2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 5:34 PM
1. Call to order and Roll Call
Present, Commissioners: Sally Stephens, Philip Gerrie, Pam Hemphill, Angela Padilla, Andrea Brooks, David Gordon DVM.
Absent, Commissioners: Laurie Kennedy-Routhier, William Herndon – SF Police, Vicky Guldbech – ACC, Bob Palacio - SF Rec & Park
2. General Public Comment None.
3. Approval of Draft Minutes from August 14, 2008 Meeting
Minutes approved unanimously with minor corrections from the public.
4. Status and tracking letters of recommendation requesting action by the Board of Supervisors.
A) Update of the letter urging hearings about animal welfare issues at the SF Zoo.
Comr. Brooks – Ordinance was sent to the full board for a vote last Tuesday, September 9th. A one week continuance was granted because a report from the budget analyst was expected. Mayor Newsom had weighed in by suggesting to amend the Joint Zoo Committee by adding two more seats. One, a seat for a veterinarian, another, someone from our Commission. In discussions between the zoo officials and animal rights groups such changes were recommended. I had stressed that would not be sufficient and that independent oversight was needed as recommended by our Commission. In a KGO interview with Newsom, he had said such a change, as proposed, would bankrupt the zoo and that Daly didn’t have the votes. He also acknowledged the zoo needed improvements and to be managed better. There has been a huge mobilization from the zoo side to squash this ordinance. At the same time there is acknowledgment that the zoo has problems and things need to change. Zoo website has twisted the intention of the ordinance. Mostly opposition to the rescue zoo part. Establishing independent oversight is essential and needed.
Comr. Hemphill – Would be good if the independent oversight came from another part of the community besides us.
Comr. Brooks – In private meetings with the zoo it had been suggested to make the oversight committee a sub-committee of our Commission. Our Commission had discussed that and decided it needed to be an independent body that is Board appointed. Zoo had mobilized many people to come to the zoo hearings and speak against the legislation. That it would destroy the zoo. An oversight committee would only make the animal welfare issues transparent and make sure the zoo does what it agreed to. SF citizens can e-mail their Supervisors in support of this ordinance before next Tuesdays’ vote.
4 A) Public Comment
Richard Fong – Questions Supervisor Duftys’ comments about there not being procedural order. Wasn’t sure if that pertained to the ACWC commission.
Comr. Stephens – That was concerning amount of time for each person during public comment at the zoo hearing.
5. Old Business
A) Discussion and possible action to send a letter to the Grants for the Arts suggesting that SFAI’s recent video exhibit showing animals being killed be taken into account for possible future funding for the institute.
Comr. Padilla – Suggests minor changes to the wording of the letter for clarity.
Comr Stephens – Surprised by change of emphasis from earlier Commission discussions on animal abuse for art in general to one specific institution.
Comr. Hemphill – This pertains to their exhibit which triggered the broader issue.
Comr. Stephens – SFAI triggered the issue but we never talked about punishing the institute for showing it. Doesn’t see value in the letter attacking the institute.
Comr. Hemphill – Sees value in the letter from us. SFAI’s original response to public criticism of the exhibit was arrogant.
Comr. Brooks – Recalls SFAI’s original reason to shut down the exhibit was threats of violence from animal rights activists . Removing themselves from the issue having done no wrong. Disconcerted by no accountability of larger issue. Is there a specific sentence that might be changed?
Comr. Gerrie – This is a letter of concern pointing out SFAI’s conduct over this exhibit, from our perspective, did not meet GFTA’s funding criteria. Would add a broadening sentence to the end of the letter to recommend that GFTA not give grant money to any institution that supports the abuse or killing of animals for purpose of art.
Comr. Padilla – Wish we had the power to punish. Letter strikes the right tone. Wish it could be stronger.
Comr. Stephens – Uneasy about telling private groups what to do although they do receive City money. Don’t feel strongly enough to oppose the letter but thought previous discussions were not attacking the Institute specifically but more generally based.
Comr. Gerrie - Previously we were discussing a resolution or an ordinance it was broadly based. When we decided to send a letter it was no longer about a general policy but about the actual exhibit and institution that had sponsored it.
Comr. Hemphill – Moves to vote to send the letter to GFTA as amended.
