The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2006/04/03 - Agenda Packet - Spec (Animal care & services, no kill) AGlEN]IJ)A lRANCHO CUCAMONGA Crn{ COUNCKlL , SJP>lEClIAlL MlElE'flING Monday, April 3, 2006 ~ 5:00 p.m. Rancho Cucamonga City Hall ~ Council Chambers 10500 Civic Center Drive ~ Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730-3801 A. CALL TO ORDER 1. Pledge of Allegiance 2. Roll Call: Alexander _' Gutierrez_, Michael_, Spagnolo_, Williams_, JB. lP'UBLIC COMMUNICA nONS This is the time and place for the general public to address the City Council. State law prohibits the Council from addressing any issue not previously included on the agenda. The Council may receive testimony and set the matter for a subsequent meeting. Comments are to be limited to five minutes per individual. Co hEM OF BUSINESS 1. RANCHO CUCAMONGA ANIMAL CARE AND SERVICES PROGRAM RECOMMENDED POLICIES AND PROCEDURES (TRANSITION - PHASE IV) Presentation by Nathan Winograd, No Kill Solutions JI)). ADJOURNMENT I, Debra J. Adams, City Clerk of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, hereby certify that a true, accurate copy of the foregoing agenda was posted on March 29, 2006, per Government Code 54954.2 at 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California. ',' ~ Phase N: No Kill Feasibility No Kill Solutions 651 hours to date working on this project. Inclndes: meetings, interviews of candidates, analysis, reports, tours. telephone calls, presentations. Areas: job descril'tion~, transition issues, meet~gs with Western Umverslty and others, shelter design review and evaluation, mterviews, computer systems, medical care, budgeting, infrastructure improvements, {lolicies and procedures, purchasing, ordinance review, community input, community programs, field services, and more. Per Phase I Established desired service levels Created detailed budgets Created job descriptions and salary classifications and began initial round of recruiting Developed list of over 1,100 items for purchase including computer systems, field vans, and more Developed facility modification and repair plan Animal Services Transition Phase I (Aug. 2005): Transition Plan Phase II (Dec. 2005): Service Levels & Budget Phase III (Feb. 2006): Policies & Procedures Phase IV (Mar. 2006): No Kill Feasibility . Doesn't tell the whole story... Phase I Following City Council review o[Phase I: - City put together a transition team made up of No Kill Solutions, City Manager's Office, Purchasing, Information Systems, Public Works, Finance, Risk Manager's Office, Personnel, Fire DistrictIPublic Safety Also consulted with outside experts in various fields including sheltering, architectural, construction, personnel, veterinary care, etc. Per Phase II (Service Levels to Cost) Baseline Program - Provision of a full service municipal animal services program No Kill Enhancements - Behavior socialization/rehabilitation - Medical rehabilitation - SpaylNeuter - Community-oriented programs such as volunteers, foster care, offsite adoptions, events, education, public relations and social marketing Physical Improvements Fees 1 o Phase III Recommended Policies and Procedures _ Provided the City with detailed recommended policies and procedures for all llfellS of shelter operations with listed exceptioJlS _ Provided the City with sample policies and offers ofsupport for those policics outside the sc:ope of my review Fonns _ Provided Ihe City wilh sample fOJTI\ll including adoption applications, vo]unteer applications, etc. _ ProvidedtheCitywithfactsheetsandotherpetoWllereducation material for use on websiteand inthcshelter Training _ Provided the City with suggested nining schedule _ Gave City contacts for trainers in various areas Following todav... ~ . The project is in the City's hands Key issues are construction, hiring, training and policy fonnalizalion My work is virtually completed except: - Help with training of new staff - Help with ongoing issues as needed and requested ",'he Following Programs Were discussed in Phase!, II and III reports Are also discussed in Phase IV report Are covered by Phase III policy recommendations made to City Staff This is an overview and a review A full discussion of each program is not contemplated tonight Phase IV-Today How do you achieve No Kill? A recommended definition of No Kill Expected outcomes and how measure progress Timeline for No Kill Identification of supplemental private funding Legislative review to help achieve a No Kill Rancho Cucamonga How Achieve Lifesavino Goals '" Reduce Intakes - Subsidized spay/neuter programs for target populations inc. low income pet owners, feral cats, etc. - Pet retention programs to help individuals overcome behavior, medical and environmental conditions that may lead to pet relinquishment Increase Live Releases - Eight key programs Reduced Intakes SpaylNeuter - Sanflllnciscotakesinonedogorcalforeveryl,OOOh\lman residents - Tompkins County look in ]~ dogSlInd cats for every 1,000 human residents ~ Rancho Cucamonga takes in 30 dogs and cats for every 1,000 human residents To meet goals,thal needs to be cut in half City COWlcil has already approved this concept. City has earmarked $45,000 toward subsidized spay/neuter for Year I (my reconunendation was to add a surcharge to the dog license fee so that it would be pay for itself) CitylDept. statTneed to formalize the program and begin offering services 2 Reduced Intakes Pet Retention Programs - This also includes subsidized neutering and rabies clinics - Initially, provide good (behavior) advice as identified in Phase 1II recommendations to City staff - For example... Increase Li fesaving Implement Best Practices in Dept. policies and procedures - Recommended policies and procedures given to City staff must be fonnalized into aDept. manual Increase Lifesaving Foster Care Program - Maximizes the number of animals rescued, - Allows an organization to care for animals who would be difficult to care for in a shelter environment---orphaned or feral kittens, sick or injured animals, or dogs needing one-an-one behavior rehabilitation. From Phase Ill: Pcl Rdenti<;>n Programs In order 10 responsibly reduce the numbers ofdomesticanillUlls entering the shelter, staff shall first attempt to assist OWTlers who are sedang to relinquish their animals with adVlccand support to help them overcome medical, behavIoral or environmental conditions which are the perceived cause of their decision. This is accomplished ina vari~ of ways, and willllrow over time as the community programs coordinalorputs infonnatlon8.lld programs in p1acesuch as: A listing of pet-friendly rental units in the City of Rancho Cucamonga; Behavior and training advice; Spay/neuterassistance; Free and low cost vaccination clinics; Infonnation on finding tbeanimal a new home or how to contact rcscue grOllps directly; Asking the person to voluntarily hoJd onto the anirnals until space exislsor, m tbe case ofundemged an'mals, until they are old enough to be adopted.. Increase Li fesaving Working with Rescue Groups - An adoption or transfer to a rescue group frees up scarce cage and kelU1el space, reduces expenses for feeding, cleaning, killing, and improves a community's rateoflifesaving. - California state law gives rescue ~roups rights to shelter animals that will not be placed WIth certain limited and well defined exceptions (e.g., dogs falling under the provisions of dangerous dog laws) - Community Programs Coordinator needs to begin to cultivate these relationships and set up procedures for transfers - Discussed in Phase III report From Phase III recommendations: It is the policy of the Rancho Cucamonga Animal Care and Services Department to place animals in foster care who would otherwise face killin~, such as because of their age, health, or other conditions, mcluding lack of space. Periodically, the shelter will receive animals who, due to various reasons, cannot immediately be made available for adoption. Instead oHilling animals with special needs, a foster program can provide daily care lilltil the opportunity for adoption becomes available. 3 Increase Lifesaving Comprehensive Adoption Programs - Thoughtful but not overly bureaucmtic procedures - Offsite adoption events - Public access hours - Greater visibility in the community - Working with rescue groups - Adoption incentives - Marketing - Good public image Increase Lifesaving Medical & Behavior Rehabilitation - Programs to improve the sociability and adoptabili~ of shelter animals - Programs to keep shelter animals healthy and care for them when they get sick - For example, Medical Care & Rehabilitation Good cleaning protocol Basic health screen on intake Vaccination on intake Consistent nutritionally adequate food Stress reduction through out of cage and people lime Infirmaryllsolation and medical care including antibiotic and fluid therapy Strategic use of outside veterinarians Discussed in Phase III recommendations For example, Offsite Adoption Events Special events are important but should not be the only basis for offsite adoptions Victoria Gardens closed to vehicular traffic on weekends. Good opportunity to increase exposure to potential adopters through ofTsite adoption venues. Epicenter events PetsMart, Petco and other pet retail businesses Philadelphia ACC does offsite adoptions seven days a week at five Philadelphia PetsMart locations Behavior Rehabilitation Implementing a fairly simple in-house behavior program will quickly allow an animal shelter to save more lives. Socializing dogs and cats will improve disposition, calm frightened animals, and improve their adoptability. By contrast, animals who sit in their kennels and cages fOf extended periods of time tend to develop anti-social barrier behaviors. Give dogs a daily walk on a leash, daily play in a fenced area, and daily socialization including brushing, petting, and "people" time. Cats should be allowed to roam free in a room for some period of time every day. They should also receive daily brushing, petting, and "people" time. Phase III recommendations: ""~b;ijlycl~,'9IfutlUn<hoC_mon...,'""'Y....t_.........;"._<XK OIld_lbc~bWl)l<Ij"',,"I...lly_....booItb_of_""..")'...oalandl<l I"""'id<...f"'__....................".r....y.'............-.....r..._..... .:lo:>McoIl<I\Iokillod.- 11oi.;..h_ _.........ofll&lf, :t~.,,:;::::~.::J:.::~"':'l=-,.;~"':"""~~l~~:.."'I'.;~buJd _...OIld.........n...or_lIl101<dpr<Uo."d"'hi"" ._li""....bmIlh........""""i......n!, dalf_""_i..,udoa"""fJ:i.,....n...,.\o<hb:ianl&aQ""'............._;f""Y..f ...fnIlo>oinll~...............'"..........c""'"'Y........ .."....._._.......!on."''''''"'di......o; ...._nod"'iall&...l._di......"'bo".fooIO<Io<; ...-.......~(~b100d...I""~...;...-y.~...bl"'ta:I-. . _.................i<lllamod.........._..bto_..._Iloa.bllodoor. ........J;.~<<OIghi"....~: . .......JIloan-....h.i........_I.....I"""-; ....llI&lfi_, . .....;.1hi..._, .......J....-.l.....~ 'bodytempcnllft;.."""""-I 4 o Increase Lifesaving Public Relations Rebuilding a relalionshipwith thccommunity starts with redefining oneselfas aMpet rescue" agency. _ The community must see improvement at the shelter, and improvements in the area oflifC$l.vi1l8. Public oontact with the agency must include good customer service, more adoptions, and tangible commitments by the City 10 give the she1ter the toob it needs 10 do thejob humanely. Public contact, howevcr, is not 1lec:eSsarily a face-to-face encounter. The publicw oontact with an agellcy by rClldingabout it in the newspaper, seeing volunteers adopting animals at II local shopping mall. or hearing the Director promotingspayfncuter on the radio, It means public relatiollsand community educatwn Main Types Kennel Cleaner Adoption Desk Support Cat Socialization Dog Socialization Foster Care Event Snpport Adoption Follow-up Callers Off-Site Adoptions Will the comniunity support all this? Increase Lifesaving Volunteers _ Volunteers will be the lifeblood of the Rancho Cucamonga Animal Care and SelVices Department. _ There will neveT be enough staff, never enough dollars to hire more staff, and always more ~eeds than paid human resources, - That is where volunteers come in and make the difference between success and failure and, for the animals, life and death. - As the program develops and expands, volunteer services will be needed for many important shelter tasks broken down into two types: '"in shelter" and "out of shelter. " Increase Lifesaving Trap, Neuter, Return Program for Feral Cats - Working with the public toward non.lethal feral cat programs - In interest of a focused discussion, will address TNR as we discuss the definition of No Kill - Including what such a program might look like - Suffice to say that it is a necessary component to reducing complaints, reducing numbers of field service calls, DOAs, kitten intakes, and cat impounds/deaths - Cwrently, feral cats have virtually a 100% death rate at the shelter Will the community support this? Community surveys were' senllOresc:ucgrouJ!', made Ivail.bleOll Ihc City's websitc, ICtltlOlocalvctcrinarians, poslcdDIIICVCtalanimaladvocacy~'ISCfVCS, ScntwtugelOd individuals andbumanC01JllU1izationsthroughOllt San BomanlinoandRlvcrsidcoounucs, passed 0111 III o;.ommunity meeting., IICnl 10 intcrestcd plll1ieslhrough the Cily'Sncw animal Sl:\'\'icc5. ncwslcllcr, IlIIdputoutlOthco;.ommunilyinlw<.larticleswriltcninthclnlllldVallcy Dally Bullclin, They were tIlIde publicly available from August 3, 2005 through February ]3,2006 5 Results 57 formal submissions roceived This is in addition to many informal e-mails, telephone calls and personal d's<;ussions at the many forums prov,ded lOO"A. of all respondents who identified themselves sup~rted approved the CIty'S move from a oounty contracted faclhty 10 a city operatooolK' The only exception were" anonymous s"bmissions Ifone considers the anonymous submissions, 940/0 of respondents supported the City's actions Since thcallonymoU$ submi$5ions tended to hyperbole, were not factually based and appeared to be written hy the same disgruntled individual,conSlStent with survey protocols, they were d,scounled in terms of weight lIPd veracIty. Of the 53 submissions thatidmtified the respondent, all were supportive of ado piing the goal of a No Kill community Individual Respondents Several individuals expressed concern that following only minimum holding penods tended to result in unnecessary killing. One indicated that the "holding periods are not adequate for working people to reclaim lost pets" and asked that the new City agency hold animals longer than current county practice allegedly provides. Several respondents expressed support for a public Trap- Neuter-Return ("TNR'') program for feral cats. One individual had many concerns with county operations over a wide range of issues, and suggestions for programs under the new City shelter such as volunteers, foster care, TNR. and others. Organizational Respondents Veterinarians Relatively few veterinarians responded to the survey This was expected and consistent with surveys nationwide. Nonetheless, a few veterinary respondents expressed a desire to help the City with spay/neuter and other services. With their consent or at their re~uest, the contact infonnation was forwarded to City staff. Individual Respondents Many individuals indicated that they felt they were not welcome as volunteers by the county and were looking forward to volunteering at the shelter when the City took over operations. Others were simply supportive of moving towards No Kill and wanted to volunteer to help in the operation of the shelter. One respondent did call for careful assessment and planning and expressed the view that the City was not using a "credible business plan" for the transition, but nonetheless supported the underlying goal. Since this input was received very early in the transition process, the respondent was given additional information and material that was subsequently created. The respondent subsequently reported a positive viewpoint. Organizational Respondents Rescue groups and animal welfare agencies These were also positive in tone, supportive ofthe City's efforts, and encouraged by the move toward a No Kill orientation. All respondents critical of current operations. Combined, asked for the following programs: - Improving adoption programs; - Reducingpetrelinquisliment; - Reducing Stnly populations through TNR and wmmunity education; - Expanding volunteer resources; - Providing better veterinary care to the animals; - Expandingwmmunityspayfneuter; - Calling for better adoplion screening; Holding staff accountable 10 underperformance; and, ~ Using foster homes Summary Other than one individual who appeared to support the goal, but was concerned about the process, all identified survey responses were supportive ofa City operated animal services program with a No Kill orientation. Nearly seven months of surveys, three study sessions involving the Phase I, II and III reports, and two community meetings failed to result in a single identifiable voice suggesting that the City erred in tenninating the contact with the COWlty or questioning the move toward a No Kill orientation. 6 Conclusion In addition to positive community feedback, Given the City Council's endorsement and provision of adequate funding to fW1 both the baseline and No Kill enhancements, Given the implementation of necessary facility modifications on a fast track schedule, Given Southern California's vast network of rescue groups, Given a home ownership, education and median income demographic that is higher than surrounding areas, City Council Recommcndation What is a No Kill Rancho Cucamonga? Will ask the City Council to adopt definition Healthy Animals Minority position in the U.S. Saving all healthy dogs and cats is the first step toward achieving a No Kill community Can a shelter or community really justify killing animals with treatable conditions (such as kittens with conjunctivitis, puppies with kennel cough, or other relativelx easily treatable conditions) ifit takes the title 'No Kill community"? Difficult to publicly defend Lots of confusion and false expectations Conclusion I believe that all the elements for a No Kill Rancho Cucamonga are in place. With a few years of high volume, low-cost spayins; and neutering, per capita do~ and cat rates should decline as the Department correspondmgly improves its levels of community support, and efficiency and effectiveness of service delivery. There is little reason why the effort should fail. In short, success is directly in management's hands. What is a No Kill Rancho Cucamonga? No one is talking (rationally) about: - Adopting out vicious dogs - Irremediably Suffering animals - Or other pets who pose a direct and immediate risk to public safety Three prevailing defmitions: - Minority position: saving healthy dogs and cats - Majority position: saving healthy and treatable pets - Growing consensus: healthy,treatable and feral cats Healthy & l'reatable Animals Saving all healthy dogs and cau Saving sick and injured but treatable dogs and cats Definition is the majority definition in the u.s Has some appeal Difficulty: Most RC organizational respondents spoke of need for non- lethalrespoosestoferalcau Individual respondenlS also tended w supponthis Not including them in definition ofa No Kill Rancho Cucamooga is difficult to reconcile with groWing national cornensus if killing healthy feral cats Out ofstep with cat lovers Have w do some form ofTNR anyway TNR does not mean upsetting people's quiet eujoyment of their propertyl 7 Healthy & Treatable Animals Saving all healthy dogs and cats Saving sick and injured but treatable dogs and cats ~efinition is the majority definition in the U.S. Has some appeal Difficulty: Most RCorganizalional respondents spoke of need for non- lethal responses 10 feral cats Individual respondents also tended to support this Not induding them in definition ofa No Kill Rancho Cucamonga is difficult 10 reconcile WIth growing national eonsensus if killing healthy feral cats Outofslepwithcalloven lbvc to do some form ofTNRany'way TNR doesnolme:lllupoou;nll pellplc's quiet enjoYJIlcnt <.