place or are in the process of doing so:
San Francisco, the state of Utah, New York City, counties in NY, Arizona
and Florida, the city of Lodi, California.
requires setting up a 10 year plan. Nathan Winograd—who has
successfully done this in Ithica, New York and who has worked with Maddie's
Fund--might be willing to relocate to L.A. to head the nonprofit side of this
money would have to be raised
to match the money from Maddie's Fund, but again this could come from a handful
of corporations. This matching money is necessary only because Los Angeles is
such a huge project, and Maddie's Fund does not want to drain its pot on one
city. In New York, they raised five million in one day; they have almost reached
their $16 million final goal in only a few months. They will receive another $16
million from Maddie's fund.
Maddie's Fund approach is two-pronged: 1) adoption program, 2) spay/neuter
program. Maddie's Fund directly pays vets to do the spay /neutering ($20 by
public; vet gets between $50-$110 per animal from the fund). It pays the
nonprofit(s) to handle the adoption side; the minimum received is $150 per
animal. It will not give any money directly to the city because it has little
faith in government.
the money, we need to:
1. Define the boundaries that we want to turn into no-kill shelter
areas, i.e. the city of Los Angeles.
2. Establish a facility:
The only current nonprofit facility large enough is the SPCA LA. They need to be
convinced or an alternative needs to be established.
An alternative facility could be built by corporate sponsor(s) such as Petco or
Petsmart who might want to place their corporate name on the structure (i.e. The
Staples Center). I am speaking with corporations now. The money used to build
the structure could qualify as our 50% of the funds; the rest could come from
Lease the new city shelters to the nonprofit if they are not going to be in full
use or if this seems at all feasible to the new General Manager of Animal
3. The proposal would be written and submitted by Winograd (or
others) to the Maddie's Fund. Volunteers have written the proposal in some
4. Upon approval, the L.A. city ordinance (which boosts licensing
fee for unaltered animals from $30 to $100 and requires spay/neuter) would
have to be overturned by the city council. We cannot get any money
with this ordinance in place. Maddie's Fund is adamant about this.
March 22, 2000 ordinance improved the situation? A small fraction of animals are
licensed (25% is the number I have read). The ordinance seems to do little for
the animals; it only raises money for the city and assures that responsible
people (who are not the problem in the first place) pay fees.
Currently, the Los Angeles policy is to have people go door to door with the
power to fine, confiscate and kill animals. This is punitive, not
incentive-oriented. This tactic failed in Indiana, Washington and Maryland.
Going door to door only makes sense in order to offer free spay/neuter or to
check on the welfare of animals. If it is to collect license fees, it will put
people on the defensive.
why not appoint someone in each area
(especially "problem" areas), give them an official title (such as Animal
Welfare Captain) and special recognition. If everyone is responsible, then
nobody is responsible...so it is better to make one person in an area
would gather people to attend local Animal Care Fairs, especially in targeted
neighborhoods. There would be education and free Spay/Neuter for pets. Any money
needed for this could potentially come from Maddie's Fund. Our new spay/neuter
mobile could be used for this. Word of mouth by animal block captains would work
much better than advertising; the latter brings only the wealthy residents who
don't need free services.
and ordinances can be passed after the Maddie's Fund money has been obtained.
They can be passed prior with approval from the Maddie's Fund (if indeed we want
the fund's money).
1. All dogs and cats sold in Los Angeles could be forced to have a microchip
(like a VIN # on a car) and the registry would be held by the shelters, not the
AKC. It costs $11 to microchip an animal. There would be fines if the
"owner" did not comply. Lost dogs would have to be reported missing
within 48 hours by the "owner." Then animals that showed up at
shelters could be traced. Shelters would be required to microchip any
animals they receive.
2. Ordinance that all pit bulls must be fixed and
no longer breeding of pit bulls. Someone (i.e. animal control)
would have to determine whether the animal qualified as a pit bull since
some animals are mixed breeds. There would have to be an arbiter. Too many pit
bulls are being killed; they are also being bred for fighting.
3. If additional money is needed by the city to enforce or administer
ordinances or laws, there could be a pet food tax proposed on the ballot.
law should be enforced which states that anyone with a litter to breed
has to get a registration number and tell the number of animals sold the
previous year. They have to publish the registration number in the ad, or
the ads are illegal. There is supposed to be a task force to do this, but the
law is not enforced. Sting operations could be successful by simply calling
newspaper ads; it would be easy to catch those not in compliance with the law.
1. Cameras could be placed in shelters to reduce cruelty.
2. Free education and behavioral training.
3. Incentive for people to adopt shelter animals, such as free
shots for two years, free medical exams, etc.
4. Free spay/neuter.
5. Longer or different shelter hours to accommodate the public.
6. Let volunteers walk or play with the animals at
the shelter. They do this in San Francisco; it is very successful.
7. Place a satellites at local malls so people can see adoptable
animals. This was successful in Oregon.
8. When building new shelters in the future, use models that better
life for the animals, rather than the traditional model. There are
alternatives in Utah and Northern California. Animals can live for long periods
of time without stress, etc. The Utah model is very inexpensive.
9. San Francisco shelters have free spay/neuter, free or low cost
behavioral counseling, free "pets ok" rental referrals, free feral cat
assistance program. Maddie's Fund money can be used for these purposes.
* Information deemed reliable but not guaranteed. Proposal was written in 2004 and may be a bit outdated.