Agenda - 09-19-2006-7b - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

Orange County Animal Services Sheltering Practices and Philosophies 50 private shelters, animal care and control agencies, and adoption groups in its home state. While its ultimate goal is the elimination of euthanasia of "healthy, adoptable dogs and cats," the expression of that goal in the promotional materials of NMHP's Utah efforts steers clear of words like "kill" and "no kill." "It's just, from many points of view, kind of an inflammatory term. That's the sort of thing that you have to be aware of," Castle says. "I think that what has characterized some-maybe many-elements of the `no kill' movement ... are same pretty strong feelings which aren't really-an their side-very well-informed or really sympathetic to what euthanizing shelters are trying to do. And [which] just don't cut them any slack, if you follow me. And that is just a recipe for an entrenched argument." Castle cautions that his organization isn't necessarily advocating widespread abandonment of the phrase; he believes it may still serve a purpose in places where groups with varying viewpoints are not working together yet. But keeping it out of the dialogue in Utah is a kind of recognition of the "high level of cooperation" that's already been obtained from both sides of the fence in that state, says Castle: "Our acknowledgement of that cooperation ... speaking from the 'no kill' side, is embodied, in one way, in not using that term," Many have noticed the diminished importance the San Francisco SPCA has placed on the term-a move that is in part intended to illuminate the importance of the role of animal control. When Ed Sayres arrived at the SPCA as its new president about three years ago, it didn't take him long to discover that San Francisco Department of Animal Care and Control Director Carl Friedman was uncomfortable with the notion that most people thought San Francisco as a whole no longer euthanized animals-when, in fact, a quarter of the cats and dogs entering the shelter system never left. As a result, Sayres and Friedman collaborated on a statistical report called "Partnerships for Life," which explained to the public exactly how the animals were being categorized and what their ultimate dispositions were. The directors have also adapted the terms "save rate" and "live release rate" in reference to their overall statistics on how many animals have been reunited with their owners or placed in new homes. One of the ideas behind the report, says Sayres, was to "recognize that we couldn't really achieve what we are achieving without someone taking care of the 24/7 open-door status of Animal Care and Control, and .., that there are issues in the community that need to be regulated." Even if there were no other common interests among "no-kill" and "open-admission" organizations, the two sides share a collective purpose in doing what they believe to be in the best interest of the animals. A community would not be able to fulfill that mission if it weren't for animal control; as Sayres explains, there will always be people who are cruel to animals, and there will always be neglect. "And someone has to respond to that," he says. "So it is truly a partnership."