Comr. Stephens – We need public comment on the issue first.
5 A Public Comment
Jeanine Johnson – Supports naming the Art Institute in the letter.
Public comment closed
Comr. Hemphill – Moves to vote on the letter as amended and to send it.
Comr. Padilla – Seconded.
No public comment on the motion.
Motion to send letter to GFTA as amended passed unanimously.
6 New Business
A) Discussion and possible action to send resolution to the Board recommending that they develop an ordinance banning the renting of pets in SF. Recently for-profit companies have started businesses to rent pets in other cities. Flexpetz in particular.
Comr. Brooks – Has been aware of Flexpetz for over a year. Renting pets is a huge step backward as to animal welfare. Geared towards busy professionals with limited time to care for a pet. Dogs are rented by the hour or by the day.Boston, then Massachusetts , banned the renting of dogs which brought the issue up for possible similar action in SF. Thought it was good to duplicate it here. Would like to broaden it to ban the renting of all pets. Not just dogs. British parliament also banned renting of dogs. SF would not be the first but rather join other progressive communities. Developing a coalition to prohibit the rental of pets for support. Including SFSPCA. Invited Kiska Icard from the SPCA to speak.
Kiska Icard – SPCA policy on renting pets considers it a form of animal exploitation. Supports calling on Board of Supervisors and the Mayor to prohibit pet rental companies from operating in SF. Animals are intrinsic beings not commodities. Dogs and cats need daily routines, consistent boundaries, unwavering kindness. Inconsistent demands from renters can only have negative consequences. Those seeking animals companionship without ownership are urged to become involved in local animal shelters and work with the animals there.
Comr. Brooks – Organizations that have come on board are; ACC, PAWS, Animal Switchboard, Berkeley East Bay Humane Society. Gathering statements why renting pets is a poor idea. There are public safety concerns, ethical concerns, and legal & liability issues. If there is liability insurance how safe will the renter be when taking the dog out?
Flexpetz website tries to counter negative issues. Claims to use rescue dogs that would have been euthanized. Doubts claim. If adopting rescue dogs, they are selecting the most congenial that would be the most adoptable into stable private homes. Consideration should be what is best for the dog versus the person with two hours to rent the dog. Short amount of time best spent volunteering with SPCA or ACC. Concern, if seen as successful, more businesses will spring up. After ban in Massachusetts , read in Newsweek that Flexpetz was closing up and adopting out its animals. Investigation showed rather that Flexpetz was planning to expand to over 100 locations.
Comr. Padilla – Appalled. Adds to cultural view as animals as commodities. As disposable. Animals are sentient beings. Supports ban. Anagolous to idea of renting out a child from an orphanage. Concept is outrageous.
Comr. Stephens – Are there other companies besides Flexpetz now?
Comr. Brooks- Unsure if researched companies are operational.
Comr. Hemphill – What does it cost to rent a dog for an hour?
Comr. Brooks – Don’t have exact numbers. It cost a couple of hundred dollars to join. This is a for-profit enterprise. They are not doing it for the animals.
Comr. Gerrie – Support resolution to the Supervisors and encouraging to broaden it to the state level and to other constituencies.
Comr. Brooks – Contacted woman in Boston that spearheaded banning Flexpetz. Willing to help. The idea of it is abhorrent.
Comr. Gerrie – Has HSUS taken it up yet?
Comr. Brooks – Not yet. They have given statements of support but not taken it on.
Comr. Stephens – When was the Boston one passed?
Comr. Brooks – The Boston one was passed earlier this year. The Massachusetts one was passed just last month. Will hopefully bring something to vote on next month as well as statements from community groups.
6 A) Public Comment
L’Danyielle Yacabucci – Thanks Comr. Brooks. Saw Chronicle article about this issue a few months ago. Supports ban.
Michael Ikini – Supports having the Board take it up. Wonders about unintentional effect on renting of animals for the movies or commercials. Against the concept of renting a pet temporarily for people who are too busy.
Barbara Ikini – Supports resolution against renting animals. Had planned to bring up not being able to rent children but had been mentioned already. Also had thought of volunteering as an alternative.
Marc Toft – Thanks Comr. Brooks. Has been following issue. Wants resolution to include all animals not just dogs.
