Minutes - 20030828 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

o Pracesslprocedures -compare what is expected and written to actual process o Ensure the "basics" of the program are met before spending the time and funds to expand the scope to include new ideaslprograms o Establish excellent statistical reporting to reflect agency reality and impact to citizens and County o Utilize strategic plan to work smarter and more focused sa energy does not became dilute and programs ineffective Field Services o Infrastructure weakness -lack of effective computerization and adequate staffing o Update and use standard operating procedures to ensure consistency o Formalize training for officers dealing with aggressive dogs, stray dogs, and irritable people o Good working relationship with APS Responsibility of Community o With all the programs and efforts of APS and the County, the solution to the problem of unwanted/homeless animals lies firmly at the feet of the citizens of the community. To change the reality of animal overpopulations, emphasis and funding must be equally provided for proactive and reactive programs. Adoption, although critical, will not alone solve the problem. Comments o Operating a full service animal shelter program is difficult, demanding constant energy and direction. The life and death decisions, budget allocations, program development and evaluation, training, accountability and public service are all a challenge and should not be simplified by the public who may not understand the full scope of sheltering. This will always be the reality regardless of which agency operates the facility. o Although the concerns highlighted here and in the report must be addressed they are not unique or uncommon to shelters across the country. b] Discussion [Q&A -Members of BOCC, BOH, APS Board Only] Board of County Commissioners: Chair Brawn asked about the facility the County has and the future - limited versus open admissions. Kate Pullen said that the limited admission title is something that started about ten years ago that was "no kill". They felt that this term did not communicate what this meant. The reality is that a municipal program that is obligated through law and mission to be there as a resource far all of the animals in the community, regardless of adaptability, cannot be limited admission or na kill. Non-profit agencies that are not bound by contract to also accept all animals in the community can choose whether they want to be limited or open admission. There are pros and cons to both. There is a responsibility of where the animal goes if the shelter decides not to deal with an animal that is not a candidate for adoption. She said that a municipal program and anon-profit with a contract do not have a luxury to became limited access or no kill. They can strive far low kill, but there are still going to be animals that are not adoptable.