>flhcir proper!)'! Somc misconceptions A TNR program does not "create" feral colonies, it reduces their number! A TNR program is not just an alternative to killing, it is an alternative to doing nothing The default is free roaming intact cats breeding A TNR can be service oriented (offering alternatives to impound such as education and spay/neuter) A TNR program does not mean forcing people to take feral cats back into their yards . It does not have to mean anything other than a service orientation toward education and neutering Fcral Cats Currently 100% of feral cats who enter the shelter-as many as 100-Z00 per month according to the County-are killed In addition, the default for not having a TNR program is not just killing, it is mostly doing nothing As a result, kittens from feral moms overwhelm shelters every Spring and Summer What scares local governments about feral cats The fear that hwnane officers will be releasing cats on people's property without their approval (Private property issues) The fear that neighbors will turn on neighbors or the animal services department (Neighborhood tranquility issues) Negative impact on public health issues (public health issues) A non-lethal feral cat program does not mean any of these things Feral Cats There is a shifting consensus toward sterilization mther than killing In NYS. these efforts are acknowledged and codified into state law For example, NYS Health Dept. regulations exempt feral cat caretakers from "ownership" definitions and encourage shelters to promote neutering In llIinois, licensing fees underwrite the costs of sterilizing feral cats statewide In California, feral cats can be "owned" and have the same rights to rescue as pet cats (1998 Cal. Animal Shelter Law) But there is also a practical reality.. Fcral Cats San Francisco survey: 75% of kittens came from feral moms In order to impact the death rate, the City needed a TNR program Program helped reduce deaths by 75% and kitten deaths by 81 % Also resulted in reduction of"nuisance" complaints, field pick ups of cats, and cats found DOA in the field 8 Feral Cats Ifwant to reduce cat deaths, MUST do some form ofTNR What scares some agencies is the concern that neighbors will battle neighbors, and that the agency is going to be dllmpin~ cats back into people's yards against theIr Wlll Not what we are talking about Some traditional groups oppose TNR under the notion that cats belong in homes, but that consensus is changing Benefits ofTNR While feral cats may be the subject of complaint calls from the public, most callers did not want the cats killed. In community throughout the United States, public health departments, together with animal control agencies, are seeking effective and cost.etTective long-term solutions that respond to the public's increasing desire to see feral cats treated with humane, non-lethal methods. TNR proved to be the most effective solution to reducing complaints, improving public heaJth and safety, lowering oosts, and increasing lifesaving Benefits ofTNR Pllblic Heallll Coattra.: Dr',Julic LeryofdleCollcgeofVetcrinalyMcdicinc, UnivcfSilyofFlorida, Gau>esvillc. and n:oc.-cbcrJ David and Lcslic Galcpn::scnlc<l fm<hnl" ,!fan ll"Y"Mstudroffcralc.lls. The vast majorily ofcllls wen: in good p )'S.cal COIIdition,w,thonlyfourpm:entl:illcdforJ>c.lthTUSOI15_Catsin thc.tudyby thc:cndoflllcobsCl'VIIlionperiotlb/ld been presenl for an avcragcof6.~yC4l'S, wbicbcolllp......f.oorablyloanavcragc7.lycarlifcapanrq>ortcdforpctcats, particularlysinccalmosthalfoflhcclltllWCfCfll"5tobscrvcd..adultsof unmOWllll8e. And lbc: l'C$earchen reported DO kittens born af\erycar four. The Atlantic City (NJ) Health Department opproved a TNR prognun for the ~~~~':lk~;j'ii~~RlII:::b':' :~i1~,:~~=u~ly. bUlllanS, prolcc:1 bumllN from pllblic health ana nfcty nrd<t, IlI1d prnlllotc. healthybUlllanpopulanon." lnI989,lbcStanfonlUniversityOopartmenlofColllp....livcMedicincin ~~.::~~ros.:~n~~tC,~:;c't;ff~l~t=~=b~thrisk from feral catI living m close proxim,lylo bUlllans. F era] Cats Municipal shelters must accept all stray cats Rather than passively impound and kill, can offer a proactive strategy to reduce feral impounds and deaths such as: Education about the benefits ofTNR on website, through field officefs, in the shelter and on the telephone Work to find "wm-win" opportWlities in cases of neighbor disputes through use of proactive education Encourage the use ofTNR as opposed to killing Offer spay/neuter and rabies vaccination Work with community caregivers and rescue groups to socialize and adopt feral kittens, relocate unwanted cats, etc. Benefits of TNR Rcducedcompl.inicalb: Orange County, Florida: After im1?lementing a 1NR program. as a resultoffewercatsandfewerunUls.ance" behavior5 ISSOCtated with the catsthathavebeenresolvedbyneotering,complainLShavedropped dramatically. Cape Mal', New Jersey:_ Since implementing community-wide TNR procedllTcs in 2001, Ammal Control has Il:hleved an 80 percent drop llIfenlcatcomplamts Cost-cfTectivcnesl: San Diego, California: In 1992, San Diego Department of Animal Control k.i11ed 1~,~25 calSata cost of$121 percal By 1998, the number of animals killed each year nrnpped more than 45 percent, with a potential tax savillgsof$859,221. Orange County, Florida: Reported savings of $6~~,949 over a six year penod by neutering rather than killing feral cats. Benefits ofTNR Lifes.vinlC: San Francisco, California: Combined statistics from the San Francisco Department_of Animal Care & Control ann the San Francisco SPCA Sbow a dechne in feral cat deaths of 73% and a decllllem ncolllltal kitten deaths of81% from 1993.2000,as. result ofa citywideTNR iniliative._Officials also credited the TNR proilram with a decline in cat field servIce ptck-ups, "DOAs," and total cat Impounds. San Diego, Californi.: The San Diego based Fellll Cat Coalition reports statistics from the San Diego Department of Alllma] Control which show that while the number of cats adopted or claimed by owners ha.s remained fairly constant over tbe years, there has been a decrease of a I mast 50% in the number of cats impounded.nd killed since the advent ofa citywide TNR initiative. . 9 \ The Dept. can: Offer education and information Offer subsidized spay/neuter Work with people who care for feral cats to spay/neuter and vaccinate Provide TNR literature in the lobby of the shelters, on websites as appropriate, and in response to public calls or complaints. Transferred feral cats/kittens to feral cat and rescue groups as mandated by state law The Dept. can: As low. and no.cost spay/neuter programs are put into place, include feral cat TNR in the effort. Establish a more positive image offeral cats in the community. Exempt caregivers from confinement laws. Etc. Feral Cats As to feral cat issues, while the City provides information, alternatives and subsidized neutering and vaccination, Dept. leadership, No Kill Solutions, and City staff will work with TNR organizations to bring back a model program for City Council consideration The Dept. can: Meet with feral cat groups to discuss ways to achieve reductions in, and ultimately an end to, the killing of feral cats. An initial program, for example, could require the shelter to contact groups if notched or ear- tipped cats enter the shelter in order to reunite them with their caretakers. Fcral Cats Since TNR is necessary to reduce deaths, and should be offering it anyway, might as well take the most encompassing viewpoint . No Kill community saves: - Healthy dogs and cats - Treatable dogs and cats - Feral cats City Council Action Items Adopt definition of No Kill 10 How measure the Dept's success Benchmarks Must focus on those for internal programs and delivery of services But for oversight, focus on "live release rate" How many dogs and caIs going out alive (either to rescue groups, adoptions, or redemption by their owners) How long will it take? Reduction of30% is a five year average nationally But that includes natural declines from communities who do not have such goals In other words, these communities are not necessarily being aggressive and proactive in the lifesaving endeavor and may actually be antithetical to the No Kill paradigm. It took 12 Utah counties three to five years It took Philadelphia less than one, but different segment of the animal population It took Tompkins County less than one year with similar animal demographics Benchmarks Can focus on many factors and sub categories of animals - Medical: Treatable - Behavior: Treatable ~ Medical Non-Rehabilitatable - Etc Discussed in detail in Phase IV report (pp. 18-21) No Kill is achieved, depending on the definition adopted, when you zero out deaths in those categones (healthy, treatable, feral cat) Difficult to compare 10 current county operations because of differing sub-categories For example, their "contagious disease" does not distinguish between treatable (URI, conjunctivitis, kennel cough) and more serious illnesses (Parvo, Distemper) County Supplies Statistics Killed 56% of cats (saved 44%) Killed 20% of dogs (saved 80%) Total save rate: 62% No Kill will be achieved at approx. 75-90% combined save rate depending on the definition How long will it take? Whether Rancho Cucamonga achieves its goal much more quickly will depend on full implementation of programs noted tonight and in Phase IV report I believe thai No Kill can be achieved much more quickly. However a note of caution is warranted: If the City sets too ambitious a deadline and fails to meet it, then the public and community stakeholders may get unreasonably discouraged. If the deadline is set too far out, however, it could be used as an excuse for continued but unnecessary shelter killing. 11 Private Funding Sources Phase IV report (pp. 23-25) Opportunities to augment funding through private charmels List of foundations that support private and public shellers given 10 ~ity staff Phase I discussion ofeTeation of quasi-independent 501(cX3) "Friends of the Shelter" group to augment public funding of animal care and control services Further discussion in Phase IV report as noted above Legislative Support Laws must be consistent with desired policy outcomes Lots to consider in terms of Rancho Cucamonga ordinance review Phase IV (pp. 26-33) Also, Dept. needs to implement not just letter but "spirit" of1998 Ca. Animal Shelter Law (Hayden) Phase IV (pp. 33-41) Fee Schedule A5 indicated in the Phase 1] repolt, ~given the transition and its i~vitablepubJicperceptionandre1ationsiS5ues,itmightnotbe advisable lhal fees be increased al this lime, WIth the poss,ble exception ofa small surchalie on dog licen.ses to fund a community spay/oeuter progrnm However, the option remains for the City Council 10 increase its fee structure to reduce general fund contributions required for running the new Department" The reverse is also true. ?r:d:~~~;o':.:/ilie~:~:: ~~~fd: ~nedfut~r':r~~i:~ thefeestrucluretodetenninewhetherlts"pen.alty"orientallonrelatlve to impounds and pick up ofanirnals is coosislent with its overall Department community onentation and City philosophy of governance Although City residents have been operating under that paradigm since thel980s Legislative Issues As a stop gap measure City has implemented the County animal control ordinance so it can legally operate the department and field services program But question is: will that ordinance serve the No Kill goals of the new Dept? Five primary issues (one is a separate consideration) Items for Future City Council Consideration Increasing the pet limit law ModifYing confinement and stray animal feeding bans Considering a continuous confinement law Streamlining nuisance law procedures and requirements 12 ) Legislation Policy discussion and rationale in Phase IV report With pending opening of the Dept., was not considered the highest priority Dept. leadership, No Kill Solutions, and City staff will evaluate and bring back recommendation in the future for City Council consideration The following discussion is for educative purposes only (No action is being requested) Caveat This discussion should not be read as an opposition to all municipal animal control ordinances. Many laws help animals and help ensure responsible pet ownership. Ordinances against "nuisance" barking, if carefully crafted, and those designed to protect the public from animal waste, vicious dogs, or damage to property are necessary in society and help ensure neighborhood tranquility. But legislation must be narrow and specific. Overly inclusive, punitive measures tend to hinder, more than they help. Pet Limit Laws At some point. may need to raise it No action is being requested now New leadership will have a lot on their plate Will work with Dept. leadership and City staff to evaluate and address limitations of existing issues as project moves forward and bring back recommendations for future City Council consideration Punitive Animal Control Laws Historical legacy of old "public health" model of animal control Premised on historical distrust of community Premised on reactive animal control model Is a "failure" in terms of reducing impounds, deaths, complaints, etc. Pet Limit Laws The laws limited the number of animals a family could own to often small numbers,threeorfour in most cases. One of the effects of this, however, was also to limit the number of animals a responsible family could help and thus prevented adoptions In addition, since failure to comply often resulted in the pet's impoundment and killing, the net effect of the legislation is to ex.acerbate shelw killing. Many animals indoor only and do not impact the health or welfare of neighbors. Changing relationship of poop Ie to pels: increasinginhuman-anilIUll boo' Most homes in America have a pet. and 60 percent of those households now believe that pets arehke potato clups;yoll c:an't have merely one. Nat'l average for pet owners is 2.S cats per household Sincethisistheaverage,itmeanslotsofviolato~ Other laws can effectively address sanitation, nuisance, and animal care issues. Pet limit laws serve as II poor prolty with low numbe~. Confinement Laws Part of discussion ofTNR Current county law (adopted by the City) makes it illegal for anyone to allow their pet to roam out.of.doors. For reasons indicated earlier, feral cat caretakers should be exempted from these laws. These laws were intended 10 enforce responsible pet ownership, not 10 punish those who are taking responsibility and trying to humanely care for animals abandoned because of somebody else's irresponsibility. In addition, the Department should not criminalize what is considered normal pet owner behavior, such as allowing cats to roam out of doors. Confinemenllaws should be limited to dogs only for public safety reasons. 13 Confinement Laws At some point, may need to revise it No action is being requested now New leadership will have a lot on their plate Will work with DepI. leadership and City sta/fto evaluate and address limitations of existing issues as project moves forward and bring back recommendations for future City Council consideration CUITent Nuisance Law Procedures It is often difficult to investigation "nuisance" cases particularly when the conduct occurs after service hours and when officers are unable due to the demands of the job to "stake out" a vicinity for long periods of times. The fact that dogs bark when an officer knocks on a door to talk to a dog owner has no evidentiary value for obvious reasons--the dogs are barking in response to the knock or as an unknown individual approaches the residence in question. Nuisance Laws At some point. may need to revise if No action is being requested now New leadership will have a lot on their plate Will work with Dept. leadership and City staff to evaluate and address limitations of existing issues as project moves forward and bring back recommendations for future City Council consideration Current Nuisance Law Procedures Current County law requires two complainants and a two week period before enforcement action for alleged "nuisance" violations (e.g., excessive and habitual barking which unreasonably disturbs the quiet enjoyment of someone's property, etc.) come into play. Not only is this excessively bureaucratic, but the process involving the officers can embroil the Department into neighbor disputes Current Nuisance Law Procedures The City must protect neighborhood tranquility, while at the same time freeing Department and City Code Enforcement personnel from unnecessary and undue involvement in neighbor- to.neighbor disputes, The City should consider revising the nuisance law This will also avoid the difficult task of having to take sides in an area often rife with "murky," contradictory and lack of objective evidence. Continuous Confinement Laws The most common risk factor associated for relinquishment of a dog to a shelter is the amount oftime that a dog spends outdoors alone. Once impollllded, the most 'common risk factor for aggression-and subsequent destruction-is the amount of time the dog spends confined on a chain. These dogs are impollllded at YOllllger ages, but also tend to be beyond a shelter's ability to rehabilitate and adopt In order to prevent this, many communities are passing anti-tethering ordinances 14 Continuous Confinement Laws Risks to Humans: Increased Aggression and Biting Research indicates that chained dogs are almost three times more likely to bite than are unchained dogs, and that victims of fatal dog bites are most likely to be children. Both the American Veterinary Medical Association in association with the Centers for Disease Control have policy statements opposing the tethering or chaining of dogs. Continuous Confinement Laws Existin~ Legislation. The four common types of legislation is this area are laws: Prohibiting chaining or tethering altogether; Regulating the amount of time per 24 hour period that a dog may be tethered; Regulating the type, length, wei~t and size of tether which can be used, includmg cleanliness of surrounding areas; and, A combination of all three. Sample ordinance provided in Phase IV Bottom Line The ~oal is for the Rancho Cucamonga Animal Care and Services Department is to implement the programs and services whIch create success: These initiatives include: - Slieltetaccountability; - Affordablespayfneuter; - Rescue group access to shelter animals; - Comprehensive adoption programs, including offsite venues; - A feml cat TNR program; - Petretel1tionprograms; - Medical and behavior rehabilitation; - Public relations & developmetlt; and, -Fostercare Ifitdoes so, it will be well on its way to building a No Kill Rancho Cucamonga Continuous Confinement Laws Risks to Dogs: Pain, Suffering, and Death In their work, animal control officers, police investigators, veterinarians, shelter workers, and rescue organizations encounter the pain, suffering, and at times death, caused by chronic chaining, Detailed Discussion in Phase IV City Council Action Items Adopt definition of No KiJI It takes a community... All Ihe tools, all the compassion, the private resources are already in the community And my message to everyone who has worked hard to make this a reality 15 Beh"eve in your dreams... .. .hold on to your principles... ... and never doubt that through hard work and perseverance you can succeed.. . And you will succeed 16 PHASE IV: FEASIBDILITY STUDY . ~---~:: .;...