Cynthia Cox – Applauds effort. Supports going ahead. Define not just a “pets” but rather “companion animals”.
Comr. Brooks – Contacted Flexpetz to come to October meeting for their response.
6 B ) Discussion and possible action to send letter to the Board and Rec & Park regarding the impact of the Outside Lands Concert on wildlife caused by fencing and large numbers of people in wildlife habitat areas.
Comr. Hemphill – Park has had historically competing interests such as Bay to Breakers, Opera in the park, Strictly Blue Grass, etc. Park has always been home for wildlife. Park has become a refuge for wildlife due to increased human activities. Scope of this concert as to wildlife is a great concern. ACC was not consulted. Particular concern was the metal fence. It was three miles long. Tied to the ground and in place for more than 10 days. Other events, such as the bluegrass festival are not fenced at all. Fencing had cross fencing, dividing area into smaller sections further affecting wildlife’s ability to forage for food and water. Lights were on all night run by noisy generators. Music lasted until 10PM. The concert affected the feeding of feral cats and animals that sleep during the day and forage at night. Would like to send a letter to the Supervisors that wildlife be considered in the planning process for future events.
Comr. Gerrie – Several months ago our Commission addressed the issue of wildlife trapped within temporary electrified goat enclosures. Unsure of what became of that discussion. We had talked about possible escape tunnels placed within the fencing for small animals. Wonders if that might help or is the whole concept of fencing no good?
Comr. Hemphill – Evidence of animals trying to dig out were reported. This fence is much larger than goat enclosures.
Comr. Gerrie- Read that Rec & Park made about a million dollars from the event. Unsure of what factor that might or should have for Rec & Park. Unfortunate that animals suffer as a result.
Comr. Stephens – Area has been used for concerts for years.
Comr. Hemphill – But not fenced and not at night. Area included the Chain of Lakes which is the richest habitat in the City. Concert should be held somewhere else.
Comr. Padilla – In favor of writing and sending the letter.
Comr. Brooks – Issue should be discussed between Rec & Park and various environmental agencies concerned with the park before another event is planned.
Comr. Stephens – Should consider something like was mentioned for goat fencing. Small openings for wildlife and water left out nearby. Favors continued concerts but reminding them that fences impact wildlife.
6 B) Public Comment
L”Danyielle Yacabucci – Had been working on the goat fencing issue for 4 years with no results. Had been working with Comr. Routhier , then with Carl Friedman, and now with Kat Brown. Things have changed now, working with Kat Brown. Trying to get non-electrified sections and water left out on both sides. Encountered road blocks. Emphasize that it is not about wildlife. It is about animals. Has been working with Jamie Ray who is an expert. Put together a packet of concerns for Kat Brown who is meeting with goat people on Sunday. Owners of the goats don’t care. Rec & Park wants to privatize any part of the park they can to make money. Parks are for enjoyment of nature.
Comr. Stephens – Does an escape route exist for small animals in goat fencing currently?
L’Danyielle Yacabucci – No it doesn’t exist anywhere. We were the first city in the US to bring the goat issue up. No one had thought of wildlife as regards to goat fencing before.
Comr. Stephens – If we suggest to Rec & Park that the fence have an escape hole every 20 feet, there is no point in requiring it if it doesn’t exist.
L’Danyielle Yacabucci – It doesn’t exist in electric fencing. I don’t know if regular fencing has that feature.
Martha Hoffman – SPCA feral cat team – Has been working in GG Park since 1993. applauds L’Danyielle’s comments. Fencers never take into consideration animals in the park. Wonders why representative from Rec & Park has not been attending ACWC meetings. Park should not be used and fenced off to raise money. Park belongs to the public. Recent actions by Rec & Park are the worst ever seen.
Jeanine Johnson – Lives two miles away. Could hear music late into the night. Fencing wildlife in the park for 10 days was a bad idea.
Richard Daryl – Fencing was atrocious. Believes fence was up longer than 10 days. Also, hostility from security people to people near the fence. Please do something.
Paul Koski – Wants Commission to speak for the animals’ welfare in planning future similar events.
Kin Tso – Wants ACC to be consulted in future fence building. Wants other sites such as the Music Concourse or Stern Grove to be considered.
