Geez, I'm having some difficulty working out which way to turn my overactive mind today, which overblown story to dissect, which irritability to address first. Palin and Revere, Kucinich and Boehner voting yes on the same resolution, or the Maddies Fund million dollar adoptathon waste.
But when I heard that the White House official response to yesterdays War Powers Resolution was that is is 'unhelpful', I just flipped. What was really unhelpful Barry was that you entered into a military action in Libya without first obtaining any congressional permission and then found that you had just stuck us with another middle eastern travelogue which we can't easily disengage from and which gives future Presidents like Prez Trump, or Prez Palin or Prez PizzaMan the rationale for invading Cuba, or Venezuala or wherever. I dislike John Boehner as much as I dislike any partisan Republicon (to borrow from Norman Goldman), but dammit, even Kucinich and new house member Cathy Hochul voted for the resolution rebuking Obama's negation of congressional oversight and constitutional procedure. The fact that the majority of Dems voted against Boehner's resolution simply shows that they will put party politics first over principle.
Good grief. Now there's the blogosphere trying to make hay with Palin's halting and folksy recounting of the Revere story. Look, she did not say Revere warned the British (instead of the colonists). She said that Revere warned the British that the colonsts would be armed and not to think it would be a pushover. Look, I despise Palin. It's incredible to think that she is even under consideration for a Presidential run. But I think we all look like petulant children when we make stuff up. By the way, is Todd going to live in Arizona also?
But really, what's giving me a stomach ache today is the million dollar giveaway by the largest animal welfare funder in the United States. Right here in Alameda County. This weekend, June 4/5 pets will be adopted for no fee by participating agencies (both municipal tax payer funded, and non profit privately funded) and for each animal adopted during the weekend, the organisations receive a sweet $500 from Maddie's Fund, unless it's a senior animal in which case the gift is a cool $1,000!
On the surface it might seem like a good idea. A massive publicity and marketing opportunity for Maddie's Fund who seem to have a hard time knowing what to do with it's huge truckloads of corporate money, and easy money for cash strapped agencies. Except. It's really tough knowing where to start with the 'except'...
Did you know that whether these animals stay in their adoptive homes or not, the money is paid out to the agencies? A shelter could adopt out 30 dogs and cats over the weekend and 25 of them could be returned over the next few days, and the agency picks up the $15,000 regardless.
Did you know that some agencies have been 'stockpiling' adoptable animals, discouraging adoptions before this weekend in order to capitalise on the giveaway, therefore encouraging a kind of whacky free for all today when potential adopters are chomping at the bit at opening time, like on sale day at Target?
What is with this anyway. Most of the time there is a moralistic judgemental attitude towards people 'well, if they can't afford to have an animal, maybe they shouldn't have one', but this wekend it's all 'free pups and kittens'. An adoption fee is a real disincentive to people who need to think through the process of having a pet. But with money the incentive for the agencies, are adoption qualifications gonna matter as much?
Last year, Maddie's Fund spent close to one million dollars on the giveaway. And that doesn't include all the promo and marketing money spent to promote this dumb idea. If they want to support agencies doing good work, just freakin' well give them grants. But you know what? City and County shelters don't need this kind of help. Small agencies do, groups like BadRap or Muttville, or to take just one of the hudreds of small rescue groups in the region, Island Cat Rescue needs the help. But the Oakland shelter (run by the Police Department) on a budget of nearly $3 million, or Berkeley Shelter (run by the City Manager) with over $2 million in public funding and currently building a $9 million, no make than $11, no maybe its a $12 million shelter (the budget seems to have gone missing behind a filing cabinet) which is smaller than the one they have now - hell no. And truth be told, most of the agencies play this game with Maddie's with their hand outstretched to receive the check and a deep frustration with the entire event.
What they need is something entirely different. I know, you are all waiting with baited breath. What the state of California needs is to appoint a Task Force headed by someone with real power to dismantle the California Animal Shelter system and put it back together again with major changes in place.