-;- . -' - --- ; . .-~ RANCHO CUCAMOL\!liGA ANIMAL CARE AND SERVICIES PROGRAM /-0, !NlCOl KmdtJ' , Solutio'h~ Post Office Box 74926 . San Clemente California 92673 (949) 276-6942 . www.nokillsolutions.com March 2006 CONTENTS Introduction................................................................................................ ....3 Part I: Implementation of a No Kill Policy.........................................................5 A. No Kill Program Areas ........................................................................ ...................7 B. Level of Community Support.............,..................................................................13 C. Defining No Kill..................................................... ............................. ...............15 D. Baseline and Comparative Data............................................................................18 E. Timeline ...................................... ............................................................ ....21 Part II: Private Funding Sources .........................................................................23 Part III: legislative Review and Recommendations................................................26 A. Pet Limit Laws..................................................... ............................. ..................27 B, Confinement Law and Feeding Ban .........................................................................28 C. Continuous Confinement Laws..... ................................................................,... ....30 D. Nuisance Laws................. ........................................................ ............ ..............32 E. The 1998 Animal Shelter Law ..................................................................................33 F. Guiding Philosophy.......................... ........................................................... ....41 Appendix I: California Code Citations Governing Animal Care and Control...........43 2 Introduction The enclosed is the fourth and final report as prepared by No Kill Solutions. The Phase I report provided a plan that served as the guideline for the City to use in transitioning from a County operated program to a municipally operated Animal Services Program that strives to become a No Kill facility. The Phase II report defined the levels of service and attendant costs for a municipally operated animal shelter and control program, including No Kill enhancements, facility modifications and one time start up costs. In addition to the Phase I and Phase II reports, over 600 total hours to date have been put into meetings with City staff and outside personnel to create and/or identify specifics related to the various items of operating a shelter including, but not limited to, recommended service levels, staffing, job descriptions, equipment acquisition, systems, the various options of veterinarian care, providing assistance in the review of candidates for the Animal Services Director position, training and other specifics relative to field and shelter operations. The Phase III report, detailed recommended policies and procedures provided under separate cover to City staff that will be necessary in order to operate the shelter and control programs to ensure compliance with State law, and to achieve and sustain a No Kill Rancho Cucamonga. Moreover, No Kill Solutions also provided support for City staff charged with developing procedures outside the scope of the Phase III report. As a complement to the Phase III report, No Kill Solutions provided advisement and samples of the necessary forms and documents, such as adoption contracts and foster care waivers, to run the new Department. The training module for new staff being developed with City staff will provide training in general shelter operations, zoonoses, dog handling and training, cat handling and training, customer service, euthanasia training, use of the shelter management software system, rabies prevention compliance, wildlife handling, breed identification, cleaning and disinfection, controlled substances, field services, cash control, customer service, and more, This final written report provides: . A recommended definition of "No Kill" as it would relate to the City referring to the Rancho Cucamonga Animal Care and Services Department as "No Kill;" . Expected outcomes and goals as well as the measurements used to gauge effectiveness and success of a No Kill program; . Proposed timeline for implementation of a plan to achieve No Kill status; . Identification of supplemental private grant funding; and, . Legislative review to help achieve and sustain a No Kill Rancho Cucamonga. 3 Part I: Implementation of a No Kill Policy Introduction In 1994, San Francisco became the first city and county in the United States to end the killing of healthy dogs and cats. An agreement between the City's animal care and control department and the private San Francisco SPCA ensured a home not only to each and every dog'and cat who entered the shelter system, but to thousands who were sick or injured but treatable. In addition, a citywide preference for neutering over impounding and killing also reduced the death rate for feral cats by 73% and for underaged kittens by 81 %. By the year 2000, roughly 74% of all dogs and cats (nearly three out of four) were being released alive, either back to their owners or to new homes. This achievement was over twice that of any other major urban city and approximately three times the national average. This year, the City expects that nearly 85% of all impounded dogs and cats will go home alive. Unfortunately, other communities seeking to emulate San Francisco's success have failed, or offered various excuses for their inability to do so. While most traditional agencies continue to adhere to an outdated public health model, the primary reason for the failure for those who have desired to emulate "the San Francisco model" is the fundamental misinterpretation of what actually allowed San Francisco to succeed in its efforts. Most agencies mistakenly assume that such achievements are not possible without a large private shelter subsidizing the work of a municipal animal control agency. Unfortunately, this is a superficial interpretation of "the San Francisco modeL" In actuality, the success of San Francisco was a two-part strategy that has been largely ignored, and which is not reliant on a private SPCA or humane society, That strategy involves: I. Reducing the intake of homeless dogs and cats through various programs, but most notably through spaying and neutering initiatives; and, 2. Implementing a series of programmatic responses for animals already impounded. Reducing Intakes The first prong of the model involves responsibly reducing impounds so that more resources can be used to provide care for individual animals. Fewer animals impounded also mean less strain on foster homes, cage and kennel space, volunteer and staff attention, and other overall efforts to save lives. This was accomplished, in part, through a series of pet retention programs that helped owners overcome behavioral, medical, and environmental obstacles to keeping their pets. But, in the final analysis. the primary mechanism for reducing impounds involved subsidizing the cost of spay/neuter for the community's low income pet owners, for targeted human demographics (e.g., the homeless, the poor, the elderly) and for 5 targeted pet populations (e.g.. feral cats and pit bulls). The success of this approach cannot be overstated. In the I 980s. San Francisco impounded over 20.000 dogs and cats per year. By 2005, that number was just over 7.000. despite community population growth to 800.000 human residents. In comparative terms, that is less than one dog or cat for every 1.000 human residents. Rancho Cucamonga, by contrast, is impounding nearly 5.000 dogs and cats for a population of only 160.000 people, or more than 30 dogs and cats for every 1.000 human residents. In short. a commitment to high volume low-cost public spay/neuter has resulted in an intake rate over 30 times lower per capita in San Francisco than Rancho Cucamonga. This strategy does not depend on whether the agency is public or private. Increasing Lifesaving The second prong involved shifting from a reactive and traditional public health orientation to a proactive and community based adoption and rescue agency. In other words. animal control must place much more emphasis on its animal "care" functions and balance it with its animal "control" duties. By asserting a unique identity. having autonomy in its operations distinct from those of a health department or police agency. and putting itself on more equal footing in scope and service with private animal welfare organizations. animal control can save more lives. In jurisdictions that are the most successful. animal control agencies work closely with private agencies to form partnerships. develop common goals. establish complimentary policies and programs. and plan strategically. In San Francisco. this involved putting in place programs and services that had a measurable lifesaving impact, rather than basing shelter responses on tradition or longstanding public health model practices, These included a volunteer and foster care program, offsite adoption programs and others. These mandatory programs and services have been discussed as "No Kill Program Areas" in the Phase I. Phase II. and Phase III reports and will be discussed further and finally below. Exporting the Model In 2001. this model was exported to Tompkins County NY where it was implemented at a shelter that served as the animal control authority for the County. The agency took in all dogs and cats (including vicious and feral animals), and was staffed with New York State peace officers charged with enforcing local animal control ordinances and State anti-cruelty laws. The combination of subsidized spay/neuter for pets of low-income owners. feral cat. and pit bull populations. combined with proactive community based programs also allowed Tompkins County NY to realize reduced impounds of key populations. as well as a corresponding increase in lifesaving rates. These efforts resulted in a dramatic 75% decline in the shelter death rate in a period of three years. In 2004. the animal control authority for the City of Philadelphia endorsed and took measures consistent with the "San Francisco model" and also realized its benefits. After an implementation and transition phase, this has resulted in a better than 30% decline in 6 shelter killing in only eight months-a five year average for most communities. As of this writing. they had not killed a healthy dog or cat in three months. Prior to implementation. the shelter was killing roughly 88% of all impounded animals. In short. the model works. If implemented with rigor. the City of Rancho Cucamonga can and will achieve a No Kill community. A. No Kill Program Areas Two decades ago. the concept of a No Kill community was little more than a dream. Today the humane movement is poised to make it a reality-to meet the challenge of building a truly humane society. And the first step is a decision, a commitment to reject killing as the primary shelter population management tool. No Kill starts as an act of will. The next step involves putting in place the infrastructure to save lives. Following a commitment to No Kill is the need for accountability. Accountability means having clear definitions, a lifesaving plan, and charting successes and failures. Clear protocols should be established. and staff properly trained to ensure that each and every animal is given a fair evaluation and a chance for placement or treatment. But accountability also allows. indeed requires. flexibility. Too many shelters lose sight of this principle. staying rigid with shelter protocols, believing these are engraved in stone. They are not. Protocols are important because they ensure accountability from staff. But protocols without flexibility can have the opposite effect: stifling innovation, causing lives to be needlessly lost, and allowing shelter employees who fail to save lives to hide behind a paper trail. The decision to end an animal's life is an extremely serious one, and should always be treated as such. No matter how many animals a shelter kills. each and every animal is an individual. and each deserves individual consideration. And finally. to meet that challenge that No Kill entails, shelter leadership needs to get the community excited. to energize people for the task at hand. By working with people, implementing lifesaving programs, and treating each life as precious. a shelter can transform a community. The mandatory programs and services include: I. Best Practice Policies and Procedures See Phase I. Phase II, and Phase III report. II. Feral Cat TNR Program Many animal control agencies in communities throughout the United States are embracing Trap. Neuter, Return programs ("TNR") to improve animal welfare. reduce death rates, and meet obligations to public welfare and neighborhood tranquility demanded by governments. In San Francisco, for example, the program was very successful, resulting in less impounds, less killing and reduced public complaints. In Tompkins County. an agreement with county officials and the rabies control division of the Health Department provided for TNR as an acceptable complaint. nuisance and 7 rabies abatement procedure. In specific cases, the health department paid the Tompkins County SPCA to perform TNR. TNR is a full management plan in which stray and feral cats already living outdoors in cities, towns, and rural areas are humanely trapped, then rabies vaccinated, and sterilized by veterinarians. Kittens and tame cats are adopted into good homes. Adult cats too wild to be adopted are returned to their habitats. If possible, volunteers provide long-term care, including food, shelter, and health monitoring. In community surveys throughout the United States, it was found that the majority of callers to animal control regarding feral cats did not want them killed. Those same studies also found that public health departments, together with animal control agencies, are seeking effective and cost-effective long-term solutions that respond to the public's increasing desire to see feral cats treated with humane, non-lethal methods. TNR proved to be the most effective solution to reducing complaints, improving public health and safety, lowering costs, and increasing lifesaving: Reduced complaint calls: · Orange County, Florida: Before implementing TNR, Orange County Animal Services received 17S nuisance complaints a week. After implementing a TNR program, as a result of fewer cats and fewer "nuisance" behaviors associated with the cats that have been resolved by neutering, complaints have dropped dramatically. Cost-effectiveness: · Orange County, Florida: Reported savings of $655,949 over a six year period by neutering rather than killing feral cats. Public Health Concerns: . In April 2002, Dr. Julie Levy of the College of Veterinary Medicine, University of Florida, Gainesville, and researchers David and Leslie Gale presented findings for an I I-year study of feral cats. The vast majority of cats were in good physical condition, with only four percent killed for health reasons. . In 1989, the Stanford University Department of Comparative Medicine in conjunction with the Santa Clara Department of Public Health and the Department of Environmental Health and Safety found virtually no health risk from feral cats living in close proximity to humans. Lifesaving: · San Francisco, California: Combined statistics from the San Francisco Department of Animal Care and Control and the San Francisco SPCA show a decline in feral cat deaths of 73% and a decline in neonatal kitten deaths of 81 % from 1993-2000, as a result of a citywide TNR initiative. Officials also credited the TNR program with a decline in cat field service pick-ups, DOAs, and total cat impounds. 8 III. High-Volume, Low-Cost Spay/Neuter Spay/neuter is the cornerstone of a successful lifesaving effort-the single most effective place to direct shelter resources. Low cost, high volume spay/neuter will quickly lead to fewer animals entering the shelter system, allowing more resources to be allocated toward saving lives. In the I 970s, the City of Los Angeles was the first to provide municipally funded spaying and neutering for low-income pet owners in the United States. A city study found that for every dollar it was investing in the program, Los Angeles taxpayers were saving $10 in animal control costs due to reductions in animal intakes and fewer field calls. Indeed, Los Angeles shelters were taking in half the number of animals after just the first decade of the program and killing rates in the city dropped to the lowest third per capita in the United States. This result is consistent with results in San Francisco, San Diego and elsewhere. Research shows that investment in programs balancing animal "care" and "control" can provide not only immediate public health and public relations benefits but also long-term financial savings to a jurisdiction. According to the International City/County Management Association, An effective animal control program not only saves cities and counties on present costs-by protecting citizens from dangerous dogs, for example--but also helps reduce the costs of animal control in the future. A city that impounds and euthanizes 4,000 animals in 200 I ... but does not promote spaying and neutering will probably still euthanize at least 4,000 animals a year in 20 I O. A city that". [institutes a subsidized spay/neuter program] will likely euthanize significantly fewer animals in 20 I 0 and save on a host of other animal-related costs as well. IV. Rescue Groups An adoption or transfer to a rescue group frees up scarce cage and kennel space, reduces expenses for feeding, cleaning, killing and carcass disposal, and improves a community's rate of lifesaving. Getting an animal out of the shelter in an appropriate placement is important and rescue groups, as a general rule, can screen adopters as well or better than many shelters. In an environment of over 5,000 impounded animals annually, there will rarely be a shortage of adoptable animals and if a rescue group is willing to take custody and care of the animal, rare is the circumstance in which they should be denied. V. Foster Care At some point in time, nearly every animal shelter feels the pinch of not having enough space. A volunteer foster program can be an ideal low-cost way to greatly increase the number of lives a shelter can save while at the same time providing an opportunity for community members to volunteer. Not only does a foster program maximize the number of animals rescued, it allows an organization to care for animals who would be 9 " difficult to care for in a shelter environment--Qrphaned or feral kittens, sick or injured animals, or dogs needing one-on-one behavior rehabilitation. For animals who may need a break from the shelter environment, foster care provides a comfortable home setting that keeps animals happy and healthy. The keys to building a successful foster program are simple: lay the groundwork, recruit, train, and keep track. Foster care is crucial to No Kill. Without it, saving lives is compromised. It is a low cost, and often no cost, way of increasing a shelter's capacity, improving public relations, increasing a shelter's public image, rehabilitating sick and injured or behaviorally challenged animals, and saving lives. VI. Comprehensive Adoption Programs Adoptions are vital to an agency's lifesaving mission. The quantity and quality of shelter adoptions is in shelter management's hands, making lifesaving a direct function of shelter I policies and practice. Data from the American Animal Hospital Association data shows that approximately 53 million dogs are already in 31 million homes, and 59 million cats are in 27 million homes. As one commentator put it, "if each pet lives 10 years, on average, and the number of homes grows at the same rate that homes are lost through deaths and other attrition, then replacement homes would become available each year for more than twice as many dogs and slightly more cats than enter shelters. Since the inventory of pet-owning homes is growing, not just holding even, adoption could in theory replace all population control killing right now-if the animals and potential adopters were better introduced." In fact, studies show people get their dogs from shelters only 15% of the time overall, and less than 10% of the time for cats. If shelters better promoted their animals and had adoption programs responsive to the needs of the community, they could increase the number of homes available and replace population control killing with adoptions. In other words, shelter killing is more a function of market share, than "public irresponsibility." Many factors impact the quantity and quality of adoptions. These include: . Adoption Hours. Convenient shelter hours mean more chances for adoptions. To avoid increased costs, shelters can open later in the day and stay open later giving working people and families with children a chance to adopt. . Offsite Adoptions. Not everyone can come to the shelter, so bring the shelter to them through mobile adoption centers in locations around the city. On-site staff and volunteer adoption counselors make sure each match is a good one. Some shelters even have permanent adoption storefronts in local malls. Adoption outreach isn't just good for the animals-animals attract people, and that's good for businesses who host adoption sites. 