Richard Fong – Sees problem with park stewardship. Issues about getting from Sunset to the Richmond . Deplorable that animal welfare was not considered when approving concert. Park should not be used in this way to get money. This is not acceptable.
Public comment closed
Comr. Hemphill – The commercial nature of this is part of the problem. Willing to draft a letter of concern to send to Rec & Park.
Comr. Gerrie- Using the park in this way is not in keeping to what a park should be. This is commercial. Only those paying were allowed entrance. The public was excluded.
Comr. Hemphill – Wants to look into Fish & Game laws. A way to harass wildlife is to make noise - have bright lights.
Comr. Gerrie – Wondered if bees in apiary nearby might have been disturbed by the noise and lights. Bees when disturbed can be aggressive.
Comr. Hemphill – Interested in the goat fence issue. Thought it had been resolved.
6 C) Discussion on Commission’s approach to studying a possible no-kill policy for SF animals shelters.
Comr. Padilla – Issue of no-kill has been coming up in last few months. Wants to help with study to formulate a policy of sheltered cat & dogs. To what extent they are adopted out and what extent they are euthanized. Complicated issue. No place can have a true no-kill policy. Requires endless amounts of money and vet care. The phrase “no-kill” is a misleading phrase. The goal should be the lowest possible kill rate possible. Invites public comment. Wants ACC to come to provide transparency as to numbers taken in, standards of when an animal is too sick to be adopted, what constitutes unacceptable behavior problems. What are the standards? Who decides? What can our Commission do? What can this study do for private shelters and groups? Study won’t be satisfactory if only looking at ACC. Policy should encompass all shelters in SF. How can Commission work with all groups to get to lowest possible kill rates in SF ?
Comr. Brooks – Invites input from representatives from other shelters. Especially SFSPCA and Pets Unlimited. Feels input from many groups will be important in this process
Comr. Hemphill – Sees problem with people from other counties bringing pets into shelters in the City. We need to connect with surrounding counties to establish consistent policies. We need a statewide spay-neuter bill.
Comr. Gerrie – Wonders of Comr. Padilla why no-kill has not become more widespread in other communities throughout the US.
Comr. Padilla – Has rescued many dogs in last five years. Most come from outside counties. Some of those shelter have a 90% kill rate. The reasons are two-fold. Communities do not have spay-neuter education. Counties are rural farming communities with huge cat & dog overpopulation. Low human population and little education about adopting animals from shelters. Many breed animals in back yard operations. No tax base to support the public shelter. Counties do not have much tax money overall. A no-kill county needs a well funded spay-neuter program. Needs money for major medical treatment available. Needs money for behavior modification. If dogs are not well socialized in the 8 to 16 week time of their growth they can have major behavior problems. Behaviorists cost $60 to $80 a hour. One dog alone can cost $2000 in socializing. It is a combination of unchecked reproduction, no or little socialization, not enough humans to take care of the animals, and no money to fund overpopulation in the first place and no money for behavior and health issues to take care of them. Most jurisdictions would like to have a 90% no-kill rate but they do not have the means.
Comr. Gerrie- We seem to be a bubble of rationality. How do we interface with that reality? It seems like a huge undertaking.
Comr. Padilla – Their policy of euthanasia is one that comes not because they want to but they have no other choice given their circumstances.
Comr. Brooks – Saw presentation at recent conference by Sue Sternberg that showed complexity of the no-kill situation which keeps dogs alive in minimal enclosures with no money to help them. One video shows a dog continuously spinning around in a circle. What do you do?
Comr. Padilla – Recommends a video by Sue Sternberg called “Shelter Dogs” . She is in the vanguard of this. She does not take a pure no-kill approach. She works hard to place her dogs. She also goes undercover to other no-kill shelter in which dogs are left for years in cement floor kennels. She feels euthanasia is often kinder than long term inadequate care.
Comr. Hemphill – Another side of this is animal hoarding. People with kind hearts take on too much and go over the edge.
6 C) Public Comment
L’Danyielle Yacabucci – Strongly recommends reading “Redemption”. We need to get ACC’s support. It’s easier not to do no-kill. It’s cheaper to kill. Longtime workers at shelters don’t get it. Not enough humans to adopt is not the issue. The issue is we are not doing it right.
Kin Tso – Brought copies of articles of smaller jurisdictions that had adopted no-kill. Reno had lowered it’s kill rate. ACC is a good place to start.
