The Davis City Council has now taken some steps to at least be able to monitor and address the problems. By a 5-0 vote the council agreed to execute a new Agreement with Yolo County for Animal Control Service for the Fiscal Year of 2010-11.
The staff report notes that a group of citizens has raised concerns regarding the conditions and services at the Yolo County Animal Shelter. “The concerns are that the shelter needs better housing facilities, improved veterinary care, and better feeding for the animals,” says City Staff.
The report continues, “Although no one suggests the animal shelter conditions are ideal for animals housed there, the county contends that it does meet the basic state requirements. And while Yolo County is fortunate to have an active SPCA and numerous rescue organizations, these organizations can only accommodate a limited number of animals.”
They continue, “This issue has come up in the past and we recognize and appreciate the level of community interest in facilitating positive change. From a pragmatic perspective, staff believes approval of the current contract is necessary to maintain the basic services animal control is providing.”
Ms. Deeb-Sosa in her letter sent to the Vanguard earlier this year described, in at times vivid detail, wretched conditions in the shelter.
“I arrived a few minutes past 10 a.m., just after the shelter opened. I was greeted by two uniformed people and by a person from SPCA. They informed me that I had to sign in. Shortly thereafter, two volunteers arrived and they were the ones that took me to see the dogs. I never saw or talked to staff members again – not even when I left the shelter, as I was not required to sign out. After leaving I noticed that I was not asked a single question about my experience with the dogs by staffers, and in the 90 minutes I was there I never saw any employees come out to the dog area,” she wrote.
Ms. Deeb-Sosa began to describe various conditions, “The volunteers took me to where the dogs are kept. Their cages are small. Some don’t even have a bed or blanket. Some cages were even dirty with urine or feces. A black female dog that looks just like my dog Thunder, called Ribbons, had dried poop stuck to her butt.”
“Charlie Brown is a brown young pit bull terrier that is so thin, you can see his ribs,” she wrote. “And according to the volunteers, he is getting thinner every day. Why? No idea! Nothing on his cage card was noted by the veterinarian.”
Later she would post her experiences on a DASA facebook website. After doing so, she said in her note that “a volunteer at Yolo County Animal Control was pulled into the office and harassed about postings on the DASA Facebook site, that she did not post. This incident was so upsetting that she is refusing to go back to the shelter as an “official volunteer.””
In the aftermath of this incident three “official volunteers” were told to leave and not come back. At the same time, a staff member was posting a sign that stated no photographs were allowed to be taken. The Vanguard went to the shelter on several occasions but was not allowed to view the condition of the dogs in the Kennel. This is not the first such complaint and the Vanguard has been looking more closely into conditions at the animal shelter. There has supposedly been some sort of audit that has yet to be made public.
“What is going on at the Yolo County Animal Shelter is unacceptable,” Ms. Deeb-Sosa said. “We have been trying to work with shelter staff to make changes to make OUR shelter a better place for years. It is a high kill shelter that is an old and run down place that has frequent disease outbreaks with NO oversight.”
Unfortunately, city staff believes, “There simply is no good alternative readily available to the city as a backup.”
So in the interim, the Council has now approved a letter, drafted by Mayor Pro Tem Joe Krovoza and Councilmember Stephen Souza, to be sent to the county.
The letter written to Sheriff Ed Prieto and County CAO Patrick Blacklock says, “The Davis City Council recognizes that the four areas listed below may not fall directly within the jurisdiction of any single agency or relate directly to the animal control contract. Therefore we would request that both of you consider advancing, where and when appropriate, these objectives within the County’s structure in the coming year.”
First, the council requests public data sharing. “We understand that external funding sources, e.g., Maddie’s Fund, require the publication of animal control data as a prerequisite to grant applications. The Davis City Council requests that the county work with interested parties to publish on its website data that will facilitate grants to expand the resources of Yolo County. Publishing monthly complete tracking of animals by ID numbers (ie. “A”-numbers) would be the optimal method of achieving this goal.”