10 / . Special Events, Neighborhood fairs, church picnics, craft fairs, and dog and cat shows are terrific opportunities to show available pets to the public. . Cost. Often, shelters must compete with pet stores, breeders and backyard litters. If it costs $40 to buy a kitten from a pet shop. does it make sense for a shelter to charge $1001 Other benefits of adopting from the shelter can include: a free veterinary visit, discounts at pet supply and gift stores, discounts on dog training classes, grooming discounts, free behavior advice, and a free handbook on understanding their new pet. . Advertising. Television and radio stations are often delighted to promote a "Pet of the Week." Photographs of adoptable animals on a shelter website can give people a chance to take a look before they come to the shelter. And many newspapers sponsor adoption ads for humane groups. VII. Pet Retention While some of the reasons animals are surrendered to shelters are unavoidable, others can be prevented-but only if shelters are willing to work with people to help them solve their problems. Saving all healthy and treatable pets requires communities to develop innovative strategies for keeping people and their companion animals together. And the more a community sees its shelter(s) as a place to turn for advice and assistance, the easier this job will be. Animal control agencies can maintain "libraries" of pet care and behavior fact sheets in the shelter and on a website. Articles in local papers, radio and television spots all provide opportunities to feature topics like solving litterbox avoidance and excessive barking. Other pet retention programs include free in-home dog behavior problem- solving by volunteers, low-cost dog training, pet friendly rental programs, dog walker referrals, and pet behavior classes. VIII. Medical and Behavior Rehabilitation A shelter begins helping treatable animals by closely analyzing statistics. How many animals entering a shelter are treatable? What types of injuries and illnesses are most common? The answers to these questions will determine what types of rehabilitation programs are needed and how to effectively allocate resources. For example, one community may have many underage kittens in its shelters. Another may have substantial numbers of cats with upper respiratory infections. or dogs with kennel cough. Yet another may find that a large portion of treatables are dogs with behavior problems. Each will need a different lifesaving program. These can include creating a fund dedicated solely to medical and behavioral rehabilitation. Such a fund lets the public direct their donations and allows a shelter to demonstrate what they are doing to help treatables. In addition, the shelter can establish relationships to have local veterinarians come to the shelter to do rotations. These II veterinarians can supplement the work of a staff veterinarian and veterinary technicians and help diagnose animals, give vaccinations, and administer medication and treatment. A relationship with the veterinary college can allow veterinary students to volunteer at the shelter on a regular basis, providing the students with real life on-the-iob training, while shelter animals receive high-quality care under the direction of the veterinary college faculty. Finally, it is impossible to overstate the importance of a foster program for underaged kittens and puppies, undersocialized animals, and those recovering from medical treatment. IX. Public Relations/Community Involvement Rebuilding a relationship with the community starts with redefining oneself as a "pet rescue" agency. The community must see improvement at the shelter, and improvements in the area of lifesaving. Public contact with the agency must include good customer service, more adoptions, and tangible commitments by the City to give the shelter the tools it needs to do the job humanely. Public contact, however, is not necessarily a face-to-face encounter. The public has contact with an agency by reading about it in the newspaper, seeing volunteers adopting animals at a local shopping mall, or hearing the Executive Director promoting spay/neuter on the radio. It means public relations and community education. The importance of good public relations cannot be overstated. Good, consistent public relations are the key to getting more money, more volunteers, more adoptions, and more community goodwill. Indeed, if lifesaving is considered the destination, public relations are the vehicle which will get a shelter there. Without it, the shelter will always be struggling with animals, finances. and community recognition. Increasing adoptions, maximizing donations, recruiting volunteers and partnering with community agencies comes down to one thing: increasing the shelter's exposure. And that means consistent marketing and public relations. Public relations and marketing are the foundation of all a shelter's activities and their success. To do all these things well, the shelter must be in the public eye. Indeed, a survey of more than 200 animal control agencies, conducted by a graduate student at the University of Pennsylvania College of Veterinary Medicine, found that "community engagement" was one of the key factors in those agencies who have managed to reduce killing and increase lifesaving. One agency noted that "Public buy-in is crucial for long-term improvements" placing primary importance on "the need to view community outreach and public engagement as integral to the agency's overall purpose and programs rather than simply as an add-on accomplished with a few public service announcements..." X, Volunteers Volunteers are a dedicated "army of compassion" and the backbone of a successful No Kill effort. In San Francisco, a community of approximately 800,000 people, volunteers spend over 110,000 hours at the shelter each year. Assuming the prevailing hourly wage, 12 payroll taxes and benefits, it would cost the San Francisco SPCA over $1 million dollars annually to provide those services. In Tompkins County, a community of about 100,000 people, volunteers spend over 12,500 hours walking dogs, grooming cats, helping with adoptions, and doing routine but necessary office work, at a cost savings of approximately $85,000 if the SPCA were to pay for those services at the entry level hourly rate. Volunteers are the lifeblood of an organization. There is never enough staff, never enough dollars to hire more staff, and always more needs than paid human resources. That is where volunteers come in and make the difference between success and failure and, for the animals, life and death. The purpose of a volunteer program is to help a shelter help the animals. It is crucial to have procedures and goals in mind as part of the program. In Tompkins County, for example, the agency required all dogs available for adoption to get out of kennel socialization four times per day. This could not be accomplished by staff alone and therefore volunteers were recruited, trained and scheduled for specific shifts that would allow the agency to meet those goals. It became quickly apparent that having volunteers come in whenever they wanted did not serve those goals and so all volunteers were given instructions and a specific schedule. B. level of Community Support in Rancho Cucamonga Community surveys were sent to rescue groups, made available on the City's website, sent to local veterinarians, posted on several animal advocacy list serves, targeted individuals and humane organizations throughout San Bernardino and Riverside counties, passed out at community meetings, sent to interested parties through the City's new animal services newsletter, and put out to the community in two articles written in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin. They were made publicly available from August 3, 2005 through February 13, 2006. Over 50 submissions were received by No Kill Solutions. Four anonymous submissions were also received: Summary of Individual Respondents With the exception of the anonymous submissions, all respondents-94% of surveys received-were supportive and encouraged by the City's move to transition from a county run facility to a City operated animal care and services program. In addition, all-without exception-supported the move toward a No Kill orientation. One respondent did call for careful assessment and planning and expressed the view that the City was not using a "credible business plan" for the transition, but nonetheless supported the underlying goal. Since this input was received very early in the transition . Anonymous opinions are considered to carry less weight than those with names and contact information unless there is an independent means of accessing veracity without going on a "fishing expedition." Because the four submissions lacked factual data. tended to hyperbole. appeared to be written by the same individual, and failed to provide sufficient information to make a determination as to the veracity of the concern, they were not memorialized and subsequently discarded. 13 process, the respondent was given additional information and material that was subsequently created. The respondent subsequently reported a positive viewpoint. Several individuals expressed concern that following only minimum holding periods tended to result in unnecessary killing. One indicated that the "holding periods are not adequate for working people to reclaim lost pets" and asked that the new City agency hold animals longer than current county practice allegedly provides. Many individuals indicated that they felt they were not welcome as volunteers by the county and were looking forward to volunteering at the shelter when the City took over operations. Others were simply supportive of moving towards No Kill and wanted to volunteer to help in the operation of the shelter. Several respondents expressed support for a public Trap-Neuter-Return ("TNR") program for feral cats. One individual had many concerns with county operations over a wide range of issues, and suggestions for programs under the new City shelter such as volunteers, foster care, TNR, and others. Summary of Organizational Respondents Organizational respondents (i.e., rescue groups and animal welfare agencies) criticized the county's alleged failure to fully work with rescue groups and to implement rigorous animal care guidelines. Combined, they provided a series of recommendations relative to: . Improving adoption programs; . Reducing pet relinquishment; . Reducing stray populations through TNR and community education; . Expanding volunteer resources; · Providing better veterinary care to the animals; . Expanding community spay/neuter; . Calling for better adoption screening; . Holding staff accountable to underperformance; and, . Using foster homes. These were also positive in tone, supportive of the City's efforts, and encouraged by the move toward a No Kill orientation to the extent they encompassed these programs. Summary of Veterinary Respondents Relatively few veterinarians responded to the survey, although this was expected and consistent with surveys nationwide. Nonetheless, a few veterinary respondents expressed a desire to help the City with spay/neuter and other services. With their consent or at their request, the contact information was forwarded to City staff. 14 Other than one individual who appeared to support the goal, but was concerned about the process, all survey responses were supportive of a City operated animal services program with a No Kill orientation. Summary Nearly seven months of surveys, three study sessions involving the Phase I, II and III reports, and two community meetings failed to result in a single voice suggesting that the City erred in terminating the contact with the County or questioning the move toward a No Kill orientation. No Kill Solutions responded to each and every respondent with a personal letter. All of the comments have been incorporated into the Phase I-IV reports. All respondents were further encouraged to sign up for the City's animal services newsletter and to volunteer with the Department. In addition to positive community feedback, given the City Council's endorsement and provision of adequate funding to run both the baseline and No Kill enhancements, the agreement to implement necessary facility modifications on a fast track schedule, Southern California's vast network of rescue groups, and a home ownership, education and median income demographic that is higher than surrounding areas, all the elements for a No Kill Rancho Cucamonga are in place. With a few years of high volume, low- cost spaying and neutering, per capita dog and cat rates should decline as the Department correspondingly improves its levels of community support, and efficiency and effectiveness of service delivery. There is little reason why the effort should fail. In short, success is directly in management's hands. C. Defining No Kill Some shelters are calling themselves No Kill if they save all healthy dogs and cats. The fact that a shelter or community is trying to accomplish this is laudable, but it doesn't mean it is No Kill. Saving all healthy dogs and cats is the (lrst step toward achieving a No Kill community, not the end goal. Can a shelter or community really justify killing animals with treatable conditions (such as kittens with conjunctivitis, puppies with kennel cough, or other relatively easily treatable conditions) if it takes the title "No Kill community"? It cannot. Others claim that No Kill is achieved when healthy, as well as sick and injured but treatable dogs and cats are saved. The definition might have some appeal, but it is out of touch with the sentiment of millions of cat lovers who feed alley cats in their communities. If healthy feral cats are still being killed en masse, a No Kill community is simply not achieved. In short, neither of these positions is ethically defensible. The No Kill movement's break with traditional sheltering is less about saving "pet" dogs and cats and more about focusing on the individual animal. Regardless of whether a shelter takes in 30, 300, 3,000 or 30,000 dogs and cats each year, No Kill is premised on-in fact demands- fundamental fairness to individual animals. 15 This commitment is echoed in the mission statement of virtually every humane society and SPCA in the country which claims to cherish animals, enforce their rights, and teach compassion. Yet, these lofty goals can only be achieved if we judge, treat, and devise a plan for shelter animals individually with all the resources we can muster. In practice, that means that shelters must put in place the programs and services that address the needs of each individual animal who comes through the door regardless of whether an animal is healthy, sick, injured, or feral. Implicit within the No Kill philosophy is the understanding that some animals, such as those who are irremediably suffering or hopelessly ill, will be killed for reasons of mercy. It is also accepted that vicious dogs are a direct and immediate public safety risk who cannot be adopted. Therefore, the only animals dying in a No Kill community are dogs and cats who are irremediably suffering, are sick or injured with non-rehabilitation conditions. and vicious dogs. Defining No Kill for Rancho Cucamonga The Rancho Cucamonga Animal Care and Services Department needs to define what constitutes a No Kill community. Some items for consideration: . The growing viewpoint is that a No Kill community is one that has a community with a lifesaving guarantee for: (I) healthy dogs and cats; (2) sick and/or injured but treatable dogs and cats; (3) and feral cats. · What is a "treatable" animal? Dictionary definition of "euthanasia" focus on: (I) hopelessly sick or injured; (2) individuals: . Focus must be on prognosis, not external factors; . Any dog or cat whose prognosis is guarded or better; . A No Kill community allows, but does not require, killing animals with a poor or grave prognosis. . No Kill is consistent with lifesaving, public health and safety: . No Kill does not mean adopting out vicious dogs and other animals who pose a direct and immediate threat to public safety; . But it does require programs to put integrity into those determinations; . For example, temperament testing must be comprehensive enough to help protect against the adoption of aggressive dogs with poor prognosis for rehabilitation, but also make sure that friendly, shy. scared, injured or sick dogs do not get wrongly killed. 