KEVIN COURTNEY | Posted: Sunday, July 3, 2011 8:45 pm | (7) Comments
If a pack of snarling dogs is roaming the neighborhood, who are you going to call?
In an urgent situation, you may find yourself confused and unable to find the right number for an animal control officer, according to the Napa County grand jury.
The grand jury issued a report last week urging that local jurisdictions do a better job of publicizing how to reach animal control in both emergency and non-emergency situations.
“The current process is confusing and frustrating for residents,” the grand jury said.
Needing an animal control officer, people often pick up a phone book and try to find “animal services” under the city of Napa listing, but it won’t be there, the grand jury said.
Rather, the number is under Napa County’s list of services, specifically, “Sheriff’s Department, Animal Services.”
Depending on when a person tries to reach Animal Services, their call may be routed to a Berkeley-based answering service or the Napa Police Department’s dispatch center.
The grand jury is recommending that local government widely publicize a single number for animal control services. This number should be featured more prominently in local phone books, the panel said.
Instead of using a private answering service for after-hours calls, the county should negotiate with the city of Napa to have service calls directed to a non-emergency line at the police dispatch center, the grand jury said.
Such a system would reduce the number of animal calls that are inappropriately directed to the city’s 911 emergency number, the grand jury said. The city’s 911 dispatchers got 163 dog calls over a recent 12-month period.
The grand jury also said the county is paying too much for its Berkeley answering service.
The service, Direct Line, averaged fewer than 10 animal control calls a day during a two-month period, yet the county’s payments ranged from $445 to $1,292 per month, the grand jury said.
Elizabeth Emmett, the county’s spokesperson, declined to comment on the grand jury report.
The county will prepare a response for the consideration of the Board of Supervisors, Emmett said.
The grand jury also investigated a Feb. 25, 2010 incident in which two roaming pit bulls attacked a man walking his pit bull on a leash. Both the man and his dog were bitten during the unprovoked attack, the grand jury said.
After the incident, Animal Services locked up the dog at the Napa County Animal Shelter, deemed the animals “dangerous and vicious,” then euthanized them 14 days later when the owners did not respond to efforts to reach them.
The grand jury had received a complaint that Animal Services had not followed local ordinances when the pit bulls were euthanized.
After studying the incident, the grand jury concluded that county officials had followed the law.
The grand jury noted that neighborhood residents had reported six previous incidents in which the same two dogs had been loose, displaying aggressive behavior.
The issue so bothered neighbors that they formed a Neighborhood Watch group and notified the neighborhood school of the problem, the grand jury said.
Read more: http://napavalleyregister.com/news/local/grand-jury-animal-control-should-be-easier-to-contact/article_16c0cca2-a5f0-11e0-9a3d-001cc4c002e0.html#ixzz1RIJrA8gO
1 comment:
Yesterday our next door neighbor was in his enclosed back patio, in the city of Napa, with his 18 month old son when he saw a 3 ft. rattlesnake. After taking his son into the house, he contacted animal control, only to be told they don't take care of these situations any longer. He was told to call a professional which would cost about $200. I also made several calls and was given the same information except I was told it would be $150. What is wrong with this picture? How quickly would someone have come if this child had been bitten?
Post a Comment