Second, the council wishes to “better understand response times and call results throughout the county. In particular, copies of the monthly call logs along with field service outcomes clearly documented with the monthly billable services would be most useful.”
Third, council is pushing that a “heightened commitment to spay and neuter services is highly advisable at this time.” In so doing, the city is requesting “that any excess funds from the City of Davis be applied in support of spay and neuter programs that may begin during the course of this contract. For your information, the City of Davis anticipates initiating a study of a City spay and neuter ordinance and the council will encourage the county and other cities in the county to consider similar actions.”
Finally, “The City of Davis recognizes that the current animal control contract supports two types of activities: 1) the retrieval of animals by sworn officers, and 2) the care and sheltering of these animals until they are redeemed by their owners, adopted, placed in fostering , or euthanized. The City of Davis encourages the county to consider the separation of these services so that the animal care function is well-positioned to seek external funding, and can accommodate more extensive partnerships with local non-profit organizations, individual volunteers and UC Davis Veterinary Medicine Teaching Hospital programs.”
The city’s letter concludes, “The City may seek to address these issues in the 2011-12 animal control contract. On aspects of these issues that fall outside the scope of future animal control contracts, we look forward to working in partnership with the County and all others interested parties.”
While it is clear that the activists in Davis are expressing very serious concerns about the operations of the animal shelter, the letter may provide a good foundation for future efforts by the city council, limited though it may be in scope, to further evaluate the situation. The city has an interest both from a fiscal standpoint, as well as a moral and ethical obligation, to make sure that the services provided by the county are as good as possible.
Several individuals came forward on Tuesday night to defend the animal shelter and its programs. Clearly, times are challenging from a fiscal standpoint and all agencies are being forced to cut back their services. Nevertheless, the safety of animals in these shelters and the public that relies on these services are vital. We need to insure that the personnel are trained and the animals are housed in as humane a condition as possible.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
Without comment on the merits of ‘DASA’ or the City Council’s claims:
“Significant Budget Changes
The reduction of four FTE animal care attendants will increase response time. Animal service officers will fulfill the job duties of animal care attendants in the shelter. This will reduce animal service officers’ field hours and will reduce call-out hours to mandated services only. Contract agencies will need to take responsibility for all other calls.”
[Source: [url]Yolo County Budget, 2009/2010, Item 280-1[/url]]
As I understand it, removal of dead animals from city streets, private property, etc., domestic animals or not, is not a ‘mandated service’ unless there is a public health/safety risk.
It is a great idea with or without community input to have contracted cities oversee the conditions and delivery of services to all agency they contract with and with good reason. It is equally important that we as a community do the same for the benefit of support and involvement and to keep services in all areas progressive and healthy.
The letter from December 31, 2009 was BEFORE additional staff cutbacks.
To assist with meeting the needs of the sheltering animals we need to understand what services are going where and what the expenses are and how to improve as a community in making a difference. I believe this is what the city of Davis is trying to do at this point.
We as a community need to better address how to support a shift in how we meet the needs of animal’s in Yolo Co. And I am very pleased that low cost/no cost spay/neuter options are on the table for discussion.
I do not want to downplay the grim conditions in the Yolo Co animal control
building, it needs to be replaced badly. The system needs an overhaul and without the communities (all of Yolo) and the citizens of those communities willing to assist change will be slow in the coming.
I do believe the YCSPCA and other rescue groups have had a positive impact in trying to address animals without owners. I also thank Natalia for writing about her personal experience and her willingness to reach out to make things better. With focus on positive solutions and moving forward I know that change is possible. People will need to be involved and they will need to give of their time and look forward from here.
Better tracking of animals and outcomes as well as how to make what we have as healthy as we can until something new is in place is going to need to be a community effort.
Thank you City of Davis for being part of higher standards for the sheltering of displaced animals and for addressing overpopulation from the right end of things!
One way you can help right now is by contacting the YCSPCA and asking them about volunteering or being a foster for an animal waiting in the shelter right now for an owner.