16 In determining what would constitute No Kill for Rancho Cucamonga, the City should consider the following: . No Kill. . Minority Opinion: Healthy dogs and cats saved. . How do you justify killing a kitten with mild conjunctivitis and be No Kill?; . Public won't accept it; . Puts you on the defensive before you start. . Maiority Opinion: Healthy & Treatable dogs and cats saved. . How do you justify killing a healthy feral cat with a caretaker and be No Kill?; . Cat lovers and feral community won't accept it; . Puts you on the defensive before you start. . Growing Opinion: Healthy, Treatable & Feral Cats . TNR is still viable and should be pursued even where feral cats are not officially within a community's definition of No Kill for the reasons noted above. It is recommended that the City take the broad definition and be a "leader" in the movement regionally and nationally even though it may take longer to achieve the goal. A Note about Feral Cats State law in this and other jurisdictions provide protections to feral cats by acknowledging the increasing support of TNR among the humane community, In New York State, for example, feral cats are exempted from "ownership" definitions under state health department regulations, although rabies vaccinations are mandated for shelters sterilizing feral cats. In addition, state law puts a premium on spaying and neutering and therefore has a policy preference in favor of TNR. In Illinois, state funding for feral cats programs was implemented this year as part of a larger overhaul of state animal care laws. And in California, state law provides that feral cats can be owned and also requires shelters to work with rescue groups and feral cat TNR organizations. Regardless of the Departments efforts in this area, it must move away from the status quo of killing all feral cats and implement a TNR program if it wants to lower kitten impounds and deaths. A TNR, program, is therefore key to future success. 17 D. Baseline and Comparative Data In FY 2004/05 (July I, 2004 to June 30, 2005), county reported statistics for the Rancho Cucamonga Animal Shelter were as follows: Dogs DISPOSITION TOTALS Publtc Intake 2,257 Adopted 1.198 Redeemed 455 Transferred 110 Died 4 Missing 1 Killed 447 Cats DISPOSITION TOTALS Public Intake 2,434 Adopted 808 Redeemed 40 , Transferred 239 Died 86 Missing 8 KIlled 1.223 Combined Total. OISPOSITION DOG & CAT TOTALS Public Intake 4,691 Adopted 2,006 Redeemed 495 Transferred 349 Died 90 Missing 9 Killed 1.670 While county staff sub-classified killing into various categories, these are not relevant for comparison purposes. For example, the county's sub outcomes "Medical" and "Contagious Disease" do not equate to the proposed City's sub outcomes "Medical- Treatable" and "Medical-Non-Rehabilitatable." A contagious disease, for example, could include something as mild as conjunctivitis, which is easily treatable, whereas panleukopenia in the shelter is generally non-rehabilitatable. Both are grouped in County sub outcomes, and therefore do not allow a determination as to whether the animal killed was killed because of a failure to treat or because medical necessity dictated the outcome. The City's sub outcomes, by contrast, are geared to effective response and maximizing lifesaving. Therefore, County sub-outcomes will be ignored for purposes of baseline comparisons. Categorization of Animals Categorizing animals who enter the shelter is vital. A dog or cat who enters a shelter can come in healthy, sick, injured, unweaned or traumatized. To address what responses a shelter should undertake, No Kill shelters classify these animals into these and perhaps other categories. . This report assumes the accuracy of county data. 18 Without an understanding of the various categories of shelter animals, it would be difficult to know which programs are needed. Nor would it be clear how many animals would be helped by any particular strategy. A community begins helping its animals by closely analyzing shelter statistics. How many of the dogs and cats killed are healthy? How many are sick or injured but treatable? How many have rehabilitatable behavior problems? The answers to these questions will determine what types of programs and services are needed and how to effectively allocate resources to help the animals in a shelter's care. Standard definitions include: . Healthy animals are those who are reasonably well behaved, old enough to be eating on their own, and have manifested no signs of disease or injury. . Medical-Treatable animals are those who are sick or injured, but whose prognosis for rehabilitation is excellent, good, fair or guarded. , , i . Medical-Non-Rehabilitatable animals are those who are sick or injured with a poor or grave prognosis. . Irremediably Suffering animals are Non-Rehabilitatable animals in severe pain. . Neonatal animals are motherless animals (ages one day to approximately three weeks) who require bottle feeding because they are unable to eat on their own and are unable to survive without either maternal care or supplemental bottle feeding. . Court order are animals determined to be vicious by a hearing officer or court of law after a dangerous animal hearing. . Feral animals are those dogs and cats totally unsocialized to people. . Behavior animals are those animals who manifest a behavior condition such as resource guarding in dogs but who either do not pose the type of direct and immediate public safety risk that a truly vicious dog does, or whose prognosis for rehabilitation is guarded or better. . Vicious animals are those who are aggressive with a prognosis for rehabilitation which is poor and who pose a direct and immediate public safety risk. . Rabies animals are those required to be killed under state or local rabies prevention regulations. A dog or cat is not a "rabies" outcome if a ten day holding period is a legally acceptable alternative. If such an animal is killed, they should be logged under the other relevant criteria, including Heolthy. 19 Proper categorization is the basis for accountability. It is also crucial to a strategy to increase lifesaving, lower birthrates, and help keep animals in their homes. In order to meet its No Kill objectives, the Rancho Cucamonga Animal Care and Services Department needs to zero out deaths in the following categories: . Healthy animals are those who are reasonably well behaved, old enough to be eating on their own, and have manifested no signs of disease or iniury. . Medical-Treatable animals are those who are sick or iniured, but whose prognosis for rehabilitation is excellent, good, fair or guarded. . Neonatal animals are motherless animals (ages one day to approximately 3 weeks) who require bottle feeding because they are unable to eat on their own and are unable to survive without either maternal care or supplemental bottle feeding. . Behavior animals are those animals who manifest a behavior condition such as resource guarding in dogs but who either do not pose the type of direct and immediate public safety risk that a truly vicious dog does, or whose prognosis for rehabilitation is guarded or better. . Feral cats totally unsocialized to people: Despite its No Kill goals, because of medical necessity, public safety imperatives, or State law prohibitions, the Rancho Cucamonga Animal Care and Services Department may continue to kill animals in the following categories: . Medico/-Non-Rehobilitotable animals are those who are sick or iniured with a poor or grave prognosis. . Irremediably Suffering animals are Non-Rehabilitatable animals in severe pain. . Court order are animals determined to be vicious by a hearing officer or court of law after a dangerous animal hearing. . Vicious animals are those who are aggressive with a prognosis for rehabilitation which is poor and who pose a direct and immediate public safety risk. ' . Rabies animals are those required to be killed under state or local rabies prevention regulations. A dog or cat is not a "rabies" outcome if a ten day . If the City includes feral cats in its definition of No Kill. which No Kill Solutions strongly recommends. 20 holding period is a legally acceptable alternative. If such an animal is killed, they should be logged under the other relevant criteria, including Healthy. In order to meet these goals, the Department must fully implement the programs and services identified above, as well as the policies and procedures identified in the Phase III report and separately provided in detail to City staff. At the same time, to allow for effective comparison, the Department should review raw data that is not subject to what at times may unfortunately amount to somewhat subjective interpretation of categories. By comparing the "live release rate" of the City's efforts to the baseline figures provided by the county of 80% for dogs, 46% for cats, and 62% combined, the effectiveness of the City program will be evident. It is expected that No Kill will be achieved at a combined 85-90% overall save rate. E. Timeline The timeframe necessary to create a No Kill community is not capable of determination with scientific precision. Much depends on the policies and procedures adopted, the level of community involvement encouraged and sought, and the day-to-day practices of shelter leadership. Indeed, given the level of Department funding by the City Council, the City Council's endorsement of the four areas of No Kill enhancements identified in the Phase II report, community median income, housing, employment and educational demographics, and recommended and approved facility modifications, success is directly in shelter management's hands. As a result, a No Kill Rancho Cucamonga is largely dependent on the motivation of Department leadership. Uncommitted or stalled leadership can doom the effort. It can also accelerate the process significantly. It took twelve Utah counties three to five years to end the killing of healthy dogs and cats. It took Tompkins County less than one year to achieve No Kill. Rancho Cucamonga will need to increase the save rate of dogs and cats combined by nearly 30%. The primary challenge, however, will be on the cat side where only 46% are currently being saved by the county. In addition, the Department will be tackling the most challenging demographic-feral cats, sick and injured cats, and adult cats who account for the majority of deaths. Reducing the death rate by 30% is a five year average for most communities, but it is important to note that this includes communities who are experiencing declines in deaths by virtue of increased voluntary spay/neuter rates and a humane ethic shift toward adoption. In other words, these communities are not necessarily being aggressive and proactive in the lifesaving endeavor and may actually be antithetical to the No Kill paradigm. 21 Whether Rancho Cucamonga achieves its goal much more quickly will depend on the factors noted above. I believe that No Kill can be achieved much more quickly. However a note of caution is warranted: If the City sets too ambitious a deadline and fails to meet it, then the public and community stakeholders may get unreasonably discouraged. If the deadline is set too far out, however, it could be used as an excuse for continued but unnecessary shelter killing. 22 Part II: Private Funding Sources Introduction A municipal animal shelter is funded through general fund tax revenues, licensing fees, user fees, penalty fees, and donations/grants. It can also receive subsidies through use of volunteers, foster parents, fee-reduction arrangements with private veterinarians, transferring animals to rescue groups, and other public-private partnerships. A modern municipal shelter is usually not self-sustaining financially, and the greater the lifesaving goal, the greater the investment needs to be in its programs and services. While fees should reflect budget priorities and realities, they must also be balanced against agency goals and community values. For example, adoption fees are not and should not be intended to supplement a government's lack of funding priority for animal control. Indeed, many shelters charge high fees for adoptions to reflect their actual costs, but undermine their other goals, such as lifesaving-the higher the cost of adoption, the lower the number of adoptions. The same is true for licensing. Many communities employ a differential licensing scheme to encourage spaying and neutering by charging a higher fee for unaltered animals than for altered animals. In addition, this differential is often used to provide subsidized neutering. However, the higher the license fee, and the higher the differential, the lower compliance tends to be. The Phase II report presented a realistic budget for the Department, with the caveat that revenues would take several years to rationalize. This is because information from the county may not be fully cognizable in a City operated program.' With more offsite adoption venues and a proactive marketing and public relations strategy, it is expected that adoptions will significantly increase leading to enhanced revenues. With door-to- door dog license canvassing being a goal of City staff, more dogs should also be licensed, however since dog owners may have purchased a three-year license from the County, the City might not see the fruits of that revenue increase for at least two years. Several municipal agencies, therefore, augment their general fund contributions and revenue line items with public donations and grant funding. However, as citizens do not generally donate to municipalities, and as most animal shelter foundations preclude such funding, it was recommended in the Phase I report that the City create a not-for-profit shelter oriented charity recognized under 50 I (c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Service Code. Friends of Rancho Cucamonga Animal Care and Services "Friends of the shelter" groups are quasi- or fully-independent not-for-profits who support shelter operations. These are modeled after other successful programs such as "Friends of the Library" groups who utilize the power of their IRS 50 I (c)(3) recognition to raise private charitable funding to augment general tax fund contributions. . This report assumes the accuracy of county data. 23 In the context of sheltering, in addition to raising private donations and grants, these groups can improve lifesaving programs by raising money and manpower for: . Programs that decrease the number of pets entering the shelters. In particular this would be a spay/neuter program targeted at the pets of low- income citizens. These could also be programs to help people that are considering surrendering their pets to shelters to find ways to either keep their pets or to find good homes for them without sending them to the shelter: . Programs that increase the number of pets leaving the shelters alive. In particular, this could be posting pictures of adoptable pets in veterinary offices, pet supply stores or other places where interested people might see them. Some groups work with local animal control to showcase adoptable pets at local PetSmart and other pet supply retail stores and host adoption fairs. And developing foster care networks for pets that need some training and socialization before being adopted; and, . Programs that include the quality of life for the pets in the shelter. This could include dog walking, bathing, socializing and training, and purchasing toys and treats. In the interim, the City received approval to be an affiliate to the Community Foundation in February, allowing it to receive tax deductible donations. However, , the full potential of these funding opportunities will not be realized until Department leadership partners with well connected and interested community citizens form a "Friends" group. Animal Shelter Granting Foundations As a general rule, there are limited sources of grant funding for animal shelter operations in the municipal context. By contrast, private shelters, rescue groups, and not-for-profit charities such as a "Friends" group have a larger pool of foundations throughout the country that will help underwrite the costs of programs, services, capital improvements and general operating expenses. A list of foundations with a demonstrative commitment to animal sheltering programs has been provided to City staff. There are, however, notable exceptions as follows: Maddie's Fund 2223 Santa Clara Avenue #B Alameda, California 94501-4416 Maddie's Fund does not fund government organizations directly, except in two ways. First, it provides what it terms "starter grants" of up to approximately $20,000 to encourage government shelters and private rescue groups in a community to form collaborations in an effort to work together to end community shelter killing of healthy and treatable dogs and cats. Second, it will provide multi-year community funding of up to $15,000,000 for collaborations, where animal control is a participating agency but not 24 direct recipient of funding, in an effort to end the killing of healthy dogs and cats within five to ten years. PetSmart Charities 1960 I North 27th Avenue Phoenix, AZ 85027 PetSmart Charities funds animal control shelters, humane and rescue groups for spay/neuter and adoption programs. PetS mart Charities also works with these agencies by providing space in their stores for homeless pets to be adopted. Petfinder.com Foundation P.O. Box 16385 Tucson, AZ 85732 The Petfinder.com Foundation works with animal control and private shelters to enhance their adoption program and increase lifesaving percentages. It also provides financial and technical assistance to animal organizations affected by natural disaster. They do fund animal control organizations in which the grant funds are guaranteed to go to that organization and not the general use funds of that particular city or county. Finally, local and community foundations will often support shelter programs. The availability of these has not been analyzed. A Note about Fees As indicated in the Phase II report, "given the transition and its inevitable public perception and relations issues, it might not be advisable that fees be increased at this time, with the possible exception of a small surcharge on dog licenses to fund a community spay/neuter program. However, the option remains for the City Council to increase its fee structure to reduce general fund contributions required for running the new Department." The reverse is also true. Given that the County fee structure was designed under a public health and cost recoup model, the Department should in the future re-evaluate the fee structure to determine whether its "penalty" orientation relative to impounds and pick up of animals is consistent with its overall Department community orientation and City philosophy of governance. 