Jeanine Johnson – Proposing two action items. Proposes analyzing ACC data and the Adoption Pact. Suggests discussing euthanasia category in detail. In 2006 80% of animals brought into adopted out. Would like to raise it to 90%. No-kill recognizes there will always be gravely ill and viscious animals where euthanasia is the only humane option. Believes 10% or less are in that category. Also would like to discuss the “Companion Animal Protection Act” proposed by Nathan Winograd. The act lays out how to become a no-kill city.
Marc Toft – Points to make no-kill possible; high volume and low cost spay & neuter services, comprehensive adoption program and off-site adoption, medical and behavioral rehabilitation programs, TNR.
Michael Ikini – Fixsanfrancisco.org – doesn’t want to get hung up on language. Wants every animal that can be saved to be saved. Majority of animals are now being saved. Marginal animals needing behavior training or medical procedures are not all finding homes. Key is transparency in policy and outcomes. If animals coming into ACC are killed, why? Transparency in policy. What animals are adoptable? What is a treatable animal? If it is a matter of shelter capacity, spell that out. If adequate transparency, public pressure will get us to a no-kill level. Excited that Commission is taking this up.
Nadine May – Supports previous speakers. Believes no-kill is possible at 90% rate. Pets Unlimited has had a good track record by keeping cats with behavior problems. With volunteers and patience, eventually getting placed. Recently went to ACC. Saw two cats labeled as having behavior problems. Did not appear to have any problems when visiting. Their colors were black and the other tortoise shell. Hard to place due to color. Private rescue group has adopted out hundreds of cats declined by ACC and SPCA.
Barbara Ikini – Thanks Comr. Padilla – Agrees that standards at ACC and SPCA are too high. Has fostered many kittens labeled unadoptable.
Martha Hoffman – Supports previous speakers. Had worked with Nathan when SPCA was becoming a no-kill agency. Was exciting. Nathan is gifted and brilliant. Look forwards to Nathan coming to speak at Commission. No-kill does not mean spinning dogs.
Cynthia Cox – Supports reading “Redemption”. Wants to stop calling killing animals euthanasia. It is killing. Researched website, www.nokillnation.com Supports going for it. Worth a try.
Tom Volts – Against killing animals when empty cages are available. Rejects reasons given to maintain empty cages. Shelter animals have a right to live. Community has the right to know how public shelter operate. Rescue groups and individuals, taking animals from ACC, are stressed to take more animals and need help. Worried about burn out. Wants decision from ACWC soon.
Public Comment closed
Comr Padilla – Will do follow up with fixsanfrancisco.org and work to get Nathan to come. Wonders where to get more volunteers that are needed. More volunteers are a crucial piece of this policy.
Comr. Hemphill – Still troubled by calling it “no-kill”. Would prefer “low-kill”. Toured ACC several times. Has seen many other animals besides cats & dogs. Thinks their kill rate is very high. Would like to see kill rate statistics for all animals at including small animals at ACC.
7 Public Comment
Kiska Icard - Welcomes opportunity to present in front of this Commission. Invites Commissioners to come to SPCA. Working to be transparent. Working with UC Davis & Kate Hurley to improve the lives of the animals. Hopes Commission invites UC Davis to speak. They are experts in shelter care.
8 & 9 Calendar Items – Task Allotments
Comr. Brooks – For next month. Comr. Hemphill will draft a letter to send to Rec & park. Possibly agendize goat issue. Comr. Brooks will bring draft of resolution about banning the rental of all pets in SF. Comr. Padilla will bring further discussion around no-kill policy.
Comr. Hemphill – Would like to agendize better communication with the public. Commission does not have an e-mail address.
Comr. Stephens – Would need to consult with City Attorney. If an e-mail is sent to the Commission would also have to make it available to the public. Would like to agendize Sunshine issues. Commissioners could prepare Sunshine related questions and someone from the Sunshine Task Force could come to answer them. Suggest to Comr. Padilla that if several speakers come to talk about no-kill, that the October or November Commission meeting would only be about that.
Comr. Padilla – Sees no-kill issue taking several meetings.
Adjournment 7:40 PM
Respectfully submitted by
Philip Gerrie
Commission Secretary