Trying to correct whatever the error was: [url] YC Budget 2009/2010[/url].
There seems to be a very tricky issue here that has been missed, but not by members of the City Council. Essentially it appears as if the letter from Davis may be telling the county how to do its job. There was some back and forth about this the night this issue was taken up. For instance, I personally doubt the county has missed any opportunities to file for grants to increase resources to the shelter, yet that is what this letter instructs the county to do. I just wonder how the county is going to take this letter, particularly the Bd of Sups? Mayor Saylor’s (and Bill Emlen’s) solution was to approach the county orally first, then send the letter (perhaps changing some of the wording by toning it down). Joe Krovoza insisted on the letter being sent along with the new contract between the city and the county for animal shelter services, which Saylor was reluctant to do bc of the touchy nature of how the county might perceive the letter and its intent.
The irony of all this is most of the animals kept in the shelter are NOT from Davis, but are from the county areas outside the cities, or from Woodland and West Sac. Yet Davis is now going to step in and tell the county how to do its job, essentially, not being fully aware of the economic constraints the county is operating under. I know the county has lost vital animal control officer positions just recently. I guess my question is if the city is overstepping its bounds here, or is this a situation where if someone doesn’t say something, nothing will change? I’m guessing the county will not be happy about the letter, but we’ll see…
If the County wants our money, then they have to provide services that we want. We are their customer. We could always do what the City of Woodland threatened to do, which was to threaten to not renew the contract with them. Instead, the City is renewing the contract, while bringing to light the horrible condition of our local Animal Shelter. The Shelter should not be “firing” volunteers. I’ve been there and adopted an animal from there – rescuing it from what I considered extremely unhealthy and depressing conditions. The Shelter lacks money to change much and continues to be forced to cut staffing. In a County that hosts a top vet school and a large pet-loving population, this is not right. We can do better. It’s completely appropriate that Davis steps in and tells the county how to do its job, since it is asking for our business. Don’t tone it down or pussy-foot around. Make demands to improve the operation, or we’ll come up with another solution for animal control in Davis.
I have adopted two dogs (both as very young puppies) from the YC shelter. Though my last adoption was 5+ years ago, I never noticed anything at the shelter then or earlier which seemed amiss. It appeared to me to be well run and as clean as could be expected. Perhaps, though, it has declined since.
One thing I recall at the shelter was seeing people working there who appeared to be sheriff’s deputies. (I based that on their full cop-like uniform, regalia, gun, etc.) If there are sheriff’s deputies–they make in salary anywhere from $51,876 to $72,804 and likely make double that in total compensation–working in the shelter, maybe a logical solution for the county would be to replace them with civilian employees.
I appreciate that now, although approached earlier this year by me and other concerned Davis residents, the Davis Vanguard is discussing my concerns with the city of Davis continuing the contract with the Yolo Animal Control which had limited accountable tracking, oversight, and poor community relations and education.
Since the posting of my letter, as the DV correctly noted in Dec 2009, I and other residents of Davis and Yolo County have gotten together to look for solutions with all interested parties and agencies that are committed to the welfare of all Yolo animals and to improving the services at the Yolo Animal Control.
The ball is rolling, and my present concerns are now very different to those expressed a year ago in the letter posted to DASA website on Dec 2009.
My present concerns are on finding procedures to make tracking, accountability, and oversight efficacious, efficient and helpful to the animals. My present interests are on how to make available low cost or free spay and neuter services to all residents in Davis and in Yolo county.
In addition, as I mentioned in my 3 minutes allotted at the City Council meeting this past Tuesday, I am interested now on discussing on how to collaborate with the different agencies to improve the services to non-English speaking communities with culturally and linguistically savy staff (and a website that can be used by immigrant communities and non-English speakers).
The time of finger pointing and recriminations has long past (if it ever existed), and now I am seeking possibilities of generating grants, strong volunteer programs, partnership with the UCD VMTH, low/no cost spay and neuter programs, bilingual/multilingual public outreach, and city specific public education programs with interested parties and agencies.