25 Part III: Legislative Review and Recommendations Introduction In the late I 970s and early I 980s, national animal welfare agencies, public health departments, and veterinarian associations held a series of national symposiums and came up with a national model for addressing what they called "the surplus pet population." A copy of their findings and recommendations was sent to 7,000 agencies nationwide, virtually every shelter in the United States. Adopting the viewpoint that the public's failure to spay/neuter or confine their pets was to blame for the high rates of shelter killing, they focused on efforts to force the public to become "responsible pet owners." As a result, they recommended a series of legislative initiatives-much of it promoted and passed in localities nationwide. Among the many laws favored, the most common were those which: I, required dogs and cats to be confined in homes; 2. required dogs and to a lesser extent cats to be licensed with local authorities; 3. limited the number of animals a family could care for; 4. prohibited the feeding of stray cats; and, 5. provided expanded authority for animal control officers to seize and destroy pets they deemed a "nuisance." The theory behind all these laws was to severely curtail not only the public's "bad" behavior, but also the bad behavior of the animals. Unfortunately, the laws had many unintended consequences. Since the legislation was premised on the fact that the public was "bad" and had to be "punished" and "coerced" into doing the right thing, it ignored the obvious---even if its proponents were right, the law would nonetheless miss its intended target since responsible people acted responsibly whether there was a law or not, while truly irresponsible people would merely ignore the laws. More importantly. these laws were interpreted to mean that anyone who fed a stray animal--<>r left food out for a hungry cat-was considered the animal's owner. In towns and communities throughout the United States, well-meaning people found themselves threatened by animal control authorities for feeding the stray cat who wandered into their backyard in search of food. As an "owner" under these ordinances, they were violating the law for "allowing" the cat outside, a curious twist of facts since these people were not allowing anything, other than allowing the animal to have occasional food. The laws also limited the number of animals a family could own to often small numbers, three or four in most cases. One of the effects of this, however, was also to limit the number of animals a responsible family could help and thus prevented adoptions. In the 26 end, however, since failure to comply often resulted in the pet's impoundment and, killing, the net effect of the legislation was to exacerbate shelter killing. Finally, in order to increase the number of animals sterilized-the one thing that would have had dramatic results-national shelter agencies predictably encouraged the passing of even more laws, this time to force pet owners to spay/neuter at their own expense. Many localities took up the banner, passing laws that required pet owners to spay or neuter their dogs and cats on threats of fines, increased licensing costs, impoundment and killing of the pet, and in at least one case, the potential for a jail sentence. Despite studies showing that simply providing a low-cost alternative doubled the number of poor people who spayed or neutered their pets, and that the wealthiest communities voluntarily spayed/neutered their pets at four times the rate of their poor counterparts, localities failed to provide meaningful solutions to obstacles that prevented people from acting the way shelters wanted them to. While laws were passed to force people to spay or neuter their pets, little was done about the high cost of the surgeries charged by private veterinarians that kept poor people from complying. Even in the poorest communities where the federal government was subsidizing the cost of home heating oil to prevent families from freezing during the winter, in order to appease veterinarians who continued to oppose perceived threats to their profits, no effort was made to provide an alternative to a costly $150 dog spay. Not surprisingly, the effort didn't payoff. In fact, since the legislation was not reducing the perceived need to kill animals to any significant degree, it merely perpetuated public distrust among shelter workers. Sadly, the view was endorsed by virtually every major shelter. This discussion should not be read as an opposition to all municipal animal control ordinances. Many laws help animals and help ensure responsible pet ownership. Ordinances against "nuisance" barking, if carefully crafted, and those designed to protect the public from animal waste, vicious dogs, or damage to property are necessary in society and help ensure neighborhood tranquility. But legislation must be narrow and specific. Overly inclusive, punitive measures tend to hinder, more than they help. A look at three popular animal control ordinances helps to underscore why. It also provides an opportunity for Rancho Cucamonga to modify legislation necessary to achieve its No Kill goals. A. Pet Limit Laws Millions of compassionate people throughout the United States provide dogs and cats with food, love and shelter in their homes. Others may even put aside their own needs in order to care for beloved pets. Still others work tirelessly to feed, foster, and rehabilitate strays and unwanted abandoned animals, all at their own expense. For every one of these caregivers, a pet limit law may exact a heavy toll. Each of these individuals may face citations, fines, other penalties and even confiscation of the animals they love. 27 laws that regulate a person's behavior inside their home should seek an appropriate balance between the public's health and welfare and the individual's right to privacy. But while pet limit laws are highly intrusive, there is little corresponding benefit to public safety. What good is gained from an uncompromising prohibition against more than a limited number of pets, particularly if they are confined to an owner's property and create no problems! Certainly if neighbors are totally unaware of their presence, prohibiting pets does not in any way protect or maintain anyone's health, happiness, or peace of mind! In response to concerns about pet limit laws, some communities have admitted that these ordinances "will only be enforced on a complaint basis, and pets which are maintained indoors or do not raise the ire of neighbors will not generate enforcement." Not only does this leave the door wide open for pet limit laws to be used as a weapon of retribution in neighbor disputes over concerns totally unrelated to pets, but such a view embraces the position that because responsible multi-pet households will not generate enforcement, these residents need not fear violating the law. In other words, while local government is making outlaws out of normally law abiding citizens, it is also telling them that it is all right to break the law as long as they do not get caught. But more importantly, it is not uncommon for rescued animals to be in a home for long periods of time before they are adopted. As foster homes are in critically short supply in almost every community and it is common for such homes to have more animals than the average pet owner, limiting the availability of these homes should not be encouraged. In addition, there are countless Good Samaritans who feed and care for neighborhood strays. It would be ironic and counter to the new Department's goals of community support and reduction in killing, if enforcement officers targeted animal rescuers and those caring for homeless and unwanted animals. Of greater concern, these caregivers may be prevented from coming forward to adopt animals, or may be forced to surrender animals who are otherwise receiving good care at private expense, because to do otherwise would violate the pet limit law. This would take the Department further away, rather than closer to its goals. Given the disadvantages, are pet limit laws necessary to address abuse, neglect, unreasonable noise, and lack of sanitation! In other words, are pet limit laws necessary to protect the well-being of people and animals! They are not. Pet limit laws serve as a poor proxy for regulating the underlying behavior of nuisance and sanitation. And those legitimate public health efforts can be directly regulated without a law that is not only arbitrary in the number of animals allowed, but overly inclusive in its aim. The pet limit law in Rancho Cucamonga, therefore, should either be repealed, or significantly increased. B. Confinement Law, Feeding Prohibition, and De Facto TNR Ban Current county law (adopted by the City) makes it illegal for anyone to allow their pet to roam out-of-doors. For reasons indicated earlier, animal rescuers and feral cat 28 caretakers should be exempted from these laws. These laws were intended to enforce responsible pet ownership, not to punish those who are taking responsibility and trying to humanely care for animals abandoned because of somebody else's irresponsibility. In addition, the Department should not criminalize what is considered normal pet owner behavior, such as allowing cats to roam out of doors. Confinement laws should be limited to dogs only for public safety reasons. In addition, denying adoptions because an owner may allow a cat to go outdoors is contrary to good shelter practice. Shelters must have adoption standards that help ensure animals will end up in quality homes. But blanket policies that deny adoptions to anyone who would allow a cat outdoors can harm more animals than they help. While we seek to reduce the risks our companion animals face, killing them in shelters rather than adopting them to indoor/outdoor homes where they might face increased dangers is a contradiction that simply cannot be reconciled. Many shelters are quick to say that indoor-only cats live much longer than outdoor cats. Yet every day, shelters take in feral cats, many of them old tom cats, who have lived their lives outside. Most of these cats are healthy despite the absence of a known caretaker. In fact, an II-year study of feral cats found that the vast majority of the cats were in good physical condition, with only four percent killed for health reasons. Cats in the study by the end of the observation period had been present for an average of 6.5 years, which compares favorably to an average 7.1 year lifespan reported for pet cats, particularly since almost half of the cats were first observed as adults of unknown age. In addition, while pet owners who confine their cats indoors can provide their pets with needed exercise and socialization, as a general rule, a cat who is allowed to play outdoors is a more socialized, friendlier, healthier, and happier cat. This is because an indoor cat is more likely to be bored and obese than an outdoor cat, and fat cats are a recipe for a host of health and behavior problems. In addition, chronic boredom can lead to unsocial behavior like biting, scratching and inappropriate elimination. Roger Tabor, perhaps the world's foremost cat biologist, relates the rise in obesity and behavior problems in cats to the move by the humane community to indoor-only cat practices. That doesn't mean that confining a cat indoors is bad for the cat, so long as the cat isn'tgoing crazy from boredom or eating more than he should. What it does mean is that confined cats, as a general rule, are at higher risk for these problems than outdoor cats. Holding onto a hard and fast rule that all cats should be indoor-only is unwise and unfair. Feral cats, for one, obviously belong outdoors. But pet cats can enjoy the out-of- doors too--if the area is reasonably safe. At the same time, ordinances that address underlying "nuisance" behavior such as defecation, urination or destruction of property can properly regulate the unwanted behavior. 29 C. Continuous Confinement Laws The most common risk factor associated for relinquishment of a dog to a shelter is the amount of time that a dog spends outdoors alone. Once impounded. the most common risk factor for aggression-and subsequent destruction-is the amount of time the dog spends confined on a chain. These dogs are impounded at younger ages, but also tend to be beyond a shelter's ability to rehabilitate and adopt. In order to prevent this. many communities are passing anti-tethering ordinances. Risks to Humans: Increased Aggression and Biting Research indicates that chained dogs are almost three times more likely to bite than are unchained dogs, and that victims of fatal dog bites are most likely to be children. Both the American Veterinary Medical Association in association with the Centers for Disease Control have policy statements opposing the tethering or chaining of dogs. Chained dogs become more aggressive for several reasons. They feel vulnerable to attack since they cannot escape predatory danger, they receive little to no socialization with humans, their inadequate roaming space increases territoriality. and the severe restriction on movement and lack of exercise leads to hyperactivity. Risks to Dogs: Pain, Suffering, and Death In their work. animal control officers, police investigators, veterinarians, shelter workers, and rescue organizations encounter the pain, suffering. and at times death, caused by chronic chaining. Bleeding and raw necks covered with sores from the chains themselves and from the dogs' constant yanking and straining against the chains is frequently cited. There are also frequent instances in which chains and collars have grown into the necks of the dogs and require surgical removal. Death by strangulation from the chain or tether is another reality of fixed-point chaining and tethering; dogs can become entangled in fixed-point tethers and suffocate. or may hang themselves while attempting to jump over nearby fences. Due to the dogs' proximity to their feces and urine. dangerous exposure to numerous parasites and fleas are common. Dogs that have been chained for several years often lose portions of their ears, as more tissue is lost each summer from fly bites. Control of internal parasites is more difficult because the chained dog is always close to his own fecal matter and can re-infest himself. Also. the dog is forced to have almost continual contact with the ground in the chaining area, which may have a high concentration of parasite larvae. Existing Legislation. The four common types of legislation is this area are laws: I. Prohibiting chaining or tethering altogether: 2. Regulating the amount of time per 24 hour period that a dog may be tethered; 3. Regulating the type. length. weight and size of tether which can be used, including cleanliness of surrounding areas; and, 4. A combination of all three. 30 Federal government The United States Department of Agriculture outlaws chaining or tethering of dogs as a primary means of housing/confinement in all of their facilities: "Permanently tethering a dog as a means of primary enclosure is not a humane praaice that is in the animal's best interests..." [Emphasis added.] Examples of communities that completely prohibit any manner of chaining or tethering as a means of securing dogs for any length of time. Tucson. AZ; Maumelle, AK; Okaloosa County. FL; Carthage, MO; New Hanover, NC; Lawton. OK; and Electra, TX. ExamPles of communities that regulate how long, and/or in what manner dogs may be tethered. Denver, CO; Washington, D.C., Overland Park, KS: Jefferson County, KY; Multnomah County, OR; Oak Ridge, TN; Austin, TX; Norfolk. VA; Raytown, MO ; Allen. TX; Freemont, CA; Aurora. IL: Catawba County, NC; Greenville, NC; Bernalillo County, NM; Raytown, MO; Lincoln. NE; Ouichita. LA; Baton Rouge, LA; St. Charles Parish, LA; Montgomery County. MD: Rockville, MD; Oak Ridge. TN; and Norfolk, VA. Sample chaining ordinance. (a) It shall be unlawful for any person to tether. fasten, chain. tie, restrain or cause a dog to be tethered, fasteneq, chained, tied, or restrained. to dog houses, trees, fences, or any other stationary objects. (b) The following are exempt from the provisions of subsection (a) of this section: (I) Dogs attached to a running line, pulley, or trolley system approved by animal control. Choke collars and pinch collars are prohibited for the purpose of tethering a dog to a running line, pulley. or trolley system. (2) Persons who bring a dog camping or to a recreational area where the law requires a dog to be tethered, fastened. chained, tied, or otherwise restrained. (3) Persons tethering, fastening, chaining, tying. or restraining a dog no longer than is necessary for the person to complete a temporary task that requires the dog to be physically restrained for a reasonable period. (c) For purposes of this section the following terms have the following meanings: (I) "Animal control" means the municipal or county animal control agency responsible for enforcing animal-related laws. (2) "Person" means any individual. partnership, corporation. organization. trade or professional association. firm, limited liability company, ioint venture, association, trust, estate or any other legal entity, and any officer, member, shareholder. director, employee. agent or representative thereof. (3) "Reasonable period" means for purposes of this section a period of time not to exceed three (3) hours in a twenty-four (24) hour period or a time otherwise pre- approved by animal control. (d) A law enforcement officer, officer of a humane society as qualified under Section 14502 or 14503 of the Corporations Code, or officer of an animal control or animal regulation department of a public agency, as qualified under Section 830.9 of the Penal Code, may enforce this chapter. 31 \ (e) (I) Any person who violates this section shall be guilty of an infraction or a misdemeanor for each animal with respect to which there is a violation. (2) An infraction under this section shall be punishable by a fine not exceeding two hundred fifty dollars ($250.00). (3) A misdemeanor under this section shall be punishable by a fine not exceeding one thousand dollars ($1000.00) and imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding six (6) months. (I) Nothing in this section shall be construed to prohibit a person from walking dogs with a hand held leash. D. Nuisance Laws Current County law requires two complainants and a two week period before enforcement action for alleged "nuisance" violations (e.g., excessive and habitual barking which unreasonably disturbs the quiet enjoyment of someone's property, etc.) come into play. Not only is this excessively bureaucratic, but the process involving the officers can embroil the Department into neighbor disputes unrelated to animal control matters. In discussions with City Code Enforcement personnel, it was determined that Code Enforcement staff also investigates these complaints, and further brings the enforcement action when determined appropriate. The requirement of two complainants is an attempt to prevent false reports. and also to help ensure that the conduct complained of reaches the level of "unreasonable" disturbance. If two different complainants feel that the behavior is disruptive, a "he said/she said" scenario can be avoided. While this is important, as it is not uncommon for animal control to become embroiled into neighbor disputes unrelated to animals, nonetheless the two-week two-person rule can also unfairly burden complainants when a second home is not in the vicinity of the alleged nuisance (although there is an avenue for informal appeal of the two-person rule in unusual circumstances). In order to encourage responsible pet ownership while at the same time freeing Department arid City Code Enforcement personnel from unnecessary and undue involvement in neighbor-to-neighbor disputes, the City should consider revising the nuisance law to eliminate the two-week delay and requirement of two complainants, enacting instead a process where the complainant neighbor brings the action against the dog owner, and the Department's role is limited to service delivery of the signed complaint. This "third-party" or "two-party" ticket process would remove the Department from having to investigate cases such as "nuisance" barking and avoid potentially wasteful and unnecessary burdens of enforcement and court time. Under this scenario, if a person complains about "nuisance" behavior, they are given two options: having an officer of the Department or Code Enforcement staff talk to the animal owner and educate them about responsible pet ownership under local 32 ordinances, or to sign a complaint alleging a violation which the Department will deliver to the dog owner. Accompanying the complaint should be a statement indicating that: . the dog owner has received a court appearance ticket; . the ticket was delivered by a humane officer (or code enforcement officer) of the City of Rancho Cucamonga; . the City does not investigate the underlying complaint and does not take a position as to whether the allegation is true; . the sole function is to deliver the tickets; and, . the Complainant on the ticket is the person who is bringing this action against the dog owner. This change in process also saves scarce department investigation resources. It is often difficult to investigation "nuisance" cases particularly when the conduct occurs after service hours and when officers are unable due to the demands of the job to "stake out" a vicinity for long periods of times. The fact that dogs bark when an officer knocks on a door to talk to a dog owner has no evidentiary value for obvious reasons-the dogs are barking in response to the knock or as an unknown individual approaches the residence in question. This also avoids the difficult task of having to take sides in an area often rife with "murky," contradictory and lack of objective evidence. E. The 1998 California Animal Shelter Law As indicated earlier, protocols. procedures, policy statements and legislation that focuses on requiring shelters to improve the quality and quantity of their services can be of benefit. Shelters are in a position to save lives and set the humane standard in a community. Therefore. legislation requiring shelters to alter all their animals before adoption, to provide medical treatment to the animals in their care, to work with rescue groups, and to lengthen holding periods, can go a long way towards saving the lives of companion animals. Indeed, it is in laws aimed at shelters that the greatest hope for lifesaving through legislation can be achieved. In California, however, these are mandated by State law. Nonetheless, a discussion is included here both as informational and because a complete understanding of the underlying rationale for the law's provisions is essential for two reasons. First, it underscores the role of this legal paradigm to meeting the Department's lifesaving goals. Second. endorsing the full force of these initiatives-not just in letter, but in spirit-will provide the foundation for No Kill success in Rancho Cucamonga. In 1998. the California Legislature overwhelmingly passed with bipartisan support and Governor Pete Wilson signed into law a comprehensive legislative package that sought to revamp how animal control agencies in the State operated. 