The latest grand jury report regarding the Shasta County Animal Shelter was certainly an interesting read. It wasn’t because the three pages were completely devoid of any facts that would support the claims made, but rather it appeared to be a sales pitch for Haven Humane’s ultimate takeover of the Shasta County Animal Shelter.
On the surface I am not opposed to having the animals reside in a much newer and nicer facility that has benefited from an abundance of money and a multitude of grants. However, according to the 2006-2007 grand jury report, the 2006 animal kill rate at Haven Humane was significantly higher than that of the county shelter (1,492 dogs and cats at county vs. 2,511 dogs and cats at Haven Humane). The latest investigation failed to include a link that demonstrates that newness of a facility equals significantly higher survival rates. This has led some to question if the report title, “It’s for the Animals,” should be aptly renamed “It’s for the Money.”
If we take another look at the conclusions, and the support offered by the grand jury, we would observe the following:
Finding 1: The Shasta County Shelter is unhealthy and beyond repair.
Unhealthy? Is this opinion or fact? The grand jury failed to mention how it came to the conclusion the shelter was unhealthy. The method of inquiry lacks any mention of a separate report from any qualified health and safety professional.
The county shelter follows the accepted practice of removing the contents of the cage prior to its cleaning, then cleaning and sanitizing the contents and the cage before anything is put back in.
Beyond repair? The shelter can be repaired, but it doesn’t make economic sense to repair this 55-year-old facility. The number of animals the county shelter takes in can exceed the shelter capacity. If the Haven facility were to take over the county shelter function without adding any new capacity, it too would be overcrowded. It would also show wear and tear at an accelerated pace.
Finding 2: Some of the $3 million set aside for a new shelter was transferred to save 16 jobs at sheriff’s office; the remainder went to the general fund.
It has now been established that this grand jury finding is inaccurate, and the funds remain in the county’s capital improvements fund. It is unclear whether or not the county has borrowed from the capital improvement fund for other expenditures. Creative accounting can allow money to be available and unavailable at the same time. If Finding 2 has any merit, the Shasta County Animal Shelter should not be penalized for financial decisions that are outside its control.
Finding 3: Clutter in work area, stacks of paper on desks, pet food dishes in doorways, and other items stacked in back of property.
This may indicate people are taking care of animals. I am not certain how the elimination of paper on a desk or the reduction of items stacked at the back of the property would lead to a positive outcome in saving a shelter pet’s life.
Finding 4: The 2006-2007 Shasta County grand jury report revealed similar findings; however, nothing has been done to improve the facility or working conditions.
Fact: The county shelter has implemented the services of volunteers as per finding 7 of the 2006-2007 grand jury report.
Fact: Shasta Animal Welfare Foundation is currently offering $30 spay and neutering vouchers for those who adopt an animal from the county shelter. This and other measures have assisted the facility in dramatically improving its adoption rate.
Fact: Shasta Animal Welfare Foundation volunteers and supporters recently installed fencing behind the county shelter, which gives the shelter dogs an opportunity to exercise, play and meet with potential adopters.
Fact: Shasta Animal Welfare Foundation volunteers and supporters recently donated over 30 Kuranda beds to the county shelter. These beds are the most comfortable and easily cleanable dog beds in existence.
In conclusion, it is very disturbing the grand jury would focus its attention on the glitz or newness of a facility rather than the outcomes of the animals that occupy them.
The Shasta County Animal Shelter employees are extremely caring people who make great efforts every day to improve the lives of animals in their care.
Shasta Animal Welfare Foundation is currently a friend of the county shelter and will continue to be that friend to help develop the long-range goal of transforming Shasta County into a no-kill animal community. Other area rescue organizations, including Another Chance Animal Welfare League, are joining with Shasta Animal Welfare Foundation in this common effort. We welcome Haven Humane and others to join us in this endeavor. After all, we are all trying to do what is right for the animals. Aren’t we?
Don Abercrombie is a co-founder of the Shasta Animal Welfare Foundation. He lives in Lakehead.
http://www.redding.com/news/2010/jul/11/shelter-offers-animals-an-old-yet-caring-home/
No comments:
Post a Comment