I know that I, nor the concerned residents of Davis with whom I have talked to, nor the City of Davis council members (as expressed at the City Council meeting this past Tuesday), want to tell Yolo Animal Control how to do their work.
Presently, what I want, is to offer my knowledge, skills and direct support to change the conditions of the Yolo Animal Control and to improve as much as possible the welfare of all animals in Yolo County.
Presently, what the City of Davis desires is to support animal services in the desire to offer the best and most progressive treatment for the animals in our community. The City of Davis is limited to the concerns that apply to the contract and are addressing the items on the contract as well as sharing with the county the plans as a city to address spay and neuter options for those who cannot afford them.
Thank you DV for writing on this issue and I look forward to follow-up write-ups on how the present concerns are addressed and well as read ideas and input on the Davis Vanguard.
Natalia Deeb-Sossa
I’m with Rifkin on this. We’ve adopted many beloved pets from the shelter over the last 35 years. The shelter has improved a great deal in that time, particularly under Sheriff Prieto and the current Shelter director. The Glide Annex was constructed, and provision for the proper rescue and rehabilitation of large animals such as horses was developed. It’s a grim place, no doubt. It is where irresponsible or desperate people take animals to dispose of them. Sorry we aren’t in Beverly Hills where we might get Betty White to fund a slicker operation.
Further, one of our family vets is a vet at the shelter. She is always looking for ways to augment funding, and she reports that the overwhelming number of abandoned animals in Yolo County is truly discouraging. She is a wonderful, pragmatic, compassionate woman. It’s pretty offensive to see all the vets who work and volunteer there tarred with inuendo and undocumented criticism.
As for the City of Davis demanding a big fat data-filled report, I hope these data are readily available, otherwise the Sheriff will have to take someone off the line at the shelter to put it together.
And, honestly, let’s be real about the source of the problem. Some people get animals and refuse to spay or neuter them, or mistreat them, or act stupid, or change their minds, or lose their homes, or can’t afford them or can’t train them and then the County must attempt to deal with the problem.
I visit the Shelter regularly. I honestly bow down to the loyal volunteers, and I respect the hard, heartbreaking work of the County employees there.
We can’t perform miracles. The County has no, zero, zip money to address the concerning issues.
Anyone can help by contributing to the Shelter’s Buy-a-Brick drive or just writing a check. You can contribute to the SPCA. You can volunteer at the shelter and see how hard people work to do the very best they can with what they have.
Snarky comments here and demanding letters from the elite are not a big help.
“Snarky comments here and demanding letters from the elite are not a big help.”
This sounds very snarky. Eat your own words.
Freddie is very much on point. We adopted a “pound puppy” a few years back. She was a stray, found on the streets. She accidentally scratched a little girl whose family was ‘checking her out’ for adoption. She was quarantined, due to shelter rules. She developed ‘kennel cough’ and was nursed back to health and again made available for adoption. When we discovered her, she was happy, friendly, and playful. She was at the shelter for much longer than most shelter would keep even an “adoptable” dog. Since then it was obvious that she had been loved/well cared for before she joined the “inmate population”, and based on her behaviors and talking to the sheriff’s deputy on-site at the time (who allowed as how she had been thinking of adopting her) and the other pound staff, she was well-treated and likely ‘loved’ by those charged with her care.
Homeless people are not treated as well as the animals in the shelter’s care, in my opinion.
Shelter staff, volunteers, etc. are great. For those who want to do better for the animals, I suggest you dig deep into your own pockets to fund services at a higher level. I’m sure those currently involved in shelter operations would be overjoyed to have the opportunity to “raise the bar”.
I also have adopted my beloved pets from the shelter, who provided quality care for them. This is one of many cases where the shelter provides dedicated care to nurse neglected animals back to health and provide them with a second chance to find loving homes. The shelter saves lives.
Difficult economic times have impacted resources available to the shelter. Even during a time of very limited resources, the shelter is doing their best to provide quality care, going above and beyond to care for the animals. I applaud their dedication and compassion.