33 According to its legislative author, the 1998 Animal Shelter Law was premised on facts that indicated a needlessly high (and expensive) kill rate in our animal shelters. . As a result, the law's legislative author set out to identify ways in which individuals who find pets, shelters which impound pets, and rescue groups which try to find pets new homes could be made to work more efficiently together for the good of animals, their companion humans, and taxpayers interested in saving revenues being spent for avoidable killing in our shelters. The Complexity of the Problem The problem is complex. Finders of lost pets fear taking them to shelters because of the high probability that the pets will be killed. Yet there haven't always been well- maintained or utilized boards for posting lost/found notices. Finders fear having no way of reuniting lost pets with owners or growing too attached to the lost pet only to have to turn it in to a shelter anyway because they were unable to find the owner. Owners of lost pets have had trouble finding their pets because so many shelters have been open only during the time that owners are at work. Even if an owner manages to get to the shelter, it has been hard to locate animals because of poor record keeping and because animals may be moved around within the system. Moreover, the time limit for finding a lost pet has been very short-72 hours from the "time of capture." Over time shelter personnel had begun to think of all owners as irresponsible because of the misery they observed. The idea of helping owners find their lost pets or find new homes for abandoned or lost pets has seemed futile to shelter personnel overwhelmed with so many animals. Rescue groups, still optimistic about finding homes for shelter animals, have been frustrated by lack of cooperation from shelter personnel; shelter personnel have been frustrated by rescue groups' requests for more humane treatment of animals and cooperation with adoption programs. Few volunteers or fund raisers have wanted to help shelters with high kill rates. Yet, killing these animals and disposing of their bodies is expensive. Untangling the Problem Untangling this problem was accomplished through surveys of a representative sampling of shelters, interviews with former shelter directors, and consultations with rescue groups. It became clear that there wasn't one easy solution to the problem of so many deaths in our shelters. It was equally clear that previous legislative attempts to regulate this field were haphazard and incomplete. Prior to the 1998 Animal Shelter Law, laws affecting shelters and individual finders of pets were scattered throughout several different Codes. This made it difficult to know one's responsibilities. The first task of the 1998 Animal Shelter Law was to bring together different existing requirements, which, if followed, would enhance the opportunity for pets to be adopted or reunited with their families. For example, under the California Penal Code Sections 597.1 and 597f, animal shelters are required to keep stray animals in good enough condition for "redemption" by the owner. As veterinary care facilities and as holders of others' property, shelters were required to keep records. Not knowing this, many shelters have kept inadequate . Section D is a restatement of "Hayden Law: An Analysis" by University of California at Los Angeles Law Professor T aimie L. Bryant, J.D., Ph.D. 34 records. Now the list of records is embedded directly within the Food and Agricultural Code, where it should be easy for shelter managers to find. Unfortunately, since so many shelters did not already know their responsibilities, many of the 1998 Animal Shelter Law's provisions seem new to them. The 1998 Animal Shelter Law seems, to the casual reader, to involve many new responsibilities for individuals and shelters, but, in fact, the 1998 Animal Shelter Law involves relatively few new responsibilities. What is primarily new about the 1998 Animal Shelter Law is its emphasis on seeking life-saving solutions for lost and homeless pets. A. Ownerlfinder responsibilities. Finders of others' property have long been required to make all reasonable efforts to find the owner. To help finders of living animals, it is now mandatory that public shelters and their contractors provide a place for lost/found notices to be posted. This should increase the willingness of individuals to house animals whose companion humans will be able to find them, even if the animal is not at the shelter. They (and shelters) are also newly allowed to receive freely offered or advertised rewards (i.e., they may not demand a reward in addition to restitution for necessary expenses to maintain the pet). At the same time, housing lost animals comes with the obligation to treat them "kindly," which now explicitly includes "necessary veterinary care." This provision was added for the lost/abandoned pet's protection and to facilitate the caretaker's recovery from the pet's owner of veterinary expenditures necessary to preserve the life and health of his/her companion animal. Reimbursement from the owner for necessary expenditures is allowed under Civil Code Section 1833. The 1998 Animal Shelter Law reinforces the need to protect animals by requiring that individuals who cannot care properly for a rescued animal, including veterinary care, turn him or her over to an appropriate animal care facility. This new provision under the Civil Code allows anti-cruelty enforcement against "hoarding" or "collecting" animals without having to prove a mental state of "intent to cause harm," a requirement under Penal Code anti-cruelty statute enforcement. The 1998 Animal Shelter Law allows a iudge as a condition of probation to prevent a convicted animal abuser from owning, caring for, or having any contact with animals. It also explicitly provides that convicted animal abusers make restitution for care the animal received while held as "evidence" of the abuse. B. Shelters' responsibilities. Three changes have been particularly controversial: I. Reinterpretation of what is a "reasonable" amount of time to give an owner to find and redeem his/her companion; 2. Prohibition on the immediate killing of owner-relinquished companions; and, 3. Emphasis on lifesaving solutions to the problem of homeless companion animals. Reasonable Redemption Time Periods Since 1963, shelters were required to hold apparently lost animals so that they could be found and reclaimed by their companion humans. Killing companion animals immediately would be a violation of that law, but a specified holding period was not enacted until 35 1967. In that year, a 72-hour (measured from time of capture) holding period for dogs was introduced. In 1980, the same holding period was introduced for cats. The reasonable time for redeeming lost dogs and cats was 72 hours, but under other laws, the reasonable time for owners to reclaim their companions has been defined as 5 days. For example, under the Animal Welfare Act, shelters selling animals to research facilities have to hold the animals for 5 days to give the owner time to reclaim him or her. Under California's vicious dog law, owners must receive 5 days notice to contest the designation of "vicious dog" and to reclaim their dog. Ironically, owners of troublesome dogs were given much more time than owners of simply lost dogs! The 1998 Animal Shelter Law brought the interpretation of a reasonable time period to reclaim animals into line with other laws and with the public's expectation of a reasonable period of time to reclaim their companions. The 1998 Animal Shelter Law increased the holding period to 4 or 6 days (not including the day of impoundment), depending on the shelter's open-to-the-public hours. When California's holding period was 72 hours, there was only one state with a shorter holding period-Hawaii, with a 48-hour holding period. Now that California has increased the holding period, it has joined the bottom six states in the country in terms of holding period. By national standards, California's current holding period is far from generous. The holding period structure is unusual, however, in being tied to hours of operation. If a particular impounded pet is made available one weekday evening until at least 7 p.m. or one weekend day, that particular pet must be held only 4 days, not counting the day of impoundment. All pets will have this possibility if a shelter is open during hours the working public can come on I or 2 spaced evenings, depending on whether the shelter is open on weekends. If it is not possible for a particular impounded pet to be seen by the public one weekend day or one weekday evening until at least 7 p.m., then the shelter must hold the pet for 6 days. The first three days are "owner-redemption" days, although would-be adopters can ask for the pet when the first three days are over. During the second three days, the pet may be adopted immediately or reunited with his/her companion human. The 1998 Animal Shelter Law reinforces prior law that provided for the impoundment of stray animals, not just cats and dogs. The 1998 Animal Shelter Law's holding periods apply to other legally allowed companion animals. Prohibition of Immediate Killing of Owner-Relinquished Pets People who cannot keep their companion animals often bring them to shelters. Mistakenly taking the name "shelter" literally at face value, many of these people expect their companions to be sheltered for a reasonable period of time for adoption (unless the animal is suffering and in need of euthanasia). They frequently bring in the companion's bed, toys, and food, but those companions have usually been killed immediately. This was the case despite studies showing that as many as 75% of owner- relinquished pets are placeable, that most were under two years old, and that shelters have had no legal obligation to take in owner-relinquished companions, let alone to kill them. After the 1998 Animal Shelter Law, they still have no obligation to take in owner- relinquished companions. However, the 1998 Animal Shelter Law states that if they take 36 in owner-relinquished companions, they cannot immediately kill and dispose of them at taxpayer expense. Emphasis on Saving Lives In policy sections within the Civil Code, the Food and Agricultural Code, and the Penal Code, the 1998 Animal Shelter Law promotes adoption of healthy and reasonably treatable animals whenever possible. In the absence of policy statements to the contrary, the de facto state policy has been to kill lost and homeless companion animals. With some notable exceptions, shelters have failed to provide hours the working public can visit the shelters for adoptions or redemptions of their companion animals. They have failed to provide adequate lost/found services. They have failed to keep records adequate to find pets within the system. They have failed to use freely offered microchip scanning services. They have failed to provide adequate veterinary health care for many animals. They have resisted working with the rescue/adoption community. They have failed to raise funds aggressively to promote lifesaving methods to spare the lives of placeable companion animals. They have used tax dollars to kill animals they didn't have to accept in the first place ("owner-relinquished" pets) and to kill animals whose companion humans never even had a chance to locate them. Our shelters have a very bad track record when it comes to adoption. In California in 1997 with a statewide human population of close to 33 million, only I 42,38S cats and dogs were adopted from our shelters. The vast majority-576,097-were killed. The new policy code sections in the 1998 Animal Shelter Law, which affirm lifesaving wherever possible, do not contain "duty language" upon which lawsuits can be brought, and the statutes state specifically that they cannot be used in actions for monetary damages against shelters. Nevertheless, policy sections do guide interpretation of statutes that do contain specific obligatory conduct (i.e., "duty language"). The statutes that create specific, actionable duties require the following: specific holding periods for all impounded companion animals, maintenance of a way for the public to post lost/found notices, release of a companion animal scheduled for death to a nonprofit animal rescue/adoption group, if requested by the group; temperament testing of feral cats before denying to feral cats the extended holding period; use of all reasonable means to locate an animal's human companion; the holding of pre- or post-seizure hearings so that individuals can contest the seizure (and destruction) of their companion animals. Policy code sections guide those with duties as to why those legal duties came about and how to fulfill them. They also come into play when lawsuits are initiated due to alleged violations of specific duties. They help in resolving ambiguity about the purposes and appropriate means of fulfilling one's duties under the law. So, for example, if a shelter erred on the side of finding all fractious cats to be feral in order to justify killing them earlier, it would be violating the policy preference to spare life when possible. Another example is throwing up unnecessary roadblocks to nonprofit rescue and adoption groups so that they can have fewer animals. This not only violates the law itself, but also violates the spirit of the policy sections, which promote lifesaving. If shelters are concerned about cruelty or "hoarding," they have many legal avenues of dealing with it, some provided by the 1998 Animal Shelter Law itself, without 37 ~ obstructing the vehicle provided for animals to be rescued from the shelter. C. Rescue group responsibilities, Before the 1998 Animal Shelter Law, rescue and adoption groups voiced concerns about inconsistent access to shelter animals for the purpose of finding them homes. As frequent visitors to the shelters, rescuers saw systemic problems and inhumane treatment of animals, but their access to animals was tenuous and many times hinged on not publicly disclosing concerns. Under the 1998 Animal Shelter Law, rescue/adoption groups with IRS Code 50 I (c)(3) status are not dependent on shelter approval to adopt pets from the shelter. Their right to take these animals is no longer legally premised on silence as to shelter practices and violations of the law. However, rescue/adoption groups are subject to all the requirements of individuals who find or house companion animals. They must provide humane and "kindly" care. In addition, although rescue/adoption groups with IRS Code 50 I (c)(3) status can take out a shelter animal right before he or she is due to be killed, they must be assertive in maintaining awareness of the animals in the shelter and in making requests for animals. They may not take out animals and subject them to cruel circumstances, even if it is in the interest of keeping them alive, without running the risk of the heightened punishments for animal cruelty under the 1998 Animal Shelter Law's amendment of anti- cruelty provisions. One proved case of animal cruelty can now, under the 1998 Animal Shelter Law, result in shutdown of an entire rescue/adoption operation. Reactions to the 1998 Animal Shelter Law within the Animal Welfare Community Shelters already moving in the direction of saving lives through spay/neuter, owner- reunification, and adoption have been heartened by the 1998 Animal Shelter Law's approval of their methods. Some have expressed relief for the animals in less progressive shelters. The 1998 Animal Shelter Law could not redirect the flow of funds for prevention and lifesaving to the extent that those activities are prioritized by the best managed shelters in the state, but, at least, it was able to shift the use of funds somewhat so that all impounded animals in California have some chance of being seen, reclaimed, or adopted. But not all shelters were supportive. Indeed, the most regressive shelters tended to be the most vocal in their opposition. Their primary criticisms of the 1998 Animal Shelter Law were as follows: (a)"Longer holding periods means that placeable pets die because unplaceable pets must be housed." This is a favorite criticism, but it is a red herring. The horrible fact is that the vast majority of companion animals die in our shelters regardless of their status. Some of our worst shelters protest that they want to kill unadoptable pets so that they can keep the adoptable ones, when, in fact, they kill almost every animal and do little to help owners find lost pets or would-be owners adopt pets. Secondly, this argument totally ignores the statutory obligation to be first and foremost a bailee for people's lost pets. A dog or cat may not look like a good adoption candidate to a particular shelter employee, but these animals may very well be family members whose owners miss them 38 and love them regardless of their age, infirmities, or lack of objective beauty. Moreover, these complaining shelters avoid comment on the embarrassing fact that the overwhelming maiority of states in this country provide far more time for owners to claim their lost pets and for would-be owners