1) The whole system of municipal shelters across county and city level to be integrated under one department at state level (while being managed at local level), with consistent policies, practices, opening hours, fee scales, spay/neuter policies, return to owner policies, adoption and rescue policies, transfer agreements between shelters, euthanasia policies, all managed by civilians instead of law enforcement.
2) All shelters to use the same software. Does this seem like a no-brainer? Yup. Good luck with that.
3) All shelters to have the same working agreements with non profit agencies and so called rescue groups.
4) All shelters to have shelter veterinary medicine practioners on site, and every animal shelter to provide low cost public access veterinary hospitals as part of a city program of preventive care (free and low cost vaccine and flea and worm meds available every day) for owned animals. All counties to have mobile spay/neuter vans and vaccine clinics which are in use throughout the year, run in collaboration with local non profits.
5) All cities/counties to have similar licensing fees, adoption fees, redemption fees, same spay neuter policy about animals returned to owners, bans on pet stores selling live animals (except those with a 'rescue' component).
This is not rocket science people. This is about doing what the Hayden Bill tried valiantly to do in 2000 with the words 'It shall be the policy of the State of California that no adoptable or treatable animal shall be killed'. That bill was gutted because it created so many mandates for the cities and counties which were not compensated for by the state. In fact, try and find some guidance at state level about animal shelters (even though they are mandated and governed by tons of state laws) and you will be referred back to your local shelter, which is probably where the problem started that you are trying to get some guidance about.
Let me give you a couple of small examples of what is wrong. Berkeley Animal Care Services provides animal shelter services to Berkeley, Albany, Emeryville and Piedmont (which is miles away but it's good money, and Piedmont pays for half of an animal control officer which it shares with Emeryville, so no-one wants that contract to go away). Berkeley also provides field services to Albany but not enforcement services which are administered by the Albany PD. So the animal control officer for Piedmont and Emeryville brings strays or dead animals to Berkeley Shelter and provides the field and enforcement services for Emeryville and Piedmont, so even though they use Berkeley shelter, rules governing dogs in Berkeley do not apply in Piedmont or Emeryville. You following along? So, stray dog brought to Berkeley shelter from Berkeley and reclaimed by an owner must be spayed before being returned to owner (unless there is a legal reason why not, like it is a registered and licensed breeding dog). Same dog from Emeryville gets returned intact to the owner because Emeryville does not have same spay law on books. Let's say you find an injured dog on the streets of Berkeley and the shelter is closed. You can take it to the local vet hospital with the city contract for emergency services, but not if you find that dog in Piedmont. So sometimes the staff at the hospital gently prod you saying 'didn't you find that dog in Berkeley?' Berkeley shelter does not have a vet who will oversee rabies vaccines, so most dogs leaving Berkeley shelter leave without a rabies vaccine. But up the freeway at Pinole shelter, the Contra Costa county vet is deemed to sign off on every rabies vaccination whether he is there or on vacation in the Bahamas and staff give the vaccine. Illegal? Or just good freakin' preventive measure?
Most people know full well that in order to ensure the best chance at life for a stray cat or dog you take it to the Berkeley shelter, and lie about where you found it. If you happened to be cruising A Street in Richmond and a chihuahua hops in your car, or if you happen to break into someone's backyard in heels and a boltcutter to restore freedom to a chained pitbull with battle scars, you know full well that Berkeley shelter will probably keep that dog for a year at which point some insane older white middle class lady will determine the dog needs to be rescued again, and arrange with a discredited rescue group to salvage a dog which probably should have been put down a year before. Volunteers, staff members, rescue groups - they've all played that game. And while Berkeley's incredibly low euthanasia rate is a source of local pride, the myopia which doesn't address the regional problem of high kill, uncontrolled breeding, and increasing fatal disease rates creates an isolationist 'I'm alright Jack' mentality. While they are killing huge numbers of adoptable dogs in every other Alameda and Contra Costa shelter, how can Berkeley feel so smug?
Oh dear. Did I really just go on like that? It's pouring with rain, I am mightily pissed off. And the animal shelter system in California is as broken as it was in those heady days at the beginning of the decade...the only good thing is that the rain might prove to be the needed disincentive to Maddie's Free Pet weekend....
Comments