to adopt. (b)"Holding feral cats is cruel." Prior to the 1998 Animal Shelter Law, shelters were required to hold all stray cats, regardless of temperament, for 72 hours. The 1998 Animal Shelter Law recognizes that it is difficult to ascertain whether some cats are feral or scared but tame. It also recognizes that some people care for feral cats, despite the fact that they are not the stereotypic "pet" cat, and would be willing to claim these cats and pay the required fees for release. The 1998 Animal Shelter Law approximates the prior holding period for feral cats by stating that the holding period for truly feral cats need be only 3 days (not including the day of impoundment), instead of the 4 or 6 day holding period. Since many shy, scared, or temperamental tame cats can appear to be feral, the 1998 Animal Shelter Law provides 3 days for a cat to calm down. At the end of that time, if a cat tests truly feral and has not been claimed by his/her caretaker, he or she can be killed or released to a nonprofit rescue/adoption group, if the group has requested him/her. (c) "The 1998 Animal Shelter Law fails to provide funding." There is much to say about this criticism. First, this reaction is based on interpreting the 1998 Animal Shelter Law as simply requiring longer holding periods before animals are killed. It accepts the "business as usual" practice of killing animals without attempts to locate their human companions or to find responsible new homes. This is a costly business practice. At enormous, documented expense to the public, many shelters kill and dispose of the bodies of animals whose human companions never had a chance to reclaim them. Every time someone is reunited with his or her companion and every time a companion animal is adopted, two financial effects occur: (I) the costs of killing and carcass disposal are saved: (2) income from fees/fines comes in. The 1998 Animal Shelter Law states that Californians do not want this senseless, inhumane, expensive killing to continue. The 1998 Animal Shelter Law creates a fiscally responsible management strategy for those poorly run shelters that were unable to figure this out for themselves. Still unable to figure it out, some shelters are arguing that they should be financially rewarded for their inefficiency. Second, many of the shelters complaining about money have used this new law to jumpstart the flow of money they had been unwilling or unable to secure previously to meet legal obligations of humane treatment that pre-dated the 1998 Animal Shelter Law. Shelters, such as the County of Los Angeles County Department of Animal Care and Control, have filed many claims for money from the State which suggest lack of knowledge of their legal duties prior to the 1998 Animal Shelter Law and insufficient funds, in some cases, for at least the past SO years. This backlogged need for money is laid at the door of the 1998 Animal Shelter Law. Third, this argument assumes that humane care follows infusions of money specifically for humane care. The 1998 Animal Shelter Law was premised on laws that already 39 required humane treatment for animals. Many shelters have fully complied and have done so within their budgetary limits. When budget limits did not provide what they wanted, progressive shelters reached out to the nonprofit sector and to the community for new ways of fulfilling their responsibilities of humane care. Arguing that their situation is unique, many complaining shelters have not even looked at how successful lower-kill shelters have managed to be humane within their budgets. Nor have they sought a state bond measure or hammered out partnerships with nonprofit groups. Setting up citizens' fund raising groups is difficult when one is seeking money to kill rather than to preserve life. It is no wonder that our kill-oriented shelters have had difficulty. Only government run or heavily subsidized entities, which are not sensitive to market pressure to perform in accordance with consumer preferences, could exist for so long past the time the market supports their method of doing business. (d) "Vicious dogs are held longer under the new holding period which means that docile dogs are being killed." There is an extensive body of California law that deals exclusively with vicious dogs. Those statutes provide that an owner must have 5 days notice before a dog can be killed. That period of time is longer than the 1998 Animal Shelter law's 4- day holding period for shelters that provide working public access hours. However, the vicious dog laws do not prohibit local iurisdictions from making their own local ordinances to deal with the problem of vicious dogs. (e) "Nonprofit 50 I (c)(3) animal rescue/adoption organizations cannot be trusted." Two arguments have been made: (I) collectors will take animals from the shelter; and (2) some nonprofits will divert animals into research. Both of these concerns have some legitimacy. When it comes to animals, who cannot protect themselves or describe their experiences in human terms, unaddressed cruelty can occur in many different settings: individual homes, shelters, rescue/adoption groups. At the same time that the 1998 Animal Shelter law allows rescue/adoption groups to rescue animals from shelters, the 1998 Animal Shelter law heightens the ability of shelters to rescue animals from "rescue/adoption" groups. Given the high kill rate, the low adoption rate, and the lack of motivation in our shelters to work with rescue/adoption groups, it was necessary to secure the right of such groups to take animals from the shelters. However, the 1998 Animal Shelter law also increased the means of dealing with "collecting." Moreover, nonprofit rescue/adoption groups are required to pay fees up to the amount of fees paid by any other adopting person, and they must submit the certification of their IRS Code 50 I (c)(3) status as "animal rescue/adoption" nonprofit organization. The fee structure can easily make it uneconomical for collectors or for dealers to sell them to research laboratories. In fact, a nonprofit group that fraudulently misrepresents itself is far more vulnerable to criminal prosecution and legal sanctions than is a shelter that funnels animals into research laboratories. Similarly, it is far easier to address collecting, that results in the inhumane holding of animals, than it is to address inhumane holding of animals in public shelters that violate the anti-cruelty laws. While public shelters, private shelters with humane officers, and 40 police departments can all be deployed to address cruelty in settings controlled by private individuals, there is precious little that can be done to address cruelty in settings controlled by public entities. The 1998 Animal Shelter Law enhanced the ability of public law enforcement entities to address effectively the cruelty of private holders of animals, while it gave private rescuers only the right to take individuals requested ahead of their kill dates and for no more than the standard adoption fee. The scales are still heavily weighted in favor of power residing in our shelters. (f)"The 1998 Animal Shelter Law is too confusing." There is no doubt that the 1998 Animal Shelter Law is a complex piece of legislation. For the protection of lost animals, this law seeks to adjust the responsibilities of several different actors who take in found animals: private citizens, public shelters, private shelters, and rescue groups. Sadly, there are bad apples in each of these bushels. The shelters contend that the 1998 Animal Shelter Law targeted them when, actually, it spotlighted the plight of lost and homeless animals and sought protections and cross-protections for them. Working within existing legal structures, reinforcing duties everyone has to lost/found animals, and providing protections for animals when people or shelters fail in their duties are all complex tasks. F. Guiding Philosophy Legislation is often thought of as a quick solution to pet overpopulation. "If only we had a law," the argument goes, "all the bad, irresponsible people out there would take care of their pets properly, and shelters wouldn't have to kill so many animals." But experience has proven that legislation is far from a cure-all. In fact, it often has the opposite effect. Studies show that the primary reasons people do not alter their pets are cost and lack of access to spay/neuter services. The same is true for licensing. The higher the cost, the lower the compliance with the law. Because of this, lower-income pet owners, those who are unaware of the law and truly irresponsible people will not comply in significant numbers. Punitive legislation will only discourage people from caring for homeless pets or drive disadvantaged pet .owners "underground," making them even harder to reach and help. Compounding the problem is the fact that enforcement of ordinances such as pet limit laws, cat licensing, mandatory spay/neuter, confinement/leash laws, and "nuisance" laws is often selective and complaint-based, leaving pet owners and caregivers vulnerable to retaliation from neighbors and others. Worse, legislation may be worded so that the result of non-compliance is the impoundment and death of the animal. In fact, many jurisdictions have seen their impound and death rates increase following passage of such laws which give agencies carte blanche to round up and kill outdoor animals. In addition, most cats entering shelters are unowned (either their owners are relinquishing ownership or they are unowned strays and ferals), so cat licensing will not help them. 41 But not all legislative solutions are misinformed-laws can help protect the weak from the strong. Laws aimed at shelters-the very agencies doing the killing--are ones that have the potential for greatest impact. Examples of these are the 1998 Animal Shelter Law and 1998 Shelter Spay/Neuter Law that were passed by the California State Legislature requiring, among other things, that shelters in California: spay/neuter their animals before adoption; make sure that cats are not being killed as "feral" when they are just scared and shy; provide animals to rescue groups instead of killing them; and require shelters to have either evening or weekend hours so that working people and families with children can reclaim lost pets or visit the shelter. Legislation that focuses on requiring shelters to improve the quality and quantity of their services can be of benefit. Shelters are in a position to save lives and set the humane standard in a community. Therefore, legislation requiring shelters to alter all their animals before adoption, to provide medical treatment to the animals in their care, to work with rescue groups, and to lengthen holding periods, can go a long way towards saving the lives of companion animals. Indeed, it is in laws aimed at shelters that the greatest hope for lifesaving through legislation can be achieved. While full and vigorous implementation of the 1998 Animal Shelter Law provides the basis for success, exemptions from pet limits, feeding bans as well as the banning of continuous confinement for dogs also bode well for a No Kill Rancho Cucamonga. As to further legislation aimed at curbing perceived human irresponsibility-such as mandatory cat licensing and spay/neuter laws-these will harm more than they help. A full analysis of such efforts, however, is outside the scope of this report, But in summary, the City of San Francisco has not killed healthy animals since 1994 and Tompkins County (NY) has achieved No Kill, both without increasing enforcement of existing laws, without cat licensing, or other punitive laws. The goal is for the Rancho Cucamonga Animal Care and Services Department to implement the programs and services which allowed this to happen. These initiatives include: . Shelter accountability; . Affordable spay/neuter: . Rescue group access to shelter animals; · Comprehensive adoption programs, including offsite venues; . A feral cat TNR program; . Pet retention programs; . Medical and behavior rehabilitation; . Public relations & development; and, . Foster care. If it does so, it will be well on its way to building a No Kill Rancho Cucamonga. 42 CALIFORNIA CODE CITATIONS GOVERNING ANIMAL CARE & SERVICES AGENCIES. . BUSINESS & PROFESSIONS CODE 4827 4830.5 4857 CIVIL CODE 54.1 54.2 655 1834.4 1834.5 3342.5 Veterinary Practices (Euthanasia Exceptions) Duty or Veterinarians to Report Dog Fights Disclosure of Information (Exemptions) Right to Equal Access for Guide or Service Dogs Right to be Accompanied by Guide or Service Dogs Domestic Animals Subject to Ownership State Policy Regarding Killing of Adoptable Animals Abandoned Animals at Private Animal Care Facilities Civil Action for Biting Dogs CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 1174 landlord Responsibility for Personal Property (Tenants) CODE OF REGULATIONS Title 14/671.2 Title 14/671.4 Title 14/679 Title 16/2039 Title 17/2606 Title 17/2606.2 Title 17/2606.4 Title 17/2606.6 Title 17/2606.8 Title 17/2612.1 Humane Care & Treatment of Wild Animals Transportation Standards for Exhibition of Live Animals Possession of Wildlife. Rehabilitation. Nuisance Wildlife Sodium Pentobarbital Use & Euthanasia Training Rabies Reporting & Isolation Rabies Quarantine Officially Declared Rabies Areas Importation of Dogs-Rabies Certificate Required Skunks Prohibited as Pets Turtle Salmonellosis. Turtles less Than Four Inches Prohibited . State laws are subject to change. limitation by courts, and binding interpretations. An attorney should always be consulted before relying on the status and scope of state laws. The enclosed is merely a guide and should not be relied on. 43 CORPORATIONS CODE 14502 Humane Officers Appointment & Requirements FISH & GAME CODE 395 2000 2000.5 2009 2118 2150 2189 3003.1 3004 3000.5 3007 3008 3500 3511 3801 3950 3960 3961 4000 4004 4150 4152 4180 4801 4807 5000 5001 Falconry License Requirements for Raptors Unlawful Taking & Possession of Wildlife Animals Taken in Vehicle Collisions Interference with Hunting & Trapping Prohibited Possession of Wild Animals Permit Requirements for Wild Animals Transportation & Possession of Nonnative Wild Animals Unlawful Traps Discharging Weapons Near Dwellings Capture & Confinement Prohibition of Birds & Mammals Hunting License Requirements Rabies Vaccination Requirements for Dogs Used for Hunting Game Birds Defined Fully Protected Birds Defined Possession and Definition of Non-Game Birds Game Mammals Defined Prohibition of Dogs Pursuing Big Game & Protected Mammals Rights of Property Owners for Dogs Pursuing Game & Mammals Fur Bearing Mammals Defined Unlawful Types of Traps Nongame Mammals Defined Taking of Nongame Mammals When Causing Property Damage Taking of Fur Bearing Mammals When Causing Property Damage Taking of Mountain Lions When Causing Public Threat Taking of Mountain Lions When Killing Animals Possession of Tortoises Prohibited Possession of Tortoises When Previously Acquired FOOD & AGRICULTURAL CODE 7 16902 17005 17006 30503 30801 Public Officers & Arrests Permitting Livestock to Stray Upon Highway State Policy Regarding Killing of Adoptable Animals Killing of Irremediably Suffering Animals Spay/Neuter of Dogs Prior to Adoption Authority to License Dogs 44 30804.5 30804.7 30954 3 102 3 103 3 108 3 152 3 553 3 601-31682 3 683 3 751.3 3 751.5 3 751.7 3 752 3 752.5 3 753 3 754 32001 GOVERNMENT CODE 25132 53074 Half Fee License for Spayed/Neutered Dogs Penalty for Impoundment of Unspayed/Unneutered Dogs Female Dogs in Heat Killing of Dogs Worrying and Killing Livestock Within a City Seizure of Dogs Worrying and Killing Livestock Within a City Holding Periods for Stray Dogs Killing of Dogs Worrying and Killing Livestock Seizure of Dogs Worrying and Killing Livestock Potentially Dangerous Dogs Potentially Dangerous Dogs-Local Determinations Spay/Neuter of Cats Prior to Adoption Half Fee License for Spayed/Neutered Cats Penalty for Impoundment of Unspayed/Unneutered Cats Holding Periods for Stray Cats Holding Periods for Feral Cats Holding Periods for Animals Other Than Dogs or Cats Holding Periods for Surrendered Animals Lost & Found Information Requirements Misdemeanor Ordinance Violations May be Reduced Dog Seizure & Impoundment on Private Property HEALTH & SAFETY CODE 25988 25989.1 120275 121625 121630 121680 121685 121690 121700 121705 121710 PENAL CODE 19 19.6 /46 Standards for Horses for Hire Animals Traveling in Circuses & Carnivals Rabies Control-General Violations are Misdemeanor Right of Entry on Private Premise Possession of Animals in Violation Quarantining Service Dogs Quarantining Law Enforcement Dogs Dog Licensing & Rabies Vaccinations Regulations Rabies Vaccine Restrictions Concealing Information on Rabies Quarantine Failure to Quarantine or Produce Animal for Quarantine Punishment for Misdemeanor Punishment for Infraction Unlawful Arrest 45 148 149 170 241b 243b 286.5 311.4 365.5 370 374b 374d 399.5 484 485 487 487e 487f 491 596 597 597b 597c 597d 597f 597i 597i 5971 5970 597s 597t 597v 597.1 597.5 598a 598b 598c 598d 599 599aa 599c 599d 600 600.2 602p 602.1 830.9 Resisting & Obstructing Public Officers Assaults by Officers Maliciously Procuring Warrant Assault on Animal Control Officer Battery on Animal Control Officer Sexual Assault on Animals Sexual Exploitation of Children with Animals Disabled Persons with Guide or Service Dogs Public Nuisances Dumping Carcasses on Roadway Leaving Carcasses within 100 Feet of Roadway Substantial Injury or Death by Dog Trained to Fight Theft Theft of Lost Property Grand Theft Dog Theft (Value Greater than $400) Dog Theft (Values $400 or Less) Dogs Defined as Personal Property Poisoning Animals Crimes Against Animals (Cruelty) Fighting Animals Fighting Animals (Training & Exhibition) Fighting Animals (Arrest Without Warrants) Veterinary Care for Injured Cats & Dogs Fighting Birds (Implements) Fighting Birds (Possession & Intent) Operation of Pet Shops Humane Equine Transport Abandonment of Animals Improper Confinement of Animals Euthanasia of Newborn Dogs & Cats Permitting Animals To Go Without Care (Seizure Hearings) Dog Fighting Dog & Cat Pelts Pet Animals as Food Prohibited Horse Slaughter Prohibited Sale of Horse Meat Prohibited Rabbits & Fowl (Sale & Display Restrictions) Seizure of Property Pursuant to Arrests Animal Cruelty Laws Interference with Game & Dangerous Laws State Policy Regarding Killing of Adoptable Animals Interference or Injury to Police Dogs & Horses Injury to Guide or Service Dog Trespass in a Public Building Intentional Interference with Business Establishment Animal Control Officers (Arrests & Warrants) 46 832 835 836 840 853.5 853.6 853.6j 1524 11166 12031 12582 12583 P.O.5.T. Required Training Arrest by Submission Arrest by Peace Officer & Animal Control Officers When Arrests May be Made Release of Persons Arrested for Infractions Release of Persons Arrested for Misdemeanors Altering or Destroying Original Notice to Appear Search Warrants (Issuance) Child Abuse & Neglect Reporting Requirements Carrying Loaded Weapons by Animal Control Officers Blowguns Prohibited Possession & Use of Blowguns by Animal Control Officers PUBLIC RESOURCES CODE 5008.1 5008.2 Restriction of Animals in State Parks Capture or Dispatch of Threatening Animals in State Parks PUBLIC UTILITIES CODE 7626 Railroads Liability for Killing Livestock VEHICLE CODE 20002 21113 21759 23117 25271.5 Hit & Run Accidents Involving Property Damage Animals on Public Grounds Caution in Passing Animals & Livestock Transporting Animals Animal Control Vehicles (Amber Warning Lights) 47